content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
The problem of quantization of a classical theory is at least
seventy years old,
but the term `quantization' always has had a somewhat
loose meaning. There is no such thing a {\it the\/} quantization
recipe that takes
a classical theory and produces for us the `correct' quantum theory.
There are three main approaches to canonical quantization:
algebraic \cite{algq},
geometric \cite{wood}, and group theoretic quantization \cite{groupq}.
They differ,
roughly speaking, in the basic structures on phase space they regard as
fundamental in order to construct a quantum theory.
In each of these approaches one is led to
make several choices along the way that might yield inequivalent quantum
theories. Well known examples of
these ambiguities are the factor ordering
problem and different representations of the CCR in QFT, for example.
The quantization schemes mentioned above have, however,
a common feature.
They assume that the classical system to be
quantized is unique, that is, that there is a preferred classical
description for the system. From the classical viewpoint,
on the other hand,
there might be more than one perfectly valid
way of representing a given system. These alternative
descriptions are called {\it nonstandard\/} Hamiltonian systems.
The aim of this paper is
to explore the possibility of quantization
starting from different classical theories.
The program of quantization of nonstandard Hamiltonian
dynamics has its roots in work of Feynman
reported by Dyson \cite{dyson} and its extension
by Hojman and Shepley \cite{Hojshep}.
Feynman's original work showed that
Poisson-bracket relations place
strong constraints on the types of forces allowed
in physical systems.
Hojman and Shepley generalized Feynman's work and were able to
show that a consistent quantization with
a set of commuting coordinates
led to a second order Lagrangian in those coordinates.
Hojman then constructed a consistent Poisson-bracket Hamiltonian
theory for first-order equations of motion of the
form $\dot x^i = f^i (x^j)$ \cite{hoj1}. We will discuss
this formalism
in more detail below. The question was open, however,
about the possibility of
quantizing those systems that admit no Lagrangian.
This program could be seen as yet another
ambiguity in the quantization
process or, if viewed from a different
perspective, as a new avenue for
finding possibly valid quantum theories.
This would be the case, for
instance, if
the given system has more than one classical description without any
a priori criteria for choosing the `correct' one.
We will proceed as follows. In the introduction we will recall the
basic steps
of geometric quantization, pointing out the choices one makes in the
process and
discussing the possible implications in the final quantum theory.
Section~\ref{sec:sec2} reviews the possibility of
different classical descriptions or
`non-standard Hamiltonian systems'.
We consider as an example the classical
spinning particle.
Section~\ref{sec:sec3} recalls the geometry of quantum mechanics as
proposed by
Ashtekar and Schilling, focusing in the spin 1/2 particle.
The basic program is discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:sec4} for the spinning
particle.
The obstructions to quantizing
the nonstandard description are isolated.
Section~\ref{sec:sec5} discusses the results
and suggests some directions for further research.
Throughout the paper, the `abstract index notation' is employed.
For a discussion of the notation see \cite{wald}.
\paragraph{Geometric Quantization.}
By quantization we will mean the process
of finding a quantum theory from some known classical theory.
The starting point for all
canonical quantization schemes is a
classical system described in terms of symplectic
geometry. Let us recall the basic notions
in order to set the notation \cite{{arnold},{marsden}}.
The {\it phase space\/} of the system
consists of a manifold $\Gamma$ of
dimension $dim (\Gamma )=2n$ (real).
Physical states are represented by
the points on the manifold.
{\it Observables\/} are smooth functions on $\Gamma$.
There is a non-degenerate, closed
two-form $\Omega$ defined on it. That is,
the form $\Omega _{ab}$
satisfies $\nabla_{[c}\Omega _{ab]}=0$, and if
$\Omega _{ab}V^b=0$ then
$V^b=0$. Therefore, there exists an inverse
$\Omega ^{ab}$ which defines
an isomorphism between the cotangent and the
tangent space at each point of
$\Gamma$. The existance of the {\it symplectic two-form\/}
$\Omega$ endows $(\Gamma, \Omega)$ with a
{\it symplectic structure}.
A vector field $V^a$ generates infinitesimal
canonical transformations if it
Lie drags the symplectic form, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_V\Omega =0.
\end{equation}
This condition is equivalent to saying
that locally it is of the form:
$V^b=\Omega^{ba}\nabla_a f:= X^b_f$
and it is called the {\it Hamiltonian vector field of $f$ (w.r.t.
$\Omega$)}.
Note that the symplectic structure gives us a mapping between
functions on
$\Gamma$ and Hamiltonian vector fields.
Thus, functions on phase space (i.e. observables)
are generators of infinitesimal canonical transformations.
The Lie algebra of vector fields induces
a Lie algebra structure on the
space of functions.
\begin{equation}
\{ f,g\} :=\Omega_{ab} X^a_g X^b_f = \Omega^{ab}\nabla_af\nabla_bg,
\end{equation}
such that
$X^a_{\{ f,g\} }= -[X_f,X_g]^a$.
Since the symplectic form is closed,
it can be obtained locally from a
{\it symplectic potential}, $\omega_a$,
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{ab}=2\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]}.
\end{equation}
Time evolution is given by a vector field $f^a$ whose integral curves
are the dynamical trajectories of the system. On phase space there is a
{\it preferred\/} function, the {\it Hamiltonian\/}
$H$ whose Hamiltonian vector
field corresponds directly to $f^a$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
f^a=\Omega ^{ab}\nabla_b H \label{hameq}.
\end{equation}
Adopting the viewpoint that all observables generate canonical
transformations
we see that the motion generated by the
Hamiltonian corresponds to `time
evolution'. The `change' in time of the observables
will be simply given
by the Poisson bracket of the observable with $H$
($\dot g=f^a\nabla_a g=\Omega^{ab}\nabla_a g \nabla_b H=\{ g, H\}$).
So far, not very much has been assumed about the phase space $\Gamma$.
It can be any (even dimensional) manifold with complicated topology,
compact, open, etc. The
symplectic structure $\Omega$ and the function $H$ are assumed to be
given a priori.
Note that they might not be unique. From the classical
viewpoint the only
`observable' entities are the dynamical
trajectories $f^a$ of the system
(the equations of motion). They could have
come from more than one pair
$(\Omega, H)$\footnote{There is another,
even more drastic, possibility.
There could
be another $f^{\prime a}$ that could have the same integral curves
as $f^a$. Such systems are called S-equivalent \cite{s-eq}.
We will not consider them here.}.
However, if the system has a configuration space $C$,
then the phase space is
automatically `chosen' to be the cotangent bundle of
the configuration space
$T^*C$. There is also a preferred
1-form on $C$ that can be lifted to $T^*C$
and taken to be the symplectic potential
which determines uniquely the symplectic
structure. Therefore, the fact that there exists a configuration
space picks out for us the phase space
and the symplectic two-form.
The program of quantization can be
divided in two parts: kinematical and dynamical.
The kinematical part deals with the problem of
defining a good prescription for going `from Poisson brackets to
commutators' in a consistent way. That is,
it should start with the classical
system and produce a Hilbert space of states.
The dynamical part deals with the
Hamiltonian, i.e. the generator of dynamical evolution.
We will concentrate on geometric quantization whose starting point
is a symplectic manifold $(\Gamma, \Omega)$. There is no
{\it a priori\/} assumption about the structure
of the phase space $\Gamma$.
It can be completely general.
In particular it can include the case in which $\Gamma$
is compact, i.e., it is {\it not\/} a cotangent bundle.
There are two steps in geometric quantization.
The first one involves defining
a Hilbert space on the full phase space.
Wave functions are, roughly speaking,
functions on $\Gamma$. Any observable can be `quantized'.
The second step
involves introducing an additional structure on $\Gamma$,
a {\it polarization\/}
that will select those wave functions that
depend only on `half of the
coordinates'. Physical observables are
those that respect, in a way to be
defined below, the polarization.
We start with a Hamiltonian system as defined above. We define
what are called {\it prequantum wave functions}.
They are cross sections
$\Psi$ of a complex line bundle over $\Gamma$. The corresponding
$U(1)$ connection is the symplectic potential $\omega_a$
whose curvature is the
symplectic two form $\Omega_{ab}$. For each trivialization
$\omega_a$ there corresponds
a function $\Psi_{\omega}$. If we change $\omega$ by
a gauge transformation
$\omega_a \rightarrow \omega_a +\nabla _a g$ then
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{\omega^\prime}=e^{ig/\hbar}\Psi_{\omega}.
\end{equation}
There is a Hermitian inner product in this complex
vector space given by
the Liouville measure on $\Gamma$.
The pre-Hilbert space would be the
completion with respect to this inner product.
Any observable $f$ ($f: \Gamma \rightarrow R$) has a corresponding
symmetric operator $O_f$ defined by:
\begin{equation}
O_f \Psi =\frac{\hbar}{i}X^a_f \nabla_a \Psi + f\,\Psi :=
\frac{\hbar}{i} X^a_f \left(\partial _a - \frac{i}{\hbar}
\omega _a \right) \Psi + f\,\Psi.
\end{equation}
These operators are: i)linear; ii) gauge-covariant, iii) symmetric
(formally self-adjoint).
The assignment $f \rightarrow O_f$ is one
to one and preserves the natural
Lie algebra structure,
\begin{equation}
[O_f,O_g]=-i\hbar O_{\{ f,g\} }\label{commrel},
\end{equation}
that is, one can assign a consistent operator to all observables.
It is known that
`actual' quantum wave functions depend only
on `half' of the variables.
We have to
`split' $\Gamma$ into two parts. This is done by choosing a
{\it polarization\/}
$P$. It assigns at each point $\gamma$ a maximal
subspace $P|_\gamma$ of
the complexified tangent space such that:
i) $V^a$ and $W^a \in P|_\gamma$ then $[V,W]^a \in P|_\gamma$ for all
$\gamma$
ii) for all $V^a,W^a \in P$ then $\Omega_{ab}V^aW^b =0$
for all $\gamma$.
If $P$ is real we have a `real polarization'.
The first condition implies that through each point
of $\Gamma$ there passes an $n$-dimensional submanifold,
which is tangent to
the subspace $P|_\gamma$.
The phase space is then foliated by $n$-dimensional submanifolds.
The second condition implies that the Poisson bracket of any two
coordinates of this submanifold vanishes.
Given a polarization, a {\it quantum wave function\/}
is a cross section $\Psi$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
V^a \nabla_a \Psi =0.
\end {equation}
For all $V^a \in P$. This is called the
{\it polarization condition}.
This condition tells us that the wave function depends only on $n$
coordinates $q^i$ `in involution'(For instance, if we have a
configuration space $C$ with
coordinates $q^i$, the standard polarization is the
`vertical polarization'
spanned by $\{ \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i} \}$. We have then that
$\{ q^i, q^j\}=0$.)
Classical observables whose pre-quantum operators become well defined
operators are {\it good observables}. The condition is,
\begin{equation}
[O_f, V^a\nabla_a] \Psi=0 .
\end{equation}
For all $V^a \in P$.
This can be written classically as $[X_f,V]^a \in P$ for all $V^a$
(${\cal L}_V \, X_f \in P$).
We say then that $X^a_f$ {\it preserves the
polarization $P$}.
In particular, the operators corresponding
to the coordinates $q^i$
preserve the vertical polarization and
therefore are good observables.
A special kind of complex polarization is called K\"ahler.
An almost complex structure is a
tensor field ${J_a}^b$ such that ${J_a}^b{J_b}^c=-{\delta_a}^c$, and
it is a canonical transformation:
${J_a}^b{J_c}^d\Omega_{bd}=\Omega_{ac}$.
Then,
\begin{equation}
g_{ab}:= \Omega_{ac}{J^c}_b\label{1.10}
\end{equation}
is symmetric, non-degenerate, positive definite metric.
The triplet $(\Omega,
J,g)$ equips $\Gamma$ with an almost K\"ahler structure.
We can construct
on the phase space a Hermitian (complex) inner product
whose real part
is given by $g$ and the imaginary part by $\Omega$, i.e
$(,)=\frac{1}{2}g(,)- \frac{i}{2}\Omega (,)$.
The tensor field $J$ has eigenvectors in the
complexified tangent space.
Let us decompose any (complexified) $V^a$ into two parts,
\begin{equation}
V^a_{\pm}:=\frac{1}{2}(V^a \mp i{J^a}_bV^b)
\end{equation}
where $V^a_+$ is an eigenvector of $J$ with eigenvalue $i$.
Let's choose
the vector space spanned by those eigenvectors.
It is a $n$-dimensional
(complex) vector space, and $\Omega_{ab}V^a_+V^b_+=0$.
If the distribution is integrable (the manifold can be given complex
charts), the polarization is called K\"ahler.
In this case the polarization condition,
on the section of the Hermitian
line bundle, involves considering {\it holomorphic\/} sections. When the
phase space $\Gamma$ is compact it is necessary to have holomorphic
sections. This is relevant, for instance, for the quantization of spin
systems.
Note that prequantization is a purely kinematical step.
It produces a
(nonphysical) Hilbert
space on $\Gamma$ and every observable is pre-quantizable.
There is no external
input [other that the original $(\Omega, H)$ pair].
The choice of polarization, on the other hand,
has both kinematical and
dynamical content. It is kinematical because
it singles out the physically
relevant
quantum states from the pre-quantum Hilbert space and defines what the
physically admissible observables are, namely those that preserve the
polarization. This choice has also dynamical implications since the
Hamiltonian might {\it not\/} be compatible with $P$. It is the choice of
polarization that might lead to inequivalent quantum theories.
\section{Nonstandard Classical Theory}
\label{sec:sec2}
As we mentioned in the introduction, we are interested in considering
systems that might have a nonstandard classical description.
By this we mean systems that
admit more than one Hamiltonian formulation or
systems that obey certain
equations of motion that do {\it not\/} come
from a variational principle.
This section has two parts.
In the first we review the nonstandard Hamiltonian systems
mentioned above,
considering a generalization of the
symplectic formalism, namely that of
Poisson structures on a manifold.
The second part takes a spinning classical
particle as a particular example of a system that admits
nonstandard descriptions.
\subsection{Poisson Structures and Non-standard Dynamics}
\label{sec:sec2a}
In the introduction we gave an overview
of the standard Hamiltonian
dynamics in terms of a symplectic structure $\Omega_{ab}$.
It is possible to define dynamics by introducing
a more general structure known as a
{\it Poisson (bracket) structure}
\cite{{arnold},{marsden}}. It consists of
a bivector $\Pi^{ab}=\Pi^{[ab]}$ on $\Gamma$
satisfying the Jacobi identity:
\begin{equation}
\Pi^{c[d}\nabla_c\Pi^{ab]}=0.
\end{equation}
It defines naturally a `generalized' Poisson bracket between
functions on $\Gamma$.
\begin{equation}
\{ f,g \}_{\Pi} := \Pi^{ab}\nabla_b f\nabla_a g.
\end{equation}
It also defines a mapping from functions to vector fields
\begin{equation}
\stackrel{\pi}{X^a_f} := \Pi^{ab} \nabla_b f.
\end{equation}
Note that $\Pi^{ab}$ might be degenerate,
in which case there will be
{\it Casimir functions}. For instance,
if $\nabla_a C$ is a degenerate `direction' of $\Pi^{ab}$
$(\Pi^{ab}\nabla_b C= 0)$, then
$\{ f,C \}_{\Pi}\equiv 0 ,\;\; \forall f$. That is,
$C$ `commutes' with all functions on $\Gamma$.
In the case of a nondegenerate symplectic structure, its inverse
$\Omega^{ab}$
defines (locally) an `almost' one to one mapping between functions
and Hamiltonian
vector field, that is, two functions will
define the same vector field
if they differ by, at most, a constant function.
On the other hand, for a degenerate
Poisson structure, given a Casimir function $C$,
then two functions $f$ and $g$
will define the same vector field ${X^a_f}=\Pi^{ab}
\nabla_b f$ if
$f = g + h(C)$ where $h(C)$ is {\it any\/}
(differentiable) function of $C$.
Given a phase space $\Gamma$, the dynamical evolution of a system
is given by the integral curves of a vector field $V^a$.
The vector field gives at each point
of $\Gamma$ a set of equations of motion for the system.
If we choose some local
coordinates $x^{\mu}, \;\;\mu=1,\ldots 2n$, then the rate of change
of each coordinate
$x^{\mu}$ is given by the Lie derivative of $x^{\mu}$ along $V^a$,
\begin{equation}
\dot x^{\mu}:={\cal L}_V x^i = V^a \nabla_a (x^{\mu})= V^{\mu}(x)
\end{equation}
Recall that in the $x^{\mu}$ coordinate system, $V^a= V^{\mu}(x)
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\right)^a$.
A natural question is whether the given system of
first order differential
equations
can be put in a Hamiltonian form. That is,
does there exist a Poisson structure
$\Pi^{ab}$ and a function $h$ such that $V^a=\Pi^{ab}\nabla_b h$?
If the set of equation came from a (second order) variational
principle, then the Poisson
structure is the inverse of the (naturally defined)
symplectic structure
${\Omega}^{(0)}_{ab}$ on $\Gamma=T^*C$ and the Hamiltonian $h$
is the Legendre transform of the
Lagrangian (for non-singular systems).
There might be, however, {\it another\/} Poisson
structure that makes the
equations Hamiltonian, with another Hamiltonian.
Those systems are known as {\it bi}-Hamiltonian \cite{biham}.
In the case when the set of equations does
not come from a variational principle,
there is in principle no natural way of putting
then in Hamiltonian form.
A program
for doing this has been proposed in the past years by S.
Hojman \cite{hoj1}.
The
underlying idea is that one should use the
symmetries of the equations of
motion in order to construct a Poisson structure.
Let us summarize the Hojman
construction for systems with $N=2n$
constants of motion $C_i$, $(N - 1)$
of which
do not depend explicitly on time. That is, one knows them as explicit
functions of the coordinates (a fairly strong requirement, equivalent
to knowing the full classical solution). The preceding requirement is
sufficient to be able to reduce the equations to Hamiltonian form. It
is, of course, not necessary for constructing the Hamiltonian theory.
This $\Pi^{ab}$ may be constructed by summing elements of the form
\begin{equation}
\Pi^{ab} = \mu (x) \varepsilon^{ab \lambda_1 \cdots \lambda_{N - 2}}
\nabla_{\lambda_1}C_{1} \cdots \nabla_{\lambda_{N - 2}} C_{N - 2} ,
\label{2.5}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon
^{ab \lambda_1 \cdots \lambda_{N - 2}}$ is the $N$-index Levi-Civita
symbol, and $\mu (x)$ is a function of the coordinates to be
explained below. This $\Pi^{ab}$ satisfies the Jacobi identity. The
$C_1, \cdots ,C_{N - 2}$ are time-independent
constants of motion. The
Hamiltonian is defined by $H = C_{N - 1}$,
along with $C_N = t + d_N$,
where $d_N$ is time-independent.
This can always be achieved by a change
of coordinates. Hojman has another
construction that uses a symmetry of the
equations of motion, without needing
to know some constants of the motion
in explicit form. For more details see \cite{hoj1}.
Suppose that for a given set of equations that come from a
Lagrangian, we have been able to construct a
non-degenerate $\Pi$ by means
of the Hojman procedure.
Let us denote by $\Omega^{\prime}_{ab}$ the corresponding two-form
$(\Omega^{\prime}_{ab}\Pi^{bc}=\delta^c_a$). If the
Poisson structure $\Pi$ is compatible with $\Omega^{ab}$
\footnote{Two Poisson structures are said to be
{\it compatible\/} if their sum
is also a Poisson structure \cite{biham}.},
then there will be a tensor field $K^a_b$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Omega^{\prime}_{ab}=K^c_a \Omega_{cb}.\label{hoj}
\end{equation}
Note that since $\Omega$ is invertible, we have then
$K^d_a=\Omega^{\prime}_{ab}\Omega^{bd}$. We will call this mapping a
{\it Hojman transformation}.
\subsection{Classical Description of a Spin-1/2 particle}
\label{sec:sec2b}
As we mentioned in the Introduction, the example
we would like to use to
illustrate the difficulties of changing Poisson structures in quantum
mechanics is the simplest quantum system, that of a spin-1/2 particle.
In order to investigate the relationship between the classical and
quantum theories we would like to study
the classical problem equivalent to
that of a quantum spin-1/2 particle.
The main difficulty with this idea is
that, strictly speaking, there is no classical limit to this problem.
There are a number of `classical' limits that have been proposed
\cite{corb}, but
we will use a limit in terms of Grassman variables. We would like to
find a limit of the quantum theory based on the three spin operators
$\hat S_i = \hbar \sigma_i$, the $\sigma_i$ the Pauli matrices with
Hamiltonian $\hat H = A\hat S_3$, $A$ = const.
Notice that $\hat S_i^2 = \hbar^2$, and $[\hat S_i, \hat S_j
] =\hbar \varepsilon_{ijk} \hat S_k$, and
$\{ \hat S_i, \hat S_j\}_+ = 0$,
$i \neq j$. As $\hbar \rightarrow 0$, we get
$\hat S_i^2 = 0$, $[\hat S_i,
\hat S_j] = 0$ and $\{\hat S_i, \hat S_j\}_+ = 0$,
and there is no set of
classical numbers that can obey these relations. If we write the
classical variables as $S_i = \varepsilon s_i (t)$,
where the $s_i$ are
commuting functions of $t$ and $\varepsilon$ is a constant Grassman
number, then
$S_i^2 = 0$ ($\varepsilon^2 = 0$), $[S_i, S_j] = 0 = \{S_i, S_j\}_+$.
Assume we have a Hamiltonian $H$,
in principle a function of some coordinates $q_i$,
$i=1,2,3$,
and $S_i = \beta_{ik} p_k$, where the $p_i$ are the
momenta conjugate to
the $q_i$, and $\beta_{ij} = \beta_{ij} (q)$
(the angular velocities are
$\omega_i = \alpha_{ij} (q) \dot q_j$, where
$\alpha_{ij} \beta_{jk} =
\delta_{ik}$), then
\begin{equation}
\dot S_j + \gamma_{jk\ell} {{\partial H}\over
{\partial S_k}} S_{\ell} = 0
\end{equation}
if $H$ does not depend explicitly on the $q_i$, {\it i.e.\/}, $H = H
(S_i)$. For a rigid body $\gamma_{jk\ell} = \alpha_{\ell m} \left (
{{\partial \beta_{mk}}\over {\partial q_n}}\beta_{nj} - {{\partial
\beta_{mj}}\over {\partial q_n}} \beta_{nk}\right )$ $=
-\varepsilon_{jk\ell}$. If we take $H = AS_3$ then
\begin{equation}
\dot S_i = \varepsilon_{i3k} AS_k,
\end{equation}
or,
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon \dot s_i = \varepsilon_{i3k} A \varepsilon s_k,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\dot s_i = \varepsilon_{i3k} A s_k.
\end{equation}
These imply that $s_3 =$ const. $= K_1$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot s_1 &=& -As_2, \label{2.10}\\
\dot s_2 &=& A s_1, \label{2.11}
\end{eqnarray}
so $s_1^2 + s_2^2 = $ const.
These mean that $s^2_1 + s^2_2 + s_3^2 =
{\cal S}^2=$ const.
which implies that the classical state space is a two-sphere.
The system orbits lie on the two-sphere of radius ${\cal S}$
and since $s_3$ is a constant they are parallels of
`latitude'.
If we look at the equations for $s_i$, $\dot s_3 = 0$ and
(\ref{2.10},\ref{2.11}), they can be written as
\begin{equation}
\dot s_i = \Pi_{ij} {{\partial H}\over {\partial s_j}},
\end{equation}
with $H = As_3$ and $\Pi_{ij} = \varepsilon_{ijk} s_k$.
This is precisely an example of a very well studied
system with a Poisson structure.
Systems that have rotational degrees of freedom
(a rigid body for example), have
a common description coming from the fact that the rotation
group SO(3) acts on
the system, as we now recall \cite{{arnold},{marsden}}.
The phase space is given by a
3-dimensional vector space (that we can identify with $R^3$)
with coordinates $s_i$ (it is the dual of
the Lie algebra so(3)). The Poisson structure is given by
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{ij} = {C^k}_{ij} s_k
\end{equation}
where $ {C^k}_{ij}=\delta^{kn}\varepsilon_{nij}$ are the structure
constants of so(3).
It is clearly degenerate (any antisymmetric tensor field in an
odd dimensional
space is).
Note however, that $\Pi_{ij}$ induces a nondegenerate
symplectic structure on each sphere of radius ${\cal S}$. $R^3$ is
then foliated
by {\it leaves\/} of symplectic manifolds. Furthermore, the `natural'
Casimir
function is $K_0=\frac{1}{2}\delta^{ij}s_is_j$ which is
clearly constant on each sphere.
All Hamiltonian vector fields generated by $\Pi$ are tangent to
the spheres and
therefore leave the Casimir unchanged.
Note that $\Pi$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{ij}=\varepsilon_{nij}\frac{\partial K_0}{\partial s_n}
\end{equation}
which is precisely of the form (\ref{2.5}).
A remark is in order. With our formalism we could recover the Euler
equations
for a rigid body if we chose the Hamiltonian to be the kinetic energy
$T=I^{ij}s_is_j$, where $I^{ij}$ is the inverse of the inertia tensor.
The Hamiltonian we have chosen for our system $H=As_3$ is
therefore not the `kinetic' energy of a rigid body,
but resembles more that of a
`point-like'
object that might interact with an external potential (a constant
magnetic field, for example).
The idea now, in order to find different descriptions for the system,
is to use the Hojman prescription for different
constants of the motion.
We have the functions $K_1 = s_3$ and $K_2 = s^2_1 + s^2_2$.
Following Hojman \cite{hoj2} we can now take $C = C(K_1, K_2)$,
any arbitrary function of $(K_1, K_2)$, and a new `Hamiltonian'
$H = H(K_1, K_2)$, also any function of $K_1$ and $K_2$, and define
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Pi}_{ij} = \mu (s_{\ell}) \varepsilon_{ijk} {{\partial C}\over
{\partial s_k}},
\end{equation}
We would like to have then the equations of motion for $s_i$ as
\begin{equation}
\dot s_i = \tilde{\Pi}_{ij} {{\partial H}\over {\partial s_j}}.
\end{equation}
We can have the same equations as before if we choose $\mu$
properly and $C$ and $H$ satisfy one condition.
If we look at the $s_3$
equation we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot s_3 & = &\mu \left [ {{\partial C}\over {\partial
K_1}} {{\partial K_1}\over {\partial s_2}} +
{{\partial C}\over {\partial
K_2}} {{\partial K_2}\over {\partial s_2}}\right ] \left [ {{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_1}} {{\partial K_1}\over {\partial s_1}} +
{{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_2}} {{\partial K_2}\over {\partial s_1}}\right ] -
\nonumber \\
& - &\mu \left [ {{\partial C}\over {\partial
K_1}} {{\partial K_1}\over {\partial s_1}} + {{\partial C}\over
{\partial
K_2}} {{\partial K_2}\over {\partial s_1}}\right ] \left [ {{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_1}} {{\partial K_1}\over {\partial s_2}} +
{{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_2}} {{\partial K_2}\over {\partial s_2}}\right ],
\end{eqnarray}
and since $K_1$ does not depend on $s_1$ or $s_2$,
\begin{equation}
\dot s_3 = -2\mu s_1s_2 \left [ {{\partial C}\over {\partial K_2}}
{{\partial H}\over {\partial K_2}} - {{\partial C}\over
{\partial K_2}}
{{\partial H}\over {\partial K_2}}\right ] = 0.
\end{equation}
For $s_1$
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot s_1 & = &\mu \left [ {{\partial C}\over {\partial
K_1}} {{\partial K_1}\over {\partial s_3}} + {{\partial C}
\over {\partial
K_2}} {{\partial K_2}\over {\partial s_3}}\right ] \left [ {{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_1}} {{\partial K_1}\over {\partial s_2}}
+ {{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_2}} {{\partial K_2}\over {\partial s_2}}\right ] -
\nonumber \\
& - & \mu \left [ {{\partial C}\over {\partial
K_1}} {{\partial K_1}\over {\partial s_2}} + {{\partial C}\over
{\partial
K_2}} {{\partial K_2}\over {\partial s_2}}\right ] \left [ {{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_1}} {{\partial K_1}\over {\partial s_3}} +
{{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_2}} {{\partial K_2}\over {\partial s_3}}\right ],
\nonumber \\
& = & 2\mu s_2 \left [{{\partial C}\over {\partial K_1}} {{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_2}} - {{\partial C}\over {\partial K_2}}
{{\partial
H}\over {\partial K_1}} \right ].
\end{eqnarray}
We can achieve $\dot s_1 = -As_2$ if $\Delta \equiv {{\partial C}\over
{\partial K_1}}{{\partial H}\over {\partial K_2}} - {{\partial C}\over
{\partial K_2}}{{\partial H}\over {\partial K_1}} \neq 0$ and we take
$\mu = -\frac{A}{2\Delta}$. It is easy to show that
his choice of $\mu$
also gives
$\dot s_2 = As_1$, so we recover the original equations of motion.
As an example of this procedure, take
the normal Hamiltonian $H =
As_3$ and $C = s^2_1 + s^2_2$.
If we look at the plane $s_1 = 0$, the
orbits intersect the circle $s^2_3 + s^2_2 = 1$.
The lines of constant
$s_3=H/A$ and $C$ are perpendicular straight
lines that form a coordinate
grid over the half plane given by the $s_2s_3$-plane with $s_2 > 0$.
The sphere $s_1^2 + s_2^2 + s_3^2 = {\cal S}^2$
intersects this half plane in a semi-circle, and
any point on this semi-circle represents the initial
point of a possible orbit,
and if we rotate the semi-circle around the $s_3$-axis
then a point on it
traces out a parallel of `latitude'. In the rectangular
grid of $C$ and $H/A$ we can always specify
this point by particular
values of $C$ and $H/A$.
Now, the equation for $s_i$ is
\begin{equation}
{{ds_i}\over {dt}} = \mu (s_{\ell}) \varepsilon_{ijk}
{{\partial C}\over
{\partial s_k}}{{\partial H}\over {\partial s_j}}.
\end{equation}
Note that this has the form
\begin{equation}
{{d {\bf s}}\over {dt}} = \mu ({\bf s}) ({\bf \nabla} H) \times ({\bf
\nabla} C),
\end{equation}
where ${\bf \nabla}C$ and ${\bf \nabla}H$ are the
two-dimensional
gradients of $C$ and $H$ which
are the the normals to the
coordinate curves.
We have ${\bf \nabla}H \times {\bf \nabla} C =$ $|{\bf \nabla} H
\times {\bf \nabla}C|{\bf e}_1$, where ${\bf e}_1$ is
the unit vector in
the $s_1$ direction. Since in the $s_1 = 0$ plane
\begin{equation}
{{ds_1}\over {dt}} = -As_2,
\end{equation}
we see that (15) gives this if we take $\mu = -As_2
/|{\bf \nabla}H \times
{\bf \nabla} C|$. From Ref.\cite{hoj2} we
see that this $\mu$ works for
all $s_1$, $s_2$.
As long as they form a complete
coordinate grid in the $s_2s_3$-plane,
any functions $C$ and $H$ can be used in the formulation.
Note that if
${\bf \nabla} H$ is parallel to
${\bf \nabla} C$ at any point (or the
norm of one of the vectors is zero), $\mu$
blows up. This is the condition in Ref. \cite{hoj2}
for the nonexistence of
$\mu$. Notice also that $H$ is no longer the energy.
Let us now try to understand what we are doing from
a geometrical viewpoint.
The fact that we are using a preferred
function (the Casimir) to define the
Poisson structure means that one-forms $w_a$ `transverse' to the
$C={\rm constant}$
surfaces are precisely the degenerate directions of $\Pi$.
Hamiltonian vector fields
are always tangent to the surfaces and therefore
the motion they generate lies
within them. In the standard case of the rigid body, for example,
the surfaces on
which the Casimir is constant are spheres precisely because they are
the orbits of
the rotation group (coadjoint action on the dual
of the Lie algebra) on $R^3$.
The symplectic structure induced on the
spheres from the Poisson structure
on $R^3$ is precisely ($1/{\cal S}$ times) the area element
(Recall that any nondegenerate two-form
on a surface is proportional, by means of a conformal factor,
to the area element).
Suppose that we now define a new Poisson
structure via a function whose
surfaces of constant value are not spheres but some `ellipsoids' (with
rotational symmetry around the $s_3$ axis). Now,
the surfaces will not be
the orbits of the rotation group in 3 dimensions
(see \cite{hoj2} for a
particular choice in which the resulting deformed
algebra is SU(2)${}_q$). The change in
the induced symplectic structure, the `Hojman transformation',
will be a simple conformal transformation.
We can conclude then that by a rescaling of the
symplectic structure and
a corresponding change in the Hamiltonian,
we have an infinite number of
classical descriptions for the system.
As we mentioned above, we would now like to
apply the idea of changing the
symplectic structure to quantum mechanics. In the next section
we will discuss this formulation and
its extension to `K\"ahler quantum
mechanics' in the context of the
spin-1/2 example outlined above. We will
see that two obstructions exist to doing this in
the most simple-minded way.
These are both related to the fact that we need to define a probability
structure on the quantum-mechanical phase space.
Probability structures are
often given in terms of linear operators on a Hilbert space.
We will see
that both the definition of probabilities in
`K\"ahler quantum mechanics'
and the realization of dynamical quantities as linear operators place
strong constraints on the possible symplectic
structures that are allowed.
\section{Quantum Mechanics}
\label{sec:sec3}
The question we want to address in this paper is the possible
quantization of
systems that admit non-standard descriptions.
If the system admits more that
one classical description, we are led to ask whether
the quantum theories
are equivalent. If not, what are the criteria to choose the
`correct' classical
description?
As we mentioned in the introduction, there are,
roughly speaking, two different
sets of issues about the quantum mechanics one has to address:
kinematical and dynamical. The kinematical conditions, so to speak,
that the constructed quantum theory should satisfy, are mainly
related to the Heisenberg uncertainty relations.
Commuting quantum observables can, in principle, be simultaneously
measured. Such quantum observables correspond to
classical observables
that have vanishing Poisson brackets among them.
Therefore, there is in
principle
a way of distinguishing between, for instance, two different Poisson
structures. If the Poisson structure
in the classical theory is degenerate,
there will be Casimir functions and, therefore,
corresponding quantum Casimir operators.
This will lead to `super-selected'
sectors that should be detected experimentally.
There are another set of issues one has to consider
when analyzing the
dynamical
content of the theory. Quantum mechanics is a
theory of measurement. If the
theory is to pass the test of `validity',
it should provide probabilities
for measuring eigenvalues of various operators as functions in time,
that should be compatible with measurements.
This is a condition to be
satisfied by the dynamical evolution of the
quantum system. This condition
is analogous to the corresponding classical
condition that the dynamical
evolution should be the integral curves of
a preferred vector field.
This `dynamical condition' has a very clean
geometrical formulation when
quantum mechanics is cast in geometric language.
\subsection{Geometry of Quantum Mechanics}
\label{sec:sec3a}
Quantum mechanics, with all its
postulates, can be put into geometric language.
In this subsection we will recall the geometry of
quantum mechanics. For
details see \cite{{GQM1,GQM2}}.
The description we will give is for systems with a finite
dimensional Hilbert space but the generalization to the
infinite dimensional case is straightforward \cite{GQM2}. Denote by
${\cal P}$ the
space of rays in the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$.
In this case ${\cal P}$
will be the complex projective space $CP^n$, since ${\cal H}$ can be
identified with $C^n$.
It is convenient to view ${\cal H}$ as a
{\it real\/} vector space equipped
with a complex structure (recall that a
complex structure $J$ is a linear
mapping $J:{\cal H} \rightarrow {\cal H}$
such that $J^2=-1$). Let us
decompose the Hermitian inner product into
real and imaginary parts,
\begin{equation}
\langle \Psi|\Phi\rangle =\frac{1}{2} G(\Psi ,\Phi) -\frac{i}{2}
\Omega(\Psi ,\Phi),
\end{equation}
where $G$ is a Riemannian inner product on ${\cal H}$ and $\Omega$ is
a symplectic form.
Let us restrict our attention to the sphere $S$ of normalized states.
The true space of states is given by the quotient of $S$ by the $U(1)$
action of states the differ by a `phase', i.e. the projective space
${\cal P}$. The complex structure $J$ is the generator of the $U(1)$
action ($J$ plays the role of the imaginary unit $i$ when the Hilbert
space is taken to be real). Since the phase rotations preserve the norm
of the states, both the real and imaginary
parts of the inner product can
be projected down to ${\cal P}$.
Therefore, the structure on ${\cal P}$ which
is induced by the Hermitian
inner product is given by a Riemannian metric $g$ and a symplectic
two-form ${\bf \Omega}$. The pair $(g,{\bf \Omega})$ defines a K\"ahler
structure on ${\cal P}$ (Recall that a K\"ahler structure is a triplet
$(M,g,{\bf \Omega})$ where $M$ is a
complex manifold (with complex structure
$J$), $g$ is a Riemannian metric and
${\bf \Omega}$ is a symplectic two-form,
such that they are compatible).
The space ${\cal P}$ of quantum states has then
the structure of a K\"ahler
manifold, so, in particular, it is a
symplectic manifold and can be regarded
as a `phase space' by itself. It turns out that
the quantum dynamics can
be described by a `classical dynamics', that is,
with the same symplectic
description that is used for classical mechanics.
Let us see how it works. In quantum mechanics,
Hermitian operators on
${\cal H}$ are
generators of unitary transformations (through
exponentiation) whereas in
classical mechanics, generators of canonical
transformations are real valued
functions $f\,: {\cal P} \rightarrow R$.
We would like then to associate with
each operator $F$ on ${\cal H}$ a function $f$
on ${\cal P}$. There is
a natural candidate for such function:
$f:= \langle F\rangle|_S$ (denote it
by $f=\langle F\rangle$).
The Hamiltonian vector field $X_f$ of
such a function is a Killing field of
the Riemannian metric $g$. The converse
also holds, so there is a one to one
correspondence between self-adjoint
operators on ${\cal H}$ and real valued
functions (`quantum observables') on ${\cal P}$
whose Hamiltonian vector fields are
symmetries of the K\"ahler structure.
There is also a simple relation between a natural
vector field on ${\cal H}$
generated by $F$ and the Hamiltonian vector field associated to
$f$ on ${\cal P}$.
Consider on $S$ a `point' $\psi$ and an operator
$F$ on ${\cal H}$.
Define the vector
$X_F|_\psi:=\frac{d}{dt} \exp[-JFt]\psi|_{t=0}=-JF\psi$.
This is the generator of
a one parameter family (labeled by $t$) of unitary
transformation on ${\cal H}$. Therefore, it preserves
the Hermitian inner-product. The key result is that
$X_F$ projects down to
${\cal P}$ and the projection is
precisely the Hamiltonian vector field
$X_f$ of $f$ on the symplectic manifold
$({\cal P}, {\bf \Omega})$.
Dynamical evolution is generated by the Hamiltonian
vector field $X_h$ when we
choose as our observable the Hamiltonian $h=\langle H\rangle$.
Thus, Schr\"odinger evolution
is described by Hamiltonian dynamics,
exactly as in classical mechanics.
One can define the Poisson bracket between a pair of
observables $(f, g)$ from
the inverse of the symplectic two form ${\bf \Omega}^{ab}$,
\begin{equation}
\{ f, g\} := {\bf \Omega}(X_g, X_f) = {\bf
\Omega}^{ab}(\partial_af)(\partial_bg).
\end{equation}
The Poisson bracket is well defined for arbitrary
functions on ${\cal P}$,
but when restricted to observables, we have,
\begin{equation}
\langle -i[F,G]\rangle = \{ f,g \} .
\end{equation}
This is in fact a slight generalization of
Ehrenfest theorem, since when we
consider the `time evolution' of the observable
$f$ we have the Poisson bracket $\{ f, h\}=\dot{f}$,
\begin{equation}
\dot{f}=\langle-i[F,H]\rangle.
\end{equation}
We have seen that the symplectic aspect
of the quantum state space
is completely analogous to classical mechanics.
Notice that, since only those functions whose Hamiltonian vector
fields preserve the
metric are regarded as `quantum observables' on ${\cal P}$,
they represent a very small
subset of the set of functions on ${\cal P}$.
There is another facet of the quantum state space ${\cal P}$
that is absent in
classical mechanics: Riemannian geometry.
Roughly speaking, the information
contained in the metric $g$ has to do
with those features which are unique
to the quantum description, namely,
those related to measurement and
`probabilities'.
We can define a Riemannian product $(f,g)$
between two observables as
\begin{equation}
(f,g):= g(X_f,X_g)= g^{ab}(\partial_a f)(\partial_b g).
\end{equation}
This product has a very direct physical interpretation in terms
of the dispersion
of the operator in the given state:
\begin{equation}
(f,f) = 2 (\Delta F)^2.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the length of $X_f$ is the
uncertainty of the observable $F$.
The metric $g$ has also an important
role in those issues related to
measurements.
Note that eigenvectors of the Hermitian
operator $F$ associated
to the quantum observable $f$ correspond
to points $\phi_i$ in ${\cal P}$
at which $f$ has local extrema.
These points correspond to zeros of the
Hamiltonian vector field $X_f$, and
the eigenvalues $f_i$ are the values of
the observable $f_i=f(\phi_i)$ at these points.
If the system is in the state $\Psi$,
what are the probabilities of
measuring the eigenvalues $f_i$? The answer
is strikingly simple:
measure the geodesic distance given by $g$ from
the point $\Psi$ to the
point $\phi_i$ (denote it by $d(\Psi,\phi_i)$).
The probability of measuring
$f_i$ is then,
\begin{equation}
P_i(\Psi) = \cos^2\left[\frac{d(\Psi,\phi_i)}
{\sqrt{2}}\right].\label{3.7}
\end{equation}
Therefore, a state $\Psi$ is more likely to
`collapse' to a nearby state
than to a distant one when a measurement is
performed. We will now turn our
attention to spin systems and in particular
the quantum theory of a spin-1/2
particle.
\subsection{The Spin-1/2 System}
\label{sec:sec3b}
In this part we will find the quantum theory of
a spin-1/2 particle starting from
the classical description of Sec.~\ref{sec:sec2}.
We will then discuss the quantum theory
in the geometric language just described.
\subsubsection{Geometric Quantization of Spin Systems}
In Sec.~\ref{sec:sec2}, we arrived at a kinematical
description for systems with
`rotational degrees of freedom', that includes spin systems.
We saw that the physically relevant space is $R^3$ that
is foliated by spheres of radius ${\cal S}$.
That is, for each value of ${\cal S}$ we have
a sphere which corresponds to the
reduced phase space of a particle with classical
`intrinsic angular momentum'
equal to ${\cal S}$. Since each sphere is a symplectic
manifold with a perfectly
defined symplectic structure on it, we can
employ the machinery of geometric
quantization that was outlined in the introduction.
We have then, $\Gamma= S^2$, $\Omega_{ab}=
{\cal S}\, \sin\theta \nabla_{[a}
\phi\nabla_{b]}\theta$, where we have chosen
spherical coordinates $(\theta, \phi)$ for the sphere.
Note that the symplectic two form is $1/{\cal S}$ times the
area element of a sphere of radius ${\cal S}$.
The first step in geometric quantization is to construct
the pre-quantum line bundle.
There are, however, some integrality
conditions that must be satisfied so that
the pre-quantum line bundle exists.
These conditions are the generalization of the
Bohr-Sommerfeld quantum conditions:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2\pi \hbar}\int_{S^2}\Omega = k ,
\end{equation}
where $k$ is an integer. Since $\int_{S^2}\Omega=4\pi \,{\cal S}$,
the condition reads ${\cal S}=\frac{\hbar}{2} k$.
This is precisely the quantization of spin!
What this condition is telling us is that the
only symplectic manifolds that can be
quantized are those that correspond to classical systems whose
angular momentum is an integer multiple of $\frac{\hbar}{2}$.
The next step is to find a polarization in
the phase space $\Gamma$.
Note that the sphere $S^2$ is a compact
manifold and therefore does
not correspond to a cotangent bundle.
Luckily the sphere is a complex manifold and therefore admits
a K\"ahler structure.
We can coordinatize it by $z$ (recall that
the Riemman sphere is the complex
plane with the point at infinity).
the symplectic two form reads then,
\begin{equation}
\Omega=i \,k \hbar\, \frac{dz\wedge d\bar{z}}{(1+z\bar{z})^2}.
\end{equation}
The Hilbert space of states will correspond
then to holomorphic sections of a
complex line bundle over the sphere.
A standard theorem in complex analysis
shows that the space of such sections is
{\it finite\/} dimensional. Furthermore,
holomorphic functions on the coordinate
$z$ can be represented by,
\begin{equation}
\Psi(z)=\sum^k_{l=0} \left(\begin{array}{c}
k \\ l \end{array}\right) \psi_l
z^l,
\end{equation}
where $\psi_l$ are constants.
In this way, one gets all the finite-dimensional,
unitary, irreducible representations of SU(2).
Since we are interested in the spin 1/2
representation, we have to consider the
$k=1$ case, that is, the `smallest' quantizable sphere.
The Hilbert space
in this case is given by elements of the form,
\begin{equation}
\Psi=\psi_0 + \psi_1 z.
\end{equation}
Each element of the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$
will be then characterized by two complex numbers.
We have recovered the
standard SU(2) two-component spinors.
The inner product is then,
\begin{equation}
\langle \Phi | \Psi\rangle = \frac{1}{2} (\bar{\phi}_0 \psi_0 +
\bar{\phi}_1 \psi_1) .
\end{equation}
For details see \cite{wood}.
\subsubsection{Geometry of a Quantum Spin-1/2 System}
The spin degrees of freedom of a spin 1/2 particle provide
a very clear example
of the geometric structures described in Sec. ~\ref{sec:sec2a}.
In this case the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ is formed by vectors on
$C^2$:$\left( \begin{array}{c} \alpha \\ \beta \end{array} \right)$
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are complex numbers.
As we saw above,
it is convenient then to consider ${\cal H}$ as a real vector space.
Instead of a
column vector in $C^2$ we will have column vectors on $R^4$:
\begin{equation}
\Psi = \left(\begin{array}{c} a \\ b\\ c \\ e \\ \end{array} \right),
\end{equation}
where $a,b,c,e$ are real numbers.
The Hermitian inner product $\langle \Psi |\Phi \rangle$ between
$\Psi=\left( \begin{array}{c} \alpha
\\ \beta \end{array} \right)$ and
$\Phi=\left( \begin{array}{c} \gamma \\
\delta \end{array} \right)$
given by
\begin{equation}
\langle \Psi |\Phi \rangle =\bar{\alpha}\,\gamma
+ \bar{\beta}\,\delta
\end{equation}
induces a metric $G$ and a symplectic two form $\Omega$ on $R^4$:
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{ij} &=& 2\left[ \nabla_i(a)\nabla_j(a) + \nabla_i(b)\nabla_j(b)
+\nabla_i(c)\nabla_j(c) + \nabla_i(e)\nabla_j(e)\right],
\nonumber \\
\Omega_{ij} &=& 4\left( \nabla_{[i}a\nabla_{j]}b +
\nabla_{[i}c\nabla_{j]}e\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Normalized states satisfy then,
\begin{equation}
\langle\Phi | \Phi\rangle = a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + e^2 =1.
\end{equation}
Thus, the space $S$ corresponds to the 3-sphere $S^3$.
We know that the quantum space of states ${\cal P}$
will be the projection of
$S^3$ under the action of the $U(1)$ action.
That is, $S$ has the structure of
a principal fiber bundle with fiber $S^1$
and base space ${\cal P} = S^2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
S^1 \longrightarrow &S&^3 \nonumber \\
\pi &\downarrow&\nonumber \\
&S&^2
\end{eqnarray}
This corresponds precisely to one of the Hopf
bundles over the two sphere $S^2$.
In order to show the projection $\pi$
explicitly and recover common
coordinates on
the sphere $S^2$ we introduce the coordinates
$(\alpha, \beta, \delta)$ on $S^3$ as
follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
a &=& \cos(\textstyle\frac{\beta}{2})
\cos(\delta + \alpha),\nonumber \\
b &=& \cos(\textstyle\frac{\beta}{2})
\sin(\delta + \alpha),\nonumber \\
c &=& \sin(\textstyle\frac{\beta}{2})
\cos(\delta - \alpha),\nonumber \\
e &=& \sin(\textstyle\frac{\beta}{2})
\sin(\delta - \alpha).\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
It is straightforward to compute the
induced simplectic structure on $S$:
\begin{equation}
\bar{\Omega}_{ij} =4 \sin \beta
\nabla_{[i}\alpha \nabla_{j]}\beta.
\end{equation}
It is clear that the degenerate direction of $\bar{\Omega}$ is
$\left(\frac{\partial}
{\partial \delta}\right)^j$,
which is precisely the direction of the
`phase change' generated by $J$.
The induced metric on $S$ is
\begin{equation}
\bar{G}_{ij} = \nabla_i (\alpha) \nabla_j (\alpha) +\frac{1}{4}
\nabla_i (\beta) \nabla_j (\beta)
+\nabla_i (\delta) \nabla_j (\delta)-
2\cos\beta \nabla_{(i} (\alpha) \nabla_{j)} (\delta).
\end{equation}
It is clear that $\bar{\Omega}$ correspond to the pullback of
${\bf \Omega}$ under $\pi$ ($\bar{\Omega}=
\pi^{\ast}{\bf \Omega}$). We can
find the metric defined in the orbits of
the degenerate direction, and
define $(g, {\bf \Omega})$ on ${\cal P} = S^2$ with
ordinary spherical coordinates $(\theta=\beta,
\phi=2\alpha)$ to be
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf \Omega}_{ab} & = &2 \sin \theta
\nabla_{[a}\phi \nabla_{b]}\theta,
\label{3.21}\\
g_{ab} & = &\frac{1}{2}\left[ \sin^2 (\theta)\,
\nabla_a (\phi) \nabla_b (\phi) +
\nabla_a (\theta) \nabla_b (\theta)\right].\label{3.22}
\end{eqnarray}
Quantum observables correspond on ${\cal H}$ to Hermitian
$2\times 2$ matrices.
A basis for those matrices is given by the Pauli matrices.
They are associated with the
generators of rotations in 3 dimensions and are the
`angular momentum' operators
$\hat{S}_x,\,\hat{S}_y$ and $\hat{S}_z$, satisfying ordinary
commutation relations:
$[\hat{S}_i, \hat{S}_j]=\hbar \varepsilon_{ijk}\hat{S}_k$.
We know that there are three functions on ${\cal P}$
which correspond to the
`observables' in the `quantum phase space';
\begin{eqnarray}
x:=\langle \hat{S}_x \rangle & = & \hbar (a\,c + b\,e ) =
\textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2} \sin\theta\,
\cos \phi ,\nonumber \\
y := \langle \hat{S}_y \rangle & = & \hbar (a\, e - c\, b) =
\textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2} \sin\theta\,
\sin \phi ,\nonumber \\
z := \langle \hat{S}_z \rangle & = &
\textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2}\left[ (a^2 + b^2) -
(c^2 + e^2)\right]
= \textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2} \cos \theta.
\end{eqnarray}
It is a curious fact that they are also
the coordinates of a
sphere of radius $\hbar/2$.
Let us now consider dynamical evolution.
Without loss of generality we can
take the Hamiltonian to be $H=A \hat{S}_z$. The corresponding
observable on ${\cal P}$
is $h=\langle \hat{H} \rangle=A\,
\textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2} \cos\theta$.
Given $h$ and ${\bf \Omega}$ we can compute
the equations of motion for the
coordinates $(\theta, \phi)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\theta}&=&{\bf \Omega}^{ab}\,
\partial_a\theta \,\partial_b h = 0
,\nonumber \\
\dot{\phi} &=& {\bf \Omega}^{ab}\,\partial_a\phi
\,\partial_b h=-A
\textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
That is, the quantum evolution is given by a
`point' traveling on $S^2$
at constant
`latitude' $\theta$ and with constant angular velocity
$\dot{\phi}=-A\textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2}$.
Note that the quantum description in terms of
`K\"ahler geometry' for
the spin-1/2 particle
coincides exactly with the classical
description given in Sec.~\ref{sec:sec2}.
for the chosen
Hamiltonian. The spheres in both cases have, however,
very different origin. In
one case it is the smallest quantizable
{\it reduced phase space}. In the quantum
case is the {\it projective\/} `quantum phase space'
coming from the Hilbert
space of states.
\section{Nonstandard Quantum Hamiltonian Systems}
\label{sec:sec4}
Notice that our previous discussion means
that it is possible to describe
the quantization of a system in two stages.
In order to see this, it is
simpler to think of these stages in reverse,
that is, as one method of
constructing a classical theory from a known
quantum theory. In this
`classicalization' one would begin
with a Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ and a
set of observables given as linear
operators on ${\cal H}$. We could now
project to the space of rays ${\cal P}$, which,
since it is a phase space
itself and observables are now represented
by real valued functions, the
system is represented by a `classical theory'
with at least a large part
(if not all) of the content of the quantum
theory defined on the Hilbert
space. The main addition to this
`classical' theory is the probability
structure given by (\ref{3.7}) based on the
Riemannian metric $g_{ab}$. If one
were able to ignore the probability structure
of this symplectic
manifold, one could think of quantum mechanics
on ${\cal P}$ as nothing
more than another classical theory. Our program
of `classicalization'
would then be simply a map from ${\cal P}$ to
another symplectic manifold
$\Gamma$, the phase space of the usual classical
theory. We can
represent the process by the following diagram,
\begin{equation}
\matrix{{\cal H}&&\cr \downarrow&&\cr {\cal P}&
\rightarrow & \Gamma\cr}
\label{4.1}
\end{equation}
The usual process of `quantization' is to
leap from $\Gamma$ directly to
${\cal H}$, but one might just try to reverse
the direction of the arrows in
(\ref{4.1}), first constructing the `K\"ahler
quantum theory' on ${\cal P}$,
then `raising' the observables on ${\cal P}$
to Hermitian operators on
${\cal H}$. Notice that it could be
possible to stop this procedure at
${\cal P}$ if one could be certain that {\it all\/} the
properties of quantum mechanics (such as
the superposition of states)
could be realized in terms of
observables on ${\cal P}$ and the
probability structure generated by $g_{ab}$.
The program we are addressing in this
paper involves, however, the
ordinary quantization process from $\Gamma$
to ${\cal H}$ and then considering
the `projected' geometrical formulation on ${\cal P}$.
The classical theory we are
starting with, having a modified
symplectic geometry defined on it, will
yield a different geometry on ${\cal P}$.
That is, the symplectic
structure ${\bf \Omega}$ on ${\cal P}$
will have some information of the
corresponding one on $\Gamma$.
The question we are led to ask is: Is the
`non-standard' geometry induced on the
constructed quantum theory compatible
with experiment?
From now on we will restrict our attention
to the spin-1/2 system, and show
explicitly that there are obstructions at
each level to this procedure.
Given that the various Hamiltonian
descriptions for the classical system
differ by only a conformal transformation,
the set of issues we will be
addressing are the ones we called `dynamical'
in the discussion at the beginning
of Sec.~\ref{sec:sec3}.
While we will see that it is quite simple
to mirror the change of
symplectic structure given by (2.15) and
recover the dynamics of the
quantum system on ${\cal P}$ (in the sense
of recovering the integral
curves of the original system), but we will
find that it is more
difficult to maintain the probability
structure in terms of $g_{ab}$
that does not exist in the purely classical system.
We will also see
that realizing the dynamics of the
nonstandard Hamiltonian system in
terms of a linear Hamiltonian operator is
impossible in most cases.
We would like to change the symplectic two-form
on ${\cal P}$ for the
spin-1/2 system and find a new
Hamiltonian function $\tilde h$ which
gives the same set of integral curves
that are given in Sec.~\ref{sec:sec3}.
We must also require that the {\it physical\/}
predictions be the same in terms of
measurement. Recall that the probability of
measuring the eigenvalue $o_i$ of an
operator $\hat{O}$ when the system is in
state $\Psi$ is given by the geodesic
distance from $\Psi$ to the point $\Phi_i$
($\hat{O} \Phi_i=o_i \Phi_i$):
$P(\Psi, o_i) = \cos^2\left[\frac{d(\Psi,\Phi_i)}
{\sqrt{2}}\right]$.
This implies that in
order to recover the same physical predictions,
not only the dynamical
trajectory must
be the same but also the geodesic distance to
the eigenstates.
Let us consider a double Stern-Gerlach
experiment in which we first measure
$\hat{S}_z$ and
then look only at the particles that had
spin `up'. In our picture, this corresponds
to considering a quantum state located at the
`north pole' ($\theta=0$). We put now
a second measuring device. The spatial orientation of
the apparatus corresponds
precisely to the orientation of the eigenstates
(which lie on `antipodal points')
on the sphere. The probability of measuring spin `up'
and `down' will depend only
on the angle along maximal circles, from the north
pole to the `podes'.
Since the system is rotationally symmetric, we
can rotate both detectors while keeping their
relative orientation fixed and the
probabilities will not change. That operation corresponds to
`fixing the `up' direction
of the detectors' in $(x,y,z)$ space
and rotating the sphere. Since the
distance along the sphere must be the same, we conclude
that the metric on $S^2$ should be
rotational symmetric, which is a property of the
metric inherited from
the Hermitian inner product. Let us denote by
$\stackrel{o}{g}_{ab}$, the
metric defined by Eq. (\ref{3.22})
$\left( \stackrel{o}{g}_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\left[
\sin^2 (\theta)\, \nabla_a (\phi) \nabla_b (\phi) +
\nabla_a (\theta) \nabla_b (\theta)\right]\right)$.
We can conclude then that the metric $g$ should be
equal to $\stackrel{o}{g}$,
together with the
integral curves. The question that we are led to
ask is: can we find a new
$\tilde{\Omega}$ and $\tilde{h}$ such
that the Hamiltonian vector field of $\tilde{h}$
and $g_{ab}$ are the same? Since any two-form on $S^2$
is given by a conformal
transformation from the `canonical'
two-form ${\bf \Omega}$ defined by eq. (\ref{3.21}),
what we are looking for is precisely the
conformal factor $\mu$
in Sec.~\ref{sec:sec2}. such that,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Omega}^{ab}=\mu {\bf \Omega}^{ab}.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that we can find a $\tilde{h}$
such that the dynamical evolution
is the same. The condition, in the $(\theta, \phi)$
coordinates, is
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ -A \textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2}
\end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \tilde{\Omega}^{\theta \phi}
\\
-\tilde{\Omega}^{\theta \phi} & 0 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\partial_\theta \tilde{h}\\ \partial_\phi \tilde{h}
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
This set implies that $\partial_{\phi} \tilde h = 0$,
or, $\tilde{h}=
f(\theta)$, so the system reduces to one equation:
\begin{equation}
A \textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2} = \tilde{\Omega}^{\theta
\phi} f^\prime,
\end{equation}
where $f^\prime=\frac{d f}{d\theta}$.
Therefore, $\tilde{\Omega}^{\theta \phi} =A
\textstyle\frac{\hbar}{2}
\frac{1}{f^\prime}$.
To solve the system, we could
fix $f$ and then define $\tilde\Omega$ from the previous equation.
This would give us the
conformal factor to be $\mu =
\frac{-\hbar A}{2}\frac{ \sin \theta}{f^\prime}$.
However, recall
that ${\cal P}$ must have a K\"ahler structure, so $g$ and
$\Omega$ must be compatible
in the sense that $g_{ab}=J^c_a \Omega_{cb}$. Can we change
$\Omega$ arbitrarily
and still have a compatible system for fixed $g$?
The answer to this question is no.
A little lemma follows:
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\stackrel{o}{g}_{ab}$ be the metric on $S^2$ given by
Eq. (\ref{3.21}), then
$({\cal P}, g, {\bf \Omega})$ is a K\"ahler
Manifold iff $f^\prime=K \sin\theta$.
That is iff $\mu=C$, where $K$ and $C$ are real constants.
\end{lemma}
We have to conclude, that it is impossible to have
a nonstandard quantum Hamiltonian
dynamics compatible with observation: there is no
freedom in changing $\Omega$ and $h$.
The second obstruction (the two obstructions are
probably strongly
related) to changing
the symplectic structure in quantum mechanics
is that we would normally
like
to have the `K\"ahler quantum mechanics' on
${\cal P}$ come from
a system of operators in a Hilbert space whose
expectation values on ${\cal P}$ would
generate the observables.
If we attempt to do this for $\tilde h$, and even
if we were to ignore the
lemma above, we are
still restricted by the fact that $\tilde h$ must be a
function of $\theta$ only. Even if we try to let
$\tilde h$ be
any function of $\theta$, in this simple case if
$\tilde h$ is to be the
image of
a linear Hermitian operator on the space of vectors
in ${\cal H}$,
the operator $\hat {\tilde H}$ must be of the form
\begin{equation}
\hat {\tilde H} = \zeta I +
\textstyle\frac{\eta}{2}\hat S_x +
\textstyle\frac{\kappa}{2} \hat S_y +
\textstyle\frac{\lambda}{2} \hat S_z,
\end{equation}
with $\zeta$, $\eta$, $\kappa$, $\lambda$ real.
This means that
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde h & = & \zeta + \textstyle\frac{\eta}{2}
\langle\hat S_x \rangle +
\textstyle\frac{\kappa}{2} \langle\hat S_y\rangle
+ \textstyle\frac{\lambda}{2}\langle\hat S_z\rangle
\nonumber\\
& = & \zeta + \eta \textstyle\frac{\hbar}{4}
\sin \theta \cos \phi + \kappa
\textstyle\frac{\hbar}{4} \sin \theta \sin \phi +
\lambda \textstyle\frac{\hbar}{4}
\cos \theta
\end{eqnarray}
must be a function of $\theta$. The only way to
satisfy this for all $\phi$
is to take $\eta = \kappa = 0$. This
means that the only possible $\tilde h$ that come
from linear Hermitian
operators are
\begin{equation}
\tilde h = Kh + D,
\end{equation}
where $K$ and $D$ are real constants.
In this case the new $\mu$ is $\mu
= (1/K)\mu_0$. All other choices of
$\mu$ must lead to $\hat {\tilde H}$ a
nonlinear operator.
\section{Conclusions and Suggestions For Further Research}
\label{sec:sec5}
We have attempted to transfer to quantum
theory an idea originally due to
Hojman, that perhaps the usual
symplectic structure of classical mechanics
is too restrictive, and it
might be possible to generalize it.
In classical mechanics this is
certainly the case, and it may lead
to new approaches to solving old
problems, and can be used to construct
Hamiltonian theories for systems
that have no variational principle, and
thus no Hamiltonian in the usual
sense. We have considered this idea from
the viewpoint of changing the
symplectic structure and Hamiltonian of a
system that does have a
Hamiltonian. Classically this can be done
with no loss of generality,
since we can easily generate the same solution
curves for the system for
a large class of symplectic structures.
What we have just shown is that,
even in the Ashtekar-Schilling formulation \cite{GQM2},
where the evolution of
the system takes place on a symplectic
manifold similar to that of
classical mechanics, the extra rigidity a
probability structure imposes
on the system makes it impossible to
use symplectic structures of the
type we have been able to use in classical mechanics.
In fact, our
spin-1/2 example shows that the restrictions
on the symplectic structure
are quite strong. A probably related obstruction is
that only certain
Hamiltonians on ${\cal P}$ can be represented
by linear Hermitian operators on the
Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ that generates the symplectic
manifold ${\cal P}$.
It seems, then, that the results of the
article are essentially
negative. However, it may be possible to change
some of the structures
on the quantum symplectic manifold in order to try
to maintain the idea
of a more general symplectic structure while
still keeping the
probability structure necessary for quantum
mechanics.
There are two obstructions to the program of
generalizing symplectic
structures. Perhaps the most important is the
fact that changing
$\Omega_{ab}$ on ${\cal P}$ leads to a disastrous
change in the metric
$g_{ab}$ on ${\cal P}$ that defines the probability.
If it were possible
to change $\Omega_{ab}$ without changing $g_{ab}$,
we would have a simple
solution to the problem. The difficulty here is
Eq. (\ref{1.10}),
\begin{equation}
g_{ab} = \Omega_{ac}J^c_b,\nonumber
\end{equation}
which relates $\Omega_{ab}$ to $g_{ab}$
through the complex structure
tensor $J^a_b$. Note that the complex
structure is required to obey
$J^b_a J_b^c = -\delta^c_a$. If we make
a similarity transformation
(such as a coordinate transformation) on $J$,
$J^a_b = S^a_c J^c_d
(S^{-1})^d_b$, $J^b_a J^c_b = -\delta^c_a$ is preserved.
If one makes
such a transformation, both $\Omega_{ab}$ and $g_{ab}$ change
as `covariant tensors', which is perfectly acceptable.
Notice that if we
were to make a more complicated
transformation, such as a conformal
transformation, on $\Omega_{ab}$,
$\Omega_{ab} \rightarrow \varphi
\Omega_{ab}$, and at the same time
insist that $g_{ab}$ remain unchanged
in order to preserve the probability structure,
we would have to allow
$J^a_b \rightarrow (1/\varphi)J^a_b$,
and $J^b_a J^c_b =- (1/\varphi)^2
\delta^c_a$, which is negative definite
and nonsingular as long as
$\varphi$ is finite and nonzero, but
does not obey the defining
equation of a complex structure tensor.
We have been unable to find in
the literature any study of this type of
`pseudocomplex structures'
which would allow more drastic changes
in $J^a_b$, and it might be
worthwhile to consider such objects
to see if a consistent quantum
mechanics on ${\cal P}$ could be constructed using them.
We have taken a
conformal transformation as an example
because in our spin-1/2 system,
with its low-dimensional phase space,
the Hojman transformation (\ref{hoj})
reduces to a simple conformal transformation.
In higher dimensional phase spaces the
Hojman transformation $\Omega_{ab}
\rightarrow K^c_a \Omega_{cb}$ would imply
that to maintain the metric
$g_{ab}$ invariant one would have to
take $J^a_b \rightarrow J^{\prime
c}_b = J^a_c (K^{-1})^c_b$, and, in principle,
since the Hojman
transformation contains the conformal
factor $\mu$, we might expect that
$J^{\prime a}_b J^{\prime b}_c$ would
not be equal to $-\delta^a_c$, just
as for a conformal transformation.
In that case, it would be
necessary to postulate `pseudocomplex
structures' similar to those just
mentioned in order to preserve $g_{ab}$
on changing $\Omega_{ab}$. Note,
however, that while the Hojman
transformation for a two-dimensional phase
space reduces to a pure conformal transformation,
the more general
transformation allowed in higher dimensional
phase spaces may still allow
us to write $J^{\prime a}_b J^{\prime b}_c =
-\delta^a_c$, in which case
$J^{\prime a}_b$ is nothing more than a
`deformed complex structure',
and this concept has been studied for
some time \cite{defcom}.
It is necessary to
investigate whether the Hojman transformation
allows $J^{\prime a}_b
J^{\prime b}_c = -\delta^a_c$ or not.
Another possibility that would allow change
in the symplectic structure
without deforming the complex structure
would be to allow the appropriate
transformation on $g_{ab}$ that would
preserve $J^a_b$ (in the spin-1/2
case a conformal transformation) and
define probabilities in some
`conformally invariant' fashion.
We will not attempt to consider this
idea further.
One remark is in order. The phase space of
the system we started with,
namely
the sphere $S^2$, is somewhat special.
Perhaps the most notorious
property is that it is a {\it compact\/}
manifold. As a consequence, the
Hilbert space in the quantum theory is
{\it finite\/} dimensional. Furthermore,
it has
recently been shown that the {\it only\/} classical
observables that can be
quantized in a way that the prescription $\{ ,\}
\rightarrow i\hbar[,]$
is satisfied exactly, are the generators of
rotations $s_i$ \cite{gotay}.
This is the equivalent, for $S^2$, of the
Groenewold-Van Hove
theorem\cite{gron}.
Our result for the spin-1/2 system is therefore another
indication of the
`rigidity' of the structures one can define on the sphere.
This has to be contrasted with higher
dimensional (non-compact) phase spaces
for which the quantum theory is much richer
(infinite dimensional Hilbert
space). In this case one has in fact an infinite
number of possible
complex structures (this freedom is similar to the
one that leads to different
inequivalent representations of the CCR in QFT).
In this case, the
nonstandard quantum theory has to satisfy the `kinematical'
requirements related
to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
and possible super-selected sectors, in
order to be considered `valid'. A complete study of
the most general case is
therefore, still open.
Finally, note that if it were possible to be sure that
all of the content of
quantum mechanics could be achieved in terms of the
evolution and
structure of points in ${\cal P}$, we would not need
to worry about the
fact that the time evolution of states,
for example, is a reflection of
evolution in the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$
that is generated by a
nonlinear Hamiltonian operator.
If this is not so, then we would be
forced to consider the possibility of nonlinear
evolution in quantum
mechanics, an idea that has been proposed by several
authors \cite{nonl}, but one
should be justifiably reluctant to propose such
a drastic modification
to, at the very least, a one-particle model.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank S. Hojman and A. Gomberoff
for stimulating discussions.
We also thank T. Schilling for discussing his work with us,
and J.A. Zapata for helpful comments.
One of us (MR) is
grateful to the Center for Gravitational Physics
and Geometry for the
hospitality during 1994-95.
Both authors were supported by the National University
of M\'exico (DGAPA-UNAM).
This work was supported in part by the NSF
grant PHY93-96246, by the Eberly
research fund of Penn State University, and by a
CONACYT-CONICET exchange grant
(M\'exico-Chile).
|
\section{Background material}
In this chapter we recall some basic definitions
of quantum statistical mechanics, introduce
ensembles of identical particles, fermions and bosons,
and express Euclidean correlation functions in terms of functional integrals.
\subsection{Thermodynamics and quantum statistical mechanics}
We first recall the definition of {\em statistical
ensemble}. We assume that a quantum mecha\-ni\-cal system is confined
to a box $\Lambda\subset {\rm I\hspace{-2.4pt}E}^{3}$ in 3-dimensional
Euclidean space. Important characteristics of the
system are its volume $|\Lambda|$
and the particle number $N= n|\Lambda|$, where $n$ is the particle density.
The quantum-mechanical state space of an N-particle system in the box
$\Lambda$ is a separable Hilbert space ${\cal H}^{(N)}_{\Lambda}$, its
dynamics is given by a selfadjoint Hamilton operator $H^{(N)}_{\Lambda}$
acting on ${\cal H}^{(N)}_{\Lambda}$, whose energy spectrum is discrete and
bounded from below.
In statistical mechanics, one considers
two standard ensembles: One either fixes the number of particles in the system
({\em canonical ensemble}), or
one permits the number of particles to vary and keeps fixed
only its mean value $\langle N\rangle$ ({\em grand canonical
ensemble}). Here, N denotes the particle number operator, and
$\langle (\cdot) \rangle$ is the
expectation in some state of the system.
Quantities of interest in thermodynamics
are {\em thermodynamic potentials}. One of the most
important such potential is the free energy $F$:
\begin{equation}
\beta F(\beta,\Lambda,N)=- \log Z(\beta,\Lambda,N)
\end{equation}
where the canonical partition function $Z$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
Z(\beta,\Lambda,N)=\mbox{Tr}_{{\cal H}^{(N)}_{\Lambda}}\ \left( e^{-\beta H^{(N)}_{\Lambda}}\right)
\end{equation}
The free energy refers to the canonical ensemble, since
the number of particles is fixed. One also
introduces a free energy per unit volume (per particle) by setting
\begin{equation}
f(\beta,\Lambda,N)=\frac{1}{|\Lambda|}F(\beta,\Lambda,N)\ \
(\ = \frac{1}{N} F(\beta,\Lambda,N)\ ,\ \mbox{resp.}\ )
\end{equation}
To an ordered sequence,
$0<\tau_n <\cdots <\tau_2 <\tau_1 <\beta$, of {\em imaginary times}, and an
n-tuple
of observables (bounded operators on ${\cal H}_{\Lambda}^{(N)}$),
$a_1, a_2 \dots a_n$, one associates a {\em
temperature-ordered Green (correlation) function}
\begin{equation} \label{correlation}
\frac{1}{Z}
\mbox{Tr}\, \left( e^{-\beta H} e^{\tau_1 H} a_1 e^{-(\tau_1-\tau_2)H} a_2
\dots a_n e^{-\tau_n H}\right)
\end{equation}
(where we have omitted the subscripts $\Lambda$ and superscripts $N$).
The grand canonical partition function is defined by
\begin{equation}
\Xi(\beta,\Lambda,\mu)=\mbox{Tr}\,_{{\cal H}_{\Lambda}}\ \left( e^{-\beta (H-\mu N)}\right)
=e^{\beta \Omega (\beta,\Lambda,\mu)}
\end{equation}
The coefficient $\mu$ is called {\em chemical potential}.
The thermodynamic potential $\Omega$ is the so called {\em grand potential}.
We denote by ${\cal H}_{\Lambda}=\oplus_N {\cal H}^{(N)}_{\Lambda}$ the direct sum of
Hilbert spaces corresponding to different numbers of identical particles
(bosons or fermions). The Hamiltonian
$H$ is then a direct sum of $N$-particle Hamiltonians.
In each $N$-particle subspace, $H$ coincides with $H^{(N)}$ (we again omit the
subscript $\Lambda$).
In nonrelativistic quantum theory, we assume that the
particle number operator, $N$, and the Hamiltonian commute;
in relativistic theories this is usually not the case because
of particle creation-annihilation processes.
The laws of thermodynamics are described by differential
{\em thermodynamic relations}. In the grand canonical ensemble the most
important such relation is
\begin{equation}
d\Omega (\beta,\Lambda,\mu )=\langle N\rangle d\mu +S_{\Lambda }dT
\end{equation}
The differential, $d$, is taken with respect to $\beta=\frac{1}{k_BT}$ (where
$k_{B}$ is Boltzmann's constant)
and $\mu$;
the box $\Lambda$ is kept fixed. The coefficient in front of $d\mu$
is the mean value (in an equilibrium state at inverse temperature $\beta$ and
chemical potential $\mu$) of the particle number operator already encountered
in the definition of the grand canonical ensemble.
The coefficient of $dT$ is the {\em entropy} of the system.
In the study of macroscopically large systems it is useful to consider the
{\em thermodynamic limit}, $\Lambda\nearrow{\rm I\hspace{-2.4pt}E}^3$, and to pass from
{\em extensive} quantities ($F,\Omega ,N,\ldots$) to {\em intensive} ones
($f,p,n,\d\ldots$). For example, in the grand canonical ensemble one defines
the {\em pressure}, $p$, by setting
\begin{equation}
p(\beta, \mu)=\lim_{\Lambda\nearrow {\rm I\hspace{-2.4pt}E}^3} \ \frac{1}{|\Lambda|} \Omega(\beta,\Lambda,\mu)
\end{equation}
(where $\Lambda\nearrow{\rm I\hspace{-2.4pt}E}^3$ in the sense of van Hove or Fisher).
The particle density and the specific entropy are then given by
\begin{equation}
n=\frac{\partial p}{\partial \mu} \ , \ s=\frac{\partial p}{\partial T}
\end{equation}
Grand canonical correlation functions are defined for systems in a box
$\Lambda$ in the
same way as for the canonical ensemble.
They satisfy the
{\em KMS (Kubo-Martin-Schwinger) condition} which we now describe: Given a
*algebra ${\cal A}$ of quantum-mechanical observables, we define
a {\em state} on ${\cal A}$
as a normalized $(\rho ({\rm 1\hspace{-3.6pt}I} )=1)$, positive $\bigl( \rho
(a^* a) \geq 0 ,\; \forall a\in{\cal A}\bigr)$, linear functional
$\bigl(\rho(\alpha a + \beta b) = \alpha \rho (a) + \beta \rho (b), \;
\forall a,b\in{\cal A}, \alpha,\beta\in{\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C}\bigr)$. An example of a state
is an equilibrium state at some inverse temperature $\beta$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{Gibbs}
\rho_{\beta}(a)=\frac{1}{\Xi}\ \mbox{Tr}\,(e^{-\beta (H-\mu N)} a)
\end{equation}
It is commonly called {\em Gibbs state}.
Introducing time-dependent observables in the Heisenberg
picture by setting
\begin{equation} \label{Heis}
a(t)=e^{it(H-\mu N)} a e^{-it(H-\mu N)} \ \ \ ,\ a\in {\cal A}
\end{equation}
we can formulate the KMS condition as follows:
For arbitrary elements a and b of $\cal{A}$, there exists a function
$F_{ab}^{\beta}(z)$ analytic in the strip $-\beta < \mbox{Im}\ z < 0$ and
continuous on its closure such that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{KMS}
F_{ab}^{\beta}(t)= \rho_{\beta}(a(t)\ b)\nonumber\\
F_{ab}^{\beta}(t-i\beta) = \rho_{\beta}(b\ a(t))
\end{eqnarray}
Using the cyclic property of the trace
\begin{equation}
\mbox{Tr}\, (ab)=\mbox{Tr}\, (ba)
\end{equation}
one can check that the KMS condition is satisfied
for the Gibbs state
(\ref{Gibbs}). In the formulation (\ref{KMS}), the KMS condition can be
transferred to the thermodynamic limit.
Actually, one can view the KMS condition as an equation for equilibrium states
of the system.
Any state $\rho_{\beta}$ satisfying (\ref{KMS}) is called an {\em equilibrium
state} at inverse temperature $\beta$.
\subsection{Systems of identical particles}
In this section we consider a gas of identical quantum-mechanical particles,
bosons or fermions.
The {\em second quantization} of
a system of identical particles is conventionally described by starting
with the {\em Fock space}
\begin{equation} \label{J1}
{\cal H}\;=\;\oplus_{N=0}^\infty\;{\cal H}^{(N)}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal H}^{(N)}$ is the $N$-particle Hilbert space,
{\em i.e.},
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}^{(N)}=({\cal H}^{(1)})^{\otimes_s N} & \mbox{, for bosons} \nonumber \\
{\cal H}^{(N)}=({\cal H}^{(1)})^{\otimes_a N} & \mbox{, for fermions}
\end{eqnarray}
and ${\cal H}^{(1)}$ is the Hilbert space of pure states of a single particle.
The subscripts $s$ and $a$ indicate completely
symmetric and antisymmetric tensor products, respectively,
according to whether the particles are bosons or fermions. Furthermore,
$({\cal H}^{(1)})^{\otimes_s 0}\cong ({\cal H}^{(1)})^{\otimes_a 0}\cong
{\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C} |0\rangle$, where $|0\rangle$ is the vacuum vector in ${\cal H}$.
Let $\xi$ denote the position and spin of a particle. Creation- and
annihilation-operators, $\Psi^*(\xi)$ and
$\Psi (\xi)$, are defined as operator-valued distributions on ${\cal H}$. They
satisfy the commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl[ \Psi^\#(\xi), \Psi^\#(\eta)\bigr]_\pm & = & 0 \nonumber\\
\bigl[\Psi(\xi), \Psi^\star(\eta)\bigr]_\pm & = & \delta (\xi-\eta)
\label{J2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the commutator $[A,B]_-:=AB-BA$ \ is chosen for bosons
(integer spin particles), and the anti-commutator $[A,B]_+:=AB+BA$ is chosen
for
fermions (particles with half-integer spin). Moreover, $\Psi(\xi)|0\rangle=0$.
The operators
\begin{eqnarray}\label{J3}
\Psi(f) &:=& \int d\xi\, \Psi (\xi)\bar f (\xi) \nonumber\\
\Psi^*(f) &:=& \int d\xi\, f(\xi) \Psi^* (\xi)
\end{eqnarray}
$f\in {\cal H}^{(1)}$,\ then generate a *algebra
${\cal A}_{{\cal H}^{(1)}}$, with
$\bigl(\Psi (f)\bigr)^* = \Psi^*(f)$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl[ \Psi^{\#}(f),\Psi^{\#}(g)\bigr]_\pm & = & 0 \nonumber\\
\bigl[ \Psi (f), \Psi^\star(g)\bigr]_\pm & = & \langle f,g\rangle {\rm 1\hspace{-3.6pt}I}
\label{J4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle f,g\rangle = \int d \xi\, \bar f (\xi) g (\xi)$ denotes
the scalar product on ${\cal H}^{(1)}$. For fermions, $\Psi^*(f)$ and $\Psi
(f)$ are bounded operators: $\|\Psi(f)\|=\|\Psi^*(f)\|=
\sqrt{\langle f,f\rangle}$.
Rather than starting from the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ and a concrete
realization of (\ref{J2}) by operators acting on ${\cal H}$, one can
start from the abstract *algebra ${\cal A}_{{\cal H}^{(1)}}$ \ generated by
the identity and creation- and annihilation operators (\ref{J3}),
with relations (\ref{J4}). We
obtain representations of ${\cal A}_{{\cal H}^{(1)}}$ from states via
the so-called GNS
(Gelfand-Naimark-Segal) construction, as follows: Consider a state
$\rho$ on a *algebra ${\cal A}$, i.e., $\rho$ is a normalized
$(\rho ({\rm 1\hspace{-3.6pt}I} )=1)$, positive $\bigl( \rho
(a^* a) \geq 0, \; \forall a\in{\cal A}\bigr)$, linear functional
$\bigl(\rho(\alpha a + \beta b) = \alpha \rho (a) + \beta \rho (b), \;
\forall a,b\in{\cal A}, \alpha,\beta\in{\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C}\bigr)$ on ${\cal
A}$. Divide ${\cal A}$ by the left-ideal
\begin{equation} \label{J5}
{\cal K}\;:=\;\bigl\{ a\in {\cal A} | \rho (ba) = 0, \;
\forall b\in{\cal A}\bigr\}
\end{equation}
Define a Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ as the norm-closure of $V := {\cal
A}/{\cal K}$ (where $\langle [a],[b]\rangle := \rho(a^* b)$,
i.e., $\Vert [a]\Vert^2 := \rho (a^* a)$) and
a representation $\Pi_\rho$ of ${\cal A}$ via $\langle
[a], \Pi_\rho (c) [b]\rangle := \rho (a^* cb)$. For the {\em cyclic vector}
$\Omega_\rho := [{\rm 1\hspace{-3.6pt}I} ] \in V$, one has that $\rho (c) = \langle
\Omega_\rho, \Pi_\rho (c) \Omega_\rho\rangle,\; \forall c\in{\cal A}$.
The usual Fock space (cf. (\ref{J1})) is obtained by choosing
$\rho=\rho_0$, where $\rho_0$ is uniquely determined by the equations
$\rho_0 \bigl( a \Psi (f)\bigr) \;=\;0\;=\;\rho_0\bigl(\Psi^* (f)b\bigr)$
,\ $\forall a,b\in{\cal A}_{{\cal H}^{(1)}}$. \ They imply
{\em Wick's theorem},
\begin{equation} \label{J6}
\rho_0 \bigl(\prod_{i=1}^m \Psi (f_i) \prod_{j=n}^1 \Psi^* (g_j)\bigr)=
\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
0 & : & m \neq n \\
\displaystyle\sum_{\rm permutations\ P}\epsilon_P\prod_{i=1}^n\
\langle f_i, g_{P(i)}\rangle & : & m = n
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_P=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
1 & , & \mbox{for bosons} \\
{\rm sign \ } P & , & \mbox{\rm for fermions}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
In this example, the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ obtained from the GNS construction is
the Fock space, and the cyclic vector $\Omega_{\rho_{0}}$ is the vacuum vector
$|0\rangle$.
A useful operation is
\begin{equation}
a\;=\;\displaystyle\mathop{\prod}_i\;\Psi^{\#} (f_i)\;\rightarrow\;
\displaystyle\mathop{:\,a\,:}
\end{equation}
the so-called {\em Wick-ordering}. Up to a sign, $:\,a\,:$ is the same monomial
as $a$, but with all $\Psi^*$'s written to the left of all $\Psi$'s.
As usual,
the sign is equal to $1$, for bosons, and to $(-1)^t$, for
fermions, where $t$ denotes the number of transpositions
necessary to move all $\Psi^*$'s to the left of all $\Psi$'s.
{\em Remark}. In order to become familiar with the GNS-construction, one
may consider, as a trivial example, the *algebra
${\cal A}:={\rm M}_n ({\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C})$ of
complex $n\times n$ matrices: Choosing $
\rho (a)\;:=\;\langle x, ax\rangle\;,$ where $ a \in
{\rm M}_n ({\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C})$, \
$\langle\, .\, ,\, .\,\rangle$ denotes the usual scalar product on ${\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C}^n$,
and $x$ is an arbitrary unit vector in ${\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C}^n$, one easily
recovers the representation of ${\rm M}_n({\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C})$ on ${\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C}^n$.
In this example, ${\cal K}= \{ a\mid ax = 0\}$ \ (consisting of all
matrices having their $n$-th column identically equal to zero if $x$ is the
$n$-th basis-vector of ${\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C}^n$), and ${\cal A}/{\cal K}\cong{\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C}^n$
has complex dimension $n$. Another example is obtained by considering a
density matrix (e.g.\ a Gibbs state) on ${\rm M}_n({\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C})$. It leads to a
reducible representation of ${\rm M}_n({\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C})$.
Returning to ${\cal A}_{{\cal H}^{(1)}}$, it is often
convenient to choose an orthonormal basis \ $\bigl\{
h_n\bigr\}_{n=1}^\infty$ \ in ${\cal H}^{(1)}$, and to expand
annihilation- and creation operators according to
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi (\xi) &=&\sum_1^\infty \Psi_n\;h_n (\xi)\nonumber \\
\Psi^* (\xi)&=&\sum_1^\infty \Psi_n^*
\;\overline{h_n} (\xi)\label{J7}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl[ \Psi_n^\#, \Psi_m^\#\bigr]_\pm &=& 0 \nonumber\\
\bigl[ \Psi_n, \Psi_m^* \bigr]_\pm &=& \delta_{mn}\label{J8}
\end{eqnarray}
We assume that every basis element $h_{n}$, $n= 1,2,3,...$, is a $C^{\infty}$-
vector for the one-particle Hamiltonian $H_{\Lambda}^{(1)}$.
A typical second-quantized Hamiltonian has the form
\begin{eqnarray}
H &= &\int d\xi\, \Psi^* (\xi) \biggl( -
\,\frac{\hbar^2 \triangle_{\Lambda}}{2m}\,\Psi\biggr) (\xi) \nonumber \\
&& \qquad +\;g \int \Psi^* (\xi_1) \Psi^* (\xi_2)
V(\xi_1,\xi_2)\, \Psi
(\xi_2)\,\Psi(\xi_1)\; d\xi_1\, d\xi_2 \label{J9}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\triangle_{\Lambda}$ is the Laplacian with, e.g., Dirichlet
boundary conditions at $\partial \Lambda$, and $V$ is a two-body potential.
One can rewrite $H$ as
\begin{equation}
H\;=\;T (\Psi^* ,\Psi)\;+\;V (\Psi^* ,\Psi)
\end{equation}
where $T(\Psi^* ,\Psi)\,\equiv\,\sum_{m,n} \Psi^*_m\,A_{mn}\,\Psi_n$
is a positive-definite quadratic form in $\Psi=(\Psi_m)$ and
$\Psi^*=(\Psi^*_m)$ corresponding to the kinetic energy of particles (first
term on the right side of (\ref{J9})),
and $V$ involves terms of higher order in
the operators $\Psi$ and $\Psi^*$ and is even in $\Psi,\Psi^*$ and
gauge-invariant.
The time-evolution of $a\in{\cal A}_{{\cal H}^{(1)}}$ in the Heisenberg
picture is given by
\begin{equation}
\dot a \;=\; i\; [H-\mu N, a]
\end{equation}
(the term proportional to $\mu$ drops out for gauge-invariant observables)
implying that
\begin{equation}
i\;\dot\Psi_n\;=\;A_{nm}\;\Psi_m\;+\;\frac{\partial^L V}{\partial
\Psi_n^*}\;-\;\mu \Psi_n
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
-i\;\dot \Psi_n^*\;=\;\Psi_m^*\;A_{mn}\;+\;\frac{\partial^R
V}{\partial \Psi_n}\;-\;\mu \Psi_n^*
\end{equation}
where repeated indices are to be summed over, and $\frac{\partial^LV}{\partial
\Psi^*_n}$ is obtained from $V$ by (anti-\nolinebreak[4])
commuting any factor of $\Psi^*_n$
in $V$ to the very left and then omitting it and $\frac{\partial^RV}{\partial
\Psi_n}$ is obtained by (anti-) commuting any factor of $\Psi_n$ in V to the
very right and then omitting it.
\subsection{Functional integrals: Bosons}
The goal of this section is to rewrite the correlation functions (see
Eq.(\ref{correlation})) in terms of
functional integrals. For this purpose we replace the field operators by
classical (Grassmann) integration variables for bosons (fermions) and integrate
the exponential of the action
functional over all configurations of these variables. To obtain well-defined
quantities, a cutoff has to be introduced (the same
for bosons and fermions). Referring to the second quantized Hamiltonian
introduced previously, we define $H^{[\kappa]}$ by replacing $A$ and $V$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{nm}^{[\kappa]} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} A_{nm} & \mbox{if} \, n,m \le
\kappa \\ 0 & \mbox{, otherwise} \end{array} \right.
\\
V^{[\kappa]}(\Psi^*,\Psi) & = & \left\{\begin{array}{cc} V & \quad\mbox
{all indices} \ \le \kappa
\\ 0 & \mbox{, otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
>From now on, bosons and fermions are treated separately.
For an arbitrary operator $a$ on ${\cal H}$ we define
\[
a(\tau) := e^{\tau(H^{[\kappa]}-\mu N)}a e^{-\tau(H^{[\kappa]}-\mu N)}
\]
where $\tau$ denotes {\em imaginary time}. Thus, we obtain $\tau$-dependent
fields $\Psi_n(\tau),\Psi_n^*(\tau)$.
We replace the bosonic field operators by complex variables
\begin{equation}
\Psi_n(\tau), \Psi_n^*(\tau) \rightarrow\psi_n(\tau), \psi_n^*(\tau)
\end{equation}
satisfying $\psi_n^*(\tau)=\overline{\psi_n(\tau)}$, with $\tau \in
[0,\beta]$. In terms of the complete orthonormal system $\lbrace h_n
\rbrace_{n=1}^{\infty}$ in
${\cal H}^{(1)}_\Lambda$, we understand the $\psi_n$'s as modes in the
decomposition
\begin{equation}
\psi(\tau,\xi) = \sum \psi_n(\tau) h_n(\xi)
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we assume that $A^{[\kappa]} \geq 0$ and
$V^{[\kappa]}[\psi^*,\psi] \ge 0, \; \forall \psi^*,\psi$.
We define the Euclidean, i.e., imaginary-time, bosonic action by
\begin{equation} \label{Eact}
S^{[\kappa]}[\psi^*,\psi] \equiv \int_0^\beta d\tau \,\left[ \sum_{n\leq\kappa}
(\psi_n^* \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \psi_n)(\tau) +
H^{[\kappa]}(\psi^*(\tau),\psi(\tau))- \mu N(\tau)\right]
\end{equation}
The system is always assumed to be confined
to a compact box $\Lambda$.
As the variable $\tau$ takes values in the interval $[0\, , \beta]$,
we must specify boundary conditions for the variables
$\psi(\tau), \psi^*(\tau)$ at $\tau=0,\beta$. They are determined by the KMS
condition for correlation functions.
Let us consider the correlation
function of two bosonic operators $\Psi^*(\tau)$ and $\Psi(0)$.
By analyticity in the complex time variable, the KMS condition
implies that
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\beta}(\Psi^*(\tau) \Psi(0))=\rho_{\beta}(\Psi(0) \Psi^*(\tau-\beta))
\end{equation}
The imaginary-time correlation function of operators $a_1,\ldots a_n$ is
defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle a_1(\tau_1)\cdots a_n(\tau_n)\rangle_{\beta,\mu} & := &
\frac{1}{\Xi}\mbox{Tr}\,(e^{-\beta (H^{[\kappa]}-\mu N)}\,\mbox{T}\,
a_1(\tau_1)\cdots a_n(\tau_n))
\end{eqnarray}
The imaginary-time ordering operator ``T'' rearranges the operators in
decreasing time
order, and the imaginary times $\tau_1,\ldots \tau_n$ are assumed to be
non-negative, pairwise different and smaller than $\beta$.
Using the KMS condition we obtain the identities
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\langle\Psi^*(\tau) \Psi(0)\rangle_{\beta,\mu}=
\rho_{\beta}(\Psi^*(\tau)\Psi(0))
=\rho_{\beta}(\Psi(0) \Psi^*(\tau-\beta))}\nonumber\\
& & = \langle\Psi(0) \Psi^*(\tau-\beta)\rangle_{\beta,\mu}
=\langle\Psi^*(\tau-\beta) \Psi(0)\rangle_{\beta,\mu}\label{der}
\end{eqnarray}
This simple consideration implies periodic boundary
conditions for bosonic variables:
\begin{equation} \label{per}
\psi^*(\tau+\beta)=\psi^*(\tau)\ , \ \psi(\tau+\beta)=\psi(\tau)
\end{equation}
Introducing integration measures
\begin{equation}
{\cal D}\psi=\prod_{m\le \kappa} d\psi_m \ \ \ ,\ \ \
{\cal D}\psi^*=\prod_{m\le \kappa} d\psi^*_m
\end{equation}
we have the following result.
\vspace{\baselineskip}\\
\begin{em}{\bf Lemma : }
The cutoff correlation functions can be written in terms of
functional integrals as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\langle
\prod_i \Psi_{n_i}(\tau_i) \prod_j \Psi^*_{m_j}(\sigma_j)
\rangle_{\beta,\mu}\equiv
\frac{1}{\Xi} \mbox{Tr} \left(e^{-\beta (H^{[\kappa]}-\mu N)}
\,\mbox{T}\,
\prod_i \Psi_{n_i}(\tau_i) \prod_j \Psi^*_{m_j}(\sigma_j) \right)}
\nonumber \\
& & =\frac{1}{\Xi}
\int {\cal D} \psi^* {\cal D} \psi\, e^{-S^{[\kappa]}[\psi^*,\psi]}
\prod_i \psi_{n_i}(\tau_i) \prod_j \psi^*_{m_j}(\sigma_j)
\hspace{43mm}\label{lem}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_i, m_j \le \kappa$. The integral on the r.h.s. is supplied with
periodic boundary conditions, Eq. (\ref{per}). For $\mu <0$,
both sides of the equality are well-defined in the limit $\kappa
\rightarrow \infty$, and the equality continues to hold in this limit.
\end{em}
\vspace{\baselineskip}\\
It is easy to verify this lemma at the level of formal power
series, or by appealing to Schwinger-Dyson equations. A rigorous proof is
somewhat more complicated, but the result is standard.
\subsection{Functional integrals: Fermions}
Our discussion for fermions follows the procedure outlined for bosons, but
some room will
be given to understanding the properties of integration over
anticommuting variables.
Just as in the previous section, we replace
the operators $\Psi, \Psi^*$ by symbols $\psi, \psi^*$
\begin{equation}
\Psi_m, \Psi_n^* \rightarrow \psi_m, \psi^*_n
\end{equation}
where $\psi_n$ and $\psi^*_m$ are independent {\em Grassmann variables}:
\begin{equation}
\{\psi_n,\psi_m\} = \{\psi^*_n,\psi^*_m\} = \{\psi_n,\psi^*_m\} = 0
\end{equation}
To integrate over Grassmann variables, we define the {\em Berezin integral} by
requiring that
\begin{equation}
\{ d\psi_n^\#,\psi_m^\#\} = \{d\psi_n^\#,d\psi_m^\#\} = 0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\int d\psi_n\,\psi_n = \int d\psi_n^*\,\psi_n^* = 1
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\int d\psi_n\,1 = \int d\psi^*_n\,1 = 0
\end{equation}
We recall some properties of the Berezin integral that follow easily from
the definition and standard combinatorics: Introducing ${\cal D}^{[n]} \psi =
d\psi_n \ldots d\psi_1$ and ${\cal D}^{[n]} \psi^* = d\psi^*_1 \ldots
d\psi^*_n$, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{grass1}
1 = \prod_{i=1}^n \int d\psi_i\,\psi_i \prod_{j=1}^n \int d\psi^*_j\,\psi^*_j
= \int {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi^* {\cal D}^{[n]}\psi\,
\psi_1 \ldots \psi_n\psi^*_n \ldots \psi^*_1
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that, for $M^{[n]} [\psi^*,\psi]$ a monomial in
$\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_n, \psi^*_1,\ldots,\psi^*_n$,
\begin{equation}\label{grass2}
\int {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi^* {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi\, M^{[n]} [\psi^*,\psi] = 0
\end{equation}
unless $M^{[n]}[\psi^*,\psi]=\lambda\psi_1\ldots\psi_n\psi^*_n\ldots\psi^*_1$,
$\lambda\in{\rm \,\extraline\hspace{-3.7pt}C}$. From Eqs.\ (\ref{grass1}) and (\ref{grass2}) and from
the standard definition of determinants we derive that
\begin{equation}
\int {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi^* {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi\,
e^{-(\psi^*,K^{[n]}\psi)} = \det K^{[n]}
\end{equation}
where $K^{[n]}$ is a regular $n\times n$ matrix. In fact, this determinant
formula may be used as a basis for a
definition of integration over Grassmann variables.
It is convenient to
introduce the left derivative $\frac{\delta}{\delta\psi_i}$ by setting
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\delta}{\delta\psi_{i_k}} \psi_{i_1} \ldots \psi_{i_k} \ldots \psi_{i_n}
&=& (-1)^{(k+1)} \left( \frac{\delta}{\delta\psi_{i_k}}\psi_{i_k}\right)
\psi_{i_1}\ldots \psi_{i_{k-1}}\psi_{i_{k+1}} \ldots \psi_{i_n}
\nonumber\\
&=& (-1)^{(k+1)} \psi_{i_1} \ldots \psi_{i_{k-1}}\psi_{i_{k+1}} \ldots
\psi_{i_n}
\end{eqnarray}
where we assume that $i_1,\ldots i_n$ are pairwise different. The derivative
$\frac{\delta}{\delta\psi^*_i}$ is defined similarly. All anticommutators
involving derivatives vanish, except for
\begin{equation}
\{\psi_i,\frac{\delta}{\delta\psi_j}\} =
\{\psi^*_i,\frac{\delta}{\delta\psi^*_j} \} = \delta_{ij}
\end{equation}
These rules yield an integration by parts formula for Berezin
integrals. Let $F^{[n]}[\psi^*,\psi]$ and $G^{[n]}[\psi^*,\psi]$
be two monomials
in $\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_n, \psi^*_1, \ldots,
\psi^*_n$ of degrees $f$ and $g$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\int {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi^* {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi\,
F[\psi,\psi^*] \frac{\delta G[\psi,\psi^*]}{\delta \psi_m}
=}\nonumber \\
& & (-1)^{f+1}
\int {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi^* {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi\,\frac{\delta
F[\psi,\psi^*]}{\delta \psi_m} G[\psi,\psi^*]\label{intpart1}
\end{eqnarray}
A similar formula holds when
$\frac{\delta}{\delta\psi_m}$ is replaced by $\frac{\delta}{\delta\psi_m^*}$.
In particular, choosing $G$ to be the exponential
$\exp \{-(\psi^*, K^{[n]}\psi)\}$, we arrive at the following identity
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\int {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi^* {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi\,\psi_n e^{-(\psi^*,
K^{[n]}\psi)}F[\psi,\psi^*]=}\nonumber \\
& & (K^{[n]\:-1})_{nm} \int {\cal D}^{[n]} \psi^*{\cal D}^{[n]} \psi\,
e^{-(\psi^*, K^{[n]}\psi)} \frac{\delta F[\psi,\psi^*]}{\delta \psi^*_m}
\label{intpart2}
\end{eqnarray}
We define the Euclidean action for fermions by the same formula as in Eq.
(\ref{Eact}). We find the boundary conditions
at $\tau=0,\beta$ for Grassmann variables $\psi^*, \psi$ by using
the KMS condition. The calculation proceeds along the same lines
as for commuting variables, but we get an extra
minus sign in the last equality
of (\ref{der}), due to fermionic imaginary-time ordering. Thus, we conclude
that the boundary
conditions for fermionic variables are {\em anti-periodic}:
\begin{equation}
\psi^*(\tau+\beta)=-\psi^*(\tau) \ , \psi(\tau+\beta)=-\psi(\tau)
\end{equation}
With these boundary conditions, formula (\ref{lem}) holds
true for fermions. The proof is much easier
than the one for bosons, since, after imposing a cutoff,
it reduces to pure multi-linear algebra involving (\ref{intpart1}) and
(\ref{intpart2}).
In the following chapters we shall not explicitly refer to the finite-volume
(infrared) cutoff $\Lambda$ and the ultraviolet cutoff $(\kappa <
\infty)$ anymore, and we shall work with functional integrals in a formal
way. In most instances it is, however, straightforward to justify our
manipulations. For simplicity, we shall study systems at zero temperature; but
our method can be used for positive temperatures as well.
We shall assume that the reader is familiar with basic notions and results in
the quantum theory of systems of non-relativistic, non-interacting fermions at
positive density, such as the Fermi sphere and -surface, the Fermi momentum
$k_{F}$ and the Fermi velocity $v_{F}=\frac{k_{F}}{m}$. We shall use units
such that $\hbar = 1$ (and thus shall not distinguish between ``wave vector''
and ``momentum'').
\section{Weakly coupled electron gases}
On a {\em microscopic scale} ($\approx 10^{-10}$m), many systems of
condensed matter physics
can be described approximately in terms of non-relativistic electrons ---
which are fermions ---
with two-body interactions, moving in a static background. We are interested
in
studying such systems in thermal equilibrium
at some temperature $T$ and chemical
potential $\mu$. The Heisenberg equations of motion and the equations for
equilibrium states (KMS condition) of the microscopic
system are, i.g., not exactly solvable. Our main interest lies,
however, in predicting transport quantities like conductivity,
which only depend on
physical properties of the system at
{\em mesoscopic length scales} ($\approx 10^{-6}$m) characterized by
a dimensionless parameter $\lambda \gg 1$ (to be thought of as the
ratio of meso- to microscopic scale). Such quantities
are therefore calculable from processes involving
momenta of order $k_F/\lambda$ around the
Fermi surface, i.e., from properties of the scaling limit (large $\lambda$, low
frequencies) of the system. One can try to extract information on the
scaling limit of the system
without explicitly solving the microscopic equations.
Techniques that sometimes allow one to do this involve a principle of
{\em dimensional reduction} ---
i.e., the observation that, in the scaling limit, systems of non-relativistic
(free) electrons in $d$ spatial dimensions behave like systems of multi-flavour
Dirac fermions in 1+1 dimensions --- as well as
{\em renormalization-group-improved} perturbation theory around the
non-interacting electron gas. These techniques will be explained in the
following chapters.
\subsection{Free electrons and dimensional reduction}
In this section, we show how a system of non-relativistic
free electrons in $d$-dimensional space can be approximated
by multi-flavour relativistic fermions in 1+1 dimensional space-time.
We start from the action
\begin{equation}\label{eq20}
S_0(\psi^*,\psi) = \sum_{\sigma}\int\!d^{d+1}x\,\psi^*_{\sigma}(x)
\bigl(\partial_0-\frac{1}{2m}\Delta -\mu\bigr)\psi_{\sigma}(x)
\end{equation}
with a prescribed chemical potential $\mu$ (related to
the Fermi momentum $k_F$ by $\mu=\frac{k_F^2}{2m}$, and to the
particle density by $n=2\tau_d k_F^d/(2\pi)^d$, where $\tau_d$ is the
volume of the $d$-dimensional unit ball, and the factor 2 accounts
for the spin orientations). For simplicity, we work at
zero temperature.
The Euclidean free fermion Green's function is given by
($x=(t,\vec{x})$, $y=(s,\vec{y})$, $t>s$, with $t$ and $s$ now denoting
{\em imaginary time})
\begin{eqnarray}
G^0_{\sigma\sigma'}(x-y) & = & \langle e^{tH}\Psi_{\sigma}(\vec{x})
e^{-(t-s)H} \Psi^*_{\sigma'}(\vec{y})e^{-sH} \rangle_{\mu} \nonumber\\
& = & -\delta_{\sigma\sigma'} \int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\frac{ e^{-ik_0(t-s)+i\vec{k}(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}}
{ik_0 -(\frac{k^2}{2m}-\mu)} \label{eq21}\\
& = & \delta_{\sigma\sigma'} \int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^d k\,
\Theta\left(\frac{k^2}{2m}-\mu\right) e^{-(t-s)(\frac{k^2}{2m}-\mu)}
e^{i\vec{k}(\vec{x}-\vec{y})} \label{eq21b}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k:=\frac{dk}{2\pi}
\end{equation}
The equality (\ref{eq21b}) follows with the help of the residue theorem.
In the following, we are interested in physics at
a mesoscopic length scale, or, more precisely, in the
scaling limit (very low momenta and frequencies).
Then it suffices to determine
the leading contribution to $G^0_{\sigma\sigma'}(x-y)$ at arguments $x$ and
$y$ with $v_F|t-s|+|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|\approx \lambda/k_F$ (where
$v_F=\frac{k_F}{m}$ is the Fermi velocity).
This contribution comes from modes with momenta in
a shell $S_F^{(\lambda)}$ of thickness $k_F/\lambda$ around the Fermi
sphere $S_F$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_F & = & \{\vec{k}\in{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}^d |\, \vec{k}^2 = k_F^2\} \\
S_F^{(\lambda)} & = & \left\{\vec{k}\in{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}^d |\, \mbox{dist}(\vec{k},
S_F)\leq \frac{k_F}{2\lambda} \right\}
\end{eqnarray*}
States of low energy describe electron-hole pairs with momenta
in the vicinity of the Fermi surface of the system.
Let us rewrite (\ref{eq21}) in terms of new variables $\vec{\omega}$,
$p_{\parallel}$ and $p_0$, with $k_F\vec{\omega}\in S_F$, $p_0=k_0$, and
$\vec{k}=(k_F+p_{\parallel})\vec{\omega}$. If $\vec{k}\in S_F^{(\lambda )}$
then $|p_{\|}|\ll k_F$,
and we can approximate the integrand of (\ref{eq21}) by dropping
the $p_{\|}^2$ term in the denominator. For large $\lambda$
and small frequencies,
\begin{equation}\label{propagator}
G^0_{\sigma\sigma'}(x-y) \approx \delta_{\sigma\sigma'}
\int\frac{d\sigma(\vec{\omega})}{(2\pi)^{d-1}}\, k_F^{d-1}\,
e^{ik_F\vec{\omega}(\vec{x}-\vec{y})} G_c(t-s,\vec{\omega}
(\vec{x}-\vec{y}))
\end{equation}
where $d\sigma (\vec{\omega})$ is the uniform measure on the unit sphere, and
$G_{c}$ is the two-dimensional, chiral propagator
\begin{equation}
G_c(\tau,\xi) = -\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d p_0\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d p_{\|}\,
\frac{e^{-ip_0\tau+ip_{\parallel}\xi}}{ip_0 - v_F p_{\parallel}}
\end{equation}
We will set $v_F=1$
in the remainder of this section. Introducing the
complex variable $z = i\tau+\xi$ and
its complex conjugate $\bar{z}$, it is easy to verify that
$G_c(z)$ satisfies
\[
-2i \bar{\partial} G_c(z) = \delta^{(2)}(z)
\]
In other words, $G_c$ is the Green's function of a {\em chiral Dirac
fermion} in 1+1 dimensions. Explicitly,
\begin{equation}
G_c(z) = \frac{i}{\pi z}
\end{equation}
One can further approximate
the $\vec{\omega}$-integration in Eq.\ (\ref{propagator}) by a summation
over discrete directions
$\vec{\omega}_j$ by dividing $S_F^{(\lambda)}$ into $N$ small boxes
$B_{\vec{\omega}_j}$, $j=1,\ldots N$,
of roughly cubical shape: $B_{\vec{\omega}_j}$ is centered at
$\vec{\omega}_j\in S_F$ and has approximate side length $k_F/\lambda$;
note that $N \approx\mbox{const}\,\lambda^{d-1}$. Thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq22}
G^0_{\sigma\sigma'}(x-y) \approx -\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}
\sum_{\vec{\omega}_j} e^{i\vec{\omega}_j(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d p_0\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d p_{\|}\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d p_{\perp}\,
\frac{e^{-ip_0(t-s)+i\vec{p}(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}}{ip_0-p_{\parallel}}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{p}=p_{\parallel}\vec{\omega} + \vec{p}_{\perp}$ is a vector
in $B_{\vec{\omega}_j}-k_F\vec{\omega}_j$, and $p_{0}\in{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}$.
We have shown that, in the scaling limit, the behaviour
of a $d$-dimensional, non-relativistic, non-interacting electron gas
is described by $N$ flavours of free, chiral Dirac fermions
in a $1+1$ dimensional
space-time. The statement is to be understood in an appropriate sense,
since the propagator $G_c(t-s,\vec{\omega}(\vec{x}-\vec{y}))$ actually
depends on the
``flavour index'' $\vec{\omega}$. But the energy of an electron or a hole
with momentum $\vec{k}$ only depends on $p_{\|}$, where $p_{\|}=\vec{k}
\vec{\omega}-k_F$, and $\vec{\omega}=\frac{\vec{k}}{|\vec{k}|}$; it is
proportional to $|p_{\|}|$, just as for relativistic fermions in $1+1$
dimensions.
\subsection{Weakly coupled electrons and the renormalization group (RG)}
\nopagebreak
We have presented a somewhat unusual description of the free fermion
system, because expressions such as (\ref{eq22}) provide a
convenient starting point for treating interacting fermions
by a perturbation expansion.
In particular, one may hope that interesting
physical quantities have an expansion in powers of $1/\lambda$
analogous to the $1/N$ expansion in the Gross-Neveu model.
Later we will see that this is the case for weakly coupled systems,
and, as in the Gross-Neveu model, the large number of flavours $N$
encountered in the mesoscopic regime will play an important r\^{o}le in the
actual calculations. We will, however,
also see that perturbation expansions usually cannot
be applied ``naively'', but have to be improved
by applying renormalization group (RG) methods.
We consider systems with a Euclidean action of the form
\[
S(\psi^*,\psi)=S_0(\psi^*,\psi)+S_I(\psi^*,\psi)
\]
where $S_0(\psi^*,\psi)$ is the quadratic term (\ref{eq20}), and
$S_I(\psi^*,\psi)=g_0P(\psi^*,\psi)$ is some higher order polynomial
interaction to be specified below; we assume that the dimensionless
coupling constant $g_0$ is small.
Since correlation functions of the fermion fields $\Psi^{\#}(x)$
do not have good scaling behaviour, we first split off the
oscillatory factors associated with the ``direction index'' $\vec{\omega}$
(see, e.g., Eq. (\ref{eq22})) by expanding the fermions
\begin{equation}
\Psi(x)=\sum_{\vec{\omega}}e^{i\vec{\omega}\vec{x}}\Psi_{\vec{\omega}}(x)
\end{equation}
into quasi-particle operators $\Psi_{\vec{\omega}}(x)$. We are interested in
calculating {\em connected correlators} (temperature-ordered Green functions)
of the form
\begin{equation}
(\lambda^\alpha)^{2n} \langle \Psi_{\vec{\omega}_1}(\lambda x_1)\cdots
\Psi_{\vec{\omega}_n}(\lambda x_n) \Psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_1'}(\lambda x_1')
\cdots\Psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_n'}(\lambda x_n')\rangle^c_\mu
\end{equation}
at large distance scales $\lambda$; the factor in front of the
bracket, involving the scaling dimension $\alpha$ of the
quasi-particle fields, accounts for the
scaling behaviour of the quasi-particle operators.
Strictly speaking, instead of considering the expectation values
above, one
ought to ``smear out'' the fields $\Psi^\#_{\vec{\omega}}$ with some test
function (an approximate $\delta$- function) $h(\vec{\xi})$:
\[
\Psi_{\vec{\omega},\lambda}^{\#}(x)=
(\lambda)^{-(d+1)}
\int d^{d+1}y\,h((\vec{x}-\vec{y})/\lambda)\Psi^{\#}_{\vec{\omega}}(y)
\]
Because we are interested in the large-scale behaviour, we can work
with test functions $h$ of compact support in momentum space, e.g. with
supp$\,\hat{h}=\{k\in{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}^{d+1}|\,
\vec{k}^2\leq k_F^2\}$. After Fourier transformation, the
connected correlation functions of smeared quasi-particle fields
are given by
\[
(\lambda^{\alpha-d-1})^{2n}\hat{h}(k_1)
\cdots \hat h(k_n')\, \widehat{G^c_{2n}}(k_1/\lambda,\ldots
k_n'/\lambda)
\]
with
\[
\widehat{G^c_{2n}}= \langle\hat{\Psi}_{\vec{\omega}_1}(k_1)\cdots
\hat{\Psi}_{\vec{\omega}_n}(k_n)\hat{\Psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_1'}(k_1')\cdots
\hat{\Psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_n'}(k_n')\rangle^c_\mu
\]
According to Chapter 1, we can express this
correlator in terms of a functional integral
\[
\widehat{G^c_{2n}} =
\frac{1}{\Xi}\int {\cal D} \hat{\psi}^* {\cal D} \hat{\psi}\,
e^{-S(\hat{\psi}^*,\hat{\psi})}\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega}_1}(k_1)\cdots
\hat{\psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_n'}(k_n')
\]
where $\vec{k}_j\in B_{\vec{\omega}_j}-k_F\vec{\omega}_j$, etc. (because of
the restriction on the support of the test functions).
We now decompose the fermion fields into ``slow'' and ``fast'' modes
by writing $\hat{\psi} = \hat{\psi}_<+\hat{\psi}_>$, with
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mbox{supp}\,\hat{\psi}_>\subset{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times({\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}^d \setminus
S_F^{(\lambda)})
& \ & (\mbox{region}\ >)\\
\mbox{supp}\,\hat{\psi}_<\subset{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times S_F^{(\lambda)}
& \ & (\mbox{region}\ <)
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{figure}
\center
\figureBA
\caption{Integrating out degrees of freedom}
\end{figure}
The large-scale behaviour of the system is described by the effective
action $S_{\rm eff}(\hat{\psi}^*_<,\hat{\psi}_<)$ given by
\begin{equation}
e^{-S_{\rm eff}(\hat{\psi}^*_<,\hat{\psi}_<)} =
\frac{1}{\Xi_>}\int {\cal D}\hat{\psi}^*_>{\cal D}\hat{\psi}_>\,
e^{-S(\hat{\psi}^*_>,\hat{\psi}^*_<,\hat{\psi}_>,\hat{\psi}_<)}
\end{equation}
where we perform the functional integral over fast modes only; the
normalization factor $\Xi_>$ is chosen so as to ensure that
$S_{\rm eff}(0,0)=0$. Obviously, $S_{\rm eff}$ depends on our choice of
the scale $\lambda$.
The quadratic part, $S_0$, of the action
splits into two pieces:
\[
S_0(\hat{\psi}^*,\hat{\psi})=S_{0,>}(\hat{\psi}^*_>,\hat{\psi}_>)+
S_{0,<}(\hat{\psi}^*_<,\hat{\psi}_<)
\]
The first term and the normalization factor can be absorbed into the
definition of the integration measure
\[
dP(\hat{\psi}^*_>,\hat{\psi}_>) =
\frac{1}{\Xi_>}{\cal D}\hat{\psi}^*_>{\cal D}\hat{\psi}_>
e^{-S_{0,>}(\hat{\psi}^*_>,\hat{\psi}_>)}
\]
and we have to calculate
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{e^{-S_{\rm eff}(\hat{\psi}^*_<,\hat{\psi}_<)}
\equiv e^{-S_{0,<}(\hat{\psi}^*_<,\hat{\psi}_<)}
\int dP(\hat{\psi}^*_>,\hat{\psi}_>)
e^{-S_I(\hat{\psi}^*_>,\hat{\psi}^*_<,\hat{\psi}_>,\hat{\psi}_<)}}
\nonumber\\
& & =\exp\{-S_{0,<}-\langle S_I\rangle_{G^0_>}
+\frac{1}{2}\langle S_I;S_I\rangle_{G^0_>}
-\frac{1}{3!}\langle S_I;S_I;S_I\rangle_{G^0_>}-\ldots\}\label{eq23}
\end{eqnarray}
The abbreviations
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle A;B\rangle & := & \langle AB\rangle
-\langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle \\
\langle A;B;C\rangle & := &
\langle ABC\rangle-\langle A;B\rangle\langle C\rangle
-\langle C;A\rangle\langle B\rangle-\langle B;C\rangle\langle A\rangle
-\langle A\rangle \langle B\rangle\langle C\rangle
\end{eqnarray*}
etc., denote connected correlators;
the subscript ``$G^0_>$'' indicates that the expectations $\langle (\, .\,)
\rangle_{G^0_>}$ are
calculated with the help of the infrared-cutoff free fermion propagator
$G^0_>$,
in accordance with the functional measure $dP(\hat{\psi}^*_>,\hat{\psi}_>)$.
The second
equality in (\ref{eq23}) states that the effective action
is given by sums over connected diagrams. This is the so-called
{\em linked cluster theorem}. Eq.\
(\ref{eq23}) also shows that $S_{\rm eff}$ contains i.g.\ far more
interaction terms than $S_I$; for weakly coupled systems, however,
the original couplings will remain the dominant ones. The proofs of
equation (\ref{eq23}) and of the linked cluster theorem are standard. We
therefore omit them. {\em Feynman rules}
for the computation of $S_{\rm eff}$
are easily derived (we do not present the details).
In order to analyze the perturbation series in (\ref{eq23}) further,
we must specify the interactions in the system: We assume that the
leading term in $S_I$ is a two-body interaction
\begin{equation}\label{eq24}
S_I(\psi^*,\psi)= \frac{g_0}{2}k_F^{1-d}
\sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}\int d^{d+1}x\,
d^{d+1}y\,
:\psi^*_{\sigma}(x)\psi_{\sigma}(x)
v(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\delta(x^0-y^0)
\psi^*_{\sigma'}(y)\psi_{\sigma'}(y):
\end{equation}
where $v(\vec{x}-\vec{y})$ is a smooth short-range potential (we choose units
such that $\hbar = 1$; the factor $k_F^{1-d}$ then ensures that $g_0$ is
dimensionless).
It is useful to estimate how close to $S_F$ one can get with ``naive''
perturbation theory: The free propagator, $-(ik_0-\vec{\omega}\vec{k})^{-1}$,
is regular in region $>$, it is in fact of order $\lambda/k_F$. The
size of the two-body interaction
associated with the graph
\begin{equation}\figureBC\end{equation}
is therefore roughly equal to $|g_0\lambda^2|$ (which is dimensionless).
The wavy line represents the interaction potential which is of order $g_0$,
the oriented solid lines represent electron ``half-propagators'' each of which
is of order $\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
As long as $\lambda\ll 1/\sqrt{g_0}$, there are
no convergence problems with the perturbation series ---
except that the number of diagrams seemingly grows too fast;
but their relative signs ensure appropriate cancellations (Pauli principle).
This crude estimate
shows that we cannot pass to the limit $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$ without
meeting infrared divergence problems in the perturbation series.
The method to control the scaling limit is RG improved perturbation
theory. It allows us to analyze the large-scale behaviour of the
system by carefully keeping track of the (relative)
growth of the various terms in the effective action (quadratic
part as well as couplings) when the integration over
fermion modes approaches those near the Fermi surface.
In fact, for the interaction (\ref{eq24}), the actual RG computations are not
terribly involved, since $S_{\rm eff}$ has an
expansion in powers of $1/\lambda$, and focusing on the leading order in
$\frac{1}{\lambda}$
drastically reduces the number of diagrams that have to be
calculated.
We shall apply an iterative RG scheme patterned on
Wilson's approach. In the ``zeroth''
step, we choose some large scale $\lambda_0$ such that
$\lambda_0\ll 1/\sqrt{g_0}$ and calculate the corresponding
effective action
$S^{(0)}_{\rm eff}$ perturbatively, as in (\ref{eq23}) --- to
leading order in $1/\lambda_0$.
The action $S^{(o)}_{\rm eff}$ depends on a collection of modes corresponding
to wave vectors that are located in a shell of width
$\frac{k_F}{\lambda_0}$ around the Fermi surface $S_F$.
Although not
essential for our method, we divide this
shell into $N\approx \mbox{const}\,\lambda_0^{d-1}$ sectors (boxes),
as in the previous section.
Furthermore, we rescale all momenta so that, instead of belonging to
$B_{\vec{\omega}_j}$, they are contained in boxes
$\tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}_j}$ of side length $\approx k_F$.
Our RG procedure consists in iterating the following
two steps:
\begin{description}
\item[Dec] Choose some (fixed) integer $M>1$ and integrate over the
fermion modes corresponding to wave vectors in
$S_F^{(\lambda)}\setminus S_F^{(M\lambda)}$ (where $\lambda=M^j\lambda_0$,
for some $j$).
\item[Resc] Divide each sector in $S^{(M\lambda)}$ into $M^{d-1}$
new sectors to restore the cubical shape of the sectors. Then
rescale all momenta by $k\longmapsto \tilde{k}= Mk$.
\end{description}
To determine the RG flow of the couplings, we have to find
out how the various terms in the action transform under rescaling
and which diagrams contribute, during the integration process,
to leading order in $1/\lambda$.
\begin{figure}\center
\figureBB
\caption{The renormalization group procedure}
\end{figure}
\section{The renormalization group flow}
In this chapter we attempt to explicitly implement the renormalization group
procedure described in the last chapter. Our aim is to understand the
renormalization group flow to lowest order in $\frac{1}{\lambda_0}$ and for
small values of $g_0$.
\subsection{Scaling of action and fields}
We shall begin with the discussion of the second step and of the scaling
dimensions of the different terms in the
effective action. Since the decimation of degrees of freedom is most explicitly
described in momentum-space, our renormalization group procedure is
implemented in the momentum-space representation. Thus, we first calculate
the action in terms of the sector fields discussed
in the previous chapter.
Let $\lambda\gg 1$, and assume that the degrees of freedom not lying in the
shell
$S_F^{(\lambda)}$ have already been integrated out. We divide $S_F^{(\lambda)}$ into boxes
of roughly cubical shape and approximate side length
$\frac{k_F}{\lambda}$. The number of such boxes is
$N\approx\omega_{d-1}\lambda^{d-1}$, where $\omega_{d-1}$ is the surface
volume of
the unit sphere in $d$ spatial dimensions. Let $B_{\vec{\omega}}$,
$|\vec{\omega}|=1$, denote the box which is centered at $k_F\vec{\omega}$. The
support of those modes
\begin{equation}
\hat{\psi}_{\sigma}(k)=\int d^{d+1}x\,
e^{i(k_0 t-\vec{k}\vec{x})}\psi_{\sigma}(x)
\end{equation}
that have not been integrated out, yet, is contained in
${\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times S_F^{(\lambda)}$. {\em Sector fields} are
defined as
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(x):=\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times B_{\vec{\omega}}}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\, e^{-i(k_0 t-(\vec{k}-k_F\vec{\omega})\vec{x})}
\hat{\psi}_{\sigma}(k)
\end{equation}
The Fourier transform of $\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(x)$ has support in
${\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times (B_{\vec{\omega}}-k_F\vec{\omega})$, and
\[
\psi_{\sigma}(x)=\sum_{\vec{\omega}} e^{ik_F\vec{\omega}\vec{x}}
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(x)
\]
Let us first look at the quadratic part of the effective action of the modes
localized in the shell
$S^{(\lambda)}_F$. We temporarily assume
that this part has the form (\ref{eq20}) (there will be a finite
wave function renormalization which we are neglecting at this point).
Inserting the Fourier transformed fields yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq30}
S_0(\psi^*,\psi) & = & -\sum_{\sigma}\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}q\,
\hat{\psi}_{\sigma}^*(k)\left(iq_0-\frac{\hbar^2|\vec{q}|^2}{2m}+\mu\right)
\hat{\psi}_{\sigma}(q)(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta (k-q) \nonumber\\
& = & -\sum_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times
(B_{\vec{\omega}}-k_F\vec{\omega})}\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p\,
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}^*(p)\left(ip_0-v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{p}+
O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\right)\right)\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(p)
\end{eqnarray}
with $v_F=\frac{k_F}{m}$. In the last line, we have put the term quadratic in
$p$ into an error term $O(\frac{1}{\lambda^2})$. The leading part of the
inverse propagator in $S_0$ is
of order $O(\frac{1}{\lambda})$. Since we always restrict our
analysis to the leading order in $\frac{1}{\lambda}$, we can omit this
error term in what follows.
Next, we consider the quartic term (\ref{eq24}). We insert
the expansion of the electron fields in terms of sector fields and get
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{S_I(\psi^*,\psi)= g_0 k_F^{1-d}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1,
\ldots\vec{\omega}_4}{\sigma,\sigma'}}\int d^{d+1}x d^{d+1}y\,
e^{-ik_F(\vec{\omega}_1-\vec{\omega}_4)\vec{x}}
e^{-ik_F(\vec{\omega}_2-\vec{\omega}_3)\vec{y}}} \nonumber\\
& & \psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(x)\psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma'}(y)
v(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\delta(x_0-y_0)\psi_{\vec{\omega}_3,\sigma'}(y)
\psi_{\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma}(x) \label{eq31}
\end{eqnarray}
In terms of the Fourier transform of the potential
\[
v(\vec{x})=\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^d k\,e^{i\vec{k}\vec{x}}\hat{v}(\vec{k})
\]
we can write
\[
v(\vec{x})\delta (x^0)=\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,e^{-i(k_0 x^0-\vec{k}\vec{x})}
\hat{v}(\vec{k})
\]
Since we assume that $v(\vec{x})$ is a {\em short-range potential},
$\hat{v}(\vec{k})$ is a smooth function of $\vec{k}$. Applying Fourier
transformation to the sector fields in (\ref{eq31}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{S_I= g_0 k_F^{1-d}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots\vec{\omega}_4}
{\sigma,\sigma'}}\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p_1\cdots\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p_4\int
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d^{d+1}k}\\
& & 2\pi\delta(p_{1,0}-p_{4,0}-k_0)2\pi\delta(p_{2,0}-p_{3,0}+k_0)\\
& & (2\pi)^d\delta(\vec{p}_1-\vec{p}_4-\vec{k}+k_F(\vec{\omega}_1-
\vec{\omega}_2))
(2\pi)^d\delta(\vec{p}_2-\vec{p}_3-\vec{k}+k_F(\vec{\omega}_2-
\vec{\omega}_3))\\
& & \hat{\psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(p_1)
\hat{\psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma'}(p_2)
\hat{v}(\vec{k})
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega}_3,\sigma'}(p_3)
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma}(p_4)
\end{eqnarray*}
where the $p_i$-integrations range over the boxes $B_{\vec{\omega}_i}-
k_F\vec{\omega}_i$. Performing the $k$-integration, we obtain the expression
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{g_0 k_F^{1-d}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots\vec{\omega}_4}
{\sigma,\sigma'}}\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p_1\cdots\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p_4\,
2\pi\delta(p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}-p_{3,0}-p_{4,0})}\\
& & (2\pi)^d\delta(\vec{p}_1+\vec{p}_2-\vec{p}_3-\vec{p}_4+
k_F(\vec{\omega}_1+\vec{\omega}_2-\vec{\omega}_3-\vec{\omega}_4))\\
& & \hat{v}(\vec{p}_1-\vec{p}_4+k_F(\vec{\omega}_1-\vec{\omega_4}))
\hat{\psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(p_1)
\hat{\psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma'}(p_2)
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega}_3,\sigma'}(p_3)
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma}(p_4)
\end{eqnarray*}
Considering the argument of the second $\delta$-distribution appearing in the
integrand, the
part containing the $\vec{\omega}_i$'s is of order $k_F$, while the part
involving the $p_i$'s is only of order $\frac{k_F}{\lambda}$. Therefore, for
the
argument of this $\delta$-distribution to vanish, the term containing the
$\vec{\omega}_i$'s must be zero (to lowest order in
$\frac{1}{\lambda}$). Furthermore, as the Fourier transform $\hat{v}$ of the
interaction is a smooth function, its value under the integral sign is well
approximated by $\hat{v}(k_F(\vec{\omega}_1-\vec{\omega}_4))$, dropping the
box momenta. Consequently we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq35}
\lefteqn{S_I= g_0 k_F^{1-d}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots\vec{\omega}_4}
{\sigma,\sigma'}}
\hat{v}(k_F(\vec{\omega}_1-\vec{\omega}_4))
\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p_1\cdots\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p_4}\nonumber\\
& & (2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(p_1+p_2-p_3-p_4)
\hat{\psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(p_1)
\hat{\psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma'}(p_2)
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega}_3,\sigma'}(p_3)
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma}(p_4)\label{eq32}\\
& & +\mbox{\ terms of higher order in\ }\frac{1}{\lambda}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Instead of studying the quartic term of the original (microscopic) action of
the electron gas, we should actually study the quartic (and higher-degree)
terms of the {\em effective action} at scale $\frac{k_F}{\lambda}$, with
$\lambda=\lambda_0\gg 1$ and $|g_0 \lambda_0^2| \ll 1$. Using cluster
expansions to integrate out the degrees of freedom labeled by momenta
$\vec{k}\not\in S_F^{(\lambda_0)}$, one can show that, for weakly coupled
systems, the quartic term of the effective action at scale
$\frac{k_F}{\lambda_0}$ still has the form given in eq. (\ref{eq35}), except
that $\hat{v}(k_F (\vec{\omega}_1 -\vec{\omega}_4))$ is replaced by a coupling
function $g(\vec{\omega}_1 ,..,\vec{\omega}_4) \approx \hat{v}(k_F (\vec{\omega}_1
-\vec{\omega}_4))$, with $\vec{\omega}_1+\vec{\omega}_2
=\vec{\omega}_3+\vec{\omega}_4$. (Moreover, terms of degree larger than four in
$\psi^*$, $\psi$ are very small.)
Next, we determine the scaling dimensions of action and fields. We rescale the
fields
in such a way, that the supports of the Fourier transformed, rescaled sector
fields are boxes of
roughly cubical shape and with side length approximately equal to $k_F$, and
such that
the quadratic part of the action remains unchanged to leading order in
$\frac{1}{\lambda}$. The first condition implies, that we should scale momenta
according to $p=\tilde{p}/\lambda$. In configuration space this corresponds to
the scaling $x=\lambda\xi$. Thus the scaled sector fields are
\[
\tilde{\psi}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\xi)=\lambda^{\alpha}
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\lambda\xi)
\]
where the {\em scaling dimension} $\alpha$ of the sector fields still has to
be determined. The Fourier transformed sector fields are
\[
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p})=
\lambda^{\alpha-d-1}\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}
(\frac{\tilde{p}}{\lambda})
\]
The support of $\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}$ lies in
$\tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}=\lambda (B_{\vec{\omega}}-k_F\vec{\omega})$. Indeed,
$\tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}$ is a roughly cubical box with approximate
side length $k_F$. Inserting the scaled, Fourier-transformed fields into the
quadratic part (\ref{eq30}) of the action yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_0 & = & -\lambda^{2(d+1-\alpha)}\lambda^{-(d+1)}
\sum_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times\tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}\tilde{p}\,
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}^*_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p})
\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}(i\tilde{p}_0-v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{\tilde{p}})
+O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\right)\right)
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p})\\
& = & -\lambda^{d-2\alpha}
\sum_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times\tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}\tilde{p}\,
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}^*_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p})
\left(i\tilde{p}_0-v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{\tilde{p}}
+O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}\right)\right)
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p})
\end{eqnarray*}
For the free part of the action to have the same form as for the unscaled
fields , we have to choose $\alpha=\frac{d}{2}$. Thus the scaled fields are
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\psi}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\xi) & = & \lambda^{\frac{d}{2}}
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\lambda\xi)\\
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p}) & = &
\lambda^{-(\frac{d}{2}+1)}
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p}/\lambda)
\end{eqnarray}
Let us determine the scaling behaviour of a term in the action of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{S_n=\frac{1}{n!}\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1+\cdots
+\vec{\omega}_n=\vec{\omega}_{n+1}+\cdots +\vec{\omega}_{2n}}
{\sigma_1,\ldots\sigma_{2n}}}
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p_1\cdots\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p_{2n}}\nonumber\\
& & w(p_1,\ldots p_{2n})
\hat{\psi}^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma_1}(p_1)\cdots
\hat{\psi}_{\vec{\omega}_{2n},\sigma_{2n}}(p_{2n})
(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta (p_1+\cdots -p_{2n})
\end{eqnarray}
The function $w$ is assumed to be homogeneous of degree $\kappa\in{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}$,
i.e.
\[
w(sp_1,\ldots sp_{2n})=s^{\kappa}w(p_1,\ldots p_{2n})
\]
Expressing the sector fields in terms of the scaled fields thus yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{S_n=\frac{1}{n!}\lambda^{-((n-1)d-1+\kappa)}
\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1+\cdots
+\vec{\omega}_n=\vec{\omega}_{n+1}+\cdots +\vec{\omega}_{2n}}
{\sigma_1,\ldots\sigma_{2n}}}
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}\tilde{p}_1\cdots\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}\tilde{p}_{2n}}\nonumber\\
& & w(\tilde{p}_1,\ldots \tilde{p}_{2n})
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma_1}(\tilde{p}_1)\cdots
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega}_2n,\sigma_{2n}}(\tilde{p}_{2n})
(s\pi)^{d+1}\delta (\tilde{p}_1+\cdots -\tilde{p}_{2n})
\end{eqnarray}
The exponent of $\lambda$ is called the {\em scaling dimension} of $S_n$,
i.e., the
scaling dimension of $S_n$ is $-((n-1)d-1+\kappa)$. With $n=2$ and $\kappa =0$,
the quartic term (\ref{eq32}) turns out to have scaling dimension
$1-d$. Furthermore, we see that quartic terms of higher degree in the momenta
have a
smaller scaling dimension. The same is true for contributions to the
effective action that are of higher degree in the fields.
The effective action in terms of the rescaled fields thus reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{action}
\lefteqn{S_{\rm eff}=Z^{-1}\sum_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}\tilde{p}\,
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}^*_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p})
(i\tilde{p}_0-v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{\tilde{p}})
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p})}\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}}Z^{-2}
\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1+\vec{\omega}_2=\vec{\omega}_3+
\vec{\omega}_4}{\sigma,\sigma'}}
g(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)
\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}\tilde{p}_1\cdots\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}\tilde{p}_4\\
& & \hat{\tilde{\psi}}^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(\tilde{p}_1)
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}^*_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma'}(\tilde{p}_2)
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega}_3,\sigma'}(\tilde{p}_3)
\hat{\tilde{\psi}}_{\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma}(\tilde{p}_4)
(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(\tilde{p}_1+\tilde{p}_2-\tilde{p}_3-\tilde{p}_4)
\nonumber\\
& & +\mbox{\ terms of higher order in\ }\frac{1}{\lambda}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In expression (\ref{action}) for $S_{\rm eff}$ we have introduced a wave
function
renormalization constant $Z$, in order to indicate that the quadratic part of
the effective action may flow under renormalization (decimation of degrees of
freedom and rescaling). In the next section we shall derive renormalization
group flow equations for $Z,\ v_F$ and the coupling constants
$g(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$. These equations will determine the
dependence of $Z,\ v_F$ and $g(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$ on the
scale parameter $\lambda$.
The expression for $S_{\rm eff}$ on the right hand side of (\ref{action}) shows
that the inverse propagator of the sector fields
$\hat{\tilde{\psi}}^\#_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(\tilde{p})$ is diagonal in
the sector index $\vec{\omega}$ and that it only depends on $p_0$ and $p_\| =
\vec{\omega}\vec{p}$ (but {\em not} on $\vec{p}_\bot =
\vec{p}-(\vec{\omega}\vec{p})\vec{\omega}$). These features are an aspect of the
principle of {\em dimensional reduction} from $d+1$ to $1+1$ dimensions.
Indeed,
we observe a rather striking formal similarity between expression
(\ref{action}) and the action of the Gross-Neveu model of interacting,
relativistic Dirac fields in $1+1$ space-time dimensions: The sector index
$\vec{\omega}$ plays the r\^{o}le of the {\em flavour index} of the Dirac fields
in the
Gross-Neveu model; the number of distinct sector indices,
$\approx\mbox{const}\
\lambda^{d-1}$, corresponds to the number, $N$, of flavours of fermions in the
Gross-Neveu model. The coupling constants,
$\lambda^{1-d}g(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$,
correspond to the coupling constant, $\frac{g_{GN}}{N}$, of the quartic term
in the Gross-Neveu model. (The correspondence between $\frac{g_{GN}}{N}$ and
$\lambda^{1-d}g(\vec{\omega},-\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}',-\vec{\omega}')
\equiv \lambda^{1-d}g_{BCS}(\vec{\omega}\cdot \vec{\omega}')$ is particularly
precise, as discussed in Chapter 4.)
A powerful method to analyze the Gross-Neveu model is the $\frac{1}{N}$-
expansion. This suggests to analyze non-relativistic, interacting electron
gases with the help of a $\frac{1}{\lambda}$- expansion (with
$\frac{1}{\lambda} \sim \frac{1}{N}$, for $d=2$), and this is precisely what
we shall do in the remaining sections, following beautiful ideas of Feldman,
Magnen, Rivasseau and Trubowitz.
In the Gross-Neveu model, $Z$ and the velocity of light (corresponding to
$v_F$) do {\em not} flow under renormalization, to leading order in
$\frac{1}{N}$. This suggests that, for the electron gas, $Z$ and $v_F$ do not
flow under renormalization to leading order in $\frac{1}{\lambda}$; a
prediction that will turn out to be correct!
In the following sections, we shall always work in momentum space and with
rescaled sector fields. We shall thus omit the ``hat'' and the ``tilde'' from
the rescaled fields on momentum space. Our analysis will be based on the
assumption that $\lambda_0\gg 1$ and that all coupling constants
$g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4) =
g(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)\mid_{\lambda=\lambda_{0}}\ \ll 1$.
We shall determine the renormalization flow to leading order in
$\frac{1}{\lambda_{0}}$ (sometimes omitting terms that are of leading order
in $\frac{1}{\lambda_{0}}$, but of high order in
$g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$).
\subsection{Integrating out modes}
In the last section, we have understood how the different parts of
the effective action of an interacting electron gas behave under rescaling.
Here we turn to the second step of the renormalization group method --- the
decimation of degrees of freedom. Initially, we assume the
degrees of freedom in ${\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}^d\setminus
S_F^{(\lambda_0)}$ to be integrated out, as discussed in Sect. 2.2. In the
j'th step, the degrees of
freedom localized in $S_{F}^{(M^{j-1}
\lambda_0)}\backslash S_{F}^{(M^{j}\lambda_0)}$ have to be eliminated, where
$M$ is a positive integer $\geq 2$. Thus the
scaling factor at scale $j$ is $\lambda_j=\lambda_0 M^j$.
At scale 0 we are given $Z^{(0)}$, $v^{(0)}_F$ and functions
$g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$ of the unit vectors
$\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots ,\vec{\omega}_4$, with
$\vec{\omega}_1+\vec{\omega}_2=\vec{\omega}_3+\vec{\omega}_4$. As announced,
we assume that $\lambda_0 \gg 1$ and $\mbox{max}_{\vec{\omega}_1,
\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3}\lbrace
g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)\rbrace\ \ll 1$.
>From this point on, we omit the spin indices when no confusion
arises. We propose to first discuss the possible
intersector scattering geometries, as we would like to better understand
the structure of the coupling constants
$g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$.
How many independent $g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$'s exist ? For $d = 3$ we
suppose that $\vec{\omega}_3 \neq -\vec{\omega}_4$. On the unit sphere,
there are $N^{(0)} \approx \mbox{const}\,\lambda_0^{d-1}$ different
$\vec{\omega}$'s. All
choices $\vec{\omega}_1$, $\vec{\omega}_2$ with $\vec{\omega}_1
+ \vec{\omega}_2 = \vec{\omega}_3 + \vec{\omega}_4$ lie on a cone containing
$\vec{\omega}_3$ and $\vec{\omega}_4$
with symmetry axis $\vec{\omega}_3 + \vec{\omega}_4$. Therefore there are
$O(\lambda_0^{d-2})$ choices. Only when $\vec{\omega}_3 =
-\vec{\omega}_4$, there are $N^{(0)}\approx\mbox{const}\,
\lambda_0^{d-1}$ choices.
Similarly, in $d=2$, there are exactly two choices for $\vec{\omega}_1$,
$\vec{\omega}_2$ , if $\vec{\omega}_3 \neq -\vec{\omega}_4$, and
$N^{(0)} \approx \mbox{const}\,\lambda_0$ choices if $\vec{\omega}_3 =
-\vec{\omega}_4$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center\figureCJ
\caption{Sector momentum conservation in $d=3$}
\end{figure}
Couplings involving incoming states with $\vec{\omega}_3 \neq
-\vec{\omega}_4$ shall be denoted by
$g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$
Couplings that involve sector indices with
$\vec{\omega}_3 = -\vec{\omega}_4$ or, equivalently,
$\vec{\omega}_1=-\vec{\omega}_2$ shall be denoted by
$g_{\,{\rm BCS}}^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_4)$
(for {\em BCS-scattering}). The latter will prove to be crucial for the
understanding
of the superconducting state. We observe that, because of
rotation invariance, the coupling $g_{\,{\rm BCS}}$ is only a function of the
angle between $\vec{\omega}_1$ and $\vec{\omega}_4$.
Technically, we will carry out the decimation of degrees of freedom using
perturbation theory. If, under the renormalization group transformation,
$g^{(j)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)=
g(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)|_{\lambda=\lambda_j}$
increases with growing
j (and decreasing distance to the Fermi surface), the validity of perturbative
results eventually breaks down.
We start explicit calculations with the renormalization of the
electron propagator when passing from scale $\lambda_0$ to $\lambda_1$.
We know that every interaction squiggle provides a factor
$\lambda_0^{1-d}g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots\vec{\omega}_4)$.
What are the dominant radiative corrections of the electron propagator? The
two possible one loop diagrams are
\begin{equation}\figureCA\label{eq3}\end{equation}
We call them {\em tadpole} and {\em turtle graph}. We shall
estimate their amplitudes. There is one interaction squiggle of order
$\frac{1}{\lambda_0^{d-1}}$ and $N^{(0)}\approx\mbox{const}\,\lambda_0^{d-1}$
choices for the
inner particle sectors, denoted by $\vec{\omega}^{'}$. Therefore, both these
graphs correspond to contributions of order zero in $\frac{1}{\lambda_0}$. It
will prove to be
useful to
introduce a simplified graphical notation. Namely, we replace the
squiggle by a point, i.e., each
vertex is represented by a cross with two incoming and two outgoing
lines. The new vertex stands for the sum of the two old vertices that yield
the same new vertex. For example, the diagrams in (\ref{eq3})
are now represented by one graph, namely
\begin{equation}\figureCB\end{equation}
What about combinations of these first order corrections?
\begin{equation}\figureCC\end{equation}
For every vertex corresponding to a factor $\frac{1}{\lambda_0^{d-1}}$, there
are
$N^{(0)}\approx\mbox{const}\,\lambda_0^{d-1}$ loop sectors to choose from.
Therefore all these graphs correspond to amplitudes of order one. But, as a
matter of fact, one observes
with amazement that all their amplitudes vanish. The reason is
that, in
all these graphs, there is an oriented loop involving two particle lines with
the same
sector label $\vec{\omega}^{'}$ and the same box momenta and energies. For
each such loop, the
integration over the loop momentum yields a factor
\[\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_0\,\left(
\frac{1}{ik_0-v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{k}}\right) ^2\]
in the total amplitude. The two poles of the integrand coincide, and the
integrand decays quadratically at infinity. The residue
theorem then tells us that the integral vanishes.
Furthermore, we know that graphs which are not {\em one particle irreducible
(1PI)}
yield a vanishing amplitude. Indeed, a graph of this type has the following
form
\begin{equation}\figureCD\end{equation}
and one has to sum over $\vec{\omega}^{'}$ and to integrate over $k$ with
$\frac{k_F}{M}\leq|\vec{\omega}'\vec{k}|\leq k_F$. The empty circles stand for
arbitrary
subdiagrams with the indicated external legs. Because of momentum
conservation, there is a factor $\delta_{\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}'}\,
\delta(p-k)$. Hence only $\vec{\omega}'=\vec{\omega}$
contributes. But, in this case, the argument of the $\delta$-distribution never
vanishes since $|\vec{\omega}\vec{p}|<\frac{k_F}{M}$. Consequently the
amplitude is zero.
The graphs not taken into account so far are of order
$O(1/\lambda_0)$ or higher. As an example, let us consider the graph
\begin{equation}\figureCE\end{equation}
Clearly, $\vec{\omega}_3$ is determined by $\vec{\omega}$, $\vec{\omega}_1$
and $\vec{\omega}_2$. Thus there remain two summations, over $\vec{\omega}_1$
and $\vec{\omega}_2$. If $\vec{\omega}_1$ is different
from $-\vec{\omega}$, then the number of $\vec{\omega}_2$'s satisfying the
relations $|\vec{\omega}+\vec{\omega}_2-\vec{\omega}_1|=1$ is of order
O($\lambda_0^{d-2}$). Hence the number of summands is at most of order
O($\lambda_0^{2d-3}$). Since each of the squiggles gives a factor
$\frac{1}{\lambda_0^{d-1}}$, the amplitude corresponding to this graph is of
order
O$(1/\lambda_0$), as claimed.
Conclusion: The corrections of lowest order in $\frac{1}{\lambda_0}$ to
the electron propagator arise
from the tadpole and the turtle graph. In order to identify the
renormalized quantities more easily, we work with a renormalized action in its
most general form (dropping terms of higher order in $\frac{1}{\lambda}$,
$\lambda = \lambda_0,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,...$)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq316}
\lefteqn{S_{\rm eff}=-Z^{-1}\sum_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\, ^{d+1}k\,
\psi^*_{\vec{\omega}\sigma}(k)(ik_0 -v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{k})
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(k)}\nonumber\\
& & -\lambda Z^{-1}\sum_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\, ^{d+1}k\,
\psi^*_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(k)\delta\mu\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(k)
+\ O(\frac{1}{\lambda})
\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}}Z^{-2}
\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1+\vec{\omega}_2=\vec{\omega}_3+
\vec{\omega}_4}{\sigma,\sigma^{'}}}g(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots\vec{\omega}_4)
\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\, ^{d+1}k_1\cdots\,\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\, ^{d+1}k_4\label{eq2} \\
& & \psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(k_1)\psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma^{'}}
(k_2)\psi_{\vec{\omega}_3,\sigma^{'}}(k_3)\psi_{\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma}(k_4)
(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta (k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4)\nonumber\\
& & + \ O(\frac{1}{\lambda^d})
\end{eqnarray}
On the right side of (\ref{eq316}), the wave vectors $k = (k_0,\vec{k})$ are
constrained to belong to ${\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R} \times \tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}$, for a given
sector momentum $\vec{\omega}$.
The factor $\lambda$ in front of the second term expresses the
fact that this term has scaling dimension $1$. Denoting the inverse propagator
by $\Gamma$, the sum of all quadratic terms in the effective action can be
written as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma,\vec{\omega}}\int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\, ^{d+1}k\,\psi^*_{\sigma,
\vec{\omega}}(k)\Gamma_{\vec{\omega}}(k)\psi_{\sigma,\vec{\omega}}(k)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{\vec{\omega}}(0) & = & -\lambda Z^{-1}\,\delta\mu \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial p_0}\Gamma_{\vec{\omega}}(p)\mid_{p=0} &
= & -i\,Z^{-1} \\
\vec{\omega}(\vec{\nabla}_{\vec{p}}\Gamma_{\vec{\omega}}
(p)\mid_{p=0}) & = & v_F Z^{-1}
\end{eqnarray}
Because the tadpole and the turtle graph correspond to $p$-independent
amplitudes, there are no corrections
to $Z$ and $v_F$ in leading order in $\frac{1}{\lambda_0}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^{(1)} & = & Z^{(0)}+O((g^{(0)})^2/\lambda_0) \\
v_F^{(1)} & = & v^{(0)}_{F}+O((g^{(0)})^2/\lambda_0)
\end{eqnarray}
Let us compute the amplitude of the tadpole graph renormalizing the
chemical potential:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\lambda_0^{d-1}}\sum_{\vec{\omega}^{'},\sigma^{'}}
g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}^{'},\vec{\omega}^{'},
\vec{\omega}) \int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d
k_{\perp}\int_{\frac{k_F}{M}\leq |k_{\parallel}|\leq k_F}\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_{\parallel}
\ \lim_{\tau\downarrow 0}\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_0\,
\frac{\mbox{e}^{-i\tau k_0}}{ik_0-v_F k_{\parallel}}
\end{equation}
Applying the residue theorem, the $k_0$-integration yields a constant equal to
$-1$ for $k_\|>0$ and zero for $k_\|<0$.
Thus the
$k$-integration gives a result of order 1. The factor $\lambda_0^{1-d}$
is cancelled by the summation over sectors. Therefore the
tadpole amplitude is $O(g^{(0)})$. Direct
computation shows that the turtle diagram is of the same order.
Comparing with (\ref{eq2}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\delta\mu^{(1)}=O(g^{(0)}/\lambda_0)
\end{equation}
The renormalization of the chemical potential deforms the singular surface in
the propagator --- the Fermi surface --- and modifies the original form
(\ref{action}) of the effective action. This will be cured by a
change of variables discussed at the end of this section.
Let us now turn to the renormalization of the
couplings $g$. To determine $g^{(1)}$, we have to sum over all connected
graphs with four external legs. In fact, the graphs that are not 1PI give
a vanishing contribution. These graphs are of the form
\begin{equation}\figureCF\end{equation}
As in the renormalization of the electron propagator, the amplitude of such a
graph vanishes, as a consequence of momentum conservation.
The tree level contribution to $g^{(1)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$
is just $g^{(0)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$. The one-loop
correction is described by the diagrams
\begin{equation}\label{eq326}\figureCG\end{equation}
The first diagram corresponds to the sum of the following
three graphs
\begin{equation}\figureCH\end{equation}
The amplitude is of order at most O($(g^{(0)})^2/\lambda_0^d$). In fact, for
$\vec{\omega}_i\neq\vec{\omega}_f $, the number of $\vec{\omega}$'s
contributing to the $\vec{\omega}$-summation is
$O(\lambda_0^{d-2})$, due to sector momentum conservation. Consequently the
amplitude
is of order $O((g^{(0)})^2/\lambda_0^d)$. But when $\vec{\omega}_i=
\vec{\omega}_f$ the number of terms in the sum is actually
$O(\lambda_0^{d-1})$.
We thus must take a closer look at the integration involved in the calculation
of
the amplitudes. The $\vec{k}$-integration extends over $\vec{k}$'s satisfying
$\frac{k_F}{M}<|\vec{\omega}\vec{k}|<k_F$ and $\frac{k_F}{M}<|\vec{\omega}
(\vec{k}+\vec{p}_i-\vec{p}_f)|<k_F$.
Explicitly the loop integral is given by
\[\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^d k\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_0\,\frac{1}{ik_0-v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{k}}\ \
\frac{1}{i(k_0+p_{i,0}-p_{f,0})-v_F\vec{\omega}(\vec{k}+\vec{p_i}-
\vec{p_f})}\]
In order for the integral to be different from zero, the two poles must not
lie
in the same (upper or lower) half plane, i.e., $\vec{\omega}
\vec{k}$ and $\vec{\omega}(\vec{k}+\vec{p}_i-\vec{p}_f)$ must have opposite
signs. The set of $\vec{k}$'s satisfying all three conditions is of measure
zero
since $|\vec{\omega}(\vec{p}_i-\vec{p}_f)|<\frac{2k_F}{M}$. Hence the integral
vanishes. Thus
the amplitude of the graph is of order $O((g_{(0)})^2/\lambda_0^d)$, as
claimed, except for exceptional configurations of external sector momenta
($\mid \vec{\omega}_i - \vec{\omega}_f \mid \sim \frac{1}{\lambda_0}$).
Next, we turn to the second diagram in (\ref{eq326}) corresponding to the graph
\begin{equation}\figureCI\end{equation}
When $\vec{\omega}_i\neq -\vec{\omega}_i'$, the number of
nonvanishing terms in the $\vec{\omega}$-summation is $O(\lambda_0^{d-2})$, and
the amplitude is at most of order $O((g^{(0)})^2/\lambda_0^d)$. But, for the
BCS configuration,
$\vec{\omega}_i=-\vec{\omega}'_i$, the situation is completely different.
There are now
$O(\lambda_0^{d-1})$ possible choices for the internal particle momenta, and
no miracle makes the amplitude vanish. In fact, the loop integration for
$\vec{p}_i=\vec{p}_f=0$ is
\begin{equation}
\int_{\tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^d k\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_0\,\frac{1}{k_0^2+(v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{k})^2}
\end{equation}
which is strictly positive. Thus the amplitude is of order
$O((g^{(0)})^2/\lambda_0^{d-1})$.
Inserting the correct scale factors, we get the following flow equations for
the
quartic couplings:
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{(1)} & = & g^{(0)}+O((g^{(0)})^2/\lambda_0)\ ,\ \mbox{for}
\ \vec{\omega}_i\neq -\vec{\omega}_i'
\\
g_{\,{\rm BCS}}^{(1)} & = & g_{\,{\rm BCS}}^{(0)}
+O((g_{\,{\rm BCS}}^{(0)})^2)\ \ ,\ \mbox{for}
\ \vec{\omega}_i= -\vec{\omega}_i'
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, for the BCS couplings, the tree level does not yield the complete
contribution to lowest order in $\frac{1}{\lambda_0}$! In order to understand
the flow of the BCS couplings, we have to
investigate the loop corrections in more detail. This will be
done in the next section.
The iteration step from scale $j$ to scale $j+1$ is analyzed in a similar
manner as from scale $0$ to scale $1$. Neglecting vertices of degree $> 4$ in
$\psi^*$ and $\psi$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^{(j+1)} & = & Z^{(j)}+O((g^{(j)})^2/\lambda_j)\\
v_F^{(j+1)} & = & v_F^{(j)}+O((g^{(j)})^2/\lambda_j)\\
\delta\mu^{(j+1)} & = & O(g^{(j)}/\lambda_j) \\
g^{(j+1)} & = & g^{(j)}+O((g^{(j)})^2/\lambda_j)
\ ,\ \mbox{for}
\ \vec{\omega}_i\neq -\vec{\omega}_i' \label{eq335}
\\
g_{{\rm BCS}}^{(j+1)} & = & g_{{\rm BCS}}^{(j)}+O((g^{(j)}_{{\rm BCS}})^2)
\ ,\ \mbox{for}
\ \vec{\omega}_i= -\vec{\omega}_i'
\end{eqnarray}
We observe that the couplings $g^{(j)}(\vec{\omega}_1,...,\vec{\omega}_4)$, for
$\vec{\omega}_i\neq -\vec{\omega}_i'$, do essentially not
flow. But the BCS couplings may change considerably
under the renormalization group flow.
If the BCS channel is turned off, perturbation theory is valid, and the
system approaches a Landau-Fermi liquid. If $g_{{\rm BCS}}^{(j)}$ grows in
$j$ then
perturbation theory breaks down. In this situation the system becomes a
superconductor, as studied in more detail in the next section and in Chapter 4.
The unlimited growth of $g_{{\rm BCS}}^{(j)}$ in $j$ then reflects the
fact that we are performing a perturbative analysis about a state that is
not a ground state. As a matter of fact, superconductors do not possess a
Fermi surface.
At this point, a comment on contributions of degree $> 4$ in $\psi^*$, $\psi$
to the effective action is appropriate. The decimation of degrees of freedom
(i.e., the integration over degrees of freedom) in an iteration step $j$,
$j=0,1,2,...$, of the renormalization group procedure produces terms like
\begin{equation}
\figureCS\label{note1}
\end{equation}
of scaling dimension $-(d-1)(k-1)$ in the effective action
$S_{\rm eff}^{(j)}$. The form and renormalization flow of the dominant
contributions to these terms can be studied quite explicitly. In the next
iteration step, from $j$ to $j+1$, these terms yield contributions to the
dimensionless coupling constants $g^{(j+1)}$ of the terms of degree 4 in
$S_{\rm eff}^{(j+1)}$ that turn out to be of order $1=(\frac{1}{\lambda_j})^0$,
even for incoming sector momenta
$\vec{\omega}_i\neq -\vec{\omega}_i'$,
\begin{equation}
\figureCT\label{note2}
\end{equation}
and hence may be important. They are, however, of higher order in
$g^{(j)},g^{(j-1)},...$ . A careful analysis (presented elsewhere) reveals
that these contributions induce a finite flow of the couplings $g^{(j)}$
towards RPA-(random phase approximation) type fixed points. For short-range
two-body interactions, and if $g^{(0)} \ll 1$, this represents an {\em
unimportant}
modification of (\ref{eq335}). However, for long-range (e.g. Coulomb) two-body
interactions, or if $g^{(0)}$ is not small, the modification in the
renormalization flow of the $g^{(j)}$'s due to the terms of degree $> 4$ in
$\psi^*$, $\psi$ in the effective action is {\em essential} and is intimately
connected with the phenomenon of {\em screening}.
A detailed discussion of these
matters would go beyond the scope of these notes.
Next, we analyze the renormalization of the chemical
potential. At scale $j$, the effective action is given by (we use unscaled
fields)
\begin{eqnarray*}
S^{(j)}_{\rm eff} & = & -Z^{(j)\,-1}\sum_{\sigma,\vec{\omega}}
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}^*(k)(ik_0-v_F^{(j)}\vec{\omega}\vec{k}+
\delta\mu^{(j)})
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(k)\\
& & +\mbox{\ higher degree terms}
\end{eqnarray*}
We may perform a shift, $k_{\parallel}\rightarrow k_{\parallel}-\frac{\delta
\mu^{(j)}}{v_F^{(j)}}$, of the $k_{\parallel}$-variable. Note that
$\frac{\delta\mu^{(j)}}{v_F^{(j)}}=k_F O(\frac{g^{(j)}}{\lambda_j})$. Thus, if
the
coupling $g^{(j)}$ remains approximately constant under the RG flow and
sufficiently small, the shift of the $k_{\|}$-variable will always be smaller
than $\frac{k_F}{\lambda_j}$.
The integration
measure is invariant under this coordinate transformation. The transformed
action reads
\[S_{\rm eff}^{(j)}=-Z^{(j)\,-1}\sum_{\sigma,\vec{\omega}}\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}^*(k)(ik_0-v_F^{(j)}k_{\parallel})
\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}(k)
+\mbox{\ higher order terms}\]
Hence $S_{\rm eff}^{(j)}$ is again of the form (\ref{action}) (except that
the domain over which $\vec{k}$ is integrated has changed slightly).
\begin{figure}
\center\figureCR
\caption{Renormalization of the Fermi surface}
\end{figure}
Our results motivate the following interpretation of the renormalization group
transformation: Assuming that the interacting system has a Fermi surface
(i.e., that the BCS channel is turned off),
the RG procedure enables us to
approach the renormalized Fermi surface stepwise, starting from the Fermi
surface of the noninteracting
system. In the
limit $j\rightarrow\infty$, we reach the physical Fermi surface of the
interacting
system. Imposing renormalization conditions on $Z^{(\infty)}$,
$v_F^{(\infty)}$, $g^{(\infty)}$
amounts to solving a ``final
condition problem'' in the space of running coupling constants.
The RG recursion
generates the discrete dynamics of coupling constants, as the scale parameter
$j$ is varied, but instead of initial conditions, experiment fixes
final conditions. What we actually do is that we integrate the equations for
the running couplings backwards from the Landau-Fermi liquid fixed point
($j=\infty$) down
to $j=0$. The values
$\mu^{(0)}$, $Z^{(0)}$, $v_F^{(0)}$, and $g^{(0)}$
parametrize a {\em microscopic system}, whereas
$\mu^{(\infty)}$, $Z^{(\infty)}$,
$v_F^{(\infty)}$ and $g^{(\infty)}$ parametrize a {\em universality
class of scaling limits describing macroscopic states}.
\subsection{The BCS channel}
In the previous section we observed that the one-loop correction in the
renormalization group flow of $g_{\,{\rm BCS}}$ is of order zero in $\frac{1}{
\lambda}$; $g_{\,{\rm BCS}}$ might be a {\em relevant coupling}.
To reach a better understanding of $g_{\,{\rm BCS}}$,
we determine the flow of $g_{\,{\rm BCS}}$, taking into account all
corrections of order zero in $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ (but ignoring terms of degree
$>4$ in $\psi^*$ and $\psi$ in the effective actions; see (\ref{note1}),
(\ref{note2})). We omit the scale index when no confusion may arise.
First, we have to determine all four-legged diagrams corresponding to
corrections to
$g_{\,{\rm BCS}}$ of order zero in $\frac{1}{\lambda}$. These are precisely
those
diagrams whose amplitude is of order $O(\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}})$. Every
graph with four or more external legs can be constructed from a uniquely
determined diagram containing no two-legged subgraphs. This is done by
replacing each inner line by an appropriate graph with two external legs.
We denote by
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}\figureCK\end{equation}
the sum of all graphs with two external legs; i.e., in a diagram
we have to replace each such symbol by the sum of all two-legged diagrams.
Let us consider an arbitrary
four- or more legged diagram with no two-legged subdiagrams, with all inner
lines carrying this modified electron propagator line. We shall
compute the amplitude of such a graph by just replacing the electron
propagator by the amplitude of the modified electron propagator line. (To see
why this is correct, we expand each modified propagator into
the corresponding sum of terms. Every summand is the amplitude of a specific
diagram
to which a combinatorial factor is assigned that is, in general, smaller than the combinatorial
factor belonging to that diagram. But one easily proves that
summing up all terms corresponding to a given diagram yields the correct
factor.)
What are the connected diagrams with four external legs whose amplitude is of
order $O(\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}})$? Consider a four-legged graph with n
interaction
squiggles. The squiggles provide a factor of order
$\lambda^{-n(d-1)}$. There are $2n-2$ inner lines. But the $\delta$-functions
of sector momentum conservation restrict the sum over the $\vec{\omega}$'s
to $n-1$ independent sector momenta. Thus, in order for the amplitude
to be of order $O(\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}})$, {\em all} the $n-1$ sector
momentum
summations must extend over the entire $(d-1)$-dimensional Fermi sphere! In
this case, the diagrams
\begin{equation}\label{eq3b}\figureCL\end{equation}
with $n\geq 0$, are of order $O(\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}})$, unless a miracle
happens that makes some of them vanish. Using the above argument, one can
prove that the graphs (\ref{eq3b}) are the {\em only} four-legged
diagrams with no two-legged subdiagrams which are of order $O(\frac{1}{
\lambda^{d-1}})$.
We conclude that if we do not include terms of degree $>4$ in $\psi^*$, $\psi$
in the effective action then all the diagrams that yield a correction to
$g_{BCS}$ of
order zero in $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ are contained in the set of graphs built
from (\ref{eq3b}) by replacing all the inner lines by (\ref{eq4}). In fact,
in (\ref{eq4}) only the graphs of order zero in $\frac{1}{\lambda}
$ have to be taken into account. Let us consequently define
\begin{equation}\label{eq5}\figureCM\end{equation}
as the sum of all two-legged graphs corresponding to corrections of order zero
in $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ to the quadratic part of the effective action. The
diagrams that have to be computed are
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}\figureCN\end{equation}
with $n\in{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}I\hspace{-3.6pt}N}$. In our computation we just have to replace the electron
propagators in (\ref{eq3b}) by the renormalized ones in (\ref{eq5}). It is
well known that the renormalized electron propagator is given by
\begin{equation}
\mbox{amplitude of\ }\figureCOa = -(ik_0-v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{k}+
\mbox{amplitude of\ }\figureCOb )^{-1}
\end{equation}
where only amputated 1PI graphs with amplitude of order zero in
$\frac{1}{\lambda}$
are included on the right hand side. The results discussed in the last section
then show that
\begin{equation}
\mbox{amplitude of\ }\figureCP = -(ik_0-v_F\vec{\omega}\vec{k}+\lambda
\delta\mu_1)^{-1}
\end{equation}
where $\delta\mu_1$ is the renormalization of the chemical potential, and
only contributions of first
order in $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ are taken into account; $\delta\mu_1$ depends on
$Z$, $v_F$ and $g$.
Now we are able to compute the renormalized value of $g_{\,{\rm BCS}}$. The
amplitude
of (\ref{eq6}) with zero incoming and outgoing box momenta is given by
\[
\left( \frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}}\right)^{n+1}
\sum_{\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots\vec{\omega}_n}
(-1)^n\beta^n
g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}_n)
g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega}_n,\vec{\omega}_{n-1})\cdots
g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}')
\]
and $\beta$ is a strictly positive number given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta & = & \int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_{\perp}\,\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_{\|}\,\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_0\,
\frac{1}{ik_0-v_F k_{\|}+\lambda\delta\mu_1}\ \
\frac{1}{-ik_0-v_F k_{\|}+\lambda\delta\mu_1}
\nonumber\\
& = & \int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_{\perp}\,\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_{\|}\,\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d k_0\,
\frac{1}{k_0^2+(v_Fk_{\|}-\lambda\delta\mu_1)^2} > 0
\end{eqnarray}
We find that the renormalized value of $g_{\,{\rm BCS}}$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{g^{(j+1)}_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')=}\nonumber\\
& & g^{(j)}_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')+
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j^{d-1}}\right)^n
\sum_{\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots\vec{\omega}_n}
(-1)^n\beta_j^n g^{(j)}_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}_n)\cdots
g^{(j)}_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}')
\label{eq7}\\
& & +O\left(\frac{g^{(j)}}{\lambda_j}\right) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In order to get a more explicit expression for the flow equation (\ref{eq7}),
it is
useful to expand the BCS couplings,
$g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}') \equiv
g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\angle (\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}'))$, into spherical harmonics
\begin{equation}
g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}g_l h_l(
\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
h_l (\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}'):=\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\ \ \ \ }c}
\frac{1}{\pi (1+\delta_{l,0})}\cos (l\angle (\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}'))
& d=2 \\
\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}P_l\left(\frac{\vec{\omega}\cdot\vec{\omega}'}
{|\vec{\omega}||\vec{\omega}'|}\right) & d=3
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
$P_l$, $l\in{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}I\hspace{-3.6pt}N}$, are the Legendre polynomials. For $d=2$, we assume
O(2)-invariance of the potentials (instead of only SO(2)-invariance). The
normalizations of the functions $h_l$ have been chosen in such a way that
\begin{equation}
\int_{|\vec{\omega}|=1}d\sigma(\vec{\omega}_1)\,
h_l(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}_1)
h_{l'}(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}')=\delta_{l,l'}h_l(\vec{\omega},
\vec{\omega}')
\end{equation}
Because
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}}\sum_{\vec{\omega}}(\,\cdot\,)=\int_{|\vec{\omega}|=1}
d\sigma(\vec{\omega})\,(\,\cdot\,)\ +O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}\right)
\end{equation}
the r.h.s. of the flow equation (\ref{eq7}) becomes (we omit the sub- and
superscripts $j$)
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')+
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^n\beta^n
\int_{|\vec{\omega}_i|=1}d\sigma(\vec{\omega}_1)\,\cdots
d\sigma(\vec{\omega}_n)\,
g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}_n)\cdots
g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega})}\\
& = & \sum_{l=0}^{\infty}g_l h_l(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')
+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^n\beta^n\sum_{l_i \geq 0}
g_{l_0}\cdots g_{l_n}\delta_{l_0,l_1}\cdots\delta_{l_{n-1},l_n}
h_{l_0}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')\\
& = & \sum_{\l=0}^{\infty}(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n\beta^n g_l^{n+1})
h_l(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}') \\
& = & \sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\frac{g_l}{1+\beta g_l}h_l(\vec{\omega},
\vec{\omega}')
\end{eqnarray*}
up to terms of order $\frac{1}{\lambda}$. The flow equation for the BCS
couplings hence takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq8}
g^{(j+1)}_l = \frac{g_l^{(j)}}{1+\beta_j g_l^{(j)}}
+O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\right)\ \ \ ,\ l\in{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}I\hspace{-3.6pt}N}
\end{equation}
where $\beta_j$ is positive and approximately independent of $j$; it depends
on $Z^{(j)}$, $v_F^{(j)}$ and $g^{(j)}$.
The flow equations for different angular momenta, $l$, decouple to lowest
order in
$\frac{1}{\lambda}$. But at order
$\frac{1}{\lambda}$, the flow equations for different $l$'s are coupled
({\em Kohn-Luttinger effect}).
Before we analyze the flow of the couplings, we study the r\^{o}le
played by electron spin. The potential $v(\vec{x})$ was supposed to be
independent
of spin. Thus the couplings $g^{(j)}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)$
are spin-independent, too. We thus divide the quartic term in the effective
action into a spin-singlet and a spin-triplet part. We define
\begin{equation}\label{pairing}
\phi^{\stackrel{\raisebox{-2pt}{\scriptsize $s$}}{t}}_{\vec{\omega}_1,
\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma,\sigma'}(k_1,k_2):=\frac{1}{2}
(\psi_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(k_1)\psi_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma'}(k_2)\mp
\psi_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma'}(k_1)\psi_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma}(k_2))
\end{equation}
Clearly $\phi^{\stackrel{\raisebox{-2pt}{\scriptsize $s$}}{t}}_{
\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma,\sigma'}=\mp\phi^{\stackrel{
\raisebox{-2pt}{\scriptsize $s$}}{t}}_{\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma',
\sigma}$, and hence $\phi^s_{\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma,
\sigma}=0$ ($\phi^s$ will correspond to spin-singlet pairing, and $\phi^t$ to
spin-triplet pairing). The quartic term in the action becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}}Z^{-2}
\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1 +\vec{\omega}_2 =
\vec{\omega}_3+\vec{\omega}_4}{\sigma,\sigma'}}
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k_1\,\cdots\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k_4\,
(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4)} \\
& & \{\frac{1}{2}
(g(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4)+
g(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_4,\vec{\omega}_3))
\psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(k_1)\psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma'}(k_2)
\phi^s_{\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma',\sigma}(k_3,k_4) \\
& & +\frac{1}{2}
(g(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4)-
g(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_4,\vec{\omega}_3))
\psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma}(k_1)\psi^*_{\vec{\omega}_2,\sigma'}(k_2)
\phi^t_{\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma',\sigma}(k_3,k_4)\}
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, we define the singlet and the triplet couplings as
\begin{equation}
g^{\stackrel{\raisebox{-2pt}{\scriptsize $s$}}{t}}
(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4):=
\frac{1}{2}(g(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4)\pm
g(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_4,\vec{\omega}_3))
\end{equation}
Because of the property that
$g(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4)=
g(\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_4,\vec{\omega}_3)$
we see that
\begin{equation}
g^{\stackrel{\raisebox{-2pt}{\scriptsize $s$}}{t}}
(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4)=\pm
g^{\stackrel{\raisebox{-2pt}{\scriptsize $s$}}{t}}
(\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4)=\pm
g^{\stackrel{\raisebox{-2pt}{\scriptsize $s$}}{t}}
(\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_4,\vec{\omega}_3)
\end{equation}
Using these symmetry properties, the quartic term in the effective action is
found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\lambda^{d-1}}Z^{-2}
\sum_{\stackrel{\vec{\omega}_1 +\vec{\omega}_2 =
\vec{\omega}_3+\vec{\omega}_4}{\sigma,\sigma'}}
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k_1\,\cdots\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k_4\,
(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4)} \nonumber\\
& & \{g^s (\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4)
\phi^{s\ *}_{\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma',\sigma}(k_1,k_2)
\phi^{s}_{\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma',\sigma}(k_3,k_4) \\
& & +\{g^t (\vec{\omega}_1,\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4)
\phi^{t\ *}_{\vec{\omega}_2,\vec{\omega}_1,\sigma',\sigma}(k_1,k_2)
\phi^{t}_{\vec{\omega}_3,\vec{\omega}_4,\sigma',\sigma}(k_3,k_4)\}
\hspace{3cm}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., the quartic term is the sum of a singlet and a triplet part. The
coupling of the singlet
part is $g^s$, and the coupling of the triplet part $g^t$. In terms of the
original BCS couplings, $g^s$ and $g^t$ are given by
\begin{equation}
g^{\stackrel{\raisebox{-2pt}{\scriptsize $s$}}{t}}_{\,{\rm BCS}}
(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')=\frac{1}{2}
(g_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')\pm g_{BCS}
(\vec{\omega},-\vec{\omega}'))
\end{equation}
Using that $\angle (\vec{\omega},-\vec{\omega}')=\angle (\vec{\omega},
\vec{\omega}')+\pi$, the functions $h_l$ can be seen to satisfy
$h_l (\vec{\omega},
-\vec{\omega}')=(-1)^l h_l(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')$. Consequently the
singlet and triplet BCS couplings are
\begin{eqnarray}
g^s_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}') & = &
\sum_{q=0}^{\infty}g_{2q}h_{2q}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')\\
g^t_{\,{\rm BCS}}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}') & = &
\sum_{q=0}^{\infty}g_{2q+1}h_{2q+1}(\vec{\omega},\vec{\omega}')
\end{eqnarray}
In the expansion of $g^s_{\,{\rm BCS}}$, only {\em even} angular momenta
appear,
and
the expansion of $g^t_{\,{\rm BCS}}$ only involves {\em odd} angular momenta,
as required by the Pauli principle.
We now return to the analysis of the renormalization group flow. The flow
equations (\ref{eq8}) can be written in the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq9}
g^{(j+1)}_l -g^{(j)}_l = -\frac{\beta_j g^{(j)\ 2}_l}{1+\beta_j g^{(j)}_l}
+O\left( \frac{g^{(j)\:2}}{\lambda_j}\right)
\end{equation}
Instead of studying this difference equation we propose to investigate the
corresponding differential equation. The differential flow equation is
obtained in the limit where the size, $M-1$, of the scale change in an
iteration step tends to zero. Let us write $g^{(j)}_l\equiv g^{(\lambda_j)}_l$,
and similarly
for all the other running coupling constants. We define
\begin{equation}
g_l(t):=g_l^{(e^t\lambda_0)}\ \ ,\ \ g(t):=g^{(e^t\lambda_0)}
\ \ ,\ \ Z(t):=Z^{(e^t\lambda_0)}\ \ ,\ \ v_F(t):=v_F^{(e^t\lambda_0)}
\end{equation}
Consider a scale $\lambda = e^t\lambda_0$ and set $M=e^{t'-t}$,
$t'>t$. We divide both sides of (\ref{eq9}) by $t'-t$ and take the limit $t'
\searrow t$. The l.h.s. yields $\frac{d}{dt}g_l(t)$. The coefficient
$\beta = \beta(t',t)$
vanishes in the limit $t'\searrow t$, and only terms linear in
$t'-t$ have to be kept on the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq9}). Thus we linearize
$\beta(t',t)$ :
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \beta (t',t)=(t'-t)\gamma(t)+O((t'-t)^2)\\
& & \gamma (t)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t'}\beta(t',t)\mid_{t'=t}\ >0
\end{eqnarray}
The positivity of $\gamma$ follows from the monotone growth of $\beta(t',t)$
in $t'$. Contributions to $\beta$ corresponding to diagrams with two or more
loops are of
order $O((t'-t)^2)$. Thus, for the calculation of $\gamma$, only one-loop
diagrams
have to be taken into account; in particular, we don't have to calculate
corrections to the electron propagator as we did
in the calculation of $\beta$. Taking the limit $t'\searrow t$, the r.h.s.
of (\ref{eq9}), divided by $t'-t$ becomes
\[
-\gamma g_l(t)^2+O(e^{-t}g(t)^2)
\]
For the error term the same argument as above applies, and we conclude that
only one-loop diagrams contribute. We thus obtain the flow
equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq10}
\frac{d}{dt}g_l(t)=-\gamma g_l(t)^2+O(e^{-t}g(t)^2)
\end{equation}
where $\gamma = \gamma(t,Z(t),v_F(t),g(t))$ is positive, independent of $l$,
and approximately independent of $t$.
Of course, we could have found these flow equations by just looking at all
possible one-loop graphs, namely
\[\figureCQ\]
The first one yields the first term on the right side in the flow equation and
the second graph
the error term.
We propose to determine the flow described by (\ref{eq10}), neglecting the
error term, and, in accordance with the results of the previous section,
assuming that $v_F$, $Z$ and $g$
essentially do not flow. Then $\gamma$ may be approximated by a positive
constant $\gamma_0$. Thus we have to solve the differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq11}
\frac{d}{dt}g_l = -\gamma_0 g_l^2
\end{equation}
The solution of this equation is easily found to be
\begin{equation}
g_l(t)=\frac{g_l(0)}{1+\gamma_0 g_l(0)t}
\end{equation}
Note that if $g_l(0) < 0$ the solution blows up at a scale
\begin{equation}\label{blowup}
t=-\frac{1}{\gamma_0 g_l(0)}\ \ \ , \mbox{i.e. , for}\ \ \
\lambda =e^{-\frac{1}{\gamma_0 g_l(0)}}\lambda_0
\end{equation}
Thus if there is an angular momentum channel, $l$, with attractive
interactions ($g_l(0)<0$) the flow seems to diverge at a finite value of t.
But this just means that perturbation theory breaks down when $t\approx
-(\gamma_0 g_l(0))^{-1}$, and we shall have to employ nonperturbative methods.
The failure of perturbative methods is due to the circumstance that we are
expanding around the wrong state !
Seemingly, everything is fine if $g_l(0)\geq 0 \ \forall l$. However, we
have
to remember that in (\ref{eq11}) we have omitted the error term which couples
the flows of the running couplings $g_l$ for different values of $l$. Without
fine-tuning of the microscopic two-body potential, it will typically happen
that $g_l(t)<0$, for some $l$, at some scale $t$. At that point, $g_l(t)$ will
start to grow
untill perturbation theory breaks down, and the ground state of the system
will be superconducting. Thus, generically, a rotationally invariant system
of non-relativistic interacting electrons will be a superconductor for small
enough temperatures. This is the celebrated Kohn-Luttinger effect first
studied in this fashion by Feldman, Magnen, Rivasseau and Trubowitz.
\section{Spontaneous breaking of gauge invariance, and superconductivity}
In the last chapter, we have argued that if some BCS coupling $g_l^{(j_0)}$
becomes {\em negative} at some scale $\lambda_{j_0}$ then $g_l^{(j)}$ grows in
$j$, for $j > j_0$, untill it becomes so large that our perturbative treatment
breaks down. This phenomenon is the signal for an instability of the RG fixed
point around which we are doing perturbation theory. Indeed, the Landau-Fermi
liquid state is {\em not} the true ground state of the system anymore, and we
expect that the RG flow drives the system towards a new RG fixed point
describing a {\em superconductor}. The global U(1)-symmetry of non-relativistic
many-body theory (gauge invariance of the first kind) turns out to be
spontaneously broken in the new (stable) ground state of the system.
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze superconducting ground states and
the associated breaking of gauge invariance. This is not an entirely simple
story, and we therefore focus our attention on the simplest example, that of
an {\em s-wave (BCS) superconductor}.
Thus, we consider a system with the property that, at some scale $\lambda_0
\gg 1$ (with $|g_0 \lambda_0^2| \ll 1$), $g_{l=0}^{(0)} < 0$ and
$|g_{l}^{(0)}| \ll -g_0^{(0)}$, for $l=1,2,3,...$ . According to the results
of Chapter 3, there is then some $j_{sc}\approx - \frac{1}
{\gamma_0 g_0^{(0)}\ln M}$, see (\ref{blowup}), such that at scale
$\lambda_{j_{sc}}>\lambda_0$ $g_{0}^{(j_{sc})} \ll 0$, $|g_{l}^{(j_{sc})}| \ll
-g_0^{(j_{sc})}$, for $l=1,2,3,...$ , and (for $\vec{\omega}_1 \neq -
\vec{\omega}_2)$ $|g^{(j_{sc})}(\vec{\omega}_1,\ldots,\vec{\omega}_4)|
\ll -g_0^{(j_{sc})}$.
This suggests that we neglect all terms of degree $\geq 4$ (in $\psi^*,\
\psi$) in the effective action of the system at scale $\lambda_{j_{sc}}$,
{\em except the s-wave BCS term} with coupling constant
$\frac{g_0^{(j_{sc})}}{\lambda_{j_{sc}}^{d-1}}$. The resulting effective field
theory is the one first considered by Nambu and Gorkov.
There is some useful notation to be introduced:
Let $[\vec{\omega}]$ be the ray through the origin containing
$\vec{\omega}$ and $-\vec{\omega}$. We might think of $\vec{\omega}$ and
$-\vec{\omega}$ as the two chiralities of a $1+1$ dimensional system of
relativistic fermions. We define field variables
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]\uparrow} :=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\uparrow}\\
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\uparrow}
\end{array} \right) & , &
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]\downarrow} :=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\downarrow}^*\\
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\downarrow}^*
\end{array} \right)\\
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]\uparrow} :=
(\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\uparrow}^*,
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\uparrow}^*) & , &
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]\downarrow} :=
(\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\downarrow},
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\downarrow})
\end{eqnarray}
We thus group together field variables belonging to sectors on the same
ray. Ordered according to
spin indices, we consider them as entries of a four-component
quasi-particle field
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq43}
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]} :=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]\uparrow}\\
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]\downarrow}
\end{array} \right) & , &
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]} :=
(\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]\uparrow},
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]\downarrow})
\end{eqnarray}
named after Nambu and Gorkov. Let ${\cal V}_{[\vec{\omega}]}$ denote the
two-dimensional, complex vector space whose elements are of the form
$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{\vec{\omega}}\\
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}}
\end{array} \right)$, and let ${\cal V}_{\rm spin}$ denote the two-dimensional,
complex vector space whose elements are SU(2) spinors
$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{\uparrow}\\
\psi_{\downarrow}
\end{array} \right)$. We can think of the four-component object
$\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]}$ defined in (\ref{eq43}) as being an element of
${\cal V}_{\rm spin}\otimes{\cal V}_{[\vec{\omega}]}$. Stressing analogies to 1+1
dimensional, relativistic models (``dimensional reduction''), we also define
gamma matrices
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma^{0} :=
1_{2}\otimes \sigma_{1} & , &
\gamma^{1} :=
1_{2}\otimes \sigma_{2}
\end{eqnarray}
($\sigma_{1} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array} \right)$
and $\sigma_{2} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0
\end{array} \right)$ are Pauli matrices). Then we see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]\uparrow}=\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]\uparrow}^*
\sigma_1 & , &
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]\downarrow}=
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]\downarrow}^*\sigma_1
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}=\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]}^*\gamma^0
\end{equation}
The effective action at scale $j_{sc}$, simplified by omitting all subleading
terms of degree 2 (curvature of Fermi surface) and $\geq 4$ ($g^{(j_{sc})},\
g^{(j_{sc})}_{l>0}\approx 0 \ll -g_{l=0}^{(j_{sc})}$\ ,\ldots) is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{S_{\rm eff}(\bar{\psi},\psi) =
\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\int[\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}
(\gamma^{0}\partial_{t}-v_{F}\gamma^{1}\vec{\omega}\vec{\nabla})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]}]d^{d+1}x}\nonumber\\
&& +\ \frac{g^{(j_{sc})}_0}{4\lambda_{j_{sc}}^{d-1}}
\sum_{[\vec{\omega}],[\vec{\omega}']}
\int [ \bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}(\sigma_{1}\otimes 1_{2})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}']}(\sigma_{1}\otimes 1_{2})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}']}\nonumber\\
&& +\ \bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}(\sigma_{2}\otimes 1_{2})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}']}(\sigma_{2}\otimes 1_{2})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}']} ]\label{action1}\,
d^{d+1}x
\end{eqnarray}
It only includes the s-wave BCS interactions and
has the following basic features:
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\arab{enumi})}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm 1)] The action strongly resembles the one of a 1 + 1 dimensional,
relativistic quantum field theory with $N = \frac{N^{(j_{sc})}}{2}$
fermion flavours and quartic self-interaction, such as the chiral
Gross-Neveu model. Its infrared
properties are closely related to those of
the chiral Gross-Neveu model. The perturbative infrared renormalization
around the Fermi surface and the $\frac{1}{N}$-expansion are virtually
identical.
\item[\rm 2)] The action, written as in (\ref{action1}), exhibits a manifest
global
U(1)-symmetry, given by
%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]} \rightarrow
e^{i \alpha (\sigma_{3} \otimes 1_{2})}\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]}\\
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]} \rightarrow
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}e^{-i \alpha (\sigma_{3} \otimes 1_{2})}
\end{eqnarray*}
%
with $\alpha\in [0,2\pi)$.
\end{enumerate}
The generator of this symmetry is the particle number operator $N$; it is the
usual gauge symmetry of the first kind. In the superconducting phase of the
system, this symmetry is spontaneously broken. We recall that the
{\em Mermin-Wagner theorem} states that, for a field theory model in $d+1=2$
dimensions with a continuous symmetry such as the chiral Gross-Neveu model,
the continuous symmetry {\em cannot} be broken spontaneously. In the chiral
Gross-Neveu model, continuous symmetry breaking only occurs in the
$N\rightarrow\infty$ limit. In spite of the formal similarities between
nonrelativistic many-body theory in $d\geq 2$ space dimensions, in the
Nambu-Gorkov approximation, and the chiral Gross-Neveu model in one space
dimension (``dimensional reduction''), the Mermin-Wagner theorem does
actually {\em not} apply to the former, and spontaneous breaking of the U(1)
gauge symmetry {\em is} possible in many-body theory (for $d=2$ at temperature
$T=0$, and for $d\geq 3$ at sufficiently small temperatures) !
By direct calculation we see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}(\sigma_{1}\otimes 1_{2})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]} & = &
\lbrace
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\uparrow}^{*}
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\downarrow}^{*} +
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\uparrow}^{*}
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\downarrow}^{*} +
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\downarrow}
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\uparrow} +
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\downarrow}
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\uparrow}
\rbrace\nonumber\\
& = & 2\{\phi^s_{\vec{\omega},-\vec{\omega},\downarrow,\uparrow}(x,x)
+\phi^{s\ *}_{\vec{\omega},-\vec{\omega},\downarrow,\uparrow}(x,x)\}
\label{BCSparm1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}(\sigma_{2}\otimes 1_{2})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]} & = &
- i \lbrace
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\uparrow}^{*}
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\downarrow}^{*} +
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\uparrow}^{*}
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\downarrow}^{*} -
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\downarrow}
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\uparrow} -
\psi_{\vec{\omega}\downarrow}
\psi_{-\vec{\omega}\uparrow}
\rbrace\nonumber\\
& = & 2i\{\phi^s_{\vec{\omega},-\vec{\omega},\downarrow,\uparrow}(x,x)
-\phi^{s\ *}_{\vec{\omega},-\vec{\omega},\downarrow,\uparrow}(x,x)\}
\label{BCSparm2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi^s$ has been defined in (\ref{pairing}). Thus, these quadratic
expressions correspond to real and imaginary part of the BCS order parameter,
respectively.
The action $S_{\rm eff}(\bar{\psi},\psi)$ defined in (\ref{action1}) can be
replaced by a more convenient, {\em equivalent} action, $\tilde{S}$, that is
quadratic in $\bar{\psi}$ and $\psi$ and depends on a complex Lagrange
multiplier field $\phi = \phi_{1} + i\phi_{2}$. The new action is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{action2}
\lefteqn{\tilde{S}(\bar{\psi},\psi,\bar{\phi},\phi) =
\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\int[\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}
(\gamma^{0}\partial_{t}-v_{F}\gamma^{1}\vec{\omega}\vec{\nabla})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]}]d^{d+1}x}\nonumber\\
&& + g
\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\int[\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}(\sigma_{1}\otimes 1_{2})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\phi_{1} -
\bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}]}(\sigma_{2}\otimes 1_{2})
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}]} \phi_{2}]
d^{d+1}x
\\
&& +\frac{1}{2}\int(\phi_{1}^{2} + \phi_{2}^{2})d^{d+1}x \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $2 g^{2} = - \frac{g^{(j_{sc})}_0}{\lambda_{j_{sc}}^{d-1}}>0$.
We note that, under the U(1) symmetry discussed in remark 2) above, the field
$\phi$ transforms as $\phi\rightarrow e^{2i\alpha}\phi$.
We emphasize that $S_{\rm eff}(\bar{\psi},\psi)$ and
$\tilde{S}(\bar{\psi},\psi,\bar{\phi},\phi)$ are equivalent in terms of their
physical content: It is easily checked that, after functionally integrating
out the $\phi$-field,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int {\cal D}\phi_{1} {\cal D}\phi_{2}
e^{-\tilde{S}(\bar{\psi},\psi,\bar{\phi},\phi)}
= \mbox{const}\ e^{-S_{\rm eff}(\bar{\psi},\psi)}
\end{eqnarray*}
the original action $S_{\rm eff}(\bar{\psi},\psi)$ is restored in the
exponent.
But $\tilde{S}(\bar{\psi},\psi,\bar{\phi},\phi)$ is
much easier to work with, because it is quadratic in the fields
$\bar{\psi}$ and $\psi$. The Bose field $\phi$ will turn out to describe the
{\em Cooper pairs} of electrons.
The interaction between fermion- and Lagrange
multiplier fields is described by
\begin{equation}
g
\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\int[\phi(x) \bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}],\uparrow}
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}],\downarrow}
+
\bar{\phi}(x) \bar{\psi}_{[\vec{\omega}],\downarrow}
\psi_{[\vec{\omega}],\uparrow}]\,
d^{d+1}x
\end{equation}
This expression shows how interaction vertices between electrons (holes) and
bosons $\phi$, $\bar{\phi}$ are
organized in the Nambu-Gorkov theory. One Nambu-Gorkov vertex is equivalent to
the following four vertices (each arrow points to a
$\psi_{\vec{\omega},\sigma}$):
\begin{equation}
\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,80)(45,0)
\multiput(0,0)(80,0){4}{\Vertex(60,20){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(160,0){2}{\ArrowLine(30,20)(60,20)}
\multiput(0,0)(160,0){2}{\ArrowLine(90,20)(60,20)}
\multiput(0,0)(160,0){2}{\ArrowLine(140,20)(170,20)}
\multiput(0,0)(160,0){2}{\ArrowLine(140,20)(110,20)}
\multiput(0,0)(80,0){4}{\DashLine(60,55)(60,20){5}}
\multiput(60,10)(80,0){4}{g}
\multiput(65,50)(160,0){2}{$\bar{\phi}$}
\multiput(145,50)(160,0){2}{$\phi$}
\put(30,25){$\vec{\omega},\uparrow$}
\put(65,25){$-\vec{\omega},\downarrow$}
\put(110,25){$-\vec{\omega},\downarrow$}
\put(145,25){$\vec{\omega},\uparrow$}
\put(190,25){$\vec{\omega},\downarrow$}
\put(225,25){$-\vec{\omega},\uparrow$}
\put(270,25){$-\vec{\omega},\uparrow$}
\put(305,25){$\vec{\omega},\downarrow$}
\end{picture}}
\end{equation}
One can join only the first two vertices with each other and the second two
vertices with each other. There are two possibilities of joining the first two
vertices :
\begin{equation}
\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,80)(45,0)
\multiput(0,0)(80,0){4}{\Vertex(60,20){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(160,0){1}{\ArrowLine(30,20)(60,20)}
\multiput(0,0)(160,0){1}{\ArrowLine(140,20)(170,20)}
\multiput(0,0)(160,0){1}{\ArrowLine(140,20)(60,20)}
\multiput(160,0)(160,0){1}{\ArrowLine(30,20)(60,20)}
\multiput(160,0)(160,0){1}{\ArrowLine(140,20)(170,20)}
\multiput(160,0)(160,0){1}{\ArrowLine(140,20)(60,20)}
\multiput(0,0)(80,0){4}{\DashLine(60,55)(60,20){5}}
\multiput(60,10)(80,0){4}{g}
\multiput(65,50)(160,0){2}{$\bar{\phi}$}
\multiput(145,50)(160,0){2}{$\phi$}
\put(30,25){$\vec{\omega},\uparrow$}
\put(85,25){$-\vec{\omega},\downarrow$}
\put(145,25){$\vec{\omega},\uparrow$}
\put(190,25){$-\vec{\omega},\downarrow$}
\put(245,25){$\vec{\omega},\uparrow$}
\put(305,25){$-\vec{\omega},\downarrow$}
\end{picture}}
\end{equation}
and two possibilities of joining the second two vertices, obtained by
exchanging $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow\,$.
Along a string of electron (hole)
propagator lines, the different sector labels $\vec{\omega}$, $-\vec{\omega}$
and boson fields $\phi$, $\bar{\phi}$ have to occur in an alternating pattern.
Because the first two and the second two vertices never intercombine,
the spins can be omitted if a factor of 2 is attached to each loop.
In the following, we focus our attention on the boson fields, and we will
attempt to eliminate the Nambu-Gorkov fermions. Because
$\tilde{S}(\bar{\psi},\psi,\bar{\phi},\phi)$ is quadratic in $\bar{\psi}$ and
$\psi$, one can perform the fermionic functional integration explicitly:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\int {\cal D}\bar{\psi} {\cal D}\psi\,
e^{-\tilde{S}(\bar{\psi},\psi,\bar{\phi},\phi)} =
\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{d+1}x\, |\phi(x)|^{2}\right) }\cdot
\nonumber\\
&& \cdot\ \det[(\gamma^{0}\partial_{t}-v_{F}\gamma^{1}\vec{\omega}
\vec{\nabla}) +
g
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \phi(x) \\
\bar{\phi}(x) & 0
\end{array} \right)\otimes 1_{2}]
\end{eqnarray}
After normalizing the right hand side by division
through $\det[\gamma^{0}\partial_{t}-v_{F}\gamma^{1}\vec{\omega}\vec{\nabla}]$,
the determinant
\begin{equation}
\det[1 +
\frac{1}{\gamma^{0}\partial_{t}-v_{F}\gamma^{1}\vec{\omega}\vec{\nabla}}
\lbrace g
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \phi(x) \\
\bar{\phi}(x) & 0
\end{array} \right)\otimes 1_{2}\rbrace]
\end{equation}
can be evaluated using the identity
\begin{equation}\label{opid}
\det(1 + A) = \exp[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}{\rm Tr}(A^{n})] \label{eq:det}
\end{equation}
The term $\mbox{Tr}\,(A^n)$ is the amplitude of the n-th
order one-loop diagram
\begin{equation}
\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,120)(55,-20)
\multiput(150,0)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(300,120)(0,0)
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(15,40){2}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(85,40){2}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){2}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){2}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){2}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){2}}
\DashLine(67.5,70.31)(72.5,78.97){2}
\DashLine(15,40)(5,40){2}
\DashLine(85,40)(95,40){2}
\DashLine(32.5,70.31)(27.5,78.97){2}
\DashLine(32.5,9.69)(27.5,1.03){2}
\DashLine(67.5,9.69)(72.5,1.03){2}
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}}
\end{equation}
with a factor of
$\lbrace g
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \phi(x) \\
\bar{\phi}(x) & 0
\end{array} \right)\otimes 1_{2}\rbrace$
on each external line and a Nambu-Gorkov propagator on each segment of the
loop. From our discussion of the possible pairings of Nambu-Gorkov
vertices we conclude that loops with an odd number of vertices vanish.
The expression in the exponent on the right side of (\ref{opid}) reduces to
$- \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n}Tr(A^{2n})$. Calculating $\mbox{Tr}\,(A^{2n})$ in terms of the
original electron (hole) propagators, the spin summation can be absorbed in
an overall factor of 2 cancelling the $\frac{1}{2}$ in the
exponent. For a fixed $[\vec{\omega}]$, a 2n-loop looks like
\begin{equation}\label{loopg1}
\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,120)(55,-20)
\multiput(150,0)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(300,120)(0,0)
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\ArrowArcn(50,40)(17,90,-270)}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Text(48,40)[l]{k}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(15,40){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(85,40){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){3}}
\DashLine(67.5,70.31)(72.5,78.97){2}
\DashLine(15,40)(5,40){2}
\DashLine(85,40)(95,40){2}
\DashLine(32.5,70.31)(27.5,78.97){2}
\DashLine(32.5,9.69)(27.5,1.03){2}
\DashLine(67.5,9.69)(72.5,1.03){2}
\Text(78,82)[l]{$\bar{\phi}(p_{2n})$}
\Text(101,38)[l]{$\phi(p_{1})$}
\Text(78,1)[l]{$\bar{\phi}(p_{2})$}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Text(87,60)[l]{$\vec{\omega}$}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Text(82,22)[l]{$-\vec{\omega}$}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Text(44,83)[l]{$-\vec{\omega}$}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Text(58,62)[l]{g}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Text(58,17)[l]{g}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){1}{\Text(75,38)[l]{g}}
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}}
\end{equation}
inserting alternatingly electron (hole) sector labels $\vec{\omega}$, $-
\vec{\omega}$ and boson fields $\phi$ and $\bar{\phi}$ along the loop line.
In order to compute the full amplitude of
such a graph in momentum space, we have to integrate over the loop momentum
$(k_{0},\vec{k})$ for arbitrary external momenta $(p_{j,0},\vec{p}_{j})$,
$j=1,...,2n$, which is a difficult task.
It will turn out to be useful to expand the amplitude corresponding to
(\ref{loopg1}) into a sum of terms that look somewhat more
manageable: Anticipating spontaneous symmetry breaking, we assume that, in a
(superconducting, extremal) ground state of the system, the Bose field $\phi$
has a {\em non-zero} expectation value $\phi_c$. The modulus of $|\phi_c|$
is determined by the values of physical parameters (the density of the
system, the strength of $g_0^{(j_{sc})}$, etc.), while the {\em phase}
of $\phi_c$,
an angle in $[0,2\pi)$, is only fixed after suitable symmetry breaking
{\em boundary conditions} have been imposed --- as usual in the study of
systems
with spontaneously broken symmetries. We thus decompose the Bose field $\phi$
into a constant part, $\phi_c$, and a fluctuation field, $\chi(x)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(x) & = & \phi_{c} + \chi(x) \nonumber\\
\bar{\phi}(x) & = & \bar{\phi}_{c} + \bar{\chi}(x)
\end{eqnarray}
The field $\chi(x)$ describes small fluctuations of the
Cooper-pair condensate
around $\phi_c$. The decomposition of $\phi(x)$ induces a
decomposition of the amplitude corresponding to (\ref{loopg1}) into a
sum of monomials in $\chi$ and
$\bar{\chi}$. For each fixed n and
$[\vec{\omega}]$, this decomposition, a binomial series
in $\bar{\chi}(p)$ and $\chi(p)$, can be described pictorially, as follows:
\[\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,120)(80,0)
\multiput(20,0)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(300,120)(0,0)
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\ArrowArcn(50,40)(17,90,-270)}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Text(48,40)[l]{k}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Vertex(15,40){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Vertex(85,40){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){3}}
\DashLine(67.5,70.31)(72.5,78.97){2}
\DashLine(15,40)(5,40){2}
\DashLine(85,40)(95,40){2}
\DashLine(32.5,70.31)(27.5,78.97){2}
\DashLine(32.5,9.69)(27.5,1.03){2}
\DashLine(67.5,9.69)(72.5,1.03){2}
\Text(78,82)[l]{$\bar{\phi}(p_{2n})$}
\Text(101,38)[l]{$\phi(p_1)$}
\Text(78,1)[l]{$\bar{\phi}(p_2)$}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Text(87,60)[l]{$\vec{\omega}$}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Text(82,22)[l]{$-\vec{\omega}$}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Text(44,83)[l]{$-\vec{\omega}$}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Text(58,62)[l]{g}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Text(58,17)[l]{g}}
\multiput(0,0)(230,0){2}{\Text(75,38)[l]{g}}
\multiput(230,0)(0,0){2}{
\Text(74,78)[l]{$\bar{\phi}_{c}$}
\Text(94,39)[l]{$\phi_{c}$}
\Text(74,5)[l]{$\bar{\phi}_{c}$}}
\end{picture} }
\multiput(200,16)(0,0){2}{\put(1,20){\large $=$}}
\end{picture}}
\]
\[\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,130)(80,0)
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\ArrowArcn(50,40)(17,90,-270)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Text(48,40)[l]{k}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(15,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(85,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\DashLine(85,40)(100,40){2}}
\Text(297,39)[l]{$\bar{\phi}_{c}$}
\Text(97,39)[l]{$\phi_{c}$}
\Text(195,50)[l]{$\bar{\chi}(p=0)$}
\Text(395,50)[l]{$\chi(p=0)$}
\multiput(45,16)(200,0){2}{
\begin{picture}(50,30)(0,0)
\put(18,19){{\Large $\sum$}}
\put(7,12){{\tiny all positions}}
\put(8,2){{\tiny on the loop}}
\end{picture} }
\multiput(45,16)(200,0){1}{
\put(17,7){{\tiny of $\bar{\chi}$}}
\put(217,7){{\tiny of $\chi$}} }
\multiput(30,16)(210,0){2}{\put(1,20){$+$}}
\end{picture}}
\]
\[\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,130)(80,0)
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\ArrowArcn(50,40)(17,90,-270)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Text(48,40)[l]{k}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(15,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(85,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\DashLine(67.5,70.31)(75,83.3){2}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){2}{\DashLine(0,40)(15,40){2}}
\Text(86,50)[l]{$\chi(p)$}
\Text(178,75)[l]{$\chi(-p)$}
\Text(286,50)[l]{$\bar{\chi}(p)$}
\Text(378,75)[l]{$\bar{\chi}(-p)$}
\multiput(45,16)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(50,30)(0,0)
\put(18,19){{\Large $\sum$}}
\put(7,12){{\tiny all positions}}
\put(-9,7){{\tiny of two external $\chi$-legs}}
\put(8,2){{\tiny on the loop}}
\end{picture} }
\multiput(245,16)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(50,30)(0,0)
\put(18,19){{\Large $\sum$}}
\put(7,12){{\tiny all positions}}
\put(-9,7){{\tiny of two external $\bar{\chi}$-legs}}
\put(8,2){{\tiny on the loop}}
\end{picture} }
\multiput(30,16)(200,0){2}{\put(1,20){$+$}}
\end{picture}}
\]
\[\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,130)(80,0)
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\ArrowArcn(50,40)(17,90,-270)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Text(48,40)[l]{k}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(15,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(85,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\DashLine(85,40)(100,40){2}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\DashLine(0,40)(15,40){2}}
\Text(86,50)[l]{$\bar{\chi}(p)$}
\Text(195,50)[l]{$\chi(p)$}
\multiput(45,16)(200,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(50,30)(0,0)
\put(18,19){{\Large $\sum$}}
\put(7,12){{\tiny all positions}}
\put(-2,7){{\tiny of an external $\chi$-}}
\put(-5,2){{\tiny and an external $\bar{\chi}$-}}
\put(2,-3){{\tiny leg on the loop}}
\end{picture} }
\multiput(30,16)(200,0){1}{\put(1,20){$+$}}
\end{picture}}
\]
\[\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,50)(80,0)
\multiput(30,16)(0,0){1}{\put(1,20){$+$ terms of degree $\geq 3$ in $\chi$
and $\bar{\chi}$.}}
\end{picture}}\]
Each dot without an external leg stands for a factor
$g\phi_{c}(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(p)$ or for its
complex conjugate. The external momenta flowing into the diagram at all such
dots {\em vanish}, because $\phi_c$ is constant in $x$-space.
The graphs
with one external leg are summed over all $2n$ possible positions of either
$\chi(0)$ or $\bar{\chi}(0)$
on the loop. The corresponding amplitudes (which are linear in $\bar{\chi}$
or $\chi$) vanish if $\phi_c$ is the expectation value of $\phi$ in the
ground state of the system.
The effective action for the field $\chi(p)$ is thus given by a power series
in $\bar{\chi}$ and $\chi$ :
\begin{equation}\label{action3}
S(\bar{\chi},\chi) = S^{(0)}+
S^{(1)}(\bar{\chi},\chi)+
S^{(2)}(\bar{\chi},\chi)+ ...
\end{equation}
where $S^{(r)}$, $r=0,1,2,...$, is a sum of monomials of degree r in
$\bar{\chi}$ and
$\chi$. We remark that the first three terms on the right side of
(\ref{action3}) also contain the contribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\frac{1}{2} \int \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}p\,(\bar{\phi}_{c}\phi_{c}
((2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(p))^2}\nonumber\\
&& +\phi_{c}\bar{\chi}(p)(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(p) +
\bar{\phi}_{c}\chi(p)(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(p) +
\bar{\chi}(p)\chi(p))
\end{eqnarray}
from the part of the original action $\tilde{S}$ ( defined in (\ref{action2})
) quadratic in $\bar{\phi}$ and $\phi$.
After dividing by the total volume of the system, i.e., by
$(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(0)$, the amplitude of the $2n$-th order loop without any
external $\bar{\chi}$- and $\chi$-legs, and for a fixed ray $[\vec{\omega}]$,
\begin{equation}
\parbox[c]{300pt}{
\begin{picture}(300,100)(65,0)
\multiput(80,0)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(300,120)(10,0)
\put(150,50){\circle{40}}
\put(130,50){\circle*{5}}
\put(170,50){\circle*{5}}
\put(160,67.32){\circle*{5}}
\put(140,32.68){\circle*{5}}
\put(140,67.32){\circle*{5}}
\put(160,32.68){\circle*{5}}
\put(165,67.32){$g \phi_{c}$}
\put(175,50){$g \bar{\phi}_{c}$}
\put(165,30.68){$g \phi_{c}$}
\ArrowArcn(150,50)(12,90,-270)
\put(148,47){k}
\end{picture} }
\end{picture}}
\end{equation}
is given by
\begin{equation}
2\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times \tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}} \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
(\frac{-g^{2}|\phi_{c}|^{2}}{k_{0}^{2} +
v_{F}^{2}(\vec{\omega}\vec{k})^{2}})^{n}
\end{equation}
Summing over all orders $2n$ ( see (\ref{opid}) ) and all rays
$[\vec{\omega}]$ , our result for $S^{(0)}$ is found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{(0)} & = &
\frac{1}{2}\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times \tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}} \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
|\phi_{c}|^{2} ((2\pi)\delta(k))^2\nonumber\\
&& +2\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times \tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}} \makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n}
\left(\frac{-g^{2}| \phi_{c} |^{2}}{k_{0}^{2} +
v_{F}^{2}(\vec{\omega}\vec{k})^{2}}\right)^{n}(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(p=0)
\\
& = & (2\pi)^{d+1}\delta(p=0)\left(\frac{1}{2}|\phi_{c}|^{2} -
2\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]}\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times \tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\log\left(1 +
\frac{g^{2}| \phi_{c} |^{2}}{k_{0}^{2} +
v_{F}^{2}(\vec{\omega}\vec{k})^{2}}\right) \right)\hspace{10mm}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The effective potential, $U_{\rm eff}(\bar{\phi_c},\phi_c)$, is defined as
the density of
$S^{(0)}$, i.e., as $S^{(0)}$ divided by the total volume of the system. Thus
\begin{equation}\label{effpot}
U_{\rm eff}(\phi_{c}) =
\frac{1}{2}
| \phi_{c} |^{2} -
2\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times \tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\log\left(1 +
\frac{g^{2}| \phi_{c} |^{2}}{k_{0}^{2} +
v_{F}^{2}(\vec{\omega}\vec{k})^{2}}\right)
\end{equation}
In the analysis of spontaneous symmetry breaking, the effective potential plays
an important r\^{o}le. In the approximation of mean field theory, the
expectation value of the field $\phi$ in an arbitrary, extremal ground state of
the system is given by a minimum of $U_{\rm eff}(\bar{\phi_c},\phi_c)$. Thanks
to the minus sign in front of the integral on the right side of
(\ref{effpot}), the graph of the effective potential has the shape of a
Mexican hat. The minima of $U_{\rm eff}$ are obtained by setting the
derivative of $U_{\rm eff}$ with respect to $\mid\phi_{c}\mid^2$ to zero. The
result is that (for small values of $g^2 k_F^{d-1}$)
\begin{equation}\label{gsphi}
\mid\phi_{c}\mid\approx \frac{k_{F} v_F}{g}
\exp(-\frac{\pi v_F}{g^2 (k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}})^{d-1}})
\end{equation}
where $v_F$ is dimensionless (in our units), $k_F$ has a dimension of
inverse length, and $g$ has a dimension of $(\mbox{length})^{\frac{d-1}{2}}$,
so that the dimension of $|\phi_c|$ is that of
$(\mbox{length})^{-\frac{d+1}{2}}$,
as it should be in view of the last term on the right side of
(\ref{action2}).
We recall that $2g^2 = -\frac{g_0^{(j_{sc})}}{\lambda_{j_{sc}}^{d-1}}$ (see
(\ref{action2})) and hence
\begin{equation}
\mid\phi_{c}\mid\approx \frac{\sqrt{2}k_{F} v_F
\lambda_{j_{sc}}^{\frac{d-1}{2}}}
{\sqrt{-g_0^{j_{sc}}}}
\exp(-\frac{2 \pi v_F}{g_0^{(j_{sc})} k_F^{d-1}})
\end{equation}
for small values of $|g_0^{(j_{sc})}|
\left(\frac{k_F}{\lambda_{j_{sc}}}\right)^{d-1}$.
At values of $\phi_c$ minimizing $U_{\rm eff}(\bar{\phi_c},\phi_c)$, the terms
in $S(\bar{\chi},\chi)$ {\em linear} in $\bar{\chi}$ or $\chi$ must
vanish,
i.e. $S^{(1)}=0$. (The equations $\frac{\partial
U_{\rm eff}}{\partial(\mid\phi_c\mid^2)}=0$ and $S^{(1)}=0$ are, of course,
equivalent; the solution is given by (\ref{gsphi}).) From now on, $\phi_c$
will denote a minimum of $U_{\rm eff}$.
The term $S^{(2)}(\bar{\chi},\chi)$ consists of three
different contributions, proportional to $\chi^2$, $\bar{\chi}^2$ and
$\bar{\chi}\chi$, respectively. They can be found by calculating the
amplitudes corresponding to the following sums of diagrams:
\[
\parbox[c]{300pt}{\begin{picture}(300,130)(55,-20)
\multiput(100,0)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(300,130)(55,-20)
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\ArrowArcn(50,40)(17,90,-270)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Text(48,40)[l]{k}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(15,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(85,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\DashLine(67.5,70.31)(75,83.3){2}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\DashLine(0,40)(15,40){2}}
\Text(86,50)[l]{$\chi(p)$}
\Text(178,75)[l]{$\chi(-p)$}
\multiput(35,16)(200,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(50,30)(0,0)
\put(18,19){{\Large $\sum$}}
\put(7,12){{\tiny all positions}}
\put(-6,7){{\tiny of two external $\chi$-legs}}
\put(12,1){{\tiny n , $[\vec{\omega}]$}}
\put(32,22){$\frac{1}{n}$}
\end{picture} }
\put(265,36){,}
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}}
\]
\[
\parbox[c]{300pt}{\begin{picture}(300,130)(55,-20)
\multiput(100,0)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(300,130)(55,-20)
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\ArrowArcn(50,40)(17,90,-270)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Text(48,40)[l]{k}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(15,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(85,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\DashLine(67.5,70.31)(75,83.3){2}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\DashLine(0,40)(15,40){2}}
\Text(86,50)[l]{$\bar{\chi}(p)$}
\Text(178,75)[l]{$\bar{\chi}(-p)$}
\multiput(35,16)(200,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(50,30)(0,0)
\put(18,19){{\Large $\sum$}}
\put(7,12){{\tiny all positions}}
\put(-6,7){{\tiny of two external $\bar{\chi}$-legs}}
\put(12,1){{\tiny n , $[\vec{\omega}]$}}
\put(32,22){$\frac{1}{n}$}
\end{picture} }
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}}
\]
and
\[
\parbox[c]{300pt}{\begin{picture}(300,130)(55,-20)
\multiput(100,0)(0,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(300,130)(55,-20)
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\ArrowArcn(50,40)(17,90,-270)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Text(48,40)[l]{k}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\CArc(50,40)(35,0,360)}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(15,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(85,40){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(67.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,9.69){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\Vertex(32.5,70.31){3}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\DashLine(85,40)(100,40){2}}
\multiput(100,0)(200,0){1}{\DashLine(0,40)(15,40){2}}
\Text(86,50)[l]{$\bar{\chi}(p)$}
\Text(195,50)[l]{$\chi(p)$}
\multiput(35,16)(200,0){1}{
\begin{picture}(50,30)(0,0)
\put(18,19){{\Large $\sum$}}
\put(7,12){{\tiny all positions}}
\put(-5,7){{\tiny of a $\chi-$ and a $\bar{\chi}$-leg}}
\put(12,1){{\tiny n , $[\vec{\omega}]$}}
\put(32,22){$\frac{1}{n}$}
\end{picture} }
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}}
\]
We are interested in calculating the Taylor series expansions of the
amplitudes corresponding to these sums of diagrams in $p$ around $p=0$. The
terms constant in $p$ yield the coefficients of the ``mass terms'' of the
fluctuation field $\chi$. These coefficients are found to be given by
\begin{equation}
2g^{4} \bar{\phi}_{c}^{2}
\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]} \int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times\tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\frac{1}
{(k_{0}^2 +v_{F}^{2}(\vec{\omega}\cdot\vec{k})^{2}+g^{2}|\phi_{c}|^{2})^{2}}
\end{equation}
(coefficient of term proportional to $\chi^2$), the complex conjugate of
this expression (coefficient of term proportional to $\bar{\chi}^2$), and by
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} - 2g^{2}\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]}
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\frac{k_{0}^2 +v_{F}^{2}(\vec{\omega}\vec{k})^{2}}
{(k_{0}^2 +v_{F}^{2}(\vec{\omega}\cdot\vec{k})^{2} + g^{2}|\phi_{c}|^{2})^{2}}
\end{equation}
(coefficient of term proportional to $\bar{\chi}\chi$), where the
``$\frac{1}{2}$'' comes from the term
$\frac{1}{2}\int d^{d+1}x\,\bar{\chi}\chi$
in the original action $\tilde{S}$ (see (\ref{action2})).
It is convenient to introduce polar coordinates in field space by setting
\begin{equation}
\phi(x) = | \phi_{c} | e^{i\theta} + (\chi_{t}(x)+i\chi_{l}(x))
e^{i\theta}
\end{equation}
where the phase $\theta$ of the ground state expectation value of $\phi(x)$,
$\approx\phi_{c}$, is fixed by the boundary conditions imposed
on the system. The component $\chi_{t}$ of $\chi$ is parallel to
$\phi_{c}$, i.e., it is {\em transversal} to the manifold of minima of
$U_{\rm eff}$, a circle, at $\phi_{c}$. The component $\chi_{l}$ is
perpendicular to $\phi_{c}$, hence {\em tangential} to the manifold of minima
of $U_{\rm eff}$ at $\phi_{c}$.
A straightforward calculation (involving (\ref{gsphi}), i.e., the fact that
$\phi_c$ minimizes $U_{\rm eff}$) now shows that the mass terms for the field
$\chi$ combine to
\begin{equation}
\frac{M^2}{2}\int d^{d+1}x\,\chi_t^2
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
M^2 = 16
g^{4} |\phi_{c}|^{2}
\sum_{[\vec{\omega}]} \int_{{\rm I\hspace{-2.3pt}R}\times\tilde{B}_{\vec{\omega}}}
\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{d+1}k\,
\frac{1}
{(k_{0}^2 +v_{F}^{2}(\vec{\omega}\cdot\vec{k})^{2}+g^{2}|\phi_{c}|^{2})^{2}}
\end{equation}
In accordance with the Goldstone theorem, the effective field theory for
$\chi$ contains a massless field $\chi_l$ describing the Goldstone bosons and
a seemingly massive field $\chi_t$ of mass $M$, where $M$ is equal to the
square root of the curvature of $U_{\rm eff}$ in the radial direction
(parallel to $\phi_c$) at $\phi_c$. Actually, it will turn out that the degree
3 terms, $S^{(3)}$, of the effective action of $\chi$ couple $\chi_t$ to the
second power of $\chi_l$. Thus the field quanta of $\chi_t$ are resonances
that decay into pairs of Goldstone bosons.
We note that {\em all} terms in the effective action for the field $\chi$
that are
local and do not contain any derivatives of $\chi$ and $\bar{\chi}$ can be
determined from $U_{\rm eff}(\bar{\phi_c}+\bar{\chi},\phi_c+\chi)$, with
$\chi(x)=\mbox{const}$, by expanding in powers of $\chi$ and $\bar{\chi}$.
We can also compute the kinetic terms of the effective
action of $\chi$. Let us denote their inverse propagators by
$\Pi_{\chi,\chi}(p)$,
$\Pi_{\bar{\chi}, \bar{\chi}}(p)$, $\Pi_{\bar{\chi},\chi}(p)$ and
$\Pi_{\chi,\bar{\chi}}(p)$, where p is the external momentum, and the indices
stand for the external legs. For example, the coefficients,
$\alpha_{\bar{\chi},\chi}$ and $\beta_{\bar{\chi},\chi}$, of the contribution
$\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d^{d+1}p\ \bar{\chi}(p)(\alpha_{\bar{\chi},\chi}p_{0}^2
+ \beta_{\bar{\chi},\chi}| \vec{p} |^2) \chi(p)$ to the effective action are
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{\bar{\chi},\chi} & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial
p_{0}^2}\mid_{p=0} \Pi_{\bar{\chi},
\chi}(p)\\
\beta_{\bar{\chi},\chi} & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial
p_{i}^2}\mid_{p=0} \Pi_{\bar{\chi},
\chi}(p)
\end{eqnarray}
$p_{i}$ ($i = 1,..,d$) is the $i$-th component of $\vec{p}$. Due to
rotational symmetry, $\beta_{\bar{\chi},\chi}$ is independent of the choice
of $i$. All other coefficients can be expressed in terms of derivatives of
$\Pi_{\chi,\chi}$ and $\Pi_{\bar{\chi}, \bar{\chi}}$. In $d=2$ space
dimensions and for small values of $g^2 k_F$, we obtain the
following results:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{\bar{\chi},\chi} & \equiv & \alpha_{\chi,\bar{\chi}}\approx
\frac{k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{12 \pi v_F|\phi_{c}|^{2}}
\\
\beta_{\bar{\chi},\chi} & \equiv & \beta_{\chi,\bar{\chi}} \approx
\frac{v_F k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{48 \pi|\phi_{c}|^{2}}
\\
\alpha_{\chi,\chi} & \equiv & \alpha_{\bar{\chi},\bar{\chi}}\approx
- \frac{k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{24 \pi v_F|\phi_{c}|^{2}}
\\
\beta_{\chi,\chi} & \equiv & \beta_{\bar{\chi},\bar{\chi}} \approx
- \frac{v_F k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{96 \pi|\phi_{c}|^{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
Splitting
$\chi$ into a transversal and a tangential mode, we arrive at the expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p\,
\chi_{t}(p)(
\frac{k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{12 \pi v_F|\phi_{c}|^{2}}
p_{0}^2 +
\frac{v_F k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{48 \pi|\phi_{c}|^{2}}
| \vec{p} |^2) \chi_{t}(p)}
\nonumber\\
&& +\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p\,
\chi_{l}(p)(
\frac{k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{4 \pi v_F|\phi_{c}|^{2}}
p_{0}^2 +
\frac{v_F k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{16 \pi |\phi_{c}|^{2}}
| \vec{p} |^2) \chi_{l}(p)
\end{eqnarray}
for the kinetic part of the effective action. For $g^2 k_F$ small and
$d = 2$, the
contributions to $S^{(3)}(\bar{\chi},\chi)$ of order zero in the momenta
turn out to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p_1\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p_2\,
\frac{1}{3!}\frac{k_F^{3} v_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{\pi|\phi_{c}|^3}
(-\chi_{l}(p_1)\chi_{t}(-p_2)\chi_{l}(p_2-p_1)}
\nonumber\\
&& + \chi_{t}(p_1)\chi_{t}(-p_2)\chi_{t}(p_2-p_1))\hspace{20mm}
\end{eqnarray}
Rescaling $\chi_{t}$ by a factor
$(\frac{k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{12 \pi v_F|\phi_{c}|^{2}})^{\frac{1}{2}}$
and $\chi_{l}$ by a factor
$(\frac{k_F\lambda_{j_{sc}}}{4 \pi v_F|\phi_{c}|^{2}})^{\frac{1}{2}}$
, the
lowest order terms in the effective action for the
$\chi$-field take the following standard form :
\begin{eqnarray}\label{action4}
\lefteqn{S(\chi,\bar{\chi})=
\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p\,
\chi_{t}(p)(p_{0}^2 +
\frac{1}{4} v_{F}^{2}
| \vec{p} |^2) \chi_{t}(-p)}
\nonumber\\
&& +\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p\,
\chi_{l}(p)(p_{0}^2 +
\frac{1}{4} v_{F}^{2}
| \vec{p} |^2) \chi_{l}(-p)
\nonumber\\
&& +\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p\, \ \
12 v_F^2 k_F^2\ \
\chi_{t}(p)\chi_{t}(-p)\\
&& +\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p_1\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d\,^{3}p_2\,\ \
4 v_F^2 k_F^2\ \
\sqrt{\frac{\pi v_F}{3 k_F \lambda_{j_{sc}}}}
\nonumber\\
&& \left[
- \chi_{l}(p^{(1)})\chi_{t}(-p^{(2)})\chi_{l}(p^{(2)}-p^{(1)})
+ 3 \chi_{t}(p^{(1)})\chi_{t}(-p^{(2)})\chi_{t}(p^{(2)}-p^{(1)})
\right]
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
At tree level, the propagator $\langle\chi_{t}(0)\chi_{t}(x)\rangle$
of the $\chi_t$-field in $x$-space decays exponentially in $|x|$, with
decay rate M. Using expression (\ref{action4}) to calculate radiative
corrections, the behaviour of the propagator of $\chi_t$ changes
drastically. This is due to the vertex in $S(\bar{\chi},\chi)$
proportional to $\chi_l^2 \chi_t$. The dominant one-loop radiative correction
to the propagator of $\chi_t$ is proportional to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{corrprop}
\int d^{d+1}y d^{d+1}z\, \langle\chi_{t}(0)\chi_{t}(y)\rangle_0 \
\langle\chi_{l}(y)\chi_{l}(z)\rangle_0^2\
\langle\chi_{t}(z)\chi_{t}(x)\rangle_0
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle(\cdot)\rangle_0$ indicates that the expectation value is
calculated at tree level. Because the propagator
$\langle\chi_{t}(0)\chi_{t}(x)\rangle_0$ decays exponentially in $|x|$,
while $\langle\chi_{l}(0)\chi_{l}(x)\rangle_0\approx |x|^{1-d}$, expression
(\ref{corrprop}) is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\langle\chi_{l}(0)\chi_{l}(x)\rangle_0\sim\mid x
\mid^{2-2d}
\end{equation}
Thus the seemingly massive field quanta of the field $\chi_t$ are resonances
that decay into pairs of massless Goldstone bosons, as announced.
The form (\ref{action4}) of the effective action of the $\chi$-field shows
that in {\em one} space dimension the fluctuations of $\chi_l$ are
{\em logarithmically divergent} (logarithmic infrared divergence of
$\int\makebox[0mm]{\hspace{3.4mm}\rule[2.35mm]{1.4mm}{0.05mm}}d^2p\frac{1}{p_0^2 + {\rm const}\ p_1^2}$). The prediction of mean
field theory that the continuous U(1) gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken
is therefore wrong (Mermin-Wagner theorem). The same conclusion is reached
in two space dimensions at {\em positive} temperature, $T$. The propagator of
$\chi_l$ in momentum space is then proportional to
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{(k_B T n)^2 + \mbox{const}\,(p_1^2 + p_2^2)}
\end{equation}
where the {\em Matsubara frequencies} $n$ are integers. The term corresponding
to
$n=0$ yields logarithmically divergent fluctuations of $\chi_l$, and, again,
the U(1) symmetry is restored. However, these systems exhibit a {\em
Kosterlitz-Thouless transition}, as $g$ is varied.
But, for $d=2$ and $T=0$, or for $d\geq 3$ and at sufficiently small
temperatures,
the predictions of mean field theory concerning spontaneous symmetry breaking
are qualitatively correct !
The form (\ref{action2}) of the effective action
$\tilde{S}(\bar{\psi},\psi,\bar{\phi},\phi)$ and Eqs. (\ref{BCSparm1}) and
(\ref{BCSparm2}) show that
the field quanta of the $\chi$-field have electric charge $\pm 2e$, (where e
is the elementary electric charge). If the Coulomb interactions between
charged quasi-particles are incorporated in our theory then the {\em Goldstone
bosons acquire a positive mass (``Anderson-Higgs mechanism'')}, as
briefly discussed in Chapter 5 of Part I.
The prediction of our theory for the mass, $\approx g|\phi_c|$ with
$|\phi_c|$ given by (\ref{gsphi}), of quasi-particles of charge $\pm e$
agrees with the solution of the standard BCS gap equation.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most intriguing puzzles in modern particle physics is whether
the neutrino has a mass. In fact, it is doubly interesting since, if the
neutrino is massive, one will want to know whether it has a Dirac or a
Majorana mass. If the neutrino has a Majorana mass, then it will contribute
to $\Delta L=2$ lepton-number-violating processes such as neutrinoless
double beta decay ($\beta\beta_{0\nu}$). The key subprocess in $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ is $W^- W^-
\to e^- e^-$, mediated by a Majorana $\nu_e$.
One possible future collider which is being vigorously investigated at the
moment is a high-energy linear $e^+e^-$ collider, known generically as the
Next Linear Collider (NLC). With such a collider, it is possible to replace
the positron by another electron and look at $e^-e^-$ collisions. If the
electron neutrino has a Majorana mass, it may be possible to observe the
process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$. This is essentially the inverse of neutrinoless double
beta decay.
In fact, this is not a new idea. The process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ has been looked at
several times, by different authors, over the last decade or so
\cite{Rizzo}-\cite{HM}. In the most recent analysis, the authors of
Ref.~\cite{HM} found that this process could be observable at an NLC of
$\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV or 1 TeV. One of the purposes of the present paper is to
reexamine this analysis. Once the constraints from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ are taken into
account, we find that, in fact, except for extremely contrived scenarios,
the cross section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is simply too small for it to be seen at a
500 GeV or 1 TeV NLC. An NLC of at least $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV will be necessary
in order to have a hope of observing this process.
The limits from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ apply only to $\nu_e$. Should the $\nu_\mu$ have a
Majorana mass, it will contribute to the processes $\mu^-\mu^- \to W^-W^-$
and its inverse (and similarly for the $\nu_\tau$), with no constraints
from low-energy processes. However, unless a $\mu^-\mu^-$ collider is built
\cite{mumu}, such lepton-number-violating processes cannot take place
directly. Fortunately, there are other possibilities at the NLC. It is
possible to backscatter laser light off one or both of the beams, creating
an $e\gamma$ or $\gamma\gamma$ collider \cite{backscatter}. $\mu^-\mu^- \to
W^-W^-$ can then be observed as a subprocess in one of the various modes of
the NLC. For example, the observation of $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+\mu^+
W^-W^-$ would be evidence for a Majorana $\nu_\mu$. This is the second
purpose of the paper -- to investigate the possibilities for the detection
of $\Delta L=2$ lepton-number violation in the muon or tau sectors at the
NLC. We will see that an NLC with a centre-of-mass energy of at least 4 TeV
is necessary.
The paper is organized as follows. In the following section we discuss the
process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$, paying careful attention to the constraints from unitarity
and $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$. In Sec.~3 we elaborate on the possibilities for detecting
$\Delta L=2$ lepton-number violation in the muon or tau sectors. Sec.~4
contains a discussion of the prospects for detecting a Majorana $\nu_e$ if
no $e^-e^-$ collider is ever built. We conclude in Sec.~5.
\section{$e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$}
\subsection{Neutrino Mixing}
Suppose that the $\nu_e$ mixes with other neutrinos. For the moment, we
leave the number of new neutrinos unspecified, as well as their
transformation properties under $SU(2)_{\scriptscriptstyle L}$. (The $\nu_e$ could even
mix with $\nu_\mu$ and/or $\nu_\tau$, although this will lead to
flavour-changing neutral currents, which are extremely stringently
constrained.) Once the mass matrix is diagonalized, $\nu_e$ can be
expressed in terms of the mass eigenstates $N_i$:
\begin{equation}
\nu_e = \sum_i U_{ei} N_i ~,
\end{equation}
where the mixing matrix $U$ is unitary. Phenomenologically, we have
observed two things. First, the $\nu_e$ does not mix much with other
neutrinos \cite{Nardi}:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i\ne 1} |U_{ei}|^2 < 6.6 \times 10^{-3} ~~(90\%~c.l.)~.
\label{mixinglimit}
\end{equation}
This limit is essentially independent of the $SU(2)_{\scriptscriptstyle L}$
transformation properties of the neutrino(s) with which the $\nu_e$ mixes.
Also, the limit is quite conservative -- it allows for the possibility that
the other charged fermions also mix with new, exotic charged particles
\cite{LL}. If one assumes that the only new particles are neutrinos, then
the above limit improves somewhat to $5.0 \times 10^{-3}$. Thus, the
$\nu_e$ is mainly $N_1$. Second, from muon decay, we know that the $N_1$ is
very light: $M_1 < 7$ eV \cite{PDG}.
\subsection{Cross Section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$}
Assuming that the $N_i$ are Majorana neutrinos, they will contribute
to the process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ through the diagrams of Fig.~\ref{eeWWfigs}.
(If right-handed $W$'s exist, they can also be produced, either singly
or in pairs, through similar diagrams. In this paper we consider only
ordinary $W$'s in the final state -- the production of $W_{\scriptscriptstyle R}$'s
is discussed in Refs.~\cite{Rizzo,MPV,Rizzo2}.) Neglecting the
electron mass, the differential cross section for unpolarized
electrons is
\newpage
\begin{eqnarray}
{d\sigma \over d\cos\theta} & = & {g^4\over 512\pi s}
\left( 1 - {4M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2\over s}\right)^{1/2}
\sum_{ij} M_i M_j \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 \left(U_{ej}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
& & ~~~~\times \left[ {1\over (t-M_i^2)(t-M_j^2)}
\left( {(s-2M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2)(t-M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2)^2 \over 2M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^4} + {(t-M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2)(u-M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2)\over M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2}
+{s\over 2} \right) \right. \nonumber \\
& & ~~~~~~~~+ ~u\leftrightarrow t
+ \left( {1\over (t-M_i^2)(u-M_j^2)} +
{1\over (t-M_j^2)(u-M_i^2)} \right) \nonumber \\
& & ~~~~~~~~~~~
\times \left.
\left( {(tu-M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^4)(s-2M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2) \over 2M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^4} - {(t-M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2)(u-M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2)\over M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2}
+{3s\over 2} \right) \right].
\label{Xsection}
\end{eqnarray}
Although this expression is rather complicated, it simplifies
considerably in the limit that $s \gg M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2$, which is a reasonable
approximation for the NLC. In this case, the terms in the square
brackets which are proportional to $1/M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^4$ dominate -- they are
larger than the terms proportional to $1/M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2$ by a factor $\sim
s/M_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2$. Keeping only the dominant terms, the differential cross
section then becomes simply
\begin{equation}
{d\sigma \over d\cos\theta} = {g^4\over 1024\piM_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^4}
\left( \sum_i M_i \left(U_{ei}\right)^2
\left[ {t\over(t-M_i^2)} + {u\over(u-M_i^2)} \right] \right)^2 ~.
\label{Xsectionlong}
\end{equation}
(Although this is an excellent approximation to the differential cross
section, we nevertheless use the full expression (Eq.~\ref{Xsection})
when presenting numerical results.)
\begin{figure*}[thb]
\hspace*{-2.1cm}
\vspace*{.3cm}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfysize=20.cm\epsffile{diageeww.ps}}
\vspace*{-15.7cm}
\caption{\label{eeWWfigs}{\em Diagrams contributing to $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$.}}
\end{figure*}
Note that Eq.~\ref{Xsectionlong} is precisely what is obtained if one
calculates the cross section for the process $e^- e^- \to W^-_{long}
W^-_{long}$, where $W^-_{long}$ is the longitudinal component of the
$W^-$, as we have verified by explicit calculation. We thus confirm
the observation of Ref.~\cite{HM} that the production of longitudinal
$W$'s dominates the process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ if $s\ggM_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^2$. The full helicity
amplitudes are given in the Appendix.
There are two limiting cases of Eq.~\ref{Xsectionlong} which will be
useful in what follows. First, if $s \gg M_i^2$, the cross
section becomes
\begin{equation}
{d\sigma \over d\cos\theta} = {g^4\over 256\piM_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^4}
\left( \sum_i M_i \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 \right)^2 ~.
\label{Xsectionunitarity}
\end{equation}
Second, in the other limit, $M_i^2 \gg s$, we get
\begin{equation}
{d\sigma \over d\cos\theta} = {g^4\over 1024\piM_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^4} s^2
\left( \sum_i {\left(U_{ei}\right)^2 \over M_i } \right)^2 ~.
\label{XsectionheavyN}
\end{equation}
Note that, in this limit, the cross section grows like $s^2$, as was
observed in Ref.~\cite{HM}.
\subsection{Unitarity Considerations}
{}From Eq.~\ref{Xsectionunitarity}, we see that, in the high-energy limit ($s
\to \infty$), the cross section tends towards a constant:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{s\to\infty} = {g^4\over 128\piM_{\scriptscriptstyle W}^4}
\left( \sum_i M_i \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 \right)^2 ~.
\label{unitarity}
\end{equation}
In this particular case this indicates a violation of unitarity, since
the amplitude (which is a pure s-wave) grows as $\sqrt{s}$.
There are basically two ways in which this unitarity violation can be
cured. The first through the inclusion of a Higgs triplet. If the
neutrinos with which the $\nu_e$ mixes are $SU(2)_{\scriptscriptstyle L}$ doublets,
then they can acquire Majorana masses by giving the Higgs triplet a
vacuum expectation value (v.e.v.). This Higgs triplet includes a
doubly-charged Higgs, $H^{--}$. In this case unitarity is restored
through the inclusion of a diagram in which the $H^{--}$ is exchanged
in the s-channel.
However, this type of solution has been virtually eliminated
phenomenologically. The v.e.v.\ of the Higgs triplet breaks lepton number
spontaneously, producing a Majoron. But light Majorons would contribute
significantly in $Z$ decays, and have been ruled out by the precision LEP
data. Such models are therefore untenable. There are ways to evade the LEP
bounds -- for instance, one can add a Higgs singlet and allow the triplet
to mix with the singlet \cite{ChoiSan}. However, in addition to being
somewhat artificial, this solution does not explain the large range of
neutrinos masses. If all neutrinos are $SU(2)_{\scriptscriptstyle L}$ doublets, then all
their masses would be Majorana, and would come from the v.e.v.\ of the
Higgs triplet. Precision measurements on the $Z$ peak constrain such a
v.e.v.\ to be at most a few percent of that of the standard Higgs doublet
\cite{PDGLang}. It would therefore require an extremely large Yukawa
coupling to produce a neutrino mass in the TeV range. Such large Yukawa
couplings typically lead to other problems, such as the breakdown of
perturbation theory, etc. In addition, there is no natural explanation why
some neutrino masses should be in the eV range, while others are in the TeV
range. Not even the charged fermions of the standard model cover such a
large range in mass. For all of the above reasons, we discard the Higgs
triplet as a solution to the unitarity problem in $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$.
In the absence of Higgs triplets, the only way to restore unitarity is to
require that the neutrinos' masses and mixing angles satisfy
\begin{equation}
\sum_i \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 M_i = 0 ~.
\label{massmixrelation}
\end{equation}
Although this relation may appear arbitrary at first sight, it is in fact
automatically satisfied. It is straightforward to show that
\begin{equation}
\sum_i \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 M_i = M^*_{ee}~,
\end{equation}
where $M_{ee}$ is the Majorana mass of the $\nu_e$. However, because there
are no Higgs triplets, this mass is equal to zero, so that
Eq.~\ref{massmixrelation} holds.
As an explicit example, consider the famous seesaw mechanism: one adds a
right-handed neutrino $N_{\scriptscriptstyle R}$ to the spectrum. This neutrino acquires
a large Majorana mass $M$ through the v.e.v.\ of a Higgs singlet, and the
combination ${\bar N}_{\scriptscriptstyle R}\nu_{e\scriptscriptstyle L} + h.c.$ obtains a Dirac mass
$m$ once the ordinary Higgs doublet gets a v.e.v. The mass matrix looks
like
\begin{equation}
\left(\matrix{0 & m \cr m & M \cr}\right).
\end{equation}
The two mass eigenstates are $N_1$ and $N_2$, with masses $-m^2/M$ and $M$,
respectively (the minus sign in front of $M_1$ can be removed by a
$\gamma_5$ rotation). For $m$ of the order of the electron mass and $M$
about 1 TeV, one obtains a mass of about 1 eV for the lightest neutrino.
(Thus, in such models, the large range of neutrino masses is explained in a
natural way, unlike the Higgs triplet models.) The $\nu_e$ is a linear
combination of these two physical neutrinos:
\begin{equation}
\nu_e = \cos\theta N_1 + \sin\theta N_2~,~~~~~\sin\theta = {m\over M}~.
\end{equation}
It is clear that, with these masses and mixing angles, the relation in
Eq.~\ref{massmixrelation} is automatically satisfied.
The downside of this particular solution is that the mixing of the
$\nu_e$ with the $N$ is tiny: for $m \sim m_e$ and $M \sim 1$ TeV,
$\sin\theta \sim 10^{-6}$! This would make the cross section for
$e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ invisible, since $\sigma(e^-e^-\to W^-W^-) \propto \sin^4 \theta$, and is
typical of what happens in left-right symmetric models \cite{Rizzo}.
However, if the $\nu_e$ mixes with more neutrinos, it is, in
principle, possible to satisfy Eq.~\ref{massmixrelation} without
having such small values of $U_{ei}$. (This is the assumed solution in
Ref.~\cite{DKR}.) This is perhaps a bit artificial, and probably
requires some fine-tuning, but it is possible. If this is how
unitarity restoration comes about, then Eq.~\ref{Xsection} contains
all the contributions to $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$.
Although it is interesting to understand how unitarity is restored in
different models, the above discussion demonstrates that the cross
section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is essentially unconstrained by such
considerations -- the $U_{ei}$ and $M_i$ can take any values
consistent with the phenomenological limits in Sec.\ 2.1. This is not
the case when the experimental limits on neutrinoless double beta
decay are taken into account, which we do in the next subsection.
\subsection{Limits from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$}
As mentioned in the introduction, $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is essentially the inverse
of neutrinoless double beta decay. We might therefore expect that the
limits on the latter process could constrain the former.
If some of the neutrinos have masses $M_i \ll 1$ GeV, then, for these
neutrinos, the quantity which contributes to $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ is
\begin{equation}
\langle m_\nu \rangle = \sum_i{}' \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 M_i~,
\end{equation}
where the sum is over the light neutrinos. (For simplicity, we have
ignored factors corresponding to complications from the nuclear matrix
elements -- their inclusion does not change our conclusions. For more
details we refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{dbetarefs}.) The experimental
limit on $\langle m_\nu \rangle$ is \cite{dbetarefs}
\begin{equation}
\langle m_\nu \rangle \rffly< 1~{\hbox{eV}}~.
\label{lightNlimit}
\end{equation}
As for the neutrinos which are heavy, $M_i \gg 1$ GeV, they can still
mediate $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay. In this case the relevant quantity is
\begin{equation}
\langle m_\nu^{-1} \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle H} = \sum_i{}^{\prime\prime}
\left(U_{ei}\right)^2 {1\over M_i} ~,
\end{equation}
where the sum is over the heavy neutrinos. Now the experimental limit
on $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ implies the following:
\begin{equation}
\langle q^2 \rangle
\sum_i{}^{\prime\prime} \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 {1\over M_i}
\rffly< 1~{\hbox{eV}}~,
\end{equation}
where $q$ is an average nuclear momentum transfer. If one takes $q$
to be roughly about 100 MeV, one obtains the right order-of-magnitude
constraint. However, a more careful calculation, including all the
nuclear effects, gives \cite{Boris}
\begin{equation}
\sum_i{}^{\prime\prime} \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 {1\over M_i} <
5 \times 10^{-5}~{\hbox{TeV}}^{-1} ~.
\label{heavyNlimit}
\end{equation}
Assuming no cancellations, this implies a generic lower bound on the mass
of the heavy neutrino:
\begin{equation}
M_i > 2 \times 10^4 \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 ~{\hbox{TeV}}~.
\label{lowerNlimit}
\end{equation}
For $\left(U_{ei}\right)^2 \sim 5 \times 10^{-3}$, this gives $M_i > 100$
TeV!
However, it is possible to evade this order-of-magnitude bound if one
allows cancellations among the various terms. This can come about in one of
two ways: either (i) all the heavy neutrino masses are roughly equal, or
(ii) they are different.
\begin{itemize}
\item If all masses are equal, then we obtain
\begin{equation}
M > 2 \times 10^4 \sum_i{}^{\prime\prime} \left(U_{ei}\right)^2
{}~{\hbox{TeV}}~.
\label{equalmasslimit}
\end{equation}
In this case, if $\sum_i{}^{\prime\prime} \left(U_{ei}\right)^2$ is small,
$M$ will be as well. Note that, since the mixing angles may be complex, it
is possible that each of the individual $(U_{ei})^2$'s is large (up to the
constraint of Eq.~\ref{mixinglimit}), but that their sum is small.
\item In the second scenario involving quite different neutrino masses,
there can again be cancellations among different terms. This requires
either that the heavier neutrinos have larger mixings with the $\nu_e$ than
the lighter ones, or that there be a large number of heavy neutrinos. For
example, just to give a feel for the numbers, the contribution of a 1 TeV
neutrino with a mixing of $U^2 = 5 \times 10^{-3}$ can be cancelled by (a)
a 100 GeV neutrino with a mixing $U^2 = -5 \times 10^{-4}$ or (b) ten 10
TeV neutrinos with mixings of $U^2 = -5 \times 10^{-3}$. There are many
other possibilities, of course, but these illustrate roughly what is
required for cancellation.
\end{itemize}
We will return to these when discussing $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$.
\subsection{$e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ at the NLC}
The constraints from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ give us one of two conditions, depending on
whether the new neutrinos are very light (Eq.~\ref{lightNlimit}: $M \ll 1$
GeV) or very heavy (Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit}: $M \gg 1$ GeV), relative to the
energy scale of neutrinoless double beta decay. For the case of light
neutrinos, we can use Eq.~\ref{Xsectionunitarity} to calculate the cross
section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$, which is independent of $\sqrt{s}$. It is minuscule:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(e^-e^-\to W^-W^-) = 1.3 \times 10^{-17}~fb~.
\label{tinyXsection}
\end{equation}
Such a signal is clearly unobservable at any future collider.
If no cancellations are allowed in Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit}, then
$\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ constrains the neutrinos to be very massive
(Eq.~\ref{lowerNlimit}). For NLC's with centre-of-mass energies of
order 1 TeV, we have $M_i \gg \sqrt{s}$, and Eq.~\ref{XsectionheavyN}
can be used to calculate the cross section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$. Using the
limit in Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit}, we find that, at a $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV
NLC,
\begin{equation}
\sigma(e^-e^-\to W^-W^-) < 2.5 \times 10^{-3}~fb~.
\label{heavyNsigma}
\end{equation}
The hoped-for luminosity at a $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV NLC is 80 $fb^{-1}$.
Clearly the process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is unobservable at such a collider. (Since
the cross section grows like $s^2$, the 500 GeV NLC fares even worse.)
However, this does not cover all the possibilities. As discussed in the
previous subsection, the constraint from Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit} can be
evaded if one allows cancellations among the various contributions. Thus we
must also consider neutrino masses considerably lighter than 100 TeV.
Nevertheless, as we discuss below, even for such masses the process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$
is still unobservable at the NLC, except in the most contrived, fine-tuned
models.
We consider again the two scenarios for evading the constraint from
Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit}: (i) roughly equal heavy neutrino masses, and
(ii) different heavy neutrino masses.
\begin{itemize}
\item In the scenario where all the neutrino masses are roughly equal,
there is an upper limit on the mixing as a function of the neutrino mass.
{}From Eq.~\ref{equalmasslimit} we have
\begin{equation}
\sum_i{}^{\prime\prime} \left(U_{ei}\right)^2 < 5 \times 10^{-5} \left(
{M \over {\hbox{1 TeV}}}\right).
\end{equation}
(Of course, even for super-heavy neutrinos, the mixing cannot be
larger than the phenomenological limit of Eq.~\ref{mixinglimit}.) It
is therefore possible to have neutrino masses lighter than 100 TeV,
but only at the expense of smaller mixing angles. This is the key
point. Even though the lighter neutrino masses soften, and even
remove, the $1/M^2$ suppression of Eq.~\ref{XsectionheavyN}, the
smaller mixing angles render the process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ unobservable. For $M$
in the range 500 GeV to 10 TeV, the cross section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is in
the range $O(10^{-4})$-$O(10^{-3})~fb$. In fact, the largest cross
section occurs for heavier neutrinos, $M\rffly> 10$ TeV, where the
mixing angles are the largest. In this case, we simply reproduce the
cross section of Eq.~\ref{heavyNsigma}, which is, as we stated
previously, too small to be observed.
\item In the second scenario the cancellations occur between terms
involving neutrinos of quite different masses. This in itself is quite
contrived -- it requires a fair amount of fine tuning, since the masses and
mixing angles have to be carefully adjusted to have such a cancellation.
However, one has to go even further to obtain an observable cross section
for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$.
One important observation is that a neutrino of mass $M < \sqrt{s}$ which
has a significant mixing with the $\nu_e$ would be first observed directly
at the NLC in the process $e^+e^- \to \nu_e N_l$ \cite{Abdel}. The decay
products of the $N_l$ would indicate that it is a Majorana neutrino. And
since such a neutrino would by itself violate the constraint from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$
(Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit}), one could deduce the presence of additional,
heavier Majorana neutrinos. Thus, if one has to add light ($M < \sqrt{s}$)
neutrinos in order to evade the constraints from Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit} and
make the cross section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ observable, then the measurement of the
process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is not even necessary -- the neutrinos will be observed, or
their presence inferred, before $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is ever measured. A rather
amusing situation.
Suppose there were one heavy neutrino of mass $M \sim 1$ TeV, with a mixing
$U^2 = 5 \times 10^{-3}$. In this case the cross section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ at a
1 TeV NLC is $\sigma \sim 10~fb$, which is easily observable. However, as
we have argued previously, if this is the only heavy neutrino, this set of
parameters is ruled out by the constraints from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$. But if we add
other heavy neutrinos whose contributions conspire to evade the constraint
from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ (Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit}), a neutrino with such a mass and
mixing could conceivably be allowed. One possibility is to add a lighter
neutrino $N_l$, say with mass $M=100$ GeV and a mixing $U^2 = -5 \times
10^{-4}$. However, as we have discussed above, such a light neutrino would
be first observed directly. Another possibility is to add ten neutrinos of
mass $M=10$ TeV and mixing $U^2 = -5 \times 10^{-3}$. This possibility is
clearly exceedingly baroque.
As a final example, if there were one heavy neutrino of $M \sim 1$ TeV,
with a mixing $U^2 = 5 \times 10^{-4}$, then the constraint from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$
could be evaded through the addition of a single heavier neutrino of
$M=10$ TeV and mixing $U^2 = -5 \times 10^{-3}$. In this case, the cross
section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is $\sigma \simeq 0.04~fb$, which might be just
observable. Still, in addition to requiring the fine-tuned cancellation of
two terms, this scenario requires the heavier neutrino to have a {\it
larger} mixing angle than the lighter neutrino. This is rather unnatural,
and is not what happens in the quark sector.
\end{itemize}
Of course, there are many other ways of arranging the neutrino masses and
mixings in order to evade the low-energy constraint from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$, and to
produce an observable cross section from $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$. However, the above
examples give a flavour of what is necessary -- one must construct
extremely contrived models in order to do this.
{}From here on, we assume that there are no fine-tuned cancellations,
and that the constraint in Eq.~\ref{lowerNlimit} holds for all
neutrinos. Furthermore, when we present our results for the cross
section for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ (and the other processes in the subsequent
sections), we assume that it is dominated by the exchange of a single
neutrino. (Of course, additional, heavier neutrinos must be present to
satisfy the bound from unitarity.) Even if one assumes that more than
one neutrino contributes to $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$, this will not change the cross
section significantly, since the mixing angles of all the neutrinos
must be correspondingly reduced in order to satisfy the constraint in
Eq.~\ref{heavyNlimit}.
In Fig.~\ref{eeWWXsection} we present the discovery limit for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$
at the NLC for several centre-of-mass energies as a function of $M_i$
and $(U_{ei})^2$. We demand 10 events for discovery, and assume
unpolarized $e^-$ beams and a luminosity of $80 (\sqrt{s}/{\hbox{(1
TeV)}})^2~fb^{-1}$. We present the discovery curves for $\sqrt{s}=
500$ GeV, 1 TeV, 2 TeV, 4 TeV and 10 TeV. We also superimpose the
phenomenological limit on $(U_{ei})^2$, as well as the constraint from
$\beta\beta_{0\nu}$. Note that we have not included efficiencies for the
detection of the $W$'s, nor have we included any backgrounds. Our
discovery limits are therefore quite conservative.
As is clear from this figure, for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and 1 TeV, the values
of $M_i$ and $(U_{ei})^2$ which produce an observable $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ cross section
are already ruled out by neutrinoless double beta decay. For $\sqrt{s}=2$
TeV, the discovery limit and the limit from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ are roughly equal.
Note, however, that if polarized $e^-$ beams are used, the 2 TeV NLC opens
a very small region of parameter space, and hence does slightly better than
$\beta\beta_{0\nu}$. On the other hand, by the time such a collider is built the
$\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ limits will probably have become more stringent, so the prospects
for a 2 TeV NLC to improve upon neutrinoless double beta decay are marginal
at best. Finally, for 4 TeV and 10 TeV NLC's, there exists a sizeable
region of $M_i$-$(U_{ei})^2$ parameter space, not ruled out by $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$,
which produces an observable signal for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$.
\begin{figure*}[hbtp]
\vspace*{-5.5cm}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=14cm\epsfysize=14.cm\epsffile{eevsbb.ps}}
\vspace*{-1.cm}
\caption{\label{eeWWXsection}{\em Discovery limit for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ at the NLC
as a function of $M_i$ and $(U_{ei})^2$ for $\protect\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV, 1
TeV, 2 TeV, 4 TeV and 10 TeV (dashed lines). We assume unpolarized $e^-$
beams and a luminosity of $80 (\protect\sqrt{s}/{\hbox{(1
TeV)}})^2~fb^{-1}$. For $\protect\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV, the limit assuming
polarized $e^-$ beams is also shown (dotted line). In all cases, the
parameter space above the line corresponds to observable events. We also
superimpose the experimental limit from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ (diagonal solid line), as
well as the limit on $(U_{ei})^2$ (horizontal solid line). Here, the
parameter space above the line is ruled out.
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Other $\Delta L =2$ Processes at the NLC}
In the last section, we saw that the constraints from neutrinoless
double beta decay are so stringent that an NLC of at least $\sqrt{s} =
2$ TeV is required to be able to observe the process $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$. However,
$\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ constrains only the $\nu_e$ -- it says nothing about the
$\nu_\mu$ or the $\nu_\tau$. It therefore seems reasonable to ask
about the possibilities for observing other $\Delta L=2$ processes at
the NLC, specifically those involving a Majorana $\nu_\mu$ or
$\nu_\tau$. We address this issue in this section.
If the $\nu_\ell$ ($\ell = \mu,\tau$) is Majorana, it will mediate
processes such as $\ell^-\ell^-\to W^-W^-$. This is exactly like the $\nu_e$, except
that there are no constraints from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$. On the other hand, there
is a major disadvantage -- the NLC involves $e^+$/$e^-$ beams, not
$\ell^+$/$\ell^-$. Thus, $\ell^-\ell^-\to W^-W^-$ cannot be observed directly as a $2
\to 2$ process at the NLC, unlike $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$. However, it does appear as
a subprocess in a number of $2\to 4$ processes involving the various
modes of the NLC. Specifically, if the $\nu_\ell$ is Majorana, it will
mediate $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$, $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \ell^- \ell^- W^+$ and $e^- e^- \to \nu_e \nu_e \ell^- \ell^-$. (This is similar to the
analysis of Ref.~\cite{DKR}, where the process $pp\to (jet)_1 (jet)_2
e^+ e^+$ was considered.) We discuss these possibilities in turn in
the subsections which follow. In principle, the $e^+ e^-$ option of
the NLC can also be used: $e^+ e^- \to e^+ \nu_e \ell^- \ell^- W^+$.
However, since this is a $2\to 5$ process, it will be smaller than the
others, so we do not consider it further.
\subsection{Neutrino Masses and Mixing}
The limits on the masses of the $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ are \cite{PDG}
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\nu_\mu} & < & 0.27~{\hbox{MeV}}, \cr
m_{\nu_\tau} & < & 31~{\hbox{MeV}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Suppose that the masses of the neutrinos are given by their upper
limits. If $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ are Majorana, but do not mix with
heavy neutrinos, then the cross section for $\ell^-\ell^-\to W^-W^-$ is still
unobservable -- from Eq.~\ref{tinyXsection} it is at most
$O(10^{-3})~fb$. Thus, in order to observe $\Delta L = 2$ processes
involving the $\nu_\mu$ or $\nu_\tau$, these neutrinos must mix with
heavy Majorana neutrinos, just as was the case for the $\nu_e$.
The limits on the mixing of the $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ are \cite{Nardi}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{i\ne 1} |U_{\mu i}|^2 & < & 6.0 \times 10^{-3} ~~(90\%~c.l.)~, \cr
\sum_{i\ne 1} |U_{\tau i}|^2 & < & 1.8 \times 10^{-2} ~~(90\%~c.l.)~.
\label{nulmixing}
\end{eqnarray}
As with the $\nu_e$, these conservative limits are for the case where
the other fermions also mix with new particles. If one assumes that
only the neutrinos mix, then the limits improve to $1.8 \times
10^{-3}$ and $9.6 \times 10^{-3}$ for $\sum_{i\ne 1} |U_{\mu i}|^2$
and $\sum_{i\ne 1} |U_{\tau i}|^2$, respectively. In our analyses, we
will use the conservative limits above.
\subsection{$\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$}
A large number of Feynman diagrams contribute to $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$. However,
it can be argued that a single one dominates. First, the diagrams can
be separated into two categories: ``fusion'' and ``bremmstrahlung.''
In the fusion diagrams, each photon splits into a real and a
quasi-real ({\it i.e.\/}\ almost on-shell) particle. The two quasi-real
particles then interact, creating an internal $2\to 2$ process. In
bremmstrahlung diagrams, the two photons interact in a $2\to 2$
process, followed by the radiation of particles from one of the final
lines. The fusion diagrams are clearly much larger than the
bremmstrahlung diagrams, since they involve the propagators of almost
on-shell particles.
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\vspace*{-3.cm}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=17cm\epsfysize=20.cm\epsffile{lumgg.ps}}
\vspace*{-5.cm}
\caption{\label{strfuns}{\em The luminosity spectra for $\mu\mu$,
$\mu W_{long}$ and $W_{long}W_{long}$ in $\gamma\gamma$.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
There are 3 fusion diagrams, involving the internal $2\to 2$
subprocesses $\ell^-\ell^-\to W^-W^-$, $\ell^- W^+ \to \ell^+ W^-$ and $W^+ W^+ \to
\ell^+ \ell^+$. We remind the reader that it is primarily $W_{long}$,
the longitudinal component of the $W$, which is involved in the
subprocesses. In order to compare the sizes of these 3 fusion
diagrams, it is not necessary to calculate the entire $2\to 4$ process
-- one can simply convolute the internal $2\to 2$ process with the
structure functions of the $\ell$ and/or $W_{long}$ in the photon.
Thus, a comparison of the luminosity spectrum for $\ell\ell$, $\ell
W_{long}$ and $W_{long} W_{long}$ in $\gamma\gamma$ will suffice to
tell us which, if any, of the 3 fusion diagrams dominates. In
Fig.~\ref{strfuns} we show the luminosity for $\ell=\mu$ and
$W_{long}$ as a function of the energy fraction
($\tau=\hat{s}/s_{\gamma\gamma}$) of the photons carried by the
quasi-real particles, $\mu$ or $W_{long}$. The luminosity is defined as
\begin{equation}
\frac{dL}{d\tau}=N \int dx f_{i/\gamma}(x,Q^2) f_{j/\gamma}(\tau/x,Q^2)~,
\end{equation}
where $N=1$ ($N=2$) if $i=j$ ($i\neq j$) and $i,j=\mu$ or $W_{long}$.
$Q^2$ is a typical scale for the subprocess. Here we take
$Q^2=s_{\gamma\gamma}/4$. The structure functions for the leptons are
taken from Ref.~\cite{eea} and those for the longitudinal $W$ were
given in Ref.~\cite{paris}{\footnote{The structure function describing
the $W_{long}$ content in the photon consists of two parts -- one where
the spectator W is transverse and the other where it is longitudinal.
It has been found that the former is much larger \cite{paris} and
shows scaling behaviour. Our numbers are based only on this
component.}}. It is clear that there is very little $W_{long}$ in the
photon, since over most of the energy range, and especially in the
high-energy region which gives the main contribution to the process
under study, $W_{long} W_{long} \ll \ell W_{long} \ll \ell\ell$. Thus,
the dominant diagram is the one in which the two quasi-real particles
are $\ell$ and the internal $2\to 2$ subprocess is $\ell^-\ell^-\to W^-W^-$. This is
shown in Fig.~\ref{ggllwwdiag}.
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\hspace*{2.cm}
\vspace*{2.cm}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfysize=20.cm\epsffile{ggllww.ps}}
\vspace*{-15.5cm}
\caption{\label{ggllwwdiag}{\em The dominant diagram in $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$.}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\vspace*{-1.5cm}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=15cm\epsfysize=15.cm\epsffile{gg2en4.ps}}
\vspace*{-1.cm}
\caption{\label{ggmmwwXsection}{\em Cross section for $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$ at the
NLC assuming $(U_{\mu i})^2 = 6.0
\times 10^{-3}$ for $\protect\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV (solid line), 4 TeV
(dashed line) and 10 TeV (dotted line). }}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{ggmmwwXsection} we present the cross section for the process
$\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$ as a function of the neutrino mass $M_i$ for three centre-of-mass
energies: 2 TeV, 4 TeV and 10 TeV. We take $(U_{\mu i})^2=6.0 \times
10^{-3}$. Note that, in all cases, if $M_i < \sqrt{s}$, the new neutrino is
far more likely to be first discovered via single production in $e^+ e^-
\to \nu_\mu N_i$ than in $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$ (see the discussion in Sec.~2.5). Thus,
although we present the cross section for a large range of neutrino masses,
we really should consider only $M_i > \sqrt{s}$. Assuming a luminosity of
$80 (\sqrt{s}/{\hbox{(1 TeV)}})^2~fb^{-1}$, we see that this process is
unobservable at $\sqrt{s} = 2$ TeV, regardless of the neutrino mass. And a
signal of 10 events can be observed at $\sqrt{s}=4$ TeV only for $M_i\rffly<
3$ TeV. One has to go to higher energies to be able to observe $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$
for $M_i > \sqrt{s}$: for example, for $\sqrt{s}=10$ TeV, the process is
observable for $M_i\rffly< 90$ TeV. Of course, for the higher-energy NLC's,
the luminosity assumed is considerable -- the reality could be quite
different. But if the luminosity scales as we have assumed, and if the
neutrino mixing is as large as we have taken it to be, the $\Delta L=2$
process $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$ can be observed at an NLC with a centre-of-mass energy
above 4 TeV.
We must also stress again that we have not considered here any
backgrounds and have only looked for processes with a few event
signals. A more careful analysis would include backgrounds from
standard processes without lepton number violation, such as
$\gamma\gamma \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-W^+W^-$.
In addition, we have not folded in the photon energy
spectrum due to the backscattering of laser light off the $e^+$/$e^-$
beams. Since the backscattered photons are not monochromatic, the
inclusion of this spectrum would somewhat reduce the cross sections in
our figures.
There are certain numerical differences for the process $\gamma\gamma \to \tau^+ \tau^+ W^- W^-$.
Although the mixing can be three times as large (see
Eq.~\ref{nulmixing}), there is also a suppression $(\ln[s/4 m_\tau^2]
/ \ln[s/4 m_\mu^2])^2$ due to the larger $\tau$ mass. Putting the
factors together, we estimate that the cross section for $\gamma\gamma \to \tau^+ \tau^+ W^- W^-$ can
be roughly 4 times larger than that for $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$. However, when one
folds in the much smaller efficiencies for detecting $\tau$'s, not to
speak of the increased backgrounds, it is more promising to search for
$\Delta L=2$ lepton number violation through $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$.
\subsection{$e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \ell^- \ell^- W^+$}
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\hspace*{2cm}
\vspace*{.3cm}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfysize=20.cm\epsffile{egnllw.ps}}
\vspace*{-14cm}
\caption{\label{egnllwdiag}{\em The dominant diagram in $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \ell^- \ell^- W^+$. }}
\end{figure*}
The process $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \ell^- \ell^- W^+$ also involves a large number of Feynman
diagrams. However, just as was the case for $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$, there is a
single diagram which dominates, shown in Fig.~\ref{egnllwdiag}. (The
argument leading to this is essentially the same as for $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$.)
On the other hand, in contrast to $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$, note that this diagram
involves an internal $W_{long}$. Just like the photon, there is
relatively little $W_{long}$ in the electron (the dominant term in the
two sets of structure functions is the same up to a factor of $4
\sin^2\theta_w \approx 1$ \cite{paris}). We therefore expect the cross
section for $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \ell^- \ell^- W^+$ to be suppressed relative to that for $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$.
\begin{figure*}[bht]
\vspace*{-1.5cm}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=15cm\epsfysize=15.cm\epsffile{eg2en4.ps}}
\vspace*{-1.cm}
\caption{\label{egnmmwXsection}{\em Cross section for $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \mu^- \mu^- W^+$ at the NLC
assuming $(U_{\mu i})^2=6.0 \times 10^{-3}$ for $\protect\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV
(solid line), 4 TeV (dashed line) and 10 TeV (dotted line).}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
This is indeed the case. In Fig.~\ref{egnmmwXsection} we present the
cross section for $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \mu^- \mu^- W^+$ as a function of the neutrino mass $M_i$
for three centre-of-mass energies: 2 TeV, 4 TeV and 10 TeV. We again
take $(U_{\mu i})^2=6.0 \times 10^{-3}$. It is clear that the
situation is worse than for $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$. Again assuming a luminosity of
$80 (\sqrt{s}/{\hbox{(1 TeV)}})^2~fb^{-1}$, we see that at
$\sqrt{s}=4$ TeV, this process is unobservable even for $M_i <
\sqrt{s}$. And at $\sqrt{s}=10$ TeV, the process is observable, but
the reach is reduced compared to $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$ -- a signal of 10 events
requires $M_i \rffly< 40$ TeV.
As far as $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \tau^- \tau^- W^+$ is concerned, although the cross section may be
somewhat larger than that of $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \mu^- \mu^- W^+$, the process suffers from the
same problems as $\gamma\gamma \to \tau^+ \tau^+ W^- W^-$: larger backgrounds and worse detection
efficiencies. When all is folded together, $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \tau^- \tau^- W^+$ is probably worse
than $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \mu^- \mu^- W^+$.
\subsection{$e^- e^- \to \nu_e \nu_e \ell^- \ell^-$}
Should the $e^- e^-$ option of the NLC be available, not only can it
be used to search for a Majorana $\nu_e$ via $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$, as discussed in
Sec.~2, but a Majorana $\nu_\ell$ ($\ell=\mu,\tau$) can in principle
be detected through the process $e^- e^- \to \nu_e \nu_e \ell^- \ell^-$. The diagram is shown in
Fig.~\ref{eennlldiag}. However, note that this diagram involves two
internal $W_{long}$'s. Therefore the cross section for this process
will be suppressed relative to that for $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \ell^- \ell^- W^+$, and very suppressed
relative to $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$. It is clear, therefore, that $e^- e^- \to \nu_e \nu_e \ell^- \ell^-$ is far
from the optimal way to search for $\Delta L=2$ processes involving a
Majorana $\nu_\mu$ or $\nu_\tau$, and we do not consider it further.
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\hspace*{2.cm}
\vspace*{1cm}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfysize=20.cm\epsffile{eennll.ps}}
\vspace*{-14.cm}
\caption{\label{eennlldiag}{\em The dominant diagram in $e^- e^- \to \nu_e \nu_e \ell^- \ell^-$.}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Detecting a Majorana $\nu_e$ Without an $e^-e^-$ Collider}
For various reasons, it is conceivable that, even if an NLC is built, the
$e^- e^-$ option may never be used. In the absence of an $e^-e^-$ collider,
what are the prospects for detecting a Majorana $\nu_e$ through $\Delta
L=2$ processes similar to those discussed to this point? The only real
possibility is the $2\to 3$ process $e^- \gamma \to e^+ W^- W^-$.
{\footnote{The $\Delta L=2$ process $\gamma\gamma \to e^+ e^+ W^- W^-$
could also occur, with a cross-section slightly
larger than the one presented for $\gamma\gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^+ W^- W^-$ due to the
larger electron content of the photon. However,
with the constraint from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$, a few events are expected
only for very heavy neutrinos.}}
The dominant diagram for this
process is shown in Fig.~\ref{egewwdiag}.
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\hspace*{1.5cm}
\vspace*{.3cm}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfysize=20.cm\epsffile{egeww.ps}}
\vspace*{-14.5cm}
\caption{\label{egewwdiag}{\em The dominant diagram in $e^- \gamma \to e^+ W^- W^-$.}}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{egewwXsection} we present the discovery limit for
$e^- \gamma \to e^+ W^- W^-$ at the NLC for $\sqrt{s}=4$ TeV and 10 TeV as a function of
$M_i$ and $(U_{ei})^2$. We consider two scenarios. In the optimistic
(conservative) scenario, the $e^-$ is polarized (unpolarized), and we
demand 10 (25) events for discovery. As is clear from the figure, for
$\sqrt{s}=4$ TeV, even in the optimistic scenario the values of $M_i$
and $(U_{ei})^2$ which produce an observable $e^- \gamma \to e^+ W^- W^-$ cross section
are already ruled out by neutrinoless double beta decay. However, for
$\sqrt{s}=10$ TeV, there exists a sizeable allowed region of
$M_i$-$(U_{ei})^2$ parameter space which produces an observable signal
for $e^- \gamma \to e^+ W^- W^-$. Therefore, even if the $e^-e^-$ option of the NLC is
never used, it will be possible to detect a Majorana $\nu_e$. However,
one must go to extremely high energies and luminosities.
\begin{figure*}[hbtp]
\vspace*{-6.cm}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize=15cm\epsfysize=15.cm\epsffile{eg2en3.ps}}
\vspace*{-1.cm}
\caption{\label{egewwXsection}{\em Discovery limit for $e^- \gamma \to e^+ W^- W^-$ at the NLC
as a function of $M_i$ and $(U_{ei})^2$. We assume a luminosity of $80
(\protect\sqrt{s}/{\hbox{(1 TeV)}})^2~fb^{-1}$. The dash-dot (dotted) line
corresponds to an unpolarized (polarized) $e^-$ beam, and we require 25
(10) events for discovery. In all cases, the parameter space above the line
corresponds to observable events. We also superimpose the experimental
limit from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ (diagonal solid line), as well as the limit on
$(U_{ei})^2$ (horizontal solid line). Here, the parameter space above the
line is ruled out.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusions}
We have critically reexamined the prospects for the observation of
$e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ at a high-energy $e^-e^-$ collider. This process is
essentially the inverse of neutrinoless double beta decay ($\beta\beta_{0\nu}$).
Once the constraints from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ are taken into account, we have
found that $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ is unobservable at an NLC of $\sqrt{s} <2$ TeV. It
is possible to evade the constraints, but this requires models which
are extremely contrived and fine-tuned. A $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV NLC
essentially reproduces the limits from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$, and for $\sqrt{s}>2$
TeV, there is a sizeable region of parameter space, not ruled out by
$\beta\beta_{0\nu}$, which produces an observable signal for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$.
The constraints from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ apply only to Majorana neutrinos which
mix with the $\nu_e$. $\Delta L=2$ processes in the $\mu$ or $\tau$
sectors are unconstrained by $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$. We have therefore also
considered other $\Delta L=2$ processes at the NLC, involving $\mu$-
and $\tau$-lepton-number violation. The process $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^+ W^- W^-$
($\ell=\mu,\tau$) can be observed for $\sqrt{s}>4$ TeV, while the
observation of $e^- \gamma \to \nu_e \ell^- \ell^- W^+$ requires $\sqrt{s} \sim 10$ TeV.
Finally, we have examined the possibilities for the observation of
$\Delta L=2$ $e$-lepton-number violation in the absence of an $e^-e^-$
collider. The most promising process is $e^- \gamma \to e^+ W^- W^-$. Taking into account
the constraints from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$, we have found that its observation
requires $\sqrt{s} \sim 10$ TeV.
\bigskip
\noindent
Note added: While writing up this paper, we received Ref.~\cite{GZ},
which also discusses $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$. These authors arrive at the conclusion
that this process is observable at a 1 TeV NLC. However, like
Ref.~\cite{HM}, they have not included the constraints from $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$.
\bigskip
\centerline{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
\bigskip
We thank J. Cline for enlightening conversations and B. Kayser for
helpful communications. D. London and H. Nadeau are grateful for the
hospitality of ENSLAPP, where most of this work was done. This work
was supported in part by the NSERC of Canada and les Fonds FCAR du
Qu\'ebec.
\section{Appendix}
The helicity amplitudes for $e^-e^-\to W^-W^-$ can be written in a very compact
way. The only non-vanishing helicity amplitudes are those involving
left-handed electrons, {\it i.e.\/}\ we have $2 \lambda_e=2\lambda_e'=-1$
where $ \lambda_e$ is the helicity of the electron. The helicities of
the $W^-$ are denoted by $h_i$, with $h_i=0,\tau$, $\tau=\pm 1$ and
$0$ is the longitudinal contribution. $\beta=\sqrt{1-4M_W^2/s}$ will
denote the velocity of the $W$ in the centre-of-mass system.
The amplitude is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{{\cal M}}^{\lambda,\lambda'}_{h_1,h_2}=\frac{\delta_{2\lambda,-1}\;
\delta_{2\lambda',-1}}{2\sqrt{s}}
\left(\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2 \sum_j M_j \; U^2_{ej} \;
A_{h_1,h_2}^{(j)} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{00}^{(j)}&=&-\frac{2 s}{M_W^2} \left( \frac{t}{t-M_j^2} +
\frac{u}{u-M_j^2} \right) \nonumber \\
A_{\tau,\tau'}^{(j)}&=& 2 \delta_{\tau,\tau'} \left\{\frac{s}{t-M_j^2}
\left( 1- \frac{\tau}{\beta}
\frac{t-u}{s}\right) + t \leftrightarrow u \right\} \nonumber \\
A_{0,\tau}^{(j)}&=&\sqrt{\frac{s}{M_W^2}} \left(\frac{u-t}{\beta}
\sqrt{\frac{2}{ut -M_W^4}} \right)
\frac{s^2}{(t-M_j^2) (u-M_j^2)} \nonumber \\
&&\left\{ \frac{ut-M_W^4}{s^2} - \frac{\tau}{\beta} \left( \frac{(t+M_W^2)
(u+M_W^2)}{s^2}
+\frac{M_W^2}{s} \frac{(t-u)^2}{s^2} \right) \right\}~.
\end{eqnarray}
|
\chapter{Introduction}
Consistent string backgrounds are given by exact conformal field
theories. If the string propagating on a curved background is
described by the corresponding two-dimensional (non-linear)
$\sigma$-model action, conformal invariance is equivalent to the
vanishing of the associated $\beta$-functionals
[\CAL]. Part of the string background (``internal dimensions") can of
course be replaced by a more general exact conformal field theory.
Particular examples are actions that involve exactly marginal
operators added to a free bosonic action, as is the case for the
Liouville
[\POLY] and Toda
[\BGT] actions. The latter theories are highly non-trivial, but
nevertheless are known to be completely integrable since long
[\LIOU,\LS].
They are intimately related to the Gelfand-Dikii hierarchies of
integrable partial differential equations generalizing the KdV
equation
[\GERBAK].
In this note, I will discuss certain integrable theories that again
lead to consistent string backgrounds, i.e. are exactly conformal.
From the algebraic point of view, they are associated with
non-canonical gradations of simple Lie algebras ${\sl g}$ where the
gradation-zero part ${\sl g}_0$ is a {\it non-abelian} subalgebra. The prototype is
the non-abelian Toda theory studied in
[\GS,\NAT].
An important point to be made is that in the formulation of [\GS,\NAT]
the non-abelian Toda theory does not satisfy the $\beta$-function equations of
[\CAL]. However, as will be shown below, there exists a classically equivalent,
and more natural formulation that does.
This note is organized as follows: In section 2, after briefly reviewing the
setting
of [\CAL] for the $\beta$-function equations in the $\sigma$-model, we discuss the
role of
the tachyon potential. In section 3, we show how the WZW-models naturally fit
into
this setting. In sect. 4, we introduce the non-abelian Toda theory in both
classically
equivalent formulations and show how the $\beta$-function equations are satisfied
in one
of these formulations. We point out that this should actually be no surprise,
at
least as far as the equations for the metric, antisymmetric tensor and dilation
are concerned, since they are given by those of a WZW-model for ${\sl g}_0$.
\chapter{Consistent string backgrounds in the $\sigma$-model}
Consider string propagation on an arbitrary background described by the
(non-linear)
$\sigma$-model
$$\eqalign{
S_\sigma=&-{1\over 4\pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s \sqrt{g} \left[ G_{\mu\nu}(X)g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha X^\mu \partial_\beta
X^\nu
+B_{\mu\nu}(X)\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha X^\mu \partial_\beta X^\nu \right] \cr
&+{1\over 4\pi} \int {\rm d}^2\s \sqrt{g} R^{(2)} \Phi(X) \cr}
\eqn\i$$
where $G_{\mu\nu}, B_{\mu\nu}$ and $\Phi$ are the background metric, antisymmetric
tensor
and dilaton field. $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ and $g_{\alpha\beta}$ are the world-sheet antisymmetric
$\epsilon$-tensor and metric (with signature $(-,+)$), and $R^{(2)}$ is the
corresponding world-sheet curvature scalar. The string tension $\a'$ plays the
role of a loop-counting parameter ($\sim\hbar$) for the first part of the
action. The dilaton-term, being a sort of anomaly cancellation term, is
${\cal O}((\a')^0)$.
Callan et al have shown [\CAL] that, to lowest non-trivial order in $\a'$, the
so-defined string theory is conformally invariant, i.e
$G_{\mu\nu}, B_{\mu\nu}$ and $\Phi$ are consistent string backgrounds, if the
following
$\beta$-function equations are satisfied:
$$\eqalign{
\beta^{G_{\mu\nu}}
&\sim {\cal R}_{\mu\nu}-{1\over 4}H_{\mu\rho\sigma}H_\nu^{\phantom{\nu}\rho\sigma} +2D_\mu D_\nu \Phi =0
\ , \cr
\beta^{B_{\mu\nu}}
&\sim D_\rho H^\rho_{\phantom{\rho}\mu\nu} -2 (D_\rho\Phi)H^\rho_{\phantom{\rho}\mu\nu} =0\ ,
\cr
\beta^\Phi
&\sim {N-26\over 3\a'} +4D_\mu\Phi D^\mu\Phi - 4 D_\mu D^\mu \Phi - {\cal R}
+{1\over 12} H_{\mu\nu\rho}H^{\mu\nu\rho} =0 \ .\cr}
\eqn\ii$$
Here $H_{\mu\nu\rho}=\partial_\mu B_{\nu\rho}+\partial_\nu B_{\rho\mu} +\partial_\rho B_{\mu\nu}$, and
${\cal R}_{\mu\nu}$
and ${\cal R}$ are the Ricci curvature tensor and scalar computed
\foot{
Our sign convention is ${\cal R}_{\mu\nu}=R^\lambda_{\phantom{\lambda}\mu\lambda\nu}$,
$R^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\rho\sigma}=(\partial_\rho\Gamma_\sigma-\partial_\sigma\Gamma_\rho
+[\Gamma_\rho,\Gamma_\sigma])^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}$,
$(\Gamma_\rho)^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}=\Gamma^\mu_{\rho\nu}={1\over 2} G^{\mu\lambda}\left(
\partial_\rho
G_{\lambda\nu}+\partial_\nu G_{\rho\lambda}-\partial_\lambda G_{\rho\nu}\right)$.
}
from the space-time metric
$G_{\mu\nu}$, while $D_\mu$ is the corresponding covariant derivative. $N$ is the
number
of fields $X^\mu$.
In many cases one wishes to study the effect of adding a perturbation to the
conformal
theory. In particular one can ask when this perturbation is exactly marginal so
that
the resulting theory remains an exact conformal field theory. If the
perturbation
simply modifies $G_{\mu\nu}, B_{\mu\nu}$ and $\Phi$ one just needs to check
whether the
new background fields still satisfy eqs. \ii. But there are many other
operators one
can add, the simplest of which is the so-called tachyon potential, i.e. a
non-derivative function of the fields $X^\mu$. We could choose to add to the
action \i\
either a term
$-{1\over 4\pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s \sqrt{g} \, {{\tilde V(X)}}$ or, working in conformal gauge
right away, a term
$$S_V=-{1\over 4\pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s\, V(X)\ .
\eqn\iia$$
While ${{\tilde V(X)}}$ should be a scalar, conformal field theory tells us
that,
to be marginal, $V(X)$ should be a conformal primary of weight $(1,1)$.
\foot{
We also know that an integrable marginal operator moreover needs to have
vanishing operator product coefficients $c_{VVj}$ with all primary fields
labelled by $j$ that have weight $(1,1)$ [\DVV].
}
In the $\sigma$-model approach one can again compute the $\beta$-functionals now
including
the effect of $V$. To lowest order in $\a'$ one finds that eqs \ii\ are not
modified
by the presence of the tachyon potential $V(X)$, while $\beta^V$ is
$$\beta^V \sim -{1\over 2} D^\mu D_\mu V + D^\mu \Phi D_\mu V - {1\over \a'} V \ .
\eqn\iib$$
We insisted that these results are to lowest non-trivial order in $\a'$.
Indeed, it is
known
[\KS]
that including higher-order contributions in $\a'$ will lead to corrections to
eqs
\ii\ that involve $V$, as well as to non-linear terms in $V$ in eq \iib. As it
stands, eq. \iib\
is simply the dimension $(1,1)$-condition in the $\sigma$-model language. Typical
solutions of $\beta^V=0$ are sums of products of exponentials of the fields.
As an example consider the Liouville theory with $G_{\varphi\vf}=\a'$, $\Phi=Q\varphi$
and $V\sim e^{\beta\varphi}$, coupled to a matter theory with central charge $c$.
Substituting $N=1+c$ in the third eq. \ii\ yields $Q^2={25-c\over 12}$.
Equation \iib\ gives $\beta^2-2Q\beta+2=0$, hence the well-known formula
$\beta=Q-\sqrt{Q^2-2}$ $=\sqrt{{25-c\over 12}}-\sqrt{{1-c\over
12}}$. In the classical limit $c\rightarrow -\infty$ one correctly gets $\beta\rightarrow
{1\over Q}$. Upon rescaling $\tilde\varphi={\varphi\over Q} + const$, the Liouville
action correctly
reads [\POLY] ${25-c\over 48\pi} \int {\rm d}^2\s \left[ -(\partial\tilde\varphi)^2 +R\tilde\varphi
- e^{(\beta Q)\tilde \varphi} \right]$ with $\beta Q \sim 1$ in this limit.
Of course, even in the absence of the potential $V$, eqs \ii\ are valid only to
leading order in $\a'$ and higher order corrections e.g. to the first equation
involve terms like $R_{\mu\lambda\rho\sigma}R_{\nu}^{\phantom{\nu}\lambda\rho\sigma}$. In some cases,
however, as for the WZW-models to which we now turn, one knows that the theory
is an exact conformal theory, and hence the $\beta$-functionals vanish to all
orders in $\a'$.
\chapter{WZW-models}
It is very easy to compute the background fields $G_{\mu\nu}$ and $H_{\mu\nu\rho}$
for an
arbitrary WZW-model for a group ${\cal G}$
[\ZACH]
with action
$$\eqalign{
S=S_1+S_2=&{1\over 16\pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s\, {\rm tr} (g^{-1}\partial_\alpha g) (g^{-1}\partial^\alpha g) \cr
& +{1\over 24 \pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s {\rm d}t\, \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}\, {\rm tr} (g^{-1}\partial_\alpha g)
(g^{-1}\partial_\beta g) (g^{-1}\partial_\gamma g) \ . \cr }
\eqn\iii$$
Let $\xi^\mu$ be coordinates on the group manifold of ${\cal G}$ so that $g\equiv
g(\xi^\mu(\sigma^\alpha))$. Let $\partial_\mu \equiv {\partial\over \partial\xi^\mu}$. Then $(\partial_\mu g) g^{-1}$
is in
the Lie algebra of ${\cal G}$ and hence some linear combination of the generators
$I_a$:
$$\partial_\mu g =U^a_\mu(\xi) I_a g
\eqn\iv$$
and from equating $\partial_\mu\partial_\nu g$ with $\partial_\nu\partial_\mu g$ one obtains the
Maurer-Cartan
equations
$$\partial_\mu U^a_\nu -\partial_\nu U^a_\mu=C^a_{\phantom{a}bc} U^b_\mu U^c_\nu
\eqn\v$$
where $[I_b,I_c]=C^a_{\phantom{a}bc} I_a$. We normalize the generators as ${\rm tr}
I_aI_b=-\delta_{ab}$. Furthermore, $C_{acd} C_b^{\phantom{b}cd}=c_2
\delta_{ab}$ where
$c_2$ is the quadratic Casimir of the adjoint representation.
Using eq. \iv\ it is straightforward to see that the first part of the action
reduces to
$$S_1=-{1\over 4\pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s\, \partial_\alpha\xi^\mu \partial^\alpha \xi^\nu G_{\mu\nu}
\eqn\vi$$
with
$$G_{\mu\nu}={1\over 4} U^a_\mu U^a_\nu \ .
\eqn\vii$$
Thus we interpret the $e^a_\mu = {1\over 2}U^a_\mu$ as vielbeins on the group
manifold.
Then eq. \v\ is nothing but the zero-torsion equation ${\rm d}
e^a+\omega^a_{\phantom{a}b}\wedge e^b=0$, provided we identify the spin-connection
as
$$\omega^{\phantom{\mu}a}_{\mu\phantom{a}b}={1\over 2} C^a_{\phantom{a}bc} U^c_\mu\ .
\eqn\viii$$
It is an easy excercise to compute the curvature two-form $R^a_{\phantom{a}b}=
{\rm d}\omega^a_{\phantom{a}b}+ \omega^a_{\phantom{a}c}\wedge \omega^c_{\phantom{c}b}$ and
the Riemann tensor $R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=e_{a\rho}e^b_\sigma (R^a_{\phantom{a}b})_{\mu\nu}$
from
which the Ricci tensor and scalar are obtained as
$${\cal R}_{\mu\nu}=c_2 G_{\mu\nu}\ , \quad {\cal R}=c_2\, {\rm dim}{\cal G} \ .
\eqn\int {\rm d}^2 x \, $$
The Ricci tensor is proportional to the metric and the scalar curvature is
constant.
\foot{
This is reminiscent of a maximally symmetric space. However, only for $SU(2)$
where
${\cal G} \simeq S^3$ one has the extra relation $R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\sim
G_{\mu\rho}G_{\nu\sigma}-G_{\mu\sigma}G_{\nu\rho}$.
}
While the first part $S_1$ of the WZW-action gives the metric $G_{\mu\nu}$,
the WZ-term $S_2$ will give the antisymmetric tensor field. It is not possible
in
general to give $B_{\mu\nu}$ directly (otherwise we would have obtained a
two-dimensional form of the WZ-term), but it is easy to obtain its field
strength
$H_{\mu\nu\rho}$ which is all that is needed anyway. Using eq. \iv\ we get
$$S_2=-{1\over 48 \pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s {\rm d}t\,
\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}\partial_\alpha\xi^\mu\partial_\beta\xi^\nu\partial_\gamma\xi^\rho C_{abc}U^a_\mu U^b_\nu U^c_\rho
\eqnx^+$$
which we want to identify with
$$\eqalign{
&-{1\over 4 \pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s\, \epsilon^{\alpha\beta} \partial_\alpha\xi^\mu\partial_\beta\xi^\nu B_{\mu\nu}
=-{1\over 4 \pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s {\rm d}t\, \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma} \partial_\gamma ( \partial_\alpha\xi^\mu\partial_\beta\xi^\nu
B_{\mu\nu}) \cr
&=-{1\over 4 \pi\a'} \int {\rm d}^2\s {\rm d}t\, \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}
\partial_\alpha\xi^\mu\partial_\beta\xi^\nu\partial_\gamma\xi^\rho
\partial_\rho B_{\mu\nu} \cr }
\eqn\xpi$$
(where, as usual, the boundary of the three-dimensional integration region is
the
two-dimensional manifold of the $\sigma$-model) so that
$$H_{\mu\nu\rho}= {1\over 4} C_{abc} U^a_\mu U^b_\nu U^c_\rho
=2 C_{abc}e^a_\mu e^b_\nu e^c_\rho \ .
\eqn\xii$$
Since the vielbeins $e^a_\mu$, as well as the structure constants $C_{abc}$ are
covariantly constant, it follows that $D_\sigma H_{\mu\nu\rho}=0$. Furthermore
$H_{\mu\rho\sigma}H_\nu^{\phantom{\nu}\rho\sigma}=4 c_2 G_{\mu\nu}=4{\cal R}_{\mu\nu}$, so that the
three eqs. \ii\ reduce to
$$\eqalign{
G^{\mu\nu}D_\mu\partial_\nu \Phi &=0 \ , \cr
\partial_\rho \Phi H^\rho_{\phantom{\rho}\mu\nu} &=0 \ , \cr
G^{\mu\nu}D_\mu \Phi D_\nu \Phi +{\tilde N-26\over 12\a'}&= -{{\rm dim}{\cal G}\over
12\a'}(1-2\a'
c_2) \ , \cr }
\eqn\xiii$$
which determines $\Phi$. Here $\tilde N$ is the number of fields other than
the
$\xi^\mu$, if any.
\foot{
Note that the r.h.s. of the last equation is, to order $\a'$ and
up to an overall factor of $-{1\over 12\a'}$, the contribution of the WZW-model
to the
central charge: $c={x{\rm dim}{\cal G}\over x+\tilde h}={\rm dim}{\cal G} (1-2\a' c_2)
+{\cal O}({\a'}^2)$
where $\tilde h=c_2/\psi^2$ ($\psi^2$ being the length squared of the highest
root) is the dual Coxeter number, and one identifies the Kac-Moody level $x$
with
${1\over 2\a'\psi^2}$
{}.
}
For semi-simple ${\cal G}$, the $C_{abc}$ cannot vanish for all $a,b$ for fixed $c$,
hence
$ H^\rho_{\phantom{\rho}\mu\nu} $ cannot vanish for all $\mu,\nu$ for fixed $\rho$, and
one concludes
that $\partial_\rho \Phi=0$. Then, for $\tilde N=0$, unless one fine-tunes $\a'$, i.e.
unless the
WZW Kac-Moody level can be adjusted such that $c_{\rm WZW}=26$, the third eq.
\xiii\ is not
satisfied.
If, however, we consider the slightly more general situation where in addition
to
the WZW fields $\xi^\mu$ one has $\tilde N$ other fields $\xi^s,\ s={\rm dim }{\cal G}
+1, \ldots {\rm dim }{\cal G} +\tilde N$ with flat metric and vanishing $B_{\mu\nu}$
($U(1)$-factors) then, in these directions $H^s_{\phantom{s}\mu\nu}=0$ and
$\partial_s\Phi$ can be non-vanishing. The first eq. \xiii\ then shows that the
dilaton field must be linear in the $\xi^s$ and one has %
$$\eqalign{
\Phi&=\sum_{ s={\rm dim }{\cal G} +1}^{{\rm dim }{\cal G} +\tilde N} a_s \xi^s \cr
\sum_{ s={\rm dim }{\cal G} +1}^{{\rm dim }{\cal G} +\tilde N} a_s^2 &= {26-\tilde N -{\rm
dim}{\cal G}\over
12\a'} +{c_2\, {\rm dim }{\cal G}\over 6} \cr }
\eqn\xiv$$
so that all $\beta$-function equations \ii\ are satisfied.
\chapter{The non-abelian Toda theory}
The (ordinary) conformally invariant Toda field theories based on a Lie
algebra
${\sl g}$
[\BGT]
when viewed as a $\sigma$-model \i\ have constant metric $G_{\mu\nu}$ and vanishing
antisymmetric
tensor, and thus the corresponding $\beta$-function equations \ii\ are trivially
satisfied,
provided one chooses a linear dilaton appropriately. The latter is invisible in
the
conformal gauge action but controls the improvement term in the stress-energy
tensor. These
theories correspond to a canonical gradation of ${\sl g}$ and the gradation zero
part ${\sl g}_0$
is abelian. Generalizing to non-canonical gradations leads to non-abelian
${\sl g}_0$
[\LS]
and non-trivial background fields
[\GS].
The simplest example is the non-abelian Toda theory for ${\sl g} = B_2$. In the
formulation
given in
[\GS,\NAT]
it corresponds to a $\sigma$-model with the metric of the two-dimensional black
hole
and one additional flat dimension:
$$G_{\mu\nu}{\rm d}x^\mu {\rm d}x^\nu= {\rm d}r^2 +{\rm th}^2r\, {\rm d}t^2 +{\rm
d}\phi^2\ , \quad B_{\mu\nu}=0
\eqn\xv$$
and a potential term $V=4 {\rm ch} 2r e^{2\phi}$.
This model is classically integrable and although its equations of motion are
highly
non-trivial, their general solution could be explicitly given
[\GS,\NAT]
due to the underlying Lie algebraic structure. At the classical (Poisson
bracket) level
this model has three left-moving conserved quantities $T, V^+, V^-$ of
dimension two, as
well as three right-moving ones. The chiral equal-time Poisson bracket algebra
of these
quantities is not only non-linear (like for $W$-algebras) but also {\it
non-local} due to
the appearance of $\epsilon(\sigma-\sigma')=\theta(\sigma-\sigma')-\theta(\sigma'-\sigma)$:
\def\gamma^{-2}{\gamma^{-2}}
\def\delta'(\s-\s'){\delta'(\sigma-\sigma')}
\def\delta'''(\s-\s'){\delta'''(\sigma-\sigma')}
$$\eqalign{
\gamma^{-2} \{T(\sigma)\, ,\, T(\sigma')\} &=
(\partial_\sigma-\partial_{\sigma'})\left[ T(\sigma') \delta(\s-\s')\right]-{1\over 2} \delta'''(\s-\s') \cr
\gamma^{-2} \{T(\sigma)\, ,\, V^\pm(\sigma')\} &=
(\partial_\sigma-\partial_{\sigma'})\left[ V^\pm(\sigma') \delta(\s-\s')\right]\cr
\gamma^{-2} \{V^\pm(\sigma)\, ,\, V^\pm(\sigma')\}&=\e(\s-\s')
V^\pm(\sigma)V^\pm(\sigma')\cr
\gamma^{-2} \{V^\pm(\sigma)\, ,\, V^\mp(\sigma')\}&=-\e(\s-\s')
V^\pm(\sigma)V^\mp(\sigma')\cr
&\phantom{=}+(\partial_\sigma-\partial_{\sigma'})\left[ T(\sigma') \delta(\s-\s')\right] -{1\over 2}
\delta'''(\s-\s') \ .\cr }
\eqn\xvi$$
The scale factor $\gamma^2$ which controls the central charge plays the role of
$\hbar$ or $\a'$ already introduced in the classical equations. The classical
solution of the non-abelian Toda theory provides a free-field realisation of
these chiral generators [\NAT].
It turned out that this algebra can be obtained as the second Gelfand-Dikii
symplectic
structure associated with a second-order matrix differential operator
[\LMP]
$$ L=\partial^2-U\ ,\quad
U=\pmatrix{ T& -\sqrt{2} V^+\cr -\sqrt{2} V^- & T \cr }
\eqn\xvii$$
in the same way as the Virasoro algebra is obtained from \xvii\ with scalar
$U\sim T$. This algebraic structure was generalized to
$n\times n$-matrix differential operators of order $m$ and non-linear,
non-local algebras
like \xvi\ that are matrix generalizations of (classical) $W_m$-algebras
[\MW].
All this was at the level of classical symplectic structures, and it seemed
surprisingly
difficult to quantize even the simplest algebra \xvi\ maintaining the conformal
dimensions
of the generators equal to two. It is probable that the solution of the
quantization problem is linked to the following simple remark.
It is easy to see that the black hole metric \xv\ cannot solve the
$\beta$-function equations
\ii, i.e. one cannot find a dilation $\Phi$ so that all three equations are
satisfied: the
non-abelian Toda model so defined is classically conformally invariant, but not
at the
quantum level. The point is that the $\sigma$-model action corresponding to \xv\ is
{\it not}
the correct starting point.
In the original Lax pair formulation of the integrable model there are four
fields $\mu, \nu,
r, \phi$ whose equations of motion can be written as
[\GSWP]
$$\eqalign{
&\partial_-(\partial_+\nu-{\rm ch} 2r \partial_+\mu) = 0 \ , \cr
&\partial_+(\partial_-\mu-{\rm ch} 2r \partial_-\nu) = 0 \ , \cr
&2\partial_+\partial_- r = {\rm sh} 2r (\partial_-\nu\partial_+\mu +2e^{2\phi}) \ , \cr
&\partial_+\partial_-\phi = {\rm ch} 2r e^{2\phi} \ , \cr }
\eqn\xviii$$
which can be obtained from the action
$$\eqalign{
S\sim \int {\rm d}^2\s \Big[ &-{1\over 2} \partial_+\nu\partial_-\nu -{1\over 2} \partial_+\mu\partial_-\mu +2 \partial_+
r\partial_- r
+2\partial_+\phi\partial_-\phi \cr
&+{\rm ch} 2r \partial_+\mu \partial_-\nu +2{\rm ch} 2r\, e^{2\phi} \Big] \ . \cr }
\eqn\xix$$
We can solve the first two equations \xviii\ as
$$\partial_+\nu-{\rm ch} 2r\, \partial_+\mu = 0 \ , \quad \partial_-\mu-{\rm ch} 2r\, \partial_-\nu=0\ .
\eqn\xx$$
Introduce a field $t$ as
$$\partial_+ t = {\rm ch}^2 r\, \partial_+\mu \ , \quad \partial_- t=(1+{\rm th}^2 r )^{-1} \partial_-\mu \ .
\eqn\xxi$$
Then eq. \xx\ implies that $\partial_+\nu=(1+{\rm th}^2 r ) \partial_+ t\ , \ \partial_-\nu= {\rm ch}^{-2}
r\,
\partial_- t$. The compatibility condition of the two equations \xxi\ can be written
as
$$\partial_+\partial_- t =-{1\over {\rm sh} r\, {\rm ch} r} (\partial_+ t \partial_- r + \partial_- t \partial_+ r)
\eqn\xxii$$
while the last two equations \xviii\ become
$$\eqalign{
\partial_+\partial_- r &={{\rm sh} r\over {\rm ch}^3r} \partial_+ t\partial_- t + {\rm sh} 2r\, e^{2\phi} \ , \cr
\partial_+\partial_- \phi &= {\rm ch} 2r\, e^{2\phi} \ . \cr }
\eqn\xxiii$$
Equations \xxii\ and \xxiii\ are three equations of motion for the three fields
$r, t,
\phi$ and can be obtained from the action
$$S\sim \int {\rm d}^2\s \left[ \partial_+ r\partial_- r +{\rm th}^2 r\, \partial_+ t \partial_- t +\partial_+\phi \partial_-\phi
+{\rm ch} 2r\, e^{2\phi} \right]
\eqn\xxiv$$
which is the $\sigma$-model with the background fields given by \xv\ and a tachyon
potential
$V=4{\rm ch} 2r\, e^{2\phi}$, i.e. the non-abelian Toda action as formulated in
[\GS,\NAT].
While, as already
mentioned, the $\sigma$-model \xxiv\ does not satisfy the $\beta$-function equations,
the
model given by \xix\ does, as we now poceed to show. Arranging the fields as
$X^1=\mu,
X^2=\nu, X^3=r, X^4=\phi$, the action \xix\ corresponds to
$$G_{\mu\nu}={1\over 4}
\pmatrix{-1&{\rm ch} 2r &0&0\cr
{\rm ch} 2r&-1&0&0&\cr
0&0&4&0&\cr
0&0&0&4\cr} \quad , \quad
B_{\mu\nu}={1\over 4}
\pmatrix{0&-{\rm ch} 2r &0&0\cr
{\rm ch} 2r&0&0&0&\cr
0&0&0&0&\cr
0&0&0&0\cr}\ ,
\eqn\xxv$$
and $V=4{\rm ch} 2r\, e^{2\phi}$ as before. As far as $G_{\mu\nu}$ and $B_{\mu\nu}$ are
concerned, $\phi$ plays a trivial role, and it is more convenient to consider
seperately $X^1, X^2$ and $X^3$ with metric $G^{(3)}_{\mu\nu}$. It is then
straightforward to see that %
$${\cal R}^{(3)}_{\mu\nu} = -2 G^{(3)}_{\mu\nu}
\eqn\xxvi$$
while the full four-dimensional Ricci tensor ${\cal R}_{\mu\nu}$
is obtained by adding an extra lign and column
of zeros. Relation \xxvi\ which closely ressembles eq. \int {\rm d}^2 x \, \ for $SU(2)$ should
be no
surprise. Indeed, the $\sigma$-model part of the action \xix\ can be written as a
WZW-model for the zero-gradation subgroup ${\cal G}_0$ which is a non-compact version
of $SU(2)$, hence the minus sign. Similarly one finds $H_{123}=-{1\over 2}{\rm sh}
2r$ and $H_{\mu\rho\sigma}H_\nu^{\phantom{\nu}\rho\sigma}=4{\cal R}_{\mu\nu}$, as well as $D_\rho
H^\rho_{\phantom{\rho}\mu\nu}=0$ and the $\beta$-function equations \ii\ again reduce to
eqs. \xiii\ with ${\rm dim}{\cal G}=3$ and $c_2=-2$. As in section 3 one determines
$$\Phi= Q\phi\ , \quad Q^2={22-d\over 12\a'}-1
\eqn\xxvii$$
where $d$ is the number of free (flat) extra fields one might want to add. Note
that
because ${\cal R}=-6=const$, the action \xix\ certainly no longer describes a black
hole
background.
We have seen that the ``kinetic" part of the ``correct" non-abelian Toda action
\xix\
satisfies the $\beta$-function equations \ii. What about the potential
$V=4{\rm ch} 2r\, e^{2\phi}\, $? First, we remark that the normalization factor $4$
in
front of $e^{2\phi}$ has no meaning since it can be adjusted at will by
shifting
$\phi\rightarrow\phi+const$. Also the action \xix\ was obtained from purely classical
considerations and we could just as well have multiplied it by
some scale factor $\gamma^{-2}$. Redefining all fields $X^\mu\rightarrow \gamma X^\mu$ would
absorb this factor while changing $\gamma^{-2} V\rightarrow 4 \gamma^{-2} {\rm ch} 2\gamma r\, e^{2\gamma \phi}$,
so
one might just as well consider
$$V={\rm ch} 2\gamma r\, e^{2\gamma\phi}\ .
\eqn\xxviii$$
This is analogous to the rescaling of the Liouville field discussed in section
2. Of course, in the quantum theory the value of $\gamma$ is no longer
arbitrary. Inserting $V$ into eq. \iib\ one finds that it indeed is a solution
of
$\beta^V=0$ provided $\gamma$ is chosen to satisfy the resulting
algebraic equation with solution
$$
4\gamma = Q \pm \sqrt{Q^2-{4\over \a'}} \ .
\eqn\xxix$$
For all non-negative values of $d$ this leads to a complex value of $\gamma$, and
it seems that
in order to quantize this theory one faces a situation similar to the Liouville
theory for
$c>1$.
Whether this is really so is not clear at present. Indeed, the world-sheet
symmetry algebra
is not just the Virasoro algebra which gives a ghost contribution $-26$ in
$\beta^V$ and hence
in $-Q^2={d-4-26\over 12\a'}+1$, but the larger algebra \xvi. From the study of
superstrings or $W$-gravity and $W$-strings
[\BGWS]
one knows that the ghost contributions to the central charge gets modified, and
for a
larger bosonic chiral algebra it becomes larger (e.g. $-100$ instead of $-26$
for the
$W_3$-case). For the algebra \xvi\ one would then expect three ghost pairs, all
of weight 2
and $-1$, contributing $3\times (-26)=-78$ to the central charge, so that the
correct value
of $Q$ should read
$$Q^2={78-4-d\over 12\a'}-1 \ ,
\eqn\xxx$$
and $Q$ and $\sqrt{Q^2-{4\over\a'}}$ remain real as long as $d\le 26-12\a'$.
Curiously
enough, for $\a'\rightarrow 0$ the upper limit is $26$. However, the whole issue of
quantization of
the theory needs to be studied in detail before one can draw any definit
conclusion.
\ack
I am grateful to J.-L. Gervais and M.V. Saveliev for sharing their insights on
the
non-abelian Toda theories, and in particular for drawing my attention to eqs.
\xviii\ and
\xix.
\refout
\end
|
\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\begin{document}
{\hfill HUTP-95/A028
\hfill TIFR/TH/95-41
\hfill hep-th/9508064
\vspace {1.0cm}}
\begin{center}{\Large \bf Dual Pairs of Type II String Compactification
}
\end{center}
\bigskip
\bigskip
\centerline{\large Ashoke Sen }
\centerline{\large Tata Institute of Fundamental Research }
\centerline{\large Homi Bhabha Road, Bombay 400005, INDIA }
\medskip
\centerline{and}
\medskip
\centerline{\large Cumrun Vafa}
\centerline{\large Lyman Laboratory of Physics}
\centerline{\large Harvard University }
\centerline{\large Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
\bigskip
\bigskip
\begin{abstract}
Using a $U$-duality symmetry of type II compactification
on $T^4$ represented by triality action on the $T$-duality group,
and applying the adiabatic argument
we construct dual pairs of type II compactifications in lower
dimensions.
The simplicity of this construction makes it an ideal
set up for testing various conjectures about string dualities.
In some of these models the type II string has
a perturbative non-abelian gauge symmetry. Examples include
models with $N=2,4,6$ supersymmetry in four dimensions.
There are also self-dual (in the sense of $S-T$ exchange
symmetric) $N=2$ and $N=6$ examples. A generalization of the
adiabatic argument can
be used to construct dual pairs of models with $N=1$ supersymmetry.
\end{abstract}
\vfil\eject
\sectiono{Introduction}
Recently there has been growing evidence for the existence
of many different types of duality symmetries in string
theory\cite{FIQL}-\cite{HaLoSt}.
The existence of duality symmetries has proven to be a powerful
tool in extracting exact results about the vacuum structure
of string compactifications.
One of the best understood duality symmetries is the
conjectured
duality between the type IIA compactification on
$K3$ and heterotic compactification on $T^4$\cite{HuTo1,Vafa}
for which a lot of evidence has recently
emerged\cite{Witten,Sen3,HaSt,VaWi1}.
This duality has itself led to other
dualities in lower dimensions. In particular upon
further toroidal compactification to 4 dimensions,
this string-string duality leads\cite{Duff,Witten} to the strong/weak
coupling duality of the $N=4$ supersymmetric string
theory in 4 dimensions which had been conjectured
to be a stringy generalization\cite{FIQL}-\cite{GaHa} of the
Olive-Montonen duality\cite{MoOl,Osbo,Sen2,VaWi0,GiPo,Porr}
in $N=4$ Yang-Mills theory. The mechanism for this
reduction is that the $S$-duality of one theory gets mapped
to the $T$-duality for the dual theory. If we assume
that the $T$-duality is not modified quantum mechanically, we are led
to the $S$-duality for the dual theory. One can also seek
type II--heterotic dualities in theories with lower number of
supersymmetries
in four dimensions and some examples of this have been found
with $N=1,2$ supersymmetry\cite{KaVa,FHSV,VaWi2,HaLoSt}.
As far as string theories with $N=4$ supersymmetry are concerned,
there are
more ways to get them. On the heterotic side, we can consider
asymmetric orbifolds where, roughly speaking,
the right-movers are compactified
on the six torus and left movers live on an
orbifold\cite{Sche,CHL,ChPo}.
At least some of these models have type II
dual both in six dimensions\cite{ScSe2} and in lower
dimensions\cite{Aspi,VaWi2}. The
existence of a dual in this
class of models, by the same mechanism mentioned above,
explains the strong/weak duality of the corresponding heterotic theory.
We can get $N=4$ theories in different ways also on the type II side.
We can consider compactifications on manifolds which have $SU(2)$
holonomy but which are not $K3\times T^2$. We can also
consider compactifications of type II in which all the 4 spacetime
supersymmetries are right-moving, with the left-moving ones
being projected out by the symmetry $(-1)^{F_L}$ (accompanied
by some other symmetries). In fact these models had
been previously constructed as a way to obtain {\it non-abelian} gauge
theories directly from perturbative
type II strings\cite{BlDoGo,Kaw,Les,FeKo,DiKaVa}.
(We can also consider orientifolding\cite{Orient}
the toroidal type II compactifications
which in many cases is likely to be equivalent
to the $(-1)^{F_L}$ construction just
discussed \cite{VaWi2}.)
The question arises as to how the $S$-duality of the alternative
$N=4$ models coming from these two type II compactifications can be explained.
This was the motivation for the present paper, and as we will see,
the two alternative $N=4$ type II compactifications will be found to
be dual to one another. The basic idea is to start from the conjectured
type II $U$-duality in six dimensions\cite{HuTo1} and using the
adiabatic argument of ref.\cite{VaWi2} construct type II dual
pairs with fewer supersymmetries in lower dimensions.
As a by-product we are able to construct many more dual
pairs in d=4, and in particular with $N=1,2$ supersymmetry.
(Construction of dual pairs with $N=1$ supersymmetry requires a
generalization of the adiabatic argument, which will be explained in
section 4.) The construction
of dual type II pairs proceeds in a much simpler way than the corresponding
ones starting from the type IIA-heterotic duality in six dimensions.
The main reason for this is that for the type IIA-heterotic
duality, given the complexity of the conformal theory
associated with $K3$ compactifications, it is rather difficult
to find the $K3$ conformal theory dual to a given heterotic theory
(and symmetries being modded out are often not geometrical).
For the $T^4$ compactification of type II, which is what
we are considering,
the situation is much simpler and we
can easily translate the geometrical symmetry from one toroidal
compactification to another, with an explicit map.
We can thus produce a large number of dual pairs
and this provides a useful laboratory for testing under what operations
the duality continues to hold.
The organization of this paper is as follows: In section 2
we review the $U$-duality symmetry of type II string compactified
on $T^4$.
In particular we identify an element $\bar \Omega_0$ of order 2
in this group and show how it conjugates the 8 dimensional
holonomy group (consisting of four left- and four right-mover
holonomies) according to $SO(4,4)$ triality.
In section 3 we discuss how one may use
adiabatic argument and the type II-type II
six-dimensional duality given by $\bar \Omega_0$ to construct models
with fewer supersymmetry in lower dimensions. In section
4 we construct a number of such examples, including some
with $N=6,4,2$ supersymmetries in four dimensions.
We also discuss a plausible $N=1$ dual pair, though
it cannot be fully justified by the adiabatic argument.
Among the examples constructed a notable one is
an $N=2$
model in four dimenions which is self-dual (in the sense that
there is an $S-T$ exchange symmetry).
\sectiono{Type II String Compactified on $T^4$}
We begin our discussion in this section by listing the massless fields that
appear in the low energy effective action describing type II string theory
compactified on a four dimensional torus, and the symmetries of this
supergravity theory. Note that toroidal compactifications
of type IIA and type IIB are equivalent. For definiteness we
will consider type IIA compactifications.
The scalar fields in this theory are the dilaton $\Phi$,
an $8\times 8$ matrix valued scalar field $M$ parametrizing the coset
$O(4,4)/(O(4)\times O(4))$ corresponding to the moduli associated with
$T^4$, and a set of 8 scalar fields $\psi^{(\alpha)}$ ($1\le\alpha\le 8$)
associated with the internal components
$A^{[10]}_m$ and $C^{[10]}_{mnp}$ ($6\le m,n,p\le 9$)
of the ten dimensional bosonic fields arising in the
Ramond-Ramond (RR) sector of the theory. $M$ is positive definte, and
satisfies the constraints,
\begin{equation} \label{e1}
MLM^T=L, \qquad M^T=M\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{e1a}
L=\pmatrix{-I_4 & \cr & I_4\cr}\, .
\end{equation}
$I_n$ denotes $n\times n$ identity matrix.
The vector fields in this theory consist of U(1) gauge fields $A_\mu^{(a)}$
($0\le\mu\le 5$, $1\le a\le 8$) arising from the components of the ten
dimensional metric and anti-symmetric tensor fields $G^{[10]}_{m\mu}$ and
$B^{[10]}_{m\mu}$ respectively, and eight U(1) gauge fields $K^{(\alpha')}_\mu$
($1\le\alpha'\le 8$) in the RR sector
arising from the components $C^{[10]}_{mn\mu}$, $A^{[10]}_\mu$, and the
dual of $C^{[10]}_{\mu\nu\rho}$. This theory also
has a symmetric tensor field $g_{\mu\nu}$ denoting the canonical Einstein
metric, an antisymmetric tensor field $B_{\mu\nu}$ arising in the
Neveu-Schwarz (NS) sector, and four more anti-symmetric tensor
fields constructed from the components
$C^{[10]}_{m\mu\nu}$. We shall find it convenient to arrange the four
field strengths associated with these anti-symmetric tensor fields into
eight (anti-)self-dual field strengths $D^{(\alpha)}_{\mu\nu\rho}$
($1\le\alpha\le 8$) satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{e2}
\widetilde D^{(\alpha)}_{\mu\nu\rho} = \big(R_s(ML)\big)_{\alpha\beta}
D^{(\beta)}_{\mu\nu\rho}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde D_{\mu\nu\rho}$ denotes the dual of $D_{\mu\nu\rho}$ in six
dimensions, and for any SO(4,4) matrix $\Omega$,
$R_s(\Omega)$ and $R_c(\Omega)$ denote the two inequivalent spinor
representations of SO(4,4).
We shall also denote by $H_{\mu\nu\rho}$ the field strength
associated with $B_{\mu\nu}$, and by $\widetilde H_{\mu\nu\rho}$ its dual in
six dimensions.
The action for the resulting $N=4$ supergravity theory in six dimensions
is invariant under an SO(4,4) symmetry generated by an $8\times 8$ matrix
$\Omega$ satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{e2a}
\Omega L\Omega^T = L\, , \qquad \det\Omega =1 .
\end{equation}
The various fields introduced above transform under this symmetry as,
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{e3}
M & \to & \Omega M \Omega^T\, , \nonumber \\
\psi^{(\alpha)} & \to & \big( R_s(\Omega)\big)_{\alpha\beta} \psi^{(\beta)}
\, , \nonumber \\
D^{(\alpha)}_{\mu\nu\rho} & \to & \big( R_s(\Omega)\big)_{\alpha\beta}
D^{(\beta)}_{\mu\nu\rho} \, , \nonumber \\
A^{(a)}_\mu & \to & \Omega_{ab} A_\mu^{(b)} \, , \nonumber \\
K^{(\alpha')}_{\mu} & \to & \big( R_c(\Omega)\big)_{\alpha'\beta'}
K^{(\beta')}_{\mu} \, . \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
$g,H,\widetilde H$ and $\Phi$
are invariant.
Due to triality, $R_s(\Omega)$
and $R_c(\Omega)$ themselves can be regarded as SO(4,4) matrices. In other
words, they satisfy the relations
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{e4}
R_s(\Omega) L R_s(\Omega)^T & = & L \nonumber \\
R_c(\Omega) L R_c(\Omega)^T & = & L \, .
\end{eqnarray}
In general the maps $R_c(\Omega)$ and $R_s(\Omega)$ are ambiguous, since
they depend on the choice of the basis of the spinor representation. We
shall use this freedom to choose
\begin{equation} \label{e24}
R_c(\Omega)= R_s^{-1}(\Omega_0 R_s(\Omega) \Omega_0^{-1})\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_0$ represents the parity transformation matrix
\begin{equation} \label{em3}
\Omega_0 = \pmatrix{I_2 && \cr & \sigma_3 & \cr && I_4\cr}\, .
\end{equation}
It will be useful for us to study the explicit form of the maps
$R_s(\Omega)$ and $R_c(\Omega)$
in some detail. For this, let us consider the SO(4,4) transformation $\Omega$
to be of the form:
\begin{equation} \label{e18}
\Omega = \pmatrix{\omega(\theta_L) &&& \cr & \omega(\phi_L) && \cr
&& \omega(\theta_R) & \cr &&& \omega(\phi_R) \cr}\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{e19}
\omega(\theta) = \pmatrix{\cos\theta & \sin\theta \cr - \sin\theta &
\cos\theta\cr}\, .
\end{equation}
We shall use the shorthand notation $(\theta_L, \phi_L, \theta_R, \phi_R)$
to denote such a matrix. For such an $\Omega$, the map $R_s(\Omega)$
takes the simple form:
\begin{equation} \label{e21}
R_s(\Omega) = (\theta_L'', \phi_L'', \theta_R'', \phi_R'') \, ,
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation} \label{e22}
\pmatrix{\theta_L''\cr \phi_L'' \cr \theta_R'' \cr \phi_R''}
= A_s \pmatrix{\theta_L \cr \phi_L \cr \theta_R \cr \phi_R \cr}\, ,
\qquad
A_s = \pmatrix{{1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & -{1\over 2} \cr {1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & -{1\over 2} & {1\over 2} \cr
{1\over 2} & -{1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & {1\over 2} \cr -{1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & {1\over 2}}\, .
\end{equation}
Eq.\refb{e24} now gives
\begin{equation} \label{ebb1}
R_c(\Omega) = (\theta_L', \phi_L', \theta_R', \phi_R') \, ,
\end{equation}
for $\Omega$ of the form \refb{e18}, where,
\begin{equation} \label{e23}
\pmatrix{\theta_L'\cr \phi_L' \cr \theta_R' \cr \phi_R'}
= A_c \pmatrix{\theta_L \cr \phi_L \cr \theta_R \cr \phi_R \cr}\, , \qquad
A_c = \pmatrix{{1\over 2} & -{1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & -{1\over 2} \cr -{1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & -{1\over 2} \cr
{1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & {1\over 2} \cr -{1\over 2} & -{1\over 2} & {1\over 2} & {1\over 2}}\, .
\end{equation}
{}From eqs.\refb{e18}-\refb{e23} we get
\begin{equation} \label{ekk1}
R_s(L) = - L\, , \qquad R_s(-L)=L\, , \qquad R_c(L)=L\, .
\end{equation}
Using eqs.\refb{e4} and \refb{ekk1} we see that for a general $\Omega\in
SO(4,4)$ (not necessarily of the form \refb{e18}),
\begin{equation} \label{em1}
R_s(\Omega^T)= (R_s(\Omega))^T, \qquad
R_c(\Omega^T)= (R_c(\Omega))^T\, .
\end{equation}
This implies, in particular, that if $\Omega$ is symmetric, then so are
$R_s(\Omega)$ and $R_c(\Omega)$. Also if $\Omega\in O(4)_L\times O(4)_R$
then $R_s(\Omega), R_c(\Omega)\in O(4)_L \times O(4)_R$. These
properties will be useful for us later.
The equations of motion of the theory in fact have a larger symmetry belonging
to the group $SO(5,5)$\cite{CrJu,ScSug,Tanii}.
This group is generated by $5\times 5$ matrices
$\bar\Omega$ satisfying,
\begin{equation} \label{e6}
\bar\Omega \bar L \bar\Omega^T = \bar L\, , \qquad \det\bar\Omega =1\, ,
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation} \label{e5}
\bar L = \pmatrix{\sigma_1 & \cr & L \cr}\, , \qquad \sigma_1 =
\pmatrix{& 1 \cr 1 & \cr} .
\end{equation}
The SO(4,4) group discussed before is embedded in SO(5,5) as
\begin{equation} \label{e7}
\bar\Omega = \pmatrix{I_2 & \cr & R_s(\Omega)\cr}\, .
\end{equation}
To see how the full SO(5,5)
symmetry acts on the various fields, it is convenient to
introduce a new matrix valued field
\begin{equation} \label{e9}
\bar M = \pmatrix{ e^{2\Phi} & -{1\over 2} e^{2\Phi} \psi^T L \psi &
- e^{2\Phi} \psi^T \cr && \cr
-{1\over 2} e^{2\Phi} \psi^T L \psi & e^{-2\Phi} + \psi^T L R_s(M) L \psi &
\psi^T L R_s(M) \cr & +{1\over 4} e^{2\Phi}(\psi^T L \psi)^2 &
+{1\over 2} e^{2\Phi} \psi^T (\psi^T L \psi) \cr \cr
-e^{2\Phi} \psi & R_s(M)L\psi +{1\over 2} e^{2\Phi} \psi(\psi^T L \psi) &
R_s(M) + e^{2\Phi} \psi \psi^T\cr}\, ,
\end{equation}
satisfying,
\begin{equation} \label{embar}
\bar M \bar L \bar M = \bar L\, , \qquad \bar M^T = \bar M\, .
\end{equation}
We also define,
\begin{equation} \label{ecov1}
P_\mu =\pmatrix{\vec K_\mu \cr \vec A_\mu} + {\cal O}(\psi)\, ,
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation} \label{ecov2}
Q_{\mu\nu\rho} =\pmatrix{H_{\mu\nu\rho} \cr e^{-2\Phi}
\widetilde H_{\mu\nu\rho} \cr
\vec D_{\mu\nu\rho}} + {\cal O}(\psi)\, ,
\end{equation}
satisfying the self-duality condition
\begin{equation} \label{eself2}
\widetilde Q_{\mu\nu\rho} = \bar M \bar L Q_{\mu\nu\rho}\, .
\end{equation}
${\cal O}(\psi)$ terms in eqs.\refb{ecov1}, \refb{ecov2} reflect the
fact that the field combinations $P_\mu$ and $Q_{\mu\nu\rho}$ which
transform covariantly under SO(5,5) have order $\psi^{(\alpha)}$ terms in them
which we have not written down explicitly. Since we shall focus on
backgrounds with vanishing $\psi^{(\alpha)}$, we shall not need to know the
explicit form of these terms.
If $R_S(\bar\Omega)$ denotes the $16\times 16$ matrix
corresponding to
the spinor representation of $SO(5,5)$, then the transformation laws of
various fields under the SO(5,5) transformation is given as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{e11}
g_{\mu\nu} & \to & g_{\mu\nu} \, , \nonumber \\
\bar M & \to & \bar \Omega \bar M \bar \Omega^T \, , \nonumber \\
P_\mu & \to & R_S(\bar \Omega)
P_\mu \, , \nonumber \\
Q_{\mu\nu\rho} & \to & \bar \Omega Q_{\mu\nu\rho} \, . \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
Using eq.\refb{e7} and the well known decomposition property of the spinor
representation of SO(5,5) under SO(4,4):
\begin{equation} \label{e14}
R_S(\bar \Omega) = \pmatrix{R_c(\Omega) & \cr & \Omega}\, , \qquad
\hbox{for} \qquad \bar \Omega = \pmatrix{I_2 & \cr & R_s(\Omega)}\, ,
\end{equation}
one can verify that the SO(5,5) transformation laws given in eq.\refb{e11}
are compatible with the SO(4,4) transformation laws given in eq.\refb{e3}.
An SO(4,4;Z) subgroup of SO(4,4) is known to be a symmetry of the type IIA
string theory compactified on $T^4$ order by order in perturbation theory,
and is known as the $T$-duality group of this theory. For definiteness,
we shall always choose our reference $T^4$ to be the one consisting of
four mutually orthogonal cycles with each cycle at the self-dual radius,
and no background $B_{mn}$ field. If $\Gamma_0^{(4,4)}$ denotes the
lattice of integers labelling the momenta and winding numbers on such a
torus, then SO(4,4;Z) is the subgroup of SO(4,4) which leaves this
lattice invariant.
An SO(5,5;Z)
subgroup of the SO(5,5) group has been conjectured to be an exact
non-perturbative symmetry of this string theory\cite{HuTo1}.
A particular element of
this SO(5,5;Z) group, which will play an important role in our
analysis, is
\begin{equation} \label{e15}
\bar \Omega_0 = \pmatrix{\sigma_1 & \cr & \Omega_0\cr}\, ,
\qquad \Omega_0 = \pmatrix{I_2 && \cr & \sigma_3 & \cr && I_4 \cr}\, .
\end{equation}
We shall conclude this section by listing some of the important properties
of this SO(5,5;Z) transformation $\bar\Omega_0$:
\begin{itemize}
\item{ From eqs.\refb{e7}-\refb{e11} we see that for
$\psi^{(\alpha)}=0$, $\bar\Omega_0$ induces the transformation
\begin{equation} \label{e27}
\Phi \to -\Phi \, , \qquad H_{\mu\nu\rho} \to e^{-2\Phi}
\widetilde H_{\mu\nu\rho}\, .
\end{equation}
Thus the transformation induced by $\bar\Omega_0$ acts on the
$\{\Phi, B_{\mu\nu}\}$ combination in the same way that string-string
duality transformation acts on these fields\cite{Duff,Witten}.}
\item{ $\bar \Omega_0$ conjugates an element of SO(4,4) to another element
of SO(4,4):
\begin{equation} \label{e16}
\bar \Omega_0 \pmatrix{I_2 & \cr & R_s(\Omega)\cr} \bar \Omega_0^{-1}
= \pmatrix{I_2 & \cr & \Omega_0 R_s(\Omega) \Omega_0^{-1}\cr} =
\pmatrix{I_2 & \cr & R_s(R_c(\Omega))\cr} \, ,
\end{equation}
using eqs.\refb{e24}.
Thus {\it
the net effect of conjugating an} $SO(4,4)$ {\it transformation} $\Omega$
{\it by
the} $SO(5,5)$ {\it transformation} $\bar\Omega_0$ {\it is another}
$ SO(4,4)$ {\it transformation}
$R_c(\Omega)$.
}
\item{ Since conjugation by $\bar\Omega_0$ exchanges the SO(4,4) matrices
$\Omega$ and $R_c(\Omega)$, we see from \refb{e3} that the action of
$\bar\Omega_0$ exchanges the NS sector gauge fields $\{ A_\mu^{(a)}\}$ with
the RR sector gauge fields $\{ K^{(\alpha')}_\mu\}$.
By choosing appropriate basis to describe the set of fields $\{
A_\mu^{(a)}\}$ and $\{ K^{(\alpha')}_\mu\}$ we can have (see eq.\refb{e11}):
\begin{equation} \label{espin}
R_S(\bar\Omega_0) = \pmatrix{0 & I_8 \cr - I_8 & 0 \cr}\, .
\end{equation}
The origin of the minus sign on the lower left hand corner of this
matrix is the fact that $\bar\Omega_0$ represents a rotation by $\pi$
inside $SO(5,5)$. Thus we expect $R_S(\bar\Omega_0^2)$ to be represented
by $-I_{16}$.
}
\item{ A realization of the duality transformation $\bar\Omega_0$ in
terms of the more familiar duality transformations may be given as
follows. Let us consider the theory as a compactification of the type
IIB theory. This theory has an SL(2,Z) S-duality symmetry in ten
dimensions; let us denote by $\sigma$
the element of this SL(2,Z) group that inverts
the ten dimensional $S$ field. After we compactify the
theory on $T^4$, it also has various $T$-duality symmetries. Let us
denote by $\tau_{mn}$ the duality transformation that takes the
$T$-modulus associated with the $m-n$ plane ($6\le m,n\le 9$) to its
inverse. Then $\bar\Omega_0$ can be regarded as the following combination
of these duality transformations:
\begin{equation} \label{eduality}
\sigma \cdot \tau_{67} \cdot \tau_{89} \cdot \sigma^{-1} \, .
\end{equation}
}
\item{ The full U-duality group is enhanced if we compactify the theory on one
or more circles, but $\bar\Omega_0$ remains a valid U-duality transformation
in these theories.}
\end{itemize}
\sectiono{Method for Constructing Dual Pairs of Theories}
We shall begin this section by outlining the method for constructing
new pairs of theories that are dual to each other. In view of
potential generalizations to other cases,
we will
first discuss the method in more generality and then specialize
to the case at hand. Suppose we consider a theory with $U$-duality
group $G$. This of course contains the $T$-duality group $H\subset G$
which is the symmetry of the perturbative string theory. Suppose
$h,h'\in H$ are elements of finite order $n$
conjugate to one-another in $G$ but
not in $H$, i.e. $h'=g h g^{-1}$ where $g\in G$ but
$g\not \in H$. By general arguments there is a subspace ${\cal M}
({\cal M}')$
of moduli space of compactifications left invariant by $h(h')$,
which implies that the corresponding perturbative string has $h(h')$
as a symmetry. Note that $g\cdot {\cal M}={\cal M}'$. Start
from a string compactification characterized by a point $m\in {\cal M}$.
Compactify on a circle, and mod out the theory by a simultaneous action
of $h$, and a translation of $1/n$ unit along the circle. In other
words, as we go a fraction $1/n$ times around the
circle we identify the internal theory with the action of $h$.
Consider a dual theory starting from $m'=g\cdot m$ on the moduli
space. Compactify on a circle where as we go a fraction $1/n$ times
around the circle, we come back to the same conformal theory acted
on by $h'$. By the adiabatic argument of \cite{VaWi2} we
expect the two resulting theories to be dual. Moreover this
duality cannot be seen perturbatively because $h$ and $h'$
are not conjugate in $H$. Note that we can compactify
further and mod out by more symmetries to get other dual
pairs in lower dimensions, consistent with the adiabatic argument.
A particularly nice case of the above construction is
when there exists a special element $g\in G$ such that
for all $h\in H$, $ghg^{-1}\in H$, but that $g\not \in H$.
If this happens we can use any finite order $h\in H$ to construct dual pairs.
This luckily is the case for us.
Let us now specialize to our case corresponding to $T^4$ compactification
of type IIA strings
where $G=SO(5,5;Z)$, $H=SO(4,4;Z)$
and $g={\bar \Omega}_0$ constructed
in the previous section. So our strategy is as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item{ We start with type IIA theory compactified on $T^4$ characterized by
the moduli $\langle \bar M \rangle$ which is invariant under some SO(4,4;Z)
transformation $\widehat\Omega$.
This theory is equivalent to type IIA
theory characterized by a modular parameter
\begin{equation} \label{e25}
\langle \bar M' \rangle = \bar \Omega_0 \langle \bar M \rangle \bar \Omega_0^T
\end{equation}
which is invariant under the SO(4,4;Z) transformation
\begin{equation} \label{el4}
\widehat\Omega' = R_c(\widehat\Omega)
\end{equation}
according to eq.\refb{e24}.
}
\item{ Now let us further compactify both the theories on $T^2$.
If $\widehat\Omega$ is
of order $n$, then we mod out the first theory by simultaneous action of
$\widehat\Omega$ and a translation on the first circle of
$T^2$ equal to $1/n$ times
the radius of the circle. Similarly we mod out the second theory by
simultaneous action of the SO(4,4;Z) transformation $\widehat\Omega'$ and a
translation on the first circle of $T^2$
equal to $1/n$ times the radius of the
circle. Using the adiabatic argument given in ref.\cite{VaWi2} we expect
the two resulting theories to be equivalent.
}
\end{itemize}
This gives the general method for constructing dual pairs of theories. We
now discuss some of the subtleties and special features
that arise in this construction.
\begin{itemize}
\item{ The adibatic argument by itself does not rule out extra shifts
in the winding direction on the lattice $\Gamma^{(1,1)}$ associated with
the first circle. But in the cases we shall discuss this extra shift is
forced to vanish in order to have level matching between the left and
right moving components of the string states.}
\item{ The construction could be carried out in five dimensions, since the
operations used in modding out the two theories did not involve the
second circle. In fact we can further mod out both the theories by extra
SO(4,4;Z) symmetries accompanied by shifts on the second circle to get more
examples of dual pairs of theories. The adiabatic argument showing the
equivalence of these two theories again applies since we can take the
radius of the second circle to be large.}
\item{ Instead of working with the duality transformations $\widehat\Omega$
($\widehat\Omega'$) which represent symmetries of $\langle M \rangle$
($\langle M'\rangle$), it is more convenient to work with the
transformations which represent symmetries of the corresponding Narain
lattice. To do this, let us decompose $\langle M\rangle$ as
\begin{equation} \label{el1}
\langle M \rangle = {\cal V} {\cal V}^T\, , \qquad {\cal V} \in SO(4,4)\, .
\end{equation}
${\cal V}$ is defined up to an $O(4)\times O(4)$ multiplication from the
right. Invariance of $\langle M\rangle$ under $\widehat\Omega$ then implies that
\begin{equation} \label{el2}
\Omega\equiv {\cal V}^{-1} \widehat\Omega {\cal V} \in O(4) \times O(4)\, .
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the freedom of multiplying ${\cal V}$ from the right by an
$O(4)\times O(4)$ matrix translates to a conjugation of $\Omega$ by an
$O(4)\times O(4)$ matrix. Using this freedom we can always bring
$\Omega$ to the form \refb{e18}. This $O(4)\times O(4)$ matrix $\Omega$
now represents the symmetry of the lattice
$\Gamma^{(4,4)}\equiv{\cal V}^{-1}\Gamma_0^{(4,4)}$ describing the specific
compactification. ($O(4)\times O(4)$ conjugation of $\Omega$ reflects
the freedom in choosing the axes for describing the lattice.)
Similarly, if we define,
\begin{equation} \label{el3}
M'={\cal V}'{\cal V}^{\prime T}\, , \qquad \Omega' = {\cal V}^{\prime -1}\widehat\Omega' {\cal V}'\in
O(4)\times O(4)\, ,
\end{equation}
then $\Omega'$ corresponds to the symmetry of the Narain lattice
$\Gamma^{(4,4)\prime}\equiv {\cal V}^{\prime -1} \Gamma_0^{(4,4)}$ describing
the dual theory. Using eqs.\refb{e25}-\refb{el3} and \refb{e24} we see that
\begin{equation} \label{el5}
{\cal V}' = R_c({\cal V})\, ,
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation} \label{e26}
\Omega'=R_c(\Omega)\, .
\end{equation}
Modding out the theories described by $\langle M \rangle$ ($\langle M'
\rangle$) by the symmetries $\widehat\Omega$ ($\widehat \Omega'$) is equivalent to
modding out the corresponding lattices $\Gamma^{(4,4)}$
($\Gamma^{(4,4)\prime}$) by the symmetries $\Omega$
($\Omega'$). Since $\Omega$ is of the form \refb{e18}, $\Omega'$ can
be easily found using eqs.\refb{e21}-\refb{e23}. For a given lattice
$\Gamma^{(4,4)}={\cal V}^{-1}\Gamma^{(4,4)}_0$, the lattice
$\Gamma^{(4,4)\prime}={\cal V}^{\prime -1}\Gamma^{(4,4)}_0$ of the dual
theory can be found using eq.\refb{el5}. We have however not given the
map $R_c({\cal V})$ explicitly for general ${\cal V}$ which is not of the form
\refb{e18}.
}
\item{ Since the relationship between the dilaton and the $B_{\mu\nu}$
fields in the two theories given in eq.\refb{e27}
is identical to the one that describes
string-string duality in six dimensions, the resulting four dimensional
theories will have their $S$- and $T$- moduli exchanged:
\begin{equation} \label{e28}
S'=T, \qquad T'=S\, .
\end{equation}
}
\item{ For definiteness, let us choose $T^2$ to be the torus with two
orthogonal cycles at self-dual radii, and no background $B_{ij}$ field.
Let $\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$ denote the lattice associated with this two
dimensional torus. In the basis where the metric is of
the form $\pmatrix{0 & I_2 \cr I_2 & 0}$,
$\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$ is the lattice of integers.
(A general lattice $\Gamma^{(2,2)}$ can be obtained from
$\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$ by an $O(2,2)$ boost, which corresponds to switching
on the background $G_{ij}$ and $B_{ij}$ fields.)
In this case the shift on the first circle
accompanying the SO(4,4;Z) transformation $\Omega$ or $\Omega'$ is
represented by a vector
\begin{equation} \label{e29}
v = \pmatrix{{1\over n} \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr}\, .
\end{equation}
Then the duality symmetry group SO(2,2;Z) associated with $T^2$ is broken
down to a subgroup that preserves the vector $v$ up to lattice translation.
(For N=2 or N=1 supersymmetric theories this duality group is further
modified due to quantum corrections, but for N$\ge$4 supersymmetric
compactification we expect this to be the exact duality symmetry group of
the theory associated with $T^2$.) In order to determine what the surviving
duality group is it is convenient to parametrize an
SO(2,2;Z)=SL(2,Z)$_T\times$SL(2;Z)$_U$ matrix as
\begin{equation} \label{e30}
\pmatrix{p_1p_2 & p_1q_2 & -q_1q_2 & q_1p_2 \cr
p_1r_2 & p_1s_2 & -q_1s_2 & q_1r_2 \cr -r_1r_2 & -r_1s_2 & s_1s_2 &
-s_1r_2 \cr
r_1p_2 & r_1q_2 & -s_1q_2 & s_1p_2 \cr}
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation} \label{e31}
\pmatrix{p_1 & q_1 \cr r_1 & s_1} \in SL(2,Z)_T, \qquad
\pmatrix{p_2 & q_2 \cr r_2 & s_2} \in SL(2,Z)_U\, .
\end{equation}
{}From eqs.\refb{e29} and \refb{e30} we see that in order to preserve
$v$ up to lattice translations we need,
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{e31a}
& & p_1p_2 = 1 \, \, \hbox{mod} \, \, n, \qquad
r_1r_2 = 0 \, \, \hbox{mod} \, \, n, \nonumber \\
& & p_1r_2 = 0 \, \, \hbox{mod} \, \, n, \qquad
r_1p_2 = 0 \, \, \hbox{mod} \, \, n.
\end{eqnarray}
This gives
\begin{equation} \label{e32}
\pmatrix{p_1 & q_1 \cr r_1 & s_1} = \pmatrix{1 & q_1 \cr 0 & 1\cr}
\, \, \hbox{mod} \, \, n, \qquad
\pmatrix{p_2 & q_2 \cr r_2 & s_2} = \pmatrix{1 & q_2 \cr 0 & 1\cr}
\, \, \hbox{mod} \, \, n.
\end{equation}
Thus in both the theories SL(2,Z)$_T\times$SL(2,Z)$_U$ is broken down
to $\Gamma_0(n)\times \Gamma_0(n)$. Since the $S$ and $T$ moduli are
exchanged in the two theories, this shows that the S-duality group
SL(2,Z)$_S$ is also broken down to $\Gamma_0(n)$.}
\item{ The full U-duality group of the theory may be found by combining
the subgroup of the six dimensional U-duality group that commutes with
the T-duality transformation $\widehat\Omega$ and the full T-duality group of
the four dimensional theory. The element $\widehat\Omega$ itself is a
symmetry of the quantum theory\cite{Vafa-q}, but it does not have the
interpretation of a conventional duality symmetry since it leaves all
the moduli fields invariant.
}
\item{ Finally, we note that after modding out the two theories
by appropriate group of transformations, we can switch on the
Wilson lines for the background six dimensional gauge fields that
survive the projection by $\Omega$ ($\Omega'$). For
NS background fields this will correspond to a deformation of the
internal lattice $\Gamma^{(6,6)}$ away from its factorized from
$\Gamma^{(4,4)}\times \Gamma^{(2,2)}$ consistent with invariance under
$\Omega$ ($\Omega'$). For RR Wilson lines, there is
no such simple geometrical
interpretation. Since the SO(5,5) transformation $\bar\Omega_0$
maps NS sector gauge fields to RR sector gauge fields and vice versa, we
see that a deformation of the lattice $\Gamma^{(6,6)}$ from its
factorized form in one theory corresponds to switching on RR Wilson
lines in the other theory, and vice versa.
}
\end{itemize}
\sectiono{Explicit Examples of Dual Pairs of Models}
In this section we shall construct explicit examples of dual pairs of
models following the procedure outlined in the previous
section. We will concentrate on constructing supersymmetric
models in four dimensions, though other dimensions can
also be considered. In type II compactifications, the number
of spacetime supersymmetries we can obtain from each left-
or right-mover Hilbert space is 0,1,2 or 4, corresponding to compactifications
with left- or right-moving holonomy in $SO(6),SU(3),SU(2),1$.
We shall call a theory with $n$ left moving and $m$ right moving
space-time supersymmetry
a theory of the $(n_L,m_R)$ type.
Combining left- and right-moving supersymmetries we can
thus obtain any $N=n+m$ between 0 and 8 except $N=7$ (the $N=7$
presumably gets automatically promoted to $N=8$) --
for some examples
of such models see \cite{BlDoGo,Kaw,Les,FeKo,DiKaVa}.
As far as adiabatic argument is concerned, we need to leave at least
one circle invariant, which implies that we can have all the above
holonomy groups except $SU(3)$. Thus if we wish to apply the adiabatic
argument we will have to restrict to $0,2,4$ supersymmetries from each
side, which gives us possible
total supersymmetries as $N=2,4,6,8$ (where we omit $N=0$ because
it is not clear how to make sense of
non-supersymmetric string theories).
The $N=8$ theory can be obtained in a unique way, which is continuing
toroidal compactification down to four dimensions. $N=6$ can
be constructed by decomposing $6=4+2$ and so we use toroidal
compactification on one side and $SU(2)$ holonomy on the other side.
$N=4$ theories can be constructed in two ways by decomposing
$4=2+2$ or $4=4+0$. In the first case we can consider compactifications
with $SU(2)$ holonomy for both left- and right-movers and so
we can use geometric compactifications. For the latter case we can
use $SO(6)$ holonomy (or $(-1)^{F_L}$) on one side and toroidal
compactification on the other. For $N=2$ theories, again there
is a unique way of decomposition as $2=2+0$ corresponding to
$SU(2)$ holonomy on one side and $SO(6)$ holonomy on the other.
Note that specifying the holonomy we are modding out by
does not uniquely specify the action. There are two
potential other choices: 1- There may be inequivalent
realizations of the same holonomy group action on different
lattices. 2-We can also accompany the holonomy action by
translations in the internal theory, which when
using the duality map discussed in section 2 get mapped
to turning on RR Wilson lines in the dual theory. Both
of these considerations will be relevant below in connection
with constructing the dual to $N=4$ models of ref.\cite{DiKaVa}.
It turns out that the simplest models one can construct
with $N=2$ and $N=6$ are self-dual, mirroring the fact
that there is a unique way of decomposing the supersymmetries
between the left- and right-movers. On the other hand,
the two classes of $N=4$
models, depending on the decomposition of supersymmetry, are dual
to one another. In particular in this way we find the dual for the
$N=4$ models of \cite{DiKaVa}, corresponding to the
decomposition $4=0+4$, as $SU(2)$ holonomy compactifications
corresponding to the decomposition $4=2+2$.
We shall first discuss examples with $N=6,4$ and $2$.
To proceed further to other values of $N$ we have
to go beyond the adiabatic argument.
In order to do this we follow an idea,
though not justifiable by adiabatic argument, which we find reasonable.
This idea will be explained at the end of this section and some examples
with $N=1,2$ supersymmetries will be constructed along that line.
\noindent{\bf N=6 Example:}
We choose,
\begin{equation} \label{e66}
(\theta_L,\phi_L,\theta_R,\phi_R)=(\pi,-\pi, 0, 0) .
\end{equation}
Eq.\refb{e23} now gives,
\begin{equation} \label{e67}
(\theta_L',\phi_L',\theta_R',\phi_R')=(\pi, -\pi, 0, 0) \, .
\end{equation}
Note that the holonomies in the two theories are the same. Also, the
lattice with this symmetry is the original lattice $\Gamma_0^{(4,4)}$.
This gives $\langle M \rangle = \langle M'\rangle =I_8$.
Thus the model is self-dual.
The associated shifts $v$, $v'$
along one of the circles (say the fourth direction)
by half the periodicity is represented by the lattice vector
\begin{equation} \label{e68}
v = v' = \pmatrix{{1\over 2} \cr 0\cr 0\cr 0\cr}
\end{equation}
on $\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$. The adiabatic
argument by itself does not rule out the possibility of adding a
vector $(0,0,{1\over 2},0)$ to $v$ and /or
$v'$, but the left-right level matching condition determines
both $v$ and $v'$ uniquely to be given by eq.\refb{e68}.
The transformation $\Omega$ given in eq.\refb{e66} corresponds to
an $SU(2)$ holonomy on the left-movers and trivial
holonomy on the right-movers, giving us an $N=6$ model.
The self-duality of the model
reflects the fact that the SO(5,5;Z)
element $\bar\Omega_0$ commutes with the $T$-duality transformation
generated by $\Omega$, and hence is an element of the
U-duality group of the resulting theory. The spectrum of massless states
in this theory can be found as follows. First we note that under the $Z_2$
subgroup of the SO(4,4;Z) group generated by \refb{e66}, the different
SO(4,4) representations decompose as,
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{ek1}
8_v &=& 4(+) \oplus 4(-) \nonumber \\
8_s &=& 4(+) \oplus 4(-) \nonumber \\
8_c &=& 4(+) \oplus 4(-) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we get four vector fields from $A^{(a)}_{\bar \mu}$
($0\le {\bar \mu}\le 3$), four from $K^{(\alpha')}_{\bar \mu}$,
four (=$4\times 2/2$) from the field strengths $D^{(\alpha)}_{i{\bar \mu}{\bar \nu}}$
($4\le i\le 5$)
and four more vector fields from $G_{i{\bar \mu}}$
and $B_{i{\bar \mu}}$
(since $D$ is self-dual, two $D^{(\alpha)}_{i{\bar \mu}{\bar \nu}}$ make one
unconstrained vector field).
This gives a total of 16 vectors which is the right number for the
N=6 supergravity theory in four dimensions\cite{CrJu}.
Similar counting shows that we
get the right number (30) of scalar fields as well.
As noted in\cite{VaWi2} the $U$-duality
group for $N=4,5,6$ will depend on the precise choice
of compactification. In this example, part of the T-duality group
associated with the torus $T^2$ is given by $\Gamma_0(2)_T\times
\Gamma_0(2)_U$. Since this model is self-dual, it has an S-T exchange
symmetry which we shall call $(Z_2)_{S-T}$. This also shows that the
S-duality group is $\Gamma_0(2)_S$. The full U-duality group $G$ can be found
following the procedure indicated in the previous section.
The moduli space of the theory locally has the structure SO$^*$(12)/U(6).
Thus the global structure of the moduli space is given by
$G\backslash SO^*(12)/U(6)$.
\noindent {\bf N=4 Example A:}
We now turn to constructing $N=4$ dual pairs. We choose,
\begin{equation} \label{e33}
(\theta_L,\phi_L,\theta_R,\phi_R)=(2\pi, 0, 0, 0) .
\end{equation}
Eq.\refb{e23} now gives,
\begin{equation} \label{e34}
(\theta_L',\phi_L',\theta_R',\phi_R')=(\pi, -\pi, \pi, -\pi) \, .
\end{equation}
The transformation $\Omega$ given in eq.\refb{e33} corresponds to
$(-1)^{F_L}$ since it involves a rotation by $2\pi$ in the $6_L-7_L$
plane. On the other hand, the transformation $\Omega'$ corresponds to
an inversion of $T^4$, {\it i.e.} an inversion of the lattice
$\Gamma^{(4,4)\prime}$.
The associated shifts ($v$, $v'$)
along one of the circles (say the fourth direction)
by half the periodicity is represented by the lattice vector
\begin{equation} \label{e35}
v = v' = \pmatrix{{1\over 2} \cr 0\cr 0\cr 0\cr}
\end{equation}
on $\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$.
We now turn to a comparison of the two theories.
\begin{itemize}
\item{ In the first theory (obtained after modding out by $\Omega$
together with the lattice translation $v$) the space-time supersymmetry
generators on the left are all broken, whereas those on the right
are all intact. Thus this theory has
$(0_L,4_R)$ supersymmetry in four dimensions.
This gives a total of N=4 supersymmetry.
On the other hand, the second theory has $(2_L,2_R)$ space-time supersymmetry,
which again gives N=4 supersymmetry in four dimensions.
Note that the $(2_L,2_R)$ theory is a geometric compactification
of strings on an $SU(2)$ holonomy manifold which is
not $K3\times T^2$.
}
\item{ In the first theory all states that come from the Ramond sector
on the left are projected out. This, in particular, means that there
are no states from the RR sector. Thus the gauge fields that survive
the projection are $A^{(a)}_{\bar \mu}$, $G_{i{\bar \mu}}$ and $B_{i{\bar \mu}}$.
This gives a
total of 12 gauge fields. On the other hand, in the second theory,
the gauge fields $A^{\prime{(a)}}_{\bar \mu}$, which originate from the internal
components $G^{[10]}_{m{\bar \mu}}$, $B^{[10]}_{m{\bar \mu}}$ ($6\le m\le 9$), as well
as the gauge fields which originate from
the components $C^{[10]}_{mi{\bar \mu}}$,
get projected out since they are odd under the inversion of the
four torus, but the gauge fields $K^{'{(\alpha')}}_{\bar \mu}$, $G'_{i{\bar \mu}}$ and
$B'_{i{\bar \mu}}$ survive. This again gives a total of 12 gauge fields.
}
\item{ Since in the $N=4$ supergravity theories the structure of the
low energy effective action is completely determined by the number
of U(1) gauge fields, the two theories have identical low energy effective
action. In particular, the local structure of the moduli space in both the
theories is given by
$\big(SL(2,R)/U(1)\big) \times \big( O(6,6)/O(6)\times O(6)\big)$.
In the first theory the $SL(2,R)/U(1)$ component of the moduli space
is parametrized by the axion-dilaton field $S$, whereas the moduli
$T$ and $U$ of $T^2$, the internal moduli of $T^4$, and the Wilson lines
of the NS sector gauge fields parametrize the $\big( O(6,6)/
O(6)\times O(6)\big)$ component of the moduli space. On the other
hand, in the second theory the $SL(2,R)/U(1)$ component of the
moduli space is parametrized by the modulus $T'$ of $T^2$. The
axion-dilaton field $S'$, the modulus $U'$ of $T^2$, the internal
moduli of $T^4$, and the RR Wilson lines parametrize the coset
$\big(O(6,6)/O(6)\times O(6)\big)$. This is consistent with our
previous assertion that the field $S$ should be identified with
$T'$, and that $T$ should be identified with $S'$.
}
\end{itemize}
Using the duality between these two theories we can get information about the
duality symmetry group of the individual theories. In particular,
according to the argument given before, in both the theories the
duality groups acting on the S, T and U fields
are given by $\Gamma_0(2)$. Thus globally
the moduli space has the structure
\begin{equation} \label{e42}
\big(\Gamma_0(2)\backslash
SL(2,R)/U(1)\big)\times \big(G\backslash O(6,6)/O(6)\times
O(6)\big)\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{e43}
G\cap O(2,2)=\Gamma_0(2)\times \Gamma_0(2)\, .
\end{equation}
Finally we turn to the study of enhanced gauge symmetries.
In the first theory, by adjusting $G_{ij}$, $B_{ij}$ ({\it i.e.}
the moduli $T$ and $U$), or equivalently, by performing an O(2,2) boost with
the matrix
\begin{equation} \label{ematrix}
{\cal V}^{-1}={1\over\sqrt 2} \pmatrix{0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr
2 & 2 & -1 & 1 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 & -1 \cr} \, ,
\end{equation}
we can bring the lattice $\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$ to the
form $\Gamma^{(2,2)}(D_2)$ where:
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{e39}
\Gamma^{(l,l)}(D_{l}) = \Bigg\{ {1\over \sqrt 2}
\pmatrix{m_1 \cr \cdot \cr \cdot \cr m_l \cr n_1 \cr \cdot \cr \cdot
\cr n_l \cr} \Bigg\}
\, , \quad & & m_i, n_i \in Z, \quad \sum_{i=1}^l m_i , \, \sum_{i=1}^l n_i
\,\, \in 2Z\, , \nonumber \\
& & m_i + n_i + m_j + n_j \, \in \, 2Z \,\, \forall \, \, (i,j) \, .
\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
The same boost brings the shift vector $v$ to the form:
\begin{equation} \label{e40}
v = {1\over\sqrt 2} \pmatrix{1 \cr 0 \cr 1\cr 0\cr}\, ,
\end{equation}
up to a lattice translation. According to the analysis of ref.\cite{DiKaVa}
this theory has an enhanced gauge symmetry $(SU(2))^2$.\footnote{Note
that we are using the basis in which the metric is $\pmatrix{0 & I_2\cr
I_2 & 0 \cr}$ instead of $\pmatrix{-I_2 & 0 \cr 0 & I_2}$ used in
ref.\cite{DiKaVa}.}
Then the equivalence of the two theories implies that the second
theory also has an enhanced gauge symmetry for these values of the moduli.
The map between the fields in the two theories shows that the massless
charged vector particles in the second theory carry magnetic type
$B'_{i{\bar \mu}}$ charge and hence are non-perturbative states in the spectrum.
Furthermore, in order to reach the enhanced symmetry point, we need to
adjust the moduli $U'$ and $S'$ in the second theory. Thus the symmetry
enhancement is a non-perturbative phenomenon in the second theory.
We can get further symmetry enhancement in the first theory by
adjusting the moduli of $T^4$ and $T^2$, as well as the
Wilson lines associated with the gauge field components $A^{(a)}_i$.
This is equivalent to an O(6,6) boost. With the help of this
boost we can bring the lattice to the form $\Gamma^{(6,6)}(D_6)$
and the shift vector to the form
\begin{equation} \label{e40a}
v = {1\over\sqrt 2} \pmatrix{1 \cr 0^5 \cr 1\cr 0^5\cr}\, ,
\end{equation}
This gives an enhanced symmetry group $SU(2)^6$
(studied in\cite{BlDoGo,Kaw,Les,FeKo,DiKaVa}). In the second theory,
in order to
reach these enhanced symmetry points we need to switch on background
values of the fields $K^{\prime{(\alpha')}}_i$. These correspond to RR
Wilson lines in the theory.
Also some of the
massless charged vector bosons carry charge under the U(1) gauge fields
$K^{\prime{(\alpha')}}_{\bar \mu}$ which originate in the RR sector.
Thus we see again that the mechanism of symmetry
enhancement is a non-perturbative effect in the second theory.
\noindent {\bf N=4 Example B}: In this set of examples we choose
\begin{equation} \label{e44}
(\theta_L, \phi_L, \theta_R, \phi_R) = ({4\pi\over n}, 0, 0, 0)\, ,
\qquad n\ge 3.
\end{equation}
This gives
\begin{equation} \label{e45}
(\theta'_L, \phi'_L, \theta'_R, \phi'_R) = ({2\pi\over n}, -{2\pi\over n},
{2\pi\over n}, -{2\pi\over n})\, .
\end{equation}
Physically, $\Omega$ given in eq.\refb{e44} corresponds to a rotation
by $4\pi/n$ in the $(6_L,7_L)$ plane, whereas $\Omega'$ given in
eq.\refb{e45} corresponds to a left-right symmetric rotation by
$2\pi/n$ in the $(6,7)$ plane, and by $-2\pi/n$ in the $(8,9)$ plane.
For both the theories we choose the lattice shift in $\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$
to be
\begin{equation} \label{e46}
v = v' = \pmatrix{1/n \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr}\, .
\end{equation}
As in previous examples, adiabatic argument does not rule out the possibility
of adding a term proportional to $(0,0,1/n,0)$ to $v$
and / or $v'$, but the requirement of left-right level matching prevents the
addition of such a vector. As in example A, both the theories have
N=4 supersymmetry in four dimensions, with the first theory having
$(0_L,4_R)$ supersymmetry, and the second theory having $(2_L,2_R)$
supersymmetry.
The analysis of the spectrum of massless U(1) gauge fields can be carried
out as follows. In the first theory, all the fields coming from the
RR sector are projected out, so we only need to concentrate on the NS
sector fields. Under the U(1) subgroup of SO(4,4) generated by
$(\theta,0,0,0)$ the vector representation of SO(4,4) decomposes as
\begin{equation} \label{e48}
8_v = (+1) \oplus (-1) \oplus 6 (0) \, .
\end{equation}
Thus of the eight vector fields $A^{(a)}_{\bar \mu}$, the six that are neutral under
this U(1) subgroup survives the projection. Together with the four
vector fields coming from the components $G_{i{\bar \mu}}$, $B_{i{\bar \mu}}$, these
constitute ten U(1) vector fields.
In the second theory, the relevant U(1) subgroup is generated by
$(\theta, -\theta, \theta, -\theta)$. The various SO(4,4) representations
have the following decomposition under this subgroup:
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{e50}
8_v & = & 4 (+1) \oplus 4 (-1)\, , \nonumber \\
8_c & = & (+2) \oplus (-2) \oplus 6(0) \, , \nonumber \\
8_s & = & 4 (+1) \oplus 4(-1) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus of the possible vector fields $A^{'{(a)}}_{\bar \mu}$, $K^{\prime{(\alpha')}}_{\bar \mu}$,
and those associated with the field strengths $D^{\prime{(\alpha)}}_{i{\bar \mu}{\bar \nu}}$,
only six from $K^{\prime{(\alpha')}}_{\bar \mu}$ are
neutral under this SO(2), and hence survives this projection. Together
with the gauge field components $G'_{i{\bar \mu}}$, $B'_{i{\bar \mu}}$, this gives
ten U(1) gauge fields altogether, in agreement with the calculation in the
first theory.
As argued before, in this case the duality groups acting on the S, T and
U fields in both
theories are given by $\Gamma_0(n)$. Thus the moduli space has the
structure
\begin{equation} \label{e52}
\big( \Gamma_0(n)\backslash SL(2,R) / U(1)\big) \times \big( G \backslash
O(6,4) / O(6) \times O(4) \big) \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{e53}
G\cap O(2,2) = \Gamma_0(n) \times \Gamma_0(n) \, .
\end{equation}
The choice of the holonomy $\Omega$ is the same as
that appears in some of the examples\cite{DiKaVa}, however
the choice of the lattice we have made is different from that chosen
there. In particular the lattices studied there, which do lead
to enhanced gauge symmetries for $n=3$ corresponding to $SO(5)\times SU(3)$
and $SU(3)\times SU(3)$, for $n=4$ corresponding to $SU(4)\times SU(2)$
and for $n=6$ corresponding to $SO(5)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)$ ,
do not have a decomposition as $\Gamma^{(4,4)}+\Gamma^{(2,2)}$.
However by turning on gauge field components $A^{(a)}_i$ ($i=4,5$),
and choosing appropriate
shift vectors in the internal theory which correspond to
turning on RR Wilson lines in the dual theory we can obtain all these
models as special cases of the above dual pairs.\footnote{Another
example considered in\cite{DiKaVa} with gauge group $G_2$
is likely to be dual to the non-geometric $(2_L,2_R)$ compactification
with left-right
holonomy $SU(2)$ manifold for which we mod out by
$(\pi,-\pi,0,0)$ accompanied by the adiabatic shift $(1/2,0,0,0)$
and by $(0,0,\pi, -\pi)$ accompanied by the adiabatic shift $(0,1/2,0,0)$.}
\noindent {\bf N=2 Example A}: We shall now give an example of a self-dual
N=2 compactification. We choose,
\begin{equation} \label{e55}
(\theta_L, \phi_L, \theta_R, \phi_R) = ( 2\pi, 0, \pi, -\pi)\, .
\end{equation}
This gives
\begin{equation} \label{e56}
(\theta'_L, \phi'_L, \theta'_R, \phi'_R) = ( 2\pi, 0, \pi, -\pi)\, .
\end{equation}
Also, the lattice with this symmetry is the original lattice
$\Gamma_0^{(4,4)}$. This corresponds to $\langle M \rangle = \langle
M'\rangle=I_8$.
Physically, both $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ represent the transformation
$(-1)^{F_L}$ together with an inversion of the right hand part of the
lattice $\Gamma^{(4,4)}$ associated with $T^4$. We accompany this
transformation with a lattice shift on $\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$ of the form:
\begin{equation} \label{e57}
v = v' = \pmatrix{{1\over 2} \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr}\, .
\end{equation}
Since the two theories are identical, we have here an example of a self-dual
theory. Since under the duality transformation $S$ and $T$ gets exchanged,
we see that this theory is invariant under the exchange $S\leftrightarrow T$.
The supersymmetry is completely broken in the left sector, and half broken
in the right sector. Thus this theory has $(0_L, 2_R)$, {\it i.e.}
N=2 space-time supersymmetry. To calculate the massless spectrum in the
theory, we study the decomposition of various representations of the
SO(4,4) group under the SO(2) subgroup generated by $(2\theta, 0, \theta,
-\theta)$:
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{e59}
8_v & = & (+2) \oplus (-2) \oplus 2 (0) \oplus 2 (+1) \oplus 2(-1) \, ,
\nonumber \\
8_c & = & (+2) \oplus (-2) \oplus 2(0) \oplus 2(+1) \oplus 2(-1) \, ,
\nonumber \\
8_s & = & 2(+1) \oplus 2(-1) \oplus (+2) \oplus (-2) \oplus 2(0) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\Omega$ corresponds to SO(2) rotation by $\pi$, we need to look
for states that carry even SO(2) charge. Thus we get four gauge fields from
$A^{(a)}_{\bar \mu}$, four from $K^{(\alpha')}_{\bar \mu}$,
four (=$4\times 2/2$) field strengths from $D^{(\alpha)}_{i{\bar \mu}{\bar \nu}}$
and four more gauge fields from $G_{i{\bar \mu}}$ and $B_{i{\bar \mu}}$.
This gives a total of 16 vector fields, which correspond
to 15 vector multiplets.
Counting of scalars proceeds in a similar manner. First of all, the condition
that the lattice associated with $T^4$ is invariant under inversion on the
right completely fixes $\langle M \rangle$,
so we do not get any scalar moduli fields
from there. We get four scalars from $\psi^{(\alpha)}$, eight (=$4\times 2$) from
$A^{(\alpha)}_i$, eight (=$4\times 2$)
from $K^{(\alpha')}_i$, four from the field strengths $D^{(\alpha)}_{ij{\bar \mu}}$, four
from $G_{ij}$, $B_{ij}$, and two from the dilaton-axion combination.
This gives a total of 30 scalar fields, which form part of the 15 vector
multiplets. Thus the theory does not contain any massless hypermultiplet.
The twisted sector in this theory for some values of the scalar moduli
(for example the one corresponding to the moduli where in the
$N=4$ example A gave $SU(2)^2$ enhanced gauge symmetry)
will contain charged massless hypermultiplets. Thus we expect
that the moduli space for vector multiplets receives quantum corrections.
This is in accord with the fact that for this model the dilaton
is in the vector multiplet.
\noindent {\bf N=2 Example B}:
If we consider a $ Z_2\times Z_2$ orbifold consisting of
the modding outs we used in the $N=4$ example A and $N=2$ example
A, where we use the adiabatic shift vectors to be on two
different circles of $\Gamma_0^{(2,2)}$ we obtain another $N=2$
model. Now, however the model is not self-dual.
The model and its dual receive their supersymmetry by $(0_L,2_R)$
and thus have the dilaton in the vector multiplet. It is easy
to see that generically the model has 7 vector multiplets and
no hypermultiplets and that the dilaton is in a vector multiplet
(compared to the previous example all the vector multiplets coming
from the RR sector have been projected out by the second $Z_2$).
For some values of the scalar moduli,
for example the one corresponding to the moduli where in the
$N=4$ example A gave $SU(2)^2$ enhanced gauge symmetry,
this theory has perturbative non-abelian $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry
with no matter. We thus expect there to be quantum corrections
to the moduli geometry in accord with the fact that the dilaton
is in a vector multiplet.
\noindent {\bf N=2 Example C}:
Another example of a self-dual N=2 model is obtained by modding out the
theory by a $Z_2\times Z_2$ group generated by
\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \label{es1}
\Omega_1 = (2\pi, 0, 0, 0)\, , & & \qquad v_1 = \pmatrix{{1\over 2} \cr 0 \cr
0\cr 0\cr}\, , \nonumber \\
\Omega_2 = (\pi, -\pi, \pi, -\pi)\, , & & \qquad v_2 = \pmatrix{0 \cr {1\over 2} \cr
0 \cr 0\cr}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
The duality map exchanges $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$. Thus the theory is
self-dual provided we exchange the two circles of $T^2$. This
corresponds to the exchange $S\leftrightarrow T$, $U\to -1/U$.
At a generic point in the moduli space the theory has three vector
multiplets and four hypermultiplets.
Perturbatively, enhanced SU(2) gauge symmetry occurs at points in the
moduli space where the $N=4$ example A develops an enhanced $SU(2)^2$
gauge symmetry,
but the structure of the moduli space near this point
is corrected acoording to the results of Seiberg and Witten\cite{SeWi}.
(The perturbative version of such corrections have been worked out in
refs.\cite{KLL,AFGNT}.) The $S\leftrightarrow T$ symmetry of the theory
means that a similar structure of the theory must appear for large $T$
as well.
\noindent {\bf Beyond Adiabatic Argument}:
Even though the adiabatic argument seems to be powerful enough
to suggest many new dual pairs, it has its limitation as many
interesting cases and in particular models with $N=1$ supersymmetry cannot
be constructed in this way. In this section we would like
to abstract a general lesson from the validity of the adiabatic
argument and suggest other ways of constructing dual pairs.
This will open up our hands in constructing a much larger
class of dual pairs.
One of the key checks of having a dual pair is the perturbative agreement
of the massless spectra of the two models at generic points in the moduli
space (special points may arise where perturbatively massless
states in one model will have solitonic interpretation in the dual model).
The adiabatic method of constructing dual pair already satisfies this
for the following reason: We start with the massless modes in the higher
dimensional theory (in our case $d=6$) and take their momenta to be
independent of the directions we are compactifying (in our case
further compactification on $T^2$). Moreover we keep only the
massless state invariant under the automorphism to be modded
out by. Clearly the massless states we thus keep in the two
theories are in one to one correspondence since we have an explicit isomorphism
that relates the two theories and the corresponding automorphisms.
Moreover the fact that the twisted sector is generically massive
(as follows from the fact that we are going a fraction around a circle)
implies that we have already accounted for all the massless states, and
thus the two theories agree as far as the massless modes are concerned.
Note that
from the point of view of the low dimensional observer,
the states coming from the twisted sector are massive due to
the Bogmol'nyi bound for the mass. It is thus natural to extend this
principle also to the contribution to the Bogomol'nyi bound from the
central charges arising from the {\it internal} $T^4$. In other
words, if we mod out by transformations, all of which have
shift vectors that generically have components along the central charges,
then the corresponding twisted sector
states are generically all massive and thus the previous
argument for agreement between the massless states for the two theories
will continue to hold. Using this idea we can construct dual
models with any value of $N$ (excluding $N=7$).
We will now illustrate
this idea by constructing dual models with $N=1$ and $N=2$ supersymmetry
in four dimensions as well as an $N=2$ model in six dimensions.
\noindent {\bf N=2 Example D}:
We consider a $Z_2\times Z_2$ orbifold where we start from the
$Z_2$ orbifold model of the $N=4$ example A. We mod out further
by a $Z_2$ transformation which acts on the internal $T^4$ by
\begin{equation} \label{e88}
(\theta_L',\phi_L',\theta_R',\phi_R')=(\pi, 0, \pi , 0) .
\end{equation}
accompanied by a left-right symmetric half-vector shift on both $\theta$
and $\phi$ planes
and a reflection on the common $T^2$. The dual to this second $Z_2$
according to Eq.\refb{e23} is given by,
\begin{equation} \label{e89}
(\theta_L,\phi_L,\theta_R,\phi_R)=(\pi, 0, \pi,0) \, ,
\end{equation}
accompanied by RR gauge transformations corresponding
to the shifts we have introduced.
This corresponds to turning on half units of flux of some of the RR
gauge fields at the fixed points of this $Z_2$ transformation on $T^4$.
It is easy to see that
this theory has $N=2$ supersymmetry where in the primed
theory it comes from $(1_L,1_R)$ and in the unprimed
theory it comes from $(0_L,2_R)$. Note also that in the unprimed
theory the fact that we get nothing from the twisted sector is
very much analogous to a similar situation considered in
ref.\cite{ScSe2}.
This model has generically
3 vector multiplets and 4 hypermultiplets. As far as vector moduli
is concerned we can use the primed theory (where the dilaton is in the
hypermultiplet) to compute the exact moduli space, and we
see that it has moduli space $(\Gamma_0(2)\backslash SL(2,R)/U(1))^3$,
describing the $T$-moduli associated with the $\theta'$-plane, the
$\phi'$-plane, and the torus $T^2$.
This agrees with the classical
moduli space for the unprimed theory. Thus there is no quantum correction
in accord with the fact that there in the vector moduli there is
never an enhanced gauge symmetry point. The hypermultiplet moduli
can be computed from the unprimed theory which gives us the standard
moduli space $G\backslash O(4,4)/O(4)\times O(4)$ describing the
four-torus involving the $\theta$-plane and $T^2$. The discrete duality
group $G$ is a subgroup of $SO(4,4;Z)$ which leaves the shift vector $v$
given in eq.\refb{e35} and the background RR flux invariant.
This again agrees with the classical moduli
of the primed theory. Thus that receives no corrections as well.
\noindent {\bf N=1 Example}:
Let us now construct an $N=1$ example of dual pairs.
We consider a $Z_2\times Z_2$ orbifold. One of the $Z_2$'s
is again the one considered in the self-dual $N=2$ Example A.
The second $Z_2$ we consider is the same one considered
in the last example, i.e. given by
\begin{equation} \label{e887}
(\theta_L',\phi_L',\theta_R',\phi_R')=(\pi, 0, \pi , 0) .
\end{equation}
accompanied by a left-right symmetric half-vector shift on both $\theta$
and $\phi$ planes
and a reflection on the common $T^2$. This has the same holonomy dual
but with RR fields turned on. This theory has $N=1$ supersymmetry
coming from $(0_L,1_R)$. Generically the theory has 9 chiral
multiplets (including the dilaton) and 6 vector multiplets
(four of the $U(1)$ gauge fields come from RR sector).
The gauge symmetry is always abelian, consistent with the fact
that we do not expect gaugino condensation with supersymmetry breaking.
{\bf 6-dimensional Examples:} Continuing in the same spirit, we can
construct dual pairs of models in six dimensions. Consider, for example,
the $N=2$ supersymmetric theory in six dimensions obtained by modding
out the maximally supersymmetric ($N=4$) theory by
$(\theta_L,\phi_L,\theta_R,\phi_R)=(2\pi, 0, 0, 0)$, together with a
left-right symmetric half shift in the $\phi$ plane. This gives a
$(0_L,2_R)$ theory with 8 U(1) gauge fields. Its dual is given by
modding out the same theory by $(\theta_L',\phi_L',\theta_R', \phi_R')=
(\pi, -\pi, \pi, -\pi)$, {\it i.e.} an inversion on the torus, together
with a RR gauge transformation. This introduces a flux of RR gauge
fields at the orbifold points and makes the twisted sector states
massive. Thus we now get an $N=2$ supersymmetric ($1_L,1_R$) theory with
8 U(1) gauge fields. Construction of this dual pair is very similar in
spirit to the construction of the dual of the CHL string discussed in
ref.\cite{ScSe2}. As in \cite{ScSe2}, we expect this theory to have a
solitonic string with half the tension of a fundamental string.
We would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Aspen
Center for Physics. We would like to thank C. Hull and N. Warner for
discussion. The research of C. Vafa was partially supported by
NSF grant PHY-92-18167. A. Sen would also like to acknowledge the
hospitality of Queen Mary and Westfield College and The University of
Wales, Swansea during the course of the work.
|
\section{Introduction}
The introduction of topological field theory (TFT) by Witten
[W1,W2], its axiomatization by Atiyah [A], and the novel approach
of employing the TFT techniques to attack problems of topology and geometry
[W1,W2,MS,DW], have motivated many authors to provide tools for
rigorous construction of TFT models [TV,D,DJN,KS].
In the framework of lattice topological field theory (LTFT),
a rigorous construction should inevitably start with a triangulation
of the manifold under consideration. In three dimensions (resp.~two
dimensions) the basic observation [TV] (resp.~[FHK,BP])
has been that the $6j$-symbols of $U_q(sl(2,\relax\hbox{\kern.25em$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}))$ and a large class
of other algebras (resp.~ structure constants of associative algebras)
obey the symmetries of a tetrahedron (resp.~ triangle) and satisfy
identities which may be interpreted geometrically in terms of glued
tetrahedra (resp.~ triangles). Associating state sums (partition
functions) with a triangulation, one could show that the partition
function is independent of the triangulation, i.e., it is a topological
invariant.
In the basic definition of TFT [A], which is motivated by the path
integral examples of Witten, and in the lattice models constructed
afterwards, the orientability of the underlying manifold plays a
crucial role. To the best of our knowledge, state sum models on
non-orientable manifolds have not yet been constructed, even in two
dimensions. The aim of the present paper is to construct, in general terms,
topological state sums (partition functions) and observables on non-orientable
two-dimensional surfaces.
In our opinion, this direction of generalization of TFT deserves
consideration for two reasons. The first of these is a possible relevace
of topological correlation functions on non-orientable surfaces to
the open string theory [GSW]. The second and a more fundamental
reason is that mathematically, topological invariants are well defined
for orientable as well as non-orientable manifolds, whereas the axioms
of TFT [A], which are based on the path integral formulation
of QFT, and the state sum models mentioned above, rely heavily on the
orientability of the manifold. Therefore, it is desirable to see if one can
generalize state sum invarinats to also cover the non-orientable
cases. Although our considerations are restricted to two dimensions,
our basic idea seems to be generalizable to three dimensions as well.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.~2, a brief review of LTFT
on orientable surfaces is presented. In Sec.~3, the definition of
state sums on non-orientable surfaces is given and the generalized
local (Matveev) moves are introduced accordingly. It is shown that
the state sums, so defined, are invariant under these moves, provided
that a set of consistency conditions are fulfilled. Thus, the state
sums are sensitive only to the topological properties of the surface.
In Sec.~4, it is shown how real associative $*$-algebras provide the
general solution of the consistency conditions.
In Sec.~5, the observables are defined and for all $*$-algebras
the correlations on all two-dimensional surfaces are calculated.
Sec.~6 is devoted to the study of a particular example where
the $*$-algebra is taken to be the group ring of a discrete group.
\section{Definition of LTFT on Oriented Surfaces [FHK]}
Let ${\bf \Sigma}$ be a closed oriented surface of genus $g$ , ${\bf T_g}$ a
triangulation of ${\bf\Sigma}$. Then the partition function of the lattice
model associated with ${\bf T_g}$ is defined as follows: First, for an
oriented triangle ${\bf\Delta}$ in ${\bf T_g}$, one makes a coloring
according to its orientation. That is, one gives a set of color
indices running from $1$ through $N$, to three edges of the triangle.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Colored triangle with complex valued $C_{abc}$'s.}
\label{h2.1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Gluing two triangles}
\label{h2.2}
\end{figure}
One then assigns a complex number $C_{abc}$ to a triangle with ordered
color indices $a, b, c $ (Fig.~\ref{h2.1}). Here it is assumed that
$C_{abc}$ is symmetric under cyclic permutations of the indices:
$$ C_{abc} = C_{bca} = C_{cab}\;. $$
Note, however, that $C_{abc}$ is not necessarily totally symmetric.
Next, all the triangles of ${\bf T_g}$ are glued by contracting their
indices with a metric $g^{ab}$ (Fig.~\ref{h2.2}). Thus one obtains a
complex valued function of $g^{ab}$ and $C_{abc}$ for each triangulation
${\bf T_{g}}$, and one interprets it as the partition function of the
lattice model, ${\cal Z}={\cal Z}({\bf T_g})$.
Alternatively the construction of the partition function can be done in the
dual graph ${\bf T_g^*}$ of $ {\bf T_g }$. Here one assigns $ C_{abc} $ to
the vertices and $ g^{ab} $ to the links (Fig.~\ref{h2.3}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{The propagator $g^{ab}$ and the three-point vertex
in the dual diagram.}
\label{h2.3}
\end{figure}
One further assumes that $( g^{ab}) $ has its inverse $( g_{ab} )$; and raises
or lowers indices using these matrices. One should then choose the coefficients
$C_{abc}$ and $g^{ab} $ such that the partition function is invariant under
any local changes in the triangulation ${\bf T_g}$ or in the dual diagram
${\bf T_g^* }$.
A possible set of local moves which relates any two triangulations,
is the two-dimensional version of the Matveev moves. These are
the fusion transformation (Fig.~\ref{H2.4}) and the bubble transformation
(Fig.~\ref{H2.5}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2in}
\caption{Fusion transformation in ${\bf T_g}^*$.}
\label{H2.4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1in}
\caption{Bubble transformation in ${\bf T_g}^*$.}
\label{H2.5}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{H2.6} demostrates an interpretation of the fusion transformation
in the triangulation ${\bf T_g}$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Fusion transformation in ${\bf T_g}$}
\label{H2.6}
\end{figure}
In Ref.~[FHK], it is claimed that the bubble transformation can be expressed
only in the dual diagram $ {\bf T_g^*}$. However, we would like to emphasize
that it also has a clear interpretation in ${\bf T_g}$.
The meaning of the bubble transformation becomes clear only when one combines
it with the fusion transformation. In fact, we can add a vertex to the left
side of both diagrams in Fig.~\ref{H2.5} and obtain Fig.~\ref{H2.7}.
Now we perform a fusion transformation in the right hand figure
to obtain Fig.~\ref{H2.8}. But this last equality is nothing but the
barycentric subdivision in ${\bf T_g}$ (Fig.~\ref{H2.9}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2in}
\caption{Bubble transformation applied to a vertex in ${\bf T_g}^*$.}
\label{H2.7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2in}
\caption{Barycentric subdivision in ${\bf T_g}^*$}
\label{H2.8}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2in}
\caption{Barycentric subdivision in ${\bf T_g}$}
\label{H2.9}
\end{figure}
Invariance of the partition function ${\cal Z}({\bf T_g})$ under the first
and the second Matveev moves enforces the following constraints on the
parameters $C_{abc}$ and $g^{ab}$ respectively.
\begin{equation}
C_{ab}^{~~p} C_{pc}^{~~d} = C_{bc}^{~~p}C_{ap}^{~~d}
\label{e2.1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} g_{ab} = C_{ac}^{~~d}C_{bd}^{~~c} \;.
\label{e2.2}
\end{equation}
In Ref.~[FHK], it is shown that every semisimple associative
algebra $A$ provides a solution of these constraints.
The coefficients $ C_{ab}^{~~c}$ are identified with the structure constants
of the associative algebra. In view of the definition of the
structure constants in terms of a basis $\{\phi_a~:~a=1,\cdots,N\}$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_{a} \phi_{b} = C_{ab}^{~~c} \phi_c \;,
\label{e2.3}
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{e2.1}) is the expression of the associativity of the algebra,
whereas Eq.~(\ref{e2.2}) yields the metric $g_{ab}$ in terms of the
structure constants. Note that if we define $g_{ab}:=\langle\phi_a,\phi_b\rangle$,
then the cyclic symmetry of $C_{abc}$ is expressed by
$$ \langle \phi_a , \phi_b \phi_c \rangle = \langle \phi_a \phi_b , \phi_c\rangle $$
In order for $g_{ab}$ to have an inverse, the algebra should be semisimple.
One then has the following theorem [FHK]:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Theorem~1}: {\em There is a one-to-one correspondence
between the set of all LTFT's on orientable surfaces, as defined
above, and the set of all semisimple associative algebras.}
\end{itemize}
Note that if one considers the regular representation of the algebra A :
\begin{equation}
[\pi(\phi_a)]^c_{~b} = C_{ab}^{~~c} \;,
\label{e2.4}
\end{equation}
then one finds:
\begin{equation}
g_{ab} = tr ( [\pi(\phi_a)][\pi(\phi_b)] ) \;,
\label{e2.5}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} C_{abc} =
tr ( [\pi(\phi_a)][\pi(\phi_b)][\pi(\phi_c)])\;.
\label{e2.6}
\end{equation}
The latter equations manifestly demonstrate the symmetry of $ g_{ab} $ and
the cyclic symmetry of $ C_{abc} $.
\section {Generalization of LTFT to Arbitrary Compact Surfaces}
Consider a closed (possibly non-orientable) surface ${\bf \Sigma}$, a fixed
triangulation ${\bf \Sigma}^\alpha$ of ${\bf \Sigma}$, and equip each triangle
of ${\bf \Sigma} ^\alpha$ with an
arbitrary orientation.\footnote{Note that here we use ${\bf \Sigma^\alpha}$
rather than ${\bf T_g}$ to denote a particular triangulation (indexed by
$\alpha$), for convenience.} Denoting the number of triangles of ${\bf
\Sigma}^\alpha$ by $F$, one has $2^F$ possible ways of assigning orientations
to the triangles. We shall call ${\bf \Sigma}^\alpha$
together with such an assignment a {\em locally oriented triangulation}
of ${\bf \Sigma}$. Locally oriented triangulations corresponding to
${\bf \Sigma^\alpha }$ are labeled by ${\bf\Sigma}^{\alpha,k},~~
k=1,2,\cdots,2^F$. We shall denote the set of all ${\bf \Sigma}^{\alpha,k}$'s
by
${\bf \tilde\Sigma}^\alpha$ and the set of all locally oriented
triangulations of ${\bf \Sigma}$ by ${\bf \tilde\Sigma}$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf \tilde\Sigma}^\alpha&:=& \{ {\bf
\Sigma}^{\alpha,k}~:~k=1,\cdots,2^F\}\;, \nonumber\\
{\bf \tilde\Sigma} &:=&\cup_\alpha {\bf
\tilde\Sigma}^\alpha\;. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We shall construct the partition function as a real valued map
${\bf\cal Z}:\{ {\bf\Sigma^{\alpha k}}:\forall {\bf\Sigma},~\alpha,~k\}
\to\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}$. By its topological invariance we mean that for a fixed surface
${\bf\Sigma}$, this map has a constant value on ${\bf \tilde \Sigma}$.
Topologically, this means that ${\cal Z}$ should be invariant under the
following local moves in the space ${\bf \tilde \Sigma } $:
\begin{itemize}
\item[A.]
{\bf Flipping}: With a fixed triangulation we can change
the orientation of any arbitrary triangle and thereby move in the
subsets $ {\bf\tilde \Sigma}^\alpha $ .
\item[B.]
{\bf Matveev Moves}: These enable us to interpolate between different
subsets $ {\bf \tilde \Sigma}^{\alpha} $ and $ {\bf \tilde
\Sigma}^{\beta}$ in ${\bf\tilde\Sigma}$.
\end{itemize}
To construct the partition function, we proceed as follows: To each
locally oriented triangle, carrying the color indices $a,b$, and $c$,
we assign a real number $C_{abc}$ according to the orientation of the
triangle (Fig~\ref{f2.1}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Colored oriented triangle with real $C_{abc}$.}
\label{f2.1}
\end{figure}
Each pair of triangles with adjacent edges labeled by $a$ and $b$, are
glued together by means of contracting their indices using two types of
matrices: $g^{ab}$ or $\sigma^{ab}$, according to whether the orientations of
the adjacent triangles are compatible or not, respectively, (Fig.~\ref{f2.2}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Gluing two oriented trangles.}
\label{f2.2}
\end{figure}
For brevity, we shall call two adjacent triangles with (in)compatible
orientations, {\em (in)compatible triangles}.
Consistency of this prescription requires $C_{abc}$ to be cyclically
symmetric, and $g^{ab}$ and $\sigma^{ab}$ to be symmetric in their indices:
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{abc}&=&C_{bca}\:=\:C_{cab}\;,
\label{e3.1}\\
g^{ab}&=&g^{ba}\;,~~~~\sigma^{ab}\:=\:\sigma^{ba}\;.
\label{e3.2}
\end{eqnarray}
In the dual diagram, we associate a vertex to each triangle,
a double line (propagator) to each common edge of two compatible triangles
and a twisted double line (twisted propagator) to each common edge of two
incompatible triangles. Thus, the numbers $C_{abc}$, $g^{ab}$, and $
\sigma^{ab}$ are assigned to the vertices, propagators, and twisted
propagators, respectively, (Fig.~\ref{f2.3}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{3in}
\caption{Oriented vertices, twisted and untwisted propagators.}
\label{f2.3}
\end{figure}
Contracting all the indices, one obtains a real number which we interpret
as the partition function of the lattice model based on the locally oriented
triangulation ${\bf \Sigma^{\alpha,k}}$. The next step is to find out the
conditions on $C_{abc}\,,~g^{ab}$, and $\sigma^{ab}$ that would imply the
invariance of ${\cal Z}$ under flipping, i.e., ${\cal Z}={\cal Z}({\bf
\tilde{\Sigma}}^{\alpha})$, and Matveev moves, i.e., ${ \cal Z}={\cal Z}(
{\bf \tilde {\Sigma }})$.
Consider a locally oriented triangulation ${\bf \Sigma^{\alpha ,k}}$
and change the orientation of an arbitrary triangle in ${\bf \Sigma^{
\alpha ,k}}$ while the orientations of the rest of the triangles are kept
unchanged. In this case, one of the cases depicted in Fig.~\ref{f2.4} may
happen.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{3in}
\caption{Flipping transformation in ${\bf T_g}$.}
\label{f2.4}
\end{figure}
In view of Fig.~(\ref{f2.4}), invariance of ${\bf {\cal Z}}$ under
flipping leads to the following relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{aa'}g^{bb'}g^{cc'}C_{a'b'c'}&=&
\sigma^{aa'}\sigma^{bb'}\sigma^{cc'}C_{a'c'b'}\;,
\label{e3.5}\\
\sigma^{aa'}g^{bb'}g^{cc'}C_{a'b'c'}&=&
g^{aa'}\sigma^{bb'}\sigma^{cc'}C_{a'c'b'}\;.
\label{e3.6}
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we require invariance of ${\bf \cal Z}$ under local Matveev Moves.
Consider an arbitrary pair of adjacent triangles. Without loss of
generality, we assign compatible orientation to this pair and perform
the first Matveev move (Fig.~\ref{f2.5}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Fusion transformation in ${\bf T_g}$.}
\label{f2.5}
\end{figure}
Invariance of ${\bf \cal Z}$ under this move yields the following relation
for $C_{abc}$'s:
\begin{equation}
C_{da}^{~~p} C_{pb}^{~~c}=C_{ab}^{~~p} C_{dp}^{~~c}\;.
\label{e2.7}
\end{equation}
Next perform a barycentric subdivision of an arbitrary oriented triangle,
Fig.~\ref{f2.6}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Barycentric subdivision in ${\bf T_g}$.}
\label{f2.6}
\end{figure}
This yields the following relation:
\begin{equation}
g_{ab}=C_{ac}^{~~d}C_{bd}^{~~c}\;.
\label{e2.8}
\end{equation}
Note that once we have chosen the orientation of the triangles, the
orientation of the new triangles obtained after affecting the
Matveev moves is not arbitrary. It is dictated by the external
edges of the subdiagram where the Matveev moves take place.
Thus we have shown that the conditions Eqs.~(\ref{e3.5}) -- (\ref{e2.8})
are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the invariance of the
partition function under the local moves in the space ${\bf\tilde\Sigma}$.
In the next section, we shall provide the general solution of these
conditions.
\section{General Solutions}
Let $A$ be an associative semisimple $*$-algebra over the field of real
numbers $\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}$, with the $*$-operation $\sigma: A \to A$, with $\sigma^2 =id$
and $\sigma(ab)=\sigma(b)\sigma(a)$. Further, suppose that $A$ is equipped
with an inner product $ \langle~,~\rangle:A\times A\to \relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} $ and $\sigma$ is
self-adjoint with respect to this inner product.
In an arbitrary basis $\{ \phi_a~:~a=1,\cdots,N \}$, $\sigma$ is expressed by
a matrix ($\sigma_a^{~b})$, i.e: $\hat\phi_a=\sigma\phi_a=
\sigma_a^{~b}\phi_b $, and the conditions on $ \sigma $ take the following
form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_a^{~b} \sigma_b^{~c}= \delta _a^c\,~~~~~~~~~~&&{\rm
(involutiveness)}\;,
\label{g11}\\
C_{ba}^{~~c}\sigma_c^{c'}=
\sigma_a^{a'}\sigma_b^{b'} C_{a',b'}^{c'}\,&&{\rm
(antihomomorphism)}\;,
\label{g12}\\
\sigma_{ab}=\sigma_{ba}\,~~~~~~~~~~~&&\mbox{(self-adjointness)}\;.
\label{g13}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that
$$\sigma_{ab} =\langle\phi_a,\sigma \phi_b\rangle=\langle\phi_a,\sigma_{b}^{~b'}
\phi_{b'}\rangle=\sigma_{b}^{~b'}g_{ab'}=\sigma_{ba}\;, $$
also
$$ \sigma^a_{~b} =
g^{aa'}\sigma_{a'b}= g^{aa'}\sigma_{ba'} = \sigma_{b}^{~a}\;. $$
One can use Eqs.~(\ref{g11}) and (\ref{g13}) to write Eq.(\ref{g12}) in
the following equivalent form
\begin{equation}
C_{ba}^{~~c} =
\sigma_a^{~a'}\sigma_b^{~b'} \sigma_{c'}^{~c} C_{a',b'}^{~~c'}\;.
\label{g14}
\end{equation}
Defining the metric as before, i.e., according to Eq.~(\ref{e2.8}),
we find that Eqs.~(\ref{g12}) and (\ref{g14}) are precisely the
necessary relations (\ref{e3.5}) and (\ref{e3.6}) for the formulation
of LTFT on arbitrary (not necessarily orientable) compact surfaces.
In fact, the relation with $*$-algebras can be seen quite naturally,
if one translates Fig.~\ref{f2.4} into the dual language (Fig.~\ref{f16}),
where a vertex shows the fusion of two elements of the algebra. In the
remainder of this article, we shall use a single line, rather than a
double line, to indicate a propagator and a single line with a dot to
indicate a twisted propagator, for simplicity.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{3in}
\caption{Flipping transformation in ${\bf T_g}^*$.}
\label{f16}
\end{figure}
In view of these considerations, we have proven:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Theorem~2}: {\em
There is a one-to-one correspondence between the set of all LTFT's
on two-dimensional compact surfaces (orientable or not) defined as
above, and the set of all semisimple real associative $*$-algebras.}
\end{itemize}
We conclude this section by recalling a couple of examples of associative
real $*$-algebras:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] Let $A$ be the algebra of real n-dimensional matrices
$ M_n(\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}) $ with the inner product $\langle a,b\rangle=tr(ab^t)$ and $\sigma$
be the transpose operation $\sigma(a)=a^t$. A natural basis of
$M_n(\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R})$ is provided by the matrices $E_{ij}$ with $i,j=1,\cdots,n$
defined by $(E_{ij})_{kl}:=\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}$. We then have
$\langle E_{ij},E_{kl}\rangle=g_{ij,kl}=N\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}$,
$g^{ij,kl}={1\over N}\delta^{ik} \delta^{jl}$, and $\sigma_{ij,kl}
=N\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}$.
\item[2)] Let $A=\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}(G)$ be the group ring of a finite group $G$.
For any two elements $a$ and $b$ of $G$, we define $\langle a,b\rangle=
tr[\pi(a)\pi(b)]$ where $\pi$ denotes the regular representation of
$G$, and induce an inner product on $\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}(G)$ by linear extension.
We also choose the $*$-operation to be the (linear extension of the)
group inversion, $\sigma(a):=a^{-1}$. Then, it is easy to check that
$\sigma$ is self-adjoint:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle a,\sigma(b)\rangle&=&tr[\pi(a)\pi(b^{-1})]\nonumber\\
&=&[\pi(a)]^c_{~d}
[\pi(b^{-1})]^d_{~c}\nonumber\\
&=&C_{ad}^{~~c} C_{b^{-1}c}^{~~~~d}\nonumber\\
&=&\delta({ad,c})\delta({b^{-1}c,d})\nonumber\\
&=&\delta({ab^{-1}c,c}) \nonumber\\
&=&\vert G \vert\delta_{a,b}
\:=\: \langle\sigma(a),b\rangle\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta(a,b):=\delta_{ab}$ is the kronecker delta function,
i.e.,
$$\delta(a,b):=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
1&{\rm if}&a=b\\
0&{\rm if}&a\neq b\,.
\end{array}\right.$$
\end{itemize}
\section{Physical Observables and Correlation Functions}
Let ${\bf \Sigma}$ be a (compact and connected) surface with an
$n$--component boundary. The boundary of ${\bf\Sigma}$ is homeomorphic to the
union of $n$ disjoint circles. Although ${\bf\Sigma}$ itself may not be
orientable, each component of its boundary may be oriented. Let us assign
the color indices $a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_n$ to the $n$ circles comprising the
boundary. We denote such a surface and a locally oriented triangulation
of it by ${\bf\Sigma}_{a_1,\cdots,a_n}$ and ${\bf\Sigma}_{a_1,\cdots,a_n
}^{\alpha,k}$, respectively. We shall define the partition function,
${\cal Z}({\bf\Sigma}_{a_1,\cdots,a_n}^{\alpha,k})$, such that it will be
completely independent of the triangulation and will depend only on
the color indices and the orientations of the boundary components. For
definition of the partition function we use exactly the same
set of rules as for the closed surfaces plus the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[]{\em
Every boundary element with index $a$, whose orientation is (in)compatible
with that of the triangle adjacent to it, corresponds to a (twisted) untwisted
external line in the dual diagram (Fig.~\ref{f5.1}). Two different surfaces
are glued along their common boundary when the orientations of the boundaries
are opposite.}
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Triangle adjacent to a boundary component.}
\label{f5.1})
\end{figure}
We define the insertion of the operators $O_a$ ($a=1,2,\cdots,N$)
into the correlation functions as creating a loop boundary
with a fixed color index $a$ and summing over all other color indices of
the triangulation. We denote the correlation functions of $O_{a_1},\cdots,
O_{a_n}$ on a closed surface ${\bf\Sigma}$ by $\langle O_{a_1}\cdots
O_{a_n}\rangle_\Sigma$\,. Next, we prove:
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
{\bf Theorem~3}: {\em
The value of ${\cal Z}({\bf\Sigma}_{a_1,\cdots,a_n}^{\alpha,k})$
is independent of the triangulation, i.e.,
${\cal Z}={\cal Z}({\bf\Sigma}_{a_1,\cdots, a_n})$.}
\item[]{\bf Proof}: We should only take care of the triangles
adjacent to the external lines. Consider a flipping in the triangle
adjacent to a boundary component (Fig.~\ref{f5.2}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{Flipping a triangle adjacent to a boundary component.}
\label{f5.2}
\end{figure}
In the dual diagram this flipping is demonstrates also by
Fig.~\ref{f16}. We know that due to Eqs.~(\ref{e3.5}) and (\ref{e3.6}),
the partition function is invariant under such moves. In
Fig.~\ref{f5.2},
we may also consider other possibilities for the orientations of the
boundary components and the triangles, and see that the invariance of
the correlation functions imposes no extra conditions besides
Eqs.~(\ref{e3.5}) and (\ref{e3.6}).
\end{itemize}
Note however that the correlation functions are invariant under
a reversal of the orientation of all the boundary components. This marks
a $\ Z \hspace{-.08in}Z_2$--symmetry of our construction. In particular, this implies that
the one-point functions do not depend on the orientation of the boundary.
This is due to the fact that although one can compare two different
orientations of a given boundary component, one cannot compare the
orientations of two different boundary components. Thus, it is impossible
to assign an intrinsic value ($\pm$) to a given orienatation. This then means
that for a fixed set of indices on the $n$ boundary components of
${\bf\Sigma}$, one can define $2^{n-1}$ different correlation functions.
In the next section, we shall see how one can obtain all these $2^{n-1}$
different correlation functions from the knowledge of only one of them.
In the remainder of this section, we present some explicit calculations.
\subsection*{Calculation of Correlation Functions}
In the following we pursue the calculation, in general terms and without
specifying the underlying algebra, of the following quantities:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] The partition function of
\begin{itemize}
\item[A -] the sphere,
\item[B -] the projective plane,
\item[C -] the Klein bottle,
\end{itemize}
\item[] the one-point functions on
\begin{itemize}
\item[D -] the sphere,
\item[E -] the projective plane,
\item[F -] the Klein bottle,
\end{itemize}
\item[] and finally,
\begin{itemize}
\item[G -] the two-point function on the sphere,
\item[H -] the three-point function on the sphere, and
\item[I -] the partition and correlation functions on
arbitrary compact surfaces.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
We shall see that observables D, E, F, and H can be used as building
blocks for calculation of all correlation functions on arbitrary compact
surfaces, i.e., I. In our graphical calculations, we shall use the identities
depicted in Fig.~\ref{f21}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{4in}
\caption{Graphical identities}
\label{f21}
\end{figure}
Next, we pursue the computation of:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\subsection*{A- Partition function of the sphere $S^2$}
We can always normalize the partition function of the sphere to unity. For
future use we present in Fig.~\ref{f20},
\begin{figure}
\vspace{3in}
\caption{A triangulation of the sphere and its dual diagram.}
\label{f20}
\end{figure}
the simplest triangulation of the 2-sphere together with its dual
graph.\footnote{Note that the multiple arrows on the edges of some of
triangles are used to mean that they are to be identified. They are not to be
confused with the single arrows which specify the orientations of the
boundary components.}
By performing second Matveev move in the dual graph, we see that the dual
diagram of $S^2 $ is a circle. Therefore we have:
$${\cal Z}(S^2)={\cal Z}(\bigcirc\hspace{-2.5mm}|\hspace{2.5mm} )=
{\cal Z}(\bigcirc)=1\;.$$
\subsection*{B-Partition function of the projective plane $\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2$}
A simple triangulation of the projective plane and the corresponding dual
graph is shown in Fig.~\ref{f22}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2in}
\caption{A triangulation of $\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2$ and its dual graph.}
\label{f22}
\end{figure}
In order to compute the partion function, first we simplify the dual diagram
by performing the first and then the second Matveev moves in the lower area.
The result is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{f23}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2in}
\caption{A simplified dual diagram for $\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2$.}
\label{f23}
\end{figure}
{}From the latter diagram we obtain:
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z}(\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2)=C_{ca}^{~~b}C_{db}^{~~a}\sigma^{cd}\;.
\label{h.14}
\end{equation}
\subsection*{C- Partition function of the Klein bottle ${\cal K}$}
Fig.~\ref{f24} shows a triangulation of the Klein bottle and its dual
diagram, where we have also indicated how to simplify the dual diagram using
Matveev moves.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2in}
\caption{A triangulation of the Klein bottle and its dual diagram.}
\label{f24}
\end{figure}
In view of Fig.~\ref{f24}, we obtain :
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z}({\cal K})=C_{b'c'}^{~~a} C_{cba}\sigma^{cc'}\sigma^{bb'}
\label{h.15}
\end{equation}
\subsection*{D- One-point function on the sphere (disk)}
Removing the interior of a circle from the sphere and fixing an index $a$
on the circle (Fig.~\ref{f25}),
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{A triangulation of the disk.}
\label{f25}
\end{figure}
we obtain the one-point function on the sphere , which is topologically a
disk. Hence, we have
\begin{equation}
\langle O_a\rangle_{S^2} =C_{ab}^{~~b}\;.
\label{h16}
\end{equation}
\subsection*{E- One-point function on the projective plane (Mobius strip)}
The simplest triangulation of the one-point function on the projective plane
is shown in Fig.~\ref{f26}. This is obtained by removing the interior of a
circle from $\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2$. Topologically, this corresponds to the Mobius strip.
In view of Fig.~\ref{f26},
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1.5in}
\caption{A triangulation of the Mobius strip.}
\label{f26}
\end{figure}
we have:
\begin{equation}
\langle O_{a}\rangle_{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2}=C_{abc}\,\sigma^{bc}\;.
\label{h17}
\end{equation}
\subsection*{F- One-point function on the Klein bottle}
In order to compute the one-point function on the Klein bottle, we cut a disk
in Fig.~\ref{f24}, and obtain Fig.~\ref{f27}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{2in}
\caption{A triangulation of the one-point function on Klein bottle.}
\label{f27}
\end{figure}
The latter leads to:
\begin{equation}
\langle O_{a}\rangle_{{\cal K}}=C_{ab}^{~~c} C_{cd'}^{~~e'}C_{ed}^{~~b}
\sigma^{dd '} \sigma^{~e}_{e'}\;.
\label{h18}
\end{equation}
\subsection*{G- Two-point functions on the sphere}
According to the orientations of the boundaries there are two different
two-point functions on the sphere, depicted in Fig.~\ref{f28} which we call
$\eta_{ab}$ and $\xi_{ab}$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{3in}
\caption{A triangulation of the two-point functions on $S^2$.}
\label{f28}
\end{figure}
One can find the simplest triangulation of $\eta_{ab} $ and $\xi_{ab}$
by representing both of them as rectangles with two idendified sides.
According to Fig.~\ref{f28}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{ab}&=&C_{ac}^{~~d} C_{db}^{~~c}\;,
\label{h19}\\
\xi_{ab}&=&\eta_{a}^{~b'}\sigma_{b'b}\;.
\label{h20}
\end{eqnarray}
Gluing two $\eta$'s or two $\xi$'s, one can verify the following identities:
\begin{equation}
\eta_a^{~b}\eta_b^{~c}=\eta_a^{~c}\;,~~~~\eta_a^{~b}\xi_b^{~c}=
\xi_a^{~b}\eta_b^{~c}=\xi_a^{~c}\;,~~~~\xi_a^{~b}\xi_b^{~c}=
\eta_a^{~c}\;.
\label{h21}
\end{equation}
In fact, the first identity is the same as in the orientable case. The
remaining two identities are consequences of Eq.~(\ref{h20}). The
significance of Eqs.~(\ref{h21}) will be emphasized below.
In Ref.~[FHK], it is shown that $\eta$ is a projection onto the center $Z(A)$
of the algebra $A$, i.e., $\eta_a^{~b}C_{bcd}=\eta_a^{~b}C_{bdc}$, which
implies:
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall\phi\in A~:&&\eta\phi\in Z(A)\;,\nonumber\\
\forall\tilde\phi\in Z(A)~:&&\eta\tilde\phi=\tilde\phi\;.
\label{h22}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, in view of Eq.~(\ref{h20}), $\xi$ also acts as a projector to
the center $Z(A)$, although it is not a proper projection due to
the last relation in (\ref{h21}).
Note that by gluing $\xi_{ab}$ to any boundary component of the surface,
we can change its prescribed orientation. Thus the correlation functions
corresponding to different assignments of the orientation to the boundary
components may be obtained in this way from a given one.
At this stage, we would like to relabel the indices of the basis
$\{\phi_a~:~a=1,\cdots,N\}$ of $A$ in such a way that the first $M$
indices label the basis of $Z(A)$:
\begin{equation}
A=\bigoplus_{a=1}^N\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}\phi_a=Z(A)\oplus Z^c(A):=
\left(\bigoplus_{\alpha=1}^M
\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}\phi_\alpha\right)\oplus\left(\bigoplus_{i=M+1}^N\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}\phi_i\right)\;.
\label{h23}
\end{equation}
Since $\eta=(\eta_a^{~b})$ is a projector onto $Z(A)$ and Eq.~(\ref{h22})
holds, $\eta$ takes the following form in the new basis:
\begin{eqnarray}
(\eta_{ab})&=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\eta_{\alpha\beta}=g_{\alpha\beta}&0\\
0&0\end{array}\right]\;,\nonumber\\
(\eta_a^{~b})&=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\eta_\alpha^{~\beta}=\delta_\alpha^{~\beta}&0\\
0&0\end{array}\right]\;,
\label{h24}\\
(\eta^{ab})&=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\eta^{\alpha\beta}=g^{\alpha\beta}&0\\
0&0\end{array}\right]\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
An interesting observation is that $\sigma$ induces a $\ Z \hspace{-.08in}Z_2$--grading
of the center $Z(A)$, althought it does not induce such a grading on
the whole algebra $A$. Thus, we have:
\begin{equation}
Z(A)=Z^+(A)\oplus Z^-(A)=\left(\bigoplus_{\alpha^+=1}^{M_1} \relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}
\phi_{\alpha^+}
\right)\oplus\left(\bigoplus_{\alpha^-=M_1+1}^M \relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}\phi_{\alpha^-}
\right)\;,
\label{h26}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma\phi_{\alpha^\pm}=\pm\phi_{\alpha^\pm}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^+(A)~Z^+(A)&\subset&Z^+(A)\nonumber\\
Z^+(A)~Z^-(A)&\subset&Z^-(A)
\label{x1}\\
Z^-(A)~Z^-(A)&\subset&Z^+(A)\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection*{H - Three-point functions on the sphere}
The simplest triangulation for the three-point function on sphere,
with the prescribed orientations as shown in Fig.~\ref{f31},
\begin{figure}
\vspace{3in}
\caption{A triangulation of a three-point function on $S^2$ with
a prescribed orientation on the boundary components.}
\label{f31}
\end{figure}
leads to a dual diagram consisting of three $\eta$'s joint at a vertex [FHK].
Thus, we have:
\begin{equation}
N_{abc}:=\langle O_aO_bO_c\rangle= \eta_a^{~a'}\eta_b^{~b'}\eta_c^{~c'}
C_{a'b'c'}\;.
\label{h29}
\end{equation}
Note that in view of Eqs.~(\ref{h24}),
\begin{equation}
N_{\alpha\beta\gamma}=C_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\;.
\label{h27}
\end{equation}
Other choices of orientations on the boundary components correspond to
replacing some of $\eta$'s by $\xi$'s in Eq.~(\ref{h29}).
Since every insertion of operator $O_a$ (to obtain a multi-point function) is
necessarily subject to the projection by $\eta$ or $\xi$, the following
theorem [FHK] also generalizes to the case considered in this paper.
\begin{itemize}
\item[]{\bf Theorem~4}: {\em The set of physical observables is in
one-to-one correspondence with the center $Z(A)$ of the
the real associative $*$-algebra $A$ associated with the LTFT.
In particular, the number of the independent physical operators
is equal to the dimension of $Z(A)$.}
\end{itemize}
In view of Eq.~(\ref{h27}) and the $\ Z \hspace{-.08in}Z_2$--grading of $Z(A)$ demonstrated
by Eqs.~(\ref{x1}), we can regard $O_{\alpha^+}$ and $O_{\alpha^-}$ as
``bosonic'' and ``fermionic'' observables. This terminology is motivated
by the follwing ``selection rules'':
$$ N_{\alpha^+\beta^+\gamma^-}=N_{\alpha^-\beta^-\gamma^-}=0\;.$$
\subsection*{I - Case of general compact surfaces}
To compute the correlation functions of other compact surfaces, we
appeal to the following result:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Theorem~5}: {\em
The one-point functions on the sphere $D_\alpha$, the Klein
bottle ${\cal K}_\alpha$, the projective plane ${\cal M}_\alpha$,
and the three-point function on sphere $N_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$
can be used as building blocks to find any correlation function
on any compact connected surface by gluing.}
\item[] {\bf Proof}:
First note that by gluing a disk $D_\alpha$ to a three-point
function $N_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ on the sphere, one obtains the
two-point function $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ on the sphere. Gluing
$\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ to $N_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$, one obtains a
handle operator which is used in the construction of surfaces
of higher genus. Furthermore, gluing $N_{\alpha
\beta\gamma}$ to any $n$--point function yields an $(n+1)$--point
function on the same surface.
Next, one can glue ${\cal M}_\alpha$ (resp.\ ${\cal K}_\alpha$)
to the $(n+1)$--point function on a genus $g$ orientable surface
$\Sigma_g$ to obtain the $n$--point function on the
non-orientable surface $\Sigma_g\mbox{\#}\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2$
(resp.~ $\Sigma_g\mbox{\#}{\cal K}$).
According to the classification theorem for two-dimensional
surfaces [M], this exhausts all the possibilities
of the multi-point functions on arbitrary compact surfaces.
\end{itemize}
These considerations can be expressed in an algebraic language by defining
the matrices:
$$ (N_\beta)_\alpha^{~\gamma}:=N_{\alpha\beta}^{~~\gamma}\;,$$
the vectors $\omega$, ${\cal M}$, and ${\cal K}$ with components:
$$ \omega_\alpha:=tr(N_\alpha)\;,~~~~~{\cal M}_\alpha\;,~~~~~
{\cal K}_\alpha\;,$$
respectively, and the matrix:
$$\tilde{N}:=\sum_{\alpha=1}^M\omega_\alpha N_\alpha\;.$$
Denoting by $g$ the genus of the surface, we will then have
for the orientable surfaces $\Sigma_{g}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle O_{\alpha_1}\cdots O_{\alpha_n}\rangle_{g=0}&=&\left(
N_{\alpha_2}N_{\alpha_3}\cdots N_{\alpha_{n-1}}\right)_{\alpha_1}^{
\alpha_n}\;,
\label{h30}\\
\langle O_{\alpha_1}\cdots O_{\alpha_n}\rangle_{g=1}&=&tr~\left(
N_{\alpha_1}N_{\alpha_2}\cdots N_{\alpha_n}\right)\;,
\label{h31}\\
\langle O_{\alpha_0}\rangle_g&=&( N_{\alpha_0}N_{\alpha_1}\cdots
N_{\alpha_g})\omega_{\alpha_1}\omega_{\alpha_2}
\cdots\omega_{\alpha_g}\;,\nonumber\\
&=&\left( \tilde{N}^{g-1}\omega\right)_{\!\alpha_0}\;,
\label{h32}\\
\langle O_{\alpha_1}\cdots O_{\alpha_n}\rangle_g&=&
\langle O_{\alpha_1}\cdots O_{\alpha_n}O_{\alpha_{n+1}}\rangle_{g=0}
\langle O_{\alpha_{n+1}}\rangle_g\;,\nonumber\\
&=& \left( N_{\alpha_2}\cdots N_{\alpha_n} \tilde{N}^{g-1}\omega
\right)_{\!\alpha_1}\;,
\label{h33}\\
{\cal Z}(\Sigma_g)&=&\omega_{\alpha_1}\cdots\omega_{\alpha_g}
\langle O_{\alpha_1}\cdots O_{\alpha_g}\rangle_{g=0}\:=\:
\omega^t\, \tilde{N}^{g-2}\omega\;,
\label{h34}
\end{eqnarray}
and for non-orientable surfaces:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Z}(\Sigma_g \#{\cal K})&=&{\cal K}_\alpha\langle O_\alpha\rangle_g
\:=\: {\cal K}^t \tilde{N}^{g-1}\omega\;,
\label{h35}\\
{\cal Z}(\Sigma_g \#\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2)&=& {\cal M}_\alpha\langle O_\alpha\rangle_g
\: =\: {\cal M}^t\, \tilde{N}^{g-1}\omega\;,
\label{h36}\\
\langle O_\alpha\rangle_{\Sigma_g\#{\cal K}}&=&
({\cal K}^t\tilde{N}^g)_\alpha\;,
\label{h37}\\
\langle O_\alpha\rangle_{\Sigma_g \#\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2}&=&
({\cal M}^t\tilde{N}^g)_\alpha\;,
\label{h38}\\
\langle O_{\alpha_1}\cdots O_{\alpha_n}\rangle_{\Sigma_g\#{\cal K}}&=&
\langle O_{\alpha_1}\cdots O_{\alpha_{n+1}}\rangle_{g=0}
\langle O_{\alpha_{n+1}}\rangle_{\Sigma_g\#{\cal K}}\;,\nonumber\\
&=&\left( N_{\alpha_2}\cdots N_{\alpha_n}\tilde{N}^g{\cal K}\right)_{
\alpha_1}\;,
\label{h39}\\
\langle O_{\alpha_1}\cdots O_{\alpha_n}\rangle_{\Sigma_g \#\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2}&=&
\left( N_{\alpha_2}\cdots N_{\alpha_n}\tilde{N}^g{\cal M}\right)_{
\alpha_1}\;,
\label{h40}
\end{eqnarray}
where the superscript ``$t$'' stands for the ``transpose''.
\section{Example: The Group Ring $A=\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}(G)$}
In this section we deal with the special case where
$A=\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}[G]:=\bigoplus_{a\in G}\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} a$, is a group ring associated with a finite
group $G$ of order $|G|$. In this case, one has:
\begin{equation}
C_{ab}^{~~c}=\delta(ab,c)\;.
\label{e4.1}
\end{equation}
The group ring $A$ is naturally a real $*$-algebra with the $*$-operation
given by linear extention of:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(a):=a^{-1}\;,~~~~~\forall a\in G\;.
\label{e4.2}
\end{equation}
Using Eqs.~(\ref{e4.1}) and~(\ref{e4.2}), we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{ab}&=&|G|\delta(a,b^{-1})\;,
\label{e4.3}\\
C_{abc}&=&|G|\delta(abc,1)\;,
\label{e4.4}\\
\sigma_{ab}&=&|G|\delta(a,b)\;.
\label{e4.5}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{ab}&=&\frac{1}{|G|}\delta(a,b^{-1})\;,
\label{e4.6}\\
\sigma^{ab}&=&\frac{1}{|G|}\delta(a,b)\;,
\label{e4.7}\\
\sigma^{a}_{~b}&=&\sigma^{~a}_b\:=\:
\delta(a,b^{-1})\;,
\label{e4.8}
\end{eqnarray}
In view of these equations, we may easily compute:
\begin{equation}
\eta_{ab}=\langle O_a O_b\rangle_0=\frac{|G|}{h_{[a]}}
\delta([a],[b^{-1}])\;.
\label{e4.9}
\end{equation}
Here, $[a]$ denotes the conjugacy class of $a$, i.e.,
\[
[a]:=\{b\in G~:~ b=g\,a\,g^{-1}\;,~g\in G\}\;,\]
and $h_{[a]}$ is the number of elements of $[a]$. Furthermore, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta^{~b}_{a}&=&\eta_{ac}g^{cb}=\frac{1}{h_{[a]}}\delta(
[a],[b])\;,
\label{e4.10}\\
\xi_{ab}&=&\eta^{~c}_{a}\sigma_{cb}\:=\:
\frac{|G|}{h_{[a]}}\delta([a],[b])\;,
\label{e4.11}\\
\xi^{~b}_a&=& \xi_{ac}g^{cb}\:=\:
\frac{1}{h_{[a]}}\delta([a],[b^{-1}])\;.
\label{e4.12}
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we consider some specific examples:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] The partition function for the sphere $S^2$:
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z}(S^2)={\cal Z}(\bigcirc\hspace{-2.5mm}|\hspace{2.5mm})
=C_{abc}C_{a'b'c'}g^{aa'}g^{bb'}g^{cc'}=
\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{a,b,c}
\delta(abc,1)\delta(a^{-1}c^{-1}b^{-1},1)=1\;.
\label{i50}
\end{equation}
\item[2.] One-point function on $S^2$ (The disk ($D$)):
\begin{equation}
\langle O_a\rangle_{S^2}= C_{ab}^{~~b}=\sum_b\delta(ab,b)
=|G|\delta(a,1)\;.
\label{e4.14}
\end{equation}
\item[3.] The partition function for the projective plane $\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Z}(\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2)&=& C_{ab}^{~~c}C_{dc}^{~~b}\sigma^{da}\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{a,b,c,d}
\delta(ab,c)\delta(dc,b)\delta(d,a)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{a}
\delta(a^2,1)\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The sum in the latter equation can be split into a sum over the
distinct conjugacy classes $[b]$, followed by a sum over the
elements belonging to each class, $a\in [b]$. Then, in view of
the identity:
$$ \sum_{a\in [b]}\delta(a^2,1)=
\frac{|G|}{h_{[b^2]}}
\delta([b^2],1)\;,$$
one finally has:
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z}(\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2)=\sum_{[b]}
\frac{1}{h_{[b^2]}}\delta([b^2],1)\;.
\label{e4.15}
\end{equation}
\item[4.] One-point function on $\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2$ (the Mobius strip
(${\cal M}$)):
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle O_a\rangle_{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R} P^2}&=&{\cal M}_a\:=\:
C_{abc}\sigma^{cb}=C_{ab}^{~~c}\sigma_c^{~b}\nonumber\\&=&
\sum_{b,c}
\delta(ab,c)\delta(c,b^{-1})\nonumber\\&=&\sum_b\delta(ab,b^{-1})=:
G_a^{1/2}\;.
\label{e4.16}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $G_a^{1/2}$ is the number of elements of $G$ whose square
equals $a$. Note that $G_a^{1/2}$ is a function of $[a]$. To see this
suppose that $b_i$,~$i=1,\cdots,G_a^{1/2}$ are such that $b_i^2=a$.
Then for all $g\in G,~~ b_i':=g\,b_ig^{-1}$ have the property that
$b_i^{'2}=g\,a\,g^{-1}=a'\in [a]$. Thus,
$G_{gag^{-1}}^{1/2}=G_a^{1/2}$.
\item[5.] The partition function of the Klein bottle (${\cal K}$):
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z}({\cal K})= C_{b'c'}^{~~a}C_{cba}\sigma^{cc'}
\sigma^{bb'}=\sum_{[a]}
\frac{1}{h_{[a]}}\delta([a],[a^{-1}])\;.
\label{e4.17}
\end{equation}
\item[6.] One-point function on ${\cal K}$:
\begin{equation}
\langle O_a\rangle_{{\cal K}}=
C_{ab}^{~~m}C_{md'}^{~~e'}C_{ed}^{~~b}\sigma^{dd'}\sigma^e_{~e'}
=\sum_{[b]}\frac{1}{h_{[b]}}\delta([ab],[b^{-1}])\;.
\label{e4.18}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
We conclude this section emphasizing the fact that all the
correlation functions are functions of the conjugacy classes. This is to
be expected since the physical observables are related to the center of
the algebra and the center is spanned by the conjugacy classes. Furthermore,
the physical observables being functions only of the conjugacy classes
can be expressed in terms of the characters of the irreducible representations
of the group.
\section{Conclusion}
In this article, it is shown how in two dimensions one can formulate state
sums on non-orientable compact manifolds. Pursuing the same approach as
in the treatment of the orientable case, one encounters the problem of
the lack of a canonical orientation for the non-orientable surfaces. This
manifests itself in the lack of a canonical prescription for the assignment
of ordered $C_{abc}$'s to the triangles of a given triangulation. The solution
offered above involves the following three steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)]
Introduction of locally oriented triangulations,
\item[2)]
Generalization of the Matveev moves, i.e., inclusion of flipping
transformation.
\item[3)]
Employing the $*$-structure of real associative $*$-algebras
to ensure the topological invariance of the partition and correlation
functions.
\end{itemize}
Thus, at a more fundamental level, the $\ Z \hspace{-.08in}Z_2$--obstruction of
non-orientability leads to the requirement of the existence of a
$*$-structure for the underlying algebra of any LTFT on non-orientable
manifolds.
A similar problem exists in three dimensions where adjacent tetrahedra
with incompatible orientations are present in any triagulation.
It seems that our approach may be applied to this case, as well.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
V.~K.\ wishes to thank Amir.~M.~Ghezelbash for fruitful discussions.
We would also like to thank Aref Mostafazadeh for his help in drawing
figures and Kamran Kaviani and Aziz Shafikhani for their assistance
with the computer editing.
\newpage
\section*{References}
{\small
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf [A]}~~] Atiyah, M.~: ``Topological quantum Field theories,''
Publ.~Math.\
I.~H.~E.~S. {\bf 68}, 175 (1989).
\item[{\bf [B]}~~] Bachas, C.~ and Petropouls, M.~: Commun.~Math.~Phys. {\bf
152}, 191
(1993).
\item[{\bf [D]}~~] Durhuus, B.~: ``A discrete approach to topological quantum
field
theories,'' J.~Geom.\ and Phys.\ {\bf 11}, 155 (1993).
\item[{\bf [DJN]}] Durhuus, B., Jakobsen, H.~ and Nest, R.~: ``Topological
quantum
field theories from generalized $6j$--symbols, Rev.~Math.~Phys.
{\bf 5}, 1 (1993).
\item[{\bf [DW]}~] Dijkgraaf, R.~and Witten, E.~: ``Topological gauge theories
and
group cohomology,'' Preprint,~IASSN-HEP-89/33.
\item[{\bf [FHK]}] Fukuma, M., Hosono, S.~and Kawai, H.~: ``Lattice topological
field theory in two dimensions,'' Commun.~Math.~Phys. {\bf 161}, 157 (1994).
\item[{\bf [GSW]}] Green, M., Schwartz, J., Witten, E.~: ``Superstring
Theory,''
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987).
\item[{\bf [KS]}~] Karowski, M.~and Schrader, R.~: ``A combinatorial approach
to
topological quantum field theories and invariants of graphs,''
Commun.~Math.~Phys. {\bf 151}, 355 (1993).
\item[{\bf [M]}~~] Massey, W.~: ``Algebraic Topology,'' Springer-Verlag, Berlin
(1990).
\item[{\bf [MS]}~] Moore, G.~and Seiberg, N.~: ``Lectures presented at Trieste
Spring
School (1989).
\item[{\bf [TV]}~] Turaev, V.~and Viro, O.~: ``State sum invariants of
3-manifolds
and quantum $6j$--symbols,'' Topology {\bf 31}, 865 (1992).
\item[{\bf [W1]}~] Witten E.~: ``Topological quantum field theory,''
Commun.~Math.~Phys. {\bf117}, 353 (1988).
\item[{\bf [W2]}~] Witten E.~: ``Quantum Field Theory and the Jones
Polynomial,''
Commun.~Math.~Phys. {\bf 121}, 351 (1989).
\end{itemize}}
\end{document}
|
\part{Introduction}
\part{Algebra of Clifford Modules and Spinors}
\bigskip \bigskip
\section{\bf Clifford Algebras and Modules}
To understand spinors and Dirac equations, we must first study
the linear algebra
behind it, which is the theory of Clifford algebra. Here we shall
follow the
approach of \cite{BGV91}. We provide the general theory first
and then consider
the special case of dimension four.
\bigskip
\subsection{Basic Properties}
\begin{Def}
Let $V$ be a vector space over $\Bbb{R}$ with a quadratic form $Q$
on it. The
{\bf Clifford algebra} of $(V, Q)$, denoted by $C(V, Q)$, is the
algebra over $\Bbb{R}$
generated by $V$ with the relations
\[ v_{1} \cdot v_{2} + v_{2} \cdot v_{1} = - 2 Q( v_{1} , v_{2} )
\qquad\qquad
\forall v_{1} , v_{2} \in V \]
\end{Def}
Since $Q$ is symmetric, we have \( v^2=-Q(v) \) for all \( v \in V \).
For fixed $Q$, we may abbreviate $C(V, Q)$ and $Q(v_{1}, v_{2})$
into $C(V)$ and
$(v_{1}, v_{2})$
respectively.
It is a basic fact in algebra that the Clifford algebra is the unique
(up to isomorphism)
solution to the following universal problem.
\begin{Thm}
If $A$ is an algebra and \( c : V \longrightarrow A \) is a linear
map satisfying
\[ c ( v_{2} ) c ( v_{1} )+c ( v_{1} ) c (v_{2} ) = -2 Q (v_{1} , v_{2} )
\qquad \qquad
\forall v_{1}, v_{2} \in V , \]
then there is a unique algebra homomorphism from $ C (V, Q)$ to
$A$ extending
the map $c$. That means we have the following commutative diagram:
\[
\begin{CD}
V @>\text{natural}>\text{injection}> C(V, Q ) \\
@V{\forall c \text{ linear}}VV @VV{\exists \,! \text{algebra
homomorphism}}V \\
A @= A
\end{CD}
\]
The Clifford algebra may be realized as the quotient \( T(V) /
\cal{I}_{Q} \)
where
\[T(V) = \bigoplus _{k=1}^{\infty} T^{k} (V) \]
is the {\bf tensor algebra} of $V$ with $T^{k}(V)$ generated by
\[ \{\, v_{1} \otimes v_{2} \otimes \dots \otimes v_{k}\, | \,v_{1} ,
v_{2} , \dots , v_{k}
\in V \,\} \]
and $\cal{I}_{Q}$ is generated by
\[ \{ v_{1} \otimes v_{2} + v_{2} \otimes v_{1} + 2 Q ( v_{1} ,
v_{2} ) \, \mid \, v_{1} ,
v_{2} \in V \} \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{Rem}
The tensor algebra $T(V)$ has a $\Bbb{Z} _{2}$
-grading obtained from
the natural
$\Bbb{N}$-grading after reduction mod 2:
\[ T(V) = T^{+} (V) + T^{-} (V) \]
where
\[ T^{+}(V) = \Bbb{R} \oplus T^{2}(V)
\oplus T^{4}(V) \oplus \dots
\oplus T^{2k}(V)
\oplus \dots \]
\[ T^{-}(V) = V \oplus T^{3}(V)
\oplus T^{5}(V) \oplus \dots
\oplus T^{2k+1}(V)
\oplus \dots \]
Therefore it forms a {\bf superalgebra}.
Similarly, for $k=0, 1, 2, 3, \dots $, let
\[ C^{k}(V) = T^{k}(V) / \cal{I}_{Q} \]
and let
\[ C^{+}(V) = \Bbb{R} \oplus C^{2}(V)
\oplus C^{4}(V) \oplus \dots
\oplus C^{2k}(V)
\oplus \dots \]
\[ C^{-}(V) = V \oplus C^{3}(V) \oplus C^{5}(V) \oplus \dots
\oplus C^{2k+1}(V)
\oplus \dots \]
Since the ideal $\cal{I} _{Q}$ is generated
by elements from
the evenly graded
subalgebra $T^{+} (V)$, $C(V)$ is itself a
superalgebra and
we have the grading
\[ C(V) = C ^{+} (V) + C^{-} (V) . \]
\end{Rem}
\begin{Def}
Let $E$ be a module over $\Bbb{R}$ or $\Bbb{C}$
which is $\Bbb{Z} _{2}$
-graded,
\[ E = E ^{+} \oplus E ^{-} \]
$E$ is called a {\bf Clifford module} over
a Clifford algebra $C(V)$
if there is a {\bf Clifford action }
\[ \begin{matrix}
C(V) \times E & \overset{\cm}{\longrightarrow} & E \\
(\,\, \, a\,\, \,\, , \,\, \, e \,\,\,) & \longmapsto & a \cm e
\end{matrix} \]
or equivalently, an algebra homomorphism
\[ \begin{matrix}
C(V) & \overset{c}{\longrightarrow} & \operatorname{End} (E) \\
a & \longmapsto & c(a)
\end{matrix} \]
with \[ c(a)\, (e) \,= \,a \cm e \]
which is {\bf even} with respect to this grading:
\[ C ^{+} (V) \cm E ^{\pm} \subset E ^{\pm} , \]
\[ C ^{-} (V) \cm E ^{\mp} \subset E ^{\mp} . \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}
Let $ O ( V, Q ) $ be the group of linear
transformations of $V$ which
preserve $Q$.
That means \( \forall \phi \in O(V,Q) ,
\, \forall v_{1} , v_{2} \in V , \)
\[ Q ( \phi \, v_{1} \, , \, \phi v_{2} )
= Q (v_{1}\, , \, v_{2}). \]
The action of $O(V , Q )$ on generators
of $T(V)$ are defined by
\[ \phi(v_{1} \otimes v_{2} \otimes
\dots \otimes v_{k} ) =
\sum _{i=1}^{k} v_{1} \otimes \dots
\otimes \phi ( v _{i} ) \otimes \dots
\otimes v_{k} \]
and extends to the whole $T(V)$ linearly.
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
$\cal{I}_{Q} $ is invariant under the action
of $O(V , Q )$.
Hence $C(V, Q )$ carries a natural action
of $O(V,Q)$.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Def}
Let \( ^{\ast} : a \mapsto a^{\ast} \) be the
anti-automorphism of $T(V)$
induced by
\( v \mapsto -v \) on $T$, and satisfies
\[ ( a_{1} a_{2} ) ^{\ast} \, = \, a_{2}^{\ast}
\, a_{1}^{\ast} \]
Hence,
\[( v_{1} v_{2} \dots v_{k} )^{\ast} =
\begin{cases}
(v_{k} v_{k-1} \dots v_{1}),
&\text{if $k$ is even,} \\
-(v_{k} v_{k-1} \dots v_{1}),
&\text{if $k$ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
Since
\begin{align}
&v_{1}^{\ast} \otimes v_{2}^{\ast} + v_{2}^{\ast} \otimes v_{1}^{\ast} +
2 Q ( v_{1} ^{\ast} , v_{2} ^{\ast} ) \notag\\
=\,&(-v_{1}) \otimes (-v_{2}) + (-v_{2}) \otimes (-v_{1}) + 2 Q
( -v_{1} , -v_{2} )
\notag\\
=\,&v_{1} \otimes v_{2} + v_{2} \otimes v_{1} + 2 Q ( v_{1} , v_{2} )
\notag
\end{align}
therefore $\cal{I}_{Q}$ is invariant under $ ^{\ast}$. So it induces an
anti-isomorphism
\( a \mapsto a^{\ast} \) of $C(V)$.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Def}
If $Q$ is a positive-definite quadratic form, then a Clifford module $E$ of
$C(V)$
with an inner product is said to be {\bf self-adjoint} if
\[ c ( a ^{\ast} ) = c ( a) ^{\ast} \]
where $c(v)$ denote the action of $v \in V$ on a Clifford module of $C(V)$.
( This module may be $C(V)$ itself.)
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
The inner product on $E$ must be {\bf C(V) invariant}:
\[ (\, c(a) e_{1} \, , \, c(a) e_{2} \, ) = ( \, e_{1} \, , \, e_{2} \, ) \]
\( \forall a \in C(V) , \, e_{1} , e_{2} \in E. \)
Hence for a self-dual module $E$,
\[ ( c(a) e_{1}, e_{2} ) = ( e_{1} , c(a)^{\ast} e_{2} ) =
( e_{1} , c(a^{\ast}) e_{2} ) \]
Especially, we have
\[ ( c(v) e_{1}, e_{2} ) = ( e_{1} , c(v^{\ast}) e_{2} ) =
( e_{1} , -c(v) e_{2} ) \]
\( \forall v \in V , \, e_{1} , e_{2} \in E. \)
That means $c(v)$ is {\bf skew-adjoint} $\forall v \in V $.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Def}
Let $E$ be a $\Bbb{Z} _{2}$-graded Clifford module over the
Clifford algebra $C(V)$.
We denote by $\, \operatorname{End} _{C(V)} (E) \,$ the algebra of
homomorphisms of $E$
supercommuting with the action of $C(V)$.
\end{Def}
\bigskip
\subsection{The Exterior Algebra}
The first interesting example of Clifford module is the
exterior algebra.
\begin{Def}
The {\bf exterior algebra}
$\Lambda V$ of a vector space $V$ is defined to be
\[ T(V)/\cal{I}_{\Lambda} \]
where $\cal{I}_{\Lambda}$ is the ideal generated by
elements of the form
\[ ( \,v_{1} \otimes \dots \otimes v_{i} \otimes v_{i+1}
\otimes \dots
\otimes v_{k} \, )
\,+\,( \, v_{1} \otimes \dots \otimes v_{i+1} \otimes v_{i}
\otimes \dots
\otimes v_{k} \, ) \]
or equivalently,
\[ \Lambda V \, = \, \bigoplus_{k=1}^{\infty} \Lambda ^{k} V \]
where
\[ \Lambda ^{k} V = T ^{k} (V) / \cal{I}_{\Lambda} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}
Let
\[ \epsilon : V \longrightarrow \operatorname{Hom} ( \,\Lambda ^{k} V \, , \,
\Lambda ^{k+1} V \,) \]
be the action of $V$ on $\Lambda V$ by
{\bf exterior product}, ie.
$\forall v \in V$,
\[ \begin{matrix}
\epsilon(v) \, :& \Lambda ^{k} V & \longrightarrow &
\Lambda ^{k+1} V \\
& w & \longmapsto & v \wedge w
\end{matrix} \]
Explicitly,
\[ \epsilon (v) \, ( v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} ) \,
= \, v \wedge v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}
Let
\[ \iota : V \longrightarrow \operatorname{Hom} ( \,\Lambda ^{k} V \, ,
\,\Lambda ^{k-1} V \,) \]
be the action of $V$ on $\Lambda V$ by {\bf interior product} or
{\bf contraction} ,
ie. $\forall v \in V$,
\[ \begin{matrix}
\iota(v) \, :& \Lambda ^{k} V & \longrightarrow
& \Lambda ^{k-1} V \\
& w & \longmapsto & Q ( v , w )
\end{matrix} \]
Explicitly,
\[ \iota (v) \, ( v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} ) \,
= \, \sum_{i=1}^{k} ( -1 ) ^{i-1} \, Q (v, v_{i} ) \, v_{1}
\wedge \dots
\wedge \widehat{v_{i}} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}
The Clifford action of $\, v \in V\,$ on $\, w \in \Lambda V \,
$ is given by
\[ v \cm w \, = \, c(v) \, w \, = \, \epsilon (v) \, w \, - \,
\iota (v) \, w \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Lem}
For any $v , w $ in $V$,
\[ \epsilon (v) \, \iota(w) \, + \, \iota(w) \, \epsilon (v) \,
= \, Q (v \, , \, w ) \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
For any generator $ v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k}$ of
$ \Lambda ^{k} V $,
\begin{align}
& \epsilon (v) \, \iota (w) \, (v_{1} \wedge \dots
\wedge v_{k}) \notag\\
=\, & \epsilon (v) \, ( \, \sum_{i=1}^{k} ( -1 ) ^{i-1} \,
Q (w, v_{i} ) \, \,
v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{v_{i}} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \, )
\notag\\
=\, & \sum_{i=1}^{k} ( -1 ) ^{i-1} \, Q (w, v_{i} ) \, \, w
\wedge v_{1} \wedge
\dots \wedge \widehat{v_{i}} \wedge \dots \wedge
v_{k} \notag\\
\notag\\
& \iota(w) \, \epsilon (v) \, (v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k})
\notag\\
=\,& \iota(w) \, ( v \wedge v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} )
\notag\\
=\,& Q (w, v) \, \, v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} +
\sum_{i=1}^{k} ( -1 ) ^{i } \, Q (w, v_{i} ) \, \, w \wedge v_{1}
\wedge \dots
\wedge \widehat{v_{i}} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \notag
\end{align}
Therefore
\[ (\epsilon (v) \, \iota(w) \, + \, \iota(w) \, \epsilon (v))
\, ( v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k}) \, = \, Q (v \, , \, w ) \,
( v_{1} \wedge
\dots \wedge v_{k}) \]
Since this operation is an algebra homomorphism, the above
equation holds on
the whole $\Lambda V$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
The action $c : V \longrightarrow \operatorname{End} (\Lambda V) $ extends to an action
of the Clifford algebra $C(V)$ on $\Lambda V$.
\end{Cor}
\medskip
\begin{pf}
Observe that
\begin{align}
& ( \, \epsilon (v) \, \epsilon (w) \, + \, \epsilon (w) \,
\epsilon (v) \, ) \,
( v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} ) \notag\\
= \,& v \wedge w \wedge v_{1} \wedge \dots
\wedge v_{k} \, +
\, w \wedge v \wedge v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge
v_{k} \notag\\
= \,& -w \wedge v \wedge v_{1} \wedge \dots
\wedge v_{k} \, +
\, w \wedge v \wedge v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \notag\\
= \,& 0 \notag
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
& ( \, \iota (v) \, \iota (w) \, + \, \iota (w) \, \iota (v) \, ) \,
( v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} ) \notag\\
=\,& \iota (v) \, ( \, \sum_{i=1}^{k} ( -1 ) ^{i-1} \,
Q (w, v_{i} ) \, \,
v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{v_{i\,}} \wedge \dots
\wedge v_{k} \, ) \notag \\
& + \, \iota (w) \, ( \, \sum_{j=1}^{k} ( -1 ) ^{i-1} \, Q (v, v_{j} ) \, \,
v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{v_{j}} \wedge \dots
\wedge v_{k} \, ) \notag\\
=\,& \sum_{i=1}^{k} (-1)^{i-1} \, \bigl( \, \sum_{j=1}^{i-1}
( -1 ) ^{j-1} \,
Q (w, v_{i} ) \, Q ( v , v_{j} ) \, \,
v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{v_{j}} \wedge
\dots \wedge
\widehat{v_{i\,}} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \notag \\
& +\, \sum_{j=i+1}^{k} ( -1 ) ^{j-2} \, Q (w, v_{i} ) \,
Q ( v , v_{j} ) \, \,
v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{v_{i\,}} \wedge
\dots \wedge
\widehat{v_{j}} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \bigr) \notag \\
& + \, \sum_{j=1}^{k} (-1)^{j-1} \, \bigl( \, \sum_{i=1}^{j-1}
( -1 ) ^{i-1} \,
Q (w, v_{j} ) \, Q ( v , v_{i} ) \, \,
v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{v_{i\,}} \wedge
\dots \wedge
\widehat{v_{j}} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \notag \\
& +\, \sum_{i=j+1}^{k} ( -1 ) ^{i-2} \, Q (w, v_{j} ) \,
Q ( v , v_{i} ) \, \,
v_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{v_{j}} \wedge
\dots \wedge
\widehat{v_{i\,}} \wedge \dots \wedge v_{k} \bigr) \notag \\
= \, & \, 0 \notag
\end{align}
Hence
\begin{align}
& c(v) \, c(w) \, + \, c(w) \, c(v) \notag\\
= \, & ( \, \epsilon (v) - \iota (v) \, ) \, ( \, \epsilon (w)
- \iota (w) \, )
\, + \, ( \, \epsilon (w) - \iota (w) \, ) \, ( \, \epsilon (v)
- \iota (v) \, )
\notag\\
= \, & \epsilon (v) \, \epsilon (w) \, - \, \epsilon (v) \,
\iota (w) \, -
\, \iota (v) \, \epsilon (w) \, + \, \iota (v) \, \iota (w) \notag\\
& + \, \epsilon (w) \, \epsilon (v) \, - \, \epsilon (w) \,
\iota (v) \, -
\, \iota (w) \, \epsilon (v) \, + \, \iota (w) \, \iota (v) \notag\\
= \, & - \,( \, \epsilon (v) \, \iota (w) \, + \, \iota (w)
\, \epsilon (v) \, )
\, - \, ( \, \epsilon (w) \, \iota (v) \, + \, \iota (v) \,
\epsilon (w) \, ) \notag\\
= \, & -2 \, Q ( v,w) \notag
\end{align}
by the Lemma above.
As a result, we see that the action $c$ defined above
extends to a Clifford
action on $\Lambda V$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Def}
The {\bf symbol map} $\sigma : C(V) \longrightarrow
\Lambda V $ is defined by
\[ \sigma (a) \, = \, c(a) \, \ilv \]
here $ \ilv \in \Lambda ^{0} V $ is the identity in the
exterior algebra $\Lambda V$.
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
If $\, 1_{_{C(V)} }\,$ denotes the identity in $C(V)$, then
$\sigma(1_{_C(V)})$
is the identity
$1_{_{ \operatorname{End} (\Lambda V )}}$ in $ \operatorname{End} (\Lambda V )$
\end{Rem}
\begin{Not}
Let $\{ e_{i} \}_{i=1, \dots , \dim V }$ be a orthonormal basis of $V$
with respect to the quadratic
form $Q$, ie. $ Q(e_{i} , e_{j} )\, = \, \delta _{ij} $.
Let $c_{i}$ denote the element of $C(V)$ corresponding to $e_{i}$.
\end{Not}
\begin{Thm}
The symbol map $\sigma$ has an inverse $\q : \Lambda V
\longrightarrow C(V)$,
called the {\bf quantization map} , which is given by
\[ \q ( \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \, ) \, = \, c_{i_{1}}
\dots c_{i_{k}} \]
on the basis of $\Lambda V$ and extends linearly to the whole $\Lambda V$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
For any generator
\( e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \)
of $\Lambda V$ , the indices
\( \, i_{j} \, ( j=1, \dots , k ) \, \) are distinct, hence
\begin{align}
\sigma ( \, \q ( \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \, ) \, ) \,
= \, & \sigma ( c_{i_{1}} \dots c_{i_{k}} ) \notag\\
= \, & c( c_{i_{1}} \dots c_{i_{k}} ) \, \ilv \notag\\
= \, & c( c_{i_{1}} ) \dots c ( c_{i_{k}} ) \, \ilv \notag\\
= \, & c( c_{i_{1}} ) \dots c ( c_{i_{k-1}} ) \, (\, \epsilon ( e_{i_{k}} )
\, \ilv \,
- \, \iota (e_{i_{k}}) \, \ilv \, ) \notag\\
= \, & c( c_{i_{1}} ) \dots c ( c_{i_{k-1}} ) \, e_{i_{k}} \notag\\
= \, & c( c_{i_{1}} ) \dots c ( c_{i_{k-2}} ) \, ( \, \epsilon ( e_{i_{k-1}} )
\, e_{i_{k}} \, - \, \iota ( e_{i_{k-1}} ) \, e_{i_{k}} \, ) \notag\\
= \, & c( c_{i_{1}} ) \dots c ( c_{i_{k-2}} ) \, e_{i_{k-1}}
\wedge e_{i_{k}} \notag\\
= \, & \,\, {\bf \cdot \,\, \cdot \,\,\cdot } \notag \\
= \, & e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \notag
\end{align}
and for the generators \( \{ c_{i} \}_{i=1, \dots , \dim V}\)
of the algebra $C(V)$,
\begin{align}
\q ( \sigma ( c_{i} ) ) \, = \, & \q ( c ( c_{i} ) \, \ilv )\notag\\
= \, & \q ( \, \epsilon ( e_{i} ) \, \ilv \, - \, \iota (e_{i})
\, \ilv \, ) \notag\\
= \, & \q ( e_{i} ) \notag\\
= \, & c_{i} \notag
\end{align}
Hence $\q$ is the inverse of $\sigma$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
The Clifford algebra $C(V)$ is isomorphic to the tensor algebra
$\Lambda V$
and is
therefore a $ 2^{_{\dim V} } $ dimensional vector
space with generators
\[ \{ (c_{1})^{n_{1}} (c_{2})^{n_{2}} \dots
(c_{_{\dim V}})^{n_{_{ \dim V}}} \,\, |
\,\,
( n_{1} , n_{2} , \dots , n_{_{ \dim V}} )
\in \{ 0 , 1 \} ^{_{\dim V}} \} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{Rem}
If we consider $C(V)$ and $\Lambda V$ as $\Bbb{Z}_{2}$-graded $O(V)$-modules,
then $\sigma$ and
$\q$ preserve the $\Bbb{Z}_{2}$-grading and the $O(V)$ action.
Hence they are isomorphisms of
$\Bbb{Z}_{2}$-graded $O(V)$-modules.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Not}
There is a natural increasing filtration
\[ C_{0}(V) \, \subseteq \, C_{1}(V) \, \subseteq \, \dots \,
\subseteq \, C_{k}(V)
\, \subseteq \, \dots \, \subseteq \, \bigcup _{i=0}^{\infty}
\, C_{i}(V) \, = \, C(V) \]
where
\[ C_{i}(V) \, = \, C^{0}(V)\, \oplus\, C^{1}(V) \, \oplus\, C^{2}(v) \,
\oplus \, \dots \, \oplus \, C^{i}(V) \]
and $C^{0}(V) \, = \, \Bbb{R}$. It follows that
\[ C_{i}(V) \, = \, \operatorname{span} \{ \, v_{1} \dots v_{k} \, | \, v_{j} \in V
\hookrightarrow C(V) \, for \, j = 1 , \dots , k \leq i \,\} \]
The Clifford algebra $C(V)$ with this filtration is called the
{\bf associated graded algebra} of $C(V)$ and is denoted
by $ \gr C(V)$. The ith grading of $\gr C(V)$ is denoted by $\gri C(V)$.
\end{Not}
\begin{Rem}
The associated graded algebra $\gr C(V)$ is naturally isomorphic
to the exterior algebra $\Lambda V$,
where the isomorphism is given by sending $\gri ( v_{1}
\dots v_{i} ) \, \in \gri C(V)$ to
$v_{1} \Lambda \dots \Lambda v_{i} \, \in \Lambda ^{i} V$.
The symbol map $\sigma$ extends the symbol map
\[ \sigma _{i} : C_{i} (V) \longrightarrow \gri C(V) \cong
\Lambda ^{i} V ,\]
in the sense that if $a \in C_{i}(V)$, then $\sigma (a) _{[i]} =
\sigma _{i} (a) $.
The filtration $C_{i} (V)$ may be written as
\[ C_{i} (V) = \sum_{j=0}^{i} \, \q ( \Lambda ^{j} V ) . \]
Hence the Clifford algabra $C(V)$ may be identified with
the exterior algebra $\Lambda V$ with a
{\bf twisted} , or {\bf quantized} multiplication $\alpha \,
\cdot _{_{Q}} \, \beta $.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Lem} \label{L:sigcom}
If $v \in V \hookrightarrow C(V)$ and $ a \in C^{+}(V) $ , then
\[ \sigma ( \, [ v , a ] \, ) \, = \, -2 \, \iota(v) \, \sigma (a) \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
Firstly, consider the simple case when
\[ v=e_{i} \qquad\text{ and }\qquad a=c_{i_{1}} \dots c_{i_{k}}=
\q ( \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \, ). \]
In this case, we have
\begin{align}
& \sigma ( \, [ v , a ] \, ) \notag \\
= \, & \sigma ( \, v\, a \, -\, a \,v \, ) \notag \\
= \, & c(\, v\, a \, -\, a \,v \, ) \, \ilv \notag \\
= \, & c(\, v\, a\,)\, \ilv \, - \, c(\, a \, v \,) \, \ilv \notag \\
= \, & \epsilon( \, v \, a \, ) \, \ilv\, -\, \iota( \, v \, a \, ) \, \ilv\,
- \, \epsilon( \, a \,v \, ) \, \ilv\, + \,\iota( \, a \, v \, ) \, \ilv
\notag \\
= \, & \epsilon( \, v \, a \, ) \, \ilv\, - \, \epsilon( \, a \,v \, ) \, \ilv
\notag \\
= \, & \epsilon( \, c_{i} c_{i_{1}} \dots c_{i_{k}} \, ) \, \ilv\,
- \, \epsilon( \, c_{i_{1}} \dots c_{i_{k}} c_{i}\, ) \, \ilv \notag \\
= \, & e_{i} \wedge e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \,
- \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \wedge e_{i} \notag \\
= \, & e_{i} \wedge e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \,
- \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \wedge e_{i} \notag \\
& + \, \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{j}}
\wedge e_{i} \wedge e_{i_{j+1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \notag \\
& - \, \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{j}}
\wedge e_{i} \wedge e_{i_{j+1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \notag \\
= \, & \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \, (-1)^{j-1} \, \bigl( \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge
\dots \wedge ( e_{i} \wedge e_{i_{j}} ) \wedge e_{i_{j+1}} \wedge
\dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \notag \\
& \qquad \qquad \,\, \, + \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge
( e_{i_{j}} \wedge e_{i} ) \wedge e_{i_{j+1}} \wedge \dots \wedge
e_{i_{k}} \,\bigr) \notag \\
& + \, (-1)^{k-1} \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k-1}}
\wedge e_{i} \wedge e_{i_{k}} \notag \\
& + \, (-1)^{k-1} \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k-1}}
\wedge e_{i_{k}} \wedge e_{i} \notag \\
& - \, (-1)^{k-1} \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k-1}}
\wedge e_{i_{k}} \wedge e_{i} \notag \\
& - \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \wedge e_{i} \notag \\
= \, & \sum_{j=1}^{k} \, (-1)^{j-1} \, ( -2 ) \, Q(e_{i} , e_{i_{j}})
\, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{ e_{i_{j}} } \wedge
\dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \notag \\
& + \, (\, -1 \, + \, (-1)^{k} \,) \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots
\wedge e_{i_{k}} \wedge e_{i} \notag \\
= \, &
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{j}\, 2 \, e_{i_{1}} \,\wedge \dots \wedge \,
\widehat{ e_{i_{j}} } \,\wedge \dots \wedge \, e_{i_{k}} &
\text{ if } i_{j} = i \notag\\
\,\, 0 & \text{ if \( i_{j} \neq i \, \) for \(j=1, \dots , k\)
and $k$ is even} \notag \\
-2 \, e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} \wedge e_{i}
& \text{ if \( i_{j} \neq i \, \) for \(j=1, \dots , k\) and $k$ is odd}
\notag
\end{cases}
\end{align}
On the other hand,
\begin{align}
-2 \, \iota(v) \, \sigma(a) \, = \, & -2 \, \iota(v) \, c(a) \, \ilv \notag \\
=\,&-2 \, \iota(v) \, ( \, \epsilon(\,e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots
\wedge e_{i_{k}}\,)
\, \ilv \, - \,
\iota (\,e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}}\,)\, \ilv \, ) \notag \\
=\,&-2 \, \iota (e_{i}) \, ( \,e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}}\,)
\notag \\
=\,&-2 \, \sum_{j=1}^{k} \, Q ( \, e_{i} \, , \, e_{i_{j}} \, ) \, (-1)^{j-1}
\,
e_{i_{1}} \, \wedge \dots \wedge \, \widehat{ e_{i_{j}} } \,
\wedge \dots
\wedge \, e_{i_{k}} \notag \\
=\,&
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{j} \, 2 \, e_{i_{1}} \, \wedge \dots \wedge \,
\widehat{ e_{i_{j}} } \,
\wedge \dots \wedge \, e_{i_{k}}
&\text{ if $i_{j} = i$ } \notag\\
\,\, 0 &\text{ if $ i_{j} \neq i \, $ for $j=1, \dots , k$} \notag
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Hence for $a \in C^{+}(V)$ , the above $k$ is even and we have the
required equality.
In general, the equality extends linearly to every $v \in V$
and $a \in C^{+}(V)$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Thm}
The space $C^{2} (V) = \q (\Lambda ^{2} V)$ is a Lie subalgebra of
$C(V)$, where the Lie bracket
is just the commutator in $C(V)$. It is isomorphic to the Lie algebra
$\lso (V) $, under the map
\[ \tau : C^{2} (V) \longrightarrow \lso (V) \]
where any $a \in C^{2}(V) $ is mapped into $\tau (a)$ which acts
on any $v \in V \cong C^{1}(V)$ by
the {\bf adjoint action}:
\[ \tau (a) \, v \, = \, [ \, a \, , \, v \, ] . \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{Rem}
Here the bracket is the bracket of the {\bf Lie superalgebra}
$C(V)$, ie.
\[ [\, a_{1}\, , \, a_{2} \, ] \, = \, a_{1} a_{2} \, - (-1) ^{|a_{1}|
\, |a_{2}|}
\, a_{2}a_{1} \]
for $a_{1} \, \in C^{|a_{1}|}(V) , \, a_{2} \, \in C^{|a_{2}|}(V)$.
It satisfies the following {\bf Axioms of Lie superalgebra}:
\begin{description}
\item [Supercommutativity]
\( [ \, a_{1} \, , \, a_{2} \, ] \, + \, (-1)^{|a_{1}| \, |a_{2}|} \,
[ \, a_{2} \, ,
\, a_{1} \, ] \, = \, 0 \)
\item [Jacobi's identity]
\( [ \, a_{1} \, , \, [ a_{2} , a_{3} ] \, ] \, = \, [ \,
[ a_{1}, a_{2}] \, , \, a_{3} \, ] \,
+ \, (-1)^{|a_{1}| \, |a_{2}| } \, [ \, a_{2} \, , \,
[a_{1}, a_{3}] \, ] \)
\end{description}
\end {Rem}
\begin{pf}
Obviously, the action $\tau (a)$ preserves $C^{1}(V) \cong V$.
So it defines a Lie algebra homomorphism from $C^{2}(V)$ to
$\lgl (V)$.
On the other hand, for any $\, a \, \in C^{2}(V) \,$ and any $v
\, , \, w \,
\in V$,
\begin{align}
Q( \, \tau (a) \, v \, , \, w \, ) \, + \, Q( \, v \, , \, \tau(a) \, w \, )
\, = \, &
- \frac{1}{2}\, [\,[ a , v ] \, , \, w\, ] \, - \frac{1}{2} \,
[ \,v \, , \, [ a,w] \,]
\notag \\
=\,& -\frac{1}{2} \, [ \, [ v , w] \, , \, a \, ] \notag
\end{align}
by Jacobi's identity .
Since $a \in C^{2}(V)$, we may consider $a=a_{1} a_{2} $
for $a_{1} ,
a_{2} \in V$.
In this case,
\begin{align}
[ \, [ v,w]\, , \, a \, ] \, = \, & [ \, (\, vw \, + \, wv \, ) \, ,
\, a_{1}a_{2} \, ] \notag \\
=\,&vwa_{1}a_{2} \, + \, wva_{1}a_{2}\, -\, a_{1}a_{2}vw \,
- \, a_{1}a_{2}wv \notag \\
=\,&vwa_{1}a_{2} \, + \, va_{1}wa_{2} \, - \, va_{1}wa_{2} \,
- \, a_{1}vwa_{2} \notag \\
& + \, a_{1}vwa_{2} \, + \, a_{1}va_{2}w \, - \, a_{1}va_{2}w \,
- \, a_{1}a_{2}vw \notag \\
&+wva_{1}a_{2} \, + \, wa_{1}va_{2} \, - \, wa_{1}va_{2} \,
- \, a_{1}wva_{2} \notag \\
& + \, a_{1}wva_{2} \, + \, a_{1}wa_{2}v \, - \, a_{1}wa_{2}v \,
- \, a_{1}a_{2}wv \notag \\
=\,&-2 \,Q(w,a_{1})\,va_{2}\, +2 \,Q(v,a_{1})\,wa_{2}\,
-2 \,Q(w,a_{2})\,a_{1}v\, +2 \,Q(v,a_{2})\,a_{1}w \notag \\
&-2 \,Q(v,a_{1})\,wa_{2}\, +2 \,Q(w,a_{1})\,va_{2}\,
-2 \,Q(v,a_{2})\,a_{1}w\, +2 \,Q(w,a_{2})\,a_{1}v \notag \\
=\,& 0 \notag
\end{align}
Hence
\[ Q \, ( \, \tau(a) \, v \, , \, w \, ) \, = \, Q \, ( \, v \, , \, -\tau (a)
\, w \, ) \]
Therefore
\begin{center}
$ \tau (a) ^{\ast} \, = \, - \, \tau (a) $
\end{center}
and which means that $\tau$ maps $C^{2}(V)$ into $\lso (V)$.
Now for linearly independent $ \ a_{1}, \, a_{2} \, \in V$,
if for any $v \, \in V$,
\[ \tau(a) \, v \, = \, [ \, a_{1} a_{2} \, , \, v \, ] \, = \, 0 , \]
then
\begin{align}
0 \, = \, & a_{1}a_{2}v \, - \, v a_{1}a_{2} \notag \\
=\,&a_{1}a_{2}v \, +\, a_{1}va_{2} \, - \, a_{1}va_{2} \,
- v a_{1}a_{2} \notag \\
=\,&-2 \, Q (\, v \, , \, a_{2} \, ) \, a_{1} \, +
2 \, Q ( \, v \, , \, a_{1} \, ) \, a_{2} \notag
\end{align}
for any $v \in V$. Which is a contradiction.
Therefore the kernel of $\tau$ contains only the
identity of $C(V)$.
Now both $C^{2}(V)$ and $\lso (V)$ are
$\dim V (\dim V -1) / 2$ dimensional vector
spaces and the map $\tau$ is injective ,
therefore $\tau$ is an isomorphism.
\end{pf}
\begin{Lem}
For any $A \, \in \lso (V)$, the corresponding Clifford element is
\[ \tau^{-1} (A)\, = \, \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{i<j}
\, ( \, A \, e_{i} \, , \, e_{j} \, ) \, c_{i}c_{j} \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
Pick an orthonormal basis $\{ e_{i} \}_{i=1, \dots , _{\dim V}}$ with
respect to $Q$.
Any vector in $V$ may be written as $v = \sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \,
v^{k} \, e_{k} $.
Any matrix $A \, = \, ( A_{ij})$ in $\lso (V)$ is antisymmetric
with zero diagonal.
Therefore
\begin{align}
A \, v \, = \, &A \, \sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \, e_{k} \notag \\
=\,& \sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \, A \, e_{k} \notag \\
=\,& \sum_{i, \, k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \, A_{ik} \, e_{i} \notag
\end{align}
On the other hand,
\begin{align}
[ \, \frac{1}{2} \,\sum_{i<j} \, ( \, A \, e_{i} \, , \, e_{j} \, )
\, c_{i}c_{j} \, , \, v \, ] \, = \,
& \frac{1}{2} \,\sum_{i<j} \, ( \, A \, e_{i} \, , \, e_{j} \, )
\, [ \, c_{i}c_{j} , \, \sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \, c_{k} \, ]
\notag \\
=\,&\frac{1}{2} \,\sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \,\sum_{i<j}
\, ( \, A \, e_{i} \, , \, e_{j} \, ) \, [ \, c_{i}c_{j} , \, c_{k} \, ]
\notag \\
=\,&\frac{1}{2} \,\sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \,\sum_{i<j}
\, A_{ji} \, ( \, c_{i}c_{j} c_{k} \, - \, c_{k}c_{i}c_{j} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&\frac{1}{2} \,\sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \,\sum_{i<j}
\, A_{ji} \, ( \, c_{i}c_{j} c_{k} \, + \, c_{i}c_{k}c_{j} \, -
\, c_{i}c_{k}c_{j} \,
- \, c_{k}c_{i}c_{j} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&\frac{1}{2} \,\sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \,\sum_{i<j} \,
A_{ji} \, ( \, -2 \, Q ( e_{j}, e_{k} ) \, c_{i} \, + \, 2 \, Q ( e_{i} ,
e_{k} )
\, c_{j} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&\sum_{k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \,\sum_{i<j} \, A_{ji} \, ( \,
- \, \delta_{jk} \, c_{i} \, + \, \delta_{ik} \, c_{j} \, ) \notag \\
=\,& -\,\sum_{i<j} \, v^{j} \, A_{ji} \, c_{i} \, + \, \sum_{i<j} \, v^{i}
\, A_{ji} \, c_{j} \notag \\
=\,& \sum_{i<j} \, v^{j} \, A_{ij} \, c_{i} \, + \, \sum_{i<j} \, v^{i}
\, A_{ji} \, c_{j} \notag \\
=\,& \sum_{i<k} \, v^{k} \, A_{ik} \, c_{i} \, + \, \sum_{k<i} \,
v^{k} \, A_{ik} \, c_{i} \notag \\
=\,& \sum_{i, \, k=1}^{ _{\dim V}} \, v^{k} \, A_{ik} \, c_{i} \notag
\end{align}
By identifying $\, e_{i} \, \in V$ with $\, c_{i} \, \in C(V)$, we get
\[ A \, = \, \tau \, ( \, \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{i<j} \, ( \, A \, e_{i} \, ,
\, e_{j} \, ) \, c_{i}c_{j} \, ) \]
\end{pf}
\begin{Rem}
We usually identify $A \, \in \lso (V)$ with
\[ \sum_{i<j} \, ( \, A\, e_{i} \, , \, e_{j} \, ) \, e_{i} \wedge e_{j}
\qquad \in \Lambda ^{2} V \]
then we have
\[ \q \, ( A ) \, = \, \sum_{i<j} \, ( \, A\, e_{i} \, , \, e_{j} \, )
\, c_{i}c_{j} \]
which is {\bf twice} of $\tau ^{-1} (A)$.
\end{Rem}
\bigskip
\subsection{The Spin Group}
\begin{Def}
For any $a$ in the Lie algebra $C(V)$, we may form its
{\bf exponential} in $C(V)$ by
\[ \exp \, a \, = \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, + \, a \, + \, \frac{1}{2}
\, a^{2} \, + \frac{1}{3!} \, a^{3} \, + \,
\dots \, + \, \frac{1}{n!} \, a^{n} \, + \, \dots \]
which is an element in the associated Lie group of $C(V)$.
\end{Def}
\begin{Thm} \label{T:expsincos}
For any $v_{1}, \, v_{2}$ in $V \hookrightarrow C(V)$ satisfying
\[ Q(\,v_{1}\, , \, v_{1} \, ) \, = \, Q(\,v_{2}\, , \, v_{2} \, ) \, = \, 1 \]
\[ Q(\,v_{1}\, , \, v_{2} \, ) \, = \, 0 \]
we have the following formula
\[ \exp \, t\, (\, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, )\, = \, (\cos t) \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, +
\, ( \sin t ) \, v_{1} \, v_{2} \]
where $t \, \in \Bbb{R}$. In fact, $t$ is well-defined $\mod 2\pi$.
Consequently, this formula is satisfied for some vectors in $V$
whenever $\, \dim V > 1$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
Since
\begin{align}
( \, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, ) ^{2} \, = \,& v_{1} \, v_{2} \, v_{1} \, v_{2}
\notag \\
=\,&v_{1} \, v_{2} \, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, + \, v_{1} \, v_{1} \, v_{2}
\, v_{2} \,
- \, v_{1} \, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, v_{2} \notag \\
=\,&-2 \, Q ( \, v_{1} \, , \, v_{2} \, ) \, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, - (-1)
\, Q(\, v_{1}
\, , \, v_{1} \, ) \, (-1) \, Q( \, v_{2} \, , \, v_{2} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&-1 \notag
\end{align}
Therefore
\begin{align}
\exp \, t\, (\, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, )\, =\, & \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \,
\frac{1}{k!} \, t^{k} \, (\, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, )^{k} \notag \\
=\,&\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \, \frac{1}{(2k)!} \, t^{2k} \, (\, v_{1} \,
v_{2} \, )^{2k} \, + \, \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \, \frac{1}{(2k+1)!} \,
t^{2k+1} \, (\, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, )^{2k+1} \notag \\
=\,&\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \, \frac{1}{(2k)!} \, t^{2k} \, (-1)^{k} \,
+ \, \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \, \frac{1}{(2k+1)!} \, t^{2k+1} \, (-1)^{k}
\, (\, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&(\cos t) \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, + \, (\sin t) \, (\, v_{1} \, v_{2} \, ) \notag
\end{align}
\end{pf}
\begin{Def}
Let the {\bf Spin group} of the vector space $V$ be the Lie
group associated
to the Lie subalgebra
$C^{2}(V)$ of the Clifford algebra $C(V)$, ie.
\[ \spin (V) \, = \, \exp C^{2}(V) \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
The adjoint action $\tau$ of the Lie algebra
$C^{2}(V)$ on $V$ may be
exponentiated to an orthogonal
action of {\bf conjugation} which is denoted by
$\tg$ . Explicitly, for $g
\, \in \spin (V)$ and $v \, \in V$, there is a fundamental relation
\[ \tg (g) \, v \, = \, g \, v \, g^{-1}\]
Indeed, writing $g=\exp (a)$ for some $a \in C^{2}(V)$,
then \[ [ \, a \, , \, v \, ] \, = \, \tau (a) \, v \]
implies
\[ \exp (a) \, v \, (\exp (a) )^{-1} \, = \, \exp ( \, \tau(a) \, ) \, v \]
In other words, we have the following commutative diagram:
\[
\begin{CD}
C^{2}(V) @> \tau >> \lso (V) \\
@V \exp VV @VV \exp V \\
\spin (V) @>> \tg > \so (V)
\end{CD}
\]
\end{Rem}
\begin{Thm}
If $\, \dim V > 1 $, then the homomorphism
\[ \tg : \spin (V) \longrightarrow \so (V) \]
is a double covering.
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
Since $\tau$ is an isomorphism and the exponential map
is surjective, therefore
$\tg$ is also surjective.
Pick any $\, g \, \in \ker ( \tg )$. Then $ \, g \, = \,
\exp (a)$ for some $\, a \,
\in C^{2}(V)$.
Now \( \tg \, ( g ) \, = \, 1_{_{\so( V)}} \) implies
\( [ \, a \, , \, v \, ] \, = \, 0 \) for all \( v \in V \).
By Lemma \ref{L:sigcom} , we have
\( \iota (v) \, \sigma (a) \, = \, 0 \)
for all $v \, \in V$. Therefore $a \, \in \Bbb{R}$ and is
identified with a scalar
multiplication in $\lso (V)$.
So $g$ is also a scalar multiplication.
Now apply the anti-automorphism \( a \mapsto
a^{\ast}\) on $C^{2}(V)$.
For orthogonal vectors $v_{1} , \, v_{2} \, \in V$,
\[ ( \, v_{1} \, , \, v_{2} \, )^{\ast} \, = \, (v_{2})^{\ast} \,
(v_{1})^{\ast} \, =
\, ( -v_{2}) \, (-v_{1}) \,
= \, v_{2} \, v_{1} \, = \, - v_{1} \, v_{2} \]
$C^{2}(V)$ may be generated ( as a vector space)
by pairs of orthogonal
vectors, therefore
\[ a^{\ast} \, = \, - a \qquad \qquad \qquad \forall a \, \in C^{2}(V) \]
Now we have
\[ (\exp (a) )^{\ast} \, = \, \exp ( a ^{\ast}) \, = \, \exp (-a) \]
which implies that for any $g \, \in \spin (V)$,
\[ g \cdot g^{\ast} \, = \, 1_{_{\spin (V)}} \]
Hence any $g \, \in \ker ( \tg)$ is a scalar with $g \cdot g^{\ast} = 1$
which implies $g \, = \, \pm 1$.
For $\, \dim V > 1$, we may apply Theorem \ref{T:expsincos}
with $t =
\pi$ and hence $-1$ is in $\spin (V)$.
As a result, $\ker (\tg) \, = \, \Bbb{Z}_{2}$ and we have a double cover
\[ 0 \longrightarrow \Bbb{Z}_{2} \longrightarrow \spin (V) \overset{\tg}
{\longrightarrow}
\so (V) \longrightarrow 0 \]
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{Four Dimensional Case}
Now consider the most interesting case when \( V \cong \Bbb{R} ^{4} \).
Fix a basis $\{ \, e_{1} , e_{2} , e_{3} , e_{4}\, \}$ which is orthonormal
with respect to the
fixed quadratic form $Q$.
Then any vector $v \, \in V$ may be written as
\[ v \, = \, \sum_{k=1}^{4} \, v^{k} \, e_{k} \]
and the Clifford algebra is
\[ C(\Bbb{R} ^{4}) \, = \, \operatorname{span} \{ \, c_{1} ^{n_{1}} c_{2} ^{n_{2}} c_{3}
^{n_{3}}
c_{4} ^{n_{4}} \, | \,
n_{i} \in \{ 0, 1 \} \, \} \]
where $c_{i} \, = \, \q ( \, e_{i} \, ) $
\begin{Not}
For convenience, we may denote $c_{i}$ by $e_{i}$ without ambiguity.
\end{Not}
Especially,
\[ C^{2}(\Bbb{R} ^{4}) \, = \, \operatorname{span} \{ \,e_{1}e_{2}\,, \, e_{1}e_{3}\,, \,
e_{1}e_{4}\,, \, e_{2}e_{3}\,, \, e_{2}e_{4}\,, \, e_{3}e_{4} \,\} \]
Now consider the isomorphism $\tau : C ^{2} ( \Bbb{R} ^{4} )
\longrightarrow
\lso (4) = \lso ( \Bbb{R} ^{4})$.
and the corresponding $\tg : \spin (4) \longrightarrow \so (4)$.
We have
\begin{align}
\tau ( e_{i} e_{j} ) \cdot v \, = \, &[ \, e_{i}e_{j} \, , \, \sum_{k=1}^{4} \,
v^{k} \, e_{k} \, ] \notag \\
=\,&\sum_{k=1}^{4} \, v^{k} \, [ \, e_{i}e_{j} \, , \, e_{k} \, ] \notag \\
=\,&\sum_{k=1}^{4} \, v^{k} \, ( \, e_{i}e_{j} e_{k} \, - \, e_{k}e_{i}e_{j}
\, ) \notag \\
=\,&\sum_{k=1}^{4} \, v^{k} \, ( \, e_{i}e_{j} e_{k} \, + \, e_{i}e_{k}e_{j}
\, - \, e_{i}e_{k}e_{j}\,- \, e_{k}e_{i}e_{j} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&\sum_{k=1}^{4} \, v^{k} \, ( \, -2 \, Q(\, e_{j}\, , \, e_{k} \, )
\,e_{i}\,
+ \, 2 \, Q(\, e_{k} \, , \, e_{i} \,) \, e_{j}\, ) \notag \\
=\,&-2 \, v^{j} \, e_{i} \, + 2 \, v^{i} \, e_{j} \notag
\end{align}
Hence $\tau \, ( \, e_{i} e_{j} \, )$ corresponds to $2 \cdot m(i,j) \, \in
\lso
(4)$
where $m(i,j)\, = \, (m(i,j)_{\alpha \beta})$ is a matrix with entries
\[ m(i,j)_{\alpha \beta} \, = \,
\begin{cases}
1 , &\text{if $\alpha =j$ and $\beta=i$,} \\
-1, &\text{if $\alpha =i$ and $\beta=j$,} \\
0 , &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases} \]
Explicitly, we have
\[
\tau ( \, e_{1}e_{2} \, ) \, = \,2 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad\qquad
\tau ( \, e_{1}e_{3} \, ) \, = \,2 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tau ( \, e_{1}e_{4} \, ) \, = \,2 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad\qquad
\tau ( \, e_{2}e_{3} \, ) \, = \,2 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tau ( \, e_{2}e_{4} \, ) \, = \,2 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad\qquad
\tau ( \, e_{3}e_{4} \, ) \, = \,2 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\]
Notice that for $t \in [0 , 2 \pi )$, $\tau ( \, \frac{t}{2} \, e_{i}e_{j}\, )$
corresponds to the matrix $ t \cdot m(i,j)$
and
\[ (t \cdot m(i,j)_{\alpha \beta})^{2} \, = \, -t^{2} \cdot \Delta(i,j) \]
\[ (t \cdot m(i,j)_{\alpha \beta})^{4} \, = \, t^{4} \cdot \Delta(i,j) \]
where $\Delta(i,j) $ is a matrix with
\[ \Delta(i,j)_{\alpha \beta} \, = \,
\begin{cases}
1, &\text{if $\alpha = \beta = i$ or $\alpha=\beta =j$,} \\
0, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases} \]
therefore we have
\[ \exp \, \tau \, ( \, \frac{t}{2} \, e_{i}e_{j} \, ) \, = \, (\cos t -1)
\cdot
\Delta(i,j) \, + \,1_{_{\so (4)}} \, + \, ( \sin t) \, m(i,j) \]
Since we have the commutative relation
\[ \tg \, \cdot \, \exp \, = \, \exp \, \cdot \, \tau ,\]
therefore
\begin{align}
\tg \, \exp \, ( \, t \, e_{i}e_{j} \, ) \, = \, &\exp \, \tau \,
( \, t e_{i} e_{j} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&(\cos 2t -1) \cdot \Delta(i,j) \, + \,1_{_{\so (4)}} \, +
\, ( \sin 2t) \, m(i,j) \notag
\end{align}
Explicitly, we have
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, e_{1}e_{2} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & -\sin 2t & 0 & 0 \\
\sin 2t & \cos 2t & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, e_{1}e_{3} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & 0 & -\sin 2t & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\sin 2t & 0 & \cos 2t & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, e_{1}e_{4} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & 0 & 0 & -\sin 2t \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
\sin 2t & 0 & 0 & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, e_{2}e_{3} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos 2t & -\sin 2t & 0 \\
0 & \sin 2t & \cos 2t & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, e_{2}e_{4} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos 2t & 0 & -\sin 2t \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & \sin 2t & 0 & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, e_{3}e_{4} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos 2t & -\sin 2t \\
0 & 0 & \sin 2t & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
\newpage
\bigskip \bigskip
\section{\bf The Quaternions and Related Representations}
In this section, we shall look at Clifford algebra and the Spin groups
more concretely.
To do this, we need to use the quaternion. We shall define the Spin
group in another more concrete
way and find more relations between $\spin (4)$ another classical
groups. Our references here are
\cite{BD88}, \cite{LM89}, \cite{rH89}, and \cite{FH91}.
\bigskip
\subsection{Basic Linear Algebra of the Quaternions}
\begin{Def}
Let $\Bbb{H}$ be the {\bf quaternion algebra} which, as a vector space
over $ \Bbb{R}$, has four generators
denoted by $\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}\, , \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, , \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, , \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,$ and its
multiplication satisfies the relations of the
group $Q_{8}$, namely
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, q \, = \, q \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, = \, q \qquad \forall q \in \Bbb{H} \]
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} ^{2} \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} ^{2} \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}^{2} \, = \, -1 \]
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} , \qquad \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} , \qquad \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} , \]
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, = \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} , \qquad \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, = \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} , \qquad \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,
\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, = \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} , \]
\end{Def}
Since $\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}$ is the unit of the algebra, it may be omitted for
convenience.
Therefore any element $q \in \Bbb{H}$ may be uniquely
written as $a\,+\,
b\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,c\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,+\,d\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}$
where $a,\, b, \, c, \, d \, \in \Bbb{R}$.
Just like the complex field $\Bbb{C}$, we have the following
\begin{Def}
For any $q\, = \, a\,+\,b\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,c\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,+\,d\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \in \Bbb{H}$, the
{\bf conjugate}
of $q$
is $\overline{q}\, = \,a\,-\,b\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,c\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,+\,d\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}$. The
{\bf real part} of
$q$ is $\Re (q) = a$ and the {\bf imaginary part} of $q$ is
$\Im (q) = b\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,c\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,+\,d\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}$.
Moerover the {\bf real part} $\Re \Bbb{H}$ of $\Bbb{H}$ is $\Bbb{R}$ while the
{\bf imaginary part} $\Im (\Bbb{H})$
of $\Bbb{H}$ is $\, \Bbb{R}\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{R}\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{R}\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} $.
There is a natural {\bf inner product} or {\bf quadratic form} $Q ( \,
\cdot \, , \, \cdot \, )$
on $\Bbb{H}$ given by
\[ Q( \, q_{1} \, , \, q_{2} \, ) \, = \, q_{1} \, \overline{q}_{2} \]
that means
\begin{align}
& Q ( \, a_{1} + b_{1} \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} + c_{1} \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} + d_{1} \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, , \, a_{2} + b_{2}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} + c_{2} \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} + d_{2}\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, ) \notag \\
=\,& a_{1} a_{2} \, + \, b_{1} b_{2}\, +\, c_{1} c_{2}\, +\, d_{1} d_{2}
\notag
\end{align}
Therefore $\Bbb{H} $ becomes a normed vector space
with the corresponding
{\bf norm} given by
\[ \Vert \, q \, \Vert \, = \, \sqrt{\, Q( \, q\, , \, q \, )\, } \, =
\, \sqrt{\, q \, \overline{q}\, } \]
Under this norm, the basis $\{ \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, , \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, , \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, , \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \}$
is {\bf orthonormal}.
\end{Def}
Obviously we also have the following
\begin{Lem}
For any $q\, = \, a\,+\,b\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,c\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,+\,d\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \in \Bbb{H}$, if $q \neq 0$,
then there exists a
multiplicative inverse
\[ q^{-1} \,= \, \frac{ \overline{q} }{ \, \Vert q \Vert ^{2} } \]
such that
\[ q \, q^{-1} \, = \, q^{-1} \, q \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \]
That means $\Bbb{H}$ is in fact a {\bf field}
\end{Lem}
\begin{Rem}
If we consider the $n$ -dimensional {\bf quaternion vector space}
$\Bbb{H} ^{n}$, then we have a
standard inner product
\[ Q( \, (q_{1}, \cdots , q_{n}) \, , \, ( q'_{1}, \cdots , q'_{n} ) \, )\,
= \, \sum_{i=1}^{n}\, q_{i} \, \overline{ q'}_{i} \]
and a standard norm
\[ \Vert \, (q_{1}, \cdots , q_{n}) \, \Vert \, =
\, \sum_{i=1}^{n}\, q_{i} \, \overline{q}_{i} \]
\end{Rem}
\bigskip
\subsection{Real and Complex Representations}
Firstly, we look at the real representation.
\begin{Thm}
The action of $\Bbb{H}$ on itself by left
multiplication corresponds to the action of $ \operatorname{End} (\Bbb{R} ^{4})$
on $\Bbb{R} ^{4}$. Explicitly,
we have a representation
\[ \Bbb{H} \longrightarrow \operatorname{End} (\Bbb{R} ^{4}) \]
given by
\[ a \, + \, b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, + \, c \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, + \, d \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
\, a\, & -b & -c & -d \\
b & a & -d & c \\
c & d & a & -b \\
d & -c & b & a
\end{pmatrix} \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
Firstly, we have
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, q \, = \, q \, = \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} (\Bbb{R}^{4})}} \, q , \qquad
\forall q \in \Bbb{H} \]
Now, look at the action of left multiplication by $\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}$ :
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}, \qquad \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, = \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}, \qquad \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,
\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}, \qquad \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, = \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}, \]
Therefore, by writing
\[ a \, + \, b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, + \, c \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, + \, d \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \quad \text{as} \quad
\begin{pmatrix}
a\\
b\\
c\\
d
\end{pmatrix}, \]
we have
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \begin{pmatrix}
a\\
b\\
c\\
d
\end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-b\\
a\\
-d\\
c
\end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\, 0\, & -1 &\,0\, & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a\\
b\\
c\\
d
\end{pmatrix} \]
Similarly
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, \begin{pmatrix}
a\\
b\\
c\\
d
\end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-c\\
d\\
a\\
-b
\end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\, 0\, & 0 &-1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \, 1 \,\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a\\
b\\
c\\
d
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \begin{pmatrix}
a\\
b\\
c\\
d
\end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-d\\
-c\\
b\\
a
\end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\, 0\, & \,0\, &0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a\\
b\\
c\\
d
\end{pmatrix} \]
Hence we have the required representation.
It is a homomorphism because the matrices corresponding to $\,
\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}},\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}},\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}$ and $ \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} $
satisfies the multiplicative relations of the group $Q_{8}$.
It is obviously injective and linear over $\Bbb{R}$.
\end{pf}
Now we consider the complex representations of $\Bbb{H}$.
\begin{Thm}
There is a isomorphism from $\Bbb{H}$ into the algebra
\footnote{We will see that this algebra is in fact $\Bbb{R}
\cdot \su (2)$.}
of $2 \times 2$ complex matrices of the form
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
c_{1} & c_{2} \\
-\overline{c}_{2} & \overline{c}_{1}
\end{pmatrix} \]
where $c_{1}, c_{2} \in \Bbb{C} $.
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
The required map is given by
\[ a\,+\,b\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,c\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,+\,d\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
a\,+\,b\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c+\,d\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-c+\,d\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a\,-\,b\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \]
It is obviously bijective.
We also have
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, \mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
\,1\, & 0 \\
0 & \,1\,
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 \\
0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, \mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \, 1 \, \\
-1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, \\
\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, & 0
\end{pmatrix} \]
Therefore it is straight forward to see that this map
is an isomorphism.
\end{pf}
\begin{Thm}
There is an isomorphism
\[ \Bbb{C} ^{2} \, \longrightarrow \, \Bbb{H} \]
given by
\[ (\,c_{1}\, , \, c_{2} \, ) \, \mapsto \, c_{1} \, + \, c_{2} \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \]
This isomorphism is {\bf norm preserving}.
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
This map is obviously an isomorphism of vector spaces over $\Bbb{C}$.
Now the norm of $\Bbb{C} ^{2}$ is given by
\[ \Vert (\, c_{1} \, , \, c_{2} \, ) \Vert \, = \, (\Re c_{1})^{2} \, + \,
(\Im c_{1})^{2} \, + \,
(\Re c_{2})^{2} \, + \, (\Im c_{2})^{2} \]
which is equal to the norm of its image in $\Bbb{H}$.
Therefore $\Bbb{C} ^{2}$ is isomorphic to $\Bbb{H}$ as normed $\Bbb{C}$
vector spaces.
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{The Quaternion Group}
If we generalize the concept of orthogonal and unitary
group to quaternion vector spaces,
we may have the following
\begin{Def}
Let the {\bf symplectic group}, $\sp (n)$, be the group of
norm-preserving automorphisms of
the $\Bbb{H} ^{n}$, ie.
\[ \sp (n) \, = \, \{ \, \phi \in \gl (n, \Bbb{H}) \, | \, \Vert \,
\phi \, q \, \Vert \, = \, \Vert \, q \, \Vert \, \forall q \in \Bbb{H} \, \} \]
\end{Def}
As the most interesting example of symplectic groups, we have
\begin{Def}
Let the {\bf quaternion group} be the symplectic group
of $\Bbb{H}$, which is simply
\[ \sp (1) \, = \, \{ \, q \in \Bbb{H} \, | \, \Vert \, q \, \Vert \,
= 1 \, \} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
Every element $q$ in $\sp (1)$ has inverse
\( q ^{-1} \, = \, \overline{q}. \)
\end{Rem}
\begin{Lem}
The underlying manifold of the Lie group $\sp (1)$ is the
three-sphere $S^{3}$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
Obvious from definition.
\end{pf}
\begin{Lem} \label{L:sp1su2}
We have an isomorphism
\[ \sp (1) \, \cong \, \su (2) \]
as Lie groups.
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
Since $\sp (1)$ consists of elements in $\Bbb{H}$ of unit norm,
\[ \sp (1) \, = \, \{ \, a \, + \, b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, + \, c \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, + \, d \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,
| \, a^{2}+\,b^{2}+\,c^{2}+\,d^{2} =\, 1 \, \} \]
By the identification
\[
a \, + \, b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, + \, c \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, + \, d \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
a+b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c+d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a -b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix}
\]
we have
\[
\det \, \begin{pmatrix}
a+b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c+d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a -b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \,
= \, a^{2}+\,b^{2}+\,c^{2}+\,d^{2} =\, 1
\]
and
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
a+b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c+d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a -b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a+b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c+d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a -b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} ^{\ast} \,
=\,&\begin{pmatrix}
a+b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c+d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a -b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a-b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & -c-d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
c-d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a+b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
=\,&\begin{pmatrix}
a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+d^{2} & 0 \\
0 & a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+d^{2}
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
=\,&\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
Therefore
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
a+b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c+d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a -b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix}\, \in \, \su (2)
\]
\end{pf}
The significance of $\sp (1)$ lies on the following action due to Hopf.
\begin{Def}
Let the {\bf Hopf action} $\hh$ of $\sp (1)$ on $\Bbb{H}$ be the
representation
\[ \hh \, : \, \sp (1) \, \longrightarrow \, \operatorname{End} (\Bbb{H} ) \]
such that for any $\phi \in \sp (1) $ , $ \hh ( \phi ) : \Bbb{H}
\longrightarrow \Bbb{H} $ is given by the conjugation
\[ \hh ( \phi) \, : \, q \, \mapsto \, \phi \, q \, \phi ^{-1}
\qquad \forall q \in \Bbb{H} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Thm}
There is a $\Bbb{R} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{R} ^{3} $ representation of the
quaternion group $\sp (1)$ through
the Hopf action $\hh$. Explicitly, we have
\[ \hh \, : \, \sp (1) \, \longrightarrow \, \operatorname{End} ( \Re \Bbb{H} ) \,
\oplus \, \operatorname{End} ( \Im \Bbb{H} ) \]
where for any $\phi \in \sp (1)$,
\[ \hh ( \phi ) \, | _{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \Re \Bbb{H} )}} \, = \, 1 \]
and
\[ \hh ( \phi ) \, | _{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \Im \Bbb{H} )}} \, \in \so ( \Im
\Bbb{H} ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
To find out the required representation, we pick
\[ \phi \, = \, \phi_{1}\,+\,\phi_{2}\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,\phi_{3}\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,+
\,\phi_{4}\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \in \sp (1) \]
and
\[ q \, = \, q_{1} \, + \, q_{2} \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, + \, q_{3} \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, +
\, q_{4} \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \in \Bbb{H}. \]
By using the real representation of the left multiplication, we have
\begin{align}
\phi q \phi ^{-1}
=\,&
\begin{pmatrix}
\phi_{1} & -\phi_{2} & -\phi_{3} & -\phi_{4} \\ \\
\phi_{2} & \phi_{1} & -\phi_{4} & \phi_{3} \\ \\
\phi_{3} & \phi_{4} & \phi_{1} & -\phi_{2} \\ \\
\phi_{4} & -\phi_{3} & \phi_{2} & \phi_{1}
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
q_{1}\\ \\
q_{2}\\ \\
q_{3}\\ \\
q_{4}
\end{pmatrix}
\, \phi ^{-1} \notag \\
=\,&
\begin{pmatrix}
\phi_{1}q_{1} -\phi_{2}q_{2} -\phi_{3}q_{3} -\phi_{4}q_{4} \\ \\
\phi_{2}q_{1} +\phi_{1}q_{2} -\phi_{4}q_{3} +\phi_{3}q_{4} \\ \\
\phi_{3}q_{1} + \phi_{4}q_{2} +\phi_{1}q_{3} -\phi_{2}q_{4} \\ \\
\phi_{4}q_{1} -\phi_{3}q_{2} +\phi_{2}q_{3} + \phi_{1}q_{4}
\end{pmatrix}
\, \phi ^{-1} \notag \\
=\,&
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
\phi_{1}q_{1}-\phi_{2}q_{2} \\ \,\,\,-\phi_{3}q_{3}-\phi_{4}q_{4} \,\,\,
\end{matrix}
& \begin{matrix}
-(\phi_{2}q_{1}+\phi_{1}q_{2}\\-\phi_{4}q_{3}+\phi_{3}q_{4})
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
-(\phi_{3}q_{1}+\phi_{4}q_{2}\\+\phi_{1}q_{3}-\phi_{2}q_{4})
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
-(\phi_{4}q_{1}-\phi_{3}q_{2}\\+\phi_{2}q_{3}+\phi_{1}q_{4})
\end{matrix}
\\ \\
\begin{matrix}
\phi_{2}q_{1}+\phi_{1}q_{2}\\ \,\,\,-\phi_{4}q_{3}+\phi_{3}q_{4} \,\,\,
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
\phi_{1}q_{1}-\phi_{2}q_{2}\\-\phi_{3}q_{3}-\phi_{4}q_{4}
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
-(\phi_{4}q_{1}-\phi_{3}q_{2}\\+\phi_{2}q_{3}+\phi_{1}q_{4})
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
\phi_{3}q_{1}+\phi_{4}q_{2}\\+\phi_{1}q_{3}-\phi_{2}q_{4}
\end{matrix}
\\ \\
\begin{matrix}
\phi_{3}q_{1}+\phi_{4}q_{2}\\ \,\,\,+\phi_{1}q_{3}-\phi_{2}q_{4} \,\,\,
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
\phi_{4}q_{1}-\phi_{3}q_{2}\\+\phi_{2}q_{3}+\phi_{1}q_{4}
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
\phi_{1}q_{1}-\phi_{2}q_{2}\\-\phi_{3}q_{3}-\phi_{4}q_{4}
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
-(\phi_{2}q_{1}+\phi_{1}q_{2}\\-\phi_{4}q_{3}+\phi_{3}q_{4})
\end{matrix}
\\ \\
\begin{matrix}
\phi_{4}q_{1}-\phi_{3}q_{2}\\ \,\,\,+\phi_{2}q_{3}+\phi_{1}q_{4} \,\,\,
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
-(\phi_{3}q_{1}+\phi_{4}q_{2}\\+\phi_{1}q_{3}-\phi_{2}q_{4})
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
\phi_{2}q_{1}+\phi_{1}q_{2}\\-\phi_{4}q_{3}+\phi_{3}q_{4}
\end{matrix}
&\begin{matrix}
\phi_{1}q_{1}-\phi_{2}q_{2}\\-\phi_{3}q_{3}-\phi_{4}q_{4}
\end{matrix}
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\phi_{1}\\ \\ \\
-\phi_{2}\\ \\ \\
-\phi_{3}\\ \\ \\
-\phi_{4}
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\ \notag\\
=\,& \, \, \centerdot \, \, \centerdot \, \, \centerdot \notag\\
\notag\\
=\,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \\
0 & \phi_{1}^{2}+\phi_{2}^{2}-\phi_{3}^{2}-\phi_{4}^{2} &
-2 \phi_{1}\phi_{4} + 2 \phi_{2}\phi_{3} & 2 \phi_{1}\phi_{3}
+ 2 \phi_{2}\phi_{4} \\ \\
0 & 2 \phi_{1}\phi_{4} + 2\phi_{2}\phi_{3} & \phi_{1}^{2}-
\phi_{2}^{2}+\phi_{3}^{2}-\phi_{4}^{2} & -2\phi_{1}\phi_{2}
+2\phi_{3}\phi_{4} \\ \\
0 & -2\phi_{1}\phi_{3}+2\phi_{2}\phi_{4} & 2\phi_{1}\phi_{2}
+2\phi_{3}\phi_{4} & \phi_{1}^{2}-\phi_{2}^{2}-\phi_{3}^{2}
+\phi_{4}^{2}
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
q_{1}\\ \\
q_{2}\\ \\
q_{3}\\ \\
q_{4}
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
The required representation is given by mapping
\[ \phi \, = \, \phi_{1}\,+\,\phi_{2}\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,\phi_{3}\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,
+\,\phi_{4}\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \in \sp (1) \]
into the matrix
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \\
0 & \phi_{1}^{2}+\phi_{2}^{2}-\phi_{3}^{2}-
\phi_{4}^{2} & -2 \phi_{1}\phi_{4} +
2 \phi_{2}\phi_{3} & 2 \phi_{1}\phi_{3} + 2 \phi_{2}\phi_{4} \\ \\
0 & 2 \phi_{1}\phi_{4} + 2\phi_{2}\phi_{3} & \phi_{1}^{2}
-\phi_{2}^{2}+\phi_{3}^{2}-\phi_{4}^{2} & -2\phi_{1}\phi_{2} +
2\phi_{3}\phi_{4} \\ \\
0 & -2\phi_{1}\phi_{3}+2\phi_{2}\phi_{4} & 2\phi_{1}\phi_{2}+
2\phi_{3}\phi_{4} & \phi_{1}^{2}-\phi_{2}^{2}-\phi_{3}^{2}+\phi_{4}^{2}
\end{pmatrix} \]
It is tedious but easy to show that
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
\phi_{1}^{2}+\phi_{2}^{2}-\phi_{3}^{2}-\phi_{4}^{2} & -
2 \phi_{1}\phi_{4} + 2 \phi_{2}\phi_{3} & 2 \phi_{1}\phi_{3} +
2 \phi_{2}\phi_{4} \\ \\
2 \phi_{1}\phi_{4} + 2\phi_{2}\phi_{3} & \phi_{1}^{2}-
\phi_{2}^{2}+\phi_{3}^{2}-\phi_{4}^{2} & -2\phi_{1}\phi_{2}
+2\phi_{3}\phi_{4} \\ \\
-2\phi_{1}\phi_{3}+2\phi_{2}\phi_{4} & 2\phi_{1}\phi_{2}
+2\phi_{3}\phi_{4} & \phi_{1}^{2}-\phi_{2}^{2}-\phi_{3}^{2}+\phi_{4}^{2}
\end{pmatrix} \quad \in \o (3) \]
Since $\sp (1)$ is connected and for $\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, \in \sp (1)$,
\[ \det ( \, \hh( \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}) \, |_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \Im \Bbb{H} ) }} \, ) \, = \, 1 \]
therefore $\hh |_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \Im \Bbb{H} ) }} ( \, \sp (1) \,) \,
\subset \so ( \Im \Bbb{H} )$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor} \label{C:sp1so3}
There is a two-fold covering
\[ 0 \, \longrightarrow \, \Bbb{Z} _{2} \, \longrightarrow \,
\sp (1) \, \overset{\rho }{\longrightarrow}
\, \so (3) \, \longrightarrow \, 0 \]
where $ \rho \, = \,\hh |_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \Im \Bbb{H} ) }}$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
Let \( \phi \, =\, \phi_{1}\,+\,\phi_{2}\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,+\,\phi_{3}\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,+
\,\phi_{4}\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \) be any element in
$ \ker ( \rho ) $.
Therefore $ \rho ( \, \phi \, ) \, = \, 1 _{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \Im \Bbb{H} ) }}$
which is diagonal.
However, for any
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
\phi_{1}^{2}+\phi_{2}^{2}-\phi_{3}^{2}-\phi_{4}^{2} & -
2 \phi_{1}\phi_{4} + 2 \phi_{2}\phi_{3} & 2 \phi_{1}\phi_{3} +
2 \phi_{2}\phi_{4} \\ \\
2 \phi_{1}\phi_{4} + 2\phi_{2}\phi_{3} & \phi_{1}^{2}-
\phi_{2}^{2}+\phi_{3}^{2}-\phi_{4}^{2} & -2\phi_{1}\phi_{2} +
2\phi_{3}\phi_{4} \\ \\
-2\phi_{1}\phi_{3}+2\phi_{2}\phi_{4} & 2\phi_{1}\phi_{2}+
2\phi_{3}\phi_{4} & \phi_{1}^{2}-\phi_{2}^{2}-\phi_{3}^{2}+\phi_{4}^{2}
\end{pmatrix} \]
to be diagonal, we must have
\[ \phi_{i}\phi_{j} \, = \, 0 , \qquad \text{for } 1 \leq i < j \leq 4 \]
which implies one of the following cases
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi_{1} \, \neq \, 0 , \quad \text{and} \quad \phi_{2} \, =
\, \phi_{3} \,= \, \phi_{4} \,=\, 0 $
\item $\phi_{2} \, \neq \, 0 , \quad \text{and} \quad \phi_{3} \, =
\, \phi_{4} \,= \, \phi_{1} \,=\, 0 $
\item $\phi_{3} \, \neq \, 0 , \quad \text{and} \quad \phi_{4} \, =
\, \phi_{1} \,= \, \phi_{2} \,=\, 0 $
\item $\phi_{4} \, \neq \, 0 , \quad \text{and} \quad \phi_{1} \, =
\, \phi_{2} \,= \, \phi_{3} \,=\, 0 $
\end{enumerate}
These cases corresponds to the following elements in $\sp (1) $:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \phi_{1} \, =
\, \pm 1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \phi \, = \, \pm \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} $
\item $\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \phi_{2} \, =
\, \pm 1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \phi \, = \, \pm \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} $
\item $\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \phi_{3} \, =
\, \pm 1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \phi \, = \, \pm \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} $
\item $\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \phi_{4} \, =
\, \pm 1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \phi \, = \, \pm \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} $
\end{enumerate}
and we have the following correspondence :
\[
\rho (\, \pm \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \,)\, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad\qquad
\rho (\, \pm \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,)\, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\rho (\, \pm \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,)\, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad\qquad
\rho (\, \pm \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,)\, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \]
Therefore we see that $\ker ( \, \rho \, ) \, = \, \Bbb{Z} _{2} $.
In fact, for any $\phi $ in $\sp (1)$ ,
\[ \rho ( \, - \phi \, ) \, = \, \rho ( \, \phi \, ) \]
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
There is a two-fold covering
\[ 0 \, \longrightarrow \, \Bbb{Z} _{2} \, \longrightarrow \,
\su (2) \, \longrightarrow
\, \so (3) \, \longrightarrow \, 0 \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Lemma \ref{L:sp1su2}} , we have an isomorphism
\[ \su (2) \, \longrightarrow \, \sp (1) \]
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a + b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
- c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a - b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix}
\, \mapsto \,
a \, + \, b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, + \, c \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, + \, d \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \]
which combines with the two-fold cover
\[ \sp (1) \, \longrightarrow \, \so (3) \]
of {\bf Corollary \ref{C:sp1so3}} gives the required two-fold cover :
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
a + b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
- c + d \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & a - b \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix}
\, \mapsto \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a^{2}+b^{2}-c^{2}-d^{2} & -2 ad + 2 bc & 2 ac + 2 bd \\ \\
2 ad + 2bc & a^{2}-b^{2}+c^{2}-d^{2} & -2ab +2cd \\ \\
-2ac+2bd & 2ab+2cd & a^{2}-b^{2}-c^{2}+d^{2}
\end{pmatrix} \]
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{Realization of Low Dimensional Clifford Algebras}
We now apply the quaternion to the representation of Clifford
algebras in low dimensions.
\begin{Lem}
We have an isomorphism
\[ C(\,\Bbb{R}\,)\,\cong \Bbb{C} \]
of algebras over $\Bbb{R}$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
By definition,
\[ C(\,\Bbb{R}\,)\, = \, \{ \, e_{1} \, | \, e_{1}e_{1} \, = \, -1 \} \]
Hence $C( \, \Bbb{R} \, ) $ contains elements $ a + b e_{1} $
with $e_{1} ^{2} = -1 $.
So by identifying $e_{1}$ with $\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}$, we may get the
required isomorphism.
\end{pf}
\begin{Lem}
We have an isomorphism
\[ C(\,\Bbb{R} ^{2}\,)\,\cong \, \Bbb{H} \]
of algebras over $\Bbb{R}$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
By choosing orthonormal basis $e_{1}, \, e_{2}$ of $\Bbb{R} ^{2}$,
\[ C(\,\Bbb{R} ^{2}\,)\, = \, \{ \, e_{1} , \, e_{2}\, | \, e_{i}e_{j} \,
+ \, e_{j}e_{i} \, = \, -2 Q( \, e_{i} \, , \, e_{j} \, ) \} \]
Hence $C( \, \Bbb{R} ^{2} \, ) $ contains elements $ a + b e_{1}
+ c e_{2} + d e_{1}e_{2} $ with
\[ e_{1} ^{2} \, = \, e_{2} ^{2} \, = \, ( e_{1}e_{2} )^{2} \,
= \, -1 \]
\[ e_{1}e_{2}= (e_{1}e_{2}) , \quad e_{2} ( e_{1}e_{2})
= e_{1} , \quad ( e_{1}e_{2}) e_{1} = e_{2} \]
\[ e_{2} e_{1} = - ( e_{1}e_{2}) , \quad ( e_{1}e_{2}) e_{2}
= - e_{1} , \quad e_{1} ( e_{1}e_{2}) = - e_{2} \]
So by identifying $e_{1}$ with $\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}$, $e_{2}$
with $\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}$ and $e_{1}e_{2}$ with $\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}$,
we may get the required isomorphism.
\end{pf}
\begin{Lem} \label{L:c3hh}
We have an isomorphism
\[ C(\,\Bbb{R} ^{3}\,)\,\cong \, \Bbb{H} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{H} \]
of algebras over $\Bbb{R}$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
By choosing orthonormal basis $e_{1}, \, e_{2}, \, e_{3}$
of $\Bbb{R} ^{3}$,
\[ C(\,\Bbb{R} ^{3}\,)\, = \, \{ \, e_{1} , \, e_{2}, \, e_{3}\, | \,
e_{i}e_{j} \, + \, e_{j}e_{i} \, = \, -2 Q( \, e_{i} \, , \, e_{j} \, ) \}
\]
As a real vector space, $C(\,\Bbb{R} ^{3}\,)$ has eight generators
\[ 1, \quad e_{1}, \quad e_{2},\quad e_{3},\quad
e_{1}e_{2} ,\quad e_{1}e_{3} ,\quad e_{2}e_{3} ,
\quad e_{1}e_{2}e_{3} \]
On the other hand, $\Bbb{H} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{H}$ also
has eight generators
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \oplus 0 , \quad \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \oplus 0 , \quad \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}
\oplus 0 , \quad \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \oplus 0 ,
\qquad 0\oplus \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}, \quad 0\oplus \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}, \quad 0\oplus
\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}, \quad 0\oplus \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \]
The required map
\[ C(\,\Bbb{R} ^{3}\,)\, \longrightarrow \, \Bbb{H} \,
\oplus \, \Bbb{H} \]
is given by
\begin{alignat}{4}
1 \, & \mapsto & \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, &\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}},
& \qquad e_{1}e_{2}e_{3} \, & \mapsto &\, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, &\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}
\notag \\
e_{1} \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, &\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}, &
\qquad e_{1}e_{2} \, & \mapsto &\, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, &\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \notag \\
e_{2} \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, &\oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}, &
\qquad e_{1}e_{3} \, & \mapsto &\, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, &\oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \notag \\
e_{3} \, & \mapsto &\, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, & \oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}, &
\qquad e_{2}e_{3} \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, &\oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \notag
\end{alignat}
while the inverse
\[ \Bbb{H} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{H} \, \longrightarrow \, C(\,\Bbb{R} ^{3}\,) \]
is given by
\begin{alignat}{4}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \,& & \mapsto \, \frac{1- e_{1}e_{2}e_{3}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0 &\oplus\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{1+ e_{1}e_{2}e_{3}}{2} \notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{-e_{1}e_{2}-e_{3}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0 &\oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{e_{1}e_{2}-e_{3}}{2} \notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{-e_{1}e_{3}+e_{2}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0&\oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{-e_{1}e_{3}-e_{2}}{2} \notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,&\oplus \,0 \,& & \mapsto \, \frac{e_{2}e_{3}+e_{1}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0 &\oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{-e_{2}e_{3}+e_{1}}{2}\notag
\end{alignat}
\end{pf}
\begin{Rem}
There are other homomorphisms between $C(\Bbb{R} ^{3})$
and $\Bbb{H} \oplus \Bbb{H}$. The one we choose
in the above proof is the one we need in the future
which is compatible with our description of the
action of $C^{2}(\Bbb{R} ^{4}) \otimes \Bbb{C}$ on the spinors.
\end{Rem}
To find the representation of higher dimensional Clofford
algebra is more difficult. However, our
main interest is the even Clifford algebra of dimension four.
This can be found with the help of the
following observation:
\begin{Lem} \label{L:c+n+1cn}
We have a canonical isomorphism of the two algebras
\[ C^{+}(\, \Bbb{R} ^{n+1}\, ) \, \cong \, C( \, \Bbb{R} ^{n} \, ) \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
Pick an orthonormal basis $\{ e_{i} \}_{_{i = 1 , \dots , n}}$ of
$\Bbb{R} ^{n}$ and embed $\Bbb{R} ^{n}$
into $\Bbb{R} ^{n+1}$ canonically. Pick $e_{n+1} \in \Bbb{R} ^{n+1}$
such that $\{ e_{i} \}_{_{i = 1 , \dots , n+1}}$
is an orthonormal basis of $\Bbb{R} ^{n+1}$. The embedding
$ \Bbb{R} ^{n} \hookrightarrow \Bbb{R} ^{n+1}$
induces the map
\[ C( \, \Bbb{R} ^{n} \, ) \, \hookrightarrow \,
C^{+}(\, \Bbb{R} ^{n+1}\, ) \]
\[ e_{i_{1}} e _{i_{2}} \dots e_{i_{2k+1}} \, \mapsto
\, e_{i_{1}} e _{i_{2}} \dots e_{i_{2k+1}} e_{n+1} \]
\[ e_{i_{1}} e _{i_{2}} \dots e_{i_{2k}} \, \mapsto
\, e_{i_{1}} e _{i_{2}} \dots e_{i_{2k }} \]
for any $k = 1 , \dots , [ \frac{n}{2} ] $.
This map is obviously an isomorphism.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor} \label{C:c+4hh}
We have an isomorphism
\[ C^{+}(\, \Bbb{R} ^{4} \, ) \, \cong \, \Bbb{H} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{H} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Lemma \ref{L:c+n+1cn}}, we have
\[ C^{+}(\, \Bbb{R} ^{4} \, ) \, \cong \, C(\, \Bbb{R} ^{3} \, ) \]
while by {\bf Lemma \ref{L:c3hh}}, we have
\[ C(\, \Bbb{R} ^{3} \, ) \, \cong \, \Bbb{H} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{H} \]
Their composition gives the required isomorphism.
Explicitly, we have
\[ C^{+}(\,\Bbb{R} ^{4}\,)\, \longrightarrow \, \Bbb{H} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{H} \]
by
\begin{alignat}{4}
1 \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, &\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}, &
\qquad e_{1}e_{2}e_{3}e_{4} \, & \mapsto &\, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \,
&\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \notag \\
e_{1}e_{4} \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, &\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}},
& \qquad e_{1}e_{2} \, & \mapsto &\, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,
&\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \notag \\
e_{2}e_{4} \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, &\oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}},
& \qquad e_{1}e_{3} \, & \mapsto &\, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,
&\oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \notag \\
e_{3}e_{4} \, & \mapsto &\, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, &\oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}},
& \qquad e_{2}e_{3} \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, &\oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}
\notag
\end{alignat}
and the inverse
\[ \Bbb{H} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{H} \, \longrightarrow \, C^{+}(\,\Bbb{R} ^{4}\,) \]
by
\begin{alignat}{4}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{1-e_{1}e_{2}e_{3}e_{4}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0 &\oplus\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{1+e_{1}e_{2}e_{3}e_{4}}{2} \notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{-e_{1}e_{2}-e_{3}e_{4}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0 &\oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{e_{1}e_{2}-e_{3}e_{4}}{2} \notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{-e_{1}e_{3}+e_{2}e_{4}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0&\oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, & & \mapsto \,
\frac{-e_{1}e_{3}-e_{2}e_{4}}{2} \notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,&\oplus \,0 \,& & \mapsto \,
\frac{e_{2}e_{3}+e_{1}e_{4}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0& \oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,& & \mapsto \,
\frac{-e_{2}e_{3}+e_{1}e_{4}}{2}\notag
\end{alignat}
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{Alternative Definition of the Spin Group}
\begin{Def}
Let $C ^{\times}(V)$ be the {\bf multiplicative group}
of the Clifford algebra $C(V)$ over $V$.
Let the {\bf pin group} $\pin (V)$ of a real vector space
$V$ be the subgroup of the multiplicative
group generated by unit vectors in the unit sphere in $V$, ie.
\[ \pin (V) \, = \, \{ \, v_{1} v_{2} \cdots v_{k} \in C ^{\times}
(V) \, | \, v_{i} \, \in S^{\dim V \, -1} \, \hookrightarrow V \} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
The $\Bbb{Z} _{2}$-grading of the Clifford algebra
\[ C(V) \, = \, C^{+} (V) \, \oplus \, C^{-} (V) \]
induces a similar $\Bbb{Z} _{2}$-grading of the pin group
\[ \pin (V) \, = \, \pin ^{+}(V) \, \cup \, \pin ^{-}(V) \]
where $\pin ^{\pm}(V) \, = \, \pin (V) \, \cap \, C^{\pm} (V) $.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Def}
The {\bf spin group} $\spin (V)$ is the subgroup $\pin ^{+}(V)$ of
$\pin (V)$. In other words,
\[ \spin (V) \, = \, \{ \, v_{1} v_{2} \cdots v_{2k} \, | \, v_{i} \, \in
S^{\dim V \, -1} \, \hookrightarrow V \} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
This definition is equivalent to the previous one. In fact,
\[ \cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{i}e_{j} \, = \, e_{i} \, ( \, - \cos t \, e_{i}
\, +
\, \sin t \, e_{j} \, ) \]
and for any $v_{1} , v_{2} \, \in S^{\dim V \, -1}$, $v_{1} v_{2}$ may
be expressed as the
product of elements of the form $\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{i}e_{j}$.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Thm} \label{T:spin4sp1su2}
We have the following isomorphism
\[ \spin (4) \, \cong \, \sp (1) \,\times \,\sp (1) \, \cong \, \su (2)
\,\times \,\su (2) \]
of Lie groups.
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
By definition,
\[ \spin (4) \, = \, \pin (4) \, \cap \, C^{+} (\Bbb{R} ^{4}) \]
Now $\pin (4) $ is the multiplicative group generated by
elements in $\sp (1)$
and by {\bf Corollary \ref{C:c+4hh}}, we have
\[ \spin (4) \, = \, \sp (1) \, \times \, \sp (1) \]
Explicitly, by our new definition, $\spin (4)$ is generated by
$v_{1} v_{2}$ where
\[ v_{i} \, = \, a_{i} e_{1} \, + \, b_{i} e_{2} \, + \, c_{i} e_{3} \,
+ \, d_{i} e_{4} \, \in S ^{3} \hookrightarrow \Bbb{R} ^{4} \]
Hence
\begin{align}
v_{1}v_{2} \, = \, &- \,( \, a_{1}a_{2} \, + \, b_{1}b_{2} \,
+ \, c_{1}c_{2} \, + \, d_{1}d_{2} \, ) \notag \\
&+ \, ( \, a_{1}b_{2} \, - \, a_{2}b_{1} \, ) \, e_{1}e_{2} \,
+ \, ( \, c_{1}d_{2} \, - \, c_{2}d_{1} \, ) \, e_{3}e_{4} \notag \\
&+ \, ( \, a_{1}d_{2} \, - \, a_{2}d_{1} \, ) \, e_{1}e_{4} \,
+ \, ( \, b_{1}c_{2} \, - \, b_{2}c_{1} \, ) \, e_{2}e_{3} \notag \\
&+ \, ( \, a_{1}c_{2} \, - \, a_{2}c_{1} \, ) \, e_{1}e_{3} \,
+ \, ( \, b_{1}d_{2} \, - \, b_{2}d_{1} \, ) \, e_{2}e_{4} \notag
\end{align}
which corresponds to the following element in $\sp (1) \times \sp (1) $:
\begin{align}
&- \,( \, a_{1}a_{2} \, + \, b_{1}b_{2} \, + \, c_{1}c_{2} \,
+ \, d_{1}d_{2} \, ) \, (\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \oplus \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}) \notag \\
&+ \, ( \, a_{1}b_{2} \, - \, a_{2}b_{1} \, ) \,( -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \oplus \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} )\,
\, ( \, c_{1}d_{2} \, - \, c_{2}d_{1} \, ) \,(-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \oplus -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}) \notag \\
&+ \, ( \, a_{1}d_{2} \, - \, a_{2}d_{1} \, ) \, (\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \oplus \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}) \,
+ \, ( \, b_{1}c_{2} \, - \, b_{2}c_{1} \, ) \, (\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \oplus -\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}) \notag \\
&+ \, ( \, a_{1}c_{2} \, - \, a_{2}c_{1} \, ) \,( - \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \oplus - \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}) \,
+ \, ( \, b_{1}d_{2} \, - \, b_{2}d_{1} \, ) \, (\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \oplus -\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}) \notag \\
=\, & \bigl( \,- \,( \, a_{1}a_{2} \, + \, b_{1}b_{2} \, + \, c_{1}c_{2} \,
+ \, d_{1}d_{2} \, ) \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \,
+ \, ( \,-\, a_{1}b_{2} \, + \, a_{2}b_{1} \, -\, c_{1}d_{2} \,
+ \, c_{2}d_{1} \, ) \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \notag \\
&+ \, (\, -\, a_{1}c_{2} \, + \, a_{2}c_{1} \, + \, b_{1}d_{2} \,
- \, b_{2}d_{1} \, ) \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,
+ \, (\, a_{1}d_{2} \, - \, a_{2}d_{1} \, + \, b_{1}c_{2} \, -
\, b_{2}c_{1} \, ) \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,\bigr)\notag \\
& \oplus\,\bigl( \, - \,( \, a_{1}a_{2} \, + \, b_{1}b_{2} \, +
\, c_{1}c_{2} \, + \, d_{1}d_{2} \, ) \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \,
+ \, ( \, a_{1}b_{2} \, - \, a_{2}b_{1} \, -\, c_{1}d_{2} \,
+ \, c_{2}d_{1} \, )\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \notag \\
&+ \, ( \, -\, a_{1}c_{2} \, + \, a_{2}c_{1} \, -\, b_{1}d_{2} \,
+ \, b_{2}d_{1} \, ) \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,
+ \, ( \, a_{1}d_{2} \, - \, a_{2}d_{1} \, - \, b_{1}c_{2} \, +
\, b_{2}c_{1} \, ) \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \bigr) \notag
\end{align}
If we use the old definition, then $\spin (4)$ is generated by
elements of the form
$ \cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{i}e_{j} $.
Therefore the map
\[ \spin (4) \, \cong \, \sp (1) \, \times \, \sp (1) \]
is given by
\begin{alignat}{2}
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{1}e_{2} \, & \mapsto \, & (\,\cos t \, -
\, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,)\, &\oplus \, (\,\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,) \notag
\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{3}e_{4} \, & \mapsto \, & (\,\cos t \, -
\, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,)\, &\oplus \, (\,\cos t \, - \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,) \notag
\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{1}e_{3} \, & \mapsto \, & (\,\cos t \,
- \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,)\, &\oplus \,(\, \cos t \, - \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,) \notag
\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{2}e_{4} \, & \mapsto \, & (\,\cos t \,
+ \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,)\, &\oplus \, (\,\cos t \, - \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,) \notag
\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{1}e_{4} \, & \mapsto \, &( \,\cos t \,
+ \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,)\, &\oplus \,(\, \cos t \, + \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,)
\notag \\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{2}e_{3} \, & \mapsto \, & (\,\cos t \,
+ \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,)\, &\oplus \,(\, \cos t \, - \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,) \notag
\end{alignat}
By applying {\bf Lemma \ref{L:sp1su2}}, we have
\[ \spin (4) \, \cong \, \su (2) \,\times \,\su (2) \]
given by
\begin{alignat}{2}
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{1}e_{2} \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t - \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & \cos t + \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t + \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & \cos t - \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{3}e_{4} \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t - \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & \cos t + \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t - \, \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & \cos t + \sin t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix}\notag\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{1}e_{3} \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & -\sin t \\
\sin t & \cos t
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & -\sin t \\
\sin t & \cos t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{2}e_{4} \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & \sin t \\
-\sin t & \cos t
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & -\sin t \\
\sin t & \cos t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{1}e_{4} \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & \sin t \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
\sin t \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & \cos t
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & \sin t \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\\
\sin t \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}& \cos t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\cos t \, + \, \sin t \, e_{2}e_{3} \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & \sin t \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
\sin t \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & \cos t
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & -\sin t \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\\
-\sin t \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}& \cos t
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{alignat}
\end{pf}
\newpage
\bigskip \bigskip
\section{\bf Spinors}
We now proceed to define spinors and the spinor
representation of Clifford algebras.
\bigskip
\subsection{Basic Properties}
\begin{Def}
Let $\{ e_{i} \}_{i=1, \dots , \dim V} $ be an
{\bf oriented}, orthonormal basis of $V$,
that means there is a preferred ordering of
the basis elements modulo even permutations.
The {\bf chirality operator}
\footnote{Also known as the {\bf volume element}
or the {\bf complex unit}.
Physicists also denote it as ${\bf \gamma^{5}}$ for
the four dimensional case.}
is
\[ \Gamma \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} ^{p} \, e_{1} \dots e_{_{\dim V}}
\quad \in C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C} \]
where
\[ p \, = \, \bigl[ \frac{\dim V +1}{2} \bigr] \, = \,
\begin{cases}
\frac{\dim V}{2} &\text{if $\dim V$ is even,} \\
\frac{\dim V+1}{2} &\text{if $\dim V$ is odd.}
\end{cases} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Lem}
The Chirality operator satisfies
\[ \Gamma ^{2} \, = \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \]
and it {\bf super-anticommutes} with elements $v \in V$, ie.
\[ \Gamma \, v \, + \, (-1)^{\dim V} \, v \, \Gamma \, = \, 0 \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
By direct computation, we have
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{2}\, = \, & \Gamma \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} ^{p} \, e_{1}
\dots e_{_{\dim V}} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} ^{p} \, e_{1} \dots e_{_{\dim V}} \notag \\
=\,& (-1) ^{p}\, e_{1} \dots e_{_{\dim V}}\, e_{1} \dots
e_{_{\dim V}} \notag \\
=\,&(-1) ^{p}(-1)^{\dim V -1} \, e_{1} e_{1} \, e_{2}
\dots e_{_{\dim V}}\, e_{2} \dots e_{_{\dim V}} \notag \\
=\,&(-1) ^{p}(-1)^{\dim V -1} (-1)^{\dim V -2}\, e_{1} e_{1}
\, e_{2}e_{2}\, e_{3} \dots e_{_{\dim V}}\, e_{3} \dots e_{_{\dim V}}
\notag \\
=\,& \centerdot \, \centerdot \, \centerdot \notag \\
=\,&(-1) ^{p}(-1)^{\dim V -1} (-1)^{\dim V -2} ,\dots
, (-1)^{1} \, e_{1} e_{1} \, e_{2}e_{2}\, \dots \, e_{_{\dim V}}
e_{_{\dim V}} \notag \\
=\,&(-1) ^{p}(-1)^{\dim V -1} (-1)^{\dim V -2} ,\dots
, (-1)^{1} \, (-1)^{\dim V}\, 1_{_{C(V)}} \notag \\
=\,& (-1)^{ ( \, p\,+\,\frac{\dim V\cdot (\dim V -1)}{2} \, +
\, \dim V\, )}\, 1_{_{C(V)}} \notag \\
=\,& 1_{_{C(V)}} \notag
\end{align}
where the last equality may be checked separately for
$\dim V \equiv 1, 2, 3$ or $ 0 \, \mod 4$.
Similarly, for any basis element $e_{i} \in V$,
\begin{align}
\Gamma\, e_{i} \, = \, & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} ^{p} \, e_{1} \dots e_{_{\dim V}}
\, e_{i} \notag \\
=\,&(-1)^{(\dim V -i)} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} ^{p} \, e_{1} \dots e_{i}e_{i}
\dots e_{_{\dim V}} \notag \\
=\,&(-1)^{(\dim V -i)}\,(-1)^{(i-1)} \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} ^{p} \, e_{i} \, e_{1}
\dots e_{i} \dots e_{_{\dim V}} \notag \\
=\,& (-1)^{(\dim V -1)}\, e_{i} \, \Gamma \notag
\end{align}
Hence the equation is true for any $v \in V$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
For $\dim V$ odd, $\Gamma$ is in the center of $C(V)
\otimes \Bbb{C}$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{Cor}
For $\dim V$ even, every complex Clifford module $E$ has a
$\Bbb{Z}_{2}$-grading defined by the
$\pm 1$ eigen-spaces of the chirality operator:
\[ E^{\pm} \, = \, \{ v \in E \, | \, \Gamma v \, = \, \pm v \, \} \]
Especially, for $\dim V \equiv 0 \, \mod 4, \Gamma
\in C(V)$, so in this case,
the real Clifford modules are also $\Bbb{Z}_{2}$-graded.
\end{Cor}
\begin{Def}
A {\bf polarization} of a complex vector space $V\otimes
\Bbb{C}$ is a subspace $P \subset V\otimes \Bbb{C}$
which is {\bf isotropic}, ie.
\[Q ( \, v \, , \, v \, ) \,= \, 0 \qquad \forall v \in P , \]
and we have a spliting
\[ V \,\otimes \,\Bbb{C} \, = \, P \, \oplus \, \overline{P}. \]
Here the quadratic form $Q$ extends from $V$ to
$V\otimes \Bbb{C}$ {\bf complex linearly}, ie.
\[ Q(\, a+\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} b\, , \, c+\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} d\, )\, =\, Q(\, a \, , \, c\, )\, + \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,
\bigl( \, Q(\, a \, , \, d\, )\, + \,
Q(\, b \, , \, c\, )\, \bigr)\, - \, Q(\, b \, , \, d\, ) \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}
A polarization is called {\bf oriented}, if there is an oriented
orthonormal basis $\{ e_{i} \}$
of $V$, such that $P$ is spanned by the vectors
\[ \{ \,w_{i}\, = \,\frac{(\, e_{2i-1} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} e_{2i} \,)}{\sqrt{2\,}}
\, | \, 1 \leq i \leq \frac{\dim V}{2} \} \]
and therefore the complement $\overline{P}$ is
spanned by the vectors
\[ \{ \,\overline{w}_{i}\, = \,\frac{(\, e_{2i-1} \, + \,
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} e_{2i} \,)}{\sqrt{2\,}}\, | \, 1 \leq i \leq \frac{\dim V}{2} \} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Lem} \label{L:wiwj}
The basis $\{ w_{i} \}_{i=1, \dots , \frac{_{\dim V}}{2} }$
and the corresponding conjugate
$ \{ \overline{w}_{i} \}_{i=1, \dots , \frac{_{\dim V}}{2} }$
satisfy the folloowing equations:
For $1 \,\leq \, i \,\leq \, \frac{\dim V}{2}, $
\[ w_{i}w_{i} \, = \, \overline{w}_{i}\overline{w}_{i}\, = \, 0 \]
\[ w_{i} \overline{w_{i}} \, + \, \overline{w_{i}} w_{i} \, = \, -2 \]
For $1 \,\leq \, i \, \neq \, j \,\leq \, \frac{\dim V}{2}, $
\[ w_{i}w_{j} \, = \, - \, w_{j}w_{i} \]
\[ w_{i}\overline{w}_{j} \, = \, - \, \overline{w}_{j}w_{i} \]
\[ \overline{w}_{i}\overline{w}_{j} \, = \, - \, \overline{w}_{j}
\overline{w}_{i} \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
For $1 \,\leq \, i \,\leq \, \frac{\dim V}{2}, $
\begin{align}
w_{i}w_{i} \, = \,&\frac{(\, e_{2i-1} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} e_{2i} \,)}{\sqrt{2\,}}\,
\frac{(\, e_{2i-1} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} e_{2i} \,)}{\sqrt{2\,}} \notag \\
=\,&\frac{1}{2}\, ( \, e_{2i-1}e_{2i-1} \, -\, e_{2i}e_{2i}\, -
\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i}e_{2i-1}\, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i-1}e_{2i} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&\frac{1}{2}\, ( \,(-1) \, - \, (-1)\, + \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i-1}e_{2i}\,
- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i-1}e_{2i} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&\, 0 \notag
\end{align}
and
\[ \overline{w}_{i}\, \overline{w}_{i}\, =
\, (\overline{ w_{i}w_{i} }) \, = \, 0 \]
Also,
\begin{align}
w_{i} \overline{w}_{i} \, + \, \overline{w}_{i} w_{i} \, =\, &
\frac{e_{2i-1} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i}}{\sqrt{2\,}}\,\frac{e_{2i-1} \, +
\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i}}{\sqrt{2\,}}\,+ \,
\frac{e_{2i-1} \, + \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i}}{\sqrt{2\,}}\,\frac{e_{2i-1} \,
- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i}}{\sqrt{2\,}} \notag \\
=\,&\frac{1}{2}\, \bigl( 2\, e_{2i-1}e_{2i-1} \, +
\,2\, e_{2i}e_{2i} bigr) \notag \\
=\,& -2 \notag
\end{align}
For $1 \,\leq \, i \, \neq \, j \,\leq \, \frac{\dim V}{2}, $
\begin{align}
w_{i}w_{j} \, = \,&\frac{(\, e_{2i-1} \, -
\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} e_{2i} \,)}{\sqrt{2\,}}\, \frac{(\, e_{2j-1} \, -
\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} e_{2j} \,)}{\sqrt{2\,}} \notag \\
=\,&\frac{1}{2}\, ( \, e_{2i-1}e_{2j-1} \,-
\, e_{2i}e_{2j}\, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i}e_{2j-1}\, -
\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i-1}e_{2j} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&-\frac{1}{2}\, ( \, e_{2j-1}e_{2i-1} \, -
\, e_{2j}e_{2i}\, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2j}e_{2i-1}\, -
\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2j-1}e_{2i} \, ) \notag \\
=\,&-\,\frac{(\, e_{2j-1} \, -
\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} e_{2j} \,)}{\sqrt{2\,}}\, \frac{(\, e_{2i-1} \,
- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} e_{2i} \,)}{\sqrt{2\,}} \notag \\
=\,&-\, w_{j}w_{i} \notag
\end{align}
Similarly for the other equalities.
\end{pf}
\begin{Thm}
If $V$ is an {\bf even}-dimensional oriented Euclidean
vector space, then there is a unique $\Bbb{Z}_{2}$-graded
Clifford module
\[S \, = \, S ^{+} \, \oplus \, S^{-} \]
called the {\bf spinor module}, such that
\[ C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C} \, \cong \, \operatorname{End} (S) \]
Elements in $S^{+}$ and $S^{-}$ are called {\bf positive}
and {\bf negative spinors} respectively.
In particular, we have
\[\dim_{_{\Bbb{C}}} (S) \, = \, 2^{ (\frac{\dim V}{2})}\]
and
\[ \dim _{_{\Bbb{C}}} (S^{+}) \, = \, \dim _{_{\Bbb{C}}} (S_{-}) \,
= \, 2^{(\frac{\dim V}{2} -1 )}\]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
Given a polarization $P$ of $V\otimes \Bbb{C}$,
we may define the spinor module $S$ to be equal to the
exterior algebra $\Lambda P$.
Any element $v \in V \otimes \Bbb{C} \hookrightarrow
C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C}$ splits into two parts
\[ v \, = \, v_{1} \, \oplus \, v_{2} \quad \in P \,
\oplus \, \overline{P} \]
The component in $P$ acts on $\Lambda P$ by exterior product:
\[ c( \, v_{1} \, ) \, w \, = \, \sqrt{2\, }\, \epsilon(\, v_{1} \, )\,
w\, =\, \sqrt{2\, }\, v_{1} \, \wedge\, w , \qquad \forall w \in
\Lambda P \]
On the other hand the quadratic form $Q$ induce a duality
between $P$ and $\overline{P}$, ie.
\[ w_{i} ^{\ast} \, = \, Q ( \, \overline{w}_{i} \, , \, \cdot\, ) \]
So, the component in $\overline{P} \cong P ^{\ast}$ acts on
$\Lambda P$ by contraction:
\[ c( \, v_{2} \, ) \, w \, = \, -\sqrt{2\, }\, \iota(\, v_{2} \, )\,
w \qquad \forall w \in \Lambda P \]
Therefore the action of any $v = v_{1} \oplus v_{2} \in V
\otimes \Bbb{C}$ on $\Lambda P$ is
\[ c( \, v_{1} \oplus v_{2} \, ) \, w \, = \, \sqrt{2\, }\,
\epsilon(\, v_{1} \, )\, w\, - \, \sqrt{2\, }\, \iota(\, v_{2} \, )\, w
\qquad \forall w \in \Lambda P \]
Observe that the map $C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C} \longrightarrow
\operatorname{End} ( S )$ is injective and
\[ \dim_{_{\Bbb{C}}} (\, C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C}\, )\, = \, 2^{\dim V}\,
= \, \dim_{_{\Bbb{C}}} ( \, S \, ) ^{2} \, = \, \dim_{_{\Bbb{C}}} ( \, \operatorname{End} S \, ) \]
therefore
\[ C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C}\, \cong \, \operatorname{End} (\, S \, ) \]
The uniqueness of the spinor representation is a consequence
of the fact that the algebra $ \operatorname{End} (S)$
is simple , and it has unique irreducible module.
Now, assume the polarization $P$ is oriented, then for
\[ w_{i} \, = \, \frac{e_{2i-1} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2i}}{\sqrt{2\,}} \]
we have
\[e_{2i-1} \, = \, \frac{ (\, w_{i} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{i}\,)}{\sqrt{2\,}} \qquad
e_{2i} \, = \, \frac{ (\, - w_{i} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{i}\,)}{\sqrt{2\,} \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}} \]
therefore from the above Lemma, we get
\[ e_{2i-1}e_{2i} \, = \, \frac{(\,w_{i}\overline{w}_{i} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{i}w_{i}\,)}{2 \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}} \]
and hence
\[ \Gamma \, = \, \frac{(\,w_{1}\overline{w}_{1} \,
- \, \overline{w}_{1}w_{1}\,) \, (\,w_{2}\overline{w}_{2} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{2}w_{2}\,) \dots
(\,w_{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}}\overline{w}_{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}} \,
- \, \overline{w}_{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}}
w_{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}}\,) }{\sqrt{2\,}^{_{\dim V}}} \]
Therefore, $\Gamma$ acts on $\Lambda P$ by
\[ (-1)^{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}} \, ( \,\epsilon(w_{1})
\iota (\overline{w}_{1}) \, - \, \iota (\overline{w}_{1})
\epsilon(w_{1})\, ) \, \dots \, ( \,\epsilon(w_{1})
\iota (\overline{w}_{1}) \, - \, \iota (\overline{w}_{1})
\epsilon(w_{1})\,) \]
Now
\[ ( \,\epsilon(w_{i}) \iota (\overline{w}_{i}) \, -
\, \iota (\overline{w}_{i})\epsilon(w_{i})\, )\, 1_{_{\Lambda P}} \, =
\, -1_{_{\Lambda P}} \]
So $\Gamma$ acts on $\Lambda ^{0} P$ by $1_{_{C(V)}}$.
On the other hand, for $\Lambda ^{1} P$,
\begin{align}
( \,\epsilon(w_{i}) \iota (\overline{w}_{i}) \, -
\, \iota (\overline{w}_{i})\epsilon(w_{i})\, )\, w_{j} \,
= \,& (-1)^{1+ \delta _{ij}} \,w_{j} \notag \\
= \,&
\begin{cases}
w_{j} &\text{if $i=j$}\\
-w_{j} &\text{if $i \neq j$}
\end{cases} \notag
\end{align}
So $\Gamma$ acts on $\Lambda ^{1} P$ by
\[ (-1)^{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}}\, (-1)^{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2} -1 }
\,1_{_{C(V)}}\, = \, -1_{_{C(V)}}. \]
On $\Lambda ^{2} P$, we have, for any $1 \leq j < k \leq
\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}$,
\begin{align}
( \,\epsilon(w_{i}) \iota (\overline{w}_{i}) \, - \, \iota
(\overline{w}_{i})\epsilon(w_{i})\, )\, w_{j} \wedge w_{k} \,
= \,& (-1)^{1+ \delta _{ij} + \delta _{ik}} \, w_{j} \wedge w_{k}
\notag \\
= \,&
\begin{cases}
w_{j}\wedge w_{k} &\text{if $i = j$ or $i=k$}\\
-w_{j}\wedge w_{k} &\text{if $j \neq i \neq k$}
\end{cases} \notag
\end{align}
So $\Gamma$ acts on $\Lambda ^{2} P$ by
\[ (-1)^{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}}\, (-1)^{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2} -2 }
\,1_{_{C(V)}}\, = \, 1_{_{C(V)}}. \]
In general, on $\Lambda ^{k} P$, we have, for any $1
\leq j_{1} < j_{2} < \dots < j_{k} \leq \frac{_{\dim V}}{2}$,
\begin{align}
( \,\epsilon(w_{i}) \iota (\overline{w}_{i}) \, -
\, \iota (\overline{w}_{i})\epsilon(w_{i})\, )\,
w_{j_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge w_{j_{k}} \, = \,&
(-1)^{1+ \delta _{ij_{1}} + \dots +
\delta _{ij_{k}}} \, w_{j_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge w_{j_{k}}
\notag \\
=\,&
\begin{cases}
w_{j_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge w_{j_{k}} &
\text{if $i = j_{r}$ for some $j_{r}$}\\
-w_{j_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge w_{j_{k}} &
\text{if $i \neq j_{r}$ for any $j_{r}$}
\end{cases} \notag
\end{align}
So $\Gamma$ acts on $\Lambda ^{k} P$ by
\[ (-1)^{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2}}\, (-1)^{\frac{_{\dim V}}{2} -k }\,
1_{_{C(V)}}\, = \, (-1)^{k}\,1_{_{C(V)}}. \]
Therefore we have the splitting
\[ S^{\pm} \, = \, \Lambda ^{\pm} P \]
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{Four Dimensional Case}
Now we look at the spinors in four dimensional vector space.
Consider an oriented orthonormal basis $\{ e_{1}, e_{2}, e_{3},
e_{4} \}$ of the Euclidean vector
space $\Bbb{R} ^{4}$. Then the standard oriented polarization $P$
of $\Bbb{C} ^{4} \cong \Bbb{R} ^{4} \otimes \Bbb{C}$
is generated by
\[\{ \, w_{1} \, = \, \frac{e_{1} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{2}}{\sqrt{2\,}} ,
\qquad w_{2} \, = \, \frac{e_{3} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, e_{4}}{\sqrt{2\,}} \, \} \]
and we have
\[ S^{+} \, = \, \operatorname{span} _{\Bbb{C}} \langle \, 1_{_{\Lambda P}}\, ,
\, w_{1}\wedge w_{2}\, \rangle \]
\[ S^{-} \, = \, \operatorname{span} _{\Bbb{C}} \langle \, w_{1}\, , \, w_{2}\, \rangle \]
Together, we have the following {\bf standard basis} of $S = S^{+}
\oplus S^{-}$ :
\[ \{ \, 1_{_{\Lambda P}}\, , \, w_{1}\wedge w_{2}\, , \, w_{1}\, ,
\, w_{2}\,\} \]
Under this basis, any spinor $s \in S$ may be written as a column
vector with components
\[ s \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
s_{1} \\
s_{2} \\
s_{3}\\
s_{4}
\end{pmatrix} \]
and we have a spliting
\[ s \, = \, s^{+} \, \oplus \, s^{-} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2}
\end{pmatrix} \, \oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1} \\ \\
s^{-}_{2}
\end{pmatrix} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
s_{1} \\ \\
s_{2}
\end{pmatrix} \, \oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
s_{3} \\ \\
s_{4}
\end{pmatrix} \]
Since $S \, \cong \, \Bbb{C} ^{4}$, we have a representation
\[ C(V) \, \otimes \, \Bbb{C} \, \hookrightarrow \, \operatorname{End} (\Bbb{C} ^{4}) \]
To find out the exact correspondencs, let's consider the Clifford
action of $w_{i}$ and $\overline{w}_{i}$
on $S$:
\begin{align}
c( \, w_{1} \, ) \, : \, \begin{cases}
1_{_{\Lambda P}} \\
w_{1}\wedge w_{2} \\
w_{1} \\
w_{2}
\end{cases}
\, &\mapsto \,
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{2\,}\, w_{1} \\
0 \\
0 \\
\sqrt{2\,}\, w_{1}\wedge w_{2}
\end{cases}\notag \\
c( \, w_{2} \, ) \, : \, \begin{cases}
1_{_{\Lambda P}} \\
w_{1}\wedge w_{2} \\
w_{1} \\
w_{2}
\end{cases}
\, &\mapsto \,
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{2\,}\, w_{2} \\
0 \\
- \,\sqrt{2\,}\,w_{1}\wedge w_{2} \\
0
\end{cases} \notag \\
c( \, \overline{w}_{1} \, ) \, : \, \begin{cases}
1_{_{\Lambda P}} \\
w_{1}\wedge w_{2} \\
w_{1} \\
w_{2}
\end{cases}
\, &\mapsto \,
\begin{cases}
0 \\
- \,\sqrt{2\,}\, w_{2} \\
- \,\sqrt{2\,}\, 1_{_{\Lambda P}} \\
0 \\
\end{cases} \notag \\
c( \, \overline{w}_{2} \, ) \, : \, \begin{cases}
1_{_{\Lambda P}} \\
w_{1}\wedge w_{2} \\
w_{1} \\
w_{2}
\end{cases}
\, &\mapsto \,
\begin{cases}
0 \\
\sqrt{2\,}\,w_{1} \\
0 \\
- \,\sqrt{2\,}\, 1_{_{\Lambda P}}
\end{cases} \notag
\end{align}
Therefore we have the following correspondence
\begin{align}
w_{1} \, &= \, \sqrt{2\,}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & \,0\, & \,0\, & \,0\, \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
w_{2} \, &= \, \sqrt{2\,}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & \,0\, & 0 & \,0\, \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\overline{w}_{1} \, &= \, \sqrt{2\,}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & 0 & -1 & \,0\, \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\overline{w}_{2} \, &= \, \sqrt{2\,}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & \,0\, &\,0\, & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
Now by the relation
\[e_{2i-1} \, = \, \frac{ (\, w_{i} \, + \,
\overline{w}_{i}\,)}{\sqrt{2\,}} \qquad
e_{2i} \, = \, \frac{ (\, - w_{i} \, + \, \overline{w}_{i}\,)}{\sqrt{2\,} \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}
\]
we can deduce the corresponding matrices :
\begin{align}
e_{1} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & \,0\, &-1 & \, 0 \, \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{2} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & \,0\, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & \, 0 \, \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{3} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & \,0\, &\,0\, & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{4} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & \,0\, &\,0\, & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
0 & 0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 & 0 \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
As a result, we have the following
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s+s-lambda}
There are isomorphisms
\[ \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S ^{+} \, , \, S ^{-} \, ) \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{1}_{\Bbb{C}} \]
\[ \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S ^{-} \, , \, S ^{+} \, ) \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{1}_{\Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
With respect to the standard basis
\[ \{ \, 1_{_{\Lambda P}} \, , \, w_{1} \wedge w_{2} \, \} \]
of $S^{+}$ and the standard basis
\[ \{ \, w_{1} \, , \, w_{2} \, \} \]
of $S^{-}$ , we have
\begin{align}
e_{1} | _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{+} , S^{-} ) }} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{2} | _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{+} , S^{-} ) }}\, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{3} | _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{+} , S^{-} ) }}\, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{4} | _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{+} , S^{-} ) }}\, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
and any element in $ \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{+} \, , \, S^{-} \, )$ is a matrix
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} \]
which may be splited into
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} \, = \, &\frac{(A-D)}{2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{pmatrix} \,
- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, \frac{(A+D)}{2} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
&+ \, \frac{(B+C)}{2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,
+\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\frac{(B-C)}{2} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
= \, &\frac{(A-D)}{2}\,
e_{1}| _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{+} , S^{-} ) }} \,
- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, \frac{(A+D)}{2} \,
e_{2}| _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{+} , S^{-} ) }} \notag \\
&+ \, \frac{(B+C)}{2}\,
e_{3}| _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{+} , S^{-} ) }} \,
+\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\frac{(B-C)}{2} \,
e_{4}| _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{+} , S^{-} ) }} \notag
\end{align}
On the other hand, with respect to the above standard basis, we have
\begin{align}
e_{1} | _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{-} , S^{+} ) }} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{2} | _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{-} , S^{+} ) }}\, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{3} | _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{-} , S^{+} ) }}\, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
e_{4} | _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{-} , S^{+} ) }}\, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
and any element in $ \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{-} \, , \, S^{+} \, )$ is a matrix
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} \]
which may be splited into
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} \, = \, &\frac{(D-A)}{2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \,
- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, \frac{(A+D)}{2} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
&- \, \frac{(B+C)}{2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,
+\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\frac{(C-B)}{2} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
= \, &\frac{(D-A)}{2}\,
e_{1}| _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{-} , S^{+} ) }} \,
- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, \frac{(A+D)}{2} \,
e_{2}| _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{-} , S^{+} ) }} \notag \\
&- \, \frac{(B+C)}{2}\,
e_{3}| _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{-} , S^{+} ) }} \,
+\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\frac{(C-B)}{2} \,
e_{4}| _{_{ \operatorname{Hom} ( S^{-} , S^{+} ) }} \notag
\end{align}
\end{pf}
The elements in $C^{2}(V)$ corresponds to the matrices
\begin{alignat}{2}
e_{1}e_{2} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} &
e_{3}e_{4} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
e_{1}e_{3} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & -1 & \,0\, & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} &\qquad
e_{4}e_{2} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & -1 & 0 & \,0\,\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
e_{1}e_{4} \,& = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 & 0 \\
\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, \\
0 & 0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0
\end{pmatrix} &
e_{2}e_{3} \, &= \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 & 0 \\
\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
0 & 0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{alignat}
\begin{Thm}
There is a representation
\[ \spin (4) \, \longrightarrow \, \operatorname{End} (\Bbb{C} ^{4}) \]
which splits into
\[ \su (2) \, \times \, \su (2) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
{}From the above, we see that the action of elements in $\spin (4)$
is given by
\begin{align}
&\cos t \, +\, \sin t \, e_{1}e_{2} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t\, -\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\sin t & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos t\,+ \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos t\,+ \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cos t\,-\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\sin t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
&\cos t \, +\, \sin t \,e_{3}e_{4} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t\,-\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos t\,+\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos t\,-\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, \sin t& 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cos t\,+\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
&\cos t \, +\, \sin t \,e_{1}e_{3} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & -\sin t & \,0\, & 0 \\
\sin t & \cos t & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos t & -\sin t \\
0 & 0 & \sin t & \cos t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
&\cos t \, +\, \sin t \,e_{4}e_{2} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & -\sin t & 0 & \,0\,\\
\sin t & \cos t& 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos t & \sin t \\
0 & 0 & -\sin t & \cos t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
&\cos t \, +\, \sin t \,e_{1}e_{4} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & 0 & 0 \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & \cos t & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos t & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t \\
0 & 0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & \cos t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
&\cos t \, +\, \sin t \,e_{2}e_{3} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos t & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & 0 & 0 \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & \cos t & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos t & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t \\
0 & 0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,\sin t & \cos t
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
Therefore the image of this representation splits into $\su (2)
\times \su (2)$.
In fact, this map is compatible with the one we have in
{\bf Theorem \ref{T:spin4sp1su2}}.
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{(Anti) Self Duality}
There is an operator on the exterior algebra which is similar
to the chirality operator.
\begin{Def}
Let the {\bf Hodge star operator}
\[\star : \Lambda V \longrightarrow \Lambda V\]
with respect to $Q$, be given by the following relation :
\[ e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}}
\wedge \star ( e_{i_{1}} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_{k}} )
= \epsilon _{i_{1}\dots i_{k}} e_{1} \wedge \dots \wedge
e_{_{\dim V}} \]
where
\( \{ e_{i} \} _{i=1, \dots , \dim V} \) is orthonormal with respect to
$Q$ and
\[ \epsilon _{i_{1}\dots i_{k}} = sgn
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 & \hdotsfor{3} & \dim V \\
i_{1} & \dots & i_{k} & i_{k+1} & \dots & i_{_{\dim V}}
\end{pmatrix} \]
and
\[ ( i_{k+1} ,\dots , i_{_{\dim V}} ) = (1, 2 , \dots , \widehat{i_{1}} ,
\dots
, \widehat{i_{k}} ,\dots , \dim V ) \]
\end{Def}
Now we consider the case when $\dim V = 4$.
\begin{Lem}
For a four dimensional vector space $V$, the restriction of the
square of the star operator
satisfies:
\[ \star ^{2} | _{_{C^{\pm}(V)}} \, = \, \pm \,
1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \, C^{ \pm}(V) \, )}} \]
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
The star operator interchanges the following pair of elements:
\begin{align}
1_{_{\Lambda V}}\, &\leftrightarrow \, e_{1}e_{2}e_{3}e_{4}
\notag\\
e_{1}e_{2} \,& \leftrightarrow e_{3}e_{4} \notag \\
e_{1}e_{3} \,& \leftrightarrow e_{4}e_{2} \notag \\
e_{1}e_{4} \,& \leftrightarrow e_{2}e_{3} \notag
\end{align}
therefore
\[ \star ^{2} | _{_{C^{+}(V)}} \, = \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \, C^{+}(V) \, )}} \]
On the other hand, on $C^{-}(V)$, we have
\begin{alignat}{3}
e_{1} \, & \overset{\star}{\mapsto} \, & e_{2}e_{3}e_{4} \,
&\overset{\star}{\mapsto} \, -e_{1} \, \overset{\star}{\mapsto} \,&
-&e_{2}e_{3}e_{4} \notag \\
e_{2} \, & \overset{\star}{\mapsto} \, &- e_{1}e_{3}e_{4} \,
&\overset{\star}{\mapsto} \, -e_{2} \, \overset{\star}{\mapsto} \,&
&e_{1}e_{3}e_{4} \notag \\
e_{3} \, & \overset{\star}{\mapsto} \, & e_{1}e_{2}e_{4} \,
&\overset{\star}{\mapsto} \, -e_{3} \, \overset{\star}{\mapsto} \,&
-&e_{1}e_{2}e_{4} \notag \\
e_{4} \, & \overset{\star}{\mapsto} \, &- e_{1}e_{2}e_{3} \,
&\overset{\star}{\mapsto} \, -e_{4} \, \overset{\star}{\mapsto} \,&
&e_{1}e_{2}e_{3} \notag
\end{alignat}
\[ \star ^{2} | _{_{C^{-}(V)}} \, = \, -1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( \, C^{-}(V) \, )}} \]
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
For a four dimensional vector space $V$, $\Lambda^{2} V$
splits into $\pm 1$ eigen-spaces of $\star$:
\[ \Lambda^{2}_{+} V \, = \, \{ \, \frac{(1+ \star )}{2} \, w \, | \,
w \in \Lambda V \, \} \]
and
\[ \Lambda^{2}_{-} V \, = \, \{ \, \frac{(1- \star )}{2} \, w \,
| \, w \in \Lambda V \, \} \]
which are called the space of {\bf self-dual ( SD )} or {\bf
anti-self-dual ( ASD ) } two-forms and are
simplified as $\Lambda_{+}$ and $\Lambda_{-}$ respectively.
\end{Cor}
\begin{Def}
The standard basis for $\Lambda_{+}$ and $\Lambda_{-}$ are
the {\bf self-dual basis} :
\[ \{ \,\wwp_{1} \, = \, e_{1} \wedge e_{2} + e_{3} \wedge e_{4}\,
, \quad\wwp_{2} \, = \, e_{1} \wedge e_{3} + e_{4} \wedge e_{2}\,
, \quad\wwp_{3} \, = \,e_{1} \wedge e_{4} + e_{2} \wedge e_{3}\, \} \]
and the {\bf anti-self-dual basis} :
\[ \{ \,\wwm_{1} \, = \, e_{1} \wedge e_{2} - e_{3} \wedge e_{4}\,
, \quad \wwm_{2} \, = \,e_{1} \wedge e_{3} - e_{4} \wedge e_{2}\,
, \quad\wwm_{3} \, = \,e_{1} \wedge e_{4} - e_{2} \wedge e_{3}\, \} \]
respectively.
\end{Def}
\begin{Rem}
The corresponding elements $\q ( \, \text{\bf{w}}^{\pm}_{i} \, )$
in $C(V)$
are also denoted by the same symbols $\text{\bf{w}}^{\pm}_{i}$.
The push-forward of the star-operators
\[ \q _{\ast} ( \star ) : C^{2}(V) \longrightarrow C^{2}(V) \]
induce the similar spliting
\[ C^{2}(V) \, = \, C^{2}_{+}(V) \, \oplus \, C^{2}_{-}(V) \]
and the standard basis for $C^{2}_{+}(V)$ and $C^{2}_{-}(V)$ are
\[ \{ \,\wwp_{1} \, = \, e_{1} e_{2} + e_{3}e_{4}\, , \quad\wwp_{2} \,
= \, e_{1}e_{3} + e_{4}e_{2}\, , \quad\wwp_{3} \, = \,e_{1}e_{4} +
e_{2}e_{3}\, \} \]
and
\[ \{ \,\wwm_{1} \, = \, e_{1}e_{2} - e_{3}e_{4}\, , \quad \wwm_{2} \,
= \,e_{1}e_{3} - e_{4}e_{2}\, , \quad\wwm_{3} \, = \,e_{1}e_{4} -
e_{2}e_{3}\, \} \]
respectively.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}
The corresponding elements $\q( \,\text{\bf{w}}^{\pm}_{i}\, ) $ in $C(V)
\otimes \Bbb{C}$
are also denoted by the same symbols $\text{\bf{w}}^{\pm}_{i} $.
We have the spliting
\[ C^{2}(V) \otimes \Bbb{C}\, = \, C^{2}_{+}(V) \otimes \Bbb{C}\, \oplus \,
C^{2}_{-}(V)
\otimes \Bbb{C} \]
where the standard basis for $C^{2}_{+}(V)\otimes \Bbb{C}$
and $C^{2}_{-}(V)\otimes \Bbb{C}$ are also
\[ \{ \,\wwp_{1} \, = \, e_{1} e_{2} + e_{3}e_{4}\, ,
\quad\wwp_{2} \, = \, e_{1}e_{3} + e_{4}e_{2}\, ,
\quad\wwp_{3} \, = \,e_{1}e_{4} + e_{2}e_{3}\, \} \]
and
\[ \{ \,\wwm_{1} \, = \, e_{1}e_{2} - e_{3}e_{4}\, ,
\quad \wwm_{2} \, = \,e_{1}e_{3} - e_{4}e_{2}\, ,
\quad\wwm_{3} \, = \,e_{1}e_{4} - e_{2}e_{3}\, \} \]
respectively.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Cor}
Written in terms of the basis $w_{i}$ and $\overline{w}_{i}$,
the elements $\q( \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{w}}}^{\pm}_{i}\, )$
in $C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C}$ are given by
\begin{align}
\wwp_{1} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, 2 \, + \, \overline{w}_{1} w_{1} \, + \,
\overline{w}_{2} w_{2} \, ) \notag \\
\wwp_{2} \, = \, & w_{1} w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{1}
\overline{w}_{2} \notag \\
\wwp_{3} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, w_{1} w_{2} \, - \,
\overline{w}_{1} \overline{w}_{2} \, ) \notag \\
& \notag \\
\wwm_{1} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, \overline{w}_{1} w_{1} \, - \,
\overline{w}_{2} w_{2} \, ) \notag \\
\wwm_{2} \, = \, & \overline{w}_{1} w_{2} \, + \, w_{1}
\overline{w}_{2} \notag \\
\wwm_{3} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, \overline{w}_{1} w_{2} \, - \,
w_{1} \overline{w}_{2} \, ) \notag
\end{align}
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By the relation
\[e_{1} \, = \, \frac{ (\, w_{1} \, + \, \overline{w}_{1}\,)}{\sqrt{2\,}}
\qquad
e_{2} \, = \, \frac{ (\, - w_{1} \, + \, \overline{w}_{1}\,)}{\sqrt{2\,} \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}
\]
\[e_{3} \, = \, \frac{ (\, w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}\,)}{\sqrt{2\,}}
\qquad
e_{4} \, = \, \frac{ (\, - w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}\,)}{\sqrt{2\,} \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}
\]
and {\bf Lemma \ref{L:wiwj}}, we have
\begin{align}
e_{1}e_{2} \, = \, & \frac{1}{\,2 \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,}\, (\, w_{1} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{1}\,)\, (\, -w_{1} \, + \, \overline{w}_{1}\,) \notag \\
=\, & \frac{1}{\,2 \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,}\, (\, - {w_{1}} ^{2} \, +\, {\overline{w}_{1}}
^{2}\,
- \,\overline{w}_{1} w_{1} \, + \,w_{1} \overline{w}_{1} \,) \notag \\
=\,& \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{\,2 \,}\, ( \,\overline{w}_{1} w_{1} \, -
\,w_{1} \overline{w}_{1} \,) \notag \\
=\,& \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{\,2 \,}\, ( \,2\, \overline{w}_{1} w_{1} \, +\, 2 \, )
\notag \\
=\,& \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, ( \, \overline{w}_{1} w_{1} \, +\, 1 \, ) \notag
\end{align}
and similarly,
\begin{align}
e_{3}e_{4} \, = \, & \frac{1}{\,2 \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,}\, (\, w_{2} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{2}\,)\, (\, -w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}\,) \notag \\
=\,& \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, ( \, \overline{w}_{2} w_{2} \, +\, 1 \, ) \notag
\end{align}
So we have
\begin{align}
\wwp_{1} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, 2 \, + \, \overline{w}_{1} w_{1} \,
+ \, \overline{w}_{2} w_{2} \, ) \notag \\
\wwm_{1} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, \overline{w}_{1} w_{1} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{2} w_{2} \, ) \notag
\end{align}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{align}
e_{1}e_{3} \, = \, & \frac{1}{\,2 \,}\, (\, w_{1} \,
+ \, \overline{w}_{1}\,)\, (\,w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}\,) \notag \\
=\, & \frac{1}{\,2 \,}\, (\, w_{1}w_{2} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{1} \overline{w}_{2}\, +
\,\overline{w}_{1} w_{2} \, + \,w_{1} \overline{w}_{2} \,) \notag \\
\notag \\
e_{4}e_{2} \, = \, & -\frac{1}{\,2 \,}\, (\, -w_{2} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{2}\,)\, (\,-w_{1} \, + \, \overline{w}_{1}\,) \notag \\
=\, & -\frac{1}{\,2 \,}\, (\, w_{2}w_{1} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{2} \overline{w}_{1}\, - \,w_{2}\overline{w}_{1} \, -
\,\overline{w}_{2}w_{1} \,) \notag \\
=\, & \frac{1}{\,2 \,}\, (\, w_{1}w_{2} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{1}\overline{w}_{2}\, - \,\overline{w}_{1} w_{2} \,
- \,w_{1}\overline{w}_{2} \,) \notag \\
\notag \\
e_{1}e_{4} \, = \, & \frac{1}{\,2 \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,}\, (\, w_{1} \, + \,
\overline{w}_{1}\,)\,
(\,-w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}\,) \notag \\
=\, & \frac{1}{\,2 \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,}\, (\, -w_{1}w_{2} \, +\, \overline{w}_{1}
\overline{w}_{2}\, - \,\overline{w}_{1} w_{2} \, +
\,w_{1} \overline{w}_{2} \,) \notag \\
\notag \\
e_{2}e_{3} \, = \, & \frac{1}{\,2\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,}\, (\,- w_{1} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{1}\,)\, (\,w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}\,) \notag \\
=\, & \frac{1}{\,2 \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\,}\, (\, -w_{1}w_{2} \, +\, \overline{w}_{1}
\overline{w}_{2}\, + \,\overline{w}_{1} w_{2} \, -
\,w_{1} \overline{w}_{2} \,) \notag
\end{align}
So we have
\begin{align}
\wwp_{2} \, = \, & w_{1} w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{1}
\overline{w}_{2} \notag \\
\wwp_{3} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, w_{1} w_{2} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{1} \overline{w}_{2} \, ) \notag \\
\wwm_{2} \, = \, & \overline{w}_{1} w_{2} \, +
\, w_{1} \overline{w}_{2} \notag \\
\wwm_{3} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, \overline{w}_{1} w_{2} \,
- \, w_{1} \overline{w}_{2} \, ) \notag
\end{align}
\end{pf}
\begin{Rem}
Notice that in the above corollary, the notation
$\text{\bf{w}}^{\pm}_{i}$ refers to elements
of $C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C}$. If we consider $\text{\bf{w}}^{\pm}_{i}$
as elements of $\Lambda _{\Bbb{C}} V = \Lambda V \, \otimes \Bbb{C}$,
then we have
\begin{align}
\wwp_{1} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, ) \notag \\
\wwp_{2} \, = \, & w_{1} \wedge w_{2} \, + \, \overline{w}_{1}
\wedge \overline{w}_{2} \notag \\
\wwp_{3} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, w_{1} \wedge w_{2} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{1} \wedge \overline{w}_{2} \, ) \notag \\
& \notag \\
\wwm_{1} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, ) \notag \\
\wwm_{2} \, = \, & \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{2} \, +
\, w_{1} \wedge \overline{w}_{2} \notag \\
\wwm_{3} \, = \, &\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, ( \, \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{2} \,
- \, w_{1} \wedge \overline{w}_{2} \, ) \notag
\end{align}
The difference in the two interpretations of $\wwp_{1}$
arises from the fact that
\[ w_{i}w_{i} \, = \, \overline{w}_{i} \overline{w}_{i} \, =
\, -1_{_{C(V)}} \]
in $C(V) \otimes \Bbb{C}$, but
\[ w_{i} \wedge w_{i} \, = \, \overline{w}_{i} \wedge
\overline{w}_{i} \, = \,0 \]
in $\Lambda_{\Bbb{C}} V$.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}
By using the self-dual and anti-self dual basis, we can
express our previous results again in a
``better'' way:
The map $ \tg : \spin (4) \longrightarrow \so (4)$ has the following
images :
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, \wwp _{1} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & -\sin 2t & 0 & 0 \\
\sin 2t & \cos 2t & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos 2t & -\sin 2t \\
0 & 0 & \sin 2t & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, \wwp _{2} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & 0 & -\sin 2t & 0 \\
0 & \cos 2t & 0 & \sin 2t \\
\sin 2t & 0 & \cos 2t & 0 \\
0 & -\sin 2t & 0 & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, \wwp _{3} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & 0 & 0 & -\sin 2t \\
0 & \cos 2t & -\sin 2t & 0 \\
0 & \sin 2t & \cos 2t & 0 \\
\sin 2t & 0 & 0 & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, \wwm _{1} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & -\sin 2t & 0 & 0 \\
\sin 2t & \cos 2t & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos 2t & \sin 2t \\
0 & 0 & -\sin 2t & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, \wwm _{2} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & 0 & -\sin 2t & 0 \\
0 & \cos 2t & 0 & -\sin 2t \\
\sin 2t & 0 & \cos 2t & 0 \\
0 & \sin 2t & 0 & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
\[
\tg ( \, \exp ( \, t \, \wwm _{3} \, ) \, ) \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t & 0 & 0 & -\sin 2t \\
0 & \cos 2t & \sin 2t & 0 \\
0 & -\sin 2t & \cos 2t & 0 \\
\sin 2t & 0 & 0 & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \]
The map $ C^{+} (\Bbb{R} ^{4}) \longrightarrow \Bbb{H} \oplus \Bbb{H}$ has images
\begin{alignat}{4}
1 \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, &\oplus \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}, & \qquad \Gamma \, =
\, - e_{1}e_{2}e_{3}e_{4} \, & \mapsto &\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, &\oplus \, -\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}}
\notag \\
\wwp _{1} \, & \mapsto &\, -2 \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, &\oplus \, 0,
& \qquad \wwm _{1} \, & \mapsto &\, 0\, &\oplus \, 2\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\notag \\
\wwp _{2} \, & \mapsto &\, -2\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, &\oplus \, 0, & \qquad
\wwm_{2}\,
& \mapsto &\, 0 \, &\oplus \, -2\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \notag \\
\wwp _{3} \, & \mapsto &\, 2 \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, &\oplus \, 0,
& \qquad \wwm _{3} \, & \mapsto &\, 0 \, &\oplus \, 2\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}
\notag
\end{alignat}
and the inverse
$ \Bbb{H} \, \oplus \, \Bbb{H} \, \longrightarrow \, C^{+}(\Bbb{R} ^{4}) $ has images
\begin{alignat}{4}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{1\,+\, \Gamma}{2} ,
& \qquad 0 &\oplus\, \text{\normalshape{\bf{1}}} \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{1 \, - \, \Gamma}{2}
\notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{-\, \wwp _{1}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0 &\oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{\wwm _{1}}{2}
\notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,&\oplus\, 0 \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{- \, \wwp _{2}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0&\oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, & & \mapsto \, \frac{-\, \wwm_{2}}{2}
\notag \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,&\oplus \,0 \,& & \mapsto \, \frac{\wwp _{3}}{2} ,
& \qquad 0& \oplus \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,& & \mapsto \, \frac{\wwm _{3}}{2}\notag
\end{alignat}
So the map $\spin (4) \longrightarrow \su (2) \times \su (2)$ has
\[ \exp ( \, t \, \Lambda _{+} \, ) \, \longrightarrow \su (2)
\times 1_{_{\su (2)}} \]
\[ \exp ( \, t \, \Lambda _{-} \, ) \, \longrightarrow
1_{_{\su (2)}} \times \su (2) \]
given by
\begin{alignat}{2}
\exp ( \, t \, \wwp _{1} \, ) \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\exp (-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} 2t) & 0 \\
0 & \exp (\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} 2t)
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\exp ( \, t \, \wwp _{2} \, ) \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t &- \sin 2t \\
\sin 2t & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\exp ( \, t \, \wwp _{3} \, ) \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t &\sin 2t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\\
\sin 2t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\exp ( \, t \, \wwm _{1} \, ) \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\exp (\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} 2t) & 0 \\
0 & \exp (-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} 2t)
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\exp ( \, t \, \wwm _{2} \, ) \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t &- \sin 2t \\
\sin 2t & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\exp ( \, t \, \wwm _{3} \, ) \, &\mapsto \, &
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\, &\oplus \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos 2t &\sin 2t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\\
\sin 2t \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & \cos 2t
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{alignat}
The action of $ \text{\normalshape{\bf{w}}}^{\pm}_{i}$ in $C(V)
\otimes \Bbb{C}$ on $ S \cong \Lambda P$
is given by
\begin{alignat}{2}
\wwp_{1} \, &= \, 2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \,0\, & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \,0\,
\end{pmatrix} &
\wwm_{1} \, &= \, 2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \,0\, & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}\, & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\wwp_{2} \, &= \, 2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & \,0\, & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \,0\, & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \,0\,
\end{pmatrix} &\qquad
\wwm_{2} \, &= \, 2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \,0\, & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \,0\, & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & \,0\,
\end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\wwp_{3} \, &= \, 2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & 0 & 0 \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & \,0\, & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \,0\, & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \,0\,
\end{pmatrix} &
\wwm_{3} \, &= \, 2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\,0\, & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \,0\, & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \,0\, & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \\
0 & 0 & \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} & \,0\,
\end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{alignat}
therefore $\Lambda_{+}$ acts on $S^{+}$ while $\Lambda_{-}$
acts on $S^{-}$.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}
Now consider the complexified algebra of self-dual and anti-self
dual two forms
\[ \Lambda_{\pm \Bbb{C}} \, = \, \Lambda_{\pm} \otimes \Bbb{C} \]
Usually, we use a basis
\begin{align}
\overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}
\wedge w_{2}\, = \, &- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \wwp_{1} \notag \\
w_{1} \wedge w_{2} \, = \,&\frac{\wwp_{2} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,
\wwp_{3}}{2} \notag \\
\overline{w}_{1} \wedge \overline{w}_{2} \, = \,
&\frac{\wwp_{2} \, + \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \wwp_{3}}{2} \notag
\end{align}
for $\Lambda_{+ \Bbb{C}}$ and
\begin{align}
\overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2}\, =
\, &- \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \wwm_{1} \notag \\
\overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{2} \, =
\,&\frac{\wwm_{2} \, - \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \wwm_{3}}{2} \notag \\
w_{1} \wedge \overline{w}_{2} \, =
\,&\frac{\wwm_{2} \, + \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \wwm_{3}}{2} \notag
\end{align}
for $\Lambda_{- \Bbb{C}}$.
Their quantization acts on $S$ as
\begin{align}
\q(\overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}
\wedge w_{2})\, = \, & 2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\notag \\
\q(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, = \,&2 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\notag \\
\q(\overline{w}_{1} \wedge \overline{w}_{2}) \, = \,&2 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\notag \\
\notag \\
\q(\overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, - \, \overline{w}_{2}
\wedge w_{2})\, = \, &2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1
\end{pmatrix}
\notag \\
\q(\overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, = \,&2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\notag \\
\q(w_{1} \wedge \overline{w}_{2}) \, = \,&2\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\notag
\end{align}
\end{Rem}
As a result, we have the following:
\begin{Thm} \label{T:ends+sd}
There are isomorphisms
\[ \operatorname{End} ( \, S^{+} \, ) \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{0}_{\Bbb{C}} \,
\oplus \, \Lambda _{+ \Bbb{C}} \]
\[ \operatorname{End} ( \, S^{-} \, ) \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{0}_{\Bbb{C}} \,
\oplus \, \Lambda _{- \Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
With respect to the standard basis
\[ \{ \, 1_{_{\Lambda P}} \, , \, w_{1} \wedge w_{2} \, \} \]
of $S^{+}$, any element in $ \operatorname{End} ( S^{+} )$ is a matrix
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} \]
which may be splited into
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} \, = \, &\frac{(A+D)}{2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \,
+ \, \frac{(D-A)}{4} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-2 & 0 \\
0 & 2
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
&+ \, \frac{C}{2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
2 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,
- \, \frac{B}{2} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -2 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
=\, &\frac{(A+D)}{2}\,
1_{_{ \operatorname{End} (S^{+})}} \,
+ \, \frac{(D-A)}{4} \,
\q(\, \overline{w}_{1}\wedge w_{1} \, + \, \overline{w}_{2}
\wedge w_{2} \, )\, | _{ _{S^{+}}} \notag \\
&+ \, \frac{C}{2}\,
\q(w_{1}\wedge w_{2})\, | _{ _{S^{+}}} \,
- \, \frac{B}{2} \,
\q(\overline{w}_{1}\wedge \overline{w}_{2} )\, | _{_{S^{+}}}\notag
\end{align}
Since $1_{_{ \operatorname{End} (S^{+})}}\, = \,\frac{ 1 + \Gamma}{2}|_{_{S^{+}}}$,
we have
\[ \operatorname{End} (S^{+}) \, \cong \, \Bbb{C} (\frac{ 1 + \Gamma}{2}) \, \oplus \,
\Lambda _{+ \Bbb{C}} \]
On the other hand,with respect to the standard basis
\[ \{ \, w_{1} \, , \, w_{2} \, \} \]
of $S^{-}$, any element
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} \]
in $ \operatorname{End} ( S^{-} )$ may be splited into
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{pmatrix} \, = \, &\frac{(A+D)}{2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \,
+ \, \frac{(A-D)}{4} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 \\
0 & -2
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
&+ \, \frac{C}{2}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
2 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,
- \, \frac{B}{2} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -2 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
=\, &\frac{(A+D)}{2}\,
1_{_{ \operatorname{End} (S^{-})}} \,
+ \, \frac{(A-D)}{4} \,
\q(\, \overline{w}_{1}\wedge w_{1} \, - \, \overline{w}_{2}
\wedge w_{2} \, )\, | _{_{S^{-}}} \notag \\
&+ \, \frac{C}{2}\,
\q(\overline{w}_{1}\wedge w_{2})\, | _{_{S^{-}}} \,
- \, \frac{B}{2} \,
\q(w_{1}\wedge \overline{w}_{2} )\, | _{_{S^{-}}}\notag
\end{align}
Since $1_{_{ \operatorname{End} (S^{-})}}\, = \,\frac{ 1 - \Gamma}{2}|_{_{S^{-}}}$,
we have
\[ \operatorname{End} (S^{-}) \, \cong \, \Bbb{C} (\frac{ 1 - \Gamma}{2}) \, \oplus \,
\Lambda _{- \Bbb{C}} \]
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{Hermitian Structure on the Spinors}
\begin{Def}
There is a canonical {\bf Hermitian structure} on the space of
positive spinors $S^{+}$ given by the
{\bf Hermitian inner product} $\la \cdot \, , \, \cdot \ra$ which
takes the value
\[ \la s^{+} \, , \, t^{+} \ra \, = \, \overline{s}^{+}_{1} t^{+}_{1} \, +
\, \overline{s}^{+}_{2} t^{+}_{2} \]
on the spinors
\[ s^{+} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\quad \text{and} \quad
t^{+} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
t^{+}_{1} \\ \\
t^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \quad \in S^{+} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Lem}
The above Hermitian form is $\spin (4)$ invariant.
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
The action of $\spin (4)$ on $S^{+}$ is the same as $\su (2)$
action. Since $\su (2)$
preserves Hermitian inner products, therefore our Hermitian
product is invariant under $\spin (4)$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Def}
The dual vector space $S^{+\ast}$ consists of complex linear functionals
\[ \phi : S^{+} \longrightarrow \Bbb{C} .\]
$S^{+\ast}$ is generated by the dual complex basis
\[ \{ \, 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast}\, , \,( w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast}\, \}\]
which satisfies
\begin{align}
1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast} (\,1_{_{C(V)}}\,)\, &= \,1\notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast} ( \,w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\,)\, &= \,0\notag \\
( w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast} (\,1_{_{C(V)}}\,)\, &= \,0\notag \\
( w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast} ( \,w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\,)\, &= \,1\notag
\end{align}
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}
There is a {\bf Hermitian Riesz representation}
\[ S^{+} \, \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} S^{+\ast} \]
with the following identification
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \, \la \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \ra \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Thm}
The Hermitian Riesz representation
\[ S^{+} \longrightarrow S^{+\ast}\]
is given by
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}^{\ast} \]
That means
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}^{\ast} \, = \,
\la \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{s}^{+}_{1} \\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \ra \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
Now assume
\[ 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast}\, = \, \, \la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \ra \]
We have
\begin{alignat}{4}
1\, = \,& 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast} (\,1_{_{C(V)}}\,)&\,= \,& \la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, 1_{_{C(V)}}\ra &\, = \,&
\la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix}\ra &\, = \,& \overline{s}^{+}_{1} \notag \\
0\, = \,& 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast} (\,w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\,)&\,= \,& \la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\ra &\, = \,&
\la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1 \end{pmatrix}\ra &\, = \,& \overline{s}^{+}_{2} \notag
\end{alignat}
Therefore
\[ 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast}\, = \, \, \la
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \ra \]
Similarly, assume
\[ (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast}\, = \, \, \la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \ra \]
and we have
\begin{alignat}{4}
0\, = \,& (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast} (\,1_{_{C(V)}}\,)&\,= \,& \la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, 1_{_{C(V)}}\ra &\, = \,&
\la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix}\ra &\, = \,& \overline{s}^{+}_{1} \notag \\
1\, = \,& (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast} (\,w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\,)&\,=
\,& \la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\ra &\, = \,&
\la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1 \end{pmatrix}\ra &\, = \,& \overline{s}^{+}_{2} \notag
\end{alignat}
Therefore
\[ (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast}\, = \, \, \la
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \ra \]
As a result,
\begin{align}
(\, s^{+}_{1}1_{_{C(V)}}\, + \, s^{+}_{2}(w_{1} \wedge w_{2})\, )^{\ast} \,
= \,&s^{+}_{1}\, 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast}\, + \, s^{+}_{2}\, (w_{1}
\wedge w_{2})^{\ast} \notag\\
= \,&s^{+}_{1}\, \la
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\ \\
0\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \ra \, + \, s^{+}_{2}\, \la
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\ \\
1\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \ra \notag\\
= \,&
\la
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \ra \notag
\end{align}
\end{pf}
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s+s+her}
By using the Hermitian Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \cong \, \operatorname{End} ( \, S^{+} \, ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
The image of the Hermitian Riesz representation
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \, \langle \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \, \cdot \, \rangle \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a} \\ \\
\overline{b} \end{pmatrix}^{\ast}
\]
induces the following map
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\langle \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \rangle \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix}
\qquad \in \operatorname{End} ( \, S^{+} \, ) \]
such that for any
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s_{1}^{+} \\ \\
s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix} \,
\in S^{+}, \]
\begin{align}
\langle \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \rangle \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, : \,
\begin{pmatrix}
s_{1}^{+} \\ \\
s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix} \,\mapsto \, &
\langle \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, ,\,
\begin{pmatrix}
s_{1}^{+} \\ \\
s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix}
\, \rangle \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
=\,&( \, \overline{a} s_{1}^{+} \, + \, \overline{b} s_{2}^{+} \, ) \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix}\notag \\
=\,&
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a}c \, s_{1}^{+} + \overline{b}c\, s_{2}^{+} \\ \\
\overline{a}d\, s_{1}^{+} + \overline{b}d\, s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix}
\notag \\
=\,&
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a}c & &\overline{b}c \\ \\
\overline{a}d & &\overline{b}d \end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
s_{1}^{+} \\ \\
s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
Therefore
\[ \langle \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \rangle \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a}c & &\overline{b}c \\ \\
\overline{a}d\, & & \overline{b}d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, ( \, \overline{a} \qquad \overline{b} \, )
\]
Explicitly, take a canonical basis of $S^{+} \otimes S^{+}$ consisting
of the following
four elements:
\begin{align}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, = \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \,(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, = \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, = \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1 \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, = \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1 \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
The isomorphism maps this basis to the following basis matrices of
$ \operatorname{End} ( S^{+} )$:
\begin{align}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \,(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{+} \otimes S^{+}$, {\bf anti-linear}
in the 1st
$S^{+}$ and linear in the second $S^{+}$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
By using the Hermitian Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{0}_{\Bbb{C}} \, \oplus \,
\Lambda _{+ \Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Theorem \ref{T:ends+sd}} and {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s+s+her} }
we have the following
correspondence:
\begin{align}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{+} )}} \,
- \, \frac{1}{4} \, \q( \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, )|_{_{S^{+}}}\notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \,(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\mapsto \,& \frac{1}{2} \, \q (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})|_{_{S^{+}}}\notag \\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\mapsto \,&- \frac{1}{2} \, \q (\overline{w}_{1} \wedge
\overline{w}_{2})|_{_{S^{+}}}\notag \\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{+} )}} \,
+ \, \frac{1}{4} \, \q( \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, )|_{_{S^{+}}}\notag
\end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{+} \otimes S^{+}$,
{\bf anti-linear} in the 1st
$S^{+}$ and linear in the second $S^{+}$.
\end{pf}
\bigskip
Now consider the negative spinors $S^{-}$. With respect to the
standard basis
\[ \{ \, w_{1}\, , \, w_{2} \, \} \]
we can define a similar {\bf $\spin (4)$ invariant
Hermitian inner product} which takes the value
\[ \la s^{-} \, , \, t^{-} \ra \, = \, \overline{s}^{-}_{1} t^{-}_{1} \,
+ \, \overline{s}^{-}_{2} t^{-}_{2} \]
on the spinors
\[ s^{-} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1} \\ \\
s^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\quad \text{and} \quad
t^{-} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
t^{-}_{1} \\ \\
t^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \quad \in S^{-} \]
We have a similar {\bf Hermitian Riesz representation} on $S^{-}$ :
\[ S^{-} \, \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} S^{-\ast} \]
with the following identification
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1} \\ \\
s^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \, \la \begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1} \\ \\
s^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \ra \]
which , as in $S^{+}$, satisfies
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1}\\ \\
s^{-}_{2}\end{pmatrix}^{\ast} \, = \,
\la \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{s}^{-}_{1} \\ \\
\overline{s}^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \ra \]
As in $S^{+}$, we have
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s-s-her}
By using the Hermitian Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \cong \, \operatorname{End} ( \, S^{-} \, ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
The proof is similar to the one for $S^{+}$ and we get
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\langle \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \rangle \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a}c & &\overline{b}c \\ \\
\overline{a}d\, & & \overline{b}d \end{pmatrix}
\]
Explicitly, we have
\begin{align}
w_{1} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
w_{1} \, \otimes \,w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{-} \otimes S^{-}$,
{\bf anti-linear} in the 1st
$S^{-}$ and linear in the second $S^{-}$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
By using the Hermitian Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{0}_{\Bbb{C}} \,
\oplus \, \Lambda _{- \Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Theorem \ref{T:ends+sd}} and {\bf Theorem
\ref{T:s-s-her} } we have the following
correspondence:
\begin{align}
w_{1} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{-} )}} \,
+ \, \frac{1}{4} \, \q( \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, )|_{_{S^{-}}}\notag \\
w_{1} \, \otimes \,w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\mapsto \,& \frac{1}{2} \, \q (\overline{w}_{1}
\wedge w_{2} ) | _{_{S^{-}}} \notag \\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\mapsto \,&- \frac{1}{2} \, \q (w_{1} \wedge
\overline{w}_{2})|_{_{S^{-}}}\notag \\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & &1 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{-} )}} \,
- \, \frac{1}{4} \, \q( \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, )|_{_{S^{-}}}\notag
\end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{-} \otimes S^{-}$,
{\bf anti-linear} in the 1st
$S^{-}$ and linear in the second $S^{-}$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s+s-her}
By using the Hermitian Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow}
\, \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{+} \, , \, S^{-} \, ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
With respect to the standard basis of $S^{+}$ and $S^{-}$, we have a map
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \cong \, \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{+} \, , \, S^{-} \, ) \]
by
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\langle \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \rangle \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a}c & &\overline{b}c \\ \\
\overline{a}d\, & & \overline{b}d \end{pmatrix}
\]
where
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \in S^{+} , \quad \text{and} \quad
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \in S^{-} \]
and $\la \, \cdot \, , \, \cdot \, \ra$ is the Hermitian product of $S^{+}$.
Explicitly, we have
\begin{align}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \,w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{+} \otimes S^{-}$, {\bf anti-linear} in
$S^{+} \otimes 0$ and linear in $0 \otimes S^{-}$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
By using the Hermitian Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{1}_{\Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s+s-lambda}} and {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s+s-her} }
we have the following
correspondence:
\begin{alignat}{4}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, &\otimes \, w_{1} \,& \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, e_{1} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{2} &\,=\,&w_{1}
\notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, &\otimes \,w_{2} \, &\mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, e_{3} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{4} &\,=\,& w_{2}
\notag \\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2} )\, &\otimes \, w_{1} \, &\mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, e_{3} \, + \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{4} &\,
=\,&\overline{w}_{2}
\notag \\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, &\otimes \, w_{2} \, &\mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & &1 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, e_{1} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{2} &\,
=\,&-\overline{w}_{1}
\notag
\end{alignat}
This map extends to the whole $S^{+} \otimes S^{-}$, {\bf anti-linear} in
$S^{+} \otimes 0$ and linear in $0 \otimes S^{-}$.
\end{pf}
Similarly, by interchanging $S^{+}$ and $S^{-}$, we get the following
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s-s+her}
By using the Hermitian Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \cong \, \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{-} \, , \, S^{+} \, ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
With respect to the standard basis of $S^{-}$ and $S^{+}$, we have a map
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow}
\, \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{-} \, , \, S^{+} \, ) \]
by
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\langle \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \rangle \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a}c & &\overline{b}c \\ \\
\overline{a}d\, & & \overline{b}d \end{pmatrix}
\]
where
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \in S^{-} , \quad \text{and} \quad
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \in S^{+} \]
and $\la \, \cdot \, , \, \cdot \, \ra$ is the Hermitian product of $S^{-}$.
Explicitly, we have
\begin{align}
w_{1} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
w_{1}\, \otimes (\,w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{-} \otimes S^{+}$, {\bf anti-linear} in
$S^{-} \otimes 0$ and linear in $0 \otimes S^{+}$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
By using the Hermitian Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{1}_{\Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s+s-lambda}} and {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s-s+her} }
we have the following
correspondence:
\begin{alignat}{4}
w_{1} \, &\otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} &\, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, e_{1} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{2} &\,=
\,&-\overline{w}_{1}
\notag \\
w_{1} \, &\otimes \,(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) &\, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, e_{3} \, + \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{4} &\,
=\,&-w_{2}
\notag \\
w_{2} \, &\otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} &\, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, e_{3} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{4} &\,
=\,&-\overline{w}_{2}
\notag \\
w_{2} \, &\otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) &\, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & &1 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, e_{1} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{2} &\,=\,&w_{1}
\notag
\end{alignat}
This map extends to the whole $S^{-} \otimes S^{+}$, {\bf anti-linear} in
$S^{-} \otimes 0$ and linear in $0 \otimes S^{+}$.
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{Symplectic Structure on the Spinors}
\begin{Def}
There is a canonical {\bf symplectic structure} on the space of positive
spinors $S^{+}$ given by the
{\bf symplectic form} $\{\, \cdot \, , \, \cdot\, \}$ which takes the value
\[ \{ s^{+} \, , \, t^{+} \} \, = \, s^{+}_{1} t^{+}_{2} \, - \, s^{+}_{2}
t^{+}_{1} \]
on the spinors
\[ s^{+} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\quad \text{and} \quad
t^{+} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
t^{+}_{1} \\ \\
t^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \quad \in S^{+} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Lem}
The above symplectic form is $\spin (4)$ invariant.
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
The action of $\spin (4)$ on $S^{+}$ is represented as a
$\sl (2 , \Bbb{C})$ action. Since $\sl (2, \Bbb{C})$
preserves simplectic forms, therefore our symplectic
form is invariant under $\spin (4)$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Def}
There is a {\bf symplectic Riesz representation}
\[ S^{+} \, \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} S^{+\ast} \]
with the following identification
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \, \{ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \} \]
\end{Def}
\begin{Thm}
The symplectic Riesz representation
\[ S^{+} \longrightarrow S^{+\ast}\]
is given by
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-s^{+}_{2} \\ \\
s^{+}_{1} \end{pmatrix}^{\ast} \]
That means
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}^{\ast} \, = \,
\{ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{2} \\ \\
-s^{+}_{1} \end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \} \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
Now assume
\[ 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast}\, = \, \, \{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \} \]
We have
\begin{alignat}{4}
1\, = \,& 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast} (\,1_{_{C(V)}}\,)&\,= \,& \{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, 1_{_{C(V)}}\} &\, = \,&
\{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix}\} &\, = \,& -s^{+}_{2} \notag \\
0\, = \,& 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast} (\,w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\,)&\,= \,& \{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\} &\, = \,&
\{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1 \end{pmatrix}\} &\, = \,& s^{+}_{1} \notag
\end{alignat}
Therefore
\[ 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast}\, = \, \, \{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
-1\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \} \]
Similarly, assume
\[ (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast}\, = \, \, \{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \} \]
and we have
\begin{alignat}{4}
0\, = \,& (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast} (\,1_{_{C(V)}}\,)&\,= \,& \{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, 1_{_{C(V)}}\} &\, = \,&
\{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix}\} &\, = \,& -s^{+}_{2} \notag \\
1\, = \,& (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast} (\,w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\,)&\,=
\,& \{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, w_{1} \wedge w_{2}\} &\, = \,&
\{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1} \\ \\
s^{+}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ \\
1 \end{pmatrix}\} &\, = \,& s^{+}_{1} \notag
\end{alignat}
Therefore
\[ (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})^{\ast}\, = \, \, \{
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ \\
0 \end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \} \]
As a result,
\[ (\, s^{+}_{1}1_{_{C(V)}}\, + \, s^{+}_{2}(w_{1} \wedge w_{2})\, )^{\ast}
\, = \, s^{+}_{1}\, 1_{_{C(V)}}^{\ast}\, + \, s^{+}_{2}\, (w_{1}
\wedge w_{2})^{\ast} \, = \,
\{
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{2}\\ \\
-s^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \} \]
\end{pf}
Just like the Hermitian case, we also have
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s+s+sym}
By using the symplectic Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \cong \, \operatorname{End} ( \, S^{+} \, ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
The image of the symplectic
Riesz representation
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \, \{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \, \cdot \, \} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-b \\ \\
a \end{pmatrix}^{\ast}
\]
induces the following map
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix}
\qquad \in \operatorname{End} ( \, S^{+} \, ) \]
such that for any
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s_{1}^{+} \\ \\
s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix} \,
\in S^{+}, \]
\begin{align}
\{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, : \,
\begin{pmatrix}
s_{1}^{+} \\ \\
s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix} \,\mapsto \, &
\{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, ,\,
\begin{pmatrix}
s_{1}^{+} \\ \\
s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix}
\, \} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
=\,&( \, -b s_{1}^{+} \, + \, a s_{2}^{+} \, ) \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix}\notag \\
=\,&
\begin{pmatrix}
\-bc \, s_{1}^{+} \, + \, ac\, s_{2}^{+} \\ \\
\-bd\, s_{1}^{+} \, + \, ad\, s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix}\notag \\
=\,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-bc & ac \\ \\
-bd & ad \end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
s_{1}^{+} \\ \\
s_{2}^{+} \end{pmatrix} \notag
\end{align}
Therefore
\[ \{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-bc & ac \\ \\
-bd & ad \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, ( \, -b \qquad a \, )
\]
Explicitly, the isomorphism maps this basis to the following basis
matrices of $ \operatorname{End} ( S^{+} )$:
\begin{align}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \,(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
-1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
and extends linearly to the whole $S^{+} \otimes S^{+}$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
By using the symplectic Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{0}_{\Bbb{C}} \, \oplus \,
\Lambda _{+ \Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Theorem \ref{T:ends+sd}} and {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s+s+sym} }
we have the following
correspondence:
\begin{align}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\mapsto \,&- \frac{1}{2} \, \q (\overline{w}_{1} \wedge
\overline{w}_{2})|_{_{S^{+}}}\notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \,(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{+} )}} \,
+ \, \frac{1}{4} \, \q( \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, + \,
\overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, )|_{_{S^{+}}}\notag \\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{+} )}} \,
+ \, \frac{1}{4} \, \q( \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, +
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, )|_{_{S^{+}}}\notag \\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
-1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\mapsto \,&- \frac{1}{2} \, \q (w_{1} \wedge w_{2})|_{_{S^{+}}}\notag
\end{align}
\end{pf}
\bigskip
Now consider the negative spinors $S^{-}$. With respect to the
standard basis
\[ \{ \, w_{1}\, , \, w_{2} \, \} \]
we can define a similar {\bf $\spin (4)$ invariant
symplectic form} which
takes the value
\[ \{ s^{-} \, , \, t^{-} \} \, = \, s^{-}_{1} t^{-}_{2} \, - \, s^{-}_{2}
t^{-}_{1} \]
on the spinors
\[ s^{-} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1} \\ \\
s^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\quad \text{and} \quad
t^{-} \, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
t^{-}_{1} \\ \\
t^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \quad \in S^{-} \]
We have a similar {\bf symplectic Riesz representation} on $S^{-}$ :
\[ S^{-} \, \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} S^{-\ast} \]
with the following identification
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1} \\ \\
s^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \, \{ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1} \\ \\
s^{-}_{2} \end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \} \]
which , as in $S^{+}$, satisfies
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{1}\\ \\
s^{-}_{2}\end{pmatrix}^{\ast} \, = \,
\{ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{-}_{2} \\ \\
-s^{-}_{1} \end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \} \]
As in $S^{+}$, we have
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s-s-sym}
By using the symplectic Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \cong \, \operatorname{End} ( \, S^{-} \, ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
The proof is similar to the one for $S^{+}$ and we get
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-bc & & ac \\ \\
-bd\, & & ad \end{pmatrix}
\]
Explicitly, we have
\begin{align}
w_{1} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
w_{1} \, \otimes \,w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
-1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{-} \otimes S^{-}$, {\bf anti-linear}
in the 1st
$S^{-}$ and linear in the second $S^{-}$.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
By using the symplectic Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{0}_{\Bbb{C}} \,
\oplus \, \Lambda _{- \Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Theorem \ref{T:ends+sd}} and {\bf Theorem
\ref{T:s-s-sym} } we have the following
correspondence:
\begin{align}
w_{1} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\mapsto \,&- \frac{1}{2} \, \q (w_{1} \wedge
\overline{w}_{2})|_{_{S^{-}}}\notag \\
w_{1} \, \otimes \,w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{-} )}} \,
- \, \frac{1}{4} \, \q( \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \, -
\, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, )|_{_{S^{-}}}\notag \\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, 1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{-} )}} \,
- \, \frac{1}{4} \, \q( \overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{1} \,
- \, \overline{w}_{2} \wedge w_{2} \, )|_{_{S^{-}}}\notag \\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
-1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
\mapsto \,& -\frac{1}{2} \, \q (\overline{w}_{1} \wedge w_{2} )
| _{_{S^{-}}} \notag
\end{align}
\end{pf}
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s+s-sym}
By using the symplectic Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \,
\operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{+} \, , \, S^{-} \, ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
With respect to the standard basis of $S^{+}$ and $S^{-}$, we have a map
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \cong \, \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{+} \, , \, S^{-} \, ) \]
by
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-bc & & ac \\ \\
-bd & & ad \end{pmatrix}
\]
where
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \in S^{+} , \quad \text{and} \quad
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \in S^{-} \]
and $\{ \, \cdot \, , \, \cdot \, \}$ is the symplectic form of $S^{+}$.
Explicitly, we have
\begin{align}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, \otimes \,w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, w_{1} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \otimes \, w_{2} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
-1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{+} \otimes S^{-}$ complex linearly.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
By using the symplectic Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{+} \, \otimes \, S^{-} \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{1}_{\Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s+s-lambda}} and {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s+s-sym} }
we have the following
correspondence:
\begin{alignat}{4}
1_{_{C(V)}} \, &\otimes \, w_{1} \,& \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&\frac{1}{2} \, e_{3} \, + \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{4}&&\,=
\,\overline{w}_{2}
\notag \\
1_{_{C(V)}} \, &\otimes \,w_{2} \, &\mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, e_{1} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{2}&&\,=
\,-\overline{w}_{1}
\notag \\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, &\otimes \, w_{1} \,& \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, e_{1} \, + \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{2}&&\,=
\,-w_{1}
\notag \\
(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, &\otimes \, w_{2} \, &\mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
-1 & &0 \end{pmatrix} \,&
\mapsto \,&-\frac{1}{2} \, e_{3} \, + \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{4}&&\,=
\,-w_{2}
\notag
\end{alignat}
This map extends to the whole $S^{+} \otimes S^{-}$ complex linearly.
\end{pf}
Similarly, by interchanging $S^{+}$ and $S^{-}$, we get the following
\begin{Thm} \label{T:s-s+sym}
By using the symplectic Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \cong \, \operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{-} \, , \, S^{+} \, ) \]
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
With respect to the standard basis of $S^{-}$ and $S^{+}$, we have a map
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \,
\operatorname{Hom} ( \, S^{-} \, , \, S^{+} \, ) \]
by
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \mapsto \,
\{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, , \cdot \, \} \, \otimes \,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-bc & & ac \\ \\
-bd\, & & ad \end{pmatrix}
\]
where
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
a \\ \\
b \end{pmatrix} \, \in S^{-} , \quad \text{and} \quad
\begin{pmatrix}
c \\ \\
d \end{pmatrix} \, \in S^{+} \]
and $\{ \, \cdot \, , \, \cdot \, \}$ is the symplectic form of $S^{-}$.
Explicitly, we have
\begin{align}
w_{1} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \\
w_{1}\, \otimes \,(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag\\
w_{2} \, \otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
-1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \notag \end{align}
This map extends to the whole $S^{-} \otimes S^{+}$ complex linearly.
\end{pf}
\begin{Cor}
By using the symplectic Riesz representation, we have
\[ S^{-} \, \otimes \, S^{+} \, \cong \, \Lambda ^{1}_{\Bbb{C}} \]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
By {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s+s-lambda}} and {\bf Theorem \ref{T:s-s+sym} }
we have the following
correspondence:
\begin{alignat}{4}
w_{1} \, &\otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}} &\, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 1 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \, &&
\mapsto \,-\frac{1}{2} \, e_{3} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{4} &&\,=
\,-\overline{w}_{2}
\notag \\
w_{1} \, &\otimes \,(w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) &\, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 1 \end{pmatrix} \, &&
\mapsto \,\frac{1}{2} \, e_{1} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{2} &&\,=\,w_{1}
\notag \\
w_{2} \, &\otimes \, 1_{_{C(V)}}& \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & 0 \\ \\
0 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&&
\mapsto \,\frac{1}{2} \, e_{1} \, + \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{2} &&\,=
\,\overline{w}_{1}
\notag \\
w_{2} \, &\otimes \, (w_{1} \wedge w_{2}) & \, \mapsto \,&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & 0 \\ \\
-1 & & 0 \end{pmatrix} \,&&
\mapsto \,\frac{1}{2} \, e_{3} \, - \, \frac{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}}{2} \, e_{4} &&\,=\,w_{2}
\notag
\end{alignat}
This map extends to the whole $S^{-} \otimes S^{+}$ complex linearly.
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\subsection{Quaternionic Structure on the Spinors}
Now we shall combine the Hermitian and symplectic structures
together.
\begin{Lem}
We have an isomorphism
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} ^{\ast} : S^{+\ast} \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} S^{+\ast} \]
given by the following identification
\[ \la
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \ra \, \longmapsto \,
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}^{\ast} \, \longmapsto \,
\{
\begin{pmatrix}
-\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix}
\, , \, \cdot \} \]
where the first isomorphism is from the Hermition Riesz representation
and the second is from
the symplectic Riesz representation.
\end{Lem}
\begin{Cor}
We have an {\bf anti-linear} isomorphism
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} : S^{+} \longrightarrow S^{+} \]
which is the composition of the following maps
\[ \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix} \, \underset{\text{Riesz}}
{\overset{\text{Hermitian}}{\longmapsto}} \, \la \,
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\, , \, \cdot \, \ra \,
\overset{\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} ^{\ast}}{\longmapsto} \, \{ \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix} \, , \, \cdot \, \} \,
\underset{\text{Riesz}}{\overset{\text{symplectic}}{\longmapsto}} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
-\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix} \]
such that the following diagram commutes:
\[
\begin{CD}
S^{+} @>\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}>> S^{+} \\
@V\text{Hermitian Riesz}V{\cong}V @V{\cong}V\text{symplectic Riesz}V \\
S^{+\ast} @>>{\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}^{\ast}}> S^{+\ast}
\end{CD}
\]
\end{Cor}
\begin{pf}
We only need to prove the anti-linearity of $\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}$
which is straight forward from the following
computation:
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, ( \, c \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\, ) \, =\,\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
c \, s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
c \, s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\,
=\,
\begin{pmatrix}
-\overline{c} \, \overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\overline{c} \, \overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix}\,
=\,\overline{c}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
- \overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix}\,
=\,\overline{c}\, ( \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,
\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix} \, ) \]
\end{pf}
\begin{Thm}
The isomorphism $\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}$ above and the isomorphism
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} : S^{+} \longrightarrow S^{+} \]
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\,= \, \begin{pmatrix}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix} \]
together gives a {\bf quaternionic structure} on $S^{+}$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{pf}
It is obvious that $ \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} ^{2} = -1_{_{ \operatorname{End} ( S^{+})}}$. Now we also have
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} ^{2} \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\,= \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, \begin{pmatrix}
-\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix}\,= \, \begin{pmatrix}
-\overline{\overline{s}}^{+}_{1}\\ \\
-\overline{\overline{s}}^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\,= \, - \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\]
Define
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \, : S^{+} \longrightarrow S^{+} \]
therefore
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\,= \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\, = \,\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \begin{pmatrix}
-\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix}\,= \begin{pmatrix}
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix} \]
Hence we have
\[ \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} ^{2} \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\,= \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}}\, \begin{pmatrix}
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix}\, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, (\overline{\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\overline{s}^{+}_{1}})\\ \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,(\overline{-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \, \overline{s}^{+}_{2}})\end{pmatrix}\, = \,
\begin{pmatrix}
- s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
-s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\, = \, - \, \begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix} \]
and
\[\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\, = \, \text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}} \,\begin{pmatrix}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix}\, = \, \begin{pmatrix}
\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\overline{s}^{+}_{2}\\ \\
-\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}} \,\overline{s}^{+}_{1}\end{pmatrix}\, = \,- \text{\normalshape{\bf{k}}} \,\begin{pmatrix}
s^{+}_{1}\\ \\
s^{+}_{2}\end{pmatrix} \]
Hence we have a quaternionic structure induced by $\text{\normalshape{\bf{i}}}$ and $\text{\normalshape{\bf{j}}}$.
\end{pf}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Solitons, {\it i.e.}, time-independent solutions of classical equations,
which saturate the Bogomol'nyi bound for their energy, shed light
on non-perturbative phenomena in non-linear field theories.
Even more intriguing is a recent recognition \cite{HTI,WITTENII} that
such configurations, also referred to as Bogomol'nyi-Sommerfield-Prasat
(BPS) saturated states, play a crucial role in addressing the full,
non-perturbative dynamics of string theory. In particular, at points
of moduli space when such configurations become light they can affect
the low energy dynamics of the string theory in an important way
\cite{Hull,STROM,HTII}. Thus, the study of BPS saturated states
for different string vacua may in turn shed light on the non-perturbative
string dynamics, as well as contribute to gathering
evidence for string-string duality between certain strongly coupled
and the corresponding weakly coupled string vacua.
In addition along with the BPS saturated states one would also like to
obtain information on the spectrum of the corresponding non-extreme
solutions, {\it i.e.}, configurations in the same topological class,
which are compatible with the corresponding Bogomol'nyi bound.
Although the latter set of states is in general modified by quantum
corrections, they may be relevant in the full string dynamics as well.
In this contribution we report on results for four-dimensional
BPS saturated states and the corresponding non-extreme solutions
which arise in effective supergravity theories compactified down
to four dimensions on tori, {\it i.e.}, on manifolds with Abelian
isometry. In particular, we would like to shed light on the roles that
such states play in the effective $N=4$ superstring vacua.
Such string vacua are conjectured to be self-dual, {\it i.e.},
the string vacua of the heterotic string compactified on a six-torus ($T^6$)
transform into each other under the $SL(2,Z)$ transformations.
In addition, the heterotic string compactified on $T^6$ is
conjectured to be dual to the type IIA string compactified on a
$T^2 \times K3$ surface, which has its origin in the string-string
duality conjecture \cite{DUFFSS,WITTENII,HTI,STRDUAL} of the heterotic
and the type IIA string theories in six dimensions, as well as
to the eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified on $T^3\times K3$
surface, which has its origin in the duality conjecture
\cite{HTI,TOWNSEND,WITTENII} of the type IIA string theory and
the eleven-dimensional supergravity in ten dimensions.
At the conference, the results for all the four-dimensional static,
spherically symmetric BPS saturated states \cite{SUPER} as well as all
the non-extreme solutions \cite{CYALL} in the Kaluza-Klein sector
of the ($4+n$)-dimensional (minimally extended) supergravities
compactified on $n$-tori have been presented. The explicit form
of these solutions allows for a synthetic classification of all
of them. For $n=7$, those are states in the Kaluza-Klein sector
of toroidally compactified eleven-dimensional supergravity
\cite{CYELEVEN} with $N=8$ supersymmetry in four dimensions,
which plays an important role as a dual theory \cite{HTI,WITTENII} of the
strongly coupled type IIA superstring theory on a six-torus. For $n=6$,
those are states in the Kaluza-Klein sector of the toroidally compactified
heterotic sting theory \cite{CYKKHET}, which is dual to the type IIA
superstring on a $T^2\times K3$.
In this contribution, we also report on our recent work \cite{CYHET,CYHETS}
on a class of BPS saturated states of four-dimensional effective $N=4$
supersymmetric string vacua, which we parameterize in terms
of fields of the effective heterotic string theory compactified on a
six-torus. We present BPS saturated states corresponding to
$O(6,22,Z)$ and $SL(2,Z)$ orbits of dyonic configurations with
zero axion; the $O(6,22,Z)$ orbits correspond to states with
the left-moving and the right-moving electric and magnetic charges
orthogonal, {\it i.e.}, light-like in the $O(6,22,Z)$ sense.
The states with the $O(6,22,Z)$ norms for the electric and magnetic
charges non-negative \cite{CYHET} correspond to regular solutions
with non-zero masses everywhere in the moduli space, while states with the
charge norms negative \cite{CYHETS} are singular solutions that become
massless (along with an infinite tower of states, related by $SL(2,Z)$
transformations) for particular charge configurations and at
particular points of the moduli space. Potential physical implications
of such massless states are also discussed.
We also address non-extreme solutions with the same charge content as
the BPS saturated states discussed above. The regular BPS saturated
states are accompanied by a set of regular non-extreme solutions
with masses compatible with the corresponding Bogomol'nyi bound.
On the other hand, singular BPS saturated states, which can become
massless at certain points of moduli space, have {\it no}
non-extreme solutions that are compatible with the
corresponding Bogomol'nyi bound.
In chapter 2, we give the results for static, spherically symmetric
solutions in the Abelian Kaluza-Klein theory with the most general
charge configurations, and discuss their thermal properties and
singularity structures. In chapter 3, the general BPS saturated states
as well as the corresponding non-extreme ones for the effective theory
of $N=4$ superstring vacua are discussed. Conclusions and open
problems are relegated to chapter 4.
\section{Spherically Symmetric Black Holes in Abelian Kaluza-Klein Theory}
The effective Abelian Kaluza-Klein theory \cite{KAL} in four dimensions
is obtained from ($4+n$)-dimensional pure gravity by compactifying
$n$ spatial coordinates on an $n$-torus by using the following Ansatz for
the ($n+4$)-dimensional metric:
\begin{equation}
g^{(4+n)}_{\Lambda \Pi}
=\left [ \matrix{{\rm e}^{-{1 \over \alpha}\varphi}g_{\lambda \pi} +
{\rm e}^{{2\varphi} \over {n\alpha}}\rho_{ij}A^i_{\lambda} A^j_{\pi} &
{\rm e}^{{2\varphi} \over {n\alpha}}\rho_{ij}A^i_{\lambda}
\cr {\rm e}^{{2 \varphi} \over {n\alpha}}\rho_{ij}A^j_{\pi} &
{\rm e}^{{2\varphi} \over{n\alpha}}\rho_{ij}} \right ],
\label{kkansatz}
\end{equation}
where $A^i_{\mu}$ is the Kaluza-Klein $n$ $U(1)$ gauge fields
with the field strengths $F^i_{\mu\nu}$, and the internal metric
$g_{ij}={\rm e}^{{2\varphi}\over {n\alpha}}\rho_{ij}$
(with $\rho_{ij}$ its unimodular part) and the four-dimensional
metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ depend on the four-dimensional
space-time coordinates, only. We use the mostly positive signature
convention $(+++-+\cdots +)$ for $g^{(4+n)}_{\Lambda\Pi}$ with the
time coordinate in the fourth place, and $\alpha=\sqrt{{n+2}\over n}$.
The four-dimensional effective action (see for example
Ref. \cite{STAT}) has the global $SO(n)$ target space symmetry:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{ij} \rightarrow U_{ik} \rho_{k\ell} (U^{T})_{\ell j}, \ \ \ \ \ \ \
A^i_{\mu} \rightarrow U_{ij} A^j_{\mu},
\label{son}
\end{equation}
where $U$ is an $SO(n)$ rotation matrix, as well as the rescaling
symmetry \cite{STAT}. In addition, for static or stationary
four-dimensional configurations the time-translation can be
considered, along with $n$ parameters of the internal isometry,
as a part of the $(n+1)$-parameter Abelian isometry group of a
($4+n$)-dimensional space-time manifold $\bf{M}$. In this case the
projection of the ($4+n$)-dimensional manifold $\bf M$ onto the set
$\bf S$ of the orbits of the isometry group in $\bf M$ allows one to
express the ($4+n$)-dimensional Einstein gravity action in the
following three-dimensional one \cite{DM}:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}= -{1 \over 2}\sqrt{-h}[{\cal R}^{(h)} -
{1\over 4}{\rm Tr}(\chi^{-1}\partial_a \chi \chi^{-1} \partial^{a}\chi)],
\label{threelag}
\end{equation}
where $h_{ab} \equiv \tau g^{\perp}_{ab}$ ($a,b=1,2,3$) is the
rescaled metric on $\bf S$ and
\begin{equation}
\chi = \left [ \matrix{\tau^{-1} & -\tau^{-1}\omega^{T} \cr
-\tau^{-1}\omega & \breve{\lambda} + \tau^{-1} \omega \omega^{T}}\right ]
\label{scalar}
\end{equation}
is the $(n+2) \times (n+2)$ symmetric, unimodular matrix of scalar
fields on $\bf S$. Here, $\breve{\lambda}_{ij} \equiv g^{(4+n)}_{\Lambda\Pi}
\xi^{\Lambda}_i \xi^{\Pi}_j$, $\tau \equiv {\rm det}\breve{\lambda}_{ij}$
and $g^{\perp}_{ab} \equiv g^{(4+n)}_{ab} - \breve{\lambda}^{ij}
\xi_{ia}\xi_{jb}$. The ``potential'' $\omega^{T} \equiv
(\omega_1,...,\omega_{n+1})$ defined as $\partial_a \omega_i =
\omega_{ia} \equiv \hat{\epsilon}_{abc}\xi^{b;c}_i$ ($\hat{\epsilon}_{abc}
\equiv \epsilon_{abc4...(4+n)}$) replaces the degrees of freedom of
$\xi_{ia}=g^{(4+n)}_{i+3,a}$. The effective three-dimensional
Lagrangian density (\ref{threelag}) is invariant under the global
$SL(2+n,R)$ target space transformations\cite{DM}:
\begin{equation}
\chi \rightarrow {\cal U}\chi {\cal U}^{T},\ \ \ \ \ \
h_{ab} \rightarrow h_{ab},
\label{sltran}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal U} \in SL(2+n,R)$.
For the purpose of obtaining static, spherically symmetric
configurations, one chooses the following Ansatz for the
four-dimensional metric:
\begin{equation}
g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu} =-\lambda(r)dt^2 + \lambda^{-1}(r)dr^2
+ R(r)(d\theta^2 + {\rm sin}^2 \theta d\phi^2).
\label{sphfourmet}
\end{equation}
The corresponding three-dimensional metric is then given by $h_{ab} =
{\rm diag}(1,\lambda R, \lambda R \,{\rm sin}^2 \theta)$ and
$n$ $U(1)$ gauge fields solve the equations of motion with
spherically symmetric Ans\" atze for the other fields, while the scalar
fields associated with the internal metric depend on the radial
coordinate $r$, only.
\subsection{Supersymmetric Configurations}
Among a class of solutions with a given charge configuration the
solution that saturates the corresponding Bogomol'nyi bound, referred
to as BPS saturated states, corresponds to the minimum energy (or vacuum)
configuration in its class. These BPS saturated states satisfy the
Killing spinor equations which are obtained by setting the
supersymmetric variations of fermionic fields equal to zero, and
therefore are bosonic configurations which preserve some of the
supersymmetries.
With the Kaluza-Klein Ansatz for the ($4+n$)-dimensional metric
(Eq. (\ref{kkansatz})) one turns off all the other bosonic fields
of the corresponding supergravity theory.
Then the only non-trivial Killing spinor equations \cite{SUPER} turn
out to be those arising from the vanishing of the supersymmetry
transformation of (dimensionally reduced) ($4+n$)-dimensional gravitini.
With the spherical Ans\" atze for the four-dimensional fields,
the Killing spinor equations (corresponding to the $t$, $\theta$ and
$\phi$ components of the four-dimensional gravitini)
restrict a general supersymmetric configuration in this
class to have $n$ electric and $n$ magnetic charges subject to the
following orthogonality constraint \cite{SUPER}:
\begin{equation}
\vec{Q} \cdot \vec{P} = 0.
\label{kkchcon}
\end{equation}
All the supersymmetric configurations in this class can therefore
be obtained by imposing $SO(n)/SO(n-2)$ rotations (with $2n-3$
parameters) on the supersymmetric solution with
$U(1)_M \times U(1)_E$ charge configuration \cite{STAT}. The latter one,
which we refer to as the generating configuration, is parameterized by
one magnetic charge $P$ and one electric charge $Q$, arising from
{\it different} $U(1)$ factors. It turns out that for this charge
configuration, among the scalar fields only
diagonal components of internal metric $g_{mn}$ are turned on
\footnote{In general with a diagonal internal metric Ansatz
the static, spherically symmetric configurations can have at most
one electric and one magnetic charge \cite{STAT},
which can also arise from the same $U(1)$ gauge fields.}.
The generating solutions with only electric [or only magnetic] charge
turned on preserve $1\over 2$ of the original supersymmetry while the
dyonic ones preserve $1\over 4$ of the original supersymmetry \cite{SUPER}.
Four-dimensional space-time for such
solutions is specified by two parameters $|\vec{P}|$ and $|\vec{Q}|$,
with the following ADM mass:
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm BPS}=|{\vec P}|+|{\vec Q}|.
\label{bogobound}
\end{equation}
The explicit form of these solutions corresponds to a special case of
the general class of solutions with the ADM masses compatible with
the Bogomol'nyi bound (\ref{bogobound}) and are discussed in the
following subsection.
\subsection{General Class of Configurations}
General, four-dimensional, static, spherically symmetric solutions
are parameterized by the ADM mass $M\ge M_{\rm BPS}$, $n$ electric
$\vec{Q} = (Q_1,...,Q_n)$ and $n$ magnetic $\vec{P} = (P_1,...,P_n)$
charges. The explicit solution with such configurations was obtained
\cite{CYALL} by performing symmetry transformations (of the
three-dimensional action (\ref{threelag})) on the Schwarzschield solution.
By using the $SO(n)$ and the rescaling symmetry of the corresponding
four-dimensional action, one can bring the asymptotic value of
matrix $\chi$ (Eq.(\ref{scalar})) into the form
$\chi_{\infty} = {\rm diag}(-1,-1,1,...,1)$. Then, the subset of
$SL(2+n,R)$ symmetry transformations of three-dimensional action
Eq. (\ref{threelag}) that preserves this asymptotic form of $\chi$ is
$SO(2,n)$.
By performing a set of two $SO(1,1)$ boosts (on the 1$st$ and the
($n+1$)-$th$, and the 2$nd$ and the ($n+2$)-$th$ indices of $\chi$)
with the boost parameters $\delta_{P,Q}$ on the Schwarzschield
solution, {\it i.e.}, $\chi ={\rm diag}(-(1-{m\over r})^{-1},
-(1-{m\over r}),1,...,1)$, one obtains the non-extreme
$U(1)_M \times U(1)_E$ black hole solutions parameterized
in terms of the magnetic charge $P \equiv m{\rm sinh}
\delta_P {\rm cosh} \delta_P$, electric charge $Q = m{\rm sinh}
\delta_Q {\rm cosh} \delta_Q$, and the ADM mass
$M\equiv m({\rm cosh}^2 \delta_Q + {\rm cosh}^2 \delta_P )$.
The ADM mass is traded for the non-extremality
parameter $\beta \equiv {m\over 2}>0$.
Additional two $SO(1,1)$ boosts (on the 1$st$ and the ($n+2$)-$th$, and
the 2$nd$ and the ($n+1$)-$th$ indices of $\chi$) with boost parameters
$\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ generate a solution with the following
explicit form \cite{CYALL}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda&=&{{r(r+2\beta)} \over {(XY)^{1/2}}},\
R=(XY)^{1/2},\ e^{{2\varphi} \over \alpha}=
{X \over Y},\ \rho_{ij}=\delta_{ij}{\rm e}^{-{{2\varphi}\over{n\alpha}}}
\ \ (i,j \neq n-1,n),
\nonumber\\
\rho_{n-1,n-1}&=&{{We^{{{2(n-2)}\over {n\alpha}}\varphi}} \over
{(XY)^{1/2}}}, \ \
\rho_{n-1,n}={{Ze^{{{2(n-2)}\over{n\alpha}}\varphi}} \over
{(XY)^{1/2}}}, \
\rho_{nn} = {{(r + \hat{Q})(r + \hat{P})} \over {(XY)^{1/2}}}
e^{{{2(n-2)}\over {n\alpha}}\varphi},
\label{gensol}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
X &=& r^2 + [(2\beta - \hat{P} + \hat{Q})
{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2 + \hat{P}]r + 2\beta \hat{Q}
{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2,
\nonumber \\
Y &=& r^2 + [(2\beta + \hat{P} - \hat{Q})
{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_1 + \hat{Q}]r + 2\beta \hat{P}
{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_1,
\nonumber \\
W &=& r^2 + [(2\beta + \hat{P} - \hat{Q}){\rm cosh}^2 \delta_1
+(2\beta - \hat{P} + \hat{Q}){\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2]r +
|P||Q|{\rm cosh} \delta_1 {\rm cosh} \delta_2 {\rm sinh}
\delta_1 {\rm sinh} \delta_2\nonumber\\
& &+2[\beta(2\beta - \hat{P} - \hat{Q}) +\hat{P}\hat{Q}]
{\rm cosh}^2\delta_1 {\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2
+(2\beta - \hat{Q})\hat{P}{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_1 +
(2\beta - \hat{P})\hat{Q}{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2 ,
\nonumber \\
Z &=& [|P| {\rm sinh} \delta_1 {\rm cosh} \delta_2
+ |Q|{\rm sinh} \delta_2 {\rm cosh} \delta_1 ]r+ |P|\hat{Q}
{\rm sinh} \delta_1 + \hat{P}|Q| {\rm sinh} \delta_2 ,
\label{wxyz}
\end{eqnarray}
with the non-zero electric and magnetic charges and the ADM mass given
by
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{n-1} &=& |P|{\rm cosh} \delta_1 {\rm cosh} \delta_2
+ |Q| {\rm sinh} \delta_1 {\rm sinh} \delta_2 ,\ \
P_n = -(\hat{P} - \hat{Q} +2\beta){\rm cosh} \delta_1 {\rm sinh}
\delta_1 ,
\nonumber \\
Q_{n-1} &=& -(\hat{P} - \hat{Q} - 2\beta){\rm cosh} \delta_2
{\rm sinh} \delta_2 ,\ \
Q_n =|Q|{\rm cosh} \delta_1 {\rm cosh} \delta_2
+ |P|{\rm sinh} \delta_1 {\rm sinh} \delta_2 ,
\nonumber \\
M &=& (2\beta + \hat{P} -\hat{Q}){\rm cosh}^2 \delta_1
+ (2\beta + \hat{Q} - \hat{P}){\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2
+ \hat{P} + \hat{Q} -4\beta ,
\label{genpar}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{P} \equiv \beta + \sqrt{P^2 + \beta^2}$ and
$\hat{Q} \equiv \beta + \sqrt{Q^2 + \beta^2}$.
The requirement of zero Taub-NUT charge relates the
two boost parameters $\delta_{1,2}$ in the following way:
\begin{equation}
|P|{\rm tanh} \delta_2 + |Q|{\rm tanh} \delta_1 = 0.
\label{boostcon}
\end{equation}
The most general solution in this class is finally obtained
by performing $SO(n)/SO(n-2)$ rotations on (\ref{gensol}),
thus providing the remaining $2n-3$ degrees of freedom.
Thus, the general class of solutions is
parameterized in terms of the following $2n+1$ parameters:
the non-extremality parameter $\beta \geq 0$, magnetic $P$ and electric
$Q$ charges of the $U(1)_M \times U(1)_E$ black hole solution,
two $SO(1,1)$ boost parameters $\delta_{1,2}$, which are subject to
the zero Taub-Nut constraint (\ref{boostcon}), and $2n-3$ parameters
of $SO(n)/SO(n-2) \subset SO(n)$ symmetry transformations (\ref{son})
of the four-dimensional action.
One can show that with the zero Taub-NUT constraint (\ref{boostcon})
$M \ge M_{\rm BPS} \equiv |{\vec P}|+|{\vec Q}|$ for $\beta\ge 0$.
For this case $\vec{P} \cdot \vec{Q} \propto \beta$.
Thus the solutions with $\beta=0$ and other parameters finite
correspond to the supersymmetric solutions discussed in the previous
subsection. On the other hand for $\delta_{1,2} \to \infty$ and
$|Q|-|P| \to 0$, as $\beta \to 0$, in such a way that
$\beta e^{2|\delta_{1,2}|} \equiv 2|q|$ and $||Q|-|P||
e^{2|\delta_{1,2}|}\equiv 4|\Delta|$ remain finite, one
obtains non-supersymmetric extreme solutions, {\it i.e.},
those with $\beta =0$, however, $\vec{P} \cdot \vec{Q} \neq 0$.
Since the $SO(n)/SO(n-2)\subset SO(n)$ symmetry transformations
with $2n-3$ parameters do not affect the four-dimensional
space-time metric, the four-dimensional properties of the
solution are fully determined by four parameters:
$\beta$, $P$, $Q$ and $\delta_1$ [or $\delta_2$].
Without loss of generality we assume that $|Q| \geq |P|$; for solutions
with $|Q|\leq |P|$, the roles of $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ are interchanged.
The Hawking temperature $T_H = \partial_r \lambda |_{r=0}/(2\pi)$
and the entropy $S=$ (1/4 of the area of the event horizon) are of
the following form:
\begin{equation}
T_H ={{[|Q|^2{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2
- |P|^2{\rm sinh}^2 \delta_2]^{1/2}} \over {4\pi\left(\hat{P}
\hat{Q}\right)^{1/2}|Q|{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2}}, \ \ \
S = {{2\pi\beta \left(\hat{P}\hat{Q}\right)^{1/2}
|Q|{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2} \over {[|Q|^2{\rm cosh}^2 \delta_2 -
|P|^2{\rm sinh}^2 \delta_2]^{1/2}}} .
\label{tempent}
\end{equation}
The thermal properties and the singularity structure of the whole
class of the solutions can be summarized according to the values
of parameters $\delta_2$, $P$ and $\beta$ as \cite{CYALL}:
\begin{itemize}
\item Non-extreme black holes with $\delta_2 \ne 0$ and $P \ne 0$:\\
The global space-time is that of non-extreme Reissner-Nordstr\" om
black holes, {\it i.e.}, the time-like singularity is hidden behind
the inner horizon. $T_H$ [$S$] is finite, and decreases
[increases] as $\delta_2$ or $\beta$ increases,
approaching zero [infinity].
\item Non-extreme black holes with $\delta_2 = 0$ or $P = 0$: \\
The singularity structure is that of the Schwarzschield
black holes, {\it i.e.}, the space-like singularity is
hidden behind the (outer) horizon. $T_H$ [$S$] is finite and decreases
[increases] as $\beta$ increases, approaching zero [infinity].
\item Supersymmetric extreme black holes, {\it i.e.}, $\delta_2$
finite: \\
For $P\ne 0$, the solution has a null singularity, which becomes
naked when $P=0$. $T_H$ [$S$] is finite
and becomes infinite [zero] when $P=0$.
\item Non-supersymmetric extreme black holes, {\it i.e.},
$|\delta_2| \to \infty$ with ($q$,$\Delta$) finite:\\
The global space-time is that of extreme Reissner-Nordstr\" om
black holes with zero $T_H$ and finite S.
\end{itemize}
\section{Spherically Symmetric Black Holes of Effective
Four-Dimensional $N=4$ Supersymmetric String Vacua}
In the following we shall summarize the results for a
class of BPS saturated solutions \cite{CYHET,CYHETS} and the corresponding
non-extreme configurations parameterized in terms of the fields
of the heterotic string compactified on a six-torus.
The effective field theory of massless bosonic fields for the
heterotic string on a Narain torus \cite{NARAIN} at a generic point
of moduli space is obtained by compactifying the ten-dimensional
$N=1$ Maxwell/Einstein supergravity theory on a six-torus
\cite{SCHWARZ,SEN2}. The effective four-dimensional action
\footnote{See Refs. \cite{SCHWARZ,SEN2} for notational conventions and
the relationship of four-dimensional fields to the corresponding
ten-dimensional ones. Also, we are not addressing
$\alpha'$ corrections.}
for massless bosonic fields consists of the graviton $g_{\mu\nu}$, 28
$U(1)$ gauge fields ${\cal A}^i_{\mu} \equiv (A^{(1)\, m}_{\mu},
A^{(2)}_{\mu\, m}, A^{(3)\, I}_{\mu})$, corresponding to the $U(1)$
gauge fields of dimensionally reduced ten-dimensional
metric (Kaluza-Klein sector), two-form fields, and
Yang-Mills fields, respectively, and 134 scalar fields.
The scalar fields consist of the dilaton $\phi$
(which parameterizes the strength of the string coupling), the axion field
$\Psi$ (which is obtained from the two-form field $B_{\mu\nu}$ through the
duality transformation), and a symmetric $O(6,22)$ matrix $M$ of
132 scalar fields (moduli fields whose vacuum expectation values
parameterize the string vacua). The matrix $M$ consists of 21 internal
metric $g_{mn}$ components, 15 pseudo-scalar fields $B_{mn}$,
and 96 scalar fields $a^I_m$, which arise from the dimensionally
reduced ten-dimensional metric, two-form field and Yang Mills
fields, respectively. Here, $(\mu,\nu)=0,\cdots,3$, $(m,n)=1,\cdots, 6$
and $I=1,\cdots,16$.
The four-dimensional effective action is invariant under the $O(6,22,R)$
transformations \cite{SCHWARZ,SEN2}:
\begin{equation}
M \to \Omega M \Omega^T ,\ \ \ {\cal A}^i_{\mu} \to \Omega_{ij}
{\cal A}^j_{\mu}, \ \ \ g_{\mu\nu} \to g_{\mu\nu}, \ \ \ \phi \to \phi .
\label{tdual}
\end{equation}
Here, $\Omega \in O(6,22)$, {\it i.e.}, $\Omega^T L \Omega = L$,
where $L$ is an $O(6,22)$ invariant matrix.
The world-sheet instanton effects break $O(6,22,R)$ invariance
of the effective action down to its discrete subgroup $O(6,22,Z)$
referred to as $T$-duality. $T$-duality is an exact string symmetry to all
orders in string perturbation and is assumed to survive
non-perturbative corrections.
In addition, the equations of motion and Bianchi identities are invariant
under the $SL(2,R)$ transformations \cite{STRWK,SEN2}:
\begin{equation}
S \to S^{\prime}={{aS+b}\over{cS+d}},\ M\to M ,\ g_{\mu\nu}\to g_{\mu\nu},\
{\cal F}^i_{\mu\nu} \to {\cal F}^{\prime\, i}_{\mu\nu} =
(c\Psi + d){\cal F}^i_{\mu\nu} + ce^{-\phi} (ML)_{ij}
\tilde{\cal F}^j_{\mu\nu},
\label{sdual}
\end{equation}
where $S \equiv \Psi + i e^{-\phi}$, $\tilde{\cal F}^{i\,\mu\nu} =
{1\over 2}(\sqrt{-g})^{-1} \varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
{\cal F}^i_{\rho\sigma}$, and $a,b,c,d \in R$ satisfy $ad-bc=1$.
The space-time instanton effects break $SL(2,R)$ down to $SL(2,Z)$,
referred to as $S$-duality. $S$-duality, which is non-perturbative
in nature, is conjectured \cite{STRWK} to be an exact symmetry of
$N=4$ supersymmetric string vacua. It relates strongly coupled
vacua to those of the weakly coupled ones.
The allowed discrete magnetic ${\vec P}$ and electric ${\vec Q}$
charges are determined \cite{SEN2} by $T$- and $S$-duality constraints
of toroidally compactified heterotic
string and by the
Dirac-Schwinger-Zwanzinger-Witten (DSZW) quantization condition
\cite{DSZ,WITTENIII}; both of the ``lattice charge vectors'' \cite{SEN2},
$\vec{\beta}\equiv L \vec{P}$ and $\vec{\alpha}\equiv
{\rm e}^{-\phi_{\infty}}M^{-1}_{\infty}\vec{Q}-\Psi_{\infty} \vec{\beta}$,
belong to an even, self-dual Lorentzian lattice $\Lambda$ with the
signature $(6,22)$. Here $\phi_{\infty}$, $\Psi_{\infty}$ and
$M_{\infty}$ correspond to the asymptotic values of the dilaton,
axion and moduli fields, respectively. Note, that the lattice
charge vectors $\vec{\alpha}$ and $\vec{\beta}$ tranform covariantly
\cite{SEN2} under $T$- and $S$-duality transformations.
Within this effective theory, we shall present explicit results for a
class of spherically symmetric BPS saturated configurations
\cite{CYHET} as well as a class of their non-extreme counterparts.
The Killing spinor equations for the BPS saturated states are
obtained by setting to zero the ten-dimensional supersymmetry
transformations for the gravitino, dilatino and 16 gaugini,
now expressed in terms of the four-dimensional fields.
The spectrum of BPS saturated, static, spherically symmetric
configurations is both $O(6,22,Z)$ and $SL(2,Z)$ invariant.
Namely, the Killing spinors $\varepsilon$ are invariant under
$T$-duality and transform covariantly under $S$-duality.
Therefore one can generate new BPS saturated solutions as well as
non-extreme solutions by imposing $S$- and $T$-duality
transformations on a particular ``generating'' solution.
For the purpose of obtaining a general set of solutions with
an arbitrary choice of $M_\infty$ and $S_{\infty}=\Psi_{\infty}+
i{\rm e}^{-\phi_{\infty}}$, one can use the following procedure:
\begin{itemize}
\item
First one performs \cite{SEN2,HTII} $O(6,22,R)$ transformations
of the form $M_{\infty} \to \hat{M}_{\infty} = \hat{\Omega}
M_{\infty}\hat{\Omega}^T$ and $\Lambda \to \hat{\Lambda}=
L\hat{\Omega} L\Lambda$ ($\hat{\Omega} \in O(6,22,R)$).
This procedure allows one to bring an arbitrary asymptotic value of
the moduli fields $M$ to the identity matrix, {\it i.e.},
$\hat{M}_{\infty} = I_{28}$, while the electric and magnetic
lattice charge vectors live in the new lattice $\hat{\Lambda}$.
Note, that the transformation $\Omega$ that gives $\hat{\Lambda}$
is determined only up to the $O(6,22,Z)$ automorphisms of the lattice
$\Lambda$. A subset of $O(6,22,Z)$ transformations that preserves the
asymptotic value $\hat{M}_{\infty}=I_{28}$ is $SO(6,Z)\times SO(22,Z)$.
The latter subset of $T$-duality transformations generates
$O(6,22,Z)$ orbits of solutions with the same $\hat{M}_{\infty}=I_{28}$.
\item
Secondly one can use $SL(2,R)$ transformations to bring $S_{\infty}
\to \breve{S}_\infty=i$ and correspondingly transform the lattice
charge vectors living in $\hat{\Lambda}$ into those living in a new
lattice $\breve{\Lambda}$. A subset of $S$-duality transformations
that preserves the asymptotic value $\breve{S}_{\infty}=i$ are
$SO(2,Z)$ transformations which generate $SL(2,Z)$ orbits of
solutions with the same $\breve{S}_{\infty}=i$.
\item
Finally, in order to obtain a set of solutions with arbitrary
asymptotic values of $M$ and $S$, one has to undo the above
$O(6,22,R)$ and $SL(2,R)$ transformations.
\end{itemize}
Using the procedures described above, we shall now present a class
of dyonic BPS saturated states (and their non-extreme
counterparts), which correspond to $O(6,22,Z)$ and $SL(2,Z)$ orbits
of the most general dyonic solution with zero axion.
When the axion field is turned off, the Killing spinor equations
ensure that the BPS saturated states with 28 electric $\vec{Q}$
and 28 magnetic $\vec{P}$ charges are subject to two (orthogonality)
constraints \cite{CYHET}:
\begin{equation}
\vec{P}^T{\cal M}_{\pm}\vec{Q}=0\ \ \ \
({\cal M}_{\pm} \equiv (LM_{\infty}L\pm L)).
\label{gencon}
\end{equation}
The $S$-duality transformations provide one more parameter for the
charge degrees of freedom along with the non-zero axion field.
In this case $28$ electric and $28$ magnetic charges are subject
to the following one constraint \cite{CYHET}:
\begin{equation}
\vec{P}^T{\cal M}_{-}\vec{Q}\,[\vec{Q}^T{\cal M}_{+}\vec{Q} -
\vec{P}^T{\cal M}_{+}\vec{P}] -\vec{P}^T{\cal M}_{+}\vec{Q}
[\vec{Q}^T{\cal M}_{-}\vec{Q} - \vec{P}^T{\cal M}_{-}\vec{P}] = 0.
\label{fgencon}
\end{equation}
The general class of solutions subject to the charge constraint
(\ref{fgencon}) is obtained following the procedure described above:
\noindent{({\it i}) First, on a solution with chosen asymptotic values
$M_{\infty}$ and $S_{\infty}$ one performs the above mentioned $SL(2,R)$
and $O(6,22,R)$ transformations, rendering $S_\infty\to \breve{S}_\infty
=i$ and $M_{\infty}\to \hat{M}_{\infty}=I_{28}$, respectively, along with
the corresponding transformations of the charge lattices.}
\noindent{({\it ii}) The generating solution for a general class of
solutions with the charge constraint (\ref{gencon}) (and with $\hat M_\infty
=I_{28}$ and $\breve S_\infty=i$) turns out to correspond to the
$\breve{U}(1)^{(1)}_{m,\,M} \times \breve{U}(1)^{(1)}_{n,\,E} \times
\breve{U}(1)^{(2)}_{m,\,M} \times \breve{U}(1)^{(2)}_{n,\,E}$
configuration ($1 \leq m \neq n \leq 6$) \cite{CYHET}. Namely this
configuration is parameterized by two magnetic and two electric charges
(with the corresponding lattice charge vectors living in lattice
$\breve{\Lambda}$), which arise from different $U(1)$ groups; the
two magnetic [electric] charges arise from the Kaluza-Klein sector
gauge field $\breve{A}^{(1)\, m}_{\phi}$ [$\breve{A}^{(1)\, n}_{t}$]
and the corresponding two-form $U(1)$ field
$\breve{A}^{(2)}_{\phi\, m}$ [$\breve{A}^{(2)}_{t\, n}$]. Without loss
of generality we choose the non-zero charges to be $\breve{P}^{(1)}_1,
\breve{P}^{(2)}_1, \breve{Q}^{(1)}_2, \breve{Q}^{(2)}_2$.}
\noindent{({\it iii}) $[SO(6,Z)\times SO(22,Z)]/[SO(4,Z)\times SO(20,Z)]$
transformations, {\it i.e.}, a subset of $O(6,22,Z)$ transformations
preserving the asymptotic value $\hat{M}_{\infty}=I_{28}$, on the
generating solutions provide 50 additional parameters specifying
the $O(6,22,Z)$ orbits with the general charges subject to two
orthogonality constraints (\ref{gencon}).}
\noindent{({\it iv}) In addition $SO(2,Z)$ transformations,
{\it i.e.}, a subset of $SL(2,Z)$ transformations preserving
$\breve S_{\infty}$, provide one more parameter specifying
$SL(2,Z)$ orbits consistent with the constraint (\ref{fgencon}).}
\noindent{({\it v}) Finally one has to undo the $SL(2,R)$ and
$O(6,22,R)$ transformations to obtain configurations with chosen
asymptotic values $M_\infty$ and $S_\infty$.}
Note that the set of transformations used in the above procedure
{\it does not affect the four-dimensional space-time} and thus all
the solutions in the class have the same four-dimensional
space-time structure.
The explicit form for the static, spherically symmetric generating
solution is \cite{CYHET}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda &=& r^2/[(r-\eta_P \breve{P}^{(1)}_1)
(r-\eta_P \breve{P}^{(2)}_1)
(r- \eta_Q \breve{Q}^{(1)}_2)
(r-\eta_Q \breve{Q}^{(2)}_2)]^{1\over 2},
\nonumber\\
R &=& [(r-\eta_P \breve{P}^{(1)}_1)
(r - \eta_P \breve{P}^{(2)}_1)
(r - \eta_Q \breve{Q}^{(1)}_2)
(r-\eta_Q \breve{Q}^{(2)}_2)]^{1\over 2},
\nonumber\\
e^{\phi}&=&\left [{(r-\eta_P \breve{P}^{(1)}_1)
(r- \eta_P \breve{P}^{(2)}_1)} \over
{(r- \eta_Q \breve{Q}^{(1)}_2)
(r- \eta_Q \breve{Q}^{(2)}_2)}\right]^{1\over 2},\ \ \Psi=0,
\nonumber\\
g_{11}&=&{{r- \eta_P \breve{P}^{(2)}_1} \over
{r-\eta_P \breve{P}^{(1)}_1}}, \
g_{22}={{r- \eta_Q \breve{Q}^{(1)}_2} \over
{r- \eta_Q \breve{Q}^{(2)}_2}},\
g_{mm}=1\ \ (m \neq 1,2) ,\nonumber\\
g_{mn}&=&B_{mn}=0\ \ (m\ne n),\ \ \ a^I_m=0.
\label{hetgensol}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the radial coordinate is chosen so that the horizon is at $r=0$.
$\eta_{P,Q}=\pm$ correspond to parameters appearing in the Killing
spinor constraints. Namely the upper $\varepsilon_{u}$ and lower
$\varepsilon_{\ell}$ two-component Killing spinors are subject to
the constraints \cite{CYHET}: $\Gamma^1 \varepsilon_{u,\ell}=
i\eta_P\varepsilon_{\ell,u}$ if $\breve{P}^{(1)}_1 \ne 0 $ and/or
$\breve{P}^{(2)}_1 \ne 0$, and $\Gamma^2\varepsilon_{u,\ell}=\mp
\eta_Q \varepsilon_{\ell,u}$ if $\breve{Q}^{(1)}_2 \ne 0 $ and/or
$\breve{Q}^{(2)}_2 \ne 0$. Thus non-zero magnetic and electric
charges each break ${1\over 2}$ of the remaining supersymmetries;
purely electric [or magnetic] and dyonic configurations preserve
${1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 4}$ of $N=4$ supersymmetry, respectively.
The first and the second sets of configurations fall into vector and
highest spin ${3\over 2}$ supermultiplets \cite{KALL}, respectively.
The requirement that the ADM mass of the above configurations saturates
the Bogomol'nyi bound restricts the choice of parameters $\eta_{P,Q}$ to
be such that $\eta_P\, {\rm sign}(\breve{P}^{(1)}_1+\breve{P}^{(2)}_1)=-1$
and $\eta_Q\, {\rm sign}(\breve{Q}^{(1)}_2+\breve{Q}^{(2)}_2)=-1$, thus
yielding the positive semidefinite ADM mass of the following form
\footnote{General BPS saturated states have the following
$O(6,22,Z)$ and $SL(2,Z)$ invariant form of the ADM mass \cite{CYHET}:
$M^2_{\rm BPS} = e^{-\phi_\infty}\{{\vec P}^T {\cal M}_{+} {\vec P} +
{\vec Q}^T {\cal M}_{+} {\vec Q}+ 2[({\vec P}^T{\cal M}_{+}{\vec P})
({\vec Q}^T{\cal M}_{+}{\vec Q})-({\vec P}^T{\cal M}_{+}
{\vec Q})^2]^{1\over 2}\} $, which is a generalization of the one for
BPS states preserving ${1\over 2}$ of the original supersymmetry.}:
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm BPS} = |\breve{P}^{(1)}_1+\breve{P}^{(2)}_1|
+|\breve{Q}^{(1)}_2+\breve{Q}^{(2)}_2|.
\label{ADMmass}
\end{equation}
One can also obtain the non-extreme solutions, parameterized by
the above four non-zero charges and the non-extremality parameter
$\beta$, by solving the Einstein field equations and
Euler-Lagrange equations, which yield the following result:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda &=& r(r+2\beta)/[(r+\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1)
(r+\breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1)(r+\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2)
(r+\breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2)]^{1\over 2},
\nonumber\\
R(r) &=& [(r+\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1)(r+\breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1)
(r+\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2)(r+\breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2)]^{1\over 2},
\nonumber\\
e^{\phi} &=& \left [ {{(r+\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1)
(r+\breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1)} \over {(r+\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2)
(r+\breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2)}}\right ]^{1\over 2},\ \Psi=0,
\nonumber\\
g_{11} &=& {{r+\breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1}\over
{r+\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1}}, \ \
g_{22} = {{r+\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2}\over
{r+\breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2}},\ \
g_{mm} = 1\ \ (m \neq 1,2),\nonumber\\
g_{mn}&=&B_{mn}=0\ \ (m\ne n),\ \ \ a^I_m=0,
\label{hetnonex}
\end{eqnarray}
with the ADM mass:
\begin{equation}
M_{\text{non-ext}}= \breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1 + \breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1 +
\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2 + \breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2-4\beta .
\label{nonexmass}
\end{equation}
Here $\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1 \equiv \beta \pm \sqrt{(\breve{P}^{(1)}_1)^2
+ \beta^2}$, {\it etc}. and $\beta$ parameterizes the deviation from the
corresponding supersymmetric solutions.
The signs ($\pm$) in the expressions for $\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1$,
{\it etc.} should be chosen so that in the limit $\beta\to 0$,
$M_{\text{non-ext}}\to M_{\rm BPS}$. Note that $O(6,22,Z)$ and
$SL(2,Z)$ orbits of the non-extreme solutions are subject to the
charge constraint (\ref{fgencon}) and thus constitute only a subset
of a general class of non-extreme configurations.
The full set of non-extreme solutions should be obtained by performing
a subset of $O(8,24,Z)$ transformations, {\it i.e.}, symmetry
transformations of the effective three-dimensional action \cite{THREE},
on (\ref{hetnonex}).
In the following two subsections we shall address the four-dimensional
space-time structure of these solutions.
\subsection{Regular Dyonic Solutions}
For a black hole solution, {\it i.e.}, a spherically symmetric
configuration with the regular horizon, one has to choose the
relative signs of the two electric and two magnetic charges of
the BPS saturated generating solutions (\ref{hetgensol}) to be the
same \cite{CYHET}, so that the space-time singularity (the point
at which $R(r)$ vanishes) lies inside or on the horizon (the point
at which $\lambda(r)$ vanishes). In this case the non-extreme
solutions are given by (\ref{hetnonex}) with the {\it positive } signs
in the expressions for $\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1$, {\it etc.}
and have the ADM mass:
\begin{equation}
M_{\text{non-ext}}=\sqrt{(\breve{P}^{(1)}_1)^2+\beta^2}+
\sqrt{(\breve{P}^{(2)}_1)^2 +\beta^2}+
\sqrt{(\breve{Q}^{(1)}_2)^2+\beta^2}+\sqrt{(\breve{Q}^{(2)}_2)^2
+\beta^2},
\label{regnonmass}
\end{equation}
which is always compatible with the Bogomol'nyi bound:
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm BPS}=|\breve{P}^{(1)}_1|+|\breve{P}^{(2)}_1|+|\breve{Q}^{(1)}_2|
+|\breve{Q}^{(2)}_2|.
\label{regexmass}
\end{equation}
These solutions always have nonzero mass
\footnote{Interestingly one can draw parallels between the relation of
regular dyonic BPS saturated states to their non-extreme
counterparts and that of Type-II supergravity walls \cite{CGNPB,EXWALL}
to their non-extreme counterparts \cite{PRL,WALL}. Type-II supergravity
walls \cite{EXWALL} are planar configurations in $N=1$ supergravity
theory, interpolating between two isolated supersymmetric
anti-deSitter vacua, whose ADM mass density (in the thin wall
approximation) is determined to be $\kappa\sigma_{\text{ext}}=
2(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)$, where $\Lambda_i \equiv -3\alpha^2_i$ is
the cosmological constant on each side of the wall. The corresponding
set of non-extreme domain wall solutions \cite{PRL,WALL}
corresponds to spherically symmetric bubbles with two insides whose
ADM mass density $\kappa\sigma_{\text{non-ext}} =
2(\sqrt{\alpha_1^2+\beta^2} + \sqrt{\alpha_2^2+\beta^2})$ is larger
than that of the Type-II supergravity wall. Here $\beta$
parameterizes, analogously as in the case of the non-extreme black
holes, a deviation from the extreme limit.}.
The singularity structure of and thremal properties of regular
solutions can be summarized in the following way \cite{CYHET}:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The case with {\it all the four charges non-zero} corresponds to
black holes with two horizons at $r=0,-2\beta$ and a time-like
singularity hidden behind the inner horizon, {\it i.e.}, the
global space-time is that of the Reissner-Nordstr\" om black
holes. The Hawking temperature is $T_H=\beta/(\pi
\sqrt{\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1\breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1
\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2 \breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2})$ and the entropy
is finite $S=\pi\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1 \breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1
\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2 \breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2$. As $\beta \to 0$
the space-time is that of extreme Reissner-Nordstr\" om black holes.
\item
The case with {\it three nonzero charges}, say, $\breve{P}^{(1)}_1=0$,
corresponds to solutions with a space-like singularity located at the inner
horizon ($r=-2\beta$), $T_H=\beta^{1\over 2}/(\pi
\sqrt{2\breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1 \breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2
\breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2})$ and $S=2\pi\beta \breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1
\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2 \breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2$. As $\beta \to 0$
the singularity coincides with the horizon at $r=0$.
\item
The case with {\it two charges nonzero}, say, $\breve{P}^{(1)}_1
\ne 0 \ne \breve{P}^{(2)}_1$,
corresponds to solutions with a space-like singularity at $r=-2\beta$,
$T_H=1/(2\pi\sqrt{\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1 \breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1})$
and $S=4\pi\beta^2 \breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1 \breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1$.
As $\beta \to 0$ the singularity coincides with the horizon at $r=0$.
\item
The case with {\it one nonzero charge}, say, $\breve{P}^{(1)}_1 \neq 0$,
corresponds to black holes with a space-like singularity at $r=-2\beta$,
$T_H=1/(2\pi\sqrt{2\beta \breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1})$ and $S=8\pi\beta^3
\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1$. As $\beta \to 0$ the singularity
becomes naked.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Singular BPS Saturated Solutions}
When the relative signs for the two magnetic and/or two electric
charges are opposite \cite{CYHETS} the BPS saturated generating solutions
(\ref{hetgensol}) are always singular, {\it i.e.}, the singularity
takes place at $r_{\rm sing}>0$
\footnote{Such purely electrically charged configurations are related
to massless black holes, recently found by Behrndt \cite{BEHRNDT2},
which were obtained by dimensionally reducing supersymmetric gravitational
waves of the effective ten-dimensional heterotic string theory.
Generalizations to the corresponding multi-black hole solutions
and the corresponding exact (in $\alpha'$ expansion) magnetic
solutions were given by Kallosh \cite{KALL1}, and by Kallosh and Linde
\cite{KALLIND}, respectively. In the latter work the physical
properties of such configurations were further addressed;
they repel massive particles.}.
In this case the non-extreme solutions are given by (\ref{hetnonex})
with the negative sign in either $\breve{P}^{(1)\,\prime}_1$
[and/or $\breve{Q}^{(1)\,\prime}_2$] or $\breve{P}^{(2)\,\prime}_1$
[and/or $\breve{Q}^{(2)\,\prime}_2$], in such a way that their ADM
mass (\ref{nonexmass}) reduces to that of the BPS saturated solutions
(\ref{ADMmass}) as $\beta \to 0$. In particular, when the relative
signs of the two magnetic and two electric charges are opposite,
the ADM mass for non-extreme solutions:
\begin{equation}
M_{\text{ultra-ext}} = \left |\sqrt{(\breve{P}^{(1)}_1)^2+\beta^2} -
\sqrt{(\breve{P}^{(2)}_1)^2 +\beta^2}\right | +
\left |\sqrt{(\breve{Q}^{(1)}_2)^2+\beta^2}
- \sqrt{(\breve{Q}^{(2)}_2)^2 +\beta^2}\right |
\label{singnonmass}
\end{equation}
is always {\it smaller} than the ADM mass for the corresponding
BPS saturated states
\footnote{One can also draw parallels between the relation of the
singular dyonic BPS saturated states to their non-extreme
counterparts and that of Type-III supergravity walls
\cite{CGNPB,EXWALL} to their ultra-extreme counterparts
\cite{PRL,WALL}. Type-III supergravity walls in $N=1$ supergravity
correspond \cite{CGNPB,EXWALL} to planar configurations,
interpolating between two specific isolated supersymmetric
anti-deSitter vacua with cosmological constants $\Lambda_i\equiv
-3 \alpha^2_i$, whose ADM mass density is given by $\kappa
\sigma_{\text{ext}}=2(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)$ $(\alpha_1 > \alpha_2)$.
The set of non-extreme solutions corresponds to bubbles of the
false vacuum decay whose ADM mass density $\kappa
\sigma_{\text{ultra-ext}}=2(\sqrt{\alpha^2_1 + \beta^2} -
\sqrt{\alpha^2_2 + \beta^2})$ is always {\it smaller} than that of
Type-III supergravity walls.}:
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm BPS}=\left ||\breve{P}^{(1)}_1|-|\breve{P}^{(2)}_1|\right| +
\left ||\breve{Q}^{(1)}_2| - |\breve{Q}^{(2)}_2|\right |.
\label{singexmass}
\end{equation}
Thus these non-extreme solutions are not in the spectrum;
singular BPS solutions with the relative signs for both the two
electric and two magnetic charges opposite {\it do not have
non-extreme counterparts} compatible with the corresponding
Bogomol'nyi bound.
These BPS saturated solutions are singular with a naked singularity
at $r=r_{\rm sing}\equiv{\rm max}\{{\rm min}[|\breve{P}^{(1)}_1|,
|\breve{P}^{(2)}_1|],{\rm min}[|\breve{Q}^{(1)}_2|,
|\breve{Q}^{(2)}_2|]\} >0$. They repel massive particles,
just like in the special case of purely electric [or purely magnetic]
solutions\cite{KALLIND}, however, massless particles with zero
angular momentum reach a naked singularity in a finite proper time.
In addition these configurations become massless \cite{CYHETS} when
the magnitudes of the two magnetic and the two electric charges are
equal, {\it i.e.}, when $|\breve{P}^{(1)}_1|= |\breve{P}^{(2)}_1|$
and $|\breve{Q}^{(1) }_2|= |\breve{Q}^{(2) }_2|$.
There are also hybrid singular solutions with the opposite relative
signs for one type of charges, say, magnetic ones with
$|\breve P^{(1)}_1|>|\breve{P}^{(2)}_1|$, and the same relative
signs for the other type of charges, {\it i.e.}, electric ones.
These solutions are singular with a singularity, say, at
$r_{\rm sing}=\sqrt{(\breve P^{(2)}_1)^2 + \beta^2} - \beta>0$, however,
the non-extreme solutions with $M_{\text{non-ext}}\ge M_{\rm BPS}$
are in the spectrum, provided $\sqrt{(\breve P^{(2)}_1)^2+\beta^2}
\left(1/\sqrt{(\breve P^{(1)}_1)^2+\beta^2}+1/ \sqrt{(\breve Q^{(1)}_2)^2+
\beta^2}+1/\sqrt{(\breve Q^{(2)}_2)^2+\beta^2})\right) \ge 0$. Note that
this set of solutions always has non-zero ADM mass.
\subsection{Implications of Massless BPS Saturated States for $N=4$
String Vacua}
By exploring the ADM mass formula for the BPS saturated states,
preserving $1\over 2$ of $N=4$ supersymmetry, Hull and Townsend
\cite{Hull,HTII} show that massless BPS saturated states can occur at
certain points of moduli space of four-dimensional $N=4$ effective
superstring vacua, parameterized in terms of fields and allowed
charges of toroidally compactified heterotic string. Such massless
BPS states contribute to a phenomenon \cite{Hull,HTII} which
is a generalization of the Halpern-Frenkel-Ka\v c (HFK) mechanism;
namely at special points of moduli space along with the perturbative
electrically charged massless string states, which enhance the gauge
symmetry of the perturbative string states to the non-Abelian one,
there are massless BPS saturated magnetic monopoles and a tower of
$SL(2,Z)$ related BPS saturated dyons, which may contribute to a new
phase of the enhanced non-Abelian gauge symmetry.
Singular massless BPS saturated states, whose generating solutions
are purely magnetic [or purely electric] configurations with magnetic
[or electric] charges $\breve P^{(1),(2)}_1$ [or $\breve Q^{(1),(2)}_2$]
opposite in relative signs and equal in magnitude, provide an
explicit realization of a class of massless BPS saturated states
contributing the generalized HFK mechanism. In addition there are
also massless dyonic solutions whose generating solutions have both
the two magnetic $\breve P^{(1),(2)}_1$ {\it and} the two electric
$\breve Q^{(1),(2)}_2$ charges opposite in signs and equal in magnitudes.
Since such states preserve $1\over 4$ of $N=4$ supersymmetry they belong
to massless highest spin $3\over 2$ supermultiplets and may allow for an
appearance of additional massless gravitini, thus providing hints of a
new phase with enhanced local supersymmetry \cite{CYHETS}.
For the purpose of illustrating the enhancement of symmetries at
particular points of moduli space \cite{CYHETS}, we will choose a set
of solutions with a particularly simple, however, non-trivial choice
for the asymptotic values of the scalar fields ($M$ and $S$) and the
charge configuration
\footnote{Solutions with more general charge configurations and
asymptotic values of scalar fields allow for different enhancements
of symmetries at different points of moduli space.};
$M_{\infty}$ is diagonal, {\it i.e.}, from moduli only the
asymptotic values of the diagonal components of the internal metric,
$g_{mm}$, are turned on, and $S_{\infty}$ is purely imaginary,
{\it i.e.}, the asymptotic value of the axion is set to zero.
In this case, the undoing of the corresponding $O(6,22,R)$ and
$SL(2,R)$ transformations on the generating solutions (\ref{hetgensol})
and (\ref{hetnonex}) yields solutions whose ADM mass is now
expressed in terms of the asymptotic values $M_{\infty}$ and
$S_\infty$, and charge lattice vectors living in $\Lambda$.
The ADM mass is then of the form:
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm BPS} = e^{-{\phi_{\infty} \over 2}}|g^{1\over 2}_{11\,\infty}
\beta^{({2})}_1 + g^{-{1\over 2}}_{11\,\infty}\beta^{(1)}_1| +
e^{{\phi_\infty}\over 2}|g^{{1\over 2}}_{22\,\infty}\alpha^{(1)}_2+
g^{-{1\over 2}}_{22\,\infty}\alpha^{(2)}_2|.
\label{BPSmass}
\end{equation}
The allowed magnetic and electric charge lattice vectors, living in
a self-dual even Lorentzian lattice $\Lambda$, that give rise
to massless black holes are, say, $\beta_1^{(1)}=-\beta_1^{(2)}=\pm 1$
and $\alpha^{(1)}_2=-\alpha^{(2)}_2=\pm 1$.
The $SL(2,Z)$ orbits of the generating solution provide a tower of
dyonic solutions with the non-zero axion field and the same dependence
on the moduli fields $M$, and thus are massless at the same points of
the moduli space as the $O(6,22,R)$ and $SL(2,R)$ undone generating
solution. On the other hand the $O(6,22,Z)$ orbits of the generating
solution provide solutions with a dependence on transformed moduli
fields and thus become massless at different points of the moduli points.
We first consider the case of BPS saturated states that preserve
$1\over 2$ of supersymmetries. These are purely, say, electrically
charged states with {\it two} possible charge lattice vectors:
$\alpha^{(1)}_2=-\alpha^{(2)}_2=\pm 1$. Such states become massless at
the self-dual point of a ``one-torus'', {\it i.e.}, when
$g_{22\,\infty}=1$, and form, together with the $U(1)^{(1)+(2)}$
gauge field $(A^{(1)}_{\mu\,2}+A^{(2)}_{\mu\,2})/\sqrt 2$, the adjoint
representation of the non-Abelian $SU(2)^{(1)+(2)}_2$ gauge group, thus
enhancing the gauge symmetry from $U(1)^{(1)}_2 \times U(1)^{(2)}_2$ to
$U(1)^{(1)-(2)}_2 \times SU(2)^{(1)+(2)}_2$ at this point of the moduli
space \cite{CYHETS}. There is also an infinite tower of massless dyonic
states, including purely magnetic ones, which correspond to $SL(2,Z)$
orbits of the generating solutions, and thus may contribute to a new
phase of enhanced gauge symmetry.
On the other hand for massless BPS saturated states that preserve
${1\over 4}$ of supersymmetries, the local supersymmetry is enhanced
since the corresponding supermultiplets contain the gravitino
as well as the $U(1)$ gauge field. The possible charge configurations
in the charge lattice that could give rise to the massless states are
$\beta_1^{(1)}=-\beta_1^{(2)}=\pm 1$ and $\alpha^{(1)}_2=-\alpha^{(2)}_2=
\pm 1$. These states become massless at the self-dual point of the
corresponding two-torus, {\it i.e.}, when $g_{11\,\infty}=g_{22\,\infty}=1$.
Since each of these additional massless states belongs to the highest
spin $3\over 2$ supermultiplete, the local supersymmetry is enhanced
\cite{CYHETS} from $N=4$ to $N=8$. As in the previous case, these
four massless states combine with the $U(1)^{(1)+(2)}_1$ gauge field
$(A^{(1)}_{\mu\,1} +A^{(2)}_{\mu\,1})/\sqrt 2$ and the
$U(1)^{(1)+(2)}_2$ gauge field $(A^{(1)}_{\mu\,2} +A^{(2)}_{\mu\,2})
/\sqrt 2$ to form the adjoint representation of the non-Abelian
$SU(2)^{(1)+(2)}_1 \times SU(2)^{(1)+(2)}_2$ gauge group, thus enhancing
the gauge symmetry from $U(1)^{(1)}_1 \times U(1)^{(2)}_1 \times
U(1)^{(1)}_2 \times U(1)^{(2)}_2$ to $U(1)^{(1)-(2)}_1\times
U(1)^{(1)-(2)}_2\times SU(2)^{(1)+(2)}_1\times SU(2)^{(1)+(2)}_2$
at this point of moduli space \cite{CYHETS}. Additionally there is
an infinite tower of dyonic massless states that are related through
$SL(2,Z)$ transformations. The occurrence of these new types of
states may indicate a transition to a new phase of superstring
vacua.
\section{Conclusions}
We have discussed a general set of BPS saturated solutions and
their non-extreme counterparts which arise in effective supergravity
theories compactified down to four dimensions on manifolds with Abelian
isometries. We concentrated on a general class of solutions of the
effective $N=4$ superstring vacua, parameterized in terms of fields
of the effective heterotic string theory compactified on a six-torus.
Such a program was completed within the Kaluza-Klein sector
of the ($4+n$)-dimensional (minimally extended) supergravities
compactified on $n$-tori, {\it i.e.}, by obtaining explicit results
for all the four-dimensional static, spherically symmetric BPS
saturated states \cite{SUPER} as well as all of their non-extreme
solutions \cite{CYALL}. Within four-dimensional effective $N=4$
supersymmetric string vacua we presented a class \cite{CYHET,CYHETS} of
BPS saturated states as well as a class of their non-extreme
counterparts which correspond to $O(6,22,Z)$ and $SL(2,Z)$
orbits of dyonic configurations with zero axion; those are
configurations whose 28 electric and 28 magnetic charges are
subject to one constraint (\ref{fgencon}).
The generating solution is parameterized by two electric and
two magnetic charges and in the non-extreme case additionally
by the non-extremality parameter $\beta$. The BPS states whose
generating solutions are purely electrically charged [or purely
magnetically charged] and dyonic preserve $1\over 2$ and
$1\over 4$ of $N=4$ supersymmetry, respectively. These solutions
fall into different classes depending on the relative signs of the
two magnetic and two electric charges of the generating solution.
When the relative signs of both two sets of these charges are the
same \cite{CYHET} solutions are regular (with a horizon in four
dimensions) accompanied by the non-extreme counterparts and always
have the ADM mass non-zero. On the other hand when the relative
sign of at least one of the two sets of charges of the generating
solution is opposite \cite{CYHETS} solutions are singular
(they have a naked singularity). In the case when both sets of
charges have opposite relative sings the singular solutions are
unaccompanied by the non-extreme counterparts (whose ADM masses
are compatible with the Bogomol'nyi bound) and have zero mass when
the magnitudes of the two magnetic and two electric charges are
equal \cite{CYHETS}.
Purely electrically charged BPS saturated states have the same mass
spectrum and charge assignments as a subset of perturbative string
excitations, and should probably be identified with each other
\cite{DUFFR}. On the other hand the magnetically charged and dyonic
BPS saturated states should be viewed as non-perturbative states of
string vacua. Massless BPS states with purely magnetically charged
generating solutions (along with a tower of $SL(2,Z)$ orbits) may
contribute to the generalized HFK-mechanism \cite{Hull,HTII}, while
massless BPS states with dyonic genetating solutions may contribute
to an enhancement of local supersymmetry \cite{CYHETS} at such points
of moduli space. We would, however, like to caution that at these
points of moduli space the effective theory approach breaks down
due to the appearance of an infinite tower of new massless modes.
In addition since we have studied only classical configurations within
an effective theory, quantum corrections may qualitatively alter
the features of such massless states. Thus full physical
implications of such massless states await further investigation.
The heterotic string compactified on $T^4$ is conjectured
\cite{DUFFSS,WITTENII,HTI,STRDUAL} to be equivalent to the
type IIA string compactified on $K3$ surface. Since the
four-dimensional effective actions of these two theories further
compactified on $T^2$ are related through a field redefinition,
one can address the BPS saturated solutions in the type IIA
string on $T^2\times K3$. Whenever the gauge symmetry of the
heterotic string is enhanced to a non-Abelian group at particular
points of moduli space, $K3$ surface of the type IIA string theory
develops quotient singularities (and thus is an orbifold as far as
target space geometry is concerned) with certain homology two-cycles
of $K3$ collapsing to zero area, giving rise to massless BPS saturated
states \cite{WITTENII,HTII}. In the case of the type IIA string on
$K3$ surface the point in the moduli space representing the conformal
field theory orbifold and the point representing the theory with the
enhanced gauge symmetry do not coincide, indicating that the conformal
field theory is ill-behaved \cite{K3}, {\it i.e.}, perturbative string
theory does not describe the full string dynamics.
Since the BPS saturated states presented here are derived within the
effective field theory compactified from a higher-dimensional
theory, they should presumably have origins as p-brain solutions
in higher dimensions \cite{PBRANE}; the case of magnetically
charged BPS states in the dual type IIA string on $K3\times T^2$
was studied in \cite{HTII}. Also, four-dimensional dilatonic
black holes can be obtained from dimensionally reduced
Brinkmann-type pp-wave solutions in higher dimensions
\cite{ELEPP,WAVE}, which were found for a class of electrically
charged black holes which preserve $1\over 2$ of supersymmetries
\cite{WAVE,BEHRNDT2}. It is of interest to find out how the
dyonic BPS saturated solutions, which preserve $1\over 4$ of $N=4$
supersymmetry, are related to the higher-dimensional p-brane
solutions and/or pp-wave solutions.
\acknowledgments
The work is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy Grant No.
DOE-EY-76-02-3071, the National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY94-07194,
the NATO collaborative research grant CGR 940870 and the National Science
Foundation Career Advancement Award PHY95-12732.
|
\section{Introduction and summary}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The low energy effective action for the massless fields in $N=2$ supersymmetric
$SU(2)$ Yang-Mills theory was found by Seiberg and Witten in
\cite{sw1,sw2}. These results gave new insight into the dynamics of strongly
coupled theories. In particular, in \cite{sw1} it was shown that there exists a
curve in moduli space across which certain BPS-bound saturated states may cease
to exist. In \cite{lr}, it was noted that the naive $SU(2)$ covariantization
of the effective action of \cite{sw1} gives a striking signal of this
phenomenon: as one crosses the curve described in \cite{sw1}, the norm of some
states (the charged gauge field supermultiplets) appears to change sign. If
the theory is to remain unitary, the massive states described by this
covariantized effective action must become unphysical.
In a series of papers \cite{sun,ad,sunq,klt,rest}, the methods of
\cite{sw1,sw2} were extended from the case of $SU(2)$ to general groups. In
this paper, we consider what we can learn by covariantizing the effective
action and studying where various charged gauge bosons become unphysical. We
give some general results for the Coulomb phase of $N=2$ $SU(n)$ gauge theories
with or without matter hypermultiplets (the generalization to arbitrary simple
groups should be straightforward). We then focus on the case of pure $N=2$
$SU(3)$ gauge theory. We find that the moduli space is divided into regions
where one or more gauge bosons destabilize.
In more detail, for a general group $G$ with a basis of generators $\{ T_i,
T_{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}\}$, where $\{ T_i\}$ generate the Cartan subalgebra, we write an adjoint
representation $N=1$ chiral superfield $\phi$ as
\begin{equation}
\phi^{ab} = A^i(T_i)^{ab}+A^{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}} (T_{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}} )^{ab}\ \ .
\eeq{A}
Here, $A^i$ describe Abelian superfields, and $A^{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}$ describe charged
superfields.
The low energy effective action for an $N=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory
in the Coulomb phase
is given in terms of a single holomorphic function ${\cal{F}} (A^i)$ \cite{gates}:
\begin{equation}
\frac1{4\pi}Im\left[\int d^4\theta\frac{\partial{\cal{F}} (\{ A^k\} )}{\partial A^i}\bar A^i+
\frac12 \int d^2\theta \frac{\partial^2{\cal{F}} (\{ A^k\} )}{\partial A^i\partial A^j}W^{\alpha
i}W_\alpha^j \right] \ \ .
\eeq{sA}
In terms of ${\cal{F}}$, the gauge coupling constants of the theory are given by the
imaginary part of $\tau_{ij}$, where
\begin{equation}
\tau_{ij}=\left<\frac{\partial^2{\cal{F}}}{\partial a_i\partial a_j}\right>\ \ ,
\eeq{gc}
and
\begin{equation}
a_i=\left< A^i\right>\ \ ,\ \ \ 0=\left< A^{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}\right>\ \ .
\eeq{a}
The expectation values $a_i$ vary as one moves through the moduli space.
We define a gauge-invariant function ${\cal{F}}(\phi^{ab})$ by the condition that it
reduces to ${\cal{F}} (a_i)$:\footnote{This is {\em not} a low momentum expansion of
the 1PI generating functional even at the one-loop level \cite{gr}.}
\begin{equation}
{\cal{F}}(\left<\phi^{ab}\right> )={\cal{F}} (a_i)\ \ ;
\eeq{fphi}
for $G=SU(2)$, ${\cal{F}}(\phi )={\cal{F}} (\sqrt{\frac12 Tr\,\phi^2})$
\cite{sw1,lr}.\footnote{For general groups, ${\cal{F}} (\phi )$ is a complicated
function of the group invariants; we will not need its explicit form.}
Then a manifestly gauge invariant $N=2$ supersymmetric action \cite{gates}
which reduces to (\ref{sA}) at low energies is
\begin{equation}
\frac1{4\pi}Im\left[\int d^4\theta\frac{\partial{\cal{F}} (\phi )}{\partial \phi^{ab}}
(e^V)_{ab,cd}\bar \phi^{cd} +
\frac12 \int d^2\theta \frac{\partial^2{\cal{F}} (\phi )}{\partial \phi^{ab}\partial
\phi^{cd}}W^{\alpha ab}W_\alpha^{cd} \right] \ \ ,
\eeq{sphi}
where $V$ is the gauge superfield (see, {\it e.g.\/}, \cite{book}). In this work, we
focus on the quadratic terms in (\ref{sphi}); their coefficient is
\begin{equation}
\left<\frac{\partial^2{\cal{F}}}{\partial\phi^{ab}\partial\phi^{cd}}\right>\ \ ,
\eeq{coef}
where here, and subsequently,
\begin{equation}
\left< f(\phi)\right> \equiv f(\phi)|_{\phi=\left<\phi\right>}\ \ .
\eeq{bra}
In section 2, we compute the explicit form of the generalized gauge couplings
(\ref{coef}) for arbitrary ${\cal{F}}$ in the case of $G=SU(n)$, and find it has a
simple decomposition as a sum of projectors: The terms in the Cartan subalgebra
have $\tau_{ij}$ (\ref{gc}) as coefficients; by construction, these have
positive norm everywhere in moduli space \cite{sw1}. The remaining terms have
coefficients with imaginary parts that may vanish and change sign in certain
regions of moduli space. As described above, we interpret this phenomenon as a
signal that certain states are destabilizing and disappearing from the
spectrum. We compare this result with the BPS mass formula, and find complete
consistency: As in the $SU(2)$ case \cite{sw1}, when a gauge boson
destabilizes, its mass becomes degenerate with a monopole-dyon pair with the
same total quantum numbers.
In section 3, we analyze the case of $SU(3)$ in more detail. We find a puzzle,
and offer a resolution: certain points in the moduli space should be blown up
into $S_2$'s.\footnote{M.\ Douglas suggests that, while this may be true
mathematically, it isn't relevant physically; see Section 3.}
\noindent
\section{$SU(n)$: The calculation}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We begin by defining our notation:
We will work in the fundamental $n\times n$ matrix representation of $SU(n)$,
and therefore denote a basis for all $n\times n$ matrices by
\begin{equation}
({\bf E}^{ij})_{ab}=\delta^i_a\delta^j_b\ \ ; \ \
\eeq{defE}
we give a special name to the diagonal matrices
\begin{equation}
({\bf e}_i)_{ab}=({\bf E}^{ii})_{ab}\ \ ,\ \ \ i=1,...,n\ \ ,\ \ \
\eeq{defe}
and choose a basis ${\hbox{\bf H}}_i$ of the Cartan subalgebra of $SU(n)$ as well as a dual
basis ${\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i$:\footnote{The vectors ${\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}_i\equiv diag({\hbox{\bf H}}_i)$ defined by the
diagonal matrices ${\hbox{\bf H}}_i$, are a basis for the root lattice. Similarly,
${\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}^*_i\equiv diag({\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i)$ is a basis for the weight lattice. We do not
choose a basis of simple roots corresponding to ${\hbox{\bf H}}_i={\bf e}_i-{\bf e}_{i+1}$ as
used in, {\it e.g.\/}, \cite{ad,klt}, because this leads to
${\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i=\sum_1^i{\bf e}_j-\frac{i}n {\bf I}$, which we find less convenient than
(\ref{defa}).}
\begin{equation}
{\hbox{\bf H}}_i={\bf e}_i-{\bf e}_n\ \ ,\ \ \ Tr({\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i{\hbox{\bf H}}_j)=\delta_{ij}\Rightarrow{\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i={\bf e}_i-\frac1n
{\bf I}\ \ ,\ \ \ i=1,...,n-1\ .
\eeq{defa}
Here ${\bf I}$ is the $n\times n$ identity matrix.
We parametrize the classical expectation values of the field $\phi$
by eigenvalues $a_i$:
\begin{equation}
\left<\phi\right>=\sum_1^{n-1}a_i{\hbox{\bf H}}_i=\sum_1^na_i{\bf e}_i\ \ ,\ \ \
a_n=-\sum_1^{n-1}a_i\ \ .
\eeq{phi}
We now compute the (generalized) coupling matrix for the extended low energy
effective action defined above in terms of the function ${\cal{F}}$:
\begin{equation}
\left<\frac{\partial^2{\cal{F}}}{\partial\phi^{ab}\partial\phi^{cd}}\right>
=\tau_{ij}\left<\frac{\partial a_i}{\partial\phi^{ab}}\right>
\left<\frac{\partial a^j}{\partial\phi^{cd}}\right> +
a_{Di}\left<\frac{\partial^2a_i}{\partial\phi^{ab}\partial\phi^{cd}}\right>\ \ ,\ \ \
\eeq{tabcd}
where
\begin{equation}
\tau_{ij}=\left<\frac{\partial^2{\cal{F}}}{\partial a_i\partial a_j}\right>\ \ {\rm and}\ \ \
a_{Di}= \left<\frac{\partial{\cal{F}}}{\partial a_i}\right>\ \ .
\eeq{tij}
We need to find
\begin{equation}
({\bf a}_i')_{ab}= \left<\frac{\partial a_i}{\partial\phi^{ab}}\right>\ \ {\rm and}\ \ \
({\bf a}_i'')_{ab,cd}= \left<\frac{\partial^2a_i}{\partial\phi^{ab}\partial\phi^{cd}}\right>\ \ .
\eeq{da}
We do this by differentiating the invariants
\begin{equation}
u_k=\frac1k Tr(\phi^k)=\frac1k \sum_1^n(a_i)^k\ \ ,\ \ \
\eeq{u}
and solving the resulting linear equations. Since the $\phi^{ab}$ are
traceless, differentiation acts as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial\phi^{ab}}{\partial\phi^{cd}}=\delta^a_c\delta^b_d-\frac1n\delta^{ab}\delta_{cd}\ \ .
\eeq{diff}
Using (\ref{diff}), we differentiate $u_k$ (\ref{u}), and find
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial u_k}{\partial\phi^{ab}}=(\phi^{k-1})_{ba}-\frac1nTr(\phi^{k-1})\delta_{ab}
=\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}\frac{\partial a_i}{\partial\phi^{ab}}\ \ .
\eeq{du}
Taking the expectation value, and using $\left<\phi^k\right>=\sum(a_i)^k{\bf e}_i$
(which follows from ${\bf e}_i{\bf e}_j=\delta_{ij}{\bf e}_j$), we find
\begin{equation}
\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}{\bf a}_i'=
\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}{\bf e}_i-\frac1n(\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}){\bf I}=
\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}{\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i\ \ .
\eeq{eqda}
This is clearly solved by
\begin{equation}
{\bf a}_i'={\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i\ \ ;
\eeq{solda}
for consistency, we must check that ${\bf a}'_n=
-\sum_1^{n-1}{\bf a}_i'$, and this is indeed the case.
Thus the ${\bf a}_i'$ are {\em constant} diagonal matrices that span the Cartan
subalgebra, and we have found that, just as for $SU(2)$ \cite{lr}, the term in
the coupling matrix (\ref{tabcd}) proportional to $\tau_{ij}$ is projected onto
the $U(1)^{n-1}$ subgroup of $SU(n)$, {\it i.e.,\/}\ onto massless fields.
We now turn to the computation of ${\bf a}''$. We differentiate (\ref{du})
again, and
find:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left<\frac{\partial^2u_k}{\partial\phi^{ab}\partial\phi^{cd}}\right>&=&
\sum_{l=0}^{k-2}\left<(\phi^l)_{bc}(\phi^{k-l-2})_{da}\right>\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
\ &\ &\ \ \ -\frac{k-1}n\left(\left<(\phi^{k-2})_{ba}\right>\delta_{cd}
+\left<(\phi^{k-2})_{dc}\right>\delta_{ab}\right)\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
\ &\ &\ \ \ +\frac{k-1}{n^2}(Tr(\phi^{k-2}))\delta_{ab}\delta_{cd} \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&=&\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}({\bf a}_i'')_{ab,cd}
+(k-1)\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-2}({\bf a}_i')_{ab}({\bf a}_i')_{cd}\ \ . \nonumber \\
\eer{ddu}
{}From (\ref{phi}) and (\ref{solda}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
&\ &\sum_{l=0}^{k-2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n(a_i)^l({\bf e}_i)_{bc}
\sum_{j=1}^n(a_j)^{k-l-2}({\bf e}_j)_{da}\hbox{\hfill}\right)\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&\ &-\frac{k-1}n\left(\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-2}({\bf e}_i)_{ba}\delta_{cd}
+\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-2}({\bf e}_i)_{dc}\delta_{ab}\right)\hbox{\hfill}\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&\ &+\frac{k-1}{n^2}\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-2}\delta_{ab}\delta_{cd}\hbox{\hfill}\nonumber
\eer{no1}
\begin{equation}
=\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}({\bf a}_i'')_{ab,cd}
+(k-1)\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-2}({\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i)_{ab}({\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i)_{cd}\ \ .
\eeq{dda1}
Substituting the explicit form of ${\bf e}_i$ (\ref{defe}) and ${\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i$
(\ref{defa}), this simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l=0}^{k-2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n(a_i)^l(a_j)^{k-l-2}\delta_b^i\delta_c^i\delta_d^j\delta_a^j-
(k-1)\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-2}\delta_a^i\delta_b^i\delta_c^i\delta_d^i
=\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}({\bf a}_i'')_{ab,cd}\ ,
\eeq{dda2}
which can be further simplified to give:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l=0}^{k-2}\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j\neq i=1}^n(a_i)^l(a_j)^{k-l-2}
({\bf E}^{ij})_{ba}({\bf E}^{ji})_{dc}
=\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}({\bf a}_i'')_{ab,cd}\ .
\eeq{dda3}
To solve this, we observe that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l=0}^{k-2}(a_i)^l(a_j)^{k-l-2}=\frac{(a_i)^{k-1}-(a_j)^{k-1}}{a_i-a_j}\ ,
\eeq{id}
which allows us to rewrite (\ref{dda3}) as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j\neq i=1}^n\frac{(a_i)^{k-1}-(a_j)^{k-1}}{a_i-a_j}
({\bf E}^{ij})_{ba}({\bf E}^{ji})_{dc}
=\sum_1^n(a_i)^{k-1}({\bf a}_i'')_{ab,cd}\ .
\eeq{dda4}
This is clearly solved by
\begin{equation}
({\bf a}_i'')_{ab,cd}=\sum_{j\neq i}^n\frac{({\bf E}^{ij})_{ba}({\bf E}^{ji})_{dc}
+({\bf E}^{ji})_{ba}({\bf E}^{ij})_{dc}}{a_i-a_j}\ \ ;\
\eeq{soldda}
as before, we can easily check the consistency condition
${\bf a}_n''=-\sum_1^{n-1} {\bf a}_i''$.
Note that the ${\bf a}_i''$ project onto $SU(n)/U(1)^{n-1}$ (for $i\neq j$,
${\bf E}^{ij}$ are traceless, and hence are generators of $SU(n)$ outside the
Cartan subalgebra), again as in the
$SU(2)$ case \cite{lr}. Thus our final expression for the coupling constant
matrix (\ref{tabcd}) is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left<\frac{\partial^2{\cal{F}}}{\partial\phi^{ab}\partial\phi^{cd}}\right>
&=&\sum_{i,j=1}^{n-1}\tau_{ij}({\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i)_{ab}({\hbox{\bf H}}^*_j)_{cd}
+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\sum_{j\neq i}^{n-1}\frac{a_{Di}-a_{Dj}}
{a_i-a_j}({\bf E}^{ij})_{ba}({\bf E}^{ji})_{dc}\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&\ &\
+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{a_{Di}}{a_i-a_n}\left(({\bf E}^{in})_{ba}({\bf E}^{ni})_{dc}
+({\bf E}^{ni})_{ba}({\bf E}^{in})_{dc}\right)\ .\nonumber\\
\eer{solt}
This is our main result. It is valid whenever the low energy physics is
described by a function ${\cal{F}}$, {\it i.e.,\/}\ for the Coulomb phase of an $N=2$ $SU(n)$
gauge theory with or without matter multiplets. What is the physical
consequence of the computation? By construction, $\tau_{ij}$, the coupling that
we have found in the Cartan subalgebra, has an imaginary part that is positive
everywhere in moduli space. On the other hand, the ratios
$(a_{Di}-a_{Dj})/(a_i-a_j)$ and $a_{Di}/(a_i-a_n)$ can have vanishing and even
negative imaginary parts. The real codimension $1$ surfaces where one of these
ratios becomes real split moduli space into regions where the number of
physical charged gauge field supermultiplets is different.
We now consider the relation of our results in (\ref{solt}) to the BPS mass
formula. In our notation, the electric charges ${\bf q}$ are vectors on the root
lattice ${\bf q}=\sum_1^{n-1}q_i{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}_i\equiv diag({\bf Q} )$ where
${\bf Q}=\sum_1^{n-1}q_i{\hbox{\bf H}}_i$, and by the Dirac quantization condition, the
magnetic charges ${\bf g}$ are vectors on the weight lattice
${\bf g}=\sum_1^{n-1}g_i{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}^*_i\equiv diag({\bf G} )$,
${\bf G}=\sum_1^{n-1}g_i{\hbox{\bf H}}^*_i$. Here $q_i,g_i$ are integers, and the Dirac
quantization condition reads $\sum q_ig_i=Tr({\bf Q}{\bf G} )=integer$. In
particular, the charged gauge bosons $W_{ij}$ have vanishing magnetic charges
$g_k(W_{ij})=0$ and electric charges
\begin{equation}
q_k(W_{in})=\delta_{ik}\ \ ,\ \ \ q_k(W_{ij})=\delta_{ik}-\delta_{jk}\ ,\ \ i,j,k=1...n-1\ ,
\eeq{wq}
where we define
\begin{equation}
W_{ab}\equiv \sum_1^{n-1} W^i({\hbox{\bf H}}_i)_{ab}+\sum_{i\neq
j=1}^nW_{ij}({\bf E}^{ij})_{ab}\ .
\eeq{wab}
The eigenvalues $a_{Di}$ defined in (\ref{tij}) parametrize the expectation
values of the dual field $\phi_D$:
\begin{equation}
\left<\phi_D\right>=\sum_1^{n-1}a_{Di}{\hbox{\bf H}}_i=\sum_1^na_{Di}{\bf e}_i\ \ ,\ \ \
a_{Dn}=-\sum_1^{n-1}a_{Di}\ \ .
\eeq{phid}
The mass $M_{{\bf q},{\bf g}}$ of BPS saturated states is given in terms of the
central charge $Z_{{\bf q},{\bf g}}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{{\bf q},{\bf g}}&=&\sqrt2|Z_{{\bf q},{\bf g}}|\nonumber\\
Z_{{\bf q},{\bf g}}&=&Tr({\bf Q}\left<\phi\right>+{\bf G}\left<\phi_D\right>)
=\sum_1^{n-1}(q_i(a_i-a_n)+g_ia_{Di})\ .
\eer{Z}
Comparing the central charge (\ref{Z}) with our generalized gauge coupling
matrix (\ref{solt}), we see that when the imaginary parts of the coefficients
of the charged gauge fields vanish, their mass becomes degenerate with bound
states of dyons (at threshold, {\it i.e.,\/}\ with no binding energy). This is an
essential consistency check.\footnote{In the presence of massive
hypermultiplets, (\ref{Z}) receives corrections \cite{sw2}, which do not affect
the charged gauge boson masses.}
\noindent
\section{$SU(3)$: The Physics}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
For pure $N=2$ $SU(3)$ gauge theory, the holomorphic function ${\cal{F}}(a_1,a_2)$ has
been described in
detail \cite{ad,klt}; we can use this to extract more explicit information
about the different regions of moduli space. The terms in the effective action
with the gauge field-strength multiplets $W_\alpha$ are (from
(\ref{sphi}), (\ref{solt})):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac1{4\pi}Im\left[\int d^2\theta \frac12\tau_{ij}W^{\alpha
i}W_\alpha^j\right.\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac{a_{D1}-a_{D2}}{a_1-a_2}W^{\alpha12}W_\alpha^{21}+
\frac{a_{D1}}{a_1-a_3}W^{\alpha13}W_\alpha^{31}+
\frac{a_{D2}}{a_2-a_3}W^{\alpha23}W_\alpha^{32}\right]\ ,\nonumber \\
\eer{ss3}
where we have used (\ref{wab}) with $n=3$. Clearly, depending on the phases of
the three ratios in (\ref{ss3}), one, two or three charged gauge bosons (with
their $CPT$-conjugates) may destabilize. The authors of \cite{sun,ad,klt}
postulate that the massless gauge coupling matrix $\tau_{ij}$ is defined as the
period matrix of the genus 2 hyperelliptic curve
\begin{equation}
y^2=(x^3-ux-v)^2-1\ \ ,\ \ \
\eeq{curve}
where $u,v$ are coordinates on the quantum moduli space that correspond to
$u_2,u_3$, respectively, in the semiclassical domain, and where, without loss
of generality, we have chosen the dynamically generated scale $\Lambda=1$. Then
$a_i$ and $a_{Di}$ can be calculated as contour integrals:
\begin{equation}
I_C=\frac1{2\pi i}\oint_C\frac{x(3x^2-u)dx}{y(x)}\ \ ,\ \ \
\eeq{aad}
where the contour $C$ runs around various homology cycles on the genus 2
surface corresponding to $a_i,a_{Di}$. This turns out to mean that the integral
(\ref{aad}) is evaluated between various roots of $[y(x)]^2=0$. Different
choices of contours and cuts give different $Sp(4,\bf Z)$ sections; given an
explicit section on which the charged gauge superfields have a local
description, we could draw a map of walls in moduli space across which gauge
bosons destabilize and disappear. This requires a careful analysis of the
contours and cuts, which we leave to the future. However, using the results of
\cite{sun,ad,klt}, we can describe some of the phenomena we should find, as
well as a puzzle and a possible resolution.
This quantum moduli space of $SU(3)$ admits a natural $\bf Z_3\times\bf Z_2$
action. When the roots of $y^2=0$ fall into three pairs with separations much
larger than the scale (in our conventions, 1), one is in a semiclassical or
weakly coupled region of the moduli space. When precisely two roots degenerate,
then one of three $SU(2)$ subgroups becomes strongly coupled (an ``$SU(2)$
vacuum''); there are six ways that this can happen, and they are rotated into
each other by $\bf Z_3\times\bf Z_2$. There are also five special points where the
whole $SU(3)$ is strongly coupled: At three, two pairs of roots simultaneously
degenerate to two distinct points; these are $\bf Z_2$ invariant and rotate into
each other under $\bf Z_3$ (``$SU(3)$ vacua''). At the remaining two, three roots
all degenerate to a single point; these are $\bf Z_3$ invariant and are
interchanged by $\bf Z_2$ (``$\bf Z_3$ vacua''). The $SU(2)$ vacua are characterized
by the existence of one massless dyon, the $SU(3)$ vacua are characterized by
the existence of two mutually local massless dyons, and the $\bf Z_3$ vacua are
characterized by the existence of three mutually {\em non}local massless dyons.
Far from the strongly coupled $SU(3)$ region, each $SU(2)$ vacuum should
reproduce the results of \cite{sw1}. That is, we expect to find a curve passing
through (or close to) the two paired $SU(2)$ vacua on which a charged gauge
field destabilizes, and $\bf Z_3$ to act by permuting the $SU(2)$ vacua, and
correspondingly, the disappearing gauge fields. As one moves toward stronger
$SU(3)$ coupling, this curve sweeps out a cylinder ($S_1\times{\bf C}$); the
six cylinders corresponding to the six asymptotic $SU(2)$ vacua must meet in
some way in the strongly coupled region.
It is straightforward to see how they meet at the $SU(3)$ vacua: At these
vacua, $v=0$ and $u= 3r^2\theta^j$, where
\begin{equation}
\theta=e^{\frac{2\pi i}3}\ \ ,\ \ \ r=2^{-\frac13}\ \ ,\ \ \
\eeq{rthdef}
and $j=0,1,2$ labels the three different $SU(3)$ vacua. Without loss of
generality, we may choose $j=0$ (the other choices are found simply by a $\bf Z_3$
rotation). Then the six roots of $y^2=0$ are $-2r,-r,-r,r,r,2r$. All possible
integrals (\ref{aad}) are real linear combinations of the integrals
\begin{equation}
I_1=\int_{-2r}^{-r}\ \ ,\ \ \ I_2=\int_{-r}^r\ \ ,\ \ \ I_3=\int_r^{2r}\ \ .
\eeq{i123}
However, a glance at (\ref{aad}) shows that $I_1=-I_3, I_2=0$. Thus all the
quantities $a_i,a_{Di}$ are relatively real at the $SU(3)$ vacuum for {\em any}
$Sp(4,\bf Z )$ section, and we can conclude that, {\em at the SU(3) vacua, all
three charged bosons simultaneously destabilize}. This is consistent with
\cite{klt}, where $a_i, a_{Di}$ are explicitly calculated near an $SU(3)$
vacuum for some choice of $Sp(4,\bf Z )$ section.
Our puzzle arises at the $\bf Z_3$ vacua. On general principles, if the $\bf Z_3$
rotates the various charged gauge fields into each other, as it does in the
semiclassical regions and along the $SU(2)$ vacua, at a $\bf Z_3$ invariant point,
either zero or three charged gauge fields may destabilize. For a broad class of
$Sp(4,\bf Z )$ sections, including those of \cite{ad,klt}, it appears that at
least one charged gauge field destabilizes; however, as we show below, because
mutually nonlocal dyons are becoming massless at the $\bf Z_3$ vacua, all three
charged gauge fields {\em cannot} simultaneously destabilize. At the $\bf Z_3$
vacua, $u=0,v=\pm1$; without loss of generality, we may take $v=1$. Then the
six roots are $0,0,0,1/r,\theta/r,\theta^2/r$ (recall (\ref{rthdef})). By comparing
to the semiclassical limit, it is clear that for any $Sp(4,\bf Z )$ section on
which the charged gauge bosons are local fields, the $a_i$ are integrals from
$0$ to the root $\theta^{i-1}/r$. Then looking at (\ref{aad}), we see that
$a_2=\theta a_1$. However, whenever $a_1$ and $a_2$ are {\em not} relatively real,
it follows that all three charged bosons destabilize only if
$a_{Di}=c(a_i-a_3)$ for some real $c$. The mass formula (\ref{Z}) then implies
that only mutually local dyons can become massless simultaneously, which
does not occur at the $\bf Z_3$ vacua \cite{ad}.
A possible resolution of this puzzle seems to be suggested by the work of
\cite{ad}: They study the vicinity of the $\bf Z_3$ vacua, and find a modular
parameter $\rho$ {\em that survives at the $\bf Z_3$ vacuum}. The gauge couplings
of the massless $U(1)$ fields depend on this parameter. This suggests that at
the $\bf Z_3$ vacua, the coordinates $u,v$ are not good coordinates, and each
$\bf Z_3$
vacuum should be blown up into an $S_2$ (with coordinate
$\rho$).\footnote{Indeed, the coordinate transformation $\delta u,\delta v
\to \rho, \epsilon$ of \cite{ad}, $\delta u=3\rho\epsilon^2, \delta v=2\epsilon^3$, is precisely such a
blowup.} This would resolve our puzzle: depending on where on the $S_2$ one
sits
(which $\rho$), different charged gauge fields destabilize. However, \cite{ad}
do not make this interpretation; they argue that, although blowing up the
$\bf Z_3$
points looks more natural mathematically, it is not what is seen physically: at
the singularity, the theory becomes conformally invariant, and the measurable
couplings are the $\bf Z_3$ symmetric ones, not the $\rho$ dependent ones. With
this interpretation, it is not clear how to interpret the multiplets of charged
gauge bosons near the $\bf Z_3$ vacua.\footnote{We thank M.\ Douglas for a
discussion on this interpretation.}
We close by noting that a similar analysis could be performed for the Coulomb
phase of the $SU(n)$ theory, with and without matter hypermultiplets.
\bigskip
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments}
\bigskip
\noindent
We are happy to thank Mike Douglas for an illuminating discussion about the
physics of the $\bf Z_3$ point. This work is supported in part by the BSF (the
American-Israel Bi-National Science Foundation). AG thanks the ITP at Stony
Brook and MR thanks the Racah Institute for their respective hospitality. The
work of AG is supported in part by the BRF (the Basic Research Foundation) and
by an Alon Fellowship. The work of MR is supported in part by NSF Grant No.\
PHY
93 09888.
\newpage
|
\section{$q$-wedges and $q$-deformed Fock space}
This first introductory section describes the realization of $q$-deformed
Fock space in terms of $q$-wedges. This Fock space
was first constructed by a different method by Hayashi in \cite{Hayashi},
and described in terms of colored Young diagrams in \cite{Misra-Miwa}.
A less formal version of the $q$-wedge construction
was given in \cite{Eug}, out of which the exposition in this
section first evolved.
\subsection{Preliminaries on $\uqn$}
The algebras $\uqn$ and $\upqn$ (\cite{Drinfeld,Jimbo})
will act on our Fock
space. In this section, we will mainly work with $\upqn$,
which is an algebra generated by elements $E_i$, $F_i$, and
$K_i^{\pm 1}$, $i=0,1,\ldots , n-1$, with the following relations if
$n>2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&K_i K_j = K_j K_i, \label{begingen} \\
&&K_i E_j= q^{a_{ij}} E_j K_i, \label{cartan-1} \\
&&K_i F_j = q^{-a_{ij}} F_j K_i, \label{cartan-2} \\
&&E_i F_j - F_j E_i = \delta_{i,j} \frac{K_i - K_i^{-1}}
{q - q^{-1}}, \label{commutator} \\
&&E_i E_j = E_j E_i \hspace{100pt} \mbox{\rm if}
\hspace{5pt} i\not=j\pm1, \\
&&F_i F_j = F_j F_i \hspace{105pt} \mbox{\rm if}
\hspace{5pt} i\not=j\pm1, \\
&& E_i^2 E_{i \pm 1} - (q + q^{-1})E_i E_{i \pm 1} E_i
+ E_{i \pm 1} E_i^2=0, \\
&& F_i^2 F_{i \pm 1} - (q + q^{-1})F_i F_{i \pm 1} F_i
+ F_{i \pm 1} F_i^2=0. \label{endgen}
\end{eqnarray}
The indices in all these relations are to
be read modulo $n$. In (\ref{cartan-1})--(\ref{cartan-2}),
$a_{ij}$ is $2$ if $i=j$, $-1$ if $i=j \pm 1$, and $0$ otherwise.
In the case $n=2$, we take $a_{ij}=-2$ if $i \neq j$.
Moreover, the last two relations (sometimes called
the $q$-Serre relations) are replaced by the following ones:
\begin{eqnarray}
E_i^3 E_{i \pm 1} - [3] E_i^2 E_{i \pm 1} E_i + [3] E_i
E_{i \pm 1} E_i^2 - E_{i \pm 1} E_i^3&=&0 ,\\
F_i^3 F_{i \pm 1} - [3] F_i^2 F_{i \pm 1} F_i + [3] F_i
F_{i \pm 1} F_i^2 - F_{i \pm 1} F_i^3&=&0 .
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have used the standard notation
$$[n] = \frac{q^n - q^{-n}}{q-q^{-1}}.$$
Throughout this paper, $q$ should be taken to be either a
formal parameter or a generic complex number (specifically,
not a root of unity).
$\upqn$ is a Hopf algebra, with coproduct given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta(K_i) &=& K_i \otimes K_i, \label{coprod-1} \\
\Delta(E_i) &=& E_i \otimes K_i + 1 \otimes E_i, \label{coprod-2} \\
\Delta(F_i) &=& F_i \otimes 1 + K_i^{-1} \otimes F_i . \label{coprod-3}
\end{eqnarray}
In the next section we will sometimes work with the extended quantum
affine algebra $\uqn$, which is a $1$-dimensional extension of
$\upqn$ by the ``degree operator'' $d$, satisfying the relations
\begin{equation}
[d, K_i] = 0, \hspace{.8in} [d,E_i]=\delta_{i,0} E_i, \hspace{.8in}
[d,F_i] = -\delta_{i,0} F_i.
\label{DREL}
\end{equation}
The Hopf algebra structure extends naturally to $\uqn$ by
defining
\begin{equation}
\Delta(d) = d \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes d.
\end{equation}
The philosophy guiding this subject is that almost
any representation-theoretic construction involving
the affine Lie algebra $\slnh$ should have
an appropriate $q$-analog in the representation theory of $\upqn$.
The aim of this section is to deform the infinite wedge (or ``Fermionic
Fock space'') level 1 representations of $\slnh$ to representations
of $\upqn$. (A very friendly introduction to $\slnh$
and its infinite
wedge highest weight representations can be found in \cite{Kac-Raina}.)
We will construct infinite $q$-wedges in terms of an infinite
tensor product of {\em evaluation modules}. Let $V=\mbox{\bf C}^n$,
with basis $v_1, \ldots , v_n$,
and let $V(z) = V \otimes \mbox{\bf C}[z,z^{-1}]$, with basis
$\{z^av_j\}$. Here $a \in \mbox{\bf Z}$ and $j=1,2,\ldots , n$,
so $V(z)$ is regarded as an infinite dimensional space.
$U_q(\slnh)$ acts on $V(z)$ in the following way:
\begin{eqnarray}
K_i (z^a v_j) &=& q^{\delta_{i,j} - \delta_{i+1,j}}
z^a v_j, \\
E_i (z^a v_j) &=& \delta_{i,j-1} z^{a+{\delta_{i,0}}}
v_{j-1}, \\
F_i (z^a v_j) &=& \delta_{i,j} z^{a-\delta_{i,0} }
v_{j+1},\\
d(z^av_j) &=&a z^av_j .
\end{eqnarray}
The indices in all of these relations should be read modulo $n$.
The action of the $E_i$'s gives rise to a
a natural ordering on the basis $\{z^a v_j\}$. This ordering is given by
\begin{equation}
\cdots > z^{a-1} v_2 > z^{a-1} v_1 > z^a v_n > z^a v_{n-1} > \cdots
> z^a v_1 > z^{a+1} v_n > \cdots \ , \label{ordering}
\end{equation}
and at times it will be convenient to relabel the basis in accordance
with it. Namely, let $u_{j-an}= z^a v_j$; then $u_l > u_m$ just in
case $l>m$. {\em In the course of working with $V(z)$ and its tensor
products, we will
sometimes use the $z^a v_j$ notation and sometimes the $u_m$ notation
(whichever happens to be more convenient) without further comment.}
The action on the basis $\{u_m\}$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
K_i (u_m)&=&
q^{\delta(m\equiv i\ {\rm mod}\,\,n)-\delta(m\equiv i+1\ {\rm mod}\,\,n)}\,u_m,\\
E_i (u_m) &=& \delta(m-1\equiv i\,{\rm mod}\,\ n)\,u_{m-1},\\
F_i (u_m) &=& \delta(m\equiv i\,{\rm mod}\,\ n)\,u_{m+1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, for a statement $P$, $\delta(P)$ is equal to $1$
if $P$ is true and $0$ otherwise.
\par
Iterating the coproduct (\ref{coprod-1})-(\ref{DREL})
$N-1$ times defines a natural
action of $U_q(\slnh)$ on the tensor product $V(z)^{\otimes N}$.
According to a ``quantum affine analog'' of the usual Weyl
duality between $GL_n$ and the symmetric group,
the centralizer of the action of $\upqn \subset U_q(\slnh)$
on $V(z)^{\otimes N}$ is the affine Hecke algebra
$\widehat{H}_N(q^2)$. (See \cite{GRV} for more
details.) We turn next to this algebra.
\subsection{Preliminaries on the affine Hecke algebra}
$\widehat{H}_N(q^2)$ is an associative algebra generated by elements
$T_i$, $i=1,\ldots ,N-1$, and $y_j^{\pm 1}$, $j=1,\ldots , N$.
These elements satisfy the following relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
T_i^2 &=& (q^2-1) \ T_i + q^2, \label{heckegen-1} \\
T_i T_{i+1} T_i &=& T_{i+1} T_i T_{i+1}, \label{heckegen-2} \\
T_i T_j &=& T_j T_i \hspace{.8in} \mbox{\rm if} \hspace{2mm} |i-j|>1,
\label{heckegen-3} \\
y_i y_j &=& y_j y_i, \label{heckegen-4} \\
y_j T_i &=& T_i y_j \hspace{.8in} \mbox{\rm if $i \neq j,j+1$},
\label{heckegen-5} \\
y_j T_j &=& T_j y_{j+1} - (q^2-1) y_{j+1}, \label{heckegen-6} \\
y_{j+1} T_j &=& T_j y_j + (q^2 - 1) y_{j+1} . \label{heckegen-7}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the $T_i$ are invertible because of (\ref{heckegen-1}),
with $T_i^{-1} = q^{-2} T_i + (q^{-2} - 1)$. In light of this,
relations (\ref{heckegen-6}) and (\ref{heckegen-7})
are both equivalent to the relation
$$T_i y_i T_i = q^2 y_{i+1}.$$
Also, the relation (\ref{heckegen-1}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
(T_i+1)(T_i-q^2)=0. \label{eigenvalues}
\end{equation}
Decomposing spaces on which the $T_i$
act into a $-1$-eigenspace and a $q^2$-eigenspace will be an important tool
in what follows.
The subalgebra $H_N(q^2) \subset \widehat{H}_N(q^2)$ generated by just the $T_i$
is the usual (finite) Hecke algebra of type $A$, which is a $q$-deformation
of the symmetric group $S_N$. The elements $T_i$ are the $q$-analogs of
the adjacent transpositions $\sigma_i = (i,\, i+1)$ in $S_N$. In the same
way, $\widehat{H}_N(q^2)$ should be thought of as a $q$-deformation of the {\em affine}
symmetric group, which is the Weyl group of the affine Lie algebra
$\widehat{\goth{sl}}_N$.
$\widehat{H}_N(q^2)$ acts on $V(z)^{\otimes N}$
on the right in the following way. First,
$y_j$ acts as multiplication by $z_j^{-1}$. (Having it act by $z_j^{-1}$
rather than $z_j$ is necessary for compatibility
(\ref{heckegen-6})--(\ref{heckegen-7}) with the action
of $T_i$ defined below.) The action of $T_i$
is given as follows. Write elements $z^{a_1} v_{m_1}\otimes \cdots
\otimes z^{a_N} v_{m_N}$ as $(v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N})
\cdot z_1^{a_1} \cdots z_N^{a_N}$. (This is the notation used in
\cite{GRV}.) The symmetric group $S_N$ acts (by
permuting factors and variables, respectively) on both the tensor part
and the polynomial part of such an expression. Write $(v_{m_1} \otimes
\cdots \otimes v_{m_N})^{\sigma_i}$ and $(z_1^{a_1} \cdots z_N^{a_N})^{
\sigma_i}$ for what results when $\sigma_i = (i,\,i+1)$ acts on
$v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N}$ and on $z_1^{a_1} \cdots
z_N^{a_N}$. In terms of this
notation, the action of $T_i$ on $v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N}
\cdot \mbox{\bf z}$ (here $\mbox{\bf z}$ is shorthand for $z_1^{a_1}
\cdots z_N^{a_N}$) is given by the following set of formulas,
which are variants of the ones given in \cite{GRV}:
\begin{equation}
((v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N}) \cdot \mbox{\bf z})
\cdot T_i =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
- q(v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N})^{\sigma_i} \cdot
\mbox{\bf z}^{\sigma_i} \\
\hspace{3mm} - (q^2-1)(v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N}) \cdot
\frac{z_{i+1} \mbox{\footnotesize \bf z}^{\sigma_i} -
z_i \mbox{\footnotesize \bf z} }{z_i-z_{i+1}} & \hspace{3mm}
\mbox{if $m_i<m_{i+1}$,} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
- (v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N}) \cdot \mbox{\bf z}^{\sigma_i} \\
\hspace{3mm} - (q^2-1) (v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N}) \cdot
\frac{z_i(\mbox{\footnotesize \bf z}^{\sigma_i} -
\mbox{\footnotesize \bf z})}{z_i-z_{i+1}} & \hspace{3mm}
\mbox{if $m_i=m_{i+1}$,} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
- q(v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N})^{\sigma_i} \cdot
\mbox{\bf z}^{\sigma_i} \\
\hspace{3mm} - (q^2-1)(v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{m_N}) \cdot
\frac{z_i(\mbox{\footnotesize \bf z}^{\sigma_i} -
\mbox{\footnotesize \bf z})}{z_i-z_{i+1}} & \hspace{3mm}
\mbox{if $m_i>m_{i+1}$.}
\end{array} \right. \label{hecke-action}
\end{equation}
The important fact for us is that this right action of $\widehat{H}_N(q^2)$
on $V(z)^{\otimes N}$ commutes with the left action
of $\upqn$ on $V(z)^{\otimes N}$ given in the
previous subsection in terms of the coproduct.
\subsection{$q$-antisymmetrization and $q$-wedges}
As a vector space,
$H_N(q^2) \subset \widehat{H}_N(q^2)$ has a natural basis $\{T_{\sigma}
\}_{\sigma\in S_N}$ which can be defined as follows.
Given $\sigma \in S_N$, take a minimal-length expression $\sigma =
\sigma_{i_1} \sigma_{i_2} \cdots \sigma_{i_l}$ of $\sigma$ in terms of
adjacent transpositions. Then define $T_{\sigma} = T_{i_1} T_{i_2} \cdots
T_{i_l}$. It is a basic result about the Hecke algebra that $T_{\sigma}$
depends only on $\sigma$ and not on the particular expression that was used.
We define
the $q$-antisymmetrizing operator $A^{(N)}$ acting on $V(z)^{\otimes N}$
to be the sum
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{(N)} = \sum_{\sigma \in S_N}T_{\sigma}
\label{q-anti-symmetrizer}
\end{eqnarray}
There are no $(-1)^{\sigma}$ factors appearing in this sum
because the sign of the permutation is already incorporated
into the definition (\ref{hecke-action}) of the action of $\widehat{H}_N(q^2)$;
for example, $(v_{i+1} \otimes v_i) \cdot T_1 = -q v_i \otimes v_{i+1}$.
(In other words, the operator $T_i$ acting in $V(z)^{\otimes N}$
is really a deformation of $-\sigma_i$, rather
than of $\sigma_i\in S_N$.)
The {\em $q$-antisymmetrization} of a pure tensor
$z^{a_1} v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes z^{a_N} v_{m_N}$
is defined to be
\begin{equation}
(z^{a_1} v_{m_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes z^{a_N} v_{m_N}) \cdot A^{(N)}.
\label{q-anti-sym}
\end{equation}
We begin our study of $A^{(N)}$ with the following proposition, which
essentially asserts that $A^{(N)}$ is (up to scalar) an idempotent,
and $V(z)^{\otimes N}$ decomposes as a direct sum of its two eigenspaces.
\begin{prop}\label{TSPLT}
\begin{eqnarray}
V(z)^{\otimes N}={\rm Im} A^{(N)}\oplus{\rm Ker} A^{(N)}.
\lb{AST1}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\noindent
{\em Proof.} \hspace{2mm}
Note that for each $i=1,2,\cdots,N-1$ we have a factorization
\begin{equation}
A^{(N)
=\left( \sum_{\sigma '} T_{\sigma '} \right)(T_i+1),
\label{facto}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma'$ ranges over $S_N / \{ \mbox{\rm id}, \sigma_i \}$.
{}From this and (\ref{eigenvalues}), it follows that
\[
A^{(N)}(T_i-q^2)=0.
\]
This means that the action of $T_i$ on the right on ${\rm Im} A^{(N)}$ is simply
multiplication by $q^2$. Hence, right multiplication by $A^{(N)}$ on
${\rm Im} A^{(N)}$ is equal to multiplication by the scalar
\begin{equation}
\sum_l n(l) q^{2l}, \label{sum-length}
\end{equation}
where $n(l)$ is the number of elements of $S_N$ having length $l$.
This sum is equal to the product
$$
\prod_{m=1}^N \frac{1-q^{2m}}{1-q^2}
$$
which is a non-zero scalar since $q$ is not a root of unity.
Therefore we have
\begin{equation}
A^{(N)}\left(A^{(N)}-\prod_{m=1}^N{1-q^{2m}\over1-q^2}\right)=0,
\end{equation}
and this implies the assertion.
\hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
In the classical ($q=1$) case, there are two equivalent ways of defining
the wedge product. One is as the subspace of the tensor product consisting
of completely antisymmetric tensors (i.e., the image of the antisymmetrizer),
and the other is as a quotient of
the tensor product by relations of the form $v \wedge w = - w \wedge v$,
which generate the kernel of the antisymmetrizer.
In the quantum case ($q\not=1$),
both approaches are again available because of
Proposition \ref{TSPLT}.
The $q$-wedge space can be defined either as ${\rm Im} A^{(N)}$, the subspace
of $V(z)^{\otimes N}$ consisting of
$q$-antisymmetrized tensors, or as a quotient of this tensor product by
certain relations which generate the kernel of $A^{(N)}$.
Let us now describe
these relations. The first step is
\begin{prop}
The kernel of $A^{(N)}$ is the sum of the kernels of the operators $T_i+1$,
$i=1,2,\ldots , N-1$. \label{A->adjrel}
\end{prop}
\noindent
{\em Proof.} \hspace{2mm}
Equation (\ref{facto}) implies that
$\sum_i {\rm Ker} (T_i+1) \subseteq {\rm Ker} A^{(N)}$.
Let us show that
${\rm Ker} A^{(N)}\subseteq\sum_i{\rm Ker}(T_i+1)$. Proposition
\ref{TSPLT} applied to $V(z)^{\otimes 2}$ asserts that
\begin{equation}
V(z)\otimes V(z)={\rm Ker}(T-q^2)\oplus{\rm Ker}(T+1).
\label{SPLIT}
\end{equation}
In general, by arguing as we did for that Proposition, we can conclude
\begin{equation}
\omega A^{(N)} \equiv \left(\prod_{m=1}^N {1-q^{2m}\over1-q^2}\right)
\omega\bmod \sum_i{\rm Ker}(T_i+1) \label{prod-mod}
\end{equation}
for any $\omega\in V(z)^{\otimes N}$. This equation implies that if
$\omega\in{\rm Ker} A^{(N)}$, then $\omega\equiv0\bmod \sum_i{\rm Ker}(T_i+1)$.
\hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
Proposition \ref{A->adjrel}
shows that to find relations generating the kernel of
$A^{(N)}$, it suffices to find relations generating the kernel of each
$T_i+1$. For ease of notation, let us restrict to considering $V(z)
\otimes V(z)$, on which $T=T_1$ acts. Since $T$ commutes with the
action of $\upqn$, ${\rm Ker} (T+1)$ is preserved by the action of $\upqn$.
One way of deriving relations is to start with a simple element
of the kernel, say $v_1 \otimes v_1$, and then act on it by $\upqn$.
This gives us the following elements in ${\rm Ker} (T+1)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&u_l\otimes u_m\ +\ u_m\otimes u_l \hspace{2in}
\quad\hbox{if $l\equiv m\bmod n$},
\label{ker-gen-1} \\
&&u_l\otimes u_m\ +\ qu_m\otimes u_l
\ +\ u_{m-i}\otimes u_{l+i}\ +\ q u_{l+i}\otimes u_{m-i}\nonumber\\
&&\phantom{**********}
\hspace{1.2in} \hbox{if $m-l\equiv i\bmod n$ and $0<i<n$}.
\label{ker-gen-2}
\end{eqnarray}
Let $V(z) \wedge_q V(z)$ denote the quotient $(V(z) \otimes V(z))/
{\rm Ker} (T+1)$, and let $u_l\wedge_q u_m$ denote
the image of $u_m\otimes u_l$ under the
quotient map. The space
$V(z) \wedge_q V(z)$ will be called {\em $q$-wedge space}
and its elements {\em $q$-wedges}.
{}From now on, we will write $\wedge$ instead of
$\wedge_q$, but it should be understood that {\em all wedges appearing
in this paper are really $q$-wedges.}
The relations
(\ref{ker-gen-1}) and (\ref{ker-gen-2}) can be understood
as normal ordering rules, i.e., as
prescriptions for writing a $q$-wedge whose left entry is smaller than
its right in the ordering (\ref{ordering}) (i.e., $u_l\wedge u_m$
such that $l<m$) as a linear combination of
{\em normally ordered} $q$-wedges whose left entries
are larger than their right.
For $l\equiv m\bmod n$, the rule is simply
\begin{eqnarray}
u_l\wedge u_m=-u_m\wedge u_l.
\label{wedge-rel-1}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to give the rule for the case
$m-l\equiv i\bmod n$ and $0<i<n$, let us extract from
(\ref{ordering}) the subsequence
\begin{equation}
\cdots>u_m>u_{m-i}>u_{m-n}>u_{m-n-i}>\cdots
>u_{l+n+i}>u_{l+n}>u_{l+i}>u_l>\cdots
\label{subsequence}
\end{equation}
The rule is
\begin{eqnarray}
u_l\wedge u_m &=& -qu_m\wedge u_l
\ +\ (q^2-1) (u_{m-i}\wedge u_{l+i}
\ -\ qu_{m-n}\wedge u_{l+n} \label{wedge-rel-2} \\
&& \hspace{1.8in} +\ q^2u_{m-n-i}\wedge u_{l+n+i}\ +\cdots ).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Each wedge in the sum is obtained from the
one before it by moving its left component one to the right
in the sequence (\ref{subsequence}),
while simultaneously moving the right component one to
the left. The sum continues as long as we get normally ordered wedges.
As in the case $N=2$, define $N$-fold
$q$-wedge space $\bigwedge^N V(z)$
to be the quotient $V(z)^{\otimes N}/{\rm Ker}A^{(N)}$.
The next chain of arguments will enable us to conclude that
{\em $\bigwedge^N V(z)$
is equal to the quotient of
$V(z)^{\otimes N}$ by the relations
(\ref{wedge-rel-1}) and (\ref{wedge-rel-2}) in each pair of adjacent
factors}.
The notion of normal ordering was introduced with the motivation that
using the relations (\ref{wedge-rel-1}) and (\ref{wedge-rel-2}),
any element of
$\bigwedge^N V(z)$ can be written as a sum of normally ordered
$q$-wedges (i.e., the terms decrease strictly from left to right with
respect to the ordering (\ref{ordering})). This means, at the very
least, that the normally ordered $q$-wedges span $\bigwedge^N V(z)$,
but in fact more is true:
\begin{prop}\label{INDP}
The elements
\begin{equation}
u_{m_1}\wedge u_{m_2}\wedge\cdots\wedge u_{m_k},
\label{NOBAS}
\end{equation}
where
$m_1>m_2>\cdots>m_k$, form a basis for $\bigwedge^N V(z)$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof.\quad}
In light of the previous discussion,
it remains to show
the normally ordered $q$-wedges are linearly independent.
Because of Proposition \ref{TSPLT}, we have an isomorphism
\[
\bigwedge \! ^N V(z)\simeq{\rm Im} A^{(N)}\subset V(z)^{\otimes N}.
\]
Hence the proposition reduces to the linear independence of
the vectors
$$(u_{m_1}\otimes u_{m_2}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_{m_k})A^{(N)}$$
with the $m_i$ strictly decreasing.
This is easily seen by specializing at $q=1$.
\hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
We can conclude from
the independence of the normally ordered $q$-wedges
that the relations (\ref{wedge-rel-1}) and (\ref{wedge-rel-2})
(applied in adjacent factors) generate the entire kernel of $A^{(N)}$.
In other words, they are precisely
the complete set of relations for the $q$-wedge
product that we have been seeking.
\subsection{The thermodynamic limit}
Now consider an infinite tensor product $V(z) \otimes V(z) \otimes
V(z) \otimes \cdots$. (Physicists call this the ``thermodynamic
limit.'') An infinite iteration of (\ref{coprod-1})-(\ref{coprod-3}) gives
rise to a formal action of $\upqn$ in this tensor product. The action
is only formal because when $E_i$ or $F_i$ from $\upqn$ acts on an element
of the infinite tensor product, the result is typically an infinite sum.
Consequently, it is often not possible to compose two elements of
$\upqn$. For example, consider
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{(m)} = u_m \otimes u_{m-1} \otimes u_{m-2} \otimes \cdots\,.
\label{GST}
\end{eqnarray}
The action of $F_i$ on $u_{(m)}$ produces infinitely many terms:
\begin{equation}
F_iu_{(m)}=q^c\sum
_{\scriptstyle{k\equiv i\,\bmod\,n}\atop\scriptstyle{k\le m}}
u_m\otimes u_{m-1}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_{k+1}
\otimes u_{k+1}\otimes u_{k-1}\otimes\cdots,
\label{FIACT}
\end{equation}
where $c=0$ if $m \equiv i \bmod n$, and $1$ otherwise.
If we apply $E_i$ to the right hand side of (\ref{FIACT}),
all the terms contribute to $u_{(m)}$ because
$E_iu_{k+1}=u_{k}$ for $k\equiv i \bmod n$.
Therefore $E_iF_i$ diverges.
The affine Hecke algebra action behaves better. The formulas given by
(\ref{hecke-action}) define an action
of the infinite affine Hecke algebra $\widehat{H}_{\infty}(q^2)$ (generated
by $T_i$ and $y_i^{\pm 1}$, $i=1,2,3,\ldots$ with the above relations) on
$V(z) \otimes V(z) \otimes V(z) \otimes \cdots$. This
action is well-defined because each $T_i$ acts only in a pair
of adjacent factors.
The action of $\widehat{H}_{\infty}(q^2)$
in the thermodynamic limit commutes with the formal action of $\upqn$.
Let $U_{(m)}$ denote the linear span of all pure tensors that coincide with
$u_{(m)}$ given by (\ref{GST}) after finitely many factors.
In other words, $U_{(m)}$ is spanned by tensors of the form
\[
u_{m_1}\otimes u_{m_2}\otimes u_{m_3}\otimes\cdots
\]
where $m_k=m-k+1$ for $k>\hskip-2pt>1$.
Define $F_{(m)}$ to be the quotient of $U_{(m)}$ by the space
$\sum_i {\rm Ker} (T_i+1)$, or, equivalently, by the relations
(\ref{wedge-rel-1}) and (\ref{wedge-rel-2}) in each pair
of adjacent factors. The spaces
$F_{(m)}$ will be called {\em $q$-deformed Fock spaces}, or
semi-infinite $q$-wedge spaces. Corresponding to (\ref{GST}), we set
\begin{eqnarray}
\vac{m} = u_m \wedge u_{m-1} \wedge u_{m-2}\wedge\cdots.
\label{WGST}
\end{eqnarray}
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Remark} \hspace{2mm}
In \cite{Eug}, semi-infinite wedges were defined as completely
$q$-antisymmetrized `ideal' elements of $U_{(m)}$,
using the antisymmetrization
operator $\sum_{\sigma \in S_{\infty}} T_{\sigma}$. ($S_{\infty}$ is
the group of bijections $\mbox{\bf Z}^+ \to \mbox{\bf Z}^+$ fixing
all but finitely many elements; equivalently, it is the group
generated by adjacent transpositions $\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma_3,
\ldots \ $. The elements
$\{T_{\sigma}\}_{\sigma \in S_{\infty}}$ form a basis
for the infinite Hecke algebra $H_{\infty}(q^2)$ inside $\widehat{H}_{\infty}(q^2)$.)
We prefer to define semi-infinite wedge space as a quotient
by certain relations so as not to have to work with infinite sums.
\medskip
Because each $T_i$ is an intertwiner,
the action of $\upqn$
on $V(z)^{\otimes N}$ given by the coproduct (iterated $N-1$ times)
factors through to the quotient space
$\bigwedge^N V(z)=V(z)^{\otimes N}/{\rm Ker} A^{(N)}$.
We will show that the formal action of $\upqn$
on the infinite tensor space $U_{(m)}$ induces a
genuine action on $F_{(m)}$.
For each vector $v\in F_{(m)}$ we have a decomposition
of the form
\begin{equation}
v=v^{(N)}\wedge \vac{m-N},
\qquad v^{(N)}\in\bigwedge \! ^N V(z)
\label{DCPN}
\end{equation}
for a sufficiently large $N$.
Therefore, if we determine the action of the Chevalley generators
on $\vac{m}$ for all $m\in{\bf Z}$, the coproduct
(\ref{coprod-1}-\ref{coprod-3})
gives the action on general vectors.
We define the action of $E_i$, $F_i$, $K_i$ $(i=0,1,\cdots,n-1)$
on $\vac{m}$ to mirror their formal action in $U_{(m)}$,
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
E_i\vac{m}&=&0,\\
F_i\vac{m}&=&\cases{
u_{m+1}\wedge u_{m-1}\wedge u_{m-2}\wedge\cdots&if $i\equiv m\bmod n$;\cr
0&otherwise,\cr}\\
K_i\vac{m}&=&\cases{
q\vac{m}&if $i\equiv m\bmod n$;\cr
\vac{m}&otherwise.\cr}
\end{eqnarray}
Noting that $u_l\wedge u_l=0$, we can show the well-definedness of this
action. The action of $d$ is also consistently defined by fixing
the degree of $\vac{0}$ to be zero.
\begin{prop}
The $\upqn$-module $F_{(m)}$ is isomorphic to the $q$-deformed Fock space
constructed by Hayashi in \cite{Hayashi} and Misra-Miwa in \cite{Misra-Miwa}.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof.\quad}
{}From Proposition \ref{INDP} we see that the vectors
\[
u_{m_1}\wedge u_{m_2}\wedge u_{m_3}\wedge\cdots
\]
where $m_1>m_2>m_3>\cdots$ and $m_k=m-k+1$
for $k>\hskip-2pt>1$,
constitute a basis of $F_{(m)}$. There is an evident one-to-one
correspondence between these vectors and the colored Young diagrams in
\cite{Misra-Miwa}, and this
correspondence is equivariant with respect to the $U'_q(\slnh)$-actions.
\hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
Set
\[
\goth{h}={\bf C} H_0\oplus{\bf C} H_1\oplus\cdots{\bf C} H_{n-1}\oplus{\bf C} d,
\]
where $K_i=q^{H_i}$.
Let $\Lambda_i\in \goth h^*$ $(0\le i\le n-1)$ be the fundamental weights,
i.e., $\Lambda_i(H_j)=\delta_{i,j}$ and $\Lambda_i(d)=0$.
We define $\Lambda_m$ for $m\in{\bf Z}$ by requiring
$\Lambda_m=\Lambda_{m-1}+\hbox{\rm wt\,}u_m$.
(If $m_1 \equiv m_2 \bmod n$, then $\Lambda_{m_1}$ and $\Lambda_{m_2}$
are the same apart from the action of $d$.)
Then $\vac{m}$ has weight $\Lambda_m$
and the weights of $F_{(m)}$ belong to
$\Lambda_m+\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{\bf Z}_{\le 0}\,\alpha_i$.
The highest weight vector $\vac{m}\in F_{(m)}$
generates the irreducible highest weight module $V_{\Lambda_m}$
with highest weight $\Lambda_m$.
It is important to remark that
$\vac{m}$ is not the only highest weight vector in $F_{(m)}$.
For example, if $n=2$, then $(F_0 F_1 - q F_1 F_0) \vac{0}$ is a
highest weight vector that lies in the same Fock space as $\vac{0}$.
The goal of this paper is to describe the
decomposition of $F_{(m)}$ (which is completely reducible) as a
$U_q(\slnh)$-module.
\section{Heisenberg algebra and decomposition of $F_{(m)}$}
When $q=1$, $F_{(m)}$ reduces to the ordinary infinite wedge space,
and its decomposition as an $\slnh$-module is known.
(See, for example, \cite{q=1}.)
The decomposition comes from a Heisenberg
algebra $H$ acting on wedge space and commuting with the action of
$\slnh$. In this section, we introduce an
analogous action of the Heisenberg algebra on the $q$-deformed
Fock spaces, and use this action to decompose these spaces as
$\upqn$-modules.
We also decompose the mapping between Fock spaces that is induced by
the $q$-wedging operator into the product of the vertex operator for
the level-$1$ $U_q(\slnh)$-modules and that for the Heisenberg algebra.
\subsection{Center of the affine Hecke algebra}
The aim of this section is to define an action of a Heisenberg algebra
$H$ on $F_{(m)}$, which commutes with the action of $U'_q(\slnh)$.
This Heisenberg algebra is the limit $N \rightarrow \infty$ of the
center of the finite affine Hecke algebra $\widehat H_N(q^2)$.
Then the $q$-deformed Fock space $F_{(m)}$,
regarded as a representation of $U'_q(\slnh)\otimes U(H)$, decomposes
into the tensor product
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{(m)}\simeq V_{\Lambda_m}\otimes{\bf C}[H_-],
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf C}[H_-]$ is the Fock space of the Heisenberg algebra $H$.
In the previous section we constructed the $q$-deformed Fock space
by starting from the $U_q(\slnh)$-module $V(z)$. The $U'_q(\slnh)$-action
on $V(z)$ commutes with $y\in{\rm End}_{{\bf C}}V(z)$ (acting as multiplication
by $z^{-1}$). Using this fact
as a building block, we will construct
elements in the centralizer of the $U'_q(\slnh)$-action on $F_{(m)}$.
For $a\in{\bf Z}\backslash\{0\}$ define an operator $B_{a}$ acting
formally in $V(z) \otimes V(z) \otimes V(z) \otimes \cdots$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{a}=\sum_{k=1}^\infty y_k^{-a}.
\end{eqnarray}
It is clear
that this formal action commutes with the formal action of $\upqn$,
and also that it preserves each subspace $U_{(m)}$.
The following can be checked using relations
(\ref{heckegen-6}) and (\ref{heckegen-7}):
\begin{lemma}
The element
\[
B^{(N)}_{a}=\sum^N_{k=1}y_k^{-a}
\]
belongs to the center of $\widehat H_N(q^2)$.
\end{lemma}
In particular, $B_{a}$ commutes with each $T_i$, and therefore
preserves the spaces ${\rm Ker}(T_i+1)$.
It therefore preserves their sum $\sum_i{\rm Ker}(T_i+1)$,
which means that it acts
on the quotient spaces $F_{(m)}$. In fact, this is a genuine action
rather than just a formal one: the action of $B_{a}$ on a wedge results
in a finite sum of wedges. This is because for sufficiently large $k$
we have $y_k^{-a}w=0$, which follows from
\begin{lemma}\label{UDL}
Let $l\le m$. Then, the $q$-wedges
$u_m\wedge u_{m-1}\wedge\cdots\wedge u_{l+1}\wedge u_l\wedge u_m$
and
$u_l\wedge u_m\wedge u_{m-1}\wedge\cdots\wedge u_{l+1}\wedge u_l$
are both equal to zero.
\end{lemma}
\noindent
{\em Proof.} \hspace{2mm}
A straightforward induction using the relations
(\ref{wedge-rel-1}) and (\ref{wedge-rel-2}). \hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
As already mentioned, the action of $B^{(N)}_{a}$ on $V(z)^{\otimes N}$
commutes with the action of $U'_q(\slnh)$. Thus, we conclude
\begin{prop}
The operator $B_{a}$ acts on $F_{(m)}$ and commutes with $U'_q(\slnh)$.
\end{prop}
Next we compute the commutator $[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]$. For this purpose we need
\begin{lemma}
\label{OPBB}
\begin{eqnarray}
[B_{a},z^bv_i]=z^{a+b}v_i.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
Here we consider $z^bv_i$ as an operator $F_{(m)} \to F_{(m+1)}$
acting as follows: if $v \in F_{(m)}$, then
\[
z^b v_i: v \mapsto z^bv_i\wedge v.
\]
\begin{lemma}
\label{IDL}
Suppose that $\beta\in{\rm End}_{\bf C}\left(\oplus_{m\in{\bf Z}}F_{(m)}\right)$
satisfies the following:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hbox{(i)} \qquad \beta F_{(m)}\subset F_{(m)},\label{CN1}\\
&&\hbox{(ii)} \qquad
[d,\beta]=a\beta\quad\hbox{for some $a\in{\bf Z}$},\label{CN2}\\
&&\hbox{(iii)} \qquad
[\beta,z^bv_i]=0\quad \hbox{for any $b\in{\bf Z}$ and $i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$}
\label{CN3}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then $\beta=\gamma\,\hbox{\rm id}$ for some constant $\gamma$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\it Proof.\quad}
We use the decomposition (\ref{DCPN}).
{}From (\ref{CN3}) we have
\[
\beta v=v^{(N)}\wedge\beta \vac{m-N}.
\]
{}From (\ref{CN1}) we have
\[
\beta \vac{m-N}=\sum_k\gamma_ku_{m_{1,k}}\wedge\cdots\wedge u_{m_{M,k}}
\wedge \vac{m-N-M}
\]
for some $M>0$, where $m_{1,k}>\cdots>m_{M,k}>m-N-M$ for all $k$.
Because of (\ref{CN2}), there exists an integer $L$ independent of $N$
such that $m_{1,k}\le m-N+L$.
By Lemma \ref{UDL},
for a sufficiently large $N$, $v^{(N)}\wedge u_{m_{1,k}}=0$
for all $k$ such that $m_{1,k}\ge m-N+1$.
Therefore, we can ignore these terms in $\beta v$.
Suppose that $m_{1,k}\le m-N$ and
$u_{m_{1,k}}\wedge\cdots\wedge u_{m_{M,k}}\wedge \vac{m-N-M}\not=0$.
In this case, Lemma \ref{UDL}
implies $m_{l,k}=m-N-l+1$ $(1\le l\le M)$.
Therefore, $\beta v=\gamma v$, and it is clear that $\gamma$ is independent
of $v$.
\hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
We are now ready to show
\begin{prop}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hbox{(i)} \qquad\hbox{If $a_1+a_2\not=0$, then $[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]=0$.}
\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{(ii)} \qquad
\hbox{$\gamma_a=[B_a,B_{-a}]$ is a non-zero constant.}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof.\quad}
The basic fact, which we will use to prove (i) and (ii), is that
$[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]$ is a constant for all $a_1$ and $a_2$. This will
follow from Lemma \ref{IDL} as soon as we have verified that
the operator $[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]$ satisfies the three conditions
of the lemma. It is clear that $[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]$ preserves $F_{(m)}$.
Since $[d,B_{a}]=aB_{a}$, $[d, [B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]] = (a_1+a_2)
[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]$, so the second condition is satisfied.
Finally, Lemma \ref{OPBB} implies
\[
\left[[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}],z^bv_i\right]=0,
\]
which is precisely the third condition.
Now to show (i), observe that
if $a_1+a_2\not=0$, then the degree of the operator
$[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]$ is non-zero.
Since it is a constant, we must have $[B_{a_1},B_{a_2}]=0$.
To show (ii), note that one can compute
$[B_{a},B_{-a}]\vac{m}$ as a finite sum
by using the formulas (\ref{wedge-rel-1})
and (\ref{wedge-rel-2}). This implies that
$\gamma_a$ is a polynomial in $q$,
and by specializing it to $q=1$, we can conclude
that $\gamma_a\not=0$. \hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
We will derive an explicit formula for $\gamma_a$
in the next subsection. For now, let us calculate
$\gamma_1$ as an example.
Using \ref{UDL}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{-1}\vac{0} &=& u_n\wedge \vac{\! - \! 1}
\ + \ u_0\wedge u_{n-1}\wedge \vac{\! - \! 2}
\ + \ u_0\wedge u_{-1}\wedge u_{n-2}\wedge \vac{\! - \! 3} \\
&&\phantom{*******}
+ \cdots+ \ u_0\wedge\cdots\wedge u_{-n+2}\wedge u_1\wedge \vac{\! -\! n}
\nonumber \\
&=& u_n\wedge \vac{\! - \! 1}
\ - \ qu_{n-1}\wedge u_0\wedge \vac{\! -\! 2}
\ + \ (-q)^2u_{n-2}\wedge u_0\wedge u_{-1}\wedge \vac{\! -\! 3} \\
&&\phantom{*******} + \cdots
+ \ (-q)^{n-1}u_1\wedge u_0\wedge\cdots\wedge u_{-n+2}\wedge \vac{\! -\! n}
\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by applying $B_1$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
B_1B_{-1}\vac{0}&=&u_0\wedge \vac{\! -\! 1}
\ - \ qu_{-1}\wedge u_0\wedge \vac{\! -\! 2}
\ + \ (-q)^2u_{-2}\wedge u_0\wedge u_{-1}\wedge \vac{\! -\! 3} \nonumber\\
&&\phantom{*****}
+ \cdots+ \ (-q)^{n-1}u_{-n+1}\wedge u_0\wedge\cdots
\wedge u_{-n+2}\wedge \vac{\! -\! n}
\nonumber\\
&=&(1+q^2+q^4+\cdots+q^{2n-2})\vac{0}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, noting that $[B_1, B_{-1}]\vac{0} = B_1 B_{-1}\vac{0}$,
we conclude
\[
\gamma_1={1-q^{2n}\over1-q^2}.
\]
Summing up, in this subsection
we have constructed the action of the Heisenberg
algebra $H$ on $F_{(m)}$. $H$ is generated by the
operators $B_{a}$ $(a\in{\bf Z}\backslash\{0\})$
with the commutation relations
\begin{equation}
[B_{a},B_{b}]=\delta_{a+b,0}\,\gamma_a, \label{BaBb}
\end{equation}
where the constant $\gamma_a$ is yet to be determined.
Let ${\bf C}[H_-]$ be the Fock space of $H$, i.e.,
${\bf C}[H_-]={\bf C}[B_{-1},B_{-2},\ldots]$. The element $B_{-a}$
$(a=1,2,\ldots)$ acts on ${\bf C}[H_-]$ by multiplication.
The action of $B_{a}$ $(a=1,2,\ldots)$ is given by (\ref{BaBb})
together with the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
&&B_{a} \cdot 1=0\quad\hbox{for $a\ge1$}.
\end{eqnarray}
By computing characters we easily obtain
\begin{prop}
There is an isomorphism
\begin{eqnarray}
\iota_m:F_{(m)}\simeq V_{\Lambda_m}\otimes{\bf C}[H_-]
\lb{DCM}
\end{eqnarray}
of $U'_q(\slnh)\otimes H$-modules.
\end{prop}
We normalize the isomorphism by requiring
\[
\iota_m(\vac{m})=v_{\Lambda_m}\otimes1.
\]
\subsection{Decomposition of the vertex operator}
We define the vertex operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega:V(z)\otimes F_{(m-1)}\rightarrow F_{(m)}
\lb{DECOM}
\end{eqnarray}
by $\Omega(u_a\otimes \omega )=u_a\wedge \omega $.
This is an intertwiner of $U_q(\slnh)$-modules.
In this section, we decompose the vertex operator $\Omega$
into two parts corresponding to the decomposition \rf{DCM}:
one which acts from $V_{\Lambda_{m-1}}$
to $V_{\Lambda_m}$ and the other which acts on ${\bf C}[H_-]$.
The first step in carrying out this decomposition is to transfer
$\Omega$ from the $F_{(m)}$-setting to the $V_{\Lambda_m} \otimes
{\bf C}[H_-]$-setting. To be precise,
define
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega':V(z)\otimes V_{\Lambda_{m-1}}\otimes{\bf C}[H_-]
\longrightarrow V_{\Lambda_m}\otimes{\bf C}[H_-]
\end{eqnarray}
by requiring that the following diagram commutes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\matrix{
V(z)\otimes F_{(m-1)}&
\buildrel{{\rm id}_{V(z)}\otimes\iota_{m-1}}\over\longrightarrow&
V(z)\otimes V_{\Lambda_{m-1}}\otimes{\bf C}[H_-]\cr
&&\cr
\Bigg\downarrow\Omega&&\Bigg\downarrow\Omega'\cr
&&\cr \label{DGRM}
F_{(m)}&
\buildrel{\iota_m}\over\longrightarrow&
V_{\Lambda_m}\otimes{\bf C}[H_-]\cr}
\end{eqnarray}
We will decompose $\Omega'$ (on the level of generating series)
into one part corresponding to $V_{\Lambda_m}$ and another
part corresponding to ${\bf C} [H_-]$. Given $j\in{\bf Z}$, we associate
to $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ the generating series
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Omega_j(w) &=& \sum_{b\in{\bf Z}}\Omega_{j,b}w^{-b}, \\
\Omega'_j(w) &=& \sum_{b\in{\bf Z}}\Omega'_{j,b}w^{-b}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\Omega_{j,b}$ is an operator $F_{(m-1)} \longrightarrow F_{(m)}$
whose action is defined by
$$\Omega_{j,b} \cdot \omega = \Omega (u_{j-nb}\otimes \omega).$$
Similarly, $\Omega'_{j,b}$ is an operator $V_{\Lambda_{m-1}} \otimes {\bf C}[H_-]
\longrightarrow V_{\Lambda_m} \otimes {\bf C}[H_-]$ whose action is given by
$$\Omega'_{j,b}(\omega \otimes f) = \Omega' (u_{j-nb}\otimes \omega
\otimes f).$$
The first element in the decomposition of $\Omega'$ is a
$U'_q(\slnh)$-vertex operator corresponding to $V_{\Lambda_m}$. It is
given by the following proposition:
\begin{prop}[\cite{vertex}]\label{unicite}
There exists a unique intertwiner of $U_q(\slnh)$-modules
\begin{eqnarray}
{\tilde\Phi}^*:V(z)\otimes V_{\Lambda_{m-1}}\longrightarrow V_{\Lambda_m}
\end{eqnarray}
such that
${\tilde\Phi}^*\Bigl(u_m\otimes v_{\Lambda_{m-1}}\Bigr)=v_{\Lambda_m}$.
\end{prop}
\noindent
The intertwiner ${\tilde\Phi}^*$ also has a generating series associated
with it. It is given by
$${\tilde\Phi}^*_j(w)=\sum_{b\in{\bf Z}}{\tilde\Phi}^*_{j,b}w^{-b},$$
where ${\tilde\Phi}^*_{j,b}:V_{\Lambda_{m-1}}\longrightarrow V_{\Lambda_m}$
is given by
\[
{\tilde\Phi}^*_{j,b} \cdot \omega ={\tilde\Phi}^*(u_{j-nb}\otimes \omega ).
\]
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Remark} \hspace{2mm}
Note that the uniqueness in Proposition
\ref{unicite} is assured by the requirement
that the degree with respect to $d$ is invariant.
A general intertwiner of
$U'_q(\slnh)$-modules
$\Phi:V(z)\otimes V_{\Lambda_{m-1}}\longrightarrow V_{\Lambda_m}$
(not preserving degree) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi(z^a v_l\otimes \omega )=
\sum_kc_k
{\tilde\Phi}^*(z^{a+k} v_l \otimes \omega ).
\end{eqnarray}
The second component in the decomposition
of $\Omega'$ is a vertex operator corresponding
to $H$. This is given by the generating series
\begin{equation}
\Xi(w)=
{\rm exp}\left( \sum_{b\ge1}{B_{-b}w^b\over\gamma_b}\right)
{\rm exp}\left( -\sum_{b\ge1}{B_{b}w^{-b}\over\gamma_b}\right). \label{D}
\end{equation}
Here $\gamma_b$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_b=[B_b,B_{-b}].
\lb{E}
\end{eqnarray}
The vertex operator $\Xi(w)$ is characterized by
the commutation relation
\begin{equation}
[B_a,\Xi(w)]=w^a\Xi(w)\,.\label{xi}
\end{equation}
Let $\Xi_b$ denote the coefficient of $w^{-b}$ in
the expansion of (\ref{D}).
We can now state the main result of this section.
\begin{prop}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega'_j(w)={\tilde\Phi}^*_j(w)\otimes\Xi(w).
\lb{C}
\end{eqnarray} \label{main}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof.\quad}
First we observe that by Proposition \ref{unicite}
the map $\Omega'$ is uniquely determined by
the following conditions:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hbox{(i)}\qquad\Omega'(u_m\otimes v_{\Lambda_{m-1}}\otimes1)
=v_{\Lambda_m}\otimes1,\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{(ii)}\qquad\Omega'\hbox{ is $U_q(\slnh)$-linear},\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{(iii)}\qquad\Omega'\hbox{ is $H$-linear}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In (iii) the action of $B_{a}$ on
$V(z)\otimes V_{\Lambda_{m-1}}\otimes {\bf C}[H_-]$ is given by
\[
B_{a}(z^bv_i\otimes v\otimes f)=
z^{a+b}v_i\otimes v\otimes f+z^av_i\otimes v\otimes B_{a}f.
\]
We will show that the right hand side of
\rf{C} satisfies these conditions, and hence is equal to $\Omega'(w)$.
Condition (i) follows from
\begin{eqnarray}
{\tilde\Phi}^*_{m,b}v_{\Lambda_{m-1}}&=&
\cases{0&if $b>0$;\cr v_{\Lambda_m}&if $b=0$,\cr}
\\
\Xi_b1&=&\cases{0&if $b>0$;\cr1&if $b=0$.\cr}
\end{eqnarray}
Condition (ii) is satisfied automatically.
Condition (iii)
follows from (\ref{xi}).
\hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
The final step is to explicitly calculate
$\gamma_a=[B_a,B_{-a}]$
by comparing two point
functions of the vertex operators appearing in Proposition \ref{main}.
The result we are aiming for is
\begin{prop}
\begin{eqnarray}
[B_{a},B_{-a}]=a{1-q^{2na}\over1-q^{2a}}.
\end{eqnarray} \label{comm-formula}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof.\quad} The idea of the proof is to calculate and compare the two
point functions of each side of (\ref{eqn:C}), then read off a
formula for $\gamma_a = [B_a,B_a]$. The right hand side can
be done in each factor separately; the answers are given by
the following two lemmas:
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle 1,\Xi(w_1)\Xi(w_2)1 \rangle =
{\rm exp}\left(\sum_{a>0}{(w_2/w_1)^a\over\gamma_a}\right)
\label{comxi}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle v_{\Lambda_{m+1}},{\tilde\Phi}_{m+1}^*(w_1)
{\tilde\Phi}_m^*(w_2)v_{\Lambda_{m-1}} \rangle =
{(q^{2n+2}w_2/w_1;q^{2n})_\infty\over(q^{2n}w_2/w_1;q^{2n})_\infty}.
\label{comphi}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $(z,p)_\infty=\prod_{k\ge0}(1-zp^k)$.
\end{lemma}
The former is easy, and the latter is obtained in \cite{DO,JM}. The
two point function of the right hand side of (\ref{eqn:C}) is then just
the product of (\ref{comxi}) and (\ref{comphi}).
Now on to the left hand side of (\ref{eqn:C}). By (\ref{DGRM}),
the two point function for $\Omega'(w)$ is the same as the one for
$\Omega(w)$. The latter is given by the following:
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle{m+1}|\Omega_{{m+1}}(w_1)\Omega_{m}(w_2)\vac{m-1}
&=&{1-w_2/w_1\over1-q^2w_2/w_1}.
\label{TWOPT}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\it Proof.\quad}
We have
\[
\Omega_{m}(w_2)\vac{m-1}
=\sum_{j=0}^\infty u_{m+nj}\wedge \vac{m-1}w_2^{j}.
\]
Applying $\Omega_{{m+1}}(w_1)$ to this sum, and collecting the terms
whose weight is equal to that of $\vac{m+1}$, we get
\[
\sum_{b=0}^\infty u_{m+1-nb}\wedge u_{m+nb}\wedge \vac{m-1}
w_1^{-b}w_2^{b}.
\]
Using the normal ordering rule gives us
\[
\langle{m+1}|(w_2/w_1)^bu_{m+1-nb}\wedge u_{m+nb}\wedge \vac{m-1}
=\cases{1&if $b=0$,\cr q^{2(b-1)}(q^2-1)(w_2/w_1)^b&if $b>0$.\cr}
\]
Summing up for $b$, we obtain (\ref{TWOPT}).
\hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
\medskip
The proof of Proposition \ref{comm-formula} is just a matter of putting
together these three lemmas. Setting the left and right two point
functions equal to each other and cancelling,
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm exp}\left(\sum_{a>0}{(w_2/w_1)^a\over\gamma_a}\right)
=\prod_{a\ge0}{1-q^{2na}w_2/w_1\over1-q^{2+2na}w_2/w_1}
\end{eqnarray}
A comparison of coefficients results in the asserted formula for
$\gamma_a$. \hfill\fbox{}\break\smallskip
\vspace{6mm}
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements} \hspace{2mm}
We are grateful to Michio Jimbo and Nicolai Reshetikhin for
helpful discussions. E.S. also thanks everyone at RIMS for
their excellent hospitality during his visit in May-June of 1995,
when this work was being completed.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Liquid helium ($^4$He) has a reputation for being the first substance in which
one is able to observe many macroscopic quantum phenomena. In particular, it
was the first system that could sustain superfluid flow, \cite{bulk} and as a
consequence display a number of amazing properties such as second sound,
quantized vortices and the fountain effect. Furthermore, thin superfluid helium
films were the first two-dimensional systems experimentally proven to undergo a
Kosterlitz-Thouless
transition to the normal state. \cite{film} More recently it may
have been observed \cite{Mochel} that on weakly-binding substrates these films
are the first-known spatially ordered superfluids. \cite{VAV}
More precisely, measurements of the third-sound resonance
frequency (which is proportional to the square root of the superfluid density)
of submonolayer helium films on hydrogen and deuterium substrates apparently
indicate two independent Kosterlitz-Thouless transitions: the usual superfluid
to normal transition at a temperature $T_{KT}$ that obeys the expected
universal jump relation, \cite{NK} and a second new transition at a temperature
$T_c$ which is roughly $0.5\,\,T_{KT}$ for all coverages. The second transition
appears as a sharp (but not discontinuous) rise or dip in the superfluid
density depending on the substrate.
In an attempt to explain these experimental results we have
recently proposed that below the second critical temperature the superfluid
helium film is in a spatially ordered phase exhibiting both off-diagonal
(superfluid) and diagonal (hexatic) long-range order in the one-particle
density matrix. \cite{PRL} The main idea behind this proposal is that the
hexatic to fluid transition is known to be a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition
driven by disclination unbinding. \cite{NH} (Disclinations are defects in the
orientational order of a crystal created by the insertion or removal of a wedge
of atoms, as shown in Fig.\ 1.) Therefore, our physical picture of the
experiments is that at sufficiently low temperatures the film is in a
superhexatic phase with only a dilute gas of bound vortices and bound
disclinations present due to thermal fluctuations. For entropic reasons the
disclinations then unbind at $T_c$, leading to a transition from a superhexatic
to a superfluid phase since the vortices remain bound at this transition and
the presence of free disclinations destroys the hexatic long-range order. At
$T_{KT}$ the vortices then also unbind and the film is finally forced into the
normal liquid phase.
Of course, to make sure that the above picture is qualitatively correct we must
also consider the interaction between vortices and disclinations. This is even
more pressing if one realizes that in a supersolid phase (where all
disclination pairs are themselves bound into pairs or triples) this interaction
is of long range and depends logarithmically on the distance between the two
kinds of defects. Fortunately, it turns out that this is no longer true in the
superhexatic phase due to the screening of the interaction by the surrounding
gas of disclination pairs. A renormalization-group analysis actually shows that
the vortex-disclination interaction is irrelevant and that the two separate
Kosterlitz-Thouless transitions indeed survive. Nevertheless, the superfluid
density is influenced in a non-universal way by the unbinding of the
disclinations and Monte-Carlo simulations even show that on the basis of our
hypothesis a rough qualitative agreement with the experiments of Chen and
Mochel can be obtained. \cite{PRL}
However, to definitely identify the phase below $T_c$ more detailed information
is needed. As a first step towards this goal we here present the
two-dimensional hydrodynamic equations of a superhexatic by describing the
superhexatic as a supersolid with free dislocations (i.e.\ disclination pairs
\cite{NH}). As a result of this approach we will also be able to consider the
hydrodynamics of the supersolid phase, for which there is at present a renewed
interest both in the context of Josephson-junction arrays \cite{Anne} and solid
$^4$He. \cite{LG} Moreover, spatially ordered superfluid states have recently
been proposed to be also relevant for the fractional quantum Hall effect,
\cite{B} since this effect can be understood as a condensation of composite
bosons. \cite{Z} We therefore believe that the methods developed below might,
if extended to bosons interacting with a Chern-Simons gauge field, also be used
to obtain a description of the dynamics of such exotic quantum Hall states.
We have organized the paper in the following manner. In Sec.\ \ref{PD} we first
consider the normal solid and hexatic phases by formulating a gauge theory that
describes the phonons, the dislocations and the interaction between them. From
this theory we then deduce in Sec.\ \ref{SOP} for both phases the dynamics of
the appropriate hydrodynamic degrees of freedom. In Sec.\ \ref{SP} we
incorporate the effects of the additional superfluid order parameter
\cite{fluid} into the hydrodynamic equations derived in Sec.\ \ref{SOP} and
discuss the various long-wavelength modes in the supersolid and superhexatic
phases obtained in this manner. We conclude in Sec.\ \ref{DC} with a discussion
on the possible relevance of our work to future experiments on submonolayer
helium films and with a physical interpretation of our results.
\section{GAUGE THEORY OF PHONONS AND DISLOCATIONS}
\label{PD}
In this section we will derive the long-wavelength (quantum) dynamics of the
solid and hexatic phases. The discussion closely follows work by Kleinert,
\cite{K1} save that we will not include higher gradient elasticity. This leads
to a considerable simplification of the theory but implies that we cannot
properly treat the dynamics of the disclinations. Fortunately, for our purposes
only the dynamics of the dislocations is of importance and this simplification
is justified.
\subsection{Solid}
\label{S}
In the case of an isotropic crystal, the action for the
displacement field $u_i(\vec{x},\tau)$ in the presence of a pair of
dislocations is given by \cite{K1}
\begin{equation}
\label{action}
S[u_i] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{\rho}{2} (\partial_{\tau}u_i - \beta_i)^2
+ \mu \left(u_{ij} - \frac{\beta_{ij} + \beta_{ji}}{2}
\right)^2
+ \frac{\lambda}{2} (u_{ii} - \beta_{ii})^2 \right\}~,
\end{equation}
where $u_{ij} = (\partial_i u_j + \partial_j u_i)/2$ is the strain tensor,
$\mu$ and $\lambda$ are the usual Lam\'e coefficients \cite{La} and $\rho$ is
the average mass density. The unphysical (and singular) contributions arising
from the multivaluedness of $u_i(\vec{x},\tau)$ are compensated by the
quantities $\beta_j$ and $\beta_{ij}$ (also known as the `plastic distortion').
Their relationship to the defects is best explained by the Volterra
construction. \cite{K2} Let $\cal C$ be a small loop bounding a section of two
dimensional crystal that is excised from the whole (cf. Fig.\ 2). The edges of
the loop are drawn together and form a line $\cal L$. This line may be time
dependent, and its definition is not unique. However, the topological defects
(i.e.\ two dislocations with opposite Burgers' vectors) associated with the
distortion of the surface are always located at the endpoints of $\cal L$. If
$\pm \vec{B}$ are the Burgers' vectors of the dislocations constituting the
pair and if $\vec{v}$ is their velocity then
$\beta_{ij} = \delta_i({\cal L})B_j$ and
$\beta_j = - v_i \delta_i({\cal L})B_j$. The delta function $\delta_i({\cal
L})$ is singular on the time-dependent Volterra cutting line ${\cal L}$ of the
dislocations and is directed along the normal vector. If the cutting line
${\cal L}$ is parameterized by $\vec{x}(s,\tau)$ with $0 \leq s \leq 1$, this
means mathematically that
\begin{equation}
\delta_i({\cal L}) = - \epsilon_{ij} \int_0^1 ds~
\frac{\partial x_j(s,\tau)}{\partial s}~
\delta(\vec{x} - \vec{x}(s,\tau))~,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{ij}$ is the two-dimensional antisymmetric tensor. Note that
the dislocations are assumed to be able to move freely, without any friction,
through the crystal because the equations of motion for the displacement field
allow for time-dependent solutions that precisely correspond to such evolutions
of the crystal. \cite{Na} We will come back to the issue of friction in Sec.\
\ref{SOP} when we consider the effects of dissipation.
We now first perform a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation by introducing the
auxillary variable $\vec p$ (representing the momentum density) and adding the
quadratic term
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\frac{1}{2\rho} (p_i - i\rho(\partial_{\tau}u_i - \beta_i))^2
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
to the action, which may now be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
S[p_i,u_i] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{p_i^2}{2\rho} \right.
&+& \mu \left(u_{ij} - \frac{\beta_{ij} +
\beta_{ji}}{2} \right)^2
\nonumber \\
&+& \left. \frac{\lambda}{2} (u_{ii} - \beta_{ii})^2
- ip_i(\partial_{\tau}u_i - \beta_i) \right\}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating out $\vec{p}$ would return the original action up to an unimportant
constant. In a similar manner we then also introduce the symmetric stress
tensor $\sigma_{ij}$, to decouple the terms quadratic in the strain. This
results in
\begin{eqnarray}
S[p_i,\sigma_{ij},u_i] =
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{p_i^2}{2\rho} \right.
&+& \frac{1}{4\mu} \left(\sigma_{ij}^2 -
\frac{\nu}{1+\nu} \sigma_{ii}^2 \right)
\nonumber \\
&-& \left. ip_i(\partial_{\tau}u_i - \beta_i)
+ i\sigma_{ij} \left( u_{ij} -
\frac{\beta_{ij} + \beta_{ji}}{2}
\right) \right\}~,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\nu = \lambda/(2\mu + \lambda)$. The partition function is now given by
the functional integral
\begin{equation}
Z = \int d[p_i] \int d[\sigma_{ij}] \int d[u_i]~
\exp \left\{-\frac{1}{\hbar} S[p_i,\sigma_{ij},u_i] \right\}~,
\end{equation}
where the integration over $\sigma_{ij}$ is only over the symmetrical part
since we have not included higher gradient elasticity.
We can now perform the integration over the displacement field. Because the
action is linear in $u_i$ this simply leads to the constraint
\begin{equation}
\label{con}
\partial_{\tau}p_j = \partial_i \sigma_{ij}~.
\end{equation}
This constraint can be automatically satisfied if we introduce the vector field
$A_j$ and the tensor field $A_{ij}$ by setting
$\sigma_{ij} = \epsilon_{ik} \partial_k A_j
+ \epsilon_{ki} \partial_\tau A_{kj}$
and $p_j = \epsilon_{ki} \partial_i A_{kj}$. Substituting these relations into
the action we find that the interaction between the gauge fields (i.e.\ the
phonons) and the dislocations is
given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Sint}
S_{int}[A_{ij},A_j] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\{ -iA_i \alpha_i + iA_{ij} J_{ij} \}~,
\end{equation}
where after several partial integrations the unphysical singularities of
$\beta_i$ and $\beta_{ij}$ have disappeared and only the dislocation density
and the dislocation current density
remain. Introducing also the function
$\delta({\cal P}) = \delta(\vec{x}(1,\tau)) -
\delta(\vec{x}(0,\tau))$,
which denotes the difference between a delta function at one end of the cutting
line ${\cal L}$ and a delta function at the other end, these densities and
currents can conveniently be written as
$\alpha_j = \delta({\cal P})B_j$ and
$J_{ij} = - v_i \delta({\cal P})B_j$, respectively. As a direct consequence of
the above definitions they obey the conservation law
\begin{equation}
\label{Claw}
\partial_{\tau} \alpha_j = \partial_i J_{ij}~.
\end{equation}
In addition, the dynamics of the phonons is determined by the remaining
quadratic terms in the action which expressed in terms of the gauge fields
$A_j$ and $A_{ij}$ yield
\begin{equation}
S_0[A_{ij},A_j] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{(\epsilon_{ik} \partial_k A_{ij})^2}{2\rho}
+ \frac{1}{4\mu} \left(\sigma_{ij}^2 -
\frac{\nu}{1+\nu} \sigma_{ii}^2 \right) \right\}~,
\end{equation}
with $\sigma_{ij}$ equal to
$\epsilon_{ik}(\partial_k A_j - \partial_\tau A_{kj})$.
Comparing this result with Eq.\ (\ref{action}) we observe that the stress and
the physical part of the strain
$u^{Phys}_{ij} \equiv u_{ij} - (\beta_{ij} + \beta_{ji})/2$
are related by
$\sigma_{ij} = 2\mu u^{Phys}_{ij} + \lambda \delta_{ij}
u^{Phys}_{kk}$
and therefore by
\begin{equation}
\label{uphys}
u^{Phys}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2\mu} \left( \sigma_{ij}
- \frac{\nu}{1+\nu} \delta_{ij} \sigma_{kk} \right)~.
\end{equation}
We will have need of the latter relation in Sec.\ \ref{SOP}, when we discuss
hydrodynamics. A more formal way to justify it is to add to the action
$S[u_i]$ a source term
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
K_{ij} \left(u_{ij} - \frac{\beta_{ij} + \beta_{ji}}{2} \right)
= \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
K_{ij} u^{Phys}_{ij} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and perform the same manipulations as before. We then find that the source
$K_{ij}$ indeed couples linearly to the right-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{uphys}).
Following Kleinert, we now notice that the above theory has
a gauge symmetry as a result of the fact that the gauge fields
$A_i$ and $A_{ij}$ are not uniquely determined if the stresses $\sigma_{ij}$
and momenta $p_i$ are known. Indeed,
$\sigma_{ij}$ and $p_i$ are invariant under the gauge transformation $A_i
\rightarrow A_i + \partial_{\tau} \Lambda_i$ and $A_{ij} \rightarrow A_{ij} +
\partial_i \Lambda_j$. Hence $S_0[A_{ij},A_j]$ is also invariant. Moreover, due
to the conservation law in Eq.\ (\ref{Claw}), the interaction
$S_{int}[A_{ij},A_j]$ is invariant too.
To calculate the partition function we therefore need some gauge-fixing
procedure. The symmetry of $\sigma_{ij}$ requires that
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{ij} \sigma_{ij} = \partial_j A_j
- \partial_{\tau}(A_{jj}) = 0~.
\end{equation}
We would now like to write the gauge fields as the appropriate derivatives of
unconstrained fields. Using the above gauge symmetry we can always take
$A_i = \epsilon_{ij} \partial_j \chi$ and $A_{ii}=0$.
This, however, does not completely fix the gauge because these conditions are
still invariant under the smaller group of transformations
$\chi \rightarrow \chi + \partial_{\tau} \Lambda$ and
$A_{ij} \rightarrow A_{ij} + \partial_i (\epsilon_{jk}
\partial_k \Lambda)$.
To see more clearly the consequences of this residual symmetry we
expand $A_{ij}$ into its longitudinal and transverse components (with respect
to both indices), i.e.
\begin{equation}
A_{ij} = \partial_i (\partial_j A^{LL})
+ \partial_i (\epsilon_{jk} \partial_k A^{LT})
+ \epsilon_{ik} \partial_k (\partial_j A^{TL})
+ \epsilon_{ik} \partial_k
(\epsilon_{jl} \partial_l A^{TT})~,
\end{equation}
where we have introduced four new fields. The tracelessness of $A_{ij}$ can
then be fulfilled by taking $A^{LL} = -A^{TT}$. In addition, the residual gauge
symmetry can now be written as
$\chi \rightarrow \chi + \partial_{\tau} \Lambda$ and
$A^{LT} \rightarrow A^{LT} + \Lambda$. This shows that instead of the fields
$\chi$ and $A^{LT}$ we must use the gauge-invariant field $\chi' \equiv \chi
- \partial_{\tau} A^{LT}$ together with $\Lambda$ as integration variables. The
associated change of
measure can be incorporated in the normalization and the same is true for the
`volume' $\int d[\Lambda]$ of the residual gauge group because the action is
gauge invariant and therefore cannot depend on $\Lambda$. After this
gauge-fixing procedure the partition function thus becomes
\begin{equation}
Z = \int d[A^{TT}] \int d[A^{TL}] \int d[\chi']~
\exp \left\{-\frac{1}{\hbar} \left(S_0[A^{TT},A^{TL},\chi'] +
S_{int}[A^{TT},A^{TL},\chi'] \right) \right\}~.
\end{equation}
Note that we are left with three physical degrees of freedom, which is the
correct number in two dimensions since $\sigma_{ij}$ and $p_i$ contain in
principle a total of five degrees of freedom but we have two constraints in
Eq.\ (\ref{con}). Note also that the transformation from $\sigma_{ij}$ and
$p_i$ to $A^{TT}$, $A^{TL}$ and $\chi'$ is a linear one so that the Jacobian
involved in the calculation of the partition function is simply an unimportant
constant. In particular, the stress is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{stress}
\sigma_{ij}= \epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{j\ell}\partial_k \partial_\ell \chi'
+ \partial_\tau\left(
\partial_i \partial_j A^{TL}
+ \epsilon_{ik} \partial_k \partial_j A^{TT}
+ \epsilon_{jk} \partial_k \partial_i A^{TT}
\right)~,
\end{equation}
which is manifestly symmetric in $i$ and $j$.
A straightforward calculation now shows that the free part of the action is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{s0}
S_0[A^{TT},A^{TL},\chi'] &=&
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{1}{2\mu} (\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TT})^2
+ \frac{1}{2\rho} (\partial_i \partial^2 A^{TT})^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left.
\frac{1}{4\mu(1+\nu)} (\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL})^2
+ \frac{1}{2\rho} (\partial_i \partial^2 A^{TL})^2
+ \frac{1}{4\mu(1+\nu)} (\partial^2 \chi')^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&-& \left.
\frac{1}{2\mu} \frac{\nu}{1+\nu}
(\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL})(\partial^2 \chi')
\right\}~.
\end{eqnarray}
It contains four modes: The part involving $A^{TT}$ has a pair of modes
(corresponding to $\pm \vec{k}$) with
$\omega^2 = \mu \vec{k}^2/\rho$. These modes therefore represent the transverse
phonons with a speed of sound $\sqrt{\mu/\rho}$. The part involving $A^{TL}$
and $\chi'$ has another pair of modes with a dispersion obeying
$\omega^2 = (2\mu + \lambda) \vec{k}^2/\rho$.
These represent the longitudinal phonons with a speed of sound $\sqrt{(2\mu +
\lambda)/\rho}$. Interestingly, these results can be understood much more
easily if we introduce the field
\begin{equation}
\label{chidp}
\chi'' \equiv \chi' - \nu \partial_{\tau} A^{TL}~,
\end{equation}
since then the above action becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{uncoupled}
S_0[A^{TT},A^{TL},\chi''] &=&
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{1}{2\mu} (\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TT})^2
+ \frac{1}{2\rho} (\partial_i \partial^2 A^{TT})^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left.
\frac{1-\nu}{4\mu} (\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL})^2
+ \frac{1}{2\rho} (\partial_i \partial^2 A^{TL})^2
+ \frac{1}{4\mu(1+\nu)} (\partial^2 \chi'')^2
\right\}~,
\end{eqnarray}
so that the fields are completely uncoupled. Notice that the $\chi''$ field has
no kinetic term, which explains why we obtained above only four modes instead
of six, as might have been expected in first instance.
Furthermore, if we introduce the usual Burgers' field $\vec{b}(\vec{x},\tau)$
for the total dislocation density, which is nothing more than the sum of the
density $\alpha_i$ over all dislocation pairs, then the interaction with the
dislocations acquires the form
\begin{equation}
S_{int}[A^{TT},A^{TL},\chi'] =
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
i \left\{ \chi' \epsilon_{ij} \partial_j b_i
- A^{TT} \partial_{\tau} \partial_i b_i
\right\}~,
\end{equation}
where we have made use of Eq.\ (\ref{Claw}) to express the longitudinal part
of the current density $J_{ij}$ in terms of the time derivative of $b_i$.
Decomposing $\vec{b}$ into its transverse and longitudinal parts, i.e.\
$b_i = \partial_i b^L + \epsilon_{ij} \partial_j b^T$, the interaction finally
becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{int}
S_{int}[A^{TT},A^{TL},\chi'] =
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
i \left\{ \chi' \partial^2 b^T
- A^{TT} \partial_{\tau} \partial^2 b^L
\right\}~.
\end{equation}
The total action $S = S_0 + S_{int}$ reduces for time-independent
configurations to the one we previously used for a discussion of the critical
properties of the superhexatic. \cite{PRL} Integrating out the fields $A^{TT}$
and $\chi'$ we can now find the time-dependent interaction among the
dislocations. Physically, these interactions are thus associated with phonon
exchange and the time dependence arises due to the finite speeds of sound. This
picture also explains why the effective action for $\chi'$ contains just
one pair of modes: The self-interaction of the
transverse dislocation density can only be mediated by
longitudinal phonons.
\subsection{Hexatic}
\label{Hex}
Up to this point the dislocation density has not been an independent
dynamical variable, since we have specified the positions of the dislocations
at all times and thus neglected the influence of the phonon dynamics on
their motion. However, to describe the hexatic phase we want to
integrate out the dislocations in the
plasma (or continuous) approximation. \cite{NH} For that we need the free
action of the field $\vec{b}$. Here we can again make use of the results
obtained by Kleinert, who showed that the energy associated with the nonlinear
stresses at the heart of the defect can be lumped into a `core contribution' to
the action. \cite{K1,K3} In our notation this contribution becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{dislo}
S_0[b_i] &=& \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\frac{E_c}{2} b_i
\left( \frac{\rho}{\mu}
\frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{\partial^2} + 1 \right) b_i
\nonumber \\
&=& \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\frac{E_c}{2} \left\{
b^T \left( \frac{\rho}{\mu} \partial_{\tau}^2
+ \partial^2 \right) b^T
+ b^L \left( \frac{\rho}{\mu} \partial_{\tau}^2
+ \partial^2 \right) b^L
\right\} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
This action represents free propagation of the dislocation density fluctuations
which, as mentioned previously, are permitted by the classical equations of
motion \cite{Na} and neglects dissipative coupling of the dislocation cores to
the phonons.
Integrating out the Burgers' field using Eqs.\ (\ref{int}) and (\ref{dislo}),
we obtain the following results. The effective action for $A^{TT}$ becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{eff}[A^{TT}] =
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{1}{2\mu} (\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TT})^2
\right. + \frac{1}{2\rho} (\partial_i \partial^2 A^{TT})^2
\hspace*{1.0in} \nonumber \\
+ \left.
\frac{1}{2E_c} (\partial_{\tau} \partial_i A^{TT})
\left(
\frac{\rho}{\mu}\frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{\partial^2} + 1
\right)^{-1}
(\partial_{\tau} \partial_i A^{TT})
\right\}~.
\end{eqnarray}
As shown in Fig.\ 3a, it contains two pairs of modes which for
$\vec{k}^2 \gg \mu/2E_c$ all have a dispersion obeying
$\omega^2 \simeq \mu \vec{k}^2/\rho$. However, for
$\vec{k}^2 \ll \mu/2E_c$, one pair of modes has a dispersion
$\omega^2 \simeq \mu^2/E_c\rho + 2\mu\vec{k}^2/\rho$ with a gap whereas
the other pair of modes is gapless with
$\omega^2 \simeq 2E_c \vec{k}^4/\rho$. This is consistent with our expectation
that in the hexatic phase there should only be one pair of transverse
gapless modes with a softer dispersion than that of the transverse phonon
modes in a true solid.
The effective action for $\chi'$ and $A^{TL}$ in the hexatic phase is
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{eff}[A^{TL},\chi'] &=&
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{
\frac{1}{4\mu(1+\nu)} (\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL})^2
\right.
+ \frac{1}{2\rho} (\partial_i \partial^2 A^{TL})^2
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{4\mu(1+\nu)} (\partial^2 \chi')^2
- \frac{1}{2\mu} \frac{\nu}{1+\nu}
(\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL})(\partial^2 \chi')
\nonumber \\
&+& \left.
\frac{1}{2E_c} (\partial_i \chi')
\left(
\frac{\rho}{\mu}\frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{\partial^2} + 1
\right)^{-1} (\partial_i \chi')
\right\}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating out also $A^{TL}$ we finally arrive at the effective action for
$\chi'$. It reads
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{eff}[\chi'] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{1}{4\mu(1+\nu)} (\partial^2 \chi')^2
+ \frac{1}{2E_c} (\partial_i \chi')
\left(
\frac{\rho}{\mu}\frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{\partial^2}
+ 1
\right)^{-1} (\partial_i \chi')
\right. \hspace*{0.5in} \nonumber \\
\left.
+ \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{2\mu}
\frac{\nu}{1+\nu} \right)^2
(\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 \chi')
\left( \frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{2\mu(1+\nu)}
+ \frac{\partial^2}{\rho} \right)^{-1}
(\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 \chi')
\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
and also contains two pairs of modes (cf. Fig.\ 3b).
For $\vec{k}^2 \gg \mu/2E_c$ we
recover of course the ordinary sound dispersions
$\omega^2 \simeq 2\mu\vec{k^2}/(\rho(1-\nu))
= (2\mu +\lambda)\vec{k}^2/\rho$
and $\omega^2 \simeq \mu\vec{k}^2/\rho$. However, in the limit
$\vec{k}^2 \ll \mu/2E_c$ these evolve into a pair of gapped modes with
$\omega^2 \simeq 2\mu^2/(E_c\rho(1-\nu))$ and a pair of propagating modes
with $\omega^2 \simeq 2\mu(1+\nu)\vec{k}^2/\rho$, respectively.
Clearly, the same mode structure is
also present in the effective action for $A^{TL}$ (obtained by integrating out
$\chi'$ instead of $A^{TL}$) which indicates that in the
hexatic phase the longitudinal velocity is renormalized downwards to
$\sqrt{2\mu(1+\nu)/\rho}$.
\section{HYDRODYNAMICS OF SPATIALLY ORDERED PHASES}
\label{SOP}
We now turn to the linear hydrodynamics of the solid and hexatic phases that
follows from the theory presented above. For the sake of clarity, and because
it will turn out to be less important for our purposes, we will not discuss
temperature fluctuations in the following. However, having derived the
relevant energy
densities in Secs. \ref{S} and \ref{Hex} it is in principle straightforward to
include temperature fluctuations in our theory and, in particular, to arrive at
the extension of the hydrodynamic equations presented below that is required if
one wants to consider also the hydrodynamic mode due to energy conservation.
After the equations of motion for the hydrodynamic variables are determined,
we can find the propagating and diffusive modes. This is done as before,
by Fourier transforming the equations of motion and determining the dispersion
$\omega(k)$.
Propagating modes appear as complex roots of a characteristic equation and
will always occur in pairs. Each physically distinct propagating excitation
such as longitudinal or transverse sound corresponds therefore to two
roots or modes.
We start by considering the mass-density fluctuation $\delta\rho$ above the
average mass density $\rho$ and initially neglect the possible presence of
vacancies and interstitials. To lowest order in the strain, the density
fluctuation equals $-\rho u^{Phys}_{ii}$ so up to that order we obtain
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} \delta\rho = - \rho \partial_{\tau} u^{Phys}_{ii}
= - \frac{\rho}{2(\mu + \lambda)} \partial_{\tau}
\sigma_{ii}~,
\end{equation}
if we make use of Eq.\ (\ref{uphys}) to relate the stress and the strain. Using
also the decomposition
$\sigma_{ii} = \partial^2 \chi' + \partial_{\tau}
\partial^2 A^{TL}$ from
Eq.\ (\ref{stress})
we may write this as a pair of continuity equations
\begin{mathletters}
\label{hydro}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} \delta\rho = \partial_i g_i^L~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} g_j^L = \partial_i \pi_{ij}^D~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
where the longitudinal momentum density is given by
\begin{equation}
g_i^L = - \frac{\rho}{2(\mu + \lambda)} \partial_{\tau}
\partial_i (\chi' + \partial_{\tau} A^{TL})
\end{equation}
and the diagonal part of the stress tensor by
\begin{equation}
\pi_{ij}^D = - \frac{\rho \delta_{ij}}{2(\mu + \lambda)}
\partial_{\tau}^2 (\chi' + \partial_{\tau} A^{TL})~.
\end{equation}
In the absence of defects, the hydrodynamic quantities $g_i^L$ and
$\pi_{ij}^D$ are precisely equal to the longitudinal part of $p_i$ and the
diagonal part of $\sigma_{ij}$, respectively. This can be seen in the
following manner. In an ideal solid we have no defects, and variation
of the action in Eq.\ (\ref{uncoupled}) gives $\chi''=0$ or
$\chi'=\nu \partial_\tau A^{TL}$, which we may use to eliminate $\chi'$.
The equation of motion for $A^{TL}$ generated in this way is
\begin{equation}
\label{ATLmotion}
\partial_{\tau}^2 A^{TL} = - \frac{2\mu + \lambda}{\rho}
\partial^2 A^{TL}.
\end{equation}
If we substitute this back into the definitions of $g_i^L$ and $\pi_{ij}^D$
we obtain the longitudinal part of $p_i$ and the
diagonal part of $\sigma_{ij}$ as given in section \ref{PD}.
In the presence of defects with their own dynamics this is no longer true,
since the dislocation density couples to the gauge fields and alters
the equations of motion. To avoid confusion about this point we have,
therefore, introduced a new notation for the hydrodynamic
momentum density and stress tensor which we will use for the rest of
the paper.
We also note that the above equations
are not Galilean invariant and are therefore only valid in a specific reference
frame. This is a result of the fact that the gauge theory of Sec.\ \ref{PD} has
implicitly used the existence of an ideal lattice with respect to which the
displacements $\vec{u}(\vec{x},\tau)$ are defined. \cite{K2} Hence, the
prefered reference frame corresponds to that frame in which this ideal lattice
is at rest. This is the case for all the hydrodynamic equations presented
below.
In this ideal solid without interstitials or vacancies the pressure
fluctuation (following from
$\pi_{ij}^D = - \delta_{ij} \delta p$) equals
\begin{equation}
\label{press}
\delta p = \frac{\rho}{2(\mu + \lambda)}
(1 + \nu) \partial_{\tau}^3 A^{TL}
= \frac{\rho}{2\mu + \lambda} \partial_{\tau}^3
A^{TL}
\end{equation}
and the mass-density fluctuation becomes
\begin{equation}
\delta\rho = - \frac{\rho}{2(\mu + \lambda)}
(1 + \nu) \partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL}
= - \frac{\rho}{2\mu + \lambda}
\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL}~.
\end{equation}
Substituting the equation of motion Eq.\ (\ref{ATLmotion})
for $A^{TL}$ into Eq.\ (\ref{press}), we obtain the desired constitutive
equation
\begin{equation}
\delta p = \frac{2\mu + \lambda}{\rho} \delta\rho~.
\end{equation}
Together with the hydrodynamic equations (\ref{hydro}) this correctly leads to
the sound equation
\begin{equation}
\label{sound}
\partial_{\tau}^2 \delta\rho
= - \frac{2\mu + \lambda}{\rho} \partial^2 \delta\rho
= - c_{||}^2 \partial^2 \delta\rho~,
\end{equation}
with $c_{||}$ the longitudinal sound velocity.
However, as stressed first by Martin, Parodi, and Pershan \cite{M} and again by
Zippelius, Halperin, and Nelson \cite{ZHN} we are not in general allowed to
assume that the crystal is ideal, without vacancies or interstitials. We must
include the effects of (long-wavelength) fluctuations in the net defect density
$n_{\Delta}$, which is defined as the density
of vacancies minus the density of interstitials. To do so we can make use of
the fact that in a hexagonal system these defects can be regarded as a `bound
state' of three dislocations with radial Burgers' vectors pointing
symmetrically outward (interstitial) or inward (vacancy). \cite{N} This is
illustrated for an interstitial in Fig.\ 4. As a result the interaction of the
net defect density with the gauge fields is given by
\begin{equation}
S_{int}[A^{TT},A^{TL},\chi'] =
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
i \frac{\gamma_{\Delta}}{\mu} n_{\Delta} \partial^2
\chi'~,
\end{equation}
where $V_0$ denotes the area deficit induced by a defect in an otherwise
perfect crystal and $\gamma_\Delta =\mu {c_{||}^2} {V_0}/{2}{c_{\perp}^2}$.
We can verify this result by noting that in the static case (and $n_{\Delta}
\rightarrow in_{\Delta}$ because of our conventions in the imaginary time
formalism of Sec.\ \ref{PD}) the Euler-Lagrange equation for the Airy stress
function, following from the action in Eq.\ (\ref{s0}) together with the above
interaction, becomes
$\partial^2 \chi = 2(\mu + \lambda) V_0 n_{\Delta}$
which correctly leads to
$\int d\vec{x}~u^{Phys}_{ii} = V_0 \int d\vec{x}~n_{\Delta}$.
Furthermore, the free action of the defects becomes
(cf. Eq.\ (\ref{dislo}))
\begin{equation}
\label{free}
S_0[n_{\Delta}] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\frac{E_{\Delta}}{2} n_{\Delta}
\left( \frac{\rho}{\mu} \frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{\partial^2}
+ 1 \right) n_{\Delta}~,
\end{equation}
with $E_{\Delta}$ of order $E_c V_0$.
Redoing our calculations with $n_{\Delta}$ non-zero, we find that
$n_{\Delta}$ displaces the $\chi'$ field. Therefore $\chi''$ in Eq.\
(\ref{chidp}) is also non-zero. Moreover, we now obtain instead of Eq.\
(\ref{sound}) the coupled set of equations
\begin{mathletters}
\label{sounds}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 \delta\rho =
- c_{||}^2 \left(
1 + \frac{\nu \gamma_{\Delta}^2}
{E_{\Delta} \mu}
\right) \partial^2 \delta\rho
+ i \gamma_{\Delta}
\left(
1 - \frac{2 \gamma_{\Delta}^2}
{E_{\Delta} \mu}
\right) \partial^2 n_{\Delta}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 n_{\Delta} =
- c_{\perp}^2 \left(
1 + \frac{2 \gamma_{\Delta}^2}
{E_{\Delta} \mu}
\right) \partial^2 n_{\Delta}
+ i \frac{\gamma_{\Delta}\lambda}
{E_{\Delta}\rho^2} \partial^2 \delta\rho~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
for the longitudinal degrees of freedom. Note that the density fluctuation
$\delta\rho$ receives a contribution from both the lattice vibrations as well
as
from the net defect density, since
\begin{equation}
\delta\rho =
- \frac{1}{c_{||}^2} \partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL}
+ \frac{2i \gamma_{\Delta}}{c_{||}^2} n_{\Delta}~.
\end{equation}
As a result the longitudinal momentum density has also two contributions
\begin{equation}
g^L_i =
- \frac{1}{c_{||}^2} \partial_i \partial_{\tau}^2 A^{TL}
- \frac{2i \gamma_{\Delta}}{c_{||}^2} J^L_i~,
\end{equation}
where $\vec{J}^L$ is the longitudinal part of the net defect current density
obeying the continuity equation
$\partial_{\tau} n_{\Delta} = - \partial_i J^L_i$.
This almost completes our discussion of the hydrodynamical description (without
dissipation) of the solid phase. However, we have not yet obtained the
transverse modes. From our expressions for the strain tensor $u_{ij}$ one can
easily show that in the solid phase the transverse part of the displacement
field is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{disp}
u^T_i = \frac{1}{\mu} \epsilon_{ij}
\partial_j (\partial_{\tau} A^{TT})
= \frac{1}{\rho c_{\perp}^2} \epsilon_{ij}
\partial_j (\partial_{\tau} A^{TT})~,
\end{equation}
where $c_{\perp}$ is the transverse speed of sound. Hence, the transverse
dynamics of the lattice is solely determined by the transverse phonons and we
have the additional hydrodynamic equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 A^{TT} =
- c_{\perp}^2 \partial^2 A^{TT}~,
\end{equation}
which is completely uncoupled from the previous ones and in particular does not
depend on the net defect density $n_{\Delta}$. Moreover, if we introduce the
standard hexatic order parameter $\vartheta_6$, which is equal to the local
bond angle and may therefore be written as
\begin{equation}
\vartheta_6 \equiv \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i u_j
= - \frac{1}{2\rho c_{\perp}^2}
(\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TT})~,
\end{equation}
the equation for $A^{TT}$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 \vartheta_6 =
- c_{\perp}^2 \partial^2 \vartheta_6~,
\end{equation}
so that $\vartheta_6$ can also be used to describe the transverse phonons.
{}From Eq.\ (\ref{disp}) we also find that the transverse part of the momentum
density is given by
\begin{equation}
g_i^T = \frac{1}{c_{\perp}^2} \epsilon_{ij}
\partial_j (\partial_{\tau}^2 A^{TT})~.
\end{equation}
Therefore the stress tensor has the nondiagonal contribution
\begin{equation}
\pi_{ij}^{ND} = - \frac{1}{c_{\perp}^2} \epsilon_{ij}
(\partial_{\tau}^3 A^{TT})
= 2\rho c_{\perp}^2 \epsilon_{ij} \vartheta_6~,
\end{equation}
and both the longitudinal as well as the transverse hydrodynamic equations in
the solid phase can be summarized by
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \delta\rho}{\partial t} = -\nabla \cdot \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{momS}
\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial t} =
- c^2 \nabla \delta\rho
- \gamma_{\Delta} \nabla n_{\Delta}
+ 2\rho c_{\perp}^2 \nabla \times \vartheta_6~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{transS}
\frac{\partial \vartheta_6}{\partial t} =
\frac{1}{2\rho} \nabla \times \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial n_{\Delta}}{\partial t} =
-\nabla \cdot \vec{J}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{longS}
\frac{\partial \vec{J}}{\partial t} =
- c_{\Delta}^2 \nabla n_{\Delta}
+ \gamma \nabla \delta\rho~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
after a transformation to real time, which in this case not only means that
$\tau \rightarrow it$ but also
$\vec{g} \rightarrow i\vec{g}$ and
$n_{\Delta} \rightarrow in_{\Delta}$. Moreover, note that the constants
$c$, $\gamma_{\Delta}$, $c_{\Delta}$, and $\gamma$ should here be
interpreted as renormalized quantities which are determined in terms of the
microscopic parameters of our gauge theory by a comparison with
Eq.\ (\ref{sounds}).
Now we are ready to discuss dissipation. In principle dissipation has already
been included because there is a coupling between the net defect density
$n_{\Delta}$ and the phonons. Hence if for example an interstitial were, in a
discrete picture, to tunnel from one location to another there would be a
`shake up' of the phonon field. However, if we treat $n_{\Delta}$ as a smooth
continuously varying field, the action in Eq.\ (\ref{free}) is quadratic and
the bilinear coupling
$n_{\Delta} \partial^2 \chi'$ produces only mixing of the collective modes
but no real dissipation. Therefore, we choose to include effective dissipation
in the same manner as explained in detail by Zippelius, Halperin and Nelson.
\cite{ZHN} Using their notation we first of all add to the right-hand side of
Eq.\ (\ref{momS}) the terms
$(\eta \nabla^2 \vec{g}
+ \zeta \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{g}) )/\rho$
associated with the dissipative part of the stress tensor $\pi_{ij}$ and
representing viscous diffusion of the momentum density.
Next the question arises how we need to modify
Eq.\ (\ref{longS}). This equation is a result of the fact that we have allowed
the dislocations, and hence the interstitials and vacancies, to move freely
through the lattice and used Eq.\ (\ref{free}) for the free action of the
defects. If the defects effectively experience friction (for example due to
their interaction with the phonons), then it is more appropriate to add a
Leggett friction term \cite{TL} and use
\begin{equation}
\label{diss}
S_0[n_{\Delta}] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\frac{E_{\Delta}}{2} n_{\Delta}
\left( \frac{\rho}{\mu}
\frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{\partial^2}
+ i \frac{\rho}{\mu} \xi \partial_{\tau} + 1
\right) n_{\Delta}
\end{equation}
instead. The dispersions then indeed obey
$\omega^{\pm} \simeq \pm c_{\perp} k - i \xi k^2/2$ at long wavelengths, and we
must add the term
$\xi \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{J})$ to the right-hand side of Eq.\
(\ref{longS}). If we further assume that the transverse part of the defect
current density behaves as in a gas and simply diffuses to zero with a
diffusion constant $\kappa$, we obtain in total
\begin{mathletters}
\label{HS}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \delta\rho}{\partial t} = -\nabla \cdot \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial t} =
- \frac{B}{\rho} \nabla \delta\rho
- \gamma_{\Delta} \nabla n_{\Delta}
+ 2\rho c_{\perp}^2 \nabla \times \vartheta_6
+ \frac{\eta}{\rho} \nabla^2 \vec{g}
+ \frac{\zeta}{\rho} \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{g})~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vartheta_6}{\partial t} =
\frac{1}{2\rho} \nabla \times \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial n_{\Delta}}{\partial t} =
-\nabla \cdot \vec{J}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{diff}
\frac{\partial \vec{J}}{\partial t} =
- c_{\Delta}^2 \nabla n_{\Delta}
+ \gamma \nabla \delta\rho
+ \kappa \nabla^2 \vec{J}
+ \xi \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{J})~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
with $B = \rho \partial p/\partial\rho|_{n_{\Delta},T} =
\rho c^2$
the appropriate isothermal bulk modulus in view of the fact that the pressure
is a function of both the particle density as well as the net defect density.
{}From thermodynamics we therefore also conclude that
$\gamma_{\Delta} = \partial p/\partial n_{\Delta}|_{\rho,T}$.
It is interesting to point out that these hydrodynamic equations differ from
the results obtained by Zippelius, Halperin, and Nelson. In particular, their
Eq.\ (3.32) differs from our
Eq.\ (\ref{diff}) and reads
\begin{equation}
\vec{J} =
- \Gamma_{\Delta} \nabla
\left( \frac{n_{\Delta}}{\chi_{\Delta}} -
\gamma_{\Delta} \delta\rho
\right)~.
\end{equation}
The difference can easily be traced back to the fact that Zippelius, Halperin,
and Nelson assume on phenomenological grounds that the dynamics of the net
defect density is purely diffusive. Indeed, we exactly reproduce their results
if we use in our calculation a free action of the form
\begin{equation}
S_0[n_{\Delta}] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\frac{E_{\Delta}}{2} n_{\Delta}
\left(
\frac{i\partial_{\tau}}{D_{\Delta} \partial^2} + 1
\right) n_{\Delta}
\end{equation}
instead of Eq.\ (\ref{free}). We can therefore consider the hydrodynamic
equations of Zippelius, Halperin and Nelson as the overdamped (or classical)
limit of our Eq.\ (\ref{HS}). Clearly, Kleinert's more microscopic approach
does not lead to purely diffusive but in first instance to propagating behavior
of
the defects, which is appropriate for the quantum crystals of interest in Sec.\
\ref{SP}. We now turn to the modification of the above results in the hexatic
phase.
In the hexatic phase there are free dislocations present and $\chi''$ replaces
$n_{\Delta}$ as the appropriate dynamical degree of freedom. To see most
clearly how this comes about we will work perturbatively in $1/E_c$. Up to
first order in $1/E_c$
the effective action for $\chi''$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{1}{4\mu(1+\nu)} (\partial^2 \chi'')^2
+ \frac{1}{2E_c} (\partial_i \chi'')
\left(
\frac{\rho}{\mu}
\frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{\partial^2} + 1
\right)^{-1} (\partial_i \chi'')
\right\}~, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which upon Fourier transformation displays two modes with
$\omega^2 = c_{\perp}^2 \vec{k}^2 + 2\mu^2(1+\nu)/(E_c\rho)$. So in the
limit $E_c \rightarrow \infty$ (which physically means that we are looking at
the nonhydrodynamic regime
$\vec{k}^2 \gg \mu/2E_c$) we approximately have
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 \chi'' = - c_{\perp}^2 \partial^2 \chi''~,
\end{equation}
whereas the equations of motion for $A^{TL}$ and $A^{TT}$ are
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 A^{TL} =
- c_{||}^2 \nabla^2 A^{TL}
+ \frac{\nu}{1-\nu^2} \partial_{\tau} \chi''
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 A^{TT} =
- c_{\perp}^2 \nabla^2 A^{TT}~,
\end{equation}
respectively. For the mass-density fluctuation we now find
\begin{equation}
\delta\rho = - \frac{1}{c_{||}^2}
\partial_{\tau} \partial^2 A^{TL}
- \frac{\rho}{2(\mu + \lambda)} \partial^2 \chi''
\end{equation}
and for the stress tensor
\begin{equation}
\pi_{ij}^D = - \delta_{ij}
\left\{
\frac{1}{c_{||}^2} \partial_{\tau}^3 A^{TL}
+ \frac{\rho}{2(\mu + \lambda)} \partial_{\tau}^2 \chi''
\right\}
= - \delta_{ij}
\left\{ c_{||}^2 \delta\rho
+ \frac{1}{2(1+\nu)} \partial^2 \chi''
\right\}~.
\end{equation}
Putting all this together we obtain in first instance the following set of
hydrodynamic equations for the hexatic phase
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} \delta\rho = \nabla \cdot \vec{g}^L~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} \vec{g}^L = - \nabla \delta p
= - c_{||}^2 \nabla \delta\rho
- \frac{1}{2(1+\nu)} \nabla (\nabla^2 \chi'')~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 \chi'' = - c_{\perp}^2 \nabla^2 \chi''~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 A^{TT} =
- c_{\perp}^2 \nabla^2 A^{TT}~.
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
Combining the longitudinal and transverse parts as before, this equals
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} \delta\rho = \nabla \cdot \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{mom}
\partial_{\tau} \vec{g} =
- c_{||}^2 \nabla \delta\rho
- \frac{1}{2(1+\nu)} \nabla (\nabla^2 \chi'')
+ 2\rho c_{\perp}^2 \nabla \times \vartheta_6~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 \chi'' = - c_{\perp}^2 \nabla^2 \chi''~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} \vartheta_6 =
- \frac{1}{2\rho} \nabla \times \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
and clearly reduces to the hydrodynamic equations for the ideal crystal if we
put $\chi''=0$.
We now have to consider how the above picture changes for a finite value of
$E_c$. Here we can use the results of
Sec.\ \ref{Hex}. In the hydrodynamic regime
$\vec{k}^2 \ll \mu/2E_c$ we saw that the transverse speed of sound was
renormalized to zero, because we found the quadratic (particle-like) dispersion
$\omega^2 = 2E_c \vec{k}^4/\rho$. As a result we have for the transverse
part of the hydrodynamic equations
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau}^2 A^{TT} =
\frac{2E_c}{\rho} \partial^4 A^{TT}~,
\end{equation}
which implies that in the right-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{mom}) we must replace
$2\rho c_{\perp}^2 \nabla \times \vartheta_6$ by
$- 4 E_c \vec{e}_z \times \nabla (\nabla^2 \vartheta_6)$. This gives
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} \vec{g}^T =
- 4 E_c \vec{e}_z \times \nabla (\nabla^2 \vartheta_6)~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\tau} \vartheta_6 =
- \frac{1}{2\rho} \nabla \times \vec{g}^T~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
which is in complete agreement with Zippelius, Halperin, and Nelson if we
identify the Frank constant $K_A$ with $8E_c$.
For the longitudinal part we need to analyze the dynamics of $\chi''$ and
$A^{TL}$. A straightforward calculation shows that the effective action for
these fields contains precisely the four modes already found in Sec.\
\ref{Hex}. The propagating modes with $\omega^2 = 2\mu(1+\nu)
\vec{k}^2/\rho$ obey
$\chi' = \chi'' + \nu \partial_{\tau} A^{TL} =0$ and are therefore indeed
associated with density fluctuations proportional to $\partial^2 \chi''$. We
thus need to use a renormalized longitudinal speed of sound equal to
\begin{equation}
c = \sqrt{\frac{2\mu (1+\nu)}{\rho}}
= \sqrt{\frac{2\mu}{\rho}
\frac{2\mu + 2\lambda}{2\mu + \lambda}}
\end{equation}
that is always smaller than the longitudinal speed of sound in the solid phase.
In fact, this actually exhausts the longitudinal hydrodynamic modes since the
other modes in the effective action for $\chi''$ and $A^{TL}$ are gapped. As a
result we now obtain in real time the following set of hydrodynamic equations
for the hexatic phase
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \delta\rho}{\partial t}
= - \nabla \cdot \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{momH}
\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial t} =
- c^2 \nabla \delta\rho
- \frac{K_A}{2}
\,\,\vec{e}_z \times \nabla (\nabla^2 \vartheta_6)~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{transH}
\frac{\partial \vartheta_6}{\partial t} =
\frac{1}{2\rho} \nabla \times \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
not including dissipation.
To include dissipation we again follow Zippelius, Halperin and Nelson and add
to the right-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{momH}) the terms $(\eta \nabla^2 \vec{g}
+ \zeta \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{g}) )/\rho$.
However, we do not add the term $\kappa \nabla^2 \vartheta_6$ to the right-hand
side of Eq.\ (\ref{transH}) because, just as in the solid phase, the
dissipation of the transverse modes is already accounted for in the term $\eta
\nabla^2 \vec{g}$ that is added to the momentum equation. Put differently, a
term of the form $\kappa \nabla^2 \vartheta_6$ can be absorbed by an
appropriate redefinition of $K_A$ and $\eta$. Again introducing the isothermal
bulk modulus
$B = \rho dp/d\rho|_T = \rho c^2$ we then find
\begin{mathletters}
\label{HH}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \delta\rho}{\partial t}
= - \nabla \cdot \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial t} =
- \frac{B}{\rho} \nabla \delta\rho
- \frac{K_A}{2}
\vec{e}_z \times \nabla (\nabla^2 \vartheta_6)
+ \frac{\eta}{\rho} \nabla^2 \vec{g}
+ \frac{\zeta}{\rho} \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{g}) ~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{theta}
\frac{\partial \vartheta_6}{\partial t} =
\frac{1}{2\rho} \nabla \times \vec{g}
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
as our final result for the hexatic phase. Apart from the absence of a
dissipative term in Eq.\ (\ref{theta}) it agrees with the findings of
Zippelius, Halperin and Nelson and therefore contains the same mode structure
as derived in that paper. For completeness sake, we mention however that the
equations of motion for the hexatic order parameter $\vartheta_6$ can be
derived from an effective action
\begin{equation}
S^{eff}[\vartheta_6] = \int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\frac{1}{2} \vartheta_6
\left( 4\rho \frac{\partial_{\tau}^2}{\partial^2}
+ 4i \eta \partial_{\tau} - K_A \partial^2
\right) \vartheta_6~,
\end{equation}
that can easily be understood physically: The first term on the right-hand side
corresponds to the kinetic energy
$\int d\vec{x} \rho (\partial_{\tau} \vec{u})^2/2$
of the displacement field. The second term is a Leggett friction term and the
last term corresponds to the usual Frank energy, which is responsible for the
fact that the hexatic to liquid transition is of the Kosterlitz-Thouless type.
\section{HYDRODYNAMICS OF SUPERFLUID PHASES}
\label{SP}
Having arrived at the hydrodynamic equations for the solid and hexatic phases,
our next objective is to incorporate the effects of the additional hydrodynamic
degree of freedom associated with the phase of the superfluid order parameter.
Fortunately, from the microscopic theories developed for superfluid liquids
\cite{HM} and gases \cite{KD} it is well known how we should proceed to obtain
the hydrodynamic (two-fluid) equations for the superfluid phases starting from
the equations for the normal phase. The procedure consists in principle of four
steps. First, the total (average) density $\rho$ of the system is split up into
a normal density $\rho_n$ and a superfluid density $\rho_s$. In general these
densities are tensors of second rank, but for systems with hexagonal symmetry
which are of interest here they are proportional to the identity $\delta_{ij}$
and can be considered as scalars. Second, the total momentum density $\vec{g}$
is similarly split up into a normal component
$\rho_n \vec{v}_n$ and a superfluid component $\rho_s \vec{v}_s$ with a
superfluid velocity that is purely longitudinal
($\nabla \times \vec{v}_s = 0$). Third, for an effectively isotropic system the
dissipative terms in the momentum equation must be generalized to
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta \nabla^2 \vec{v}_n
+ \zeta_1 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\nabla (\nabla \cdot (\vec{v}_s - \vec{v}_n))
+ \zeta_2 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{v}_n)~. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, we must add the dynamics of the superfluid velocity, which is
basically determined from the Josephson relation and reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{v}_s}{\partial t} =
- \frac{B}{\rho^2} \nabla \delta\rho
+ \zeta_3 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\nabla (\nabla \cdot (\vec{v}_s - \vec{v}_n))
+ \zeta_4 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{v}_n)~,
\end{equation}
where $B=\rho^2 d\mu/d\rho|_T$ is again the isothermal bulk modulus and
$\mu$ is the chemical potential per unit mass. We again leave out temperature
fluctuations since we are primarily interested in third-sound modes, for which
these fluctuations are (at least qualitatively) unimportant.
\subsection{Supersolid}
\label{HSS}
To apply the above procedure to Eq.\ (\ref{HS}) we must realize that we are
here in fact already dealing with a two-fluid hydrodynamics. We must therefore
not only split up the total momentum density $\vec{g}$ into a normal and a
superfluid component but also the net defect current, i.e.\
$\vec{J} = \vec{J}_n + \vec{J}_s$. Moreover, we have to account for the fact
that the chemical potential, just like the pressure, is a function of the
particle density and the net defect density. In this manner we arrive at the
following hydrodynamic equations
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \delta\rho}{\partial t} = -\nabla \cdot \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{momrho}
\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial t} =
- \frac{B}{\rho} \nabla \delta\rho
&-& \gamma_{\Delta} \nabla n_{\Delta}
+ 2\rho c_{\perp}^2 \nabla \times \vartheta_6
\nonumber \\
&+& \eta \nabla^2 \vec{v}_n
+ \zeta_1 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\nabla (\nabla \cdot (\vec{v}_s - \vec{v}_n))
+ \zeta_2 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{v}_n)~,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vartheta_6}{\partial t} =
\frac{1}{2\rho} \nabla \times \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{v}_s}{\partial t} =
- \frac{B}{\rho^2} \nabla \delta\rho
+ \beta_{\Delta} \nabla n_{\Delta}
+ \zeta_3 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\nabla (\nabla \cdot (\vec{v}_s - \vec{v}_n))
+ \zeta_4 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{v}_n)~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial n_{\Delta}}{\partial t} =
-\nabla \cdot \vec{J}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{momdel}
\frac{\partial \vec{J}}{\partial t} =
- c_{\Delta}^2 \nabla n_{\Delta}
+ \gamma \nabla \delta\rho
+ \kappa \nabla^2 \vec{J}_n
+ \xi_1 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{J}_s)
+ \xi_2 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{J}_n)~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{J}_s}{\partial t} =
- \frac{B_{\Delta} \rho_s}{\rho^2} \nabla n_{\Delta}
+ \beta \rho_s \nabla \delta\rho
+ \xi_3 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{J}_s)
+ \xi_4 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{J}_n)~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
with
$\beta_{\Delta} = - \partial \mu/\partial
n_{\Delta}|_{\rho,T}$.
These represent nine equations for the nine unknown functions $\delta\rho$,
$\vec{v}_n$, $\vec{v}_s$, $\vartheta_6$, $n_{\Delta}$, $\vec{J}_n$ and
$\vec{J}_s$.
Although a complete analysis of the various hydrodynamic modes is now possible,
we will consider here only the situation which is most relevant to experiments,
namely that the normal part of the two-dimensional system is
clamped to an underlying substrate. As a result we have
$\vec{v}_n = \vec{J}_n = \vec{0}$ and
Eqs.\ (\ref{momrho}) and (\ref{momdel}) determining the normal properties of
the supersolid are no longer valid. The hydrodynamic equations therefore reduce
to
\begin{mathletters}
\label{clamped}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta\rho}{\partial t^2} =
\frac{B \rho_s}{\rho^2} \nabla^2 \delta\rho
- \beta_{\Delta} \rho_s \nabla^2 n_{\Delta}
+ \zeta_3 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\nabla^2 \delta\rho)~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 n_{\Delta}}{\partial t^2} =
\frac{B_{\Delta} \rho_s}{\rho^2} \nabla^2 n_{\Delta}
- \beta \rho_s \nabla^2 \delta\rho
+ \xi_3 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} (\nabla^2 n_{\Delta})~.
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
They contain two pairs of
propagating modes, which in the limit of a small coupling
constant
$\beta \ll BB_{\Delta}/\beta_{\Delta} \rho^4$ essentially correspond to
a pair of
third-sound modes with $\delta\rho$ unequal to zero but a constant net defect
density and a pair of modes with an oscillating net defect density.
One might have expected that the coupling of a superfluid
density to a propagating defect density would have resulted
in one pair of gapped excitations and one pair of gapless excitations
instead. Consider, for example, two identical superfluid layers.
If the layers are uncoupled the dynamics of the
phases $\vartheta_1$ and $\vartheta_2$ of the layers is determined by the
action
\begin{equation}
S_{layers}[\vartheta_1,\vartheta_2] =
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
\left\{ \frac{\rho^2}{2B} (\partial_{\tau} \vartheta_1)^2 +
\frac{\rho_s}{2} (\nabla \vartheta_1)^2
+ \frac{\rho^2}{2B} (\partial_{\tau} \vartheta_2)^2 +
\frac{\rho_s}{2} (\nabla \vartheta_2)^2
\right\}~,
\end{equation}
which clearly has two pairs of
gapless (third-sound) modes, one pair for each superfluid.
If we couple the order parameters by allowing the particles
to tunnel with an amplitude $-J/\rho$
from one layer to the other we must add
a Josephson coupling
\begin{equation}
S_{tunnel}[\vartheta_1,\vartheta_2] = - \int d\tau \int d\vec{x}~
J \cos(\vartheta_1 - \vartheta_2)
\end{equation}
to this action. The hydrodynamics modes couple to form two in-phase and
two out-of-phase excitations. The
modes with $\vartheta_1$ and $\vartheta_2$ oscillating out of phase get
gapped (i.e.\
$\omega^2 \simeq BJ/\rho^2$ for $\vec{k}^2 \ll J/\rho_s$) and only the
modes with $\vartheta_1$ and $\vartheta_2$ oscillating in phase remain gapless.
Yet in Eq.\ (\ref{clamped}) we find only gapless modes.
This paradox can be resolved by noting that
we have made the standard assumption\cite{ZHN} that both the
total number of particles and the net number of defects is conserved. Hence,
after an atom has tunneled from a lattice site to the position of a vacancy, a
new vacancy is created near the original site of the atom.
The analogous process for the
two coupled superfluid layers in not simply tunneling of
individual atoms from one layer to another, but rather the
exchange of a pair of atoms in different layers, returning the
system to its original state. Such a process is not a
Josephson coupling and therefore the modes remain gapless.
The existence of separate conservation laws for the particle and defect
density thus allows in principle two separate broken symmetries.
We also note in passing
that the third-sound modes in Eq.\ (\ref{clamped}) are not present
in the hydrodynamic equations proposed by Andreev and Lifshitz \cite{A} and
considered in more detail by Liu. \cite{L} This is a result of the fact that
these authors use a somewhat different physical picture for the supersolid
phase: They assume that the superfluid current density is carried by (Bose
condensed) defects and that the normal current density is solely due to lattice
vibrations. Hence if we take
$\vec{v}_n = \vec{0}$, which in their context means that $\partial
\vec{u}/\partial t = \vec{0}$, only transport of defects is possible and only
the latter two modes survive. However, as a consequence of their picture the
hydrodynamic equations in the (normal) solid phase describe only longitudinal
and transverse sound modes in an ideal lattice and do not include the effect of
vacancies or interstitials. As explained above this is incorrect in principle
and one should at least also allow for a normal current density due to the
motion of defects. In addition, we have seen in Sec.\ \ref{SOP} that even in
the presence of defects the density fluctuations are equal to $-\rho
u^{Phys}_{ii}$. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that if there is
superfluid mass transport possible in the solid, it can be caused both by the
motion of defects and by lattice vibrations. Indeed, as an existence proof of
this latter possibility we can for instance consider superfluid $^4$He in a
weak periodic and commensurate potential, which is clearly a supersolid without
defects.
While it is generically possible to have both density and
defect superfluid modes, we might expect however, for realistic films on
realistic substrates, that in a supersolid it may be harder for particles to
perform ring exchanges\cite{K2,ring} than for vacancies
to exchange positions. Thus, {\it a priori}, we might expect the effective
superfluid stiffness for the density fluctuations to be smaller than that
of the vacancies, perhaps to the point where the former is entirely absent.
\subsection{Superhexatic}
We next turn to the superhexatic phase. In a similar manner as in Sec.\
\ref{HSS} we obtain from Eq.\ (\ref{HH}) the full set of hydrodynamic equations
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \delta\rho}{\partial t}
= - \nabla \cdot \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial t} =
- \frac{B}{\rho} \nabla \delta\rho
&-& \frac{K_A}{2}
\vec{e}_z \times \nabla (\nabla^2 \vartheta_6)
\nonumber \\
&+& \eta \nabla^2 \vec{v}_n
+ \zeta_1 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\nabla (\nabla \cdot (\vec{v}_s - \vec{v}_n))
+ \zeta_2 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{v}_n)~,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\label{theta6}
\frac{\partial \vartheta_6}{\partial t} =
\frac{1}{2\rho} \nabla \times \vec{g}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{v}_s}{\partial t} =
- \frac{B}{\rho^2} \nabla \delta\rho
+ \zeta_3 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\nabla (\nabla \cdot (\vec{v}_s - \vec{v}_n))
+ \zeta_4 \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{v}_n)~,
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
that leads to the usual two-fluid hydrodynamics of a superfluid if we omit Eq.\
(\ref{theta6}) and put $\vartheta_6 = 0$. Therefore these equations allow for
first and second sound, \cite{second} and for a pair of transverse modes
involving $\vec{v}_n^T$ and $\vartheta_6$ which are either dispersive or
propagating depending on the sign of
$\Delta = K_A/4\rho - (\eta/\rho_n)^2$: If $\Delta \leq 0$ we have two
purely dispersive modes with
$\omega^{\pm} = -i(\eta/\rho_n \pm \sqrt{-\Delta}) \vec{k}^2/2$,
wheras if $\Delta > 0$ we have two propagating modes and the particle-like
dispersion
$\omega^{\pm} = \pm \sqrt{\Delta}~ \vec{k}^2/2
- i (\eta/\rho_n) \vec{k}^2/2$.
However, considering again the case $\vec{v}_n = \vec{0}$ the hydrodynamic
equations now simply reduce to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 \delta\rho}{\partial t^2} =
\frac{B \rho_s}{\rho^2} \nabla^2 \delta\rho
+ \zeta_3 \frac{\rho_s}{\rho}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\nabla^2 \delta\rho)~,
\end{equation}
which contains only a pair of third-sound modes with the velocity
$c_3 = \sqrt{B\rho_s/\rho^2}$ and the diffusion constant
$D_3 = \zeta_3 \rho_s/\rho$.
\section{CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION}
\label{DC}
In this paper we have derived the hydrodynamic equations for the supersolid
and superhexatic phases of a neutral two-dimensional Bose fluid. For the
supersolid these equations are rather complex, since they incorporate the
effects of defect motion and lattice vibrations on both the normal and
superfluid parts of the momentum density. Our physical picture for the
influence on the superfluid part is roughly speaking that in a mean-field
theory the condensate wavefunction $\Psi(\vec{x},t)$ obeys the Schr\"odinger
equation
\begin{equation}
i\hbar \frac{\partial \Psi(\vec{x},t)}{\partial t} =
\left\{
- \frac{\hbar^2 \nabla^2}{2m}
+ \int d\vec{x}'~ V(\vec{x}-\vec{x}') n(\vec{x}',t)
\right\} \Psi(\vec{x},t)~,
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the mass of the Bose particles and $V(\vec{x}-\vec{x}')$ is their
interaction. In addition, $n(\vec{x},t)$ is the particle density which will be
determined by an additional mean-field theory that, for a supersolid, shows the
instability associated with the formation of a density wave. Hence the
(thermal) average
$\langle n(\vec{x},t) \rangle$ is periodic in space and independent of time. As
a result the condensate wavefunction is, if we neglect density fluctuations,
also periodic and we have indeed both diagonal as well as off-diagonal
long-range order. Fluctuations in the density, however, induce variations in
the phase of the wavefunction and therefore in the superfluid velocity. Because
these density fluctuations can be caused by both lattice vibrations and
oscillations in the net defect density we conclude that both mechanisms can
lead to superfluid motion. Together with the existence of a conservation law
for the net number of defects, this explains from a more microscopic view
why we found two third-sound modes and two modes with an oscillatory net defect
density in the case of a supersolid adsorbed onto a substrate.
For the superhexatic phase we have shown that the hexatic long-range order
leads to an additional (as compared to the superfluid) hydrodynamic degree of
freedom that affects only the transverse modes and is therefore at long
wavelengths decoupled from the superfluid momentum density. This can also be
understood from the above picture, since variations in the orientational order
parameter $\vartheta_6$ do not lead to density fluctuations in first instance.
As a result we find on a substrate only two third-sound modes and thus at the
hydrodynamic level of description nothing to distinguish the superhexatic from
the superfluid. Although this is in agreement with the experiments of Chen and
Mochel, who indeed only observe one third-sound branch below the second
critical temperature $T_c$, it is unfortunate for the purpose of suggesting a
possible identification of the superhexatic phase. On the basis of our results
we can, however, conclude that a more microscopic probe is needed if one wants
to detect the orientational order present in a superhexatic helium film. In our
opinion this appears to be an important, but also difficult experimental
challenge.
Finally, we would also like to point out the possible relevance of our results
to the recent experiments with bulk solid $^4$He. \cite{LG} In these
experiments Lengua and Goodkind observe at sufficiently high frequencies an
additional (resonant) attenuation and velocity change of sound. Moreover, they
notice that their data can be explained by a simple model of two coupled wave
equations which turns out to be identical to the longitudonal part of our
solid hydrodynamics derived in
Sec.\ \ref{SOP}. Because our two-dimensional hydrodynamics should be able to
describe the propagation of sound perpendicular to the c-axis of hcp $^4$He,
this confirms the conjecture of Lengua and Goodkind that the collective mode
observed is associated with the motion of defects. For a more detailed
discussion of the coupling between sound and the defects one should of course
consider the fully three-dimensional situation and include the anisotropy of
the hcp crystal. Work in this direction is in progress.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
This research was supported by Grant No.\ DMR-9502555 and DMR-9416906
from the National
Science Foundation, the ESF Network on Quantum Fluids and Solids,
the Swedish Natural Science Research Council and the
Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) which is
financially supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO).
We thank Huug van Beelen, Henk van Beijeren, Michel Bijlsma,
Reyer Jochemsen, and Anne van Otterlo for stimulating and helpful discussions.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The $\tau$ lepton is heavy enough to decay into a variety of hadronic
final states.
In particular, final states with kaons provide a powerful
probe of the strange sector of the weak charged current.
The Tau-Charm Factory operating at an $e^+e^-$ cms energy of around
4 GeV and a luminosity of $L=10^{33}\mbox{cm}^{-2}\mbox{s}^{-1}$ with
good $\pi/K$ separation
\cite{kirkby} would allow for high precision measurements of the
hadronic matrix elements in all decay modes.
Rare decay modes could be searched for at the level of about $10^{-7}$
in branching fraction. Of particular interest would also be the search
for possible CP violation in the hadronic matrix elements.
In the present paper, we specify the general structure of
the matrix elements for $\tau$ decays into various multi meson final states.
We study angular correlations in the exclusive decay modes
and show that the formalism of structure functions allows for a
detailed model independent test of the hadronic matrix elements.
Furthermore, the structure functions
allow for a systematic analysis of possible
CP violation effects in the matrix elements, which would have to come
from new non-Standard Model contributions.
It is shown that CP violation
effects are in principle
observable in a Tau-Charm Factory (without polarized beams)
for three meson decay modes
with a nonvanishing vector {\it and}
an axial vector current.
CP violation effects originating from a charged Higgs could be detected
only for decay modes with a nonvanishing vector current.
An observation of CP violation in two meson decays requires either
polarized beams \cite{tsaicp}
or kinematical information from the second tau decay \cite{nelson1}.
\section{MATRIX ELEMENTS AND DECAY RATES }
The matrix element ${\cal{M}}$ for the hadronic $\tau$ decay
into $n$ mesons $h_1, \ldots h_n$
\begin{equation}
\tau(l,s)\rightarrow\nu(l^{\prime},s^{\prime})
+h_{1}(q_{1},m_{1})+\ldots h_{n}(q_{n},m_{n}) \>,
\label{process2h}
\end{equation}
can be expressed in terms of a leptonic ($M_\mu$) and a
hadronic current ($J^\mu$) as
\begin{equation}
{\cal{M}}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\,
\bigl(^{\cos\theta_{c}}_{\sin\theta_{c}}\bigr)
\,M_{\mu}J^{\mu} \>.
\label{mdef2h}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~(\ref{mdef2h}),
$G$ denotes the Fermi-coupling constant and $\theta_c$ is the
Cabibbo angle. The leptonic current is given by
\begin{equation}
M_{\mu}=
\bar{u}(l^{\prime},s^{\prime})\gamma_{\mu}(g_V-g_A\gamma_{5})u(l,s) \>,
\label{leptoncurrent}
\end{equation}
with $g_V=g_A=1$ in the Standard Model.
The hadronic current $J^{\mu}$ can in general be expressed in terms of
a vector and an axial vector current
\begin{equation}
J^{\mu}(q_{1},\ldots,q_{n})=\langle h_{1}(q_{1})\ldots h_{n}(q_n)
|V^{\mu}(0)-A^{\mu}(0)|0\rangle \>.
\label{hadmat2h}
\end{equation}
The simplest decay mode into a pion or a kaon proceeds only through the
axial vector current whereas all decays into an even number of pions
are expected to proceed through the vector current. In fact, the decay
rates for $\tau\rightarrow 2n\pi, KK$ can be related through the
conserved vector current (CVC) hypothesis to $e^+e^-\rightarrow$
hadrons in the isovector state \cite{tsai1}.
On the other hand, three body decay modes involving kaons
allow for axial and vector current contributions at
the same time.
In the following, we specify the hadronic matrix elements
for hadronic decays into multi meson final states as expected from the
Standard Model.
\subsection{One Meson Decays }
The decay rate for the simplest decay mode with one pion or kaon
is well
predicted by the the pion or kaon kaon decay constants $f_{\pi}$ and $f_K$
defined by the matrix element of the axial vector currents
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \pi(q) |A^{\mu}(0)|0\rangle \> &=& i\sqrt{2}f_{\pi} q^{\mu}\\
\langle K(q) |A^{\mu}(0)|0\rangle \> &=& i\sqrt{2}f_{K} q^{\mu}.
\end{eqnarray}
Both decay constants can be determined using the precisely measured
pion (kaon) decay widths $\Gamma(\pi (K)\rightarrow \mu \nu_\mu)$.
Radiative corrections $\delta R_{\tau/\pi}=(0.16\pm0.14)\%$
and $\delta R_{\tau/K}=(0.90\pm 0.22)\%$
to the ratios
$\Gamma(\tau\rightarrow\pi\nu)/\Gamma(\pi\rightarrow\mu\nu)$
and
$\Gamma(\tau\rightarrow K\nu)/\Gamma(K\rightarrow\mu\nu)$
have been calculated recently \cite{markus1}.
Using the recent world average $\tau_{\tau}=(291.6\pm1.6)\,\mbox{fs}$
for the tau lifetime \cite{davier} one obtains the following
theoretical predictions for the branching ratios
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal B}(\pi\nu_\tau) &=& (10.95\pm 0.06)\% \\
{\cal B}(K\nu_\tau) &=& (0.723\pm 0.006)\%
\end{eqnarray}
These predictions agree within one standard deviation with the
world averages as quoted in \cite{Hel94}.
\subsection{Two Meson Decays }
The hadronic matrix element for the decay
$\tau\rightarrow h_1 h_2 \nu_{\tau}$
can be written as ($Q^{\mu}=(q_{1}+q_{2})^{\mu}$)
\begin{equation}
\langle h_1(q_1) h_2(q_2) |V^{\mu}(0)|0\rangle \> =
[ (q_1-q_2)_\nu\,T^{\mu\nu}\, F^{h_1 h_2} + Q^\mu\,F^{h_1 h_2}_4]
\label{mat2h}
\end{equation}
$T^{\mu\nu}$ is the transverse projector, defined by
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu\nu}= g_{\mu \nu} - \frac{Q_\mu Q_\nu}{Q^2} \>.
\label{trans}
\end{equation}
The form factor $F_4$ describes the two mesons $h_1$ and $h_2$
in an $s$ wave.
As mentioned before, the form factor $F^{\pi\pi}$ in
$\tau^-\rightarrow \rho^-\nu\rightarrow \pi^-\pi^0\nu$
can be obtained (using the CVC theorem)
from the iso-vector part of the electromagnetic current
for $e^+e^-\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ and
the scalar form factor $F_4$ is expected to
vanish.
One has
\begin{equation}
F^{\pi^-\pi^0} = \sqrt{2} \,T_\rho^{(1)}\>,
\end{equation}
where
where $T_\rho^{(1)}$ is a normalized vector resonance form factor (two
particle Breit-Wigner propagator) for the $\rho$ resonance
including the contribution from the radial excitations $\rho^\prime$
and $\rho^{\prime\prime}$.
In general, the normalization of the form factors $F^{h_1h_2}$ is fixed by
chiral symmetry constraints, which determines the matrix elements in
the limit of soft meson momenta. The strong interaction effects beyond
the low energy limit are taken into account by vector resonance
factors with the requirement $T_{X}^{(1)}(Q^2=0)=1$ ($X = \rho$, $K^\star$).
The hadronic matrix elements for
the Cabibbo suppressed decay modes
$K^-\pi^0\nu_\tau,\, \overline{K^0}\pi^-\nu_\tau$
are dominated by the $K^\star$ resonance $T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(Q^2)$ \cite{GR},
whereas the one for the Cabibbo allowed mode $K^0 K^- $
is dominated by the high energy tail of the $\rho$.
One has \cite{fm1}.
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{\overline{K^0} \pi^-} &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(Q^2) \>, \\
F^{K^- \pi^0} &=& \hspace{5mm} T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(Q^2) \>, \\
F^{K^0 K^-} &=& \hspace{5mm} T_\rho^{(1)}(Q^2) \>.
\end{eqnarray}
In the $\tau\rightarrow K\pi$ decay mode, $F_4$ gets a contribution
from the off-shellness $(m_{K*}^2 - Q^2)$ of the $K^\star$.
However, this scalar contribution is strongly suppressed compared to
the contribution of $F$.
As we will see in the last section, the form factor $F_4$ allows also
for a possible contribution from a charged Higgs exchange
and is therefore of special interest.
We use the following form for the two particle
Breit-Wigner propagators with an energy dependent
width $\Gamma_X(s)$ throughout this paper:
\begin{equation}
\mbox{BW}_{X}[s]\equiv {M^2_X\over [M^2_X-s-i\sqrt s \Gamma_X(s)]}\>,
\end{equation}
where $X$ stands for the various resonances of the two meson
channels.
The following parametrization is used for the $\rho$ resonance:
\begin{eqnarray}
T_\rho^{(1)}(s) & = & \frac{1}{1 + \beta_\rho}
\Big[ \mbox{BW}_\rho(s) + \beta_\rho\, \mbox{BW}_{\rho'}(s)
\Big] \>,
\label{beta}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$
\beta_\rho = -0.145\>,
m_\rho = 0.773 \, \mbox{GeV}\>, \Gamma_\rho = 0.145 \,
m_{\rho'} = 1.370 \, \mbox{GeV}\>, \Gamma_{\rho'} = 0.510 \, \mbox{GeV}\>.
$
These are the values which have been determined from $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+
\pi^-$ in \cite{KueSa}.
The parameterization for $T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(Q^2)$ allows
for a contribution of the first excitation ${K^\star}'(1410)$
in analogy to Eq.~(\ref{beta}):
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s) & = &\frac{1}{1 + \beta_{K^\star}}
\Big[ \mbox{BW}_{K^\star}(s) + \beta_{K^\star}\, \mbox{BW}_{{K^\star}'}(s)
\Big]\>,
\label{betakst}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$
\beta_{K^\star} = -0.135\>,
m_{{K^\star}} = 0.892 \, \mbox{GeV}\>,
\Gamma_{{K^\star}} = \, 0.050 \mbox{GeV}\>,
m_{{K^\star}'} = 1.412\, \mbox{GeV}\>,
\Gamma_{{K^\star}'} = 0.227\, \mbox{GeV}\>.
$
The parameter $\beta_{K^\star}$
was fixed in \cite{fm1} by comparing the theoretical results
to the recent experimental branching ratio for
${\cal B}(K^\star\nu_\tau)= 1.36\pm 0.08$ \cite{Hel94}.
The value $\beta_{K^\star} = -0.135$
is remarkably close to the strength of the
$\rho'$ contribution to the $\rho$ Breit-Wigner,
supporting the use of approximate
$SU(3)$ flavour symmetry.
The branching ratios based on these parametrizations are
$
{\cal B}(\pi^- \pi^- \nu_\tau) = 23.5 \%\>,
{\cal B}(\overline{K^0} \pi^- \nu_\tau) = 0.45 \%\>,
{\cal B}(K^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau) = 0.9 \%\>,
$
For the decay into two kaons we obtain
$
{\cal B}(K^0 K^- \nu_\tau) = 0.11 \%\>,
$
in good agreement with the recent world average
$ {\cal B}(K^0 K^- \nu_\tau) = 0.13 \pm 0.04 \% $ \cite{Hel94}.
\subsection{Three Meson Decays }
The hadronic matrix elements for three meson final states
have a much richer structure.
The decay modes involving kaons allow
for axial and vector current contributions at the same time
\cite{braaten,Dec93}.
\begin{equation}
J^{\mu}(q_{1},q_{2},q_{3})=\langle h_{1}(q_{1})h_{2}(q_{2})h_{3}(q_{3})
|V^{\mu}(0)-A^{\mu}(0)|0\rangle \>.
\label{hadmat}
\end{equation}
The most general ansatz for the matrix element of the
quark current $J^{\mu}$ in Eq.~(\ref{hadmat})
is characterized by four form factors $F_i$ \cite{km1}, which
are in general functions of $Q^2$,
$s_1=(q_2+q_3)^2, s_2=(q_1+q_3)^2$ and $s_3=(q_1+q_2)^2$
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\mu}(q_{1},q_{2},q_{3})
&=& V_{1}^{\mu}\,F_{1}
+ V_{2}^{\mu}\,F_{2}
+\,i\, V_{3}^{\mu}\,F_{3}
+ V_{4}^{\mu}\,F_{4} \>,
\label{f1234}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
V_{1}^{\mu}&= (q_{1}-q_{3})_{\nu}\,T^{\mu\nu} \>,\\
V_{2}^{\mu}&= (q_{2}-q_{3})_{\nu}\,T^{\mu\nu} \>,\\
V_{3}^{\mu}&= \epsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}q_{1\,\alpha}q_{2\,\beta}
q_{3\,\gamma} \>,
\\
V_{4}^{\mu}&=q_{1}^{\mu}+q_{2}^{\mu}+q_{3}^{\mu}\,=Q^{\mu} \>.
\end{array}
\label{videf}
\end{equation}
$T^{\mu\nu}$ denotes again the transverse projector as defined
in Eq.~(\ref{trans}).
The form factors $F_{1}$ and $F_{2} (F_{3})$ originate from the axial vector
hadronic current (vector current) and correspond to a hadronic system
in a spin one state,
whereas $F_{4}$ is due to the spin zero part of the axial current matrix
element.
In the limit of vanishing quark masses, the weak axial-vector
current is conserved and this implies that the scalar form factor
$F_4$ vanishes. The massive pseudoscalars give a
contribution to $F_4$, however, the effect is very small
\cite{dfm} and we will neglect this contribution in the subsequent
discussion of this section.
Note however that the form factor $F_4$ in the
$\tau\rightarrow(3\pi)\nu_\tau$ decay mode
could receive a sizable contribution due to the
$J^P=0^-$ resonance of the $\pi^\prime$ \cite{isgur,km1}.
Furthermore, the form factor $F_4$ allows also
for a possible contribution from a charged Higgs exchange.
We will consider this in more detail in the last section.
The form factors $F_1$ and $F_2$ can be predicted by chiral lagrangians,
supplemented by informations about resonance parameters.
Parametrizations for the $3\pi$ final states
based on this model can be found in \cite{KueSa,km1,km2}.
In this case the vector form factor is absent due to the
$G$ parity of the pions. On the other hand, the decay mode
$\tau^-\rightarrow \eta\pi^-\pi^0\nu_{\tau}$ has a vanishing
contribution from the axial vector current \cite{kramer,pich3,Dec93}.
The vector form factor is related
to the Wess-Zumino anomaly \cite{WZ,kramer}
whereas the axial-vector form factors are again
predicted by chiral Lagrangians
as mentioned before.
A general parameterization of the form factors for various three meson
decays modes with pions and kaons
was proposed in \cite{Dec93}.
The parameterization has been extensively reanalyzed
in \cite{fm1} which lead to sizable differences in the
predictions of the decay rates compared to \cite{Dec93}.
Furthermore, a parameterization for the final states
with two neutral kaons
$\tau^-\rightarrow K_S\pi^-K_S\nu_\tau, \,
\tau^-\rightarrow K_L\pi^-K_L\nu_\tau, $ and
$\tau^-\rightarrow K_S\pi^-K_L\nu_\tau$ was derived in \cite{fm1}.
The results for the form factors $F_i$ in Eq.~(\ref{f1234}) for the
decay modes $\tau\rightarrow abc\nu_\tau$ are
summarized by
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{(abc)}_{1}(Q^2,s_2,s_3)&=&{2\sqrt 2 A^{(abc)}\over 3f_\pi}
G_{1}^{(abc)}(Q^2,s_2,s_3) \>,
\label{f1}\\
F^{(abc)}_{2}(Q^2,s_1,s_3)&=&{2\sqrt 2 A^{(abc)}\over 3f_\pi}
G_{2}^{(abc)}(Q^2,s_1,s_3) \>,
\label{f2}\\
F^{(abc)}_{3}(Q^2,s_1,s_2,s_3) &=& {A^{(abc)}\over 2\sqrt 2\pi^2f^3_\pi}
G_3^{(abc)}(Q^2,s_1,s_2,s_3)\>.
\label{f3}
\end{eqnarray}
The Breit-Wigner functions $G_{1,2}$ ($G_3$) and the normalizations
$A^{(abc)}$ are listed in
Tab.~\ref{tab1} (\ref{tab2})
for the various decay modes.
Note that by convenient ordering of the mesons, the two body resonances
in $F_1$ ($F_2$) occur only in the variables $s_2,s_3$ ($s_1,s_3)$.
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameterization of the form factors
$F_1$ and $F_2$ in Eqs.~(\protect\ref{f1},\protect\ref{f2})
for the matrix elements of the weak axial-vector
current for the various channels.}
\label{tab1} \nopagebreak
$$
\begin{array}{c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c}
\hline \hline
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{channel} \\\mbox{(abc)}
\end{array} &
A^{(abc)} & G_1^{(abc)}(Q^2,s_2,s_3) &
G_2^{(abc)}(Q^2,s_1,s_3)
\\
\hline
\pi^- \pi^- \pi^+ &
\cos \theta_c &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_\rho^{(1)}(s_2) &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_\rho^{(1)}(s_1)
\\[1mm]
\pi^0 \pi^0 \pi^0 &
\cos \theta_c &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_\rho^{(1)}(s_2) &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_\rho^{(1)}(s_1)
\\[1mm]
K^- \pi^- K^+ &
\frac{- \cos \theta_c}{2} &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_\rho^{(1)}(s_2) &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_{K^\star}^{(1)} (s_1)
\\[3mm]
K^0 \pi^- \overline{K^0} &
\frac{- \cos \theta_c}{2} &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_\rho^{(1)}(s_2) &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_{K^\star}^{(1)} (s_1)
\\[3mm]
K_S \pi^- K_S &
\frac{- \cos \theta_c}{4} &
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2) T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) &
\begin{array}{c}
-\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2)
\times \\ {}
[ T_{K^\star}^{(1)} (s_1)
+ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) ]
\end{array}
\\[4mm]
K_S \pi^- K_L &
\frac{- \cos \theta_c}{4} &
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2)
\times \\{}
[ 2 T_\rho^{(1)}(s_2) + T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3)]
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(Q^2)\times \\{}
[ T_{K^\star}^{(1)} (s_1)
- T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) ]
\end{array}
\\[4mm]
K^- \pi^0 K^0 &
\frac{3 \cos \theta_c}{2 \sqrt{2}} &
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{BW}_{A_1} (Q^2) \times \\{}
\left[ \frac{2}{3} T_\rho^{(1)}(s_2)
+ \frac{1}{3} T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) \right]
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{3}\mbox{BW}_{A_1} (Q^2) \times \\{}
\left[ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1)
- T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) \right]
\end{array}
\\[4mm] \hline
\pi^0 \pi^0 K^- &
\frac{\sin \theta_c}{4} &
T_{K_1}^{(a)} (Q^2) T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_2) &
T_{K_1}^{(a)} (Q^2) T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1)
\\[3mm]
K^- \pi^- \pi^+ &
\frac{- \sin \theta_c}{2} &
T_{K_1}^{(a)} (Q^2) T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_2) &
T_{K_1}^{(b)} (Q^2) T_{\rho}^{(1)}(s_1)
\\[3mm]
\pi^- \overline{K^0} \pi^ 0 &
\frac{3 \sin \theta_c}{2 \sqrt{2}} &
\begin{array}{l}
\,\,\,\,\frac{2}{3} T_{K_1}^{(b)} (Q^2) T_\rho^{(1)} (s_2) \\[1ex]
+ \frac{1}{3} T_{K_1}^{(a)} (Q^2) T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3)
\end{array} &
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{3} T_{K_1}^{(a)} (Q^2) \times \\
\left[ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1)
- T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) \right]
\end{array}
\\[8mm] \hline \hline
\end{array}
$$
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameterization of the form factor
$F_3$ in Eq.~(\protect\ref{f3})
for the matrix elements of the weak vector current
for the various channels.}
\label{tab2}
$$
\begin{array}{c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c}
\hline \hline
\mbox{channel (abc)} & A^{(abc)} &
G_3^{(abc)}(Q^2,s_1,s_2,s_3)
\\
\hline
K^- \pi^- K^+ &
- \cos \theta_c &
T_\rho^{(2)}(Q^2) (\sqrt{2} - 1) \left[ \sqrt{2} T_\omega(s_2)
+ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1) \right]
\\ [1mm]
K^0 \pi^- \overline{K^0} &
\cos \theta_c &
T_\rho^{(2)}(Q^2) (\sqrt{2} - 1) \left[ \sqrt{2} T_\omega(s_2)
+ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1) \right]
\\[1mm]
K_S \pi^- K_S &
\frac{- \cos \theta_c}{2} &
T_\rho^{(2)}(Q^2) (\sqrt{2} - 1) \left[ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1)
- T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) \right]
\\[1mm]
K_S \pi^- K_L &
\frac{ \cos \theta_c}{2} &
T_\rho^{(2)}(Q^2) (\sqrt{2} - 1) \left[ 2 \sqrt{2} T_\omega(s_2)
+ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1)
+ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) \right]
\\[1mm]
K^- \pi^0 K^0 &
\frac{- \cos \theta_c}{\sqrt{2}} &
T_\rho^{(2)}(Q^2) (\sqrt{2} - 1) \left[ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3)
- T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1) \right]
\\[1mm]
\eta \pi^- \pi^0 &
\frac{ \cos \theta_c}{\sqrt{3}} &
T_\rho^{(2)}(Q^2) T_\rho^{(1)}(s_1)
\\[1mm] \hline
\pi^0 \pi^0 K^- &
\sin \theta_c &
\frac{1}{4} T_{K^\star}^{(2)}(Q^2) \left[ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1)
- T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_2) \right]
\\[1mm]
K^- \pi^- \pi^+ &
\sin \theta_c &
\frac{1}{2} T_{K^\star}^{(2)}(Q^2) \left[ T_\rho^{(1)}(s_1)
+ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_2) \right]
\\[1mm]
\pi^- \overline{K^0} \pi^ 0 &
\sqrt{2} \sin \theta_c &
\frac{1}{4} T_{K^\star}^{(2)}(Q^2) \left[2 T_\rho^{(1)}(s_2)
+ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_1)
+ T_{K^\star}^{(1)}(s_3) \right]
\\ \hline \hline
\end{array}
$$
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Predictions for the normalized decay widths
$\Gamma(abc)/\Gamma_e$ and the branching
ratios ${\cal B}(abc)$ for the various channels.
The contribution from the vector current is listed in column 3 and
available experimental data are listed in column 5.
The later are taken from \protect\cite{Hel94,Smi94,RPP94}.
}
\label{tab3}
$$
\begin{array}{c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c}
\hline \hline
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{channel}
\\
(abc)
\end{array}
& \! \! \! \!
\left( \frac{\Gamma{(abc)}}{\Gamma_e} \right)^{(pred.)} & \! \! \! \!
\left( \frac{\Gamma{(abc)}}{\Gamma_e} \right)^{(pred.)}_{V} & \! \! \! \!
{\cal B}{(abc)}^{(pred.)} & \! \! \! \!
{\cal B}{(abc)}^{(expt.)}
\\
\hline
\\[-4mm]
\pi^- \pi^- \pi^+ & 0.48 & 0. & 8.6 \% & ( 8.64 \pm 0.24) \% \\
\pi^0 \pi^0 \pi^- & 0.48 & 0. & 8.6 \% & (9.09 \pm 0.14) \%
\\K^- \pi^- K^+ & 0.011 & 0.0045 & 0.20 \% & ( 0.20 \pm 0.07) \%
\\
K^0 \pi^- \overline{K^0} & 0.011 & 0.0045 & 0.20 \% & \\
K_S \pi^- K_S & 0.0027 & 0.0008 & 0.048 \% & (0.021\pm 0.006) \%
\\
K_S \pi^- K_L & 0.0058 & 0.0029 & 0.10 \% & \\
K^- \pi^0 K^0 & 0.0090 & 0.0032 & 0.16 \% & (0.12 \pm 0.04) \%
\\
\eta \pi^- \pi^0 & 0.0108 & 0.0108 & 0.19 \% & (0.170 \pm 0.028) \%
\\[1mm]
\hline \\[-4mm]
\pi^0 \pi^0 K^- & 0.0080 & 0.0007 & 0.14 \% & (0.09 \pm 0.03) \%
\\
K^- \pi^-\pi^+ & 0.043 & 0.0043 & 0.77 \% & (0.40 \pm 0.09) \%
\\
\pi^-\overline{K^0}\pi^0 & 0.054 & 0.0058 & 0.96 \% & (0.41 \pm 0.07) \%
\\[1mm]
\hline \hline
\end{array}
$$
\end{table}
Let us briefly discuss the three particle resonances in Tab. I and
II (for details see \cite{fm1}).
We use the $A_1$ resonance in the non-strange case with energy dependent
width
$
\mbox{BW}_{A_1}(s) =
\frac{m_{A_1}^2} {m_{A_1}^2 - s - i m_{A_1} \Gamma_{A_1} g(s) /
g(m_{A_1})}\>,
$
with
$
m_{A_1} = 1.251 \,\, \mbox{GeV}\>,
\Gamma_{A_1 } = \, 0.475\,\, \mbox{GeV}\>.
$
The function $g(s)$ has been calculated in
\cite{KueSa}.
The three particle resonances with strangeness
are
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{K_1}^{(a)}(s) & = & \frac{1}{1 + \xi}
\Big[ \mbox{BW}_{K_1(1400)}(s) + \xi \mbox{BW}_{K_1(1270)} (s)
\Big] \>,
\nonumber \\[2mm]
T_{K_1}^{(b)}(s) & = & \mbox{BW}_{K_1(1270)}(s) \>.
\end{eqnarray}
with $\xi = 0.33$ \cite{fm1}.
The three body vector resonances $T_\rho^{(2)}$
and $T_{K^\star}^{(2)}$
include the higher radial excitations
$\rho'$ and $\rho''$
and ${K^\star}'$ and ${K^\star}''$ \mbox{}
\begin{eqnarray}
T_\rho^{(2)} & = & \frac{1}{1 + \lambda + \mu}
\Big[ \mbox{BW}_\rho(s) + \lambda \mbox{BW}_{\rho'}(s)
+ \mu \mbox{BW}_{\rho''}(s)
\Big] \>,
\nonumber \\[2mm]
T_{K^\star}^{(2)} & = &\frac{1}{1 + \lambda + \mu}
\Big[ \mbox{BW}_{K^\star}(s) + \lambda \mbox{BW}_{{K^\star}'}(s)
+ \mu \mbox{BW}_{{K^\star}''}(s)
\Big]\>,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\lambda = -0.25, \mu = - 0.038 $.
The $\omega$ resonance
$
T_\omega(s) = \frac{1}{1 + \epsilon} [ \mbox{BW}_\omega(s) +
\epsilon \mbox{BW}_\Phi(s) ]
$
in the vector form factor $F_3$ in Tab. II
allows for a contribution of the $\phi$ with a relative strength
$\epsilon = 0.05\>$ \cite{fm1}.
Numerical results for the
hadronic decay widths $\Gamma{(abc)}$ normalized to the leptonic
width $\Gamma_e$
and for the branching ratios
in Tab.~\ref{tab3} based on this model for the form factors.
The predictions for the branching ratios use
$\Gamma_e/ \Gamma_{\mbox{tot}}=17.8 \%$, as calculated from the experimental
values for the tau mass
$m_\tau = 1.7771 \, \mbox{GeV}$ and lifetime
$\tau_{\tau} = 291.6 \, \mbox{fs}$ \protect\cite{davier}.
\subsection{Four Pion Decays }
In order to predict the two tau decays into four pions,
$\tau^-\rightarrow \nu_{\tau} \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+\pi^0$ and
$\tau^-\rightarrow \nu_{\tau} \pi^0\pi^0\pi^0\pi^-$,
there are two possible approaches.
The first approach is based on the fact that
these tau decays are again related through CVC to
corresponding $e^+ e^-$ annihilation channels, namely to
$e^+ e^- \to 2\pi^+ 2\pi^-$ and $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- 2 \pi^0$.
And so by using the measured $e^+ e^-$ cross sections as input, the tau
decays can be predicted \cite{tsai1,GR,eidelman}, and the results are
in good agreement with the $\tau$ data \cite{Hel94,argus1,cleo1,bourdon}.
This approach, however, allows only to predict the integrated decay rates and
the four pion invariant mass distributions. In order to predict the various
two and three pion differential distributions, or in order to understand
angular distributions, a dynamical model is need.
Such a dynamical model has be constructed in \cite{markus2}
which uses the other possible approach. One follows along the lines which
have been used above to obtain the hadronic current in the
three meson modes.
Again one starts from the structure of the hadronic current in the chiral limit
and then implements low lying resonances in the various channels ($\rho$,
$\rho'$, $\rho''$, $A_1$ and $\omega$ mesons).
There are a few free parameters, which are fixed using the experimental
$e^+ e^- \to
2 \pi^+ 2 \pi^-$ cross sections and the measured decay rate of the $\tau\to
\omega \pi \nu_\tau$ sub-mode.
After parameter fixing, predictions for $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- 2 \pi^0$ and
for the four pion decay modes of the $\tau$ are obtained, including
detailed two, three and four pion differential mass distributions.
The various predictions agree well with the available experimental data.
The $\omega\pi$ contribution to the $4\pi$ final state
is expected to proceed via
a vector current. However, a violation of $G$-parity would allow the
$\omega\pi$ system to be in an axial vector state, which could be
revealed by an analysis of the angular distribution in the $\omega\pi$
mode as introduced in \cite{dm1}
\section{ANGULAR DISTRIBUTIONS AND STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS IN TWO AND THREE
MESON DECAY MODES}
In this section, we study angular distribution
of the hadronic system of two and three meson final states
which are accessible in a future $\tau$-charm factory.
We will assume
that the direction of the $\tau$ in the hadronic
rest frame is known and
that no spin informations of the decaying $\tau$ can be used in the
analysis.
Of particular interest in the three meson case are the distributions
of the normal to the Dalitz plane and the distributions around this normal.
It is shown that the most general distribution in the three meson
case can be characterized by 16 structure functions most of which can
be determined under the conditions mentioned above.
The study of angular correlations
of the hadronic system allows for much more detailed studies
of the hadronic charged current
than it is possible by rate measurements alone.
Special emphasis is put on $T$-odd triple momentum correlations,
which allow for the observation of $CP-$violating
contributions beyond the Standard Model.
\subsection{Two Body Decays }
Of particular interest in the two body decays is the distribution
of the direction
of $h_{1}\,$ ($\hat{q}_{1}=\vec{q}_{1}/|\vec{q}_{1}|$)
and the direction of the $\tau$ (denoted by $\vec{n}_{\tau}$) viewed
from the hadronic rest frame
$
\cos\beta = \vec{n}_{\tau}\cdot \hat{q}_{1} \>.
$
After integration over the unobserved
neutrino direction,
the differential decay rate for a two meson final state
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Gamma(\tau\rightarrow 2h)&=&
\left\{
\bar{L}_{B}{W}_{B}
+ \bar{L}_{SA}{W}_{SA}
+ \bar{L}_{SF}{W}_{SF}
+ \bar{L}_{SG}{W}_{SG}
\right\}\times \label{gamma}\\[1mm]
&&
\hspace{-1.5cm}
\frac{G^{2}}{4m_{\tau}}
(g_{V}^{2}+g_{A}^{2})
\bigl(^{\cos^2\theta_{c}}_{\sin^2\theta_{c}}\bigr)
\frac{1}{(4\pi)^{3}}
\frac{(m_{\tau}^{2}-Q^{2})^{2}}{m_{\tau}^{2}}\,
\,|\vec{q}_{1}|\,\,
\frac{dQ^{2}}{\sqrt{Q^{2}}}\,
\frac{d\cos\beta}{2}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with
$
\vec{q}_{1}^{z}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{Q^{2}}}\left(
[Q^{2}-m_1^{2}-m_2^{2}]^2-4m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2}\right)^{1/2}\>.
$
The hadronic structure functions $W_X$ can be expressed in terms of
the form factors $F$ and $F_4$ as defined in Eqs.~(\ref{mat2h}) as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
W_B &=& 4 (\vec{q}_1)^2\,|F|^2\, \\
W_{SA} &=& Q^2\, |F_4|^2\, \\
W_{SF} &=& 4\sqrt{Q^2}|\vec{q}_1|
\, \mbox{Re}\left[FF_4^*\right] \\
W_{SG} &=&-4\sqrt{Q^2}|\vec{q}_1|\,
\mbox{Im}\left[FF_4^*\right] \label{wsg}
\end{eqnarray}
The leptonic coefficients are
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcrl}
\bar{L}_{B} &=& &K_1 \sin^{2}\beta + K_2 \\
\bar{L}_{SA}&=& &K_2\\
\bar{L}_{SF}&=& - &K_2 \cos\beta\\
\bar{L}_{SG}&=& & 0
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
K_1 = 1- ({m_\tau^{2}}/{Q^{2}});\,\,\,\,\,
K_2 = ({m_\tau^{2}}/{Q^{2}});
\label{kdef}
\end{equation}
Note that the coefficient $\bar{L}_{SG}$ vanishes, if only the $\beta$
dependence of the decay is analyzed. In the case of a polarized $\tau$
(as it is the situation at LEP) one can use the
direction of the $\tau$ spin-vector $\vec{s}$ in the lab to define a further
angle $\alpha$
by $\cos\alpha=\frac{(\vec{n}_{\tau}\times\vec{s})\cdot
(\vec{n}_{\tau}\times\hat{q}_{1})}{
|\vec{n}_{\tau}\times\vec{s}|\,\,|\vec{n}_{\tau}\times\hat{q}_1|}
\>$ (see also Fig. 5 in \cite{km1}).
Taking into account the distribution with respect to this
angle would allow to measure also the structure function
$W_{SG}$.
Note that the structure function $W_{SG}$ is
proportional to the imaginary part of
the form factors $(FF_4^*)$ and requires nontrivial phases of the
amplitudes resulting from final state interactions. These strong
interaction phases are essential for the observation of possible CP
violation effects in the hadronic decay amplitudes.
However, in our case
the angle $\alpha$ is not observable and has
to be averaged out. Hence, the $T$-odd correlation
$\bar{L}_{SG}W_{SG}$ vanishes and no test of CP violation is possible.
However, a nonvanishing contribution to the
distributions
$\bar{L}_{SA}{W}_{SA}$ or $\bar{L}_{SF}{W}_{SF}$
would be a clear signal of a scalar contribution (parametrized by
$F_4$) to the two meson decay modes.
\subsection{Three Body Decays }
Like in the two body case,
the three meson decay modes are most easily analyzed in the
hadronic rest frame $\vec{q_1}+\vec{q_2}+\vec{q_3}=0$.
The orientation of the hadronic
system is in general characterized by
three Euler angles ($\alpha,\beta$ and $\gamma$) as introduced in
\cite{km1,km2}.
Performing the analysis of $\tau \to \nu_\tau $+ 3 mesons in the
hadronic rest frame has the advantage that the product of the
hadronic
and the leptonic tensors reduce to a sum \cite{km1}
$ L^{\mu\nu}H_{\mu\nu}=\sum_{X} \bar{L}_XW_X$.
In this system the hadronic tensor $H_{\mu\nu}$ is decomposed into 16
hadronic structure
functions $W_{X}$
corresponding to 16 density matrix elements for a hadronic system in a spin one
[contributions proportional to
$V_1^{\mu}F_1, V_2^{\mu}F_2, V_3^{\mu}F_3$ in Eq.(\ref{videf})]
and spin zero state $[V_4^{\mu}F_4]$
(nine of them originate from a pure spin one and the
remaining are pure spin zero or interference terms).
The 16 structure functions contain the
dynamics of the three meson decay and
depend only on the hadronic invariants $Q^2$ and
the Dalitz plot variables $s_{i}$.
The leptonic factors
$\bar{L}_X$ factorize the dependence on the Euler angles and
also depend on the chirality parameter
$\gamma_{VA}= \frac{2g_{V}g_{A}}{g_{V}^{2}+g_{A}^{2}}$.
In our case, one can measure two Euler angles $\beta$ and $\gamma$
defined by
$
\cos\beta=\vec{n}_{\tau}\cdot\vec{n}_{\perp} \>,
\cos\gamma=-\frac{\vec{n}_{\tau}\cdot\hat{q}_{3}}{
|\vec{n}_{\tau}\times\vec{n}_{\perp}|}\>,
\sin\gamma=\frac{(\vec{n}_{\tau}\times\vec{n}_{\perp})\cdot\hat{q}_{3}}{
|\vec{n}_{\tau}\times\vec{n}_{\perp}|}
\>.
$
The vector $\vec{n}_\tau$ denotes the $\tau$ direction in the hadronic
rest frame.
The $(x,y)$ plane is aligned with the hadron momenta, {\it i.e.}
$\vec{n}_{\perp}=(\vec{q}_{1}\times\vec{q}_{2})/
|\vec{q}_{1}\times\vec{q}_{2}|$ \,
(the normal to the hadronic plane )
pointing along $Oz$.
The $Ox$ axis is defined by the
direction of $\hat{q}_{3}=\vec{q}_{3}/|\vec{q}_{3}|$.
In the three pion case $\pi^{-}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}$ we choose
$\vec{q}_{3}=\vec{q}_{\pi^{+}}$ and $|\vec{q}_{2}|>|\vec{q}_{1}|$.
The differential decay rate with respect to these two angels
is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Gamma(\tau\rightarrow 3h)&=&
\frac{G^{2}}{2m_\tau}
\bigl(^{\cos^2\theta_{c}}_{\sin^2\theta_{c}}\bigr)
\left\{\sum_{X}\bar{L}_{X}W_{X}\right\}
\times \label{diffrat}\\[2mm]
&&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{5}}\frac{1}{64}
\frac{(m_\tau^{2}-Q^{2})^{2}}{m_\tau^{2}}\,
\frac{dQ^{2}}{Q^{2}}\,ds_{1}\,ds_{2}
\,\frac{d\gamma}{2\pi}\,
\frac{d\cos\beta}{2}\>.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The leptonic coefficients $\bar{L}_X$ will be discussed below.
The dependence of the structure functions on the form factors $F_i$
reads \cite{km1}:
\begin{eqnarray} \hspace{3mm}
W_{A} &=& \hspace{3mm}(x_{1}^{2}+x_{3}^{2})\,|F_{1}|^{2}
+(x_{2}^{2}+x_{3}^{2})\,|F_{2}|^{2}
+2(x_{1}x_{2}-x_{3}^{2})\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{2}\right)
\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{B} &=& \hspace{3mm} x_{4}^{2}|F_{3}|^{2}
\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{C} &=& \hspace{3mm} (x_{1}^{2}-x_{3}^{2})\,|F_{1}|^{2}
+(x_{2}^{2}-x_{3}^{2})\,|F_{2}|^{2}
+2(x_{1}x_{2}+x_{3}^{2})\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{2}\right)
\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{D} &=& \hspace{3mm}2\left[ x_{1}x_{3}\,|F_{1}|^{2}
-x_{2}x_{3}\,|F_{2}|^{2}
+x_{3}(x_{2}-x_{1})\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{2}\right)\right]
\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{E} &=& -2x_{3}(x_{1}+x_{2})\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{1}
F^{\ast}_{2} \right)\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{F} &=& \hspace{3mm}
2x_{4}\left[x_{1}\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)
+ x_{2}\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)\right]
\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{G} &=&- 2x_{4}\left[x_{1}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)
+ x_{2}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)\right]]
\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{H} &=& \hspace{3mm}
2x_{3}x_{4}\left[\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)
-\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)\right]
\label{wi} \\[1mm]
W_{I} &=&- 2x_{3}x_{4}\left[\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)
-\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)\right]
\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{SA} &=& \hspace{3mm} Q^{2}\,|F_{4}|^{2}\nonumber\\[1mm]
W_{SB} &=& \hspace{3mm}2\sqrt{Q^{2}}\left[
x_{1}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
+x_{2}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\right]\nonumber\\[1mm]
W_{SC} &=&- 2\sqrt{Q^{2}}\left[
x_{1}\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
+x_{2}\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\right]\nonumber \\[1mm]
W_{SD} &=& \hspace{3mm} 2\sqrt{Q^{2}}x_{3}\left[
\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
-\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\right]\nonumber \\[1mm]\nonumber
W_{SE} &=& -2\sqrt{Q^{2}}x_{3}\left[
\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
-\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\right]\\[1mm]\nonumber
W_{SF} &=&- 2\sqrt{Q^{2}}x_{4}\,\mbox{Im}\left(F_{3}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\\[1mm]\nonumber
W_{SG} &=& -2\sqrt{Q^{2}}x_{4}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{3}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The variables $x_i$ are defined by
$
x_{1}= V_{1}^{x}=q_{1}^{x}-q_{3}^{x},\,
x_{2}= V_{2}^{x}=q_{2}^{x}-q_{3}^{x},\,
x_{3}= V_{1}^{y}=q_{1}^{y}=-q_{2}^{y},\,
x_{4}= V_{3}^{z}=\sqrt{Q^{2}}x_{3}q_{3}^{x},\,
$
where $q_i^{x}$ ($q_i^{y}$) denotes
the $x$ ($y$) component of the momentum of
meson $i$ in the hadronic rest frame.
They can easily be expressed in terms of $s_1$, $s_2$ and $s_3$
\cite{km1,km2}.
Note that the first 9 structure functions
originate from the hadronic system in a spin one state
($W_A, W_C, W_D, W_E$ from the axial vector current,
$W_B$ from the vector current and $W_F, W_G, W_H, W_I$ from the
interference of the axial vector and vector current).
$W_{SA}$ originates only from a hadronic system in a spin zero
state
and the remaining six structure functions are interference terms
between the spin one and spin zero states.
An inspection of Eq.~(\ref{wi}) shows also that the structure functions
$W_E, W_F, W_H, W_{SC}, W_{SE}, W_{SF}$
require nontrivial phases of the amplitudes resulting from final state
interactions. Only the $T$-odd correlations
$\bar{L}_X W_X ,\,\, X\in\{E,F,H,SC,SE,SF\}$
allow in principle for a measurement of
CP violating effects in the hadronic matrix elements (see next section).
The leptonic coefficients
$\bar{L}_X$ depend on the two angles $\beta, \gamma$ and on
$\gamma_{VA}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcrllcrl}
\bar{L}_{A} &=& 1/2 & K_1 (1+\cos^{2}\beta) + K_2 \>;
&\hspace{5mm} \bar{L}_{SA}&=& &K_2 \>;\\[1mm]
\bar{L}_{B} &=& &K_1 \sin^{2}\beta + K_2\>;
&\hspace{5mm}\bar{L}_{SB}&=& &K_2 \sin\beta \cos\gamma \>;\\[1mm]
\bar{L}_{C} &=& -1/2&K_1 \sin^{2}\beta \cos 2\gamma\>;
&\hspace{5mm}\bar{L}_{SC}&=& & 0 \>;\\[1mm]
\bar{L}_{D} &=& 1/2&K_1 \sin^{2}\beta \sin 2\gamma\>;
&\hspace{5mm}\bar{L}_{SD}&=& - &K_2 \sin\beta \sin\gamma\>;\\[1mm]
\bar{L}_{E} &=& &\gamma_{VA} \cos\beta \>;
&\hspace{5mm}\bar{L}_{SE}&=& - &0 \>;\\[1mm]
\bar{L}_{F} &=& 1/2& K_1 \sin 2\beta \cos\gamma\>;
&\hspace{5mm}\bar{L}_{SF}&=& - &K_2 \cos\beta \>;\\[1mm]
\bar{L}_{G} &=& - &\gamma_{VA} \sin\beta \sin\gamma \>;
&\hspace{5mm}\bar{L}_{SG}&=& &0 \>;\\[1mm]
\bar{L}_{H} &=& -1/2&K_1 \sin 2\beta \sin\gamma \>;
& \\[1mm]
\bar{L}_{I} &=& - &\gamma_{VA} \sin\beta \cos\gamma \>;
& \\
\end{array}
\label{ldef2}
\end{equation}
The coefficients $K_i$ are defined in Eq.~(\ref{kdef}).
Note that the coefficients $\bar{L}_{SC}, \bar{L}_{SE}, \bar{L}_{SG}$ vanish if
only the two
Euler angles $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are considered.
It has been shown in \cite{km1} that in the case of a polarized $\tau$
(as it is the situation at LEP) one can use the
direction of the $\tau$ spin-vector in the lab to define a further
Euler angle $\alpha$. If this additional angle is considered,
all 16 coefficients $\bar{L}_X$ in Eqs. (\ref{ldef2}) are nonvanishing
enabling the measurement of all 16 structure functions $W_X$.\\
The coefficients $\bar{L}_{SC}$ $\bar{L}_{SE}$ are of particular
importance for the detection of possible CP violation originating from
a charged Higgs exchange (see below).
Numerical results for the nonvanishing structure functions in the
$3\pi$ decay mode are discussed in \cite{km1,km2}.
Furthermore, it has been shown in
\cite{km1} that the technique of the structure functions allows
for a model independent test of possible spin zero components
(parametrized by $F_4$) in the hadronic current by analyzing the
structure functions $W_{SB}$ and $W_{SD}$.
Note that
the $\cos\beta$ distribution
allows already for a model independent
separation of the axial-vector and the vector current contribution
in the decay modes with different mesons,
{\it i.e.} the structure functions $W_A$ and
$W_B$ in Eq.~(\ref{wi})
can be disentangled due to the different $\beta$ dependence of
$\bar{L}_A$ and $\bar{L}_B$.
Numerical results of the structure functions for
several three meson decay modes with different mesons based on the
model in \cite{Dec93} are discussed in \cite{dm2}. A more detailed analysis
(including the full $Q^2$ and $s_i$
dependence of the structure functions)
based on the parameterization in \cite{fm1}
is in preparation \cite{fm2}.
\section{CP VIOLATION EFFECTS }
Currently CP violation has been experimentally observed only in the
$K$ meson system. The effect can be explained by a nontrivial complex
phase in the Kobayashi-Maskawa flavour mixing matrix.
However, the fundamental origin of this CP violation
is still unknown.
CP-odd correlations of the $\tau^-$ and $\tau^+$ decay products,
which originate from an electric dipole moment in the $\tau$ pair
production, have been discussed in \cite{nachtmann}.
In this paper, we investigate the effects of possible
non-Kobayashi-Maskawa-type of CP violation, {\it i.e.} CP violation
effects beyond the Standard Model. Such effects could originate for
example from multi Higgs boson models \cite{mhiggs},
scalar leptoquark model \cite{lepto} or left-right symmetric models
\cite{lhmodels}.
Any possible observation of these CP violation effects
needs not only a CP-violating complex phase (parametrized as $\eta$
and $\chi$ below)
in the hadronic matrix elements but also the interference with a CP
conserving phase resulting from final state interactions.
Therefore, only the correlations involving
structure functions proportional to the imaginary part of the
form factors $F_i$ allow in principle for an observation of CP
violation effects by taking the difference of
$d\Gamma[\tau^-]-d\Gamma[\tau^+]$
of the corresponding $T$-odd correlations (see below).
In the two meson decay modes, the only
structure function which is sensitive to CP-violation effects
is $W_{SG}$ in Eq.~(\ref{wsg})
[proportional to $\mbox{Im}\left[FF_4^*\right]$].
Unfortunately, this structure function is not observable if
only distributions of the angle $\beta$ are considered,
{\it i.e.} the coefficient $\bar{L}_{SG}$ vanishes.
However, $W_{SG}$ could in principle be measured by taking into account
additional distributions with respect to the $\tau$ spin vector
(assuming polarized incident beams).
CP violation effects in the $\tau\rightarrow 2\pi \nu$ decay mode
from the scalar sector (e.g. the multi Higgs boson models)
have recently been discussed in terms of ``stage-two spin correlation
functions'' in \cite{nelson1} and in the case of polarized
electron-positron beams at $\tau$ charm factories in \cite{tsaicp}.
In \cite{nelson1}, the decay products of the second tau decay are used
to define a $T$-odd correlation
whereas the $\tau$ polarization (assuming a polarized incident
electron beam) is used in $\cite{tsaicp}$ to define
a $T$-odd triple correlation. In fact, the correlations in
\cite{tsaicp}
are equivalent to the product
$\bar{L}_{SG}W_{SG}$ as discussed before in the two meson case, if
the angle $\alpha$ is defined with respect to the $\tau$ spin as
described after Eq.~(\ref{kdef}).
In the three meson case,
the structure functions
$W_E, W_F, W_H$, $W_{SC}, W_{SE}, W_{SF}$
in Eq.~(\ref{wi})
require nontrivial phases of the amplitudes resulting from final state
interactions.
Only the $T$-odd correlations
$\bar{L}_X W_X ,\,\, X\in\{E,F,H,SC,SE,SF\}$
allow therefore in principle for a measurement of
CP violating effects in the hadronic matrix elements.
As can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{ldef2})
the coefficients $\bar{L}_{SC}, \bar{L}_{SE}, \bar{L}_{SG}$ vanish if
only the two Euler angles $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are considered.
However, the structure functions $W_E, W_F, W_H, W_{SF}$
can be measured
through the $\beta$ and $\gamma$ dependence encoded in the
coefficients $\bar{L}_E, \bar{L}_F, \bar{L}_H, \bar{L}_{SF}$.
Let us therefore parametrize possible CP violation effects
in the hadronic decay amplitudes by replacing Eqs.~(\ref{f1234})
by
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\mu}(q_{1},q_{2},q_{3})
&=&
\left[
\left(
V_1^\mu\, F_1
+V_2^\mu\, F_2 \right)\,\,(1+\chi_A)
+V_4^\mu\, F_4 \,\, \left(1+\chi_A+\eta \right)
\right. \nonumber\\
&& \left.
\hspace{-2mm}
+\,i\,V_3^\mu\,F_3\,\,(1+\chi_V)\,\, \right] \label{vinew}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_i^\mu$ are given in Eq.~(\ref{videf}).
The term proportional to $\eta$ parametrizes the effect
of a possible charged Higgs
boson \cite{mhiggs}, whereas the complex numbers $\chi_A$ and $\chi_V$
parametrize any new physics that would arise from vector or scalar
boson exchange motivated by left-right symmetric models
\cite{lhmodels}. The Standard Model prediction is obtained from
Eq.~(\ref{vinew}) by setting $\chi$ and $\eta$ to zero.
Let us now assume that the complex numbers $\chi_A, \chi_V$
and $\eta$ transform like
\begin{equation}
\chi_A \stackrel{\mbox{CP}}{\longrightarrow}\chi_A^\ast;\,\,\,\,\,\,
\chi_V \stackrel{\mbox{CP}}{\longrightarrow}\chi_V^\ast;\,\,\,\,\,\,
\eta \stackrel{\mbox{CP}}{\longrightarrow}\eta^\ast.
\label{cptrans}
\end{equation}
The hadronic structure functions $\tilde{W}_X$, which include the new physics
effects parametrized by the numbers $\eta$ and $\chi$ are easily
obtained from Eq.~(\ref{wi}) using the transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
F_1 & \rightarrow &\tilde{F}_1= F_1 (1+\chi_A)\>,\label{f1t}\\
F_2 & \rightarrow &\tilde{F}_2= F_2 (1+\chi_A)\>,\\
F_3 & \rightarrow &\tilde{F}_3= F_3 (1+\chi_V)\>,\\
F_4 & \rightarrow &\tilde{F}_4= F_4 (1+\chi_A+\eta)\>.\label{f4t}
\end{eqnarray}
The hadronic structure functions are affected by the
sign change in the weak phases
under CP transformation as described in Eq.~(\ref{cptrans}).
Note that the strong (complex) phases due to final state
interactions [given by Breit-Wigner propagators for the
two body resonances] are not changed,
because the strong interaction is invariant
under charge conjugation.
Besides of the sign change in the weak phases, the
structure functions $\tilde{W}_F,
\tilde{W}_G, \tilde{W}_H,
\tilde{W}_I, \tilde{W}_{SF}, \tilde{W}_{SG}$, which
originate from the interference of the axial
vector and vector current, change sign.
Furthermore,
the amplitude for the CP conjugated process
$\tau^+$
can be obtained from the results for $\tau^-$ by
reversing all momenta and spins of the particles.
Thus, $\cos\beta \rightarrow - \cos\beta$ and
$\gamma_{VA}=-\gamma_{VA}$.
CP invariance therefore relates the differential decay rates
for $\tau^+$ and $\tau^-$ as:
\begin{equation}
d\Gamma[\tau^-](\cos\beta,\gamma_{VA},\tilde{W}_X)
\stackrel{\mbox{CP}}{=}
d\Gamma[\tau^+](-\cos\beta,-\gamma_{VA},a_X\tilde{W}_X)
\end{equation}
with $a_X = -1$ for
$X\in\{\tilde{W}_F, \tilde{W}_G,
\tilde{W}_H, \tilde{W}_I, \tilde{W}_{SF}, \tilde{W}_{SG}\}$ and
$a_X=1$ else.
If CP is not violated, the difference
$d\Gamma[\tau^-]-d\Gamma[\tau^+]$ should vanish.
{}From the $T$-odd correlations
$\bar{L}_X \tilde{W}_X ,\,\, X\in\{E,F,H,SC,SE,SF\}$, one can construct
CP-violating quantities by taking the difference of
these correlations for $\tau^-$ and $\tau^+$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_X &=& \frac{1}{2}
\left(
\bar{L}_X( \cos\beta,\, \gamma_{VA})\, \tilde{W}_X[\tau^-]
-
\bar{L}_X(-\cos\beta,\,-\gamma_{VA})\, a_X \tilde{W}_X[\tau^+]
\right)\nonumber \\
&=& \bar{L}_X(\cos\beta,\,\gamma_{VA})\,\left( \tilde{W}_X[\tau^-] -
\tilde{W}_X[\tau^+]\right)
\,\,\,\equiv\,\,\, \bar{L}_X\,\Delta{\tilde{W}_X}\nonumber\>,\\
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta{\tilde{W}_X} = \tilde{W}_X[\tau^-] - \tilde{W}_X[\tau^+]
\end{equation}
The nonvanishing CP-violating differences can be
calculated from Eqs.~(\ref{wi},\ref{f1t}-\ref{f4t}) and expressed in terms
of the form factors $F_i$ and the complex numbers $\chi_A, \chi_V$ and
$\eta$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta{\tilde{W}_F} &=& \hspace{3mm}
2x_{4}\left[x_{1}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)
+ x_{2}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)\right]
\, \mbox{Im}\left(\chi_A-\chi_V+\chi_A\chi_V^\ast\right)
\label{dwf}
\>,\\[2mm]
\Delta{\tilde{W}_H} &=& \hspace{3mm}
2x_{3}x_{4}\left[\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)
-\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{3}\right)\right]
\, \mbox{Im}\left(\chi_A-\chi_V+\chi_A\chi_V^\ast\right)
\label{dwh}
\>,\\[2mm]
\Delta{\tilde{W}_{SF}} &=&
- 2\sqrt{Q^{2}}x_{4}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{3}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\mbox{Im}\left(\chi_V-\chi_A-\eta
+\chi_V(\chi_A^\ast+\eta^\ast) \right)
\>. \label{wsf}
\end{eqnarray}
An observed nonzero values for these
differences would signal a true CP-violation.
Note that all CP-violating differences are proportional to the
imaginary part $\eta$ and $\chi$.
Note also that $\Delta \tilde{W}_E$ vanishs, because
the form factors $F_1$ and $F_2$ multiply the same
complex weak phase.
Eqs.~(\ref{dwf},\ref{dwh}) show that CP violation
effects parametrized by $\chi_A$ and $\chi_V$ are in principle
observable in a Tau-Charm Factory for three meson decay modes
with a nonvanishing vector (proportional to $F_3$) {\it and}
and axial vector current (proportional to $F_1, F_2$).
CP violation effects from a charged Higgs could be detected
through $\Delta{\tilde{W}_{SF}}$ only for decay modes with a
nonvanishing vector current. Therefore, CP-violation tests in the
three pion decay mode are not possible, if only the decay distribution
with respect to the angles $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are taken into account.
As mentioned before, it has been shown in \cite{km1}
that in the case of a polarized $\tau$
one can use the
direction of the $\tau$ spin-vector in the lab to define a further
Euler angle $\alpha$. This additional angular dependence
allows in principle for the measurement of the two additional
CP-violating differences
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta{\tilde{W}_{SC}} &=& 2\sqrt{Q^{2}}\left[
x_{1}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
+x_{2}\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\right] \mbox{Im}\left(-\eta+\chi_A \eta^\ast \right)\>,
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
\Delta{\tilde{W}_{SE}}&=& 2\sqrt{Q^{2}}x_{3}\left[
\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{1}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
-\,\mbox{Re}\left(F_{2}F^{\ast}_{4}\right)
\right] \mbox{Im}\left(-\eta+\chi_A \eta^\ast \right)\>.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and hence for CP violation tests originating from a charged Higgs
in the three pion decay mode.
The authors in \cite{koerner} studied the effects of $T$-odd triple
correlations (as derived in \cite{km1}) in the decay modes
$\tau\rightarrow K\pi\pi\nu$ and
$\tau\rightarrow KK\pi\nu$ using the model for the hadronic
form factors as suggested in \cite{Dec93}.
They found that CP violation effects
in some extensions of the Standard Model could be as big as 0.1\%.
CP violating effects in the $\tau\rightarrow 3\pi\nu$ decay mode have
also been discussed in \cite{hagiwara}.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS }
We would like to thank J.H. Kuehn for collaboration on part of the work
presented here.
The work of E. M. was supported in part
by the U. S. Department of Energy under
Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896. Further support was provided by the
University of Wisconsin Research Committee, with funds granted by the
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
The work of M.F. has been supported in part
by the National Science Foundation Grant PHY-9218167.
|
\section*{Abstract}
\else \normalsize
\begin{center}
{\bf Abstract\vspace{-.5em}\vspace{0pt}}
\end{center}
\quotation
\addtocounter{page}{-1}
\fi}
\def\if@twocolumn\else\endquotation\fi{\if@twocolumn\else\endquotation\fi}
%
\def\spacing#1{\def#1{#1}
\typeout{baselinestretch is modified to #1}}
%
\catcode`\@=12
%
\topmargin -20mm
\textheight 23cm
\oddsidemargin -10mm
\evensidemargin 0mm
\textwidth 18cm
\def\thebibliography#1{\section*
{References
\markboth{REFERENCES}{REFERENCES}}\list
{[\arabic{enumi}]}
{\settowidth\labelwidth{[#1]}\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\usecounter{enumi}}
\def\hskip .11em plus .33em minus -.07em{\hskip .11em plus .33em minus -.07em}
\sloppy \sfcode`\.=1000\relax}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand{\setcounter{equation}{0}}{\setcounter{equation}{0}}
\newcommand{\setcounter{footnote}{0}}{\setcounter{footnote}{0}}
\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\thesection.\alph{subsection}}
\renewcommand{\fnsymbol{footnote}}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\begin{document}
\preprintnumber{TU--489}
\preprintdate{August, 1995}
\vspace{10mm}
\title{
Bern-Kosower Rule for Scalar QED
}
\author{K.~Daikouji, M.~Shino, and Y.~Sumino}
\date{\sl Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Sendai, 980 Japan}
\makepreprititle
\vspace{15mm}
\begin{abstract}
\normalsize
We derive a full Bern-Kosower-type rule for scalar QED starting from
quantum field theory: we derive a set of rules for calculating
$S$-matrix elements for any processes at any order of the coupling
constant.
Gauge-invariant set of diagrams in general is first written in the
worldline path-integral expression.
Then we integrate over $x(\tau)$, and the resulting expression is
given in terms of correlation function on the worldline
$\left< x(\tau) x(\tau') \right>$.
Simple rules to decompose the correlation function
into basic elements are obtained.
Gauge transformation known as integration by parts technique can be used
to reduce the number of independent terms before integration over
proper-time variables.
The surface terms can be omitted provided the external scalars are
on-shell.
Also, we clarify correspondence to the conventional Feynman rule, which
enabled us to avoid any ambiguity coming from the infinite
dimensionality of the path-integral approach.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{1cm}
\vfil
\newpage
\baselineskip 22pt
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Recently, Bern and Kosower derived from superstring theory
a powerful method for calculating
one-loop $S$-matirx elements for QCD processes.\cite{bk}
Although the new rule had reduced the amount of work
required in the calculation greatly, it had little resemblance to the
conventional Feynman rule, and to date, the complete Bern-Kosower rule
has not been derived from quantum field theory (QCD).
The equivalence of the Bern-Kosower rule and the conventional Feynman
rule has been shown only in some concrete examples.\cite{bd}
Moreover, practical problems are that since the Bern-Kosower rule has
been derived from the string theory, it is difficult to include massive
particles and also multi-loop generalizations do not readily
lead to simple calculational tools.\cite{roland}
As for the approach from the quantum field theory, there has been
some progress.
Bern-Kosower-type rules for calculating
one-loop effective actions for both abelian and non-abelian gauge
theories have been derived from quantum field theories and studied
extensively by Strassler.\cite{strassler1,strassler2}
Also, multiloop diagrams with one-fermion-loop and multiple
propagator insertions has been cast into Bern-Kosower-type rule
by Schmidt and Schubert,
and they applied the rule to the calculation of
two-loop QED $\beta$ function.\cite{ss}
On the other hand, a quite different approach was developed by
Lam, where he showed that expressions similar to Bern-Kosower
rule can be obtained starting from the conventional Feynman parameter
formula in abelian gauge theories even beyond one-loop
order.\cite{lam}
In this paper we refine the ideas in the above approaches from field
theory, and derive a full
Bern-Kosower-type rule for scalar QED:
we derive a set of rules for calculating
$S$-matrix elements for any processes at any order of the coupling
constant.
Also we clarify correspondence to the conventional Feynman rule.
(The method we show in this paper can straightforwardly be extended to
the case of spinor QED.)
The main idea is:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Express a set of diagrams connected by gauge
transformation (see Fig.3 below) by a single worldline path-integral.
\item
Use gauge transformation (known as integration by parts
technique\cite{bk,strassler2})
to simplify calculation.
\end{enumerate}
For those unfamiliar with worldline path-integral formalism,
relation to the conventional
Feynman rule may be seen as follows.
Let us express the Feynman propagator in coordinate space
using Feynman parameter\footnote{
Throughout the paper we work in $D$ dimensional space-time
with the metric tensor
$g_{\mu \nu}=\mbox{diag}(+1,\underbrace{-1,\ldots ,-1}_{D-1})$.
}:
\begin{eqnarray}
i \Delta_F(x-y) &=& \int \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi)^D} \,
\frac{i \, e^{i p \cdot (x-y)}}{p^2-m^2+i\epsilon}
\label{fpfp1}
\\
&=& \int^\infty_0 d\alpha \, \int \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi)^D} \,
e^{ip \cdot (x-y) + i \alpha(p^2-m^2+i\epsilon)}
\label{fpfp2}
\\
&=& \int^\infty_0 d\alpha \, \,
i \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i\alpha} \right)^{D/2}
\exp \left[ - \, \frac{i}{4\alpha}(x-y)^2 - i\alpha(m^2-i\epsilon) \right] .
\label{fpfp3}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that (part of) the integrand in eqs.(\ref{fpfp2}) and
(\ref{fpfp3})
has a similar form to the propagator of a non-relativistic free
particle if $\alpha (>0)$ is identified with the time interval of propagation:
\begin{eqnarray}
K(x-y;\alpha) &\equiv & \int \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi)^D} \,
e^{ip \cdot (x-y) +i\alpha p^2}
\label{nrp1}
\\
&=& i \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i\alpha} \right)^{D/2}
\exp \left[ -\frac{i}{4\alpha}(x-y)^2 \right] .
\label{nrp2}
\end{eqnarray}
Namely, it satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( i \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha} -
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_\mu} \right)
K(x-y;\alpha) = 0,
\\
K(x-y;+0) = \delta (x-y).
\label{propk2}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the associativity relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^D z \, \, K(x-z;\alpha_1) \, K(z-y;\alpha_2)
= K(x-y;\alpha_1+\alpha_2)
\label{assoc}
\end{eqnarray}
holds as an important property of $K$ (see Fig.1), which
can be shown easily from eq.(\ref{nrp1}).
This property allows one to insert arbitrary number of
vertices along the
propagator lines of a given diagram, and
if infinitely many are inserted, the integral expression
reduces to the path-integral.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig1.ps,width=13cm}
\caption{A diagrammatical representation of the associativity
relation satisfied by $K(x-y;\alpha)$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In section 2, we derive the path-integral expression for a general set
of diagrams starting from quantum field theory, and derive
the general
expression after integration over $x(\tau)$.
Section 3 clarifies correspondence of the proper time integral formula
obtained in the previous section and the Feynman parameter integral
formula obtained from the conventional Feynman rule.
This enables one to express the two-point function
(correlation function)
$\left< x(\tau) x(\tau') \right>$
on the general diagram in terms of basic elements.
Section 4 explains a general prescription for integration by parts and
discuss relation to the gauge transformation on worldline.
The gauge-fixing parameter dependence of a set of diagrams is
discussed in section
5.
The Bern-Kosower-type rule for a general set of diagrams is summarized
in section 6.
The rule for calculating a set of
diagrams including other than gauge interactions is demonstrated in
section 7.
Concluding remarks are given in section 8.
In Appendix A, details of calculation required in section 3 are shown.
Some properties of (counterpart of) the two-point function are
listed in Appendix B with proofs.
A sample calculation using the Bern-Kosower-type
rule is shown in Appendix C.
\section{General Expression}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We consider scalar QED theory, whose Lagrangian is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}(\phi ,A_\mu ) = ( D_\mu \phi )^* ( D^\mu \phi )
- m^2 |\phi|^2 - \frac{\lambda}{4} |\phi|^4
- \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
D_\mu (A) = \partial_\mu - ie A_\mu (x).
\end{eqnarray}
We set $\lambda=0$ in most of the paper since the simplification of
calculation occurs regarding the gauge interactions.
The method for including $|\phi|^4$ interaction will be
demonstrated in section 7.
As for the gauge-fixing term, we take Feynman gauge
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{gf}(A_\mu) = - \frac{1}{2} ( \partial^\mu A_\mu )^2
\end{eqnarray}
in the following, and discuss other gauge fixing conditions in section 5.
We start by defining a generating functional of
connected Green functions,
which is {\it amputated} with respect to external
photons and {\it unamputated} with respect to external scalars:
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{W(J,J^* \! \! ,A_\mu)} &\equiv&
\left.
\int \! {\cal D}\phi \, {\cal D}Q_\mu \,
\exp \, {i \! \int dx \,
[ {\cal L}(\phi , Q_\mu) + {\cal L}_{gf}(Q_\mu)
+ J^*\phi + J\phi^* + j^\mu Q_\mu ]
} \,
\right|_{j_\mu \rightarrow - \Box A_\mu} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q_\mu$ denotes quantum gauge field.
Integrating out the scalar field, and then rewriting the integral
over $Q_\mu$ by functional derivatives, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{W(J,J^* \! \! ,A_\mu)} &=&
\int {\cal D}Q_\mu \, \,
e^{ i \int dx \,
[
\frac{1}{2} (A_\mu-Q_\mu) \Box (A^\mu-Q^\mu)
- \frac{1}{2} A_\mu \Box A^\mu
]
}
\nonumber
\\
&& ~~~
\times
\exp [ \, {\textstyle
- \mbox{Tr}\,\mbox{Log} ( D(Q)^2 + m^2 )
+ i \, \int \! \! \int dx dy \,
J^*(x) \left(
\frac{1}{ D(Q)^2 + m^2 }
\right)_{xy} \! J(y)
} ]
\\
&=& \rule{0mm}{9mm}
e^{- \frac{i}{2}\int dx A_\mu
\Box
A^\mu}
\exp [ {\textstyle
\frac{i}{2} \int \! \! \int dx dy
\frac{\delta}{\delta A_\mu(x)} (
{\hbox to 0pt{$\sqcap$}\sqcup}^{-1})_{xy}
\frac{\delta}{\delta A^\mu(y)}
} ]
\nonumber
\\&& ~~~
\times
\exp [ \, {\textstyle
- \mbox{Tr}\,\mbox{Log} ( D(A)^2 + m^2 )
+ i \, \int \! \! \int dx dy \,
J^*(x) \left( \frac{1}{ D(A)^2 + m^2 } \right)_{xy} \! J(y)
} ] ,
\label{deriv}
\end{eqnarray}
where we used functional analogue of an
identity\footnote{
To derive the integral form (left-hand-side) from the differential form
(right-hand-side), substitute
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\xi) = \int d\eta \, \delta (\xi - \eta) f(\eta)
= \int \frac{dp \, d\eta}{2\pi} \, e^{ip(\xi -\eta)}f(\eta)
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and integrate over $p$ after replacing
$d/d\xi$ by $ip$.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\int^\infty_{-\infty}
{\textstyle \frac{d\eta}{\sqrt{2\pi i a}} } \, \,
e^{i \frac{(\xi-\eta)^2}{2a} }
f(\eta)
= e^{ \frac{1}{2}ia \frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} } f(\xi) .
\end{eqnarray}
Interaction terms in eq.(\ref{deriv}),
which functional derivatives operate,
can be represented by path-integrals of a particle
interacting with the background
gauge field $A_\mu$, respectively, as
\begin{eqnarray}
- \mbox{Tr}\,\mbox{Log} ( D(A)^2 + m^2 )
&=& \int^\infty_0 \frac{dT}{T} \, e^{-im^2T}
{\hbox to 18pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle x(0)=x(T)$}
}}
{\cal D}x(\tau) \,
\exp \biggl[
-i \int^T_0 d\tau \biggl(
\frac{\dot{x}^2}{4}-e A(x) \cdot \dot{x}
\biggl) \biggl] ,
\label{pi1}
\\
{\textstyle
-i \left( \frac{1}{ D(A)^2 + m^2 } \right)_{wz}
}
&=&
\int^\infty_0 {dT} \, e^{-im^2T}
{\hbox to 18pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle x(0)=z$}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle x(T)=w \rule{0mm}{7mm}$}
}}
{\cal D}x(\tau) \,
\exp \biggl[
-i \int^{T}_0 d\tau \biggl(
\frac{\dot{x}^2}{4}-e A(x) \cdot \dot{x}
\biggl) \biggl] .
\label{pi2}
\end{eqnarray}
Derivation of the first equation is given in Ref.\cite{strassler1},
and the second expression can be shown similarly.
The above interaction terms, respectively,
correspond to a closed scalar chain (making
a loop) and an open scalar chain (whose both ends are connected to
external scalars) in the background gauge field.
Each term corresponds to the sum of Feynman diagrams with different
location of photons along the scalar chain, including arbitrary number
of three-point
vertices and seagull vertices; see Fig.2.
Eq.(\ref{deriv}) has a simple form of connecting the
two kinds of scalar chains by photon propagators
$i g_{\mu\nu}({\hbox to 0pt{$\sqcap$}\sqcup}^{-1})_{xy}$,
which serves for deriving path-integral expression for (a set of)
diagrams.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig2.ps,width=13cm}
\caption{The path-integral representation of a scalar particle
interacting with the background gauge field
a) where the scalar line is making a loop,
corresponding to eq.(\protect\ref{pi1}\protect), and
b) where the scalar line is connected to external
lines,corresponding to eq.(\protect\ref{pi2}\protect).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Consider first a specific example.
We will find a convenient expression for the contribution of the set of
diagrams shown in Fig.3 (hereafter referred to as set I diagrams)
to the momentum space Green function defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
G(k_1,k_4;k_3,\epsilon_3,k_6,\epsilon_6) &\equiv&
\int dx dx' dw dz \, \,
e^{i (k_1 \cdot z + k_4 \cdot w + k_3 \cdot x + k_6 \cdot x') }
\nonumber \\ &&
\times
\left.
{\textstyle
\frac{\delta}{\delta J(z)} \,
\frac{\delta}{\delta J^*(w)} \,
\epsilon_{3\mu} \frac{\delta}{\delta A_\mu(x)} \,
\epsilon_{6\nu} \frac{\delta}{\delta A_\nu(x')}
} \,
W(J,J^* \! \! ,A)
\right|_{J=J^*=A=0} .
\label{defgreen}
\end{eqnarray}
All external momenta are taken to be outgoing.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig3.ps,width=12cm}
\caption{The set I diagrams, which includes diagrams interrelated to
one another
by the gauge transformation of internal and external photons.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let us choose the first diagram in the set I as the representative,
and extract step by step the relevant terms in eq.(\ref{defgreen});
following procedure is
sufficient for including all contributions from the set I
diagrams.
After substituting (\ref{pi1}) and (\ref{pi2}) into (\ref{deriv}),
we keep the term including one open scalar chain, one closed
scalar chain, and one internal photon propagator:
\begin{eqnarray}
W &\sim &
\frac{i}{2} \int \! \int dx dy \,
{\textstyle
\frac{\delta}{\delta A_\mu(x)} (
{\hbox to 0pt{$\sqcap$}\sqcup}^{-1})_{xy}
\frac{\delta}{\delta A^\mu(y)}
}
\nonumber
\\ &&
\times
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle \infty \rule{0mm}{4mm}$}
}}
dT
\, e^{-im^2T}
\int \! dw dz \, J^*(w) J(z)
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle z$}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle w$}
}}
{\cal D}x \,
\exp \biggl[
-i
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle T$}
}}
d\tau \, \left(
\frac{1}{4} \dot{x}^2 - e A(x) \cdot \dot{x}
\right)
\biggl]
\nonumber
\\ &&
\times
{\hbox to 13pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 4pt{$\scriptstyle 0$}
\raise20pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle \infty \rule{0mm}{3mm}$}
}}
\frac{dT'}{T'}
\, e^{-im^2T'}
\oint {\cal D}x' \,
\exp \biggl[
-i
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle T'$}
}}
d\tau' \, \left(
\frac{1}{4} \dot{x}'^2 - e A(x') \cdot \dot{x}'
\right)
\biggl] .
\label{eg1}
\end{eqnarray}
We expand the integrand
in powers of the coupling $e$, and extract the term corresponding to
two photon insertions in each scalar chain:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{(ie)^2}{2}
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle T$}
}}
dt_2 \, A(x_2) \cdot \dot{x}_2
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle T$}
}}
dt_3 \, A(x_3) \cdot \dot{x}_3
\times
\frac{(ie)^2}{2}
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle T'$}
}}
dt_5 \, A(x'_5) \cdot \dot{x}'_5
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle T'$}
}}
dt_2 \, A(x'_6) \cdot \dot{x}'_6
,
\label{connectpp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_i \equiv x(t_i)$ and $x'_j \equiv x'(t_j)$.
Then connect the internal photon propagator by taking derivative
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\delta}{\delta A_\mu(x)}
\frac{\delta}{\delta A^\mu(y)} ~
[ A(x_2) \cdot \dot{x}_2 ] \,
[ A(x'_5) \cdot \dot{x}'_5 ]
= \dot{x}_2 \cdot \dot{x}'_5 \, \,
[ \delta ( x_2 - x ) \delta ( x'_5 - y )
+ ( x \leftrightarrow y ) ] .
\end{eqnarray}
There are also terms in which $A(x_3)$ and $A(x_6')$ are
differentiated instead of
$A(x_2)$ and $A(x_5')$, respectively,
so the factor $1/4$ in
(\ref{connectpp}) gets cancelled.
According to the definition (\ref{defgreen}),
the Green function is obtained by
substituting\footnote{
Note that
in the case where $n$ external photon vertices are on some chain,
one should multiply by $n!$ after substituting
$A^\mu (x(t_i)) = \epsilon_i^\mu e^{i k_i \cdot x(t_i)}$.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
J^*(w) = e^{i k_4 \cdot w}, ~~~
J(z)= e^{i k_1 \cdot z}, ~~~
A^\mu (x_3) = \epsilon_3^\mu e^{i k_3 \cdot x_3} ,~~~
A^\mu (x'_6) =
\epsilon_6^\mu e^{i k_6 \cdot x'_6}
\end{eqnarray}
to eq.(\ref{eg1}).
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}} (k,\epsilon) &=&
ie^4
\int dx dy \,
({\hbox to 0pt{$\sqcap$}\sqcup}^{-1})_{xy}
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle \infty$}
}}
dT
\, e^{-im^2T}
{\hbox to 13pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 4pt{$\scriptstyle 0$}
\raise20pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle \infty \rule{0mm}{4mm}$}
}}
\frac{dT'}{T'}
\, e^{-im^2T'}
\int^{T}_0 dt_2 dt_3 \int^{T'}_0 \! dt_5 dt_6
\nonumber
\\ &&
\times
\int dw dz
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle z$}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle w$}
}}
{\cal D}x \,
e^{
-i \int^{T}_0 \!
d\tau \, \frac{1}{4} \dot{x}^2
}
\oint {\cal D}x' \,
e^{
-i \int^{T'}_0 \!
d\tau' \, \frac{1}{4} \dot{x}'^2
}
\delta(x_2-x) \delta (x'_5-y)
\nonumber
\\ && ~~~~~
\times
e^{i (k_1 \cdot z + k_4 \cdot w ) }
\left( \dot{x}_2 \cdot \dot{x}'_5 \right)
\left( \epsilon_3 \cdot \dot{x}_3 e^{i k_3 \cdot x_3} \right)
\left( \epsilon_6 \cdot \dot{x}'_6 e^{i k_6 \cdot x'_6} \right)
\\
&=&
e^4
\int^\infty_0 d\alpha
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle \infty$}
}}
dT
\, e^{-im^2T}
{\hbox to 13pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 4pt{$\scriptstyle 0$}
\raise20pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle \infty \rule{0mm}{4mm}$}
}}
\frac{dT'}{T'}
\, e^{-im^2T'}
\int^{T}_0 dt_2 dt_3 \int^{T'}_0 \! dt_5 dt_6
\nonumber
\\ &&
\times
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}} {\cal D}x(\tau) \,
e^{
-i \int \!
d\tau \, \frac{1}{4} \dot{x}(\tau)^2
} \,
e^{i (k_1 \cdot z + k_4 \cdot w ) }
\left( - \dot{x}_2 \cdot \dot{x}'_5 \right)
\left( \epsilon_3 \cdot \dot{x}_3 e^{i k_3 \cdot x_3} \right)
\left( \epsilon_6 \cdot \dot{x}'_6 e^{i k_6 \cdot x'_6} \right)
,
\label{gi2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have expressed the photon propagator using Feynman parameter,
and defined a ``path-integral over the
set I diagrams''\footnote{
To be precise, we have expressed scalar chains in path-integrals and
photon propagators in Feynman parameter integrals.
} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}} {\cal D}x(\tau)
\, e^{-i\int d\tau \frac{1}{4} \dot{x}(\tau)^2}
&\equiv&
\int dx dy \,
i \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i\alpha} \right)^{D/2}
e^{-\frac{i}{4\alpha} (x-y)^2}
\nonumber
\\&& \times
\int dw dz
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle z$}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle w$}
}}
{\cal D}x \,
e^{ -i
\int^{T}_0 \! d\tau \,
\frac{1}{4} \dot{x}^2
}
\oint {\cal D}x' \,
e^{
-i \int^{T'}_0 \! d\tau' \, \frac{1}{4} \dot{x}'^2
}
\nonumber
\\&& ~~~~~~~
\times
\delta(x_2-x) \delta (x'_5-y) .
\label{piod}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the path-integral over $x(\tau)$ is Gaussian, it is
straightforward (at least formally) to perform the integration.
For convenience, we assign an outgoing momentum $k_i$
and a polarization vector $\epsilon_i$
to every vertex ($x_1 \equiv z$, $x_4 \equiv w$),
and replace the vertex factors by an exponential factor:
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{i (k_1 \cdot z + k_4 \cdot w ) }
\left( - \dot{x}_2 \cdot \dot{x}'_5 \right)
\left( \epsilon_3 \cdot \dot{x}_3 e^{i k_3 \cdot x_3} \right)
\left( \epsilon_6 \cdot \dot{x}'_6 e^{i k_6 \cdot x'_6} \right)
\longrightarrow
\exp \left[
\sum_{i=1}^{6} (i k_i \cdot x_i + \epsilon_i \cdot \dot{x}_i)
\right] .
\label{exponentiate}
\end{eqnarray}
At the end of the calculation, to
recover the correct result:
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\arabic{enumi})}
\item
We set
$k_2 = k_5 =0$ and $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_4 = 0$.
\item
Only the terms in which each polarizatoin vector
$\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_5,\epsilon_6$
appears precisely once
(multi-linear in each polarization vector)
are retained.
\item
We replace the internal photon wave function as
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_2^\mu \epsilon_5^\nu \rightarrow -g^{\mu \nu} .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
The replacement (\ref{exponentiate}) simplifies the
integration over $x(\tau)$.
Hence, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}} (k,\epsilon) &=&
e^4
\int^\infty_0 d\alpha
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle 0 $}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle \infty$}
}}
dT
\, e^{-im^2T}
{\hbox to 13pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 4pt{$\scriptstyle 0$}
\raise20pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle \infty \rule{0mm}{4mm}$}
}}
\frac{dT'}{T'}
\, e^{-im^2T'}
\int^{T}_0 dt_2 dt_3 \int^{T'}_0 \! dt_5 dt_6
\nonumber
\\ &&
\times
{\cal N} \, \exp \biggl[ \, \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i,j=1}^6 \biggl\{
- i k_i \cdot k_j G_B^{ij}
- 2 k_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_j G_B^{ij}
+ i \epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}
\biggl\}
\biggl] ,
\label{egfinal}
\end{eqnarray}
where the normalization factor is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal N} \equiv \int_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}} {\cal D}x(\tau)
\, e^{-i\int d\tau \frac{1}{4} \dot{x}(\tau)^2} ,
\label{egnorm}
\end{eqnarray}
and the two-point functions are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{lcc}
g^{\mu \nu} \, G_B^{ij} &=& -i \left< x^\mu (t_i) x^\nu (t_j) \right>,
\\
\rule{0mm}{7mm}
g^{\mu \nu} \, \partial_j G_B^{ij} &=& -i
\left< x^\mu (t_i) \dot{x}^\nu (t_j) \right>,
\\
\rule{0mm}{7mm}
g^{\mu \nu} \, \partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}
&=& -i \left< \dot{x}^\mu (t_i) \dot{x}^\nu (t_j) \right>,
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray}
with the expectation value
taken with respect to the path-integral average over the set I diagrams:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left< {\cal O}(x) \right> \equiv {\cal N}^{-1}
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}} {\cal D}x(\tau) \, {\cal O} (x)
\, e^{-i\int d\tau \frac{1}{4} \dot{x}(\tau)^2} .
\label{egexpect}
\end{eqnarray}
We remind the reader that $\partial_j G_B^{ij}$ {\it differs} from the
differentiation of $G_B^{ij}$ with respect to $t_j$.
Precise definition will be made clear in the next section.
So far we considered a specific example.
The steps that led to eq.(\ref{egfinal}) can be generalized to an
arbitrary set of diagrams:
A set of diagrams consists of those which can be transformed to one
another by sliding photon legs along the scalar chains, where any two
three-point vertices on a same chain may combine to become a seagull
vertex.
Any single set contains all diagrams that are interrelated to
one another by the gauge transformation of external and internal
photons.
In other words, each set constitutes a gauge-invariant subamplitude if
the external scalar propagators are amputated and taken to be on-shell,
$k_s^2 \rightarrow m^2$.\footnote{
This is true only for the renormalized Green function.
}
Thus, the Green function
\begin{eqnarray}
G(k,\epsilon) &=&
\int \prod_i dx_i \, e^{i \sum k_i \cdot x_i}
\left[
\prod {\textstyle \frac{\delta}{i\delta J(w_i)} } \,
\prod
{\textstyle \frac{\delta}{i\delta J^*(z_i)} } \,
\prod {\textstyle \epsilon_i^\mu
\frac{\delta}{i\delta A^\mu(y_i)} } \, \,
W(J,J^* \! \! ,A)
\right]_{J=J^*=A=0}
\label{defg}
\end{eqnarray}
at each order of the coupling $e$ can be
decomposed to the sub-Green functions corresponding to the sets $S$ of
diagrams as
\begin{eqnarray}
G(k,\epsilon ) = \sum_S G_S (k,\epsilon) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the decomposition is accomplished naturally
by expanding eq.(\ref{deriv}) in
powers of $e$, taking functional derivatives, and then substituting the
external wave functions; see eqs.(\ref{eg1})-(\ref{gi2}).
Following similar steps as in the former example, it is easy to see that
the sub-Green function for a set $S$ with $2n_s$
external scalars at ${\cal O}(e^n)$ is given generally by
\begin{eqnarray}
G_S(k,\epsilon) &=& (ie)^n \, C \,
\int^\infty_0 \prod_r d\alpha_r \, \prod_{chain \, l}
\left(
\int^\infty_0 [dT_l]\, e^{-im^2T_l} \int^{T_l}_0 \prod_{i_l} dt_{i_l}
\right)
\nonumber
\\ &&
\times
{\cal N} \, \exp \biggl[ \, \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i,j=1}^{n+2n_s} \biggl\{
- i k_i \cdot k_j G_B^{ij}
- 2 k_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_j G_B^{ij}
+ i \epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}
\biggl\}
\biggl] ,
\label{generalexp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C$ is the combinatorial factor\footnote{
The combinatorial factor $C$ in general differs from
$(\mbox{symmetry factor}) \times (\mbox{statistical factor})$ of the
corresponding Feynman diagrams, since certain diagrams do not
distinguish the interchange of photon legs.
e.g.\ $C=1/2$ for the scalar self-energy at one-loop.
},
$\alpha_r$ denotes the Feynman
parameter of the $r$-th photon propagator.
The chain $l$ represents
open or closed scalar chain,
and the integral measure for its length
$T_l$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
[dT_l] = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
dT_l & \mbox{for $l=$open}\\
\rule{0mm}{4mm} {dT_l}/{T_l} & \mbox{for $l=$closed}
\end{array}
\right. .
\label{imeasure}
\end{eqnarray}
$i_l$ represents photon vertex on the chain $l$.
For convenience, we assigned an outgoing external momentum $k_i$ and a
polarization vector $\epsilon_i$ to every vertex $i$.
Normalization factor $\cal N$ and two-point functions
$G_B^{ij}$, $\partial_j G_B^{ij}$, and
$\partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}$
are defined similarly as eqs.(\ref{egnorm})-(\ref{egexpect}), but for
the path-integral over the set $S$ diagrams.
The exponential factor is
common to all
$S$ once the numbers of external scalars and
photons as well as the order of
$e$ are fixed.
(Explicit forms of $G_B^{ij}$'s depend on $S$, though.)
Furthermore, one should manipulate following processes (dependent on the
set $S$) to the above
$G_S(k,\epsilon)$:
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\arabic{enumi})}
\item
If the vertex $i$ is internal, we set corresponding $k_i=0$.
\item
If the vertex $i$ is an endpoint of an open scalar chain,
we set corresponding $\epsilon_i=0$.
\item
Only the terms multi-linear in each remaining polarization vector
are kept.
\item
We replace the polarization vectors at both ends ($i_r$ and $j_r$)
of every photon
propagator $r$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_{i_r}^\mu \epsilon_{j_r}^\nu \rightarrow -g^{\mu \nu} .
\label{replpolv}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
At this stage, one could directly evaluate the integrals in
eq.(\ref{generalexp}) once the explicit forms of $\cal N$ and
$G_B^{ij}$, $\partial_j G_B^{ij}$, and
$\partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}$
are known.
It already has advantages that a set of diagrams is cast into
one single expression, and that the expressions for different sets of
diagrams can be obtained in
similar simple manners.
Also, the spinor helicity technique \cite{sht1,sht2} can be used, so
the number of independent
dot products in the exponent can be reduced.
Moreover, the Bern-Kosower-type rule allows
use of partial integration technique, which simplify the calculation
further.
After that, one will
integrate over $\alpha_r$, $t_i$, and $T_l$.
In order to understand the remaining part of the rule, one needs a
close study of the two-point function
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{\mu\nu} \, G_B(\tau , \tau') \equiv
-i
\left< x^\mu(\tau) x^\nu(\tau') \right>.
\label{deftf}
\end{eqnarray}
In principle, $G_B(\tau , \tau')$ is obtained by solving
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau^2} \, G_B(\tau , \tau')
= 2 \, \delta (\tau -\tau')
\end{eqnarray}
after removing the zero mode,
where appropriate boundary condition should be imposed
at each internal vertex of the
diagram\cite{ss}.
We take, however, an alternative approach.
It is possible to find simple rules to express $G_B(\tau , \tau')$
for a general diagram in terms of basic elements.
\section{Relation to Feynman Parameter Formula and
Decomposition of $G_B$}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we derive the Feynman parameter formula for a scalar
QED diagram (rather than for a set of diagrams considered in the
previous section).
In this formula a matrix $Z_{ij}$ appears, which is identified to be
the counterpart of $G_B^{ij}$.
$Z_{ij}$ is defined through integral
over finite number of variables instead of
the path-integral formulation, which enables us to investigate its
properties in an unambiguous way.
We deal with a general $\phi^3$ diagram in subsection 3.a, followed by an
extension to scalar QED diagrams in subsection 3.b.
Then subsection 3.c will clarify the relation
between the Feynman parameter integral
formula and the general expression for $G_S (k,\epsilon)$
obtained in the last section.
Finally, we show how to decompose $\cal N$ and $G_B^{ij}$
to simpler elements
in subsection 3.d.
\subsection{Scalar $\phi^3$ Diagram}
For the calculation of a general $\phi^3$ diagram, it has long been
known how to write down the Feynman parameter formula\cite{ll}.
We rederive the formula in a manner convenient for application to
the case of scalar QED diagram.
A general connected $\phi^3$ diagram
with $n$ vertices and $N$ internal lines
can be written using
Feynman rule in coordinate space as
\begin{eqnarray}
i T = (ie)^n \int \prod^n_{i=1} d^D x_i \, e^{i \sum_i k_i \cdot x_i}
\left[ \prod^N_{r=1} i \Delta_F(x_{i_r}-x_{j_r}) \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $e$ is the $\phi^3$ coupling constant.
$i_r$ and $j_r$ represent the vertices at both ends of the $r$-th internal
line.
For convenience an outgoing
external momentum $k_i$ is assigned to every vertex.
If the vertex is internal, we set the corresponding $k_i=0$ at the end
of the calculation.
Combinatorial factor, if any, is suppressed for simplicity.
Substituting the propagator given in eq.(\ref{fpfp3}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
iT = (ie)^n \int^\infty_0 \prod^N_{r=1} d\alpha_r \,
e^{-i(m^2-i\epsilon )\sum_r \alpha_r} \, I(\alpha ) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha ) \equiv \int [dx_i]
\,
\exp \left[ - \frac{i}{4} \sum^n_{i,j=1} x_i \cdot x_j \,
A_{ij}(\alpha ) + i \sum^n_{i=1} k_i \cdot x_i \right] ,
\label{ialpha1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum^n_{i,j=1} x_i \cdot x_j \,
A_{ij}(\alpha ) \equiv \sum^N_{r=1} \frac{(x_{i_r}-x_{j_r})^2}{\alpha_r} .
\label{quad}
\end{eqnarray}
The matrix $A_{ij}(\alpha )$ represents the
topoplogy of the diagram (how the vertices are
connected).
We have absorbed the factor before exponential in eq.(\ref{nrp2}) into
the integral measure:
\begin{eqnarray}
[dx_i] \equiv
\left[ \prod^N_{r=1} i \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i\alpha_r}
\right)^{D/2} \right] \cdot
\prod^n_{i=1} d^D x_i .
\label{measure}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that it depends on Feynman parameters.
Then, after Gaussian integration over $x_i$'s in $I(\alpha)$, we will be
left with the desired Feynman parameter integral formula.
Reflecting the invariance of the quadratic form (\ref{quad}) under
translation
\begin{eqnarray}
x^\mu_i \rightarrow x^\mu_i + c^\mu ,
\label{transl}
\end{eqnarray}
the matrix $A_{ij}(\alpha )$ has a zero eigenvalue.
Namely, $I(\alpha)$ will be proportional to the $\delta$-function
representing
momentum conservation.
Indeed, after integration over $x_i$'s, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha)=
(2\pi)^D \delta \left( \sum^n_{i=1} k_i \right) \cdot
i^l \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i}
\right)^{Dl/2}
\Delta(\alpha)^{-D/2} \,
\exp \left[ i \sum^n_{i,j=1} k_i \cdot k_j Z_{ij}(\alpha) \right]
\label{ialpha}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta(\alpha) = \frac{1}{n}
\left( \prod^N_{r=1} \alpha_r \right)
\mbox{det}' A(\alpha) .
\label{delta}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $l=N-n+1$ is the number of loop of the diagram.
$\det '$ denotes the product of eigenvalues but zero.
$Z_{ij}(\alpha)$ is the inverse of $A_{ij}(\alpha)$ after the zero mode
is removed, or, fixing the center of gravity of vertices.
Derivation of eqs.(\ref{ialpha}) and (\ref{delta}) is given in
Appendix A.
In eq.(\ref{ialpha}), $Z_{ij}(\alpha)$ is not uniquely determined.
This is because one can readily
confirm the invariance of $I(\alpha)$ under the
transformation of $Z$,
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{ij}(\alpha) \rightarrow
Z_{ij}(\alpha) + f_i(\alpha) + f_j(\alpha)
~~~~~
\mbox{for $\forall f_i(\alpha)$},
\label{transfz}
\end{eqnarray}
due to the momentum
conservation.
Among the class of $Z(\alpha)$'s connected by the transformation, there
is a specific choice of $Z(\alpha)$ most convenient to the
following argument.
We choose
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{\mu\nu} Z_{ij}(\alpha) \equiv
- \frac{i}{4}
\left< \! \left< \, (x_i-x_j)^\mu (x_i-x_j)^\nu \, \right> \! \right>
\label{defz}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\left< \! \left< \ldots \right> \! \right>$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left< \! \left< {\cal O} \right> \! \right> \equiv
\frac{
\int [dx_i] \, {\cal O} \, \exp [{-\frac{i}{4}\sum x_i \cdot x_j
A_{ij}}]
}
{
\int [dx_i] \, \exp [{-\frac{i}{4}\sum x_i \cdot x_j
A_{ij}}]
} .
\label{expect}
\end{eqnarray}
The numerator and the
denominator of eq.(\ref{expect}), respectively, are
ill-defined due to the zero eigenvalue of $A(\alpha)$, so one has to
first remove the zero mode in the integrals.
Because $x_i-x_j$ in eq.(\ref{defz}) is invariant under the translation
(\ref{transl}),
$Z(\alpha)$ thus defined is independent of how one removes the zero
mode.\footnote{
Naively, $Z(\alpha)$ being the inverse of $A(\alpha)$, one may consider
a natural definition would be
$g^{\mu\nu} Z'_{ij}(\alpha) \equiv
\frac{i}{2} \left< \! \left< x_i^\mu x_j^\nu \right> \! \right>$.
$Z'$ and $Z$ given by eq.(\ref{defz}) are equivalent under
the transformation (\ref{transfz}) with $f_i = -Z'_{ii}/2$.
The disadvantage of $Z'$ is that it depends on how one removes the
zero mode in calculating
$\left< \! \left< x_i^\mu x_j^\nu \right> \! \right>$ since $x_i^\mu x_j^\nu$
is not translationally invariant.
}
Lam has pointed out\cite{lam} that this choice of
$Z(\alpha)$ is characterized by the condition
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{ii}(\alpha) = 0
~~~~~~~
\mbox{for $1 \leq i \leq n$},
\end{eqnarray}
and is called zero-diagonal level scheme.
We list some important properties of $Z_{ij}$ together with their proofs
in Appendix B.
\subsection{Scalar QED Diagram}
Now we derive the Feynman parameter intergral formula
for a scalar QED diagram.
We consider diagrams contributing to the
Green function (\ref{defg}) which is amputated with respect to external
photons and unamputated with respect to external scalars.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig4.ps,width=5cm}
\caption{A scalar QED diagram including only three-point gauge
vertices, which
contributes to the Green function amputated with respect to external
photons and unamputated with respect to external scalars.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
First, let us consider a diagram without seagull vertex; see Fig.4:
\begin{eqnarray}
G_D(k,\epsilon)
= (ie)^n \int \prod_i d^Dx_i \, e^{i\sum k_i \cdot x_i}
\left[ \prod_{chain \, l}
\left\{ \prod_{i_l=1}^{n_l}
i\Delta_F(x_{i_l+1}-x_{i_l})
\stackrel{\textstyle \leftrightarrow}{V_{i_l}}
\right\} \right] \,
&&
\nonumber
\\
\times
\prod_{photon \, r} i\Delta_F(x_{i_r}-x_{j_r})
&&
\left.
\rule{0mm}{10mm}
\right|
_{\textstyle \epsilon_{i_r}^\mu \epsilon_{j_r}^\nu \rightarrow -
g^{\mu\nu}} ,
\label{fundeq}
\end{eqnarray}
with the vertex operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\stackrel{\textstyle \leftrightarrow}{V_{j}} \equiv
\epsilon_{j}^\mu
\left( i
\stackrel{\textstyle \rightarrow}{\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}^\mu}}
-
i\stackrel{\textstyle \leftarrow}{\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}^\mu}}
\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
Here,
$i_l$'s ($1 \leq i_l \leq n_l$)
denote vertices on the
scalar propagator
chain $l$, labelled in increasing order
along the charge flow on that chain.
For an open chain we suppressed one additional scalar propagator
$i \Delta_F(x_1-x_0)$ on the right of the vertex operator
$\stackrel{\textstyle \leftrightarrow}{V_1}$
in eq.(\ref{fundeq}).
$i_r$ and $j_r$
represent the vertices at both ends of the photon propagator $r$.
Again, we assign an outgoing external momentum $k_i$ and a
polarization vector $\epsilon_i$ to every vertex $i$.
At the end of the calculation, we set $k_i=0$ for internal vertices,
$\epsilon_i=0$ at the endpoints of open scalar chains, and
also replace the polarization vectors at both ends of every internal
photon line as
$\epsilon_{i_r}^\mu \epsilon_{j_r}^\nu \rightarrow - g^{\mu\nu}$
(corresponding to taking Feynman gauge for photon propagator);
see Fig.5.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig5.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{The Feynman gauge photon propagator is obtained by replacing
internal photon polarization vectors at both ends of every photon
propagator
by $-g_{\mu \nu}$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Introducing Feynman parameter for every
propagator,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
G_D(k,\epsilon) = (ie)^n
\prod_l
\left(
\int^\infty_0 \prod_{i_l} d\alpha_{i_l}
\right)
\int^\infty_0 \prod_r d\alpha_r
\, e^{-i\sum_l{T_l(m^2-i\epsilon)}} I(\alpha ),
\label{gd}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha )
\equiv
\int \prod_i d^Dx_i \,
e^{i\sum k_i \cdot x_i}
\left[ \prod_l \left\{ \prod_{i_l}
K(x_{i_l+1}-x_{i_l};\alpha_{i_l})
\stackrel{\textstyle \leftrightarrow}{V_{i_l}}
\right\} \right] \,
\prod_r K(x_{i_r}-x_{j_r};\alpha_r).
\end{eqnarray}
$K$ is the propagator defined in eq.(\ref{nrp2});
$\alpha_{i_l}$ is the Feynman parameter between the vertices $i_l$ and
$i_l-1$,
and $T_l = \sum_{i_l} \alpha_{i_l}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig6.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{The dummy vertices $i'$ and $i''$ inserted on
both sides of every vertex
$i$ in the order $i''<i<i'$ along the charge flow on the scalar line.
The Feynman parameter between vertices $i'$ and $i$ ($i$ and $i''$) is
denoted as $u_i'$ ($u_i''$).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Before integrating over $x_i$'s in $I(\alpha )$,
we would like to replace the vertex
operator
$\stackrel{\textstyle \leftrightarrow}{V_{i}}$
by some simple factor {\it associated with the
vertex} $i$.
To this end, we insert, on both sides
of every vertex $i$, dummy vertices
$i'$ and $i''$ on the scalar line in the order
$i'' < i < i'$
using the associativity relation (\ref{assoc}); see Fig.6.
Then we can replace the vertex operators acting on scalar propagators
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\stackrel{\textstyle \leftrightarrow}{V_{i}}
~\longrightarrow ~
\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_i \cdot
\left( {\textstyle
\frac{x_i'-x_i}{u_i'} +
\frac{x_i-x_i''}{u_i''}
}
\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha ) &=&
\int [dx_a] \,
\prod_i
\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_i \cdot
\left( {\textstyle
\frac{x_i'-x_i}{u_i'} +
\frac{x_i-x_i''}{u_i''}
}
\right) \,
\exp \biggl[
-\frac{i}{4} \sum_{a,b} x_a \cdot x_b A_{ab}(\alpha ,u',u'') +
i \sum_i k_i \cdot x_i
\biggl] .
\label{qedialpha0}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $a,b$ denote vertices including dummy vertices ($i,i'$, and
$i''$).
The matrix $A_{ab}$ and the measure $[dx_a]$,
respectively, are defined similarly as in
eqs.(\ref{quad}) and (\ref{measure}), but depend also on $u'$ and
$u''$.
Note that $I(\alpha )$ is independent of $u_i'$ and $u''_i$, since
it is completely arbitrary where to insert dummy vertices
as long as the order $i'' < i < i'$ is preserved.
To perform Gaussian integration over $x_a$'s, we exponentiate the
polarization vectors as in eq.(\ref{exponentiate}).
Defining a source
\begin{eqnarray}
J_a^\mu = \sum_i \left[
k_i^\mu \delta_{ia} - \frac{i}{2}\epsilon_i^\mu
\left( {\textstyle
\frac{\delta_{i'a}-\delta_{ia}}{u_i'} +
\frac{\delta_{ia}-\delta_{i''a}}{u_i''}
}
\right)
\right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha ) &=&
\int [dx_a] \,
\exp \biggl[
-\frac{i}{4} \sum_{a,b} x_a \cdot x_b A_{ab}(\alpha ,u',u'') +
i \sum_a J_a \cdot x_a
\biggl]_{\mbox{linear in each $\epsilon$}}
\label{qedialpha1}
\\
&=&
(2\pi)^D \delta \left( \sum^n_{i=1} k_i \right) \cdot
i^l \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i}
\right)^{Dl/2}
\Delta(\alpha)^{-D/2}
\nonumber
\\&&
\times
\exp \biggl[ \sum^n_{i,j=1}
\left\{
i \, k_i \cdot k_j Z_{ij} + 2 k_i \cdot \epsilon_j (\triangle_j Z_{ij})
-i \epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j (\triangle_i \triangle_j Z_{ij})
\right\}
\biggl]_{\mbox{linear in each $\epsilon$}}
\label{qedialpha2}
\end{eqnarray}
for an $l$-loop diagram with
\begin{eqnarray}
\triangle_j Z_{ij} &=&
{\textstyle
\frac{Z_{ij'}-Z_{ij}}{2u_j'} + \frac{Z_{ij}-Z_{ij''}}{2u_j''}
},
\\
\triangle_i \triangle_j Z_{ij} &=&
\frac{1}{4} \sum_{a,b}
\left( {\textstyle
\frac{\delta_{i'a}-\delta_{ia}}{u_i'} +
\frac{\delta_{ia}-\delta_{i''a}}{u_i''}
}
\right)
\left( {\textstyle
\frac{\delta_{j'b}-\delta_{jb}}{u_j'} +
\frac{\delta_{jb}-\delta_{j''b}}{u_j''}
}
\right)
Z_{ab}
\\
&=& \frac{1}{4u_i'u_j'} (Z_{i'j'}-Z_{ij'}-Z_{i'j}+Z_{ij}) + \ldots ~~ .
\end{eqnarray}
In the above expressions, $\Delta(\alpha)$ and $Z_{ij}$ are the same as
those appeared in eq.(\ref{ialpha}) for the $\phi^3$
diagram of the same topology,
since we recover exactly eq.(\ref{ialpha1}) if we set all
$\epsilon_i =0$ and integrate out the dummy
vertices in eq.(\ref{qedialpha1}).
$Z_{ij'}$, etc.\ are defined similarly as in (\ref{defz}):
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{\mu\nu} Z_{ab}(\alpha) \equiv
- \frac{i}{4}
\left< \! \left< \, (x_a-x_b)^\mu (x_a-x_b)^\nu \, \right> \! \right>,
\label{defz2}
\end{eqnarray}
but now $\left< \! \left< \ldots \right> \! \right>$ includes integral over
dummy vertices.
Remembering that $I(\alpha)$ is independent of $u_i'$ and $u_i''$,
we can take the limit $u_i',u_i'' \rightarrow +0$.
Due to the fact
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{u_i' \rightarrow 0} Z_{i'a} =
\lim_{u_i'' \rightarrow 0} Z_{i''a} =
Z_{ia} ,
\label{zbegin}
\end{eqnarray}
we can replace $\triangle_j Z_{ij}$ and
$\triangle_i \triangle_j Z_{ij}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\triangle_j Z_{ij} &=&
\frac{1}{2}
\lim_{u_j', u_j''\rightarrow 0}
\left(
{\textstyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_j'} Z_{ij'}
- \frac{\partial}{\partial u_j''} Z_{ij''}
}
\right)
\label{triangle1}
\\
\triangle_i \triangle_j Z_{ij} &=&
\frac{1}{4}
\lim_{
\begin{array}{cc}
\scriptstyle
u_i',u_i'' \rightarrow 0\\
\scriptstyle
u_j',u_j'' \rightarrow 0
\end{array}
}
\left(
{\textstyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i'} \frac{\partial}{\partial u_j'} Z_{i'j'} -
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i'} \frac{\partial}{\partial u_j''} Z_{i'j''}
-
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i''} \frac{\partial}{\partial u_j'} Z_{i''j'} +
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i''} \frac{\partial}{\partial u_j''} Z_{i''j''}
}
\right)
\label{triangle2}
\end{eqnarray}
At the same time, we can drop all diagonal terms ($i=j$) in
(\ref{qedialpha2}) using
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{u'_i \rightarrow +0} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial u'_i} Z_{i'i}
\rule{0mm}{1.2cm}
= \lim_{u''_i \rightarrow +0} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial u''_i} Z_{i''i}
\rule{0mm}{1.2cm}
= - \frac{1}{2}
\label{zend}
\end{eqnarray}
and noting that only the terms multi-linear in each $\epsilon_i$ should
be kept.
See Appendix B for proofs of eqs.(\ref{zbegin})-(\ref{zend}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig7.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{The seagull vertex can be incorporated by pinching
the propagator
between two adjacent three-point vertices with vertex factors
$\epsilon^\mu e^{ik\cdot x}$ and $\epsilon'_\mu e^{ik'\cdot x}$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
So far we considered a diagram without seagull vertex.
The contribution of a seagull vertex can be incorporated through the
process known as
``pinching'' from the corresponding diagram without seagull vertex.
Any diagram containing a seagull vertex has the following factor
(see Fig.7):
\begin{eqnarray}
G_D(k,\epsilon) &\propto& i\Delta_F(y-x) \,
\epsilon^\mu e^{ik\cdot x} \, \epsilon'_\mu e^{ik'\cdot x} \,
i\Delta_F(x-z)
\\
&=&
\int dx' \, i\Delta_F(y-x) \,
\epsilon^\mu e^{ik\cdot x} \, \delta (x-x') \,
\epsilon'_\mu e^{ik'\cdot x'} \,
i\Delta_F(x'-z) .
\end{eqnarray}
The last line corresponds diagramatically to pinching
the propagator between the
two adjacent three-point vertices $x$ and $x'$; see Fig.7.
Noting that $\delta (x-x')$ is obtained by taking the
$\alpha \rightarrow +0$ limit of the propagator in question
(see eq.(\ref{propk2})),
one can incorporate the contribution of a seagull vertex by replacing
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j \, \triangle_i \triangle_j Z_{ij}
\rightarrow 2 \epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j \, \delta(\alpha_{ij}-0)
\label{pinch}
\end{eqnarray}
in eq.(\ref{qedialpha2}) of the diagram without seagull vertex,
where $\alpha_{ij}$ is the Feynman parameter
between the two adjacent three-point vertices $i$ and $j$.
If there are two or more seagull vertices in a diagram, one should
pinch as
many propagators of the corresponding diagram without seagull vertex.
\subsection{Relation between General Expression and Feynman Parameter
Formula}
Path-integral expression for $G_S(k,\epsilon)$ such as eq.(\ref{gi2})
can be obtained from the finite dimensional integral (\ref{qedialpha0})
by inserting infinitely many dummy vertices along scalar chains
using the associativity relation (\ref{assoc}).
The advantage of the path-integral expression lies in that it
combines in a single expression sum of different diagrams that are
related to one another by sliding photon legs along the scalar
chains.
Different orderings of photon legs correspond to different orderings
of the proper time $t_i$'s of the vertices.
Once the ordering of $t_{i_l}$'s is fixed along
the scalar chain $l$,
relations between $t_{i_l}$'s and Feynman parameters $\alpha_{i_l}$ are
given by:
\begin{itemize}
\item
For $l=$open, and
$0 < t_1 < t_2 < \ldots < t_{n_l} < T_l$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{lcl}
t_1 &=& \alpha_1 \\
t_2-t_1 &=& \alpha_2 \\
&\vdots& \\
t_{n_l}-t_{n_l-1} &=& \alpha_{n_l} \\
T_l-t_{n_l} &=& \alpha_{n_l+1}
\end{array}
\label{ivtransf1}
\end{eqnarray}
\item
For $l=$closed, and
$0 < t_1 < t_2 < \ldots < t_{n_l} < T_l$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{lcl}
t_1-t_{n_l}+T_l &=& \alpha_1 \\
t_2-t_1 &=& \alpha_2 \\
&\vdots& \\
t_{n_l}-t_{n_l-1} &=& \alpha_{n_l}
\end{array}
\label{ivtransf2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}
With these relations,
constituents of the general expression (\ref{generalexp}) and
of the Feynman parameter formula (\ref{qedialpha2}) are
identified as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal N} &=&
(2\pi)^D \delta \left( \sum^n_{i=1} k_i \right) \cdot
i^l \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i}
\right)^{Dl/2}
\Delta^{-D/2}
\label{ndelta}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{rcr}
G_B^{ij} &=& - 2 \, Z_{ij} ,
\\
\rule{0mm}{5mm}
\partial_j G_B^{ij} &=& -2 \, \triangle_j Z_{ij} ,
\\
\rule{0mm}{5mm}
\partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij} &=& -2 \, \triangle_i \triangle_j Z_{ij} .
\end{array}
\label{gbz}
\end{eqnarray}
We take the convention $G_B^{ii}=0$ in accord with the
zero-diagonal level scheme of $Z_{ab}$.
As $\cal N$ and $G_B^{ij}$'s are
defined for a set of diagrams,
for a different ordering of $t_{i_l}$'s, $\Delta$ and
$Z_{ij}$ of a different diagram should be taken on the right-hand-side.
It is more subtle how the contributions of seagull vertices are contained
in the general expression (\ref{generalexp}).
They are contained in the $\partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}$ term when the
two vertices $t_i$ and $t_j$ come to the same point.
To see this, we consider the two-point function $G_B(\tau, \tau')$
defined in eq.(\ref{deftf}) when $\tau$ and $\tau'$ are arbitrary points
along a same scalar chain.
One may, if necessary, identify it with
$Z_{ab}$,
where $x_a$ and $x_b$
are the dummy vertices inserted at the position of $\tau$ and $\tau'$,
respectively.
Due to eqs.(\ref{triangle1}), (\ref{triangle2}) and (\ref{gbz}),
one may express $G_B^{ij}$'s as
\begin{eqnarray}
G_B^{ij} &=& G_B(t_i,t_j)
\label{del0}
\\
\partial_j G_B^{ij} &=&
\frac{1}{2} \biggl[
\lim_{\tau' \rightarrow t_j+0}
+ \lim_{\tau' \rightarrow t_j-0}
\biggl]
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau'} \, G_B(t_i,\tau')
\label{delj}
\\
\partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij} &=&
\frac{1}{4} \biggl[
\lim_{\tau \rightarrow t_i+0}
+ \lim_{\tau \rightarrow t_i-0}
\biggl]
\biggl[
\lim_{\tau' \rightarrow t_j+0}
+ \lim_{\tau' \rightarrow t_j-0}
\biggl]
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau'} \, G_B(\tau,\tau')
\label{delij}
\end{eqnarray}
for $i \neq j$, and we may omit all terms where $i=j$; see discussion
after eq.(\ref{triangle2}).
Then using the identity\footnote{
The corresponding identity
of $Z_{ab}$ is shown in Appendix B, eq.(\ref{proof4}).
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \tau'\pm 0} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau'} \, G_B(\tau,\tau')
= \mp 1
\end{eqnarray}
which holds for any diagram,
it can be shown that
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle t_j-u''$}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle t_j+u'$}
}} ~
dt_i \, \, \partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}
= -2 +
\biggl(
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle t_j+0$}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle t_j+u'$}
}}
~dt_i +
{\hbox to 10pt{
\hbox to -3pt{$\displaystyle \int$}
\raise-15pt\hbox to 7pt{$\scriptstyle t_j-u''$}
\raise18pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle t_j-0$}
}}
~dt_i~
\biggl) \,
\partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}
~~~~~(u',u''>0) .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, we see $\delta$-function contribution as
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij} \sim -2 \delta(t_i-t_j)
~~~~~\mbox{for}~~
t_j-0 < t_i < t_j+0 ,
\end{eqnarray}
so that the contributions of seagull vertices are included as in
eq.(\ref{pinch}).
(The factor 2 is accounted for by the interchange of $i$ and $j$.)
It is interesting how gauge symmetry takes advantage of the property of
$G_B(\tau,\tau')$ which is an intrinsic quantity to any diagram.
Finally we comment on the integral variables
of the two formulas (\ref{generalexp}) and
(\ref{gd}).
Note that along a closed scalar
chain we have one more time variables to integrate over
($t_1, \ldots , t_{n_l}, T_l$)
than the corresponding Feynman parameters.
In fact, one proper time variable can be integrated trivially;
after the first $n_l-1$ integrals over $t_{i_l}$'s, there remains no
dependence on $t_{n_l}$\footnote{
Any function of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
f(t_{n_l}) = \int^{T_l}_0 dt_{n_l-1} \cdots \int^{T_l}_0 dt_1 \,
F( G_B^{ij}, {\cal N} )
~~~~~(l:\mbox{closed chain})
\end{eqnarray}
is invariant under translation
$t_{n_l} \rightarrow t_{n_l} + c$
since $G_B^{ij}$ and ${\cal N}$ are periodic functions of $t_{i_l}$'s
and depend only on $t_{i_l}-t_{j_l}$;
see eqs.(\ref{ndelta}) and (\ref{gbz}).
This means $f'(t)=0$ so that $f(t)$ is independent of $t$.
},
so the last integral just gives a factor of $T_l$, which compensates
$T_l^{-1}$ in the integral measure (\ref{imeasure}).
\subsection{Decomposition of $G_B$ and $\cal N$}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
Up to now we dealt with $G_B(\tau,\tau')$ and $\cal N$ for a general set
of diagrams.
We show that these quantities can be decomposed and written in terms of
those for the basic
sets of diagrams, namely, $G_B(\tau,\tau')$ and $\cal N$ for an open
scalar chain and for a closed scalar chain; see Fig.8.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{4cm}
\epsfile{file=./fig8.ps,height=5cm}
\caption{The basic diagrams: a) an open scalar chain, and
b) a closed scalar chain.
Two-point function for an arbitrary set of diagrams
can be decomposed and written
in terms of $G_B^{(open)}$ and $G_B^{(closed)}$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig9.ps,width=7cm}
\caption{The basic diagrams corresponding to Fig.8
but parametrized by Feynman
parameters.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let us first find the explicit forms of these basic
$G_B(\tau,\tau')$ and $\cal N$.
They are obtained from $Z_{ij}$ and $\Delta(\alpha)$ for
the corresponding diagrams (Fig.9).
According to the calculation method described in Appendix B,
one obtains for these diagrams
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Z_{12}^{(open)} = -\frac{1}{2} \, \alpha_2,
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
\Delta^{(open)} = 1 ,
\\
&&Z_{12}^{(closed)}
= -\frac{1}{2} \, \frac{\alpha_1\alpha_2}{\alpha_1+\alpha_2},
~~~~~~
\Delta^{(closed)} = \alpha_1+\alpha_2 .
\end{eqnarray}
It follows
\begin{eqnarray}
&&G_B^{(open)}(\tau,\tau') = | \tau - \tau' |,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\Delta^{(open)} = 1 ,
\\
&&G_B^{(closed)}(\tau,\tau') = | \tau - \tau' |
- \frac{(\tau-\tau')^2}{T} ,
~~~~~~
\Delta^{(closed)} = T ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the normalization factor $\cal N$ is given by
eq.(\ref{ndelta}).
We deal with finite dimensional integral, and start from the defining
equation of $Z_{ab}$ and $\Delta$ for a diagram $D$:
\begin{eqnarray}
I &=& \int [dx_a] \, \exp \biggl[
-\frac{i}{4} \sum_{a,b} x_a \cdot x_b A_{ab} + i \sum_a J_a \cdot x_a
\biggl]
\label{defzdelta1}
\\
&=&
(2\pi)^D \, \delta \biggl( \sum_a J_a \biggl)
\cdot
i^l \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i}
\right)^{Dl/2}
\Delta^{-D/2} \,
\exp \biggl[ i \sum_{a,b} J_a \cdot J_b Z_{ab} \biggl] .
\label{defzdelta2}
\end{eqnarray}
We would like to know how the above expression changes when the vertices
$i$ and $j$ in $D$ are connected by a propagator whose Feynman parameter
is $\alpha$.
(The diagram thus obtained is denoted as $D'$.)
This is achieved if we multiply the integrand in (\ref{defzdelta1})
by
\begin{eqnarray}
K(x_i-x_j;\alpha)
&=& i \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i\alpha} \right)^{D/2}
\exp \left[ -\frac{i}{4\alpha}(x_i-x_j)^2 \right]
\end{eqnarray}
before integration over $[dx_a]$.
But it is an equivalent manipulation if we shift
\begin{eqnarray}
J_a \rightarrow J_a + p \,( \delta_{ai} -\delta_{aj} ) ,
\end{eqnarray}
multiply by $\exp ( i\alpha p^2 )$,
and then integrate over $p$; see eq.(\ref{nrp1}).
Applying this manipulation to (\ref{defzdelta2}), one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
I~ \rightarrow ~ I' &=&
(2\pi)^D \, \delta \biggl( \sum_a J_a \biggl)
\cdot
i^{l+1} \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i}
\right)^{D(l+1)/2}
\left[ \Delta \cdot (\alpha - 2 \, Z_{ij}) \right]^{-D/2}
\\ && ~~~
\times
\exp \biggl[ i \sum_{a,b} J_a \cdot J_b
\biggl\{ Z_{ab} +
\frac{ ( Z_{ia}-Z_{ja}-Z_{ib}+Z_{jb} )^2 }
{ 2 \, ( \alpha - 2 \, Z_{ij} ) }
\biggl\}
\biggl] .
\end{eqnarray}
This expression defines $\Delta$ and $Z_{ab}$ for $D'$, and
correspondingly we find the following rule\footnote{
Eq.(\ref{decgb1}) differs slightly
from the expression obtained by Schmidt and Schubert\cite{ss}
since they do not take the zero-diagonal level scheme.
The difference is accounted for by the transformation
(\ref{transfz}).
}
for obtaining
$\cal N$ and $G_B$ for the diagram $D'$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta' &=&
{\Delta} \cdot
\left( \alpha + \, {G}_B(t_i,t_j) \right) ,
\label{decdel1}
\\
G_B'(\tau,\tau') &=& {G}_B(\tau,\tau') -
\frac{
\left( {G}_B(\tau,t_i) - {G}_B(\tau,t_j)
- {G}_B(\tau',t_i) + {G}_B(\tau',t_j) \right)^2
}{ 4 \left( \alpha + \, {G}_B(t_i,t_j) \right) } .
\label{decgb1}
\end{eqnarray}
Next we consider the case where two diagrams
$D_1 (\ni i)$ and $D_2 (\ni j)$ are sewn
together by a propagator $(ij)$.
In this case, we shift
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{(1)}_a \rightarrow J^{(1)}_a + p \, \delta_{ia} ,
~~~~~
J^{(2)}_a \rightarrow J^{(2)}_a - p \, \delta_{ja}
\end{eqnarray}
in $I^{(1)}$ and $I^{(2)}$, respectively, multiply by
$\exp ( i\alpha p^2 )$,
and then integrate over $p$.
It is straightforward to find the following rule:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta' &=& \Delta^{(1)} \cdot \Delta^{(2)} ,
\label{decdel2}
\\
G_B'(\tau,\tau') &=& \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha + G_B^{(1)}(\tau,t_i) + G_B^{(2)}(\tau',t_j)
~~~
& \tau \in D_1,~ \tau' \in D_2 \\
\rule{0mm}{6mm}
G_B^{(1)}(\tau,\tau')
& \tau,\tau' \in D_1 \\
\rule{0mm}{6mm}
G_B^{(2)}(\tau,\tau')
& \tau,\tau' \in D_2
\end{array}
\right. .
\label{dec}
\end{eqnarray}
Any set $S$ of diagrams can be constructed by connecting scalar chains with
photon propagators.
Then one may express $G_B$ ($\cal N$) for $S$ in terms of
$G_B^{(open)}$ (${\cal N}^{(open)}$) and $G_B^{(closed)}$
(${\cal N}^{(closed)}$)
either by using the above rules recursively, or,
by applying similar
manipulation for multiple photon propagator insertions at once.
Now we find an important property of two-point functions
$\partial_j G_B^{ij}$ and $\partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}$.
Writing $G_B(\tau,\tau')$ for an arbitrary set of diagrams in terms of
the basic elements, we notice that
$\partial_i$ ($\partial_j$) can
be replaced by $\partial /\partial t_i$ ($\partial /\partial t_j$)
if the vertex $i$ ($j$) is external\cite{lam} or if
the diagram is one-particle-reducible with respect to the photon
propagator connected to the vertex $i$ ($j$).
(cf.\ eqs.(\ref{delj}) and (\ref{delij}).)
\section{Integration By Parts}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Now we are in place to explain
the integration by parts technique,
first introduced to field theoretical
calculation by Bern and Kosower, which
enables non-trivial reshuffling of
various terms in eq.(\ref{generalexp}) {\it
before} integrating over $\alpha_r$, $t_{i_l}$, and $T_l$.
This technique reduces the number of
independent terms, and consequently reduces
the labor in
the evaluation of integrals.
\subsection{Example}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig10.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{The one-loop diagrams contributing to the photon vacuum polarization.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Consider a simplest example \cite{strassler1}.
According to eq.(\ref{generalexp}) and the manipulation 1)-4),
the photon vacuum polarization at one-loop (Fig.10) is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
G_S &=& (2\pi)^D \delta (k_1+k_2) \cdot
(ie)^2 \cdot i
\left( \frac{1}{4\pi i} \right)^{D/2}
\int^\infty_0 \frac{dT}{T}
\int^T_0 dt_1 \, dt_2
\nonumber \\
&& ~~~
\times T^{-D/2} \, e^{-ik_1\cdot k_2 G_B^{12}} \,
( k_1\cdot \epsilon_2 \, k_2 \cdot \epsilon_1 \,
\partial_1 G_B^{12}\, \partial_2
G_B^{12}
+ i \epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2 \, \partial_1 \partial_2 G_B^{12} ),
\end{eqnarray}
where we used $\Delta = T$.
Note that $\partial_1$ ($\partial_2$) can be identified with
$\partial /\partial t_1$ ($\partial /\partial t_2$)
since vertices 1 and 2 are external vertices.
We integrate by parts the second term with respect to $t_1$.
The surface term vanishes due to the periodicity of $G_B^{ij}$.
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}
G_S &=& - (2\pi)^D \delta (k_1+k_2) \cdot
ie^2 \cdot \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i} \right)^{D/2}
( k_1\cdot \epsilon_2 \, k_2 \cdot \epsilon_1 \, -
\epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2 \, k_1 \cdot k_2 )
\nonumber \\
&& ~~~
\times \int^\infty_0 dT \, T^{-1-D/2}
\int^T_0 dt_1 \, dt_2 \,
e^{-ik_1\cdot k_2 G_B^{12}} \,
\partial_1 G_B^{12}\, \partial_2
G_B^{12} ,
\label{partialint}
\end{eqnarray}
and we find $G_S$ is gauge-invariant {\it before} integration over
$t_1$, $t_2$ and $T$.
Note that the number of independent terms reduced from two to one.
To see the relation between gauge transformation and the integration by
parts technique, we remember
\begin{eqnarray}
G_S \propto
\left<
\int^T_0 dt_1 \, \epsilon_1 \cdot \dot{x}(t_1) \, e^{ik_1\cdot x(t_1)}
\times
\int^T_0 dt_2 \, \epsilon_2 \cdot \dot{x}(t_2) \, e^{ik_2\cdot x(t_2)}
\right>,
\label{pathgs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\left< \ldots \right>$ denotes the path-integral average.
Gauge transformation of photon 1 is achieved by replacing
$\epsilon_1$ by $k_1$.
Then the vertex operator changes as
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_1 \cdot \dot{x}(t_1) \, e^{ik_1\cdot x(t_1)}
\rightarrow k_1 \cdot \dot{x}(t_1) \, e^{ik_1\cdot x(t_1)}
= -i \frac{d}{dt_1} e^{ik_1\cdot x(t_1)},
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta G_S &\propto&
\left<
\int^T_0 dt_1 \, \frac{d}{dt_1} e^{ik_1\cdot x(t_1)}
\times
\int^T_0 dt_2 \, \epsilon_2 \cdot \dot{x}(t_2) \, e^{ik_2\cdot x(t_2)}
\right>
\nonumber
\\
&=&
\int^T_0 dt_1 \, dt_2 \, \frac{\partial}{\partial t_1}
\left<
e^{ik_1\cdot x(t_1)}
\,
\epsilon_2 \cdot \dot{x}(t_2) \, e^{ik_2\cdot x(t_2)}
\right>
\nonumber \\
&=&
\int^T_0 dt_1 \, dt_2 \, \frac{\partial}{\partial t_1}
\, \left(- k_1 \cdot \epsilon_2 \, \partial_2 G_B^{12} \,
e^{-ik_1\cdot k_2 G_B^{12}} \right) .
\end{eqnarray}
Gauge transform of the integrand is given by total derivative, so
$G_S$ is
obviously gauge-invariant whereas the integrand itself
is not.
We may add, however, to the integrand of $G_S$
in eq.(\ref{pathgs}) a term which
transforms equally but in opposite sign under the replacement
$\epsilon_1 \rightarrow k_1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t_1}
\left( \epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2 \,
\partial_2 G_B^{12} \,
e^{-ik_1\cdot k_2 G_B^{12}} \right) .
\end{eqnarray}
Being total derivative, addition of this term does not alter $G_S$.
Now the integrand itself is gauge-invariant, and
the above term is exactly the surface term of the partial integration
in eq.(\ref{partialint}).
\subsection{External Photon}
We now show a general prescription for integration by parts with
respect to the external gauge vertices.
First, if the external photons are on-shell and for a fixed helicity
states, one can use spinor helicity
technique\cite{sht1,sht2}
to reduce the number of dot products in the exponent of
the general expression (\ref{generalexp}).
On the other hand, if the external photons are off-shell, one can replace
each polarization vector as
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_i^\mu \rightarrow {\epsilon'_i}^\mu = \epsilon_i^\mu
- \frac{\epsilon_i \cdot k_a}{k_i \cdot k_a} \, k_i^\mu
= (\epsilon_i^\mu k_i^\nu - k_i^\mu \epsilon_i^\nu) \, k_{a\nu} \,
\frac{1}{k_i \cdot k_a} .
\label{offshellspinhel}
\end{eqnarray}
The amplitude is invariant under this replacement, and also
the resulting expression is manifestly gauge-invariant before
integration over proper time variables.
One may choose any $k_a$ for each polarization vector $\epsilon_i$.
Since $k_a \cdot \epsilon'_i =0$,
appropriate choices of $k_a$'s for all $i$'s will reduce the number of
terms in the exponent.
After reducing the terms in the exponent, and after manipulation
1)-4) above eq.(\ref{replpolv}), one integrates by parts with respect
to the proper time of external vertices to reduce the number of
independent terms in the integrand.
In this procedure, one may omit surface terms for a closed scalar
chain since the surface terms cancel with each other due to the
periodicity of $G_B$.
Also for an open scalar chain, surface terms can be neglected if one is
interested in the $S$-matrix element, since each surface
term cancel the
propagator pole of the external scalars in the
unamputated Green function; see Fig.11.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig11.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{The surface terms originating from the
gauge transformation of an
external photon along an open chain.
(Some of) The propagator poles of external scalars
get cancelled, so these surface terms
do not contribute to the $S$-matrix element.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Internal Photon}
One may also apply integration by parts technique to the internal gauge
vertices.\cite{ss}
Using the decomposition rule derived in the previous section, one can
write $\Delta$,
$\partial_j G_B$ and $\partial_i \partial_j G_B$ using
$G_B^{(open)}$, $G_B^{(closed)}$, and their
derivatives.
One can always integrate by parts to eliminate all second derivatives.
This corresponds to simplifying the expression using gauge
transformation of the internal vertices.
There is one exception for this procedure.
The integration by parts with respect to any of the internal vertices
whose the other end of the photon propagator is on a same
{\it open} scalar chain
does not lead to simplification.
The surface terms of such partial integration still comprise
the poles of external scalars as seen in Fig.12.
Thus, one cannot omit the surface terms in this case.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig12.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{The surface terms originating from the gauge
transformation of an internal photon whose both ends are attached to a
same open scalar chain.
(Some of) The surface terms cannot be omitted
since they still
contain the propagator poles of external scalars.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Covariant Gauge for Internal Photons}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig13.ps,width=4cm}
\caption{The covariant gauge photon propagator
whose Feynman parameter is $\alpha$. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
From a field theoretical point of view it is interesting to know how
the general expression changes if one used covariant gauge for internal
photon propagators instead of Feynman gauge.
Let $i$ and $j$ be the vertices at
the both ends of photon propagator whose Feynman parameter is $\alpha$;
see Fig.13.
In momentum space it can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{-i}{p^2+i\epsilon} \, \biggl[ \,
g_{\mu\nu} - (1-\xi)\frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \, \biggl] .
\end{eqnarray}
The $g_{\mu\nu}$ part is the Feynman gauge propagator, and appears in
the path-integral formalism as
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{x}_i^\mu \, \dot{x}_j^\nu \, \, g_{\mu\nu}
\exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{4\alpha} (x_i-x_j)^2 \biggl]
\end{eqnarray}
with $x_i \equiv x(t_i)$ and $x_j \equiv x(t_j)$.
Meanwhile, $p_\mu p_\nu$ part can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{x}_i^\mu \, \dot{x}_j^\nu \, \,
i \alpha \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i^\mu}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j^\nu} \,
\exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{4\alpha} (x_i-x_j)^2 \biggl]
=
i \alpha \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial t_j}
\exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{4\alpha} (x_i-x_j)^2 \biggl] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we used
\begin{eqnarray}
i \int^\infty_0 d\alpha \, \alpha
\, \int \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi)^D} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^\nu}
\, e^{ip \cdot (x-y) + i \alpha p^2}
= -i \int \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi)^D} \,
\frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^4} \, e^{ip \cdot (x-y)} ,
\end{eqnarray}
cf.\ eq.(\ref{fpfp2}).
Therefore, we obtain the $p_\mu p_\nu$ part of photon $(ij)$
by operating
\begin{eqnarray}
(1-\xi) \, i\alpha
\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial t_j}
\end{eqnarray}
to the integrand of eq.(\ref{generalexp})
after setting
$\epsilon_i = \epsilon_j = 0$.
Again this is given by total derivative,
so changing gauge parameter $\xi$ can be regarded as a kind of gauge
transformation.
From this we see that if one calculates a set of diagrams in different
values of $\xi$,
the difference of results is proportional to the surface term on
each scalar chain.
In particular, a set of diagrams without external scalars is
independent of $\xi$ (if expressed in terms of bare coupling
and bare gauge
parameter) since $G_B(\tau,\tau')$ is
periodic function on each closed
scalar chain.
\section{Rule}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let us summarize the Bern-Kosower-type rule for calculating
a set of diagrams in Scalar QED
({\it amputated} with respected to external photons
and {\it unamputated} with respect to external scalars).
The gauge-invariant sub-Green function for a set $S$ with $2n_s$
external scalars at ${\cal O}(e^n)$ and for $l$ loop
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
G_S(k,\epsilon) &=&
(2\pi)^D \delta(\sum k_i) \cdot i^l \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i}
\right)^{Dl/2}
(ie)^n \, C \,
\nonumber \\
&& \times
\int^\infty_0 \prod_r d\alpha_r \, \prod_{chain \, l}
\left(
\int^\infty_0 [dT_l]\, e^{-i(m^2-i0)T_l}
\int^{T_l}_0 \prod_{i_l} dt_{i_l}
\right)
\, {\cal K}_{red},
\label{rule1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C$ is the combinatorial factor,
$\alpha_r$ denotes the Feynman
parameter of the $r$-th photon propagator.
The chain $l$ represents
open or closed scalar chain,
and the integral measure for its length
$T_l$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
[dT_l] = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
dT_l & \mbox{for $l=$open}\\
\rule{0mm}{4mm} {dT_l}/{T_l} & \mbox{for $l=$closed}
\end{array}
\right. .
\end{eqnarray}
$i_l$ represents photon vertex on the chain $l$.
The so-called reduced generating kinematical factor ${\cal
K}_{red}$ is obtained from the generating kinematical
factor
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K} &=&
\Delta^{-D/2} \cdot \exp \biggl[ \, \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i\neq j}^{n+2n_s} \biggl\{
- i k_i \cdot k_j G_B^{ij}
- 2 k_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_j G_B^{ij}
+ i \epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}
\biggl\}
\biggl]
\label{gkf}
\end{eqnarray}
after the following manipulation.
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\arabic{enumi})}
\item
If the vertex $i$ is internal, we set corresponding $k_i=0$.
\item
If the vertex $i$ is an endpoint of an open scalar chain,
we set corresponding $\epsilon_i=0$.
\item
If the external photons are on-shell and for a fixed helicity states,
use spinor helicity technique to reduce the number of dot products in
the exponent; if the external photons are off-shell use replacement
(\ref{offshellspinhel}) to reduce the number of dot products
(written in terms of $\epsilon'_i$'s).
\item
Only the terms multi-linear in each remaining polarization vector
are kept.
\item
We replace the polarization vectors at both ends of every photon
propagator $r$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_{i_r}^\mu \epsilon_{j_r}^\nu \rightarrow -g^{\mu \nu} .
\end{eqnarray}
Again some of the Lorentz contractions vanish.
\end{enumerate}
Then integrate by parts with respect to the proper-times of external
vertices.
Also, integrate by parts with respect to the proper-times of internal
vertices after writing $\Delta$,
$\partial_j G_B$ and $\partial_i \partial_j G_B$
in terms of $G_B^{(open)}$, $G_B^{(closed)}$, and their
derivatives.
(Use decomposition rules (\ref{decdel1}), (\ref{decgb1}),
(\ref{decdel2}) and (\ref{dec}), and also eqs.(\ref{del0})-(\ref{delij})
for this purpose.)
Surface terms can be omitted except for the special
case described in subsection 4.c.
The partial integrations generally reduce the number of independent
terms.
In order to integrate over $\alpha_r$, $t_i$, and $T_l$,
it is sometimes convenient to transform the variables
to the conventional Feynman
parameter at this stage using relations (\ref{ivtransf1}) and
(\ref{ivtransf2}).
\section{Operator Insertion}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
So far we have considered sets of diagrams containing only gauge
interactions.
In practical calculations, however,
one will need to calculate diagrams containing
both gauge interactions and other interactions, or more generally,
operator insertions to the sets of diagrams considered above.
We show in two examples how to calculate such diagrams.
The idea is to replace any operator ${\cal O}(\phi)$
by the functional derivatives
$\delta/\delta J(x)$ and $\delta/\delta J^*(x)$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig14.ps,width=13cm}
\caption{A set of one-loop diagrams containing a
$\phi^4$-operator insertion.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let us see how to calculate the set of diagrams in Fig.14 contributing to
the Green function with a $|\phi|^4$ operator insertion:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\left.
\int \! {\cal D}\phi \, {\cal D}Q_\mu \,
\int dz \, \frac{i\lambda}{4} |\phi(z)|^4 \,
\exp \, {i \! \int dx \,
[ {\cal L} + {\cal L}_{gf}
+ J^*\phi + J\phi^* + j^\mu Q_\mu ]
} \,
\right|_{j_\mu \rightarrow - \Box A_\mu}
\\
&& = \frac{i\lambda}{4} \int dz \,
\left( \frac{\delta}{\delta J(z)} \right)^2
\left( \frac{\delta}{\delta J^*(z)} \right)^2
e^{W(J,J^* \! \! ,A_\mu)} .
\label{opgenerfn}
\end{eqnarray}
Following similar steps as in
eqs.(\ref{defgreen})-(\ref{egfinal}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
G(k,\epsilon) &=&
(2\pi)^D \delta (\sum k_i ) \cdot i
\left( \frac{1}{4\pi i} \right)^{D/2} \! \! \cdot
(i\lambda) (ie)^2 \int^\infty_0 dT \, e^{-im^2T} \int^T_0 dt_1 dt_2
\nonumber
\\
&& \times
\Delta \, \exp \biggl[ \, \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i \neq j} \biggl\{
- i k_i \cdot k_j G_B^{ij}
- 2 k_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_j G_B^{ij}
+ i \epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}
\biggl\}
\biggl] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $k_0 = p+p'$ and $\epsilon_0=0$.
The two-point function $G_B(\tau,\tau')$
is obtained using the decomposition rule described in
subsection 3.d with a little modification.
Namely, we can compute $G_B$ by connecting both ends of an
open scalar chain with a
dummy photon propagator, and then pinching the photon
propagator by setting its
Feynman parameter as $\alpha \rightarrow 0$; see Fig.15 and
eq.(\ref{propk2}).
Therefore, we find using (\ref{decgb1})
\begin{eqnarray}
G_B(\tau,\tau') &=& |\tau-\tau'| -
\frac{[ \tau - (T-\tau)-\tau'+(T-\tau')]^2}{4T}
\nonumber
\\
&=& |\tau-\tau'| - \frac{(\tau-\tau')^2}{T}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta = T .
\end{eqnarray}
The above two-point function coincides with $G_B^{(closed)}$, which
is a reasonable result.
Note, however, that the integral measure $dT$ differs from that of a
closed scalar
chain since the zeroth vertex is not that of gauge interaction.
Compare the discussion in the last paragraph in subsection 3.c.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig15.ps,width=6cm}
\caption{Any set of diagrams with $\phi^4$-operator insertion
can be obtained by
pinching a dummy photon propagator by setting the Feynman parameter
$\alpha \rightarrow 0$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig16.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{A set of two-loop diagrams with a $\phi^4$-operator insertion.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The second example is the set of diagrams in Fig.16.
Also starting from eq.(\ref{opgenerfn}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
G(k,\epsilon) &=&
(2\pi)^D \delta (\sum k_i ) \cdot i^2
\left( \frac{1}{4\pi i} \right)^{D} \! \! \cdot
(i\lambda) (ie)^4
\nonumber
\\
&& \times
\int^\infty_0 dT_1
\int^\infty_0 dT_2
\, e^{-im^2(T_1+T_2)}
\int^{T_1}_0 dt_1 dt_2 \int^{T_2}_0 dt_3 dt_4
\nonumber
\\
&& \times
\Delta \, \exp \biggl[ \, \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i \neq j} \biggl\{
- i k_i \cdot k_j G_B^{ij}
- 2 k_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_j G_B^{ij}
+ i \epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j \partial_i \partial_j G_B^{ij}
\biggl\}
\biggl]
\end{eqnarray}
with $k_0 = p+p'$ and $\epsilon_0=0$.
This time the two-point function is obtained by sewing together two
scalar loops and pinching the photon propagator as in Fig.17.
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}
G_B(\tau,\tau') &=& \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
|\tau-\tau'| - \frac{(\tau-\tau')^2}{T_1}
&~~&\tau,\tau' \in loop \, 1 \\
\rule{0mm}{6mm}
\tau - \frac{\tau^2}{T_1} + \tau' - \frac{\tau'^2}{T_2}
&~~&\tau \in loop \, 1, ~~ \tau' \in loop \, 2 \\
\rule{0mm}{6mm}
|\tau-\tau'| - \frac{(\tau-\tau')^2}{T_2}
&~~&\tau,\tau' \in loop \, 2
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta = T_1 \, T_2 .
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig17.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{The two-point function
$G_B(\tau,\tau')$
of the diagrams in Fig.16 can be obtained by
sewing together two one-loop diagrams by a dummy photon propagator and
taking $\alpha \rightarrow 0$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
First of all, we conceive a set of diagrams connected by gauge
transformation as an entity expressed by a single path-integral.
The point is to assign proper time to the set of diagrams along the
charge flow and also express each photon propagator by Feynman parameter
integral in coordinate space.
This enables one
to find a general path-integral expression for any set
of diagrams starting from the quantum field theory.
At this stage, the resulting expression after integrating out $x(\tau)$
is equivalent to the Feynman parameter integral formula.
Simple rules for constructing the two-point function
(correlation function on the worldline)
$G_B(\tau, \tau') \sim \left< x(\tau) \, x(\tau') \right>$
for a general set of diagrams is obtained.
Secondly, the path-integral expression allows us to use
integration by parts technique both for
external and internal gauge vertices.
Manifestly gauge invariant form with respect to external photons can be
obtained before integrating over the proper time variables.
Surface terms can be neglected if the external scalars are on-shell.
The integration by parts technique reduces the number of independent
integrals, which can be interpreted as a non-trivial reshuffling of the
original Feynman diagrams.
We have extended former trials to derive Bern-Kosower-type rule from
quantum field theory to
the general diagrams for scalar QED,
in particular to the diagrams including external
scalar particles.
We have shown clear correspondence to the conventional Feynman rule,
which enabled us to avoid any ambiguity coming from the infinite
dimensionality of the path-integral approach.
The method for deriving the general
path-integral expression in section 2 can be
straightforwardly extended to the case of spinor QED.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
One of the authors (Y.\ S.)\ is grateful to fruitful discussions with
N.\ Ishibashi and M.\ Kitazawa.
\section*{Appendix A: Derivation of Eqs.(\ref{ialpha}) and (\ref{delta})}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We show how to integrate over $x_i$'s in eq.(\ref{ialpha1}):
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha ) \equiv \int [dx_i]
\,
\exp \left[ - \frac{i}{4} \sum^n_{i,j=1} x_i \cdot x_j \,
A_{ij}(\alpha ) + i \sum^n_{i=1} k_i \cdot x_i \right] .
\end{eqnarray}
First, insert the identity
\begin{eqnarray}
1 = \int d^Dc \, \, \delta \left( \sum^n_{i=1} x_i -c \right) ,
\end{eqnarray}
and shift all vertices as $x_i^\mu \rightarrow x_i^\mu + c^\mu /n$.
We have
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha ) &=& \int [dx_i]
\int d^Dc \, \, \delta \left( \sum x_i \right) \,
\exp \left[ - \frac{i}{4} \sum x_i \cdot x_j \,
A_{ij} + i \sum k_i \cdot x_i
+ \frac{i}{n} \sum k_i \cdot c
\right]
\\
&=&
(2\pi)^D \delta \left( \sum k_i \right)
\cdot n^D
\int [dx_i]
\, \delta \left( \sum x_i \right)
\exp \left[ - \frac{i}{4} \sum x_i \cdot x_j \,
A_{ij} + i \sum k_i \cdot x_i \right]
\end{eqnarray}
We may further shift
$x_i^\mu \rightarrow x_i^\mu - y^\mu /n$:
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha) =
(2\pi)^D \delta \left( \sum k_i \right)
\cdot n^D
\int [dx_i]
\, \delta \left( \sum x_i - y \right) \,
\exp \left[ - \frac{i}{4} \sum x_i \cdot x_j \,
A_{ij} + i \sum k_i \cdot x_i \right] .
\end{eqnarray}
It is independent of $y$.
Again insert
\begin{eqnarray}
1 = i \left( \frac{\beta}{4\pi i} \right)^{D/2}
\int d^Dy \, e^{-i\beta y^2 /4},
\end{eqnarray}
and integrate over $y$.
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\alpha) &=&
(2\pi)^D \delta \left( \sum k_i \right)
\cdot i \left( \frac{\beta}{4\pi i} \right)^{D/2} n^D
\nonumber \\
&& ~~~ \times
\int [dx_i]
\, \exp \left[ - \frac{i}{4} \sum x_i \cdot x_j \,
A'_{ij} + i \sum k_i \cdot x_i \right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $A'_{ij} = A_{ij} + \beta$.
Now the zero-mode is removed.
We may integrate over $x_i$'s, and noting the fact
$\det A' = n\beta \cdot\det' A$, we obtain
eqs.(\ref{ialpha}) and (\ref{delta}) with
$Z = A'^{-1}$.
(It is necessary to transform
$Z_{ij}$ appropriately
for obtaining $Z$ in zero-diagonal level scheme; see Appendix B.)
\section*{Appendix B: Properties of $Z_{ab}$}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{B.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
{\large {\bf Definition}}
\\
\\
For a given scalar QED diagram without seagull vertex,
$Z_{ab}$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{\mu \nu} Z_{ab} \equiv \left( -\frac{i}{4} \right) ~
\frac{
\displaystyle
\int [d^Dx_c] \, (x_a-x_b)^\mu (x_a-x_b)^\nu \,
\exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{4} \sum_{c,d}
x_c \cdot x_d A_{cd} \biggl]
}
{
\displaystyle
\int [d^Dx_c] \,
\exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{4} \sum_{c,d}
x_c \cdot x_d A_{cd} \biggl]
}
.
\label{Bdefz}
\end{eqnarray}
On both sides of each vertex $i$ dummy vertices
$i'$ and $i''$ are inserted as shown in Fig.6.
Here,
$a,b,c,d$ denote vertices including dummy vertices ($i$, $i'$, and
$i''$).
The matrix $A$ represents the topology of the diagram, and
is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{c,d} x_c \cdot x_d \, A_{cd}
\equiv
\sum_{(cd)}
\frac{(x_c-x_d)^2}{\alpha_{(cd)}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_{(cd)}$ denotes the Feynman parameter of the propagator
connecting the vertices $c$ and $d$.
\\
\\
{\large {\bf Methods for Calculating $Z_{ab}$}\footnote{
$Z_{ab}$ can also be computed using graph-theoretical
formula\cite{lam}.
}
}
\\
\\
In order to obtain $Z_{ab}$ from the matrix $A$, first
one may as well reduce the size of $A$ by eliminating
all external vertices in the diagram (but $a$
and/or $b$ if it is external) using the associativity property
(\ref{assoc}) of
propagator $K$.
Then, there are several ways to calculate $Z_{ab}$
from the reduced $A$.
We exemplify two such methods here.
\\
\\
(Method 1)
Let $T$ be a matrix defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{ab} = 1
~~~~~
\mbox{for}~\forall a,b,
\end{eqnarray}
and define $Z' \equiv (A+\beta T)^{-1}$.
$Z'$ is well-defined as long as $\beta \neq 0$.
Then $Z_{ab}$ can be obtained using (\ref{transfz}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{ab} = Z'_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}(Z'_{aa}+Z'_{bb}).
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously the diagonal elements vanish.
$Z$ is independent of $\beta$ so one may
simplify calculation by taking
$\beta \rightarrow \infty$ after getting $Z'$.
\\
\\
(Method 2)
Let $\tilde{A}$ be a submatrix of
$A$ obtained by deletion of the $c$-th row and $c$-th column.
One may choose any vertex $c$ for this purpose.
(This corresponds to fixing the coordinate of $c$ to be $x_c=0$
in eq.(\ref{Bdefz}).)
$\tilde{A}$ can be inverted, so define
\begin{eqnarray}
Z'_{ab} = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
(\tilde{A}^{-1})_{ab}&\mbox{for}~a,b \neq c \\
0&\mbox{otherwise}
\rule{0mm}{8mm}
\end{array}
\right. .
\end{eqnarray}
Then $Z_{ab}$ can be obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{ab} = Z'_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}(Z'_{aa}+Z'_{bb}).
\end{eqnarray}
\\
\\
{\large {\bf Properties}}
\\
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
Z_{ab} = Z_{ba}
\\
&&
Z_{aa} = 0
\\
&&
\lim_{u'_i \rightarrow +0}
Z_{i'a} =
\lim_{u''_i \rightarrow +0}
Z_{i''a} =
Z_{ia}
\label{proof1}
\\
&&
\lim_{u'_i \rightarrow +0}
\frac{Z_{i'a}-Z_{ia}}{u'_i}
= \lim_{u'_i \rightarrow +0}
\frac{\partial}{\partial u'_i} Z_{i'a}
\rule{0mm}{1.2cm}
\label{proof2}
\\
&&
\lim_{u''_i \rightarrow +0}
\frac{Z_{ia}-Z_{i''a}}{u''_i}
= - \lim_{u''_i \rightarrow +0}
\frac{\partial}{\partial u''_i} Z_{i''a}
\rule{0mm}{1.2cm}
\label{proof3}
\\
&&
\lim_{u'_i \rightarrow +0} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial u'_i} Z_{i'i}
\rule{0mm}{1.2cm}
= \lim_{u''_i \rightarrow +0} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial u''_i} Z_{i''i}
\rule{0mm}{1.2cm}
= - \frac{1}{2}
\label{proof4}
\\
&&
\lim_{\begin{array}{c}
\scriptstyle u'_i \rightarrow +0\\
\scriptstyle u'_j \rightarrow +0
\end{array}}
\frac{Z_{i'j'}-Z_{ij'}-Z_{i'j}+Z_{ij}}{u'_i u'_j}
= \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}\displaystyle
\lim_{\begin{array}{c}
\scriptstyle u'_i \rightarrow +0\\
\scriptstyle u'_j \rightarrow +0
\end{array}}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial u'_i \partial u'_j}
Z_{i'j'}
&~~~\mbox{for}~i \neq j
\\
\infty
\rule{0mm}{8mm}
&~~~\mbox{for}~i=j
\end{array}
\right.
\label{end}
\end{eqnarray}
\\
\\
{\large (Proof)} \\
Eq.(\ref{proof1}): Use eq.(\ref{propk2}). \\
Eqs.(\ref{proof2}) and (\ref{proof3}): Use eq.(\ref{proof1}). \\
Eq.(\ref{proof4}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{u'_i \rightarrow +0} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial u'_i} Z_{i'i}
\rule{0mm}{1.2cm}
= \lim_{u'_i \rightarrow +0}
\frac{Z_{i'i}-Z_{ii}}{u'_i}
= \lim_{u'_i \rightarrow +0}
\frac{Z_{i'i}}{u'_i} .
\end{eqnarray}
Then substituting the definition (\ref{Bdefz}), the integrand will be
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\frac{(x'_i-x_i)^\mu (x'_{i}-x_i)^\nu}{u'_i} \,
\exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{4} \frac{(x'_i-x_i)^2}{u'_i} \biggl]
=
(x'_i-x_i)^\mu \, 2i \, \frac{\partial}{\partial x'_{i \, \nu}} \,
\exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{4} \frac{(x'_i-x_i)^2}{u'_i} \biggl]
\nonumber
\\
&&=
- 2i \, g^{\mu\nu} \,
\exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{4} \frac{(x'_i-x_i)^2}{u'_i} \biggl] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where in the last line we integrated by parts with respect to $x'^\nu_i$.
Thus, the numerator will be proportional to the donominator in (\ref{Bdefz}).
\section*{Appendix C: Sample Calculation}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{C.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfile{file=./fig18.ps,width=10cm}
\caption{The set of diagrams calculated in Appendix C.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In this appendix we apply the Bern-Kosower-type rule to calculation
of the set of diagrams shown in Fig.18.
According to eq.(\ref{rule1}), the Green function is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
G_S(k_0,k_2,k_4,\epsilon_2) &=&
(2\pi)^D \delta
\biggl( \sum_{i=0}^4 k_i \biggl)
\cdot i \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i}
\right)^{D/2}
\frac{1}{2} \, (ie)^3
\nonumber \\
&& \times
\int^\infty_0 d\alpha \, e^{-i(\lambda^2-i0)\alpha}
\int^\infty_0 dT \, e^{-i(m^2-i0)T}
\int^{T}_0 dt_1 dt_2 dt_3
\, {\cal K}_{red},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda$ is the photon mass.
${\cal K}_{red}$ is obtained from $\cal K$ in eq.(\ref{gkf}) after the
manipulation 1)-5):
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{red} &=& \Delta^{-D/2} \,
\biggl[
-\sum_{i=0}^4 k_i^\mu \partial_1 G_B^{i1}
\sum_{j=0}^4 k_{j\mu} \partial_3 G_B^{j3}
\sum_{l=0}^4 \epsilon_2' \cdot k_l \partial_2 G_B^{l2}
+ i \partial_1 \partial_2 G_B^{12} \sum_{j=0}^4 \epsilon_2' \cdot
k_j \partial_3 G_B^{j3}
\nonumber
\\ &&
+ i \partial_2 \partial_3 G_B^{23} \sum_{j=0}^4 \epsilon_2' \cdot
k_i \partial_1 G_B^{i1}
+ i D \partial_1 \partial_3 G_B^{13} \sum_{l=0}^4 \epsilon_2' \cdot
k_l \partial_2 G_B^{l2}
\biggl]
\, \exp \biggl[ -\frac{i}{2} \sum_{i \neq j} k_i \cdot k_j G_B^{ij}
\biggl] .
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we choose
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_2'^\mu = \epsilon_2^\mu
- \frac{\epsilon_2 \cdot k_2}{k_2^2} k_2^\mu ,
\end{eqnarray}
so that $\epsilon_2' \cdot k_2 = 0$.
Now we integrate by parts with respect to $t_2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{red} \rightarrow & \Delta^{-D/2}
\biggl[ &
( k_0 \partial_1 G_B^{01} + k_2 \partial_1 G_B^{21} +
k_4 \partial_1 G_B^{41} )
\cdot
( k_0 \partial_3 G_B^{03} + k_2 \partial_3 G_B^{23} +
k_4 \partial_3 G_B^{43} )
\nonumber
\\ &&
\times \,
\epsilon_2' \cdot ( k_0 \partial_2 G_B^{02} + k_4 \partial_2 G_B^{42} )
\nonumber
\\ &&
- \partial_1 G_B^{12} \,
\epsilon_2' \cdot ( k_0 \partial_3 G_B^{03} + k_4 \partial_3 G_B^{43} )
\, k_2 \cdot ( k_0 \partial_2 G_B^{02} + k_4 \partial_2 G_B^{42} )
\nonumber
\\&&
- \partial_3 G_B^{23} \,
\epsilon_2' \cdot ( k_0 \partial_1 G_B^{01} + k_4 \partial_1 G_B^{41} )
\, k_2 \cdot ( k_0 \partial_2 G_B^{02} + k_4 \partial_2 G_B^{42} )
\nonumber
\\&&
+ iD \, \partial_1 \partial_3 G_B^{13}
\epsilon_2' \cdot ( k_0 \partial_2 G_B^{02} + k_4 \partial_2 G_B^{42} )
\biggl]
\nonumber
\\&& ~~~
\times \exp [
-i ( k_0 \cdot k_2 G_B^{02} + k_0 \cdot k_4 G_B^{04} + k_2 \cdot k_4
G_B^{24}) ]
\end{eqnarray}
We do not integrate by parts with respect to $t_1$ or $t_3$; compare the
discussion in subsection 4.c.
The delta function part in $\partial_1 \partial_3 G_B$ corresponds to
the tadpole diagrams (Fig.18(f)(g)).
Then we substitute the explicit forms of $\Delta$, $G_B^{ij}$, and their
derivatives:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta &=& \alpha + |t_3-t_1|,
\\
G_B^{ij} &=& |t_i-t_j| -
\frac{
[ |t_i-t_1| - |t_i-t_3| - |t_j-t_1| + |t_j-t_3| ]^2
}{4\Delta} ,
\\
\partial_j G_B^{ij} &=& - \mbox{sign} (t_i-t_j) +
\frac{1}{2\Delta}
[ |t_i-t_1| - |t_i-t_3| - |t_j-t_1| + |t_j-t_3| ]
\nonumber
\\ && ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~\times
[ \mbox{sign} (t_j-t_1) - \mbox{sign} (t_j -t_3) ] ,
\label{cdelgbj}
\\
\partial_1 \partial_3 G_B^{13} &=&
-2\delta (t_1-t_3) + \frac{1}{2\Delta} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $t_0=0$ and $t_4=T$.
It is understood that $\mbox{sign}(0)=0$ in eq.(\ref{cdelgbj}).
Once the time ordering of $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_3$ is fixed, we can
transform the integral variables using eq.(\ref{ivtransf1}).
The rest is same as the usual Feynman parameter integral.
We obtain, for example,
\begin{eqnarray}
G_S(t_1<t_2<t_3) &=&
(2\pi)^D \delta
( \sum k_i )
\cdot i \left( \frac{1}{4\pi i}
\right)^{D/2} \, (ie)^3
\biggl[ \frac{i}{k_0^2-m^2} \, \frac{i}{k_4^2-m^2} \biggl]
\nonumber
\\ && \times
i \epsilon_2' \cdot (k_4-k_0)
\, \biggl[
(1-\omega ) \, I_1 + \omega \, I_2 +
(-i)^{-D/2} \, \Gamma (2-{\textstyle \frac{D}{2}}) \, I_3
\biggl]
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega = - k_0 \cdot k_4 /m^2 > 1$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
I_1 &=& \int^1_0 dx \int^{1-x}_0 dy \, 2 (1-2x)(y^2-2y)
\times [x^2 + y^2 + 2\omega x y ]^{-1}
\nonumber
\\
&=& \frac{7}{6} \frac{1}{\omega -1} -
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega^2-1}}
\biggl( \frac{3}{2} + \frac{7}{6} \frac{1}{\omega - 1}
\biggl)
\mbox{arccosh} \, \omega
\\
I_2 &=&
\int^1_0 dx \int^{1-x}_0 dy \,
(1-x-y)(x+y-2)^2 \times
\biggl[
x^2+y^2+2\omega xy + \frac{\lambda^2}{m^2} (1-x-y)
\biggl]^{-1}
\nonumber
\\
&=&
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega^2-1}}
\biggl[ \frac{35}{6} + 2 \log \frac{\lambda^2}{m^2} \biggl]
\mbox{arccosh} \, \omega
+ \frac{8}{\sqrt{\omega^2-1}}
\int^{\frac{1}{2}\mbox{arccosh} \, \omega}_0
d\varphi \, \varphi \, \tanh \varphi
\\
I_3 &=&
\int^1_0 dx \int^{1-x}_0 dy \,
\frac{1}{2} (1-x-y)
\times [m^2 (x^2 + y^2 + 2\omega xy) ]^{D/2-2}
\nonumber
\\ &=&
\frac{1}{12} + \frac{D-4}{4}
\biggl( -\frac{11}{18} + \frac{1}{6} \log \frac{m^2}{\mu^2}
- \frac{1}{6} \sqrt{ \frac{\omega+1}{\omega-1} }
\mbox{arccosh} \, \omega \biggl) .
\end{eqnarray}
We set the external scalars on-shell $k_0^2=k_4^2=m^2$ except for the
propagator factors in the above expressions.
$G_S$ for other time orderings can be calculated similarly.
(See below.)
Finally, if we are interested in the vertex function, we should
amputate the external scalars in the above example.
For this purpose, one should add the counter term for the wave
function correction first, which needs to be calculated separately.
After adding the counter term and amputating the external propagators,
we find the vertex function at one-loop
(for on-shell external scalars) to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_2^\mu \, \Gamma_\mu^{\mbox{\scriptsize 1-loop}} (k_0,k_4)
&=&
- \frac{e^2}{16\pi^2} \, \epsilon_2 \cdot (k_4-k_0) \,
\biggl[
\frac{9}{2(4-D)}
- \frac{9}{4} ( \log \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu^2} + \gamma_E )
+ \frac{19}{4}
\nonumber
\\
&& + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega^2-1}}
\biggl( \frac{19}{12} - \frac{17}{4} \omega
- 2\omega \log \frac{\lambda^2}{m^2} \biggl)
\mbox{arccosh} \, \omega
\nonumber
\\ &&
+ \frac{8 \omega}{\sqrt{\omega^2-1}}
\int^{\frac{1}{2} \mbox{arccosh} \omega}_0
d\varphi \, \varphi \, \tanh \varphi
\biggl] .
\end{eqnarray}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Consider a quantum system on an infinite lattice described by the Hamiltonian
${\cal H}(g)$, with $g$ a dimensionless coupling constant. For any reasonable
$g$, all observable properties of the {\em ground state\/} of ${\cal H}$
will vary smoothly as $g$
is varied. However, there may be special points, like $g=g_c$, where there is
a non-analyticity in some property of the ground state: we identify $g_c$
as the position of a quantum phase transition. In finite lattices,
non-analyticities can only occur at level crossings; the possibilities in
infinite systems are richer as avoided level crossings can become sharp in the
thermodynamic limit. In this paper, I will restrict my discussion to second
order quantum transitions, or transitions in which the correlation length
and correlation time diverge as $g$ approaches $g_c$. As I will review
below, any such quantum transition can be used to define a continuum quantum
field theory (CQFT): the CQFT has no intrinsic short-distance (or
ultraviolet) cutoff.
The main purpose of this paper is to
review some recent work~\cite{jinwu,cs,csy,sss,conserve} on the properties
of ${\cal H} (g)$ at
{\em finite temperatures\/} ($T$) in the
vicinity of $g=g_c$. This is equivalent to a study of the finite $T$
crossovers of the associated CQFT. We shall focus especially on the
dynamic properties of a ubiquitous finite $T$ region, usually called
``quantum critical''~\cite{chn} (as we shall see below, there are reasons why
this
name is misleading and not quite appropriate; nevertheless, I will use it
here).
The quantum-critical region appears as the high $T$ limit of the CQFT; unlike
the
statics of classical lattice models, the high $T$ limit of a CQFT is usually
highly non-trivial. All of this discussion will take place in the context of
some simple examples drawn from quantum spin systems.
I set the stage by reviewing the Wilsonian approach to critical phenomena and
field theories~\cite{brezin},
using the perspective of quantum critical phenomena. By the usual Trotter
product
decomposition, we can set up the partition function of ${\cal H}(g)$ as a
functional integral over degrees of freedom which fluctuate as a function of
the
spatial co-ordinate $x$ and imaginary time $\tau$. Let us now examine the
behavior
of this functional integral under the rescaling
transformation~\cite{hertz,boyanovsky}
\begin{equation}
x \rightarrow e^{-\ell} x ~~~~~~~~~~~\tau \rightarrow e^{-z \ell} \tau
\label{rg}
\end{equation}
The dynamic exponent $z$ determines the relative scaling dimensions of space
and
time co-ordinates. The critical point at $g=g_c$ is a fixed point
of (\ref{rg}), and $g-g_c$ is a relevant perturbation away from this point.
We have therefore the flow equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{dg}{d\ell} = \frac{1}{\nu} ( g - g_c)
\end{equation}
which defines the critical exponent $\nu$. (For simplicity I do not discuss the
case of fixed points with more than one relevant perturbation, as they can
be treated in a similar manner). In the long-distance, long-time limit, this
deviation from the critical point will be characterized by some {\em
renormalized\/}
energy scale, $G$. I emphasize that $G$ is a dimensionful parameter, expressed
in the laboratory units of energy, and directly measurable in an
experiment; a typical example would be an energy gap. In the vicinity of the
critical point, the renormalized energy scale $G$ will be related to the bare
coupling
$g$ by
\begin{equation}
G \sim \Lambda | g - g_c |^{z\nu}
\label{Gg}
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is an ultraviolet cutoff, measured for convenience in the units
of
energy too. From the perspective of a field theorist,
the CQFT associated with the quantum
critical point is now defined by taking the limit $\Lambda \rightarrow \infty$
at fixed $G$; from
(\ref{Gg}) we see that, because $z\nu > 0$, it is possible to take this limit
by tuning the bare
coupling $g$ closer and closer to the critical point as $\Lambda$ increases.
(A condensed matter physicist would take the complementary, but equivalent,
perspective
of keeping $\Lambda$ fixed but moving closer to criticality by lowering his
probe frequency
$\omega \sim G$).
The resulting CQFT then contains only the energy scale $G$. At finite
temperatures, there is a second energy scale $T$ (using units in which $k_B =
1$);
its thermodynamic properties will then be a universal function of the only
dimensionless ratio available---$G/T$. It is the purpose of this paper to
review
recent work on the crossovers as a function of $G/T$ in a number of systems,
and to highlight the unusual properties of the heretofore unexplored
high-temperature, ``quantum critical'', limit of the CQFT, $T \gg G$.
It is now easy to see why the high $T$ limit of the CQFT can be non-trivial.
A conventional high $T$ expansions of the lattice model ${\cal H}$ proceeds
with the series
\begin{equation}
\mbox{Tr} e^{- {\cal H} / T} = \mbox{Tr} 1 -
\frac{1}{T} \mbox{Tr} {\cal H} + \frac{1}{2T^2} \mbox{Tr} {\cal H}^2+ \ldots
\label{highT}
\end{equation}
The successive terms in this series are well-defined and finite because of the
ultraviolet cutoffs provided by the lattice. Further, the series is
well-behaved provided $T$ is larger than all other energy scales; in particular
we
need $T \gg \Lambda$. In contrast, the CQFT was defined by the limit
$\Lambda \rightarrow \infty$ at fixed $T$, $G$, so the high $T$ limit of the
CQFT corresponds to the intermediate temperature range $G \ll T \ll \Lambda$
of the lattice model. It is not possible to access this temperature range
by an expansion as simple as (\ref{highT}), and more sophisticated techniques,
to be discussed here, are necessary. (One could also, of course, determine a
large number of terms in (\ref{highT}) and then use some Pad\'{e} extrapolation
methods to access the $T \ll \Lambda$ region: this method has been used by
Sokol {\em et. al.\/}~\cite{rajiv} and I will not discuss it here).
In contrast to the static properties, the dynamic properties of ${\cal H}$ are
already non-trivial in the high $T \gg \Lambda$ limit of the lattice model.
Although one expects some sort of incoherent, dissipative dynamics, the damping
co-efficients cannot be determined directly---all the approaches used so far
are
essentially variants of the methods discussed by Moriya~\cite{moriya} and
Forster~\cite{forster}, and use a short-time expansion, coupled with an
ansatz for the spectral function, to extrapolate to the long-time limit. In
this
paper, we will discuss the dynamics in the high $T$ limit of the CQFT, $G \ll
T \ll
\Lambda$, or the ``quantum-critical dynamics''. The dynamics continues to be
dissipative and relaxational, but is not amenable to a description either by a
classical
Boltzmann equation for a dilute gas of quasiparticle excitations, or by a
classical
Langevin-like models of the types discussed in the classic review of Hohenberg
and
Halperin~\cite{halphoh}. However, as we shall show, the scaling structure of
the CQFT does
permit some progress to be made; indeed we will discuss below the complete
solution of the
quantum-critical dynamics of a simple spin model, including the exact
determination of a
damping co-efficient.
We will begin our discussion with a simple solvable model of spinless fermions
in
Section~\ref{spinferm}: this will allow introduction of the main concepts in a
very simple
setting. Section~\ref{sec:bose} will extend these results to a related but more
complex model
of dilute bosons in spatial dimensions $d<2$. An explicit solution of the
relaxational
dynamics of the quantum-critical region will be obtained in the discussion in
Section~\ref{isingsec} on the Ising model in a transverse field. The expository
analyses of
these toy models will lead in Section~\ref{secrotor} to the main system of
interest---the
$O(3)$ quantum rotor model in $d=2$. We will also review applications of these
results to
numerical simulations and experiments. Finally Section~\ref{concsec} will
conclude by
highlighting the main results and noting recent work on related subjects.
\section{Dilute gas of spinless fermions}
\label{spinferm}
Much of the physics I wish to discuss is displayed in a surprisingly simple
model of a dilute gas of spinless fermions at finite temperature: its scaling
forms
have a structure identical to those of much more complicated models.
The main shortcoming of the model is that the associated CQFT has no
interactions,
and there is therefore no relaxational behavior in the scaling functions.
Consider the following Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_F = - t \sum_{<ij>} \left( c_i^{\dagger} c_{j} +
c_{j}^{\dagger} c_i - c_i^{\dagger} c_i - c_j^{\dagger} c_j \right) - \mu
\sum_i
c_i^{\dagger} c_i
\label{fermiham}
\end{equation}
where $c_i$ is a spinless fermion annihilation operator at the site $i$ of a
$d$-dimensional hypercubic lattice, and $<ij>$ are nearest neighbors.
There are no interactions in ${\cal
H}_F$, so it is trivially solvable. Consider the ground state of ${\cal H}_F$
as a
function of the dimensionless coupling constant $g=\mu /t$. For $g < g_c = 0$,
the ground state has no particles. There is a non-analytic onset in the
density of particles at $g=g_c$, signaling a quantum phase
transition. The bandwidth $\sim t$ of the fermions plays the role of the upper
cutoff in energy ($\Lambda$) for this transition, and the critical region
defining the applicability of a CQFT is roughly $T, \mu \ll t$. In fact, it is
not difficult
to determine the exact effective action of the CQFT (in units with $\hbar=1$):
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_F = \int d^d x \int_0^{1/T} d\tau
\Psi_F^{\dagger} (x, \tau) \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial\tau} -
\frac{\nabla^2}{2m}
- \mu \right) \Psi_F (x, \tau)
\label{cqft1}
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_F (x_i ) = a^{-d} c_i $, $m \sim 1/(ta^2)$, and $a$ is the lattice
spacing. For this action we can identify by the usual methods the exponents
$\nu=1/2$ and $z=2$ at the $\mu=0$ critical point; taking the density $n =
\langle
\Psi_F^{\dagger}
\Psi_F \rangle$ as the order parameter, we get the exponents $\beta = d/2$ and
$\eta = d$.
Further, it is also
easy to see that all interactions are irrelevant at this critical point in all
dimensions
$d > 0$ (the least irrelevant interaction term, $|\Psi_F \nabla \Psi_F |^2$,
becomes relevant only for $d<0$). Finally, for the renormalized energy scale
measuring the deviation from the critical point, $G$, we may take $G=\mu$,
the bare chemical potential in ${\cal H}_F$. Note that there is no
non-universal
scale-factor in the relationship between $G$ and $\mu$---this is a consequence
of
the triviality of the critical exponents. More typical models with anomalous
exponents
will have non-universal scale-factors.
We show in Fig~\ref{fermifig} the phase diagram of ${\cal H}_F$ as a function
of
$G = \mu$ and $T$.
Our interest is primarily in the regions within the hatched
lines where the CQFT (\ref{cqft1}) applies. Within this region there are three
physically distinct types of behavior (A, B and C): as ${\cal L}_F$ is
trivially solvable,
the universal properties of A, B, and C and the crossovers between them can be
exactly determined. Let us describe the regions in turn:
\noindent (A) {\em Activated} $\mu \ll -T$: The fermions are very dilute, with
a density
$\sim e^{\mu / T}$. Quantum effects are suppressed and the particles behave
classically.
\noindent (B) {\em Fermi or Luttinger liquid} $ \mu \gg T$: Now quantum
degeneracy effects are
paramount. At $T=0$, the ground state is a Fermi liquid (in $d=1$, a Luttinger
liquid);
at finite $T$
thermal effects lead to a small number of particle and hole excitations near
the Fermi surface.
\noindent (C) {\em Quantum Critical} $|\mu| \ll T$: Unlike A and B, the
temperature
$T$ is the most important energy scale in this region. We can set $\mu = 0$
here
without much damage (all corrections involve positive powers of $\mu / T$). The
energy
of a typical excitation in this region is of order $T$ and as a result, quantum
and
thermal fluctuations are equally important.
The relationships between the regions becomes clearer upon considering an
explicit
example of a crossover function. The density of particles $n = \langle
\Psi_F^{\dagger}
\Psi_F \rangle$ obeys the scaling form
\begin{equation}
n = (2 m T)^{d/2} \Phi_n \left( \frac{\mu}{T} \right)
\label{phin}
\end{equation}
where the universal scaling function $\Phi_n (\overline{\mu})$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\Phi_n (\overline{\mu}) = \int \frac{d^d k}{(2 \pi)^d} \frac{1}{e^{k^2 -
\overline{\mu}} + 1}.
\end{equation}
Notice that there are no arbitrary scale-factors in (\ref{phin}).
In the activated region A ($\overline{\mu} \ll -1$), we have $\Phi_n \approx
e^{\overline{\mu}}
/(4 \pi)^{d/2}$, which
is exactly the result we would have obtain from the classical
Maxwell-Boltzmann
statistics. In the Fermi liquid region B ($\overline{\mu} \gg 1$), $\Phi_n
\approx
\overline{\mu}^{d/2} V_d / (2 \pi)^d$, where $V_d$ is the volume of the unit
sphere in $d$
dimensions; this is the fully quantum result obtained by filling up the Fermi
sphere.
Most interesting is the quantum critical region C ($|\overline{\mu}| \ll 1)$
where
\begin{equation}
\Phi_n (\overline{\mu}) = \zeta \left( \frac{d}{2} \right) \left( \frac{\pi}{2}
\right)^{d}
\left( 1- 2^{1-d/2} \right) + {\cal O} (\overline{\mu})
\end{equation}
The value of $\Phi_n (0)$ depends upon the details of the Fermi distribution
function,
and not just its forms in the classical and quantum limits: this illustrates
our
assertion that quantum and classical effects are equally important in region C.
It is also interesting to compare the behavior of the density in the universal
region
C with the true high temperature limit
of the lattice model - region D. In other words, we are going vertically
upwards
in $T$ at $\mu = 0$ in Fig~\ref{fermifig}. It is easy to compute:
\begin{equation}
n = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
(2 m T)^{d/2} \Phi_n (0) & |G| \ll T \ll \Lambda~~(\mbox{region C})\\
1/2a^d - c_1 / T & T \gg \Lambda~~(\mbox{region D})
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $c_1$ is a non-universal constant (recall that in this model $G=\mu$
and $\Lambda = t$). Notice the difference between the universal high $T$ limit
of the CQFT (the first result) and the lattice high $T$ limit. I hope that this
example has illustrated the general principle, and in the remainder of the
paper
I will make no further reference to non-universal regions like D. It will be
implicitly assumed that we are working with the universal continuum theory,
and we will describe only regions like A, B and C.
Before closing our discussion on this deceptively simple model, we discuss the
scaling
form of observables as a function of momentum $k$ and frequency $\omega$.
Because of the absence of interactions, the single-particle Green's function is
trivial;
so we discuss the density-density correlator $\chi_n (k, \omega )$ which has a
slightly
more interesting structure. As the particles are free, $\chi_n $ is of course
given simply
by the Lindhard function, which can be manipulated into the scaling form
\begin{equation}
\chi_n ( k , \omega ) = \frac{(2m T)^{d/2}}{T} \Phi_{\chi_n} \left (
\frac{k}{\sqrt{2 m T}} , \frac{\omega }{T}, \frac{\mu}{T} \right)
\label{phichin}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_{\chi_n}$ is a universal complex-valued function related to the
Lindhard
function. Notice that, like the scaling form (\ref{phin}), there are again no
arbitrary
scale factors. Further, $\Phi_{\chi_n}$ is well-defined at $\mu/T = 0$, where
it
yields the dynamic susceptibility of the quantum-critical region C. We will see
several
other examples of scaling forms like (\ref{phin}) and (\ref{phichin}) in this
paper,
but the scaling functions will not be as simple as they are here.
\section{Dilute Bose gas}
\label{sec:bose}
Now we consider the same density onset quantum transition considered in
Sec~\ref{spinferm},
but for the case of bosons. The discussion here is drawn from that of Sachdev,
Senthil and
Shankar~\cite{sss} to which the reader is referred for further details.
Unlike the case for spinless fermions, it is no longer possible to ignore the
interactions
between the particles. We consider the properties of the following continuum
model
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_B &=&
\int d^d x \int_0^{1/T} d\tau
\Psi_B^{\dagger} (x, \tau) \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial\tau} -
\frac{\nabla^2}{2m}
- \mu \right) \Psi_B (x, \tau) \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{2} \int d^d x \int d^d x' \int_0^{1/T} d\tau
| \Psi_B ( x, \tau) |^2 v(x- x') |\Psi_B ( x', \tau) |^2
\label{cqft2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Psi_B$ is a boson annihilation operator, and $v(x)$ is a repulsive
interaction of
range $\sim a$. Like ${\cal L}_F$, ${\cal L}_B$ has a quantum phase transition
at $\mu=T=0$, and we will discuss its universal properties here. Because of the
finite
range of $v$, the universality only sets in at distances larger than $a$.
A straightforward RG analysis~\cite{fisher} of the vicinity of the quantum
critical point
shows that $v$ flows into the $v=0$ fixed point for $d\geq 2$. It turns out
that
$v$ is actually dangerously irrelevant for $d\geq 2$: we do not wish to enter
into a
discussion of such effects here, and so most of our remaining discussion will
be
restricted to $d < 2$.
For $d<2$, $v(x)$ flows into a universal fixed point
interaction $v(x) = u^{\ast} \delta(x)$
for some $d$ dependent constant $u^{\ast}$.
The scaling structure of this fixed point turns out to be
very closely related to the non-interacting spinless fermion model of
Sec~\ref{spinferm}
for the same value of $d$. All exponents and scaling forms of the boson and
fermion
models are identical, but the scaling functions themselves are different.
The crossover phase diagram of the $d<2$ dilute Bose gas is essentially
identical to
the fermion phase diagram in Fig~\ref{fermifig}, but the physical
interpretation of
the phases is somewhat different:
\noindent (A) {\em Activated} $\mu \ll -T$: This is essentially identical to
the
fermion case as the particles are dilute and their quantum statistics plays a
negligible role.
\noindent (B) {\em Incipient Superfluid} $ \mu \gg T$: The ground state
is now a superfluid (in $d=1$ a Luttinger liquid),
but classical thermal fluctuations destroy the long range order at any non-zero
temperature. Nevertheless, the phase coherence length is large and system
behaves
like a superfluid at short scales.
\noindent (C) {\em Quantum Critical} $|\mu| \ll T$: This is similar to the
fermion case
in that $T$ is the most important energy scale. However, there are now strong
interactions
among the particles, leading to an incoherent excitation spectrum. The system
does not
display characteristics of a superfluid ground state at any length scale,
but instead crosses over directly from free particle behavior at short time
scales,
to dissipative, relaxational dynamics at long time scales.
The single particle Green's function $G(x, \tau) = \langle \Psi_B (x,\tau)
\Psi_B^{\dagger} (0,0) \rangle$ has a non-trivial scaling function $\Phi_G$
(this form
actually holds in all three regions A, B, and C)
\begin{equation}
G^R (k, \omega ) = \frac{1}{T} \Phi_G \left (
\frac{k}{\sqrt{2 m T}} , \frac{\omega }{T}, \frac{\mu}{T} \right).
\label{phiG}
\end{equation}
We have Fourier transformed and analytically continued to the retarded Green's
function
at real frequencies. This scaling form also holds for the spinless fermions of
Section~\ref{spinferm}, but the scaling function then is simply the free
fermion form $\Phi_G
(\overline{k},\overline{\omega},
\overline{\mu}) = 1/(\overline{\omega} - \overline{k}^2 - \overline{\mu} +
i\eta)$ where
$\eta$ is a positive infinitesimal. Computing
$\Phi_G$, and other scaling functions, for bosonic quantum critical dynamics is
not
as easy. One approach~\cite{sss} is to expand in powers of the fixed-point
interaction
$u^{\ast}$ which becomes small as $d$ approaches 2 from below: this becomes an
expansion in $\varepsilon=2-d$.
In $d=1$, it is possible to make more explicit progress. It has been
argued~\cite{sss} that now
$u^{\ast} = \infty$. The bosons thence become impenetrable, and their quantum
mechanics
becomes identical to those of free fermions. Hence, in $d=1$, the
quantum critical dynamics of dilute gases of spinless fermions and boson are
described
by the same CQFT, ${\cal L}_F$ of Eqn (\ref{cqft1}). For the bosonic system we
have to supplement
${\cal L}_F$ with the following non-local relationship between the boson and
fermion operators
(essentially a continuum Jordan-Wigner transformation)
\begin{equation}
\Psi_B (x ) = \exp \left( i \pi \int_{-\infty}^{x} dx'
\Psi_F^\dagger (x') \Psi_F (x') \right) \Psi_F (x)
\label{jw}
\end{equation}
We are not home yet, as
evaluating correlators of (\ref{jw}) under (\ref{cqft1}) is not easy. Korepin
and
Slavnov~\cite{korep,korepbook} have succeeded in showing how this problem may
be reduced to
determining the solution and Fredholm determinant of a linear Fredholm integral
equation. At
this stage, numerical analysis is required, and some scaling functions have
been determined
to essentially arbitrary accuracy~\cite{sss}.
Finally, an additional comment about the $d \geq 2$ case.
There is now true superfluidity and a finite temperature phase transition to a
normal state,
all within region B. The remainder of the phase diagram remains the same as in
the $d\leq 2$
case.
\section{Ising Model in a transverse field}
\label{isingsec}
Unlike the dilute Fermi and Bose gases, the Ising model
possesses anomalous exponents. Yet it is simple enough in $d=1$ to allow exact
computation
of a quantum-critical dynamic correlation function. We will also review, in
this section, the
very useful and general mapping between the quantum model and an equivalent
classical statistical
mechanics model; we will then discuss the crossovers in the phase diagram like
Fig~\ref{fermifig} in the context of the classical model. Some of
of the following discussion is
a review of well-known properties of the Ising
model~\cite{suzuki,kogut,drouffe,ising}; our main
purpose here is to use the explicit solution in $d=1$ to present a physical
interpretation which
generalizes to other quantum phase transitions.
We will explicitly discuss the following Hamiltonian, describing the Ising
model in a
transverse field in $d=1$ (we will remark briefly on the generalization to
higher $d$):
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_I = - J \sum_i \left( g \sigma_{x,i} + \sigma_{z,i} \sigma_{z,i+1}
\right)
\label{hamising}
\end{equation}
where $J > 0$ in an overall energy scale, $g > 0$ is a dimensionless coupling
constant,
and $\sigma_{x,i}, \sigma_{z,i}$ are Pauli matrices on a chain of sites, $i$.
Consider the ground states of ${\cal H}_I$ for small and large $g$ in turn. For
small
$g$, the second term in (\ref{hamising}) dominates and the spins all align
themselves either
in the $+z$ or $-z$ directions: there is a spontaneous magnetization and
spin-reversal
symmetry is broken. On the other hand, for large $g$, the first term in
(\ref{hamising})
prefers a state which is in a superposition of $\sigma_z$ eigenstates, with
different sites
uncorrelated: the wavefunction looks like $\prod_i ( |+\rangle_i + |-\rangle_i
)$.
These two limits are separated by a phase transition at $g = g_c$ (in fact,
$g_c = 1$,
exactly, because of a self-duality property of (\ref{hamising})). In this
section, we shall
discuss the finite $T$ dynamic properties in the vicinity of $g=g_c$.
To begin, we recall the well-known fact~\cite{suzuki,kogut} that the $T=0$
correlators of ${\cal H}_I$
are similar to those in the classical, two-dimensional, Ising model given by
the partition
function
$\mbox{Tr}~e^{-F}$ with
\begin{equation}
F = - K \sum_{<ij>} \sigma_{z,i} \sigma_{z,j}
\end{equation}
where the sites $i,j$ now lie on a square lattice (say).
This classical model has a phase transition at $K=K_c$.
At the level of the critical
continuum theories, the mapping between the classical and quantum models become
exact~\cite{kogut}.
There is a simple relationship between the two-dimensional field theory, with
classical
degrees of freedom, describing
$F$ in the vicinity of
$K=K_c$ and the one-dimensional quantum field theory describing ${\cal H}_I$
near
$g=g_c$: one simply identifies one of the spatial directions of the classical
theory as an
imaginary time, and then analytically continues the correlators to real time,
to obtain
observables of the quantum theory. This mapping leads immediately to some
useful information.
As the classical theory is spatially isotropic, the quantum theory has dynamic
exponent
$z=1$. Further, in the classical model the $\sigma_z~\sigma_z$ correlator
behaves like
$\sim p^{-7/4}$ in momentum space~\cite{drouffe} ($p$ is the two-dimensional
momentum of the
classical model); analytically continuing this to real time, we obtain for the
dynamic
susceptibility
$\chi (k,
\omega )$ (this is the
$\sigma_z~\sigma_z$ correlator of the quantum ${\cal H}_I$ and $k$ is now a
one-dimensional
spatial momentum) as a function of
$d=1$ momentum
$k$ and frequency
$\omega$:
\begin{equation}
\chi (k, \omega ) = \frac{Z}{(c^2 k^2 - \omega^2)^{7/8}}~~~~~~T=0, g=g_c.
\label{chiteq0}
\end{equation}
Here $Z$ and $c$ (an excitation velocity) are non-universal constants. We plot
$\mbox{Im}
\chi (k,\omega )/\omega$ in Fig~\ref{chiteq0fig}.
Notice that there are no delta functions in the
spectral density, indicating the absence of any well-defined quasiparticles.
Instead, we have
a critical continuum of excitations. We can also compute the dynamic local
susceptibility,
\begin{equation}
\chi_L^{\prime\prime} (\omega ) = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \mbox{Im} \chi (k,
\omega),
\end{equation}
a quantity often measured in neutron scattering experiments:
\begin{equation}
\chi_L^{\prime\prime} ( \omega ) = \mbox{sgn} (\omega) \frac{\sqrt{\pi} Z}{2
\Gamma(7/8)
\Gamma(5/8) c}
\left(\frac{1}{|\omega|}\right)^{3/4}~~~~~~T=0, g=g_c.
\label{chilteq0}
\end{equation}
This quantity is the density of states of local spin-flip excitations, and has
a divergence as $\omega \rightarrow 0$.
Our discussion so far has been at $T=0$, and let us turn now to non-zero $T$.
A finite $T$ translates into a {\em finite size} $L_\tau = 1/T$
for the classical model along imaginary time direction. Periodic boundary
conditions are
imposed along the finite direction, and so the classical model has the geometry
of
a cylinder with circumference $L_\tau = 1/T$. We now discuss the crossovers at
finite $T$
in the context of the classical model. At $L_\tau = \infty$ ($T=0$) we can
characterize
the deviations from criticality by the correlation length $\xi \sim
|g-g_c|^{-1}$ (for the
quantum model we may choose our renormalized energy scale $G=1/\xi \sim
|g-g_c|$).
At distances shorter than $\xi$, the spins display critical correlations
characteristic
of the point $K=K_c$;
it is only at distances larger than $\xi$ that they become sensitive to the
value
of $K-K_c$ and display characteristics of the ordered (for $K > K_c$) or the
paramagnetic (for $K < K_c$) phase. Now consider the effect of a finite
$L_\tau$; there are
two distinct possibilities:
\noindent ({\em i}) $\xi < L_\tau$ (for the quantum model, $T < G$): Moving
from the shortest
to largest length scales, the crossover from critical to non-critical (either
ordered
or paramagnetic) behavior still occurs at a scale $\sim \xi$; the
length scale $L_\tau$ has little effect at this point. The effects of $L_\tau$
only become apparent
at larger scales, at which point it is permissible to use an effective model
which
characterizes the non-critical ground state.
\noindent ({\em ii}) $L_\tau < \xi$ (for the quantum model, $T > G$):
Now the short-distance critical fluctuations see a finite size $L_\tau$ {\em
before}
they have had a chance to become sensitive to $K-K_c$. These critical
fluctuations
are quenched by finite size effects in a universal way. The resulting
non-critical
theory then responds only weakly at the scale $\xi$. Note that the system does
not
display characteristics of the ordered or the paramagnetic state, of the
$L_\tau=\infty$
system, at {\em any\/} length scale.
The above arguments are summarized in Figs~\ref{isingfig}
and~\ref{isingomegafig}; notice that
Fig~\ref{isingfig} is quite similar to Fig~\ref{fermifig}.
In all three regions of
Fig~\ref{isingfig}, at the largest frequencies, $\omega$, ${\cal H}_I$ displays
the critical
correlations of the
$g=g_c$ point as depicted in Fig~\ref{isingomegafig} (we have returned now to
the language of the
quantum model ${\cal H}_I$).
In regions A and B there is a crossover from these critical fluctuations, at
an energy scale $G$, to the behavior of the ordered ($g<g_c$) or paramagnetic
($g>g_c$)
ground state of ${\cal H}_I$ (see Fig~\ref{isingomegafig}). Both ground states
have a gap, and thermal
fluctuations will lead to dilute gas of quasiparticle excitations. We expect
that an effective
classical model (like Glauber~\cite{glauber} dynamics, which is similar in
spirit to the
Langevin models of Hohenberg and Halperin~\cite{halphoh}) will provide a
suitable description of these thermal fluctuations. In $d=1$, on the ordered
side ($g < g_c$), these
quasiparticle excitations are the `kink' and `anti-kink' solitons; even an
infinitesimal concentration
of these is sufficient to destroy long-range order at any finite temperature.
However,
for $d>1$, long-range order is not immediately destroyed: as a result there is
finite
temperature phase transition within region A where the magnetic moment
disappears;
this transition will be in the universality class of the $d$-dimensional
classical Ising
model~\cite{suzuki}.
In the quantum-critical region C, the critical fluctuations are quenched by
thermal
effects at the energy scale $T$ (see Fig~\ref{isingomegafig}; an early analysis
of finite $T$
crossovers in the transverse-field Ising model by Suzuki~\cite{suzuki} failed
to identify region C).
This quenching is completely universal and will be described explicitly below.
The system has had no
chance to display any characteristic of either non-critical ground state at any
frequency scale.
At low frequencies, the system realizes a new quantum relaxational regime. It
is this
regime which is really characteristic of the region C, and not the high
frequency
critical behavior which is present in all three regions. It is in this sense
that
the name ``quantum-critical'' of region C is a misnomer.
As in the case of the dilute Fermi and Bose gases considered earlier,
the dynamic susceptibility $\chi(k,
\omega)$ will satisfy a universal scaling form over the regions of
Fig~\ref{isingfig}:
\begin{equation}
\chi(k, \omega) = \frac{Z}{T^{7/4}} \Phi_\chi \left( \frac{ck}{T},
\frac{\omega}{T},
\frac{G}{T} \right)
\label{chiscale}
\end{equation}
In the following we will determine the leading term in $\Phi_\chi$ in the
quantum-critical region C {\em i.e.} we will present an exact expression for
$\Phi_\chi ( \overline{k}, \overline{\omega}, 0)$.
In the classical model $F$ at $K=K_c$ and $L_\tau = \infty$,
we know from (\ref{chiteq0}) that
the Green's function
$G(x, \tau) = \langle \sigma_z (0,0) \sigma_z (x, \tau) \rangle \sim (x^2 +
\tau^2
c^2)^{-1/8}$; we are using the label $\tau$ for spatial direction corresponding
to
imaginary time. We can now use a remarkable result of Cardy~\cite{cardy}, which
relies on the
conformal invariance of this critical theory, to obtain an exact result for $G$
in a system with a finite $L_\tau$:
\begin{equation}
G(x, \tau) = \frac{\Gamma (1/8) Z}{2^{13/8} \pi^{3/4} \Gamma (7/8) c}
\left(\frac{1}{L_{\tau}}\right)^{1/4} \left(\frac{1}{\cosh(2\pi x/L_\tau c) -
\cos(2\pi\tau/L_\tau)}\right)^{1/8}
\label{Gxt}
\end{equation}
This result has been asserted earlier by an inspection of the partial
differential
equation satisfied by $G$~\cite{luther}. Although results like (\ref{Gxt}) have
been known to conformal
field theorists for some time, they usually interchange the roles of $x$ and
$\tau$ {\em i.e.} they
consider systems of finite spatial length $L_x$, and infinite temporal length,
so that the system
is in its ground state. For us, the spatial extent is infinite, and there is a
finite
length $L_\tau$ along the $\tau$ direction, with the correlator (\ref{Gxt})
periodic in
$\tau$ with period
$L_\tau$ (such a perspective has also been discussed by Shankar~\cite{shankar}
and
by Korepin {\em et. al.}~\cite{korepbook}).
Note that it doesn't really make sense to talk about the long imaginary time
limit,
$\tau \gg L_\tau$. However, after analytic continuation to real time, the long
time limit
of the quantum problem, $t \gg 1/T$ or $\omega \ll T$, is eminently sensible,
and is
precisely the new quantum relaxational regime that we wish to access.
The analytic continuation is a little more convenient in Fourier space:
we Fourier transform (\ref{Gxt}) to obtain $G(k, \omega_n)$ at the Matsubara
frequencies $\omega_n$ and then analytically continue to real frequencies
(there are some
interesting subtleties in the Fourier transform to $G(k, \omega_n)$ and its
analytic structure
in the complex $\omega$ plane, which are discussed elsewhere~\cite{sss}). This
gives
us the universal function $\Phi_\chi$ in the
quantum-critical
region:
\begin{equation}
\Phi_\chi (\overline{k} , \overline{\omega}, 0) = \frac{1}{(4 \pi )^{7/4}}
\frac{\displaystyle \Gamma \left( \frac{1}{16} + i \frac{\overline{\omega} + \overline{k}}{4 \pi}
\right)
\Gamma \left( \frac{1}{16} + i \frac{\overline{\omega} - \overline{k}}{4 \pi} \right)}
{\displaystyle \Gamma \left( \frac{15}{16} + i \frac{\overline{\omega} + \overline{k}}{4 \pi} \right)
\Gamma \left( \frac{15}{16} + i \frac{\overline{\omega} - \overline{k}}{4 \pi} \right)}.
\label{phichi}
\end{equation}
We show a plot of $\mbox{Im} \Phi_\chi /\overline{\omega}$ in Fig~\ref{chifig}.
This result is
the finite $T$ version of Fig~\ref{chiteq0fig}. Notice that the sharp features
of Fig~\ref{chiteq0fig} have been smoothed out on the scale $T$, and there is
non-zero absorption at
all frequencies. We can also observe the crossover as a function of frequency
claimed
earlier in Fig~\ref{isingomegafig}. Notice that for $\overline{\omega}, \overline{k} \gg 1$ there is a
well-defined
peak in $\mbox{Im} \Phi_\chi /\overline{\omega}$ (Fig~\ref{chifig}) rather like the $T=0$
critical behavior
of Fig~\ref{chiteq0fig}. However, for $\overline{\omega}, \overline{k} \ll 1$ we cross-over to the
quantum relaxational
regime and the spectral density $\mbox{Im} \Phi_\chi /\overline{\omega}$ is similar to a
Lorentzian
around $\overline{\omega} = 0$. This relaxational behavior can be characterized by a
relaxation
rate $\Gamma_R$ defined as~\cite{halphoh}
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_R^{-1} = -i \left.
\frac{\partial \ln \chi (0, \omega)}{\partial \omega} \right|_{\omega =
0};
\label{gammadef}
\end{equation}
(this is motivated by the phenomenological relaxational form $\chi(0, \omega) =
\chi_0 / (1 - i \omega / \Gamma_R + {\cal O}(\omega^2))$).
{}From (\ref{chiscale}) and (\ref{phichi}) we determine:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_R = \left( 2 \tan \frac{\pi}{16} \right) \frac{k_B T}{\hbar},
\label{gammares}
\end{equation}
where we have returned to physical units. The ease with which this result was
obtained
belies (I claim) its remarkable nature. Notice that we are working in a closed
Hamiltonian
system, evolving unitarily in time with the operator $e^{-i{\cal H}_I t}$, from
an
initial density matrix given by the Gibbs ensemble at a temperature $T$. Yet,
we
have obtained relaxational behavior at low frequencies, and determined
an exact value for a dissipation constant. Such behavior is more typically
obtained in
phenomenological models which couple the system to an external heat bath and
postulate an equation of motion of the Langevin type. Notice also that ${\cal
H}_I$
in (\ref{hamising}) is known to be integrable with an infinite number of
conservation
laws~\cite{kogut}.
However, the conservation laws are associated with a mapping to a free fermion
model
and are highly non-local in our $\sigma_z$ degrees of freedom; they play
essentially no role
in our considerations, and do not preclude relaxational behavior in the
$\sigma_z$
variables.
For completeness we also present results on a related observable which shows
the crossover from critical to quantum relaxation behavior. We consider the
local
susceptiblity $\chi_L^{\prime\prime}$, and
obtain the finite $T$ form of (\ref{chilteq0}) by integrating (\ref{phichi})
over momenta:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_L^{\prime\prime} ( \omega ) &=&
\frac{Z}{c T^{3/4}} \Phi_L \left( \frac{\omega}{T},
\frac{G}{T} \right) \label{phildef} \\
\Phi_L ( \overline{\omega}, 0) &=& \frac{1}{2^{7/4} \pi^{5/4} \Gamma (5/8) \Gamma(7/8)}
\sinh \left( \frac{\overline{\omega}}{2} \right) \left| \Gamma \left(
\frac{1}{8} - i \frac{\overline{\omega}}{2 \pi} \right) \right|^2
\end{eqnarray}
A plot of the scaling function $\Phi_L$ is shown in Fig~\ref{chilocfig}.
The function has
the asymptotic limits:
\begin{equation}
\Phi_L (\overline{\omega}, 0) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle
\frac{\Gamma^2 (1/8)}{2^{11/4} \pi^{5/4} \Gamma (5/8) \Gamma(7/8)} \overline{\omega} &
|\overline{\omega}| \ll 1 \\
\displaystyle \mbox{sgn} (\overline{\omega}) \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2 \Gamma(7/8)
\Gamma(5/8) }
\left(\frac{1}{|\overline{\omega}|}\right)^{3/4} & |\overline{\omega}| \gg 1
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The small $\overline{\omega}$ behavior is relaxational as $\Phi_L$ is linear in frequency,
and the critical behavior at large frequencies agrees with (\ref{chilteq0}).
\section{Quantum rotors in two dimensions}
\label{secrotor}
The study of this model is of direct experimental interest, as it is
believed~\cite{chn} to be
a reasonable model of the spin fluctuations in antiferromagnetic compounds like
$La_2 Cu O_4$ and its lightly doped variants. The insight gained from the
simple models studied in
the previous sections will now be of great use, and we will rapidly be able to
present a
scaling analysis of its quantum phase transition.
The Hamiltonian of the quantum rotor model is
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_R = J \sum_i \frac{g}{2} \vec{L}_i^2 - J \sum_{<ij>} \vec{n}_i .
\vec{n}_j
\end{equation}
where $J > 0 $ is an overall energy scale, $g>0$ is a dimensionless coupling
constant,
and $i$,$j$ are the sites of a two dimensional lattice ($<ij>$ denotes nearest
neighbors).
Notice the similarity between the forms of ${\cal H}_R$ and ${\cal H}_I$ in
(\ref{hamising}): it
will turn out that the corresponding terms play a similar role. On each site
$i$ of the lattice
we have the 3-component vector operators $\vec{L}$, $\vec{n}$ (dropping the
site index),
which obey the commutation relations:
\begin{equation}
[n_a , n_b] = 0~~,~~[L_a , n_b] = i \epsilon_{abc} n_c~~,~~[L_a , L_b] = i
\epsilon_{abc} L_c .
\end{equation}
The vector $\vec{n}$ is of unit length $\vec{n}^2 = 1$, and its orientation
identifies
direction of the local magnetic order; the quantum rotor model is usually
considered as an
effective model for an underlying system of Heisenberg spins---in this case the
magnetic
order can be any ordering which is specified by a single vector and has no
spatially
averaged magnetic moment. The simplest example of this is the two sublattice
N\'{e}el ordering, and
we will therefore refer to $\langle \vec{n} \rangle$ as the N\'{e}el order
parameter. The $\vec{L}$
operator measures the angular momentum, and as all phases have no net magnetic
moment,
we will always have $\langle \vec{L} \rangle = 0$.
For further insight into the meaning of ${\cal H}_R$, consider the eigenstates
of a
single site Hamiltonian $J g \vec{L}^2 /2$. This describes a particle moving on
a unit
sphere with angular co-ordinate $\vec{n}$ and kinetic energy $Jg \vec{L}^2 /2$.
Its eigenenergies
are $J g \ell (\ell +1 )/2$ with degeneracy $2 \ell + 1$ where $\ell = 0, 1, 2,
3\ldots$.
The ground state is a non-degenerate singlet ($\ell = 0$) and has maximum
uncertainty in
the orientation of $\vec{n}$. For large $g$, the ground state of ${\cal H}_R$
can be approximated
by the tensor product of $\ell=0$ states on each site. This state is clearly a
quantum paramagnet
and has a gap, $\Delta$, to all excitations. Notice the similarity between this
state
and the large $g$ quantum paramagnet of the Ising model ${\cal H}_I$; in both
cases the order
parameters $\sigma_z$, $\vec{n}$ are in a state of maximum uncertainty. The
small $g$ limit
of ${\cal H}_R$ is also similar to the small $g$ limit of ${\cal H}_I$: now the
exchange
interactions between the sites prefer a state in which $\vec{n}$ has the same
definite orientation on
each site. Therefore, we expect long-range N\'{e}el order in the small $g$
ground state.
These two limiting states will be separated by a quantum phase transition at
$g=g_c$,
which is, of course, the main subject of interest in this section.
Before discussing the critical properties, we pause to remark on the
relationship between the rotor
model and Heisenberg antiferromagnets. Consider a pair of antiferromagnetically
coupled
spin-$S$ Heisenberg spins: the eigenstates of this pair will have energies
$\propto \ell (\ell + 1) - \mbox{const}$ for $\ell = 0, 1, \ldots 2S$. Notice
the similarity
between these states and those of a single quantum rotor; the only difference
is that there
is no upper limit on the maximum value of $\ell$ in the rotor case. However, it
is reasonable
to expect that these extra high energy states will not modify the low energy
properties of lattice
models. Therefore, there is little reason to doubt that the critical properties
of Heisenberg
antiferromagnets with a natural pairing of spins (or more generally, a natural
clustering
into an even number of spins) will be same as those of the rotor model.
Antiferromagnets with no such pairing contain net Berry phase terms in their
imaginary time path
integral, beyond those present for the rotor model. However these Berry phases
cancel between
the sites, except for ``hedgehog''-like spacetime singularities~\cite{berry},
and it has been
argued~\cite{jinwu,csy} that these remnant Berry phases have no effect of the
leading critical
singularities. The reader is referred to the original papers for further
discussion on these subtle
issues~\cite{rs,csy}: we will restrict our discussion here to the much simpler
rotor model ${\cal H}_R$.
The critical properties and phase diagram of the $d=2$ rotor model ${\cal H}_R$
turn out to
be remarkably similar to those of the transverse field Ising model ${\cal H}_I$
of (\ref{hamising})
in $d=1$. Like the $d=1$ Ising model, the $d=2$ rotor model has no phase
transition at
any finite $T$: so the phase diagram of Fig~\ref{isingfig} applies to ${\cal
H}_R$, with no
phase boundary in region A (the phase diagram for ${\cal H}_R$ in $d=2$ was
obtained
first by Chakravarty {\em et. al.}~\cite{chn}). In both
systems, the
$T=0$,
$g=g_c$ critical point has
$z=1$. In the case of
${\cal H}_I$ this critical point was described by a CQFT which upon analytic
continuation to
imaginary time was the field theory of the two-dimensional classical Ising
model. The analogous
mapping for ${\cal H}_R$ yields the CQFT associated with the field theory for
the
three-dimensional, classical, Heisenberg ferromagnet. The universal scaling
functions
describing the crossovers in Fig~\ref{isingfig} and~\ref{isingomegafig} have an
identical form in
both theories, although, because the critical field theories are different, the
critical exponents,
universal amplitude ratios, and scaling functions will have different
numerical values.
The explicit results presented in
Sec~\ref{isingsec} for quantum-critical region C of the Ising model, all apply,
unchanged in form,
to the region C of the $d=2$ rotor model: the qualitative features of the
spectral functions
in Figs~\ref{chiteq0fig},~\ref{chifig}, and~\ref{chilocfig} remain the same,
and the relaxation
rate $\Gamma_R$ (defined in (\ref{gammadef})) satisfies (\ref{gammares}) but
with a different
universal numerical prefactor. However, unlike the $d=1$ Ising model, we
cannot now get exact
numerical results for the scaling functions of ${\cal H}_R$: this is because
the three-dimensional
classical Hiesenberg ferromagnet is not exactly solvable (unlike the
two-dimensional classical
Ising model). Instead we have to be satisfied by approximate methods;
reasonably accurate
numerical estimates can be obtained in the $1/N$ expansion which has been
discussed at length
by Chubukov, Sachdev and Ye~\cite{csy}.
There is a small, but significant, difference between the Ising model in $d=1$
and the rotor
model in $d=2$ which cannot go unmentioned. This difference applies mainly to
``ordered'' regime in region A (See Figs~\ref{isingfig}
and~\ref{isingomegafig}). The $T=0$
ground state of ${\cal H}_I$ for $g<g_c$ has a gap, associate with the finite
energy cost
of creating a kink or anti-kink soliton. In contrast, the $g < g_c$ ground
state
of ${\cal H}_R$ has gapless spin-wave excitations because of the broken
continuous $O(3)$
symmetry of the ordered state. So we can no longer use the gap, $\Delta$, as
the energy
scale, $G=\Delta \sim (g_c - g)^{z\nu}$ for measuring deviations from $g=g_c$
for $g< g_c$. A
convenient substitute turns out to be the spin stiffness $G=\rho_s$ which has
the physical
dimensions of energy in $d=2$, and which also vanishes as $\rho_s \sim (g_c -
g)^{z\nu}$. At finite
$T$ in region A, it is known~\cite{bz,chn} that the spin correlation length
$\sim \exp(2 \pi \rho_s /T)$
as $T \rightarrow 0$. It is interesting to note that the behavior of ${\cal
H}_I$
in $d=1$ is very similar: in this case the correlation length is determined by
the
mean spacing between kinks, and therefore behaves as $\sim \exp(\Delta/T)$
for low $T$ in region A. (Related to the exponential divergence of the
correlation length, there
is a further sub-division of the ``ordered'' regime of region A
(Figs~\ref{isingfig}
and~\ref{isingomegafig}) at the energy scale $c /(\mbox{correlation length})$;
this complication
occurs for both the $d=2$ rotor and the
$d=1$ Ising models, and has been discussed elsewhere~\cite{csy,chn}.)
Associated with the continuous $O(3)$ symmetry of ${\cal H}_R$, there is an
important observable
whose properties cannot be deduced by an analogy with the the Ising model. This
is the uniform
susceptibility $\chi_H$, the response to a field, $H$ which couples to the
global conserved charge
associated with the continuous symmetry:
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_R \rightarrow - H \sum_i L_{zi}
\end{equation}
The scaling dimension of $\chi_H$ can be determined exactly using symmetry
arguments and the
assumption of hyperscaling~\cite{cs,conserve}: this yields the scaling form
\begin{equation}
\chi_H = \frac{T}{c^2} \Phi_H \left (\frac{\rho_s}{T} \right)
\label{chiHscale}
\end{equation}
Here $c$, is the same velocity that appears in a $T=0$ correlator like
(\ref{chiteq0}),
and $\Phi_H$ is a fully universal function. This function was computed
exactly~\cite{cs,csy} in a
$O(N=\infty)$ rotor model, along with $1/N$ corrections in some limits; it has
the limiting behavior
\begin{equation}
\Phi_H(r ) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
\frac{\sqrt{5}}{\pi} \ln \left( \frac{\sqrt{5} + 1}{2} \right) \left[ 1 -
\frac{0.6189}{N}
+ \ldots \right] + \ldots & r \rightarrow 0 \\
\displaystyle \frac{2r}{N} + \frac{N-2}{N} + \ldots & r \rightarrow \infty
\end{array}\right.
\label{chiHres}
\end{equation}
The two terms in the second result ($r\rightarrow \infty$) are expected to be
exact to all orders
in $1/N$; the same two terms were also obtained by Hasenfratz and
Niedermayer~\cite{hasen}.
Notice from (\ref{chiHscale}) and (\ref{chiHres}) that $\chi_H$ has a linear
dependence on
$T$ both for $T \ll \rho_s$ and $T \gg \rho_s$; the slopes however differ by a
factor of about 3 (for
$N=3$) and this will be important for experimental comparisons~\cite{cs,csy}.
\subsection{Comparison with simulations and experiments on Heisenberg
antiferromagnets}
The most straightforward comparison is with the double-layer, spin-1/2
Heisenberg
antiferromagnet~\cite{double}. This model consists of spin-1/2 Heisenberg spins
on two adjacent square
lattices, with an intralayer antiferromagnetic exchange $J$ and an interlayer
antiferromagnetic exchange
$K$. The ratio
$K/J$ acts much like the dimensionless coupling $g$, with the large $K/J$ a
gapped quantum
paramagnet of singlet pairs of spins in opposite layers, and the small $K/J$
magnetically
ordered. Extensive numerical simulations have been carried out on this model by
Sandvik and
collaborators~\cite{sandvik}, and the critical point $K=K_c$ identified rather
precisely. It is then
possible to study the quantum-critical region C quite carefully as it extends
over the maximum $T$ range.
A number of universal amplitude ratios, including those associated with
$\chi_H$, and all
results are now in good agreement with the $1/N$ expansion on the $O(N)$
quantum rotor model.
Results from high temperature series expansions on the double-layer model also
support
this conclusion~\cite{elstner}.
Secondly, comparisons have been made with the single-layer, square lattice
spin-1/2 Heisenberg
antiferromagnet, both via simulations and by experimental measurements on $La_2
Cu O_4$.
This model has long-range order at $T=0$, so must map onto the non-linear sigma
model
with $g < g_c$. The low $T$ region A was studied in the paper of Chakravarty,
Halperin and
Nelson~\cite{chn}, with good experimental agreement. Here we focus on the issue
of whether this lattice
model exhibits the CQFT high $T$ behavior of region C, or it goes directly from
region A
to a non-universal, lattice dominated high $T$ region like D of
Fig~\ref{isingfig}.
It was first argued by Chubukov and Sachdev~\cite{cs} that this model does
indeed possess a significant
intermediate temperature regime of region C: this was based on comparisons with
the $T$ dependence
of $\chi_H$, with the factor of 3 alluded to above playing an important role.
They also
noted that it would be difficult to identify this region in the correlation
length,
an observation that was subsequently re-iterated by Greven {\em et.
al.\/}~\cite{greven}. A rather
convincing demonstration of the presence of region C was given recently by
Elstner {\em et.
al.}~\cite{elstner,rajiv} who examined a large number of observables in a high
$T$ expansion, and found
good consistency with the universal rotor model results.
Also significant in this context
have been nuclear magnetic resonance experiments of Imai {\em et.
al.}~\cite{imai} on $La_2 Cu O_4$.
They have
measured the $T$ dependence of the $1/T_1$ and $1/T_2$ relaxation rates at
intermediate
temperatures.
Their observations are in reasonable agreement with the
predictions~\cite{cs,csy,sokolpines,css} that can
be obtained from the universal scaling result for $\chi (k, \omega)$ in the
quantum-critical region C.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{concsec}
This paper has presented a discussion of the vicinity of a second-order quantum
phase transition in the
context of a number of simple models. The overall picture that emerges is
summarized in
Fig~\ref{generalfig}, which shows a generic phase diagram in the plane of a
coupling constant $g$, and
the temperature $T$ of a $d$-dimensional system; this phase diagram is a
generalization of
a diagram obtained first by Chakravarty {\em et. al.}~\cite{chn} for the $d=2$
quantum rotor model.
The quantum phase transition occurs at the point $g=g_c$, $T=0$. Associated
with this critical point,
we can define a continuum quantum field theory (CQFT) over spacetime.
In general, space ($x$) and time ($\tau$) do {\em not} play a similar role in
the CQFT and have different
scaling dimensions: $x \rightarrow x/s$, $\tau \rightarrow \tau/s^{z}$ under a
spatial rescaling
by $s$, with $z$ the dynamic exponent. Further, even in imaginary time, the
action for
the CQFT can be complex due to the presence of Berry phases, and therefore
corresponds to a statistical
mechanics model with complex weights.
Correlators of the CQFT are the
universal functions describing crossovers in the vicinity of $g=g_c$, $T=0$.
The CQFT has no ultraviolet
cutoff, but is characterized solely by two energy scales: the temperature $T$
and an energy
scale $G \sim |g - g_c|^{z\nu}$ characterizing the deviation of the ground
state from the
critical point (here $\nu$ is the correlation length exponent).
The value of the ratio $G/T$ determines two distinct regions of the CQFT shown
in Fig~\ref{generalfig}.
In both regions there is a high frequency regime ($\omega > \mbox{max} (T, G)$)
which is dominated
by excitations of the critical CQFT of the $g=g_c$, $T=0$ point. The regions
are distinguished
only by their low frequency behavior, which we discuss in turn:
\noindent ({\em i}) The low $T$ region
($T \ll G$, shown shaded in Fig~\ref{generalfig}) is a region of
``conventional'' physics for
frequency scales $\omega < G$.
This frequency regime can be understood by beginning with the non-critical
ground state and examining the
particle-like excitations above it. A simple classical model (a Boltzmann
equation for a
gas of quasiparticle excitations, or a Langevin model of the types
discussed by Hohenberg and Halperin~\cite{halphoh}) is usually adequate for
describing the
long-distance, long-time dynamics of these excitations. The shaded region can
also contain thermally
driven, phase transitions; these transitions will be described by a classical
field theory.
\noindent ({\em ii}) The high $T$ region of the CQFT has a novel quantum
relaxational regime.
This regime is not described by an effective classical model, and displays
intrinsic
quantum-mechanical effects at the longest time and distance scales.
A scaling analysis for this regime was reviewed in this paper. In some cases,
as in the model
of Section~\ref{isingsec}, it is possible to obtain an exact value for the
relaxation constant.
This paper has reviewed only a small portion of what is a rapidly developing
subject.
We list below a number of recent (and not so recent) developments in related
areas:
\begin{itemize}
\item Quantum transitions between Fermi liquids and states with various types
of spin or charge
density wave orderings were discussed in important early work by
Hertz~\cite{hertz}. He focussed
on the immediate vicinity of the finite termperature transition, like that
within region A
in Fig~\ref{isingfig}. In particular, Hertz missed the existence of the
``quantum-critical'' regime (as
was pointed out recently by Millis~\cite{millis}---this oversight is similar to
Suzuki's~\cite{suzuki} for the Ising model), which has been the main focus of
this paper.
More detailed studies of quantum transitions involving Fermi liquids have
appeared
recently~\cite{millis,ioffe,scs,georges,andrey,shankar2}. A related, but
different, perspective is
provided by studies of critical phenomena in rotor models with doped
electrons~\cite{ss,scs}.
\item Related ideas on scaling in the quantum critical region have been
presented by
Tsvelik and collaborators~\cite{tsvelik}.
\item A great deal of work has been done recently on ``quantum impurity''
models~\cite{affleck,varma} like the multi-channel
Kondo effect. These models also display quantum phase transitions, with
crossovers bearing some
similarity to those discussed here. However
the transitions do not modify the bulk properties, and are related instead to
boundary critical
phenomena.
\item As we indicated briefly in the discussion on the Bose gas in
Section~\ref{sec:bose},
dangerously irrelevant operators sometimes need to be considered, as they do in
the dilute Bose gas for $d> 2$. In fact such effects arise somewhat more
frequently than
they do in classical critical phenomena, as the upper critical dimension of the
quantum
transition is often quite low. An early analysis of the dilute Bose gas in
$d=3$ by Weichmann {\em et. al.}~\cite{weichmann} was dominated by such
effects, although they
did not present their results in the general context of quantum phase
transitions.
Such a perspective can be found in more recent work~\cite{millis,oppermann}.
\item An important subject, on which much is not understood, is the effect of
quenched randomness
on quantum phase transitions.
An early analysis for the random quantum rotor model was given
by Boyanovsky and Cardy~\cite{boyanovsky}.
A recent exact solution by Fisher~\cite{daniel} of the random
transverse-field Ising model in $d=1$ represents significant progress. The
nature of spin glass
ordering at $T=0$ and its destruction by quantum fluctuations has also been
studied
recently~\cite{rsy,oppermann}.
\item A number of experiments~\cite{aeppli,keimer,aronson}
have reported scaling of the type in Eqn
(\ref{phildef}) in the local dynamic susceptibility. However the universality
classes controlling
these
systems are not understood and quenched randomness appears to play a
significant role.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note the qualitative similarity between the
experimental
measurements in Fig.~4 of Aronson {\em et. al.}\cite{aronson} and our result
for the
local susceptibility in Fig~\ref{chilocfig}. The latter measures spin
correlations on a single
Ising spin induced via its coupling to its environment of other Ising spins.
However, there is a
fundamental equivalence between the spin being measured and its environment;
this is an
important difference between our bulk approach and alternative descriptions of
the
experiments using ``quantum impurity'' models~\cite{affleck,varma,aronson}
which clearly
distinguish between the impurity and environment degrees of freedom.
\item A recent study~\cite{ferro} has examined the CQFT of a quantum
ferromagnet. This system does not
display a quantum phase transition of the type discussed here. Nevertheless,
its phase diagram has
regions similar to those in Fig~\ref{generalfig} and aspects of its scaling
properties are related
to those of the dilute Bose gas of Section~\ref{sec:bose}.
\end{itemize}
\acknowledgments
I thank N.~Read, R.~Shankar, A.~Sokol, T.~Senthil, J.~Ye, and especially
A.V.~Chubukov for
collaborations on the topics reviewed in this paper. I am grateful to
A.V.~Chubukov and
T.~Senthil for valuable comments on the manuscript and R.E. Shrock for helpful
discussions.
This research
was supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMR-9224290.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}
There are two known approaches to the theory of phase-coherent conduction
and localization in disordered wires: The first is the
Fokker-Planck approach of Dorokhov, Mello, Pereyra, and
Kumar.\cite{dorokhov,mello2,mello3,mello4,macedo}
The second is the field-theoretic approach of Efetov and Larkin, which leads to
a supersymmetric nonlinear $\sigma$ model.\cite{larkin,efetov}
Both approaches provide a description of quantum transport that is independent
of microscopic details of the disordered wire. The only properties which enter
are its length $L$, the elastic mean free path $\ell$, the number $N$
of propagating transverse modes at the Fermi level (referred to as
``channels''), and the symmetry index $\beta \in \{1,2,4\}$
(depending on the presence or absence of time-reversal and/or spin-rotational
symmetry). In the first approach, the transfer matrix is expressed as a
product of a large number of random matrices. As more matrices are added to
this product, the transmission eigenvalues $T_n$ execute a Brownian motion.
(The $T_n$ are the $N$ eigenvalues of the transmission matrix product
$t^{\dagger} t$.) The resulting Fokker-Planck equation for the $L$-dependence
of the distribution $P(T_1,\ldots,T_N)$ is known as the
Dorokhov-Mello-Pereyra-Kumar (DMPK) equation. In the second approach, one
starts
from the random Hamiltonian of the disordered wire and then expresses averages
of Green's functions\cite{larkin,efetov} or moments of the transmission
eigenvalues\cite{vwz,iwz,zirn1,mmz} as integrals over matrices $Q$
containing both
commuting and anticommuting variables. These so-called supermatrices are
restricted by the nonlinear constraint $Q^2=1$ and give rise to a
field theory known as the one-dimensional nonlinear $\sigma$ model.
In the last decade, research on the Fokker-Planck and field-theoretic approach
has proceeded quite independently. Recently, exact results for the average
conductance $\langle G \rangle$, its variance $\mbox{var}\, G$, and the
density $\rho(T) = \langle \sum_n \delta(T - T_n) \rangle$ of transmission
eigenvalues were obtained from both approaches. For the unitary symmetry
class (no time-reversal symmetry; $\beta=2$),
the DMPK equation was solved exactly by Beenakker and Rejaei.\cite{been1} The
construction of a set of biorthogonal polynomials for
this exact solution then allowed for the exact computation of
$\langle G \rangle$, $\mbox{var}\, G$, and $\rho(T)$ for arbitrary
$N$ and $L$ in the case $\beta=2$.\cite{frahm1} Although there exists
a formal solution for the other two symmetry classes [orthogonal class
(time-reversal symmetry without spin-orbit scattering; $\beta=1$) and
symplectic class (time-reversal symmetry with spin-orbit scattering;
$\beta=4$)],\cite{caselle} no exact results for $\langle G\rangle$,
$\mbox{var}\, G$, and $\rho(T)$ have been obtained.
Concerning the $\sigma$ model, an important and substantial progress
was the development of ``super Fourier analysis'' by Zirnbauer.\cite{zirn1}
This allowed the exact calculation\cite{zirn1,mmz} of $\langle G \rangle$
and $\mbox{var}\, G$ for all $\beta$ in the thick-wire limit
$N \rightarrow \infty$, $L/\ell \to \infty$ at fixed ratio $N \ell/L$.
The eigenvalue density $\rho(T)$ was computed
from the $\sigma$ model by Rejaei,\cite{rejaei} in the thick-wire limit and for
the case $\beta=2$.
If one takes the thick-wire limit of the $\beta=2$ results for
$\langle G \rangle$, $\mbox{var}\, G$, and $\rho(T)$ from the DMPK equation,
they agree precisely with those from the $\sigma$ model.\cite{frahm1,rejaei}
For $\beta=1$ and $4$, a comparison of the two approaches has only been
possible in the metallic regime $\ell \ll L \ll N \ell$, where the results
for $\langle G \rangle$ and $\mbox{var}\, G$
from the DMPK equation\cite{mello3,mello4,macedo} and from the
$\sigma$ model\cite{iwz,mmz,altland1} agree with conventional
diagrammatic perturbation theory.\cite{anderson,gorkov,altshuler,lee}
The equivalence of the two approaches outside the perturbative regime has
been questioned \cite{frahm1}
as a result of recent work by Zirnbauer,\cite{zirn1} and
by Mirlin, M\"uller-Groeling, and Zirnbauer.\cite{mmz} Starting from the
$\sigma$ model in the thick-wire limit, they obtained a finite limit
$\langle G \rangle \to e^2/2h$ as $L/N\ell \to \infty$ in the case $\beta=4$.
On the other hand, one can prove rigorously\cite{frahm1} that the DMPK equation
gives $\lim_{L \to \infty} \langle G \rangle = 0$ for all $\beta$.
It was this puzzling contradiction which motivated us to search for a general
proof of equivalence of the DMPK equation and the $\sigma$ model, without
the restriction to $\beta=2$.
In this paper, we present a general proof of the equivalence of the two
approaches,
which applies to all three symmetry classes $\beta$, to all length scales
$L$, and to the complete distribution of transmission eigenvalues described
by the
$p$-point functions $\rho_p(T_1,\ldots,T_p) =
(N!/(N-p)!) \int dT_{p+1}\ldots\int dT_N\ P(T_1,\ldots,T_N)$ for arbitrary $p$.
We cannot relax the assumption that the number $N$ of propagating
channels in the disordered wire is $\gg 1$, since it is needed for the
derivation of the one-dimensional $\sigma$ model.\cite{mmz} However, we
can consider the $\sigma$ model formulation of a thick disordered wire which
is coupled to the leads by means of a point contact with $N_1 \le N$
transmitted modes,\cite{iwz} and show that it is mathematically equivalent
to a DMPK equation for a wire with $N_1$ propagating channels.
The equivalence
proof demonstrates that $\lim_{L \to \infty} \langle G \rangle = 0$
in the $\sigma$ model, in apparent contradiction with Zirnbauer's work.
We have reexamined the calculation of Refs.\ \ref{zirn1} and \ref{mmz}, and
argue that for $\beta=4$ the Kramers degeneracy of the transmission eigenvalues
was not taken into account properly in the super Fourier analysis. This
leads to a spurious ``zero-mode'', which does not decay as $L \to \infty$.
Restoring Kramers degeneracy, we obtain modified
expressions for $\langle G \rangle$ and var$\,G$ which decrease
exponentially in the localized regime and moreover agree well with numerical
simulations.\cite{numerics}
Both the $\sigma$ model and the DMPK equation were derived from a number of
different models for a disordered wire.
The original derivation of the DMPK equation by Dorokhov,\cite{dorokhov}
which started from a model of $N$ coupled chains with defects, was followed
by the random-matrix formulation of Mello, Pereyra, and Kumar.\cite{mello2}
These authors considered a product of random transfer matrices, drawn from an
ensemble of maximum entropy. Later it was shown that the DMPK
equation is insensitive to the choice of the ensemble, the only relevant
assumptions being weak scattering (mean free path $\ell$ much greater than
the Fermi wave length $\lambda_F$) and equivalence of the scattering
channels.\cite{mello5,mello6} It is this latter assumption which restricts
the DMPK equation to a wire geometry.
{}From the mathematical point of view, the DMPK equation is the diffusion
equation on a certain coset-space of transfer matrices.\cite{hueffmann}
The one-dimensional $\sigma$ model was originally derived by Efetov and
Larkin\cite{larkin,efetov} from a white noise model for the disorder potential.
Two later derivations used random-matrix models for the
Hamiltonian of the disordered wire.
Iida, Weidenm\"uller, and Zuk (IWZ) adapted Wegner's $n$-orbital
model\cite{wegner}
to the study of transport properties.\cite{iwz} In this description, the wire
is modeled by a large number of disordered segments in series, each segment
having a random Hamiltonian drawn from the Gaussian ensemble. An alternative
derivation of the $\sigma$ model, due to Fyodorov and Mirlin,\cite{fyodorov}
uses a random band matrix to model the Hamiltonian of the disordered
wire. In the present paper we follow Ref.\ \ref{mmz} and use the IWZ
formulation of the $\sigma$ model.
Our proof of equivalence of the DMPK equation and the $\sigma$ model builds
on the ideas which were used by Rejaei\cite{rejaei} to
calculate $\rho(T)$ from the $\sigma$ model for $\beta=2$.
Inspired by Nazarov's diagrammatic calculation of $\rho(T)$ in the
metallic regime,\cite{nazarov} Rejaei introduced a generating
function $F$ which depends both on the transmission eigenvalues $T_n$
and on the radial parameters $\theta_i$ of the supermatrices in the
unitary $\sigma$ model. Rejaei was able to solve the $1d$ $\sigma$ model
exactly for $\beta=2$ and thus obtained the density $\rho(T)$ as a function of
$L$ by taking derivatives of $F$ with respect to the $\theta_i$'s. The
resulting $\rho(T)$ could then be compared with the result from the DPMK
equation.\cite{frahm1}
We introduce a more general generating function which allows us to establish
the equivalence of the $\sigma$ model and the DMPK equation at the level of
$p$-point functions $\rho_p(T_1,\ldots,T_p)$, without actually having to
compute this function. This approach works also for $\beta=1$ and $4$, where
no explicit solution of the $\sigma$ model is available.
The outline of the paper is as follows: In Sec.\ \ref{sec:2}, an outline
of the equivalence proof is given. The full proof for
the $\sigma$ model with $8\times 8$ supermatrices
follows in Secs.\ \ref{sec:3} and \ref{sec:4}, with technical material
in Apps.\ \ref{app:b} -- \ref{app:c}. For the $p$-point functions
$\rho_p(T_1,\ldots,T_p)$, we have to consider the $\sigma$ model with
$8p \times 8p$ supermatrices. This extension is described in App.\ \ref{app:d}.
In section \ref{sec:5}, we discuss the symplectic symmetry class ($\beta=4$)
in relation to Refs.\ \ref{zirn1} and \ref{mmz}. By accounting for
Kramers degeneracy, we obtain modified expressions for $\langle G \rangle$
and $\mbox{var}\, G$, which we compare with numerical simulations
of the IWZ model by Mirlin and M\"uller-Groeling.\cite{numerics}
We conclude in Sec.\ \ref{sec:6}.
\section{Outline of the equivalence proof} \label{sec:2}
Although our equivalence proof is technically rather involved, the basic
idea can be described in a few paragraphs.
In this section, we present an outline of the equivalence proof
for the small $\sigma$ model ($8 \times 8$ supermatrices).
The details are given in the following two sections and in the
appendices \ref{app:b} --- \ref{app:c}.
Appendix \ref{app:d} contains the necessary modifications to extend
the proof to $\sigma$ models with supermatrices of arbitrary size.
Part of the complexity of the problem is that the $\sigma$ model
and the DMPK equation focus on totally different objects.
In the $\sigma$ model, transport properties are expressed as functional
integrals over supermatrices $Q$.\cite{iwz,mmz} (A supermatrix is a matrix
containing an equal number of commuting and anticommuting elements. We
follow the notation and conventions of Refs.\ \ref{vwz}, \ref{iwz}, and
\ref{mmz}.) For the small $\sigma$ model the $8 \times 8$ supermatrices
are parameterized as\cite{efetov,vwz}
\begin{mathletters} \label{eq:Sigma}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:6}
&& Q = T^{-1}\Lambda T, \quad
\Lambda=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \phantom{-}0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}\right), \\ \label{eq:Sigmab}
&& T=\left(
\begin{array}{cc} u^{-1}\! & 0 \\ 0 & v^{-1} \\ \end{array}
\right)\, \exp \left(
\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \frac{1}{2}\hat\theta \\ \frac{1}{2}\hat\theta & 0 \\
\end{array}\right) \left(
\begin{array}{cc} u\, & 0 \\ 0 & v \\ \end{array}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $u$ and $v$ are pseudo-unitary $4 \times 4$ supermatrices. Notice
that $Q$ satisfies the non-linear constraint $Q^2=1$, hence the name
``non-linear'' $\sigma$ model. (The letter $\sigma$ is used for historical
reasons.)
The $4 \times 4$ supermatrix $\hat\theta$ is called the radial part of $Q$.
It has the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:9}
\hat\theta=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\theta_1 & \theta_2 & 0 & 0 \\ \theta_2 & \theta_1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & i\theta_3 & i\theta_4 \\ 0 & 0 & i\theta_4 & i\theta_3
\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
with the symmetry restrictions
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
&& \lefteqn{\theta_4 = 0} \hphantom{\theta_2=\theta_4 = 0}
\ \ \mbox{if $\beta=1$},\\
\label{eq:10}
&& \theta_2=\theta_4 = 0 \ \ \mbox{if $\beta=2$},\\
\nonumber
&& \lefteqn{\theta_2 = 0} \hphantom{\theta_2=\theta_4 = 0}
\ \ \mbox{if $\beta=4$}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}%
While the $\sigma$ model works with the radial part of a supermatrix,
the DMPK equation works with the radial part of an ordinary matrix
(containing only commuting elements). This is the transfer matrix $X$.
The radial part of $X$ is an $N \times N$ diagonal matrix $\hat \lambda$,
related to the eigenvalues of $X X^{\dagger}$. The eigenvalues of
$X X^{\dagger}$ come in $N$ inverse pairs $e^{\pm x_n}$, related to the
diagonal elements $\lambda_n$ of $\hat \lambda$ by $\lambda_n = \sinh^2 x_n$.
For $\beta=4$ the eigenvalues are twofold degenerate (Kramers degeneracy).
The matrix $\hat \lambda$ then contains only the $N$ independent eigenvalues.
The conductance $G$ is directly related to the $\lambda_n$'s by the Landauer
formula\cite{mello2,review_matrix}
\begin{equation}
G = {2e^2 \over h} \sum_{n=1}^{N} T_n
= {2 e^2 \over h} \sum_{n=1}^{N} {1 \over 1 + \lambda_n},
\end{equation}
since the $N$ independent transmission eigenvalues $T_n$ are related to the
$\lambda_n$'s by $T_n = (1+\lambda_n)^{-1}$.
We connect both approaches by considering a generating
function $F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)$ which depends on both radial matrices:
\begin{mathletters} \label{eq:1}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:1a} \label{eq:23}
&& F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) =
\prod_{n=1}^{N} f(\hat\theta,\lambda_n),
\\
&& f(\hat\theta,\lambda) =
\mbox{Sdet}^{-d/2} \left[\lambda
+ \cosh^2(\hat\theta/2)\right] =
\label{eq:22b}
\\
&& \left[
{\biglb(1 + 2 \lambda + \cos(\theta_3+\theta_4)\bigrb)\,
\biglb(1 + 2 \lambda + \cos(\theta_3-\theta_4)\bigrb) \over
\biglb(1 + 2 \lambda + \cosh(\theta_1+\theta_2)\bigrb)\,
\biglb(1 + 2 \lambda + \cosh(\theta_1-\theta_2)\bigrb)}\right]^{{d / 2}},
\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
&& d=1\ \mbox{if $\beta=1,2$};\ \ \ d=2\ \mbox{if $\beta=4$}.
\label{eq:dbetadef}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}%
The symbol $\mbox{Sdet}$ stands for the superdeterminant of a supermatrix.
For $\beta=2$ this is the generating function introduced by Rejaei.
An ensemble of disordered wires of length $L$ provides a distribution of
$\hat\lambda$. The ensemble average $\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)
\rangle$ contains all statistical properties that are accessible from the
small $\sigma$ model. These include the average conductance
$\langle G \rangle$, its variance $\mbox{var}\,G$ and the density of
transmission eigenvalues $\rho(T)$. We explain in appendix \ref{app:b}
how to extract these quantities by taking derivatives of
$\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) \rangle$.
The average $\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) \rangle$ can be determined
by each of the two approaches independently, in terms of a partial
differential equation for the $L$-dependence and an initial condition at
$L=0$.
For the $\sigma$ model on the one hand, the evolution equation reads
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Evolution}
{\partial \over \partial L} \left\langle
F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)\right\rangle =
{2 \over \xi} \Delta_{\hat\theta}
\left\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{\hat\theta}$ is the (radial part of the) Laplacian on the
$\sigma$ model space, and where $\xi = \beta N \ell$ is the localization
length. The explicit form of $\Delta_{\hat\theta}$ is given by\cite{efetov}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:22}
\Delta_{\hat\theta} =
{\beta \over 2 d} \sum_i J^{-1}(\hat\theta)\,{\partial \over \partial
\theta_i}\,
J(\hat\theta)\,{\partial \over \partial \theta_i},
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over the independent coordinates $\theta_i$ [see Eq.\
(\ref{eq:10})] and $J(\hat\theta)$ is the integration measure for the
radial decomposition (\ref{eq:Sigma}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
J(\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3) & = &
\sinh \theta_1\,\sinh \theta_2\,\sin^3 \theta_3
\prod_{s_1,s_2=\pm 1} \sinh^{-2}\biglb(
{\case{1}{2}} (\theta_1+ s_1\theta_2+i s_2\theta_3)\bigrb)
\ \ \mbox{if $\beta=1$},\\
\label{c1} \label{c2} \label{c3}
J(\theta_1,\theta_3) & = &
\lefteqn{\sinh \theta_1\,\sin \theta_3
\prod_{s_1=\pm 1} \sinh^{-2}\biglb(
{\case{1}{2}} (\theta_1+i s_1\theta_3)\bigrb),}
\hphantom{\sinh \theta_1\,\sinh \theta_2\,\sin^3\theta_3
\prod_{s_1,s_2=\pm 1} \sinh^{-2}\biglb(
{\case{1}{2}} (\theta_1+ s_1\theta_2+i s_2\theta_3)\bigrb)}
\ \ \mbox{if $\beta=2$},\\
\nonumber
J(\theta_1,\theta_3,\theta_4) & = &
\lefteqn{\sin \theta_3\, \sin \theta_4\, \sinh^3 \theta_1
\prod_{s_1,s_2=\pm 1} \sinh^{-2}\biglb(
{\case{1}{2}}(\theta_1+ i s_1\theta_3+i s_2\theta_4)\bigrb)}
\hphantom{\sinh \theta_1\,\sinh \theta_2\,\sin^3\theta_3
\prod_{s_1,s_2=\pm 1} \sinh^{-2}\biglb(
{\case{1}{2}} (\theta_1+ s_1\theta_2+i s_2\theta_3)\bigrb)}
\ \ \mbox{if $\beta=4$}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}%
The DMPK equation on the other hand, yields the evolution equation
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
{\partial \over \partial L}
\left\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)\right\rangle =
{2 \over \xi}
\left\langle D_{\hat\lambda}\, F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $D_{\hat\lambda}$ is a second order differential operator in the
parameters $\lambda_n$,
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{\hat\lambda} &=& J^{-1}(\hat\lambda)\sum_{n=1}^{N}
{\partial \over \partial \lambda_n}\,
J(\hat\lambda)\,\lambda_n(1+\lambda_n)\,{\partial \over \partial \lambda_n}
, \label{eq:29} \\
J(\hat\lambda) &=& \prod_{n>m} |\lambda_n-\lambda_m|^\beta.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}%
The key ingredient of the equivalence proof is the identity
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CentralResult} \label{eq:31} \label{EQ:31}
\Delta_{\hat\theta} F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) =
D_{\hat\lambda}\, F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda),
\end{equation}
which shows that the evolution with $L$ of $\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)
\rangle$ is the same in both approaches.
Showing that the initial conditions at $L=0$ coincide as well, completes
the equivalence proof.
\section{One-dimensional {\boldmath $\sigma$} model}
\label{sec:3}
We begin the detailed exposition of the equivalence proof with a formulation
of the $\sigma$ model. As in Ref.\ \ref{mmz}, we use the formulation of
Iida-Weidenm\"uller-Zuk (IWZ).\cite{iwz}
\subsection{The IWZ model}
The IWZ model\cite{iwz,altland1} applies Wegner's $n$-orbital
model\cite{wegner} to a wire geometry and supplements it by a coupling
to ideal (not disordered) leads, as in Landauer's approach to
conduction.\cite{landauer}
The left and right leads (labeled by indices $1$ and $2$)
contain $N_1$ and $N_2$ propagating modes each (per spin direction
for $\beta=1,2$, or per Kramers doublet for $\beta=4$).
The disordered wire of length $L$ is assumed to consist of $K$ segments
in series (Fig.\ \ref{figw}).
The Hamiltonian $H$ of the disordered wire without leads is
represented by a matrix $H_{\mu \nu}^{ij}$, where the upper indices $i$, $j$
label the segments $1 \le i,j \le K$ and the lower indices $\mu$, $\nu$
label the $M$ states (per spin direction or Kramers doublet) within each
segment. The elements of $H$ are real ($\beta=1$), complex ($\beta=2$) or
quaternion ($\beta=4$) numbers. The coupling between the states inside one
segment is described by the matrices $H_{\mu\nu}^{ii}$, which are distributed
according to the Gaussian ensemble
\begin{equation}
P(H^{ii}) = \mbox{const.}\, \times \,
\exp\left(-\case{1}{4}\beta M v_1^{-2} \mbox{Tr}\, (H^{ii})^2\right).
\label{GaussEns}
\end{equation}
Here $v_1$ is a parameter which governs the level density at the Fermi
level ($E=0$). The coupling between the states of adjacent segments is
given by another set of Gaussian distributed random matrices
$H^{ij}=(H^{ji})^\dagger$ (with coupling parameter $v_2$),
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P(H^{ij}) = \mbox{const.}\, \times \,
\exp\left(-\case{1}{2}\beta M^2 v_2^{-2} \mbox{Tr}\, H^{ij} H^{ji}\right),
\nonumber \\ &&
j = i \pm 1.
\end{eqnarray}
Segments which are not adjacent are uncoupled, $H^{ij} = 0$ if $|i - j| \ge 2$.
The coupling to the ideal leads is described by a fixed $K M \times (N_1 +
N_2)$ rectangular matrix $W = W_1 + W_2$ with real ($\beta=1$), complex
($\beta=2$) or quaternion ($\beta=4$) elements. The matrix $W$ has
elements $W_{\mu n}^{i}$, where $i$ labels the segment, $\mu$ the states in
the segment, and $n$ the modes in the leads. The elements of $W_1$ (which
describes the coupling to lead $1$) are nonzero only for $i = 1$ and $1 \le n
\le N_1$; the elements of $W_2$ (coupling to lead $2$) are nonzero only for
$i = K$ and $N_1 < n \le N_1 + N_2$.
The scattering matrix $S$ (matrix elements $S_{nm}$) of the system at energy
$E$ is given by \cite{iwz}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3}
S=1-2\pi i W^\dagger (E-H+i\pi W W^\dagger)^{-1} W.
\end{equation}
The indices $n,m$ correspond to lead $1$ if $1 \le n,m \le N_1$ and to
lead $2$ if $N_1 < n,m \le N_1 + N_2$. The reflection and transmission matrices
$r, r', t, t'$ are submatrices of $S$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:4}
S= \left(\begin{array}{cc} r & t' \\ t & r' \\ \end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
Since $S$ is unitary, the products $t^{\dagger} t$ and $t'^{\dagger} t'$
have the same set of non-zero eigenvalues, denoted by $T_n =
(1 + \lambda_n)^{-1}$. (If $N_2 > N_1$ there are also $N_2 - N_1$ transmission
eigenvalues which are zero, and can therefore be disregarded.)
\subsection{The generating function}
We now define the generating function $F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)$ introduced
in the previous section. We start from the the relationship (\ref{eq:3})
between the scattering matrix and the Hamiltonian in the IWZ model.
We consider the generating function
\begin{mathletters} \label{eq:GenerIWZ}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:7}
&& F = \mbox{Sdet}^{-{1 \over 2}}(E-{\cal H}+i\pi W_1^{\vphantom{\dagger}}
W_1^\dagger Q +
i\pi W_2^{\vphantom{\dagger}} W_2^\dagger \Lambda), \\ &&
{\cal H} = H 1_{8}\ \ \mbox{if $\beta=1,4$};\ \ \
{\cal H} = (\mbox{Re} H) 1_8 +
i (\mbox{Im} H) \tau_3\ \ \mbox{if $\beta = 2$}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}%
Here $1_8$ is the $8 \times 8$ supersymmetric unit matrix and $\tau_3$ is
a diagonal matrix with elements $(1,-1,1,-1,1,-1,1,-1)$. The matrix $\Lambda$
was defined in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:6}). Note that $Q$ is an arbitrary supermatrix
as in Eq. (\ref{eq:Sigma}) and that it replaces the matrix $\Lambda$
in the coupling term of lead $1$.
In App.\ \ref{app:a} we show that $F$ depends only on the radial part $\hat
\theta$ of the matrix $Q$ and that the only
dependence on $H$ is through the transmission eigenvalues $T_n = (1 +
\lambda_n)^{-1}$. We also show that Eq.\ (\ref{eq:GenerIWZ}) reduces to the
function $F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)$ defined in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:1}) of the
previous section.
In the following, we evaluate the ensemble average $\langle F \rangle$
using the supersymmetric formalism. We first express $\langle F \rangle$
as a Gaussian
integral over an $8MK$-dimensional supervector $\psi$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:12c}
\langle F \rangle = \left\langle
\int{\cal D}\psi\, \exp\left(\case{1}{2}i\,
\psi^\dagger\Lambda(E-{\cal H} +
i \pi W_1^{\vphantom{\dagger}} W_1^\dagger Q +
i \pi W_2^{\vphantom{\dagger}} W_2^{\dagger} \Lambda + i \epsilon
\Lambda)
\psi\right) \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
The convergence of the Gaussian integral is assured by the parameterization
(\ref{eq:Sigma}) of the matrix $Q$.
Performing the standard steps, described in Refs.\ \ref{iwz} and \ref{mmz},
we obtain in the relevant limit $M\to\infty$
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:13}
\langle F \rangle
&=& \int dQ_1\int dQ_K\ f_1(Q,Q_1)\ f_2(\Lambda,Q_K)\, W(Q_1,Q_K),\\
\label{eq:14}
W(Q_1,Q_K) &=& \int dQ_2\ldots \int dQ_{K-1}\ \exp\left(
-\frac{d\,v_2^2}{2 v_1^2}\sum_{i=1}^{K-1} \mbox{Str}(Q_i\,Q_{i+1}),
\right) \\
\label{eq:15}
f_1(Q,Q_1) & = & \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2} d \sum_{n=1}^{N_1}
\mbox{Str}\,\ln(1+x_n\,Q Q_1)\right),\\
\label{eq:16}
f_2(Q,Q_K) & = & \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}d \sum_{n=N_1+1}
^{N_1+N_2}
\mbox{Str}\,\ln(1+x_n\,Q Q_K)\right).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
The numbers $x_n$ denote the eigenvalues of the matrices $(\pi/v_1)
W_1^\dagger W_1^{\vphantom{\dagger}}$ (if $1\le n \le N_1$) or
$(\pi/v_1) W_2^\dagger W_2^{\vphantom{\dagger}}$ (if $N_1<n\le N_1+N_2$).
The integer $d$ was defined in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:dbetadef}).
Following Ref.\ \ref{mmz}, we consider the limit $v_1^2\ll v_2^2$.
Then the sum in (\ref{eq:14}) can be replaced by an integral and the
$Q_i$-integrals yield a path integral. The discrete number of segments $K$
becomes the continuous (dimensionless) variable $s$. The propagator
(\ref{eq:14}) can be identified with the heat kernel of the supersymmetric
space, determined by the heat equation\cite{mmz}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:18}
2 \beta (v_2/v_1)^2 {\partial \over \partial s} W(Q',Q'') &=&
\Delta_{Q'} W(Q',Q''), \nonumber \\
\lim_{s\to 0} W(Q',Q'') &=& \delta(Q',Q'').
\end{eqnarray}
The precise definition of the Laplacian $\Delta_Q$ and the detailed
justification of Eq. (\ref{eq:18}) are contained in Ref.\ \ref{mmz}
($\Delta_Q$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:18}) differs by an additional factor $\beta/(8d)$
with respect to the notations of Ref.\ \ref{mmz}).
We thus arrive at the expression
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:19}
\langle F \rangle =
\int dQ'\int dQ''\,f_1(Q,Q')\,W(Q',Q'')\,f_2(\Lambda,Q'').
\end{equation}
The next step is to notice that $f_1(Q,Q')$ has the same symmetry
as the heat kernel, i.e.\ $f_1(T^{-1} Q T, T^{-1}Q' T)=f_1(Q,Q')$
where $T$ is an arbitrary element as described in (\ref{eq:6}). This
implies $\Delta_{Q'} f_1(Q,Q')=\Delta_{Q} f_1(Q,Q')$ and hence
$\langle F \rangle$ also satisfies the heat equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:20a} \label{eq:24a}
2 \beta (v_2/v_1)^2 {\partial \over \partial s} \langle F \rangle =
\Delta_Q \langle F \rangle.
\end{equation}
Since $\langle F \rangle$ only depends on the radial part $\hat\theta$ of
$Q$, it is sufficient to consider the radial part $\Delta_{\hat\theta}$ of
the Laplacian $\Delta_Q$. This radial part $\Delta_{\hat\theta}$ can be
written as in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:22}). We thus find that the ensemble average
$\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) \rangle$ of the generating function
defined in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:1}) satisfies the partial differential equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:20} \label{eq:24}
2 \beta (v_2/v_1)^2 {\partial \over \partial s}
\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) \rangle =
\Delta_{\hat\theta} \langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) \rangle,
\end{equation}
with the initial condition implied by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:18}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:21a}
\lim_{s \to 0}
\left\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) \right\rangle =
\int dQ' f_1(Q,Q') f_2(\Lambda,Q').
\end{equation}
Together, Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:24}) and (\ref{eq:21a}) determine
the ensemble average of the generating function
$F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)$ evaluated in the framework of the nonlinear
$\sigma$ model.
The two limits of the IWZ model which were needed for the derivation of Eq.\
(\ref{eq:21a}), $M \to \infty$ and $v_1^2/v_2^2 \to 0$, restrict the
validity of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:21a}) to the case of weak disorder
($\ell \gg \lambda_F$) and thick wires ($N \gg 1$)
respectively.\cite{iwz,mmz}
Whereas the requirement of weak disorder is also needed for the DMPK equation,
the requirement that the number of channels in the disordered wire be large
is not. To see how the latter requirement follows from the condition
$v_1^2 \ll v_2^2$, we consider the expression for the average conductance
$\langle G \rangle$ in the diffusive metallic regime
($\ell \ll L \ll N \ell$),\cite{iwz,mmz}
\begin{equation} \label{GOhm}
\langle G \rangle = {2e^2 \over h} {N \ell \over L} =
{2e^2 \over h} {4 v_2^2 \over v_1^2 s}.
\end{equation}
Taking the linear dimension of a segment of the disordered wire in the
IWZ model of order $\ell$ (i.e. $s\approx L/\ell$, see Ref.\ \ref{iwz}),
we find that $v_1^2 \ll v_2^2$
corresponds to $N \gg 1$. However, no restriction has been put to the numbers
$N_1$ and $N_2$ of propagating channels in the leads in the above
derivation of the $\sigma$ model, which allows us to consider finite values
of $N_1$ and $N_2$. This situation corresponds to the case in which
the thick disordered wire is coupled to the leads $1$ and $2$ by means of
point contacts, with $N_1$, $N_2$ open channels. As in Ref.\ \ref{mmz},
the case of a disordered wire without point contacts is recovered in the
limit $N_1, N_2 \to \infty$.
We conclude this section with some remarks about the choice of initial
conditions. In usual $\sigma$ model calculations,\cite{zirn1,mmz,rejaei}
one considers ideal coupling ($x_n=1$, $n=1,\ldots,N_1+N_2$) and identifies
$N = N_1 = N_2$ (equal number of channels in the leads and in the wire).
In the thick-wire limit $N \rightarrow \infty$ the function
$f_i(Q,Q')$ is just the delta function\cite{mmz} $\delta(Q,Q')$,
and $\langle F \rangle$ becomes identical to the heat kernel itself [cf.\
Eq.\ (\ref{eq:19})]:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:21b}
\langle F \rangle = W(Q,\Lambda),\ N_1 = N_2 = N \gg 1.
\end{equation}
For $\beta=2$, this result was derived by Rejaei.\cite{rejaei} In this
case $\langle F \rangle$ has the delta-function initial condition
$\lim_{s \to 0} \langle F \rangle = \delta(Q,\Lambda)$. To make contact with
the DMPK equation, we need a different ``ballistic'' initial condition,
such that all $T_n$'s are unity in the limit of zero wire length. To
achieve this, we take ideal coupling and assume that one of the leads has many
more channels than the other. To be specific, we fix $N_1$
and take the limit $N_2 \to \infty$. One then finds the initial condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:35}
&& \lim_{s \to 0} \langle F \rangle =
\exp\left(-{\case{1}{2}} N_1 d\,\mbox{Str}\,
\ln(1+Q \Lambda)\right) \nonumber \\ && \ =
\left(\frac{\cos \theta_3 + \cos \theta_4}
{\cosh \theta_1 + \cosh \theta_2}
\right)^{N_1 d},\ 1 \le N_1 \ll N_2.
\end{eqnarray}
In the next section, we will see that this is precisely the ballistic
initial condition of the DMPK equation.
\section{DMPK equation}
\label{sec:4}
Let us now evaluate the ensemble average of the generating function
(\ref{eq:1}) from the DMPK equation. The DMPK equation is a
Fokker-Planck-type equation for the $L$-evolution of the probability
distribution $P(\hat\lambda)$ of the
$\lambda_n$'s:\cite{dorokhov,mello2,mello3,mello4,macedo}
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:25}
&& {1 \over 2}
(\beta N + 2 - \beta) \ell {\partial \over \partial L} P(\hat\lambda) =
\nonumber \\ && \ \ \ \
\sum_{n=1}^N {\partial \over \partial \lambda_n}
\lambda_n(1+\lambda_n) J(\hat\lambda)
{\partial \over \partial \lambda_n} J^{-1}(\hat\lambda) P(\hat\lambda), \\
\label{eq:27}
&& J(\hat\lambda) = \prod_{n>m} |\lambda_n-\lambda_m|^\beta,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}%
where $\ell$ denotes the mean free path in the disordered wire and $N$
the number of propagating modes. There is {\em no} restriction to $N \gg 1$
in the DMPK approach. We take the ballistic initial condition
\begin{equation}
\lim_{L \to 0} P(\hat\lambda) = \prod_{n=1}^{N} \delta(\lambda_n - 0^{+}).
\end{equation}
The DMPK equation implies for $F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)$ the evolution
equation\cite{mello2,mello4}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial \over \partial L} \langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)\rangle &=&
{\partial \over \partial L} \int d\lambda_1 \ldots \int d\lambda_{N}
F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)\,P(\hat\lambda)\
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{2}{\ell} (\beta N + 2 - \beta)^{-1}
\left \langle D_{\hat\lambda}\, F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) \right\rangle,
\label{eq:28}
\end{eqnarray}
with the differential operator $D_{\hat\lambda}$ given by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:29}).
In Appendix \ref{app:c} we prove the algebraic identity between the two
different types of Laplacians (\ref{eq:22}) and (\ref{eq:29}) applied
to $F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CentralResult2}
\Delta_{\hat\theta} F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda) =
D_{\hat\lambda}\, F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda).
\end{equation}
{}From Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:28}), and (\ref{eq:CentralResult2}) we conclude that
that the average $\langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)\rangle$,
calculated in the framework of the DMPK equation, also fulfills the evolution
equation (\ref{eq:24}) of the nonlinear $\sigma$ model, provided we
identify [cf.\ Eq.\ (\ref{GOhm})]
\begin{equation}
{4 \over s} (v_2/v_1)^2 = {N \ell \over L} = {\xi \over \beta L},\ \ N \gg 1.
\end{equation}
Here we introduced the localization length $\xi = \beta N \ell$ (notice
that the definition of $\xi$ in Ref.\ \ref{mmz} differs by a factor $2/\beta$).
It remains to compare the initial conditions. The ballistic initial condition
for the DMPK equation implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:34}
\lim_{L \to 0} \langle F(\hat\theta,\hat\lambda)\rangle =
f(\hat\theta,\lambda = 0)^N =
\left( \frac{\cos \theta_3 + \cos \theta_4}{\cosh
\theta_1+ \cosh\theta_2}
\right)^{N d},
\end{equation}
which equals the initial condition (\ref{eq:35}) for the nonlinear
$\sigma$ model (The thick-wire limit $\lim_{L \to 0} \langle F \rangle =
\delta(Q,\Lambda)$ is obtained by letting $N \to \infty$
in the above expression). This proves the equivalence of both approaches,
as far as the generating function (\ref{eq:1}) is concerned. In Appendix
\ref{app:d} we extend the equivalence proof to $p$-point functions
$\rho_p(T_1,\ldots,T_p)$ for arbitrary $p$.
\section{The controversial symplectic ensemble}
\label{sec:5}
The main motivation of this work was to resolve a controversy between the
DMPK equation and the one-dimensional $\sigma$ model in the symplectic
symmetry class ($\beta=4$). On the one hand, the DMPK equation
implies\cite{frahm1} $\langle G \rangle \to 0$ as $L \to \infty$. On the
other hand, Zirnbauer\cite{zirn1} finds from the $\sigma$ model that
$\langle G \rangle \to \frac{1}{2} e^2/h$ as $L \to \infty$.
The equivalence proof presented in this paper has as a logical consequence
that $\langle G \rangle \to 0$ as $L \to \infty$ if $\langle G\rangle$ is
evaluated in the framework of the $\sigma$ model. To
demonstrate this, we apply the argument of Ref.\ \ref{frahm1}. The DMPK
equation implies for the average dimensionless conductance
$g = \sum_{n} (1+\lambda_n)^{-1}$ the evolution equation \cite{mello4}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:41}
\xi {\partial \langle g \rangle \over \partial L} =
- \beta \langle g^2 \rangle - (2-\beta) \langle g_2 \rangle,
\end{equation}
with $g_2 = \sum_{n} (1 + \lambda_n)^{-2}$.
This relation also follows from the evolution equation (\ref{eq:24})
of the $\sigma$ model (expanding the generating function for small
$\theta_i$ and applying the results of appendix \ref{app:b}).
Since $0 \le g_2 \le g^2$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:42}
\xi {\partial \langle g \rangle \over \partial L} \le
-{1 \over 2} \beta \langle g^2 \rangle \le 0.
\end{equation}
We suppose that $\lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \langle g \rangle$
exists. Since $\partial \langle g \rangle / \partial L \le 0$
[Eq.\ (\ref{eq:42})] this implies
$\lim_{L \to \infty} \partial \langle g \rangle/\partial L = 0$. Hence
$\lim_{L \to \infty} \langle g^2 \rangle = 0$ by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:42}).
Since $\langle g \rangle^2 \le \langle g^2 \rangle$ this implies that
also $\lim_{L \to \infty} \langle g \rangle = 0$.
Where does the non-zero limit in Refs.\ \ref{zirn1} and \ref{mmz} come
from? The ground-breaking contribution of Zirnbauer was to use a
``super-Fourier expansion'' of the heat kernel $W(Q,Q')$ in terms of
eigenfunctions of the
Laplacian in the space of the $\sigma$ model. This type of
Fourier analysis is well understood for classical symmetric
spaces.\cite{helgason} The development and application of the supersymmetric
analogue for the $\sigma$ model enabled
Zirnbauer, Mirlin, and M\"uller-Groeling
to compute non-perturbatively the first two moments of the conductance for any
$\beta$. The non-zero limiting value $\lim_{L \to \infty} \langle g \rangle =
1/4$ for $\beta=4$ resulted from a ``zero mode'', a non-trivial eigenfunction
of the Laplacian with zero eigenvalue. Since this zero mode does not decay
as $L \to \infty$, it led to the surprising conclusion of absence of
localization in a wire with spin-orbit scattering in zero magnetic
field.\cite{zirn1}
An explicit expression for the zero-mode was not obtained in Refs.\ \ref{zirn1}
and \ref{mmz}, but only its contribution to the moments of the conductance
was computed. By inspecting the initial condition (\ref{eq:35}) of the
generating function for the $\sigma$ model we have been able to construct
a zero mode for $\beta=4$, but only if we ignore the Kramers degeneracy of
the transmission eigenvalues. This unphysical zero mode, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:zeromode}
\phi_{0}(\theta_1,\theta_3,\theta_4) =
\frac{\cos\theta_3 + \cos\theta_4}{2 + 2\cosh \theta_1},
\end{equation}
arises by taking the initial condition (\ref{eq:35}) with $N_1 = 1$ and
$\beta=4$, but {\em without} the extra factor two in the exponent, required
by Kramers degeneracy.
This unphysical initial condition solves the evolution equation (\ref{eq:24})
for the ensemble average of the generating function and implies an
$L$-independent average conductance $\langle g \rangle = 1/4$. Although
we can not prove that Eq.\ (\ref{eq:zeromode}) is Zirnbauer's zero mode,
the coincidence with the limiting value $\lim_{L \to \infty} \langle g \rangle
= 1/4$, $\lim_{L \to \infty} \mbox{var}\, g = 1/16$ is quite suggestive.
The reason why we have to exclude the zero mode (\ref{eq:zeromode})
from the Fourier expansion of the heat kernel is that it is not
single-valued on the $\sigma$ model space of supermatrices $Q$,
although it is a well-defined function of $\hat\theta$. The parameterization
(\ref{eq:Sigma}) of $Q$ is $2\pi$-periodic in the angles
$\theta_\pm=\theta_3\pm\theta_4$. We can then consider on the space of
angles $\theta_3$, $\theta_4$ a parity operation $P$ which
consists of adding $\pi$ to both of these angles.
This parity operation does not change $Q$, but it changes the zero mode
(\ref{eq:zeromode}). The Laplacian (\ref{eq:22}) commutes with $P$ and
the eigenfunctions have therefore either even or odd
parity (eigenvalues $+1$ or $-1$ of $P$, respectively). The
physical modes of the $\sigma$ model must have even parity, since only these
functions are single-valued. For $\beta=4$, it is the Kramers degeneracy
which ensures that the initial condition (\ref{eq:35}) has even parity.
This observation led us to check the parity of the eigenfunctions
$\phi_{\nu}(Q)$ of the Laplacian in the super Fourier analysis of Refs.\
\ref{zirn1} and \ref{mmz}. We consider the eigenvalue equation
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\hat\theta} \phi_\nu(\theta_1,\theta_3,\theta_4) =
- \varepsilon(\nu) \phi_\nu(\theta_1,\theta_3,\theta_4)
\end{equation}
for $\beta=4$ in the limit $\theta_1 \rightarrow \infty$ at fixed
$\theta_3$, $\theta_4$. In this limit, the Laplace operator simplifies
considerably
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:43}
\Delta_{\hat\theta} \to
e^{\theta_1}{\partial \over \partial \theta_1}
e^{-\theta_1} {\partial \over \partial \theta_1} +
{1 \over \sin \theta_3} {\partial \over \partial \theta_3}
\sin \theta_3 {\partial \over \partial \theta_3} +
{1 \over \sin \theta_4} {\partial \over \partial \theta_4}
\sin \theta_4 {\partial \over \partial \theta_4}.
\end{equation}
{}From this expression one may identify the set of quantum numbers
$\nu=(\lambda,1+2n_1,1+2n_2),$ where $\lambda$ is a real number
and $n_1$, $n_2$ are
non-negative integers.
The asymptotic behavior of the eigenfunctions
$\phi_{\nu}(\theta_1,\theta_3,\theta_4)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:42b}
\phi_{\nu}(\theta_1,\theta_3,\theta_4)
\sim \exp \left[{\case{1}{2}} (1+i\lambda)\theta_1\right]
\biggl(P_{n_1}(\cos\theta_3) P_{n_2}(\cos\theta_4) +
P_{n_2}(\cos\theta_3) P_{n_1}(\cos\theta_4)\biggr),
\end{equation}
with the Legendre polynomials $P_n(x)$ and the eigenvalues
\begin{equation} \label{eq:44}
\varepsilon(\lambda,1+2n_1,1+2n_2) =
\frac{1}{4}\biggl(\lambda^2 + (1+2n_1)^2 + (1+2n_2)^2 - 1\biggr).
\end{equation}
The parity of this eigenfunction is just $(-1)^{n_1+n_2}$ and we have to
restrict ourselves to those $n_1$ and $n_2$ with $n_1 + n_2$ even. Applying
this
selection rule to the expressions for $\langle g \rangle$ and $\langle g^2
\rangle$ of Refs.\ \ref{zirn1} and \ref{mmz}, omitting the zero mode [and
the subsidiary series with quantum numbers $\nu=(i,l,l\pm 2)$ of Refs.\
\ref{zirn1} and \ref{mmz}, for which the asymptotic behavior (\ref{eq:42b})
is also valid], and multiplying the surviving terms with a factor of $2$
to account for Kramers degeneracy, yields for $\beta=4$ and in the limit
$N_1 = N_2 = N \rightarrow \infty$ the expression
\begin{mathletters} \label{eq:49}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle g^n \rangle &=& 2^{5-n} \sum_{{l_1, l_2 = 1, 3, 5, \ldots,
\atop l_1 + l_2 \equiv
2\, (\mbox{\scriptsize mod}\, 4)}} \int_0^{\infty} d\lambda\
\lambda (\lambda^2
+ 1) \tanh(\pi\lambda/2) l_1 l_2 p_n(\lambda,l_1,l_2) \nonumber \\
&& \times
\prod_{\sigma,\sigma_1,\sigma_2 = \pm 1} (-1 + i \sigma \lambda +
\sigma_1 l_1
+ \sigma_2 l_2)^{-1} \exp\left[-(\lambda^2 + l_1^2 + l_2^2 -1) L / (2 \xi)
\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $n = 1,2$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
p_1(\lambda,l_1,l_2) &=& \lambda^2 + l_1^2 + l_2^2 -1, \\
p_2(\lambda,l_1,l_2) &=& \case{1}{4} \biglb[2 \lambda^4 + l_1^4 + l_2^4 + 3
\lambda^2(l_1^2 + l_2^2) - 2 \lambda^2 + l_1^2 + l_2^2 - 2 \bigrb].
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}%
Note that in our notations the dimensionless conductance $g$ is by
a factor $2$ smaller than $g$ in the notations of Ref. \ref{mmz}.
Comparison of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:49}) with the $\beta=4$ result of Ref.\ \ref{mmz},
where the parity selection rule was not implemented, shows that the
perturbation expansion around $L/\xi = 0$ is the same. (We checked this
numerically up to order $(L/\xi)^3$.) Outside the perturbative regime, the
two expressions are completely different. Instead of a non-zero limit
$\langle g \rangle = 1/4$ for $L/\xi \gg 1$, we find from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:49})
the exponential decay
\begin{equation}
\langle g \rangle \approx {16 \over 9}\, (2L/\pi\xi)^{-3/2} e^{-L /2\xi}.
\end{equation}
To test our result, we have compared it with a direct numerical simulation
of the IWZ model by Mirlin and M\"uller-Groeling\cite{numerics} (with
$M=100$, $N=25$ and an average over $100$ different samples). The comparison
is shown in Figs.\ \ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}. It is clear that our
Eq.\ (\ref{eq:49}) (solid curve) agrees quite well with the simulation, while
the result of Ref.\ \ref{mmz} does not (dotted curve).
Notice that this issue of the parity of the eigenfunctions does not
occur for $\beta=1,2$, since there is only one compact angle ($\theta_3$)
in those cases. The parity operation on the $\hat\theta$-matrices exists
only for $\beta=4$. For completeness we collect in Figs.\ \ref{fig3} and
\ref{fig4} the results for $\langle g \rangle$ and $\mbox{var}\, g$ for
all three symmetry classes. The $\beta=1,2$ results are from Ref.\ \ref{mmz},
the $\beta=4$ result is our Eq.\ (\ref{eq:49}).
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:6}
We have established the exact mathematical equivalence
of the two non-perturbative theoretical approaches to phase-coherent
transport and localization in disordered wires: The Fokker-Planck equation
of Dorokhov, Mello, Pereyra, and
Kumar\cite{dorokhov,mello2,mello3,mello4,macedo}
and the one-dimensional supersymmetric nonlinear $\sigma$
model.\cite{larkin,efetov,iwz,mmz,fyodorov}
The equivalence has the logical consequence that the absence of localization
in the symplectic symmetry class, obtained by Zirnbauer by super-Fourier
analysis of the $\sigma$ model, is not correct. By applying a selection rule
enforced by Kramers degeneracy to the eigenfunctions of Refs.\ \ref{zirn1}
and \ref{mmz}, we have obtained modified expressions for $\langle G \rangle$
and $\mbox{var}\, G$, which decay exponentially as $L \to \infty$ and which
agree well with existing numerical simulations.\cite{numerics}
Our equivalence proof has both conceptual and practical implications.
The DMPK equation and the $1d$ $\sigma$ model originated almost
simultaneously in the early eighties, and at the same institute.
\cite{dorokhov,larkin} Nevertheless, work on both approaches
proceeded independently in the next decade. Knowing that, instead
of two theories, there is only one, seems to us a considerable conceptual
simplification of the field. It implies that the microscopic derivations
and random-matrix models developed for the $\sigma$ model apply as well
to the DMPK equation, and vice versa. (we see only the restriction, that
the $\sigma$ model requires the thick-wire limit $N \to \infty$, while
the DMPK equation applies to any number of channels $N$.) Practically,
each of the two approaches has its own advantages, and now that we know
that they are equivalent, we can choose the approach which is best suited
to our needs and skills.
\acknowledgements
We thank C. W. J. Beenakker, B. Rejaei, and M. R. Zirnbauer
for fruitful discussions. We are very grateful to A. D. Mirlin and
A. M\"uller-Groeling for providing us with unpublished data from
their numerical simulation of the IWZ model.
This work was supported by the ``Stich\-ting voor
Fun\-da\-men\-teel On\-der\-zoek der Ma\-te\-rie'' (FOM) and by the
``Ne\-der\-land\-se or\-ga\-ni\-sa\-tie voor We\-ten\-schap\-pe\-lijk
On\-der\-zoek'' (NWO) (P.\ W.\ B.) and by the Human Capital Mobility
program of the European Community ``Quantum Dynamics of
Phase-Coherent Structures'' (K.\ F.).
|
\subsection*{References}\list
{[\arabic{enumi}]}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[#1]}\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\usecounter{enumi}}
\def\hskip .11em plus .33em minus -.07em{\hskip .11em plus .33em minus -.07em}
\sloppy
\sfcode`\.=1000\relax}
\let\endthebibliographys=\endlist
\begin{document}
\sloppy
\pagestyle{empty}
\begin{flushright}
DTP/95/68 \\
LU TP 95--18 \\
hep-ph/9508332 \\
August 1995
\end{flushright}
\vspace{\fill}
\begin{center}
{\LARGE\bf QED Interconnection Effects on }\\[5mm]
{\LARGE\bf W Momentum Distributions at LEP~2}\\[10mm]
{\Large Valery A. Khoze} \\[2mm]
Department of Physics, University of Durham, \\[1mm]
Durham, DH1 3LE, U.K.\\[3mm]
and \\[3mm]
{\Large Torbj\"orn Sj\"ostrand} \\[2mm]
Department of Theoretical Physics 2, University of Lund, \\[1mm]
S\"olvegatan 14A, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden
\end{center}
\vspace{\fill}
\begin{center}
{\bf Abstract}\\[2ex]
\vspace{-0.5\baselineskip}
\noindent
\begin{minipage}{\abstwidth}
The process $\e^+\e^- \to \mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^- \to \mrm{f}_1 \overline{\mrm{f}}_2 \, \mrm{f}_3 \overline{\mrm{f}}_4$
contains charges in the initial, intermediate and final stages.
This gives a rich selection of possible QED interconnection effects.
Coulomb interaction is the simplest of these, and can thus be used
to explore consequences. We study a number of experimental
observables, with emphasis on those related to the $\mrm{W}$ momentum
distribution. Second-order Coulomb effects are shown to be
practically negligible. The limited LEP~2 statistics will not allow
detailed tests, so any theory uncertainty will be reflected in the
systematic error on the $\mrm{W}$ mass. Currently the uncertainty from
this source may be as high as 20~MeV.
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\vspace{\fill}
\clearpage
\pagestyle{plain}
\setcounter{page}{1}
\section{Introduction}
A precision measurement of the $\mrm{W}$-boson mass $M_{\mrm{W}}$ is one of the main
objectives of the LEP~2 $\e^+\e^-$ collider. To exceed the precision of
$\pbar\p$ collider experiments, $M_{\mrm{W}}$ should be measured to an accuracy
of 50~MeV or better, see e.g. ref.~\cite{VK1}. The success of
such an ambitious goal relies on an accurate theoretical knowledge of
the dynamics of the production and decay stages in
$\e^+\e^- \to \mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^- \to 4$~fermions. Moreover, owing to the large $\mrm{W}$
width $\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}$, these stages are not independent but may be interconnected
by QED and QCD interference effects, which also must be kept under
precise theoretical control. Interconnection phenomena may efface the
separate identities of the two $\mrm{W}$ bosons, and the final state may no
longer be considered as a superposition of two separate $\mrm{W}$ decays.
All such effects related to the radiatively corrected (total and
differential) $\mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^-$ production cross section should be accurately
calculated, so that the $\mrm{W}$ mass can be extracted from data.
For the totally inclusive $\mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^-$ production cross section there is
a general proof \cite{VK2,VK3} (also \cite{VK4}) that the radiative
interconnection effects are suppressed by $O(\alpha\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}/M_{\mrm{W}})$ or
$O(\alpha_{\mrm{s}}^2\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}/M_{\mrm{W}})$. The only exception is the Coulomb interaction
between two slowly moving $\mrm{W}$'s, which is modified by the instability
effects in the very narrow region just near threshold,
$\sqrt{s} - 2 M_{\mrm{W}} \lessim \Gamma_{\mrm{W}}$. By contrast, differential distributions
could be distorted on the level of $O(\alpha)$ or $O(\alpha_{\mrm{s}}^2)$.
(Analogous QCD final-state interaction effects appear in the
differential distributions of $\t\overline{\mrm{t}}$ production processes
\cite{VK3,VK4,VK5,VKR1,VK12}.) These distortions should vanish in the
zero-width limit. In ref. \cite{VK6} we studied the possible impact of
QCD interconnection (colour rearrangement) effects for the
direct reconstruction of the $\mrm{W}$ mass from the hadronic decay
products (as favoured by experimenters \cite{VK7}). The limited
understanding on the hadronization of overlapping hadronic systems
was shown to imply a systematic error on $M_{\mrm{W}}$ of 30--40 MeV. Additional
errors could come from Bose-Einstein effects among the final-state
hadrons \cite{Leif,Rasmus}.
There are also purely QED final-state interactions, however, that can
produce non-factorizable radiative corrections to the Born cross section
of $\e^+\e^- \to \mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^- \to 4$~fermions \cite{VKR,VK3}. Specifically, there
is a class of virtual interference effects corresponding to the
so-called charged-particle poles \cite{VK3,VK4,VK8}, which induce an
explicit dependence of the differential cross section on the $\mrm{W}$-boson
virtualities. This is related to the fact that the dominant contribution
to the non-factorizable radiative interferences comes from sufficiently
soft photons with $k_{\gamma} \lessim \Gamma_{\mrm{W}}$.
The phenomenon could be exemplified by the Coulomb interaction
between two unstable $\mrm{W}$ bosons \cite{VK2,VK9} (also \cite{VK10}).
(To the best of our knowledge, the necessity to take into account
the effects of Coulomb final-state interactions on the $\mrm{W}$ momentum
distribution was first pointed out in ref. \cite{VK6}.)
Coulomb terms could be uniquely separated from the other electroweak
corrections in the threshold region, where they provide the dominant
source of the off-shellness effects.
Other radiative mechanisms may become essential at larger $\mrm{W}$-boson
velocities $\beta$, for example, those caused by the
intermediate--final or final--final interferences \cite{VK3,VK8}.
(We recall, however, that the Coulomb correction is not uniquely
defined and gauge independent in the relativistic region.)
In the ultrarelativistic region it is expected \cite{VK8} that the
dependence on the $\mrm{W}$ virtuality disappears in the full expression
for radiative corrections. This phenomenon is deeply rooted in the
conservation of a charged current.
In the threshold region the Born cross section depends strongly on
the momentum $p$ of the unstable particle. This leads to a competition
between the Breit-Wigner factors and the rest of the cross section
($\propto \beta$) \cite{VK6}, which induces a significant
change between the nominal and the actual average mass. In the energy
range
\begin{equation}
M_{\mrm{W}} \gg E \geq \Gamma_{\mrm{W}} ~,
\label{energyreg}
\end{equation}
where $E = \sqrt{s} - 2M_{\mrm{W}}$ is the nonrelativistic energy of the two
$\mrm{W}$'s, the mass shift towards lower values is of
$O(\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}^2/E)$. This shift changes sign at around 190~GeV because of the
increasing r\^ole of the negative higher-order terms ($\propto \beta^2$)
in the Born cross-section expression \cite{VK11}.
Our interest is in the dynamical QED effects, on top of the purely
kinematical distortions. The Coulomb final-state interaction between
unstable $\mrm{W}$'s could, in principle, induce a systematic shift in the
reconstructed
$M_{\mrm{W}}$ of $O(\alpha \pi \Gamma_{\mrm{W}})$ \cite{VK9,VK11} that is of the same magnitude
as the aimed-for precision of LEP~2 measurements. Therefore the shifts in
the $\mrm{W}$ momentum distribution is the result of a complicated interplay
between phase-space and virtuality-induced effects appearing in the
radiatively corrected cross section for $\e^+\e^- \to \mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^- \to 4$~fermions.
In the main region of LEP~2 running, $\sqrt{s} \simeq 175$~GeV, the two
effects above are of the same order. To obtain reliable numerical
results one also needs to analyze carefully the r\^ole of other
final-state interaction mechanisms (for such an attempt see ref.
\cite{VK8}).
In this paper we analyze the impact of QED interconnection,
exemplified by the Coulomb effects on the $\mrm{W}$ momentum distribution in
the threshold region. This region is relevant for LEP~2 physics, and
it is just here that off-shell and finite-width effects are most important
\cite{VK2,VK3,VK9,VK12prm}. It may be seen as a continuation of the
studies presented for mass distributions in ref.~\cite{VK11}.
Particular emphasis is put on the momentum distribution of the $\mrm{W}$'s.
This is especially relevant since the Coulomb effects depend primarily
on the $\mrm{W}$ momentum. However, there is also an experimental reason for
such a choice. In the best of possible worlds, the final state could be
subdivided into two sets of particles, one stemming from the $\mrm{W}^+$
decay and the other from the $\mrm{W}^-$. The invariant masses $m_1$ and
$m_2$ could then be calculated and directly compared with theory.
In addition to the assignment problems already mentioned, such an
approach suffers from the limited energy resolution of detectors.
Jet directions, on the other hand, are much better reconstructed.
If energy and momentum conservation relations can be used, i.e.
if jet energies are suitably rescaled to the known $\e^+\e^-$ beam energy,
the $\mrm{W}$ mass is better constrained \cite{VK7}. Optimal use is made of
the experimental information if the $\mrm{W}^+$ and $\mrm{W}^-$ of each event
are assumed to have the same mass, i.e. if one single average mass
$\overline{m}$ is extracted for each event, rather than $m_1$ and
$m_2$ separately. Such a mass measurement obviously is equivalent
to a momentum measurement, according to the relation
$\sqrt{s} = 2 \sqrt{\overline{m}^2 + p^2}$. However, the
momentum is the more direct observable, since it is related to the
acollinearity of the jet pairs; we recall that the limit $p=0$
corresponds to each hadronic $\mrm{W}$ decay giving a pair of back-to-back
jets. A measurement along these lines is therefore excluded only when
both $\mrm{W}$'s decay leptonically.
The results presented here are aimed at the rather modest task of
evaluating the size of the QED interconnection effects. They should
only be considered as a qualitiative guide rather than a complete
numerical prediction. In what we follows, incoming electrons and
positrons are assumed unpolarized, and initial-state radiation (ISR)
effects are neglected. We also assume that all particles can be
perfectly well measured and neglect the QCD interconnection effects.
In section~2 some of the basic Coulomb formulae are reviewed, with
emphasis on the physical origin and consequences. Section~3 contains
a numerical study of several observables relevant at LEP~2,
with conclusions on the practical importance of Coulomb effects,
on the impact of theoretical uncertainties, and on the choice
of experimental observables. Finally, section~4 contains a
summary and an outlook.
\section{Qualitative discussion}
For illustrative purposes we present here the results for momentum
distributions in the non-relativistic approximation. The numerical
calculations in the next section, however, are based on the full
relativistic formulae of ref.~\cite{VK9}.
As shown in ref.~\cite{VK12} (see also ref.~\cite{VK9}) the
non-relativistic Green's function describing the interaction of the $\mrm{W}$'s
depends only on one off-shell variable, namely the $\mrm{W}$ momentum $p$
($p = |\mathbf{p}^+| = |\mathbf{p}^-|$ in the rest frame of the pair).
The integration over the $\mrm{W}^{\pm}$ squared masses $s_1$ and $s_2$
reduces to an integration over $p^2$ with
\begin{equation}
p^2 = \frac{(s - s_1 - s_2)^2 - 4 s_1 s_2}{4s}
\simeq (\sqrt{s} - \sqrt{s_1} - \sqrt{s_2}) M_{\mrm{W}} ~.
\end{equation}
In the dominant $p$ region the differential distribution for
$\e^+\e^- \to \mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^- \to \mrm{f}_1\overline{\mrm{f}}_2\,\mrm{f}_3\overline{\mrm{f}}_4$ can be written in
terms of the rapidly changing variable
\begin{equation}
x = \frac{M_{\mrm{W}} E - p^2}{M_{\mrm{W}} \Gamma_{\mrm{W}}}
\end{equation}
as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{B(\mrm{W}^+ \to \mrm{f}_1\overline{\mrm{f}}_2) \, B(\mrm{W}^- \to \mrm{f}_3\overline{\mrm{f}}_4)} \,
\frac{\d \sigma}{\d x} = \frac{\sigma_0}{\pi} \, \frac{1}{1+x^2} \,
\left[ \left( 1 + \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \, \delta_{\H} \right) +
\frac{\alpha}{\beta} \, \overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}} \right] ~,
\label{sigmarad}
\end{equation}
with $\beta = 2 p /\sqrt{s}$. Here $\delta_{\H}$ is the so-called hard
correction and $\alpha\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}}/\beta$ is the first-order
Coulomb term
\cite{VK2,VK9},
\begin{equation}
\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}} = \frac{\pi}{2} -
\arctan \frac{|\kappa|^2 - p^2}{2 p p_1} ~,
\label{deltaC}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\kappa = \sqrt{-M_{\mrm{W}} (E + i\Gamma_{\mrm{W}})} \equiv p_1 - i p_2 ~.
\label{kappa}
\end{equation}
For a complete calculation, one must add to eq.~(\ref{sigmarad}) the
contributions from other final-state interconnection terms.
For the energy region (\ref{energyreg}) one finds
\begin{equation}
\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}} = \frac{\pi}{2} - \arctan x~.
\label{arctanx}
\end{equation}
In this region $p_1$ and $p_2$ have very transparent interpretatations:
\begin{equation}
R_{\tau} \sim \frac{1}{p_1} \sim \frac{\beta_0}{\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}}
\end{equation}
(with $\beta_0 = p_0/M_{\mrm{W}} \simeq \sqrt{E/M_{\mrm{W}}}$) is the typical spatial
separation between the diverging quasi-stable $\mrm{W}$'s, while
\begin{equation}
R_{\mrm{C}} \sim \frac{1}{p_2} \sim \frac{1}{p_0} \sim \frac{1}{|\kappa|}
\end{equation}
is the characteristic distance of the Coulomb interaction between
on-mass-shell $\mrm{W}$ bosons. Thus the dominant contribution to
$\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}}$ comes from values $r \lessim 1/p_0$, where
$p_0 = \sqrt{s/4 - M_{\mrm{W}}^2}$ and
$r$ is the relative distance between the $\mrm{W}$'s, as discussed in
detail in ref. \cite{VK9}. $\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}}$ depends
crucially on the virtuality, and is controlled by the phase shift
between the spatial oscillations corresponding to the actual momentum
$p$ and the characteristic momentum $p_2$. Let us briefly discuss the
main messages of an analysis of this momentum distribution.
\begin{Enumerate}
\item For stable $\mrm{W}$'s the on-the-mass-shell Coulomb term would always
induce a shift of the distribution towards lower momentum values.
In this limit, the exact Coulomb result \cite{VK13} is actually
twice the first-order contribution ($\pi/2$ in eq.~(\ref{deltaC})).
\item For unstable $\mrm{W}$'s $\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}}$ is always below
the on-the-mass-shell value of $\pi/2$ for $p < |\kappa|$ and exceeds
it for $p > |\kappa|$. The transition occurs dominantly when
\begin{equation}
| p - p_2 | \lessim p_1~.
\end{equation}
For region~(\ref{energyreg}) this corresponds to $|x| \lessim 1$.
When $p < p_0$ the effects of destructive interference accumulate
in the course of integration over distances $r$ up to \cite{VK9}
\begin{equation}
r \lessim \frac{1}{p - p_0} < \frac{\beta_0}{\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}}
\end{equation}
and, as a result, $\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}}$ gets screened.
Correspondingly, when $p > p_0$, there is a constructive interference
in the same range of $r$ values, leading to an increase of
$\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}}$.
\item In the formal limit $M_{\mrm{W}} \gg |\kappa| \gg p$ one has
\begin{equation}
C = \frac{\alpha}{\beta} \, \overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}} \simeq
\alpha \, \frac{2 p_1}{\sqrt{E^2 + \Gamma_{\mrm{W}}^2}} ~.
\end{equation}
Contrary to the stable case, the Coulomb correction $C$ does not blow up
at $\beta \to 0$ but reaches its maximal value of
$\alpha \sqrt{2M_{\mrm{W}}/\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}}$ at $E=0$. Below threshold, when $|E| \gtrsim \Gamma_{\mrm{W}}$,
\begin{equation}
C \simeq 2 \alpha \, \sqrt{\frac{M_{\mrm{W}}}{|E|}}~.
\end{equation}
In region~(\ref{energyreg}), relevant for LEP~2, Coulomb
corrections are suppressed,
\begin{equation}
C \simeq \frac{\alpha}{\beta_0} \, \frac{\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}}{E} ~.
\end{equation}
The screening of the $1/p$ singularity for $p \ll p_0$ also takes place
for higher-order Coulomb effects. This can be explicitly seen from the
general formulae presented in ref.~\cite{VK9}. The higher-order
Coulomb terms could in principle be more important numerically for
differential distributions than for the total cross section;
see however the discussion in the next section.
\item $\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}} \to \pi$, i.e. twice the leading-order
on-the-mass-shell result, when $M_{\mrm{W}} \gg p \gg |\kappa|$.
However, when $E \gg \Gamma_{\mrm{W}}$ and $M_{\mrm{W}} \gg p \gg p_0$ the Coulomb correction
$\alpha\pi/p$ formally is much smaller than the on-the-mass-shell value
$\alpha\pi/(2p_0)$. In region~(\ref{energyreg}) the arctan modification
of $\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}}$ in eq.~(\ref{arctanx}) is an odd function
of $x$, so after integration over $p$ the total cross section agrees
with the stable-$\mrm{W}$ result.
\end{Enumerate}
The instability effects induced by Coulomb interactions are expected to
be reduced at relativistic energies because of the contributions of
other final-state interaction mechanisms. We will return to this issue
below.
\section{Numerical results}
In the following calculations, we assume a W mass $M_{\mrm{W}} = 80.41$~GeV,
based on the recent CDF number \cite{CDF}, so as to simplify
comparisons with the results of ref.~\cite{VK11}. The width
is then $\Gamma_{\mrm{W}} = 2.1$~GeV. Results are presented in the energy
range 150--200~GeV, and for six discrete
energies: 10 GeV and $\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}$ below threshold, at threshold, $\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}$
above threshold, at 175 GeV (typical LEP~2 running energy) and
30 GeV above threshold. Initial-state photon radiation is neglected,
so as not to confuse the issue --- in an idealized world this would be
obtained by the process $\gamma\gamma \to \mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^-$. Other
interfering graphs, such as $\e^+\e^- \to \mrm{Z}^0\mrm{Z}^0
\to 4$~fermions, are not considered. Only trivial loop corrections
are included, such as the running of $\alpha$ and $\alpha_{\mrm{s}}$. The
lowest-order cross section $\sigma_0$ is therefore given by the
Muta~et~al. expression \cite{MUTA}.
Several comparisons will be presented between alternative descriptions
of Coulomb effects. This will help us assess the impact of QED
interconnection, and to estimate uncertainties.
\begin{Itemize}
\item The simplest possible alternative is to have no Coulomb
corrections at all, henceforth designated ``no Coulomb''. Many studies
in the past have been based on this approach, i.e. using $\sigma_0$
unmodified.
\item In the first-order ``stable Coulomb'' description, the two $\mrm{W}$
bosons are
considered as stable particles. Then $\sigma_0$ is modified by
a simple factor $1 + \alpha \overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}} / \beta =
1 + \pi\alpha/2\beta$.
\item The ``unstable Coulomb'' approach is a realistic
standard for the effects of unstable $\mrm{W}$'s. Again the multiplicative
factor is $1 + \alpha \overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}} / \beta$, but now
$\overline{\delta}_{\mrm{C}}$ is given by eq.~(\ref{deltaC}).
\item Recently simple formulae were presented for the calculation of
the Coulomb effects for unstable W's to second order \cite{VK14},
``second-order Coulomb''. The cross section is now given by
$\sigma_0$ multiplied by a factor
$|f(\mathbf{p},E)|^2$, with
\begin{equation}
f(\mathbf{p},E) = 1 + \frac{\alpha\sqrt{s}}{4 i p} \, \ln D +
\frac {\alpha^2 s}{16 i p \kappa} \int_0^1 \frac{\d z}{z} \,
\ln \frac{1 + z D}{1 + z / D} ~,
\end{equation}
where $D = (\kappa + i p)/(\kappa - i p)$ and $\kappa$ is defined in
eq.~(\ref{kappa}).
\end{Itemize}
Fig.~1 compares the total $\e^+\e^- \to \mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^-$ cross section in the four
scenarios above as a function of c.m. energy. The differences are more
readily visible in Fig.~2, where the cross sections have been normalized
to the no-Coulomb one. The corrections reach a maximum at around
threshold, of about 6\%, and thereafter drop, asymptotically like
$1/\beta_0$. They also drop below threshold. This latter behaviour
may be understood from the shape of the differential momentum
distribution $\d\sigma / \d p$ in the four scenarios above, Fig.~3.
Note the very broad momentum spectra at energies below the threshold,
where (at least) one of the $\mrm{W}$'s is pushed significantly off the mass
shell, and thus has a wide mass distribution. This depletion of
the low-$\beta$ region thus reduces the Coulomb corrections below
threshold. Above threshold the spectrum is peaked close to the
on-mass-shell value $p_0$ with a width decreasing like
$\delta p \sim M_{\mrm{W}} \Gamma_{\mrm{W}} / p_0$.
As above, differences between the alternative Coulomb scenarios are
more easily seen it the ratio of $\d\sigma / \d p$ distributions with
and without Coulomb effects included, Fig.~4. In particular note
the characteristic destructive interference for $p < p_0$ in the
unstable Coulomb case.
Even with this expanded scale, the difference between first- and
second-order unstable Coulomb is very small. To further quantify
effects, Fig.~5 gives the ratio of the second-order contribution
to the first-order one. At energies below and around threshold,
the effects are positive but only a few per cent, and vary slowly
with $p$. Above threshold, the difference between low and high $p$
is noticeable on this scale. For $p > p_0$ the effects are close to
vanishing, $< 1$\%, but become negative of $O(10\%)$ for
for $p < p_0$. In the limit $p \ll p_0$ a simplified analytical
expression is
\begin{equation}
|f(\mathbf{p},E)|^2 = 1 + \frac{2 \alpha M_{\mrm{W}} p_1}{|\kappa|^2}
\left\{ 1 + \frac{\alpha M_{\mrm{W}}}{2 p_1} \left[ 1 + 2 \ln 2
\frac{p_1^2 - p_2^2}{|\kappa|^2} \right] \right\} ~.
\label{limitsmallp}
\end{equation}
This gives a ratio indicated by a dashed line in Fig.~5.
The sign of the second-order effect is such as to further reduce
the next-to-vanishing first-order Coulomb corrections for $p < p_0$.
We must therefore conclude that it will be impossible to observe any
second-order Coulomb effects in the differential distributions
at LEP~2. This alternative will largely
be dropped from the continued discussion, although it is included in
the figures.
As noted earlier, the contributions of other intermediate--final and
final--final interaction mechanisms have been neglected in the above
scenarios, either the calculation is first- or second-order.
Driven by physical intuition we might try to estimate the possible
impact of such screening corrections by using a simplified formulae
containing an extra factor $(1-\beta)^2$ in front of the arctan term
in eq.~(\ref{deltaC}) of the first-order unstable
Coulomb formulae, ``dampened Coulomb''. This is
in agreement with the results of ref.~\cite{VK8}, where an attempt
is made to perform the quantitative studies of the instability effects
in the relativistic region. However, it should be noted that the
asymptotic behaviour does not constrain the form for LEP~2 energies,
where $\beta \simeq 1/2$, and thus the numerical difference between
two asymptotically equivalent forms such as $(1-\beta)^2$ and
$(1-\beta^2)^2$ (or $(1-\beta)^2$ and $(1-\beta_0)^2$) is very large.
The curves for this alternative at 175 and 190 GeV in Fig.~4 should
therefore be taken as a trial only.
The ansatz above gives a Coulomb effect that is essentially constant
as a function of $p$. Around $p_0$ the sharp increase noted in
the unstable Coulomb case is considerably dampened, since
$(1-\beta)^2 \sim (1-0.5)^2 = 0.25$. The visual impression is of an
even stronger dampening than just a factor 4, since the general
$1/\beta$ fall-off comes in addition and is common. Formally,
the dampened Coulomb option can be seen as a mixture of $(1-\beta)^2$
parts of the unstable Coulomb and $1-(1-\beta)^2$ of the stable Coulomb,
which offers an alternative approach to understanding the r\^ole of the
$1/\beta$. Since the fraction of the stable Coulomb vanishes like
$2\beta - \beta^2$ for $\beta \to 0$, but the Coulomb factor increases
like $1/\beta$, the flat behaviour for small $p$ is to be expected.
This should not be given too much emphasis, however, since we already
noted that the whole approach is unreliable for the LEP~2 energy region
and in particular for momenta that deviate
too much from $p_0$. However, in summary, it must be concluded that
the dampened Coulomb scenario looks rather much like the no-Coulomb
ones, except that the cross section is larger. So long as we are
only concerned with distributions normalized per event, no separate
figures need therefore be given for this alternative. This conclusion
is not valid around or below threshold, but numerically is a sensible
approximation from 170~GeV onwards.
We now proceed to quantify how much event properties are changed by
Coulomb effects. Fig.~6 shows the average $\mrm{W}$ momentum as a function
of c.m.~energy. At large energies this is increasing like
$\langle p \rangle \approx \sqrt{s/4 - M_{\mrm{W}}^2}$, but around threshold one or both
$\mrm{W}$'s are pushed off mass shell and so $\langle p \rangle$ stabilizes at a
level around 20~GeV. The addition of Coulomb effects gives a shift
of around 120~MeV in the threshold region, Fig.~7. The effect is here
negative, i.e. the Coulomb factors enhance the low-momentum tail of
the spectrum (cf. Fig.~4), giving a reduced $\langle p \rangle$. From 164~GeV
onwards the destructive interference at low momenta leads to a net
$\langle p \rangle$ shift upwards in the unstable Coulomb case. Lower momenta
are always favoured for the (unrealistic) stable Coulomb alternative,
so the asymptotic convergence towards the no-Coulomb baseline
is from opposite directions for a description in terms of stable
or unstable $\mrm{W}$ bosons.
Fig.~8 shows the shift between the average $\mrm{W}$ mass of events and
the nominal $M_{\mrm{W}}$ mass parameter (cf.~ref.~\cite{VK11}). Around and
below threshold this is
a negative number, while it becomes positive at around 190~GeV.
This is explained as a combination of phase space and cross section
effects, as discussed in the introduction. Coulomb effects on the
average $\mrm{W}$ mass $\langle m \rangle$ are opposite in sign and about half as large
as those on the average $\mrm{W}$ momentum $\langle p \rangle$, Fig.~9. This is easily
understood from the relation \mbox{$p^2 + m^2 \approx s/4$}
$\Longrightarrow$ \mbox{$\delta m \approx - p \delta p /m$},
where \mbox{$1/4 \lessim \langle p \rangle/m \lessim 3/4$} for the energy range
considered here. The mass difference betweem first- and second-order
Coulomb effects is seen to be below 3~MeV everywhere, i.e. completely
negligible.
Since each event contains two $\mrm{W}$'s, it is possible to study
separately the mass distribution of the lighter and the heavier
$\mrm{W}$ of each events. Figs.~10 and 11 show the Coulomb effects
on the average light and heavy mass, $\min(m_1,m_2)$ and
$\max(m_1,m_2)$. Below and around threshold almost the whole $\mrm{W}$
mass shift is found in the lighter $\mrm{W}$: since the lighter $\mrm{W}$
here is off the mass shell, a further change of the mass means
a smaller relative change of the propagator value than a corresponding
change for the heavier $\mrm{W}$. Mathematically, a $\mrm{W}$ propagator
$\rho \simeq 1/((s-M_{\mrm{W}}^2)^2 + M_{\mrm{W}}^2\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}^2)$ gives a relative change
$(1/\rho) |\d \rho / \d s | = 2 |s-M_{\mrm{W}}^2|/((s-M_{\mrm{W}}^2)^2 + M_{\mrm{W}}^2\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}^2)$
that is maximal around $\sqrt{s} \simeq M_{\mrm{W}} \pm \Gamma_{\mrm{W}}/2$ and falls off
like $1/|s-M_{\mrm{W}}^2|$ in either tail. At larger energies the mass shift
is shared evenly between the two $\mrm{W}$'s, which here both are
about equally close to the nominal mass $M_{\mrm{W}}$.
In the threshold region, there would then be two reasons to base a
topological determination of the $\mrm{W}$ mass on the mass distribution
of the heavier $\mrm{W}$ of the event. Firstly, Coulomb corrections are
small, and therefore also the associated uncertainty. Secondly,
this mass distribution is significantly narrower that that of the
lighter $\mrm{W}$ or even that of the average mass
$(m_{\mrm{heavy}}+m_{\mrm{light}})/2$, Figs. 12, 13 and 14,
so the statistical error would be smaller. However, there are also
two reasons against such a study. Firstly, it would be a major
experimental challenge to reconstruct two $\mrm{W}$ masses per event,
so the loss in accuracy from experimental effects would almost
certainly outweight the above gain. Secondly, in this energy region
a better accuracy can be obtained from a measurement of the total
cross section \cite{VK1}.
The root-mean-square width of the average $\mrm{W}$ mass distribution
is narrowest at around 170~GeV, Fig.~14. Below this energy it increses
significantly for the reasons discussed above; above 170~GeV there is
a very slight increase from phase space effects. Coulomb effects narrow
the mass distribution at around threshold, Fig.~15. Again this
behaviour can be related to the width of the momentum distribution,
Fig.~16, and to a narrowing of the width when Coulomb effects are
included, Fig.~17. In general, however, the relation
between $\sigma_{m} - \sigma_{m,\mrm{nC}}$ and
$\sigma_{p} - \sigma_{p,\mrm{nC}}$ is not as straightforward
as between $\langle m \rangle - \langle m_{\mrm{nC}} \rangle$ and
$\langle p \rangle - \langle p_{\mrm{nC}} \rangle$. This is because the
factor $p$ in the \mbox{$\delta m \approx - p \delta p /m$}
relation suppresses the importance of the low-momentum tail
on the mass distribution, while it enhances the importance of the
high-momentum tail. Thus the stable-Coulomb scenario has a broader
momentum distribution than the no-Coulomb one at most energies,
but since this is due mainly to the enhancement of the low-momentum
tail, the mass distribution may still be narrower. In the
unstable-Coulomb approaches, the enhancement is in the high-momentum
tail, and thus the momentum and mass width changes better follow suit.
As we have noted earlier, experimental $\mrm{W}$ mass methods are based on
the $p$ observable rather than on the $m_1$ and $m_2$ ones. That is,
measured jet/lepton directions and energies are not used to reconstruct
two masses per event. Instead the two $\mrm{W}$'s are assumed to have the
same mass, and beam energy constraints are used to improve the
detector energy resolution, so that most of the experimental information
is related to angles and from there to the net momentum of jet pairs,
i.e. to $p$. The translation from a set of $p$ measurements to a $\mrm{W}$
mass can be done in different ways, that are more or less sensitive to
Coulomb effects. Compare Figs.~18 and 19; in the former the momentum
$p$ is first averaged over events and then translated to an average mass,
$\langle m \rangle = \sqrt{s/4 - \langle p \rangle^2}$, in the latter the $p$'s are first
translated to $m$'s and then averaged,
$\langle m \rangle = \langle \sqrt{s/4 - p^2} \rangle$. It turns out that the
former recipe is preferrable in the threshold region, in that it
gives a smaller spread between the alternatives, while there is
no noticeable difference at higher energies.
Other averaging schemes can be considered, where also events are giving
relative weights to reflect their ``usefulness'' in constraining the
$\mrm{W}$ mass. The most direct approach is to remove some fraction of the
events in the wings of the momentum distributions, where events are
found only if one of the $\mrm{W}$'s is significantly off the mass shell.
For experimental rejection of background events, such an approach
offers additional benefits. The importance of the wings for the
momentum shift of Coulomb effects is shown in Fig.~20 for a few
energies. What is plotted is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d \Delta \langle p \rangle}{\d p} =
\frac{ \d ( \langle p_{\mrm{C}} \rangle - \langle p_{\mrm{nC}}%
\rangle )}{\d p} = (p - \langle p \rangle_{\mrm{nC}}) \,
\left( \frac{1}{\sigma_{\mrm{C}}} \, \frac{\d \sigma_{\mrm{C}}}{\d p}
- \frac{1}{\sigma_{\mrm{nC}}} \, \frac{\d \sigma_{\mrm{nC}}}{\d p}
\right) ~,
\label{pavgdiff}
\end{equation}
where index ``C'' (``nC'') denotes a scenario with (without) Coulomb
effects. By construction, the measure vanishes at $\langle p \rangle_{\mrm{nC}}$;
this is visible at the lower energies but is somewhat hidden by the
finite resolution at the highest energies. In other words, the
shift of the average momentum is dominated by the behaviour in the
wings at low energies. At higher energies, the momentum distribution
is narrower and also the shift of the average momentum is dominated
by a smaller region. This behaviour carries over to the mass shift
$\langle m \rangle - \langle m_{\mrm{nC}} \rangle$. We study two alternatives,
keeping only those events with momentum within 30 and 10~GeV,
respectively, of the average. For simplicity, $\langle p \rangle$ has here been
approximated by the expression
$\langle p \rangle_{\mrm{approx}} = \sqrt[4]{(s/4-M_{\mrm{W}}^2)^2 + 4 M_{\mrm{W}}^2\Gamma_{\mrm{W}}^2}$,
which is not particularly accurate below threshold but good enough
for this purpose. Comparing the mass shifts in Figs.~21 and 22 with
those in Fig.~9, we note the reduced importance of Coulomb effects
below and around threshold, while the reduction is rather modest at
higher energies. For instance, at a typical LEP~2 energy of 175 GeV,
the difference between unstable Coulomb and no Coulomb decreases from
$-23$~MeV without cut to $-16$~MeV with a cut
$| p - \langle p \rangle_{\mrm{approx}} | < 10$~GeV. The statistics will drop if
the momentum window is reduced further, so it appears difficult to
do much better.
We have compared several alternative Coulomb effect scenarios in
this paper. Thereby we hope to learn about the possible effects
also of other (not yet calculated) QED effects, like
intermediate--final interference.
Whereas a scenario such as the no-Coulomb one obviously is excluded,
we have above indicated how something akin to it might arise as
an approximate description of the normalized momentum distribution.
Such ambiguities would be resolved if the experimental data themselves
could be used to extract the form of QED corrections. One specific
idea would be to divide the experimental momentum spectrum by the
no-Coulomb rate, to obtain a distribution akin to what is shown
in Fig.~4. If the experimental distribution would agree with
contemporaneous calculations, theory could be used to extract
the $\mrm{W}$ mass. If not, the experimentally defined correction factors
could still be used for this purpose.
There are two major problems with such a thinking, however. Firstly,
so long as we do not know the $\mrm{W}$ mass we also do not know which
no-Coulomb curve to compare with. The sharp increase in the
unstable Coulomb factor at around $p_0$ for the higher energies in
Fig.~4 is there since we compare scenarios with the same $M_{\mrm{W}}$.
If instead $\langle p \rangle$ is made to agree, as would be the realistic
experimental procedure, differences between scenarios are not as
spectacular. Still, even with the same $\langle p \rangle$, the shape of the
momentum spectrum would be different, so with hard work it should
be possible to find which descriptions work and which do not.
However, here enters the second problem, namely that of limited
statistics. A LEP~2 experiment will at most have of order 10,000
events to base the analysis on. It is difficult to see how this
would be enough to observe any differences, given that we are
speaking of Coulomb correction factors of a few per cent.
This prejudice is borne out by detailed studies. For instance, in
Fig.~23 we have compared 100 ``LEP~2 experiments'' at 175~GeV,
each of 10000 events. In the stable-Coulomb scenario the $M_{\mrm{W}}$
parameter has been shifted down by 13~MeV relative to the no-Coulomb
one, and in the unstable-Coulomb one up by 22~MeV (cf.~Fig.~9),
so that $\langle p \rangle$ should be the same. In fact, the limited statistics
leads to a non-negligible spread of $\langle p \rangle$ values. Also higher
moments, in Fig.~23 $\sqrt[n]{\langle (p - \langle p \rangle)^n \rangle}, n=2,3,4$,
show a significant statistical spread, with no obvious separation
between the no-, stable- and unstable-Coulomb scenarios. For a given
``LEP~2 experiments'' it is impossible to tell which distribution it
is drawn from. Correlations between the moments again do not
distinguish (not shown).
One therefore must conclude that --- unless something truly
spectacular happens --- experimental input can not be used to pin down
QED interconnection effects. It is necessary to have the theory
under control to the required accuracy.
\section{Conclusions}
One of the most critical single observables for LEP~2 physics is the
$\mrm{W}$ mass. Had there been no interconnection effects between the $\mrm{W}^+$
and the $\mrm{W}^-$, in principle their respective four-momenta could be
reconstructed
and squared to give the $\mrm{W}^{\pm}$ masses. The shifts in the observable
$\mrm{W}$ mass distributions could come from a number of sources
\cite{VK6,VK7,Leif} that we have not attempted to address here.
Our main concern has been to estimate the $\mrm{W}$ mass shift caused by
distortions of the $\mrm{W}$ momentum spectrum from instability effects,
as embodied in the QED radiative corrections to the differential
$\e^+\e^- \to \mrm{W}^+\mrm{W}^-$ cross section. In the threshold region we can exploit
the formulae for Coulomb corrections \cite{VK2,VK9},
which here are responsible for the dominant off-shellness-induced
phenomena. For complete predictions in the whole LEP~2 energy range,
one needs to incorporate the contributions of other QED interconnection
mechanisms, e.g. those resulting from intermediate--final and
final--final photon interference \cite{VK3,VK8}.
As far as we are aware, the complete analytical calculation has never
been performed for the whole set of electroweak corrections to unstable
$\mrm{W}$ production and decay. (An attempt to estimate QED interconnection
phenomena in the relativistic region can be found in ref.~\cite{VK8}.)
While the complete calculation is missing, one may attempt to compare
some different scenarios that give an impression of the size of
effects. Our current ``best'' description is the all-orders Coulomb
description in ref.~\cite{VK14}. One conclusion of this paper is that
second-order (and, by implication, all higher-order) Coulomb effects
are practically negligible. The first-order (``unstable'') Coulomb
description therefore
is a realistic baseline. Other intermediate--final and final--final
interference terms are expected to modify this behaviour. Specifically,
one could expect the rapid variation of the Coulomb factor around $p_0$
(the on-mass-shell $\mrm{W}$ momentum) to be substantially dampened.
In fact, a brute-force application of a proposed asymptotic dampening
factor \cite{VK8} to the LEP~2 energy region would imply that a
momentum-dependent Coulomb factor can be replaced by an almost
momentum-independent average. Therefore the no-Coulomb scenario
could be a realistic alternative for reconnection effects on kinematical
distributions. The final scenario, with Coulomb effects evaluated for
stable $\mrm{W}$'s, is less realistic and has been included mainly for
completeness.
At LEP~2 energies, the no- and unstable-Coulomb scenarios differ by
about 20~MeV on the observable $\langle m \rangle$, given a common theory input $M_{\mrm{W}}$.
This is somewhat below the statistical accuracy, but comparable with
other potential sources of systematic error, and so not negligible. It
is therefore interesting to see whether the uncertainty can be reduced
by a clever choice of experimental procedure. The conclusions of this
paper are not too optimistic on this count. The limited statistics
will preclude the testing of the theory scenarios from data itself.
One will therefore be totally dependent on a full-scale theory
calculation to reach any definite conclusions. However, different
statistical treatments of the data can increase or decrease the 20~MeV
number above by some amount: in the paper we have given the examples of
cuts on the momentum range analyzed and choice of statistical averaging
procedure.
The QED final-state interaction could induce some systematic effects in
other $\mrm{W}$-mass measurements as well, for instance in $\pbar\p$ collider
experiments. Of particular interest here is the subprocess
$\mrm{q}\mrm{g} \to \mrm{W} \mrm{q}'$ with $\mrm{W} \to \ell \nu_{\ell}$. Collider experiments
normally rely on the equivalent process for $\mrm{Z}^0$ production,
$\mrm{q}\mrm{g} \to \mrm{Z} \mrm{q}$ with $\mrm{Z} \to \ell^+ \ell^-$, to calibrate the $\mrm{W}$
mass scale. Non-universal interference effects are not included in
such a procedure, e.g. a charged ($\mrm{W}^{\pm}$) versus a chargeless
($\mrm{Z}^0$) intermediate state. The effects of real-photon emission
have been compared \cite{Zeppen}, but virtual corrections remain to
be studied. It could well turn out that a corresponding theory
uncertainty of order 20~MeV exists in this process. Within current
experimental errors this would be negligible, but it could become
relevant for future high-precision measurements.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to the UK PPARC for support. Useful discussions with
V.S.~Fadin, N.~Kjaer, K.~Melnikov, R.~M{\o}ller, W.J.~Stirling and
O.~Yakovlev are acknowledged.
This work was supported in part by the EU Programme
``Human Capital and Mobility'', Network ``Physics at High Energy
Colliders'', contract CHRX-CT93-0319 (DG 12 COMA).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}
Quite surprisingly, it was found in the mid-eighties that dynamic phenomena
on fractal structures often were controlled not by one or two relevant length
scales, but rather an infinite hierarchy of such length scales
\cite{hjkps86}.
One of the prime examples of this phenomenon is the current
distribution in the random resistor network at the percolation threshold
\cite{rtbt85,arc85,rtt85,arc86}. In spite
of the large effort which was invested to understand how such an
infinite hierarchy could appear, {\it e.g.\/} through studying hierarchical
structures yielding to analytic calculations \cite{arc85,arc86},
no satisfactory general
explanation was found. The large numerical effort that was invested at that
time on the random resistor network focussed on two dimensions. The reason
for this was that three-dimensional networks were essentially out of reach
of the computational power available at the time. The aim of the
present work is to establish that, as in two dimensions, the current
distribution in three dimensions is multifractal and to determine the
corresponding scaling exponents with high presicion. In addition to their
theoretical interest, these results are of importance in making contact with
experimental studies on three-dimensional conductor-insulator mixtures
\cite{lsncg86,snlg86,rm87}, and microemulsions
\cite{l79,ls80,bskh85,eht86,c88}.
To achieve this goal, we made use of the latest developments in iterative
solvers and massively parallel computers.
In section \ref{sec2} we present the model and the method of solution.
In section \ref{sec3} we discuss the current distribution through the behaviour
of the
moments and their exponents, in addition to examining the statistical
fluctuations of the moments.
\section{Model and Numerical Solution}
\label{sec2}
We consider a three-dimensional cubic lattice of size $L^3$ with
periodic boundary conditions in the $x$ and $y$ directions. For the
$z$ direction the boundary conditions are as follows: At $z=1$ and
$z=L$ we place two plates with a constant potential difference set at
a value of 1. Therefore, the length of the lattice in the $z$
direction is $(L-1)$, while in the $x$ and $y$ directions the length
is $L$. This geometry was chosen because the data layout becomes
optimal on the Connection Machine CM5 which we used for our
computations.
All bonds are visited and, with a probability $p$, a resistor is
placed. All resistors have the same resistance, 1. We set $p$ equal to
the bond percolation threshold for the cubic lattice, $p_c=0.2488$, as
determined by Stauffer {\it et al.\/} \cite{saa94}. After all the
bonds have been visited, a (parallel) cluster finding algorithm is
applied to determine if there is a spanning cluster that connects the
two plates. If no such cluster exists, the procedure is repeated until
one is obtained. This cluster finding algorithm is very fast but only
determines if there is such a cluster, not its exact geometry.
The equations to be solved are the usual current equations (Kirchhoff's
equations) on the lattice which can be easily solved using the
conjugate gradient or related iterative algorithms \cite{bh88}. We wrote the
program in CM Fortran and used the iterative solvers in the
Connection Machine Scientific Software Library (CMSSL) which contains
thirteen of them. Which one to use, depends on the particular matrices
one is dealing with. For this problem we found that the
quasi-minimized CGS (QCGS) \cite{t92} algorithm performs very well.
Our stopping condition is for the residual to be less than $10^{-12}$,
which for the biggest lattices gave a true accuracy of about
$10^{-9}$. We estimated this by calculating the conductivity of each
realization in two ways: 1) Calculate the total current crossing an
$XY$ plane at $z=L/2$, which, knowing the potential difference (=1),
gives the conductivity, and 2) calculate the second moment of the
currents. This is again equal the conductivity as the externally applied
potential difference is 1. On the biggest lattices, for which the accuracy
at which we can determine the currents is the lowest,
they agreed to within $O(10^{-9})$. As it is too time consuming compared to
solving the Kirchhoff equations, we made no effort to identify the bonds
that did not belong to the spanning cluster. We simply solved for the
currents keeping the disconnected bonds and dangling ends in the system.
This made it impossible to get an accurate count of the number of
current-carrying bonds. We will, therefore, give results for the
second, fourth, and sixth momemts of the currents, leaving out the zero'th
moment. The number of realizations for $L=8$, 16, 32, 48, 64, and 80 were
12000, 9198, 2765, 1120, 1913, and 953 respectively.
\section{Current Distribution}
\label{sec3}
Solving for the currents in the bonds allows us to calculate the $n$th
moment of the current distribution, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
\langle i^n \rangle_V = {1 \over N_R} \sum_R \sum_{k(R)} i^n_{k(r)},
\end{equation}
where $R$ denotes the realization, $N_R$ is the number of these
realizations, and $i_{k(R)}$ is the current in the $k$th bond in
realization $R$. These moments are calculated in the constant voltage
ensemble where the potential difference is kept constant
realization to realization. We expect the moments of
the currents to scale as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
\langle i^n \rangle_V \sim L_z^{x(n)},
\end{equation}
where $L_z=L-1$ is the length of the system in the $z$ direction, and $x(n)$
is the exponent of the $n$th moment. Figures \ref{fig1}a, \ref{fig2} and
\ref{fig3} show, on a
log-log scale, the second, fourth and sixth moments respectively. The
second moment measures the total dissipated power, and since the
externally applied voltage difference is 1, it directly gives the
conductance of the network. So, Figure \ref{fig1}a gives the scaling of the
conductance as a function of $L_z$, giving the exponent
$x(2)=1.282(5)$. Figure \ref{fig1}b shows the scaling of the {\it variance\/}
of
the conductance distribution as a function of $L_z$. We see that it
scales with the same exponent as the conductance itself. The same is
true for the other moments. Thus, the relative fluctuations neither
grow nor decrease with lattice size. The scaling
of the {\it conductivity\/} with $L_z$ is obtained by simply dividing
the results for the second moment by $L_z$ (since this is the conductance)
giving $t/\nu=2.282(5)$, where $t$ is the conductivity exponent and $\nu$
is the corrrelation function exponent. Our value for $t/\nu$ is in agreement
with, but more precise than, the value determined by Gingold and Lobb
\cite{gl90} who obtained $t/\nu=2.276(12)$. With $\nu=0.88$,
we therefore have that $t=2.01$. The experimental values reported for this
exponent ranges from 1.2 to 2.1 for the measurements based on microemulsions
\cite{l79,ls80,bskh85,eht86,c88}, and for the measurements based on
conductor-insulator mixtures, the values $2.0\pm 0.2$ \cite{lsncg86},
$1.85\pm 0.25$ \cite{snlg86}, and $1.6\pm 0.1$ \cite{rm87}.
The exponent of the fourth moment is related to the scaling of the Nyquist
noise of the random resistor network through the fluctuation-dissipation
theorem as shown by Rammal {\it et al.\/} \cite{rtt85}.
Thus, as for the second
moment, the fourth moment is related to a macroscopic quantity and
therefore is of direct experimental interest. However, no relation between
the sixth moment of the current distribution and a directly measurable
quantity has been identified. We determine $x(4)=3.920(6)=$ and
$x(6)=6.477(10)$.
If $y(n)$ is the exponent of the $n$th moment in the constant current
ensemble, we have $\langle i^n \rangle_c \sim L_z^{y(n)}$. It is then
easy to show that $y(n)=x(n) - nx(2)$. This way, we can easily change
between the two ensembles. Figure \ref{fig4}
shows $y(n)$ as a function of $n$,
where we see that it behaves in the classic multifractal
way \cite{arc86,h90}: The three exponents we show do not fall on a
straight line and as $n$ increases they approach a constant that must
equal $1/\nu$ \cite{rtbt85,bhn87}.
This is shown by the dashed line in the figure. To show
this relation even more clearly, we plot in Figure \ref{fig5} $y(n)$
{\it versus\/}
$1/n$, and where we use for $y(\infty)$ the best value we found for
$\nu=0.88$, \cite{amah90} and references therein. The dashed
line is merely to guide the eye. It
connects the point at $1/n=0$ to that at $1/n=0.5$. We see that the
exponents for the fourth and sixth moments are in agreement with this line
although the sixth moment is starting to lose precision. These $y(n)$ plots
demonstrate the multifractality of the current distribution in this network,
but the convergence to $1/\nu$ as $n\to \infty$ is rather slow, especially
when compared to the two-dimensional case \cite{h90}.
The sample to sample fluctuations of the values of the conductivity
($G$) and the fourth moment (related the Nyquist noise strength, let
us call it $K=\langle i^4\rangle_V$) also yield interesting
information about the system \cite{hma90}. We have demonstrated in
Figure \ref{fig1}b that the variance of the conductance (from
sample-to-sample fluctuations) scales as the conductance itself with
respect to $L_z$. Exactly the same behaviour is observed for the
variances of the higher moments. Therefore, the distributions of
$G/\langle G\rangle$ from different size systems will collapse onto a
single distribution. The same is true for $K/\langle K\rangle$. To
characterize these distributions, we examined on semi-log scale these
distributions against $(G-\langle G\rangle)^2/\langle G\rangle^2$ and
$(K-\langle K\rangle)^2/\langle K\rangle^2$, respectively. Such plots
should yield straight lines for Gaussian distributions. This way we
found the distributions not to be normal, and a similar procedure
showed them not to be lognormal. In Figures \ref{fig6} and \ref{fig7},
we show the distributions of $G/\langle G\rangle$ and $K/\langle
K\rangle$ for different lattice sizes on semi-log scale plotted
against $G/\langle G\rangle$ and $K/\langle K\rangle$. For the larger
values, we find in both plots straight lines which indicate exponetial
distributions of the form $N(G/\langle G\rangle) \sim \exp(-2G/\langle
G\rangle)$ and $N(K/\langle K\rangle)\sim \exp (-1.3K/\langle
K\rangle)$, respectively.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec4}
By using a combination of efficient algorithms and a massively
parallel computer, we were able to do a high precision study of the
distribution and moments of currents in a three dimensional network at
the percolation threshold.
Our result for the conductivity exponent is in agreement with but more
precise than previous values. In addition we evaluated the exponents
for the fourth (related to {\it 1/f\/} and Nyquist noise) and sixth moments.
The values
we have found support the notion of a multifractal current distribution
for the three dimensional network.
We have furthermore studied the sample-to-sample fluctuations and the
distributions of the second (conductivity) and fourth (noise) moment
of the current distribution. We find that the relative fluctuations
scale as the moments themselves with lattice size, and that the
underlying statistical distributions appear to be exponential rather
than Gaussian. Furthermore, the distribution of conductivities at the
percolation threshold has proven to be an important ingredient in the
formulation of scaling theories for the optical properties (ac
conductivity, reflectivity, transmittivity) of two-dimensional systems
such as semiconductor metal films\cite{yagil} and metal-insulator
composites\cite{noh}. Similar scaling theories in three dimensions,
when constructed, will also need the distribution of the
conductivities for three-dimensional systems at the percolation
threshold, which we have presented in this paper.
\acknowledgements
We thank B.\ Kahng, S.\ Roux, P.\ Tamayo, and B.M.\ Thornton for
helpful discussions. We also thank Institut de Physique du Globe
(Paris), GMD (Bonn), and Thinking Machines Corporation for their
support through generous allocation of time on their CM5 machines.
|
\section{Introduction}
Heavy quark systems have attracted considerable interest in recent years.
Studying the decays of hadrons containing heavy quarks is important in
order to narrow the constraints on the less known elements of the
Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. Precise knowledge of the CKM
matrix elements serves to test the consistency of the Standard Model
and to detect possible signals of ``new physics". Theoretical tools for dealing
with heavy quark systems, such as the Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET)
\cite{voloshif,wisgur,georgi}, have been developed and are being successfully
applied in the analysis and interpretation of experimental data.
However, theoretical estimates of form factors, decay constants and mixing
parameters are subject to uncertainties due to strong interaction effects
whose nature is intrinsically non-perturbative on typical hadronic scales.
Lattice simulations of QCD are designed to provide a
non-perturbative treatment of hadronic processes and have already made
important contributions to the study of the spectroscopy and decays of
hadrons in both the light and heavy quark sector \cite{lattice_reviews}.
For systems involving heavy quarks, most notably the $b$ quark, the r\^ole
of lattice simulations is two-fold: firstly, to make predictions for yet
unmeasured quantities such as the decay constant of the $B$ meson, $f_B$,
or the masses of baryons containing $b$ quarks; secondly, to test the validity
of other theoretical methods such as large mass expansions or the HQET.
One problem that is encountered in current simulations of heavy quark systems
is the fact that typical values of the inverse lattice spacing lie in the range
$2-3.5\,{\rm GeV}$ which is well below the $b$ mass. There are
several methods for dealing with this problem, one of which was proposed by
Eichten \cite{eichten_stat} in which the heavy quark propagator is expanded
in inverse powers of the heavy quark mass. The so-called static approximation
is the leading term in this expansion, for which the $b$ quark is
infinitely heavy. One may also hope to compute some of the higher-order
corrections to the static limit, although the presence of power divergences
presents theoretical and practical complications \cite{mai_mar_sac}.
Another method for lattice studies of heavy quark systems is to use propagating
heavy quarks. At present, these simulations are carried out for quark masses
around the charm quark mass, and the results obtained in this fashion must
be extrapolated to the mass of the $b$ quark. Clearly, this method
depends crucially on controlling the effects of non-zero lattice
spacing (``lattice artefacts'') at the heavy masses used in the simulation.
In general, the influence of lattice artefacts on quantities involving
propagating quarks can be reduced by considering ``improved'' actions as
suggested by Symanzik \cite{symanzik} and detailed further by the authors
of \cite{SW} and \cite{heatlie}. For heavy-light decay constants, improvement
has been successfully applied to quark masses in the region of that of the
charm quark \cite{quenched, ape_lat93}. Furthermore, the data from the static
approximation, obtained at infinite quark mass, serve to guide the
extrapolation of results obtained using propagating heavy quarks to the mass
of the $b$.
In this paper we report on our results for $f_B$, the $B$ parameter
$B_B$ describing \mbox{$B^0 - \overline{B^0}${}}\ mixing and mass splittings involving the $B$
and $B^*$ mesons as well as the $\Lambda_b$. The results are obtained
using the static approximation for the heavy quark, whereas the
$O(a)$-improved Sheikholeslami-Wohlert action \cite{SW,heatlie} is
used for the light quarks. In many ways this study is intended as a
continuation and extension of earlier simulations. For example, we are
able to study the effects of $O(a)$-improvement on various quantities,
among them the $B^* - B$ mass splitting, which is believed to be
sensitive to discretisation errors. Furthermore, this splitting arises
only at next-to-leading order in the large mass expansion and serves
therefore as a measure of higher-order corrections to the static
limit.
We now list our main results. For the $B$ parameter at scale $m_b$ in
the static approximation we obtain
\begin{equation}
B_{B_d}^{\rm static}(m_b) =
0.69\er{3}{4}\,{\rm(stat)}\er{2}{1}\,{\rm(syst)},
\end{equation}
which corresponds to a value of the renormalisation-group-invariant
$B$ parameter of
\begin{equation}
B_{B_d}^{\rm static} = 1.02\er{5}{6}\,{\rm(stat)}\er{3}{2}\,{\rm(syst)}.
\end{equation}
The decay constant $f_B^{\rm static}$ is found to be
\begin{equation}
f_{B_d}^{\rm static}=266\err{18}{20}\,{\rm(stat)}\err{28}{27}\,{\rm(syst)}\,
{\rm MeV}.
\end{equation}
From the chiral behaviour of $B_B^{\rm static}$ and $f_B^{\rm static}$ we extract
\begin{equation}
\frac{f_{B_s}^2\,B_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}^2\,B_{B_d}} =
1.34\er{9}{8}\,{\rm(stat)}\er{5}{3}\,{\rm(syst)}.
\end{equation}
Finally, for the mass splittings we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{B_s}-M_{B_d} & = &
~87\err{15}{12}\,{\rm(stat)}\err{6}{12}\,{\rm(syst)}\,{\rm MeV} \\
M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{B_d} & = &
420\errr{100}{90}\,{\rm(stat)}\err{30}{30}\,{\rm(syst)}\,{\rm MeV} \\
M_{B^*}^2-M_B^2 & = &
0.281\err{15}{16}\,{\rm(stat)}\err{40}{37}\,{\rm(syst)}\,{\rm GeV}^2.
\label{eq:BBstar_res}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the systematic error on dimensionful quantities is dominated by
uncertainties in the lattice scale, whereas systematic errors on
dimensionless quantities arise from the spread of values using
alternative fitting procedures. There is an additional uncertainty in
the estimate of the $B$ parameter, which arises from the perturbative
matching between full QCD and the lattice theory in the static
approximation. We estimate this uncertainty to be as large as
15--20\%, as will be discussed later.
Our estimate for the $B^*-B$ hyperfine splitting in
eq.\,(\ref{eq:BBstar_res}) is much smaller than the experimental value
of $0.488(6)\,{\rm GeV}^2$ (as is also the case with Wilson fermions
\cite{boch}). The implications of this result are discussed in more
detail in section\,\ref{sec:bbstar}. Here we only wish to state that
the relevant matching factor for the $B^*-B$ splitting is also subject
to significant uncertainties.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to investigate the dependence of
our results on the lattice spacing~$a$. Here we wish to stress that we
seek to reduce these effects considerably by employing an
$O(a)$-improved fermionic action, leaving an extrapolation to the
continuum limit to future studies.
The paper is organised as follows. In section \ref{sec:simul} we describe the
details of our simulation and analysis. Section \ref{sec:fb_bb} contains our
results for $B_B^{\rm static}$ and $f_B^{\rm static}$. The splittings
$B_s - B_d$, $B^* - B$ and $\Lambda_b - B$ are discussed in
section \ref{sec:split}.
Finally, section \ref{sec:summ} contains a summary and our conclusions.
\section{The Simulation} \label{sec:simul}
Our results are based on 60 SU(3) gauge configurations in the quenched
approximation, calculated on a lattice of size $24^3\times48$ at $\beta=6.2$.
The configurations were generated using the hybrid over-relaxed algorithm
described in \cite{light_hadrons}.
Light quark propagators were computed at three values of the hopping
parameter $\kappa_l$, namely $\kappa_l = 0.14144,$ 0.14226 and 0.14262, using
the Sheikholeslami-Wohlert (SW) action \cite{SW}
\begin{equation}
S_F^{SW} = S_F^W - i\frac{\kappa_l}{2}\sum_{x,\mu,\nu}\,
\overline{q}(x)\,F_{\mu\nu}(x)\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,q(x),
\end{equation}
where $S_F^W$ is the standard Wilson action and $F_{\mu\nu}$ is a lattice
definition of the field strength tensor \cite{light_hadrons}.
The chosen $\kappa_l$ values are in the region of the strange quark, whose
mass, as determined from the mass ratio $m_K^2/m_\rho^2$, corresponds to
$\mbox{$\kappa_s$}=0.1419(1)$, while the chiral limit of massless quarks is reached at
$\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}=0.14315(2)$ \cite{strange}.
The leading term in the expansion of the heavy quark propagator is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sb0}
S_Q(\vec x,t;\vec 0, 0)=\left\{\Theta(t)\,{\rm e}^{-m_Qt}\frac{1+\gamma^4}{2} +
\Theta(-t)\,{\rm e}^{m_Qt}\frac{1-\gamma^4}{2}\right\}\,
\delta^{(3)}(\vec x){\cal{P}} _{\vec 0}(t,0),
\end{equation}
where ${\cal{P}} _{\vec 0}(t,0)$ is the product of links from $(\vec 0,t)$
to the origin, for example for $t>0$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calp}
{\cal{P}} _{\vec 0}(t,0) = U_4^\dagger(\vec 0,t-1)
U_4^\dagger(\vec 0, t - 2) \cdots U_4^\dagger(\vec 0, 0).
\end{equation}
The static quark propagator, eq.\,(\ref{eq:sb0}), and the light quark
propagators were combined to compute correlation functions for the relevant
quantities in this paper.
In order to obtain $O(a)$-improved matrix elements for heavy-light bilinears
using the static approximation, it is sufficient to carry out the improvement
prescription in the light quark sector only \cite{bp}.
Therefore we describe the light quark using the SW action and consider
operators in which only the light quark field $q(x)$ has been ``rotated''
\cite{heatlie,quenched}, i.e.
\begin{equation}
O_\Gamma = b^\dagger(x)\,\Gamma\,\big(
1 - \textstyle\frac{1}{2}\gamma\cdot\stackrel{\rightarrow}{D}
\big) q(x).
\end{equation}
Here, $b(x)$ denotes the heavy quark spinor in the static
approximation, and $\Gamma$ is some Dirac matrix.
It is useful to use extended (or ``smeared'') interpolating operators in
order to isolate the ground state in correlation functions efficiently. This
is of particular importance in the static approximation where calculations
using purely local operators are known to fail \cite{boucaud}.
In this study we compare different smearing techniques which can be broadly
divided into gauge-invariant and gauge-dependent methods, the latter being
performed on gauge configurations transformed to the Coulomb gauge.
For gauge-invariant smearing we use the Jacobi smearing algorithm described
in \cite{smearing}. The smeared field at timeslice $t$, $q^S(\vec{x},t)$ is
defined by
\begin{equation}
q^S(\vec{x},t) \equiv \sum_{\vec{x}^\prime}J(x,x^\prime)\,
q(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inv}
J(x,x^\prime) = \sum_{n=0}^N\,\kappa_S\,\Delta^n(x,x^\prime),
\end{equation}
and $\Delta$ is the gauge-invariant discretised version of the
three-dimensional Laplace operator. The parameter $\kappa_S$ and the number of
iterations $N$ can be used to control the smearing radius. Here, we quote our
results for $\kappa_S=0.25$ and $N=140$, which corresponds to a r.m.s. smearing
radius of $r_0=6.4$ \cite{quenched}. The same values were used in our previous
study of $f_B^{\rm static}$, obtained on a subset of 20 of our 60 gauge
configurations \cite{quenched}.
In order to study smearing methods in a fixed gauge, the configurations were
transformed to the Coulomb gauge using the algorithms described in
\cite{paciello, man_ogil}.
The lattice analog of the continuum Coulomb gauge condition,
$\partial_i A_i(x) = 0$, is
\begin{equation}
\theta(x) = {\rm Tr}\big( D(x) D^\dagger(x)\big) = 0
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D(x) = \sum_i \left( U_i(x) + U_i^\dagger(x-i)\,\,\, - \,\,\,
\mbox{h.c.}\,\right)_{\rm traceless}
\end{equation}
with the index $i$ signifying spatial components only.
At each iteration of the gauge fixing procedure the average value of
$\theta$ was calculated, $\langle\theta\rangle = \sum_x \theta(x)/V$,
where $V$ is the total lattice volume. For each gauge configuration the
gauge was fixed to a precision $\langle\theta\rangle \sim 10^{-4}$.
Defining the smeared quark field $q^S(\vec{x},t)$
via
\begin{equation}
q^S(\vec{x},t) \equiv \sum_{\vec{x}^\prime}\,f(\vec{x},\vec{x}^\prime)
\,q(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
\end{equation}
we considered the following smearing functions $f(\vec{x},\vec{x}^\prime)$
for smearing radius $r_0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm{Exponential:}} \quad
f(\vec{x},\vec{x}^\prime) & = & \exp\left\{-|\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime|/r_0
\right\} \label{eq:exp}\\
{\rm{Gaussian:}} \quad
f(\vec{x},\vec{x}^\prime) & = & \exp\left\{-|\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime|^2/r_0^2
\right\} \label{eq:gau}\\
{\rm{Cube:}} \quad
f(\vec{x},\vec{x}^\prime) & = & \prod_{i=1}^3\,
\Theta\big(r_0-|x_i-x_i^\prime|\big) \label{eq:cub}\\
{\rm{Double~Cube:}} \quad
f(\vec{x},\vec{x}^\prime) & = & \prod_{i=1}^3\,
\Big(1-\frac{|x_i-x_i^\prime|}{2r_0}\Big)\,
\Theta\big(2r_0-|x_i-x_i^\prime|\big). \label{eq:dcb}
\end{eqnarray}
Following the analysis in ref.\,\cite{APE_60_stat}, where a variety of
smearing radii was studied, we chose $r_0=5$ in all cases.
Our 60 gauge configurations and the light quark propagators were computed on
the 64-node Meiko i860 Computing Surface at Edinburgh. The transformation to
the Coulomb gauge was performed on the Cray Y-MP/8 at the Daresbury Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory. Smeared propagators using the gauge-invariant Jacobi
algorithm were calculated on a Thinking Machines CM-200 at the University
of Edinburgh. All other smearing types and the relevant correlators were
computed on a variety of DEC ALPHA machines.
Statistical errors are estimated from a bootstrap procedure \cite{efron},
which involves the creation of 200 bootstrap samples
from our set of 60 configurations. Correlators are fitted for each sample
by minimising $\chi^2$, taking correlations among different timeslices into
account. The quoted statistical errors are obtained from the central 68\,\%
of the corresponding bootstrap distribution \cite{light_hadrons}.
In order to convert our values for decay constants and mass splittings into
physical units we need an estimate of the inverse lattice spacing in GeV.
In this study we take
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ainv}
a^{-1} = 2.9 \pm 0.2\,{\rm GeV},
\end{equation}
thus deviating slightly from some of our earlier papers where we quoted
2.7\,{\rm GeV}\ as the central value \cite{quenched,light_hadrons,strange}.
The error in eq.\,(\ref{eq:ainv}) is large enough to encompass all our
estimates for $a^{-1}$ from quantities such as $m_\rho$, $f_\pi$, $m_N$, the
string tension $\sqrt{K}$ and the hadronic scale $R_0$ discussed in
\cite{sommer}. The shift was partly motivated by a recent study using newly
generated UKQCD data \cite{biele_how}: using the quantity $R_0$
we found $a^{-1} = 2.95\err{7}{11}\,{\rm GeV}$. Also, a non-perturbative
determination of the renormalisation constant of the axial current resulted
in a value of $Z_A = 1.04$ \cite{jonivar} which is larger by about 8\,\% than
the perturbative value which we had used previously. Thus the scale as estimated
from $f_\pi$ decreases to around 3.1\,{\rm GeV}\ which enables us to significantly
reduce the upper uncertainty on our final value of $a^{-1}\,[{\rm GeV}]$.
\section{Decay Constants and Mixing Parameters} \label{sec:fb_bb}
In this section we present the results for $f_B^{\rm static}$ and $B_B^{\rm static}$. We
begin by listing the various operators in the lattice effective theory
and discussing the relevant renormalisation factors. Here, we wish to
emphasise that all our matching and scaling factors are consistently
defined at leading order in the strong coupling constant. The 2- and
3-point correlators are defined before the results are discussed. We
close the section with a discussion of the phenomenological
implications of our findings.
\subsection{Lattice Operators and Renormalisation} \label{subsec:ren}
In the continuum full theory, the pseudoscalar decay constant of the
$B$ meson is defined through the matrix element of the axial current:
\begin{equation}
\langle0|A_\mu(0)|B(\vec{p})\rangle = i\,p_\mu\,f_B, \qquad
A_\mu(x) = \overline{b}(x)\,\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\,q(x).
\end{equation}
The $\Delta B=2$ four-fermi operator $O_L$ which gives rise to \mbox{$B^0 - \overline{B^0}${}}\ mixing
is given by
\begin{equation}
O_L = \Big(\overline{b}\,\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)\,q\Big)\,
\Big(\overline{b}\,\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)\,q\Big).
\end{equation}
This operator enters the effective Hamiltonian describing \mbox{$B^0 - \overline{B^0}${}}\ mixing
whose amplitude is usually expressed in terms of the $B$ parameter, which
is the ratio of the operator matrix element to its value in the vacuum
insertion approximation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bbmu_def}
B_B(\mu) = \frac{\langle\overline{B^0}\left|\,O_L(\mu)\,\right|B^0\rangle}
{\frac{8}{3}\,f_B^2\,M_B^2},
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is a renormalisation scale. We have adopted a convention in which
$f_\pi = 132\,{\rm MeV}$. The scale dependence of $B_B(\mu)$ can be removed
by multiplication with a factor derived from the anomalous dimension of
the operator $O_L$. At one-loop order, one can a define a
renormalisation-group-invariant $B$ parameter by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rginvb}
B_B = \alpha_s(\mu)^{-2/\beta_0}\,B_B(\mu),
\end{equation}
where $\beta_0 = 11-2n_f/3$. The strong coupling constant appearing in
the above expression is usually defined in the $\overline{\rm MS}$
scheme. We will use the one-loop expression for $B_B$ below, since it
is consistent with our matching between lattice and continuum results,
which is performed at order $\alpha_s$. Alternative matching
procedures and higher-order scalings of $B_B(\mu)$ can always be
incorporated by suitably replacing our matching and scaling factors.
In order to get estimates for the matrix elements of the axial
current and of the four-fermi operator $O_L$ in the continuum, these operators
need to be matched to the relevant lattice operators in the static effective
theory. The matching of operators in the static approximation is usually
performed as a two-step process, in which one first matches the operators
in the effective theory on the lattice to those in the continuum effective
theory. In the second step, one then matches the continuum effective theory to
the operator in full QCD.
For the axial current, this two-step matching process was considered for Wilson
fermions to one-loop order in \cite{eichten1, eichten2} and extended to the
$O(a)$-improved case in \cite{bp} and \cite{hh}.
At $\mu = a^{-1}$ the renormalisation factor between full QCD and the
lattice effective theory at order $\alpha_s$ for the SW action is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zastat}
Z_A^{\rm static} = 1 + \frac{\alpha_s^c(a^{-1})}{4\pi}\left\{
2\ln(a^2m_b^2) - 2\right\}
- 15.02\,\frac{\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1})}{3\pi}.
\end{equation}
In order to evaluate $Z_A^{\rm static}$ numerically for $m_b=5\,{\rm GeV}$,
we define the strong coupling constant for $n_f$ active quark flavours
at leading order in the continuum by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:alpha_s_cont}
\alpha_s^c(\mu) \equiv \frac{2\pi}{\beta_0\ln\big(\mu/
\Lambda_{\overline{{\rm MS}}}^{(n_f)}\big)}
\end{equation}
where $\beta_0 = 11 - \frac{2}{3}n_f$, and we take $n_f=4$,
$\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{{\rm MS}}} = 200\,{\rm MeV}$, $\mu=a^{-1}=2.9\,{\rm GeV}$.
Thus, despite the fact that our results for matrix elements of lattice
operators are obtained in the quenched approximation, we use the
relevant number of active quark flavours at the respective
renormalisation scale when matching the continuum effective theory to
full QCD. This concept implies that we abandon the quenched
approximation once we have obtained the matrix elements in the
continuum effective theory after the first matching step. Of course,
all our results are still subject to a systematic error due to
quenching, which is, however, hard to quantify unless precision data
from dynamical simulations become available.
For the matching step between the effective theories in the continuum
and on the lattice we take the ``boosted" value for the gauge coupling
\cite{lepenzie,mack_lat92}
\begin{equation}
\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1}) = \frac{6}{4\pi\,\beta u_0^4}
\end{equation}
where $u_0$ is a measure of the average link variable, for which we take
$u_0=(8\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$})^{-1}$ with $\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}=0.14315(2)$\,\cite{strange}.
With these definitions, we find
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zastat_num}
Z_A^{\rm static} = 0.78.
\end{equation}
This is very close to the value of $Z_A^{\rm static}=0.79$ quoted in our
previous study \cite{quenched}, and also to $Z_A^{\rm static}=0.81$ used in a
simulation by the APE collaboration \cite{APE_62_stat} employing the SW action
for light quarks at $\beta=6.2$.
In the case of the four-fermi operator the situation is
more complicated due to operator mixing. When relating the full continuum
theory to the continuum effective theory, it is useful to introduce
\begin{equation}
O_S = \Big(\overline{b}\,(1-\gamma_5)\,q\Big)\,
\Big(\overline{b}\,(1-\gamma_5)\,q\Big).
\end{equation}
This operator is generated at order $\alpha_s$ in the continuum owing
to the mass of the heavy quark \cite{fhh}. The one-loop matching
factors between the continuum full theory at scale $m_b$ and the
continuum effective theory at scale $\mu < m_b$ are given
by\footnote{Note that in refs.\,\cite{fhh,bp} the operator $O_L^{\rm
full}$ is obtained at the scale $\mu=a^{-1}<m_b$. This requires the
factor~4 multiplying $\ln(m_b^2/\mu^2)$ to be replaced by a factor~6,
which is the difference of the anomalous dimensions in the continuum
full and continuum effective theories.}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fulleff}
O_L^{\rm full}(m_b) = \left\{1 + \frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}\Big[
4\ln\big(m_b^2/\mu^2\big) + C_L\Big]
\right\} O_L^{\rm eff}(\mu)
+ \frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}C_S\,O_S^{\rm eff}(\mu)
\end{equation}
with $C_L = -14$ and $C_S=-8$ \cite{fhh}.
In the matching step between the continuum effective and the lattice effective
theories, two additional operators are generated due to the explicit chiral
symmetry breaking induced by the Wilson term
\begin{eqnarray}
O_R & = & \Big(\overline{b}\,\gamma_\mu(1+\gamma_5)\,q\Big)\,
\Big(\overline{b}\,\gamma_\mu(1+\gamma_5)\,q\Big) \\
O_N & = & \Big(\overline{b}\,\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)\,q\Big)\,
\Big(\overline{b}\,\gamma_\mu(1+\gamma_5)\,q\Big) \nonumber \\
& + & \Big(\overline{b}\,\gamma_\mu(1+\gamma_5)\,q\Big)\,
\Big(\overline{b}\,\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)\,q\Big) \nonumber \\
& + & 2\,\Big(\overline{b}\,(1-\gamma_5)\,q\Big)\,
\Big(\overline{b}\,(1+\gamma_5)\,q\Big) \nonumber \\
& + & 2\,\Big(\overline{b}\,(1+\gamma_5)\,q\Big)\,
\Big(\overline{b}\,(1-\gamma_5)\,q\Big).
\end{eqnarray}
For the $O(a)$-improved SW action, the full one-loop matching for the
four-fermi operator $O_L^{\rm eff}$ to the lattice effective theory at scale
$\mu=a^{-1}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:efflatt}
O_L^{\rm eff}(a^{-1}) & = &
\left\{1 + \frac{\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1})}{4\pi}
\big[D_L+D_L^I\big] \right\}\,O_L^{\rm latt} \nonumber \\
& &\, + \frac{\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1})}{4\pi}
\big[D_R+D_R^I\big]\,O_R^{\rm latt}
+ \frac{\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1})}{4\pi}
\big[D_N+D_N^I\big]\,O_N^{\rm latt}
\end{eqnarray}
The coefficients $D_L,\,D_R,\,D_N$ were calculated in \cite{fhh}, whereas those
for the SW action, $D_L^I,\,D_R^I,\,D_N^I$ are listed in \cite{bp}.
A subtle point to note is that the coefficient $D_L$ is quoted as
$D_L=-65.5$ in refs.\,\cite{fhh,bp}. In \cite{eichten2}
it was stated, however, that the reduced value of the quark self-energy should
be used if the static-light meson propagator is being fitted to the usual
exponential. Using the reduced value $e^{(R)}$ in the formula for $D_L$
yields a value of $D_L=-38.9$, and hence results in a much smaller correction
to $O_L^{\rm eff}$ in the matching step between the lattice effective and the
continuum effective theory. In the following we quote numerical values for
all relevant renormalisation constants using the reduced value of the
quark self-energy. It should be added that the expression for
$Z_A^{\rm static}$ in eq.\,(\ref{eq:zastat}) is also based on the reduced
value $e^{(R)}$, and thus our procedure to extract the $B$ parameter from a
suitable ratio of matrix elements in the static theory is entirely consistent.
Expanding the various matching factors to order $\alpha_s$, we arrive at the
following expression for the matching of the operator $O_L^{\rm full}(m_b)$ to
the operators in the lattice effective theory:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:expand}
O_L^{\rm full}(m_b) & = & \left\{1
+ \frac{\alpha_s^c(a^{-1})}{4\pi}\Big[4\ln(a^2m_b^2) - 14\Big]
- 22.06\,\frac{\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1})}{4\pi}
\right\} O_L^{\rm latt} \nonumber\\
&-& 4.19\,\frac{\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1})}{4\pi} O_R^{\rm latt}
-13.96\,\frac{\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1})}{4\pi} O_N^{\rm latt}
- 2 \,\frac{\alpha_s^c(a^{-1})}{\pi} O_S^{\rm latt} \\
& \equiv & Z_L O_L^{\rm latt} + Z_R O_R^{\rm latt} + Z_N O_N^{\rm latt} +
Z_S O_S^{\rm latt}. \label{eq:zdef}
\end{eqnarray}
It is this expression which we will use from now on to convert our lattice
results into an estimate of the $B$ parameter.
Using our numerical values for the coupling constants $\alpha_s(a^{-1})$ and
$\alpha_s^{\rm latt}(a^{-1})$ we find
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zis}
Z_L = 0.55,\qquad Z_R=-0.04,\qquad Z_N=-0.15,\qquad Z_S=-0.18.
\end{equation}
As was already mentioned in \cite{fhh}, the correction to the matrix element
of $O_L^{\rm latt}$ is rather large, thus calling the applicability of
one-loop perturbative matching into question. In fact, if the matching is
performed by first computing $O_L^{\rm eff}(a^{-1})$ according to
eq.\,(\ref{eq:efflatt}), and then inserting the result into
eq.\,(\ref{eq:fulleff}), we observe that our estimate for $B_B$ increases by
20\,\%. This way of matching includes some part of the $O(\alpha_s^2)$
contributions to the renormalisation factors, and hence it serves to estimate
the influence of higher loop corrections in the matching procedure.
In reference \cite{gimenez} the two-loop anomalous dimensions of the axial
current and the four-fermi operator were calculated for the effective theory
in the continuum. Including this result into the matching step between
$O_L^{\rm full}(m_b)$ and $O_L^{\rm eff}(\mu)$ in eq.\,(\ref{eq:fulleff})
changes the final result only by 1--2\,\%. Therefore we conclude that the bulk
of the uncertainty arises from the matching step between the continuum
effective and lattice effective theories, and also from the large factor
of $C_L=-14$ in eq.\,(\ref{eq:fulleff}). An entirely non-perturbative
determination of the renormalisation constants relating $O_L^{\rm eff}$ to
the different lattice operators, as outlined in \cite{npr}, is highly desirable
in order to clarify this important issue, which is of equal importance in the
case of $Z_A^{\rm static}$, as will be illustrated later.
\subsection{Correlators for 2- and 3-point Functions}
\label{subsec:corrs}
In order to extract the pseudoscalar decay constant we consider
the correlation function of the time-component of the improved static-light
axial current
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\vec{x}}\langle A_4(\vec{x},t)A_4^\dagger(\vec{0},0)\rangle
\stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} \frac{f_B^2\,M_B}{2}\,{\rm e}^{-M_Bt}.
\end{equation}
In practice, using particular combinations of the smeared~($S$) and local~($L$)
axial current, we compute correlation functions defined by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:css}
C^{SS}(t) & = & \sum_{\vec{x}}\langle0|
A_4^S(\vec{x},t){A_4^\dagger}^S(\vec{0},0)
|0\rangle \stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} (Z^S)^2\,{\rm e}^{-E\,t} \\
C^{LS}(t) & = & \sum_{\vec{x}}\langle0|
A_4^L(\vec{x},t){A_4^\dagger}^S(\vec{0},0)
|0\rangle \stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} Z^S Z^L\,{\rm e}^{-E\,t}, \\
C^{SL}(t) & = & \sum_{\vec{x}}\langle0|
A_4^S(\vec{x},t){A_4^\dagger}^L(\vec{0},0)
|0\rangle \stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} Z^S Z^L\,{\rm e}^{-E\,t},
\end{eqnarray}
where $E$ is the unphysical difference between the mass of the meson
and the bare mass of the heavy quark.
The pseudoscalar decay constant $f_B^{\rm static}$ is related to $Z^L$ via
\begin{equation}
f_B^{\rm static} = Z^L \sqrt{\frac{2}{M_B}}\, Z_A^{\rm static},
\end{equation}
where $M_B$ is the mass of the $B$ meson.
$Z^L$ and thus $f_B^{\rm static}$ is extracted from $C^{SS}(t)$ and $C^{LS}(t)$ as
follows: by fitting $C^{SS}(t)$ to the functional form given in
eq.\,(\ref{eq:css}) we obtain $Z^S$ and $E$. At sufficiently large
times the ratio $C^{LS}(t)/C^{SS}(t)\rightarrow Z^L/Z^S$, so that $Z^L$ can
be determined. As was observed earlier \cite{fnal_lat89,wupp_stat,quenched},
using the correlation function $C^{LS}(t)$ in which the operator at the source
is smeared yields much better statistics than the corresponding correlator
$C^{SL}(t)$ for which the smearing is performed at the sink.
Alternative methods, discussed in \cite{APE_62_stat}, include a direct fit of
$C^{LS}(t)$ in order to extract $Z^L Z^S$ which can then be combined with the
ratio $Z^L/Z^S$ to compute $Z^L$. However, this method requires the ground
state to be unambiguously isolated, which is more difficult for $C^{LS}(t)$,
since the plateau in the effective mass plot is approached from below.
A more direct method, which does not involve any fitting and was also advocated
in \cite{APE_62_stat}, is to consider the ratio
\begin{equation}
R_{{Z^L}}(t_1,t_2) = \frac{C^{LS}(t_1)\,C^{LS}(t_2)}{C^{SS}(t_1+t_2)}
\longrightarrow (Z^L)^2.
\end{equation}
Here, however, one needs a reliable signal for fairly large times $t_1+t_2$.
Since the authors of \cite{APE_62_stat} accumulated 220 configurations they
were able to apply this method successfully, which turned out to be consistent
with the other ones. In view of our smaller statistical sample, we did not
use the ratio $R_{{Z^L}}(t_1,t_2)$ to extract $f_B^{\rm static}$.
In order to determine the $B$ parameter we computed the relevant 3-point
correlator using the following expression
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:kss}
K_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2) & \equiv &
\sum_{\vec{x_1},\,\vec{x_2}}
\left\langle0\left|T\left\{
{A^\dagger}^S(\vec{x}_1,-t_1)\,O^{\rm latt}_i(0)\,
{A^\dagger}^S(\vec{x}_2, t_2)
\right\}\right|0\right\rangle \nonumber\\
& \stackrel{t_1,t_2\gg0}{\longrightarrow} &
\frac{(Z^S)^2}{2\,M_B}\,{\rm e}^{-E\,(t_1+t_2)}
\left\langle\overline{B^0}\left|O^{\rm latt}_i\right|B^0\right\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
where $i=L,\,R,\,S,\,N$ labels the four operators in the lattice effective
theory, and $A^S(\vec{x},t)$ is the smeared axial current. In order to cancel
the contributions from $Z^S$ and the exponentials in eq.\,(\ref{eq:kss}) we
consider suitable ratios of $K_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$ and the 2-point correlator
$C^{SL}(t)$, i.e. with the local operators always at the origin and the
smearing performed at the same timeslices in both the numerator and denominator.
Using the definition of $B_B(\mu)$ in the continuum theory
eq.\,(\ref{eq:bbmu_def}), and defining the ratio $R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$ in the
lattice effective theory as
\begin{equation}
R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2) = \frac{K_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)}
{\frac{8}{3}\,C^{SL}(t_1)\,C^{SL}(t_2)}
\end{equation}
then, provided $t_1,\,t_2 \gg 0$, the $B$ parameter at scale $m_b$ is obtained
from
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bbmu}
\sum_i Z_i\,(Z_A^{\rm static})^{-2}\,R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)
\stackrel{t_1,t_2\gg0}{\longrightarrow} B_B(m_b),\qquad
i=L,\,R,\,S,\,N
\end{equation}
with the $Z_i$'s given in eq.\,(\ref{eq:zis}).
In the computation of the ratio $R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$ on a periodic lattice we
expect a signal for the correlator describing \mbox{$B^0 - \overline{B^0}${}}\ mixing for $t_1$ and
$t_2$ on opposite halves of the lattice \cite{gavela}, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
0 < & t_1 & < T/2, \nonumber\\
T/2 < & t_2 & < T,
\end{eqnarray}
where $T=48$ is the length of our lattice in the time direction. In order to
exploit time-reversal symmetry and thus to enhance the signal for the
correlator, we compute the ratio $R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$ from
\begin{equation}
R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2) = \frac{\big[K_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2) + K_i^{SS}(T-t_1,T-t_2)\big]}
{\frac{4}{3}\,\big[C^{SL}(t_1)+C^{SL}(T-t_1)\big]\,
\big[C^{SL}(t_2)+C^{SL}(T-t_2)\big]}
\end{equation}
The correlators were calculated for timeslices $2\leq t_1\leq 12$ and
$36\leq t_2\leq46$, which includes the entire region where one expects their
asymptotic behaviour.
\subsection{Results for $B_B^{\rm static}$}
In this subsection we present the results for the $B$ parameter $B_B^{\rm static}$
using different smearing methods. For gauge-fixed configurations the four
types of smearing defined in eqs.\,(\ref{eq:exp}) -- (\ref{eq:dcb}) were
used, i.e. exponential (EXP), gaussian (GAU), cube (CUB) and double cube
smearing (DCB). The results from the gauge-invariant Jacobi smearing algorithm
are labelled (INV).
We begin by describing the two methods we used to extract $B_B^{\rm static}(\mu)$
at renormalisation scale
$\mu = m_b$ from the ratios $R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2), i=L,\,R,\,S,\,N$.
\begin{description}
\item[Method (a):] The four ratios $R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$ are fitted individually
to their asymptotic values $R_i$. The $B$ parameter is then obtained through
\begin{equation} \label{eq:metha}
B_B^{\rm static}(m_b) = \sum_i\,Z_i\,(Z_A^{\rm static})^{-2}\,R_i,
\end{equation}
with the factors $Z_i$ given in eq. (\ref{eq:zis}).
\item[Method (b):] Using the four ratios $R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$, we define the
$B$ parameter $\widetilde{B}_B^{\rm static}(m_b;t_1,t_2)$ for each set of
timeslices $(t_1,t_2)$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bmuttf}
\widetilde{B}_B^{\rm static}(m_b;t_1,t_2) = \sum_i\,Z_i
\,(Z_A^{\rm static})^{-2}\,R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2),
\end{equation}
and fit $\widetilde{B}_B^{\rm static}(m_b;t_1,t_2)$ to a constant in suitably
chosen intervals of $(t_1,t_2)$.
\end{description}
The plateaux in the ratios $R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$ can most conveniently be
identified by fixing $t_1$ at $t_1=t_f < T/2$, and studying $R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$
as a function of $t_2$ only.
In order to illustrate method\,(a) we show in Figure\,\ref{fig:oloroson} the
plateaux for the four ratios $R_i^{SS}(t_f,t_2)$ for $t_f=3$, using Jacobi
smearing at $\kappa_l=0.14144$. It is seen that a good signal is obtained for
the four lattice operators, on the backward half of the lattice as expected.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=240pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig1a.ps}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=240pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig1b.ps}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=240pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig1c.ps}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=240pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig1d.ps}
\end{center}
\small\caption{
The ratios $R_L^{SS}(t_f,t_2)$, $R_R^{SS}(t_f,t_2)$, $R_S^{SS}(t_f,t_2)$
and $R_N^{SS}(t_f,t_2)$ for $t_f=3$ and $\kappa_l=0.14144$ using Jacobi
smearing. The solid lines represent the fits over the respective time interval.
}
\label{fig:oloroson}
\end{figure}
In Figure\,\ref{fig:bmuttf} we show the signal for
$\widetilde{B}_B^{\rm static}(m_b;t_f,t_2)$ obtained using method\,(b) for
both cube and Jacobi smearing. Despite the slightly shorter plateau for cube
smearing which is also observed for all other smearing types in Coulomb
gauge, the signal obtained in this fashion is also very clear.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=235pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig2a.ps}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=235pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig2b.ps}
\end{center}
\small\caption{
The quantity $\widetilde{B}_B^{\rm static}(m_b;t_f,t_2)$ defined in
eq.\,(\protect\ref{eq:bmuttf}) for cube smearing (left) and Jacobi smearing
(right) at $\kappa_l=0.14144$ and $t_f=3$.
}
\label{fig:bmuttf}
\end{figure}
As one goes to smaller quark masses, the signals become noisier but are
still of good quality, and the plateaux can easily be identified. For the
other smearing types computed in the Coulomb gauge the picture is similar,
and therefore we do not show the plots corresponding to
Figs.\,\ref{fig:oloroson} and\,\ref{fig:bmuttf}. In general,
$\widetilde{B}_B^{\rm static}(m_b;t_f,t_2)$ and the ratios $R_i^{SS}$ show
slightly larger statistical errors when Jacobi smearing is used, but, apart
from that, the different smearing types give very similar results.
We have also studied the behaviour of the plateaux for different values of
$t_f$. Using a larger value, e.g. $t_f=4$ leads to bigger errors in the ratios
$R_i^{SS}(t_f,t_2)$ and $\widetilde{B}_B^{\rm static}(m_b;t_f,t_2)$, and
the plateaux are shifted to smaller values in $t_2$.
On the other hand, using $t_f=2$ gives smaller statistical errors, but the
plateaux are less flat which leads to higher $\chi^2/\rm dof$ when
fitting the ratios to a constant. We emphasise that the ratios
are statistically compatible for $t_f=2,\,3,\,4$ for all smearing types
considered. Hence, for our best estimates, using either method~(a) or~(b),
we perform a simultaneous fit to the plateaux observed for $t_f=3,4$. The
results obtained by combining the plateaux for $t_f=2,\,3,\,4$ are quoted
as a systematic error on our final value for $B_B^{\rm static}$.
The values for $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ extracted using methods (a) and (b) are
entirely consistent. We have a slight preference for method~(a):
it gives better plateaux and offers more flexibility in the fitting procedure
by ensuring that each of the four contributions are fitted in a region
where the respective asymptotic behaviour has been reached. In the
following therefore we base all our estimates on method~(a).
Correlations between different timeslices were
taken into account in each fit. We did not attempt a simultaneous fit
allowing for cross-correlations between different operators and timeslices,
as systematic effects among the four operators could well be different. As
was noted in ref.\,\cite{seibert}, this could lead to an amplification of
systematic errors in the fitted values.
In Table\,\ref{tab_3kappas} we show the results from fitting the ratios
$R_i^{SS}(t_1,t_2)$ to a constant for the three light hopping parameters and
for all smearing types considered, and also list $\chi^2/\rm dof$ and the
value for $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ after renormalisation according to
eq.\,(\ref{eq:metha}). A remarkable feature is the
consistency of the results among all smearing types considered, which we
take as evidence that the asymptotic behaviour has been reached.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||l||c|c|c|c|c||}
\hline
\hline
$\kappa_l$ & \multicolumn{5}{c||}{smearing} \\
\hline
\hline
0.14144 & EXP & GAU & CUB & DCB & INV \\
\hline
$R_L$ & 0.96\er{2}{2} & 0.97\er{2}{2}
& 0.95\er{3}{2} & 0.96\er{2}{2}
& 0.94\er{2}{3} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 4.72/5 & 4.81/5 & 6.13/5 & 4.89/5 & 0.86/5 \\
\hline
$R_R$ & 0.97\er{3}{2} & 0.97\er{2}{2}
& 0.96\er{3}{2} & 0.97\er{2}{2}
& 0.96\er{3}{3} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 8.54/7 & 7.90/6 & 9.60/6 & 7.85/6 & 2.26/5 \\
\hline
$R_S$ & -0.61\er{1}{1} & -0.61\er{1}{1}
& -0.61\er{1}{2} & -0.61\er{1}{1}
& -0.60\er{2}{1} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 2.29/4 & 2.48/4 & 2.68/4 & 2.46/4 & 0.92/4 \\
\hline
$R_N$ & 1.01\er{3}{3} & 1.00\er{3}{3}
& 1.01\er{3}{4} & 1.01\er{3}{3}
& 1.02\er{3}{4} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 4.54/5 & 5.52/5 & 4.67/5 & 5.05/5 & 1.95/5 \\
\hline
$B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ & 0.72\er{2}{2} & 0.74\er{2}{2}
& 0.72\er{3}{2} & 0.73\er{2}{2}
& 0.71\er{2}{3} \\
\hline
\hline
0.14226 & EXP & GAU & CUB & DCB & INV \\
\hline
$R_L$ & 0.94\er{2}{2} & 0.96\er{2}{2}
& 0.94\er{3}{3} & 0.95\er{2}{2}
& 0.93\er{3}{4} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 4.00/5 & 4.31/5 & 5.74/5 & 4.29/5 & 0.79/5 \\
\hline
$R_R$ & 0.99\er{3}{2} & 0.97\er{2}{2}
& 0.97\er{3}{3} & 0.98\er{2}{2}
& 0.98\er{4}{3} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 8.48/7 & 9.38/6 & 10.92/6 & 8.92/6 & 2.56/5 \\
\hline
$R_S$ & -0.61\er{1}{2} & -0.61\er{1}{1}
& -0.60\er{1}{2} & -0.61\er{1}{2}
& -0.59\er{2}{1} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 1.87/4 & 2.00/4 & 2.03/4 & 1.97/4 & 1.19/4 \\
\hline
$R_N$ & 1.02\er{3}{3} & 1.00\er{2}{3}
& 1.02\er{3}{4} & 1.01\er{3}{3}
& 1.02\er{3}{4} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 3.01/5 & 4.62/5 & 3.45/5 & 3.79/5 & 1.85/5 \\
\hline
\hline
$B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ & 0.71\er{3}{2} & 0.73\er{2}{2}
& 0.71\er{3}{3} & 0.72\er{2}{2}
& 0.69\er{3}{4} \\
\hline
\hline
0.14262 & EXP & GAU & CUB & DCB & INV \\
\hline
$R_L$ & 0.92\er{3}{3} & 0.95\er{2}{2}
& 0.93\er{3}{3} & 0.94\er{3}{2}
& 0.92\er{3}{4} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 3.05/5 & 3.51/5 & 4.80/5 & 3.33/5 & 0.60/5 \\
\hline
$R_R$ & 1.02\er{3}{3} & 0.98\er{2}{2}
& 0.98\er{3}{3} & 0.99\er{2}{3}
& 1.00\er{4}{3} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 8.03/7 & 10.90/6 & 11.70/6 & 9.95/6 & 2.82/5 \\
\hline
$R_S$ & -0.61\er{2}{2} & -0.61\er{1}{1}
& -0.60\er{2}{2} & -0.61\er{1}{2}
& -0.59\er{2}{2} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 2.54/4 & 2.01/4 & 1.88/4 & 2.21/4 & 1.47/4 \\
\hline
$R_N$ & 1.01\er{2}{4} & 1.01\er{2}{3}
& 1.02\er{3}{4} & 1.01\er{3}{3}
& 1.01\er{3}{4} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 2.23/5 & 4.01/5 & 2.71/5 & 3.04/5 & 2.25/5 \\
\hline
\hline
$B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ & 0.69\er{3}{3} & 0.72\er{3}{2}
& 0.70\er{3}{3} & 0.72\er{3}{2}
& 0.69\er{3}{5} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
Results for the fits to the ratios of the four lattice operators using
method~(a).}
\end{center}
\label{tab_3kappas}
\end{table}
The values for the ratios $R_L,\,R_R$ and $R_N$ of the operators which mix
due to the explicit chiral symmetry breaking induced by the Wilson term, are
close to one, which is in accordance with the expectation from the vacuum
insertion approximation.
One notices only a weak dependence of the four ratios and of
$B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ on the light quark mass. In fact, the results for
$B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ are compatible with a completely flat chiral behaviour
within statistical errors as was already noted in \cite{cra_fB}.
Assuming a linear dependence on the mass of the light quark, we can
now extrapolate our results for $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ to the chiral limit at
$\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$} = 0.14315(2)$ or to the mass of the strange quark which,
according to \cite{strange}, is found at $\mbox{$\kappa_s$}=0.1419(1)$.
Figure\,\ref{fig:chiral} shows the chiral extrapolations of
$B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ for cube and Jacobi smearing from both correlated and
uncorrelated fits. Although the measured values appear to be almost
perfectly linear as a function of the quark mass, the correlated
extrapolation misses the points at smaller quark masses which might
signal the use of a bad fitting function. This results in a higher
value for $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ in the chiral limit than that from the
uncorrelated fit. The values for $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ from the two
extrapolations agree well within errors, but except for Jacobi
smearing the correlated fits have fairly large $\chi^2/\rm dof$.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=235pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig3a.ps}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=235pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig3b.ps}
\end{center}
\small\caption{
Chiral extrapolations of $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ for cube smearing (left) and
gauge-invariant smearing (right). The solid lines denote a correlated chiral
extrapolation, whereas the uncorrelated fits are denoted by the dashed line.
The extrapolated values from both procedures are shifted slightly in $am_q$.}
\label{fig:chiral}
\end{figure}
We quote our best estimates for $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ at $\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$ and
$\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$ from the correlated chiral extrapolation. The measured
values at the three light hopping parameters are shown with the
extrapolated results in Table\,\ref{tab_bbext}. In the following we
will quote our best estimate from Jacobi smearing, which gave the
cleanest chiral extrapolation.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c||r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l||}
\hline
\hline
$\kappa_l$
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{EXP} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{GAU}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{CUB} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{DCB}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{INV} \\
\hline
$0.14144$ & 0&72\er{2}{2} & 0&74\er{2}{2} & 0&72\er{3}{2}
& 0&73\er{2}{2} & 0&71\er{2}{3} \\
$0.14226$ & 0&71\er{3}{2} & 0&73\er{2}{2} & 0&71\er{3}{3}
& 0&72\er{2}{2} & 0&69\er{3}{4} \\
$0.14262$ & 0&69\er{3}{3} & 0&72\er{3}{2} & 0&70\er{3}{3}
& 0&72\er{3}{2} & 0&69\er{3}{5} \\
\hline
$\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$ & 0&70\er{3}{3} & 0&73\er{3}{3} & 0&71\er{3}{3}
& 0&72\er{3}{2} & 0&69\er{3}{4} \\
$\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$& 0&72\er{3}{2} & 0&73\er{2}{2} & 0&72\er{3}{2}
& 0&73\er{2}{2} & 0&71\er{3}{3} \\
${\chi^2/\rm dof}$ & 2&56/1 & 1&91/1 & 1&49/1 & 1&85/1 & 0&19/1 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
Correlated chiral extrapolations of $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ to $\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$ and
$\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$ for all smearing types considered.}
\end{center}
\label{tab_bbext}
\end{table}
Combining the spread of values obtained from using different smearing functions
and fitting intervals, extracting $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ using method~(b), and from
performing uncorrelated fits into an estimate of systematic errors, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{B_d}(m_b) &=& 0.69\er{3}{4}{\,\rm{(stat)}}\er{2}{1}{\,\rm{(syst)}}
\\
B_{B_s}(m_b) &=& 0.71\er{3}{3}{\,\rm{(stat)}}\er{1}{1}{\,\rm{(syst)}}.
\end{eqnarray}
At leading order, the renormalisation-group-invariant $B$ parameter
$B_B^{\rm static}$ is obtained from $B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)$ according to
eq.\,(\ref{eq:rginvb}) for $n_f=5$ active quark flavours via
\begin{equation}
B_B^{\rm static} = \alpha_s(m_b)^{-6/23}\,B_B^{\rm static}(m_b)
\simeq 1.476\,\,B_B^{\rm static}(m_b),
\end{equation}
where we have taken $\Lambda^{(5)}_{\overline{{\rm MS}}} = 130\,{\rm MeV}$
in the expression for $\alpha_s$, eq.\,(\ref{eq:alpha_s_cont}),
in accordance with the relation between
$\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{{\rm MS}}}$ and
$\Lambda^{(5)}_{\overline{{\rm MS}}}$ given in \cite{marciano}. We
obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{B_d} &=& 1.02\er{5}{6}{\,\rm{(stat)}}\er{3}{2}{\,\rm{(syst)}}
\label{eq:bestbbd} \\
B_{B_s} &=& 1.04\er{4}{5}{\,\rm{(stat)}}\er{2}{1}{\,\rm{(syst)}}.
\label{eq:bestbbs}
\end{eqnarray}
Within our errors we conclude that in the static approximation the matrix
element of the four-fermi $\Delta B=2$ operator is indeed consistent with one.
However, if the matching of matrix elements between full QCD and the lattice
effective theory is performed using eqs.\,(\ref{eq:fulleff}) and
(\ref{eq:efflatt}), rather than eq.\,(\ref{eq:expand}), as was discussed in
subsection\,\ref{subsec:ren}, the above values change to
$B_{B_d} = 1.19\er{5}{6}\er{3}{2}$ and $B_{B_s} = 1.21\er{4}{5}\er{2}{1}$,
respectively. Therefore we conclude that our best estimates in
eqs.\,(\ref{eq:bestbbd}) and (\ref{eq:bestbbs}) are subject to a further
20\,\% uncertainty arising from higher-order contributions to the
renormalisation constants. A method demonstrating how to
determine these factors non-perturbatively was discussed in \cite{npr}.
In previous lattice calculations of the $B$ parameter using the static
approximation \cite{eichten_stat, cra_fB}, the matching factors $Z_i$,
$i=L,\,R,\,N,\,S$ were still unknown. The authors of \cite{cra_fB}
obtained results for the ratio $R_L$, which are consistent with our
findings (see Table\,\ref{tab_3kappas}).
In two other simulations \cite{bernard88, abada92}, propagating heavy
Wilson quarks with masses around $m_{\rm charm}$ were used to compute
the $B$ parameter. In ref.\,\cite{bernard88} results were quoted for
the quantities $B_{LL}^{\rm latt}$ and $B_{LR}^{\rm latt}$, which
correspond to our definitions of $R_L,\,R_R$. Extrapolating their
results to the mass of the $B$ meson, the authors of \cite{bernard88}
find $B_{LL}^{\rm latt} = 1.01\pm0.06\pm0.18$, $B_{LR}^{\rm latt} =
1.16\pm0.01\pm0.11$, which again is in agreement with our results for
$R_L,\,R_R$ in Table\,\ref{tab_3kappas}. Performing a similar
extrapolation in the heavy quark mass, the authors of \cite{abada92}
compute the renormalisation-group-invariant $B$ parameter as
$B_{B_d}=1.16\pm0.07$, which is not incompatible with our result at
infinite quark mass, given the additional perturbative uncertainty in
$B_{B_d}$ and $B_{B_s}$. We wish to stress that the calculation of the
$B$ parameter should be repeated with propagating heavy quarks using
an $O(a)$-improved action in order to study $1/m_Q$ corrections to our
result by analysing the mass dependence of $B_B$.
\subsection{Results for $f_B^{\rm static}$}
In this subsection we present our results for $f_B^{\rm static}$ extracted using
different smearing functions. As outlined in subsection \ref{subsec:corrs}, our
best estimates are obtained by first fitting $C^{SS}(t)$ to extract
the binding energy $E$ and $(Z^S)^2$. The value of $Z^S$ is then combined with
the ratio $Z^L/Z^S$ obtained from a fit to $C^{LS}(t)/C^{SS}(t)$, in order
to extract $Z^L$.
It has been suggested that this method of determining $Z^L$ and subsequently
$f_B^{\rm static}$ potentially suffers from an incomplete isolation of the ground
state \cite{fnal_94}. Failure to extract the ground state results in higher
values for the binding energy and consequently in higher values for ${Z^S}$
and hence $Z^L$. Therefore the authors of \cite{fnal_94} followed a variational
approach, based on smearing functions obtained using a relativistic quark
model. The variational approach was also used by the authors of \cite{ken_lat93}
who constructed the complete set of smearing functions allowed by the cubic
group for a given lattice size.
In a recent study by the APE Collaboration \cite{APE_lat94} a number of
checks for the isolation of the ground state without using the variational
approach were presented. As will be shown later in this subsection, our
results for $f_B^{\rm static}$ are entirely consistent with those in \cite{APE_lat94}.
Here, for the gauge-fixed configurations, in addition to exponential smearing
(EXP), we also used a radially-excited exponential smearing function (EXP2S)
defined by
\begin{equation}
f(\vec{x},\vec{x}^\prime) = |\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime|\,
\exp\left\{-|\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime|/r_0\right\}
\end{equation}
which is expected to have a considerable overlap with higher states.
We then employed a variational approach to estimate the size of possible
contamination of the correlators from the first excited state. Our values
for $E$, $Z^S$ and $Z^L$ from 2-state fits were then compared to the results
obtained from the other smearing functions using the procedure outlined in
subsection\,\ref{subsec:corrs}.
Following ref.\,\cite{lue_wol}, we constructed a matrix correlator
$C^{SS}_{ij}(t)$ using the EXP and EXP2S smearing types as a $2\times2$
variational basis and determined the eigenvalues and -vectors of the
generalised eigenvalue equation
\begin{equation}
C^{SS}_{ij}(t+1)\,v_j^{(\alpha)} = \lambda_\alpha(t+1,t)\,C^{SS}_{ij}(t)
\,v_j^{(\alpha)}.
\end{equation}
For sufficiently large times $t$, the eigenvalues $\lambda_\alpha$ approach
the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix, and therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_1(t+1,t) & \stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} & {\rm e}^{-E} \\
\lambda_2(t+1,t) & \stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} & {\rm e}^{-E^*}
\end{eqnarray}
where $E,\,E^*$ are the binding energies of the ground and first excited
states respectively. Hence the quantity
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\rm eff}(t) \equiv
\log\frac{\lambda_1(t+1,t)}{\lambda_2(t+1,t)}
\end{equation}
approaches the energy difference $\Delta E = E^*-E$ for sufficiently large
$t$. In Table\,\ref{tab_delta} we show the values of $\delta_{\rm eff}(t)$
as a function of $t$ for all three values of $\kappa_l$. It appears that
$\delta_{\rm eff}(t)$ shows a plateau already for times around $t=2$.
Therefore we fix $\Delta E$ to be $\delta_{\rm eff}(t=2)$
and perform a constrained 3-parameter fit of the correlation function
$C^{SS}(t),\,S={\rm EXP}$ according to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:css2state}
C^{SS}(t) \simeq (Z^S)^2\,{\rm e}^{-E\,t} \Big\{ 1 +
\frac{(Z^{S*})^2}{(Z^S)^2}\, {\rm e}^{-\Delta E t} \Big\}
\end{equation}
where $Z^{S*}$ is the amplitude of the first excited state. It is this fitting
form which we will from now on call a 2-state fit, whereas the usual 1-state
fit is defined in eq.\,(\ref{eq:css}). It is possible in
principle to use the eigenvector $v_j^{(1)}$ corresponding to the eigenvalue
$\lambda_1$ to project the matrix correlator onto the approximate ground
state. However, the resulting correlation function does not differ appreciably
from the one computed using the usual 1S exponential smearing function, and
therefore we did not pursue this possibility further.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c||r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l||}
\hline
\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{c||}{$\delta_{\rm eff}(t)$} \\
\hline
$t$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.14144} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.14226} &
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{0.14262} \\
\hline
2 & 0&23\err{5}{5} & 0&23\err{5}{4} & 0&23\err{5}{3} \\
3 & 0&23\err{6}{5} & 0&24\err{6}{4} & 0&24\err{6}{4} \\
4 & 0&21\err{9}{7} & 0&23\err{9}{7} & 0&24\err{9}{7} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
The effective energy difference for the first three computed
timeslices at all values of the hopping parameter of the light
quark.}
\end{center}
\label{tab_delta}
\end{table}
In order to compare the results from the 1- and 2-state fits, we follow
ref.\,\cite{fnal_94} and plot the results for $E$ and $Z^L$ obtained
from 1-state fits to both EXP and EXP2S correlators over a time window
$t_{\rm min}$, $t_{\rm max}$ as a function
of $\exp\{-\Delta E\,t_{\rm min}\}$. Keeping the length of the fitting
window fixed at $t_{\rm max}-t_{\rm min}=6$ and increasing $t_{\rm min}$
allows one to extrapolate the results from the 1-state fits to $t=\infty$.
Therefore, as $t_{\rm min}$ is increased, we expect that the results from
1-state fits converge to the value obtained from the 2-state fit performed
over a large interval in $t$.
In fact, as Figure\,\ref{fig:slide} shows, the results from the 1-state fit
for the 1S exponential smearing function (EXP) are in agreement with the
2-state fit already for $t_{\rm min}=2$. Furthermore, the results for the
1-state fits using the 2S exponential smearing function, which is supposed
to have a poorer overlap onto the ground state, show indeed the expected
stronger dependence on $t_{\rm min}$. We conclude that the fitting form
eq.\,(\ref{eq:css})
applied to the 1S exponentially smeared correlator is able to isolate the
ground state correctly, provided the fitting interval is chosen suitably.
Thus the 2-state fit merely serves to confirm the result obtained using
the 1-state fit.
This observation is further strengthened by comparing the fitted values
for $E$, $(Z^S)^2$ and $Z^L$ for 1- and 2-state fits. The comparison is
shown in Table\,\ref{tab_compare} for one value of the light
hopping parameter.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=235pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig4a.ps}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=235pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig4b.ps}
\end{center}
\small\caption{
Values for the binding energy and $Z^L$ obtained from
2-state fits compared to 1-state fits performed using a ``sliding''
window $t_{\min},\,t_{\rm max}$, as a function of
$\exp\{-\Delta E\,t_{\rm min}\}$ for exponential smearing functions at
$\kappa_l=0.14144$.}
\label{fig:slide}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c||r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l||}
\hline
\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c||}{EXP} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{INV} \\
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2-state fit}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state fit}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state fit} \\
\hline
$E$ & 0&567\err{11}{13} & 0&569\err{6}{6}
& 0&570\err{6}{4} \\
$(Z^S)^2$ & 0&0113\err{12}{14} & 0&0115\err{4}{4}
& (1&20\err{5}{6})$\cdot10^{3}$ \\
$(Z^{S*})^2/(Z^S)^2$ & 0&05\err{20}{15} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{} \\
$t_{\rm min},\,t_{\rm max}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2,\,11} &
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{4,\,11}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{5,\,11} \\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 3&2/7 & 3&1/6 & 0&6/5 \\
\hline
$Z^L$ & 0&136\err{7}{9} & 0&137\err{3}{3}
& 0&138\err{3}{3} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
The binding energy $E$, $(Z^S)^2$, the ratio $(Z^{S*})^2/(Z^S)^2$
between
the first excited state and the ground state, and the final result for $Z^L$
for 1- and 2-state fits for exponential, and 1-state fits for gauge-invariant
smearing at $\kappa_l=0.14144$. Also shown are the respective fitting ranges.}
\end{center}
\label{tab_compare}
\end{table}
The CUB and DCB smearing types are more problematic. Here, the plateaux for
the $C^{SS}(t)$ correlators only start around $t_{\rm min}=6,\,7$ compared
to $t_{\rm min}=4,\,5$ for EXP and INV smearing. The results from 1-state
fits for the binding energy, however, are quite consistent with the results
from EXP and INV, whereas the values for $Z^L$ are higher.
Using $\Delta E$ determined from EXP smearing in a 2-state fit of the CUB
and DCB correlators results in lower values for $Z^L$ but
with a significant increase of the statistical errors. Single cube
smearing (CUB) is particularly bad in this respect. One may suspect that
the cube size was not tuned correctly in order to optimise the
overlap of the operators. However, in \cite{john_lat94} it was shown that
sizes of $r_0=4$ and 6 gave substantially worse results than $r_0=5$.
At any rate, the values for $Z^L$ from all smearing methods differ by at most
one to two standard deviations, which is remarkably consistent, given the
very different smearing functions employed to enhance the signal of the
ground state.
We have thus established consistency between the results from 1-state and
2-state exponentially smeared correlators, plus consistency among exponential
and gauge-invariant smearing. We have also checked the stability of our
results when directly fitting the correlator $C^{LS}(t)$ and computing
$Z^L$ from $\sqrt{R(t) \times Z^L\,Z^S}$. As was reported in \cite{john_lat94},
results from exponential and gauge-invariant smearing are stable under the
variation of the fitting procedure, whereas CUB and DCB smearing exhibit
greater sensitivity to the method and fitting ranges employed.
The results for the binding energy $E$ and $Z^L$ for all values of $\kappa_l$
are shown in Table\,\ref{tab_results}. Also shown are the extrapolated
values at $\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$ and $\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$ which were obtained assuming a linear
dependence of $E$ and $Z^L$ on the light quark mass.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{||c||r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l||r@{.}l||r@{.}l||}
\hline
\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c||}{EXP} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{CUB}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{DCB} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{INV} \\
\hline
$E$
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1-state} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{2-state}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state}& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state} \\
\hline
$t_{\rm min},\,t_{\rm max}$
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{4 -- 11} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{2 -- 11}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{7 -- 11}& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{7 -- 11}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{5 -- 11} \\
\hline
0.14144 & 0&569\err{6}{6} & 0&567\err{11}{13} & 0&566\err{8}{10}
& 0&572\err{7}{7} & 0&570\err{6}{4} \\
0.14226 & 0&550\err{7}{6} & 0&548\err{13}{14} & 0&547\err{10}{11}
& 0&553\err{9}{7} & 0&550\err{6}{5} \\
0.14262 & 0&544\err{9}{7} & 0&542\err{13}{17} & 0&539\err{11}{12}
& 0&546\err{9}{8} & 0&543\err{7}{6} \\
$\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$& 0&528\err{10}{6} & 0&526\err{15}{15} & 0&527\err{11}{12}
& 0&522\err{12}{10}& 0&528\err{7}{5} \\
$\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$
& 0&557\err{8}{6} & 0&556\err{13}{12} & 0&555\err{9}{10}
& 0&552\err{10}{8} & 0&557\err{8}{5} \\
\hline
\hline
$Z^L$
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1-state} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{2-state}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state}& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state} \\
\hline
0.14144 & 0&137\err{3}{3} & 0&136\err{7}{9} & 0&147\err{6}{6}
& 0&146\err{6}{5} & 0&138\err{3}{3} \\
0.14226 & 0&126\err{3}{3} & 0&125\err{6}{8} & 0&134\err{6}{6}
& 0&133\err{6}{6} & 0&126\err{3}{3} \\
0.14262 & 0&122\err{3}{3} & 0&121\err{7}{9} & 0&129\err{6}{6}
& 0&127\err{7}{5} & 0&122\err{3}{3} \\
$\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$& 0&114\err{3}{3} & 0&112\err{8}{8} & 0&121\err{6}{6}
& 0&118\err{7}{5} & 0&113\err{3}{3} \\
$\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$
& 0&131\err{3}{3} & 0&130\err{7}{8} & 0&140\err{6}{6}
& 0&138\err{7}{5} & 0&131\err{4}{4} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
Results for the binding energy $E$ and $Z^L$ for all smearing
types and values of $\kappa_l$. Also shown are the extrapolated values
at $\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$ and $\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$.}
\end{center}
\label{tab_results}
\end{table}
In the following we will take the results from the 2-state fits of the
exponentially smeared correlators as our best estimate. Thereby we ensure
that the more conservative choice of a larger statistical error encompasses
all systematic variations in the final numbers from using gauge-invariant
smearing and/or different fitting procedures. Thus, we do not quote an
additional systematic error, and our final answer for $Z^L$ at $\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$ is
\begin{equation}
Z^L = 0.112\er{8}{8}
\end{equation}
which is in excellent agreement with ref.\,\cite{APE_62_stat} in which
$Z^L=0.111(6)$ is quoted. At the common value of $\kappa_l=0.14144$ in this
work and ref.\,\cite{APE_62_stat}, the values of $E$ and $Z^L$ are
consistent. Therefore we conclude that the small discrepancy between the
binding energy obtained by APE and that in our earlier work \cite{quenched}
based on a subset of 20 configurations, has been resolved.
Using $Z_A^{\rm static} = 0.78$ and $a^{-1} = 2.9(2)\,{\rm GeV}$ we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fbstat_mev}
f_B^{\rm static} = 266\err{18}{20}\,{\rm (stat)}\err{28}{27}\,{\rm (syst)}
\,{\rm MeV}
\end{equation}
where the systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the lattice
scale. Using the value of $Z^L$ at $\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$ we obtain the ratio
\begin{equation}
\frac{f_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}} = 1.16\er{4}{3}.
\end{equation}
We can now compare our findings to other simulations. The direct comparison
of $f_B^{\rm static}\,[{\rm MeV}]$ is however obscured by the different treatment of
systematic effects such as the choice of $Z_A^{\rm static}$ and the quantity
used to set the lattice scale. Therefore we choose to compare the results
for $Z^L$ from simulations using the Wilson action \cite{cra_fB, wupp_stat,
APE_60_stat, ken_lat93, bls_93, fnal_94} and the $O(a)$-improved
SW action \cite{APE_62_stat, APE_lat94}. Following a suggestion in
ref.\,\cite{CRAllton} and assuming a scaling behaviour
$\log Z^L\sim \log{a}$ and $g^{-2}\sim\log{a}$, we plot $\log Z^L$ as a function
of $\beta$ in Figure\,\ref{fig:ZL_compare}. It is seen that the results (with
the possible exception of ref.\,\cite{wupp_stat}) are well aligned for
$\beta\ge5.9$, which supports the argument that scaling occurs in
this region of $\beta$. Furthermore there is consistency between the results
coming from the variational approach (\cite{ken_lat93, fnal_94} and this work)
and those using the conventional approach \cite{bls_93, APE_62_stat, APE_lat94}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=400pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig5.ps}
\end{center}
\small\caption{
$Z^L$ plotted logarithmically versus $\beta$ using data from several
simulations obtained using both the Wilson and the SW action.}
\label{fig:ZL_compare}
\end{figure}
The most striking observation is that, as far as $Z^L$ is concerned,
there is practically no difference between the results obtained using
the Wilson action and the SW action. A direct comparison was carried
out by the APE Collaboration at $\beta=6.4$ \cite{APE_lat94} and
$\beta=6.0$ \cite{APE_60_stat}, and no difference within the
statistical errors could be found. At first sight this may not seem
surprising, since in the static theory improvement is performed in the
light quark sector for which its effects on the mass spectrum were
found to be small \cite{light_hadrons}. However, the renormalisation
factor $Z_A^{\rm static}$ at leading order in $\alpha_s$ is quite
different for the improved and unimproved action.\footnote{The
one-loop expressions for $Z_A^{\rm static}$ for the $O(a)$-improved
theory were computed independently by the authors of \cite{bp} and
\cite{hh}.} In fact this difference amounts to an increase of
10--15\% in the case of the SW action in the current range of $\beta$
values. Consequently, collaborations working with the SW action quote
relatively high values for $f_B^{\rm static}$ in general, compared to those
using the usual Wilson action.
We conclude that at present the most severe systematic error in
$f_B^{\rm static}$ is the uncertainty in the renormalisation factor $Z_A^{\rm
static}$. As in the case of the corresponding factors for \mbox{$B^0 - \overline{B^0}${}}\
mixing, the perturbative estimate for this constant results in a large
correction which signals that higher-order contributions may be
important. A non-perturbative determination of $Z_A^{\rm static}$
using the method advocated in \cite{npr} for both the Wilson and the
SW action is therefore of utmost importance.
Systematic errors in $f_B^{\rm static}$ coming from uncertainties in the
lattice scale will be further reduced once quantities that show good
scaling behaviour, such as the 1S-1P splitting in charmonium or the
hadronic scale $R_0$, become available for a wide range of $\beta$.
\subsection{Phenomenological Implications}
We can now combine our best estimates from the previous two subsections into
estimates for $f_B\sqrt{B_B}$. Using the results in eqs.\,(\ref{eq:bestbbd}) and
(\ref{eq:fbstat_mev}) we find
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bestfrootb}
\fbrootb{d} =
269\err{18}{25}\,{\rm (stat)}\err{29}{28}\,{\rm (syst)}\,{\rm MeV}.
\end{equation}
Using the values obtained after extrapolation to the strange quark mass we also
quote the phenomenologically interesting ratios
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\fbrootb{s}}{\fbrootb{d}}
& = & 1.16\er{4}{4}\,{\rm (stat)}\er{2}{1}\,{\rm (syst)} \label{eq:rat1}\\
\frac{f_{B_s}^2\,B_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}^2\,B_{B_d}}
& = & 1.34\er{9}{8}\,{\rm (stat)}\er{5}{3}\,{\rm (syst)} \label{eq:rat2}\\
\frac{f_{B_s}^2\,B_{B_s}\,M_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}^2\,B_{B_d}\,M_{B_d}}
& = & 1.37\er{9}{8}\,{\rm (stat)}\er{5}{4}\,{\rm (syst)},\label{eq:rat3}
\end{eqnarray}
where the systematic error is obtained from the spread of values using the
systematic errors on $B_{B_d}$, $B_{B_s}$, as well as the result for $Z^L$ from
a 1-state fit.
The phenomenological implication of our results for $f_{B_d}$,
eq.\,(\ref{eq:fbstat_mev}), or $\fbrootb{d}$, eq.\,(\ref{eq:bestfrootb}),
is, however, uncertain due to a number of systematic effects such as
\begin{itemize}
\item the lack of an extrapolation to the continuum limit
\item large uncertainties in the values of the renormalisation
constants $Z_A^{\rm static},\,Z_L,\ldots,Z_N$ \item the need to
account for $O(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b)$ corrections \item quenching,
i.e. neglecting the effects of quark loops.
\end{itemize}
In ref.\,\cite{fnal_94} it was shown that the extrapolation of $f_B^{\rm static}$
to the continuum can yield a result below 200\,{\rm MeV}\ (albeit with a
fairly large upper uncertainty). We have performed a tentative
extrapolation, combining our result with the result of
ref.\,\cite{APE_lat94}. The extrapolation gave a central value of
$f_B^{\rm static}\simeq250\,{\rm MeV}$ at zero lattice spacing for the SW
action\footnote{The extrapolated value does not change if $R_0$ is used
to set the scale instead of the string tension.}. The difference
between the two results is partly due to the fact that $Z_A^{\rm
static}$ is significantly smaller for the Wilson action than for the SW
action as we mentioned before.
Lattice estimates for $f_B$, especially in the static approximation,
should therefore be treated with caution for phenomenological purposes.
However, it is reasonable to assume that systematic effects partly
cancel in ratios such as $f_{B_s}/f_{B_d}$. In fact, as was shown in
\cite{fnal_94}, the $a$~dependence of this ratio is compatible with
zero. Therefore, in the following we illustrate the effect of our
findings on the CKM matrix, using only the ratios in
eqs.\,(\ref{eq:rat1}) to (\ref{eq:rat3}), which are considered to be
less afflicted with systematic effects.
We focus on attempts to constrain the CKM parameters $\rho$ and $\eta$ in the
standard Wolfenstein parametrisation. The $B_d^0 - \overline{B_d^0}$ mixing
parameter $x_d$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:xd_def}
x_d = \frac{G_F^2\,M_W^2}{6\pi^2}\,\tau_{B_d}\,f_{B_d}^2B_{B_d}M_{B_d}
\hat\eta_{B_d}\,y_t f_2(y_t)\,\left|V_{td}^*V_{tb}\right|^2
\end{equation}
where $\tau_{B_d}$ is the $B_d^0$ lifetime, $\hat\eta_{B_d}$ parametrises
short-distance QCD corrections, and $f_2$ is a slowly varying function of
$y_t= m_t^2/M_W^2$. The current world average for $x_d$ is \cite{forty_glas94}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:xd_av}
x_d = 0.76\pm0.06.
\end{equation}
Mixing in the $B_s^0 - \overline{B_s^0}$ system can now be exploited in order
to place constraints on the ratio $|V_{ts}|^2/|V_{td}|^2$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{x_s}{x_d} = \frac{\tau_{B_s}}{\tau_{B_d}}\,
\frac{\hat\eta_{B_s}}{\hat\eta_{B_d}}\,\frac{M_{B_s}}{M_{B_d}}\,
\frac{f_{B_s}^2\,B_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}^2\,B_{B_d}}\,
\frac{|V_{ts}|^2}{|V_{td}|^2}.
\end{equation}
In this ratio the dependence on the top quark mass is cancelled, and one is
left with an expression involving only the CKM matrix elements plus
$\rm SU(3)_{flavour}$ breaking terms.
Assuming $\hat\eta_{B_s} = \hat\eta_{B_d}$, and taking our estimate for
$f_{B_s}^2\,B_{B_s}\,M_{B_s}/f_{B_d}^2\,B_{B_d}\,M_{B_d}$, we find
\begin{equation}
\frac{x_s}{x_d} = \big( 1.38 \pm 0.17 \big)\,
\frac{|V_{ts}|^2}{|V_{td}|^2},
\end{equation}
where we have used $\tau_{B_d} = 1.53\pm0.09$\,ps and
$\tau_{B_s} = 1.54\pm0.14$\,ps. This result is in good agreement with
ref. \cite{alilon_93} where the proportionality factor is quoted as 1.25.
Using the experimental result for $x_d$, we will now infer a value for
the mixing parameter $x_s$. This requires an estimate for the ratio
$|V_{ts}|^2/|V_{td}|^2$, which is usually obtained from global fits using
the better-known CKM matrix elements as well as experimental data and other
theoretical estimates as input. Various analyses of this kind have
been presented in
\cite{lusignoli, alilon_93, alilon_0894, rosner, soni_94, ciuchini}.
In the standard Wolfenstein parametrisation the ratio $|V_{td}|^2/|V_{ts}|^2$
reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{|V_{td}|^2}{|V_{ts}|^2} = \lambda^2\big(1-2\rho+\rho^2+\eta^2\big)
\end{equation}
where $\lambda=|V_{us}| = 0.2205\pm0.0018$ \cite{PDG}. The contraints on the
CKM parameters $\rho$ and $\eta$ depend crucially on the actual values of
$\fbrootb{d}$ and $B_K$.
In a recent study \cite{alilon_0894}, the authors have obtained values for
$\rho$ and $\eta$ based on choosing $B_K=0.8\pm0.2$ (which is in agreement
with recent lattice data \cite{BK_lattice}) and on the
top quark mass of $m_t=174\pm16$\,{\rm GeV}\ from CDF \cite{CDF_top}. Using their
values for $\rho$ and $\eta$ and our estimate for
${f_{B_s}^2\,B_{B_s}\,M_{B_s}}/{f_{B_d}^2\,B_{B_d}\,M_{B_d}}$ in
eq.\,(\ref{eq:rat3}), we plot in Figure\,\ref{fig:xs} the
$B_s^0-\overline{B_s^0}$ mixing parameter $x_s$ as a function of $\fbrootb{d}$.
It is seen that values of $\fbrootb{d}>200\,{\rm MeV}$ result in practically
unmeasurably large values of $x_s > 20$. The current experimental lower bound
is
\begin{equation}
x_s \ge 9.0 \qquad {\rm (95\,\% C.L.)}
\end{equation}
The error band in the figure is obtained from the errors on our value in
eq.\,(\ref{eq:rat3}) and on the
experimental result for $x_d$. The errors on $x_s$ should, however, not be
taken too seriously, since variations in $B_K$ introduce large uncertainties in
the ratio $|V_{ts}|^2/|V_{td}|^2$.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=350pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig6.ps}
\end{center}
\small\caption{
The mixing parameter $x_s$ as a function of $\protect\fbrootb{d}$ for a
{\it fixed} value of $B_K=0.8$ using our result eq.\,(\protect\ref{eq:rat3}).
The solid line follows the central values,
whereas the dotted line represents the error band obtained from the errors
on $f_{B_s}^2\,B_{B_s}\,M_{B_s}/f_{B_d}^2\,B_{B_d}\,M_{B_d}$ and $x_d$.
}
\label{fig:xs}
\end{figure}
We conclude this section by noting that the minimum $\chi^2$ in the global fits
in \cite{alilon_0894} occurs at larger values of $\fbrootb{d}$ as $B_K$ is
increased. This indicates that large values like $\fbrootb{d} \ge 200\,{\rm MeV}$,
as observed in lattice calculations in the static approximation, favour
$B_K\simeq1$. However at present $B_K$ is not available with good enough
accuracy to provide further hints on the possible range of
$\fbrootb{d}$.
\section{Mass Splittings} \label{sec:split}
In this section we report on our results for the $B_s - B_d$, $\Lambda_b - B$,
and $B^*-B$ mass splittings. The $B^*-B$ splitting receives particular
attention since it first arises at order $1/m_Q$ and therefore serves to
test the quality of the heavy quark mass expansion. For all the splittings
computed we make a comparison with the results using propagating heavy quarks
and with experimental data.
\subsection{The $B_s-B_d$ mass difference}
The $B_s-B_d$ mass splitting is obtained from the chiral behaviour of the
binding energy $E$ extracted from fits to the pseudoscalar 2-point
function according to eq.\,(\ref{eq:css}) \cite{boch}. Assuming a linear
dependence of $E$ on the light quark mass, we fit the chiral behaviour of
$E$ according to
\begin{equation}
E(\kappa) = A + B\,\frac{1}{2}\left(
\frac{1}{\kappa} - \frac{1}{\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}} \right)
\end{equation}
such that $M_{B_s}-M_{B_d}$ is obtained from
\begin{equation}
E(\mbox{$\kappa_s$}) - E(\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}) = M_{B_s}-M_{B_d} =
B\,\frac{1}{2}\left(
\frac{1}{\mbox{$\kappa_s$}} - \frac{1}{\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}} \right).
\end{equation}
The results for different smearing types, 1-state and 2-state fits, as
well as correlated and uncorrelated chiral extrapolations, are shown in
Table \ref{tab_MBsMBd}.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{||c||r@{.}l|r@{.}l||r@{.}l||r@{.}l||r@{.}l||}
\hline
\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c||}{EXP} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{CUB}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{DCB} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{INV} \\
\hline
$M_{B_s}-M_{B_d}$
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1-state} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{2-state}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state}& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{1-state} \\
\hline
cor & 0&029\er{3}{4} & 0&030\er{5}{5} & 0&028\er{4}{4}
& 0&029\er{4}{4} & 0&029\er{3}{3} \\
unc & 0&027\er{4}{4} & 0&027\er{9}{7} & 0&028\er{5}{5}
& 0&030\er{4}{6} & 0&028\er{4}{3} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
The mass difference $M_{B_s}-M_{B_d}$ in lattice units for all smearing
types, using both correlated and uncorrelated fits. For exponential
smearing the results from 2-state fits are also shown.}
\end{center}
\label{tab_MBsMBd}
\end{table}
Taking the correlated value of the 2-state fit to the exponentially smeared
correlator as our best estimate, and using $a^{-1}=2.9(2)\,{\rm GeV}$ to convert
into physical units we find
\begin{equation} \label{eq:MBsMBd}
M_{B_s}-M_{B_d} = 87\err{15}{12}\,{\rm(stat)}\err{6}{12}\,{\rm(syst)}\,{\rm MeV}
\end{equation}
where the systematic error combines the spread of values obtained from the
uncertainty in $a^{-1}\,[{\rm GeV}]$, using the 1-state result and performing an
uncorrelated extrapolation.
This result is in excellent agreement with ref.\,\cite{fnal_94}, where a
value of $86\pm12\er{7}{9}\,{\rm MeV}$ is quoted as the continuum result. In a
recent high-statistics simulation by the APE Collaboration \cite{APE_lat94}
using the SW action at $\beta=6.2$, the $M_{B_s}-M_{B_d}$ splitting was quoted
as $58\pm14\,{\rm MeV}$. In general, APE's results for a range of $\beta$ values
\cite{APE_lat94} seem somewhat lower than those reported in \cite{fnal_94}.
This is partly due to the fact that the string tension was used in
\cite{APE_lat94} to set the lattice scale, giving a lower value (e.g.
$a^{-1}=2.55\,{\rm GeV}$ at $\beta=6.2$) than we use. Converting APE's
result into lattice units, one finds $aM_{B_s}-aM_{B_d} = 0.023(6)$ which
is to be compared to our determination of $aM_{B_s}-aM_{B_d} = 0.030\er{5}{5}$,
and thus the two simulations are not in disagreement.
Table\,\ref{tab_MBs_comp} contains a collection of results in physical
units from simulations using the static approximation.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{||l|c|c||}
\hline
\hline
$M_{B_s}-M_{B_d}\,[{\rm MeV}]$ & Ref. & Comments \\
\hline
\hline
$87\err{15}{12}\err{6}{12}$ & this work & static, SW, $\beta=6.2$ \\
$58\pm14$ & \cite{APE_lat94} & static, SW, $\beta=6.2$ \\
$70\pm10$ & \cite{APE_62_stat} & static, SW, $\beta=6.2$ \\
$86\pm12\er{7}{9}$ & \cite{fnal_94} & static, Wilson, $a=0$ \\
$71\pm13\err{0}{16}$ & \cite{boch} & static, Wilson, $\beta=6.0$ \\
$96\pm6$ & \cite{PDG} & experiment \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
Our value for the ${B_s}-B_d$ mass splitting in physical units compared to
other simulations using the static approximation. Also shown is the
experimental value.
}
\end{center}
\label{tab_MBs_comp}
\end{table}
The result in eq.\,(\ref{eq:MBsMBd}) can now be compared to the results using
propagating heavy quarks \cite{quenched}:
extrapolating the pseudoscalar mass splitting $M_{P_s}-M_{P_d}$ linearly
in $1/M_{P_d}$ either to $M_{P_d}=\infty$ or to $M_{B_d},\,M_{D_d}$ one
finds
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{B_s}-M_{B_d} & = & ~84\err{14}{12}\er{6}{6}\,{\rm MeV},
\qquad M_{P_d}=\infty \\
M_{B_s}-M_{B_d} & = & ~93\err{12}{12}\er{6}{7}\,{\rm MeV},
\qquad M_{P_d}=M_{B_d} \\
M_{D_s}-M_{D_d} & = & 107\err{12}{12}\er{8}{6}\,{\rm MeV},
\qquad M_{P_d}=M_{D_d}.
\end{eqnarray}
The result at $M_{B_d}=\infty$ is in excellent agreement with the static result
in eq.\,(\ref{eq:MBsMBd}). Furthermore, the value at $M_{P_d}=M_{B_d}$ agrees
very well with the experimental result of $96\pm6\,{\rm MeV}$\,\cite{PDG}. The
experimental value for $M_{D_s}-M_{D_d}$ is $99.1\pm0.6\,{\rm MeV}$ \cite{PDG},
which is compatible with our estimate.
We conclude that for the $M_{B_s}-M_{B_d}$ mass splitting it appears possible
to interpolate between the static result and those obtained using propagating
heavy quarks. From the behaviour of the splitting with $1/M_P$ the size of
$\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$ corrections is estimated at around 10\,\% at the mass
of the $B$ meson.
\subsection{The $\Lambda_b-B$ splitting}
In order to study the mass splitting of the $\Lambda_b$ and the $B$ meson, we
define a smeared interpolating field $\Lambda_\alpha^S(\vec{x},t)$ according
to
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_\alpha^S(\vec{x},t) \equiv \epsilon_{ijk}\,b^i_\alpha(\vec{x},t)
\sum_{\vec{x}^\prime}\,f(\vec{x},\vec{x}^\prime) \left( u^j(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
\,C\gamma_5\,d^k(\vec{x}^\prime,t)\right)
\end{equation}
where $f(\vec{x}^\prime,\vec{x})$ is one of the smearing functions in
eqs.\,(\ref{eq:inv}) and (\ref{eq:exp})--(\ref{eq:dcb}), and $C$ is the
charge conjugation matrix. In the above definition the spin of the baryon is
carried by the heavy quark field $b(x)$.
We define correlators of the $\Lambda_b$ according to
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{\Lambda_b}^{SS}(t) & \equiv & \sum_{\vec{x}}\langle
\Lambda_\alpha^S(\vec{x},t)\,{\Lambda_\alpha^\dagger}^S(0)\rangle
\stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} \left(Z_{\Lambda_b}^S\right)^2\,
{\rm e}^{-E_{\Lambda_b}\,t} \\
C_{\Lambda_b}^{LS}(t) & \equiv & \sum_{\vec{x}}\langle
\Lambda_\alpha^L(\vec{x},t)\,{\Lambda_\alpha^\dagger}^S(0)\rangle
\stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} Z_{\Lambda_b}^L Z_{\Lambda_b}^S
\,{\rm e}^{-E_{\Lambda_b}\,t}
\end{eqnarray}
where $S={\rm EXP,\,CUB,\,DCB,\,INV}$. We then obtain the $\Lambda_b-B$ mass
difference from an exponential fit to the following ratio of smeared-smeared
($SS$) correlators
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rat_Lambda}
\frac{C_{\Lambda_b}^{SS}(t)}{C^{SS}(t)} \equiv
\frac{\sum_{\vec{x}}\langle\Lambda^S(\vec{x},t)\,{\Lambda^\dagger}^S(0)\rangle}
{\sum_{\vec{x}}\langle A_4^S(\vec{x},t)\,{A_4^\dagger}^S(0)\rangle}
\stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} {\rm{const.}}\,\times\,
{\rm e}^{-(E_{\Lambda_b}-E)\,t}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
E_{\Lambda_b}-E = M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{B_d}.
\end{equation}
We used the same smearing functions in the numerator and denominator
of the ratio in eq.\,(\ref{eq:rat_Lambda}), although there is {\it a priori}
no reason why one should do so. However, we found that the uncertainty in the
ratio was dominated by the baryon correlator, and therefore we did not expect
any gain in trying to optimise the signal using different smearing functions
for the mesonic correlator. The ratios defined in eq.\,(\ref{eq:rat_Lambda})
gave short but clear plateaux in the range $9\leq t\leq11$.
The same procedure can of course be applied to the local-smeared ($LS$)
correlators $C_{\Lambda_b}^{LS}(t)$ and $C^{LS}(t)$. However, we
observed that the effective mass plots for the ratio of $LS$
correlators do not show clear plateaux. In addition, the fits of the
correlators tend to give estimates for the splitting that are higher by
up to two standard deviations, which further suggests that the ground
state is not completely isolated in $LS$ correlators.
The ratio of correlators eq.\,(\ref{eq:rat_Lambda}) was fitted to a single
exponential for $9\leq t \leq 11$ at all values of $\kappa_l$. In
Table\,\ref{tab_lambdab} we list our results in lattice units.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{||c||r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l|r@{.}l||}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{||c||}{$M_{\Lambda_b}-M_B$} \\
\hline
\hline
$\kappa_l$
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{EXP} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CUB}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DCB} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{INV} \\
\hline
0.14144 & 0&22\er{2}{2} & 0&23\er{2}{2} & 0&22\er{2}{2} & 0&23\er{2}{2} \\
0.14226 & 0&18\er{2}{3} & 0&19\er{4}{3} & 0&18\er{3}{3} & 0&19\er{2}{2} \\
0.14262 & 0&16\er{3}{4} & 0&17\er{6}{5} & 0&14\er{5}{6} & 0&16\er{3}{3} \\
\hline
$\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$& 0&14\er{3}{3} & 0&17\er{3}{3} & 0&16\er{4}{3} & 0&16\er{3}{3} \\
$\chi^2/\rm dof$ & 0&01 & 0&18 & 0&78 & 1&88 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
The $\Lambda_b-B$ mass splitting in lattice units at all three
values of the light quark mass and extrapolated to the chiral limit.
}
\end{center}
\label{tab_lambdab}
\end{table}
Exponential smearing gave the cleanest signal at all values of $\kappa_l$.
Assuming a linear dependence on the light quark mass, we extrapolated
$M_{\Lambda_b}-M_B$ to the chiral limit. Again, the results from exponential
smearing showed a very good linearity and consequently gave low
$\chi^2/\rm dof$ in the chiral fits (see Table\,\ref{tab_lambdab}).
Furthermore, correlated and uncorrelated extrapolations gave almost the same
central values. In contrast, the CUB, DCB and INV smearing types gave
differing, though statistically consistent, results for correlated and
uncorrelated fits. The $\chi^2/\rm dof$'s are, however, larger and fairly
high for gauge-invariant smearing.
We therefore take our best estimate from the exponentially smeared
correlators. In physical units we obtain
\begin{equation}
M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{B_d} = 420\errr{100}{90}\,{\rm(stat)}\err{30}{30}
{\rm(syst)}\,{\rm MeV}
\end{equation}
with the systematic error coming from the uncertainty in $a^{-1}\,[{\rm GeV}]$.
Our value can be compared to other simulation results and the experimental
number in Table\,\ref{tab_lambda_comp}. Comparing with the experimental value,
it is seen that our new result is a marked improvement over a previous
simulation in the static approximation \cite{boch}.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{||l|c|c||}
\hline
\hline
$M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{B_d}\,[{\rm MeV}]$ & Ref. & Comments \\
\hline
\hline
$420\errr{100}{90}\err{30}{30}$ & this work & static, SW \\
$720\pm160\errr{0}{130}$ & \cite{boch} & static, Wilson \\
$359\err{55}{45}\err{27}{26}$ & \cite{heavy_baryons} & prop., SW \\
$458\pm144\pm18$ & \cite{wupp_beaut} & prop., Wilson \\
$362\pm50$ & \cite{PDG} & experiment \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
Our value for the $\Lambda_b-B_d$ mass splitting compared to
other simulations using the Wilson action and/or propagating heavy quarks.
Also shown is the experimental value.
}
\end{center}
\label{tab_lambda_comp}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=400pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig7.ps}
\end{center}
\small\caption{
The $\Lambda_b-B$ splitting in the static approximation (diamonds) compared
to other simulations and the experimental values for the $\Lambda_b-B$ and
$\Lambda_c-D$ splittings. Only statistical errors are shown.}
\label{fig:lambda_comp}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:lambda_comp} we plot our static result together with
recent data obtained with propagating heavy quarks
\cite{wupp_beaut,heavy_baryons}. Our value, compared to an earlier study
\cite{boch}, is in much better agreement with the mass behaviour of the results
using propagating heavy quarks. In fact, an extrapolation in $1/M_P$ of these
results to the static limit would be compatible with our value within the
(relatively large) statistical errors. For further discussion of the mass
behaviour, the reader is referred to \cite{heavy_baryons}.
\subsection{The $B^*-B$ splitting}
\label{sec:bbstar}
Within the framework of large mass expansions, the $B^*-B$ mass splitting
plays an important r\^ole, since it appears at order $1/m_Q$; at lowest order
(i.e. in the static approximation) $M_{B^*}=M_B$. At order $1/m_Q$ the
splitting arises due to the spin-dependent, chromomagnetic correction term to
the quark propagator
\begin{equation}
S_\sigma^1(x,0) = \frac{1+\gamma_4}{2}\,\delta(\vec{x})\,\sum_{i<j}\,
\int_0^t d\tau\,
{\cal{P}}_{\vec{x}}(t,\tau)\,\sigma_{ij}F_{ij}(\vec{x},\tau)\,
{\cal{P}}_{\vec{0}}(\tau,0)
\end{equation}
where ${\cal{P}}_{\vec{x}}(t,\tau)$ and ${\cal{P}}_{\vec{0}}(\tau,0)$ are defined
according to eq.\,(\ref{eq:calp}), and $F_{ij}$ is a lattice definition of
the field tensor.
Following the discussion in \cite{boch, ake_lat94} we compute the $B^*-B$
splitting from the insertion of $S_\sigma^1(x,0)$ into the correlation function.
The usual static correlator is given by
\begin{equation}
C_0(t) \equiv -\sum_{\vec{x}}\,\langle\gamma_4\gamma_5\,S_Q(x,0)\,
\gamma_4\gamma_5\,S_l(0,x)\rangle
\end{equation}
where $S_Q(x,0)$ is defined in eq.\,(\ref{eq:sb0}), and $S_l(x,y)$ is the light
quark propagator. In addition, we define
\begin{equation}
C_\sigma(t) \equiv -\sum_{\vec{x}}\,\langle\gamma_4\gamma_5\,
S_\sigma^1(x,0)\,\gamma_4\gamma_5S_l(0,x)\rangle
\end{equation}
For large time separations,
the ratio $R_\sigma(t) \equiv C_\sigma(t)/C_0(t)$ shows a linear behaviour
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rsigma}
R_\sigma(t) \equiv \frac{C_\sigma(t)}{C_0(t)}
\stackrel{t\gg0}{\longrightarrow} A_\sigma+B_\sigma t.
\end{equation}
The splitting $M_{B^*}^2-M_B^2$ is then given by the linear slope $B_\sigma$
according to
\begin{equation}
M_{B^*}^2-M_B^2 = Z_\sigma\frac{4}{3}\,B_\sigma.
\end{equation}
where $Z_\sigma$ is the renormalisation constant of the magnetic
moment operator of the heavy quark \cite{eich_hill_mag, flynn_hill_mag}.
As in the case of the renormalisation constant $Z_L$ defined in
eq.\,(\ref{eq:zdef}), we insert the reduced value of the quark
self-energy into the expression given in \cite{flynn_hill_mag}. Using
the ``boosted" value of the gauge coupling in the numerical evaluation
of $Z_\sigma$ at one loop, we find \cite{flynn_hill_mag}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zsigma}
Z_\sigma = 1.76.
\end{equation}
This is a very large correction, which suggests that higher-order
contributions are likely to be important and highlights the necessity
of a non-perturbative determination of $Z_\sigma$.
In our simulation the $SS$ correlator $C_\sigma(t)$ was calculated using only
gauge-invariant (INV) smearing. In the $LS$ case, for which more smearing
functions were used, the linear behaviour of $R_\sigma(t)$ could not be
established reliably. Thus, we cannot compare different smearing types for
the $B^*-B$ splitting and therefore restrict the discussion to
gauge-invariant smearing.
The ratio $R_\sigma(t)$ was fitted to the functional form in
eq.\,(\ref{eq:rsigma}) for $2\leq t \leq5$ at all three values of $\kappa_l$.
Figure\,\ref{fig:bbstar_4144} shows the signal at $\kappa_l=0.14144$ together
with the fit. It appears that in addition to the linear behaviour of
$R_\sigma(t)$ for very small $t$, there is also a linear increase for
$7\leq t\leq11$, albeit with much larger statistical errors. Fits to
eq.\,(\ref{eq:rsigma}) in this time interval lead to values
of $B_\sigma$ which are larger by up to two standard deviations than
those obtained using $2\leq t\leq5$. The fits at larger times are,
however, very sensitive to small variations in the fitting interval.
We regard the two-sigma deviation at higher $t$ as a correlated statistical
effect, and believe that the asymptotic behaviour is already observed
for small~$t$. Of course, this must be confirmed in future simulations with
higher statistics.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfysize=350pt
\epsfbox[20 30 620 600]{fig8.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{The ratio $R_\sigma(t)$ for gauge-invariant smearing at
$\kappa_l=0.14144$. The fit to eq.\,(\protect\ref{eq:rsigma}) is shown as a
solid line in the fitting interval $2\leq t\leq5$ and continued as the dotted
line for larger times.}
\label{fig:bbstar_4144}
\end{figure}
The results for the values of the linear slope parameter $B_\sigma$ from
correlated fits are shown in Table\,\ref{tab_bbstar} together with the
linearly extrapolated value at $\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$. Using uncorrelated fits gives
essentially the same results. The values for $B_\sigma$ increase slightly
with decreasing light quark mass, as was already observed in \cite{boch},
but are also consistent, within the statistical errors, with $B_\sigma$
being independent of the light quark mass.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c|r@{.}l||}
\hline
\hline
$\kappa_l$ & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$B_\sigma$} \\
\hline
\hline
0.14144 & 0&0133\er{7}{7} \\
0.14226 & 0&0137\er{7}{8} \\
0.14262 & 0&0137\er{8}{8} \\
\hline
$\mbox{$\kappa_{\rm crit}$}$ & 0&0143\er{8}{8} \\
$\mbox{$\kappa_s$}$ & 0&0136\er{7}{7} \\
$\chi^2/\rm dof$ & 0&54 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
The fitted linear slope $B_\sigma$ of the ratio $R_\sigma(t)$ in
lattice units at all values of $\kappa_l$, in the chiral limit and at the
strange quark mass, extracted from the smeared-smeared (INV) correlator.}
\end{center}
\label{tab_bbstar}
\end{table}
Multiplying by $Z_\sigma\,4/3$ and converting into physical units we find
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{B^*}^2-M_B^2 &=& 0.281\err{15}{16}\,{\rm(stat)}\err{40}{37}{\rm(syst)}\,
{{\rm GeV}}^2 \\
M_{B^*_s}^2-M_{B_s}^2
&=& 0.268\err{13}{13}\,{\rm(stat)}\err{38}{36}{\rm(syst)}\,
{{\rm GeV}}^2
\end{eqnarray}
with the systematic error coming from the uncertainty in $a^{-1}$
only. A comparison with experimental data and other simulations is
made in Table\,\ref{tab_bbstar_comp}. Our result for the $B^*-B$
splitting is lower than the experimental value by almost a factor
of~2. Also, contrary to the experimental observation, our estimate for
the $B^*_s-B_s$ splitting is lower than the one for $B^*-B$. This can
partly be accounted for by the opposite chiral behaviour of the
splitting seen on the lattice. It is interesting to note, however,
that both the experimental and lattice determinations of
$M_{B^*_s}^2-M_{B_s}^2$ yield a result that is compatible within
errors with the corresponding value of $M_{B^*}^2-M_{B}^2$.
The use of the $O(a)$-improved SW action for the light quark does not
lead to a considerable increase in the splitting, as a comparison with
the result of ref.\,\cite{boch} shows. This is not the case for
propagating heavy quarks. When the SW action is used for both heavy
and light quarks \cite{quenched}, one obtains a value that is also
about half of the experimental result. This is still an improvement
over the case of propagating heavy Wilson quarks \cite{boch} which
gives a value about 10 times below the experimental result. As far as
the hyperfine splitting is concerned, we therefore conclude that the
main benefits of using the $O(a)$-improved action are obtained in the
case of relativistic heavy quarks. Given the large uncertainty in
$Z_\sigma$, the Eichten expansion and propagating heavy quarks give
comparable results if the SW action is employed. The discrepancy
between the lattice and experimental results may, at least partially,
be ascribed to quenching effects, as has been argued in
ref.\,\cite{charmonium}.
\begin{table}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}
{||l|l||c|c||}
\hline
\hline
$M_{B^*}^2-M_{B}^2\,[{\rm GeV}^2]$ & $M_{B_s^*}^2-M_{B_s}^2\,[{\rm GeV}^2]$
& Ref. & Comments \\
\hline
\hline
$0.281\err{15}{16}\err{40}{37}$ & $0.268\err{13}{13}\err{38}{36}$
& this work & static, SW \\
$0.27\pm0.05-0.07$ & & \cite{boch} & static, Wilson \\
$0.202\err{76}{84}\err{29}{27}$ &
& \cite{quenched} & prop., SW \\
$0.488\pm0.006$ & $0.508\pm0.028$ & \cite{PDG} & experiment \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\small\caption{
Our value for the $B^*-B$ and $B_s^*-B_s$ mass splittings compared to
other simulations and experiment. The value of $Z_\sigma$ used in
\protect\cite{boch} has been evaluated using the reduced value of the
quark self-energy and the ``boosted" gauge coupling.}
\end{center}
\label{tab_bbstar_comp}
\end{table}
\section{Summary and Conclusions} \label{sec:summ}
In this paper we have reported on the results from an extensive study of weak
matrix elements and the spectroscopy of heavy quark systems using the static
approximation. A large part of our analysis was devoted to studying different
types of smeared (extended) operators used in order to improve the signal/noise
ratio and the isolation of the ground state. Although exponential or
gauge-invariant smearing gave the best signal for most quantities, all the
smearing functions gave
remarkably consistent results. In addition, the variational approach employed
in the determination of $f_B^{\rm static}$ demonstrated the compatibility of results
obtained using this more refined fitting procedure with those from the usual
single-exponential fits. Thus we are confident that we correctly isolate
matrix elements and spectroscopy data from the ground state contribution of
suitable correlators.
We obtain a good signal for the various four-fermi operators relevant for
$\mbox{$B^0 - \overline{B^0}${}}$ mixing. Our estimate for $B_B$ in the static approximation is in
agreement with its value in the vacuum insertion approximation. Regarding
$f_B$, we note that our determination of
$Z^L=f_B^{\rm static}\sqrt{2/M_B}/Z_A^{\rm static}$ is consistent with other simulations.
Among the systematic errors present in this simulation, the most important
(apart from quenching) are due to uncertainties in the renormalisation constants
relating the matrix elements on the lattice to their continuum counterparts.
These systematic effects manifest themselves most severely in our estimate for
the $B$~parameter, and in the case of $f_B^{\rm static}$, where
there is practically no difference in $Z^L$ for the Wilson and the SW actions,
yet the corresponding values of $Z_A^{\rm static}$ differ by about 10--15\,\%.
Also, the large value of $Z_\sigma$ in eq.\,(\ref{eq:zsigma}) implies that
higher-order contributions may be important in the perturbative evaluation of
this constant.
Our results for the $B_s-B_d$ and $\Lambda_b-B$ splittings compare
very well with experimental estimates, although the statistical
errors, especially for the $\Lambda_b-B$ splitting, are still large.
The $B^*-B$ splitting obtained from a $1/m_Q$ correction to the static
limit, however, does not agree with experiment. Using the SW action
for the light quarks does not lead to a significant increase in the
lattice estimate of $M_{B^*}^2-M_B^2$. Future simulations using
dynamical quarks may reveal whether the discrepancy between the
lattice and experimental results is due to quenching effects.
The static approximation, in conjunction with a refined numerical
analysis, remains a valuable tool in lattice studies of heavy quark
systems. It plays the crucial r\^ole of guiding the extrapolation of
results obtained using propagating heavy quarks to the mass of the $b$
quark, by providing direct information at infinite quark mass.
In future, one should concentrate on the analysis of systematic effects such
as non-perturbative determinations of the renormalisation constants. In the
case of $B_B$ it would be highly desirable to repeat the calculation for
propagating heavy quarks, preferably with an improved fermion action, in
order to study the mass dependence.
{\bf Note added:} after completion of this work, we received several
papers, \cite{ken_lat95}--\cite{cra_lat95}, presenting results for the
$B$ parameter \cite{ken_lat95, aoki_lat95, soni_lat95}, $f_B$
\cite{ken_lat95, aoki_lat95, MILC_lat95, cra_lat95}, the mass
splittings $M_{B_s}-M_{B_d}$, $M_B-M_{B^*}$ \cite{ken_lat95}, $B_K$
\cite{aoki_lat95} and discussing phenomenological implications
\cite{soni_lat95}. The conclusions of this paper remain unaltered,
though, since the reported numbers are in agreement with our findings.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements}
We thank Guido Martinelli, Vicente Gim\'enez and members of the APE
Collaboration for interesting discussions, and, in particular, for
alerting us to an error in the calculation of the $B^*-B$ splitting,
as presented in the preprint version of this paper. This research was
supported by the UK Science and Engineering Research Council under
grants GR/G 32779 and GR/H 49191, by the Particle Physics and
Astronomy Research Council under grant GR/J 21347, by the European
Union under HCM Network grant CHRX-CT92-0051, by the University of
Edinburgh and by Meiko Limited. We thank the Daresbury Rutherford
Appleton Laboratories for the use of the Cray Y-MP. We are grateful to
Edinburgh University Computing Service for maintaining service on the
Meiko i860 Computing Surface and, in particular, to Brian Murdoch for
allowing access to a field test multi-processor DEC Alpha machine. JM
acknowledges the support of a Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Scholarship. CTS (Senior Fellow) and DGR (Advanced Fellow)
acknowledge the support of the Particle
Physics and \nopagebreak Astronomy Research Council.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
In a previous article \cite{1}, the relationship between various conservation
laws and various sum rules has been explored.
In the heavy quark limit, the hadronic resonances appear as eigenstates of the
light degrees of freedom under the static color field of the heavy quark.
Under a $b\rightarrow c$ decay, the Isgur--Wise form factors $\varphi_{n'}(w)$
are defined to be, up to a kinematic factor, the overlap of the initial ground
state brown muck $|0\rangle$ moving with velocity $v$ and the final (ground
state or excited) brown muck $|n'\rangle$ with velocity $v'$,
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{n'}(w)=\langle n'|0\rangle,
\end{equation}
with $w=v\cdot v'$.
By the completeness of the set of eigenstates, we have the master sum rule
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'} \langle 0|{\bf X}|n'\rangle \langle n'|0\rangle
= \langle 0|{\bf X}|0\rangle,
\label{msr}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf X}$ is an arbitrary operator.
The case of interest is when ${\bf X}$ is conserved, i.e., $H'$ and ${\bf X}$
commute and the $|n'\rangle$'s are eigenstates of ${\bf X}$.
Then the left hand side of Eq. (\ref{msr}) is just the sum of the squares of
the Isgur--Wise form factors $\varphi(w)$ weighted by their respective
eigenvalues of ${\bf X}$.
For ${\bf X} = \openone$, the identity matrix, this master sum rule is
equivalent to the well-known Bjorken sum rule \cite{2,3,4},
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 = 1.
\label{bsr}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, with ${\bf X} = H'$, the hamiltonian operator in the $v'$
frame, Eq. (\ref{msr}) can be reduced to the Voloshin sum rule \cite{5} (which
will be discussed below).
Lastly, a new sum rule can be obtained by choosing ${\bf X}=P'$, the parity
operator in the $v'$ frame.
This new ``parity sum rule'' can lead to model independent lower bounds of
$\varphi_{0'}(w)$, the ground state Isgur--Wise form factor.
In this paper, we are going to consider the case ${\bf X}=H'^k$ with $k\geq2$.
When ${\bf X}=H'^2$, the sum rule obtained is closely related to the
Bigi--Grozin--Shifman--Uraltsev--Vainshtein (BGSUV) sum rule derived in
Ref. \cite{6}.
When ${\bf X} = H'^3$, a new sum rule, relating the Isgur--Wise form factors
and the matrix element of the heavy quark counterpart of the Darwin term in
atomic physics, is obtained. The general case of ${\bf X} = H'^k$ with
$k\geq 4$ is briefly discussed.
\section{Sum Rules On $H'^2$}
By considering the operator product expansion of heavy quark currents in the
context of QCD sum rules, the authors of Ref. \cite{6} have been able to obtain
several sum rules relating the Isgur--Wise form factors in the small velocity
limit.
Besides the Bjorken and Voloshin sum rules, they obtained the new BGSUV sum
rule,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^2 = \textstyle{1\over3} \mu_\pi^2
(\vec v-\vec v')^2,
\label{H2}
\end{equation}
where $E_{n'}=m_{X^{n'}_b}-m_B$ is the mass difference over the ground state
meson, and
\begin{equation}\label{fff}
\mu_\pi^2=\langle B|\bar b(i\vec D)^2 b|B\rangle.
\end{equation}
(Notice that the present notations are different from those in Ref. \cite{5}.
In particular the normalizations of the meson states differ by a factor of
$\sqrt{2M_B}$.)
Physically $\mu_\pi^2$ denotes the square of the {\it heavy quark} momentum
inside the $B$ meson, which is also the square of the {\it brown muck} momentum
in the hadron rest frame.
\begin{equation}\label{sss}
\mu_\pi^2 = \langle 0|\vec p\,^2|0 \rangle.
\end{equation}
Evidently this sum rule expresses conservation of the second moment of the
energy operator, and we will see that this sum rule indeed can be reproduced
as a special case of our master sum rule.
Putting ${\bf X}=H'^2$ in the master sum rule, we have
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 \Delta m_{n'}^2 = \langle 0|H'^2|0\rangle,
\label{h2}
\end{equation}
with $\Delta m_{n'} = m_{X^{n'}_b}-m_{b}$ as the mass of the ``brown muck''.
To see how the quantity $\langle 0|H'^2|0\rangle$ can be evaluated, it is
worthwhile to review briefly the derivation of the Voloshin sum rule \cite{1}.
The Voloshin sum rule is obtained by putting ${\bf X}=H'$ in Eq.
(\ref{msr}).
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'}\Delta m_{n'}|\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 = \langle 0|H'|0\rangle.
\label{h}
\end{equation}
To calculate the right-hand side, note that $|0\rangle$ and $|0'\rangle$
are related by a Lorentz transformation $L$ which boosts from the
$v'$ frame to the $v$ frame.
\begin{equation}
|0\rangle = L|0'\rangle.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
\langle 0|H'|0\rangle = \langle 0'|L^{-1}H'L|0'\rangle.
\end{equation}
The Lorentz transformation dictates that the hamiltonian is transformed as the
time component of a four vector.
\begin{equation}
L^{-1}H'L = w(H' + (\vec v-\vec v\,')\cdot\vec p\,').
\end{equation}
Since the ground state $|0'\rangle$ is at rest in the $v'$ frame,
$\langle 0'|\vec p\,'|0'\rangle = 0$.
On the other hand, $\langle 0'|H'|0'\rangle = \Lambda = m_B-m_b$ is the mass of
the brown muck.
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\langle 0|H'|0\rangle = w \langle 0'|H'|0' \rangle
+ w(\vec v-\vec v\,')\cdot\langle 0'|\vec p\,'|0'\rangle = w\Lambda,
\end{equation}
as conjectured in Ref. \cite{1}.
Together with Eq. (\ref{h}), the Voloshin sum rule is reproduced:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'}\Delta m_{n'}|\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 = w\Lambda.
\label{vsr}
\end{equation}
The argument above can be generalized to evaluate $\langle 0|H'^2|0\rangle$.
\begin{equation}\label{symmetric}
\langle 0|H'^2|0\rangle = w^2 \langle 0'|H'^2|0' \rangle + w^2 (v-v')_i
(v-v')_j \langle 0'|p'_i p'_j|0' \rangle.
\end{equation}
with the terms proportional to $\langle 0'|\vec p\,'|0'\rangle$ vanishing.
By the relation
\begin{equation}
\langle 0'|p'_i p'_j|0' \rangle = \textstyle{1\over3} \langle 0'|\vec p\,'^2|
0' \rangle \delta_{ij} = \textstyle{1\over3} \mu_\pi^2 \delta_{ij},
\label{sym}
\end{equation}
we end up with
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 \Delta m_{n'}^2 &=& \langle 0|H'^2|0\rangle
\nonumber\\ &=& w^2 \Lambda^2 + \textstyle{1\over3} w^2 \mu_\pi^2 (\vec v -
\vec v\,')^2.
\label{2sr}
\end{eqnarray}
(Strictly speaking, the matrix element (\ref{sym}) contains in general also
an antisymmetric part in the indices $i,j$. However, for the purpose of
deriving the sum rule (\ref{2sr}) this part can be neglected, as it
vanishes under multiplication with $(v-v')_i(v-v')_j$ in Eq.
(\ref{symmetric}).)
Using Eqs. (\ref{bsr}), (\ref{vsr}), (\ref{2sr}), and the relation $E_{n'} =
\Delta m_{n'} - \Lambda$, the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{H2}) can be
evaluated.
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^2 &=& \sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2
(\Lambda^2 - 2\Lambda\Delta m_{n'} + \Delta m_{n'}^2) \nonumber\\
&=& \Lambda^2 - 2w \Lambda^2 + w^2 \Lambda^2
+ \textstyle{1\over3} w^2 \mu_\pi^2 (\vec v - \vec v')^2\nonumber\\
&=& \Lambda^2 (w-1)^2 + \textstyle{1\over3} w^2 \mu_\pi^2 (\vec v - \vec v')^2.
\label{csr}
\end{eqnarray}
So in the small velocity limit, i.e., $w\simeq1$,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^2
= \textstyle{1\over3} \mu_\pi^2 (\vec v - \vec v')^2,
\end{equation}
and the BGSUV sum rule is reproduced.
Noting that $(\vec v - \vec v')^2 = w^2 - 1$, Eq. (\ref{csr}) can be formally
expanded about $w=1$ as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^2 = \textstyle{2\over3} \mu_\pi^2 (w-1) +
\dots.
\label{expn}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we know that in general, for a state with orbital angular
momentum $l>0$, $|\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 \sim (w-1)^l$.
For $l=0$, $|\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 \sim (w-1)^0$ for the ground state and $\sim
(w-1)^2$ for excited states.
This determines the behavior of the $\varphi$'s near the point of zero recoil.
The zeroth order expansion of Eq. (\ref{expn}) about the point of zero recoil
is the trivial identity $0=0$, while the first non-trivial term is
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l=1} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^2 = \textstyle{2\over3} \mu_\pi^2 (w-1)
= \textstyle{1\over3} \mu_\pi^2 (v-v')^2,
\end{equation}
where $v$ and $v'$ are the {\it four} velocities of the initial and final
heavy quarks.
Then the above modification of the BGSUV sum rule is saturated by the $P$-wave
states.
(In contrast, the original BGSUV sum rule runs over all excited states.)
In the meson sector, this modified BGSUV sum rule becomes
\begin{equation}\label{BGSUV}
\sum_q 2\left(E_{1/2}^{(q)}\right)^2 |\tau_{1/2}^{(q)}(1)|^2 + \sum_r 4\left(
E_{3/2}^{(r)}\right)^2 |\tau_{3/2}^{(r)}(1)|^2 = \textstyle{2\over3} \mu_\pi^2,
\end{equation}
where the $P$-wave Isgur--Wise form factors $\tau(w)$'s are defined in Ref.
\cite{4}.
Although we have derived this modified BGSUV sum rule in the context of $B$
decays, the same discussion holds for $\Lambda_b$ decays as well, for which the
sum rule reads
\begin{equation}
\sum_q 2\left(E_1^{(q)}\right)^2 |\sigma^{(q)}(1)|^2 = \textstyle{2\over3}
\bar\mu_\pi^2,
\end{equation}
where $\bar\mu_\pi^2$ is defined in analogy to $\mu_\pi^2$
\begin{equation}
\bar\mu_\pi^2=\langle\Lambda_b|\bar b(i\vec D)^2 b|\Lambda_b\rangle,
\end{equation}
and the $P$-wave Isgur--Wise form factors $\sigma(w)$'s are defined in Ref.
\cite{3}.
\section{Sum Rule on $H'^3$}
In this section we will derive a sum rule from the conservation of the
third moment of the hamiltonian.
Bearing in mind that $H$ and $p$ are operators which in general do not commute,
putting ${\bf X} = H'^3$ in the master sum rule gives
\widetext
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{n'}|\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2\Delta m_{n'}^3&=&\langle0|H'^3|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&w^3 \langle0'|(H'+(\vec v-\vec v\,')\cdot\vec p\,')(H'+(\vec v-\vec v\,')
\cdot\vec p\,')(H'+(\vec v-\vec v\,')\cdot\vec p\,')|0'\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&w^3 \langle0'|H'^3|0'\rangle + w^3 (\vec v - \vec v\,')_i (\vec v - \vec v\,
')_j\langle 0'|(H' p'_i p'_j + p'_i H' p'_j + p'_i p'_j
H')|0'\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&w^3 \Lambda^3 + w^3 \Lambda \mu_\pi^2 (\vec v - \vec v\,')^2
+ \textstyle{1\over3} w^3 \mu_\chi^3 (\vec v - \vec v\,')^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}\label{muchi}
\mu_\chi^3 = \langle 0|(p_i H p_i - p_i p_i H)|0\rangle
= \langle0|p_i [H, p_i]|0\rangle.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^3 &=& \sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2
(- \Lambda^3 + 3 \Lambda^2\Delta m_{n'} - 3\Lambda\Delta m_{n'}^2 + \Delta
m_{n'}^3) \nonumber\\
&=& - \Lambda^3 + 3\Lambda^3w - 3\Lambda(w^2\Lambda^2 + \textstyle{1\over3} w^2
\mu_\pi^2 (\vec v - \vec v')^2)\nonumber\\
& &\qquad\qquad + (w^3 \Lambda^3 + w^3 \Lambda \mu_\pi^2 (\vec
v - \vec v')^2 + \textstyle{1\over3} w^3 \mu_\chi^3 (\vec v - \vec v')^2)
\nonumber\\
&=& \Lambda^3 (w-1)^3 + w^2 (w-1) \Lambda \mu_\pi^2 (\vec v - \vec v')^2
+ \textstyle{1\over3} w^3 \mu_\chi^3 (\vec v - \vec v')^2.
\end{eqnarray}
\narrowtext
The first, second and third terms are of order $(w-1)^3$, $(w-1)^2$ and
$(w-1)^1$ respectively.
As a result, when expanded about the point of zero recoil, we get
\begin{equation}\label{sumrule}
\sum_{l=1} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^3 = \textstyle{2\over3} \mu_\chi^3
(w-1).
\end{equation}
In the heavy mass limit, the commutators of the momentum and hamiltonian
brown muck appearing in this matrix element can be written only in terms of
heavy quark and gluon fields. The result for $\mu_\chi^3$ reads
(details of the derivation can be found in the Appendix)
\begin{equation}\label{final}
\mu_\chi^3 = \frac12 \langle B|\bar Q\gamma^0 g(D^\mu F_{0\mu}^a)t^aQ
|B\rangle\,.
\end{equation}
A sum rule similar to Eq. (\ref{sumrule}) is obtained in the framework of
\cite{6}, from considering the third momentum of the hadronic tensor (in the
terminology of \cite{6}, the ``fourth sum rule''). We have explicitly checked
that the two methods lead to identical results.
The matrix element $\mu_\chi^3$ (\ref{muchi}) has a special significance
for heavy hadron physics. The dimension-6 operator in (\ref{final})
appears in the heavy quark effective theory lagrangian at order $1/m^2$.
In nonrelativistic language (in the rest frame of the heavy hadron),
$\mu_\chi^3$ is the expectation value of the Darwin term in the Pauli equation
satisfied by the heavy quark field $Q$.
A similar quantity has been defined as $\rho_D^3$
in Eq.~(27) of \cite{Big} where its contribution to the mass of a heavy
hadron has been computed (see also \cite{Mannel}). Also, $\mu_\chi^3$ is
directly connected to the
third moment of the distribution function $F(x)$ for inclusive semileptonic
decays of heavy hadrons into final massless quarks.
Its value determines the asymmetry of $F(x)$ between positive and negative
values of the scaling variable $x$. Finally, a quantity related to
$\mu_\chi^3$ is needed when computing mass corrections of order $1/m^3$ to
the total semileptonic width of a heavy hadron \cite{BDS}.
Usually the matrix element (\ref{final}) is evaluated with the help of
the factorization approximation \cite{Internal,Mannel}. For this the equation
of motion of the
gluon field is used $D^\mu F_{0\mu}^a = g\sum_q \bar q\gamma_0t^aq$, where
the sum runs over all light quarks. Then the Fierz identity is applied
followed by the insertion of the vacuum state. The result reads
\begin{equation}
\mu_\chi^3 = \frac{8\pi}{9}\alpha_s f_B^2m_B\,,
\end{equation}
where the case of a B meson has been considered.
To turn this into a numerical prediction, a scale must be chosen at which
the coupling $\alpha_s$ is to be evaluated. We employ for this a low scale of
the order $\mu=0.5$ GeV, where $\alpha_s=0.31$ \cite{BDS}. For $f_B$ we use
an average value of the lattice QCD results $f_B=175\pm 25$ MeV \cite{fB}.
Together with the B meson mass $m_B = 5.28$ GeV these values give the
following estimate
\begin{equation}\label{factnumber}
\mu_\chi^3 = 0.140\pm 0.043 \mbox{ GeV}^3\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the sum rule (\ref{sumrule}) allows a direct
evaluation of this quantity, in terms of the contributions of the excited
states. Compared with the factorization approach, this method has the
advantage of being free of uncertainties connected with the value of the
factorization scale. Therefore it provides us with an independent test
of the vacuum insertion approximation for hadrons containing one heavy
quark.
Expressed in terms of the contributions of the P-wave mesons, the sum
rule (\ref{sumrule}) takes a similar form to (\ref{BGSUV}):
\begin{equation}\label{srule}
2E_{1/2}^3 |\tau_{1/2}(1)|^2 + 4 E_{3/2}^3 |\tau_{3/2}(1)|^2
= \textstyle{2\over3}\mu_\chi^3\,.
\end{equation}
We have neglected here the contributions from the continuum and the higher
radial excitations.
The contributions on the left-hand side can be written \cite{6}, via the
Bjorken sum rule, in terms of the slope $\rho$ of the Isgur-Wise function at
the equal-velocity point $v=v'$:
\begin{equation}
\xi(w) = 1-\rho^2 (w-1) + \cdots\,.
\end{equation}
One has
\begin{equation}\label{slope}
\rho^2 = \textstyle{1\over4} + |\tau_{1/2}(1)|^2 + 2 |\tau_{3/2}(1)|^2\,,
\end{equation}
where again we have assumed saturation by the lowest-lying P-wave states
only. Combining (\ref{srule}) and (\ref{slope}), the following bounds are
obtained for $\mu_\chi^3$
\begin{equation}\label{bounds}
3E_{1/2}^3\left(\rho^2-\textstyle{1\over4}\right) \leq \mu_\chi^3 \leq
3E_{3/2}^3\left(\rho^2-\textstyle{1\over4}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
The excitation energy of the $s_\ell^{\pi_\ell}={3\over2}^+$ P-wave multiplet
can be directly extracted from experiment. In the charm sector the masses
the two members of the doublet are \cite{PDG} $m_{D_1}=2423\pm 3$ MeV and
$m_{D_2^*}=2464\pm 4$ MeV (average values over the isospin doublet).
These are expected to have arisen from a degenerated multiplet in the
infinite mass limit, with a mass $m_{P_{3/2}}=1/8(3m_{D_1}+5m_{D_2^*})=
2449\pm 4$ MeV. The average mass of the corresponding S-wave charmed states
is $m_S=1/4(m_D+3m_{D^*})$. Using $m_D=1867$ MeV and $m_D=2008$ MeV
gives $m_S=1973$ MeV, from which the excitation energy $E_{3/2}=476\pm 4$
MeV is obtained.
Recently, the discovery of the $s_\ell^{\pi_\ell}={3\over2}^+$ family of
P-wave bottom mesons has been announced \cite{B**1,B**2}. The first of these
collaborations quotes the following mass
values: $m_{B_1}=5725$ MeV and $m_{B_2^*}=5737$ MeV, which combine to
an average $m_{P_{3/2}}=5732.5$ MeV. The average mass of the S-wave bottom
mesons is $m_S=5279$ MeV, which gives an excitation energy $E_{3/2}=453.5$
MeV. The difference from the charmed mesons' case can be attributed to
spin-independent corrections proportional to $1/m_{c,b}$. We will use in
the following this
latter number, which is presumably closer to the static value of this
quantity in the infinite mass limit.
None of the $s_\ell^{\pi_\ell}={1\over2}^+$ P-wave states has been observed
and the only information we have about them comes from model calculations
\cite{model1,model2}. Their masses in the charm sector are expected to lie
in the
range $m_{P_{1/2}}=2300-2400$ MeV, from which an excitation energy of
about $E_{1/2}=380\pm 50$ MeV can be extracted. In analogy with the
preceding case one expects this value to decrease slightly when the mass
of the heavy quark is increased. Thus we will use in the following
$E_{1/2}=360\pm 50$ MeV.
The other parameter entering (\ref{bounds}) is the slope of the
Isgur-Wise function at $w=1$, which has been measured by the CLEO
collaboration, with the result \cite{CLEO1,CLEO2} $\rho^2=0.84\pm 0.12\pm
0.08$.
Combining these parameters, the bounds (\ref{bounds}) read
\begin{equation}\label{number}
0.083^{+0.081}_{-0.048} \mbox{ GeV}^3 \leq \mu_\chi^3 \leq
0.165^{+0.050}_{-0.056} \mbox{ GeV}^3\,.
\end{equation}
Comparing with (\ref{factnumber}) one can see that the factorization
approximation gives a rather good estimate of the matrix element (\ref{final}).
Despite the large errors on the lower limit in (\ref{number}), it seems
justified to conclude that, at the very least, the factorization
approximation provides us with the correct sign of this
quantity\footnote{For the purpose of comparison, we quote also the result
of a calculation based on the ISGW model \cite{4} which gives $\tau_{1/2}
(1)=\tau_{3/2}(1)=0.310$. Together with the excitation energies given in
the text, one obtains from (\ref{srule}) $\mu_\chi^3=0.067$ GeV$^3$.
The slope of the Isgur-Wise function comes out equal to 0.538, well under the
CLEO result \cite{CLEO1,CLEO2}, which seems to imply that $\mu_\chi^3$ is also
underestimated.}.
\section{Higher moments of $H'$}
Sum rules similar to the ones discussed in the preceding sections can be
derived for even higher moments of the Hamiltonian operator.
The general form for these sum rules can be obtained by using
${\bf X}=(H'-\Lambda)^k$ in the master sum rule (\ref{msr}) with
$k\geq 4$. This gives
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^k = \langle 0|(H'-\Lambda)^k
|0\rangle = \langle 0'|(wH'+w(\vec v-\vec v\,')\cdot\vec p\,' -\Lambda)^k|
0'\rangle\,.
\end{equation}
The matrix element on the right-hand side can be expanded in powers of
$\vec v-\vec v\,'$ and only the terms of even order give a nonvanishing
contribution. Of these, only those quadratic in $\vec v-\vec v\,'$ will
contribute to order $(w-1)$ (since $(\vec v-\vec v\,')^2=w^2-1$).
One obtains in this way
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{n'} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^k &=&
w^2(\vec v-\vec v\,')_i(\vec v-\vec v\,')_j
\langle 0'|p'_i(wH' -\Lambda)^{k-2}p'_j|0'\rangle + {\cal O}((w-1)^2)\\
&=& \frac13 w^2(w^2-1)\langle 0'|p'_i(wH' -\Lambda)^{k-2}p'_i|0'\rangle
+ {\cal O}((w-1)^2)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac23(w-1)\langle 0'|p'_i(H' -\Lambda)^{k-2}p'_i|0'\rangle +
{\cal O}((w-1)^2)\nonumber\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The matrix element on the right-hand side can be written as (removing the
primes for clarity)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{muk}
\mu_k^{k} &=& \langle 0|p_i(H -\Lambda)^{k-2}p_i|0\rangle =
\langle 0|[p_i,\,H](H -\Lambda)^{k-4}[H,\,p_i]|0\rangle\\
&=& \langle 0|[p_i,\,H]
\overbrace{[H,\,\cdots}^{k-4},\,[H,\,p_i]]\cdots ]
|0\rangle\nonumber\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For $k=2,3$ the corresponding matrix elements have been denoted as
$\mu_\pi^2$ and $\mu_\chi^3$, respectively.
The multiple commutator in (\ref{muk}) can be computed explicitly with
the help of (\ref{basic}). For example,
\begin{equation}
[H,\,[H,\,p_i]] = [H_t-H_h,\,[H,\,p_i]] = -i\frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d}t}
[H,\,p_i] - [H_h,\,[H,\,p_i]]\,,
\end{equation}
where the notations are explained in the Appendix. The first term is equal
to
\begin{equation}\label{timed}
-i\frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d}t}[H,\,p_i] = \int\mbox{d}\vec x\,
\left\{Q^\dagger (-i\stackrel{\leftarrow}{D_0}) igF_{0i}Q +
Q^\dagger igF_{0i}(-i\vec D_0)Q + Q^\dagger g(D_0F_{0i})Q\right\}\,,
\end{equation}
whereas the second one can be explicitly evaluated with the help of
(\ref{Hh}). By making use of the equation of motion (\ref{eqmotion})
one finds that the latter just cancels the first two terms in (\ref{timed})
so that one obtains
\begin{equation}
[H,\,[H,\,p_i]] = \int\mbox{d}\vec x\,Q^\dagger g(D_0F_{0i})Q\,,
\end{equation}
or, more generally,
\begin{equation}
\overbrace{[H,\,\cdots,\,}^{k-4}[H,\,p_i]\cdots] =
(-i)^{k-1}\int\mbox{d}\vec x\,Q^\dagger g(D_0^{k-4}F_{0i})Q\,.
\end{equation}
Finally, one has for $\mu_k^k$ (\ref{muk})
\begin{eqnarray}\label{mukfinal}
\mu_k^{k} &=& -i\int\mbox{d}\vec x\,Q^\dagger gF_{0i}Q\,\cdot
(-i)^{k-1}\int\mbox{d}\vec y\,Q^\dagger g(D_0^{k-4}F_{0i})Q\\
&=& (-i)^k\int\mbox{d}\vec x\,Q^\dagger g^2F_{0i}(D_0^{k-4}F_{0i})Q\,.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In the last step we have made use of the fact that the quark $Q$ is
infinitely heavy and thus heavy quark pair creation is rigorously
forbidden. This implies that a first-quantized (quantum-mechanical)
description for the heavy quark is exact in this limit, with operators
satisfying simple multiplication rules. The final result in (\ref{mukfinal})
has been translated back in a second-quantized language\footnote{A similar
argument has been used implicitly in the derivation of the BGSUV sum rule
in section II when identifying the operator $p_ip_i$ in
(\ref{sss}) with $\bar b(i\vec D)^2b$ in (\ref{fff}).}.
The general form of our sum rule is thus
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l=1} |\varphi_{n'}(w)|^2 E_{n'}^k = \textstyle{2\over3} (\mu_k)^k
(w-1),\label{general}
\end{equation}
with only P-wave states contributing on the left-hand side.
The matrix element appearing in this sum rule involves (for $k\geq 4$) the
chromoelectric field and its time derivatives. The same quantities have been
shown in \cite{Internal} to play an important role in the inclusive decays
of heavy hadrons to states containing a final massive quark. More
precisely, the matrix element $\mu_k$ is connected to the $(k-2)^{th}$ moment
of the so-called ``temporal'' distribution function for these decays.
Therefore the most important application of the sum rules (\ref{general})
can be expected to be constraining the values of these matrix elements and
thereby giving useful information about the temporal distribution function.
Also, the operators whose matrix elements define $\mu_k$ might appear in
physical applications as power corrections to the infinite quark mass limit.
However, from dimensional arguments they are expected to appear suppressed
by a factor of $1/M_Q^{k-1}$ and hence be unimportant when $k$ is large.
\acknowledgments
C.K.C. would like to thank Mark Wise for valuable discussions.
His work was supported by the U.S. Dept. of Energy under Grant No.
DE-FG03-92-ER 40701.
D.P. acknowledges a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DPG).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Let $g(z) \in {\mathbb Q}(z)$ be a rational function of degree $d \ge 2$.
We consider $g$ as a map on ${\mathbb P}^1({\mathbb C})$.
If $x \in {\mathbb P}^1({\mathbb C})$ and the sequence
$$x,g(x),g(g(x)),\ldots,g^{\circ n}(x),\ldots$$
is eventually periodic, then $x$ is called a {\em preperiodic point} for $g$.
If furthermore $g^{\circ n}(x) = x$, then $x$ is called a {\em periodic point} of $g$ of period $n$, and its orbit
$$\{x,g(x),g(g(x)),\ldots,g^{\circ(n-1)}(x)\}$$
is called an {\em $n$-cycle} if $x$ does not actually have smaller period.
Northcott~\cite{northcott} proved in 1950 that for fixed $g$, there are only finitely many preperiodic points in ${\mathbb P}^1({\mathbb Q})$.
Moreover, these can be computed effectively given $g$.
This theorem also holds over any fixed number field, and also for morphisms of ${\mathbb P}^n$ of degree at least~2.
Since then, the theorem (in varying degrees of generality) has been rediscovered by many authors~\cite{narkiewicz}, \cite{lewis}, \cite{callsilverman}.
It is much more difficult to obtain {\em uniform} results for rational functions of a given degree.
Morton and Silverman~\cite{mortonsilverman} have proposed the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}
\label{bigconjecture}
Let $K/{\mathbb Q}$ be a number field of degree $D$, and let $\phi : {\mathbb P}^N \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^N$ be a morphism of degree $d \ge 2$ defined over $K$. The number of $K$-rational preperiodic points of $\phi$ can be bounded in terms of $D$, $N$, and $d$ only.
\end{conj}
To demonstrate the strength of this conjecture, let us remark that the case $N=1$ and $d=4$ would imply the recently proved strong uniform boundedness conjecture for torsion of elliptic curves~\cite{merel}, namely that for any $D$ there exists $C>0$ such that for any elliptic curve $E$ over a number field $K$ of degree $D$ over ${\mathbb Q}$, $\# E(K)_{\text{tors}} < C$.
This is because torsion points of elliptic curves are exactly the preperiodic points of the multiplication-by-$2$ map, and their $x$-coordinates are preperiodic points for the degree~$4$ rational map that gives $x(2P)$ in terms of $x(P)$.
A similar conjecture for polynomials over ${{\mathbb F}_q}(T)$ and its finite extensions would imply the uniform boundedness conjecture for Drinfeld modules~\cite{poonen}, which is still open.
Even the simplest cases of the conjecture seem to be difficult.
Walde and Russo~\cite{walderusso} asked whether a quadratic polynomial in ${\mathbb Q}[z]$ can have rational points of period greater than~$3$, and this is not known.
Pairs consisting of a quadratic polynomial and a point of period $N$ are classified by an algebraic curve, which we denote $C_1(N)$.
For $N=1,2,3$, this curve is birational over ${\mathbb Q}$ to ${\mathbb P}^1$, so it is easy to find a quadratic $g \in {\mathbb Q}[z]$ with a rational point of period $1$, $2$, or $3$.
Morton~\cite{morton4} proved that $C_1(4)$ is birational over ${\mathbb Q}$ to the modular curve $X_1(16)$, and used this to show that there are no quadratic polynomials in ${\mathbb Q}[z]$ with rational points of period~$4$.
Our main theorem is for the case $N=5$:
\begin{thm}
\label{fivetheorem}
There is no quadratic polynomial $g(z) \in {\mathbb Q}[z]$ with a rational point of exact period~5.
\end{thm}
The curve $C_1(5)$ has genus~$14$, so we study it via a quotient curve ${\mathcal C}=C_0(5)$ of genus~$2$.
In Section~\ref{nonmodularity}, we will use the description of endomorphism rings of quotients of the Jacobian $J_1(N)$ of $X_1(N)$ to show that there is no surjective morphism of curves over ${\mathbb C}$ from $X_1(N)$ to $C_0(5)$ or $C_1(5)$, for any $N \ge 1$.
Because of this, finding the set of rational points will be more challenging than it was for $C_1(4)$.
To find all the rational points on ${\mathcal C}$, we first put ${\mathcal C}$ into hyperelliptic form, and then use a $2$-descent to compute the rank of its Jacobian, which turns out to be~$1$.
The $2$-descent is more difficult than the examples of descents for hyperelliptic curves worked out in the literature (\cite{flynndescent},\cite{GG},\cite{Sch}) in that ${\mathcal C}$ has no Weierstrass points defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ or even a quadratic extension; in fact, the smallest field over which all the Weierstrass points are defined is the splitting field of a sextic with Galois group $S_6$, the worst possible case.
But because the rank is less than the genus, it is possible afterwards to apply the method of Chabauty and Coleman to bound the number of rational points on the curve.
Although Coleman's original method gives at best an upper bound of~$9$ for the number of rational points, our refinements of the method are strong enough to show that there are at most six rational points.
On the other hand, it is easy to list six rational points, so we know that we have found them all.
We will also list (in Table~\ref{cvalues}) all quadratic polynomials in ${\mathbb Q}[z]$ (up to linear conjugacy) with a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $5$-cycle.
Each point in such a cycle generates a degree~$5$ cyclic extension of ${\mathbb Q}$, which we describe.
Also we prove that ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $N$-cycles exist for infinitely many $N$.
Finally, in Section~\ref{period6}, we describe the known ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $6$-cycles.
If, as we believe, these are all, then there is no quadratic polynomial $g(z) \in {\mathbb Q}[z]$ with a rational point of exact period~$6$.
This leads us to conjecture the following refinement of Conjecture~\ref{bigconjecture} for the case of quadratic polynomials over ${\mathbb Q}$.
\begin{conj}
\label{periodissmall}
If $N \ge 4$, then there is no quadratic polynomial $g(z) \in {\mathbb Q}[z]$ with a rational point of exact period~$N$.
\end{conj}
Throughout the paper, we use Mathematica (version 2.2) and the GP/PARI Calculator (version 1.39).
Version 1.39 of PARI assumes the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis for certain number field calculations, but Michel Olivier has kindly verified these particular calculations for us using a newer not yet released version that makes no such assumptions.
\section{Periodic points of quadratic polynomials}
\label{periodicpoints}
If $g(z) \in {\mathbb Q}[z]$ is any quadratic polynomial, then there exists a linear function $\ell(z) \in {\mathbb Q}[z]$ such that $\ell(g(\ell^{-1}(z)))$ is of the form $z^2+c$.
Therefore, for the sake of arithmetic dynamics, it will suffice to consider polynomials of the form $g(z)=z^2+c$.
If $z$ is periodic of exact period $N$ for $g$ (meaning that it is periodic of period $N$, but not periodic of period $n$ for any $n<N$), then $z$ satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{periodN}
g^{\circ N}(z)-z=0.
\end{equation}
But (\ref{periodN}) is satisfied also by points of exact period $d$ for $d$ dividing $N$, so there is a factorization
$$g^{\circ N}(z)-z = \prod_{d|N} \Phi_d(z,c)$$
where
\begin{equation}
\label{phidef}
\Phi_d(z,c) = \prod_{m|d} (g^{\circ m}(z)-z)^{\mu(m)} \in {\mathbb Z}[z,c]
\end{equation}
is the polynomial whose roots $z$ for generic $c$ are the periodic points of exact period $d$.
(Here $\mu$ is the M\"{o}bius $\mu$-function.)
The $z$-degree of $\Phi_N(z,c)$ is
$$\nu_2(N) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{d|N} 2^d \mu(N/d).$$
By Theorem~1 in~\cite{bousch}, $\Phi_N(z,c)$ (where now $c$ also is considered to be an indeterminate) is irreducible in ${\mathbb C}[z,c]$, and hence
$$\Phi_N(z,c)=0$$
defines a geometrically irreducible algebraic curve over ${\mathbb Q}$ in the $(z,c)$-plane.
Although the affine part of this curve is nonsingular (Proposition~1 of~\cite{bousch}), there is a singularity at infinity on its projective closure if $N>2$, so we let $C_1(N)$ denote the normalization, which is a nonsingular projective curve over ${\mathbb Q}$.
Every pair consisting of a polynomial $g(z)=z^2+c$ together with a rational point of exact period $N$ gives rise to a rational point on the affine part of $C_1(N)$.
The converse is true for almost all affine rational points, but there can be exceptions, as noted in Section~1 of~\cite{mortonsilverman2}, and these can be explained by assigning multiplicities to periodic points.
For example, $(z,c)=(-1/2,-3/4)$ is a point on $C_1(2)$, but $-1/2$ is actually a fixed point of $g(z)=z^2-3/4$ instead of a point of exact period~2.
(In fact, it seems likely that there are no other such examples for quadratic polynomials over ${\mathbb Q}$; this would follow from Conjecture~\ref{periodissmall}, for example.)
The curve $C_1(N)$ has an obvious automorphism $\sigma$ given in the $(z,c)$-plane by $(z,c) \mapsto (z^2+c,c)$.
(All we are saying here is that if $\alpha$ is a point of exact period $N$ for $g(z)=z^2+c$, then so is $g(\alpha)$.)
This automorphism generates a group $\langle \sigma \rangle$ of order $N$, and we let $C_0(N)$ be the quotient curve $C_1(N)/\langle \sigma \rangle$.
Then $C_0(N)$ is again a nonsingular projective curve over ${\mathbb Q}$, and its rational points correspond (with finitely many exceptions) to pairs consisting of a polynomial $g(z)=z^2+c$, $c \in {\mathbb Q}$, with a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $N$-cycle.
For example, $C_0(4)$ has a rational point corresponding to $g(z)=z^2-31/48$ with the 4-cycle
$$\begin{CD}
1/4 + \sqrt{-15}/6 @>>> -1 + \sqrt{-15}/12 \\
@AAA @VVV \\
-1 - \sqrt{-15}/12 @<<< 1/4 - \sqrt{-15}/6
\end{CD}$$
(The notation is intended to remind the reader of the modular curves $X_0(N)$ and $X_1(N)$, which parameterize elliptic curves together with a cyclic subgroup of order $N$, or a point of order $N$, respectively.)
Because field automorphisms must preserve polynomial relations over ${\mathbb Q}$, the action of an automorphism in ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$ on a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $N$-cycle is a rotation.
Thus we obtain a homomorphism ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q) \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}/N{\mathbb Z}$, and a point in such an $N$-cycle generates an abelian extension that is independent of which point was chosen, since any such point can be expressed as a polynomial over ${\mathbb Q}$ in any other.
Bousch~\cite{bousch} derived a formula for the genus of $C_1(N)$.
Later, Morton~\cite[Theorem C]{mortoncurves} generalized the formula to some other families of polynomials, and also derived a formula for the genus of $C_0(N)$, which is birational to his curve $\delta_N(x,c)=0$.
Here are the formulas, which are given in terms of $\nu(N) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \nu_2(N)/2$:
$$g(C_1(N)) = 1 + \left( \frac{N-3}{2} \right) \nu(N) - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{d|N, d \not= N} d \nu(d) \phi\left(\frac{N}{d}\right) ;$$
$$g(C_0(N)) =
1+\left( \frac{1}{2} - \frac{3}{2N} \right) \nu(N) -
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{d|N, d \not= N} \nu(d) \phi\left(\frac{N}{d}\right)$$
if $N$ is odd; and
{\small
$$g(C_0(N)) =
1+\left( \frac{1}{2} - \frac{3}{2N} \right) \nu(N) -
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{d|N, d \not= N} \nu(d) \phi\left(\frac{N}{d}\right) - \frac{1}{4N} \sum_{r|N,2|r,N/r \text{ odd}} \mu\left(\frac{N}{r} \right) 2^{r/2},
$$}%
if $N$ is even.
Table~\ref{genus} gives these values for $N \le 10$.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}
$N$ & $g(C_0(N))$ & $g(C_1(N))$ \\ \hline \hline
1 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
2 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
3 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
4 & 0 & 2 \\ \hline
5 & 2 & 14 \\ \hline
6 & 4 & 34 \\ \hline
7 & 16 & 124 \\ \hline
8 & 32 & 285 \\ \hline
9 & 79 & 745 \\ \hline
10 & 162 & 1690 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Genus of $C_0(N)$ and $C_1(N)$ for $N \le 10$.}
\label{genus}
\end{table}
For $N=1$,~2, or~3, $C_1(N)$ is in fact birational over ${\mathbb Q}$ to ${\mathbb P}^1$, so examples of quadratic polynomials in ${\mathbb Q}[x]$ with points of period~1,~2, or~3 exist in abundance.
These are classified explicitly in~\cite{walderusso}.
In~\cite{morton4}, it is proved that $C_1(4)$ is birational over ${\mathbb Q}$ to the curve
$$v^2=u(u^2+1)(1+2u-u^2),$$
which also happens to be an equation for $X_1(16)$.
Although at first this may appear to be a surprising coincidence, we can give a partial explanation: the Jacobian of a genus~$2$ curve with an automorphism of order~$4$ defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ is automatically an abelian variety of $GL_2$-type, and hence conjecturally is a quotient of the Jacobian $J_1(N)$ of the modular curve $X_1(N)$ for some $N \ge 1$.
(See~\cite{ribetkorea}.)
It has been known since 1908 that (in modern terminology) no elliptic curve over ${\mathbb Q}$ has a rational point of order 16, so the only rational points of $X_1(16)$ are the rational cusps~\cite{levi}.
This fact is what enabled Morton~\cite{morton4} to prove that all rational points on $C_1(4)$ were at infinity.
Morton~\cite{morton4} asked whether $C_1(N)$ was modular also for $N>4$.
We will prove in Section~\ref{nonmodularity} that $C_0(5)$ and $C_1(5)$ are {\em not} modular.
The curve $C_1(5)$ is of genus~$14$ and is of degree~$30$ in the $(z,c)$-plane, so it is much too complicated to be studied directly.
Instead we will work with ${\mathcal C} \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} C_0(5)$, which has genus~2.
Of course, every rational point of $C_1(5)$ maps to a rational point of ${\mathcal C}$.
Before proceeding with the calculation of the rational points of ${\mathcal C}$, let us show that the ``affine part'' of $C_0(N)$ has rational points for infinitely many $N$.
This contrasts with the modular curve situation, since for $N>163$, the only rational points of $X_0(N)$ are the rational cusps.
(The result for $X_0(N)$ involved many cases, which were worked out by several different authors. See~\cite{kenku} for a brief summary.)
\begin{thm}
\label{easy}
There are infinitely many $N$ for which there exists a quadratic polynomial $g(z) \in {\mathbb Q}[z]$ with a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $N$-cycle.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For each $k \ge 1$, the image of $2$ is a generator of $({\mathbb Z}/3^k{\mathbb Z})^\ast$.
Then under the map $g(z)=z^2$, the orbit of a primitive $3^k$-th root of unity $\zeta$ is a $(2\cdot 3^{k-1})$-cycle consisting of all primitive $3^k$-th roots of unity, which is clearly ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable.
(A similar argument could be used with $g(z)=z^2-2$ and $\zeta+\zeta^{-1}$.)
\end{proof}
Although the proof was disappointingly simple, it does raise an interesting question.
\begin{question}
Is it true that for sufficiently large $N$, if $g(z)=z^2+c$ has a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $N$-cycle, then $c=0$ or $c=-2$?
\end{question}
For many $N$ (for example, $N=7$), not even $z^2$ and $z^2-2$ have ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $N$-cycles.
More precisely, it is easy to show that $z^2$ has a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $N$-cycle if and only if $N=\phi(n)$ where $n$ is a positive integer for which the image of $2$ is a generator of $({\mathbb Z}/n{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ (which forces $n$ to an odd prime power).
Similarly, $z^2-2$ has a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $N$-cycle if and only if $N=\phi(n)/2$ where the image of $2$ generates $({\mathbb Z}/n{\mathbb Z})^\ast/\langle -1 \rangle$ (which forces $n$ to be the product of at most two odd prime powers).
\section{A hyperelliptic form of ${\mathcal C}$}
\label{hyperelliptic}
Because ${\mathcal C}$ has genus~2, it is hyperelliptic, and more specifically is birational to a curve ${\mathcal C}$ of the form $y^2 = f(x)$, where $f(x) \in {\mathbb Q}[x]$ is of degree~5 or~6 and has distinct roots.
For the future calculations, it will be necessary to find $f(x)$ explicitly.
This will be the concern of this section.
Following Morton~\cite{morton4}, we define the {\em trace} of an $N$-cycle in ${\mathbb C}$ of $g(z)=z^2+c$ to be the sum of the elements in the cycle.
Then we let $\tau_N(z,c) \in {\mathbb Z}[z,c]$ be the polynomial whose roots for generic $c$ are the traces of all the $N$-cycles.
The curve $\tau_N(z,c)=0$ is birational over ${\mathbb Q}$ to $C_0(N)$.
(See~\cite{mortoncurves}.)
In~\cite{morton4}, Morton also gives an efficient method for computing $\tau_N(z,c)$ for small $N$.
We will start with his result for $N=5$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\tau_5(z,c) &= \left( 32 + 28c + 40{c^2} + 9{c^3} \right) +
\left( 36 - 24c + 17{c^2} \right) z +
\left( 44 + 19c + 19{c^2} \right) {z^2} \\
&\quad + \left( 11 + 18c \right) {z^3} +
\left( 3 + 11c \right) {z^4} + {z^5} + {z^6}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Solving the system
$$\tau_5 = \partial \tau_5/\partial z = \partial \tau_5/\partial c = 0,$$
we find that the only singularity of the curve $\tau_5(z,c)=0$ in the affine $(z,c)$-plane is $(-1,-4/3)$, which is a node.
Therefore we substitute $z=r-1$ and $c=s-4/3$ and clear denominators to obtain a new model with the node at $(0,0)$:
{\footnotesize
$$ 238{r^2} + 213{r^3} - 15{r^4} - 45{r^5} + 9{r^6} + 36rs -
177{r^2}s - 234{r^3}s + 99{r^4}s + 54{s^2} - 189r{s^2} +
171{r^2}{s^2} + 81{s^3} = 0.$$}%
Next we blow up the node by substituting $s=rt$, and dividing by $r^2$:
{\small
$$238 + 213r - 15{r^2} - 45{r^3} + 9{r^4} + 36t - 177rt - 234{r^2}t + 99{r^3}t + 54{t^2} - 189r{t^2} + 171{r^2}{t^2} + 81r{t^3} = 0.$$}%
The curve now has no affine singularities, but there must be a singularity at infinity, because a nonsingular plane curve cannot have genus~2.
A calculation shows that there is a singularity at infinity on the line $r+t=0$, which we move to an axis by setting $r=q-t$:
$$238 + 213q - 15{q^2} - 45{q^3} + 9{q^4} - 177t - 147qt - 99{q^2}t + 63{q^3}t + 216{t^2} + 144q{t^2} - 72{q^2}{t^2} = 0.$$
Now the left hand side is a quadratic in $t$, so the curve is birational to
$$p^2 = -174303 - 269082q + 15471{q^2} + 115668{q^3} + 5103{q^4} -
30618{q^5} + 6561{q^6},$$
where the right hand side is the discriminant of that quadratic.
Although this is a hyperelliptic form, it is to our advantage to simplify as much as possible before continuing.
We substitute $p=192y$ and $q=-1-4x/3$, and cancel $192^2=36864$ from both sides to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{curveequation}
{\mathcal C}: \quad y^2 = x^6 + 8 x^5 + 22 x^4 + 22 x^3 + 5 x^2 + 6 x + 1.
\end{equation}
Let $f(x)$ be the sextic on the right hand side.
Since $f(x)$ has no rational roots, the curve ${\mathcal C}$ is not birational over ${\mathbb Q}$ to a curve of the form $y^2 = h(x)$ with $\deg h(x) = 5$.
\section{Six rational points on ${\mathcal C}$}
\label{sixpoints}
There are a few easy to find rational points on ${\mathcal C}$.
First of all, $f(0)=f(-3)=1$, so we find four affine points: $(0,1)$, $(0,-1)$, $(-3,1)$, and $(-3,-1)$.
Also, since $\deg f$ is even, ${\mathcal C}$ has two points at infinity.
Since the leading coefficient of $f(x)$ is a square in ${\mathbb Q}$, these points are rational.
(See~\cite[p.\ 50]{CA2}.)
The rational function $y/x^3$ takes values~1 and~$-1$ at these two points, which we call $\infty^+$ and $\infty^-$, respectively.
We will eventually show that these six points are the only rational points on ${\mathcal C}$.
For now, we will describe the $5$-cycles of quadratic polynomials to which they correspond.
By tracing back through the substitutions of Section~\ref{hyperelliptic}, we obtain two equivalent formulas for $c$ in terms of the rational functions $x$ and $y$ on ${\mathcal C}$:
$$c=\frac{P_0(x)+P_1(x)y} {8{x^2}{{\left( 3 + x \right) }^2}}
=
\frac{64 + 110x + 325{x^2} + 452{x^3} + 271{x^4} + 74{x^5} + 8{x^6}}{2(P_0(x)-P_1(x)y)}
,$$
where
\begin{align*}
P_0(x) &= -9 - 24x - 95{x^2} - 104{x^3} - 46{x^4} - 10{x^5} - {x^6} \\
P_1(x) &= -9 + 3x + 6{x^2} + {x^3}.
\end{align*}
The second formula is determinate (i.e., the numerator and denominator do not both vanish) at the four affine rational points, and this gives the $c$-values shown in Table~\ref{cvalues}.
At $\infty^+$, we have the formal expansion
$$y = x^3 + 4 x^2 + 3x - 1 + 2 x^{-1} + \cdots.$$
Substituting this into the first formula, we see that
$$c = x^2/4 + \text{(lower order terms)}$$
so $c$ has a pole at $\infty^+$.
Similarly, at $\infty^-$, we have
$$y = -(x^3 + 4 x^2 + 3x - 1 + 2 x^{-1} + \cdots),$$
and substitution into the second formula shows that $c=-2$ there.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
Point & $c$ & Conductor $n$ & $\operatorname{Gal}({\mathbb Q}(\zeta_n)/K)$ \\ \hline \hline
$(0,1)$ & $\infty$ & & \\ \hline
$(0,-1)$ & $-16/9$ & $41$ & $\langle 3 \rangle \subset ({\mathbb Z}/41{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ \\ \hline
$(-3,1)$ & $-64/9$ & $275=5^2 \cdot 11$ & $\langle -1,3 \rangle \subset ({\mathbb Z}/275{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ \\ \hline
$(-3,-1)$ & $\infty$ & & \\ \hline
$\infty^+$ & $\infty$ & & \\ \hline
$\infty^-$ & $-2$ & $11$ & $\langle -1 \rangle \subset ({\mathbb Z}/11{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The six rational points of ${\mathcal C}$.}
\label{cvalues}
\end{table}
For the three values $c=-2, -16/9, -64/9$, we know there is a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable 5-cycle of $g(z)=z^2+c$.
The action of ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$ on the cycle can only be a rotation, so the points of the cycle generate an abelian extension $K$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, whose Galois group is a subgroup of ${\mathbb Z}/5{\mathbb Z}$.
In Table~\ref{cvalues}, we will describe $K$ in each case by giving its conductor (the smallest $n$ for which $K$ is contained in the $n$-th cyclotomic field ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_n)$) and the subgroup $\operatorname{Gal}({\mathbb Q}(\zeta_n)/K)$ of $\operatorname{Gal}({\mathbb Q}(\zeta_n)/{\mathbb Q}) \cong ({\mathbb Z}/n{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ it corresponds to under Galois theory.
The quintic polynomial whose roots are the points of the cycle is a factor of $\Phi_5[z,c]$.
A computation shows that for each of the three values of $c$ above, there is a unique quintic factor in ${\mathbb Q}[z]$, and none of smaller degree, so already we know that the 5-cycles in question are not defined pointwise over ${\mathbb Q}$, and that in each case $K$ is a degree~5 cyclic extension of ${\mathbb Q}$.
For $c=-2$, PARI tells us that the field $K$, which is generated by a root of this quintic, has discriminant $11^4$, so the conductor of $K$ must be a power of $11$.
Since $({\mathbb Z}/11^k{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ is cyclic, ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{11^k})$ has a unique quintic subfield, namely the totally real subfield of ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{11})$.
Thus the conductor of $K$ equals 11, and under Galois theory $K$ corresponds to the subgroup $\langle -1 \rangle$ of $({\mathbb Z}/11{\mathbb Z})^\ast$.
This is easy to explain: the 5-cycle of $z^2-2$ consists of all conjugates of $\zeta_{11}+\zeta_{11}^{-1}$.
For $c=-16/9$, $K$ has discriminant $41^4$, so a similar argument as for $c=-2$ shows that $K$ is the unique quintic subfield of ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{41})$.
Thus $K$ has conductor 41, and corresponds to the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb Z}/41{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ of index 5, which is generated by the image of $3$.
For $c=-64/9$, $K$ has discriminant $5^8 \cdot 11^4$, so the conductor of $K$ is of the form $n=5^k \cdot 11^l$.
By Hensel's Lemma, every element of $({\mathbb Z}/n{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ congruent to $1$ modulo $275=5^2 \cdot 11$ is a 5-th power in $({\mathbb Z}/n{\mathbb Z})^\ast$, and hence is in $H \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \operatorname{Gal}({\mathbb Q}(\zeta_n)/K)$, which has index~5 in $({\mathbb Z}/n{\mathbb Z})^\ast$.
Thus $n$ divides $275$.
PARI tells us that the prime 3 splits completely in $K$, so the Frobenius element at 3 acts trivially on $K$, and the image of 3 lies in $H$.
Also, the image of $-1$ lies in $H$, since $H$ has odd index.
But the subgroup generated by $-1$ and $3$ in $({\mathbb Z}/275{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ has index 5, so the images of $-1$ and $3$ in $({\mathbb Z}/n{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ generate $H$.
Finally, this subgroup of $({\mathbb Z}/275{\mathbb Z})^\ast$ does not come from a subgroup of $({\mathbb Z}/55{\mathbb Z})^\ast$, so the conductor is actually 275.
\section{Generalities on $2$-descents on Jacobians of hyperelliptic curves}
\label{generalities}
This section outlines and elaborates upon the descent method described in~\cite{CA2} for Jacobians of genus~$2$ curves over ${\mathbb Q}$.
(See also~\cite{flynndescent},~\cite{GG} and~\cite{Sch}.)
Later, in Section~\ref{descent}, we will apply the results of this section to show that the Mordell-Weil rank of the Jacobian of our curve ${\mathcal C}$ is exactly~1.
We hope that the separation of the general method from the application will be useful for others who need to do $2$-descents on hyperelliptic curves.
Let $C$ be a hyperelliptic curve over ${\mathbb Q}$ of genus $g \ge 2$.
Then $C$ has a (singular) plane model $y^2=f(x)$, with $f(x) \in {\mathbb Z}[x]$ a separable polynomial of even degree $d=2g+2$.
Let $J$ be the Jacobian of $C$, which is an abelian variety over ${\mathbb Q}$.
We will assume $C({\mathbb Q})$ is nonempty, so that $\operatorname{Div}^0(C)(K)$ maps onto $J(K)$ for any field extension $K$ of ${\mathbb Q}$.
(Actually, when $g=2$, the latter is true automatically, even when $C({\mathbb Q})$ is empty.)
Without this assumption, the map $(x-T)$ below could be defined only as a map on $\operatorname{Div}^0(C)(K)$.
We will call a degree~$0$ divisor of ${\mathcal C}$ defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ a {\em good divisor} if its support does not include $\infty^{+}$, $\infty^{-}$ or points with $y$-coordinate 0.
\begin{prop}
\label{good}
Every divisor class of $J(K)$ contains a good divisor.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $C$ has a $K$-rational point, every
$K$-rational divisor class contains a $K$-rational divisor
(see~\cite[p.\ 168]{MI}). Every $K$-rational divisor has a linearly
equivalent $K$-rational divisor whose support avoids any given finite
set of points (see~\cite[p.\ 166]{LA}).
\end{proof}
For a good divisor $D=\sum n_{P}P$, we define
$$(x-T)(D)=\prod_P (x_P-T)^{n_{P}}\in L_{K}^{\ast}.$$
(We use the notation $P=(x_P,y_P)$.)
For any field $K$ of characteristic $0$, define $L_{K}=K[T]/(f(T))$.
\begin{prop}
\label{kernorm}
The map $(x-T)$ is a well-defined map from $J(K)$ to the kernel of
the norm from
$L_{K}^{\ast}/L_{K}^{\ast 2}{K}^{\ast}$ to $K^{\ast}/K^{\ast 2}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d$ be the zeros of $f(x)$ in $\overline{K}$.
We can define
$${\overline{L}}_K=\overline{K}[T]/(f(T))\cong \overline{K}[T]/(T-\alpha_1)
\times \ldots \times \overline{K}[T]/(T-\alpha_{d})\cong
\overline{K} \times\ldots\times\overline{K}$$
$${\rm by}\;\; T\mapsto (\alpha_{1},\ldots ,\alpha_{d}).$$
Let $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$ act trivially on $T$; this
makes ${\overline{L}}_K$ a $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$-module
and $L_{K}$ is the set of
$\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$-invariants.
Then we can consider $(x-T)$ to be a
$\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$-invariant $d$-tuple of functions
$((x-\alpha_{1}),\ldots ,(x-\alpha_{d}))$ whose divisors are
$(2(\alpha_{1},0)-\infty^{+}-\infty^{-}, \ldots ,2(\alpha_{d},0)-
\infty^{+}-\infty^{-})$.
We denote this $d$-tuple of divisors by $2(T,0)-\infty^{+}
-\infty^{-}$.
To show that $(x-T)$ is a well-defined map from $J(K)$ to
$L_{K}^{\ast}/L_{K}^{\ast 2}K^{\ast}$, we first note from
Proposition~\ref{good} that every element
of $J(K)$ contains a good divisor.
Let $D_1$ and $D_2$ be two good divisors that are linearly equivalent.
Then there is a $K$-defined function $h$ with $D_1-D_2=
\operatorname{div} h$. We have
the following equalities of $d$-tuples:
\[
(x-T)(D_1-D_2)=(x-T)(\operatorname{div} h)=h(\operatorname{div} (x-T))=
h(2(T,0)-\infty^+ - \infty^{-})=\]\[
h((T,0))^{2}/h(\infty^{+}) h(\infty^{-})\in L_{K}^{\ast 2}K^{\ast}.\]
Now let us show that the image of $(x-T)$ is contained in the kernel of the
norm to $K^{\ast}/K^{\ast 2}$.
Let $D=\sum n_{P}P$ be a good divisor.
If $c$ is the leading coefficient of $f(x)$, then
$$N_{L_{K}/K}((x-T)(D))
=\prod_{P} \prod_{j=1}^{d}(x_P-\alpha_{j})^{n_{P}}
=\prod_{P} (y_P^2/c)^{n_{P}}
=\left( \prod_{P} y_P^{n_{P}} \right)^{2}\in K^{\ast 2}.$$
\end{proof}
Let $L=L_{\mathbb Q}={\mathbb Q}[T]/((f(T)) \cong \prod_{i=1}^{r} L_{i}$, where the $L_i$ are fields corresponding to the irreducible factors of $f(x)$.
Let $S$ be a finite set of primes of ${\mathbb Q}$ containing the primes $2$, $\infty$, and all primes dividing the discriminant of $f(x)$.
(In particular, $S$ contains all primes dividing the leading coefficient of $f(x)$.)
Suppose $l \in L^\ast$ maps to $l_i$ in $L_i^\ast$.
Then we say that $l$ is {\em unramified outside $S$} if for each $i$,
the field extension
$L_{i}(\sqrt{l_{i}})/L_{i}$ is unramified outside of
primes lying over primes of $S$.
This property of $l$ depends only on the image of $l$ in $L^\ast/L^{\ast 2}$,
and it is easy to see that the subset $G$ of elements of $L^\ast/L^{\ast 2}$
which are unramified outside $S$ is a subgroup.
Let $G'$ be the image of $G$ in $L^{\ast}/L^{\ast 2}{\mathbb Q}^{\ast}$, and
let $H$ be the kernel of the norm from $G'$ to ${\mathbb Q}^{\ast}/{\mathbb Q}^{\ast 2}$.
\begin{prop}
\label{landsinh}
The image of the map $(x-T)$ on $J({\mathbb Q})$ is contained in the subgroup $H$ of $L^{\ast}/L^{\ast 2}{\mathbb Q}^{\ast}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{kernorm}, the image of $(x-T)$ is contained in the kernel of the norm to ${\mathbb Q}^\ast/{\mathbb Q}^{\ast 2}$.
So it suffices to show that the image of $(x-T)$ on any good divisor $D = \sum_P n_P P$ is contained in $G'$.
For each $p \not \in S$, fix an embedding ${\overline{\Q}} \rightarrow {\overline{\Q}}_p$.
Let $v$ be the additive $p$-adic valuation on ${\overline{\Q}}_p$ with $v(p)=1$.
Since $D$ is ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable, $\prod_{v(x_P)<0} x_P^{n_P}$ is fixed by the inertia group of $\operatorname{Gal}({\overline{\Q}}_p/{\mathbb Q}_p)$ and hence its valuation is an integer $a_p$.
Moreover since the embedding ${\overline{\Q}} \rightarrow {\overline{\Q}}_p$ is unique up to the action of ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$ on the left, $a_p$ is independent of the embedding.
Let $m=\prod_{p \not\in S} p^{a_p} \in {\mathbb Q}^\ast$.
We claim that $m^{-1} (x-T)(D) \in L^\ast/L^{\ast 2}$ is unramified outside $S$ (i.e., is in $G$), or what is the same thing, that for any $p \not\in S$ and any ring homomorphism $\iota: {\overline{\Q}}[T]/(f(T)) \rightarrow {\overline{\Q}}_p$, $v(m^{-1}(x-T)(D))$ is an even integer.
(We extend $v$ to ${\overline{\Q}}[T]/(f(T))$ by applying $\iota$ when necessary.)
Let $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d$ be the zeros of $f(x)$ in ${\overline{\Q}}_p$, and without loss of generality assume $\iota(T)=\alpha_1$.
If $v(x_P-T)>0$, then $v(x_P-\alpha_i)=0$ for $2 \le i \le d$, since the $\alpha_i$ lie in distinct residue classes of the ring of integers of ${\overline{\Q}}_p$.
In this case,
$$v(x_P-T) = v \left(\prod_{i=1}^d (x_P-\alpha_i) \right) = v(y_P^2/c) = 2 v(y_P),$$
where $c$ is the leading coefficient of $f(x)$, which by assumption is an $S$-unit.
Hence
\begin{align}
v((x-T)(D)) &= \sum_{v(x_P-T)>0} v((x_P-T)^{n_P}) + \sum_{v(x_P-T)<0} v((x_P-T)^{n_P}) \\
\label{endformula} &= 2 v \left( \prod_{v(x_P-T))>0} y_P^{n_P} \right) + v(m)
\end{align}
since $v(x_P-T)=v(x_P)$ when either is negative.
The product in~(\ref{endformula}) is again stable under the inertia group of $\operatorname{Gal}({\overline{\Q}}_p/{\mathbb Q}_p)$, so its valuation is an integer.
Thus $v(m^{-1}(x-T)(D))$ is an even integer.
\end{proof}
Let $L_p = L_{{\mathbb Q}_p} = {\mathbb Q}_p[T]/(f(T))$.
We have a commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{cd}
\begin{CD}
0 @>>> J({\mathbb Q})/\ker(x-T) @>{x-T}>> L^\ast/L^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}^\ast \\
&& @VVV @VVV \\
0 @>>> \prod_{p \in S} J({\mathbb Q}_p)/\ker(x-T) @>{x-T}>> \prod_{p \in S} L_p^\ast/L_p^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}_p^\ast.
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
{}From this diagram and Proposition~\ref{landsinh},
we deduce that $x-T$ maps $J({\mathbb Q})/\ker(x-T)$ injectively into the subgroup $H'$ of elements of $H$ that for each $p \in S$ map in $L_p^\ast/L_p^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}_p^\ast$ into the image of $J({\mathbb Q}_p)$ under $x-T$.
The latter is something that can be calculated, and this will give bounds on the size of $J({\mathbb Q})/\ker(x-T)$.
In order to convert these bounds into bounds on the size of $J({\mathbb Q})/2J({\mathbb Q})$, which will let us bound the rank of $J({\mathbb Q})$, we need to know how $\ker(x-T)$ compares with $2J({\mathbb Q})$.
Since $(x-T)$ maps $J({\mathbb Q})$ into an elementary $2$-group, clearly $2J({\mathbb Q}) \subseteq \ker(x-T)$.
We will describe the difference between these two groups in Proposition~\ref{halves} below, for the genus $2$ case.
The result is stated over arbitrary fields of characteristic not equal to $2$, since we will need it for the completions of ${\mathbb Q}$ as well as for ${\mathbb Q}$ itself.
We will make use of the following well known consequence of the Riemann-Roch theorem.
\begin{prop}
\label{RR}
Suppose $\deg f(x)=6$, so the genus of $C$ is $2$.
Then any divisor class in $J(K)$ may be represented by a divisor of the form
$P_1 + P_2 - \infty^+ - \infty^-$ where
either $P_1,P_2\in C(K)$ or
$P_1,P_2 \in C (K')$, with $[K':K ] = 2$
and $P_1,P_2$ conjugate over $K$.
This representation is unique (up to interchanging $P_1$ and $P_2$),
except for the group identity ${\mathcal O}$ of $J(K)$, which can be represented by any divisor of the form $(x,y)+(x,-y)-\infty^{+}-\infty^{-}$ or $\infty^+ + \infty^- - \infty^+ - \infty^- $.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
\label{halves}
Suppose that $f(x) \in K[x]$ is a separable sextic polynomial over a field $K$ with $\operatorname{char}(K)\neq 2$, and that the
genus $2$ curve $C:y^{2}=f(x)$ has a point $P$ defined over $K$.
Let $J$ be the Jacobian of $C$.
Then the index of $2J(K)$ in $\ker(x-T)$ is
\begin{quote}
1 $\;\;$ \parbox[t]{5 in}{if $f(x)$ has a zero in $K$, or if there is some $\operatorname{Gal}(K^{\text{sep}}/K)$-stable partition of the six zeros into two indistiguished 3-element subsets $\{ \{ \alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}, \alpha_{3} \} , \{\alpha_{4}, \alpha_{5}, \alpha_{6} \} \}$} \\
2 $\;\;$ \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{quote}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The index of $2J(K)$ in $\ker(x-T)$ is~$1$ or~$2$
and $\ker(x-T)/2J(K)$ is generated
by $[2P-\infty^{+}-\infty^{-}]$
(see~\cite[lemma 5.2,theorem 5.3]{CA2}).
So the index is~$1$ exactly when
$[2P-\infty^{+}-\infty^{-} ]$ is in $2J(K)$.
Now $[2P-\infty^{+}-\infty^{-} ]$ is in $2J(K)$
if and only if one of the 16 divisor classes with double
$[2P-\infty^{+}-\infty^{-} ]$ is in $J(K)$.
We now find these $16$ divisor classes.
Let $\alpha_{1},\ldots ,\alpha_{6}$ be the roots of $f(x)$ in some algebraic closure.
We will use repeatedly and without further mention the fact that the divisors $2(\alpha_i,0)$ and $\infty^+ + \infty^-$ are linearly equivalent.
Since
$$2[P + (\alpha_{1},0)- \infty^+ - \infty^{-} ] = [2P-\infty^+ -\infty^-],$$
the 16 halves of $[2P- \infty^{+}-\infty^{-} ]$ can be obtained by
adding $[P+(\alpha_1,0)-\infty^+ -\infty^{-} ]$ to each of the 16 elements
of $J[2]$.
By Proposition~\ref{RR},
the 15 divisor classes $[ (\alpha_{i},0)+(\alpha_{j},0)-\infty^{+}-
\infty^{-} ]$ with
$i < j$ are distinct, and each has order 2.
Thus the 16 halves of $[2P - \infty^{+}-\infty^{-} ]$ are the~$6$ divisor
classes of the form
$$[P+2(\alpha_1,0)+(\alpha_i,0)-2\infty^+-2\infty^-] = [P+ (\alpha_{i},0)-\infty^+ -\infty^{-}]$$
and the 10 divisor classes of the form
$$[P+ (\alpha_{1},0)+(\alpha_{j},0)+(\alpha_{k},0)-2\infty^{+}-2\infty^{-} ]$$
with $1 < j < k$.
The action of $\operatorname{Gal}(K^{\text{sep}}/K)$ on the first~$6$ halves is the same as the action on the roots $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_6$.
To deduce the action on the other 10 halves, note that if $1<j<k$ and $l,m,n$ are the other three possible indices, then
{\small
$$[P+ (\alpha_l,0)+(\alpha_m,0)+(\alpha_n,0)-2\infty^{+}-2\infty^{-} ] = [P+ (\alpha_1,0)+(\alpha_{j},0)+(\alpha_{k},0)-2\infty^{+}-2\infty^{-} ]$$}%
because the difference of the two divisors is $\operatorname{div}((x-\alpha_1)(x-\alpha_j)(x-\alpha_k)/y)$.
Hence the action of $\operatorname{Gal}(K^{\text{sep}}/K)$ on these 10 halves is the same as the action on the 10 partitions of the six roots into two indistinguished 3-element subsets.
Thus the conditions given in the proposition are necessary and sufficient for $[2P-\infty^+-\infty^-]$ to be in $2J(K)$.
By our earlier remarks, this completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We conclude this section with a few remarks on computing the function $(x-T)$.
Although $P+Q-\infty^+-\infty^-$ is not a good divisor, the image of $(x-T)$ on its divisor class can be found in terms of $P$ and $Q$.
This is described in~\cite[p.\ 50]{CA2}. As an example, if $P$ and $Q$ are
both affine and have nonzero $y$-coordinates, then the image of
$[ P + Q -\infty^+ -\infty^- ]$ is $(x_P-T)(x_Q-T)$.
In addition, the image of $[P+\infty^{\pm} -\infty^{+}-\infty^{-}]$
is $(x_P-T)$.
\section{Facts about the number field $L={\mathbb Q}[T]/(f(T))$}
\label{numberfield}
{}From now on, we specialize to our curve ${\mathcal C}$, for which
$$f(x)=x^6 + 8 x^5 + 22 x^4 + 22 x^3 + 5 x^2 + 6 x + 1.$$
Let $L={\mathbb Q}[T]/(f(T))$.
(We will abuse notation by writing $T$ for its image in $L$.)
In this section we will record some data on $L$ obtained from PARI, to be used later, mainly for the 2-descent.
The polynomial $f(x)$ is irreducible over ${\mathbb Q}$, so $L$ is a number field.
The Galois group of the normal closure $M$ of $L$ is the full symmetric group $S_6$.
The class number of $L$ is~1.
(This can be verified without using PARI, without too much difficulty, since the Minkowski bound is only about $12.2$.)
Two of the six zeros of $f(x)$ are real, so the unit group $U$ has rank~3.
The torsion of the unit group is only $\{\pm 1\}$, and the quotient $U/\{\pm 1\}$ is generated by the elements $u_1,u_2,u_3$ listed in Table~\ref{elements}.
The discriminant of $f$ is $2^{12} \cdot 3701$, and the prime factorizations of the ramified prime ideals $(2)$ and $(3701)$ in $L$ are $(\alpha)^2$ and $(\beta_1)(\beta_2)^2(\beta_3)$, respectively, where $\alpha,\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3$ are defined as in Table~\ref{elements}.
The factorization of $2$ and $3701$ into irreducible {\em elements} of $L$ will be given in Table~\ref{badprimes}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
Element & Definition & Norm \\ \hline \hline
$u_1$ & $(T^3+4T^2+3T-1)/2$ & $1$ \\ \hline
$u_2$ & $(T^4+5T^3+7T^2+2T+1)/2$ & $1$ \\ \hline
$u_3$ & $(T^4+6T^3+11T^2+5T)/2$ & $-1$ \\ \hline
$-1$ & $-1$ & $1$ \\ \hline
$\alpha$ & $(T^5+8T^4+22T^3+23T^2+7T+5)/2$ & $2^3$ \\ \hline
$\beta_1$ & $(-T^5-5T^4-5T^3+2T^2-3T+6)/2$ & $3701$ \\ \hline
$\beta_2$ & $(T^4+7T^3+15T^2+14T+9)/2$ & $-3701$ \\ \hline
$\beta_3$ & $(14T^5+155T^4+497T^3+439T^2-174T+143)/2$ & $3701^3$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Some elements of $L$.}
\label{elements}
\end{table}
Let $L_p = {\mathbb Q}_p[T]/(f(T))$ be the completion of $L$ at a prime $p$ of ${\mathbb Q}$.
This will be a field if and only if there is only one prime of $L$ above $p$, which happens when $p=2$, for instance.
For $p=3701$, we have
$$L_{3701} \cong {\mathbb Q}_{3701} \times E \times F$$
where $E$ is a totally ramified extension of ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$ of degree~2, and $F$ is the unramified extension of ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$ of degree~3.
The element $T$ maps in ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$ to something that is $1371$ modulo $3701$, and in $E$ to something that is $1727$ modulo the maximal ideal.
Finally we will need to know how~2 splits in the subfield $K$ of $M$ corresponding to the subgroup $G$ of $S_6$ of elements that stabilize the partition $\{\{1,2,3\},\{4,5,6\}\}$ of $\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ into two indistinguishable subsets.
Since the orbit of $\{\{1,2,3\},\allowbreak\{4,5,6\}\}$ under the action of $S_6$ consists of $\binom{6}{3}/2=10$ partitions, $[K:{\mathbb Q}]=(S_6:G)=10$.
Let $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_6$ be the roots of $f(x)$ in $M$, which we consider as a subfield of ${\mathbb C}$.
Then $\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3 + \alpha_4 \alpha_5 \alpha_6 \in K$, and its conjugates are similar sums corresponding to the other partitions.
We can construct numerically the degree~10 polynomial $h(x)$ whose roots are these sums, and since these sums are the conjugates of an algebraic integer, the coefficients are integers, and we find the polynomial exactly:
{\footnotesize
$$h(x) = x^{10} + 22 x^9 + 53 x^8 + 654 x^7 + 2186 x^6 + 8976 x^5 + 38705 x^4 + 89560 x^3 + 244664 x^2 + 565728 x + 477968.$$}%
This polynomial is irreducible over ${\mathbb Q}$, and it follows that $K={\mathbb Q}(\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3 + \alpha_4 \alpha_5 \alpha_6)$.
Finally, the prime~2 factors in $K$ as ${\mathfrak p}^4 {\mathfrak q}^2$ where ${\mathfrak p}$ is of degree $1$ and ${\mathfrak q}$ is of degree $3$, so in particular $h(x)$ has no zeros in ${\mathbb Q}_2$.
\section{The 2-descent on ${\mathcal C}$}
\label{descent}
{}From now on, $J$ will denote the Jacobian of the curve ${\mathcal C}$.
We will compute the Mordell-Weil rank of $J$ by performing the $2$-descent outlined in Section~\ref{generalities}.
Since $f$ has discriminant $2^{12} \cdot 3701$, we take $S = \{2,3701,\infty\}$, which contains all possible primes of bad reduction for $J$.
(In fact, our curve has good reduction at~$2$, because substituting $y=2z+x^3+x+1$ and dividing by~$4$ yields the model
$$z^2 + x^3 z + x z + z = 2 x^5 + 5 x^4 + 5 x^3 + x^2 + x,$$
which has bad reduction only at $3701$.
But because we are doing a $2$-descent, we must include $2$ in $S$ anyway.)
Let $J({\mathbb Q})_{\text{tors}}$ denote the torsion subgroup of the finitely generated abelian group $J({\mathbb Q})$.
\begin{prop}
\label{trivialtorsion}
$J({\mathbb Q})_{\text{tors}}$ is trivial.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For any prime $p$ of good reduction for $J$, the reduction mod $p$ map from ${J(\Q)}$ to $ J({{\mathbb F}}_p)$ is injective on torsion.
(See~\cite{katz}, for example.)
By~\cite[p.\ 822]{GG},
$$\# J({\mathbb F}_p) = \frac{1}{2} \# {\mathcal C} ({\mathbb F}_{p^{2}}) + \frac{1}{2}( \# {\mathcal C}({\mathbb F}_{p})^{2}) - p.$$
This can be obtained alternatively by evaluating the characteristic polynomial at~$1$. (For a formula for the characteristic polynomial, see the proof of Proposition~\ref{noendomorphisms} in Section~\ref{nonmodularity}.)
Using this, we find $\# {J(\F_3)} = 9$ and $\# J ({{\mathbb F}}_5 ) = 41$.
But $\gcd(9,41)=1$, so $\# J({\mathbb Q})_{\text{tors}}=1$.
\end{proof}
An immediate corollary is that $[\infty^+-\infty^-]$ generates an infinite subgroup of $J({\mathbb Q})$ so the rank of $J({\mathbb Q})$ is at least~$1$.
Also, the fact $\# J({\mathbb F}_5) = 41$ easily implies the following:
\begin{prop}
$J$ is not isogenous over ${\mathbb Q}$ to a product of two elliptic curves $E_1,E_2$ over ${\mathbb Q}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $J$ were isogenous over ${\mathbb Q}$ to $E_1 \times E_2$, then $E_1$ and $E_2$ would have good reduction at 5 as well.
Also $\# J({\mathbb F}_5) = \# E_1({\mathbb F}_5) \# E_2({\mathbb F}_5)$, so $\# E_1({\mathbb F}_5)$ and $\# E_2({\mathbb F}_5)$ would be~1 and 41 in some order.
Both of these violate Hasse's bound
$$|\# E({\mathbb F}_p) - (p+1)| \le 2 \sqrt{p}.$$
\end{proof}
In Proposition~\ref{noendomorphisms} of Section~\ref{nonmodularity}, we will prove the much stronger result that $J$ is absolutely simple, and that $J$ has no nontrivial endomorphisms over ${\mathbb C}$.
This rules out the possibility of reducing the computation of the rank of $J({\mathbb Q})$ to the computation of ranks of elliptic curves, so we will need to use the general method outlined in Section~\ref{generalities}.
We proceed by first calculating the groups $G,G',H,H'$ of Section~\ref{generalities} for our curve.
\begin{lemma}
\label{unramifiedgroup}
The images of the~8 elements listed in Table~\ref{elements} in $L^\ast/L^{\ast 2}$ are a basis for the ${\mathbb F}_2$-vector space $G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $l \in L^\ast$, then the field extension $L(\sqrt{l})/L$ is unramified at all finite primes of $L$ except possibly those occuring in $l$ and those above~$2$.
Hence the images of the~8 elements in Table~\ref{elements} are in $G$.
On the other hand, if $l \in L^\ast$ maps to something in $L^\ast/L^{\ast 2}$ outside the span of these~8 elements, then there must be a prime of $L$ not above $2$, $3701$ or $\infty$ that occurs to an odd power in the prime factorization of $l$, and then $L(\sqrt{l})/L$ is ramified at that prime.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{hgroup}
The images of $u_1$ and $u_3 \beta_1 \beta_2$ in $L^\ast/L^{\ast 2}{\mathbb Q}^\ast$ form a basis for the ${\mathbb F}_2$-vector space $H$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If a prime $p$ other than $2$ or $3701$ occurs to an odd power in the factorization of $q \in {\mathbb Q}^\ast$, then ${\mathbb Q}(\sqrt{q})/{\mathbb Q}$ is ramified at $p$, and $L/{\mathbb Q}$ is unramified at $p$, so $L(\sqrt{q})/L$ is ramified at any prime above $p$ and $q \not\in G$.
On the other hand, by Table~\ref{badprimes}, the images of $-1$, $2$, $3701$ equal the images of $-1$, $u_2$, and $\beta_1 \beta_3$ in $G$.
Therefore $G' \subset L^\ast/L^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}^\ast$ is the quotient of $G$ by the latter three elements, and the images of $u_1,u_3,\alpha,\beta_1,\beta_2$ form a basis.
By Table~\ref{elements}, the kernel of the norm map from $G'$ to ${\mathbb Q}^\ast/{\mathbb Q}^{\ast 2}$ is the subspace generated by $u_1$ and $u_3 \beta_1 \beta_3$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{tablelemma}
The last three columns of Table~\ref{badprimes} are accurate.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The nontrivial 2-torsion points of $J$ over ${\overline{\Q}}_p$ are of the form $[(\alpha_i,0)+(\alpha_j,0) -\infty^+ - \infty^-]$, where $\alpha_i,\alpha_j$ are two of the six zeros of $f(x)$.
Over ${\mathbb Q}_2$, $f(x)$ is irreducible, so $\operatorname{Gal}({\overline{\Q}}_2/{\mathbb Q}_2)$ acts transitively on the six zeros, and hence no pair can be Galois-stable.
Thus $J({\mathbb Q}_2)[2]$ is trivial.
Over ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$, $f(x)$ factors into polynomials of degrees $1,2,3$.
Here the only pair of zeros that is stable under $\operatorname{Gal}({\overline{\Q}}_{3701}/{\mathbb Q}_{3701})$ is the pair of zeros of the quadratic factor.
Hence $J({\mathbb Q}_{3701})[2]$ has one nontrivial point.
Over ${\mathbb R}$, $f(x)$ factors into polynomials of degrees $1,1,2,2$.
The pairs of zeros stable under complex conjugation are the pair of real zeros, and the pairs of zeros of each quadratic factor.
Hence $J({\mathbb R})[2]$ has three nontrivial points.
The multiplication-by-2 map on $J({\mathbb Q}_p)$ is an $n$-to-1 map onto its image, where $n=\#J({\mathbb Q}_p)[2]$, and locally it multiplies Haar measure by $|2|_p^2$ since $J({\mathbb Q}_p)$ is a 2-dimensional Lie group over ${\mathbb Q}_p$.
Hence the measure of $2J({\mathbb Q}_p)$ is $|2|_p^2/n$ times the measure of $J({\mathbb Q}_p)$, so
$$\# J({\mathbb Q}_p)/2J({\mathbb Q}_p) = |2|_p^{-2} \cdot \#J({\mathbb Q}_p)[2],$$
which gives the values of the second to last column of Table~\ref{badprimes}.
{}From the factorization of~2 in $L$, we know that $f(x)$ has no roots in ${\mathbb Q}_2$.
{}From Section~\ref{numberfield}, the polynomial $h(x)$ has no roots in ${\mathbb Q}_2$, so there is no $\operatorname{Gal}({\overline{\Q}}_2/{\mathbb Q}_2)$-stable partition of the roots of $f(x)$ into two indistinguishable 3-element subsets.
Thus by Proposition~\ref{halves}, $2J({\mathbb Q}_2)$ has index~2 in the kernel of $x-T$ on $J({\mathbb Q}_2)$.
On the other hand, $f(x)$ has a zero in ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$ and in ${\mathbb R}$, so Proposition~\ref{halves} implies that the kernel of $x-T$ on $J({\mathbb Q}_p)$ equals $2J({\mathbb Q}_p)$ for $p=3701$ or $p=\infty$.
\end{proof}
\begin{table}
{\tiny
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
$p$ & ${(e_i,f_i)}$ & Factorization in $L$ & $\#J({\mathbb Q}_p)[2]$ & $\#J({\mathbb Q}_p)/2J({\mathbb Q}_p)$ & $\#J({\mathbb Q}_p)/\ker(x-T)$ \\ \hline \hline
2 & $(2,3)$ & $\alpha^2 u_2$ & 1 & 4 & 2 \\ \hline
3701 & $(1,1);(2,1);(1,3)$ & $\beta_1 \beta_2^2 \beta_3$ & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ \hline
$\infty$& $(1,1);(1,1);(2,1);(2,1)$ && 4 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
\caption{The primes in $S$.}
\label{badprimes}
\end{table}
Next we will need to find generators for $J({\mathbb Q}_p)/\ker(x-T)$ for each prime $p$ in $S$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{generators}
The 1-dimensional ${\mathbb F}_2$-vector spaces
$$J({\mathbb Q}_2)/\ker(x-T) \hbox{\quad and\quad}
J({\mathbb Q}_{3701})/\ker(x-T)$$ are generated by
$$[(2,\sqrt{881})-\infty^-] \in J({\mathbb Q}_2) \hbox{\quad and\quad}
[(-4,\sqrt{185})-\infty^-] \in J({\mathbb Q}_{3701}),
$$ respectively.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $p=2$, we have $881 \equiv 1 \pmod{8}$, so Hensel's Lemma implies that $(2,\sqrt{881})$ is in ${\mathcal C}({\mathbb Q}_2)$. (Fix a square root.)
Thus it will suffice to show that $2-T \not\in L_2^{\ast2} {\mathbb Q}_2^\ast$.
Let $g(x)$ be the characteristic polynomial of $2-T$.
PARI tells us that there is only one prime above 2 in the number field generated by a root of $g(x^2)$, and it follows that $L_2(\sqrt{2-T})$ is a field of degree~12, so $2-T \not\in L_2^{\ast2}$.
Similarly, for each $r \in \{\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\pm 6\}$, a set of representatives for ${\mathbb Q}_2^\ast/{\mathbb Q}_2^{\ast2}$, we can check that $r(2-T) \not\in L_2^{\ast2}$, and it follows that $2-T \not\in L_2^\ast/L_2^{\ast2} {\mathbb Q}_2^\ast$.
(It should be remarked here, that it took PARI a few hours to do these calculations with degree~12 number fields.
We speculate that this is because the PARI command {\verb+initalg+}, which must precede the command {\verb+primedec+} that computes the decomposition of primes, computes many other pieces of information that are irrelevant for our purposes. Of course, there are other methods that could be used to test if an element $x$ of $L_2^\ast$ is a square; for instance, if $x$ is a unit, this is determined by $x \bmod 8$.)
For $p=3701$, we first verify that the Legendre symbol $\left(\frac{185}{3701}\right)$ is~1, so Hensel's Lemma implies that $(-4,\sqrt{185}) \in {\mathcal C}({\mathbb Q}_{3701})$.
To complete the proof, we must check that $-4-T \not\in L_{3701}^{\ast2} {\mathbb Q}_{3701}^\ast$.
This time we can avoid the PARI computations with degree~12 number fields by exploiting the decomposition of $L_{3701}$ into fields.
As before, it suffices to prove that $r(-4-T) \not\in L_{3701}^{\ast2}$ for $r \in \{1,2,3701,2 \cdot 3701\}$, which is a set of representatives for ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}^\ast/{\mathbb Q}_{3701}^{\ast2}$, since $\left(\frac{2}{3701}\right)=-1$.
Now $-4-T$ maps in ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$ to something that is $-4-1371 = -1375$ modulo $3701$, and $\left(\frac{-1375}{3701}\right)=1$, so by Hensel's Lemma, $-4-T$ maps to a square in ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$, and $r(-4-T)$ can map to a square in ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$ only if $r=1$.
On the other hand $-4-T$ maps in $E$ (the ramified field component of $L_{3701}$) to something that is $-4-1727=-1731$ modulo the maximal ideal, and $\left(\frac{-1731}{3701}\right)=-1$, so $-4-T$ does not map to a square in $E$, and hence $-4-T \not\in L_{3701}^{\ast2}$.
Thus $-4-T \not\in L_{3701}^{\ast2} {\mathbb Q}_{3701}^\ast$, and we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{trivial}
$J({\mathbb Q})/\ker(x-T)$ is trivial.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{landsinh}, diagram~(\ref{cd}) and Lemma~\ref{generators}, $J({\mathbb Q})/\ker(x-T)$ maps into the subgroup $H'$ of $H$ that maps in $L_2^\ast/L_2^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}_2^\ast$ into the group generated by $2-T$, in $L_{3701}^\ast/L_{3701}^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}_{3701}^\ast$ into the group generated by $-4-T$, and in $L_\infty^\ast/L_\infty^{\ast 2} {\mathbb R}^\ast$ to the identity.
So it will suffice to show that $H'$ is trivial.
First of all, the $\beta_2$-adic valuation $E \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}$ induces a map $v: L_{3701}^\ast/L_{3701}^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}_{3701}^\ast \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z}$, since the ramification index of $E$ over ${\mathbb Q}_{3701}$ is~2.
By Section~\ref{numberfield}, $-4-T$ maps in $E$ to something that is $-1731$ modulo the maximal ideal, so $v$ is trivial on the image of $-4-T$.
But $v$ maps the two generators $u_1$ and $u_3 \beta_1 \beta_2$ of $H$ to $0$ and $1$, respectively, so $H'$ is contained in the image of $\{1,u_1\}$.
The same method used in the proof of Lemma~\ref{generators} to show that $2-T$ was nontrivial in $L_2^\ast/L_2^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}_2^\ast$ shows that $u_1$ and $u_1(2-T)$ are nontrivial there, so $u_1$ does not map into the subgroup of $L_2^\ast/L_2^{\ast 2} {\mathbb Q}_2^\ast$ generated by $2-T$.
Thus $H'$ is trivial.
(The information from the prime $\infty$ was not used, but in fact it would not have helped either, since the kernel of the norm from $L_\infty^\ast/L_\infty^{\ast 2} {\mathbb R}^\ast$ to ${\mathbb R}^\ast/{\mathbb R}^{\ast 2}$ is trivial.)
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{rankone}
$J({\mathbb Q}) \cong {\mathbb Z}$ as an additive group.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{halves}, $2J({\mathbb Q})$ has index~$2$ in $\ker(x-T)$, so
by Lemma~\ref{trivial}, we have
$\# J({\mathbb Q})/2J({\mathbb Q}) = 2$.
By Proposition~\ref{trivialtorsion}, $J({\mathbb Q}) \cong {\mathbb Z}^r$ for some $r \ge 1$.
Then $J({\mathbb Q})/2J({\mathbb Q}) \cong ({\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z})^r$, so by the above, $r=1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Applying Chabauty's method}
\label{chabauty}
We recall the following consequence of Chabauty's result~\cite{CHA},
which gives a way of deducing information about
the ${\mathbb Q}$-rational points on a curve from its Jacobian.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop1}
Let $C$ be a curve of genus~$g$
defined over ${\mathbb Q}$, whose Jacobian has Mordell-Weil
rank $\leq g-1$. Then $C$ has only finitely many
${\mathbb Q}$-rational points.\end{prop}
This is a weaker result than
Faltings' Theorem; however, when applicable, Cha\-bau\-ty's
method can often be used to give good bounds
for the number of points on a curve.
Recent work in
Coleman~\cite{COL} (see also~\cite{MCA,MCB}) has improved
Chabauty's technique; however, the bounds obtained seem
only rarely to resolve ${\calC(\Q)}$ completely.
For our curve ${\mathcal C}$, the best bound that can
be obtained from the results in~\cite{COL} is
that $\# {\calC(\Q)} \leq 9$.
We shall adopt a more flexible approach that will
allow us to sharpen this bound to 6, as required.
It is hoped that a generalisation of the following ideas to any
curve of genus~2 over a number field will at some stage
be presented in~\cite{FLF}, but we make no direct
use of this, and present a largely self contained account
tailored to the needs of our specific example.
We shall, however, need to refer to the equations
in~\cite{FCPS,FCRE} relating to the Jacobian and formal group.
We shall first establish a few easily computed facts about
${J(\Q)}$.
Let $D = [ \infty^+ - \infty^- ] \in J({\mathbb Q})$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{le:D=kE}
We have ${J(\Q)} = \langle E \rangle$, for some $E \in J({\mathbb Q})$ of infinite order, and $D=k \cdot E$ with $3 {\not\hskip-.2pt \vert\ } k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{rankone}, we can pick a generator $E$ for ${J(\Q)} \cong {\mathbb Z}$.
To complete the proof, we must show that $D \not\in 3{J(\Q)}$.
Since $ {J(\F_3)} $ is a cyclic group of size~9
generated by ${\widetilde D}$, the reduction of $D$ mod~3,
we find that ${\widetilde D} \not\in 3{J(\F_3)}$, from which it follows
that $D \not\in 3{J(\Q)}$,
as required.
\end{proof}
It would be nice to have the theory of heights sufficiently well
developed to determine whether $k=\pm 1$, which would
give ${J(\Q)} = \langle D \rangle$. However, the method
in~\cite{FLH}
would require significant enhancements before it could
realistically be applied to ${\mathcal C}$.
In fact, all of our local arguments will be 3-adic and
so the fact that $D\not\in 3{J(\Q)}$ will turn out to
be sufficient for our purposes.
Table~\ref{divisormultiples} lists the first 11 multiples of $D$, which
will be relevant to our later computations. The last column
gives the corresponding multiples of
${\widetilde D}$, the reduction of $D$ mod 3 to ${J(\F_3)}$.
For simplicity, we represent multiples of $D$ in ${\rm Pic}^{2}({\mathcal C})$,
where ${\rm Pic}^{0}({\mathcal C})\cong {\rm Pic}^{2}({\mathcal C})$ by $[V]\mapsto [V+
\infty^{+}+\infty^{-}]$. In abuse of notation we will write $D=[\infty^{+}
-\infty^{-}]$ in ${\rm Pic}^{0}({\mathcal C})$ and $D=[\infty^{+}+\infty^{+}]$
in ${\rm Pic}^{2}({\mathcal C})$.
In the table, $P = (-2+\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{33},
-\frac{17}{3}+\frac{10}{9}\sqrt{33} )$ and
$Q = ( -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{6}\sqrt{-87},
\frac{22}{3} + \frac{5}{9}\sqrt{-87} )$, and $\overline{P}$ and $\overline{Q}$ are their algebraic conjugates.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
$n$ & $n \cdot D$ & $n \cdot {\widetilde D}$ \\ \hline \hline
0 & ${\mathcal O}$ & ${\mathcal O}$ \\ \hline
1 & $[\infty^+ + \infty^+]$ & $[ \infty^+ + \infty^+]$ \\ \hline
2 & $[ (0,1) + (-3,1) ]$ & $[ (0,1) + (0,1) ]$ \\ \hline
3 & $[ (0,-1) + \infty^- ]$ & $[ (0,-1) + \infty^- ]$ \\ \hline
4 & $[ (0,-1) + \infty^+ ]$ & $[ (0,-1) + \infty^+ ] $ \\ \hline
5 & $[ (-3,1) + \infty^- ]$ & $[ (0,1) + \infty^- ]$ \\ \hline
6 & $[ (-3,1) + \infty^+ ]$ & $[ (0,1) + \infty^+ ] $ \\ \hline
7 & $[ (0,-1) + (0,-1) ]$ & $[ (0,-1) + (0,-1) ] $ \\ \hline
8 & $[ P+ \overline{P}]$ & $[ \infty^- + \infty^- ]$ \\ \hline
9 & $[ (0,-1) + (-3,1) ]$ & ${\mathcal O}$ \\ \hline
10 & $[ Q + \overline{Q}]$ & $[ \infty^+ + \infty^+] $ \\ \hline
11 & $[ (-3,1) + (-3,1) ]$ & $[ (0,1) + (0,1) ]$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The first~11 multiples of $D$ and ${\widetilde D}$.}
\label{divisormultiples}
\end{table}
The multiples $\ell \cdot D$, for $\ell = -1,\ldots, -11$,
can be deduced from the above by using the rule
that $-[ (x_1,y_1) + (x_2,y_2)] = [ (x_1,-y_1)+ (x_2, -y_2)]$.
The divisor $9\cdot D$, which is in the kernel of reduction
mod 3, will play a special role, and so we denote:
$$D' = 9\cdot D = [ (0,-1) + (-3,1) ].$$
\noindent The following lemma is immediate from the
fact that the $k$ of Lemma~\ref{le:D=kE} is coprime to 3.
\begin{lemma}
\label{le:lD+ME'}
Let $E$ be as in Lemma~\ref{le:D=kE}, and let $E' = 9\cdot E$.
Then any member of ${J(\Q)}$ can be written uniquely
as $\ell \cdot D + m\cdot E'$, for some $\ell , m \in {\mathbb Z}$,
with $-4\leq \ell \leq 4$. \end{lemma}
If we now let:
$${{\mathcal M}_3} = \hbox{ the kernel of the reduction map from }
{J(\Q_3)} \hbox{ to } {J(\F_3)} ,$$
\noindent
then ${{\mathcal M}_3}$ contains no $k$-torsion, since $3{\not\hskip-.2pt \vert\ } k$, and
there is a well defined map $1/k$ on ${{\mathcal M}_3}$ that takes any
$D_0\in {{\mathcal M}_3}$ to the unique $E_0\in {{\mathcal M}_3}$ such that $D_0 = k\cdot E_0$.
We can therefore legitimately say that any divisor in
${J(\Q)}$ can be written in the form:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqnf}
\ell\cdot D + n\cdot D',\hbox{ with }-4\leq \ell \leq 4,
\ n = m/k,\ 3{\not\hskip-.2pt \vert\ } k,
\end{equation}
\noindent where it is to be understood that $1/k$ refers
to the above 3-adic map on ${{\mathcal M}_3}$. Here, $n$ need not be
a rational integer, but must still be a $3$-adic
integer, which will be sufficient for our purposes.
Our next observation is that
${\calC(\Q)}$ is
in 1-1 correspondence with
the members of ${J(\Q)}$
that have the special form: $[ P+ P]$.
{}From Table~\ref{divisormultiples},
we see that all of the known ${\mathbb Q}$-rational points correspond
to: $\pm D$, $\pm 7\cdot D$ and $\pm 11 \cdot D$.
Suppose now that we have a divisor $D_0 \in {J(\Q)}$ that
is of the special form $[ P+ P]$; we can write $D_0
= \ell \cdot D + n \cdot D'$ as in equation~(\ref{eqnf}).
If $D_0$ were in ${{\mathcal M}_3}$
(that is, $\ell = 0$),
then $\widetilde P$ would have to be of the form
$(x,0)$, which is impossible since the sextic $f(x)$ has
no roots in ${\F_3}$.
Otherwise, the reduction of $D_0$,
which is also the reduction of $\ell D$, must be of the form
$[ \widetilde P + \widetilde P]$, giving that $ \pm 1 , \pm 2$
are the only possibilities for $\ell$.
Suppose we can show that $D + n\cdot D'$ is of the form $[ P+P]$
only when $n=0$ and that $2\cdot D + n\cdot D'$
is of that form only when $n = \pm 1$.
Using the fact that $-[ (x,y) + (x,y) ] = [ (x,-y)+ (x,-y) ]$,
it would then follow that $-D + n\cdot D'$ is of that form
only when $n=0$ and that $-2\cdot D + n\cdot D'$
is of that form only when $n=\pm 1$. This would show that
${\calC(\Q)}$ consists only of the 6 known points.
We summarise the above in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{C(Q)=6}
Let ${{\mathcal M}_3}$ be the kernel of the reduction map from
${J(\Q_3)}$ to ${J(\F_3)}$.
Let $D_1 = D = [ \infty^+ + \infty^+ ]$
and $D_2 = 2\cdot D = [ (0,1)+ (-3,1)]$. Then $D' = 9\cdot D =
[ (0,-1)+ (-3,1) ] \in {{\mathcal M}_3}$. Suppose that, for
$n = m/k,\ m, k \in {\mathbb Z} , 3{\not\hskip-.2pt \vert\ } k$,
we have $D_1 + n\cdot D'$ of the form $[ P+P]$ only when
$n=0$, and $D_2 + n\cdot D'$ is of that form only when
$n = \pm 1$. Then $\# {\calC(\Q)} = 6$. \end{lemma}
For each $D_i$, $i=1,2$, our strategy will be to derive, to a sufficient
degree of 3-adic accuracy,
a power series $\theta_i(n) \in {\Z_3} [[n]]$ that must be
satisfied by $n$ whenever $D_i + n\cdot D'$ is of the
form $[ P+P]$. We shall show the stronger result that
the known solutions to $\theta_i(N)$ give all of the
solutions $n\in {\Z_3}$.
The following standard theorem of Strassman
is proved in~\cite[p.62]{CA1}.
\begin{thm}
\label{Strassman}
Let $\theta (X) = c_0 + c_1 X + c_2 X^2 + \ldots
\in {\Z_p} [[X]] $ satisfy $c_n \rightarrow 0$ in ${\Q_p}$.
Define $r$ uniquely by: $\vert c_r \vert _p \geq\vert c_i
\vert_p$ for all $i\geq0$, and $\vert c_r \vert_p
> \vert c_i
\vert_p$ for all $i>r$.
Then there are at most $r$ values of $x\in {\Z_p}$ such that
$\theta (x) = 0$.\end{thm}
In order to derive the power series $\theta_1(n)$ and $\theta_2(n)$,
we shall make use of the formal group.
As remarked in Section~\ref{hyperelliptic}, ${\mathcal C}$ cannot be put in the simpler form $y^2 = (\text{\sl quintic in } x)$, so instead of using the
development of the formal group in~\cite{GRA},
we must use the general $y^2 = (\text{\sl sextic in } x)$\
development as in~\cite{FCPS,FCRE}. The derivation of the equations that we shall use for both the formal group law and the global group law
are described in~\cite{FCRE}. These equations for a general curve of genus~2, are available
at: \verb+ftp.liv.ac.uk+ in the directory
$\;\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\widetilde{ }$}\hskip3pt $\verb+ftp/pub/genus2+
by anonymous ftp.
First note that for any curve of genus~2
\begin{equation}
\label{eqng}
y^2 = f_6 x^6 + f_5 x^5 + f_4 x^4 + f_3 x^3 + f_2 x^2
+ f_1 x + f_0, \ \ f_i \in {\mathbb Z} ,
\end{equation}
the following functions $s_1,s_2$ of a point $D_0 = [ (x_1,y_1)+ (x_2,y_2)]\in {J(\Q)}$ can be used as a pair of local parameters at ${\mathcal O}$:
\begin{align}
\label{eqnh}
s_1 &= (G_1 (x_1 ,x_2 )y_1 - G_1 (x_2 ,x_1 )y_2 )(x_1 - x_2 )
/(F_0 (x_1 ,x_2 )-2y_1 y_2 )^2, \\
s_2 &= (G_0 (x_1 ,x_2 )y_1 - G_0 (x_2 ,x_1 )y_2 )(x_1 - x_2 )
/(F_0 (x_1 ,x_2 )-2y_1 y_2 )^2,
\end{align}
\noindent where
\[
\begin{array}{rl}
F_0 (x_1 ,x_2 )= & 2 f_0 + f_1 (x_1 +x_2 ) + 2 f_2 (x_1 x_2 )
+ f_3 (x_1 x_2) (x_1 +x_2 ) \\
& + 2 f_4 (x_1 x_2 )^2 + f_5 (x_1 x_2 )^2 (x_1 + x_2 )
+2 f_6 (x_1 x_2 )^3, \\
G_0 (x_1 ,x_2 )= & 4 f_0 + f_1 (x_1+3 x_2)+f_2(2x_1 x_2+2 x_2 ^2 )
+ f_3(3x_1 x_2 ^2 + x_2 ^3 ) \\
& +4 f_4(x_1 x_2 ^3)+f_5(x_1 ^2 x_2 ^3 + 3 x_1 x_2 ^4)
+ f_6(2 x_1 ^2 x_2 ^4 + 2 x_1 x_2 ^5 ), \\
G_1 (x_1 ,x_2 )= & f_0(2x_1+2x_2)+f_1(3x_1 x_2 + x_2 ^2) + 4f_2(x_1 x_2 ^2)
+ f_3(x_1 ^2 x_2 ^2 +3x_1 x_2^3) \\
& +f_4(2x_1^2 x_2^3 +2x_1 x_2^4) +f_5(3x_1^2 x_2^4 +x_1 x_2^5)
+4f_6(x_1^2 x_2^5).
\end{array}\]
\medskip
The following lemma summarises the information we need from
\cite{FCPS,FCRE} and introduces the standard formal exponential
and logarithm maps on the formal group.
\begin{thm}
\label{formal}
Let $C$ be as in~(\ref{eqng}).
There is a formal group law with respect to the local
parameters of equation~(\ref{eqnh}), given by
${\mathcal F} =\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathcal F}_1 \\ {\mathcal F}_2
\end{pmatrix}$
where ${\mathcal F}_1 , {\mathcal F}_2$ are power series
in $s_1,s_2,t_1,t_2$ defined over
${\mathbb Z}$, which contain terms only of odd degree.
Define the {\it formal exponential of}
${\mathcal F}$ as $E = \begin{pmatrix} E_1 \\ E_2 \end{pmatrix}$,
where $E_1$, $E_2$ are power series in {\bf s}
over ${\mathbb Q}$, by:
$E({\bf s}) = {\bf s} + \hbox{ terms of higher degree}$,
and $E({\bf s} + {\bf t}) = {{\mathcal F}}(E({\bf s}), E({\bf t}))$.
Similarly define the {\it formal logarithm of} ${\mathcal F}$ as
$L = \begin{pmatrix} L_1 \\ L_2 \end{pmatrix}$
where $L_1$, $L_2$ are power series in {\bf s}
over ${\mathbb Q}$, by: $L(E({\bf s})) = {\bf s}$,
or
equivalently:
$L({\bf s}) = {\bf s} + \hbox{ terms of higher degree}$,
and $L({{\mathcal F}}({\bf s},{\bf t})) = L({\bf s}) + L({\bf t})$.
Then each of $E_1$,$E_2$,$L_1$,$L_2$
can be written in the form: $\sum (a_{ij}/i!j!) s_1^i s_2^j$,
where $a_{ij} \in {\mathbb Z}$ and $a_{ij} = 0$ when $i+j$ is even.
Let $p$ be a prime of good reduction, and let
$A,B,C$ be in ${{\mathcal M}_p}$, the kernel of reduction from
${J(\Q_p)}$ to ${J(\F_p)}$, with
$C = A + B$.
Suppose now that ${\bf s} = \begin{pmatrix} s_1 \\ s_2 \end{pmatrix}$ are
the local parameters corresponding to $A$, and
similarly {\bf t}, {\bf u} those for $B$, $C$ respectively.
Then each $s_i,t_i,u_i \in p{\Z_p}$ and
${{\mathcal F}}({\bf s},{\bf t})$ converges in $p{\Z_p}$ with
${\bf u} = {{\mathcal F}}({\bf s},{\bf t})$.\end{thm}
The power series ${\mathcal F}$ gives a description of the
group law on ${{\mathcal M}_p}$.
It is described in~\cite{FCPS,FCRE} how to compute
terms of the formal group up to terms of arbitrary degree.
We require here the formal group up to terms of degree~3 in~{\bf s}:
\begin{align*}
{{\mathcal F}}_1 &= s_1 + t_1 + 2f_4s_1^2t_1 + 2f_4s_1t_1^2
- f_1s_2^2t_2 - f_1s_2t_2^2 + (\hbox{degree }\geq5) \\
{{\mathcal F}}_2 &= s_2 + t_2 + 2f_2s_2^2t_2 + 2f_2s_2t_2^2
- f_5s_1^2t_1 - f_5s_1t_1^2 + (\hbox{degree }\geq5)
\end{align*}
For any $A$ in
${{\mathcal M}_p}$, with local
parameter ${\bf s}$, note also that the power series $E({\bf s})$
and $L({\bf s})$ converge in $p{\Z_p}$ also, since
$\vert s_1 \vert _p , \vert s_2 \vert _p \leq p^{-1}$ and so
$\vert s_1^i s_2^j / i! j! \vert_p$ converges to $0$
as $i+j \rightarrow \infty$.
Once terms of the formal group have been computed, the terms
of $E$ and $L$ may be computed inductively from their definitions.
We shall again only require terms up to degree~3 in~{\bf s}:
$$ \begin{array}{lll}
L_1({\bf s}) = s_1 + \frac{1}{3}(-2f_4 s_1^3 + f_1 s_2^3) +\ldots
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; &
E_1({\bf s}) = s_1 + \frac{1}{3}( 2f_4 s_1^3 - f_1 s_2^3) +\ldots \\
L_2({\bf s}) = s_2 + \frac{1}{3}(-2f_2 s_2^3 + f_5 s_1^3) +\ldots
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; &
E_2({\bf s}) = s_2 + \frac{1}{3}( 2f_2 s_2^3 - f_5 s_1^3) +\ldots
\end{array}
$$
Let us now return to our specific curve ${\mathcal C}$ of equation~(\ref{curveequation}).
The local parameters of $D' = [ (0,-1) + (-3,1) ] \in {{\mathcal M}_3}$
are determined by substituting $x_1=0,y_1=-1,x_2=-3,y_2=1$
into~(\ref{eqnh}), giving: $s_1 = -9/14$ and $s_2 = 426/49$,
both of which have $3$-adic valuation less than or equal to $3^{-1}$.
It is immediate that $L_1$,$L_2$ evaluated at $s_1 = -9/14$, $s_2 = 426/49$,
are both $3$-adic integers, and that (even after taking
denominators into account) the terms up to degree~3 determine
$L_1$,$L_2$ mod $3^4$. This gives: $L_1 \equiv 36 \ ( \hbox{mod } 3^4)$
and $L_2 \equiv 3 \ ( \hbox{mod } 3^4)$.
{}From the properties of $E$ and $L$ we see that $E(n\cdot L({\bf s}) )$
gives the local parameters $t_1,t_2$ for $T = n\cdot D'\in {{\mathcal M}_3}$,
where $n$ is as in~(\ref{eqnf}), and so is in ${\Z_3}$. This expresses
each of $t_1,t_2$ as members of ${\Z_3} [[n]]$,
given (mod $3^4$) by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqnk}
t_1 \equiv 36 n + 27 n^3 \hbox{ and }
t_2 \equiv 3n + 9n^3 \ \ (\hbox{mod } 3^4).
\end{equation}
Since any member of ${{\mathcal M}_3}$ is uniquely determined by its
local parameters, this describes $T = n\cdot D'$ as
a power series in $n$.
We now wish to describe $D_1 + T$ and $D_2 + T$,
where $D_1$,$D_2$ are as specified in Lemma~\ref{C(Q)=6}.
Applying the standard global group law
to the sum $[ (x_1,y_1)+(x_2,y_2)] = D_1 + T$
gives (as described in~\cite{FCRE}) expressions
for $k_1,k_2,k_3\in {\mathbb Z} [[t_1,t_2]]$ such that
the triple $(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ is the same projectively
as $(1,x_1+x_2,x_1 x_2)$.
The terms up to degree~3 in {\bf t} are:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
k_1 =
-12 t_2-12 t_1^2+8 t_1 t_2+36 t_2^2
+8 t_1^3-72 t_1^2 t_2-48 t_1 t_2^2-8 t_2^3 +\cdots \\
k_2 =
12 t_1+48 t_2-8 t_1^2-104 t_1 t_2-132 t_2^2
+72 t_1^3+648 t_1^2 t_2+408 t_1 t_2^2+104 t_2^3 +\cdots \\
k_3 =
-6+4 t_1-72 t_1^2-24 t_1 t_2-4 t_2^2
-24 t_1^3-104 t_1^2 t_2-104 t_1 t_2^2-24 t_2^3 + \cdots\\
\end{array}
$$
\noindent On substituting~(\ref{eqnk}) into these expressions
gives each of $k_1,k_2,k_3$ as members of ${\Z_3} [[n]]$.
Now note that if a divisor $[ (x_1,y_1)+ (x_2,y_2) ]$
is of the form $[ P+P]$ then
$\theta_1(n) = k_2^2 - 4k_1k_3 = 0$. This gives:
$$\theta_1(n) \in {\Z_3} [[n]], \hbox{ with } \theta_1(n) \equiv 27n \ (\hbox{mod } 3^4),$$
\noindent
where $\theta_1(n) = 0$ if $D_1 + n\cdot D'$ is of the
form $[ P+P]$.
Repeating the same process for $D_2$ first gives:
{\small$$
\begin{array}{l}
k_1 =
-2-12 t_1-40 t_2-16 t_1^2+64 t_1 t_2+100 t_2^2
-64 t_1^3-472 t_1^2 t_2-64 t_1 t_2^2-64 t_2^3 + \ldots \\
k_2 =
6+36 t_1+116 t_2+52 t_1^2-224 t_1 t_2-392 t_2^2
+208 t_1^3+1408 t_1^2 t_2+72 t_1 t_2^2+160 t_2^3 + \ldots \\
k_3 =
4 t_1+12 t_2+28 t_1^2+176 t_1 t_2+272 t_2^2
+32 t_1^3+208 t_1^2 t_2+104 t_1 t_2^2+16 t_2^3 + \ldots \end{array}
$$}%
which then gives:
$$\theta_2(n) \in {\Z_3} [[n]], \hbox{ with } \theta_2(n) \equiv 36 + 27n + 18n^2 + 54n^3 + 27n^4 \ (\hbox{mod } 3^4),$$
\noindent
where $\theta_2 (n) = 0$ if $D_2 + n\cdot D'$ is of the
form $[ P+P]$.
We are now in a position to prove the desired result.
\begin{thm}
\label{C(Q)}
The curve ${\mathcal C}$ of equation~(\ref{curveequation}) has only the six ${\mathbb Q}$-rational points $(0,1)$, $(0,-1)$, $(-3,1)$, $(-3,-1)$, $\infty^+$, and $\infty^-$ listed in Table~\ref{cvalues}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The coefficient of $n$ in $\theta_1(n)\in {\Z_3} [[n]]$
has $3$-adic valuation strictly larger than all of the
other coefficients, and so by Strassman's Theorem
(Theorem~\ref{Strassman}) there is at most~1 solution, which
is the known solution: $n=0$.
For $\theta_2(n)$, we further reduce mod~$3^3$,
giving: $\theta_2(n) \equiv 9 + 18n^2$. By Strassman's
Theorem, there are at most 2 solutions, which must
be the 2 known solutions: $n=-1,-2$.
The result now follows from Lemma~\ref{C(Q)=6}.
\end{proof}
\section{Non-modularity of $C_0(5)$ and $C_1(5)$}
\label{nonmodularity}
Recall that $C_1(4)$ turned out to be isomorphic over ${\mathbb Q}$ to the modular curve $X_1(16)$.
Morton~\cite{morton4} asked whether $C_1(N)$ could be parameterized by modular functions also for $N>4$.
If $C_0(5)$ or $C_1(5)$ were isomorphic over ${\mathbb C}$ to $X_1(N)$ or $X_0(N)$, then $N$ could not be a multiple of $3701$, because by~\cite[Corollary 9.11]{knapp} the genus of $X_0(3701)$ already is $(3701-5)/12 = 308$, whereas by Table~\ref{genus}, $C_0(5)$ and $C_1(5)$ have genus~$2$ and $14$, respectively.
Hence $C_0(5)$ or $C_1(5)$ would have potential good reduction at $3701$.
Using Lange's theorem~\cite{lange} that potential good reduction of a geometrically connected smooth projective curve is inherited by any other such curve it surjects onto (or the more general result mentioned in the Appendix by Matignon and Youssefi to~\cite{youssefi} that the same is true for good reduction), we find that in either case, $C_0(5)$ would have potential good reduction at $3701$.
But it can be shown that this contradicts the fact that the exponent of $3701$ in the discriminant of $f(x)$ is~$1$, so neither $C_0(5)$ nor $C_1(5)$ is isomorphic over ${\mathbb C}$ to $X_0(N)$ or $X_1(N)$ for any $N \ge 1$.
We have been slightly sketchy in the previous argument, because below we will provide a complete proof for the stronger result that there is no surjective morphism from $X_1(N)$ to $C_0(5)$ or $C_1(5)$ for any $N \ge 1$, even over ${\mathbb C}$.
As before, let $J$ denote the Jacobian of ${\mathcal C}=C_0(5)$.
Let $\operatorname{End} J$ denote the ring of endomorphisms of $J$ defined over ${\mathbb C}$.
\begin{prop}
\label{noendomorphisms}
$J$ is absolutely simple, and $\operatorname{End} J \cong {\mathbb Z}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We will model our argument on that used in~\cite[Appendix A]{pyle}.
Suppose $p$ is a prime of good reduction for $J$.
Then reduction modulo $p$ embeds $\operatorname{End} J$ in $\operatorname{End}_{{\overline{\F}}_p} J$, the endomorphisms defined over ${\overline{\F}}_p$ of the reduced abelian variety over ${\mathbb F}_p$ (which we will also denote $J$).
By~\cite[Lemma~3]{merrimansmart}, the characteristic polynomial of the Frobenius endomorphism $\pi_p$ on $J$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{charpoly}
X^4 - t X^3 + s X^2 - p t X + p^2,
\end{equation}
where
$$t = p+1-\# {\mathcal C}({\mathbb F}_p), \qquad s = \frac{1}{2} \left[\# {\mathcal C}({\mathbb F}_p)^2+\# {\mathcal C}({\mathbb F}_{p^2}) \right] +p-(p+1)\# {\mathcal C}({\mathbb F}_p).$$
Moreover, it follows from~\cite[Theorem 8]{wm} that if the characteristic polynomial of $\pi_p^n$ is irreducible over ${\mathbb Q}$ for all $n \ge 1$, then $(\operatorname{End}_{{\overline{\F}}_p} J) \otimes {\mathbb Q} = {\mathbb Q}(\pi_p)$ is a number field of degree~$4$.
For $p=3$,~(\ref{charpoly}) becomes $X^4-X^2+9$, so the characteristic polynomial of $\pi_3^2$ is $(X^2-X+9)^2$.
Hence we move on to $p=5$, for which~(\ref{charpoly}) is $P(x)=X^4+X^3+9X^2+5X+25$.
This is irreducible over ${\mathbb Q}$, so ${\mathbb Q}(\pi_5) \cong {\mathbb Q}[X]/(P(x))$ is a number field of degree~$4$.
We wish to show that no positive power of $\pi_5$ lies in a proper subfield.
PARI tells us that the Galois group of $P(X)$ is dihedral of order $8$, so ${\mathbb Q}(\pi_5)$ has an automorphism $\sigma$ of order~$2$, even though it is not Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$.
By Galois theory, the (quadratic) fixed field $F$ of $\sigma$ is the only nontrivial subfield of ${\mathbb Q}(\pi_5)$.
We find that $\pi_5+\sigma(\pi_5)$ is a root of $x^2+x=1$, so $F={\mathbb Q}(\sqrt{5})$.
If $\pi_5^n \in F$, then $\sigma(\pi_5)/\pi_5$ would be an $n$-th root of unity.
But PARI shows that the only roots of unity in ${\mathbb Q}(\pi_5)$ are $1$ and $-1$, and that $\sigma(\pi_5)/\pi_5$ is neither of these.
Thus we now know that $(\operatorname{End}_{{\overline{\F}}_5} J) \otimes {\mathbb Q} \cong {\mathbb Q}[X]/(P(X))$, which already is enough to imply that $J$ is absolutely simple.
The characteristic polynomial of $\pi_7$ is $R(X)=X^4+2X^3+4X^2+14X+49$, and exactly the same argument as in the previous paragraph shows $(\operatorname{End}_{{\overline{\F}}_7} J) \otimes {\mathbb Q} \cong {\mathbb Q}[X]/(R(X))$.
Now $(\operatorname{End} J) \otimes {\mathbb Q}$ embeds into both number fields ${\mathbb Q}[X]/(P(X))$ and ${\mathbb Q}[X]/(R(X))$, but PARI tells us that the only nontrivial subfield $F={\mathbb Q}(\sqrt{5})$ of ${\mathbb Q}[X]/(P(X))$ is not a subfield of ${\mathbb Q}[X]/(R(X))$, so $(\operatorname{End} J) \otimes {\mathbb Q} = {\mathbb Q}$.
Thus $\operatorname{End} J={\mathbb Z}$.
\end{proof}
Let $J_1(N)$ denote the Jacobian of $X_1(N)$.
We will write $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb Q} A$ for the ring of endomorphisms defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ of an abelian variety $A$ over ${\mathbb Q}$.
\begin{prop}
\label{quotientsofj1}
Let $B$ be an absolutely simple abelian variety over ${\mathbb C}$ which is a quotient of $J_1(N)$ over ${\mathbb C}$.
Then the rank of $\operatorname{End} B$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is $\dim B$ or $2 \dim B$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a simple abelian variety over ${\mathbb Q}$ which is a quotient of $J_1(N)$ over ${\mathbb Q}$, and which contains $B$ in its decomposition into absolutely simple abelian varieties over ${\mathbb C}$ up to isogeny.
If $B$ is an elliptic curve with complex multiplication, the result is trivial, so assume this does not hold.
Then by~\cite[Theorem~$1$]{ribet}, $(\operatorname{End} A)\otimes {\mathbb Q}$ is a matrix algebra $D={\mathbb M}_n(H)$ over a division algebra $H$ finite dimensional over its center $F$, and $E \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} (\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb Q} A)\otimes {\mathbb Q}$ is a maximal subfield of $D$.
Moreover $[E:{\mathbb Q}]=\dim A$, and $[H:F]=r^2$ with $r=1 \text{ or } 2$.
Let $f=[F:{\mathbb Q}]$.
Since $E$ is a maximal subfield of $D$, $[E:F]=\sqrt{[D:F]}=\sqrt{n^2 r^2}=nr$, so
$$\dim B = (\dim A)/n = [E:{\mathbb Q}]/n = [E:F] f/n = rf.$$
Finally,
$$\operatorname{rank}(\operatorname{End} B)=[(\operatorname{End} B)\otimes{\mathbb Q}:{\mathbb Q}]=[H:{\mathbb Q}]=r^2 f$$
so $\operatorname{rank}(\operatorname{End} B)=r \dim B$, and we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{nomorphism}
Let $N \ge 1$.
There is no nonzero morphism of abelian varieties over ${\mathbb C}$ from $J_1(N)$ to $J$.
Thus there is no surjective morphism of curves from $X_1(N)$ to $C_0(5)$ or $C_1(5)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{quotientsofj1}, any $2$-dimensional quotient of $J_1(N)$ must have an endomorphism ring larger than ${\mathbb Z}$.
Thus the first statement follows from Proposition~\ref{noendomorphisms}.
Since $C_1(5)$ maps to $C_0(5)$, and since surjective maps on curves induce surjective maps on their Jacobians, the final statement follows from the first.
\end{proof}
For the modular curves $X_0(N)$ and $X_1(N)$, the Manin-Drinfeld theorem states the divisor class of the difference of two cusps is a torsion element in the Jacobian.
It is natural to ask whether the same is true for $C_0(N)$ and $C_1(N)$, with cusps replaced by points with $c=\infty$.
(All of these points are rational, as follows from the ``$q$-expansions'' in~\cite{morton4}.)
For $N=4$, the result holds, simply because $C_1(4)$ is isomorphic to $X_1(16)$ and the points with $c=\infty$ correspond to cusps.
But the result fails for $N=5$, even for the quotient $C_0(5)$, since the divisor class of the difference of two of its rational points at $c=\infty$ is a nonzero element of $J({\mathbb Q})$, and hence is not torsion, by Proposition~\ref{trivialtorsion}.
\section{Rational points and cycles of period $6$}
\label{period6}
We conclude the paper with a few remarks about the next unsolved case, $N=6$.
The curve $C_0(6)$ is of genus~$4$ (see Table~\ref{genus}) and is birational to the curve given by the equation $\tau_6(x,c)=0$, where
{\footnotesize\begin{equation*}
\thickmuskip=
.5\thickmuskip
\medmuskip=
.5\medmuskip
\begin{split}
\tau_6(x,c) &= (-384 c - 592 {c^2} - 256 {c^3}) +
\left( 448 + 416 c - 304 {c^2} - 256 {c^3} \right) x +
\left( 196 + 552 c + 480 {c^2} + 256 {c^3} \right) {x^2} \\
& \quad +
\left( 140 - 136 c + 160 {c^2} + 256 {c^3} \right) {x^3} +
\left( 175 + 16 c + 112 {c^2} \right) {x^4} +
\left( 49 + 16 c + 144 {c^2} \right) {x^5} \\
& \quad +
\left( 14 + 8 c \right) {x^6} + \left( 2 + 24 c \right) {x^7} -
{x^8} + {x^9}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}}%
(This is taken from~\cite{morton4}.)
Recall that $x$ is the trace of a 6-cycle for $g(z)=z^2+c$.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
$(x,c)$ & Generator of $6$-cycle & $K$ & Conductor \\ \hline \hline
$(0,0)$ & $\zeta_9$ & ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_9)$ & $9$ \\ \hline
$(-1,-2)$ & $\zeta_{13}+\zeta_{13}^{-1}$ & ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{13}+\zeta_{13}^{-1})$ & $13$ \\ \hline
$(1,-2)$ & $\zeta_{21}+\zeta_{21}^{-1}$ & ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{21}+\zeta_{21}^{-1})$ & $21$ \\ \hline
$(-3,-4)$ & $(\zeta_7^2+\zeta_7^{-2}) + \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2} (\zeta_7+\zeta_7^{-1})$ & ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_7+\zeta_7^{-1},\sqrt{5})$ & $35$ \\ \hline
$(-7/2,-71/48)$ & $-1+\frac{\sqrt{33}}{12}$ & ${\mathbb Q}(\sqrt{33})$ & $33$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The known affine rational points on $C_0(6)$.}
\label{sixcycles}
\end{table}
For each rational number $x=r/s$ with $|r|,|s| \le 100$, we checked the polynomial $\tau_6(x,c)$ in $c$ for rational roots.
We then did the same with $x$ and $c$ reversed.
This let us find all affine rational points on $\tau_6(x,c)=0$ having at least one coordinate with numerator and denominator bounded by~$100$ (in absolute value).
These are listed in Table~\ref{sixcycles}.
Because each of these points in fact has a coordinate with numerator and denominator bounded by $7$, it seems reasonable to expect that we have found all the affine rational points.
(There are also $5$ points at infinity on the nonsingular model, and these are all rational.)
Each affine point on $C_0(6)$ corresponds to a ${\Gal}(\Qbar/\Q)$-stable $6$-cycle, whose elements generate abelian extensions of ${\mathbb Q}$ of degree dividing $6$.
Table~\ref{sixcycles} lists an element of this cycle for each known point (in terms of a primitive $n$-th root of unity $\zeta_n$), and also gives the abelian extension $K$ of ${\mathbb Q}$ it generates, together with its conductor.
(It is straightforward to verify these using PARI.)
In particular, note that none of the cycles are defined pointwise over ${\mathbb Q}$.
Therefore, if we have truly found all affine rational points on $C_0(6)$, then there is no quadratic polynomial $g(z) \in {\mathbb Q}[z]$ with a periodic point of exact period~$6$.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Greg Call for helping us trace the history of the problem mentioned in the first paragraph, Noam Elkies for a comment that let us check that ${\mathcal C}$ actually had good reduction at $2$, Qing Liu for referring us to the theorems on good reduction of curves mentioned in Section~\ref{nonmodularity}, Patrick Morton for sharing his preprints with us, Michel Olivier for verifiying our number field computations unconditionally using a yet to be released version of PARI, Ken Ribet for suggesting to us that the implication $(\operatorname{End} J={\mathbb Z}) \implies (J \text{ is not a modular quotient})$ in Section~\ref{nonmodularity} should follow easily from the results in~\cite{ribet}, and Michael Zieve for introducing us to the problems considered in this paper.
|
\chapter{Helicity Amplitude Method}
In this appendix we would like to display the rules for doing calculations at
the amplitude level using the Helicity Amplitude Method. The method
breaks down the algebra of four-dimensional Dirac spinors
and matrices into equivalent two-dimensional ones. This algebra is
easy to program and more efficient than computing the Dirac algebra
as it stands. All diagrams are summed and squared numerically.
In what follows we introduce
the Weyl representation of Dirac spinors and matrices.
We also include several example calculations to illustrate the finer points
of the method. Throughout this paper
we use the Bjorken-Drell metric
\begin{equation}
g^{\mu\nu} = diag\,(1,-1,-1,-1) \, .
\end{equation}
The four-momenta have the form in spherical coordinates:
\begin{equation}
p^{\mu} = (E, \myabs{p} \; {\sin\theta} \; {\cos\phi}, \myabs{p} \; {\sin\theta} \; {\sin\phi},
\myabs{p} \; {\cos\theta})
\end{equation}
with $E^2 - {\myabs{p}}^2 = m^2$. We define the right-hand (R), left-hand (L)
and longitudinal (0) polarization vectors for a spin-1 field as
\footnote{ For a massless spin-1 field, only the right-handed and
the left-handed polarizations are physical.}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\varepsilon}^{\mu}_{(R)} &=& {e^{i\phi}\over\sqrt{2}}
(0, i \; {\sin\phi} - {\cos\phi} \; {\cos\theta}, -i \; {\cos\phi} - {\sin\phi} \; {\cos\theta}, {\sin\theta}) \nonumber \\
{\varepsilon}^{\mu}_{(L)} &=& {e^{-i\phi}\over\sqrt{2}}
(0, i \; {\sin\phi} + {\cos\phi} \; {\cos\theta}, -i \; {\cos\phi} + {\sin\phi} \; {\cos\theta}, -{\sin\theta}) \\
{\varepsilon}^{\mu}_{(0)} &=& {1\over m}
(\myabs{p}, E \; {\sin\theta} \; {\cos\phi}, E \; {\sin\theta} \; {\sin\phi}, E \; {\cos\theta}).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The above equations satisfy the identities
${\varepsilon}^{\mu}_{(R)} = -{\varepsilon}^{\mu\ast}_{(L)}$,
${\varepsilon}^{\mu}_{(0)} = {\varepsilon}^{\mu\ast}_{(0)}$,
$p_{\mu} {\varepsilon}^{\mu}_{(h)} = 0$ \rm{and}
${\varepsilon}_{\mu}^{(h)} {\varepsilon}^{\mu\ast}_{(h')} =
-\delta_{h h'}$, for $h, h' = R,L \, \rm{or} \, 0$.
In four component form we define the following.
In the Weyl basis Dirac spinors have the form
\begin{equation}
\psi=\vect{\psi_{+}}{\psi_{-}}
\end{equation}
where for fermions
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{\pm} &=& \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
u_{\pm}^{(\lambda= 1)} = w_{{\pm}}\*\chi_{ 1/2} \\
u_{\pm}^{(\lambda=-1)} = w_{{\mp}}\*\chi_{-1/2}
\end{array}\right.
\label{fermion}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
and anti-fermions
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{\pm} &=& \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
v_{\pm}^{(\lambda= 1)} = {\pm} w_{{\mp}}\*\chi_{-1/2} \\
v_{\pm}^{(\lambda=-1)} = {\mp} w_{{\pm}}\*\chi_{ 1/2}
\end{array}\right.
\label{afermion}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
with $w_{\pm} = \sqrt{E \pm {\myabs{p}}}$.
The $\chi_{\lambda/2}$'s are eigenvectors of the helicity operator
\begin{equation}
h = \hat{p}\cdot\,\vec{\sigma} , \, \hat{p} = {\vec{p} / {\myabs{p}}}
\end{equation}
with eigenvalue $\lambda$ where $\lambda = +1$ is for ``spin-up''
and $\lambda = -1$ is for ``spin-down''.
\begin{equation}
\chi_{1/2} =
\vect{\cos {\theta /2}}{e^{i\phi} \sin {\theta /2}},\quad
\chi_{-1/2} =
\vect{-e^{-i\phi} \sin {\theta /2}}{\cos {\theta /2}} \, .
\label{heigen}
\end{equation}
Later it proves useful to represent $\chi_{\lambda/2}$'s using bra-ket
notation where
\begin{equation}
\ket{p}{+}\ \equiv \chi_{1/2}, \quad \ket{p}{-}\ \equiv \chi_{-1/2} \, .
\label{braket}
\end{equation}
Gamma matrices in the Weyl basis have the form
\begin{equation}
\gamma^0 = \mat{0}{1}{1}{0}, \quad
\gamma^j = \mat{0}{-\sigma_j}{\sigma_j}{0}, \quad
\gamma^5 = \gamma_5 = \mat{1}{0}{0}{-1},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_j$ are the Pauli $2\times 2$ spin matrices
\begin{equation}
\sigma_1 = \mat{0}{1}{1}{0}, \quad
\sigma_2 = \mat{0}{-i}{i}{0}, \quad
\sigma_3 = \mat{1}{0}{0}{-1}.
\end{equation}
The chirality projection operators are defined by
\begin{equation}
P_{\pm} = {1 \over 2} (1 {\pm} \gamma^5) \, .
\end{equation}
Notice that $P_{+}$ ($P_{-}$) projects out the
``right-handed'' (``left-handed'') component of the Weyl spinor
effectively reducing
the algebra from one involving four component spinors and matrices
to one involving two component spinors and matrices.
\vspace{-.3in}
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{-} {\psi} & =& {\mat{0}{0}{0}{1}} \vect{\psi_{+}}{\psi_{-}} =
\vect{0}{\psi_{-}} \nonumber \\
{\bar{\psi}} P_{+} &= &
(\psi_{+}^{\dagger} \, \psi_{-}^{\dagger}) \mat{0}{1}{1}{0} \mat{1}{0}{0}{0} =
(\psi_{-}^{\dagger} \,\, 0)
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
In the Weyl basis $\not{}{\mskip-3.mu} p$ has the form
\begin{equation}
{\not{}{\mskip-3.mu} p} \equiv p_{\mu}\*\gamma^{\mu} =
\mat{0}{p_0 + \vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{p}}
{p_0 - \vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{p}}{0} \equiv
\mat{0}{\not{}{\mskip-3.mu} p_{+}}{\not{}{\mskip-3.mu} p_{-}}{0} \equiv
p_{\mu} {\mat{0}{\gamma_{+}^{\mu}}{\gamma_{-}^{\mu}}{0}}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{\pm}^{\mu} = (1,\mp \vec{\sigma}) \, .
\end{equation}
Products of these $\gamma_{\pm}^{\mu}$'s have the following useful property
when Lorentz indices are contracted:
\begin{equation}
(\gamma^{\mu}_{+})_{ij} (\gamma_{\mu +})_{kl} =
(\gamma^{\mu}_{-})_{ij} (\gamma_{\mu -})_{kl} =
2[ \delta_{ij} \delta_{kl} - \delta_{il}\delta_{kj} ]
\label{F1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
(\gamma^{\mu}_{+})_{ij} (\gamma_{\mu -})_{kl} =
(\gamma^{\mu}_{-})_{ij} (\gamma_{\mu +})_{kl} =
2 \delta_{il}\delta_{kj},
\label{F2}
\end{equation}
where the Roman indices are not vector indices in the usual sense, but are
labels identifying bras and kets.
For instance, for arbitrary kets $\kt{i}, \kt{j}, \kt{k}$ and $\kt{l}$ we
have
\begin{equation}
(\gamma^{\mu}_{+})_{ij} (\gamma_{\mu -})_{kl} =
\br{i} \gamma^{\mu}_{+} \kt{j} \br{k} \gamma_{\mu -} \kt{l} =
2 \, \bk{i}{l} \bk{k}{j} =
2 \delta_{il}\delta_{kj} \, .
\end{equation}
Equations~(\ref{F1}) and (\ref{F2}) are simply the two-dimensional
version of the well known Fiertz identities.
\begin{figure}
\hspace{1.in}
\par
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=ubdt0.eps,height=1.3in}}}
\caption{ Diagram for the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) process
$ u \, b \rightarrow d \, t $.}\label{ubdt0}
\par
\hspace{1.in}
\end{figure}
\section{ Helicity Amplitudes for $u b \rightarrow d t$ }
To illustrate the use of helicity amplitudes we calculate the matrix
element for the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) process $u b \rightarrow d t$ which contributes to the
total rate for $W$--gluon fusion. Figure~\ref{ubdt0} shows the Feynman
diagram for this process with the $t$ decay included.
In this example we use the generalized ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ coupling
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\mu} = (1 + {\kappa_{L}}^{CC})\,\gamma^{\mu} P_{-} +
{\kappa_{R}}^{CC} \gamma^{\mu} P_{+}
\end{equation}
where ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ parameterize deviations from the Standard Model
in which ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC} = 0$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC} = 0$.
We calculate the matrix element in the
't~Hooft-Feynman gauge ignoring for simplicity the factors
due to vertices and propagators. We obtain
\begin{equation}
{\cal M} = [\bar u(t) \Gamma^{\mu} u(b)]
[\bar u(d) \gamma_{\mu} P_{-} u(u)]
\end{equation}
where u, b, d and t are the momenta of the external legs and we retain only
the mass of the top quark.
We use the algebraic properties of the projection operators
$P_{\pm}^2 = P_{\pm}, P_{\pm}P_{\mp} = 0$ \rm{and}
$P_{\pm} \gamma^{\mu} = \gamma^{\mu} P_{\mp}$
to project out the chirality states. In this example the
amplitude contains both the
left-handed and right-handed currents. For pure vector or axial vector
currents one must first insert
$1 = P_{+} + P_{-}$ or $\gamma_5 = P_{+} - P_{-}$ respectively.
Therefore ${\cal M}$ takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ {\cal M} = (1 + {\kappa_{L}}^{CC}) [u^{\dagger}_{-}(t) \gamma^{\mu}_{+} u_{-}(b)]
[u^{\dagger}_{-}(d) \gamma_{\mu +} u_{-}(u)] }
\nonumber\\ & &
+ \, {\kappa_{R}}^{CC} [u^{\dagger}_{+}(t) \gamma^{\mu}_{-} u_{+}(b)]
[u^{\dagger}_{-}(d) \gamma_{\mu +} u_{-}(u)]
\end{eqnarray}
According to Equations~(\ref{fermion}) and (\ref{braket}) we see that
\vspace{-.3in}
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{-}(u) &=& \sqrt{2 E_u} \, \ket{u}{-} \nonumber \\
u_{-}(d) &=& \sqrt{2 E_d} \, \ket{d}{-} \nonumber \\
u_{-}(b) &=& \sqrt{2 E_b} \, \ket{b}{-} \nonumber \\
u_{+}(b) &=& \sqrt{2 E_b} \, \ket{b}{+} \nonumber \\
u_{-}(t) &=& \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{E_t-{\myabs{t}}} \, \ket{t}{+} \nonumber \\
\sqrt{E_t+{\myabs{t}}} \, \ket{t}{-}
\end{array}
\right. \\
u_{+}(t) &=& \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{E_t+{\myabs{t}}} \, \ket{t}{+} \\
\sqrt{E_t-{\myabs{t}}} \, \ket{t}{-}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ {{\cal M}}(+) = (1 + {\kappa_{L}}^{CC}) \sqrt{E_t-{\myabs{t}}}
\, \bra{t}{+} \gamma^{\mu}_{+} \ket{b}{-}
\bra{d}{-} \gamma_{\mu +} \ket{u}{-} } \nonumber \\
& & + \, {\kappa_{R}}^{CC} \sqrt{E_t+{\myabs{t}}}
\, \bra{t}{+} \gamma^{\mu}_{-} \ket{b}{+}
\bra{d}{-} \gamma_{\mu +} \ket{u}{-} \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{ {{\cal M}}(-) = (1 + {\kappa_{L}}^{CC}) \sqrt{E_t+{\myabs{t}}}
\, \bra{t}{-} \gamma^{\mu}_{+} \ket{b}{-}
\bra{d}{-} \gamma_{\mu +} \ket{u}{-} } \nonumber \\
& & + \, {\kappa_{R}}^{CC} \sqrt{E_t-{\myabs{t}}}
\, \bra{t}{-} \gamma^{\mu}_{-} \ket{b}{+}
\bra{d}{-} \gamma_{\mu +} \ket{u}{-}
\label{Mpm}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${{\cal M}}(\pm)$ denotes the amplitude with $t$ helicity
$\lambda_{t} = {\pm 1}$ and we ignore for now the common factor of
$\sqrt{2 E_u} \sqrt{2 E_b} \sqrt{2 E_d}$.
One is now tempted to move on ahead and contract the Lorentz indices
as in Equation~(\ref{F1}). However, contracting $\gamma_{\mu}$'s with the
same chirality introduces extra terms into the matrix element.
It would be more useful with processes containing many
branchings from decay, such as in Supersymmetry, if there were a
way to utilize Equation~(\ref{F2}) instead. To this end, we digress a moment.
Consider some current of the form
\begin{equation}
{\psi_{f\pm}^{\dagger}}[\gamma_{\mu_1\mp}\cdots\gamma_{\mu_n\mp}]
{\psi_{i\pm}}
\label{cur}
\end{equation}
where $n$ is odd. We note in passing,
recalling the properties of the projection operators, consecutive matrices
of the same sign would give zero current.
Since Equation~(\ref{cur}) is just a number, it is identical to taking its
transpose as
\begin{equation}
{\psi_{i\pm}^{\top}}[\gamma_{\mu_n\mp}^{\top}\cdots\gamma_{\mu_1\mp}^{\top}]
{\psi_{f\pm}^{*}} \, .
\label{trans}
\end{equation}
We now utilize the following
algebraic properties of the Pauli matrices and in particular $\sigma_2$:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_2 \sigma_2 = 1, \quad \sigma_2^{\top} = -\sigma_2, \quad
\sigma_2{\gamma^{\top}_{\mu\mp}}\sigma_2 = \gamma_{\mu\pm}
\end{equation}
and define
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\psi_{\pm}} \equiv i\sigma_2\psi^{*}_{\pm} \, .
\end{equation}
By inserting pairs of $\sigma_2$ between each pair of objects in
Equation~(\ref{trans}) we therefore obtain
\begin{equation}
{\psi_{f\pm}^{\dagger}}[\gamma_{\mu_1\mp}\cdots\gamma_{\mu_n\mp}]
{\psi_{i\pm}} =
\widetilde{\psi_{i\pm}}^{\dagger}[\gamma_{\mu_n\pm}\cdots\gamma_{\mu_1\pm}]
\widetilde{\psi_{f\pm}} \, .
\end{equation}
It is easy to show that $(i\sigma_2\psi_{i\pm})^{\top} =
\widetilde{\psi_{i\pm}}^{\dagger}$\,.
In addition, for an even number $n$ of gamma matrices we have
\begin{equation}
{\psi_{f\pm}^{\dagger}}[\gamma_{\mu_1\mp}\cdots\gamma_{\mu_n\pm}]
{\psi_{i\mp}} =
\widetilde{\psi_{i\mp}}^{\dagger}[\gamma_{\mu_n\mp}\cdots\gamma_{\mu_1\pm}]
\widetilde{\psi_{f\pm}} \, .
\end{equation}
An important result has occurred, which allows us to
take advantage of Equation~(\ref{F2}) avoiding
the number of terms that would otherwise occur.
\footnote{ $i\sigma_2$ acts as a kind of charge
conjugation operator on the chirality states of the Weyl spinors. }
For a fermion
or anti-fermion with momentum $\vec{p}$
and helicity $\lambda$, $\psi_{\pm}$ is
proportional to either $\ket{p}{+}$ or $\ket{p}{-}$. It is easy to show that
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{\ket{p}{+}} &=& -\ket{p}{-}, \nonumber \\
\widetilde{\ket{p}{-}} &=& +\ket{p}{+}, \nonumber \\
\widetilde{\bra{p}{+}} &=& -\bra{p}{-}, \nonumber \\
\widetilde{\bra{p}{-}} &=& +\bra{p}{+} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
Finally, recalling Equation~(\ref{Mpm}) the term
\begin{equation}
\bra{d}{-}\gamma_{\mu +}\ket{u}{-} =
\bra{u}{+} \gamma_{\mu -} \ket{d}{+}
\end{equation}
giving, via Equation~(\ref{F2}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ {{\cal M}}(+) = 2 (1 + {\kappa_{L}}^{CC}) \sqrt{E_t-{\myabs{t}}} \,
\braket{t}{+}{d}{+} \braket{u}{+}{b}{-} } \nonumber \\
& & + \, 2 {\kappa_{R}}^{CC} \sqrt{E_t+{\myabs{t}}} \,
\braket{t}{+}{u}{-} \braket{d}{-}{b}{+} \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{ {{\cal M}}(-) = 2 (1 + {\kappa_{L}}^{CC}) \sqrt{E_t+{\myabs{t}}} \,
\braket{t}{-}{d}{+} \braket{u}{+}{b}{-} } \nonumber \\
& & + \, 2 {\kappa_{R}}^{CC} \sqrt{E_t-{\myabs{t}}} \,
\braket{t}{-}{u}{-} \braket{d}{-}{b}{+}.
\end{eqnarray}
We now have the matrix element in the form we require for our Monte
Carlo package ONETOP\footnote{ A FORTRAN code.},
remembering to include coupling constants, propagators, color factors
and $\sqrt{2 E_u} \sqrt{2 E_b} \sqrt{2 E_d}$.
\section{ Helicity Amplitudes for $u b \rightarrow d t$ in the CMS.}
To illustrate our claim that in the SM ({\it i.e.} \, ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC} = 0$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC} = 0$)
only the left-handed top quark is produced from the $u b \rightarrow d t$
process in the $d$-$t$ center of mass frame (CMS),
we evaluate the matrix element in terms of CMS variables.
Define the four-momenta:
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
u^{\mu}& =& (\sqrt{\hat{s}}/2,0,0,-\sqrt{\hat{s}}/2) \nonumber \\
b^{\mu}& =& (\sqrt{\hat{s}}/2,0,0, \sqrt{\hat{s}}/2) \nonumber \\
d^{\mu}& =& (t, -t \; {\sin\theta}, 0, -t \; {\cos\theta}) \nonumber \\
t^{\mu}& =& (E_t, t \; {\sin\theta}, 0, t \; {\cos\theta})
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
where
$E_t = (\hat{s}+m_t^2)/2\sqrt{\hat{s}}$,
$t = (\hat{s}-m_t^2)/2\sqrt{\hat{s}}$
and we have chosen $\phi = 0$ to be the scattering plane.
Using these, we obtain from Equations~(\ref{fermion}), (\ref{heigen})
and (\ref{braket})
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
\ket{u}{+} &=& \vect{0}{-1} \nonumber \\
\ket{u}{-} &=& \vect{1}{ 0} \nonumber \\
\ket{b}{+} &=& \vect{1}{ 0} \nonumber \\
\ket{b}{-} &=& \vect{0}{ 1} \nonumber \\
\ket{d}{+} &=& \vect{ \sin{\theta /2}}{-\cos{\theta /2}} \nonumber \\
\ket{d}{-} &=& \vect{ \cos{\theta /2}}{ \sin{\theta /2}} \nonumber \\
\ket{t}{+} &=& \vect{ \cos{\theta /2}}{ \sin{\theta /2}} \nonumber \\
\ket{t}{-} &=& \vect{-\sin{\theta /2}}{ \cos{\theta /2}}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
Therefore,
\vspace{-.3in}
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
\braket{u}{+}{b}{-} &=& -1 \nonumber \\
\braket{d}{-}{b}{+} &=& \cos{\theta /2} \nonumber \\
\braket{t}{+}{d}{+} &=& 0 \nonumber \\
\braket{t}{+}{u}{-} &=& \cos{\theta /2} \nonumber \\
\braket{t}{-}{d}{+} &=& -1 \nonumber \\
\braket{t}{-}{u}{-} &=& -\sin{\theta /2}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
Including the common factor
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{2 E_u} \sqrt{2 E_b} \sqrt{2 E_d} =
\sqrt{\sqrt{\hat{s}} (\hat{s} - m_t^2)}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{E_t+{\myabs{t}}} &=& \sqrt{\sqrt{\hat{s}}} \nonumber \\
\sqrt{E_t-{\myabs{t}}} &=& \sqrt{m_t^2 \over \sqrt{\hat{s}}} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
we see that
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}(+) & = & 2 ({\kappa_{R}}^{CC}) \sqrt{\hat{s}\,(\hat{s}-m_t^2)} \cos^2{\theta /2}, \\
{\cal M}(-) & = & 2 (1 + {\kappa_{L}}^{CC}) \sqrt{\hat{s} (\hat{s}-m_t^2)} - 2 ({\kappa_{R}}^{CC}) \sqrt{m_t^2 (\hat{s}-m_t^2)}\,\sin{\theta /2} \cos{\theta /2} \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Notice in the SM, the top
quark is $100\%$ left-hand polarized in the CMS.
Having outlined the general procedure for calculating amplitudes using
the helicity amplitude method, we list the matrix elements contributing
to single top production and the major background $W b \bar b$
in the Standard Model. We
include the decay of $t \rightarrow b W^+$ and $W^+ \rightarrow \ell^+ \nu_{\ell}$ in the
final form.
\section{ Helicity Amplitudes for
$u \, g \rightarrow d \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))\, \bar b$ }
In this and the following sections, we give the diagrams for the process
listed, indicating the momentum flow and particle momentum labels:
w's are for $W^+$ bosons, b's for $b$ or $\bar b$ quarks,
e for $e^+$, n for $\nu_e$ and u, d, t and g are for
$u, d, t$ quarks and gluon, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\hspace{1.in}
\par
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=wgtb1.eps,height=1.3in}
\psfig{figure=wgtb2.eps,height=1.3in}}}
\caption{ Diagrams for $
u \, g \rightarrow d \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))\, \bar b\,$. }
\label{wgtb12}
\par
\hspace{1.in}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{wgtb12}, we show the diagrams for
$u \, g \rightarrow d \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))\, \bar b$.
${{\cal M}}_i(h_g,\lambda_{b_1})$ will represent the $i$th diagram ($i = 1,2$
from left to right in Figure~\ref{wgtb12})
where $h_g$ represents the two transverse
gluon polarizations and $\lambda_{b_1}$ represents the two helicity states
of $\bar b$.
The matrix element in the helicity amplitude formalism for this process is
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ {{\cal M}}_1(h_g,\mp) =
4 \braket{b_2}{-}{n}{+} \bsk{e}{+}{t_{-}}{d}{+} \times} \nonumber \\ & &
{ { \pm \sqrt{E_{b_1} \! \mp \myabs{b_1}} \,
\bssk{u}{+}{q_-}{{\varepsilon}(h_g)_+}{b_1}{\pm}
\mp m_b \sqrt{E_{b_1} \! \pm \myabs{b_1}} \,
\bsk{u}{+}{{\varepsilon}(h_g)_-}{b_1}{\pm} } \over (q^2-m_b^2)} \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{ {{\cal M}}_2(h_g,\mp) = \pm 4 \sqrt{E_{b_1} \! \mp \myabs{b_1}} \,
\braket{b_2}{-}{n}{+} \braket{u}{+}{b_1}{\pm} \times} \nonumber \\ & &
{ { \bsssk{e}{+}{t_-}{{\varepsilon}(h_g)_+}{r_-}{d}{+}
+ m_t^2 \bsk{e}{+}{{\varepsilon}(h_g)_-}{d}{+} } \over (r^2-m_t^2)}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have indicated the four different helicity states involved in this
process. We keep the mass of the $\bar b$ parton to avoid
the case where the $b$ propagator goes on shell.
For simplicity we have omitted a common factor of
\begin{equation}
{g^2_S} {\left({g_W \over \sqrt{2}}\right)^4}
{\sqrt{(2 E_u)(2 E_d)(2 E_{b_2})(2 E_e)(2 E_n)}
\over {(t^2-m_t^2)(w_1^2-M_W^2)(w_2^2-M_W^2)}}
\end{equation}
and color matrices.\footnote{ The color factor for the amplitude squared
is $3\times 4 \times {1/3} \times {1/8}$ for this process.}
We note that the polarization vectors for spin-1 gauge bosons may be expressed
in terms of spin-$1\over 2$ bras and kets.
We define
\begin{equation}
\kt{+}\ = \vect{1}{0} \quad \kt{-}\ = \vect{0}{1}, \,
\end{equation}
then for the transverse polarizations
\begin{eqnarray}
\not{}{\mskip-3.mu}{{\varepsilon}^{(R)}_{\pm}} &=& \mp \sqrt{2} \ket{g}{+} \bra{g}{-} \nonumber \\
\not{}{\mskip-3.mu}{{\varepsilon}^{(L)}_{\pm}} &=& \pm \sqrt{2} \ket{g}{-} \bra{g}{+}
\end{eqnarray}
and for massive spin-1 gauge bosons
\begin{eqnarray}
\not{}{\mskip-3.mu}{{\varepsilon}^{(0)}_{+}} &=& \left({\myabs{g}\over m}-{E\over m} \right)
\left( \kt{+} \br{+} + \kt{-} \br{-} \right) +
2 {E\over m}\ket{g}{+} \bra{g}{+} \nonumber \\
\not{}{\mskip-3.mu}{{\varepsilon}^{(0)}_{-}} &=& \left({\myabs{g}\over m}-{E\over m} \right)
\left( \kt{+} \br{+} + \kt{-} \br{-} \right) +
2 {E\over m}\ket{g}{-} \bra{g}{-}.
\end{eqnarray}
\section{ Helicity Amplitudes for
$u \, b \rightarrow d \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))$ }
\begin{figure}
\hspace{1.in}
\par
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=ubdt.eps,height=1.3in}}}
\caption{ Diagram for $
u \, b \rightarrow d \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))$.}\label{ubdt}
\par
\hspace{1.in}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{ubdt}, we show the diagram for
$u \, b \rightarrow d \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))$.
The matrix element in the helicity amplitude formalism for this process is
\begin{equation}
{{\cal M}} = 4 \braket{u}{+}{b_1}{-} \bsk{e}{+}{t_{-}}{d}{+} \braket{b_2}{-}{n}{+}
\end{equation}
where we ignore the $b$ parton mass.
We have omitted a common factor of
\begin{equation}
{\left({g_W \over \sqrt{2}}\right)^4}
{\sqrt{(2 E_u)(2 E_d)(2 E_{b_1})(2 E_{b_2})(2 E_e)(2 E_n)}
\over {(t^2-m_t^2)(w_1^2-M_W^2)(w_2^2-M_W^2)}}
\end{equation}
and color matrices.\footnote{ The color factor for the amplitude squared
is $3\times 3 \times {1/3} \times {1/3}$ for this process.}
\section{ Helicity Amplitudes for
$u \, \bar d \rightarrow W^{*} \rightarrow \bar b \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))$ }
\begin{figure}
\hspace{1.in}
\par
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=udbt.eps,height=1.3in}}}
\caption{ Diagram for $
u \, \bar d \rightarrow \bar b \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))$.}
\label{udbt}
\par
\hspace{1.in}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{udbt}, we show the diagram for
$u \, \bar d \rightarrow W^{*} \rightarrow
\bar b \, t (\rightarrow b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell}))$.
Aside from a possible phase, the matrix element in the helicity amplitude
formalism for this process ($W^*$ production) is identical to that of
Figure~\ref{ubdt}.
This is because one process is the cross diagram of the other and therefore
only the momentum assignments are different.
For clarity, it is
\begin{equation}
{{\cal M}} = 4 \braket{u}{+}{b_1}{-} \bsk{e}{+}{t_{-}}{d}{+} \braket{b_2}{-}{n}{+}.
\end{equation}
Again we ignore the $b$ parton mass and omit the common factor of
\begin{equation}
{\left({g_W \over \sqrt{2}}\right)^4}
{\sqrt{(2 E_u)(2 E_d)(2 E_{b_1})(2 E_{b_2})(2 E_e)(2 E_n)}
\over {(t^2-m_t^2)(w_1^2-M_W^2)(w_2^2-M_W^2)}}
\end{equation}
and color matrices.\footnote{ The color factor for the amplitude squared
is $3\times 3 \times {1/3} \times {1/3}$ for this process.}
\section{ Helicity Amplitudes for
$u \, \bar d \rightarrow \bar b \, b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell})$ }
\begin{figure}
\hspace{1.in}
\par
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=udbb1.eps,height=1.3in}
\psfig{figure=udbb2.eps,height=1.3in}}}
\caption{ Diagrams for $
u \, \bar d \rightarrow \bar b \, b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell})$. }\label{udbb12}
\par
\hspace{1.in}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{udbb12} we show the diagrams for
$u \, \bar d \rightarrow \bar b \, b \, W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \, \nu_{\ell})$, the major
$W + 2$ jets background to $W$--gluon fusion including $b$-tagging. The matrix
element in the helicity amplitude formalism is
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ {{\cal M}(+,-)} = 4 \braket{d}{-}{n}{+} \braket{b_1}{+}{u}{-}
\bsk{e}{+}{q_{-}}{b_2}{+}/q^2} \nonumber \\
& & {+ \, 4 \braket{d}{-}{b_2}{+} \braket{e}{+}{u}{-}
\bsk{b_1}{+}{r_{-}}{n}{+}/r^2} \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{ {{\cal M}(-,+)} = 4 \braket{d}{-}{n}{+} \braket{b_2}{+}{u}{-}
\bsk{e}{+}{q_{-}}{b_1}{+}/q^2} \nonumber \\
& & {+ \, 4 \braket{d}{-}{b_1}{+} \braket{e}{+}{u}{-}
\bsk{b_2}{+}{r_{-}}{n}{+}/r^2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have indicated the helicity states of $\bar b$ and $b$ as
${{\cal M}(\lambda_{b_1},\lambda_{b_2})}$.
We have once again left out the factor of
\begin{equation}
{g_S^2}{\left({g_W \over \sqrt{2}}\right)^2}
{\sqrt{(2 E_u)(2 E_d)(2 E_{b_1})(2 E_{b_2})(2 E_e)(2 E_n)}
\over {(g^2)(w^2-M_W^2)}}
\end{equation}
and color matrices.
\footnote{ The color factor for the amplitude squared
is $2\times {1/3} \times {1/3}$ for this process.}
\chapter{Event Rate of the ($2\rightarrow 3$) Process $u g\rightarrow d t \bar b$}
Monte Carlo integration is an indispensable tool in phenomenology. However,
when performing a calculation one often encounters singularities which
make it impossible to obtain meaningful results from a Monte Carlo program.
In the case of delta functions one is forced to integrate by hand. Other
singularities may occur when propagators go on mass--shell.
These types of divergences may be regularized by applying suitable cuts on
the external particles in the process. However, when one is interested
in obtaining a total rate, part of the calculation must be performed by
hand if there is any singularity present.
\begin{figure}[b]
\hspace{1.in}
\par
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=wgtb3.eps,height=1.3in}
\psfig{figure=wgtb4.eps,height=1.3in}}}
\caption{ Diagrams for $u \, g \rightarrow d \, t \, \bar{b}\,$. }
\label{wgtb34}
\par
\hspace{1.in}
\end{figure}
To obtain the total rate for the ($2\rightarrow 3$) process $u g\rightarrow d t \bar b$
via Monte Carlo integration,
the idea is to integrate out the $W^+ g \rightarrow t b$ sub-cross section
in Figure~(\ref{wgtb34}) by hand.
The alternative is to use Monte Carlo for the full 3-body phase space, but
the singularity due to the small mass of the $b$ quark
in the right diagram would require too
much computer time even for the powerful technique applied in VEGAS,
a fortran code for calculating multiple dimensional
integrations \cite{vegasdoc}.
An added benefit of performing the sub-cross section integration
in the way shown in this appendix is an understanding of the validity of the
effective--$W$ approximation\cite{equiv}.
The differential cross section for this
process is
\begin{equation}
\sigma = {1 \over 2s} {\int\!{d^3n \over {(2\pi)^3 (2E_n)}}} \sigma_{sub}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{sub} \equiv {\int\!{d^3t \over {(2\pi)^3 (2E_t)}}
{d^3b \over {(2\pi)^3 (2E_b)}}\,
{\overline{|{\cal M}|^2}}\,
{(2\pi)^4}{\delta^4(e + k - n - t - b)}
}.
\end{equation}
Since $\sigma_{sub}$ is a Lorentz invariant, we choose to evaluate it
and the matrix element in the
$t \bar b$ center of mass (CMS) frame. We express the 4-vector components of
$t, b, e, n$ and $k$ explicitly as
\begin{eqnarray}
t &=& (E_t, p \; {\sin\theta} \; {\cos\phi}, p \; {\sin\theta} \; {\sin\phi}, p \; {\cos\theta}) \nonumber\\
b &=& (E_b, -p \; {\sin\theta} \; {\cos\phi}, -p \; {\sin\theta} \; {\sin\phi}, -p \; {\cos\theta}) \nonumber\\
e &=& E_e (1, {\sin\theta}_e, 0, {\cos\theta}_e) \nonumber\\
n &=& E_{n} (1, {\sin\theta}_{n}, 0, {\cos\theta}_{n}) \nonumber\\
k &=& E_k (1, 0, 0, 1) .
\end{eqnarray}
In the $t \bar b$ rest frame $\hat{s} \equiv (t + b)^2$, so
\begin{eqnarray}
E_t &=& {\hat{s} + m_t^2 - m_b^2} \over 2\sqrt{\hat{s}} \nonumber\\
E_b &=& {\hat{s} - m_t^2 + m_b^2} \over 2\sqrt{\hat{s}} \nonumber\\
p &=& {1 \over 2\sqrt{\hat{s}}} \sqrt{[\hat{s} - (m_t + m_b)^2][\hat{s} - (m_t - m_b)^2]} .
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to see in the $t \bar b$ CMS, that $\vec{e}$, $\vec{k}$, $\vec{n}$
all lie in the same plane. Momentum conservation
($e + k = n + t + b$) and $\vec{t} + \vec{b} = \vec{0}$\
imply $\vec{e} + \vec{k} = \vec{n}$. It only takes two vectors to
describe a plane and any vector which is a linear combination of those
two vectors lies in that plane.
Therefore, we choose the vectors $\vec{e}$, $\vec{k}$, $\vec{n}$ to define
the $x$--$z$ plane with the momentum of the gluon ($\vec{k}$) along
the $z$--axis.
For a 3-body final state, there are only $5$ ($=3 \times 3 - 4$)
independent variables. (The minus 4 is for energy-momentum conservation.)
We shall choose the 5 independent variables to be
$\theta$, $\phi$, $E_{n}$, $\theta_{n}$ and $\phi_{n}$ where
$\phi_{n}$ can be trivially integrated as $\int\!d\phi_{n} = 2\pi$.
This is a consequence of the arbitrariness of the choice of scattering
planes.
Hence, we should be able to express all vectors in terms of the 4 variables
$\theta$, $\phi$, $E_{n}$ and $\theta_{n}$.
What we have done so far is express all 4-vectors in the $t \bar b$ CMS.
It is now a fairly trivial exersize to evaluate $\sigma_{sub}$.\footnote{
This integration is done analytically to avoid bad convergence in the
numerical integration method. All the singular terms are of the nature of
$\ln(m_b^2)$. Because the analytic form for this result is long, it will not
be explicitly given here.}
We found
\begin{equation}
{\sigma_{sub} = {1 \over {4(2\pi)^2}}\,{p \over{\sqrt{\hat{s}}}}\,
{\int\!{d\cos\theta}\,{d\phi}}\,{\overline{|{\cal M}|^2}}}.
\end{equation}
Having done so, we now have a Lorentz invariant expression for
$${\sigma_{sub} = \sigma_{sub}(\hat{s},E_{n},\theta_{n})}.$$
To compare our result with the effective--$W$ approximation, we express
$E_{n}$ and $\theta_{n}$ in terms of $e k$ CMS quantities with the
aid of some projection operators defined below.
To extract out the information of $e$, $k$ and $n$ in the $t \bar b$
CMS frame
we use the fact that $\vec{e} + \vec{k} - \vec{n} = 0$ and
$(e + k -n)^2 = \hat{s}$. We then define the projection operators
${\bf P}_E$ and ${\bf P}_{\parallel}$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf P}_E V &\equiv& {(e + k - n) \cdot V \over \sqrt{\hat{s}}} \\
{\bf P}_{\parallel} V &\equiv& {{-k \cdot V + E_k E_V} \over E_k}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V = e, n$ or $k$. ${\bf P}_E$ and ${\bf P}_{\parallel}$
project out the energy of $V$ and component of $V$ parallel to $k$
({\it i.e.}, the $z$--axis) respectively. We express the 4-vector components of
$e, n$ and $k$ explicitly as
\begin{eqnarray}
k &=& {\sqrt{s} \over 2} (1, 0, 0, 1) \nonumber\\
e &=& {\sqrt{s} \over 2} (1, 0, 0, -1) \nonumber\\
n &=& E_{n}^{'} (1, -{\sin\theta}_{n}^{'}, 0, -{\cos\theta}_{n}^{'})
\end{eqnarray}
where $s = (e + k)^2$.
From now on we will distinguish $e k$ CMS components from $t \bar{b}$
CMS components by a prime. We assume
$$E_{n}^{'} = E_{e}^{'}{(1-x)} = {\sqrt{s} \over 2}{(1-x)}$$
and use the following results
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{s} &=& (e + k - n)^2 = x s \nonumber\\
W^2 &\equiv& (e-n)^2 = - {s \over 2}{(1-x)}{(1-{\cos\theta}_{n}^{'})}.
\end{eqnarray}
Using the projection operators it is easy to show
\begin{eqnarray}
E_k &=& {1 \over {2 \sqrt{x s}}}{(x s - W^2)} \nonumber\\
E_e &=& {1 \over {2 \sqrt{x s}}}{(s + W^2)} \nonumber\\
E_n &=& {1 \over {2 \sqrt{x s}}}{s (1-x)} \nonumber\\
k_{\parallel} &=& E_k \nonumber\\
e_{\parallel} &\equiv& E_e {\cos\theta}_{e} =
{-1 \over {2 E_k}}{(W^2 + s(1-x))} + E_n \nonumber\\
n_{\parallel} &\equiv& E_n {\cos\theta}_{n} = {-s \over {2 E_k}} + E_e
\end{eqnarray}
and therefore $${\sigma_{sub} = \sigma_{sub}(s,x,W^2)}.$$
Also, the Lorentz invariant phase space integral
in terms of $e k$ CMS components becomes
\begin{equation}
{\int\!{d^3n^{'} \over {(2\pi)^3 (2E_{n}^{'})}}} =
{1 \over (4\pi)^2}{\int_{0}^{1}\!{dx}}{\int_{-s(1-x)}^{0}\!{dW^2}}.
\end{equation}
Finally, the following cross section
\begin{equation}
\sigma =
{1 \over 2s(4\pi)^2}{\int_{0}^{1}\!{dx}}{\int_{-s(1-x)}^{0}\!{dW^2}}
{\sigma_{sub}(s,x,W^2)}
\end{equation}
may be folded in with parton
distributions and safely evaluated using a Monte Carlo program.
We note that $\sqrt{W^2}$ is the virtuality of the $W$--boson line emitted
from the $u$--quark line (with momentum $e$). ($1-x$) is the fraction of the
incoming $u$--quark energy carried away by the outgoing $d$--quark line in the
$ek$ CMS. If desired, one can approximate the above equation as the result
of the effective--$W$ approximation. However, we shall not pursue it further
here.
\chapter{ Helicity Amplitudes
of ${t\rightarrow W^+ b}$ and ${\bar t \rightarrow W^- \bar b}$ }
In Equations~(\ref{eqlag}) and~(\ref{eqlag2}) we have listed
the most general form factors for the decay processes
$t\rightarrow W^+\ +\ b$ and
$\bar{t}\rightarrow W^-\ +\ \bar{b}$.
Here we use those equations to calculate the helicity amplitudes
for an on--shell $W$--boson. (We take the limit of $m_b\rightarrow 0$ in the
following for $m_t \gg m_b$.)
For the decay process $t\rightarrow W^+b$,
the top quark is taken to decay in its rest frame
where the top quark momentum is $p_t=(m_t,0,0,0)$.
Spherical coordinates are used to describe the outgoing particles; $\theta$ is
taken from the positive $Z$--axis and $\phi$ is taken
from the positive $X$--axis in the
$X-Y$ plane. The bottom quark and the $W$--boson are taken on their mass shells
with the four--momenta for the bottom quark ($p_b$) and the $W$--boson
($p_W$) taken as
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
p_b &= & (E_b,-E_b\sin\theta\cos\phi,-E_b\sin\theta\sin\phi,-E_b\cos\theta),
\nonumber \\
p_W &= & (E_W,E_b\sin\theta\cos\phi,E_b\sin\theta\sin\phi,E_b\cos\theta),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
where we have neglected the bottom quark mass, and
\begin{equation}
E_b={m_t^2-M_W^2 \over 2 m_t}.
\end{equation}
The angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ refer to the direction of the $W$--boson.
Denote the helicity amplitudes as $(h_t,\lambda_W,h_b)$ with
$\lambda_W=-, +, 0$ being a left-handed, right-handed,
and longitudinal $W$--boson.
After suppressing the common factor
\begin{equation}
{- g \over \sqrt{2}} \sqrt{2 E_b m_t},
\end{equation}
there are 8 nonvanishing helicity amplitudes
in the rest frame of the top quark for $m_b=0$:
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
(-\ 0\ -) &= & \left({m_t \over M_W}f_1^L+f_2^R\right)\sin{\theta \over 2}, \nonumber \\
(---) &= & \sqrt{2}\left(f_1^L+{m_t \over M_W}f_2^R\right)\ctte^{i\phi}, \nonumber \\
(+\ 0\ -) &= & \left({m_t \over M_W}f_1^L+f_2^R\right)\ctte^{i\phi}, \nonumber \\
(+--) &= & -\sqrt{2}\left(f_1^L+{m_t \over M_W}f_2^R\right)\sin{\theta \over 2} e^{2i\phi}, \nonumber \\
(-\ 0\ +) &= & -\left({m_t \over M_W}f_1^R+f_2^L\right)\ctte^{-i\phi}, \nonumber \\
(-++) &= & -\sqrt{2}\left(f_1^R+{m_t \over M_W}f_2^L\right)\sin{\theta \over 2} e^{-2i\phi}, \nonumber \\
(+\ 0\ +) &= & \left({m_t \over M_W}f_1^R+f_2^L\right)\sin{\theta \over 2}, \nonumber \\
(+++) &= & -\sqrt{2}\left(f_1^R+{m_t \over M_W}f_2^L\right)\ctte^{-i\phi}.
\label{helamps}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
To obtain the averaged amplitude squared, a spin factor
$ {1\over 2}$ should be included.
We note that there is no right-handed $W$--boson produced with
a massless left-handed $b$ from a top quark decay. Similarly, from helicity
conservation, it is not possible to have a left-handed $W$--boson
produced with a
massless right-handed $b$ from $t$ decay.
For an unpolarized top quark decay,
after summing over the helicities of the bottom quark,
the amplitudes squared for
various $W$ polarizations are, apart from a common factor $(g^2E_bm_t)$,
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{|M(\lambda_W=-)|^2} &=& {\left|f_1^L+{m_t \over M_W} {f_2^R}\right|}^2
\, , \nonumber \\
\overline{|M(\lambda_W=+)|^2} &=& {\left|f_1^R+{m_t \over M_W} {f_2^L}\right|}^2
\, , \nonumber \\
\overline{|M(\lambda_W=0)|^2} &=& {1\over 2}{\left|{m_t \over M_W}f_1^L+{f_2^R}\right|}^2
+ {1\over 2}{\left|{m_t \over M_W}f_1^R+{f_2^L}\right|}^2 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
The fraction ($f_{\rm Long}$) of longitudinally polarized $W$-boson produced
in the rest frame of the top quark
is defined as the ratio of the number of longitudinally
polarized $W$--bosons produced with respect to the total number of
$W$--bosons produced in top quark decays:
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\rm Long} &=& {\Gamma(\lambda_W=0)
\over{\Gamma(\lambda_W=0)+\Gamma(\lambda_W=-)+\Gamma(\lambda_W=+)}}
\nonumber \\
\qquad &=& { \overline{|M(\lambda_W=0)|^2}
\over \overline{|M(\lambda_W=0)|^2} + \overline{|M(\lambda_W=-)|^2}
+ \overline{|M(\lambda_W=+)|^2} }
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
where we use $\Gamma(\lambda_W)$ to refer to the decay rate for a
top quark to decay into a $W$--boson with polarization $\lambda_W$.
Using a parallel definition for the process
$\bar t \rightarrow W^- \bar b$, we
obtain the helicity amplitudes $(h_{\bar t},\lambda_{W},h_{\bar b})$,
similar to the ones listed in Equation~(\ref{helamps})
for the $t \rightarrow W^+ b$ process, provided we replace
$f_1^L$ by ${f_1^R}^*$, $f_1^R$ by ${f_1^L}^*$,
$f_2^L$ by ${f_2^R}^*$, and $f_2^R$ by ${f_2^L}^*$. (Here the
superscript $*$ means complex conjugate.)
The helicity amplitudes of the process $W^+ \rightarrow e^+ \nu_e$
are well known. After suppressing the common factor ($ g M_W$),
they are
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
(\lambda_W=-) &= & -e^{-i\phi^*_e}
\left({1-\cos\theta^*_e \over 2}\right), \nonumber \\
(\lambda_W=0) &= & -{\sin\theta^*_e \over \sqrt{2}}, \nonumber \\
(\lambda_W=+) &= & -e^{i\phi^*_e}
\left({1+\cos\theta^*_e \over 2}\right),
\label{wenu}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
where $\theta^*_e$ and $\phi^*_e$ refer to $e^+$ in the rest frame of $W^+$.
The helicity amplitudes $(\lambda_W)$
for the decay process $W^- \rightarrow e^- \bar{\nu_e}$
can be obtained from Equation~(\ref{wenu}) by replacing $\theta^*_e$ by
$\pi-\theta^*_e$ and $\phi^*_e$ by $\pi +\phi^*_e$.
In this case, $\theta^*_e$ and $\phi^*_e$ refer to $e^-$ in
the rest frame of $W^-$.
\chapter{The Total Rate for $W$--gluon Fusion}
As discussed in Section 2, the total rate for the $W$--gluon fusion
process is obtained by
$$Total = (2 \rightarrow 2)\, + \, (2 \rightarrow 3) \, - \, ({\rm splitting\,piece})$$
and the rates of
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ (2 \rightarrow 2) = \int\!{d\xi_1\,d\xi_2}\,{f_{q'/A}(\xi_1, \mu)}\,
{f_{b/B}(\xi_2, \mu)}\,{\hat{\sigma}(q' b \ra q t)}} \nonumber \\
& & + \int\!{d\xi_1\,d\xi_2}\,{f_{b/A}(\xi_1, \mu)}\,
{f_{q'/B}(\xi_2, \mu)}\,{\hat{\sigma}(b q' \ra q t)} \\
\lefteqn{ (2 \rightarrow 3) = \int\!{d\xi_1\,d\xi_2}\,{f_{q'/A}(\xi_1, \mu)}\,
{f_{g/B}(\xi_2, \mu)}\,{\hat{\sigma}(q' g \ra q t \bar b)}} \nonumber \\
& & + \int\!{d\xi_1\,d\xi_2}\,{f_{g/A}(\xi_1, \mu)}\,
{f_{q'/B}(\xi_2, \mu)}\,{\hat{\sigma}(g q' \ra q t \bar b)} \\
\lefteqn{ ({\rm splitting\,piece}) =
\int\!{d\xi_1\,d\xi_2}\,{f_{q'/A}(\xi_1, \mu)}\,
{\widetilde{f_{b/B}}(\xi_2, \mu)}\,{\hat{\sigma}(q' b \ra q t)}} \nonumber \\
& & + \int\!{d\xi_1\,d\xi_2}\,{\widetilde{f_{b/A}}(\xi_1, \mu)}\,
{f_{q'/B}(\xi_2, \mu)}\,{\hat{\sigma}(b q' \ra q t)}\label{dumb}
\end{eqnarray}
where, for instance,
$f_{b/A}(\xi_1, \mu)$ denotes the parton distribution function (PDF)
of the $b$ quark inside hadron $A$, carrying the fraction $\xi_1$ of the
hadron momentum, and $\mu$ is the energy scale at which the PDF is evaluated.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=nbdy.eps,height=1.5in}}}
\caption{$n$--body scattering}
\label{nbdy}
\end{figure}
The constituent cross section $\hat{\sigma}$ is given by the differential cross
section for
\begin{equation}
p_1(m_1) + p_2(m_2) \rightarrow p'_1(m'_1) + p'_2(m'_2) + \cdots + p'_n(m'_n),
\end{equation}
as shown in Figure~\ref{nbdy}.
The differential cross section is
\begin{equation}
d\hat{\sigma} = {{\overline{| {{\cal M}} \, |^2} \, {{d\Phi_n}
(p_1 + p_2; p'_1, \cdots ,p'_n)}} \over
{4 \sqrt{(p_1 \cdot p_2)^2 - m_1^2 m_2^2}}}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{{d\Phi_n}(p_1 + p_2; p'_1, \cdots ,p'_n)} =
(2 \pi)^4 \delta^4(p_1 + p_2 - \sum_{i=1}^{n} p'_i)
\prod_{i=1}^{n} {{{d^3}{p'_i}} \over {(2 \pi)^3 dE'_i}}
\end{equation}
and $\overline{| {{\cal M}} \, |^2}$ is the square of the amplitude
after summing over
the final state polarization and colors and averaging over the initial state
polarization and colors. Notice that the differential cross section for
$d\hat{\sigma}(b q' \ra q t)$ can be obtained from $d\hat{\sigma}(q' b \ra q t)$ by
interchanging the 4--momenta $p_1$ and $p_2$ in the scattering amplitudes.
In terms of the polar angle $\theta^{*}$ and azimuthal angle $\phi^{*}$
defined in the center-of-mass frame of the partons, this means replace
$\theta^{*}$ by $\pi - \theta^{*}$ and $\phi^{*}$ by $\pi + \phi^{*}$.
In Equation~(\ref{dumb}), the effective parton density
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{f_{b/A}}(\xi, \mu) = {{{\alpha_S}(\mu) \over {2 \pi}}
\ln \left({\mu^2 \over m_b^2} \right) \int\!{{dz \over z}
\left[{{z^2 + (1-z)^2} \over 2} \right]}
{f_{g/A} \left({\xi \over z}, \mu \right)}}
\end{equation}
in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme.
The coupling constant
\begin{equation}
{\alpha_S}(\mu) = {{12 \pi} \over {(33 - 2 n_f) \ln({\mu^2 \over \Lambda^2})}}.
\end{equation}
Here, $n_f$ is the number of quarks with mass less than the energy scale $\mu$.
The QCD parameter $\Lambda \equiv \Lambda^{(n_f)}_{\overline{\rm MS}}$
is an experimentally determined parameter. Perturbative QCD is presumed
to be applicable for $\mu \gg \Lambda$.
For CTEQ2L PDF, $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\rm MS}} = 190$ MeV.
\chapter{ The Eikonal Approximation for
$\sigma(AB(u\bar{d}) \rightarrow \bar{b}bW^+ + jet)$ }
Applying the Eikonal approximation, we can write the cross section of
$\sigma(AB(u\bar{d}) \rightarrow \bar{b}bW^+ + jet)$ in terms of the amplitude
square of the $u\bar{d} \rightarrow \bar{b}bW^+$ process as follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ \sigma(AB(u\bar{d}) \rightarrow \bar{b}bW^+ + jet) =
\int\!dQ^2\int\!dy\int\!dq^2_T\int\!d\Phi_3 \, {1\over{2 S}} \,
\left({{\alpha_S(Q)}\over{2\pi q^2_T}}\right) \times } \nonumber\\ & &
\left\{ f_{u/A}(x_A,Q) \,
\left[ \sum_j P^{(1)}_{\bar{d}\leftarrow j} \circ f_{j/B} +
P^{(1)}_{\bar{d}\leftarrow g} \circ f_{g/B} \right]\!(x_B,Q) \: + \right.
\\ & &
\left. f_{u/A}(x_A,Q) \, f_{\bar{d}/A}(x_B,Q) \,
{\left[C_F \ln\left({Q^2\over q^2_T}\right) - {3\over 2} C_F \right] }
\right\}
\, \overline{{| {\cal M}(u\bar{d} \rightarrow \bar{b}bW^+) \, |}^2} \: + \nonumber\\ & &
(A\leftrightarrow B) , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $d\Phi_3$ is the usual 3-dimensional phase space volume
as defined in Appendix~B.
$Q, y$ and $q_T$ are the invariant mass, rapidity and transverse momentum of
the ($W + \bar{b} + b$) system.
$\overline{{| {\cal M}(u\bar{d} \rightarrow \bar{b}bW^+) \, |}^2}$ is the
amplitude square of $u\bar{d} \rightarrow \bar{b}bW^+$ after summing over the spin
and color factors in the final state and averaging over the spin
and color factors in the initial state.
For a given $Q, y$ and $q_T$
\begin{equation}
x_A = {Q\over \sqrt{S}} e^y, \quad x_B = {Q\over \sqrt{S}} e^{-y},
\end{equation}
where $\sqrt{S}$ is the center-of-mass energy of the hadrons $A$ and $B$.
The splitting functions are
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{(1)}_{k\leftarrow j}\!(z) &=& C_F
{\left({{1+z^2}\over {1-z}}\right)}_{\hspace{-.15cm}+} \delta_{kj},
\\ \nonumber
P^{(2)}_{k\leftarrow g}\!(z) &=& {1\over 2}{\left(z^2 + (1-z)^2\right)} \\
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
(P^{(1)}\circ f)(x,Q) &=& \int^1_x\!{d\xi\over \xi} \,
P^{(1)}\!\left({x\over \xi}\right) \, f(x,Q), \\
\end{eqnarray}
where the indices $j$ and $k$ denote the flavor of quark or antiquark,
$\delta_{kj}$ is equal to 1 for $k = j$ and zero otherwise.
In QCD, $C_F = {4\over 3}$ for three colors.
The ``$+$'' prescription is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\int^1_x\;dz {\left({{1+z^2}\over {1-z}}\right)}_{\hspace{-.15cm}+} f(z) =
\int^1_0\;dz{{(1+z^2) f(z) \theta(z-x) - (1+z^2) f(1)}\over{1-z}},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\theta(z-x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{for $z>x$} \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array} ~~.
\right.
\end{equation}
The above result holds in the soft-gluon approximation.
We have also assumed that the initial state QCD radiation dominates
the soft-gluon radiation from $u\bar{d} \rightarrow \bar{b}bW^+$.
This should be a good approximation because the $b$ quark is
massive and is less likely to radiate gluons as compared to the
initial state quark or gluon.
\chapter{ The Computer Program ONETOP }
Our analysis is based on our Monte Carlo program ONETOP,
created by modifying
PAPAGENO (version 3.07), written by Ian Hinchliffe. ONETOP contains
code for parton level analyses of
single top-quark production at hadron colliders as
well as the major background. The top quark decays on-shell
to $b W^+$ with branching ratio $\rm{Br} = 1$.
All final state $W$'s decay on-shell
to $e \nu$ with branching ratio $\rm{Br} ={1 \over 9}$.
In addition, we implemented QCD $t \bar{t}$
production with the top quark decaying on-shell according to the
Effective Lagrangian of Equation(\ref{eqlag}), which includes
the most general ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ couplings.
Only the CTEQ2 leading order parton distribution is implemented\cite{pdf}.
ONETOP accepts matrix
elements calculated using the helicity amplitude method described in
Appendix A. Squaring of the matrix elements
and sums over spin and color are performed numerically.
We include a simple histogramming package which allows the
plotting of one- and two-dimensional differential cross-sections
to aid in analyzing event topologies.
We list below the processes included in ONETOP. The structure of these
processes are fully discussed in Section 7.
\begin{itemize}
\item $q' b \rightarrow q \,t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu))$,
\item $q' g \rightarrow q \,t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)) \,\bar b$,
\item $q' \bar{q} \rightarrow W^{*} \rightarrow \bar{b} \,t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu))$,
\item $q' \bar{q} \rightarrow \bar{b} b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$,
\item $q \bar q, \, g g \rightarrow t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu))
\, \bar{t} (\rightarrow \bar{b} W^- (\rightarrow \ell^- \bar{\nu}))$.
\end{itemize}
\chapter{Introduction to the Standard Model}
The Standard Model (SM) of elementary particle physics
\cite{Griffiths,HalzenMartin,MandlShaw,Renton} is a
Yang--Mills gauge field theory with symmetry
\begin{equation}
{\rm SU(3)}_{C}\times {\rm SU(2)}_{L}\times {\rm U(1)}_{Y}.
\label{sm}
\end{equation}
It has been
very successful in explaining and predicting experimental data.
The ${\rm SU(3)}_{C}$ sector governs the strong force of the SM
and is known as quantum
chromodynamics (QCD). The ${\rm SU(2)}_{L}\times {\rm U(1)}_{Y}$ sector
unifies the electromagnetic and weak forces, collectively known
as the electroweak force.
The unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces
is accomplished in the SM via the mixing of the neutral
${\rm SU(2)}_{L}$ gauge boson and the hypercharge gauge boson of
${\rm U(1)}_{Y}$.
Masses are introduced in a gauge invariant way through spontaneous
symmetry breaking which gives rise to the as yet undiscovered Higgs
boson ($H$). This process of spontaneous
symmetry breaking is known as the Higgs mechanism.
The standard model does not incorporate the gravitational force.
So far, no definitive quantum field theory of gravity
exists. Gravity affects all massive particles, however,
gravitational interactions with elementary particles are
too weak and can be ignored.
In the standard model there are three
generations of leptons and quarks as listed in Table~\ref{fm}.
Associated with each force is one or several gauge bosons as
listed in Table~\ref{bm}. For reference we list the masses
of each particle as found in Reference~\cite{databook}.
So far, the only particle for which a
discovery is lacking is the scalar Higgs boson.
In what follows, we briefly describe the particle spectrum,
particle interactions and the 18 independent parameters which
constitute the standard model.
\begin{table}
\caption{Lepton and Quark Masses}
\label{fm}
\begin{center}
\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
Particle & Symbol & Mass (GeV) &\\ \hline \hline \\
Electron neutrino & $\nu_e$ & 0 &\\
Electron & $e$ & 0.00051 & First\\
Up quark & $u$ & 0.002 to 0.008 & Generation\\
Down quark & $d$ & 0.005 to 0.015 &\\ \\
Muon neutrino & $\nu_\mu$ & 0 &\\
Muon & $\mu$ & 0.106 & Second\\
Charm quark & $c$ & 1.3 to 1.7 & Generation\\
Strange quark & $s$ & 0.1 to 0.3 &\\ \\
Tau neutrino & $\nu_\tau$ & 0 &\\
Tau & $\tau$ & 1.78 & Third\\
Top quark & $t$ & 174 & Generation\\
Bottom quark & $b$ & 4.7 to 5.3 & \\ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Boson Masses}
\label{bm}
\begin{center}
\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{lccl}
Particle & Symbol & Mass (GeV) & \\ \hline \hline \\
Photon & $\gamma$ & 0 & Electromagnetic Force\\
W Boson & $W^{\pm}$ & 80.22 & Charged Weak Force\\
Z Boson & $Z^0$ & 91.187 & Neutral Weak Force\\
Gluon & $G$ & 0 & Strong Force\\ \\
Higgs & $H$ & $60 < m_H < 800$ & Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
\\ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{ The Matter Spectrum of Spin-$1\over2$ Fermions }
\begin{table}
\caption{Quantum numbers of the fermion spectrum}
\label{qn}
\begin{center}
\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
Chirality & $Q$ &$T^3_{\rm{W}}$& $Y$ & $C$\\ \hline \hline \\
${\nu_e}_L$ & 0 & 1/2 & -1 & 0 \\
$e_L$ & -1 & -1/2 & -1 & 0 \\ \\
${u}_L$ & 2/3 & 1/2 & 1/3 & $r,g,b$ \\
$d_L$ &-1/3 & -1/2 & 1/3 & $r,g,b$ \\ \\
$e_R$ & -1 & 0 & -2 & 0 \\ \\
$u_R$ & 2/3 & 0 & 4/3 & $r,g,b$ \\ \\
$d_R$ &-1/3 & 0 &-2/3 & $r,g,b$ \\ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The matter spectrum consists of twelve fermions
which are organized in Table~\ref{fm}
according to the symmetry structure of Equation~(\ref{sm}).
Each successive generation is a more massive copy of the previous
generation, so only the quantum numbers of the first generation
are shown in Table~\ref{qn}.
Under the ${\rm SU(2)}_{L}$ sector of the SM,
left-handed fermions transform as weak isospin ($T_{\rm{W}}$) doublets,
\begin{equation}
\ell_L = {\pmatrix{{\nu_e}\cr{e}\cr}}_L, \quad
q_L = {\pmatrix{{u}\cr{d}\cr}}_L,
\label{doublet}
\end{equation}
whereas right-handed fermions transform as singlets,
\begin{equation}(e)_R,\quad (u)_R,\quad (d)_R.
\end{equation}
Since neutrinos are massless Dirac fermions in the SM,
there are no right-handed neutrinos.
Once the third component of Weak isospin
$T^3_{\rm{W}}$ is assigned, the values of hypercharge
$Y$ can be determined to
cancel the chiral anomalies~\cite{donoghue}.
With these quantum numbers in place, the charge quantization is determined by
\begin{equation}
Q = T^3_{\rm{W}} + {Y\over 2}.
\end{equation}
Only quarks transform under the ${\rm SU(3)}_{C}$ sector of the SM. Each quark
flavor, ({\it i.e.}, $q = u, d, s, c, b, t$), carries $red(r), green(g)$ or $blue(b)$
color charge and therefore transforms as a triplet:
\begin{equation}
\Psi_q = {\pmatrix{{q_r}\cr{q_g}\cr{q_b}\cr}}.
\end{equation}
\section{ Force Mediators as Spin-1 Gauge Bosons }
Associated with the group structure of the SM are twelve generators
and each generator is associated with a gauge boson. Therefore,
${\rm U(1)}_{Y}$ has one generator, the neutral hypercharge gauge boson
$B_\mu$. ${\rm SU(2)}_{L}$ has three ($2 \times 2 - 1 = 3$) generators,
two of which are charged ${\rm SU(2)}_{L}$ gauge bosons $W_\mu^{\pm}$ and
one neutral ${\rm SU(2)}_{L}$ gauge boson $W_\mu^3$. Finally, ${\rm SU(3)}_{C}$
has eight ($3 \times 3 - 1 = 8$) generators and therefore, eight gluons,
$G_\mu^a, a=1,2,\ldots,8$.
As stated earlier, electroweak unification is accomplished by mixing
the $B_\mu$ and $W_\mu^3$ gauge bosons. Formally this is accomplished
via the following rotation,
\begin{equation}
\ \pmatrix{{Z^0_\mu}\cr {A_\mu}\cr} = \ \pmatrix {{\cos \theta_W} & {-\sin \theta_W}\cr
{\sin \theta_W} & {\cos \theta_W}\cr}\ \pmatrix {{W_\mu^3}\cr {B_\mu}\cr},
\label{mix}
\end{equation}
where $\theta_W$, called the weak mixing angle,
is chosen such that $A_\mu$ only couples with
charged particles. $A_\mu$ is then identified as the photon field
in quantum electrodynamics (QED)
and additionally, a neutral weak force, $Z^0_\mu$ , is obtained.
At this point in the theory, all fermions and
gauge bosons are massless to preserve
gauge invariance. In the next two sections we describe how the force mediators
interact with fermions and amongst themselves. The Higgs mechanism
is also introduced to incorporate mass in a gauge invariant way.
\section{ Gauge Invariant Interactions of Fermion and Gauge Boson Fields }
We begin with the lagrangian for a massless free fermion field $\Psi$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{L}}_{FK} = \overline{\Psi} \, i\!\!\! \not{}{\mskip-3.mu}{\partial}\,\Psi .
\label{lfk}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~(\ref{lfk}) is the kinetic term for fermion fields.\footnote{
$\not{}{\mskip-3.mu}{\partial} = \partial_{\mu} \gamma^{\mu}$ where $\partial_{\mu}$ is the
Lorentz invariant space-time derivative and $\gamma^{\mu}$ are the
Dirac matrices. }
To make the lagrangian gauge invariant, we introduce the gauge covariant
derivative
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{\mu} \rightarrow D_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} - i g_1 {Y\over 2} B_{\mu} -
i g_2 {\tau^j\over 2} W^j_{\mu} - i g_3 {\lambda^a\over 2} G^a_{\mu},
\label{cov}
\end{eqnarray}
where $j = 1,2,3$ and $a = 1,2,\ldots,8$.
The $\tau^j$'s are the Pauli matrices defined in Appendix~A
and $T^j_W = {\tau^j\over 2}$ is the Weak isospin.
The ($3\times 3$) matrices (generators)
$\lambda^a, a=1,2,\ldots,8$, are the ${\rm SU(3)}_{C}$ matrices.
As a result, we obtain gauge interaction terms in the lagrangian.
The $B_{\mu}$ term acts on all fields with different $Y$'s, including
leptons and quarks in Table~\ref{qn} (same for the other two generations)
and the Higgs doublet field $\Phi$
discussed in Section~1.5 below. The $W^j_{\mu}$ term acts only on
the ${\rm SU(2)}_{L}$ doublets with non-zero $T^3_{\rm W}$ and
the field $\Phi$.
In the
process of obtaining electroweak unification the coupling constants,
$g_1$ and $g_2$ become related through the weak mixing angle $\theta_W$
via
\begin{eqnarray}
{g_2\over g_1} = \tan \theta_W,
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_1 \sin \theta_W = e$.
The value of $e$ is related to the fine structure constant $\alpha$
by $\alpha = e^2/{4 \pi}$.
For electroweak interactions, the colors of the quarks have to be the same
since ${\rm SU(2)}_{L}\times {\rm U(1)}_{Y}$ does not act on color space.
Also, the $A_\mu$ and $Z^0_\mu$ fields do not induce quark or lepton flavor
changing at the Born level, ({\it i.e.}\, no $u\leftrightarrow c\leftrightarrow t$, $d\leftrightarrow s\leftrightarrow b$,
${\nu_e}\leftrightarrow {\nu_{\mu}}\leftrightarrow {\nu_{\tau}}$
or $e\leftrightarrow \mu\leftrightarrow \tau$ transitions occur).
However, charged current transitions via $W_\mu^{\pm}$ do occur and
for quarks, are not restricted by generation ({\it i.e.}\,
$u, c, t\leftrightarrow d, s, b$ transitions are allowed). Lepton flavor changes are
restricted to generation due to massless neutrinos. Finally,
the SM does not allow for direct lepton-quark transitions.
The $G^a_{\mu}$ term in Equation~(\ref{cov}) only acts on colored
fermions, {\it i.e.}\, quarks. The coupling strength $g_3 = g_S$ is
universal for all colored quarks. Analogous to the fine structure constant
$\alpha$ in electromagnetic theory is the strong coupling constant
$\alpha_S = g_S^2/{4 \pi}$ in QCD. Here again, no flavor changes occur.
\section{ Gauge Field Self Interactions }
To complete the lagrangian for massless fermions and gauge bosons and their
interactions, we must introduce the kinetic term for gauge bosons,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{L}}_{GK} = -{1\over 4} {\cal{B}}_{\mu \nu} {\cal{B}}^{\mu \nu}
-{1\over 4} {\cal{W}}^i_{\mu \nu} {\cal{W}}^{i \mu \nu}
-{1\over 4} {\cal{G}}^a_{\mu \nu} {\cal{G}}^{a \mu \nu},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
{\cal{B}}_{\mu \nu}=\partial _\mu B_\nu -\partial _\nu B_\mu,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal{W}}^i_{\mu \nu}=\partial _\mu W^i_\nu -\partial _\nu W^i_\mu
+ g_2 \epsilon ^{ijk} W^j_\mu W^k_\nu,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal{G}}^a_{\mu \nu }=\partial _\mu G^a_\nu -\partial _\nu G^a_\mu
+ g_S f^{abc} G^b_\mu G^c_\nu.
\end{equation}
The Lie group structure constants $\epsilon ^{ijk}$ and $f^{abc}$
are defined through the following anti-commutation relations,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\left[{\tau^i\over 2}\, ,{\tau^j\over 2} \right]} =
i\, \epsilon^{ijk}\, {\tau^k\over 2},\quad i,j,k = 1,2,3
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\left[{\lambda^a\over 2}\, ,{\lambda^b\over 2} \right]} =
i\, f_{abc}\, {\lambda^c\over 2},\quad a,b,c = 1,2,\ldots,8
\end{eqnarray}
for ${\rm SU(2)}$ and ${\rm SU(3)}$, respectively.
We note that the pure Yang-Mills terms,
$-{1\over 4} {\cal{W}}^i_{\mu \nu} {\cal{W}}^{i \mu \nu}$
and
$-{1\over 4} {\cal{G}}^a_{\mu \nu} {\cal{G}}^{a \mu \nu}$
contain factors
that are trilinear and quadrilinear in $W^i_{\mu}$ and
$G^a_{\mu}$.
These Yang-Mills terms expand out partially as
\begin{eqnarray}
\cdots -g_2\, \epsilon^{ijk}\, (\partial_{\mu}{W^i_\nu})W^{j \mu}
W^{k \nu} - {g_2^2\over 4}\, \epsilon^{ijk}\, \epsilon^{ilm}\,
{W^j_\mu}{W^k_\nu} W^{l \mu} W^{m \nu}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\cdots -g_S\, f^{abc}\, (\partial_{\mu}{G^a_\nu}) G^{b \mu}
G^{c \nu} - {g_S^2\over 4}\, f^{abc}\, f^{ade}\, {G^b_\mu}{G^c_\nu}
G^{d \mu} G^{e \nu}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively,
and correspond to self-couplings of non-abelian gauge fields.
This is fundamentally different than in the abelian case where, in
QED, photons do not directly couple with photons. It also accounts for
the short distance interaction of the strong force, despite
the fact that the gluon is massless. As can be seen in Chapter~2,
the triple gluon interaction contributes to $t \bar{t}$ production
via $gg \rightarrow t \bar{t}$ at hadron colliders.
\section{ The Higgs Mechanism }
The goal of the Higgs mechanism is to introduce mass to the particles in the
SM in a gauge invariant way. We begin by defining a complex doublet scalar
field $\Phi$ composed of four real scalar fields $H, \phi^0, \phi^1$ and
$\phi^2$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi = {1\over \sqrt{2}} {\pmatrix{{v + H + i\phi^0}\cr
{i\phi^1 - \phi^2}\cr}}
= {\pmatrix{{{v + H + i\phi^0}\over \sqrt{2}}\cr
{i\phi^-}\cr}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The quantum numbers of the Higgs field are as shown in Table~\ref{Hqn}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Quantum numbers of the Higgs doublet}
\label{Hqn}
\begin{center}
\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
& $Q$ &$T^3_{\rm{W}}$& $Y$ & $C$\\ \hline \hline \\
${{v + H + i\phi^0}\over \sqrt{2}}$ & 0 & 1/2 &-1 & 0 \\ \\
$i \phi^-$ &-1 &-1/2 &-1 & 0 \\ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The fields $\phi^0$ and $\phi^{\pm} = (\phi^1 \mp i\phi^2)/\sqrt{2}$ are the
unphysical
would-be Goldstone bosons associated with spontaneous symmetry breaking.
They give rise to the masses of the gauge bosons $W^\pm$ and $Z^0$.
One physical field thus remains, which is the Higgs field $H$. The constant
$v\simeq 246$ GeV is the scale characterizing the symmetry breaking scale
and is called the vacuum expectation value of $\Phi$, where
\begin{equation}
\langle \Phi \rangle_{0} \equiv \langle 0 | \Phi | 0 \rangle =
\vect{{v\over\sqrt{2}}}{0}.
\end{equation}
The lagrangian for the Higgs sector is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{\Phi}={({D_\mu} \Phi )^{\dagger}}({D^\mu} \Phi )
-{\lambda \over 2}({\Phi^{\dagger}} \Phi )^2 -
\mu ^2({\Phi^{\dagger}} \Phi ),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{D_\mu} \Phi = \left[{\partial_{\mu} - i g_1 {Y\over 2} B_{\mu} -
i g_2 {\tau^j\over 2} W^j_{\mu}}\right] \Phi
\end{equation}
as in Equation~(\ref{cov}) without the gluon interaction.
If $\mu < 0$ and $\lambda > 0$ then the minimum of the potential
energy occurs at
\begin{equation}
v = \sqrt{{-2\mu}\over \lambda}.
\end{equation}
The Goldstone bosons $\phi^{\pm}$ and $\phi^0$
are ``eaten'' by the vector bosons $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$, respectively,
where
\begin{eqnarray}
M_W = {1\over2} g_2 v\:\: {\rm and}\:\: M_Z = {M_W\over\cos \theta_W}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ have three polarization states;
two transverse and one longitudinal. The massless photon and
gluon have only the two transverse polarization states. The Higgs mass
is given by
\begin{equation}
m_H = v \sqrt{\lambda}.
\end{equation}
To introduce fermion mass in a gauge invariant way one introduces the
Higgs mechanism through Yukawa coupling interactions. For the first
generation
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{{\cal L}_{Yukawa} =
{{\sqrt{2} m_u}\over v}\,(\bar{u}_L\,\bar{d}_L)\,\Phi\,u_R +
{{\sqrt{2} m_d}\over v}\,(\bar{u}_L\,\bar{d}_L)\,(-i\tau_2\Phi^*)\,d_R}
\nonumber \\
& &+ {{\sqrt{2} m_e}\over v}\,(\bar{\nu}_L\,\bar{e}_L)\,(-i\tau_2\Phi^*)\,e_R +
\rm{hermitian\,\,conjugate}
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_u$, $m_d$ and $m_e$ are up quark, down quark and electron masses,
respectively (neutrinos are massless) and
\begin{eqnarray}
-i\tau_2\Phi^* = \mat{0}{-1}{1}{0}\,\Phi^* =
\vect{i\phi^+}{{{v + H + i\phi^0}\over \sqrt{2}}}.
\end{eqnarray}
As mentioned in Section~1.3, neutral currents coupled to $\gamma$, $Z^0$
and $G$ do not change flavor, although $G$ changes color, but charged
currents coupled to $W^{\pm}$ do change flavor. For leptons, the flavor
change does not exceed generational bounds, due to the massless neutrino.
However, there is a chance that an up quark, for instance, can change to
a down quark, a strange quark or even a bottom quark. This is called
quark mixing, which is due to the weak eigenstates
(indicated by the subscript ``Weak'') of quarks being
different than the mass eigenstates (indicated by the subscript ``Mass'').
By convention, the three charge 2/3 quarks $u$, $c$ and $t$ are unmixed:
\begin{eqnarray}
\pmatrix{{u}\cr{c}\cr{t}\cr}_{\rm Weak} =
\pmatrix{{u}\cr{c}\cr{t}\cr}_{\rm Mass}.
\end{eqnarray}
All the mixing is therefore expressed in terms of a ($3\times 3$)
unitary matrix $V$ operating on the charge (-1/3) quarks $d$, $s$ and $b$:
\begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{
\pmatrix{{d}\cr{s}\cr{b}\cr}_{\rm Weak} \equiv
\pmatrix{{V_{ud}}&{V_{us}}&{V_{ub}}\cr{V_{cd}}&{V_{cs}}&{V_{cb}}\cr
{V_{td}}&{V_{ts}}&{V_{tb}}\cr}\,
\pmatrix{{d}\cr{s}\cr{b}\cr}_{\rm Mass}} \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ & & \approx
\pmatrix{{1-{\lambda^2}/2}&{\lambda}&{A{\lambda^3}(\rho-i\eta)}\cr
{-\lambda}&{1-{\lambda^2}/2}&{A{\lambda^2}}\cr
{A{\lambda^3}(1-\rho-i\eta)}&{-A{\lambda^2}}&{1}\cr}\,
\pmatrix{{d}\cr{s}\cr{b}\cr}_{\rm Mass}.
\end{eqnarray}
The matrix $V$ is known as the Cabibbo--Kobayashi--Maskawa matrix (CKM), which
consists of three mixing angles and one phase. The second parameterization
is due to Wolfenstein~\cite{wolfy}, where $\lambda \simeq 0.22$,
$A \simeq 1$, $\eta \simeq 0.5$ and $-0.4 \leq \rho \leq 0.2$.
$CP$ violation, which is the violation of combined charge conjugation
$C$ and the parity transformation $P$, is characterized by the
$CP$ violating phase in $\rho - i\eta$.
\section{ Review }
In this introduction to the SM, we have outlined how the SM is constructed
based on gauge invariance and the Higgs mechanism. Although the SM
has been successful in describing experimental data, there are 18
independent parameters which must be determined experimentally.
These parameters are:
\begin{itemize}
\item nine fermion masses: $m_e, m_\mu, m_\tau, m_u, m_d, m_c, m_s, m_t,
m_b$ (neutrinos are massless),
\item four CKM parameters: $\lambda, A, \eta, \rho$,
\item four electroweak parameters: $e, \theta_W, M_W, m_H$,
\item the strong coupling constant: $\alpha_S$.
\end{itemize}
\chapter{ Introduction to the Top Quark }
If the ${\rm SU}(2)$ structure of the Standard Model (SM) holds,
the top quark ($t$) has to exist as
the weak isospin partner of the bottom quark ($b$) \cite{kane}.
If the coupling of {\mbox {\,$t$-${t}$-$Z$}\,}~ is as predicted in the SM, then
from LEP and SLAC experiments
the mass of the top quark ($m_t$) has to be larger
than half of the $Z$-boson mass ($\sim 45$\,GeV)
independent of how the top quark decays.
If the coupling of {\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}~ is as predicted in the SM, then
from the measurement of the total width of the
$W$--boson, by measuring the ratio of the event rates of
$ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow W ( \rightarrow \ell \nu)$ to $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow Z ( \rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-)$
\footnote{A proton is denoted by $\rm p$ and an anti-proton by $\bar{\rm p}$},
the mass of the top quark ($m_t$) has to be larger
than 62 GeV independent
of how the top quark decays \cite{wwidth}.
From examining the radiative corrections to low energy observables,
such as the $\rho$ parameter\footnote{
$\rho= \frac{M^2_W}{M^2_Z\,{\cos}^2 \theta_W}$, where $M_W$ (or $M_Z$) is
the mass of $W^\pm$ (or $Z$) boson.
$\theta_W$ is the weak mixing angle.
$\rho$ has been measured to the accuracy of about 0.1\%.
}
which is proportional to $m_t^2$ at the one
loop level \cite{tinirho}, $m_t$ has to be less than about 200\,GeV.
Based upon analysis of a broad range of Electroweak data,
the mass of the SM top quark is expected to be in the
vicinity of 150 to 200 GeV \cite{mele,alta,lep94,sld94}.
Independently, from the direct search at the Tevatron,
the top quark has been discovered and found to have mass of
$m_t = 176 \pm 8 \, {\rm (stat.)} \pm 10 {\rm (sys.)}$\,GeV
from CDF data \cite{CDFft}, and
$m_t = 199^{+29}_{-21}\, {\rm (stat.)} \pm 22 {\rm (sys.)}$\,GeV
from D\O~ data \cite{D0ft}.
For a heavy top quark, $m_t$ is of the order of the
electroweak symmetry breaking
scale $v={(\sqrt{2}G_F)}^{-1/2}=246$\,GeV. In fact, recall the
Yukawa coupling interaction, this time for third generation quarks,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{Yukawa} =
{{\sqrt{2} m_t}\over v}\,(\bar{t}_L\,\bar{b}_L)\,\Phi\,t_R +
{{\sqrt{2} m_b}\over v}\,(\bar{t}_L\,\bar{b}_L)\,(-i\tau_2\Phi^*)\,b_R.
\end{eqnarray}
We see that
\begin{eqnarray}
{{\sqrt{2} m_t}\over v} \sim 1,
\end{eqnarray}
for $m_t = 175$ GeV.
Because the generation of fermion mass can be closely related to the
electroweak symmetry breaking \cite{pczh,sekh},
effects from new physics should be more apparent in the
top quark sector than any other light sector of the electroweak theory.
Thus, the top quark system may be used to probe the symmetry breaking sector.
A few examples were discussed in Ref.~\cite{ehab} to illustrate that
different models of electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism will induce
different interactions among the top quark
and the $W$-- and $Z$--bosons. Therefore, hopefully through studying
the top quark system one may
eventually learn about the symmetry breaking sector of the electroweak
theory.
The most important consequence of a heavy top quark
is that to a good approximation it decays as a free quark because its
lifetime is short and it does not have time to
bind with light quarks before it decays \cite{decay}.
Furthermore, because the heavy top quark
has the weak two-body decay $t \rightarrow b W^+$, it will
analyze its own polarization.
Thus we can use the polarization
properties of the top quark
as additional observables to test the SM and
to probe new physics.
In the SM, the heavy top quark produced from the usual
QCD process, at the Born level, is unpolarized.
However, top quarks will have longitudinal
polarization if weak effects are present in their production \cite{qqttew}.
For instance, the top quark produced from the $W$--gluon
fusion process is left-hand polarized.
With a large number of top quark events, it
will be possible to test the polarization effects of top quarks.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=ttbAll.eps,height=2.in}}}
\caption{ Diagrams contributing to the QCD production of $q \bar q, \, g g \ra t \bar t$ }
\label{ttbAll}
\end{figure}
How to detect a SM top quark pair produced via the QCD processes
$q \bar q, \, g g \ra t \bar t$, as shown in Figure~\ref{ttbAll},
has been extensively studied in the literature \cite{argon}.
In this paper we will concentrate on how to detect and study
the top quark produced from the single-top quark processes
$q' g (W^+ g) \ra q t \bar b$, $q' b \ra q t$, $g b \ra W^- t$, and $q' \bar q \ra W^* \ra t \bar b$.
For the single-top production we will only consider the decay mode of
$t \rightarrow b W^+ \rightarrow b \ell^+ \nu$, with $\ell^+=e^+ \,{\rm or}\,\nu^+$.
(The branching ratio for this decay mode is
${\rm Br}=\frac{2}{9}$.)
The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
In Chapter~3 we discuss the production rates of top quarks at hadron
colliders. Following that, we will discuss in Chapters~4 and~5,
respectively, how to measure the mass and
the width of the top quark.
In Chapter~6 we discuss what we have learned about
the couplings of the top quark to the weak gauge bosons and show what
can be improved from measuring the production rate of single-top quark events.
We will also discuss in Chapter~7 the potential of the Tevatron
as a $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ collider
to probe CP properties of the top quark by simply measuring the
single-top quark production rate.
Finally, in Chapter~8 we present a Monte Carlo study on the detection of
a single-top quark event in hadron collisions.
Various unique features of the kinematics of the
single-top quark signal
will be discussed. Chapter~9 contains our conclusions.
Based upon the results of the FNAL CDF and D\O~, the mass of
the SM top quark $m_t$ is not likely to be lighter than,
say, 140\,GeV.
Throughout this paper we will use $m_t = 180$\,GeV (or $140$\,GeV)
as an example of a heavy (or a light) top quark for our studies.
\chapter{ The Single-Top Production Mechanism}
In this chapter we consider the production rate of
a single-top quark
at the Tevatron, the Di-TeV~(the upgraded Tevatron)
and the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) colliders.
In referring to single-top production, unless stated otherwise,
we will concentrate only on the positive charge mode
({\it i.e.}, only including single-$t$, but not single-$\bar t$).
The colliders we consider are the Tevatron
(a $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ collider) with the Main Injector at
$\sqrt{S} = 2\,$TeV, the Di-TeV (a $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ collider) at $4\,$TeV
and the LHC (a $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ collider) at $\sqrt{S} = 14\,$TeV
with an integrated luminosity of
1\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $, 10\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $, and 100\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $, respectively.\footnote{
In reality, the integrated luminosity can be higher than the
ones used here. For instance, with a couple of years of running
a $2\,$TeV Tevatron can accumulate, say, 10\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $ luminosity.
Similarly, it is not out of question to have a $4\,$TeV Di-TeV
to deliver an integrated luminosity of about 100\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $.}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=signal.eps,height=6in}}}
\caption{ Diagrams for various single-top quark processes.}
\label{newdiag}
\end{figure}
A single-top quark signal can be produced from either the $W$--gluon
fusion process $q' g (W^+ g) \ra q t \bar b$ (or $q' b \ra q t$) \cite{sally,wgtb},
the Drell-Yan type process $q' \bar q \ra W^* \ra t \bar b$ (also known as
``$W^*$'' production) \cite{cortese},
or $W t$ production via $g b \ra W^- t$ \cite{galwt}.
The corresponding Feynman diagrams for these processes are shown in
Figure~\ref{newdiag}.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=fig1a.eps,height=8in}}}
\caption{ Rate in [pb] for $q \bar q, \, g g \ra t \bar t$, $q' g (W^+ g) \ra q t \bar b$, $q' \bar q \ra W^* \ra t \bar b$ and $g b \ra W^- t$ at
various energies of $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ colliders.}
\label{fig1a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=fig1b.eps,height=8in}}}
\caption{ Rate in [pb] for $q \bar q, \, g g \ra t \bar t$, $q' g (W^+ g) \ra q t \bar b$, $q' \bar q \ra W^* \ra t \bar b$ and $g b \ra W^- t$ at
various energies of $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ colliders.}
\label{fig1b}
\end{figure}
In Figures~\ref{fig1a} and~\ref{fig1b}
we show the total cross sections of these processes
for the Tevatron, the Di-TeV~and the LHC energies referred to above.
For reference we include plots of the cross sections of top quarks
as a function of $m_t$ in both the $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ collisions,
shown in Figure~\ref{fig1a}, and $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ collisions, shown in
Figure~\ref{fig1b}.
The parton distribution function (PDF) used in our calculation is
the leading order set CTEQ2L \cite{pdf}.
We note that taking the $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$
value given in CTEQ2L PDF we obtain $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.127$
which is about 15\% larger than
the value of 0.110 in CTEQ2M PDF \cite{pdf}.
We found that if we rescale the $t \bar t$ production
rates obtained from CTEQ2L PDF with born level amplitudes by
the ratio of $\alpha_s^2(Q, \Lambda_{QCD})$ from CTEQ2M
and that from CTEQ2L,
which yields 0.7 for $Q=M_Z$, then our total rates are
in good agreement with those obtained using
NLO PDF and NLO amplitudes \cite{qcdtt}, see, for
example, Reference~\cite{smith}.
Hereafter we shall use the scaled results for our rates.
The constituent cross sections are all calculated at tree
level for simplicity
to study the kinematics of the top quark and its decay products.
To include the production rates for
both single-$t$ and single-$\bar t$ events
at $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ colliders,
a factor of 2 should be multiplied to the single-$t$ rates shown in
Figures~\ref{fig1a} and~\ref{fig1b}
because the parton luminosity for single-$\bar t$
production is the same as that for single-$t$.
Similarly, at $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ colliders the rates
should be multiplied by about $1.5$
for the center-of-mass energy ($\sqrt{S}$) of the collider
up to approximately $4$ TeV,
but almost a factor of two at higher energies (say, $\sqrt{S} \geq 8$ TeV
up to about 14 TeV)
because the relevant parton luminosities for
producing a single-$t$ and a single-$\bar t$ event in $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $
collisions are different.
As shown in Figures~\ref{fig1a} and~\ref{fig1b}
the total rate for single-top production is about the
same at $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ and $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ colliders for
$\sqrt{S} \geq 8$\,TeV because the relevant
valence and sea quark parton distributions
are about equal for $100 \,{\rm GeV} \, < m_t < 300$\,GeV.
For smaller $\sqrt{S}$, up to about $4$ TeV, a $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ collider
is preferred over
a $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ collider for heavy top quark production because of
its larger parton luminosities.
Similarly, for $t \bar t$ pair productions at small $\sqrt{S}$,
the quark initiated process $ q \bar q \rightarrow t \bar t$
is more important than the gluon fusion process
$gg \rightarrow t \bar t$.
At $\sqrt{S}$ from $8$ to $14$ TeV the $t \bar t$ rate
is about the same in $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ and $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ collisions
because the $gg \rightarrow t \bar t$ subprocess becomes dominant.
\vspace{4mm}
\begin{table}
\caption{ Rates of the above processes
for $m_t = 180 (140)$\,GeV. (Branching ratios are not included here.)
For $\protect\sqrt{S} = 2\,$TeV and $4\,$TeV we include rates for a $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $
machine. At $\protect\sqrt{S} = 14$ TeV the rates are for a $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ machine.
For the single-top rates we only include single-$t$ production.}
\label{trates}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l||l|l|l|l|r|} \hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Cross Section (pb)} \\ \hline
$\sqrt{S}$(TeV) & $q \bar q, \, g g \ra t \bar t$ & $q' g \ra q t \bar b$ (or $q' b \ra q t$)& $q' \bar q \ra W^* \ra t \bar b$ & $g b \ra W^- t$ \\ \hline
2 & 4.5(16) & 1(2) & 0.3(0.8) & 0.1(0.3) \\ \hline
4 & 26(88) & 7(11) & 0.8(2.1) & 1.3(2.9) \\ \hline
14 & 430(1300) & 100(140) & 4.6(11) & 3.6(8.8) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{4mm}
\end{table}
For later reference in this paper,
we show the rates of the above processes in Table~\ref{trates}
for $m_t = 180 (140)$\,GeV. (Branching ratios are not included here.)
For $\sqrt{S} = 2$ and 4 TeV we include only the rates for a $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $
machine, whereas at $\sqrt{S} = 14$ TeV the rates are for a $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ machine.
Again, for the single-top rates we only include $t$ production.
Both in Figures~\ref{fig1a} and~\ref{fig1b} and Table~\ref{trates},
we have given the cross section of single-top quarks produced from either
the $q' g (W^+ g) \ra q t \bar b$ or $q' b \ra q t$ processes. From now on, we will refer to
this production rate as the rate of the $W$--gluon fusion process.
The single-top quark produced from the $W$--gluon fusion process
involves a very important and not
yet well-developed technique of handling the kinematics of
a {\it heavy} $b$ parton inside a hadron.
Thus the kinematics of the top quark produced from this process can
not be accurately calculated yet.
However, the total event rate for
single-top quark production via this process
can be estimated using the method proposed in Reference~\cite{wuki}.
The total rate for the $W$--gluon fusion process
involves the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$
($2 \rightarrow 2$) process $q' b \ra q t$
plus the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2 \alpha_s)$ ($2 \rightarrow 3$)
process $q' g (W^+ g) \rightarrow q t \bar b $
(where the gluon splits to $b \bar b$)
minus the {\it splitting} piece $g \rightarrow b \bar b \,\otimes\, q' b \ra q t$
in which $b \bar b$ are nearly collinear.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=split.eps,height=2.5in}}}
\caption{ Feynman diagrams illustrating the subtraction procedure
for calculating the total rate for $W$--gluon fusion:
$q' b \ra q t\,\oplus\, q' g (W^+ g) \rightarrow q t \bar b \,
\ominus\, (g \rightarrow b \bar b \,\otimes\, q' b \ra q t)$. }
\label{feynm}
\end{figure}
These processes are shown diagrammatically in Figure~\ref{feynm}.
The helicity amplitudes and the cross sections
for these processes are given in Appendices A and B respectively.
The splitting piece is subtracted to avoid double counting the regime in
which the $b$ propagator in the ($2 \rightarrow 3$) process is close
to on-shell.\footnote{
The total rate of the $(2 \rightarrow 3)$ process is extensively
discussed in the Appendix C.}
The procedure is to resum the large logarithm
$\alpha_s \ln (m_t^2/m_b^2)$ in the $W$--gluon fusion process
to all orders in $\alpha_s$ and include part of the higher order
${\cal O}(\alpha^2 \alpha_s)$ corrections to
its production rate.
($m_b$ is the mass of the bottom quark.)
We note that to obtain the complete ${\cal O}(\alpha^2 \alpha_s)$
corrections beyond just the leading log contributions
one should also include
virtual corrections to the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) process, but
we shall ignore these non-leading contributions in this work.
Using the prescription described as above
we found that the total rate of the $W$--gluon fusion process
is about $25\%$ less as compared to the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) event rate for
$m_t = 180\,(140)$ GeV regardless of
the energy or the type ({\it i.e.}, $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ or $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $)
of the machine.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=fig2a.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ Rate in [pb] for single-$t$ production: $q' b \ra q t$
$(2 \rightarrow 2)$, $q' g \ra q t \bar b$ $(2 \rightarrow 3)$ and
the {\it splitting} piece $g \rightarrow b \bar b \,\otimes\, q' b \ra q t$
in which $b \bar b$ are collinear. The rates are for
$ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ colliders. }
\label{fig2a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=fig2b.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ Rate in [pb] for single-$t$ production: $q' b \ra q t$
$(2 \rightarrow 2)$, $q' g \ra q t \bar b$ $(2 \rightarrow 3)$ and
the {\it splitting} piece $g \rightarrow b \bar b \,\otimes\, q' b \ra q t$
in which $b \bar b$ are collinear. The rates are for
$ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ colliders. }
\label{fig2b}
\end{figure}
In Figures~\ref{fig2a} and~\ref{fig2b}
we show the total rate of $W$--gluon fusion versus $m_t$ with scale
$Q = m_t$ as well as a breakdown of the
contributing processes at the Tevatron, the Di-TeV~and the LHC.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=scale.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ Rate of $W$--gluon fusion process versus scale $Q$
for $m_t = 180\,$GeV and $\protect\sqrt{S}=2$\,TeV. }
\label{scale}
\end{figure}
To estimate the uncertainty in the production rate
due to the choice of the scale $Q$ in evaluating
the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the
parton distributions, we show
in Figure~\ref{scale} the scale dependence
of the $W$--gluon fusion rate.
As shown in the figure, although the individual rate from
either ($2 \rightarrow 2$), ($2 \rightarrow 3$) or the splitting piece
is relatively sensitive to the choice of the scale,
the total rate as defined by $(2 \rightarrow 2)\, + \, (2 \rightarrow 3) \, - \,
({\rm splitting\,piece})$ only varies by about 30\%
for $M_W/2 < Q < 2 m_t$ at the Tevatron. At the Di-TeV~and the LHC,
it varies by about 30\% and 10\%, respectively.
Based upon the results shown in Figure~\ref{scale}, we argue
that $Q < M_W/2$ probably is not a good choice as the relevant
scale for the production of the top
quark from the $W$--gluon fusion
process because the total rate rapidly increases
by about a factor of 2 in the low $Q$ regime.
In view of the prescription adopted in calculating the total rate,
the only relevant scales are the top quark mass $m_t$ and the
virtuality of the $W$-line in the scattering amplitudes.
Since the typical transverse momentum
of the quark ($q$), which comes from the initial quark ($q'$)
after emitting the $W$-line, is about half of the $W$--boson mass,
the typical virtuality of the $W$-line is about
$M_W/2 \simeq 40$\,GeV.
$m_b \simeq 5$\,GeV is thus not an appropriate scale
to be used in calculating the $W$--gluon fusion rate using
our prescription.
We note that in the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) process the
$b$ quark distribution effectively contains sums to order
$[\alpha_s \ln(Q/{m_b})]^n$ from $n$-fold collinear
gluon emission, whereas the subtraction term (namely, the splitting piece)
contains only first order
in $\alpha_s \ln({\it Q}/{m_b})$. Therefore, as
${\it Q} \rightarrow {m_b}$ the
($2 \rightarrow 2$) process picks up only the leading order in
$\alpha_s \ln({\it Q}/{m_b})$ and so gets largely
cancelled in calculating the total rate.
Consequently, as shown in Figure~\ref{scale}, the total rate is about the
same as the ($2 \rightarrow 3$) rate for $Q \rightarrow m_b$.
We also note that at $Q \simeq {M_W}/2$,
the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) and ($2 \rightarrow 3$) processes have about the same rate.
As $Q$ increases the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) rate gradually increases
while the ($2 \rightarrow 3$) rate decreases such that the total rate is
not sensitive to the scale $Q$.
It is easy to see also that the total rates calculated via this prescription
will not be sensitive to the choice of PDF although each individual
piece can have different results from different PDF's, based upon the
factorization of the QCD theory \cite{wuki}.
Another single-top quark production mechanism is the Drell-Yan type process
$q' \bar q \ra W^* \ra t \bar b$. As shown in Figures~\ref{fig1a} and~\ref{fig1b},
for top quarks with mass
on the order of 180\,GeV the rate for $W^*$ production is about one fifth
that of $W$--gluon fusion at $\sqrt{S}=2$\,TeV. The $W^*$ process becomes
much less important for a heavier top quark.
This is because at higher invariant masses $\hat s$
(for producing a heavier top quark) of the $t \bar b$ system,
$W^*$ production suffers the usual $1/{\hat s}$ suppression
in the constituent cross section. However, in the $W$--gluon fusion
process the constituent cross section does not fall off as $1/{\hat s}$
but flattens out asymptotically to $1/M_W^2$.
(The analytical results of these amplitudes
are given in Appendix A for reference.)
For colliders with higher energies,
therefore with large range of $\hat s$,
the $W^*$ production mechanism for
heavy top quarks becomes much less important. However, the kinematics of the
top quarks produced from this process are different from those in the
$W$--gluon fusion events.
Moreover, possible new physics may introduce a high mass state
(say, particle $V$) to couple strongly with the $t \bar b$ system such that
the production rate from $q' \bar q \rightarrow W^* \rightarrow V \rightarrow t \bar b$
can largely deviate from the SM $W^*$ rate.\footnote{
This is similar to the speculations made in Reference~\cite{hill}
for having some high mass resonance in $t \bar t$ production.}
We will however not discuss it in detail here because
its rate is highly model dependent.
The $W$--gluon fusion process becomes more important for a heavier top quark.
Why?
Effectively, the $W$--gluon fusion process
can be viewed as the scattering of a longitudinal
$W$--boson ($W_L$) with gluon to produce a top quark and a bottom
anti-quark ($W^+_L g \rightarrow t \bar b$) after applying the effective-$W$
approximation \cite{dawson}. For large $\hat s$ this scattering
process is equivalent to ($\phi^+ g \rightarrow t \bar b$) where $\phi^+$
is the corresponding Goldstone boson of the gauge boson $W^+$ due
to the Goldstone Equivalence Theorem \cite{equiv,equivrad}.
Since the coupling of
$t$-$b$-$\phi$ is proportional to the mass of the top quark, the
constituent cross section of the $W$--gluon fusion process
grows like $m_t^2/M_W^2$ when $m_t$ increases.
This explains why the $W$--gluon fusion rate only decreases
slightly as the mass of the top quark increases even
though both the parton luminosity and the available phase space
decrease for a heavier top quark.
In contrast, the $t \bar t$ pair production rate from the QCD processes
decreases more rapidly as $m_t$ increases because the constituent
cross section of $q \bar q, \, g g \ra t \bar t$ goes as $1/{\hat s}$ and the phase space
for producing a $t \bar t$ pair is smaller than that for producing
a single-$t$. Therefore, the $W$--gluon fusion process becomes
more important for the production of a heavy top quark.
Before closing this chapter, we note that
the Effective-$W$ approximation has been the essential tool
used in studying the strongly interacting longitudinal $W$ system to probe the
symmetry breaking sector at the supercolliders such as the LHC \cite{wwww}.
By studying single-top production from the
$W$--gluon fusion process at the Tevatron,
one can learn about the validity of the
Effective-$W$ approximation prior
to the supercolliders.
\chapter{Measuring the Top Quark Mass}
By the year 2000, we expect results from the Tevatron (with 1\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $)
and results from LEP-200, giving an error of about $50$\,MeV on $M_W$.
Due to Veltman's screening theorem,
the low energy data are not sensitive to the mass of the Higgs boson
\cite{veltman}.
For a heavy Higgs boson, the low energy data
can at most depend on $m_H$ logarithmically
up to the one loop level.
Therefore, within the SM one needs to also know the mass of the
top quark to within about $5$\,GeV to start getting
useful information on $m_H$ with an uncertainty less than
a few hundred GeV. This can be done by studying radiative
corrections to the low energy
data which include LEP, SLC, and neutrino experiments
\cite{mele,alta,lep94,sld94}.
(Of course, $m_H$ will be measured to better
precision if it is detected from direct production at colliders.)
How accurate can the mass of the top quark be measured at hadron colliders?
At hadron colliders, $m_t$ can be measured in the $t \bar t$ events
by several methods \cite{argon,cdfd0}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=decay2.eps,height=2.5in}}}
\caption{ The lepton+jet decay mode of $t \bar t$ production. }
\label{decay2}
\end{figure}
The first method is to use the lepton+jet decay mode of
the $t \bar t$ pair, as shown in Figure~\ref{decay2}.
This is done by reconstructing the invariant mass of the three jets in
the opposite hemisphere
from the isolated lepton $\ell$ ($= e \,{\rm or}\, \mu$)
in $t \rightarrow bW (\rightarrow \ell \nu)$,
and requiring that two of the three jets reconstruct to a
$W$ and the third be tagged as a $b$-jet.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=decay1.eps,height=2.5in}}}
\caption{ The di-lepton decay mode of $t \bar t$ production. }
\label{decay1}
\end{figure}
The second method is to use the di-lepton decay mode of the $t \bar t$
pair, as shown in Figure~\ref{decay1}. Here it is required that
both $W$'s decay leptonically.
In addition, one of the $b$'s must decay semileptonically
to measure the mass distribution of the non-isolated
lepton $\ell_{b}$ (from $b$ decay) and one of the two
isolated leptons ($\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ from $W^\pm$ decay)
which is closer to $\ell_{b}$.
The third method is to measure the cross section of the
di-lepton decay mode of the $t \bar t$ pair.
At the LHC, there will be about $10^8$ $t \bar t$ pairs produced in one
year of running for $m_t < 200$\,GeV.
With such a large number of events, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations
concluded that $m_t$ can be measured with a precision
of $\leq 5$\,GeV using the first method described above
and with about a factor of 2 improvement using the second method
\cite{atlas,cms}.
A similar conclusion was also drawn by the CDF and the D\O~ collaborations
for the Tevatron with Main Injector after the upgrade of their
detectors \cite{chip}. This is remarkable given that
the $t \bar t$ cross section at the Tevatron is smaller
by about two orders of magnitude as compared with that at the
LHC, as shown in Figures~\ref{fig1a} and~\ref{fig1b}.
Next, we would like to discuss how to measure the mass of the top
quark in the $W$--gluon fusion process.
Since $m_t$ has been measured by the FNAL CDF and D\O~ groups
in the $t \bar t$ events \cite{CDFft,D0ft},
why do we care?
To check whether it is a SM top quark, we should verify its production rate
predicted by the SM for other production processes
such as the single-top quark process.
Suppose the coupling of {\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}~is not of the SM nature, then
we would find that the single-top quark production rate of
the $W$--gluon fusion process is different from the SM prediction
because its production rate is directly proportional to the square
of this coupling. (We will discuss more on this point in Chapter~6.)
Hence, without knowing the nature of the {\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}~interactions
one can not use the production rates of the single-top
quark events to measure $m_t$.
Alternatively, we propose two methods to measure $m_t$ in the single-top
quark events. We will refer to them as the fourth and the fifth method.
The fourth method is a slight variation of the second method.
Instead of measuring the invariant mass of the leptons, we propose to
directly measure the invariant mass ($m_{b\ell}$) of the $\ell$ and $b$
in $t \rightarrow b W (\rightarrow \ell \nu)$.
We expect that the efficiency of $b$ tagging
using the displaced vertex is higher for detecting a heavier top quark,
and the $b$ jet energy measurement
is better for $b$ having larger transverse momentum from
a heavy top quark decay.
Thus $m_{b\ell}$ can be used to measure
the mass of a SM top quark.
The details of our Monte Carlo study are given in Chapter~8
for a single-top quark event.
In the $t \bar t$ event there are two $b$'s,
therefore this method may not work as well as in the single-top
event which only contains one $b$.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=figttb.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ Distributions of $m_{b\ell}$ (solid) and
$m_{{\bar b}\ell}$ (dash) in $t \bar t$ events for a 180 GeV top quark. }
\label{figttb}
\end{figure}
However it is not entirely impossible to use this method because,
as shown in Figure~\ref{figttb},
the sum of the invariant mass distributions of
$b\ell$ and $\bar{b} \ell$ for a 180 GeV top quark
still show a bump near the region that the distribution of
$m_{b\ell}$ peaks.
(With a larger sample of $t \bar t$ events one might be able to afford
using the electric charge of the soft-lepton from $b$-decay to
separate $b$ from $\bar b$ on an event-by-event basis at the cost of
the small branching ratio of $b \rightarrow \mu + X$, of about 10\%.)
We will explain in more detail how to use $f_{\rm Long}$
(the fraction of longitudinal $W$--bosons from top quark decay),
derived from the distribution of
$m_{b\ell}$, to measure $m_t$ in Chapter~6.
The fifth method is to reconstruct the invariant mass of the top quark
in the $t \rightarrow b W (\rightarrow \ell \nu)$ decay mode by
measuring the missing transverse momentum
and choosing a two-fold solution
of the longitudinal momentum of the neutrino from the mass constraint of
the $W$ boson.
In Chapter~8 we conclude that it
is possible to measure $m_t$ using
either of these last two methods to
a precision of 5\,GeV at the Tevatron
($\sqrt{S}=2\,$TeV) with 1\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $ integrated luminosity.
We also find that after applying all the kinematical
cuts to suppress the dominant
background $W+ b \bar b$,
at most $10\%$ of $W^*$ events contribute to
single-top production for a 180 (140)\,GeV top quark.
The SM $W^*$ production rate is already much smaller than
the $W$--gluon fusion rate for a heavier top quark,
therefore the contribution from the $W^*$ is not important in our
study although we do include its small effects in our analysis
as described in Chapter~8.
\chapter{Measuring the Top Quark Width}
As shown in Reference~\cite{steve} the intrinsic width of the top quark
can not be measured at a high energy hadron collider such as the LHC
through the usual QCD processes.\footnote{
In Reference~\cite{steve}, the effects of QCD radiation in top
quark decay (at one loop level) to the measurement of $m_t$
in $t \bar t$ events produced in hadron collisions was studied.
It was concluded that
the peak position of the $m_t$ distribution remains about the same as
the tree level result, but the shape is different.
It was also found that the $m_{b\ell}$ distribution is not
sensitive to QCD radiation in top decay.
} For instance,
the intrinsic width of a 150 GeV Standard Model top quark is
about 1 GeV, and the full width at half maximum of the reconstructed
top quark invariant mass (from $t \rightarrow b W (\rightarrow \,jets)$ decay mode)
is about $10$ GeV after including the detector resolution
effects by smearing the final state parton momenta.
Here, the ratio of the measured width and the intrinsic width for a 150 GeV
top quark is about a factor of 10. For a heavier top quark,
this ratio may be slightly improved because the jet energy can be better
measured. (The detector resolution $\Delta E/E$ for a QCD jet with
energy $E$ is proportional to $1/\sqrt{E}$.)
A similar conclusion was
also given from a hadron level analysis presented in the SDC Technical
Design Report which concluded that reconstructing the top quark invariant
mass gave a width of 9 GeV for a 150 GeV top quark \cite{sdc}.
Is there a way to measure the top quark width $\Gamma(t \ra b W^+)$, say, within
a factor of 2 or better, at hadron colliders?
Yes, it can in principle be measured in single-top events.
The width $\Gamma(t \ra b W^+)$ can be measured by counting the production rate of top
quarks from the $W$--$b$ fusion process which is {\it equivalent}
to the $W$--gluon fusion process by a proper treatment of the bottom
quark and the $W$ boson as partons inside the hadron.
The $W$--boson which interacts with the $b$-quark to produce the top
quark can be treated as an on-shell boson
in the leading log approximation \cite{dawson,effw}.
The result is that even
under the approximations considered,
a factor of 2 uncertainty in the production
rate for this process gives a
factor of 2 uncertainty in the measurement of $\Gamma(t \ra b W^+)$.
This is already much better than what can be measured
from the invariant mass distribution of the jets from
the decay of top quarks in the $t \bar t$ events produced via
the usual QCD processes.
More precisely, as argued in Chapter~3, the production rate of
single-top events at the Tevatron can probably be known within about 30\%,
thus it implies $\Gamma(t \ra b W^+)$ can be measured to
about the same accuracy.\footnote{
Strictly speaking, from the production rate of single-top events,
one measures the sum of all the possible partial decay widths, such as
$\Gamma(t \rightarrow b W^+) +\Gamma(t \rightarrow s W^+) +\Gamma(t \rightarrow d W^+) + \cdots$,
therefore, this measurement is really measuring the width of
$\Gamma(t \rightarrow XW^+)$ where $X$ can be more than one particle state
as long as it originates from the partons inside the proton (or anti-proton).
In the SM, $\Gamma(t \rightarrow b W^+)$ is about equal to
the total width of the top quark.}
Therefore, this is an extremely important measurement
because it directly tests the couplings of~{\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}.
$W$--gluon fusion can also tell us about the CKM matrix element
$|V_{tb}|$. Assuming only three generations of quarks, the constraints
from low energy data together with unitarity of the CKM matrix
require $|V_{tb}|$ to be in 0.9988 to 0.9995 at the 90\% confidence
level~\cite{databook}.
As noted in Reference~\cite{databook}
the low energy data do not preclude there being
more than three generations of quarks (assuming the same
interactions as described by the SM). Moreover, the entries deduced
from unitarity might be altered when the CKM matrix is expanded to
accommodate more generations. When there are more than three generations
the allowed ranges (at 90\% CL) of the matrix element
$|V_{tb}|$ can be anywhere between 0 and 0.9995~\cite{databook}.
Since $|V_{tb}|$ is directly involved in
single-top production via $W$--gluon fusion,
any deviation from SM value in $|V_{tb}|$ will
either enhance or suppress the production rate of single-top events.
It can therefore be measured by simply counting the single-top
event rates. For instance, if the single-top production rate is
measured to within 30\%, then $|V_{tb}|$ is determined to within 15\%.
In conclusion, after the top quark is found,
the branching ratio of $t \rightarrow b W^+(\rightarrow \ell^+\nu)$ can be measured
from the ratio of $(2\ell+\,jets)$ and $(1\ell+\,jets)$
rates in $t \bar t$ events.
The measured single-top quark event rate is equal to the single-top
production rate multiplied by the branching ratio of
$t \rightarrow b W^+(\rightarrow \ell^+\nu)$ for the $(1 \ell+\,jets)$ mode and
the same $t$-$b$-$W$ couplings appearing in the decay of $t$
in this process appear also in the production of $t$.
Thus, a model independent measurement of the decay
width~$\Gamma(t \ra b W^+)$ can be made by simply counting the production rate
of $t$ in the $W$--gluon fusion process.
Should the top quark width be found to be different from the SM expectations,
we would then have to look for
non-standard decay modes of the top quark.
We note that it is important to measure at least one
partial width (say, $\Gamma(t \ra b W^+)$) precisely in order to discriminate between
different models of new physics, if any. In the SM, the
partial width $\Gamma(t \ra b W^+)$
is about the same as the total width of the top quark at the tree level
because of the small CKM matrix element
$|V_{ts}|$, thus measuring the
single-top quark production rate measures the
lifetime of the top quark.
\chapter{Top Quark Couplings to the $W$ Gauge Boson }
It is equally important to ask what kind of interactions the~{\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}
vertex might involve \cite{toppol}.
For instance, one should examine the form factors of~{\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}
which result from higher order corrections due to
SM strong and/or electroweak interactions.
It is even more interesting to examine these form factors to test the
plausibility of having {\it nonuniversal} gauge couplings
of~{\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,} due to some dynamical symmetry breaking scenario \cite{pecc,ehab}.
The QCD~\cite{qcd} and the electroweak~\cite{elecw} corrections to the
decay process $t \rightarrow b W^+$ in the SM have
been done in the literature.
The most general operators for this coupling are
described by the interaction lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}
L&=&\ {g\over \sqrt{2}}\left[ W^-_\mu\bar{b}\gamma^\mu
(f_1^L P_-+f_1^R P_+)t -{1\over M_W}
\partial _\nu W^-_\mu\bar{b}\sigma^{\mu\nu}(f_2^LP_-+f_2^RP_+)t \right] \nonumber \\
& &+ {g\over \sqrt{2}}\left[W^+_\mu\bar{t}\gamma^\mu
({f_1^L}^* P_-+{f_1^R}^* P_+)b -{1\over M_W}
\partial _\nu W^+_\mu\bar{t}\sigma^{\mu\nu}
({f_2^R}^*P_-+{f_2^L}^*P_+)b \right] \, , \nonumber \\
& & \qquad \,\,
\label{eqlag}
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_\pm ={1\over 2}(1\pm \gamma_5)$,
$i\sigma^{\mu\nu}=-{1\over 2}[\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu]$ and
the superscript $*$ denotes the complex conjugate.
In general, the form factors $f_{1}^{L,R}$ and $f_{2}^{L,R}$ can be complex.
Note that in Equation~(\ref{eqlag}), if there is a relative phase between
$f^L_1$ and $f^R_2$ or between $f^R_1$ and $f^L_2$, then CP is violated.
For instance, in the limit of $m_b=0$ ,
a CP-violating observable will have a coefficient proportional to
${\rm Im}(f^L_1 {f^R_2}^*)$ for a left-handed bottom quark,
and ${\rm Im}(f^R_1 {f^L_2}^*)$ for a right-handed
bottom quark~\cite{toppol}.
(We will discuss more on CP violation in Chapter~7.)
If the $W$--boson can be off--shell then there are additional form factors
such as
\begin{equation}
\partial ^\mu W^-_\mu \bar{b}(f_3^LP_-+f_3^RP_+)t
+\partial ^\mu W^+_\mu \bar{t}({f_3^R}^* P_- + {f_3^L}^* P_+)b \, ,
\label{eqlag2}
\end{equation}
which vanish for an on--shell $W$--boson or when the off--shell $W$--boson
couples to massless on--shell fermions.
Here, we only consider on--shell $W$--bosons for
$m_t> M_W + m_b$.
At tree level in the SM the form factors are
$f_1^L = 1$ and $f_1^R = f_2^L = f_2^R = 0$.
These form factors will in general affect the
experimental observables related to the top quark, such as
the fraction of longitudinal $W$'s produced in top quark decays.
The fraction ($f_{\rm Long}$) of longitudinally polarized $W$--bosons, produced
in the rest frame of the decaying top
quark, strongly depends on the form factors
$f_1^{L,R}$ and $f_2^{L,R}$, as shown in Appendix~C.
Hence, $f_{\rm Long}$ is a useful observable for
measuring these form factors.
The definition of $f_{\rm Long}$ is simply the
ratio of the number of longitudinally
polarized $W$--bosons produced with respect to the total number of
$W$--bosons produced in top quark decays:
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm Long}={\Gamma(\lambda_W=0)
\over{\Gamma(\lambda_W=0)+\Gamma(\lambda_W=-)+\Gamma(\lambda_W=+)}}.
\end{equation}
We use $\Gamma(\lambda_W)$ to refer to the decay rate for a
top quark to decay into a $W$--boson with polarization $\lambda_W$.
($\lambda_W=-, +, 0$ denotes a left-handed, right-handed,
and longitudinal $W$--boson.)
Clearly, the polarization of the $W$--boson depends on the form factors
$f_1$ and $f_2$.\footnote{
The fraction of longitudinal $W$'s in top quark decays
contributed from the form factor $f_1^R$ is the same as
that from $f_1^L$ \cite{toppol}.}
Therefore, one can measure the polarization of the
$W$--boson to measure these form factors.
As shown in Appendix C, the polarization of the
$W$--boson can be determined by the
angular distribution of the lepton, say, $e^+$ in the rest frame of $W^+$ in
the decay mode $t \rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow e^+ \nu)$.
However, the reconstruction of the $W$--boson rest frame (to measure
its polarization) could be a non-trivial matter due to the missing
longitudinal momentum ($P_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}$) (with a two-fold ambiguity)
of the neutrino ($\nu$) from $W$ decay.
Fortunately, as shown in Equation~(\ref{mbe1}),
one can determine the polarization
of the $W$--boson without reconstructing its rest frame by using the
Lorentz-invariant observable $m_{be}$, the invariant mass of
$b$ and $e$ from $t$ decay.
The polar angle $\theta^*_{e^+}$
distribution of the $e^+$ in the rest frame
of the $W^+$ boson, whose z-axis is defined to be the moving direction of
the $W^+$ boson in the rest frame of the top quark, can be written in terms of
$m_{be}$ through the following derivation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos \theta^*_{e^+} &=& {{ E_e E_b - p_e \cdot p_b }\over
{|\vec{\bf p}_e| |\vec{\bf p}_b| }} \nonumber \\
&\simeq & 1-{p_e \cdot p_b \over E_e E_b}
= 1-{2 m_{be}^2 \over m_t^2 - M_W^2}.
\label{mbe1}
\end{eqnarray}
The energies $E_e$ and $E_b$ are evaluated in the rest frame of
the $W^+$ boson from the top quark decay and are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
E_e &=& {M_W^2+m_e^2-m_\nu^2 \over 2 M_W}, \qquad |\vec{\bf p}_e|=
\sqrt{E_e^2-m_e^2}, \nonumber \\
E_b &=& {m_t^2-M_W^2-m_b^2 \over 2 M_W}, \qquad |\vec{\bf p}_b|=
\sqrt{E_b^2-m_b^2}.
\label{mbe2}
\end{eqnarray}
$m_e$ ($m_\nu$) denotes the mass of $e^+$ ($\nu_e$) for the
sake of bookkeeping.
The first line in Equation~(\ref{mbe1}) is exact when using Equation~(\ref{mbe2}),
while the second line of Equation~(\ref{mbe1}) holds in the limit of $m_b=0$.
It is now trivial to find $f_{\rm Long}$ by first calculating the
$\cos\theta^*_{e+}$ distribution
then fitting it according to the decay amplitudes
of the $W$--boson from top quark decay, as given in the Appendix~C.
In what follows we will show how to use the distribution of
$m_{be}$ to measure the mass of the top quark and
its couplings to the $W$--boson.
In Reference~\cite{ehab}, we considered the effective couplings
\begin{equation}
W-t_{L}-b_{L}:\,\, \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{ 1 + \kappa^{CC}_{L}}{2}
\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})\,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
W-t_{R}-b_{R}:\,\, \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{ \kappa^{CC}_{R}}{2}
\gamma_{\mu}(1+\gamma_{5})\,
\end{equation}
derived from an electroweak chiral lagrangian with the symmetry
${\rm SU(2)}_{L}\times {\rm U(1)}_Y$ broken down to ${\rm U(1)}_{\rm EM}$.
(Here, $\kappa_L^{CC}=f_1^L - 1$, and $\kappa_R^{CC}=f_1^R$.)
At the Tevatron and the LHC, heavy top quarks are
predominantly produced from the QCD process
$gg, q \bar q \rightarrow t \bar t$ and the $W$--gluon fusion process
$qg (Wg) \rightarrow t \bar{b}, \bar{t} b$.
In the former process, one can probe ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ from the decay of the
top quark to a bottom quark and a $W$--boson. In the latter process,
these non-standard couplings can also
be measured by simply counting the production
rates of signal events with a single $t$ or $\bar t$.
Let us discuss ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ in more detail as follows.
\section{From the Decay of Top Quarks}
To probe ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ from the decay of the
top quark to a bottom quark and a $W$--boson, one needs to measure the
polarization of the $W$--boson, which can be measured from
the distribution of the invariant mass $m_{b\ell}$.
For a massless $b$, the $W$--boson from top
quark decay can only be either longitudinally or left-hand polarized for
a left-hand charged current (${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}=0$). For a right-hand
charged current (${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}=-1$) the $W$--boson can only be either longitudinally
or right-hand polarized.
(Note that the handedness of the $W$--boson is reversed for a massless
$\bar b$ from $\bar t$ decays.)
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=leftTop1.eps,height=2.5in}
\hspace{1.in}\psfig{figure=rightTop1.eps,height=2.5in}}}
\caption{ For a left-handed ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ vertex. }
\label{left}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=leftTop2.eps,height=2.5in}
\psfig{figure=rightTop2.eps,height=2.5in}}}
\caption{ For a right-handed ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ vertex. }
\label{right}
\end{figure}
This is a consequence of helicity conservation, as diagrammatically
shown in Figures~\ref{left} and~\ref{right} for a polarized
top quark. In these figures we show the preferred
moving direction of the lepton from a polarized $W$--boson in the rest
frame of a polarized top quark for
either a left-handed or a right-handed ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ vertex.
As indicated in these figures, the invariant mass
$m_{b \ell}$ depends on the polarization of the $W$--boson from the decay
of a polarized top quark.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mbe.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ $m_{b{\ell}}$ distribution for SM top quark
(solid) and for pure right-handed~${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ coupling of
$tbW$(dash).}
\label{mbe}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=thesta.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ $\cos \theta^*_{\ell}$ distribution for SM top quark
(solid) and for pure right-hand~${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ coupling of
$tbW$(dash).}
\label{thesta}
\end{figure}
Also, $m_{b \ell}$ is preferentially larger for a pure
right-handed ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ vertex than a pure left-handed one.
This is clearly shown in Figure~\ref{mbe}, in which
the peak of the $m_{b{\ell}}$
distribution is shifted to the right and the distribution falls
off sharply at the upper mass limit for a pure right-handed ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ vertex.
In terms of $\cos \theta^*_{\ell}$, their difference is shown in
Figure~\ref{thesta}.
However, in both cases the fraction ($f_{\rm Long}$) of longitudinal $W$'s
from top quark decay is enhanced by ${m_t}^2/{2{M_W}^2}$ as compared
to the fraction of transversely polarized $W$'s \cite{toppol}, namely,
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm Long} = { {m_t^2 \over 2 M_W^2 } \over { 1 + {m_t^2 \over 2 M_W^2 } } } \,.
\end{equation}
Therefore, for a heavier
top quark, it is more difficult to untangle the ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$
contributions.
On the other hand, because of the very same reason, the mass of a
heavy top quark can be accurately measured from $f_{\rm Long}$ (discussed below)
irrespective of the nature of the ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ couplings
(either left-handed or right-handed).
The QCD production rate of $t \bar t$ is
obviously independent of ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$. (Here
we assume the electroweak production rate of $q\bar{q}\rightarrow A,Z \rightarrow t\bar t$
remains small as in the SM.)
Let us estimate how well the couplings ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$
can be measured at the Tevatron, the Di-TeV, and the LHC.
First, we need to know the production rates of the top
quark pairs from the QCD processes.
As shown in Table~\ref{trates},
the QCD production rate of $gg,q\bar{q}\rightarrow t \bar t$
for a 180\,GeV top quark
is about 4.5\,pb, 26\,pb and 430\,pb at the Tevatron, the Di-TeV, and the LHC,
respectively.
For simplicity, let's consider the $\ell^\pm \, + \geq 3\, {\rm jet}$
decay mode whose
branching ratio is ${\rm Br}=2 {\frac{2}{9}} {\frac{6}{9}} = \frac{8}{27}$,
where the charged lepton $\ell^\pm$ can be either $e^\pm$ or $\mu^\pm$.
We assume the experimental detection
efficiency ($\epsilon$), which includes
both the kinematic acceptance and the efficiency of $b$-tagging,
to be 15\% for the signal event \cite{CDF}.
Let's further assume that there is
no ambiguity in picking up the right $b$ ($\bar b$)
to combine with the charged lepton $\ell^+$ ($\ell^-$)
to reconstruct $t$ (or $\bar t$), then in total there are
$4.5\,{\rm pb}\,\times \, 10^3\,{\rm pb}^{-1}\,
\times \,{\frac{8}{27}}\,\times \,0.15=200$
reconstructed $t \bar t$ events to be used in measuring
${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ at $\sqrt{S}= 2$\,TeV.
The same calculation at
the Di-TeV~and the LHC yields 1100 and 19000 reconstructed
$t \bar t$ events, respectively.
Given the number of reconstructed top quark events,
one can fit the $m_{b\ell}$ distribution to measure
${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$.
For example we have done a study for the Tevatron.
Let us assume the effects of
new physics only modify the SM results ($f_1^L=1$ and $f_1^R=0$
at Born level) slightly and the form factors
$f_2^{L,R}$ are as small as expected from the usual dimensional
analysis~\cite{geor2,dimens}.\footnote{
The coefficients of the form factors $f_2^{L,R}$, assumed to be
induced through loop effects, will be a factor of
${1 \over 16 \pi^2}$ smaller than that of the form factors
$f_1^{L,R}$.}
We summarize our results on the accuracy of measuring
$f_1^{L,R}$ for various luminosities
in Table~\ref{formfac} \cite{danf1}.
(Only statistical errors are included at the 95\% confidence level.)
\vspace{4mm}
\begin{table}
\caption{
Results on the accuracy of measuring
$f_1^{L,R}$ for various luminosities.
(Only statistical errors are included at the 95\% confidence level.)
}
\label{formfac}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|r|} \hline
Integrated & Number of & & & \\
Luminosity & reconstructed & ${\Delta f_1^L}\over f_1^L$
& $\Delta f_1^R$ & ${\Delta m_t} \over m_t$ \\
$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $ & $t \bar t $ events. & & & \\ \hline
1 & 200 & $8\% $ & $\pm 0.5 $ & $4\% $ \\ \hline
3 & 600 & $4\% $ & $\pm 0.3 $ & $2\% $ \\ \hline
10 & 2000 & $2\% $ & $\pm 0.2 $ & $1\% $ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{4mm}
\end{table}
In the same table ({\it i.e.},Table~\ref{formfac})
we also show our estimate on how well the mass of the top
quark $m_t$ can be measured from $f_{\rm Long}$.
By definition of $f_{\rm Long}$, for a SM top quark
({\it i.e.}, $f_1^L=1$ and $f_1^R=0$), the distribution of
$\cos \theta^*_{\ell}$ has the functional form
\begin{equation}
F(\cos \theta^*_{\ell}) \sim
(1 - f_{\rm Long}) \left( { 1- \cos \theta^*_{\ell} \over 2 } \right)^2
+ f_{\rm Long} \left( { \sin \theta^*_{\ell} \over \sqrt{2} } \right)^2 \, .
\end{equation}
Therefore, $f_{\rm Long}$ can be calculated by fitting with the distribution
of $\cos \theta^*_{\ell}$, or equivalently with
the distribution of $m_{b\ell}$.
We prefer to measure ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ using the distributions of
$m_{b\ell}$ than of $\cos \theta^*_{\ell}$ because
the former can be directly calculated from the
measured momenta of $b$ and $\ell$. However,
to convert from the distributions of $m_{b\ell}$ to
$\cos \theta^*_{\ell}$, as given in Equation~(\ref{mbe1}), the effects
from the width of the $W$--boson and the top quark might slightly
distort the distribution of $\cos \theta^*_{\ell}$.
(Notice that in the full calculation of the scattering amplitudes
the widths of the $W$--boson and the top quark have to be included
in the Breit-Wigner form to generate a finite event rate.)
However, in reality, the momenta of the bottom quark and the
charged lepton will be smeared by
detector effects and another problem in this analysis is
the identification of the right $b$ to reconstruct $t$.
There are three possible strategies to improve the efficiency of identifying
the right $b$. One is to demand a large invariant mass of the $t \bar t$
system so that $t$ is boosted and its decay products are collimated.
Namely, the right $b$ will be moving closer to the lepton from $t$ decay.
This can be easily enforced by demanding leptons with a larger transverse
momentum.
Another is to identify the soft (non-isolated) lepton from $\bar b$ decay
(with a branching ratio ${\rm Br}(\bar b \rightarrow \mu^{+} X) \sim 10\%$).
The other is to statistically determine the electric charge of the
$b$-jet (or $\bar b$-jet) to be $1/3$ (or $-1/3$) \cite{lepjet}.
All of these methods may further reduce the reconstructed signal rate by
an order of magnitude. How will these affect our conclusion on
the determination of the non-universal couplings ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$?
It can only be answered by detailed Monte Carlo studies
which are yet to be done.
\section{From the Production of Top Quarks}
Here we propose another method to measure
the couplings ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$
from the production rate of the single-top quark process.
For $m_t=180$ GeV, the sum of the production rates of single-$t$ and
single-$\bar t$
events is about 2\,pb and 14\,pb for $\sqrt{S}= 2$\,TeV and
$\sqrt{S}= 4$\,TeV respectively. The branching ratio of interest is
${\rm Br}=\frac{2}{9}$. The kinematic acceptance
of this event at $\sqrt{S}= 2$\,TeV is about $0.55$, as shown in Chapter~8.
Assuming the efficiency of $b$-tagging is about 30\%, then
there will be $2\,{\rm pb}\,\times \,10^3\,{\rm pb}^{-1}\,
\times \,{\frac{2}{9}}\,\times \,0.55\, \times \,0.3=75$
events reconstructed for a 1\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $ integrated
luminosity. At $\sqrt{S}= 4$\,TeV, as shown in Chapter~8,
the kinematic acceptance of this event is about
$0.40$ which, from the above calculation, yields
about $3700$ reconstructed events for 10\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $ integrated luminosity.
Based on statistical
error alone, this corresponds to a 12\% and 2\%
measurement on the single-top cross section.
A factor of 10 increase in the luminosity of
the collider can improve the measurement by a factor of 3 statistically.
Taking into account the theoretical uncertainties,
as discussed in Chapter~3, we
examine two scenarios: 20\% and 50\% error on
the measurement of the cross section for single-top production.
\begin{figure}[p]
\par
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=klkr.eps,height=4.in}}}
\caption{ Constraint on $|{\kappa_{L}}^{CC}|$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ given $20\%$ and $50\%$
error in measurement of Standard Model rate for $W$--gluon fusion.
Curves are identical for $m_t = 140$ GeV and $m_t = 180$ GeV.
}
\label{klkr}
\par
\end{figure}
The results, which are not sensitive to
the energies of the colliders considered here (either 2\,TeV or 4\,TeV),
are shown in Figure~\ref{klkr} for a 180 GeV top quark
at the Tevatron.
We found that ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ are well constrained inside
the region bounded by two (approximate) ellipses
(cf. Appendix~A).
To further determine the sizes of ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ one needs to
study the kinematics of the decay products, such
as the charged lepton $\ell$, of the top quark.
Since the top quark produced from the $W$--gluon fusion process
is almost one hundred percent left-hand (right-hand) polarized
for a left-hand (right-hand) ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ vertex,
the charged lepton $\ell^+$ from $t$ decay has a harder momentum
for a right-handed ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ coupling than for a left-handed coupling.
(Note that the couplings of
light-fermions to $W$--boson have been well tested
from the low energy data to be left-handed as described in the SM.)
As shown in Figures~\ref{left} and~\ref{right},
this difference becomes smaller when the top quark is much heavier because
the $W$--boson from the top quark decay tends to be more
longitudinally polarized.
A right-hand charged current is absent in a
linearly ${\rm SU(2)}_L$ invariant gauge
theory with massless bottom quark.
In this case, ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}=0$,
then ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ can be constrained to within
about $-0.08 < {\kappa_{L}}^{CC} < 0.03$ ($-0.20 < {\kappa_{L}}^{CC} < 0.08$)
with a 20\% (50\%) measurement on the production rate
of single-top quark at the Tevatron
\cite{ehab}. (Here we assume the experimental data
agrees with the SM prediction within 20\% (50\%).) This means that if
we interpret {\mbox {($1+{\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$)}} as the CKM matrix element $|V_{tb}|$,
then $|V_{tb}|$ can be bounded as $|V_{tb}| > 0.9$ (or 0.75) for a 20\%
(or 50\%) measurement on the single-top production rate.
Before closing this chapter, we remark that
in the Refs.~\cite{ehab} and \cite{fuj} some bounds on the
couplings of ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ were obtained by studying
the low energy data with the assumption that
the effects of new physics at low energy can only modify the couplings
of ${\kappa_{L}}^{CC}$ and ${\kappa_{R}}^{CC}$ but not introduce any other light fields
in the effective theory. However, nature might not behave exactly in this
way. It is possible that some light fields may exist just below the
TeV scale, then the bounds
obtained from Refs.~\cite{ehab} and \cite{fuj} may no longer hold.
Thus, it is important to have direct measurements on all
the form factors listed in Equation~(\ref{eqlag}) from the production of
top quarks, in spite of the present bounds on $\kappa$'s derived from
radiative corrections to low energy data.
\chapter{Probing CP Properties in Top Quarks}
It is known that explicit CP violation requires the presence of both the CP
non-conserving vertex and the complex structure of the physical amplitude.
Due to the origin of this complex structure, the possible CP-violating
observables can be separated into two categories.
In the first category, this complex structure comes from the absorptive
part of the amplitude due to the final state interactions.
In the second category, this complex structure does not arise from the
absorptive phase but from the correlations in the kinematics of the
initial and final state particles involved in the physical process.
Hence, it must involve a triple product
correlation ({\it i.e.}, a Levi-Civita tensor).
To distinguish the symmetry properties between these two cases,
we introduce the transformation $ \hat {\rm T} $, as defined in Reference~\cite{hatt},
which is simply the application of time reversal to all momenta and
spins without interchanging initial and final states.
The CP-violating observables in the first category are CP-odd and
CP$ \hat {\rm T} $-odd, while those in the second category are
CP-odd and CP$ \hat {\rm T} $-even. Of course, both of them are CPT-even.
To illustrate the above two categories, we consider CP-violating
observables for the decay of the top quark.
Consider the partial rate asymmetry
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{bW} & \equiv &
{ \Gamma( t \rightarrow b W^+) - \Gamma({\bar t} \rightarrow {\bar b} W^-)
\over \Gamma( t \rightarrow b W^+) + \Gamma({\bar t} \rightarrow {\bar b} W^-) }.
\label{abw}
\end{eqnarray}
A non-vanishing ${\cal A}_{bW}$
clearly violates CP and CP$ \hat {\rm T} $, therefore this observable
belongs to the first category.
We note that
because of CPT invariance, the total decay width of the top quark
$\Gamma(t)$ has to equal the total decay width of the top anti-quark
$\Gamma(\bar t)$.
Thus, any non-zero ${\cal A}_{bW}$ implies that
there exists a state (or perhaps more than one state) $X$ such that
$t$ can decay into $X$ and ${\bar t}$ into ${\bar X}$.
The absorptive phase
of $t \rightarrow b W^+$ is therefore generated
by re-scattering through state $X$, {\it i.e.},
$t \rightarrow X \rightarrow b W^+$, where $X \neq b W^+$ because
the final state interaction should be off-diagonal \cite{wolf}.
Next, let's consider the observable of the second category.
In the decay of $t \rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu_{\ell})$, for a polarized $t$
quark, time reversal invariance (T) is violated if
the expectation value of
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{\sigma}_t \times \vec{p}_b \cdot \vec{p}_{\ell^+}
\label{tripro}
\end{eqnarray}
is not zero \cite{toppol}. Assuming CPT invariance, this
implies CP is violated.
Therefore, this observable is CP-odd but CP$ \hat {\rm T} $-even.
A non-vanishing triple product observable,
such as that in Equation~(\ref{tripro}), from the decay of the top quark
violates T. However, it may be entirely due to final state interaction
effects without involving any CP-violating vertex.
To construct a truly CP-violating observable, one must combine
information from both the $t$ and $\bar t$ quarks.
For instance, the difference in the expectation values of
$\vec{\sigma}_t \times \vec{p}_b \cdot \vec{p}_{\ell^+}$
and
$\vec{\sigma}_{\bar t} \times \vec{p}_{\bar b} \cdot
\vec{p}_{\ell^-}$
would be a true measure of an intrinsic CP violation.
There have been many studies
on how to measure the CP-violating effects in the $t \bar t$ system
produced in either electron or hadron collisions.
(For a review, see a recent paper in Reference~\cite{cpcpy}.)
At hadron colliders, the number of
$t \bar t$ events needed to
measure a CP-violating effect of the order of $10^{-3} - 10^{-2}$
is about $10^7 - 10^8$.
To examine the potential of various current and future
hadron colliders in measuring the CP-violating asymmetries,
we estimate the total event rates of $t \bar t$ pairs
for a 180 GeV SM top quark produced at these colliders.
At the Tevatron, the Di-TeV and the LHC, an integrated luminosity of
10, 100 and 100 ${\rm fb}^{-1}$ will produce about
$4.5 \times 10^4$, $2.6 \times 10^6$ and $4.3 \times 10^7$
$t \bar t$ pairs, respectively, as given in Table~\ref{trates}.
Therefore, the LHC
would be able to probe the CP asymmetry of the top
quark at the level of a few percent. A similar
number of the $t \bar t$ pairs
is required in electron collisions to probe the CP asymmetry
at the same level.
Thus, for a $\sqrt{S}=500\,$GeV $e^-e^+$ collider,
an integrated luminosity of about $10^4 - 10^5$ ${\rm fb}^{-1}$
has to be delivered. This luminosity is
at least a factor of $100$ higher than the
planned next linear colliders.
We note that although the initial state in a pp collision
(such as at the LHC)
is not an eigenstate of a CP transformation,
these CP-odd observables can still be defined as long as
the production mechanism is dominated by $gg$ fusion. This is
indeed the case for $t \bar t$ pair production at the LHC.
In the SM, the top quark produced via the $W$--gluon fusion
process is about one hundred percent
left-hand (longitudinally) polarized, see Appendix A.
Given a polarized top quark, one can use
the triple product correlation, as defined in Equation~(\ref{tripro}),
to detect CP violation of the top quark.
For a polarized top quark, one can either use
$\vec{\sigma}_t \times \vec{p}_b$
or $\vec{p}^{\rm Lab}_t \times \vec{p}_b$
to define the decay plane of $t \rightarrow b W (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) $.
Obviously, the latter one is easier to implement experimentally.
Define the asymmetry to be
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{io} & \equiv &
{ { N(\ell^+ \, {\rm out \, of \, the \, decay \, plane})
- N(\ell^+ \, {\rm into \, the \, decay \, plane }) } \over
{ N(\ell^+ \, {\rm out \, of \, the \, decay \, plane})
+ N(\ell^+ \, {\rm into \, the \, decay \, plane }) } }~.
\end{eqnarray}
If ${\cal A}_{io}$ is not zero, then the time-reversal T is not conserved,
therefore CP is violated for a CPT invariant theory.
Due to the missing momentum of the neutrino from the decay of the $W$--boson,
it is difficult to reconstruct the azimuthal angle ($\phi_W$)
of the $W$--boson from the decay of the top quark. Once the angle
$\phi_W$ is integrated over, the transverse polarization of the top
quark averages out and only the longitudinal polarization of the top
quark contributes to the asymmetry ${\cal A}_{io}$.
Thus, the asymmetry ${\cal A}_{io}$ can be used to study the
effects of CP violation in the top quark,
which in the SM is about one
hundred percent left-hand (longitudinally) polarized
as produced from the $W$--gluon fusion process.
To apply the CP-violating observable
${\cal A}_{io}$, one needs to reconstruct the directions of both the $t$
and $b$ quarks.
It has been shown in Reference~\cite{onetcp} that it takes about
$10^7-10^8$ single-top events
to detect CP violation at the order of $\sim 10^{-3} - 10^{-2}$.
For $m_t=180\,$GeV at the Tevatron, the Di-TeV and the LHC,
an integrated luminosity of
10, 100 and 100 ${\rm fb}^{-1}$ will produce about
$2 \times 10^4$, $1.4 \times 10^6$ and $2 \times 10^7$
single-$t$ or single-$\bar t$ events, respectively,
from Table~\ref{trates}.
At the NLC, the single top quark production rate is
much smaller. For a $2\,$TeV electron collider,
the cross sections for
$e^-e^+ \rightarrow e^- {\bar \nu_e} t {\bar b}$
and
$e^+ \gamma \rightarrow {\bar \nu}_e t {\bar b}$
are 8 fb and 60 fb, respectively \cite{eeonetop}.
Hence, it will be extremely difficult
to detect CP violation effects at the order of $\leq 10^{-2}$
in the single-top events produced in electron collisions.
A few comments are in order. First, to extract the {\it genuine}
CP-violating effects, we need to study the difference in the asymmetry
${\cal A}_{io}$ measured in the single-$t$ and single-$\bar t$
events because the time-reversal violation in
${\cal A}_{io}$ of the $t$ (or $\bar t$) alone could be
generated by final state interactions without CP-violating
interactions.
Second, the detection efficiency for this method is not close
to one, so a good understanding of the kinematics of the decay products and
how the detector works are needed to make this method useful.
The asymmetry ${\cal A}_{io}$ belongs to the second category of
CP-violating observables and is CP-odd and CP$ \hat {\rm T} $-even.
Consider another asymmetry ${\cal A}_t$ which belongs to the first
category of CP-violating observables and is CP-odd and CP$ \hat {\rm T} $-odd.
Using ${\cal A}_t$ for detecting CP-violating effects is to make use of
the fact that $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ is a CP eigenstate; therefore, the difference in the
production rates for $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow t X$ and $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow \bar t X$
is a signal of CP violation.
This asymmetry is defined to be
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_t & \equiv &
{ \sigma( \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow t X) - \sigma( \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow \bar t X) \over
\sigma( \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow t X) + \sigma( \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow \bar t X) } ~~.
\end{eqnarray}
As discussed in Chapter~6,
the production rate of $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow t X$ is proportional to
the decay rate of $t \rightarrow b W^+$ and the rate of
$ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow \bar t X$ is proportional to
the rate of $\bar t \rightarrow \bar b W^-$.
This implies that ${\cal A}_t = {\cal A}_{bW}$, cf. Equation~(\ref{abw}).
There have been quite a few models studied in the literature about the
asymmetry in ${\cal A}_{bW}$. For instance, in the Supersymmetric
Standard Model where a CP-violating phase may occur in the
left-handed and right-handed top-squark, ${\cal A}_{bW}$ can
be as large as a few percent
depending on the details of the parameters in the model \cite{stopcp}.
Next, let's examine how many top quark events are needed to
detect a few percent effect in the CP-violating asymmetry ${\cal A}_t$.
Consider $t \rightarrow b W^+ \rightarrow b \ell^+ \nu$, where
$\ell= e \, {\rm or} \, \mu$.
Define the branching ratio $B_W$ as the product of
${\rm Br}(t \rightarrow bW^+)$ and ${\rm Br}(W^+ \rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$, where
${\rm Br}(W^+ \rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$ is $2/9$.
(${\rm Br}(t \rightarrow bW^+)$ depends on the details of a model and is
almost 1 in the SM.)
Let us assume that the efficiency of $b$-tagging ($\epsilon_{\rm btag}$)
is about 30\% and the kinematic acceptance
($\epsilon_k$) of reconstructing the single-top event,
$ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow t X \rightarrow b W^+ X \rightarrow b \ell^+ \nu X$,
is about 50\%. (See, a Monte Carlo study in Chapter~8.)
The number of single-$t$ and single-$\bar t$
events needed to measure ${\cal A}_t$ is
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}_t = { 1 \over B_W \epsilon_{\rm btag} \epsilon_k}
\left(1 \over {\cal A}_t \right)^2 ~~.
\end{equation}
Thus, to measure ${\cal A}_t$ of a few percent,
${\cal N}_t$ has to be as large as $\sim 10^6$, which corresponds
to an integrated luminosity of 100\,$ {\rm fb}^{-1} $ at the Di-TeV.
\chapter{ A Monte Carlo Study }
It was shown in Reference~\cite{wgtb} that
due to the characteristic features of the transverse momentum and
rapidity distributions of the spectator quark which emitted the
virtual $W$ an almost perfect efficiency
for ``kinematic $b$ tagging'' can be achieved.
In addition, the ability of performing $b$-tagging using a
vertex detector increases the detection efficiency of a heavy top quark
produced via the $W$--gluon fusion process.
In this chapter we show that this process is useful at
the Tevatron with the Main Injector.
We also estimate results for $\sqrt{S} = 4$ TeV at the Di-TeV
and for $\sqrt{S} = 14$ TeV at the LHC in separate subsections.
To show that a heavy top quark produced from
the $W$--gluon fusion process can be detected at
the Tevatron, we performed a Monte Carlo study on the $W+\,2\,jets$ mode
of the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) process
\begin{equation}
q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow {\ell}^+ \nu) )
\label{ethree}
\end{equation}
with ${\ell}^+=e^+ \,{\rm or}\,\mu^+$.
More specifically, we assume that the $b$-quark jet from the top quark decay
can be tagged so that the decay mode of interest is
identified to be $W+b +\,jet$.
Throughout this study, we assume that the efficiency of
the $b$-quark tagging is 30\% for $P^b_t > 30\,$GeV
with no misidentifications of a $b$-jet from other QCD jets.
For clarity we only give rates for top quark (not including
top-antiquark) production in this chapter, unless specified otherwise.
To include the top-antiquark production one can refer to Chapter~3
for its production rate as compared with that of a top quark.
For simplicity we only consider the intrinsic
backgrounds ({\it i.e.}, those present at the parton level)
for the $W+b+\,jet$ final state, and will not invoke any detailed
study on effects due to hadronization of the partons or the imperfectness
of the detectors used in experiments. The intrinsic backgrounds
in the SM for the mode $W+b+\,jet$ are the electroweak-QCD process
$q' \bar{q} \rightarrow W + b +\bar b$ and QCD process
$q{\bar q},\,gg \rightarrow t \bar t \rightarrow W+b+\,jet$.
\begin{figure}[b]
\hspace{1.in}
\par
\centerline{\hbox{
\psfig{figure=udbb3.eps,height=1.3in}
\psfig{figure=udbb4.eps,height=1.3in}}}
\caption{ Diagrams for
$u \bar d, \, c \bar s \rightarrow b \bar b W^+(\rightarrow {\ell}^+ \nu)$. }
\label{udbb}
\par
\hspace{1.in}
\end{figure}
We will show that the dominant backgrounds for the single-top signal
come from the electroweak-QCD processes (as shown in Figure~\ref{udbb})
\begin{equation}
u \bar d, \, c \bar s \rightarrow b \bar b W^+(\rightarrow {\ell}^+ \nu).
\label{efour}
\end{equation}
The other backgrounds such as $c g \rightarrow b W^+$ are suppressed due
to the small CKM matrix element
$|V_{cb}| \simeq 0.03\, {\rm to} \,0.048$ \cite{databook}.
As done in the previous sections,
we will give our numerical results in this section
for either a 140\,GeV or a 180\,GeV top quark.
\section{ Tevatron with $\protect\sqrt{S}=2$\,TeV }
At the Tevatron
($ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $, $\sqrt{S}=2\,$TeV) the single-top production rate
from the $W$--gluon fusion process is
1(2) pb, as shown in Table~\ref{trates}.
For the final state of Equation~(\ref{ethree}),
the branching ratio of $t \rightarrow b W^+(\rightarrow \ell^+\nu)$
for ${\ell}^+=e^+ \,{\rm or}\,\mu^+$ is about $2/9$ in the SM.
As discussed in Chapter~3, we found that
after properly treating the $b$ quark as a parton
inside the proton (or antiproton)
the total rate for the $W$--gluon fusion process
is about 30\% smaller than that of the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) process.
Hereafter, we shall rescale all the numerical results of our analysis
for the ($2 \rightarrow 2$) process to the total event rate of the $W$--gluon fusion
process by multiplying them by a factor of $0.7$.
To show that a 180 (140) GeV top quark produced from
this process can be detected at
the Tevatron, we first impose the following kinematic cuts:
\begin{eqnarray}
P_T^q > 15 \,{\rm GeV},& |\eta^q| < 3.5, \nonumber \\
P_T^\ell > 15 \,{\rm GeV},& |\eta^\ell| < 2, \nonumber \\
P_T^b > 35 \,{\rm GeV},& |\eta^b| < 2, \nonumber \\
\mynot{E_T} > 15 \,{\rm GeV},& \Delta R_{qb} > 0.7 ~.
\label{eone}
\end{eqnarray}
The efficiency of these cuts for a 180 (140)\,GeV top quark is
32\%(53\%).
Including the reduction factor from the assumed $b$-tagging
efficiency, 30\%,
the signal rate is found to be about $0.045 \,(0.063)$ pb.
In Equation~(\ref{eone}), $P_T$ stands for transverse momentum, $\eta$
for pseudo-rapidity, $\mynot{E_T}$
for missing transverse momentum, and
$\Delta R=\sqrt{(\delta \eta)^2 + (\delta \phi)^2}$ with $\phi$ being the
azimuthal angle.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=eta1.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The rapidity distribution
of the spectator quark $q$, after cuts in Equation~(\protect\ref{eone}),
for the signal $q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$,
and of the spectator quark $\bar b$ for the major background
$q' \bar{q} \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$ (dots),
for $m_t=180\,$GeV (solid) and 140\,GeV (dash), at the Tevatron.
(The vertical scale is arbitrary, but the relative size among
these curves are absolute.)
}
\label{etaone}
\end{figure}
It is important to note in Figure~\ref{etaone} that the typical
rapidity of the spectator jet in the
signal event is about 1.6 although almost all the signal events
have $|\eta^q| < 3.5$ \cite{wgtb}.
The distribution of $\eta^q$ is asymmetric because the Tevatron is a
$ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ collider. To produce a heavy top quark,
which decays to a positively charged lepton, the valence quark from
the proton is most important, implying a large probability for
$\eta^q$ to be positive. (We define the positive z-direction to be the proton
moving direction in the laboratory frame.)
Similarly, a top-antiquark produced from the $W$--gluon fusion process
would prefer a negative $\eta^q$ due to the large up-antiquark PDF inside
the antiproton.
In the $W+b \bar b$ background process, the $b \bar b$ pair comes from
a virtual gluon conversion, therefore its rate is highly suppressed
if the invariant mass of the $b \bar b$ pair is large.
Since both
$b$ and $\bar b$ have about the same transverse momentum ($P_T$)
in the background event, the requirement of $P_T^b > 35\,$GeV
effectively forces a similar $P_T$ cut on $\bar b$.
This generates a large invariant mass of $b$ and $\bar b$ ({\it i.e.},
the virtuality of the gluon),
strongly suppressing the background rate.
In contrast, in the signal event the
final parton $q$ (from $q'$, after emitting a virtual $W$) typically has
a smaller $P_T$ than the $b$-quark (from the decay of a heavy top quark).
Typically, in the signal event, $P_T^b \simeq m_t/3$.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=ptb1.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{
$P_T$ distribution of the $b$ quark, after requiring
$P^b_T > 15\,$GeV along with all the
other cuts in~(\protect\ref{eone}), for the signal
$q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$, and the major
background $q' \bar q \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$,
at the Tevatron.}
\label{ptbone}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{ptbone} we show the $P_T$ distribution of the tagged $b$
from $t$ in both the signal and the background events.
Hence, demanding an asymmetric cut on $P_T$
({\it i.e.}, $P_T^q > 15\,$GeV and
$P_T^b > 35\,$GeV) will suppress background effectively and keep
most of the signal events.
This is why an asymmetric cut on $P_T$
was used in our analysis to suppress the major background
process $W+b \bar b$.
To compare the efficiency of this asymmetric cut in $P_T$, we
note that using $P_T^b > 15$ GeV
along with all the other cuts in~(\ref{eone})
yields a signal-to-background ratio (S/B) of about $1/3$($2/3$).
Requiring $P_T^b > 35$ GeV excludes about $60\%$ of the background
events sacrificing about $10\%$($30\%$) of the signal.
After imposing the kinematic cuts in Equation~(\ref{eone}),
we found that S/B $\simeq 0.9(1.3)$.
However, the signal-to-background ratio can be further
improved by imposing
\begin{equation}
\cos \theta_{{\ell}q} > -0.4.
\label{etwo}
\end{equation}
Because the top quark produced from the $W$--gluon fusion process
is left-hand polarized, ${\ell}^+$ tends to move against
the moving direction of the top quark in the center-of-mass
frame of $q$ and $t$, cf. Figure~\ref{left}.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=cth1.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The $\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$ distribution
prior to cut Equation~(\protect\ref{etwo}) for the signal
$q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$ and the major background
$q' \bar q \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$,
at the Tevatron.}
\label{cthone}
\end{figure}
However, in the background event, the distribution
of $\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$,
as shown in Figure~\ref{cthone}, is almost flat after imposing the
cuts of~(\ref{eone}).
($\theta_{{\ell}q}=\pi-\theta_\ell,$ where
$\theta_l$ is the the polar angle of ${\ell}^+$
in the rest frame of $t$ defined in the center-of-mass frame
of $q$ and $t$.)
To calculate $\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$, the $P^\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}$ information must be
constructed.
Since both $\ell^+$ and $\nu$ come from a real $W^+$ boson,
we can use the $W$--boson mass constraint
\begin{equation}
M^2_{W} = {(p_\ell +p_\nu)}^2
\label{eighteen}
\end{equation}
and the $\mynot{E_T}$ information
to specify the longitudinal momentum $P^\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}$ of the neutrino.
There are two solutions
for $P^\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}$ and typically,
both of them are physical solutions for a signal event.
Therefore, one has to fix a
prescription to choose the one which will most likely give the correct
distribution of the invariant mass of $\ell^+, \nu$ and $b$.
We choose the solution which has the
smaller $\left|P^\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}\right|$.
Here we exploit the fact that the $W$ has finite width.
If a physical solution for $P^\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}$ is not found
with $M_{ W} = 80$ GeV, we generate a resonant mass of the $W$--boson
using a Breit-Wigner distribution.
We use a full half-maximum width
of the $W$--boson, where $\Gamma_W = 2.1\,$GeV,
and solve for $P^\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}$, repeating the algorithm for up to three trials
if necessary.
We found that the survival probability for
finding a solution using this algorithm is about $90\% $, and
the difference between this solution and the value actually generated by
the Monte Carlo generator is a Gaussian distribution peaking at 0 with
a width about the order of $\Gamma_W$.
After the additional cut imposed on
$\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$, we obtained S/B $\simeq 1.2(1.8)$.
About $55\%$($40\%$) of the total signal event rate remains after applying
the cuts~(\ref{eone}) and~(\ref{etwo}) to the process~(\ref{ethree}).
We conclude that for an integrated luminosity of 1\,${\rm fb}^{-1}$
at a 2\,TeV $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ collider,
there will be about $75(105)$ signal events detected
with a significance ${\rm S/{\sqrt{B}}}$ of about $10(14)$,
including both the single-$t$ and single-$\bar t$ events
as defined in (\ref{ethree}).
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mt1.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The $m_t$ distribution after the
cuts Equation~(\protect\ref{eone}) and Equation~(\protect\ref{etwo})
for $m_t$ = 180 GeV (solid) and 140 GeV (dash) at the Tevatron
including both the signal and background events with
$W^\pm \rightarrow e^\pm \, {\rm or} \, \mu^\pm$. }
\label{mtone}
\end{figure}
To measure the mass of the top quark, we calculate the
reconstructed invariant mass ($m_t$) of the top quark using
\begin{equation}
m^2_t={(p_b + p_\ell + p_\nu)}^2.
\label{nineteen}
\end{equation}
The distribution of $m_t$, including both the signal and the backgrounds,
is shown in Figure~\ref{mtone}, in which a clear mass peak
appears unmistakably.
Therefore, we conclude that the top quark can be detected
and studied via this process at the Tevatron.
In Figure~\ref{mtone}, other less important backgrounds, such as
$t \bar t$ events, were also included.
The $t \bar t$ background is not important after
vetoing the events with more than 2 jets \cite{wgtb}.
To support this we did a study for the two decay modes
of $t \bar t$:
\begin{equation}
t \bar t \rightarrow b W^+(\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) \, \bar b W^-(\rightarrow q' \bar q)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
t \bar t \rightarrow b W^+(\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) \, \bar b W^-(\rightarrow \ell_2^- \bar \nu),
\qquad \ell_{2}=e \, {\rm or} \, \mu.
\end{equation}
For both modes we require one of the jets to be a $b$ or $\bar b$.
Consider first the $\bar t \rightarrow \bar b q' \bar q$ decay mode. We require at
least one of the $q'$- and $\bar q$-jets and $\bar b$ (if $b$ is tagged) or
$b$ (if $\bar b$ is tagged) to be within rapidity 3.5, otherwise we reject
the event. If any one (and only one) of the untagged jets is
within rapidity 3.5 we call
it the spectator jet and then apply our cuts.
If two of the untagged jets are
within rapidity 3.5, then we require their $\Delta R$ separation
to be less than 0.7 to classify them as
one spectator jet.
When all three untagged jets are within rapidity 3.5 we choose the jet
with the largest $P_T$ and check its $\Delta R$ separation with the other two.
If the lower $P_T$ jets are within $\Delta R = 0.7$ of the
high $P_T$ jet, we call this the
spectator jet and apply our cuts, otherwise, reject the event.
Recall from Table~\ref{trates} for a 180 GeV top quark,
the $t \bar t$ rate is about 4.5 pb.
After applying the cuts (\ref{eone}) and (\ref{etwo})
and including the branching ratio for this mode,
${2 \over 9}{6 \over 9}={4\over 27}$, the event rate,
of approximately $3\times 10^{-4}$ pb, is very small as compared with
the signal rate of 0.075 pb (including $t$ and $\bar{t}$).
This is because for most of the $\bar t \rightarrow \bar b q' \bar q$
decay modes all three jets are within rapidity 3.5 and
$\Delta R_{bj}$ and $\Delta R_{\bar b j}$ are in general large .
For the $\bar t \rightarrow \bar b \ell_2^- \bar \nu$ decay mode we require that
$\ell_2$ be undetected. Specifically, if $\ell_2$ is within rapidity 2
with $P_T^{\ell_2} > 15 \,$GeV we reject the event.
If $2 < |\eta^{\ell_2}| < 3.5$ we require $P_T^{\ell_2}$
to be less than the minimum $P_T$ for detecting leptons,
{\it i.e.}, $< 15\,$GeV in accordance with Equation~(\ref{eone}).
After the cuts in (\ref{eone}), this mode
(with branching ratio ${2 \over 9}{2\over 9}={4\over 81}$)
already suffers, being about 5\% of the signal rate.
This mode suffers another factor of about two loss
to the failure of reconstructing $P^\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}$ due to
the presence of two neutrinos in the final state.
After imposing the $\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$ cut the rate for
$
t \bar t \rightarrow b W^+(\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) \, \bar b W^-(\rightarrow \ell_2^- \bar \nu)
$
is about $3\times 10^{-3}$ pb which is about a factor of 25
smaller than the signal rate.
Hence the dominant background (of the same order as the signal rate)
comes from the electroweak-QCD processes
as given in Equation~(\ref{efour}).
As summarized in Figure~\ref{mtone}, even with the very minimum kinematic cuts
of (\ref{eone}) and (\ref{etwo}) the single-top signal can already be
detected, assuming a perfect detector with $b$-tagging efficiency of 30\%.
To incorporate the effects of detector efficiencies,
we smear the final state
parton momenta using a Gaussian distribution with
\begin{equation}
(\Delta E / E)_\ell=15\% / \sqrt{E}, \quad {\rm and} \quad
(\Delta E / E)_{q,b}=50\% / \sqrt{E}.
\label{efive}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mt1s.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ Same as Figure~\protect\ref{mtone}, but with detector
resolution effects as described in Equation~\protect\ref{efive}. }
\label{mtsone}
\end{figure}
The $m_t$ distribution becomes slightly broader as shown
in Figure~\ref{mtsone};
however, both the signal and the background rates are almost
the same as those obtained with a perfect detector.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mbe.1vert.eps,height=8in}}}
\caption{ $m_{b\ell}$ distributions
without (top) or with (bottom) smearing, after all the above analysis
for the Tevatron. }
\label{mbef}
\end{figure}
As discussed in the previous chapters, the distribution of the invariant
mass $m_{b\ell}$ is extremely useful in either determining the mass of the
top quark or measuring the form factors of ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$.
For completeness we show in Figure~\ref{mbef} the distribution
of $m_{b\ell}$ with or without smearing, after all the above analysis.
Because the $b$-jet is required to have large
$P_T$, cf. Equation~(\ref{eone}), so $\Delta E /E$ for the $b$-jet is small,
therefore the two $m_{b\ell}$ distributions do not differ much and
the difference becomes smaller for larger $m_{b\ell}$.
Thus, the position of the bump at large $m_{b \ell}$
in the signal events remain a good signature for detecting the
single-top signals and determining the mass of the top quark
(discussed in Chapter~4) or the couplings
of ${\mbox {\,$t$-${b}$-$W$}\,}$ (discussed in Chapter~6).
We note that the data sample
obtained after all the above analysis
can be further purified at the cost
of somewhat reducing the signal rates. This can be easily done,
for instance, by noting the distinct differences between
the signal events and the background events from
the distributions of rapidity of the spectator jet (Figure~\ref{etaone}),
transverse momentum of the bottom quark (Figure~\ref{ptbone}),
and the angular correlation $\cos \theta_{\ell q}$ (Figure~\ref{cthone})
due to the polarization of the top quark in signal events.
However, for a more realistic simulation, one should also consider
the possibility of having a charm-jet (or even an ordinary QCD-jet)
faking a bottom jet in $b$-tagging so that the actual background
rate measured by the detector would be larger than that
given here. This is outside the scope of our parton level study.
As discussed in Chapter~3, another process which produces a single-top
is the $W^*$ production
\begin{equation}
q' \bar q \rightarrow W^* \rightarrow t \bar b.
\label{ewstar}
\end{equation}
At 2 TeV for a 180 (140) GeV top quark,
the $W^*$ production rate is about $1/5$($1/3$) of the $W$--gluon
fusion rate.
Applying the kinematic cuts defined in Equation~(\ref{eone}) we find that
the $W^*$ process passes with about the same
efficiency as the $W$--gluon fusion process.
However, there are a few obvious differences in the kinematics of
their final state partons.
First, in the $W^*$ event, there are two $b$-jets (one for $b$ from $t$ decay
and another for $\bar b$ from production), therefore there is
a 50\% chance of tagging the wrong $b$ and giving the wrong
reconstructed top quark invariant mass, as defined in
Equation~(\ref{nineteen}).
To improve the invariant mass distribution of the top quark, one has to
be able to distinguish a $b$-jet from a $\bar b$-jet by making
further selections at the cost of
reducing the single-top rate from this process.
(Some of the techniques have been discussed in Chapter~4.)
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=etaws.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The rapidity distribution, after Equation~(\protect\ref{eone}),
of the spectator jet
({\it i.e.}, $\bar b$-jet if $b$-jet identified) in the $W^*$ event
for $m_t$=180 GeV (solid) and 140 GeV (dash)
against Figure~\protect\ref{etaone} (dots), at the Tevatron. }
\label{etaws}
\end{figure}
Second, the rapidity distribution of the spectator jet
({\it i.e.}, $\bar b$-jet if $b$-jet identified) in
the $W^*$ event peaks around zero ({\it i.e.}, central,
as shown in Figure~\ref{etaws})
because $t \bar b$ is produced through
the s--channel process.\footnote{
We note that the rapidity distribution of the $\bar b$-quark
in the $W^* \rightarrow t {\bar b}$ event is slightly asymmetric around zero.
It favors a slightly negative rapidity. (Recall that in the $W$--gluon
events for producing single-$t$, the rapidity of the spectator
quark $q$ favors positive values.)
This is similar to the lepton rapidity asymmetry observed in the
$ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} \rightarrow W^+ \rightarrow \ell^+ \nu$ events due to the ratio of the down-quark
and the up-quark parton distributions inside the proton and the
anti-proton.
} This is in contrast to that
in the $W$--gluon fusion event where the rapidity distribution ($\eta^q$)
of the spectator jet (labeled as $q$-jet)
is asymmetric and less likely to be around zero.
Third, the polarization of the top quark produced from the
$W^*$ process is not purely left-hand polarized as in the case of
the $q'b \rightarrow qt$ process.
For a 180 (140)\,GeV top quark, the ratio of the event rates for
producing a left-handed top versus a right-handed top
in the $W^*$ event is about 3.5(3.4).
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=Wstar.eps,height=3.5in}}}
\caption{ The production rate
for a left-handed (long dash) or a right-handed (short dash)
top quark from the $W^*$ process.
The upper solid line is the total rate for the
$W$--gluon fusion process, the
lower solid line for the $W^*$ process.
}
\label{ratews}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{ratews}, we show the production rate
for a left-handed or a right-handed top quark from the $W^*$ process
and compare them with that from the $W$--gluon fusion process
as a function of $m_t$.
Because the top quark is not 100\% polarized in the $W^*$ process, the
angular correlation of $\ell$ and the spectator jet
will not be as strong as that in the $W$--gluon fusion process.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=cthws.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The distribution of
$\cos \theta_{\ell q}$ in $W^*$ event
for $m_t$=180 GeV (solid) and 140 GeV (dash)
against Figure~\protect\ref{cthone} (dots),
at the Tevatron. }
\label{cthws}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{cthws} we show the distribution of
$\cos \theta_{\ell q}$ in $W^*$ events for a 140 and 180 GeV top quark.
(Here, $q$-jet denotes the spectator jet.)
Following through the previous analysis done for the $W$--gluon fusion
events we found that $W^*$ production compliments the $W$--gluon
fusion process by increasing the single-top production rate by about
$10\%$.\footnote{
The $W^*$ production rate is about one fifth of the $W$--gluon fusion
rate for a 180\,GeV top quark, and the kinematic acceptance of the
$W^*$ event is about half of that of the $W$--gluon fusion event.}
Therefore, its contribution to our final results of
various distributions is small.
In conclusion we found that at the Tevatron
($ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $, $\sqrt{S}=2\,$TeV) the single-top production rate
from the $W$--gluon fusion process after including the branching ratio
for $t \rightarrow b W^+(\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$ is about 0.22(0.44) pb for
a 180 (140) GeV top quark, where $\ell^+=e^+\, {\rm or}\,\mu^+$.
The kinematic acceptance after the kinematic cuts (\ref{eone})
and (\ref{etwo}) is about 55\%(40\%). Assuming a 30\% $b$-tagging efficiency
we concluded that the single-top event rate
from the $W$--gluon fusion process is about 0.036(0.052) pb.
For an integrated luminosity of 1 $ {\rm fb}^{-1} $, this yields
36(52) reconstructed single-top events.
(To include top-antiquark production, a factor 2 should be included.)
The dominant background process is the electroweak-QCD process
$W+b\bar b$ whose rate is about $80\%$($60\%$) of the signal rate in
the end of the analysis. The $t \bar t$ events are not as important
to our study. The $t \bar t$ rate for a 180 GeV top quark is only
$0.4\%$ and $4\%$ of the signal rate for its lepton+jet
and di-lepton mode, respectively.
In both Figs.~\ref{mtone} and~\ref{mtsone} for the distribution of
$m_t$, we have also included another single-top
production process (a single-top produced from $W^*$) which
increases the single-top rate by about 10\%.
Let us make a side remark about the dominant background
$q'\bar q \rightarrow W+b\bar b~$ before we close this section.
In the above analysis we did not include the possibility of having
an additional QCD jet from either
the radiation or the conversion of the incoming quark jet ( $q'$ or
$\bar q$). The concern is that this jet may be identified as a forward jet
which would fake the
single-top signal event. In this case, $b$ and $\bar b$ in
the $W+b\bar b+\,jet$ background event
have to both fall into a cone of $\Delta R=0.7$ in order to fake the
tagged $b$-jet (only one $b$) in the single-$t$ event
(cf. Equation~(\ref{ethree})).
To examine the possibility for this to happen, we have applied the
eikonal approximation \cite{sterman} to calculate the
rate of $W+b\bar b+\,jet$ from the square of the
$W+b\bar b$ amplitude. (The results are shown in Appendix~E.)
After the basic kinematic cuts:
\begin{eqnarray}
P_T^{jet} > 15 {\rm GeV},& |\eta^{jet}| < 3.5, \nonumber \\
P_T^\ell > 15 {\rm GeV},& |\eta^\ell| < 2, \nonumber \\
P_T^{b,\bar b} > 15 {\rm GeV},
& |\eta^{b,{\bar b}}| < 3.5,
\label{ewbbj}
\end{eqnarray}
the rate for $W+b\bar b+\,jet$ is already about a factor of 5 smaller
than that for $W+b\bar b$.
Naively, one might expect a factor of $\alpha_s(M_W)$
($\sim 0.1$) suppression
factor for emitting an additional QCD jet (quark or gluon)
in the hard scattering process. However, as compared to
the large invariant mass ($M_{Wb\bar b}$) of the $W+b \bar b$ system
a jet $P_T$ of 15\,GeV may be small enough to generate large
logs, such as $\ln(M_{Wb\bar b}/P_T)$, in the amplitudes.
Hence, because $\alpha_s \ln(M_{Wb\bar b}/P_T)$
is not negligible, the rate for $W+b\bar b+\,jet$
is not suppressed by a factor of 10 relative
to the rate of $W+b \bar b$, but only a factor of 5.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=drbbj.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ $\Delta R_{b \bar b}$ distributions in
$W+b\bar b+\,jet$ (solid) and $W+b\bar b$ (dash) events after applying
the cuts listed in (\protect\ref{ewbbj}). }
\label{wbbr}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mbbj.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ $M_{b \bar b}$ distributions in
$W+b\bar b+\,jet$ (solid) and $W+b\bar b$ (dash) events after applying
the cuts listed in (\protect\ref{ewbbj}). }
\label{wbbrmbb}
\end{figure}
To see how often $b$ and $\bar b$ will fall into a cone of $\Delta R=0.7$ we
show in Figs.~\ref{wbbr} and \ref{wbbrmbb}
the $\Delta R_{b \bar b}$ and the $M_{b \bar b}$ distributions
in $W+b\bar b+\,jet$ events after applying
the kinematic cuts listed in (\ref{ewbbj}). The same distribution
in $W+b\bar b$ events is also shown for comparison.
The $\Delta R_{b \bar b}$ distributions look alike, and
the $M_{b \bar b}$ distribution falls slowly as
$M_{b \bar b}$ increases. Also, the
$W+b\bar b+\,jet$ event prefers a larger $M_{b \bar b}$
because the $P_T$ of $b$ and $\bar b$ are larger in this process
than that in the $W+b\bar b$ process.
We find that only about $20\%$ of the $W+b\bar b+\,jet$ events can
possibly fake the single-$t$ event by having $b$ and $\bar b$
inside the same jet-cone and thus fake a tagged $b$-jet.
Hence, the additional background rate from
$W+b\bar b+\,jet$ events is about a factor
of ${1 \over 5} \times 20\% =4\%$ of
the electroweak-QCD background rate.
Although our estimate is not precise, we believe our conclusion
for this additional background should hold within a factor of 2.
Hence, this additional background is negligible at the Tevatron.
However, it can be important at the LHC. Because the energy of the
LHC collider is much higher, it is more likely
to have additional radiation in the event and to boost
the $b \bar b$ system to make them closer and thus fall into the same jet-cone.
\section{ Tevatron with $\protect\sqrt{S}=4$\,TeV }
Here we present our results for a possible upgrade of the Tevatron
with $\sqrt{S}=4\,$TeV.
After the following kinematic cuts:
\begin{eqnarray}
P_T^q > 15 \, {\rm GeV},& |\eta^q| < 3.5, \nonumber \\
P_T^\ell > 15 \, {\rm GeV},& |\eta^\ell| < 2, \nonumber \\
P_T^b > 30 \, {\rm GeV},& |\eta^b| < 2, \nonumber \\
\mynot{E_T} > 15 \, {\rm GeV},& \Delta R_{qb} > 0.7 ~,
\label{eonep}
\end{eqnarray}
the signal rate is about $0.28(0.37)$ pb.
(The efficiency of these cuts is 45\%(56\%).)
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=eta.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The rapidity distribution
of the spectator quark $q$, after cuts in Equation~(\protect\ref{eonep}),
for the signal $q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$,
and of the spectator quark $\bar b$ for the major background
$q' \bar{q} \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$ (dots),
for $m_t=180\,$GeV (solid) and 140\,GeV (dash),
at the Di-TeV.}
\label{etatwo}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{etatwo} the typical rapidity of the spectator jet in the
signal event is about 2, and almost all the signal events
have $|\eta^q| < 3.5$.
An asymmetric cut on $P_T$ was used once again
to suppress the major background process $W+b+\,jet$.
Demanding $P_T^b > 15\,$GeV along with the other cuts
in Equation~(\ref{eonep}),
the signal-to-background ratio (S/B) is about $1.1$($1.7$).
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=ptb.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{
$P_T$ distribution of the $b$ quark, after requiring
$P^b_T > 15\,$GeV along with all the
other cuts in~(\protect\ref{eonep}), for the signal
$q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$, and the major
background $q' \bar q \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$,
at the Di-TeV.}
\label{ptbtwo}
\end{figure}
We show in Figure~\ref{ptbtwo} the $P_T$ distribution of the tagged $b$
from $t$.
Requiring $P_T^b > 30$ GeV excludes about half of the background
events sacrificing about $6\%$($20\%$) of the signal.
After all the cuts listed in Equation~(\ref{eonep}), S/B $\simeq 2.3(3.0)$
with the signal rate at 0.28(0.37) pb.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=cth.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ $\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$ distribution for the signal
$q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$ and background
$q' \bar q \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$
at the Di-TeV. }
\label{cthtwo}
\end{figure}
We show in Figure~\ref{cthtwo} the distribution of
$\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$.
After applying the cut (\ref{etwo}), the ratio S/B $\simeq 2.9(3.8)$
with the signal rate of 0.22(0.29) pb.
In the end of the analysis there are about $2200(2900)$ single-$t$ events
for an integrated luminosity of 10 ${\rm fb}^{-1}$
at $\sqrt{S}=4$ TeV (a $ \bar{{\rm p}} {\rm p} $ collider) with a
significance ${\rm S/{\sqrt{B}}}$ of about $80(105)$.
The kinematic acceptance of the signal event is about
$43\%$($34\%$). Note that in all the above rates we have included
the reduction factor from a 30\% $b$-tagging efficiency.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mt2.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The $m_t$ distribution after the
cuts Equation~(\protect\ref{eonep}) and Equation~(\protect\ref{etwo})
for $m_t$ = 180 GeV (solid) and 140 GeV (dash) at the Di-TeV,
including both the signal and background events with
$W^\pm \rightarrow e^\pm \, {\rm or} \, \mu^\pm$. }
\label{mttwo}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{mttwo}, we show the reconstructed
invariant mass ($m_t$) of the top quark.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mt2s.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ Same as Figure~\protect\ref{mttwo} but with detector
resolution effects as described in Equation~(\protect\ref{efive}). }
\label{mtstwo}
\end{figure}
Once again, to incorporate the effects of detector efficiencies,
we smear the final state parton momenta as in~(\ref{efive}).
The $m_t$ distribution becomes slightly broader as
shown in Figure~\ref{mtstwo};
however, both the signal and the background rates are almost
the same as those obtained with a perfect detector.
\section{ LHC with $\protect\sqrt{S}=14$\,TeV }
Here we present our results for the LHC with $\sqrt{S}=14$\,TeV.
After the following kinematic cuts
\begin{eqnarray}
P_T^q > 40 \, {\rm GeV},& 1 < |\eta^q| < 4, \nonumber \\
P_T^\ell > 40 \, {\rm GeV},& |\eta^\ell| < 2, \nonumber \\
P_T^b > 40 \, {\rm GeV},& |\eta^b| < 2, \nonumber \\
\mynot{E_T} > 40 \, {\rm GeV},& \Delta R_{qb} > 0.7~,
\label{eonepp}
\end{eqnarray}
the signal rate is about $0.44(0.24)$ pb.
(The efficiency of the cuts is 94\%(98\%).
We still assume a 30\% efficiency for the $b$-tagging at the LHC.)
Here we did not impose a smaller $P_T^q$ cut
because a lower $P_T$ jet will be more difficult
to be identified at the LHC. (A typical QCD event at the supercollider
will be engulfed by soft gluon radiation.)
Since the signal event yield is large
at the LHC, we decided to purify our data simply by requiring
a large $P_T^q$ cut.
Notice that the rate for
$m_t$ = 180 GeV is larger at the LHC than that for $m_t$ = 140 GeV
after our cuts, opposite to the behavior of the rate at 2 TeV and
4 TeV. This is due in part to less sensitivity to $m_t$ at higher
energies, but mainly because the $b$ from top decay is much harder
for larger top mass and thus is less sensitive to the cut of
$P_T^b > 40$ GeV. The typical $P_T^b$ for $m_t$ = 180 (140) GeV is
60(40) GeV.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=ptb3.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{
$P_T$ distribution of the $b$ quark, after
cuts in~(\protect\ref{eonepp}), for the signal
$q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$, and the major
background $q' \bar q \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$,
at the LHC.}
\label{ptbthr}
\end{figure}
We show in Figure~(\ref{ptbthr})
the $P_T$ distribution of the tagged $b$ from $t$.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=eta3.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The rapidity distribution
of the spectator quark $q$, after cuts in Equation~(\protect\ref{eonepp}),
for the signal $q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$,
and of the spectator quark $\bar b$ for the major background
$q' \bar{q} \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$ (dots),
for $m_t=180\,$GeV (solid) and 140\,GeV (dash),
at the LHC.}
\label{etathr}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{etathr} the typical rapidity of the spectator jet in the
signal event is about 3, but
a cut on $|\eta^q| < 4$ keeps almost all the signal events.
Excluding the $|\eta^q| > 1$ cut in~(\ref{eonepp})
the signal-to-background ratio (S/B) is about 10(7).
Requiring $|\eta^q| > 1$ excludes about $40\%$ of the background
events sacrificing about $15\%$($20\%$) of the signal.
After the kinematic cuts in ~(\ref{eonepp}), the ratio S/B $\simeq 25(14)$.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=cth3.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ $\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$ distribution for the signal
$q' b \rightarrow q t (\rightarrow b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu) )$ and background
$q' q \rightarrow \bar b b W^+ (\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu)$
at the LHC. }
\label{cththr}
\end{figure}
We show in Figure~\ref{cththr} the distribution of $\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$
at the LHC. After the $\cos \theta_{{\ell}q}$ cut, S/B $\simeq 40(20)$.
In the end of the analysis, there are about $30,000(15,000)$
single-top events for an integrated luminosity of 100 ${\rm fb}^{-1}$
at $\sqrt{S}=14\,$TeV (a $ {\rm p} {\rm p} $ collider) with a
significance ${\rm S/{\sqrt{B}}}$ of about $32(16)$.
Hence, about $4\%$($2\%$) of the total signal event rate remains.
This is thus the kinematic acceptance
for the signal process~(\ref{ethree}).
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mt3.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ The $m_t$ distribution after the
cuts Equation~(\protect\ref{eonepp}) and Equation~(\protect\ref{etwo})
for $m_t$ = 180\,GeV (solid) and 140\,GeV (dash) at the LHC
including both the signal and background events with
$W^\pm \rightarrow e^\pm \, {\rm or} \, \mu^\pm$. }
\label{mtthr}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{mtthr}, we show the reconstructed
invariant mass ($m_t$) of the top quark for a perfect detector.
Once again, to incorporate the effects of detector efficiencies,
we smear the final state parton momenta as in~(\ref{efive})
\begin{figure}[p]
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=mt3s.eps,height=4.5in}}}
\caption{ Same as Figure~\protect\ref{mtthr}, but with detector resolution
effects as described in Equation~(\protect\ref{efive}). }
\label{mtsthr}
\end{figure}
and reconstruct the $m_t$ distribution for the LHC
is shown in Figure~\ref{mtsthr}.
Notice that the above analysis for the LHC is less reliable because the
energy of the collider is much higher and therefore it is more
likely to have additional soft-jets accompanying
the signal and the background events.
As discussed at the end of
section 7.1, it would be more reliable to use a full event generator
such as ISAJET \cite{isajet}, PYTHIA \cite{pythia} or
HERWIG \cite{herwig} for this study because these
generators contain radiation from either the initial or
final states.
However, these generators currently do not have the
correct angular correlations in $\ell$ and jets, as
discussed in this analysis.
It would therefore be important in the future to improve these generators to
incorporate the polarization effects of the top quark and the $W$--boson
for studying physics of the top quark in hadron collisions.
\chapter{Discussions and Conclusions}
We discussed the physics of top quark production and decay
at hadron colliders, such as the Tevatron, the Di-TeV~and the LHC.
We showed how to use the invariant mass distribution of $m_{b\ell}$
to measure the mass and the width of the
top quark, produced from either a single-top or a $t \bar t$ pair
process.
It has been shown in Reference~\cite{steve} that
the distribution of $m_{b\ell}$ is not sensitive to
radiative corrections from QCD interactions. Thus
it can be reliably used to test the polarization of the
$W$--boson from $t$ decay (hence, test the polarization of
the top quark from the production mechanism)
and to measure the mass of the top quark using the observed value
of $f_{\rm Long}$ (the fraction of longitudinal $W$'s from top decays).
We also discussed how well the couplings of $t$-${b}$-$W$ vertex
can be measured to probe new physics, and how well the
CP properties of the top quark can be tested in
electron or hadron colliders.
In Reference~\cite{wgtb} we showed that an almost perfect efficiency
for ``kinematic $b$ tagging'' can be achieved
due to the characteristic features of
$W$--gluon fusion events.
In addition, the ability of performing $b$-tagging using a
vertex detector increases the detection efficiency
of a heavy top quark
produced via the $W$--gluon fusion process.
A detailed Monte Carlo study
on how to identify the characteristic features of the signal events
({\it i.e.}, the transverse momentum and
the rapidity distributions of the spectator quark which emitted
the virtual $W$)
and therefore suppress the background events
was performed in Chapter~8.\footnote{
The fortran code, ONETOP, used for this study is available by request.
In Appendix F we briefly describe the processes included in this
program.
}
For an integrated luminosity of 1 $ {\rm fb}^{-1} $,
there will be about 75 (105)
single-$t$ or single-$\bar t$ events reconstructed
in the lepton+jet mode
for $m_t = 180 \,(140)$\,GeV at $\sqrt{S} = 2$ TeV.
(The branching ratio of $W \rightarrow e, \, {\rm or} \, \mu$ is included, and
the $b$-quark tagging efficiency is assumed to be 30\% for $P^b_t > 30\,$GeV
with no misidentifications of a $b$-jet from other QCD jets.)
The dominant background process is the electroweak-QCD process
$W+b\bar b$ whose rate is about $80\%$($60\%$) of the signal rate in
the end of the analysis. The $t \bar t$ events are not as important
to our study.
The results for $\sqrt{S} = 4$\,TeV at the Di-TeV
and for $\sqrt{S} = 14$\,TeV at the LHC were also discussed.
Although the $W^* \rightarrow t \bar b$ rate in the SM
is not as large as the $W$--gluon fusion rate for producing
a heavy top quark, it remains a complementary process for probing
new physics in the single-top quark event.
The $W^*$ process is particularly useful for detecting new physics
through some possible high mass resonance in the theory.
In that case, its rate will be highly enhanced by the resonance effects.
We however did not study such a possibility in this work because
its rate depends on the details of the models considered.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Intro}
The quantized Hall effect\cite{Klit1} provides particularly interesting tests
of our understanding of electrical transport.
Application of a resistance formula which treats all contacts to
a two-dimensional electron gas on equal footing\cite{Buet1} has considerably
revised the traditional picture of the quantized Hall effect and
has led to the successful explanation of many novel experiments\cite{Haug}.
It is the purpose of this work to approach the
low frequency electrical transport
in two-dimensional electron systems (2DES)
subject to strong magnetic fields from a similar point of view.
In contrast to the dc-transport properties, which have become
increasingly well understood, the ac-transport properties have found much
less attention. However,
a charge and current conserving theory for the low
frequency admittance $G_{\alpha \beta} (\omega) $
of a general arrangement of mesoscopic
conductors has recently been worked out
\cite{Buet7,Buet5}. We apply this theory to
Hall systems in the integer quantum Hall regime at a plateau.
A charge and current conserving theory requires knowledge
of the non-equilibrium potential distribution inside the conductor.
In the quantum Hall regime the determination of this potential
becomes simple due to the formation of edge channels \cite{Halp1}.
As discussed in detail by Chklovskii et al.\cite{Chkl1}
and closely related works
\cite{Coop1,Lier1,Efro1,Chan1,Been1,Gelf1,Mend1},
there occurs a decomposition of a 2DES in metal-like
edge channels and dielectric-like regions. Consequently,
the non-equilibrium potential is also
determined by the properties of the edge channels.
If the edge channels behave like perfect metals they screen any excess
charge. The resulting non-equilibrium potential is determined by the
geometry of the edge-channel arrangement alone.
On the other hand, if the charge in the edge
channels is not perfectly screened the non-equilibrium
potential depends on the density of states of the edge
channels. The resulting potential distribution is not of geometrical
nature alone but contains quantum corrections due to the finite
density of states of the edge channels.
It is of particular interest to investigate to what extent
such quantum corrections affect the dynamic transport properties
of a 2DES.\\ \indent
The admittance $G_{\alpha
\beta} (\omega) $ gives the linear current response
$\delta I_{\alpha} \exp(-i\omega t)$ at a contact $\alpha $ of a
device, if at contact $\beta $ a
voltage oscillation $\delta V_{\beta} \exp(-i\omega t)$ is applied:
\begin{equation}
\delta I_{\alpha}(\omega) = \sum _{\beta}
G_{\alpha \beta} (\omega) \; \delta V_{\beta}(\omega)\;\;.
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
The voltage variation $\delta V_{\beta}$ is related to the variation
of the electro-chemical
potential $\delta \mu _{\beta} $ in reservoir $\beta $ by $\delta
\mu _{\beta}=e\delta V _{\beta}$, where $e$ is the electron charge.
The theory \cite{Buet7,Buet5} deals with the
dc-conductance, $G_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}$,
and the first-order term with respect to frequency,
$ E_{\alpha \beta}\equiv i(dG_{\alpha \beta}/d\omega)_{\omega = 0}$,
which is called the \em emittance \rm matrix. The low frequency
admittance can then approximately be written in the form
\begin{equation}
G_{\alpha \beta} (\omega)= G_{\alpha \beta} ^{(0)}-i\omega E_{\alpha \beta}
\;\;.
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
For an array of macroscopic conductors of which each is connected
to a single contact, the emittance is just a geometrical capacitance,
i.e. $E_{\alpha \beta }= C_{\alpha \beta }$. However,
this is not true for {\em mesoscopic} conductors and conductors which
connect {\em different} reservoirs \cite{Buet5}. Firstly, it is not
the geometrical capacitance but rather the {\em electro-chemical
capacitance } which relates charges at mesoscopic
conductors with voltage variations
in the reservoirs. Secondly, conductors which connect
different reservoirs allow a transmission of charge which leads to
inductance-like contributions to the emittance.\\ \indent
We shall show
that the emittance $E_{\alpha \beta}$ of a quantized Hall sample
is the sum over
elements of the electro-chemical capacitance matrix, $c_{\mu, kl}$,
for edge-channels $l$ into which charge is injected at contact
$\beta $ and for edge-channels $k$ from
which charge is emitted into contact $\alpha $.
The electro-chemical capacitance matrix, $c_{\mu, kl}$, is
determined by considering each edge channel as a metal strip connected
to a single contact. Our expression for the emittance is simple
enough in order to discuss arbitrarily complicated edge-channel
arrangements without much technical effort, once the
electro-chemical capacitance matrix of the edge-channel arrangement is known.
We emphasize here that our theory satisfies charge and current conservation
which are due to a perfect screening of
electric fields in the reservoirs and in the gates used to form the conductor.
Current conservation implies that
the admittance satisfies $\sum _{\beta} G_{\alpha \beta}
= \sum _{\alpha} G_{\alpha \beta} =0$.\\ \indent
Two simple geometries can be used to illustrate the different behavior of
the emittance, namely the Hall bar geometry (Fig. \ref{fig1}.a),
and the Corbino geometry (Fig. \ref{fig1}.b).
We will show that
in a Hall bar kinetic charge motion of electrons along
the edge channels dominates the Coulomb interaction between the
reservoirs. The emittance is a negative electro-chemical
capacitance, i.e. $E= -C_{\mu} ,$ with $C_{\mu} > 0$. On the other hand,
in the Corbino geometry contacts are located at the inner and the outer
perimeter of an annular film\cite{vanW1,Jean1}. Hence, edge channels do
not connect different reservoirs and will thus not contribute
to a dc-current. Moreover, in contrast to the bar geometry
in the Corbino disc capacitive effects
dominate and the emittance is a capacitance, i.e. $E= C_{\mu}$.\\ \indent
The transverse potential profile in a cross section of
these conductors is qualitatively shown shown in Fig. \ref{fig2}
which is to be discussed below. Here we only mention that
the similarity of this potential for the two different setups
applies only to the bulk of the sample.
We will assume in this work that the capacitances and emittances are
dominated by the bulk and that contact capacitances can be neglected.
\\ \indent
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \ref{Equilibrium}
we briefly recall the edge-channel picture of a 2DES at equilibrium.
In Sect. \ref{Nonequilibrium}, we discuss the
dc-nonequilibrium electric potential in terms of
an electro-chemical capacitance matrix, and the
expression for the dc-conductance $G_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}$
is derived. In Sect. \ref{Emittance} we outline
the theory of emittances and derive an expression for the emittance matrix
$ E_{\alpha \beta}$ for quantized Hall samples. The result is
applied to various specific examples in Sect.
\ref{Examples}. In Sect. \ref{incoherent} we investigate the effect of a
voltage probe. As an application, we calculate in Sect. \ref{Hall}
the longitudinal resistance and the Hall resistance of a four-probe
quantum Hall bar for low frequencies.
\section{Quantized Hall Samples at Equilibrium}
\label{Equilibrium}
We begin with a brief discussion of important equilibrium
properties of a 2DES at an (integer) Hall plateau. Consider the two-terminal
quantum Hall bar in Fig. \ref{fig1}.a. The bar
is connected on either side via ideal contacts to particle reservoirs
$\alpha =1,2$ at electro-chemical potentials $\mu_{\alpha} =
E_{F,\alpha}+eU_{\alpha}$. Here, $E_{F,\alpha}$ and $U_{\alpha}$
denote the chemical and the electric potential of reservoir
$\alpha$, respectively. The strong magnetic field is assumed
to be perpendicular to the plane of the 2DES.
Translational invariance of the potential $eU(x)$ in the $y$-direction allows
one to restrict the considerations to a transverse cross section of
the sample. The single-particle potential as a function of
$x$ is sketched in Fig. \ref{fig2}.a for the equilibrium case
where the reservoirs are kept at equal electro-chemical potential,
say $\mu = E_{F}$ where $U_{\alpha}\equiv 0$. For the moment, we assume
that the Fermi level lies in the region
between the extended bulk states of the first and the second (spin-split)
Landau levels. Hence, in the bulk the states of a
single Landau level are
completely filled (black dots in Fig. \ref{fig2}.a).
At the sample boundary, however,
the confinement potential
strongly bends up the single-particle potential which, therefore,
intersects the Fermi energy. This leads to the existence of
extended states at the Fermi level (edge channels) along the
sample boundary.
For non-interacting electrons\cite{Halp1}
the intersection of the single particle energy with the Fermi energy
is sharp. The transverse size of an edge channel is of the order of
a magnetic length,
$l_{m}= \sqrt{\hbar /|eB|}$.
The mean drift velocity of a carrier with coordinate $x$ points in
$y$-direction and is given by \cite{McDo1} $ v (x)= (dU/dx)/B.$
This is just the Lorentz drift of
the center of a cyclotron orbit in an electric field.
\\ \indent
In a quantized Hall sample a current density
exists which is a pure equilibrium phenomenon and cannot
lead to a current between reservoirs. For a filled Landau level,
the diamagnetic current density can be written in the form
\cite{McDo1}
\begin{equation}
j = -\frac{e^{2}}{h}\: \frac{dU}{dx} \;\;.
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
The total current through a contact is obtained by a transverse
spatial integral of $j(x)$. It vanishes at equilibrium since at both
boundaries of integration,
$\mu = E_{F}+eU_{k}$ holds, where $k=1,2$ labels the edge channels.
Of course, this statement is valid independent
of the geometrical arrangement of the edge channels as long as the
cross section is constructed such that all edge channels of a contact
are included. In particular, it is independent of the specific
space dependence of the equilibrium potential
which can be very complicated.\\ \indent
The inclusion of Coulomb
interaction, even within a mean-field approximation,
drastically affects the results of the single-particle approach.
Coulomb interactions lead to an electro-static restructuring of the edge
\cite{Chkl1,Coop1,Lier1,Efro1,Chan1,Been1}.
The 2DES is composed of alternating strips of compressible and
incompressible electron liquids with finite widths. Incompressible
regions where the filling factor has discrete values behave like
dielectrics. Quantitative analytical
predictions of the widths of the compressible and incompressible
strips have been made by Chklovskii et al.\cite{Chkl1}.
These predictions are in good agreement with numerical work by
Lier and Gerhardts\cite{Lier1}.
Edge channels correspond to the compressible regions
where single-particle states are partially filled and
the electric potential is pinned to the Fermi level (flat parts in
Fig. \ref{fig2}.a).
Edge channels have screening properties similar to metallic strips.
The many-particle effects become important if the
strength $ dU/dx$ of the (unscreened)
confinement field is weaker than the characteristic electric
field of electron-electron interaction, i.e.
if $\alpha \equiv |dU/dx| 4\pi \epsilon _{0}\epsilon_{r} l_{m}^{2}/e \ll
1$, where $\epsilon _{0} \epsilon_{r}$ is the dielectric constant.
The strength of the confinement field depends on the specific
fabrication of the boundaries of the 2DES under consideration
(etching, gates, etc.). It has been argued that compressible and
incompressible strips can even become comparable in size \cite{Chkl1}.
Interaction-dominated edge channels are useful in the theory
of the fractional quantum Hall effect \cite{Chan1,Been1,Chkl2,Kane1}.
However, the structure of fractional edge channels is much more complicated,
and we shall restrict our considerations to the integer quantum Hall
regime.\\ \indent
In the following considerations, three quantities which characterize
the equilibrium state of a sample are important in order to discuss
low frequency transport close to equilibrium.
First, the density of states, $dN_{k}/dE$, of the edge channel $k$ at the
Fermi level gives the
change in the number of states if the electro-chemical potential is
varied for fixed electrostatic potential (i.e. fixed band bottom).
For non-interacting electrons this density of states is determined
by the (equilibrium) velocity of carriers $v(s) = (dU_{eq}(s)/dx)/B$
along the
the path $s$ of the edge channel, where $x$ is now the transverse
coordinate. It is given by $dN_{k}/dE = \int ds/hv $, where the
integral over $s$ is along the entire path of the edge channel
from one sample contact to the other. For the interacting model
this density of states diverges at $kT = 0$ since the single particle
potential is flat. But the density of states is finite for any
non-vanishing temperature. A finite DOS of edge channels due to a
considerable suppression of screening at small
temperatures is indicated by the numerical results presented by
Lier and Gerhardts\cite{Lier1}.\\ \indent
Secondly, one can attribute to the arrangement of metal-like edge
channels a geometrical capacitance matrix $c_{jk}$.
For given geometry, this matrix
can in principle be derived with the help of Poisson's equation.
For metallic screening this capacitance matrix is determined by the
width and location of the edge channels. It is, therefore,
also a function of the magnetic field and the electro-chemical
potentials applied to the contacts and the gates \cite{Govo1}.
\\ \indent
We finally take into account that each edge channel connects
reservoirs in a directed way, due to the uni-directional velocity of
the carriers. This connection is determined by the transmission and
reflection probability of the contact. In the following,
we shall always regard the just mentioned characteristics of the
equilibrium state to be given.
\section{The Nonequilibrium Steady State}
\label{Nonequilibrium}
\subsection{Electro-chemical capacitance of edge channels}
Consider the two-terminal bar of Fig. \ref{fig1}.a under
nonequilibrium conditions. A cross section of the single-particle potential
in the nonequilibrium case is shown in Fig.
\ref{fig2}.b. A small increase of the voltage
$\delta V_{\beta}$ at contact $\beta $, say $\beta =1$,
implies an electro-chemical voltage shift $\delta V_{k} $ in
channel $k$.
If the transmission probability from the contact into the edge
channel is $1$, then the chemical potential shift of that edge channel
is the same as that of the reservoir
$\delta V_{k} = \delta V_{\beta}.$
As a consequence, into the edge channel a charge is injected
which is proportional to the
density of states (DOS) $dN_{k}/dE$ of the edge channel $k$.
This added charge
creates in the whole sample an electric nonequilibrium potential
which shifts the band bottom. This leads, in turn, to the injection
of screening charge. The total charge $\delta q_{k}$ in edge channel
$k$ is then given by
\begin{equation}
\delta q_{k}=D_{k}(\delta V_{k}-\delta U_{k })\;\;,
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
where $D_{k}=e^{2}dN_{k}/dE$ is the quantum capacitance of edge channel $k$.
The nonequilibrium electric potential
$\delta U_{k}$ of edge channel $k$ can be calculated for a given charge
distribution by solving the electrostatic boundary-value problem
associated with Poisson's equation.
This leads to the introduction of the geometrical capacitance matrix
$ c_{kj}$ of the edge-channel configuration by $ \delta q_{k}
= \sum _{j} c_{k j} \delta U_{j}$. Note, that the $c_{kj}$ are
calculated for edge channels which are {\em disconnected } from
the contacts and where charge is not conserved.
But the relevant (gauge invariant)
potentials are the electro-chemical potentials and not the
electrostatic potentials of disconnected edge channels.
We define thus an
electro-chemical capacitance matrix $ c_{\mu,kj}$ by \cite{Buet7}
\begin{equation}
\delta q_{k}= \sum _{j} c_{\mu,k j } \; \delta V_{j}
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
considering charge conservation, $\sum \delta q _{i} = 0$,
which is due to the connection to the reservoirs.
One finds then from Eqs. (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq7})
$c_{\mu,11}=c_{\mu,22}=
-c_{\mu,12}=-c_{\mu,21}\equiv c_{\mu}$, where the relative electro-chemical
capacitance $c_{\mu}$ of the two edge channels is given by
\begin{equation}
c_{\mu}^{-1}=c_{0}^{-1}+D_{1}^{-1}+D_{2}^{-1} \;\;.
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
This describes the relative geometrical capacitance
\cite{Landau}, $c_{0}= (c_{11}c_{22}-c_{12}^{2})/(c_{11}+2c_{12}
+c_{22}) $, in series with the quantum capacitances $D_{k}$.\\ \indent
As an example, we consider the non-interacting case where the
widths $\xi _{k}$ of the edge channels $k=1,2$ of length $L_{y}$ are
very small (i.e. $\xi _{k} \approx l_{m}$). For the sake of
simplicity, we assume them to be equal to each other,
$\xi _{k} \equiv \xi $. The distance between the edge channels
is denoted by $L_{x}$, and the charge is to be uniformly
distributed in the edge channels. For line charges,
the geometrical capacitance becomes \cite{Hira1}
$c_{0}=
(L_{y}\pi\epsilon _{0} \epsilon _{r})/(1+\ln(L_{x}/\xi))$.
The density of states $D_{k}$, on the other hand, are given by
$D_{k}=L_{y}e/(2\pi l_{m}^{2}\:|dU_{k}/dx|)$,
where we assumed
very steep confinement potentials $dU_{k}/dx=(dU/dx)_{x_{k}}$ at the
edge channels located at $x_{k}$. The electro-chemical capacitance
$c_{\mu}$ can then be written as
\begin{equation}
c_{\mu} =\frac{\pi \epsilon _{0} \epsilon _{r}L_{y}}
{1+ \ln (L_{x}/\xi) +\pi (\alpha _{1}+ \alpha _{2})/2}\;\;.
\label{eq9}
\end{equation}
Here $\alpha _{k}=|dU_{k}/dx| 4 \pi \epsilon _{0} \epsilon _{r}
l_{m}^{2} /e $
is the ratio between the confinement field and the interaction field
at the edge channel $k$.
To be consistent with the non-interacting case, one must have $\alpha
_{k}\gg 1$. Note that $c_{\mu}$
depends on the magnetic field via $\alpha _{k} \propto 1/B $, and via the
$B$-dependence of the geometry of the edge-channel arrangement.\\ \indent
Charge conservation in the sample is reflected by the sum rule
\begin{equation}
\sum _{k}c_{\mu,kl}=\sum_{l}c_{\mu,kl}=0\;\;,
\label{eq10}
\end{equation}
which is a well-known property of a set of capacitors where ground
is included. One concludes that two-terminal systems are
particularly simple since $2\times 2$-matrices satisfying Eq.
(\ref{eq10}) are characterized
by a single quantity and have thus purely scalar properties.
We will see later on that equations analogous to Eq. (\ref{eq10})
hold also for the dc-conductance and the emittance
\cite{Buet5,Chen1}. Below it will be important that
the electro-chemical capacitance matrix is
symmetric and an even
function of the magnetic field, i.e. $c_{\mu,kl}(B)=c_{\mu,lk}(B)$
and $c_{\mu,kl}(B)=c_{\mu,kl}(-B)$, respectively. These properties are
evident from our definition of $c_{\mu,kl}$.\\ \indent
\subsection{DC-conductance for a two-terminal Hall bar}
To find the dc-conductance in the transmission approach the current
can be evaluated in response to a small variation
of the chemical potential of the contacts keeping
the electro-static potential fixed at its equilibrium value. The transmission
probabilities are a functional of the equilibrium electrostatic potential
only. Here we briefly discuss the derivation of the dc-conductance
using the actual non-equilibrium current. For a detailed discussion of the
various possible definitions of currents and their physical interpretation
we refer the reader to Komiyama and Hirai\cite{Komi1}.
In order to find the dc-conductance $G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}$
of the bar in Fig. \ref{fig1}.a, we remark that the
total nonequilibrium current through a contact consists of
two contributions \cite{Thou1,Shik1}. At contact $1$, for example,
a first part $\delta I^{(u)}_{1}\equiv
(e^{2}/h)(\delta U_{1}-\delta U_{2})$ originates from the action of
the nonequilibrium electric field on the occupied equilibrium states
in the Landau level. This part is obtained from a spatial integration
of the current density (\ref{eq3}) in the region between the edge channels.
A second part $
\delta I^{(q)}_{1} \equiv (\delta q_{1} v_{1}+\delta q_{2}
v_{2})/L_{y}$
is caused by the motion of the added charge density $\delta q_{k}/L_{y}$
with an equilibrium velocity $v_{k}$ in edge channel $k$.
In the present notation, the relation between the velocity and the
DOS for quasi one-dimensional conductors reads
$ v_{k}=\pm L_{y}e^{2}/(hD_{k}) $ where the sign is different for
opposite edge channels. Using this and Eq. (\ref{eq5}) gives
$\delta I^{(q)}_{1} = (e^{2}/h) (\delta V_{1}-\delta U_{1}) -
(e^{2}/h) (\delta V_{2}-\delta U_{2})$. It follows immediately
that the total current $\delta I_{1} =
\delta I^{(u)}_{1}+\delta I^{(q)}_{1}$ depends only on
the electro-chemical potentials of the contacts and is given by
$\delta I_{1} = (e^{2}/h)(\delta V_{1}- \delta V_{2})$ with a
zero-frequency conductance $G^{(0)}\equiv
G_{11}^{(0)}=G_{22}^{(0)}=-G_{12}^{(0)}=-G_{21}^{(0)}=e^{2}/h$.
This universal result reflects the integer quantum Hall effect
\cite{Klit1}. Using $\delta q_{1} = c_{0} (\delta U_{1}-\delta U_{2})$ and
$\delta q_{1}= c_{\mu} (\delta V_{1}-\delta V_{2})$ with $c_{\mu}$ given by
Eq. (\ref{eq8}) we find for the ratio of the two currents
$\delta I^{(q)}/\delta I^{(u)}=(D_{1}^{-1}+D_{2}^{-1})\: c_{0}$.
This ratio is large for small DOS $D_{k}$ of the edge channels, i.e.
for a sufficiently steep slope of the confinement potential, when
the chemical contribution to the current predominates.
On the other hand, if the edge channels
are \em macroscopic \rm metallic conductors with complete screening,
($\delta U_{\alpha}\to \delta V_{\alpha} $ and
$v_{k}\to 0$) the chemical contribution vanishes and the electrostatic
contribution predominates.
\subsection{DC-conductance for an $M$-terminal sample with $N$ edge channels}
Consider now a more general quantum Hall sample with $M$ contacts and
$N$ edge channels.
We assume that the density of states, $D_{k}$,
and the electro-chemical
capacitance matrix, $ c_{\mu, kj}$ ($k,j=1,...,N$), are known.
An expression for $c_{\mu,kj}$ in terms of the geometrical
capacitance, $c_{kj}$, and the DOS of the edge channels, $D_{k}$,
is derived
in an appendix. Eqs. (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq7}) are still valid
in the present case.
Each edge channel $k$ is connected to reservoirs $\alpha $ and $\beta $, where
$\alpha = \beta $ is permitted. Reservoir $\beta $
injects carriers into edge channel $k$ from which
carriers are emitted into reservoir $\alpha $.
For simplicity and to be definite,
we assume that the contact resistances of this sample
are quantized\cite{vanW2,Muel1}. The transmission probability of a
carrier in contact $\beta$ to enter edge channel $k$ is denoted by
$\Delta _{k \beta}(B)$ and for quantized contact resistances
is given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{k\beta}(B) =\cases{1 &${\rm if \; contact } \;\; \beta
{\rm \;\; injects \; into \; channel \;\; } k$ \cr
0 &$\;\;\;\; {\rm otherwise} $ \cr} \;\;.
\label{eq16}
\end{equation}
Similarly, we introduce the probability of a carrier which approaches
contact $\beta$ on an edge channel $k$ to enter the contact
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{\alpha l}(B) =\cases{1 &${\rm if \; channel} \;\; l
{\rm \;\; emits \; into \; contact \;\; } \alpha $ \cr
0 &$\;\;\;\; {\rm otherwise} $ \cr} \;\;.
\label{eq16b}
\end{equation}
From the micro-reversibility properties of the transmission probabilities
we have $\Delta _{\beta k}(B)= \Delta _{k \beta}(-B)$.
The transmission probability of the contact plays the
role of a topological factor determined by the connectivity of the
edge channel to the contacts of the sample.
With the help of the contact transmission probability (\ref{eq16}), the
variation $\delta V_{k}$ of the electro-chemical voltage of edge channel
$k$ can be expressed in terms of the voltages $\delta V_{\beta}$
in the reservoirs:
\begin{equation}
\delta V_{k}=\sum _{\beta=1}^{M} \Delta _{k\beta}\: \delta
V_{\beta} \;\;.
\label{eq16a}
\end{equation}
The charge $\delta q _{k}$ in edge channel $k$ is then related to voltage
variations in the contacts by
\begin{equation}
\delta q_{k}= \sum _{\beta=1}^{M} \sum _{l=1}^{N}
c_{\mu,k l } \Delta _{l\beta} \; \delta
V_{\beta} \;\;.
\label{eq17}
\end{equation}
The total charge in all those channels into which contact $\alpha $
injects is $\sum_{k}\delta
q_{k}\: \Delta _{k\alpha} $. If there is no transmission (i.e. if all edge
channels are connected to a single contact), one has
$\Delta _{k\alpha } = \Delta _{\alpha k}$.
A capacitance measurement yields then a capacitance matrix
\begin{equation}
C_{\mu ,\alpha \beta }= \sum_{k,l=1}^{N}
\Delta _{k \alpha }c_{\mu,kl} \Delta _{l\beta} \;\;.
\label{eq18}
\end{equation}
Below, we shall see that the assumption of the absence of
transmission between different contacts is crucial in order to find a
magneto-capacitance according to Eq. (\ref{eq18}).\\ \indent
The dc-conductance $\delta I_{\alpha}/\delta V_{\beta} $
can be calculated following the same lines as above for the
two-terminal case with a single Landau level.
The current $\delta I_{\alpha}$ through contact
$\alpha $ is obtained from a sum over
all incoming and outgoing channels $k$ with a
contribution $\delta
I^{(q)}_{k}$ and over all Landau levels with a
contribution $\delta I^{(u)}_{k}$. The well-known result \cite{Buet1}
reads in our notation
\begin{equation}
G_{\alpha\beta }^{(0)} = \frac{e^{2}}{h} \biggl( K_{\beta}\delta _{\alpha
\beta} - \sum _{k} \Delta _{\alpha k} \Delta _{k\beta} \biggr)
\;\;.
\label{eq19}
\end{equation}
For the derivation of Eq. (\ref{eq19}) we used that
$\sum _{k}\Delta _{k\beta}\: \Delta _{k\alpha}\:
=K_{\beta}\delta _{\alpha \beta}$ where $K_{\beta}$ is the
number of edge channels in which contact $\beta $ injects.
The diagonal element, $G_{\beta \beta}^{(0)}$, is $e^{2}/h$ times
the number of channels
which leave contact $\beta $ and which do not return to this contact,
and $-G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}$ ($\alpha \neq \beta $) is $e^{2}/h$ times
the number of directed channels going from contact $\beta $ to contact
$\alpha$. Note that both the current conservation property
$\sum _{\alpha} G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}=\sum_{\beta}G_{\alpha
\beta}^{(0)}=0$
and the Onsager-Casimir reciprocity relations, $G_{\alpha
\beta}^{(0)}(-B)=G_{\beta \alpha}^{(0)}(B)$, are satisfied.\\ \indent
\section{The Emittance Matrix}
\label{Emittance}
\subsection{Emittance matrix for general mesoscopic conductors}
First, we recall the theory of the emittance
for a general arrangement
of mesoscopic conductors by closely following Ref. \cite{Buet5}.
Once the electrostatic geometrical capacitance matrix is known,
we can formulate our discussion in terms of a discrete set of
potentials which we take to be constants along each edge channel.
A general formulation of the theory for such a discrete potential
model is the subject of Ref.\cite{Pret1}.
It is well-known that the transmission approach to
current transport relates conductances to
scattering matrices of the conductors.
A scattering matrix relates incoming and outgoing current amplitudes
of the contacts $\alpha = 1, ... , M$ of a
sample for each conduction channel $k=1, ... , N$.
The DOS $dN_{k}/dE$ of channel $k$ expressed in terms of
the scattering matrix can then be written as a sum of
\em partial densities of states, \rm $dN_{\alpha k \beta}/dE$.
The quantity $dN_{\alpha k \beta}/dE$ is the DOS of channel $k$
associated with carriers which are scattered from contact $\beta $ to contact
$\alpha $. A slight variation $\delta V_{\beta}$ of the voltage
in contact $\beta $ causes the injection of a total charge $\delta Q
_{\alpha}$ through contact $\alpha $. Thus, a slowly oscillating voltage
implies an additional current
$ -i\omega \delta Q_{\alpha}\exp(-i\omega t) $
at this contact. Now, it follows from the definition in Eq. (\ref{eq2})
that the emittance $E_{\alpha \beta }$ can be identified with
$\delta Q_{\alpha}/\delta V_{\beta}$. Note that there are two contributions
to $\delta Q_{\alpha}$. A first part which neglects
screening is given by a kinetic contribution
\begin{equation}
\delta Q^{(k)} _{\alpha} = e^{2}\sum _{k=1}^{N}\sum _{\beta =1} ^{M}
\frac{dN_{\alpha k\beta}}{dE} \; \delta V_{\beta }\;\;.
\label{eq20}
\end{equation}
This part gives the charge which is scattered from the contacts
$\beta $ to contact $\alpha $ due to the shift of the electro-chemical
potentials $\delta V_{\beta}$ at fixed electrostatic potentials
$\delta U_{k}$. However, the nonequilibrium electrostatic
potential which is due to the nonequilibrium charge-distribution in
the edge channels is still neglected in Eq. (\ref{eq20}). In order to
take it into account, we recall that the $\delta U_{k}$ are shifts of the
band bottoms of the edge channels, which
cause an induction of additional screening charges. Hence, there is a second contribution $\delta Q ^{(s)}_{\alpha}$
given by the part of the screening charge which is eventually scattered
to contact $\alpha $. It can be expressed in the form
\begin{equation}
\delta Q ^{(s)}_{\alpha} = - e^{2}
\sum _{k=1}^{N} \left( \sum _{\beta =1}^{M}
\frac{dN_{\alpha k\beta}}{dE}\right) \delta U_{k}
\;\;.
\label{eq21}
\end{equation}
The quantity in the large bracket, $
dN_{\alpha k}/dE \equiv \sum _{\beta=1}^{M} dN_{\alpha k \beta
}/dE$, is a partial DOS associated with carriers in channel $k$
emitted into contact $\alpha $ irrespective of the injecting contact
$\beta $. The change
of the electric potential $\delta U_{k}$ at channel $k$ is
determined by the variations of the electro-chemical
potentials of the conductors. Within linear response theory
we write
\begin{equation}
\delta U_{k} = \sum_{\beta = 1}^{M}
u_{k\beta} \; \delta V_{\beta}\;\;,
\label{eq23}
\end{equation}
where the \em characteristic potentials \rm $u_{k\beta}$ \cite{Buet5}
give the change of the electrostatic potential of conductor
$k$ if the voltage is changed in contact $\beta $ by unity.
The sum of the two parts given by Eqs. (\ref{eq20}) and (\ref{eq21})
leads finally to the emittance matrix $\delta Q_{\alpha}/\delta
V_{\beta} $:
\begin{equation}
E_{\alpha \beta }= e^{2} \sum _{k=1}^{N}\biggl(\frac{dN_{\alpha k
\beta}}{dE} -
\frac{dN_{\alpha k}}{dE}u_{k\beta}\biggr) \;\;.
\label{eq24}
\end{equation}
The occurrence of the characteristic potentials $u_{k\beta }$
indicates the
necessity of the knowledge of the nonequilibrium state in order
get the emittance. Since the characteristic potentials are sample
specific, one cannot expect to obtain a
universal result for the ac-admittance. Furthermore, since the kinetic part
and the screening part contribute with opposite signs,
the emittance elements can have positive or negative sign
depending on which part is dominant \cite{Buet5}.
\subsection{Emittance matrix for quantized Hall samples}
To apply the result (\ref{eq24}) to quantized Hall samples, one
uses the fact that the partial DOS can be expressed in terms of
the transmission probabilities $\Delta _{\alpha l}$,
$\Delta _{k \beta }$, and the
density of states $D_{k}$ of edge channel $k$:
\begin{equation}
e^{2}\frac{dN_{\alpha k\beta}}{dE}=
\Delta_{\alpha k} \: D_{k}\: \Delta_{k\beta } \;\;\;\; , \;\;\;
e^{2} \frac{dN_{\alpha k }}{dE}= \Delta_{\alpha k} \: D_{k}\;\;.
\label{eq25}
\end{equation}
This follows directly from the suppression of backscattering in an
edge channel. The characteristic potentials $u_{k \beta}$ follow from
Eqs. (\ref{eq5}), (\ref{eq7})
and (\ref{eq16a}):
\begin{equation}
u_{k \beta}=\sum_{l=1}^{N} (\delta _{kl}-
D_{k}^{-1} c_{\mu, kl})\;\Delta
_{l\beta}\;\;.
\label{eq26}
\end{equation}
By inserting Eqs. (\ref{eq25}) and (\ref{eq26}) in Eq. (\ref{eq24})
one obtains
\begin{equation}
E_{\alpha \beta}= \sum_{k,l=1}^{N} \Delta _{\alpha k} \:
c_{\mu,kl} \: \Delta _{l\beta}\;\;.
\label{eq27}
\end{equation}
This is the key result of our work. The emittance is the
sum of all those charges which are \em emitted \rm at contact $\alpha $
due to the injection of charge at contact $\beta $ mediated
by Coulomb interaction between edge channels. The elementary process
which contributes to the emittance is illustrated
by the diagram in Fig. \ref{fig3}.\\ \indent
The emittance has the following properties.
From $\sum _{\alpha} \Delta _{k\alpha} =1$ and
Eq. (\ref{eq10}) one concludes that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\beta}E_{\alpha \beta}=\sum_{\alpha}E_{\alpha \beta }\equiv 0
\label{eq28}
\end{equation}
which is a consequence of charge neutrality\cite{Buet5}.
Since $\Delta _{\alpha k}(-B) = \Delta _{k \alpha }(B)$,
the Onsager-Casimir reciprocity relations\cite{Buet5}
\begin{equation}
E_{\alpha \beta}(B)=E_{\beta \alpha}(-B),
\label{eq29}
\end{equation}
based on micro-reversibility are satisfied, too.
In contrast to $c_{\mu, kl}(B)$, the emittance matrix
$E_{\alpha\beta}(B)$
is in general {\em not} symmetric. A comparison of the
Eqs. (\ref{eq18}) and (\ref{eq27}) implies that the emittance is a
(symmetric) capacitance, i.e.
$E_{\alpha \beta}\equiv C_{\mu, \alpha \beta}$,
if each edge channel $k$ is connected to a single
reservoir, i.e. if $\Delta _{k\alpha}(B) \equiv \Delta _{\alpha k}(B) $
holds.\\
\indent
\section{Examples}
\label{Examples}
In this section we apply the previous results to various examples
of Hall devices. The electro-chemical capacitance matrix $c_{\mu ,kj}$
is always assumed to be known.
\subsection{Two-terminal devices}
The two-terminal devices in Figs. \ref{fig1} and \ref{fig4}.a
can be characterized by
the scalar admittance $G= G^{(0)}-i\omega E \equiv
G_{11}=G_{22}=-G_{12}=-G_{21}$. While $G^{(0)}=e^{2}/h$ for the Hall
bar in Fig. \ref{fig1}.a, the dc-conductance vanishes identically for the
Corbino disc in Fig. \ref{fig1}.b since there is no dc-current
flowing through the contacts. From Eq. (\ref{eq27}) one finds
the emittances $E= -c_{\mu}$ and $E= c_{\mu}$
for the bar and the disc, respectively. Here, $c_{\mu}$ denotes the
relative electro-chemical capacitance between the edge channels.
While the emittance of a Corbino disc is an electro-chemical
capacitance, the emittance of a quantum Hall bar turns out to be
a {\em negative} electro-chemical capacitance.
The interchange of the sign can be understood intuitively by remarking that
the kinetic part $\delta Q^{(k)}$ and the part $\delta Q^{(s)}$
associated with screening are interchanged for the two
different topologies. Indeed, for a voltage oscillation at contact $1$
of the bar, transmitted charge goes to reservoir $2$ and induced charge
comes back via edge channel $2$. In the Corbino geometry, on the other hand,
transmitted charge comes back to contact $1$ and screening charge
goes to reservoir $2$.\\ \indent
In order to obtain an intuition for the signs of emittances,
consider Fig. \ref{fig4}.a where a two-terminal
quantum Hall bar with two pairs of edge channels is shown.
A constriction is assumed to bend back
the second pair (3 and 4) which will thus not
contribute to the dc-conductance. The dc-conductance is
$e^{2}/h$ as for the case of the
bar in Fig. \ref{fig1}.a. However, the second pair gives a capacitive
contribution to a time dependent current.
From Eq. (\ref{eq27}) and using Eq. (\ref{eq10}), one finds
immediately $E= c_{\mu ,12}-c_{\mu ,34}$. Hence, the emittance is a
capacitance (i.e. $E>0$) if the Coulomb interaction between edge
channels
$3$ and $4$ is stronger than the Coulomb interaction between edge
channels $1$ and
$2$. The transmitting edge channels contribute thus with a negative
capacitance.
It is very remarkable that only two elements of
the full capacitance matrix $c_{\mu ,kl}$ determine the emittance.
This is a consequence of the quantized contact transmission-probabilities
and of the symmetry and current-conservation properties
of the capacitance matrix. The direct way in which our approach permits
to derive this result demonstrates its usefulness.
\\ \indent
\subsection{Three-terminal device: a bar with additional gate}
The three-terminal device in Fig. \ref{fig4}.b consists of a quantum
Hall bar with a gate on top of the 2DES and close to one sample
edge. The gate is connected to a further contact and couples only
capacitively to the edge channels. This setup has been investigated in
Ref. \cite{Chen1}. Clearly, all the $G_{\alpha 3}$ and
$G_{3\beta }$ vanish. The dc-conductance for the contacts
$1$ and $2$ is equal to $G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}$ for the
quantum Hall bar in Fig. \ref{fig1}.a. The presence of the gate breaks the
symmetry of the quantum Hall bar where at
equal time the magnetic field $B$ is inverted and the reservoirs
$1$ and $2$ are interchanged. One
expects thus that the emittance matrix
${\bf E}$ is an asymmetric function of the magnetic field.
Equation (\ref{eq27}) yields
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}(B) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\mu,21 }& c_{\mu,22 } & c_{\mu,23 }\\
c_{\mu,11 }& c_{\mu,12 } & c_{\mu,13 }\\
c_{\mu,31 }& c_{\mu,32 } & c_{\mu,33 }
\end{array} \right)\;\;.
\label{eq29a}
\end{equation}
For instance, by measuring the current at contact $1$ for a voltage
oscillation at the gate, one finds $E_{13}(B)= c_{\mu,23}$ for one
polarity of the field $B$,
but $E_{13}(-B)= c_{\mu,31}$ for the other field polarity. This follows
directly from the reciprocity relations (\ref{eq29}).
Because the capacitance $c_{\mu,13}$
between channels $1$ and $3$ is different from the capacitance
$c_{\mu,23}$ between channels $2$ and $3$, one observes a completely
asymmetric
emittance coefficient $E_{13}(B)$ as a function of the magnetic field.
This prediction is in agreement with the experimental
results reported in Ref. \cite{Chen1}.
The symmetry of the emittance matrix strongly reflects
the geometry of the edge-channel arrangement.\\ \indent
\subsection{Four-terminal Hall bars}
In Fig. \ref{fig5}, four-terminal samples
are shown which are used in order to investigate
the quantum Hall effect \cite{Klit1}.
In such devices, two contacts serve as current source
and sink, whereas the two remaining contacts are used as voltage
probes. In Fig. \ref{fig5}.a an ideal bar is shown where edge channels
connect subsequent contacts along the sample edge. In the sample
of Fig. \ref{fig5}.b, on the other hand,
there are certain edge channels leaving one and the same contact but
connecting different contacts.\\ \indent
Let us assume for the ideal four-terminal bar in Fig. \ref{fig5}.a
a filling factor between the integers $p$ and $p+1$
such that
$p$ edge channels exist along each sample edge which connect
contact $k$ with contact $k+1$. It is possible to
define electro-chemical capacitances $c_{\mu ,jk}$ between these
sets of edge channels which leave contact $k$ and of those which
leave contact $j$. For each of those sets we
plotted a single directed line. The Eqs. (\ref{eq19})
and (\ref{eq27}) yield $G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}=g\:
(\delta _{\alpha \beta } -\delta _{\alpha -1 \:\beta })$
for the dc-conductance, and $E_{\alpha \beta}=c_{\mu,
\alpha-1\:\beta}$ for the
emittance, respectively. Here, we defined $g=p(e^{2}/h)$, and
the indices $0$ and $4$ have to be identified
with each other.\\ \indent
On the other hand, for the specific non-ideal Hall bar plotted in
Fig. \ref{fig5}.b the connection between contacts via edge channels
is not simply determined by the topology of the sample boundary.
In the particular case of Fig. \ref{fig5}.b, the dc-conductance becomes
\begin{equation}
{\bf G}^{(0)}= \frac{e^{2}}{h}\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
2 & 0 & -1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & -1 & 2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1
\end{array} \right) \;\;.
\label{eq29b}
\end{equation}
For the emittance coefficients one finds expressions of the form
$E_{11}= c_{\mu ,14}
+c_{\mu ,17}+c_{\mu ,54}+c_{\mu ,57}$ etc., where the $c_{\mu ,kl}$
denote the electro-chemical capacitances between edge channels
labelled as shown in Fig. \ref{fig5}.b.
Below, we will use this example in order to discuss the effect of
voltage probes. Furthermore, we will derive the frequency dependent
longitudinal and Hall resistances for the ideal Hall sample
in Fig. \ref{fig5}.a.\\ \indent
\section{Effect of voltage probes}
\label{incoherent}
In this section we study the crossover from a $M$-terminal sample
to a $M-1$-terminal sample by using one contact, say
contact $\Omega$, as a voltage probe. For the dc-conductance,
this problem has been investigated in Ref.\cite{Buet8}.
We assume that there is at least one edge
channel which connects contact $\Omega $ with a different contact.
For an ideal voltage probe, there is no possibility for charge to
pass through contact $\Omega$ such that $\delta I_{\Omega }\equiv 0$.
By eliminating $\delta V_{\Omega} $ in Eq. (\ref{eq1}), one obtains
from
\begin{equation}
\delta V_{\Omega} = - \frac{1}{G_{\Omega \Omega}^{(0)}}
\sum_{\beta \neq \Omega} \left(
G_{\Omega \beta} ^{(0)} -i\omega (E_{\Omega \beta}-
\frac{G_{\Omega \beta}^{(0)}}{G_{\Omega \Omega}^{(0)}} E_{\Omega
\Omega}) \right)\: \delta V_{\beta}
\label{eq31a}
\end{equation}
a new admittance $\tilde G_{\alpha \beta}
(\omega) =\tilde G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}-i \omega \tilde E_{\alpha \beta}$
for the remaining $M-1$ contacts, where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)} & = & G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}
- \frac{G_{\alpha \Omega}^{(0)}G_{\Omega \beta}^{(0)}}
{G_{\Omega \Omega}^{(0)}}
\label{eq30}\\
\tilde E_{\alpha \beta} & = & E_{\alpha \beta}
+\frac{G_{\alpha \Omega}^{(0)}G_{\Omega \beta}^{(0)}}
{(G_{\Omega \Omega}^{(0)})^{2}}E_{\Omega \Omega}
-\frac{G_{\alpha \Omega}^{(0)}}{G_{\Omega \Omega}^{(0)}}
E_{\Omega \beta}
-E_{\alpha \Omega}
\frac{G_{\Omega \beta}^{(0)}}{G_{\Omega \Omega}^{(0)}} \;\;.
\label{eq31}
\end{eqnarray}
A brief calculation confirms that Eqs. (\ref{eq28}) and (\ref{eq29})
remain valid for Eqs. (\ref{eq30}) and (\ref{eq31}).
The additional terms appearing in Eqs. (\ref{eq30}) and (\ref{eq31}) describe
scattering between edge channels at contact $\Omega $
(incoherent terms) \cite{Buet8}.
Now, the probability of a carrier to go from contact $\beta $ to
contact $\alpha $ is no longer restricted to the values zero and unity.
The additional terms have the following
simple interpretations. Firstly, the second term on the right hand side
of Eq. (\ref{eq30}) describes the equipartition of
the current which comes from contact $\beta $ to $\Omega $
between the channels which go from contact $\Omega $ to $\alpha $.
Secondly, the three correction terms on the right hand side of
Eq. (\ref{eq31}) can be associated with
processes \\
1) where carriers go from contact $\beta $ to
contact $\alpha $ bypassing $\Omega $ and obtain a
`self-emittance' contribution $E_{\Omega \Omega}$,\\
2) where carriers induced
via the emittance $E_{\Omega \beta}$ are transmitted from
contact $\Omega $ to contact $\alpha $, and \\
3) where carriers which are transmitted from contact $\beta $ to
contact $\Omega$ interact via the emittance $E_{\alpha \Omega}$
with contact $\alpha $.\\ \indent
As an example, we consider the four-terminal sample of Fig.
\ref{fig5}.b where contact $3$ is to serve as the voltage probe.
The Eqs. (\ref{eq30}) and (\ref{eq31})
yield the following three-terminal
dc-conductance for the contacts $1$, $2$, and $4$:
\begin{equation}
{\bf \tilde G}^{(0)}= \frac{e^{2}}{h}\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
3/2& -1/2 & -1\\
-1 & 1 & 0 \\
-1/2 & -1/2 & 1
\end{array} \right)\;\;.
\label{eq32}
\end{equation}
For example, carriers from edge channel $2$
will be scattered at contact $3$ with probability one half
to channel $3$ and one half to channel $7$, which implies
$\tilde G^{(0)}_{42}=\tilde G_{12}^{(0)}=-e^{2}/2h $. Similar
interpretations can be found for the other elements of the
dc-conductance matrix (\ref{eq32}).\\ \indent
From Eq. (\ref{eq31}) one obtains the emittance matrix
\begin{equation}
{\bf \tilde E}= {\bf \hat E} + \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
E_{33}/4 +E_{13}/2+E_{31}/2 & E_{33}/4 +E_{13}/2+E_{32}/2 &
E_{34}/2 \\
E_{23}/2 & E_{23}/2 & 0 \\
E_{33}/4 +E_{43}/2+E_{31}/2 & E_{33}/4 +E_{43}/2+E_{32}/2 & E_{34}/2
\end{array} \right)\;\;.
\label{eq33}
\end{equation}
where the $3\times 3$-matrix $ {\bf \hat E}$ is obtained from the
matrix ${\bf E}$ by deleting row $3$ and column $3$.
The fact that $\tilde E_{24}= E_{24}$ holds can be easily understood from
Eq. (\ref{eq31}): there are neither edge channels which go from contact
$4$ to $3$ nor from contact $3$ to $2$. Simple interpretations
exist also for the other emittance coefficients. For example, consider the
additional term $E_{23}/2$ of $\tilde E_{22}$. A voltage
oscillation in contact $2$ induces a current in edge channel
$2$ which leads to contact $3$. This current is
divided into {\em two} parts (channels $3$ and $7$) at contact $3$.
Hence, a contribution $E_{23}$ with a factor one half occurs.
\section{Longitudinal and Hall resistances at low frequencies}
\label{Hall}
The integer quantum Hall effect
corresponds to the quantization of the Hall resistance and
the vanishing of the longitudinal resistance of the ideal
four-probe quantum Hall bar of Fig. \ref{fig5}.a
at zero frequency \cite{Klit1}. Two of the contacts
serve as voltage probes, whereas the two remaining contacts are used
as source and sink for the current. The discussion of the
quantum Hall effect in terms of edge channels is provided by Ref.
\cite{Buet1}. With the help of the theory
presented in this paper, the results of these references can now be
extended to the low frequency case.\\ \indent
If the contacts $3$ and $4$ in Fig. \ref{fig5}.a are
the voltage probes, the longitudinal resistance is defined
by $R_{L}=R_{12,34}= (\delta V_{3}-\delta V_{4})/ \delta I_{1}$.
On the other hand,
the Hall resistance is defined by $R_{H}=R_{13,24}=
(\delta V_{2}-\delta
V_{4})/\delta I_{1}$, provided the contacts $2$ and $4$ are voltage
probes. With the help of Eq. (\ref{eq1}), $R_{L}$ and $R_{H}$ can be
expressed in terms of the $G_{\alpha \beta}$. After some linear
algebra one finds \cite{Buet1} $R_{L}=(G_{32}G_{41}-G_{31}G_{42})/D$
and $R_{H}=(G_{21}G_{43}-G_{41}G_{23})/D$, where $D$ is the
determinant of the $3\times 3$ matrix $G_{\alpha \beta}$ restricted
to, say, $\alpha , \beta = 1,...,3 $. By using the results of
Sect. \ref{Examples}.c,
one obtains a longitudinal resistance $R_{L} = i\omega
E_{41}/g^{2}$, where $g=pe^{2}/h$ with $p$ being the number of edge
channels along an edge. With $E_{41}= c_{\mu ,13 }$ one obtains
\begin{equation}
R_{L} =i\omega \: \frac{c_ {\mu ,13}}{g^{2}} \;\;.
\label{rlong}
\end{equation}
The leading term of the longitudinal resistance is
determined by the Coulomb coupling between the current
circuit and the voltage circuit which are represented by edge channels
$1$ and $3$, respectively. On the other hand, the
Hall resistance turns out to be
\begin{equation}
R_{H}=\frac{1}{g}+ i\omega \: \frac{ c_{\mu,
24}-c_{\mu ,13}}{g^{2}} \;\;.
\label{rhall}
\end{equation}
This result implies that,
in contrast to the longitudinal resistance, for the Hall
resistance the sign of
the first-order term with respect to frequency depends on the
specific locations of the contacts. In principle, the
capacitances $c_{\mu ,24}$ and
$c_{\mu ,13}$ can be found independently by measuring
$R_{L}$ for appropriate choices of current and voltage probes.
A further measurement of $R_{H}$ provides then a test for the validity
of Eqs. (\ref{rlong}) and (\ref{rhall}).
Finally, a direct calculation shows that
the Eqs. (\ref{rlong}) and (\ref{rhall}) satisfy the
reciprocity relations \cite{Buet1} $R_{jk,mn}(-B) = R_{mn,jk}(B)$;
in particular, $R_{L}(-B) = R_{L}(B)$ holds.
\section{Summary}
We investigate the low frequency admittance of
quantized Hall samples by using a simple discrete potential model
based on the decomposition of the 2DES in (well-separated)
metallic and dielectric parts
and by applying a general theory of the low frequency admittance
$G_{\alpha \beta}=G_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}-i\omega E_{\alpha \beta}$
for mesoscopic conductors. The main result
is an expression for the emittance matrix $E_{\alpha \beta}$ in
terms of electro-chemical capacitance elements which depend
on the geometrical configuration and the density of states of the edge
channels. We emphasize that the theory satisfies the important
requirement of charge neutrality and current conservation. The
emittance gives the charge emitted through contact $\alpha $
mediated by the Coulomb interaction of edge channels for a
voltage-variation at contact $\beta $.
If there is no transmission of charge between
different reservoirs,
the emittance is a capacitance, but in the presence of transmission
the emittance can even be a negative capacitance. This has been
exemplified by comparing Corbino and bar geometries.
The symmetry of the
emittance matrix with respect to the magnetic field depends
significantly on the geometry of the edge channels. The presence of a
voltage probe and the resulting inter edge-channel scattering at the
voltage probe is investigated.
We finally derive expressions for the frequency
dependent longitudinal and Hall resistances of an ideal four-probe bar.
Due to the intuitive expression for the emittance,
all results have simple interpretations.\\ \indent
\em Acknowledgement \rm
This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
\section*{Appendix}
In order to derive the
electro-chemical capacitance matrix $c_{\mu , kl}$ for
a system with many edge channels,
we assume that the spatial variation of the electrostatic potential
{\em inside} the edge channels can be neglected (discrete potential
model). Then, Eq.
(\ref{eq5}) remains valid and the definition of a geometrical
capacitance $c_{jk}$ is meaningful. It is convenient to use
vector and matrix notation. Let us write the $N\times N$-matrix
for the geometrical capacitance of the (disconnected) edge channels
by ${\bf c} \equiv c_{jk} $, and in a
similar way for the electro-chemical
capacitance ${\bf c_{\mu}}\equiv c_{\mu, jk}$, and the DOS ${\bf D}\equiv
D_{k}\delta_{jk}$. We introduce $N$-dimensional vectors
${\bf \delta q}$, ${\bf \delta U}$, and ${\bf \delta V}$
for the
charges, the electrostatic and the electro-chemical potentials of the
edge channels, respectively. The solution of the Poisson equation
for a given charge distribution yields an electric potential
${\bf \delta U }={\bf
c}^{-1}{\bf \delta q}+\delta U^{(0)}{\bf 1}$, where ${\bf 1}$ is a
vector with all components being unity. Note that a constant
potential shift $\delta U^{(0)}$ in the whole sample
is always a solution of the
Poisson equation and is determined by charge conservation,
$\sum_{k}\delta q_{k}=0$. Hence, $\delta U^{(0)}= \sum
_{j,k}c_{jk}\delta U_{k}\;/\;\sum _{j,k}c_{jk}$ which defines
a matrix ${\bf \Lambda }$ such that $\delta U^{(0)}{\bf 1} =
{\bf \Lambda }{\bf \delta U}$.
The electro-chemical capacitance matrix ${\bf \delta q / \delta V}$
follows from
${\bf \delta q} = {\bf D}({\bf \delta V}
-{\bf \delta U})={\bf c}({\bf \delta U} -\delta U^{(0)} {\bf 1})$
and can be expressed in the form
\begin{equation}
{\bf c_{\mu}}= ({\bf c}^{-1} + ({\bf I}-{\bf \Lambda})
{\bf D}^{-1} )^{-1} ({\bf I }-{\bf \Lambda})
\label{ap1}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf I}$ denotes the identity matrix.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
At sufficiently low electron densities or in sufficiently strong magnetic
fields, electrons will crystallize at low temperatures.\cite{wigner,chui} It
is generally expected that in the (Wigner) crystal state, electronic spins
will be either ferromagnetically or antiferromagnetically ordered.\cite
{fieldcaveat,gfac} There has long been theoretical interest\cite
{herring,thouless} in the rather subtle physics which determines how the
electronic spins are ordered. For two-dimensional electrons in the Wigner
crystal state at zero magnetic field a series\cite{ceperley,louie} of
variational and Green's function Monte Carlo calculations have not led to
definitive conclusions concerning the nature of the magnetic order.{\bf \ }%
The energetically preferred spin ordering has been shown to depend very much
on the lattice structure of the electron crystal and, unfortunately, the
difference in energy between states with different spin order on a hexagonal
lattice (which is expected to be the ground-state lattice of the Wigner
crystal) is smaller than the accuracy of the Monte Carlo calculations\cite
{louie}. To our knowledge, there are no previous numerical studies of the
spin structure of the Wigner crystal in the strong field regime. The
variational Monte Carlo calculations cited above considered, in the
strong-field limit, only the spin-polarized hexagonal lattice and
investigated exchange, correlation and Landau-level-mixing effects\cite
{louie}.
In this paper we discuss magnetic order for two-dimensional electrons in the
limit of strong perpendicular magnetic fields where all electrons are
confined to the lowest quantized kinetic energy Landau level. In this limit,
the state of the electrons depends on the Landau level filling factor $\nu $
rather than the electron density and, except for a narrow interval
surrounding $\nu =0.2$, the electrons form a Wigner crystal state\cite{chui}
for $\nu $ smaller than $\approx 0.23$. ($\nu \equiv N/N_\phi $ where $N$ is
the number of electrons and $N_\phi =SB/\Phi _0\equiv S/(2\pi \ell ^2)$ is
the Landau level degeneracy. Here $S$ is the area of the system, $B$ is the
magnetic field strength, $\ell $ is the magnetic length and $\Phi _0=hc/e$
is the magnetic flux quantum.) We find, partly on the basis of Hartree-Fock
approximation (HFA) calculations, that in this regime the Wigner crystal
state will always be ferromagnetic. The Hartree-Fock ground-state wave
function does not contain the important correlations that give rise to the
magneto-phonon and spin waves modes of the crystal. We can check, however,
the stability of the spin-polarized lattice by evaluating the magnon
spectrum of the Wigner crystal using a time-dependent Hartree-Fock
approximation (TDHFA). Within the limits of our numerical approach, we find
that the polarized lattices remain stable at small filling factors.
Moreover, in this limit, the spin-wave modes are very well described by a
Heisenberg model where electrons are localized on their lattice site with an
effective exchange integral $J_{TDHFA}$ that we compute for different
filling factors. From the value of this effective exchange integral, we can
derive the spin-stiffness of the Wigner crystal state and compare its value
with the spin-stiffness of ferromagnetic electron fluid states at nearby
filling factors. This comparison shows that the spin-stiffness of the liquid
is much larger than that of the solid. This is so because, the exchange
energy is larger when the electrons are free to move around and come closer
to each other.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Section II we outline the formalism we
use to perform the HFA and TDHFA calculations calculations for respectively
the ground state and spin waves of the system. We are able to enormously
simplify the calculations by adapting an approach we developed\cite{cote1}
previously to the situation of interest here. In Section III we present
numerical results for the magnetic ground state of the square and triangular
Wigner crystal states and discuss differences between magnetic ordering
tendencies in zero-field and strong-field limits. Our results for magnon
dispersion relation are presented and discussed in Section IV. Section V
contains a brief summary of this work.
\section{Hartree-Fock and Time-Dependent Hartree-Fock Approximations}
\subsection{Hartree-Fock Approximation Ground State}
The formalism outlined in this section is a straightforward generalization
of one which we developed originally\cite{cote1} to describe phonon modes in
the Wigner crystal state and which has previously been generalized in other
directions\cite{cote2,others} to describe double-layer quantum Hall systems
and edge excitations of the Wigner crystal. We outline the main steps in the
development of the formalism and refer the reader to Ref. \cite{cote1} for
further details.
We consider a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) in a magnetic field ${\bf B%
}=-B\widehat{{\bf z}}$ which is assumed to be strong enough so that we can
make the usual approximation of considering only the lowest Landau level. In
the Landau gauge, the Hamiltonian of the 2DEG is then (we set $\hbar =1$
throughout this paper)
\begin{eqnarray}
H=\sum_{\alpha ,X}\epsilon _\alpha c_{\alpha ,X}^{\dagger }c_{\alpha ,X} &+&%
\frac 1{2S}\sum_{{\bf q}}\sum_{{X_1,...,X_4}}\sum_{\alpha ,\beta }V({\bf q}%
)\langle X_1|\exp (i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf r})|X_4\rangle \nonumber \\
&&\quad \quad \quad \times \langle X_2|\exp (-i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf r}%
)|X_3\rangle c_{\alpha ,X_1}^{\dagger }c_{\beta ,X_2}^{\dagger }c_{\beta
,X_3}c_{\alpha ,X_4}, \label{un}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha ,\beta ={+}$(up), ${-}$ (down) are spin indices and the lowest
Landau level has the energy
\begin{equation}
\epsilon _\alpha =\frac{\omega _c}2-\frac{\alpha g^{*}\mu _bB}2.
\label{deux}
\end{equation}
As usual, $\omega _c=eB/m^{*}c$ is the cyclotron frequency and $m^{*}$ and $%
g^{*}$ are the effective mass and $g$-factor of the electron appropriate\cite
{gfac} to the two-dimensional electron layer. For a finite system, the
allowed values of the quantum number $X$ are separated by $2\pi \ell ^2/L_y$%
. Neglecting the finite thickness of the two-dimensional electron layer, we
take $V({\bf q})=2\pi e^2/q$, the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the
Coulomb potential.
Making the usual Hartree-Fock pairing of the second-quantized operators in
the Hamiltonian of Eq. (\ref{un}) and allowing for the possibility of broken
translational symmetry and spin magnetic order in the ground-state, we
obtain
\begin{equation}
H=N_\phi \sum_\alpha \epsilon _\alpha \rho _{\alpha ,\alpha }(0)+N_\phi
\sum_{{\bf q}}\sum_{\alpha ,\beta }V_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q})\rho _{\alpha
,\beta }({\bf q}), \label{trois}
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the operators
\begin{equation}
\rho _{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q})=N_\phi ^{-1}\sum_X\exp \left(
-iq_xX-iq_xq_y\ell ^2/2\right) c_{\alpha ,X}^{\dagger }c_{\beta ,X+q_y\ell
^2}, \label{quatre}
\end{equation}
which are related to the density and spin operators by the relations
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
n(q) & = & N_\phi e^{-q^2\ell ^2/4}\left[ \rho _{++}({\bf q})+\rho _{--}(%
{\bf q})\right] , \\
S^z(q) & = & \frac 12N_\phi e^{-q^2\ell ^2/4}\left[ \rho _{++}({\bf q})-\rho
_{--}({\bf q})\right] , \\
S^{+}(q) & = & N_\phi e^{-q^2\ell ^2/4}\rho _{+-}({\bf q}), \\
S^{-}(q) & = & N_\phi e^{-q^2\ell ^2/4}\rho _{-+}({\bf q}).
\end{array}
\label{cinq}
\end{equation}
The matrix elements of the Hartree-Fock self-consistent field in Eq.(\ref
{trois}) are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
V_{++}({\bf q}) & = & \left[ H({\bf q})-X({\bf q})\right] \left\langle \rho
_{++}(-{\bf q})\right\rangle +H({\bf q})\left\langle \rho _{--}(-{\bf q}%
)\right\rangle , \\
V_{--}({\bf q}) & = & \left[ H({\bf q})-X({\bf q})\right] \left\langle \rho
_{--}(-{\bf q})\right\rangle +H({\bf q})\left\langle \rho _{++}(-{\bf q}%
)\right\rangle , \\
V_{+-}({\bf q}) & = & -X({\bf q})\left\langle \rho _{-+}(-{\bf q}%
)\right\rangle , \\
V_{-+}({\bf q}) & = & -X({\bf q})\left\langle \rho _{+-}(-{\bf q}%
)\right\rangle ,
\end{array}
\label{six}
\end{equation}
with the Hartree ($H$) and Fock ($X$) interactions defined by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
H({\bf q}) & = & {\left( \frac{e^2}\ell \right) }\left( \frac 1{q\ell }%
\right) e^{-q^2\ell ^2/2}\,(1-\delta _{{\bf q},0}), \\
X({\bf q}) & = & \left( \frac{e^2}\ell \right) \sqrt{\frac \pi 2}e^{-q^2\ell
^2/4}I_0(q^2\ell ^2/4),
\end{array}
\label{sept}
\end{equation}
where $I_0(x)$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind and the
factor $(1-\delta _{{\bf q},0})$ comes from the neutralizing positive
background.
The ordered state is defined by the set of order parameters $\left\{
\left\langle \rho _{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q})\right\rangle \right\} .$ In the
case of interest here, {\em i.e.} for a Wigner lattice, these parameters are
non-zero only when ${\bf q}={\bf G},$ a reciprocal lattice vector of the
crystal. To calculate the $\left\langle \rho _{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q}%
)\right\rangle $ 's, we define the $2\times 2$ single-particle Green's
function
\begin{equation}
G_{\alpha ,\beta }(X,X^{\prime },\tau )=-\left\langle Tc_{\alpha ,X}(\tau
)c_{\beta ,X^{\prime }}^{\dagger }(0)\right\rangle , \label{huit}
\end{equation}
and its Fourier transform $G_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q},\tau )$ by
\begin{equation}
G_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q},\tau )=N_{\phi} ^{-1}\sum_{X,X^{\prime
}}G_{\alpha ,\beta }(X,X^{\prime },\tau )\exp \left[ -\frac 12%
iq_x(X+X^{\prime })\right] \delta _{X^{\prime },X-q_y\ell ^2}, \label{neuf}
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho _{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q})\rangle =G_{\beta ,\alpha }({\bf q}%
,\tau =0^{-}). \label{dix}
\end{equation}
Using the Heisenberg equation of motion $\frac \partial {\partial \tau }%
(\ldots )=[H-\mu N,(\ldots )]$ where $\mu $ is the chemical potential of the
electrons which we measure with respect to the kinetic energy of the first
Landau level, we obtain the equation of motion for the single-particle
Green's function (in an obvious matrix notation)
\begin{equation}
\left[ \left( i\omega _n+\mu \right) I-\Lambda \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right) \right] G({\bf q},\omega _n)-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime }}\exp \left[
\frac 12i{\bf q}\times {\bf q}^{\prime }\ell ^2\right] V({\bf q}^{\prime }-%
{\bf q})G({\bf q}^{\prime },\omega _n)=I\delta _{{\bf q},0}, \label{dixp}
\end{equation}
where $\omega _n$ is a fermionic Matsubara frequency, $\Lambda \equiv
g^{*}\mu _bB/2$ and $I$ is the $2\times 2$ unit matrix.
Eq. (\ref{dixp}) is very general. For example, it can be used to consider
complex spin-texture states such as the Skyrme crystal studied in Ref. \cite
{cote2} where the average value of all three components of the average spin
are space dependent. Although we concentrate, in this work, on simple
spin-structure states where Eq. (\ref{dixp}) can be reduced to only one
uncoupled equation, we explain here our numerical approach for the general
case.
We represent by ${\bf q}_1,{\bf q}_2,{\bf q}_3,\ldots {\bf q}_N$ the wave
vectors defining the ordered state (in principle, $N\rightarrow \infty $ but
in the numerical calculation, a suitable cutoff is chosen for $N$). We
choose ${\bf q}_1=0$ and define the vector $\widetilde{G}_{\alpha ,\beta
}\equiv (G_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q}_1),G_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q}%
_2),G_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q}_3),\ldots ,G_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q}_N)).$
Since in Eq. (\ref{dixp}), $G_{++}$ (or $G_{--}$ ) is coupled to $G_{-+}\,$
(or $G_{+-}$ ) only, we can simplify Eq. (\ref{dixp}) by defining the $2N-$%
component vectors $\widetilde{G}_1\equiv (\widetilde{G}_{++},\widetilde{G}%
_{-+})$ and $\widetilde{G}_2\equiv (\widetilde{G}_{+-},\widetilde{G}_{--}).$
We finally get a set of two coupled integral equations that we write in
matrix form as
\begin{equation}
(i\omega _n+\mu )\widetilde{I}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{G}_{++} \\
\widetilde{G}_{-+}
\end{array}
\right) -\widetilde{F}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{G}_{++} \\
\widetilde{G}_{-+}
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{1} \\
\widetilde{0}
\end{array}
\right) , \label{onze}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
(i\omega _n+\mu )\widetilde{I}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{G}_{+-} \\
\widetilde{G}_{--}
\end{array}
\right) -\widetilde{F}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{G}_{+-} \\
\widetilde{G}_{--}
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{0} \\
\widetilde{1}
\end{array}
\right) . \label{onzep}
\end{equation}
In these equations, $\widetilde{I}$ is the $2N\times 2N$ unit matrix, $%
\widetilde{1}\equiv (1,0,0,\ldots ,0)$ and $\widetilde{0}\equiv
(0,0,0,\ldots ,0)$ are respectively the $N-$component unit and nul vector,
and $\widetilde{F}$ is the $2N\times 2N\ $matrix defined by $\ $
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{F}\equiv \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\Lambda \delta _{{\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime }}+A_{++}({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime })
& A_{+-}({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime }) \\
A_{-+}({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime }) & -\Lambda \delta _{{\bf q},{\bf q}%
^{\prime }}+A_{--}({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime })
\end{array}
\right] , \label{douze}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
A_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime })=\exp \left[ \frac 12i{\bf q}%
\times {\bf q}^{\prime }\ell ^2\right] V_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q}^{\prime }-%
{\bf q}). \label{treize}
\end{equation}
Note that since $A_{\alpha ,\beta }({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime })=\left[
A_{\beta ,\alpha }({\bf q}^{\prime },{\bf q})\right] ^{*},$ $\widetilde{F}$
is an hermitian matrix. It follows that Eqs. (\ref{onze}) and (\ref{onzep})
can be solved by making the unitary transformation $\widetilde{F}%
=UDU^{\dagger }$, where $UU^{\dagger }=1$ and $D$ is the diagonal matrix
containing the eigenvalues of $\widetilde{F}.$ Following Ref. \cite{cote1},
we have for the order parameters ( $i=1,2,\ldots ,N$ )
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\left\langle \rho _{++}({\bf q}_i)\right\rangle & = & \sum_{k=1}^{k=k_{\max
}}\ U_{i,k}U_{1,k}^{*}, \\
\left\langle \rho _{+-}({\bf q}_i)\right\rangle & = & \sum_{k=1}^{k=k_{\max
}}\ U_{i+N,k}U_{1,k}^{*}, \\
\left\langle \rho _{-+}({\bf q}_i)\right\rangle & = & \sum_{k=1}^{k=k_{\max
}}\ U_{i,k}U_{N+1,k}^{*}, \\
\left\langle \rho _{--}({\bf q}_i)\right\rangle & = & \sum_{k=1}^{k=k_{\max
}}\ U_{i+N,k}U_{N+1,k}^{*}.
\end{array}
\label{qorze}
\end{equation}
The value of $k_{\max }$ is obtained from the conditions
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \rho _{++}(0)\right\rangle =\nu _{+}\;, \label{quinze}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \rho _{--}(0)\right\rangle =\nu _{-}\;, \label{seize}
\end{equation}
the filling factors for spin up and down. It is easy to show from Eq. (\ref
{qorze}) that, at $T=0K,$ the following sum rules hold
\begin{equation}
\sum_{{\bf q}}\left[ \left| \left\langle \rho _{++}({\bf q})\right\rangle
\right| ^2+\left| \left\langle \rho _{+-}({\bf q})\right\rangle \right|
^2\right] =\nu _{+}, \label{dsept}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sum_{{\bf q}}\left[ \left| \left\langle \rho _{-+}({\bf q})\right\rangle
\right| ^2+\left| \left\langle \rho _{--}({\bf q})\right\rangle \right|
^2\right] =\nu _{-}. \label{dhuit}
\end{equation}
We note that, except for simple cases such as the fully polarized or
unpolarized crystals, the filling factors $\nu _{+}$ and $\nu _{-}$ are not
known from the beginning. The only boundary conditions are the constraints
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho _{++}(0)\rangle +\langle \rho _{--}(0)\rangle =\nu ,
\label{dneuf}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho _{+-}(0)\rangle =\langle \rho _{-+}(0)\rangle =0,\qquad {\rm %
if\qquad }\Lambda \neq 0. \label{vingt}
\end{equation}
Also, by definition,
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho _{+-}({\bf q})\rangle =\langle \rho _{-+}(-{\bf q})\rangle ^{*}.
\label{vingtp}
\end{equation}
To find $\nu _{+}$ , $\nu _{-},$ Eqs. (\ref{onze},\ref{onzep}) must be
solved self-consistently for a given value of $\nu _{+}$ and $\nu _{-}$
until a convergent solution is obtained. The process has to be repeated for
different sets of $\nu _{+}$ and $\nu _{-}$ values until the lowest-energy
solution is found. In this way we can determine the lowest-energy single
Slater determinant consistent with any assumed translational and magnetic
symmetry. The Hartree-Fock energy per particle of a particular ground-state
configuration (with respect to the kinetic energy of the lowest Landau
level) is:
\begin{eqnarray}
E &=&\Lambda \left( \frac{\nu _{{-}}-\nu _{+}}\nu \right) +\frac 1{2\nu }%
\sum_{{\bf q}}\left\{ \left[ H({\bf q})-X({\bf q})\right] \left[ |\langle
\rho _{++}({\bf q})\rangle |^2+|\langle \rho _{--}({\bf q})\rangle
|^2\right] \right. \label{vun} \\
\quad \quad \qquad &&+H({\bf q})\left[ \langle \rho _{++}({\bf q})\rangle
\langle \rho _{--}(-{\bf q})\rangle +h.c.\right] -\left. 2X({\bf q})|\langle
\rho _{+-}({\bf q})\rangle |^2\right\} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In the case of a fully spin-polarized Wigner crystal, only $\left\{ \langle
\rho _{{++}}({\bf G})\rangle \right\} \neq 0$ (${\bf G}$ is a reciprocal
lattice vector) and Eq. (\ref{dixp}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\left( i\omega _n+\mu -\Lambda \right) G_{{++}}({\bf G},\omega _n)-\sum_{%
{\bf G}^{\prime }}\widetilde{F}({\bf G},{\bf G}^{\prime })G_{{++}}({\bf G}%
^{\prime },\omega _n)=\delta _{{\bf G},0}, \label{vsept}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{F}\ $is now the $N\times N$ matrix
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{F}({\bf G},{\bf G}^{\prime })=\exp \left[ \frac 12i{\bf G}\times
{\bf G}^{\prime }\ell ^2\right] V_{{++}}({\bf G}-{\bf G}^{\prime }),
\label{vseptp}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
V_{{++}}({\bf G})=\left[ H({\bf G})-X({\bf G})\right] \left\langle \rho _{{++%
}}({\bf G})\right\rangle . \label{vhuit}
\end{equation}
The ground-state energy per particle, in this case, is simply
\begin{equation}
E_{{++}}=-\Lambda +\frac 1{2\nu }\sum_{{\bf G}}\left[ H({\bf G})-X({\bf G}%
)\right] \left| \left\langle \rho _{{++}}({\bf G})\right\rangle \right| ^2.
\label{vneuf}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Time-Dependent Hartree-Fock Approximation Collective Excitations}
To determine the collective excitation energies of the ordered state, we
define the response functions
\begin{equation}
\chi _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime };\tau
)=-g\langle T\widetilde{\rho }_{\alpha \beta }({\bf q},\tau )\widetilde{\rho
}_{\gamma \delta }(-{\bf q}^{\prime },0)\rangle , \label{vdeux}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{\rho }_{\alpha \beta }=\rho _{\alpha \beta }-\langle \rho
_{\alpha \beta }\rangle $. By making use of the commutation relation\cite
{cote1} of the operators $\rho _{\alpha \beta }({\bf q})$ and of the HF
Hamiltonian of Eq.~(\ref{trois}), we obtain an equation of motion for the
response functions that corresponds to the HFA which we denote by $\chi ^0$.
We get (repeated spin indices are summed over)
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ i\Omega _n+(\epsilon _\alpha -\epsilon _\beta )\right] &&\chi
_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^0({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime };\Omega _n)=
\nonumber \\
&&\delta _{\beta ,\gamma }e^{-i\frac 12{\bf q}\times {\bf q}^{\prime }\ell
^2}\langle \rho _{\alpha \delta }({\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime })\rangle -\delta
_{\alpha ,\delta }e^{i\frac 12{\bf q}\times {\bf q}^{\prime }\ell ^2}\langle
\rho _{\gamma \beta }({\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime })\rangle \nonumber \\
&&-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }}V_{\kappa \alpha }({\bf q}^{\prime \prime
}-{\bf q})e^{-i\frac 12{\bf q}\times {\bf q}^{\prime \prime }\ell ^2}\chi
_{\kappa \beta \gamma \delta }^0({\bf q}^{\prime \prime },{\bf q}^{\prime
};\Omega _n) \nonumber \\
&&+\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }}V_{\beta \kappa }({\bf q}^{\prime \prime }-%
{\bf q})e^{i\frac 12{\bf q}\times {\bf q}^{\prime \prime }\ell ^2}\chi
_{\alpha \kappa \gamma \delta }^0({\bf q}^{\prime \prime },{\bf q}^{\prime
},\Omega _n), \label{vquatre}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega _n$ is a boson frequency.
To calculate the response functions in the Time-Dependent Hartree-Fock
Approximation (TDHFA), and so include the correlations that give rise to
phonons and magnons, we need to sum a set of ladder and bubble diagrams\cite
{cote1}. The final equation for $\chi $ can be expressed {\it solely} in
terms the order parameters of the crystal phase!
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime };\Omega _n) &=&%
\widetilde{\chi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime
};\Omega _n) \nonumber \\
&&+\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }}\widetilde{\chi }_{\alpha \beta \kappa
\kappa }({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime \prime };\Omega _n)H({\bf q}^{\prime \prime
})\chi _{\xi \xi \gamma \delta }({\bf q}^{\prime \prime },{\bf q}^{\prime
};\Omega _n), \label{vcinq}
\end{eqnarray}
where the irreducible response function is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{\chi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime
};\Omega _n) &=&\chi _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^0({\bf q},{\bf q}%
^{\prime };\Omega _n) \label{vsix} \\
&&-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }}\chi _{\alpha \beta \kappa \xi }^0({\bf q},%
{\bf q}^{\prime \prime };\Omega _n)X({\bf q}^{\prime \prime })\widetilde{%
\chi }_{\xi \kappa \gamma \delta }({\bf q}^{\prime \prime },{\bf q}^{\prime
};\Omega _n). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The spin and density response functions are obtained, as usual, from the
analytic continuation $i\Omega _n\rightarrow \omega +i\delta $. The
dispersion relation of the collective modes are then found by tracking the
poles of the response functions at different values of the wavevector ${\bf q%
}$ in the Brillouin zone.
In the case of a fully-polarized state, the only non-zero response functions
are $\chi _{{+--+}},\chi _{-++-}$ and $\chi _{++++}$ and so the usual spin
flip and density-density response functions are given by
\begin{equation}
\chi ^{+-}({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime };\Omega _n)=ge^{-q^2\ell
^2/4}e^{-q^{\prime 2}\ell ^2/4}\chi _{{+--+}}({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime
};\Omega _n), \label{trente}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi ^{zz}({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime };\Omega _n) &=&\frac 14\chi ^{nn}({\bf q}%
,{\bf q}^{\prime };\Omega _n) \label{tun} \\
&=&\frac g4e^{-q^2\ell ^2/4}e^{-q^{\prime 2}\ell ^2/4}\chi _{++++}({\bf q},%
{\bf q}^{\prime };\Omega _n). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
They obey the TDHFA equations of motion
\begin{equation}
\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }}\left[ i\Omega _n\delta _{{\bf q},{\bf q}%
^{\prime \prime }}-C_A\left( {\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }\right)
-D_A\left( {\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }\right) \left[ H({\bf q}^{\prime
\prime })-X({\bf q}^{\prime \prime })\right] \right] \chi _{++++}({\bf q}%
^{\prime \prime },{\bf q}^{\prime };\Omega _n)=D_A({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime
}), \label{tdeux}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }}\left[ (i\Omega _n-2\Lambda )\delta _{{\bf q},%
{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }}-C_B\left( {\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }\right)
+D_B\left( {\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime \prime }\right) X({\bf q}^{\prime \prime
})\right] \chi _{+--+}({\bf q}^{\prime \prime },{\bf q}^{\prime };\Omega
_n)=D_B({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime }), \label{ttrois}
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\begin{eqnarray}
D_A({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime }) &=&-2i\sin \left[ ({\bf q}\times {\bf q}%
^{\prime })\ell ^2/2\right] , \label{tquatre} \\
D_B({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime }) &=&\langle \rho _{{++}}({\bf q}-{\bf q}%
^{\prime })\rangle e^{-i({\bf q}\times {\bf q}^{\prime })\ell ^2/2},
\label{tcinq}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
C_A({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime })=2i\left\langle \rho _{{++}}({\bf q}-{\bf q}%
^{\prime })\right\rangle \left[ H({\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime })-X({\bf q}-{\bf q%
}^{\prime })\right] \sin \left[ ({\bf q}\times {\bf q}^{\prime })\ell
^2/2\right] , \label{tsix}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
C_B({\bf q},{\bf q}^{\prime }) &=&\left\langle \rho _{{++}}({\bf q}-{\bf q}%
^{\prime })\right\rangle X({\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime })\cos \left[ ({\bf q}%
\times {\bf q}^{\prime })\ell ^2/2\right] \nonumber \\
&&+\left\langle \rho _{{++}}({\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime })\right\rangle \left[
2iH({\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime })-iX({\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime })\right] \sin
\left[ ({\bf q}\times {\bf q}^{\prime })\ell ^2/2\right] . \label{tsept}
\end{eqnarray}
(For a Wigner crystal, ${\bf q}\rightarrow {\bf k}+{\bf G},$ ${\bf q}%
^{\prime }\rightarrow {\bf k}+{\bf G}^{\prime }$ etc. where ${\bf k}$ is a
vector restricted to the first Brillouin zone of the crystal.) The problem
of calculating the spin-flip and density-density response functions is then
reduced to a matrix-diagonalization problem. The two response functions
decouple. The matrix eigenvalues are the collective excitations associated
with the two response functions, phonons in the case of $\chi ^{nn}$ and
magnons in the case of $\chi ^{+-}$.
\section{Hartree Fock Approximation for the Ground State}
We first apply the above formalism to examine the nature of the magnetic
order in the Wigner crystal ground state. In the Hartree-Fock approximation
the ground state at strong magnetic fields always has broken translational
symmetry.\cite{earlyhf} This result of the Hartree-Fock approximation is an
artifact. As we mentioned in the introduction, the true ground state has
broken translational symmetry only\cite{skyrm} for $\nu <0.23$.
Nevertheless, as we discuss further below the Hartree-Fock approximation
does describes {\it the ground state}, reasonably accurately when the ground
state {\it is} a Wigner crystal. Of course the Hartree-Fock approximation
completely misrepresents the excitation spectrum of the Wigner crystal,
since it misses the phonon and magnon collective modes captured by the
time-dependent Hartree-Fock approximation.
In two-dimensions, Coulomb interactions favor\cite{mara} a triangular
lattice for the Wigner crystal. We will find that the energy scale
associated with magnetic order is much smaller than the Coulomb energy
scale. We therefore expect the structure of the Wigner crystal to be the
triangular lattice structure dictated by Coulomb interactions. We also
expect that the interactions between the spins on the triangular lattice
sites will be predominantly nearest neighbor since the overlap between wave
functions on different sites is quite small in a strong magnetic field. We
check this approximation below by comparing the dispersion relation of the
spin waves in the TDHFA with that given by a Heisenberg model with only
nearest-neighbour exchange coupling. The ground state for two-dimensional
spin $1/2$ particles with nearest-neighbour interactions on a triangular
lattice is expected to have long range order for both ferromagnetic and
antiferromagnetic interactions.\cite{tslaf} However, because of frustration,
the order is rather subtle for the antiferromagnetic case. (The triangular
lattice is {\bf not} a bipartite lattice.) Our primary objective in this
subsection is to determine whether the interactions is ferromagnetic or
antiferromagnetic by comparing the energy of these two states. For that
purpose it is more useful to consider the case of two-dimensional electrons
on a square lattice since it is bipartite and both antiferromagnetic and
ferromagnetic states have a simple structure. We do so even though the
ground state of the two-dimensional electron solid does not occur in this
structure.
\subsection{Maki-Zotos Wavefunction}
It is instructive to begin by generalizing the wavefunction for spinless
electrons employed by Maki and Zotos\cite{maki} in their study of the strong
field Wigner crystal. We define
\begin{equation}
\Psi =(N!)^{-1/2}\det \left| \psi _{{\bf R}_j}({\bf r}_i)\chi _{{\bf n}%
_j}^i\right| . \label{eq:mz}
\end{equation}
Here ${\bf R}_j$ is the $j$-th lattice vector,
\begin{equation}
\psi _{{\bf R}}({\bf r})=\frac 1{\sqrt{2\pi \ell ^2}}\exp \left( \frac{-|%
{\bf r}-{\bf R}|^2-2i(xR_y-yR_x)}{4\ell ^2}\right) , \label{eq:spwf}
\end{equation}
is the lowest Landau level wavefunction\cite{gauge} for an electron whose
quantized cyclotron orbit is centered on ${\bf R}$, and $\chi _{{\bf n}%
}=(\cos (\theta /2),\sin (\theta /2)\exp (i\phi ))$ is a spinor oriented in
the ${\bf n}=(\sin (\theta )\cos (\phi ),\sin (\theta )\sin (\phi ),\cos
(\theta ))$ direction. In this wavefunction the cyclotron orbits of
electrons near different lattice sites are uncorrelated and the electron
spin orientation at a given lattice site is arbitrary. In the range of $\nu $
where the ground state is a Wigner crystal it is an excellent approximation%
\cite{maki,overlpcaveat} to ignore the lack of orthogonality between
cyclotron orbits centered at different lattice sites. Making this
approximation, it is easy to derive an expression for
\begin{equation}
E\equiv \frac{\langle \Psi |\sum_{i<j}e^2\left| {\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j\right|
^{-1}|\Psi \rangle }{\langle \Psi |\Psi \rangle }. \label{eq:vareng}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~\ref{eq:vareng}, we have dropped the Zeeman energy which can easily
be added if the electronic $g$-factor is non-zero. The fact that the kinetic
energy, taken as the zero of energy above, is quantized is important in
determining the favored magnetic order. Following Maki and Zotos we find
that
\begin{equation}
E={\frac 12}\sum_{i\ne j}\left[ I\left( \left| {\bf R}_j-{\bf R}_i\right|
\right) -\left( \frac{1+{\bf n}_i\cdot {\bf n}_j}2\right) J_{MZ}\left(
\left| {\bf R}_j-{\bf R}_i\right| \right) \right] , \label{eq:mzeng}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
I(R)=\left( \frac{e^2}\ell \right) \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}2\exp \left( -R^2/8\ell
^2\right) I_0\left( R^2/8\ell ^2\right) , \label{eq:direct}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
J_{MZ}(R)=\exp (-R^2/4\ell ^2)I(R), \label{eq:exchange}
\end{equation}
In this equation $I(R)$ and $J(R)$ are respectively the direct and exchange
two-body matrix elements of the Coulomb interaction for lowest-Landau-level
cyclotron orbits whose centers are separated by ${\bf R}$. The explicit
expression for the matrix element in the exchange term, which is sensitive
to the relative orientations of the spins on the two sites, is
\begin{equation}
J_{MZ}\left( \left| {\bf R}_j-{\bf R}_i\right| \right) =e^2\int d{\bf r}\int
d{\bf r}^{\prime }\frac{\psi _{{\bf R}_j}^{*}({\bf r})\psi _{{\bf R}_j}({\bf %
r}^{\prime })\psi _{{\bf R}_i}^{*}({\bf r}^{\prime })\psi _{{\bf R}_i}({\bf r%
})}{\left| {\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime }\right| }. \label{def}
\end{equation}
For $R\gg \ell $,
\begin{equation}
J_{MZ}(R)\approx \frac{e^2}R\exp \left( -R^2/4\ell ^2\right) .
\label{eq:appexchange}
\end{equation}
This approximate expression for $J_{MZ}(R)$ is accurate to better than $5\%$
even for neighboring sites over the range of Landau level filling factors
where the ground state is a Wigner crystal.
It is evident from Eq.(\ref{eq:mzeng}) that if the ground state is
approximated by the Maki-Zotos wave function, a ferromagnetic state in which
all spins are parallel will be energetically favored. The energy increase
when the relative orientation of spins on two sites separated by $R$ changes
from parallel to antiparallel is $J(R)$. For similar
single-Slater-determinant variational wave functions at zero magnetic field,
the tendency would be to favor antiferromagnetic orientations on neighboring
sites\cite{thouless,ceperley,louie} except possibly when multi-site ring
exchanges become important.
(Multi-site ring exchanges are less important for the strong magnetic field
Wigner crystal because magnetic confinement results in orbitals which are
more strongly localized around lattice sites.) In the weak field case,
having opposite spins on neighboring sites reduces the kinetic energy
density required by the Pauli exclusion principle in the region between the
sites. In the strong magnetic field limit, the kinetic energy is quantized
and is independent of the spin-configuration so this mechanism favoring
antiferromagnetism is not operative. Nevertheless the Maki-Zotos
wavefunction is a single-Slater-determinant and conclusions based upon its
use should be examined critically. It is known, for example, that
correlations can result in spin-singlet fluid ground states\cite{rasolt}
whereas the Hartree-Fock approximation would always predict ferromagnetic
ground states. At zero magnetic field, the contribution from low-energy,
long-wavelength phonon modes to the zero-point motion gives rise to
long-range correlations which, for example, make the static structure factor
vanish more quickly ($\propto q^{3/2}$) than it would for a system with
short range interactions. At strong magnetic field, even stronger
correlations which make the static structure factor vanish as $q^2$ result
from the contribution to the zero-point motion of the collective cyclotron
mode of all electrons. (In a Jastrow-Slater variational wavefunction such as
that used by Zhu and Louie\cite{louie} the correlation factors would have to
have a logarithmic spatial dependence in order to capture the correct
long-distance ground-state correlations.) We cannot completely rule out on
the basis of our calculations the possibility that correlations could
invalidate our conclusion that the ground state is ferromagnetic. However we
consider this to be extremely unlikely.
\subsection{Self-Consistent Hartree-Fock Calculations}
One possible mechanism in favor of antiferromagnetism is the possibility of
spreading the charge associated with a given lattice site more widely in the
case of antiferromagnetic configurations which could reduce the
electrostatic energy. To probe the competition a little more deeply we have
performed self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculations, based on the formalism
of the previous section, comparing the energy of ferromagnetic and
antiferromagnetic states on a square lattice. We now discuss the results of
these calculations.
In the Hartree-Fock approximation, the spin-order is unidirectional on a
square lattice for both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions. We
choose a spin-quantization axis which is along the direction of the Zeeman
coupling if one is present and is otherwise arbitrary. This allows us to set
the order parameters which are off-diagonal in the spin indices to zero and
simplify our calculation. Let $a_0$ be the lattice constant of the
ferromagnetic square lattice with density $n=1/a_0^2$ such that $2\pi n\ell
^2=\nu $. In the antiferromagnetic case we assume that the spin density is
oppositely directed on the two sublattices (which have lattice constant $%
\sqrt{2}a_0,$ and have a relative shift of ${\bf a=}\sqrt{2}\left( \frac 12,%
\frac 12\right) a_0$) so that
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \rho _{{--}}({\bf G})\right\rangle =e^{-i{\bf G}\cdot {\bf a}%
}\left\langle \rho _{{++}}({\bf G})\right\rangle \label{quarante}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf G}$ is a {\em sublattice} reciprocal lattice vector (with
modulus $\left| {\bf G}\right| =2\pi /\sqrt{2}a_0$). (We choose our
coordinate system so that the primitive lattice vectors of the sublattice
are along the Cartesian axes.) Eq. (\ref{dixp}) can again be simplified to a
single equation
\begin{equation}
\left( i\omega _n+\mu \right) G_{{++}}({\bf G},\omega _n)-\sum_{{\bf G}%
^{\prime }}\widetilde{F}({\bf G},{\bf G}^{\prime })G_{{++}}({\bf G}^{\prime
},\omega _n)=\delta _{{\bf G},0}, \label{qq}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{F}({\bf G},{\bf G}^{\prime })=\exp \left[ \frac 12i{\bf G}\times
{\bf G}^{\prime }\ell ^2\right] \left[ \left( 1+e^{-i{\bf G}\cdot {\bf a}%
}\right) H({\bf G})-X({\bf G})\right] \left\langle \rho _{{++}}(-{\bf G}%
)\right\rangle . \label{qqq}
\end{equation}
The ground-state energy per particle becomes
\begin{equation}
E_{{+-}}=\frac 1\nu \sum_{{\bf G}}\left[ H({\bf G})\left( 1+\cos ({\bf G}%
\cdot {\bf a})\right) -X({\bf G})\right] \left| \left\langle \rho _{{++}}(%
{\bf G})\right\rangle \right| ^2. \label{qdeux}
\end{equation}
We have solved these equations self-consistently. Because of the variational
nature of the Hartree-Fock approximation, these solutions provide us with
the lowest energy single-Slater determinant consistent with the assummed
magnetic and translational broken symmetry. In particular, the solutions to
these equations will always give a lower energy than the energy for the
corresponding Maki-Zotos wavefunction. The optimization process implicit in
obtaining a self-consistent solution of the Hartree-Fock equations results
in cyclotron orbits on each lattice site which are distorted by their
average environments, including their magnetic environments, in a way which
minimizes the total interaction energy. It is still true, however, that the
cyclotron orbits on different sites are not correlated with each other. The
error introduced as a consequence can be estimated by using a harmonic
approximation for the strong field Wigner crystal, which is reasonably
accurate from an energetic point of view throughout the regime where the
ground state is an electron crystal. In the harmonic approximation the
many-body Schrodinger equation can be solved exactly and the ground-state
energy is the sum of the classical Madelung energy and the quantum
zero-point energy i.e.
\begin{equation}
E_{harmonic}=-0.78213\nu ^{1/2}+0.24101\nu ^{3/2}, \label{eharmo}
\end{equation}
for the hexagonal lattice. The Hartree-Fock approximation describes the
Madelung term exactly (in the limit $\nu \rightarrow 0,$ the HFA energy
coincides with the classical energy of a point lattice) and overestimates%
\cite{ahmaustria} the zero-point energy by approximately $25\%$ (at $\nu
=0.2 $ ).
The results of our calculations are summarized in Tables 1and 2. In Table 1,
we list the ground-state energy per electron in the HFA for the square
lattice antiferromagnetic (SLA) and ferromagnetic (SLF) states as well as
for the triangular lattice ferromagnetic state (TLF). Table 2 contains a
similar calculation{\bf \ }using a simplified form of the Maki and Zotos
wave function where we have neglected the overlapping between two wave
functions centered on different sites so that the single-electron density
can be approximated by
\begin{equation}
\left\langle n({\bf r})\right\rangle =\sum_i\ \left| \psi _{{\bf R}_i}({\bf r%
})\right| ^2=\frac 1{2\pi \ell ^2}\sum_ie^{-({\bf r}-{\bf R}_i)^2/2\ell ^2},
\label{ajout1}
\end{equation}
or, equivalently, in the ferromagnetic case
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \rho ({\bf G})\right\rangle _{MZ}=\nu \ e^{-G^2\ell ^2/4}.
\label{ajout2}
\end{equation}
(For the SLA case, $\nu \rightarrow \nu /2$ and the ${\bf G}^{\prime }s$ are
replaced by the sublattices reciprocal lattice vectors.) We use the order
parameters defined by Eq.(\ref{ajout2}) in Eq.(\ref{vneuf}) to compute the
Maki-Zotos ground-state energies tabulated in Table II. We remark that this
procedure is exactly equivalent to computing Eq.(\ref{eq:mzeng}) (when the
interaction with a positive homogeneous background of charges is added to
this last equation). Note also that these results include only the Coulomb
energy.
These Tables report also the results of calculations performed for filling
factors where the ground state is {\it not} believed to be a Wigner crystal.
These large $\nu $ results are intended to illustrate trends in the
self-consistent Hartree-Fock approximation solutions and not to be
physically realistic.\cite{note1}
We see that for the larger filling factors, the difference in energy between
Hartree-Fock square lattice ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic states, $%
\Delta E_{spin}=(E_{SLF}-E_{SLA})/E_{SLF}$ agrees quite closely with what
would be predicted by the Maki-Zotos wavefunction (Eq. (\ref{ajout2})). At
smaller filling factors, however, the Hartree-Fock energy difference between
these two spin states is much bigger than what would be predicted by the
Maki-Zotos wavefunction. The energy reduction due to the added variational
freedom compared to the Maki-Zotos wavefunction is larger for the
ferromagnetic state than for the antiferromagnetic state and this leads to
an increased energy difference between the two states. (See also Table 3
where, as discussed below, $J_{MZ}$ is proportional to $(E_{SLF}-E_{SLA})$
evaluated with the Maki-Zotos wavefunction and $J_{HFA}$ is proportional to $%
(E_{SLF}-E_{SLA})$ evaluated in the HFA.)\cite{note2} In both the
Makis-Zotos and HF approximations, the ferromagnetic state has the lowest
energy. In Fig. 1, we plot the {\it difference} in density: $\left\langle n(%
{\bf r})\right\rangle _{HFA}-\left\langle n({\bf r})\right\rangle _{MZ}$ for
the SLF and SLA at filling factor $\nu =1/8.$ It is clear from this figure
that the HFA minimizes the Coulomb energy in both the SLF and SLA cases by
removing charges along the direction of the nearest-neighbor sites and
putting them along the direction of the next-nearest-neighbor sites. This is
just what we expect at such a small filling factor where overlap between
wave functions on different sites is very small and the ground-state energy
is dominated by the (direct) Coulomb interaction. According to our
calculations more charge redistribution occurs in the ferromagnetic case.
For the triangular lattice, a similar calculation gives a much smaller
difference in densities reflecting a loss in the variational freedom due to
the higher coordination number of the triangular lattice.
We remark that similar self-consistent calculations for a single-band
Hubbard model at half-filling would find the antiferromagnetic state to be
lower in energy, correctly reflecting the superexchange coupling in that
system.\cite{vignale} We also see that, as anticipated above, the difference
between the square lattice ferromagnetic state and the triangular lattice
ferromagnetic state energy $\Delta E_{Coulomb}=(E_{TLF}-E_{SLF})/E_{TLF}$ is
much larger than the difference between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic
states on the same lattice. This energy difference is almost constant over
the range of filling factors considered here, decreasing slowly as $\nu $
decreases. For $\nu \to 0,\ \Delta E_{Coulomb}$ approaches its Madelung
energy value,\cite{mara} $0.53\%$.
\section{Collective Mode Calculations}
As we described above, the ground-state order parameters can be used to
calculate the spin-wave collective modes. In the ferromagnetic ground state,
we showed that the density response function, $\chi ^{nn},$ or equivalently
the longitudinal spin response function, $\chi ^{zz}=\chi ^{nn}/4,$ are
uncoupled from the transverse spin response function $\chi ^{+-}$ . The
poles of the longitudinal spin response function are nothing but the phonons
of the Wigner crystal for which we have already computed the dispersion
relation in Ref.~\cite{cote1}. The transverse spin excitations are the
magnon collective modes of the ferromagnetic Wigner crystal. Figs.~1 and 2
show the TDHFA\ dispersion relations for the SF and TF lattices,
respectively, at different values of the filling factor. (When the
electronic g-factor is non-zero all magnon collective modes energies are
increased by the Zeeman gap $g^{*}\mu _BB$.
In the simple colinear states (SLF, SLA and TLF) that we consider here, a
small Zeeman term has no effect on the calculation of the order parameters.)
We remark that, because of the numerical approach used in this work, it is
not possible to obtain the dispersion relations at very small filling
factors without having to consider a prohibitively large number of
reciprocal lattice vectors. For the square lattice, we were not able to
obtain accurate results for $\nu <1/5$ while for the triangular lattice $\nu
=1/7$ was the lower limit.
It is interesting to compare these magnon dispersion relations with the
dispersion relation of the spin waves of the Heisenberg model where the
spins are localized on the lattice sites and the Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
H=-J\sum_{i{\bf \delta }}{\bf S}_i\cdot {\bf S}_{i+{\bf \delta }}.
\label{cinquante}
\end{equation}
(The summation is over the lattices sites $i$ and the $\nu _o$ nearest
neighbours of the lattice. Note that this convention for the exchange
constant results in double-counting each neighbour pair.) In that case,
\begin{equation}
\omega ({\bf k})=2J\nu _os(1-\gamma _{{\bf k}}), \label{cun}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\gamma _{{\bf k}}=\frac 1{\nu _o}\sum_{{\bf \delta }}e^{i{\bf k}\cdot {\bf R}%
_\delta }, \label{cdeux}
\end{equation}
and $s=1/2$.
The solid lines in Figs.~1 and 2, show the dispersion relation obtained from
a nearest-neighbor interaction Heisenberg model with the interaction
strength chosen to reproduce the TDHFA numerical results. The fit is quite
good and becomes almost perfect at smaller filling factors. (The discrepancy
at $\nu =1/3$ can be improved by fitting with non-zero
next-nearest-neighbour coupling.) The exchange integral $J_{TDHFA}$
obtained, in this way, from the TDHFA dispersion relation, for different
filling factors, is listed in Table~3 (square lattice) and Table 4
(triangular lattice) . These tables also show values of the exchange
integral calculated in two other ways. From Table~1, we see that the
ground-state energy is minimal for the polarized square lattice. We can
estimate the strength of the exchange coupling from this energy difference
as follows. We assume that, as far as the magnetic degrees of freedom are
concerned, the Hartree-Fock solution yields an Ising approximation to the
antiferromagnetic ground state, {\it i.e.} it does note capture the quantum
fluctuations which would be present in a true antiferromagnetic ground
state. It is then easy to see\cite{madelung} that, for the square lattice
\begin{equation}
J_{HFA}=\frac{E_{SLA}-E_{SLF}}2. \label{ctrois}
\end{equation}
This expression assumes that non-nearest neighbour exchange coupling is
negligible. (Note that a similar calculation is not possible for the
triangular lattice because of frustration.) We can also compute the exchange
integral directly from the Maki-Zotos wavefunction expression, Eq.(\ref{def}%
). This gives Eq.(\ref{eq:direct}) or, using $2\pi n\ell ^2=\nu $ with $%
n=1/\alpha a_0^2$ ($\alpha =1$ (SF) or $\alpha =\sqrt{3}/2$ (TF))
\begin{equation}
J_{MZ}=\left( \frac{e^2}\ell \right) \left( \frac \pi 4\right) ^{1/2}e^{-%
\frac{3\pi }{4\alpha \nu }}I_0\left( \frac \pi {4\alpha \nu }\right) .
\label{j3}
\end{equation}
Note that if the Maki-Zotos energies are used in Eq. (\ref{ctrois}) instead
of the HFA energies, $J_{MZ}$ is recovered exactly as long as
non-nearest-neighbour interactions are negligible.
For the TLF, the exchange integral obtained from the TDHFA is only slightly
smaller than $J_{MZ}$. For the square lattice, the exchange integral
obtained from the TDHFA is smaller than both $J_{MZ}$ and the HFA value over
the range of $\nu$ where we are able to complete calculations.
At smaller filling factors, since the difference between the two spin states
decreases faster with the Maki-Zotos wavefunction than with the HFA, the HF
value of $J$ is much larger than the Maki-Zotos value. We expect the TDHFA
result to remain close to the HFA result in this regime. Unfortunately, we
cannot check this assumption numerically since we cannot compute the TDHFA
value of $J$ at smaller filling factor (the matrix size becomes
prohibitively large). However, since the TDHFA is obtained from a functional
differentiation of the HFA, our assumption seems reasonable. In any case,
the present result shows clearly that, in the Wigner crystal, the
interaction between spins, at small filling factor, is mainly from
nearest-neighbors.
In the small wave vector limit, the Heisenberg dispersion relation on the
triangular lattice is given by $\omega (k)=\frac 32J\left( ka_0\right)
^2\equiv D(k\ell )^2$ where $D=2\pi \sqrt{3}J/\nu $ in units of $e^2/\ell .$
With $J$ given by $J_{TDHFA}$ as calculated above, we find that $D=0.024$ at
$\nu =1/3$ and $D=9.3$ $\times $ $10^{-3}$ at $\nu =1/5.$ These values
should be compared with those of the liquid state where $D=4\pi \ell ^2\rho
_s/\nu $ where $\rho _s$ is the spin-stiffness. For the liquid state it is
possible to express the spin-stiffness in terms of the pair correlation
function\cite{rasolt,moon} and this has been evaluated using an
hypernetted-chain-approximation for the liquid state pair-correlation
function in Ref. \cite{moon}. For the liquid state we find that, $%
D=0.035(e^2/\ell )$ at $\nu =1/3$ and $D=0.015(e^2/\ell )$ at $\nu =1/5.$ We
see that the spin-stiffness is larger for the liquid state and increasingly
so as the filling factor decreases. This result is consistent with the view
of the strongly correlated electron states as quantum melted crystals of
electrons whose size is smeared on a magnetic length scale by rapid
cyclotron motion. When long-range order is lost, the cyclotron orbits will
overlap more strongly on average and the relative spin-orientation of nearby
electrons will assume a larger importance.
\section{SUMMARY}
In the strong-magnetic-field limit, we have argued that the lowest-energy
spin state of the Wigner crystal is the ferromagnetic state. Our conclusion
is based in part on a comparison of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic
state energies of square-lattice Wigner crystal states calculated in the
Hartree-Fock approximation and in part on the observation that the
superexchange mechanism, which tends to favor antiferromagnetism, is absent
in the strong magnetic field limit. The spin-wave dispersion relations,
which we compute in the TDHFA, show that the ferromagnetic lattice is stable
at filling factors where crystallization occurs. In this limit, the
interactions between spins on the lattice are dominated by nearest-neighbor
exchange coupling. Our results appear to show that small distortions of the
wavefunctions for electrons on one lattice site, due to their interactions
with electrons on nearby lattice sites, are responsible for a large relative
increase in the small exchange couplings at small filling factors. A
comparison with the liquid state at filling factors $\nu =1/3$ and $\nu =1/5$
shows that the spin-stiffness of the ferromagnetic liquid states which occur
at these filling is substantially larger than that of corresponding crystal
states. In closing we remark that the recent sucessful application\cite
{barrett} of nuclear-magnetic-resonance methods to two-dimensional electron
system, suggests that the magnetic properties of two-dimensional electron
systems in the regime where the Wigner crystal state occurs will soon be
open to experimental investigation so that our conclusions can be tested.
These experiments should open up a host of interesting new questions,
related to disorder and thermal fluctuations.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This research was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9416906, and by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the
Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l'aide \`a la recherche (FCAR) from
the Government of Qu\'ebec.
|
\section{Introduction}}
\newcommand{\section{Conclusions}}{\section{Conclusions}}
\newcommand{\section*{Acknowledgments}}{\section*{Acknowledgments}}
\begin{document}
\hyphenation{spe-ci-fy qua-ter-ni-ons qua-ter-ni-on qua-ter-nio-nic geo-me-try
super-im-po-se su-per-im-po-si-tion over-co-me opera-tors appro-pria-te
transfor-mation interferen-ces equiva-lent}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{center}
August, 1995 \hfill {\footnotesize hep-th/95mmnnn}
\vs{3cm}
{\Large \bf ONE COMPONENT DIRAC EQUATION}
\vs{2cm}
{\sc Stefano De Leo}$^{ \; a)}$
\vs{1cm}
{\it Universit\`a di Lecce, Dipartimento di Fisica\\
Instituto di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Lecce\\
Lecce, 73100, ITALY}
\vs{2cm}
{\bf Abstract}
\end{center}
\noindent We develop a relativistic free wave equation on the complexified
quaternions, linear in the derivatives. Even if the wave functions are only
one-component, we show that four independent solutions, corresponding to
those of the Dirac equation, exist. A partial set of translations between
complex and complexified quaternionic quantum mechanics may be defined.
\vs{2cm}
\noindent{\footnotesize a) e-mail address:} {\footnotesize \sl <EMAIL>}
\end{titlepage}
\pagebreak
\section{Introduction}
In physics and particularly in quantum mechanics we are
accustomed to distinguishing between ``states'' and ``operators''. Even when
the operators are represented by numerical matrices, the squared form of
operators distinguishes them from the column structure of the spinor states.
Only for one-component fields and operators is there
potential confusion.\\
In extending quantum mechanics defined over the
complex field to quaternions~\cite{fin,adl,adl1} or even complexified
quaternions~\cite{mor} it has almost
always been assumed that matrix operators contain elements which
are ``numbers'', indistinguishable from those of the state vectors. This is
an unjustified limitation.
As the title of this paper indicates, we shall display a one-component Dirac
equation which has only the standard solutions and thus avoids the doubling of
solutions found by other authors who used complexified quaternions. This is
achieved by the introduction of $\cal H$-{\em real linear complexified
quaternions} within operators.
After defining quaternions, complexified quaternions and their
generalizations we will give the simplest example of
their use (namely the one-component Dirac equation) and will introduce
another fundamental ingredient, that is the scalar product, in order to
formulate quantum mechanics.
In 1843, Hamilton~\cite{ham}, after more than a decade of attempts to
generalize complex numbers (seen as a representation of rotations in two
dimensions) in order to describe rotations in three dimensions, discovered
quaternions. Instead of an entity which
he expected to be characterized by three real
numbers, the Irish physicist found that four real numbers were required. He
wrote a quaternion such as\f{In this paper we will use the symbols
$\cal I$, $\cal J$, $\cal K$ instead of the common $i$, $j$, $k$, since we
believe useful to distinguish the {\em quaternionic} imaginary units from
the {\em complex} imaginary unit $i$ which appears in standard quantum
mechanics.}
\[
q=a+{\cal I}b+{\cal J}c+{\cal K}d \; \; \; \; \; , \; \; \; \; \;
a, \; b, \; c, \; d \; \in \; {\cal R} \; \; ,
\]
with operations of multiplication defined according to the following rules
for the imaginary units
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal I}^{2}={\cal J}^{2}={\cal K}^{2} & = & -1\\
{\cal J}{\cal K}=-{\cal K}{\cal J} & = & {\cal I}\\
{\cal K}{\cal I}=-{\cal I}{\cal K} & = & {\cal J}\\
{\cal I}{\cal J}=-{\cal J}{\cal I} & = & {\cal K} \; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
We can immediately extend the previous algebra by introducing a quantity
$i$ whose square is $-1$ and commutes with ${\cal I}, \; {\cal J}, \; {\cal K}$
\bel{xx} q_{\cal C} = \alpha +{\cal I}\beta +{\cal J}\gamma +{\cal K}\delta \; \; \;
\; \; ,\; \; \; \; \; \alpha , \; \beta , \; \gamma , \; \delta \; \in \;
{\cal C}(1, \; i) \; \; . \end{equation}
Complexified quaternions~(\ref{xx}) were introduced in physics to rederive,
more elegantly, all the expressions of special relativity. A review by
Synge~\cite{syn} covers developments up to the 1960s, modern presentations
have been given by Sachs~\cite{sac}, Gough~\cite{gou} and Abonyi~\cite{abo}.
Quantum mechanics on the complexified quaternions is formulated by
Morita~\cite{mor}, in his papers we can find an interesting quaternionic
version of the electroweak theory.\\
Remembering the noncommutativity of the quaternionic multiplication we must
specify whether the quaternionic Hilbert space $V_{{\cal H}_{\cal C}}$ is
to be formed by right or by left multiplication of vectors by scalars.
Besides we must specify if our scalars are quaternionic, complex or real
numbers. We will follow the usual choice (see Morita~\cite{mor}) to work
with a linear vector space under multiplication by complex
(${\cal C}(1, \; i)$) scalars and so the two different conventions,
represented by right or by left multiplication, give isomorphic versions of
the theory.
In the next section we briefly recall the complexified quaternionic algebra
and introduce an appropriate scalar product (or geometry as called by
Rembieli\`nski~\cite{rem}). In the third section we explicitly give a
one-component formulation of the Dirac equation, even if the wave function
is only one-component, we show that four $i$-complex independent solutions
appear. In the following section we identify a set of rules which
permit translations between complex and complexified quaternionic quantum
mechanics. Our conclusion are drawn in the final section.
\section{Complexified quaternionic algebra and $\cal H$-real geometry}
Working with complexified quaternionic numbers we have different
opportunities to define conjugation operations on the imaginary units:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|} \hline
{\footnotesize number} & & & & \\
{\footnotesize of} & $\cal I$ & $\cal J$ & $\cal K$ & $i$\\
{\footnotesize conjugations} & & & & \\ \hline
& $-$ & $+$ & $+$ & \\
1 & $+$ & $-$ & $+$ & $+$\\
& $+$ & $+$ & $-$ & \\ \hline
& $+$ & $-$ & $-$ & \\
2 & $-$ & $+$ & $-$ & $+$\\
& $-$ & $-$ & $+$ & \\ \hline
3 & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $+$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Nevertheless the conjugations expressed in the previous chart are not
independent, in fact we can prove that the conjugation operations which
change only one imaginary unit are connected between themselves and with the
conjugation of all the three imaginary units through similarity
transformations, as in
\[ -{\cal I}\beta +{\cal J}\gamma +{\cal K}\delta = -{\cal K}
({\cal I}\beta -{\cal J}\gamma +{\cal K}\delta){\cal K} \; \; ,\]
\[ -{\cal I}\beta +{\cal J}\gamma +{\cal K}\delta = -{\cal I}
(-{\cal I}\beta -{\cal J}\gamma -{\cal K}\delta){\cal I} \; \; .\]
An analogous observation can be formulated for the conjugation of two
imaginary units
\[ -{\cal I}\beta -{\cal J}\gamma +{\cal K}\delta = -{\cal I}
(-{\cal I}\beta +{\cal J}\gamma -{\cal K}\delta){\cal I} \; \; ,\]
\[ -{\cal I}\beta -{\cal J}\gamma +{\cal K}\delta = -{\cal K}
({\cal I}\beta +{\cal J}\gamma +{\cal K}\delta){\cal K} \; \; .\]
If we now conjugate the imaginary unit $i$, three possible
conjugations appear
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
{\footnotesize symbol} & $\cal I$ & $\cal J$ & $\cal K$ & $i$ \\ \hline
$q_{\cal C}^{\; \star}$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$q_{\cal C}^{\; *}$ & $+$ & $+$ & $+$ & $-$ \\ \hline
$q_{\cal C}^{\; +}$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
It is straightforward to prove that
\[ (q_{\cal C} p_{\cal C})^{\star}=p_{\cal C}^{\; \star}
q_{\cal C}^{\; \star} \]
and
\[ (q_{\cal C} p_{\cal C})^{*}=q_{\cal C}^{\; *} p_{\cal C}^{\; *} \; \; ,\]
so we immediately have
\[ (q_{\cal C} p_{\cal C})^{+}=(q_{\cal C} p_{\cal C})^{* \star}=
(q_{\cal C}^{\; *} p_{\cal C}^{\; *})^{\star}=
p_{\cal C}^{\; * \star} q_{\cal C}^{\; * \star}=
p_{\cal C}^{\; +} q_{\cal C}^{\; +} \; \; .\]
In quantum mechanics probability amplitudes, rather than probabilities,
superimpose, so we must determine what kinds of number system can be used
for the probability amplitudes $\cal A$. We need a real modulus function
$N({\cal A})$ such that
\[ Probability \; = [N({\cal A})]^{2} \; \; . \]
The first four assumptions on the modulus function are basically technical in
nature
\[ N(0)=0 \; \; , \]
\[ N({\cal A})>0 \; \; if \; \; {\cal A} \neq 0 \; \; , \]
\[ N(r{\cal A})= \vert r \vert N({\cal A}) \; \; \; , \; \; \; r \; \; real
\; \;, \]
\[ N({\cal A}_{1}+{\cal A}_{2}) \leq N({\cal A}_{1}) + N({\cal A}_{2})
\; \; . \]
A final assumption about $N({\cal A})$ is physically motived by imposing the
{\em correspondence principle} in the following form: We require that in
the absence of quantum interferences effects, probability amplitude
superimposition should reduce to probability superimposition. So we have an
additional condition on $N({\cal A})$:
\[ N({\cal A}_{1} {\cal A}_{2})= N({\cal A}_{1})N({\cal A}_{2}) \; \; . \]
A remarkable theorem of Albert~\cite{alb} shows that the only algebras over
the reals, admitting a modulus functions with the previous properties are
the reals $\cal R$, the complex $\cal C$, the real quaternions
${\cal H}_{\cal R}$ and the octonions $\cal O$.\\
The previous properties
of the modulus function seem to constrain us to work with
{\em division algebras} (which are finite
dimensional algebras for which $a\neq 0$, $b\neq 0$ imply $ab\neq 0$), in
fact
\[ {\cal A}_{1}\neq 0 \; \; \; , \; \; \; {\cal A}_{2}\neq 0 \]
implies
\[ N({\cal A}_{1} {\cal A}_{2})= N({\cal A}_{1})N({\cal A}_{2})\neq 0 \]
which gives
\[ {\cal A}_{1} {\cal A}_{2} \neq 0 \; \; .\]
A simple example of a nondivision algebra is provided by the algebra of
complexified quaternions since
\[ (1+i{\cal I})(1-i{\cal I})=0 \]
guarantees that there are nonzero divisors of zero.\\
So if the probability amplitudes are assumed to be complexified quaternions we
cannot give a satisfactory probability interpretation. Nevertheless we know
that probability amplitudes are connected to inner products,
so we can overcome the above difficulty by defining an appropriate
scalar product. In order
to obtain the right properties of the modulus functions a
possibility is represented by choosing an $\cal H$-{\em real} ( real with
respect to ${\cal I}, \; {\cal J}, \; {\cal K}$) projection
of the complexified quaternionic scalar
product\f{The {\em barred} operators ${\cal O}\mid q$ act on quaternionic
objects $\phi$ as follows
\[ ({\cal O}\mid q) \phi \: \equiv \: {\cal O} \phi q \; \: .\]}:
\bel{pp}
{\cal A} = \; <\psi \mid \phi>_{{\cal C}(1, \; i)} \; =
\frac{1-{\cal I}\mid {\cal I}-{\cal J} \mid {\cal J} -
{\cal K} \mid {\cal K}}{4} <\psi \mid \phi> \; \; .
\end{equation}
The probability amplitude $\cal A$ (now $i$-complex valued) satisfies the
required properties. In this paper we will treat a complexified
quaternionic quantum mechanics with $\cal H$-real ($i$-complex) geometry.
In the expression~(\ref{pp}) we recognize a particular $\cal H$-{\em real
linear complexified quaternion}. These objects represent the most general
transformation on
complexified quaternions, explicitly such transformations are expressed by
\bel{rlcq}
{\cal O} = q_{\cal C} + p_{\cal C} \mid {\cal I} + r_{\cal C} \mid {\cal J} +
s_{\cal C} \mid {\cal K} \; \; ,
\end{equation}
\[ q_{\cal C} , \; p_{\cal C}, \; r_{\cal C}, \; s_{\cal C}
\in {\cal H}_{\cal C} \; \; .\]
An operator like~(\ref{rlcq}) satisfies the following relation
\[ {\cal O} (\psi \alpha) = ({\cal O} \psi) \alpha \; \; ,\]
for an arbitrary $\alpha \in {\cal C}(1, \; i)$, from here the name of
``$\cal H$-real'' (real with respect to $\cal I$, $\cal J$ and $\cal K$)
or ``$i$-complex'' linear operator.\\
Thanks to $\cal H$-{\em real linear complexified quaternions}
we will be able to
write a one-component Dirac equation (characterized by four orthogonal
solutions) and will overcome previous problems.
\section{One-component Dirac Equation}
Various formulations of the Dirac relativistic equation on the complexified
quaternionic field have been considered since the 1930s.
A pioneer, in this
field, was certainly Conway~\cite{con}, more recent presentations
can be found in the papers of Edmonds~\cite{edm} and
Gough~\cite{gou,gou2}. When written in this manner a doubling of solutions
from four to eight, occurs.
We briefly recall the ``standard'' complexified quaternionic Dirac equation,
as formulated by Edmonds and Gough. If we represent the energy-momentum by
the following complexified quaternion
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}= E+i({\cal I}p_{x}+{\cal J}p_{y}+{\cal K}p_{z}) \; \; ,
\end{equation}
a relativistic free wave equation is quickly obtained by the substitution
\begin{equation}
{\cal P} \; \rightarrow \; i{\cal D} =
i\partial_{t} + {\cal I}\partial_{x} + {\cal J}\partial_{y} +
{\cal K} \partial_{z}
\end{equation}
in
\bel{cop}
{\cal P}\psi_{a}=m\psi_{b} \; \; \; , \; \; \;
{\cal P}^{\star}\psi_{b}=m\psi_{a} \; \; .
\end{equation}
The spinors $\psi_{a}$ and $\psi_{b}$ satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation, in
fact we have
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lclcl}
${\cal P}^{\star}{\cal P}\psi_{a}$ & $=$ & $m {\cal P}^{\star}\psi_{b}$ &
$=$ & $m^{2}\psi_{a} \; \; ,$\\
${\cal P}{\cal P}^{\star}\psi_{b}$ & $=$ & $m {\cal P}\psi_{a}$ &
$=$ & $m^{2}\psi_{b} \; \; ,$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
${\cal P}{\cal P}^{\star}={\cal P}^{\star}{\cal P}=-{\partial_{t}}^{2}
+ {\vec{\partial}}^{\; 2} \; \; .$
\end{center}
The covariance is obtained if, under Lorentz transformations
\[ {\cal P}'=\Lambda {\cal P} \Lambda^{+} \; \; \; \; , \; \; \; \;
\Lambda^{\star} \Lambda = 1 \; \; ,\]
\[ \Lambda \in {\cal H}_{\cal C} \; \; ,\]
the spinors $\psi_{a}$ and $\psi_{b}$ transform as follows
\begin{equation}
{\psi_{a}}'=\Lambda^{*}\psi_{a} \; \; \; , \; \; \;
{\psi_{b}}'=\Lambda \psi_{b} \; \; .
\end{equation}
The equations~(\ref{cop}) can be rewritten in matrix form as follows
\begin{equation}
\left[ \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1\\
1 & 0 \end{array} \right) i\partial_{t} +
\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1\\
1 & 0 \end{array} \right) \vec{Q}\cdot \vec{\partial} \right]
\left( \begin{array}{c} \psi_{a}\\
\psi_{b} \end{array} \right) =
m \left( \begin{array}{c} \psi_{a}\\
\psi_{b} \end{array} \right) \; \; ,
\end{equation}
\[ \vec{Q} \equiv ({\cal I}, \; {\cal J}, \; {\cal K}) \; \; . \]
We recognize, in the complexified quaternionic Dirac equation,
eight orthogonal solutions, whereas the standard Dirac
equation involves only four. For $\vec{p}=0$, we find
{\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lclclclclc}
$E=+m$ & : & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bad{1}{1}$ & , &
$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bad{1}{1} \; {\cal I}$ & , &
$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bad{1}{1} \; {\cal J}$ & , &
$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bad{1}{1} \; {\cal K}$ & ; \\
& & & & & & & & & \\
$E=-m$ & : & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bad{1}{-1}$ & , &
$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bad{1}{-1} \; {\cal I}$ & , &
$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bad{1}{-1} \; {\cal J}$ & , &
$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bad{1}{-1} \; {\cal K}$ & .
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
Remember that with $\cal H$-real geometry {\footnotesize $\mid \psi >$,
$\mid \psi >{\cal I}$, $\mid \psi >{\cal J}$, $\mid \psi >{\cal K}$}
represent orthogonal states. The possible physical significance of
these additional solutions has been a matter of speculation~\cite{edm2}.
We will show (see section 4) that this doubling of solutions is strictly
connected with the use of reducible matrices
\bel{mo} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & i\\
i & 0 \end{array} \right) \; \; \; , \; \; \;
\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -\vec{Q}\\
\vec{Q} & 0 \end{array} \right) \end{equation}
and so there is no ``new physics'' in the complexified quaternionic Dirac
equation. Finally,
we remark that when one works with complexified quaternions, matrix
operators like~(\ref{mo}) represent an unjustified limitation.
We now derive, following the standard Dirac approach, a {\em one-component}
equation with only {\em four} solutions.\\
In order to obtain a
positive-definite probability density $\rho$, we require an equation linear
in $\partial_{t}$, then, for relativistic covariance, the equation must
also be linear in $\vec{\partial}$. The simplest equation
that we can write down is
\bel{c}
i\partial_{t} \psi = \vec{Q} \cdot \vec{\cal P} \psi {\cal I} + m i \psi
{\cal J} \; \; ,
\end{equation}
with
\[ \vec{\cal P} \equiv - i \vec{\partial} \; \; .\]
Our Hamiltonian, given by
\[ \vec{Q} \cdot \vec{\cal P} \mid {\cal I} + m i \mid {\cal J}
\; \; ,\]
represent a particular $\cal H$-{\em real linear complexified quaternion}.
It is straightforward to prove that $\psi$ satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation,
in fact the operators
\bel{ww}
\vec{\alpha}\equiv \vec{Q}\mid {\cal I} \; \; \; , \; \; \;
\beta \equiv i \mid {\cal J} \end{equation}
verify the usual relations\f{Note that
\[ (q_{\cal C} \; \vert \; q)(p_{\cal C} \; \vert \; p)=
q_{\cal C}p_{\cal C} \; \vert \; pq \; \; ,\]
\[ q_{\cal C}, \; p_{\cal C} \; \in \; {\cal H}_{\cal C} \; \; , \; \;
q, \; p \; \in \; {\cal H}_{\cal R} \; \; .\]}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{\vec{\alpha}, \; \beta\} =\{\alpha_{x}, \; \alpha_{y}\}=\{\alpha_{x}, \; \alpha_{z}\}=
\{\alpha_{y}, \; \alpha_{z}\} & = & 0 \; \; ,\\
\alpha_{x}^{2}=\alpha_{y}^{2}=\alpha_{z}^{2}=\beta^{2} & = & 1 \; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
In order to find a positive-definite probability density, we must consider an
appropriate conjugation, noting that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi^{\star}\psi & = & \psi_{1}^{2} + \psi_{2}^{2} + \psi_{3}^{2}
+\psi_{4}^{2}\\
\psi^{*}\psi & = & \vert \psi_{1} \vert^{2} - \vert \psi_{2} \vert^{2} -
\vert \psi_{3} \vert^{2} - \vert \psi_{4} \vert^{2} +
({\cal I}, \; {\cal J}, \; {\cal K}) \; \; terms\\
\psi^{+}\psi & = & \vert \psi_{1} \vert^{2} + \vert \psi_{2} \vert^{2} +
\vert \psi_{3} \vert^{2} + \vert \psi_{4} \vert^{2} +
({\cal I}, \; {\cal J}, \; {\cal K}) \; \; terms
\end{eqnarray*}
\[ ( \; \psi=\psi_{1} +{\cal I}\psi_{2}+{\cal J}\psi_{3}+{\cal K}\psi_{4}
\; \; \; ;
\; \; \; \psi_{1}, \; \psi_{2}, \; \psi_{3}, \; \psi_{4} \; \in
\; {\cal C}(1, \; i) \; ) \; \; ,\]
we choose
\begin{equation}
\rho = (\psi^{+} \psi)_{{\cal C}(1, \; i)} \; \; .
\end{equation}
We need an $\cal H$-real ($i$-complex) geometry and a $^{+}$ conjugation.
Using such geometry, given an operator like~(\ref{rlcq}), we can immediately
write its hermitian conjugate as
\begin{equation}
{\cal O}^{+} = q_{\cal C}^{+} - p_{\cal C}^{+} \mid {\cal I} -
r_{\cal C}^{+} \mid {\cal J} - s_{\cal C}^{+} \mid {\cal K} \; \; .
\end{equation}
We now consider a new equivalent representation for the operators
$\vec{\alpha}$ and $\beta$, which allows us to simplify the following steps
\bel{b}
\vec{\alpha}\equiv (-{\cal J}\mid {\cal I}, \; i\mid {\cal K}, \;
{\cal K} \mid {\cal I}) \; \; \; ,
\; \; \; \beta \equiv -{\cal I}\mid {\cal I} \; \; .
\end{equation}
We seek plane wave solutions of the quaternionic Dirac
equation~(\ref{c}), i.e., solutions of the form
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$\psi^{+}(x)=u(p) e^{-i(Et-\vec{p}\cdot \vec{x})}$ &
{\footnotesize positive energy ,}\\
$\psi^{-}(x)=v(p) e^{+i(Et+\vec{p}\cdot \vec{x})}$ &
{\footnotesize negative energy ,}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
with the condition that $E$ is positive.\\
In the rest frame of the particle, $\vec{p}=0$, the Dirac equation reduces
to
\begin{eqnarray*}
u(m)= & -{\cal I}u(m){\cal I} \; \; ,\\
v(m)= & +{\cal I}v(m){\cal I} \; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
There are two linearly independent $u$ solutions, and two $v$'s, we denote
them as follows
\[ u^{(1)}(m)=1 \; \; , \; \; u^{(2)}(m)={\cal I} \; \; ,
\; \; v^{(1)}(m)={\cal J} \; \;
, \; \; u^{(1)}(m)={\cal K} \; \; .\]
The Dirac equation implies on the spinors $u(p)$ and $v(p)$ the conditions
\begin{eqnarray*}
(E-\vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{p} - \beta m)u(p) & = & 0 \; \; ,\\
(E+\vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{p} + \beta m)v(p) & = & 0 \; \; ,
\end{eqnarray*}
so we may write, for $\vec{p}\neq 0$, the following solutions
\begin{eqnarray*}
u^{(1, \; 2)}(p) = & (E+\vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{p} + \beta m)u^{(1, \; 2)}(m)
\; \; ,\\
v^{(1, \; 2)}(p) = & (E-\vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{p} - \beta m)v^{(1, \; 2)}(m)
\; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
Explicitly,
\begin{eqnarray*}
u^{(1)}(p) = & (2m(m+E))^{-\frac{1}{2}}
(E+m+{\cal K}(p_{x}+ip_{y})+{\cal J}p_{z}) \; \; \; \; ,\\
u^{(2)}(p) = & (2m(m+E))^{-\frac{1}{2}}
(E+m+{\cal K}(p_{x}-ip_{y})+{\cal J}p_{z}){\cal I} \; \; ,\\
v^{(1)}(p) = & (2m(m+E))^{-\frac{1}{2}}
(E+m+{\cal K}(p_{x}+ip_{y})+{\cal J}p_{z}){\cal J} \; \; ,\\
v^{(2)}(p) = & (2m(m+E))^{-\frac{1}{2}}
(E+m+{\cal K}(p_{x}-ip_{y})+{\cal J}p_{z}){\cal K} \; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
The normalization factors have been chosen in order that
\[ u^{(1) \; +}u^{(1)}=u^{(2) \; +}u^{(2)}=
v^{(1) \; +}v^{(1)}=v^{(2) \; +}v^{(2)}=\frac{E}{m} \; \; .\]
The orthogonality of the Dirac solutions is immediately proved
by the following considerations
\[ u^{(2) \; +}=-{\cal I}u^{(1) \; \star} \; \; \; , \; \; \;
v^{(1)}=u^{(1)}{\cal J} \; \; \; , \; \; \; v^{(2)}=u^{(2)}{\cal J}\]
and
\[ u^{(1) \; \star}u^{(1)} \in {\cal C}(1, \; i) \; \; .\]
All non-diagonal products are $\cal H$-imaginary ($\sim {\cal I}, \;
{\cal J}, \; {\cal K}$) and so our four solutions are orthogonal.\\
If we rewrite the complexified quaternionic Dirac equation in covariant
form
\bel{dcf} i\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\psi=m\psi \; \; , \end{equation}
where
\[ \gamma^{\mu} \; \equiv \; (\beta, \; \beta \vec{\alpha}) \; \; , \]
we can quickly extract the standard results, since our
$\gamma^{\mu}$-matrices, now $\cal H$-real linear complexified
quaternionic numbers, satisfy the $i$-complex Dirac algebra. For
example, in order to obtain the relativistic covariance we must assume
that, under Lorentz transformations ($x'=\Lambda x$), there be a linear
relation between the wave function $\psi$ in the first frame and the wave
function $\psi'$ in the transformed frame, namely
\[ {\psi}' = {\cal T}(\Lambda)\psi \; \; ,\]
with
\[ {\cal T}(\Lambda) = e^{\frac{1}{8}[\gamma^{\mu}, \; \gamma^{\nu}]\omega_{\mu \nu}} \;
\; ,\]
\begin{center}
{\footnotesize $\omega_{\mu \nu}$ antisymmetric in $\mu \nu$}.
\end{center}
Considering an infinitesimal rotation around $z$ and finding the
corresponding transformation of the wave function $\psi$, we obtain the
spin operator
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}_{z} = -\frac{1}{2}\; {\cal J}\mid {\cal J} \; \; ,
\end{equation}
and so our four solutions $u^{(1, \; 2)}, \; v^{(1, \; 2)}$
correspond to positive and negative energy solutions with
${\cal S}=\frac{1}{2}$ and for $\vec{p}=(0, \; 0, \; p_{z})$, to
${\cal S}_{z}=\frac{1}{2}, \; -\frac{1}{2}, \; \frac{1}{2}, \;
-\frac{1}{2}$, respectively.
We can introduce in the Dirac equation a potential $A^{\mu}$ by the minimal
coupling:
\[ i\partial^{\mu} \rightarrow i\partial^{\mu} -
eA^{\mu} \; \; ,\]
\begin{center}
{\footnotesize where $e=-\vert e \vert$ for the electron}.
\end{center}
We will seek a transformation $\psi \rightarrow \psi_{c}$ reversing the
charge, such that
\bel{p}
(i\partial^{\mu} -eA^{\mu})\gamma_{\mu}\psi=m\psi \; \; ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
(i\partial^{\mu} +eA^{\mu})\gamma_{\mu}\psi_{c}=m\psi_{c} \; \; .
\end{equation}
To construct $\psi_{c}$ we conjugate (* operation) the first equation and
multiply it for $i \; \vert \; j$
\[ ({\cal I} \; \vert \; {\cal J})(-i\partial^{\mu} -eA^{\mu})
\gamma_{\mu}^{*}\psi^{*} = m {\cal I} \psi^{*} {\cal J} \; \; .\]
In our representation, it is straightforward to prove that
\[ ({\cal I} \; \vert \; {\cal J})\gamma_{\mu}^{*}\psi^{*} =
- \gamma_{\mu}{\cal I} \psi^{*} {\cal J} \]
and thus
\begin{equation}
\psi_{c} = {\cal I} \psi^{*} {\cal J} \; \; ,
\end{equation}
which represents the quaternionic version of the charge conjugation
operation.
We conclude this section with the following consideration:\\
Comparing the equation~(\ref{dcf}) with the standard Dirac equation
\[ i\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\psi=m\psi \; \; , \]
where
\[ \gamma^{0} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & \cdot\\
\cdot & -1 \end{array} \right) \; \; \; , \; \; \;
\vec{\gamma} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cdot & \vec{\sigma}\\
-\vec{\sigma} & \cdot \end{array} \right) \; \; , \]
we can obtain an interesting relation between $4\times 4$ complex
matrices and $\cal H$-real linear complexified quaternions
\bel{id}
i\gamma^{0} \; \; \leftrightarrow \; \; -i{\cal I} \; \vert \; {\cal I}\; \;
\; \; , \; \; \; \; i\vec{\gamma} ; \; \leftrightarrow \; \;
(-i{\cal K}, \; {\cal I} \; \vert \; {\cal J}, \; -i{\cal J}) \; \; .
\end{equation}
With this as encouragement we will derive a complete translation in the
following section.
\section{A possible translation}
In this section we give explicitly a set of rules for passing back and
forth between standard (complex) quantum mechanics and our complexified
quaternionic version. Nevertheless we must remark that this translation will
not be possible in all situations, so it is only partial. We will be able to
pass from $4n$ dimensional complex matrices to $n$ dimensional $\cal H$-real
linear complexified quaternionic matrices.
We know that sixteen complex numbers are necessary to define
the most general $4\times 4$ complex matrix but only four are needed to
define the most general complexified quaternion
\[ \psi=\psi_{1} +{\cal I}\psi_{2}+{\cal J}\psi_{3}+{\cal K}\psi_{4} \]
\[ ( \; \psi_{1}, \; \psi_{2}, \; \psi_{3}, \; \psi_{4} \; \in
\; {\cal C}(1, \; i) \; ) \; \; .\]
Therefore, in order to achieve a translation, we need twelve new complex
${\cal C}(1, \; i)$ numbers. If we work with $\cal H$-real linear complexified
quaternions, these new degrees of freedom are represented by
\[ \phi \mid {\cal I} + \eta \mid {\cal J} + \xi \mid {\cal K} \]
\[ ( \phi, \; \eta, \; \xi \; \in \; {\cal H}_{\cal C}) \; \; . \]
The rules to translate between complex and complexified quaternionic
quantum mechanics are:
\[ i \leftrightarrow \left( \begin{array}{cccc} i & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & i & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & i & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & i\end{array} \right) \; \; , \]
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal I} \leftrightarrow \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & $-1$ & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & $-1$\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\end{array} \right) & , &
1 \; \vert \; {\cal I} \leftrightarrow
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & $-1$ & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & 0 & $-1$ & 0\end{array} \right) \; \; ,\\
\\
{\cal J} \leftrightarrow \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & $-1$ & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & $-1$ & 0 & 0\end{array} \right) & , &
1 \; \vert \; {\cal J} \leftrightarrow
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & $-1$ & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & $-1$\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\end{array} \right) \; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
We can obviously obtain the remaining rules from the previous ones, for example
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}={\cal I}{\cal J} & \leftrightarrow &
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & $-1$\\
0 & 0 & $-1$ & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}
\right) \; \; , \\ \\
1\mid {\cal K}= (1 \mid {\cal J}) (1 \mid {\cal I}) & \leftrightarrow &
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & $-1$\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & $-1$ & 0 & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array} \right) \; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
With these rules we can translate any $4n$ dimensional complex matrix into
an equivalent $n$ dimensional $\cal H$-real linear complexified matrix and
{\em viceversa}
\begin{equation}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} a_{1} & b_{1} & c_{1} & d_{1}\\
a_{2} & b_{2} & c_{2} & d_{2}\\ a_{3} & b_{3} & c_{3} & d_{3}\\
a_{4} & b_{4} & c_{4} & d_{4}\end{array} \right) \;
\leftrightarrow \; q_{\cal C} +p_{\cal C} \; \vert \; {\cal I} +
r_{\cal C} \; \vert \; {\cal J} + s_{\cal C} \; \vert \; {\cal K}
\; \; ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
4q_{\cal C} & = & a_{1}+b_{2}+c_{3}+d_{4}+{\cal I}(a_{2}-b_{1}+c_{4}-d_{3})+\\
& & +{\cal J}(a_{3}-b_{4}-c_{1}+d_{2})+{\cal K}(a_{4}+b_{3}-c_{2}-d_{1})
\; \; ,\\
4p_{\cal C} & = & a_{2}-b_{1}-c_{4}+d_{3}-{\cal I}(a_{1}+b_{2}-c_{3}-d_{4})+\\
& & -{\cal J}(a_{4}+b_{3}+c_{2}+d_{1})+{\cal K}(a_{3}-b_{4}+c_{1}-d_{2})
\; \; ,\\
4r_{\cal C} & = & a_{3}+b_{4}-c_{1}-d_{2}+{\cal I}(a_{4}-b_{3}-c_{2}+d_{1})+\\
& & -{\cal J}(a_{1}-b_{2}+c_{3}-d_{4})-{\cal K}(a_{2}+b_{1}+c_{4}+d_{3})
\; \; ,\\
4s_{\cal C} & = & a_{4}-b_{3}+c_{2}-d_{1}-{\cal I}(a_{3}+b_{4}+c_{1}+d_{2})+\\
& & +{\cal J}(a_{2}+b_{1}-c_{4}-d_{3})-{\cal K}(a_{1}-b_{2}-c_{3}+d_{4})
\; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
We can obviously invert the previous development and obtain, given
$q_{\cal C}, \; p_{\cal C}, \; r_{\cal C}, \; s_{\cal C}$ the complex
coefficients $a, \; b, \; c, \; d$, i.e., as in
\begin{eqnarray*}
a_{1} & = & \left(
q_{\cal C}+{\cal I}p_{\cal C}+{\cal J}r_{\cal C}+{\cal K}s_{\cal C}
\right)_{{\cal C}(1, \; i)} \; \; ,\\
c_{2} & = & \left(
s_{\cal C}+{\cal I}r_{\cal C}+{\cal J}p_{\cal C}+{\cal K}q_{\cal C}
\right)_{{\cal C}(1, \; i)} \; \; .
\end{eqnarray*}
We now give an example of this translation. Consider the spin operator
which appear in the standard Dirac equation (see for example~\cite{itz}):
\[S_{z} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & $-1$ & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & $-1$\end{array} \right) \; \;
.\]
The only non zero coefficients are $a_{1}=c_{3}=-b_{2}=-d_{4}=1$ and so
the complexified quaternionic version of the spin operator is
\[S_{z} =- \frac{1}{2} \; {\cal J} \; \vert \; {\cal J} \; \; .\]
In similar way we can obtain all the results given in the third section, we
must only translate from standard (complex) Dirac equation, so we cannot
have a doubling of the solutions.
We conclude this section by giving the matrix $\cal S$ which
reduces the complexified quaternionic matrices used by Edmonds~\cite{edm} and
Gough~\cite{gou}, in this matter we have elegantly
explained the doubling of
solutions in their papers\footnote{In the recent article of
ref.~\cite{and} we read the following comment about the complexified
quaternionic
version of Dirac equation: ``{\sl When written in this manner a doubling of
components of the wave function from $4$ to $8$ occurs.}'' This difficulty
is now overcome.}.\\
The matrix ${\cal S}$ which satisfies
\[{\cal S} \; i\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1\\
1 & 0\end{array} \right) \; {\cal S}^{-1} = (1 \; \vert \; {\cal J}) \;
\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\
0 & 1\end{array} \right) \; \; ,\]
\[{\cal S} \; \vec{Q}\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & $-1$\\
1 & 0\end{array} \right) \; {\cal S}^{-1} = (\vec{Q} \; \vert \; {\cal I})
\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\
0 & 1\end{array} \right) \; \; ,\]
is
\[{\cal S} \; = \; \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \; \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1+i \; \vert \; {\cal I} -1 \; \vert \; {\cal J} -i \; \vert \; {\cal K}
\; \; \; &
\; \; \; -i +1 \; \vert \; {\cal I} -i \; \vert \; {\cal J} +
1 \; \vert \; {\cal K}\\
& \\
i+1 \; \vert \; {\cal I} +i \; \vert \; {\cal J} +1 \; \vert \; {\cal K}
\; \; \; &
\; \; \;-1 +i \; \vert \; {\cal I} +1 \; \vert \; {\cal J} -
i \; \vert \; {\cal K}
\end{array} \right) \; \; .\]
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have defined a set of rules for translating from standard
(complex) quantum mechanics to complexified quaternionic quantum mechanics,
with our rules we can obtain a rapid counterpart of the standard quantum
mechanical results and overcome previous difficulties (like doubling of the
solutions in the Dirac equation).\\
We remark that there is no ``new physics'' in the complexified
quaternionic Dirac equation, in contrast with the standard folklore.
Nevertheless we emphasize that our translation is only a partial translation,
so observable differences could be found between complex and complexified
quaternionic quantum mechanics.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author thanks Pietro Rotelli for useful comments and suggestions.
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{fin}
\jmp{Finkelstein D, Jauch JM, et al.}{3}{207}{62}; \xx{4}{788}{63}.\\
\jmp{Finkelstein D, Jauch JM, Speiser D}{4}{136}{63}.\\
{\em Finkelstein D, Jauch JM, Speiser D} - {\sl Notes on quaternion quantum
mechanics}\\
in Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics II, Hooker (Reidel,
Dordrecht 1979), 367-421.
\bibitem{adl}
\pr{Adler SL}{D21}{550}{80}, \xx{D21}{2903}{80};\\
\prl{Adler SL}{55}{783}{85}; Phys.~Rev. \xx{D34}{1871}{86};\\
\cmp{Adler SL}{104}{611}{86};\\
\pr{Adler SL}{D37}{3654}{88}; Phys.~Lett. \xx{B221}{39}{89};\\
\np{Adler SL}{B415}{195}{94}.\\
\pr{Davies AJ}{D41}{2628}{90}.\\
\pr{De Leo S, Rotelli P}{D45}{575}{92};\\
\ptp{De Leo S, Rotelli P}{92}{917}{94};\\
\nc{De Leo S , Rotelli P}{B110}{33}{95};\\
{\em De Leo S, Rotelli P} - {\sl Quaternion Higgs and the Electroweak Gauge
Group}\\ {\footnotesize to appear in {\bf Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.~A}}.\\
\ap{Horwitz LP, Biedenharn LC}{157}{432}{84}.\\
\app{Horwitz LP, Razon A}{24}{141}{91}; \xx{24}{179}{91};\\
\jmp{Horwitz LP, Razon A}{33}{3098}{92}.\\
\jmp{Horwitz LP}{34}{3405}{93}.\\
\jmp{Nash CC, Joshi GC}{28}{2883}{87}; \xx{28}{2886}{87};\\
\ijtp{Nash CC, Joshi GC}{27}{409}{88}; \xx{31}{965}{92}.\\
\mpl{Rotelli P}{A4}{933}{89}; \xx{A4}{1763}{89}.
\bibitem{adl1}
{\em Adler SL} - {\sl Quaternion quantum mechanics and quantum fields}\\
Oxford UP, Oxford, 1995.
\bibitem{mor}
\ptp{Morita K}{67}{1860}{81}, \xx{68}{2159}{82};\\
\ptp{Morita K}{70}{1648}{83}; \xx{72}{1056}{84};\\
\ptp{Morita K}{73}{999}{84}; \xx{75}{220}{85};\\
\ptp{Morita K}{90}{219}{93}.
\bibitem{ham}
{\em Hamilton WR} - {\sl Elements of Quaternions} - Chelsea Publishing,
N.~Y.~, 1969.
\bibitem{syn}
{\em Synge JL} - {\sl Quaternions, Lorentz Transformation, and the Conway Dirac
Eddington Matrices} - Institute for Advanced Study, Dublin, 1972.
\bibitem{sac}
{\em Sachs M} - {\sl General Relativity and Matter: A spinor Field Theory
from Fermis to Light-Years} - D.~Reidel, Dordrecht, 1982.
\bibitem{gou}
\ejp{Gough W}{10}{188}{89}.
\bibitem{abo}
\jp{Abonyi I, Bito JF, Tar JK}{A24}{3245}{91}.
\bibitem{rem}
\jp{Rembieli\`nski J}{A11}{2323}{78}.
\bibitem{alb}
\am{Albert AA}{48}{495}{47}.
\bibitem{con}
{\em Conway AW} - Pro.~R.~Soc. {\bf A162}, 145 (1937).
\bibitem{edm}
\ijtp{Edmonds JD}{6}{205}{72}; Am.~J.~Phys. \xx{42}{220}{74}.
\bibitem{gou2}
\ejp{Gough W}{7}{35}{86}; \xx{8}{164}{87}.
\bibitem{edm2}
{\em Edmonds JD} - Found.~of Phys. {\bf 3}, 313 (1973).
\bibitem{itz}
{\em Itzykson C, Zuber JB} - {\sl Quantum Field Theory} - McGraw-Hill Book
Co, Singapore, 1985.
\bibitem{and}
\pess{Anderson R, Joshi GC}{6}{308}{93}.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
|
\section{\@startsection{section}{1}{\z@}{3.5ex plus 1ex minus
\defAPPENDIX {APPENDIX }
\def\ps@headings{\def\@oddfoot{}\def\@evenfoot{}
\def\@oddhead{\hbox{}\hfill
\makebox[.5\textwidth]{\raggedright\ignorespaces --\thepage{}--
\hfill {}}}}
\def\@evenhead{\@oddhead}
\ps@headings
\catcode`\@=12
\relax
\def\r#1{\ignorespaces $^{#1}$}
\def\figcap{\section*{Figure Captions\markboth
{FIGURECAPTIONS}{FIGURECAPTIONS}}\list
{Fig. \arabic{enumi}:\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{Fig. 999:}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endfigcap\endlist \relax
\def\tablecap{\section*{Table Captions\markboth
{TABLECAPTIONS}{TABLECAPTIONS}}\list
{Table \arabic{enumi}:\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{Table 999:}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endtablecap\endlist \relax
\def\reflist{\section*{References\markboth
{REFLIST}{REFLIST}}\list
{[\arabic{enumi}]\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[999]}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endreflist\endlist \relax
\catcode`\@=11
\def\@evenhead{\@oddhead}
\ps@headings
\relax
\newskip\humongous \humongous=0pt plus 1000pt minus 1000pt
\def\mathsurround=0pt{\mathsurround=0pt}
\def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup1\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
\newif\ifdtup
\def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup1\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse
\vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit
\else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}
\def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous
\halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
\tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
\tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
\crcr#1\crcr}}
\def\hbox{\it i.e.}{}} \def\etc{\hbox{\it etc.}{}{\hbox{\it i.e.}{}} \def\etc{\hbox{\it etc.}{}}
\def\hbox{\it e.g.}{}} \def\cf{\hbox{\it cf.}{}{\hbox{\it e.g.}{}} \def\cf{\hbox{\it cf.}{}}
\def\hbox{\it et al.}} \def\vs{\hbox{\it vs.}{}{\hbox{\it et al.}} \def\vs{\hbox{\it vs.}{}}
\def\hbox{---}{\hbox{---}}
\def\mathop{\rm tr}{\mathop{\rm tr}}
\def\mathop{\rm Tr}{\mathop{\rm Tr}}
\def\mathop{\rm Im}{\mathop{\rm Im}}
\def\mathop{\rm Re}{\mathop{\rm Re}}
\def\mathop{\bf R}{}{\mathop{\bf R}{}}
\def\mathop{\bf C}{}{\mathop{\bf C}{}}
\def\mathop{\rm C}{\mathop{\rm C}}
\def\Lie{\mathop{\cal L}}
\def\partder#1#2{{\partial #1\over\partial #2}}
\def\secder#1#2#3{{\partial^2 #1\over\partial #2 \partial #3}}
\def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}
\def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}
\def\VEV#1{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}
\def\gdot#1{\rlap{$#1$}/}
\def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}
\def\pr#1{#1^\prime}
\def\;\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\;{\;\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\;}
\def\;\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}\;{\;\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}\;}
\def\contract{\makebox[1.2em][c]{
\mbox{\rule{.6em}{.01truein}\rule{.01truein}{.6em}}}}
\def\begin{equation}{\begin{equation}}
\def\end{equation}{\end{equation}}
\def\beq\eeq{\begin{equation}\end{equation}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\relax
\let\h=\hat
\def\overline{p}{\overline{p}}
\def\overline{b}{\overline{b}}
\def\overline{c}{\overline{c}}
\def\overline{g}{\overline{g}}
\def\overline{t}{\overline{t}}
\def\overline{s}{\overline{s}}
\def\overline{l}{\overline{l}}
\def\overline{q}{\overline{q}}
\def\overline{Q}{\overline{Q}}
\def\overline{P}{\overline{P}}
\def\overline{f}{\overline{f}}
\def{\; \rm GeV/}c^2{{\; \rm GeV/}c^2}
\def\; \rm GeV{\; \rm GeV}
\def\:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow{\:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow}
\def\dk#1#2#3{
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{r c l}
#1 & \rightarrow & #2 \\
& & \:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow #3
\end{array}
\end{equation}
}
\def\dkp#1#2#3#4{
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{r c l}
#1 & \rightarrow & #2#3 \\
& & \phantom{\; #2}\:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow #4
\end{array}
\end{equation}
}
\def\longbent{\:\raisebox{3.5ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\raisebox{1.3ex}%
{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow}
\def\onedk#1#2{
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
#1 \\
\:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow #2
\end{array}
\end{equation}
}
\def\bothdk#1#2#3#4#5{
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{r c l}
#1 & \rightarrow & #2#3 \\
& & \:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\vert$}%
\phantom{#2}\!\:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow #4 \\
& & \:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow #5
\end{array}
\end{equation}
}
\def\ddot{\overline{x}}{\ddot{\overline{x}}}
\def\dotx{\dot\overline{x}}{\dotx{\dot\overline{x}}{\dot\overline{x}}}
\def\overline{x}{\overline{x}}
\def\overline{p}{\overline{p}}
\def\haD{\mbox{$\widehat{\cal %
D}$\raisebox{1.9ex}{\hspace{-.85em}$\leftrightarrow$}}}
\def\lrD{\mbox{${\cal
D}$\raisebox{1.45ex}{\hspace{-.85em}$\leftrightarrow$}}}
\def\lra#1{\mbox{${#1}$\raisebox{1.6ex}{\hspace{-.85em}$\leftrightarrow$}}}
\def\pl#1#2#3{
{\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}
\def\prl#1#2#3{
{\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}
\def\rmp#1#2#3{
{\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf#1}, #2 (19#3)}
\def\prep#1#2#3{
{\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}
\def\pr#1#2#3{
{\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}
\def\np#1#2#3{
{\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1}, #2 (19#3)}
\def\r#1{\ignorespaces $^{#1}$}
\relax
\input {epsf}
\hyphenation{Liou-ville}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def{\rm d}{{\rm d}}
\def{\rm e}^{{\rm e}^}
\def\Lambda{\Lambda}
\def\hat A{\hat A}
\def\hat B{\hat B}
\def\displaystyle{\displaystyle}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{flushright}
{\normalsize OU-HET 218 \\ YITP/U-95-29\\
August,~1995 \\}
\end{flushright}
\vfill
\begin{center}
{\large \bf Macroscopic Three-Loop Amplitudes \\
and the Fusion Rules \\
from the Two-Matrix Model }
\footnote{This work is supported in part by
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(07640403)
and by the Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research Fund
(2690,$~$5108)
from
the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan.}
\vfill
{\bf M. Anazawa}$~^{\dag}$ \footnote{JSPS fellow}
,~~ {\bf A. Ishikawa}$~^{\ddag}$ $~^{2}$
\\
and \\
{\bf H.~Itoyama}$~^{\dag}$ \\
\vfill
$~^{\dag}$ Department of Physics,\\
Faculty of Science, Osaka University,\\
Toyonaka, Osaka, 560 Japan\\
and \\
$~^{\ddag}$ Uji Research Center, Yukawa Institute for
Theoretical Physics, \\
Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto, 611 Japan \\
\end{center}
\vfill
\begin{abstract}
From the computation of three-point singlet correlators in the two-matrix
model, we obtain an explicit expression for the macroscopic three-loop
amplitudes having boundary lengths $\ell_{i}$ $(i = 1\sim 3)$
in the case of the unitary series $(p,q)= (m+1,m)$
coupled to two-dimensional gravity.
The sum appearing in this expression
is found to conform to the structure of the CFT fusion rules
while the summand factorizes through a product of three modified Bessel
functions.
We briefly discuss a possible generalization of these features to
macroscopic $n$-loop amplitudes.
\end{abstract}
\vfill
\end{titlepage}
The macroscopic $n$-loop amplitudes describe fundamental processes of
$c \leq 1$ noncritical strings.
Their expression
is well-known
in the case of pure two-dimensional gravity
realized as the critical point of the one-matrix model
\cite{MSS}: it
takes a suggestive form that the product of factors appears as
external legs and the rest are expressible in terms of
the sum of the total lengths. These seem to summarize the lore
of the noncritical string theory in less than one dimension.
No comparable expression is known for the case of the unitary
minimal
models
coupled to gravity
\cite{MSS}, \cite{MS}.
In the previous letter \cite{AII}, however,
we have obtained
the two-loop (annulus) amplitude having the boundary lengths
$\ell_{1}$ and $\ell_{2}$ from
the planar solution of
the two-matrix model for the case of the unitary series;
$(p,q) = (m+1,m)$
\cite{DKK} (See \cite{MSS}, \cite{BDSS},
\cite{AIMZ} for the case of
the one-matrix model).
Let us first recall this amplitude:
\footnote{
This amplitude is for the case in which the spins on the
two-boundaries are oriented in the same direction.
The case of the opposite direction is obtained by replacing
$\ell_1 + \ell_2$ by $\ell_1 + (-)^m \ell_2$ and by inserting
$(-)^k$ in the summand.}$^,$
\footnote{We have discussed some correspondence
of this amplitude
with the one from the continuum
approach (see also \cite{NKYM}).}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{result1}
w(\ell_1, \ell_2)_{c} = \frac{2}{m a^2 {\pi}^2}
\frac{M \ell_1 \ell_2}{\ell_1 + \ell_2}
\sum^{m-1}_{k=1}
\left(\sin \frac{k}{m}\pi \right)^2
K_{\frac{k}{m}}(M \ell_1)
K_{1 - \frac{k}{m}}(M \ell_2)
\quad ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M = t^{1/2}$ and $t$ is the renormalized cosmological
constant (The definition of $a$
and related objects will be given later in eq.~(\ref{3loop-o}),
(\ref{3loop-p}).)
\footnote{A similar but distinct formula is seen in \cite{Kos}.}.
The product of the modified Bessel functions
multiplied by the length
$M\ell_{i} K_{\nu}(M\ell_{i})$
is naturally interpreted as external leg factors
(wave functions).
This, together with the absence of a propagator, will
constitute integral parts of
Feynman-like rules
of noncritical $c \leq 1$ string
\footnote{Note that the disk-amplitude is also proportinal to
$(\sin \frac{\pi}{m}) \frac{M^{1+1/m}}{\ell} K_{1+1/m} (M \ell)$.}.
It is also tempting to regard the integer $k$ summed as a label for
diagonal primary states of underlying CFT, which is now gravitationally
dressed.
In this letter, we will corroborate these features further: we
present an explicit expression for macroscopic three-loop amplitudes
in the case of the unitary minimal models coupled to two-dimensional
gravity.
We obtain this from the computation of correlators consisting
of the product
of three resolvents in the two-matrix model at the $m$-th critical point.
We first state our expression for the three-loop
$w(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3)_c$ which is manifestly symmetric under
the interchange $\ell_{i} \leftrightarrow \ell_{j}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
w(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3)_c&=& -\frac 1{m(m+1) a^3 \pi^3}
\left(\frac{a M}{2}\right)^{-2-1/m} \nonumber
\\
&\times&
\sum_{ {\cal D}_{3}(k_{1}-1, k_{2}-1, k_{3}-1)}
\textstyle{
\sin\frac{k_{1}}m\pi\;\sin\frac{k_{2}}m\pi\;\sin\frac{k_{3}}m\pi}
\nonumber \\ &\times&
M^3 \ell_1\ell_2\ell_3\; K_{1-\frac{k_{1}}{m}}(M \ell_1)\;
K_{1-\frac{k_{2}}{m}}(M \ell_2)\;
K_{1-\frac{k_{3}}{m}}(M \ell_3)
\quad .
\label{3loop-final}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have denoted by ${\cal D}_{3}$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}_3 (a_1,a_2,a_3) = \Bigl\{ (a_1,a_2,a_3) \mid
\sum^3_{i=1}a_i &\leq& 2(m-2),~~
\sum^3_{i=1}a_i = {\rm even},
\nonumber \\
0 &\leq& \left(\sum^3_{i (\not= j)} a_i \right) - a_j,~~
j = 1 \sim 3
\Bigr\}
\end{eqnarray}
As one may have expected, the product of three factors
$(\sin\frac{k_i}{m}\pi) M\ell_{i}K_{\nu}(M \ell_{i})$ have appeared.
It is interesting that the selection rules obtained from
${\cal D}_{3}$ for the set of integers coincide with the fusion rules
of the underlying conformal field theory of the unitary minimal series
$(m+1,m)$ \cite{BPZ}.
In fact, the fusion rules for diagonal primary fields read as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \phi_{i i}~ \phi_{j j}~ \phi_{k k}\rangle
\not= 0 \quad,
\end{eqnarray}
if and only if
$i+j \geq k+1$ and two other permutations and $~i+j+k
{}~(=$ odd) $
\leq 2m-1$ hold.
This set of rules is nothing but ${\cal D}_{3}(i-1, j-1, k-1)$.
This coincidence can be understood a little better
by studying the small length behavior of
eq.~(\ref{3loop-final}). By letting $M \ell_{i} << 1$
independently, we find that eq.~(\ref{3loop-final}) becomes proportional
to
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac{a M}{2}\right)^{-2-1/m}
\sum_{ {\cal D}_{3}(k_{1}-1, k_{2}-1, k_{3}-1)}
M^{\frac{\sum k_{i}}{m}} \ell_{1}^{k_{1}/m} \ell_{2}^{k_{2}/m}
\ell_{3}^{k_{3}/m} 2^{3-\frac{\sum k_{i}}{m} } \;\;\;,
\label{smallell}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used
the formula
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{\nu}(x) = \frac{\pi}{2 \sin(\nu \pi)}
\left[
\frac{1}{x^{\nu}} \left\{ \frac{2^{\nu}}{\Gamma(1-\nu)} + O(x^2)
\right\}
+ x^{\nu} \left\{ - \frac{1}{2^{\nu} \Gamma(1+\nu)} + O(x^2)
\right\}
\right]~.
\end{eqnarray}
The $M
$-dependence
of the individual terms in eq.~(\ref{smallell})
is $ M^{-2 + \frac{(\sum k_{i})-1}{m}}$.
This is compared with the computation done in ref. \cite{DifK}
(See ref. \cite{AGBG} from the point of view of the continuum approach.)
from
the generalized Kdv flows
for the correlation functions of the dressed primaries:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle
\phi_{\ell}~ \phi_{p}~ \phi_{r}
\rangle
= \ell p r ~(\frac {u}{2})^{(\ell + p + r - 3)/2}
u^{\prime} \;\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Under $u~
(= t^{1/m})
$, the $t$-dependence of this expression completely
agrees with that of eq.~(\ref{smallell}). The selection rules for this
expression found in ref. \cite{DifK} is again summarized as
$ {\cal D}_{3}$.
Our formula tells how
the higher order operators (gravitational descendants) in addition to the
dressed primaries are constrained to
obey the selection rules of CFT.
Let us remark here that
the $c=1$ limit can be studied from our formula
\cite{MS}.
We have checked that, by letting one of the three lengths shrink
($M \ell_i<<1$),
the three-loop amplitude
reduces to the derivative of the two-loop amplitude
with respect to the cosmological constant $t$
up to a normalization factor.
The remainder of this letter is devoted to the derivation of
eq.~(\ref{3loop-final})
from the two-matrix model at the $(m+1, m)$ critical point.
We will also briefly discuss what in eq.~(\ref{3loop-final}) may
be generalized to the expression for macroscopic $n$-loop amplitudes.
To begin with
let us consider the connected three-point singlet correlator
consisting of arbitrary analytic
functions $f(\hat A)$, $g(\hat A)$, and $h(\hat A)$,
where the matrix $\hat A$ is a dynamical variable.
In the bases of orthogonal polynomials,
one can derive
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \mathop{\rm Tr} f(\hat A)\;\mathop{\rm Tr} g(\hat A)\; \mathop{\rm Tr} h(\hat A) \rangle _c
&=& \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \sum_{k=N}^{\infty} \sum_{l=N}^{\infty}
\;[f(A)]_{ik} \;[g(A)]_{kl} \;[h(A)]_{li} \nonumber \\
&-& \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \sum_{k=N}^{\infty} \sum_{l=0}^{N-1}
[f(A)]_{ik} \;[h(A)]_{kl} \;[g(A)]_{li}
\quad ,
\label{3loop-a}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$
[f(A)]_{ik} \equiv \langle i| f(\lambda) |k \rangle
$.
It is convenient to introduce the following `classical' function in the case
only the planar limit is of interest,
\begin{equation}
A(z,s,\Lambda) \equiv \sum_k z^k\; A(i)_k \quad ,\quad
s \equiv \Lambda i/N
\quad ,
\label{3loop-c}
\end{equation}
where
$
A(i)_{k} \equiv A_{i-k,i}
$.
The `classical' function depends on the
bare cosmological constant $\Lambda$ only
through $s$ when we take $N\to\infty$ limit.
It is, therefore, legitimate
to introduce
$
\displaystyle
A(z,s) \equiv \lim _{N\to \infty }A(z,s,\Lambda)
:$
\begin{equation}
A(z,s,\Lambda) = A(z,s) + O(1/N)
\quad .
\label{3loop-f}
\end{equation}
In terms of the `classical' function, we have
\begin{equation}
[f(A)](N)_k =\frac 1{2\pi i} \oint \frac{{\rm d} z}{z^{k+1}} f\left(
A(z,s=\Lambda)\right) + O(1/N)
\label{classical}
\quad ,
\label{3loop-g}
\end{equation}
where
$
[f(A)](i)_k \equiv [f(A)]_{i-k,i}
$.
In the right-hand sind of eq.~(\ref{3loop-a}),
the leading terms in $1/N$ of the first term and
those of the second term
get cancelled. We have to consider
the
next leading
terms. For any integer $\epsilon$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
[f(A)](N+\epsilon)_k &=& \frac 1{2\pi i} \oint\frac{{\rm d} z}{z^{k+1}} f\left(
A(z,s=\Lambda)\right) \nonumber\\
&+& \frac{\Lambda\epsilon}N \frac 1{2\pi i} \oint\frac{{\rm d} z}{z^{k+1}} \left.
\frac{\partial A(z,s)}{\partial s} \right|_{s=\Lambda}
\frac{\partial f\left(A(z,\Lambda)\right)} {\partial A} \nonumber \\
&+&(\mbox{the part independent of $\epsilon$}) +O(1/N^2)
\quad .
\label{3loop-i}
\end{eqnarray}
The part independent of $\epsilon$ comes from the terms $O(1/N)$ in
eq.~(\ref{3loop-g}). The second term is
responsible for the computation in what follows.
Using
eq.~(\ref{3loop-i})
and considering the terms $1/N$ in eq.~(\ref{3loop-a}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\langle \mathop{\rm Tr} f(\hat A)\; \mathop{\rm Tr} g(\hat A)\; \mathop{\rm Tr} h(\hat A) \rangle _c
} \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{\Lambda}N \sum_{\delta_1=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\delta_2=0}^{\infty}
\sum_{\delta=0}^{\infty } \nonumber \\
&&
\left\{ (\delta_2-\delta_1)\;\frac{\partial}{\partial s}[f(A)](N)_{\delta_1+\delta_2+1}\;
[g(A)](N)_{\delta-\delta_2}\; [h(A)](N)_{-\delta-\delta_1-1} \right.
\nonumber \\
&+& (\delta+\delta_2+1)\; [f(A)](N)_{\delta_1+\delta_2+1}\; \frac{\partial}{\partial s}
[g (A)](N)_{\delta-\delta_2}\; [h(A)](N)_{-\delta-\delta_1-1} \nonumber \\
&+& \left. (\delta-\delta_1)\; [f(A)](N)_{\delta_1+\delta_2+1}\;
[g(A)](N)_{\delta-\delta_2}\; \frac{\partial}{\partial s}[h(A)](N)_{-\delta-\delta_1-1}
\; \right\} \nonumber \\
&+& O(1/N^2)
\quad .
\label{3loop-j}
\end{eqnarray}
Using eq.~(\ref{classical})
the three-point function eq.~(\ref{3loop-a}) in the planar
limit can
be expressed in terms of the `classical' function as
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\langle \mathop{\rm Tr} f(\hat A)\; \mathop{\rm Tr} g(\hat A)\; \mathop{\rm Tr} h(\hat A) \rangle _c } \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac\Lambda N \frac 1{(2\pi i)^3} \oint_{|z|>|z'|>|z''|} {\rm d} z{\rm d} z'{\rm d} z''
\nonumber \\ &\mbox{}&
\left\{ \frac z{(z-z')^2(z-z'')^2}f'\left(A(z)\right)
\frac{\partial A(z)}{\partial\Lambda}
g\left(A(z')\right) h\left(A(z'')\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&+&
\frac {z'}{(z-z')^2(z'-z'')^2} f\left(A(z)\right)
g'\left(A(z')\right)\frac{\partial A(z')}{\partial\Lambda} h\left(A(z'')\right)
\nonumber \\
&+& \left.
\frac {z''}{(z-z'')^2(z'-z'')^2} f\left(A(z)\right)
g\left(A(z')\right) h'\left(A(z'')\right)\frac{\partial A(z'')}{\partial\Lambda} \right\}
\quad ,
\label{3loop-k}
\end{eqnarray}
where we set $A(z) \equiv A(z, s = \Lambda)$.
From the above formula (eq.~(\ref{3loop-k})), the three-point resolvent in
the planar limit is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\frac N\Lambda \Bigl\langle \mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_1-\hat A}\; \mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_2-\hat A}\;
\mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_3-\hat A} \Bigr\rangle _c } \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac 1{(2\pi i)^3} \oint_{|z|>|z'|>|z''|} {\rm d} z{\rm d} z'{\rm d} z''
\nonumber \\ &\mbox{}&
\left\{ \frac z{(z-z')^2(z-z'')^2} \frac{\partial
A(z)}{\partial\Lambda}\frac{1}{[p_1-A(z)]^2}
\frac{1}{p_2-A(z')} \frac{1}{p_3-A(z'')} \right. \nonumber \\
&+&
\frac {z'}{(z-z')^2(z'-z'')^2} \frac{1}{p_1-A(z)} \frac{\partial A(z')}{\partial\Lambda}
\frac{1}{[p_2-A(z')]^2}\frac{1}{p_3-A(z'')} \nonumber \\
&+& \left.
\frac {z''}{(z-z'')^2(z'-z'')^2} \frac{1}{p_1-A(z)} \frac{1}{p_2-A(z')}
\frac{\partial A(z'')}{\partial\Lambda}\frac{1}{[p_3-A(z'')]^2} \right\}
\quad ,
\label{3loop-l}
\end{eqnarray}
where the contour of $z$ encircles that of $z'$
and similarly the contour of $z'$ encircles that of $z''$.
We calculate these contour integrals and find
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac N\Lambda \Bigl\langle \mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_1-\hat A} &\mathop{\rm Tr}&\frac 1{p_2-\hat A}\;
\mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_3-\hat A} \Bigr\rangle _c \nonumber \\
&=&
-\frac{1}{a^3} \left\{
\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial\Lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_1}
\left[ \frac{z_1}{(z_1-z_2)^2(z_1-z_3)^2}\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial \zeta_1}\right]
\frac{\partial z_2}{\partial \zeta_2}\frac{\partial z_3}{\partial \zeta_3} \right. \nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial \zeta_1}
\frac{\partial z_2}{\partial\Lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_2}
\left[ \frac{z_2}{(z_1-z_2)^2(z_2-z_3)^2}\frac{\partial z_2}{\partial \zeta_2}\right]
\frac{\partial z_3}{\partial \zeta_3} \nonumber \\
&+& \left.
\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial \zeta_1}
\frac{\partial z_2}{\partial \zeta_2}
\frac{\partial z_3}{\partial\Lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_3}
\left[ \frac{z_3}{(z_1-z_3)^2(z_2-z_3)^2}\frac{\partial z_3}{\partial \zeta_3}\right]
\;\right\}
\quad ,
\label{3loop-m}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
z_i=\exp (2\eta \cosh \theta_i)
\label{3loop-n}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
p_i - p_* =
a \zeta_i=2 \eta^m \cosh m\theta_i=a M \cosh m\theta_i \quad,\quad
\eta=(a M/2)^{1/m}
\label{3loop-o}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Lambda-\Lambda_*=-(m+1) \eta^{2m}=-(m+1)a^2 \mu =-(m+1)(aM/2)^2
\label{3loop-p}
\end{equation}
and $p_*, ~\Lambda_*$ denote the critical values of $p, ~\Lambda$
respectively.
The right hand side of eq.~(\ref{3loop-m}) can be written in a compact form as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac N\Lambda \Bigl\langle \mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_1-\hat A} &\mathop{\rm Tr}&\frac 1{p_2-\hat A}\;
\mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_3-\hat A} \Bigr\rangle _c \nonumber \\
&=&\frac 1{2^2 m(m+1)a^3}\left(\frac{aM}2\right)^{-2-1/m}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta_1}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta_2}\frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta_3} F(\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3)
\quad ,
\label{3loop-q}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
F(\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3)
&=&
\frac{1}{(\cosh\theta_1-\cosh\theta_2)(\cosh\theta_1-\cosh\theta_3)}
\;\frac{\sinh (m-1)\theta_1}{\sinh m\theta_1} \nonumber\\
&+& \quad (1\leftrightarrow 2) \quad + \quad (1\leftrightarrow 3)
\quad .
\label{3loop-r}
\end{eqnarray}
Making use of the following formula twice,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\frac{1}{\cosh\alpha-\cosh\beta}
\left(\;\frac{\sinh (n-k)\alpha}{\sinh n\alpha}
-\frac{\sinh (n-k)\beta}{\sinh n\beta} \;\right) \mbox{ }
} \nonumber\\
&&=-2\sum_{j=1}^{n-k}\sum_{i=1}^{k}
\;\frac{\sinh (n-j-i+1)\alpha}{\sinh n\alpha}
\;\frac{\sinh (n-j-k+i)\beta}{\sinh n\beta}
\quad ,
\label{3loop-s}
\end{eqnarray}
we find that
eq.~(\ref{3loop-r})
is written as a triple sum where the summand factorizes
into three factors associated with individual loops:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
F(\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3) } \nonumber \\
&=&
4\sum_{k=1}^{m-1}\sum_{j=1}^{m-k}\sum_{i=1}^{k}
\;\frac{\sinh (m-k)\theta_1}{\sinh m\theta_1}
\;\frac{\sinh (m-j-i+1)\theta_2}{\sinh m\theta_2}
\;\frac{\sinh (m-k-j+i)\theta_3}{\sinh m\theta_3} \nonumber\\
&&
\quad .
\label{3loop-t}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $W(\zeta_1, \zeta_2 , \zeta_3)_c
= \frac N\Lambda \Bigl\langle \mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_1-\hat A}\; \mathop{\rm Tr} \frac 1{p_2-\hat A}
\; \mathop{\rm Tr}\frac 1{p_3-\hat A} \Bigr\rangle _c
$
and $w(\ell_{1}, \ell_{2}, \ell_{3})_c$ are related
by the Laplace transform
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Laplace}
W(\zeta_1, \zeta_2, \zeta_3)_c &=& \int^{\infty}_{0} d \ell_{1}
\int^{\infty}_{0} d \ell_{2}
\int^{\infty}_{0} d \ell_{3}
e^{- \zeta_1 \ell_1} e^{- \zeta_2 \ell_2}
e^{- \zeta_2 \ell_3}
w(\ell_{1}, \ell_{2}, \ell_{3})_c
\;\;\; \\ \nonumber
&\equiv& {\cal L}[w(\ell_{1}, \ell_{2}, \ell_{3})_c] \quad .
\end{eqnarray}
In \cite{AII},
we have found the following formula for the inverse Laplace image
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{inverse}
{\cal L}^{-1}[\frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta}
\frac{\sinh k \theta}{\sinh m \theta}]
= - \frac{M \ell}{\pi} \sin \frac{k \pi}{m}~ K_{\frac{k}{m}} (M \ell)
\quad .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $K_{\nu}(z)$ is the modified Bessel function.
Inverse Laplace transform of eq.~(\ref{Laplace})
gives the three-loop amplitude in terms of
each boundary length. We obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
w(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3)_c&=& -\frac 1{m(m+1) a^3 \pi^3}
\left(\frac{a M}{2}\right)^{-2-1/m} \nonumber
\\
&\times&
\sum_{k=1}^{m-1}\sum_{j=1}^{m-k}\sum_{i=1}^{k}
\textstyle{
\sin\frac{m-k}m\pi\;\sin\frac{m-j-i+1}m\pi\;\sin\frac{m-k-j+i}m\pi}
\nonumber \\ &\times&
M^3 \ell_1\ell_2\ell_3\; K_{\frac{m-k}{m}}(M \ell_1)\;
K_{\frac{m-j-i+1}{m}}(M \ell_2)\;
K_{\frac{m-k-j+i}{m}}(M \ell_3)
\quad .
\label{3loop-u}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us write the set of restrictions on the triple sum in
eq.~(\ref{3loop-u}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}(k,j,i) = \Bigl\{
(k,j,i) \mid 1 \leq k \leq m-1,~
1 \leq j \leq m-k,~ 1 \leq i \leq k
\Bigr\} \quad .
\end{eqnarray}
By elementary algebras, one can show
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}(k,j,i) &=& {\cal D}_3 \left(k_1 -1,~ k_2 -1,~ k_3 -1 \right)
\nonumber \\
&=& {\cal D}_3 \left(k-1,~(j+i-1)-1,~(k+j-i)-1 \right)
\quad .
\end{eqnarray}
This completes the derivation of eq.~(\ref{3loop-final}).
Finally, let us briefly discuss how the
features of the three-loop amplitude
we have found here may be generalized to the $n$-loop amplitudes.
It is for sure that the summand contains a product of $n$-external leg
factors $(\sin\frac{k_{i}}m\pi)
M \ell_{i} K_{1-\frac{k_{i}}{m}}(M \ell_{i})$
$(i=1 \sim m)$ but
it must be supplemented by a symmetric polynomial, which we need to
determine.
As for the restrictions on the sum, let us first note
that ${\cal D}_{3}$, which is fusion rules,
is rephrased as
the condition that a triangle with edges $(a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3})$
be formed whose circumference is even
and less than or equal to $2(m-2)$.
The $n$-loop amplitudes must respect the fusion rules and
these triangles
will become building blocks for the case of $n$-loop amplitudes.
The $n$-gons made out of $n-2$ triangles of this type
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}_{n}(a_1,....,a_n) = \Bigl\{ (a_1,....,a_n) \mid
\sum^n_{i=1} a_i = {\rm even},
\nonumber \\
0 \leq \left(\sum^n_{i \not= j} a_i \right) - a_j,~~
j = 1 \sim n
\Bigr\}
\end{eqnarray}
are relevant. Different shapes of $n$-gons for given
$(a_1,....,a_n)$ and various different divisions
of each $n$-gon are important ingredients of the
completely and crossing symmetric properties of the amplitudes.
Also note that the restriction on the sum in the case
of the two-loop (annulus) amplitudes is written as
${\cal D}_{2}(m-k_{1}, k_{2})$ under the convention of the factors
$ M^2 \ell_1\ell_2 K_{1-\frac{k_{1}}{m}}(M \ell_1)\;
K_{1-\frac{k_{2}}{m}}(M \ell_2)$.
Despite these prominent features, complete determination
of the amplitudes still requires computation from the two-matrix model.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The hyperfine (hf) splitting in deuterium ground state has been
measured with high accuracy. The most precise experimental result for
it was obtained with an atomic deuterium maser and constitutes
\cite{wr}
\begin{equation}
\nu_{exp}\,=\,327\,384.352\,522\,2(17)\, \mbox{kHz}.
\end{equation}
Meanwhile the theoretical calculation including higher order pure QED
corrections gives
\begin{equation}
\nu_{QED}\,=\,327\,339.27(7)\, \mbox{kHz}.\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\end{equation}
The last number was obtained by using the theoretical result for the
hydrogen hf splitting from Ref. \cite{by}
$$1\,420\,451.95(14)\,\mbox{kHz}$$
which does not include proton structure and recoil radiative
correction, and combining it with the theoretical ratio of the hf
constants in hydrogen and deuterium from Ref. \cite{ra}
$$4.339\,387\,6(8)$$
based on the ratio of the nuclear magnetic moments and including the
reduced mass effect in $|\psi(0)|^2$.
In the present article the discrepancy
\begin{equation}\label{dif}
\nu_{exp}\,-\,\nu_{QED}\,=\,45\, \mbox{kHz}
\end{equation}
is removed by taking into account the effects due to the finite size
of deuteron. Such effects are obviously much larger in deuterium than
in hydrogen. One nuclear-structure contribution to the deuterium hf
splitting was pointed out long ago \cite{bo} by some intuitive
arguments, and then discussed in more detail in Refs.
\cite{low,los,gf}. Here we treat the deuteron finite-size effects in
a systematic way. Not only the old result is reproduced, but new
corrections are obtained, among them that generated by the deuteron
electric and magnetic form-factors.
To calculate some contributions to the deuterium hf structure we
generalize the low-energy theorem for the Compton scattering to an
arbitrary target spin.
One more subject considered in this paper is the contribution of the
deuteron polarizability to the deuterium Lamb shift. The fact that
this contribution is close to the accuracy attained in experiment was
pointed out in Refs. \cite{plh,pwh} where the effect was calculated
in the square-well approximation for the nuclear potential. This
correction was calculated then with separable nuclear potentials in
Ref. \cite{lr}. Here we obtain in the zero-range approximation a
closed analytical result for the deuteron polarizability contribution
to the Lamb shift.
\section{Low-energy theorem for the forward Compton scattering
on an arbitrary target}
According to the well-known low-energy theorem for the Compton
scattering on a spin 1/2 hadron \cite{lo,gg}, this amplitude is described by
the pole Feynman diagrams. We are interested here not in the
spin-independent Thomson amplitude which is of zeroth order in the
photon frequency $\omega$, but in the next, spin-dependent term of
the $\omega$ expansion. This contribution as well can be easily
obtained directly in the nonrelativistic approximation \cite{mi}. In
this approximation the electromagnetic vertex can be immediately
written for an arbitrary spin $\vec{s}$:
\begin{equation}\label{v}
\frac{e}{2m_p}\,\left\{\frac{Z}{A}\,(2\vec{p}\,+\,\vec{k})\,
+\,\frac{\mu}{s}\,i[\vec{s}\times\vec{k}\,]\right\}.
\end{equation}
Here $Z$ is the hadron charge, and its $g$-factor is related as
follows to the magnetic moment $\mu$ measured in the nuclear
magnetons $e/2m_p$:
$$g=\mu/s.$$
In the forward scattering case, when the hadron is at rest
($\vec{p}=0$) and both photons have physical, transverse
polarizations ($(\vec{k}\vec{e})=(\vec{k}\vec{e^{\prime}})=0$), this
vertex reduces to the pure spin interaction. The nonrelativistic pole
scattering amplitude generated by this interaction is
\begin{equation}\label{m1}
M_1=\,M_{1mn}e^{\prime}_m e_n=\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2\omega\,g^2\,
i\left( \vec{s}\cdot[\vec{e}\,^{\prime}\times\vec{e}\,] \right) .
\end{equation}
However, this expression is incomplete. Indeed, being applied to a
proton, it does not reproduce the well-known result \cite{lo,gg}
according to which the spin-dependent forward scattering amplitude is
proportional
to $(g-2)^2$. The explanation was pointed out in Ref. \cite{mi}: the
nonrelativistic pole amplitude should be supplemented by a contact
term generated by the spin-orbit interaction, which restores the
agreement with the classical result
\cite{lo,gg}.
This contact term can be easily derived for an arbitrary spin (as
well as the nonrelativistic pole contribution (\ref{m1})) in the
following way. The motion equation for spin in an external electric
field $\vec{E}$ can be written to lowest nonvanishing order in $v/c$
as
\begin{equation}\label{fb}
\frac{d\vec{s}}{dt}\,=\,\frac{e}{2m_p}\,\left(g\,-\,\frac{Z}{A}\right)\,
\left[\vec{s}\times[\vec{E}\times\vec{v}]\right].
\end{equation}
Here $A$ is the target mass as measured in the units of $m_p$ (i.e.,
it is the atomic number in the case of nuclei we are mainly
interested in in the present work.) The interaction Hamiltonian
generating equation (\ref{fb}) is obviously
\begin{equation}\label{h}
H_s \,=\,-\,\frac{e}{2m_p}\left(g\,-\,\frac{Z}{A}\right)\,
\left(\vec{s}\cdot[\vec{E}\times\vec{v}]\right).
\end{equation}
Expressions (\ref{fb}), (\ref{h}) are in fact only slightly rewritten
formulae from book \cite{bl}. After substituting
$$\vec{v}\,=\,\frac{\vec{p}\,-\,Ze\vec{A}}{2Am_p}$$
into Hamiltonian (\ref{h}), we arrive at the following contact
interaction:
\begin{equation}\label{c}
V_c
\,=\,\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2\frac{2Z}{A}\,\left(g\,-\,\frac{Z}{A}\right)\,
\left( \vec{s}\cdot[\vec{E}\times\vec{A}] \right).
\end{equation}
It produces one more piece in the scattering amlitude:
\begin{equation}\label{m2}
M_2=\,M_{2mn}e^{\prime}_m e_n=\,\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2\omega
\,\left(-4\,\frac{Z}{A}\right)\,\left(g\,-\frac{Z}{A}\right)\,
i\left( \vec{s}\cdot[\vec{e}^{\prime}\times\vec{e}\,] \right) .
\end{equation}
Taken together, expressions (\ref{m1}) and (\ref{m2}) generate the
forward scattering amplitude:
\begin{equation}\label{m}
M\,=\,\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2\omega\,\left(g\,-\,2\frac{Z}{A}\right)^2\,
i\left( \vec{s}\cdot[\vec{e}^{\prime}\times\vec{e}\,] \right) .
\end{equation}
This is the generalization of the low-energy theorem we are looking for.
In the particular case of a proton ($s=1/2,\;Z=A=1$) this formula
reduces to the result of Refs. \cite{lo,gg}.
\section{Low-energy theorem and deuterium hyperfine structure}
Being dependent on nuclear spin, the low-energy amplitude obtained
contributes to the atomic hyperfine structure. However, to apply it
to this problem, the amplitude should be modified. Indeed, both
photons exchanged between the nucleus and electron are
off-mass-shell. So, here $\omega\,\neq\,|\vec{k}|$. Then, virtual
photons have extra polarizations. We will use the gauge $A_0 =\,0$
where the photon propagator is
\begin{equation}\label{po}
D_{im}(\omega, \vec{k})\,=\,\frac{\,d_{im}}{\omega^2-\,\vec{k}^2},\;\;
d_{im}=\,\delta_{im}-\,\frac{k_i k_m}{\omega^2};\;\;\; D_{00}=\,D_{0m}=\,0.
\end{equation}
Now, first of all, the magnetic moment contribution $M_{1mn}$ to the
pole diagram changes to
\begin{equation}\label{m11}
\tilde{M}_{1mn}\,=\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2 g^2\,
i\,\epsilon_{mnk}k_k(\vec{k}\cdot\vec{s})\,\frac{1}{\omega} .
\end{equation}
Second, the convection current, which is proportional to $\pm\vec{k}$
for a nucleus at rest, is operative now and induces the following
nuclear-spin-dependent contribution to the forward scattering
amplitude:
\begin{equation}\label{m3}
M_{3mn}\,=\,-\,\left(\frac{e}{2m}\right)^2 2\,\frac{Z}{A}\,g\,
i\,(k_m\epsilon_{nrs}k_r s_s\,-\,k_n\epsilon_{mrs}k_r s_s)\frac{1}{\omega}.
\end{equation}
We are ready now to write down the electron-nucleus
nuclear-spin-dependent scattering amplitude generated by the two-photon
exchange with the deuteron intermediate state:
\begin{equation}\label{f}
T_{el}=\,4\pi\alpha i\,\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d_{im}d_{jn}}{k^4}\,
\frac{\gamma_i(\hat{l}-\hat{k}+m_e)\gamma_j}{k^2-\,2lk}\,(\tilde{M}_{1mn}+M_{2mn}+
M_{3mn}).
\end{equation}
Here $l_{\mu}=\,(m_e,0,0,0)$ is the electron momentum. The structure
$\gamma_i(\hat{l}-\hat{k}+m_e)\gamma_j$ reduces to
$-\,i\,\omega\,\epsilon_{ijl}\sigma_l$ where $\vec{\sigma}$ is the
electron spin. We will calculate this Feynman integral with
logarithmic accuracy. Two subtle points should be mentioned here. The
singularity at $\omega\,=\,0$, originating from $1/\omega^2$ in the
projection operator (\ref{po}), should be understood in the sense of
the principal value. Then, one comes across a term containing
integral
$$\int_0 \frac{d|\vec{k}|}{|\vec{k}|^2}$$
which diverges in a power-like way at $|\vec{k}|\rightarrow 0$. To
regularize it one should introduce non-vanishing electron velocity
$v$; in this way one obtains the well-known Coulomb wave-function
correction $\pi\alpha/v$ which should be neglected to our purpose. In
our logarithmic approximation one should neglect as well possible
constant terms originating from this integral.
The final result of calculation can be conveniently presented in the
following form. Let us write down the spin-dependent Born term in the
electron-nucleus scattering amplitude:
\begin{equation}\label{b}
T_{0}=\,-\,\frac{2\pi\alpha}{3m_e m_p}\,g\,(\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{s}).
\end{equation}
It is in fact minus Fourier-transform of the lowest order contact
hyperfine interaction. Therefore, the ratio
$\Delta_{el}\,=\,T_{el}/T_0$ is nothing else but the relative
magnitude of the discussed correction to the hf structure. The result
for integral (\ref{f}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{el}=\,\frac{3\alpha}{8\pi}\,\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,\log{\frac{\Lambda}{m_e}}\,
\frac{1}{g}\,
\left(\,g^2\,-\,4g\,\frac{Z}{A}\,-\,12\,\frac{Z^2}{A^2}\right).
\end{equation}
At $s=1/2,\,A=Z=1$ it agrees with the corresponding results
\cite{ar,gy} for muonium (where the effective cut-off $\Lambda$ is
provided by the muon mass) and hydrogen (where the integral is cut
off at the typical hadronic scale $m_{\rho}$).
In the case of deuterium ($s=1,\,g=\mu_d=0.857,\,A=2,\,Z=1$), we are
mainly interested in, the integration over the momentum transfer $k$
is cut off at the inverse deuteron size $\kappa\,=\,45.7$ MeV. In
this way we obtain the following result for the relative correction
in deuterium:
\begin{equation}\label{de}
\Delta_{el}=\,\frac{3\alpha}{8\pi}\,\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,\log{\frac{\kappa}{m_e}}
\left(\mu_d -2-\,\frac{3}{\mu_d}\right).
\end{equation}
At larger momentum transfers, $k>\kappa$, the amplitude of the
Compton scattering on a deuteron is just the coherent sum of those
amplitudes on free proton and neutron. This contribution to the hf
structure can be also easily obtained with the above formulae. Since
both nucleons are in the triplet state, one can substitute
$\vec{s}/2$ both for $\vec{s}_p$ and for $\vec{s}_n$. With the
logarithmic integral cut off here at the usual hadronic scale
$m_{\rho}\,=\,770$ MeV, we get in this way
\begin{equation}\label{di}
\Delta_{in}=\,\frac{3\alpha}{4\pi}\,\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,
\log{\frac{m_{\rho}}{\kappa}}\,\frac{1}{\mu_d}\,
(\,\mu_p^2-\,2\,\mu_p\,-\,3\,+\,\mu_n^2\,).
\end{equation}
Here $\mu_p\,=\,2.79$ and $\mu_n\,=\,-\,1.91$ are the proton and
neutron magnetic moments.
In the conclusion of this section let us mention strong numerical
cancellation between $\Delta_{el}$ and $\Delta_{in}$.
\section{Contribution of deuteron virtual excitations}
The low-energy Compton amplitude discussed above is just linear term
of the full amplitude expansion in $\omega$ (and in
$|\vec{k}|^2/\omega$ for virtual photons). One may expect, however,
that for the deuteron with its small binding energy this
approximation is insufficient even in the atomic problem considered
here. And indeed, we will see below that the deuteron virtual
excitations are far from being inessential to our problem, they
strongly dominate the effect discussed. Since the contribution of
large momentum transfers $k>\kappa$ has been calculated already (see
formula (\ref{di}), we confine now to the region $k<\kappa$. All
calculations below are performed in the zero-range approximation
(zra) for the deuteron which allows to obtain all the results in a
closed analytical form.
Let us start with the transitions induced by the spin
interaction only. The corresponding scattering amplitude is
$$M_{4mn}\,=\,-\,\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2
\sum_n\left\{\frac{<0|[\vec{k}\times\vec{S}]_m|n>
<n|[\vec{k}\times\vec{S}^{\dagger}]_n|0>}{\omega\,-\,E_n\,-I}\right.$$
\begin{equation}\label{ms}
\left.\;-\;\frac{<0|[\vec{k}\times\vec{S}^{\dagger}]_n|n>
<n|[\vec{k}\times\vec{S}]_m|0>}{\omega\,+\,E_n\,+I}\right\}.
\end{equation}
Here $I=\kappa^2/m_p$ is the deuteron binding energy, $E_n=p^2/m_p$
is the energy of the intermediate state $|n>$ (all intermediate
states belong to the continuous spectrum), and
$$\vec{S}=\mu_p
\vec{\sigma}_p e^{i\vec{k}\vec{r}/2}+
\mu_n \vec{\sigma}_n e^{-i\vec{k}\vec{r}/2}$$
where $\vec{\sigma}_{p(n)}$ is the proton (neutron) spin operator.
When calculating this contribution, we will retain only terms
logarithmic in the parameter
$\epsilon\,=\,I/\kappa\,=\,\kappa/m_p\,\ll 1$. The log is generated
by the integration over $k$, and to obtain it it is sufficient to put
the exponents in $\vec{S}$ equal to unity. Then the operator $\vec{S}$ can
induce only M1 transitions. In the zra the deuteron ground state is
pure $^3 S_1$ from which M1 transition is possible also to $S$-states
only. But due to the orthogonality of the radial wave functions of
different triplet states, the intermediate states confine to $^1
S_0$.
Since the total spin operator
$\vec{s}\,=\,(1/2)(\vec{\sigma}_p\,+\,\vec{\sigma}_n)$ does not induce
triplet-singlet transitions, the operator $\vec{S}$ reduces here to
$$\vec{S}\rightarrow
(\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n)\,\frac{1}{2}\,(\vec{\sigma}_p\,-\,
\vec{\sigma}_n).$$
In our problem of hf structure we need the antisymmetric part of
tensor (\ref{ms}) which is linear in the deuteron spin $\vec{s}$. It
looks now as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{ms1}
M_{mn}^1\,=\,-\,\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2\,(\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n)^2\,
i\,\epsilon_{mnk}k_k(\vec{k}\cdot\vec{s})\,
\omega\,\int\frac{d\vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{|<\,^1S_0,\,p\,|^3 S_1>|^2}
{\omega^2\,-\,(p^2+\kappa^2)^2/m_p^2}
\end{equation}
where $<\,^1S_0,\,p\,|^3 S_1>$ is the overlap integral of the ground
state zra wave function
\begin{equation}\label{gs}
\psi_0\,=\,\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{2\pi}}\,\frac{e^{-\kappa r}}{r}
\end{equation}
with the singlet one of the momentum $p$.
This contribution to the electron-deuteron scattering amplitude
\begin{equation}\label{in1}
T_{in}^1=\,4\pi\alpha i\,\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d_{im}d_{jn}}{k^4}\,
\frac{\gamma_i(\hat{l}-\hat{k}+m_e)\gamma_j}{k^2-\,2lk}\,M_{mn}^1
\end{equation}
is easily calculated with the logarithmic accuracy. Indeed, to this
accuracy the energy denominator in formula (\ref{ms1}) can be
simplified to $$\frac{1}{\omega^2\,-\,\kappa^4/m_p^2}.$$ Then the
integration over $\vec{p}$ reduces to the completeness relation. The
resulting relative correction to the deuterium hf structure is
\begin{equation}\label{di1}
\Delta_{in}^1=\,\frac{3\alpha}{8\pi}\,
\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,\log{\frac{m_p}{\kappa}}\,
\frac{(\,\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n\,)^2}{\mu_d}.
\end{equation}
Let us consider at last the inelastic contribution induced by the
combined action of the convection and spin currents. Since the
convection current is spin-independent, all the intermediate states
are triplet ones as well as the ground state. Therefore, here
operator $\vec{S}$ simplifies to
\begin{equation}\label{si}
\vec{S}\rightarrow \vec{s}(\mu_p e^{i\vec{k}\vec{r}/2}+
\mu_n e^{-i\vec{k}\vec{r}/2}).
\end{equation}
According to the common selection rules, neither $^3 S_1$ can be
excited by the convection current from the ground state. But in the
zra all the states with $l\neq 0$ are free ones. It means that here
we can use as the intermediate states just plane waves, eigenstates
of the momentum operator. Then the only matrix element entering the
amplitude is
\begin{equation}\label{me}
<0\,|e^{\pm i\vec{k}\vec{r}/2}|\vec{p}>\,=\,\frac{\sqrt{8\pi\kappa}}
{(\vec{p}\pm\vec{k}/2)^2\,+\,\kappa^2}.
\end{equation}
In this way the amplitude itself simplifies to
$$M_{mn}^2\,=\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2\,
2\,\kappa\,\omega\,\int\frac{d\vec{p}}{\pi^2}\,
\left\{\frac{\mu_p}{[(\vec{p}-\vec{k}/2)^2\,+\,\kappa^2]^2}
+\,\frac{\mu_n}{[(\vec{p}-\vec{k}/2)^2\,+\,\kappa^2][(\vec{p}+\vec{k}/2)^2\,
+\,\kappa^2]}\right\}$$
\begin{equation}\label{ms2}
\cdot\frac{(2p\,-\,k/2)_m\,i\,\epsilon_{nrs}k_r s_s\,
-\,(2p\,-\,k/2)_n\,i\,\epsilon_{mrs}k_r s_s}
{\omega^2\,-\,(p^2+\kappa^2)^2/m_p^2}.
\end{equation}
Integrals we come across when calculating the corresponding part of
the electron-deuteron scattering amplitude
\begin{equation}\label{in2}
T_{in}^2=\,4\pi\alpha i\,\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d_{im}d_{jn}}{k^4}\,
\frac{\gamma_i(\hat{l}-\hat{k}+m_e)\gamma_j}{k^2-\,2lk}\,M_{mn}^2,
\end{equation}
are rather tedious even when we confine to terms singular in the parameter
$\epsilon=\kappa/m_p\ll 1:\;1/\epsilon$ and $\log{\epsilon}$.
This relative correction to the hf structure is to this approximation
\begin{equation}\label{di2}
\Delta_{in}^2=\,\alpha\,\frac{m_e}{2\kappa}\,\frac{\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n}{\mu_d}\,-
\,\frac{3\alpha}{\pi}\,\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,\log{\frac{m_p}{\kappa}}\,
\frac{\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n}{\mu_d}.
\end{equation}
One of the terms in this correction,
$$-\,\alpha\,\frac{m_e}{2\kappa}\,\frac{\mu_n}{\mu_d},$$
was obtained and discussed in Refs. \cite{bo,low,los,gf}.
However, another term
$$\alpha\,\frac{m_e}{2\kappa}\,\frac{\mu_p}{\mu_d},$$
is larger numerically.
\section{Corrections due to finite distribution of the deuteron charge
and magnetic moment}
In the case of hydrogen this problem was considered many years ago \cite{ze}.
For deuterium those corrections should be obviously larger. In the zra
the problem has here a closed solution.
Let us start with the second-order amplitude of the electron-deuteron
scattering as induced by the deuteron charge and magnetic moment. The
nucleus will be treated in the static limit. However, its finite
charge and magnetic moment distributions will be taken into account
by introducing the corresponding form-factors, $F_{ch}$ and $F_m$.
This amplitude is
$$V=-\,(4\pi\alpha)^2\frac{\mu_d}{2m_p}\,\int\frac{d\vec{q}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
i\,[\vec{s}\times\vec{q}\,]\,
\frac{F_{ch}(\vec{q}\,^2)\,F_m(\vec{q}\,^2)}{\vec{q}\,^4}$$
\begin{equation}
\cdot\frac{\gamma_0(\hat{l}+\hat{q}+m_e)\,\vec{\gamma}\,
-\,\vec{\gamma}\,(\hat{l}+\hat{q}+m_e)\,\gamma_0}{(l+q)^2-m_e^2}\;.
\end{equation}
Here again $l_{\mu}=\,(m_e,0,0,0)$, and $q_{\mu}=\,(0,\vec{q})$. This
expression can be conveniently transformed to
\begin{equation}
V=\frac{8m_e\alpha}{\pi}\,\int\frac{dq}{q^2}\,F_{ch}(q^2)\,F_m(q^2)\,T_0
\end{equation}
where $T_0$ is the momentum-independent magnetic Born amplitude (\ref{b}).
The effect we are interested in, vanishes of course if unity is
substituted for both form-factors. Therefore, the corresponding
relative correction to the Born amplitude $T_0$ and to the hf
splitting is in fact
\begin{equation}\label{for}
\Delta_f=\frac{8m_e\alpha}{\pi}\,\int\frac{dq}{q^2}\,
\left[F_{ch}(q^2)\,F_m(q^2)
-1\right].
\end{equation}
In the zra both deuteron form-factors have simple form:
\begin{equation}\label{form}
F_{ch}(q^2)\,=\,F_m(q^2)\,=\,<0|e^{i\vec{q}\,\vec{r}/2}|0>\,=\,\frac{4\kappa}{q}\,
\mbox{arctg}\frac{q}{4\kappa}.
\end{equation}
Substituting it into formula (\ref{for}), we get the following
explicit expression for the correction discussed:
\begin{equation}\label{ch}
\Delta_{f}=\,-\,\alpha\,\frac{m_e}{3\,\kappa}\,(1+2\log2).
\end{equation}
Two closely related features of the effect (in no way specific for
deuterium only) are worth emphasizing here. This correction is of
first (but not second) order in the ratio of the nuclear size to the
Bohr radius $m_e\alpha/\kappa$. Then, contrary to possible naive
expectations, the contributions of the charge and magnetic
form-factors are not additive. Both circumstances can be traced back
to the fact that the typical momenta entering integral (\ref{for})
are of the nuclear, but not atomic, scale.
\section{Deuterium hf structure, discussion of results}
Our total result for the nuclear-structure corrections to the
deuterium hf structure, comprising all the contributions, (\ref{de}),
(\ref{di}), (\ref{di1}), (\ref{di2}), (\ref{ch}), is
$$\Delta=\,\alpha\,\frac{m_e}{2\,\kappa}\,
\left\{\frac{\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n}{\mu_d}\,-\,\frac{2}{3}(1+2\log2)\right\}\,+\,
\,\frac{3\alpha}{8\pi}\,\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,\log{\frac{m_p}{\kappa}}\,
\frac{(\,\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n\,)^2}{\mu_d}$$
\begin{equation}
-\,\frac{3\alpha}{\pi}\,\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,\log{\frac{m_p}{\kappa}}\,
\frac{\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n}{\mu_d}\,
+\,\frac{3\alpha}{8\pi}\,\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,
\log{\frac{\kappa}{m_e}}\,\frac{1}{\mu_d}\,
(\,\mu_d^2\,-\,2\mu_d\,-\,3)
\end{equation}
$$+\,\frac{3\alpha}{4\pi}\,\frac{m_e}{m_p}\,
\log{\frac{m_{\rho}}{\kappa}}\,\frac{1}{\mu_d}\,
(\,\mu_p^2-\,2\,\mu_p\,-\,3\,+\,\mu_n^2\,).$$
Numerically this correction to the hf splitting in deuterium constitutes
\begin{equation}
\Delta \nu\,=\,43\, \mbox{kHz}.
\end{equation}
It should be compared with the lacking $45$ kHz (see (\ref{dif})).
Taking into account the approximations made, first of all the crude
nuclear model (zra), then the neglect of nonlogarithmic
contributions, we believe that the agreement is quite satisfactory.
In particular, including the correction due to the effective
interaction radius $r_0$ into the normalization of the deuteron
ground state wave function (see details in the next section) would
certainly enhance some contributions.
Clearly, the nuclear effects discussed are responsible for the bulk
of the difference between the pure QED calculations and the
experimental value of the deuterium hf splitting. The calculation of
this hf correction, including accurate treatment of nuclear effects,
would serve as one more sensitive check of detailed models of
deuteron structure.
\section{Nuclear polarizability and Lamb shift in deuterium}
The nuclear polarizability contribution to the Lamb shift was
considered recently in Refs. \cite{plh,pwh,lr}. Here we present an
analytical calculation of the effect with a closed result. The zra
approximation used by us is applicable when the region of the wave
function localization is much larger than the interaction range.
Essentially the same condition is necessary to use, instead of the
true interaction, the crude approximation of the square-well
potential, as it is done in Refs. \cite{plh,pwh}.
The effect we are interested in now, is due to the photon-deuteron
scattering amplitude induced by the convection current only. We will
see that in this problem, that of the nuclear polarizability
contribution to the Lamb shift, the characteristic values of the
photon 4-momenta are as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{r}
\omega,\,|\vec{k}|\leq I=\frac{\kappa^2}{m_p}\ll \kappa \sim |\vec{p}|.
\end{equation}
Therefore, now we can omit in the Compton amplitude all dependence on
$\vec{k}$. As well as in the amplitude $M_{mn}^2$, all the
intermediate states here have $l\neq 0$ and can be described
therefore by plane waves. We will use again matrix element
(\ref{me}), but this time at $\vec{k}\,=\,0$. At last, in the present
problem we are interested in the scalar part of scattering amplitude
which reduces to
$$-\,\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2\,
\frac{4}{3}\,\delta_{mn}\,\kappa\,\int\frac{d\vec{p}}{\pi^2}\,
\frac{p^2}{(p^2+\kappa^2)^2}\,
\left\{\frac{1}{\omega\,-\,(p^2\,+\,\kappa^2)/m_p}\,
-\,\frac{1}{\omega\,+\,(p^2\,+\,\kappa^2)/m_p}\right\}.$$
We subtract from the expression in braces the term
$$-\,2\,\frac{m_p}{p^2\,+\,\kappa^2}.$$
After integrating over $\vec{p}$ this term being added to the
Thomson scattering (seagull)
amplitude for a proton, $-\,e^2/m_p$, reproduces the correct one for a
deuteron, $-\,e^2/2m_p$. With the identity
$$\frac{1}{\omega\,-\,u}\,-\,\frac{1}{\omega\,+\,u}\,+\,\frac{2}{u}\,=\,
\frac{2\omega^2}{(\omega^2-\,u^2)\,u}$$
we get the following expression for the photon-deuteron scattering
amplitude in question:
$$M_{mn}^3\,=\,-\,\left(\frac{e}{2m_p}\right)^2\,
\frac{8}{3}\,\delta_{mn}\,\kappa\,\omega^2 m_p\,$$
\begin{equation}\label{}
\cdot\int\frac{d\vec{p}}{\pi^2}\,
\frac{p^2}{(p^2+\kappa^2)^3\,
\{\omega^2\,-\,(p^2\,+\,\kappa^2)^2/m_p^2\}}.
\end{equation}
The contribution of this tensor to the electron-deuteron scattering amplitude
\begin{equation}\label{in3}
T_{in}^3=\,4\pi\alpha i\,\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}
\,\frac{d_{im}d_{jn}}{k^4}\,
\frac{\gamma_i(\hat{l}-\hat{k}+m_e)\gamma_j}{k^2-\,2lk}\,M_{mn}^3
\end{equation}
can be easily transformed to
$$T_{in}^3=\,\frac{32\pi^2\alpha^2\kappa}{3m_p}
\int\frac{d\vec{p}}{\pi^2}\,\frac{p^2}{(p^2+\kappa^2)^3}$$
\begin{equation}\label{t}
\cdot i\,\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\left\{\frac{1}{\omega\,(k^2-\,2lk)}\,
+\,\frac{2\,\omega^3}{k^4\,(k^2-\,2lk)}\right\}\,
\frac{1}{\omega^2\,-\,(p^2\,+\,\kappa^2)^2/m_p^2}.
\end{equation}
The first term in the braces here contains no photon propagation,
neither $1/k^4$, nor $1/k^2$. In other words, it corresponds to the
instantaneous Coulomb interaction. The second term corresponds to the
exchange by three-dimensionally transverse quanta, i.e., to the
magnetic interaction of convection currents.
Perhaps, the most convenient succession of integrating expression
(\ref{t}) is as follows: the Wick rotation; transforming the integral
over the Euclidean $\omega$ to the interval $(0,\,\infty)$; the
substitution $\vec{k}\rightarrow \vec{k}\,\omega$; integration over
$\omega$; integration over $\vec{k}$ (at the last two procedures it
gets clear that the effective values of $\omega,\,|\vec{k}|$ belong
to interval (\ref{r}) indeed); at last, integration over $p$. The
following identity is useful here:
$$\int_0^1dx\,(1-x)^{a-1} x^{b-1} \log x \,=
\,\frac{\Gamma(a)\,\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(a+b)}\,[\,\psi(b)\,-\,\psi(a+b)];\;\;
\psi(b)\,=\,\frac{d}{db}\log{\Gamma(b)}.$$
The effective electron-nucleus interaction operator (equal to
$\,-\,T_{in}^3$) can be finally presented in the coordinate
representation as
\begin{equation}\label{vle}
V_{le}\,=\,-\alpha\,m_e\,\alpha_d(0)\,5 \left(\log\frac{8I}{m_e}\,+
\,\frac{1}{20}\right)\delta(\vec{r}).
\end{equation}
Here $\alpha_d(0)$ is the static value of the deuteron electric
polarizability defined as usual by the relation
\begin{equation}\label{ad}
\alpha_d(\omega)\,=\,4\pi\alpha\,\frac{2}{3}\,\int\frac{d\vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{p^2+\kappa^2}{m_p}\;
\frac{<0|\vec{r}\,|n><n|\vec{r}\,|0>}
{(p^2\,+\,\kappa^2)^2/m_p^2\,-\,\omega^2}.
\end{equation}
The matrix elements entering expression (\ref{ad}) are dominated by
large distances. In this asymptotic region the naive zra expression
(\ref{gs}) for the deuteron ground state wave function should be
supplied by the correction factor $\;(1\,-\,r_0\kappa)^{-1/2}\;$
taking into account finite effective interaction radius $r_0$ (see
Refs. \cite{bl,ff}). In this way we get the following result for the
static electric polarizability:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_d(0)\,=\,\frac{\alpha}{32\,(1\,-\,r_0\kappa)}\,\frac{m_p}{\kappa^4}\,
=\,0.64\,\mbox{fm}^3.
\end{equation}
This numerical value is close to the experimental one \cite{rk}:
$0.70(5)\,\mbox{fm}^3$ (as well as to the values
$0.613,\,0.623,\,0.625\,\mbox{fm}^3$ obtained in Ref. \cite{lr} with
different separable nuclear potentials and to $0.635\,\mbox{fm}^3$
found in Ref. \cite{plh} with a square-well potential).
The overall result (\ref{vle}) consists of two contributions of
different physical origin. The dominating one is generated by the
instantaneous Coulomb interaction. Its contribution to the overall
numerical factor
$$-5\left(\log\frac{8I}{m_e}\,+\,\frac{1}{20}\right)$$
in formula (\ref{vle}) is
$$-4\left(\log\frac{8I}{m_e}\,+\,\frac{5}{12}\right).$$
The magnetic interaction contributes to the overall factor
$$-\left(\log\frac{8I}{m_e}\,-\,\frac{17}{12}\right).$$
The level shift of the deuterium ground state produced by operator (\ref{vle})
constitutes\newline
$-\,22.3$ kHz. The Coulomb and magnetic contributions to it are,
respectively, $-\,19.7$ and\newline
$-\,2.6$ kHz. The results are close to
those of Refs. \cite{plh,pwh,lr}.
No wonder that the Coulomb contribution is negative: this is a true
second-order (in the electron-nucleus static interaction) correction
to the ground state of a system consisting of an electron at rest and
a nucleus which is in the ground state itself. The sign of the
magnetic contribution cannot be fixed in this way: in the language of
the common noncovariant perturbation theory this is a fourth-order
correction, second-order in the photon-electron interaction and
second-order in the photon-nucleus one.
One more contribution to the Lamb shift in deuterium is caused by the
deuteron magnetic polarizability, considered earlier also in Ref.
\cite{lr}. This is in fact the contribution of the scalar part of
amplitude (\ref{ms}). The calculation simplifies due to the
following circumstances. First, the numerators $d_{im}$ of the photon
propagators reduce here obviously to $\delta_{im}$. Then, the
integration over $\vec{k}$ is spherically-symmetric one. So, to our
purpose the scalar part of amplitude (\ref{ms}) may be simplified to
$$M_{mn}^4\,=\,-\,4\pi\alpha\,\frac{(\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n)^2\,\kappa\,
(\kappa\,+\,\kappa_1)^2}{9\,m_p^3}$$
\begin{equation}
\cdot\delta_{mn}\,\vec{k}^2\,
\int\frac{d\vec{p}}{\pi^2}\,
\frac{1}{(p^2+\kappa^2)\,(p^2+\kappa_1^2)
\,[\omega^2\,-\,(p^2\,+\,\kappa^2)^2/m_p^2]}.
\end{equation}
We have used here the explicit form of the $^1 S_0$ coordinate wave
function in the zra:
\begin{equation}
\psi_s\,=\,\frac{\sin(pr+\delta)}{\sqrt{2}\,\pi r}
\end{equation}
where
$$\mbox{ctg}\,\delta\,=\,\frac{\kappa_1}{p},\;\;\kappa_1\,=\,7.9 MeV.$$
Its overlap with the ground state zra wave function (\ref{gs})
constitutes
\begin{equation}
<\,^1S_0\,|^3 S_1>\,=\,\frac{\sqrt{8\pi\kappa}\,(\kappa\,+\,\kappa_1)}
{(p^2\,+\,\kappa^2)\sqrt{p^2\,+\,\kappa^2_1}}.
\end{equation}
Further calculations are close to those related to the electric
polarizability; only the last integration, that over $p$, is done
numerically for the nonlogarithmic contribution. The resulting
effective electron-nucleus interaction operator can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{vlm}
V_{lm}\,=\,\alpha\,m_e\,\beta_d(0)\left(\log\frac{8I}{m_e}\,-
\,1.24\right)\delta(\vec{r}).
\end{equation}
Here $\beta_d(0)$ is the static value of the deuteron magnetic polarizability
equal to
\begin{equation}
\beta_d(0)\,=\,\frac{\alpha\,(\mu_p\,-\,\mu_n)^2}
{8\,m_p\,\kappa^2}\,
\frac{1+\kappa_1/3\kappa}{1+\kappa_1/\kappa}.
\end{equation}
This contribution to the Lamb shift of the deuterium ground state
constitutes $0.31$ kHz which is very close to the result of
Ref. \cite{lr}.
\bigskip
\bigskip
We are grateful to M.I. Eides, H. Grotch and M.I. Strikman
for useful discussions. This investigation was
financially supported by the Program "Universities of Russia", Grant
No. 94-6.7-2053.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Flavor changing neutral current transitions involving the $B$-meson
provide a unique opportunity to study the electroweak theory in
higher
orders. Although transitions like $b\rightarrow s\gamma$, $b\rightarrow se^{+}e^{-}$,
and $b\rightarrow sg$ vanish at the tree level, they can be described
by one loop (``penguin'') diagrams, in which a $W^{-}$ is emitted and
reabsorbed \cite{shifman}. These processes occur at a rate small enough
to be sensitive to physics beyond the Standard Model
\cite{hewett}. Similar
flavor violating processes in the $K$-meson system have the disadvantage
that non-perturbative long distance effects are quite large, and
it is difficult to extract the quark level physics from
well known processes like $K^{+}\rightarrow \pi^{+}e^{+}e^{-}$.
Among all rare $B$ decays, radiative processes
$B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ (especially decay
$B\rightarrow K^{*}(892)\gamma$) have received an increasing attention,
because of the experimental measurement of the $B\rightarrow K^{*}(892)\gamma$
exclusive branching ratio \cite{ammar},
\begin{equation}
BR(B\rightarrow K^{*}(892)\gamma) = (4.5\pm 1.5\pm 0.9)\times 10^{-5}\ .
\end{equation}
which has been
recently updated \cite{cleoex} to
\begin{equation}
BR(B\rightarrow K^{*}(892)\gamma) = (4.3^{+1.1}_{-1.0}\pm 0.6)\times 10^{-5}\ ,
\end{equation}
and also of the inclusive rate \cite{alam},
\begin{equation}
BR(B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma) = (2.32\pm 0.57\pm 0.35)\times 10^{-4}\ .
\end{equation}
Several methods have been employed to predict
exclusive $B\rightarrow K^{*}(892)\gamma $ decay rate: HQET \cite{ali2,mannel},
QCD sum rules \cite{dominguez}-\cite{narison}, quark models
\cite{donnell}-\cite{tang}, bound state resonances
\cite{atwood}, and Lattice QCD
\cite{bernard}-\cite{burford}. The theoretical uncertainty, which
was originally of two orders of magnitude, has been greatly reduced
in the more recent studies. However, there is still a large
spread between different results.
In this paper we follow the approach of \cite{ali2,mannel}, in
which both
$b$- and $s$-quark are considered heavy. In the heavy quark limit
the long distance effects are contained within unknown
form factors, whose precise definition consistent with the covariant
trace formalism \cite{georgi2}-\cite{falk}
has been clarified only recently \cite{modelling}.
This is precisely
the reason why our results substantially
differ from \cite{mannel}, even though we use the
same non-relativistic quark model for the wave functions of the light
degrees of freedom (LDF).
Our results show that the
ratio of the exclusive
$B\rightarrow K^{**}\gamma$ to the inclusive decay rate $B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$
was underestimated
for the channel $B\rightarrow K^{*}(892) \gamma$
($(16.8\pm 6.4)\%$ as opposed to $(3.5-12.2)\%$ from \cite{mannel}),
and significantly overestimated for the decay
$B\rightarrow K_{2}^{*}(1430) \gamma$ ($(6.2\pm 2.9)\%$ as
opposed to $(17.3-37.1)\%$ from \cite{mannel}). We emphasize
that our prediction for the decay $B\rightarrow K^{*}(892) \gamma$
is in agreement with experimental result of $(19\pm 5)\%$.
Although other exclusive decays have
not yet been identified, we have compared with experiment
the contribution
from the eight $B\rightarrow K^{**}\gamma$ decays to the inclusive
$B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ mass distribution.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{th}
we restate the theoretical framework for the $B\rightarrow K^{**}\gamma$
decays. Section \ref{ff} contains a discussion of the form factor
calculation. The expressions for the form factors given in
\cite{modelling} are evaluated in terms of the wave functions and
energies
of the light degrees of freedom in the meson rest frame.
We discuss here the model used in establishing
the LDF wave functions and energies. An extensive literature
exists in this subject, so we have attempted to set our results
in context with previous
calculations in Section \ref{res}. Our conclusions are summarized
in Section \ref{con}.
\section{Theory of $B\rightarrow K^{**}\gamma$ decays}
\label{th}
The effective Hamiltonian for the decays $B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ can be
found in many places, e.g. \cite{grinstein}-\cite{buras}. It is derived
by integrating out the top quark and $W$-boson at the same scale
$\mu\approx M_{W}$. An appropriate operator basis for the
effective Hamiltonian consists
of four-quark operators and the magnetic moment type operators
of dimension six (${\cal O}_{1}-{\cal O}_{8}$). Higher dimensional
operators are suppressed by powers of the masses of the heavy particles.
For the $B\rightarrow K^{**}\gamma$ decays only the operator
${\cal O}_{7}$ contributes, so that
\begin{equation}
H_{eff} = -\frac{4G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} V_{tb} V^{*}_{ts} C_{7}(m_{b})
{\cal O}_{7}(m_{b})\ .
\end{equation}
Here,
${\cal O}_{7}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal O}_{7} = \frac{e}{32\pi^{2}}F_{\mu\nu} [
m_{b}\bar{s}\sigma^{\mu\nu}(1+\gamma_{5})b
+m_{s}\bar{s}\sigma^{\mu\nu}(1-\gamma_{5})b]\ ,\label{o7}
\end{equation}
with $\sigma^{\mu\nu}=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}]$.
The explicit expression
for the Wilson coefficient $C_{7}(m_{b})$ as a function of
$\frac{m_{t}^{2}}{M_{W}^{2}}$
can be found in \cite{buras,deshpande}.
The value of $C_{7}$ can be calculated perturbatively
at the mass scale $\mu = M_{W}$. The evolution from $M_{W}$
down to a mass scale $\mu=m_{b}$ introduces large QCD corrections.
This proceedure also introduces large theoretical uncertainties, primarily
due to the choice of the renormalization scale $\mu$ (taken above
as $m_{b}$), which can be as large as $25\%$ \cite{buras}.
As proposed in \cite{ali2, mannel}, we evaluate
the hadronic matrix element of ${\cal O}_{7}$ between a $B$-meson in
the initial state, and a generic $K^{**}$-meson in the final state,
in the heavy quark limit for the $b$- and $s$-quarks.
Matrix elements of bilinear currents of two heavy quarks
($J(q)=\bar{Q'}\Gamma Q$) are
most conveniently evaluated within the framework of the trace
formalism, which was formulated in \cite{georgi2,korner} and generalized
to excited states in \cite{falk}. Denoting
$\omega=v\cdot v'$, where $v$ and $v'$ are the four-velocities
of the two mesons mesons, we have
\begin{equation}
\langle \Psi'(v')|J(q)|\Psi(v)\rangle = {\rm Tr}[\bar{M'}(v')\Gamma M(v)]
{\cal M}(\omega)\ ,\label{tr}
\end{equation}
where $M'$ and $M$ denote matrices describing states $\Psi'(v')$ and
$\Psi(v)$,
$\bar{M}=\gamma^{0}M^{\dag}\gamma^{0}$, and
${\cal M}(\omega)$ represents the LDF.
For all transitions considered in this paper matrices $M$ and $M'$, as well
as definitions for ${\cal M}(\omega)$, can be found in
\cite{mannel,modelling}.
Using (\ref{tr}), we can write
\begin{equation}
\langle K^{**}\gamma | {\cal O}_{7}(m_{b}) | B\rangle =
\frac{e}{16\pi^{2}}\eta_{\mu}q_{\nu} {\rm Tr}[\bar{M'}(v')
\Omega^{\mu\nu} M(v)]{\cal M}(\omega)\ ,
\label{omunu}
\end{equation}
where the factor $q_{\nu}=m_{B}v_{\nu}- m_{K^{**}}v'_{\nu}$
came from the
derivative in the field strength $F_{\mu\nu}$ of (\ref{o7}), $\eta_{\mu}$ is
the photon polarization vector, and
\begin{equation}
\Omega^{\mu\nu} = m_{B}\sigma^{\mu\nu}(1+\gamma_{5})
+
m_{K^{**}}\sigma^{\mu\nu}(1-\gamma_{5})\ .
\end{equation}
Expression (\ref{omunu}) can be further simplified
using $\not{v}M(v)=M(v)$.
Now, using the mass shell condition of
the photon ($q^{2}=0$), and polarization sums for spin-1 and spin-2
particles, we obtain the following decay rates \cite{mannel}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K^{*}(892)\gamma) &=& \Omega |\xi_{C}(\omega)|^{2}
\frac{1}{y}[(1-y)^{3}(1+y)^{5}(1+y^{2})]\ ,\label{g1}\\
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K_{1}(1270)\gamma) &=& \Omega |\xi_{E}(\omega)|^{2}
\frac{1}{y}[(1-y)^{5}(1+y)^{3}(1+y^{2})]\ ,\\
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K_{1}(1400)\gamma) &=& \Omega |\xi_{F}(\omega)|^{2}
\frac{1}{24y^{3}}[(1-y)^{5}(1+y)^{7}(1+y^{2})]\ ,\\
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K^{*}_{2}(1430)\gamma) &=& \Omega |\xi_{F}(\omega)|^{2}
\frac{1}{8y^{3}}[(1-y)^{5}(1+y)^{7}(1+y^{2})]\ ,\\
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K^{*}(1680)\gamma) &=& \Omega |\xi_{G}(\omega)|^{2}
\frac{1}{24y^{3}}[(1-y)^{7}(1+y)^{5}(1+y^{2})]\ ,\\
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K_{2}(1580)\gamma) &=& \Omega |\xi_{G}(\omega)|^{2}
\frac{1}{8y^{3}}[(1-y)^{7}(1+y)^{5}(1+y^{2})]\ ,\\
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K^{*}(1410)\gamma) &=& \Omega |\xi_{C_{2}}(\omega)|^{2}
\frac{1}{y}[(1-y)^{3}(1+y)^{5}(1+y^{2})]\ ,\\
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K_{1}(1650)\gamma) &=& \Omega |\xi_{E_{2}}(\omega)|^{2}
\frac{1}{y}[(1-y)^{5}(1+y)^{3}(1+y^{2})]\ ,
\label{g8}
\end{eqnarray}
where we used abbreviations
\begin{eqnarray}
y&=&\frac{m_{K^{**}}}{m_{B}}\ ,\\
\Omega &=& \frac{\alpha}{128\pi^{4}}G_{F}^{2}m_{b}^{5}|V_{tb}|^{2}
|V_{ts}|^{2}|C_{7}(m_{b})|^{2}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
and the argument of the Isgur-Wise (IW) functions is fixed
by the mass shell condition of the photon ($q^{2}=0$),
\begin{equation}
\omega = \frac{1+y^{2}}{2y}\ .
\end{equation}
Note that in the expressions for the decay rates (\ref{g1})-(\ref{g8})
given in \cite{mannel}, a factor of $(1-y^{2})$ was omitted. Also,
as observed in \cite{mannel}, since decays
into the states belonging to the same spin symmetry doublet
are described by the same Isgur-Wise function, and since
in the heavy-quark limit the two members of a spin doublet
are degenerate in mass, from (\ref{g1})-(\ref{g8}) one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K^{*}_{2}(1430)\gamma)
&\approx& 3\Gamma(B\rightarrow K_{1}(1400)\gamma) \ ,\label{rel1}\\
\Gamma(B\rightarrow K_{2}(1580)\gamma)
&\approx& 3\Gamma(B\rightarrow K_{1}(1680)\gamma) \ .\label{rel2}
\end{eqnarray}
As indicated, these relations are only approximate due
to a large breaking of the spin symmetry for the $s$-quark.
\section{Model for the Isgur-Wise functions}
\label{ff}
As already mentioned, even though we use the same
non-relativistic quark model,
our calculation differs significantly from
\cite{mannel} in evaluation of the IW form factors needed
for the decay rates.
Assuming that we can describe heavy-light mesons using a
non-relativistic potential model, the rest frame LDF wave functions
(with angular momentum $j$ and its projection $\lambda_{j}$),
can be written as
\begin{equation}
\phi^{(\alpha L)}_{j\lambda_{j}}({\bf x})= \sum_{m_{L},m_{s}}
R_{\alpha L}(r)Y_{Lm_{L}}(\Omega)\chi_{m_{s}}
\langle L,m_{L};\frac{1}{2},m_{s}|j,\lambda_{j};L,\frac{1}{2}\rangle\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\chi_{m_{s}}$ represent the rest frame spinors normalized
to one, $\chi^{\dag}_{m'_{s}}\chi_{m_{s}}=\delta_{m'_{s},m_{s}}$, and
$\alpha$ represents all other quantum numbers.
According
to \cite{modelling}, instead of the simple
overlap of the two wave functions,
the form factor definitions should include a Lorentz
invariant factor in front of the overlap of the two wave functions
describing the initial and the
final states of the LDF.
Also, following the suggestion of \cite{zalewski2},
overlaps of the two LDF wave functions
can be done in the Breit frame (${\bf v}=-{\bf v}'$), where
the boost factors (connecting the moving
to rest LDF states) cancel out.
All this leads to the following expressions
\cite{modelling} valid
for the non-relativistic quark model\footnote{As
pointed out in \cite{modelling}, models based
on the Dirac equation with a central potential lead to the
same expressions for the IW functions.}
(suppressing
quantum numbers $\alpha'$ and $\alpha$, and using the notation
of \cite{mannel}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{C}(\omega)& =&
\frac{2}{\omega+1}
\langle j_{0}(ar)\rangle_{00}
\ ,
\hspace*{+2.65cm}0_{\frac{1}{2}}^{-}\rightarrow (0_{\frac{1}{2}}^{-},
1_{\frac{1}{2}}^{-})\ ,
\label{xic}\\
\xi_{E}(\omega)& =&
\frac{2}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}-1}}
\langle j_{1}(ar)\rangle_{10}
\ ,
\hspace*{+2.1cm}0_{\frac{1}{2}}^{-}\rightarrow (0_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+},
1_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+})\ ,\\
\xi_{F}(\omega)& =&
\sqrt{\frac{3}{\omega^{2}-1}}\frac{2}{\omega+1}
\langle j_{1}(ar)\rangle_{10} \ ,
\hspace*{+1cm}
0_{\frac{1}{2}}^{-}\rightarrow (1_{\frac{3}{2}}^{+},
2_{\frac{3}{2}}^{+})\ , \\
\xi_{G}(\omega)& =&
\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{\omega^{2}-1}
\langle j_{2}(ar)\rangle_{20} \ ,
\hspace*{+2.4cm}
0_{\frac{1}{2}}^{-}\rightarrow (1_{\frac{3}{2}}^{-},
2_{\frac{3}{2}}^{-})\
\label{xig},
\end{eqnarray}
where (denoting the energy of the LDF as $E_{\bar{q}}$),
\begin{equation}
a = (E_{\bar{q}}+E'_{\bar{q}})\sqrt{\frac{\omega-1}{\omega+1}}\ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle F(r) \rangle_{L'L}^{\alpha'\alpha} = \int r^{2} dr R^{*}_{\alpha'L'}(r)
R_{\alpha L}(r)F(r)\ .
\end{equation}
Note that (\ref{xic})-(\ref{xig})
include transitions from the ground state
into radially
excited states. If the two $j=\frac{1}{2}$ states are the same,
$E'_{\bar{q}}=E_{\bar{q}}$ and
$\xi_{C}$ is normalized to one.
The above expressions should be compared with the ones
used in \cite{mannel} (putting a
tilde over the
form factors to avoid confusion),
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\xi}_{C}(\omega)& =& \langle j_{0}(\tilde{a}r)\rangle_{00}\ ,
\\
\tilde{\xi}_{E}(\omega)& =& \sqrt{3}\langle j_{1}(\tilde{a}r)\rangle_{10}\ ,
\\
\tilde{\xi}_{F}(\omega)& =& \sqrt{3}\langle j_{1}(\tilde{a}r)\rangle_{10}\ ,
\\
\tilde{\xi}_{G}(\omega)& =& \sqrt{5}\langle j_{2}(\tilde{a}r)\rangle_{20}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with the definition
\begin{equation}
\tilde{a}=E'_{\bar{q}}\sqrt{\omega^{2}-1}\ .
\end{equation}
For the numerical estimates we employ the
model used in \cite{isgw} (usually referred to as
the ISGW model), the Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger equation with
\begin{equation}
V(r) = -\frac{4\alpha_{s}}{3r} + c + b r\ .
\end{equation}
With sensible choice of parameters,
this simple model gives quite reasonable
spin-averaged spectra of $b\bar{d}$ and $s\bar{d}$ mesons up to $L=2$.
However, instead of just using a single harmonic oscillator
wave function (as was done in \cite{mannel}), for the
radial wave function
of the LDF, we
numerically solve the Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger equation.
To determine the parameters of the model, we fix
$b=0.18\ GeV^{2}$ (which was also used in \cite{isgw}), and vary
$\alpha_{s}$ and $c$ for a given value of $m_{u,d}$
(in the range $0.30-0.35\ GeV$), and $m_{s}$ (in the range
$0.5-0.6\ GeV$),
until a good description of the spin averaged spectra of $K$-meson states
is obtained.
Following this proceedure,
our $\alpha_{s}$ ranges from $0.37$ to $0.48$, while $c$ takes values
from $-0.83\ GeV$ to $-0.90\ GeV$. These parameters are in
good agreement with the original ISGW values \cite{isgw}
($\alpha_{s}=0.50$ and $c=-0.84\ GeV$ for $m_{u,d}=0.33\ GeV$ and
$m_{s}=0.55$). We emphasize that the original ISGW parameters give
results
that are well inside the ranges for all decays quoted in this paper.
By varying
the $c$- and $b$-quark masses we could also obtain good spin averaged
description
of the $B$ and $D$ mesons. However, to be consistent
with heavy quark symmetry, the
wave function for the $B$ meson was chosen to be
the same as the one obtained for the spin averaged
(ground state for $L=0$)
$K$ and $K^{*}(892)$ mesons.
To completely
define our proceedure, we have to specify how
the LDF energy $E_{\bar{q}}$ was determined.
In \cite{mannel} for a given $K^{**}$-meson the LDF energy
was defined as
\begin{equation}
E_{\bar{q}}=\frac{m_{K^{**}}*m_{u,d}}{m_{s}+m_{u,d}}\ .
\end{equation}
This definition was proposed to account for
the fact that $s$ mesons aren't particularly
heavy. On the other hand, a definition that is consistent with
heavy quark symmetry is
\begin{equation}
E_{\bar{q}}= m_{K^{**}}-m_{s}\ .
\end{equation}
It should be noted that these two expressions are not equivalent
in the heavy quark limit.
In order to explore the sensitivity of our results
on the choice of $E_{\bar{q}}$, we have repeated all calculations
employing both of these two definitions, and in the final results
we have quoted the broadest possible
range obtained for the form factors (and for all other results).
Finally, $E_{\bar{q}}$ for the $B$ meson
has been taken to be
the same as $E_{\bar{q}}$ for the $K^{*}(892)$
meson, consistent with heavy quark symmetry.
It turns out that this
is actually a very reasonable assumption.
The range of $E_{\bar{q}}$ that was used here for
$B$ and $K^{*}(892)$ meson was from $0.296\ GeV$ to $0.396\ GeV$.
On the other hand,
from the $CLEO$ data on
the semileptonic $B$ decays \cite{cleo},
and the LQCD heavy-light wave
function \cite{duncan}, it was estimated \cite{iw} that in $B$
systems $E_{\bar{q}}$ ranges from
$0.266\ GeV$ to $0.346\ GeV$.
We believe that the proceedure outlined above enables us to
estimate a reasonable range for the unknown IW
form factors in a physically more acceptable way than it
was done in \cite{mannel}, by simply varying the scale parameter of
the single harmonic oscillator wave function.
\section{Our results and comparison with previous investigations}
\label{res}
In Table \ref{tab1} we present our results for the range
of (absolute) values of the form factors at the indicated
value of $\omega$, for the ratio $R=\frac{\Gamma(B\rightarrow
K^{**}\gamma)}{\Gamma(B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma)}$,
and for the branching ratio $BR(B\rightarrow K^{**}\gamma)$, for the
various $K^{**}$-mesons.
The inclusive
branching ratio $B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ is usually taken
to be QCD improved quark decay rate for $b\rightarrow s\gamma$,
which
can be written as \cite{grinstein,buras,deshpande}
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma ) = 4\Omega
(1-\frac{m_{s}^{2}}{m_{b}^{2}})^{3}(1+\frac{m_{s}^{2}}{m_{b}^{2}})\ .
\end{equation}
The leading log prediction for
$BR(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ is $(2.8\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-4}$
\cite{buras,deshpande}, where the uncertainty is due to
the choice of the QCD scale. The next-to-leading order terms
that have been calculated tend to reduce the prediction to
about $1.9\times 10^{-4}$ \cite{ciuchini}. Both of these predictions
are in excellent agreement with the recent
experimental result of
$BR(b\rightarrow s\gamma)=(2.32\pm 0.57\pm0.35)\times 10^{-4}$
\cite{alam}.
For the numerical values of the $B\rightarrow K^{**}\gamma$
branching ratios given in Table \ref{tab1} we used the leading log result
of
$BR(b\rightarrow s\gamma)=2.8\times 10^{-4}$.
In order to make comparison of our results with previous calculations
easier, we have tabulated our results together with results of
\cite{mannel} and \cite{altomari} in Table \ref{tab2}. As far as we
know, these
two papers are the only ones that have dealt with radiative
rare $B$ decays into higher $K$-resonances. There
has been much more work done on the decay $B\rightarrow K^{*}(892)\gamma)$,
and we have tabulated some of these results in Table \ref{tab3}.
As one can see from Table \ref{tab3}, the predictions
for this particular ratio ranges from a $0.7\%$ \cite{hassan} to
$97.0\%$ \cite{donnell}.
The data suggest
a value of $(19\pm 5)\%$. Note that
our result of
$(16.8\pm 6.4)\%$
is consistent with the data, unlike the values
quoted in \cite{mannel} and \cite{altomari}. As far as decays
into higher $K$ resonances are concerned, our results are
in general in much better agreement with \cite{altomari} than with
\cite{mannel}. In particular, the authors of \cite{mannel}
emphasized a large branching ratio
for the decay $B\rightarrow K_{2}^{*}(1430)\gamma$ $((17.3-37.1)\%)$,
while our results indicate a 3-6 times smaller value of
$(6.2\pm 2.9)\%$, a result which agrees
with the one quoted in \cite{altomari} ($6.0\%$). Also note that
our numerical results from Table \ref{tab2}
support relations (\ref{rel1}) and (\ref{rel2}).
With the exception of the $K^{*}(892)\gamma$ channel, no other
exclusive radiative processes have been identified so far.
The inclusive radiative $B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ mass distribution
has however been measured by $CLEO$ \cite{alam}, and is shown
in Fig. \ref{fig1}. We have
normalized experimental data
so that the integrated distribution gives unity. The
$K^{*}(892)$ peak is evident, but the higher mass
contribution are not resolved. We have attempted to model this
inclusive distribution by considering the contributions from each of the
exclusive $K^{**}\gamma$ channels considered in this paper
(and given in Table \ref{tab2}).
In order to compare our result to experiment, we replace a given
$R_{K^{**}}$ by a mass distribution reflecting the finite total width
$\Gamma_{K^{**}}$
of the $K^{**}$ resonance \cite{pdg},
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR(m_{X_{s}})}{dm_{X_{s}}} = \sum_{K^{**}}
\frac{R_{K^{**}}}{\pi} \frac{\Gamma_{K^{**}}/2}{(m_{X_{s}}-
m_{K^{**}})^{2}+(\Gamma_{K^{**}}/2)^{2}}\ .
\label{md}
\end{equation}
The integrated distribution gives
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{dR(m_{X_{s}})}{dm_{X_{s}}} dm_{X_{s}}
= \sum_{K^{**}} R_{K^{**}}\ .
\end{equation}
In Figure \ref{fig1} we show the total resonance contribution
(solid line) compared to the experimental inclusive
$B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ mass distribution. The area of the resonance curve
is $37.4\%$ of the total inclusive rate (see Tables \ref{tab1} or
\ref{tab2}). We see the general shape is correct, but it
is difficult to make more quantitative statements due to the large errors
involved.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{con}
In this paper we have reexamined predictions of heavy quark symmetry
for the radiative rare decays of $B$-mesons into higher $K$-resonances.
An earlier calculation \cite{mannel} suggested a substantial fraction
($(17.3-37.1)\%$) of the inclusive $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ branching
ratio going into the $K_{2}^{*}(1430)$ channel, and only
$(3.5-12.2)\%$ going into the $K^{*}(892)$ channel.
Even though we used the same non-relativistic quark model,
our calculation yields fractions of $(16.8\pm 6.4)\%$ and
$(6.2\pm 2.9)\%$ for $K^{*}(892)$ and $K_{2}^{*}(1430)$ channels,
respectively. Note that experimental
results favor the value of $(19 \pm 5)\%$ for the $K^{*}(892)$
channel.
Besides a more careful treatment of the uncertainty
in the wave functions of the light degrees of freedom,
our calculation differs from \cite{mannel} in employing
form factor definitions that are consistent with
the HQET covariant trace formalism \cite{modelling}. As a consequence
of that, our results for all decay channels
significantly differ from \cite{mannel}.
The contribution of the eight
$K^{**}\gamma$ channels to the inclusive
$B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ mass distribution was compared with experiment.
We find the general shape of the mass spectrum to
be correct, but due to the large errors involved
one cannot reach more quantitative
conclusions.
\vskip 1cm
\begin{center}
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
\end{center}
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the University
of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni
Research Foundation.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction.}
The properties of $QCD$ medium at finite temperature have been
the subject of intense study during the last 15 years. It was
realized that the properties of the medium undergo a drastic
change as the temperature increases. At low temperatures, the
system presents a gas of colorless hadron states --- the
eigenstates of the $QCD$ hamiltonian at zero temperature. When
the temperature is small, this gas is composed mainly of pions
--- other mesons and baryons have higher mass and their
admixture in the medium is exponentially small $\sim
\exp\{-M/T\}$. At small temperature, also the pion density is
small --- the gas is rarefied and pions practically do not
interact with each other.
However, when the temperature increases, pion density grows,
the interaction becomes strong, and also other strongly
interacting hadrons appear in the medium. For temperatures of
order $T \sim$ 150 Mev and higher, the interaction becomes so
strong that the hadron states do not present a convenient basis
to describes the properties of the medium anymore, and no
analytic calculation is possible.
On the other hand, when the temperature is very high, much
higher than the characteristic hadron scale $\mu_{hadr} \sim$
0.5 Gev, theoretical analysis becomes possible again. Only in
this range, the proper basis are not hadron states but quarks
and gluons --- the elementary fields entering the $QCD$
lagrangian. For high temperatures, a characteristic energy of
quarks and gluons travelling through the medium is also high,
the effective coupling constant is small, and the system
presents the {\it quark-gluon plasma}. Its properties are in
many respects very similar to the properties of the usual
non-relativistic plasma involving charged particles with weak
Coulomb interaction. The only difference is that quarks and
gluons carry not the electric, but color charge. The
perturbation theory in the coupling constant can be developed
and many thermodynamic (such as free energy) and kinetic (such
as viscosity) characteristics of the medium can be analytically
evaluated \cite{QGP}.
Thus, the properties of the system at low and at high
temperatures have nothing in common. A natural question arises:
What is the nature of the transition from low-temperature hadron
gas to high- temperature quark-gluon plasma ? Is it a {\it
phase} transition ? If yes, what is its order ? I want to
emphasize that this question is highly non-trivial. A drastic
change in the properties of the system in a certain temperature
range does not guarantee the presence of the phase transition
{\it point} where free energy of the system or its specific heat
is discontinuous. Recall that there is no phase transition
between ordinary gas and ordinary plasma.
We shall see in the following that, as far as the real $QCD$
with particular values of quark masses is concerned, the answer
is probably negative. What really happens is not the phase
transition but a sharp crossover --- "almost" a second-order
phase transition. However, the real phase transition {\it does}
occur in some relative theories --- in pure Yang- Mills theory
(when the quark masses are sent to infinity) and in $QCD$ with 2
or 3 exactly massless quark flavors.
There are at least 4 reasons why this question is interesting
to study: \begin{enumerate} \item It is just an amusing
theoretical question. \item Theoretic conclusions can be
checked in lattice numerical experiments. Scores of papers
devoted to lattice study of thermal properties of QCD have been
published. \item Perhaps, a direct experimental study would be
possible on RHIC --- high-energy ion collider which is now under
construction. I'll discuss the possibility to observe a
beautiful effect, the so called {\it disoriented chiral
condensate} in the end of the lecture. \item During the first
second of its evolution, our Universe passed through the stage
of high-$T$ quark-gluon plasma which later cooled down to hadron
gas (and eventually to dust and stars, of course). It is
essential to understand whether the phase transition did occur
at that time. A profound first-order phase transition would lead
to observable effects. We know (or almost know --- the
discussion of this question has not yet completely died away)
that there were no such transition. But it is important to
understand why.
\end{enumerate}
Note that there is also a related but {\it different} question
--- what are the properties of relatively cold but very dense
matter and whether there is a phase transition when the chemical
potential corresponding to the baryon charge rather than the
temperature is increased. This lecture will be devoted
exclusively to the thermal properties of QCD, and we shall
assume zero baryon charge density.
\section{Pure Yang-Mills theory: deconfinement phase
transition.}
\setcounter{equation}0
This is the system where the phase transition from the glueball
phase to the gluon plasma phase {\it does} occur. This result
has been obtained long ago by Polyakov \cite{Pol} and Susskind
\cite{Sus}. On the heuristic level, the reasoning is the
following:
We know (for real $QCD$ --- from experiment, and for pure YM
theory --- from theoretical arguments and from lattice
measurements) that the theory enjoys confinement at low
temperature. That means that the potential between the test
heavy quark and antiquark grows linearly at large distances:
\begin{equation}
\label{conf}
T=0:\ \ \ V_{Q\bar{Q}}(r) \sim \sigma r,\ \ \ r
\rightarrow
\infty
\end{equation}
On the other hand, at high temperature when the system presents
a weakly interacting plasma of gluons, the behavior of the
potential is quite different:
\begin{equation} \label{Deb}
T \gg
\mu_{hadr}: \ \ \ V_{Q\bar{Q}}(r) \sim \frac {g^2(T)}{r} e^{-m_D
r}
\end{equation}
Here $m_D \sim gT$ is the Debye mass, and the potential is the
Debye screened potential much similar to the usual Debye
potential between static quarks in non-relativistic plasma.
There is no confinement at large $T$. There should be some point
$T_c$ (the critical temperature) where the large $r$ asymptotics
of the potential changes and the phase transition from the
confinement phase to the Debye screening phase occurs.
These simple arguments can be formulated in a rigorous way.
Consider the partition function of the system written as the
Euclidean path integral. It is known since Matsubara that, at
finite $T$, the fields are defined on the cylinder: Euclidean
time $\tau$ lies within the range $0 \leq \tau \leq \beta = 1/T$
, and one should impose periodic boundary conditions on the
gluon fields:
\begin{equation} \label{bc}
A_\mu^a(\vec{x}, \beta) =
A_\mu^a(\vec{x}, 0)
\end{equation}
Let us choose a gauge where $A_0^a$ is
time-independent. Introduce the quantity called the Polyakov
loop
\begin{equation} \label{P}
P(\vec{x}) = \frac 1{N_c} {\rm Tr} \exp\{
ig\beta A_0^a(\vec{x}) t^a\}
\end{equation}
It is just a Wilson loop on the
contour which winds around the cylinder. Consider the
correlator
\begin{equation} \label{PP}
C_T(\vec{x}) = <P(\vec{x}) P^*(0)>_T
\end{equation}
One can show \cite{Nad} that the correlator (\ref{PP}) is
related to the free energy of the test heavy quark-antiquark
pair immersed in the plasma.
\begin{equation} \label{FQQ}
C_T(\vec{x}) =
\frac 34 \exp\{-\beta F_{Q\bar{Q}}^{(3)}(r)\} + \frac 14 \exp \{
-\beta F_{Q\bar{Q}}^{(0)}(r)\}
\end{equation}
where $r = |\vec{x}|$.
$F_{Q\bar{Q}}^{(3)}(r)$ and $F_{Q\bar{Q}}^{(0)}(r)$ are free
energies of test quark-antiquark pairs (alias static potentials)
in the triplet and, correspondingly, the singlet net color
state. Let us take now the limit $r \rightarrow \infty$. The
quantity
\begin{equation} \label{Cinf}
C_T(\infty) = \lim_{r \rightarrow
\infty} C_T(r)
\end{equation}
plays the role of the {\it order parameter}
of the deconfinement phase transition. At small $T$,
$F_{Q\bar{Q}}(r)$ grow linearly at $r \rightarrow
\infty$ and $C_T(\infty) = 0$. At large $T$, free energies
do not grow and $C_T(\infty)$ is some non-zero constant (if one
would naively substitute in Eq.(\ref{FQQ}) the Debye form of the
potentials (\ref{Deb}), one would get $C_{T \gg
\mu_{hadr}}(\infty) = 1$, but it is not quite true because
$F_{Q\bar{Q}}(r)$ involve also a constant depending on the
ultraviolet cutoff of the theory. See \cite{Jengo,bub} for
detailed discussion). There is a phase transition in between.
What are the properties of this phase transition ? There are not
quite rigorous but suggestive theoretical arguments based on the
notion of ``universality class'' \cite{Svet} which predict
different properties for different gauge groups. The main idea
is that the pure YM theory based on $SU(2)$ color group has some
common features with the Ising model (with global symmetry
$Z_2$), the theory with $SU(3)$ gauge group --- with a
generalized Ising model (the Potts model) with the global
symmetry $Z_3$ etc. The Ising model has the second order phase
transition, and the same should be true for pure $SU(2)$ gauge
theory. Systems with $Z_N$ symmetry display, however, the first
order phase transition, and the same should be true for pure
$SU(N \geq 3)$ theory. The lattice data
\cite{purlat}
are in a nice agreement with this prediction. Also, critical
indices of the second order phase transition were measured.
Their numerical values are close to the numerical values of
critical indices in the Ising model.
\subsection{Bubble confusion.}
There was a long-standing confusion concerning the nature of
deconfinement phase transition in pure YM theory. It has been
clarified only recently and I want to dwell on this question in
more details.
In scores of papers published since 1978, it was explicitly or
implicitly assumed that one can use the cluster decomposition
for the correlator (\ref{PP}) at large $T$ and attribute the
meaning to the temperature average $<P>_T$. Under this
assumption, the phase of this average can acquire $N_c$
different values: $<P>_T = C\exp\{2\pi ik/N_c\}, \ \ k =
0,1,\ldots, N_c-1$ which would correspond to $N_c$ distinct
physical phases and to the spontaneous breaking of the discrete
$Z_N$-symmetry. In recent \cite{Pisa}, the surface energy
density of the domain walls separating these phases has been
evaluated.
However, the standard interpretation is wrong. In particular:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Only the correlator (\ref{PP}) has the physical
meaning. The phase of the expectation value $<P>_T$ is not a
physically measurable quantity. There is only {\it one} physical
phase in the hot YM system.
\item The ``walls'' found in \cite{Pisa} should not be
interpreted as physical objects living in Minkowski space, but
rather as Euclidean field configurations, kind of ``planar
instantons'' appearing due to non-trivial $\pi_1(\cal G) = Z_N$
where ${\cal G} = SU(N)/Z_N$ is the true gauge symmetry group of
the {\it pure} Yang-Mills system.
\item The whole bunch of arguments which is usually applied
to non-abelian gauge theories can be transferred with a little
change to hot $QED$. The latter also involves planar instantons
appearing due to non- trivial $\pi_1[U(1)] = Z$. These
instantons should {\it not} be interpreted as Minkowski space
walls.
\end{enumerate}
It is impossible to present an adequate discussion of this issue
in this short lecture. We refer the reader to \cite{bub} where
such discussion was given. Here we restrict ourselves by
outlining some heuristic physical arguments.
Right from the beginning, one meets a puzzle. In standard
approach, $Z_N$ is broken spontaneously at {\it high}
temperature and restored at {\it low} temperature. This is very
strange and unusual. The opposite is much more common in
physics. There are some models where symmetry breaking survives
and can even be induced at high temperature \cite{Moha}, but the
mechanism of this breaking is quite different from what can
possibly occur in the pure YM theory.
The second observation is that $Z_N$ symmetry which is
presumably broken in the deconfinement phase is just not there
in the continuum theory: the gluon fields are not transformed
under the action of the center. $Z_N$ - symmetry is present in
the standard lattice version of the theory but is absent, again,
in the lattice theory involving adjoint matrices $O^{ab} = {\rm
Tr} \{t^a U t^b U^\dagger\}$ rather than the unitary matrices
$U$.
It was mentioned earlier that the Polyakov loop expectation
value $<P>_T$ as such has no physical meaning. Let us explain
why. Being taken at face value, $<P>_T$ would measure the free
energy of a single fundamental heavy source immersed in the
system \cite{Larry}: $<P>_T = \exp\{-\beta F_T\}$. As a matter
of fact, nonzero phase of $<P>_T$ would correspond to the
complex free energy which is an obvious nonsense. But the point
is that one just cannot put a single fundamental source into the
system due to the Gauss law constraint \cite{Hift}. The net
color charge should be zero, and a fundamental source cannot be
screened by gluons --- the only dynamic fields in the lagrangian
of the theory and in the heat bath
\footnote{To be quite precise, the net color charge can be made
non-zero due to a boundary term at spatial infinity. In a finite
spatial box, such a term can appear when non-standard
(non-periodic) boundary conditions are chosen. But then the
phase of $<P>_T$ would be exactly determined by these boundary
conditions. As the physical properties of the theory cannot
depend on b.c. when the box is large enough, it is just another
way to say that the phase is not physical.}
What one can well do is to immerse a heavy quark-antiquark pair
and measure thereby the correlator (\ref{PP}) which {\it is}
physical. Or, say, for the $SU(3)$ gauge group, one can immerse
3 heavy quarks at different points and measure $<P(\vec{x})
P(\vec{y}) P(0)>_T$ which is physical, again, but, in contrast
to $<P>_T$, does not involve the phase uncertainty.
Actually, the delusion of spontaneous $Z_N$ breaking in pure YM
theory persisted for so long because people habitually described
this system in terms of $A^a_0(\vec{x})$ (more exactly --- in
terms of $\Omega_{\vec{x}} = \exp\{i\beta g
A_0^a(\vec{x})t^a\}$) which are not the dynamic variables
entering the hamiltonian but the variables dual to the Gauss law
constraints. A close analogy can be drawn with the Ising model
in 2 dimensions. When expressed in terms of the original spin
variables $\sigma_i$, the system is ordered at low temperatures
and disordered at high temperatures --- the spontaneously broken
$Z_2$ - symmetry is restored there. One can make, however, the
Kramers-Wannier transformation and describe the system in terms
of the dual or "disorder" variables $\eta_i$
\cite{KW}. When the
normal temperature is high, the dual temperature is low, and
the dual hamiltonian $H^*[\eta_i]$ describes, indeed, the system
where $Z_2$ symmetry is broken at high temperatures and restored
at low temperatures. But the variables $\eta_i$ are not
physical observables and, as far as any Gedanken physical
experiment is concerned, $Z_2$ - symmetry in the Ising model
{\it is} restored at high temperatures.
To summarize, there is only one physical phase at high $T$. Its
properties are relatively simple --- it is the weakly
interacting plasma of gluons. The description in terms of dual
variables is useful for some purposes (e.g. the universality
class arguments of Ref. \cite{Svet} which predict the order of
the phase transition are based on the dual description), but one
should be very careful not to read out in it something which is
not in Nature.
\section{$QCD$ with massless quarks.}
\setcounter{equation}0
If the theory involves besides gluons also quarks with finite
mass, the static interquark potential $V_{Q\bar{Q}}(r)$ does not
grow at large distances anymore even at $T=0$. Dynamic quarks
screen the potential of static sources. One can visualize this
screening thinking of the color gluon tube stretched between two
static fundamental sources being torn apart in the middle with
the formation of an extra quark-antiquark pair. Thus, in QCD
with quarks, the Wilson loop average has the perimeter rather
than the area law
\footnote{That does not mean that there is no confinement ---
as earlier, only the colorless states are present in the
physical spectrum. But the behavior of the Wilson loop is not a
good signature of confinement anymore.}. The correlator of two
Polyakov loops (\ref{PP}) tends to a constant at large distances
universally at low and at high temperature, and this correlator
cannot play the role of the order parameter of phase transition.
Still, the phase transition can occur and does occur in some
versions of the theory. It is associated, however, not with
change in behavior of the correlator (\ref{PP}), but with {\it
restoration of chiral symmetry} which is spontaneously broken at
zero temperature.
Consider YM theory with $SU(3)$ color group and involving $N_f$
massless Dirac fermions in the fundamental representation of the
group. The fermion part of the lagrangian is
\begin{equation} \label{Lf}
L_f
= i \sum_f \bar q_f \gamma_\mu {\cal D}_\mu q_f
\end{equation}
where ${\cal
D}_\mu = \partial_\mu - igA_\mu^a t^a$ is the covariant
derivative. The lagrangian (\ref{Lf}) is invariant under chiral
transformations of fermion fields:
\begin{equation} \label{chi}
q_{{\small
L,R}} \rightarrow A_{{\small L,R}}\ q_{{\small L,R}}
\end{equation}
where
$q_{{\small L,R}} = \frac 12 (1 \pm \gamma^5)q$ is the flavor
vector with $N_f$ components and $A_{{\small L,R}}$ are two
different $U(N_f)$ matrices. Thus, the symmetry of the classical
lagrangian is $U_L(N_f) \otimes U_R(N_f)$. Not all N\"other
currents corresponding to this symmetry are conserved in the
full quantum theory. It is well known that the divergence of the
singlet axial current $ j^5_\mu = \sum_f \bar q_f
\gamma_\mu \gamma^5 q_f$ is non-zero due to anomaly:
\begin{equation} \label{anom}
\partial_\mu j_\mu^5 \ \sim \ g^2
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} G^a_{\mu\nu} G^a_{\alpha\beta}
\end{equation}
Thus, the symmetry of quantum theory is $SU_L(N_f) \otimes
SU_R(N_f) \otimes U_V(1)$. It is the experimental fact that (for
$N_f = 2,3$, at least) this symmetry is broken spontaneously
down to $U_V(N_f)$. The order parameter of this breaking is the
chiral quark condensate $<\sum_f \bar q_f q_f>_0$. This spontaneous
breaking leads to appearance of the octet of pseudoscalar
Goldstone states in the spectrum. Of course, in the real $QCD$
the quarks are not exactly massless, the mass term is not
invariant with respect to the symmetry (\ref{chi}) but only
under $U_V(N_f)$. As a result, in real World we have the octet
of light (but not massless) pseudo- Goldstone pseudoscalar
states ($\pi, K, \eta$). But the small mass of pseudogoldstones
and the large splitting between the massive states of opposite
parity ($\rho/A_1$, etc.) indicate beyond reasonable doubts
that the exact chiral symmetry (\ref{chi}) would be broken
spontaneously in the massless case. As the masses of the strange
and, especially, of $u$- and $d$- quarks are small \cite{GLmass}
, the mass term in the lagrangian can be treated as
perturbation. E.g. the pion mass satisfies the relation
\begin{equation}
\label{pimass}
F_\pi^2 m_\pi^2 = (m_u + m_d) |<\bar u u>_0|
\end{equation}
($F_\pi = 93$ Mev is the pion decay constant) and turns to zero
in the chiral limit $m_{u,d} \rightarrow 0$.
It is noteworthy that the symmetry breaking pattern
\begin{equation}
\label{br3}
SU_L(N_f) \otimes SU_R(N_f) \rightarrow SU_V(N_f)
\end{equation}
depends crucially on the assumption that the gauge group
involves at least 3 colors. For $SU(2)$ color group where quarks
and antiquarks belong to the same representation (the
fundamental representation of the $SU(2)$ group is pseudoreal:
${\bf 2} \equiv {\bf \bar 2}$), the symmetry group of the
lagrangian (\ref{Lf}) is much higher. It is $U(2N_f)$ and
involves also mixing between quarks and antiquarks. $U_A(1)$ -
part of this symmetry is anomalous and the formation of chiral
condensate breaks spontaneously the remaining $SU(2N_f)$ down
to a simplectic group
\cite{simpl}:
\begin{equation}
\label{br2}
SU(2N_f) \rightarrow Sp(2N_f)
\end{equation}
As a result, $2N_f^2 - N_f -1$ Goldstone bosons living on the
coset space appear. For $N_f =2$, we have not 3 as usual, but 5
``pions''. This fact is important to understand for people who
would wish to study numerically on lattices the spontaneous
chiral symmetry breaking with $SU(2)$ gauge group.
As far as the thermal properties of the theory are concerned,
the point is that a spontaneously broken symmetry must be
restored under a sufficient heating. There should be a critical
temperature $T_c$ above which the fermion condensate $<\bar q
q>_T$ is zero. This is the temperature of phase transition and
$<\bar q q>_T$ is the order parameter associated with the
transition.
Note that the phenomenon of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking
is specific for theories with {\it several} light quark flavors.
In the theory with $N_f = 1$ , the non- anomalous part of the
symmetry of the lagrangian is just $U_V(1)$. It stays intact
after adding the mass term and after taking into account the
formation of the condensate $<\bar q q>$. The condensate is
still formed, but it does not correspond to spontaneous breaking
of any symmetry and need not vanish at high temperature. So, it
does not. At high temperatures when the effective coupling is
small, it can be evaluated semiclassically in the instanton
approach
\cite{GPJ,KY}, and one can show that it falls down as a
power of temperature and never reaches zero.
There is {\it no} phase transition in $QCD$ with only one light
or massless flavor. But it {\it does} occur when the number of
massless flavors $N_f$ is 2 or more.
The melting down of quark condensate can be studied analytically
at low temperature when the medium presents a rarefied weakly
interacting gas of pions with low energies. Their properties
are described by the effective chiral lagrangian
\begin{equation}
\label{Lchi}
{\cal L} = \frac 14 F_\pi^2 {\rm Tr} \{\partial_\mu
U \partial_\mu U^\dagger\} + \ldots
\end{equation}
where $U$ is the
$SU(N_f)$ matrix and the dots stand for higher derivative terms
and the terms involving quark masses. When the characteristic
energy and the quark masses are small, the effects due to these
terms are suppressed and a perturbation theory (the {\it chiral
perturbation theory}
\cite {CPT}) can be developed. In \cite{Ger}, the
temperature dependence of $<\bar q q>_T$ has been determined on
the 3-loop level. In the approximation where only the presence
of pions in the heat bath is taken into account and the effects
due to non-zero $m_u$ and $m_d$ are neglected, the result has a
rather simple form
\begin{equation} \label{qqT}
<\bar q q>_T = <\bar q q>_0
\left[ 1 - \frac {T^2}{8F_\pi^2} - \frac {T^4}{384F_\pi^4} -
\frac {T^6}{288F_\pi^6} \ln
\frac \Lambda T + \ldots \right]
\end{equation}
The constant $\Lambda$ depends on the higher-derivative terms in
the effective lagrangian and can be fixed from experiment:
$\Lambda \sim 500 \pm 100$ Mev. The dependence (\ref{qqT})
together with the curves where only only the 1 loop correction
$\propto T^2$ and 2 loop correction $\propto T^4$ are taken into account
(please, do not put attention to the ``technical'' curve marked $a^0_2 = 0$)
is drawn in Fig. 1 taken from Ref. \cite{Ger}.
\newpage
\vspace{13cm}
The expansion in the parameter $\sim T^2/8F_\pi^2$ makes sense
when this parameter is small, i.e. when $T \leq 100- 150$ Mev.
Strictly speaking, one cannot extrapolate the dependence
(\ref{qqT}) for larger temperatures, especially having in mind
that, at $T > 150$ Mev, the heat bath includes a considerables
fraction of other than pion hadron states. But as we know anyhow
that the phase transition with restoration of chiral symmetry
should occur, the estimate of the phase transition temperature
(i.e. the temperature when $<\bar q q>_T$ hits zero) based on
such an extrapolation is not altogether stupid. This estimate is
\begin{equation} \label{est}
T_c \approx 190 \ {\rm Mev}
\end{equation}
(A more accurate
treatment which takes into account non-zero $m_{u,d}$ and also
the presence of other mesons in the heat bath gives practically
the same estimate as these two effects push $T_c$ in opposite
directions and practically cancel each other.)
\section{Properties of phase transition. The real World.}
\setcounter{equation}0
Making the estimate (\ref{est}), we tacitly assumed that the
phase transition is of the second order: only the derivative
$\partial<\bar q q>_T/\partial T$ but not $<\bar q q>_T$ is
discontinuous at the phase transition point. Let us discuss the
question whether this assumption is valid and under what
conditions.
On the theoretical side, the situation is similar to that in
pure YM case: not rigorous but suggestive arguments exist
indicating that the phase transition is of the second order for
2 massless flavors. When $N_f \geq 3$, the phase transition is
probably of the first order. The arguments are the following
\cite{PW}:
The starting point is the observation that, in theories
involving {\it scalar} fields, phase transition of the first
order often occurs when the potential involves a cubic in fields
term. One can recall in the first place a cubic Van-der-Vaals
curve $P(\rho, T)$ which describe the first order water
$\leftrightarrow$ vapor phase transition. The simplest field
theory example is the theory of real scalar field with the
potential
\begin{equation} \label{Vphi}
V(\phi) = \lambda(\phi^2 - v^2)^2 -
\mu \phi^3
\end{equation}
Assume for simplicity $\mu \ll \lambda v$. At
$T=0$, the potential has one global minimum at $\phi \approx v +
3\mu/8\lambda$. At non-zero temperature, the term $\sim \lambda
T^2 \phi^2$ is added to the effective potential. At high
temperature $T \gg v$, the minimum occurs at $\phi = 0$. One can
be easily convinced that a {\it local } minimum at $\phi = 0$
appears at some temperature $T^*$ when the local minimum at
positive $\phi$ still exists. The latter disappears at some
larger temperature $T^{**}$. In a certain temperature range, two
minima of the potential, the old and the new one, coexist, one
being a metastable state with respect to the other. This is
exactly the physical situation of the first order phase
transition.
Let us go back to $QCD$. A direct application of this reasoning
is not possible because the $QCD$ lagrangian does not involve
scalar fields. The effective chiral lagrangian (\ref{Lchi}) is
also of no immediate use because higher-derivative terms which
stand for dots cannot be neglected in the region close to
critical temperature. Suppose, however, that in the region $T
\sim T_c$ some other effective lagrangian in Ginzburg-Landau
spirit can be written which depends on the composite colorless
fields
\begin{equation} \label{Fia}
\Phi_{ff'} = \bar q_{Rf} q_{Lf'}
\end{equation}
A general form of the effective potential which is invariant
under $SU_L(N_f) \otimes SU_R(N_f)$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{V3}
V[\Phi] \sim g_1 {\rm Tr}\{ \Phi \Phi^\dagger\}
+ g_2 ({\rm Tr}\{ \Phi \Phi^\dagger\})^2 \nonumber \\
+ g_3{\rm Tr}\{ \Phi \Phi^\dagger \Phi \Phi^\dagger\}
+ g_4 (\det \Phi + \det \Phi^\dagger ) + \ldots
\end{equation}
(the coefficients may be smooth functions of $T$). Now look at
the determinant term. For $N_f = 2$, it is quadratic in fields
while, for $N_f = 3$, it is cubic in fields and the effective
potential acquires the structure similar to Eq.(\ref{Vphi})
which is characteristic for the systems with first order phase
transition. A more refined analysis \cite{PW} shows that the first order
phase transition is allowed also for $N_f \geq 4$, but not for
$N_f =2$ where the phase transition is of the second order.
It is even possible to argue that, for $N_f \geq 3$, one has not one but
{\it two} phase transitions. The argument is based on the exact relation
for the spectral density of Euclidean Dirac operator $\rho(\lambda)$
in zero-temperature $QCD$ with $N_f$ massless flavours at small but nonzero
$\lambda$. It is possible to show that it involves a non-analytic term in
$\lambda$ at $N_f \geq 3$ \cite{SS}:
\begin{equation}
\label{Stern}
\rho(\lambda) = \frac \Sigma \pi + \frac {\Sigma^2 (N_f^2 -4)}{32\pi^2 N_f
F_\pi^4} |\lambda| + o(\lambda^2)
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma = |<\bar q q>_0|$. At nonzero temperature, both $\rho(0)$ (i.e.
the chiral condensate) and the coefficient of $|\lambda|$ in $\rho(\lambda)$
are changed. Eventually (at $T \gg \mu_{hadr}$) they should vanish.
One can imagine a situation when the chiral condensate turns to
zero before the slope does. Or other way round.
If lattice people
would eventually observe two temperature phase transitions in
$QCD$ with 3 massless quark flavors, I would be happy, of
course. However, a canonical viewpoint that there is only one
transition but of the first order may also be true. Existing
lattice measurements favour this possibility.
Up to now, we discussed only pure YM theory and $QCD$ with
massless quarks. But the quarks have non-zero masses: $m_u
\approx$ 4 Mev, $m_d \approx$ 7 Mev, and $m_s \approx$ 150
Mev \cite{GLmass}. The
question arises whether the non-zero masses affect the
conclusion on the existence or non-existence and the properties
of the phase transition.
The experimental (i.e. lattice) answer to this question appears
to be positive \cite{Columb}. In Fig. 2, a phase diagram of
$QCD$ with different values of quark masses $m_s$ and $m_u =
m_d$ is plotted.
\vspace{13cm}
Let us discuss different regions on this plot. When the quark
masses are large, quarks effectively decouple and we have pure
YM theory with $SU(3)$ gauge group where the phase transition is
of the first order. When all the quark masses are zero, the
phase transition is also of the first order. When masses are
shifted from zero a little bit, we still have a first order
phase transition because a finite discontinuity in energy and
other thermodynamic quantities cannot disappear at once when external
parameters (the quark masses) are smoothly changed.
But when all the masses are non-zero and neither are too small
nor too large, phase transition is absent. Notice the bold
vertical line on the left. When $m_u = m_d = 0$ and $m_s$ is not
too small, we have effectively the theory with two massless
quarks and the phase transition if of the second order. The
experimental values of quark masses (the dashed circle in Fig.
2) lie close to this line of second order phase transitions but
in the region where no phase transition occurs. It is the
experimental fact as measured in Ref. \cite{Columb}.
This statement conforms nicely with a semi-phenomenological
theoretical argument of ref. \cite{KK} which displays that even
{\it if} the first order phase transition occurs in QCD, it is
rather weak. The argument is based on a generalized
Clausius-Clapeyron relation. In college physics, it is the
relation connecting the discontinuity in free energy at the
first-order phase transition point with the sensitivity of the
critical temperature to pressure. The Clausius-Clapeyron
relation in $QCD$ reads
\begin{equation} \label{KK}
{\rm disc} <\bar q q>_T = \frac 1{T_c} \ \frac {\partial T_c}
{\partial m_q} {\rm disc} \ \epsilon
\end{equation}
where ${\rm disc}\ \epsilon$ is the latent heat.
The derivative $\frac {\partial T_c}{\partial m_q}$ can the
estimated from theoretical and experimental information of how
other essential properties of $QCD$ depend on $m_q$ and from the
calculation of $T$ - dependence of condensate at low temperature
in the framework of chiral perturbation theory (see Fig.1 and the
discussion thereof). The
dependence on quark masses is not too weak. From that, assuming
that the discontinuity in quark
condensate is as large as $<\bar q q>_0$ (which is not true, of course),
we get an estimate
$${\rm disc}\ \epsilon \ < 0.4 \ {\rm GeV/fm}^3$$
which is rather small compared to the characteristic free energy
density of the system in the vicinity of $T_c \sim 190 {\rm MeV}$.
Thus, latent heat of the first order phase transition (assuming it is there)
must be small which means that the phase transition is likely to disappear
under a relatively small perturbation due to nonzero $m_s$.
The question is not yet completely resolved, and independent
lattice measurements are highly desirable. Most probable is,
however, that, when temperature is changed, hadron gas goes over
to quark-gluon plasma and other way round without any phase
transition. There is, however, a sharp crossover in a narrow
temperature range which is similar in properties to a
second-order phase transition (the ``phase crossover'' if you
will).
\section{Instantons and percolation.}
\setcounter{equation}0
In the analysis in previous two sections, we relied on the fact
that chiral symmetry {\it is} broken at zero temperature. It is
an experimental fact in real $QCD$, but it is important to
understand from pure theoretical premises {\it why} it is broken
and what is the mechanism of its restoration at higher
temperatures.
A completely satisfactory answer to this question has not yet
been obtained. The problem is that $QCD$ at zero temperature is
a theory with strong coupling and it is very difficult (may be
impossible) to study the structure of $QCD$ vacuum state
analytically. However, a rather appealing qualitative physical
picture exists which is based on the model of
instanton-antiinstanton liquid and on the analogy with the so
called percolation phase transition in doped superconductors
\cite{Shur}. We refer the reader to the Shuryak's book for the
detailed discussion and elucidate here only crucial points of
the reasoning.
The starting point is the famous Banks and Casher relation
\cite{Banks} connecting quark condensate to the mean spectral
density of Euclidean Dirac operator $\rho(\lambda)$ at $\lambda
\sim 0$. Let us explain how it is derived. Consider the
Euclidean fermion Green's function $<q(x) \bar q(y)>$ in a
particular gauge field background. Introduce a finite Euclidean
volume $V$ to regularize theory in the infrared. Then the
spectrum of massless Dirac operator is discrete and enjoys the
chiral symmetry: for any eigenfunction $\psi_n(x)$ satisfying
the equation $\not\!\!{\cal D} \psi_n = \lambda_n \psi_n$ , the
function $\tilde \psi_n = \gamma^5 \psi_n$ is also an
eigenfunction with the eigenvalue $\tilde \lambda_n = -
\lambda_n$.
The idea is to use the spectral decomposition of the fermion
Green's function with a small but non-zero quark mass
\begin{equation}
\label{Green} <q(x) \bar q(y)> \ = \ \sum_n \frac {\psi_n(x)
\psi_n^\dagger (y)}{i\lambda_n - m}
\end{equation}
Set $x=y$ and integrate over $d^4x$. We have
\begin{equation} \label{sum}
V<\bar q q> = - m \sum_{\lambda_n > 0} \frac 1{\lambda_n^2 +
m^2}
\end{equation}
where the chiral symmetry of the spectrum has been used
and the contribution of the zero modes $\lambda_n = 0$ has been
neglected (it is justified when the volume $V$ is large enough
\cite{LS}). Perform the averaging over gauge fields and take
{\it first} the limit $V \to \infty$ and {\it then} the limit $m
\to 0$. The sum can be traded for the integral:
\begin{equation}
\label{Banks} <\bar q q> = - m \int \frac
{\rho(\lambda)}{\lambda^2 + m^2} d\lambda = - \frac 1\pi \rho(0)
\end{equation}
The rightmost-hand-side of Eq.(\ref{Banks}) is only the
non-perturbative $m$-independent part of the condensate .
There is also a perturbative ultraviolet-divergent piece
$\propto m\Lambda_{ultr}^2$ which is proportional to the quark
mass, is related to large eigenvalues $\lambda$ and is of no
concern for us here.
Thus, the non-perturbative part of the quark condensate which is
the order parameter of the symmetry breaking is related to small
eigenvalues of Euclidean Dirac operator. There should be a lot
of them --- a characteristic spacing between levels is $\delta
\lambda \sim 1/(|<\bar q q>|V)$ which is much less than the
characteristic spacing $\delta \lambda \sim 1/L$ for free
fermions.
The question is what is the physical reason for these small
eigenvalues to appear. As far as we know, the first pioneer
paper where a mechanism for generating small eigenvalues was
proposed is Ref.\cite{Flor} where small eigenvalues appeared as
zero modes of monopole-like gauge field configurations. The
disadvantage of this model is that the monopole configurations
are static whereas it is natural to expect that characteristic
gauge fields contributing to the Euclidean path integral at
$T=0$ are more or less symmetric in all four directions with no
particular axis being singled out. The model of
instanton-antiinstanton liquid formulated in \cite{Diak} (see in particular
Ref. [28b] where the mechanism for spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking
was suggested) and
developed later in \cite{Shur1} is much better in this respect.
The basic assumption of the model is that a characteristic gauge
field contributing in $QCD$ path integral is a medium of
instantons and instantons as shown in Fig.3. It is not a ``gas''
of Callan, Dashen, and Gross \cite{CDG} because the interaction
between instantons and antiinstantons bringing about a
short-range correlations between instanton positions and
orientations cannot be neglected. A ``liquid'' is a more proper
term.
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{picture}(90,55)
\put(10,10){\circle{15}}
\put(9.5,8){{\Large I}}
\put(30,20){\circle{15}}
\put(28.5,18){{\Large A}}
\put(29,36){\circle{15}}
\put(28.5,34){{\Large I}}
\put(12,30){\circle{15}}
\put(10.5,28){{\Large A}}
\put(48,34){\circle{15}}
\put(47.5,32){{\Large I}}
\put(45,7){\circle{15}}
\put(44.5,5){{\Large I}}
\put(60,10){\circle{15}}
\put(58.5,8){{\Large A}}
\put(63,30){\circle{15}}
\put(61.5,28){{\Large A}}
\put(82,20){\circle{15}}
\put(81.5,18){{\Large I}}
\put(58,48){\circle{15}}
\put(57.5,46){{\Large I}}
\put(44,50){\circle{15}}
\put(42.5,48){{\Large A}}
\put(12,45){\circle{15}}
\put(11.5,43){{\Large I}}
\end{picture}
\vspace{0.6cm}
{\bf Fig. 3}. Instanton-antiinstanton liquid.
\vspace{0.6cm}
Each individual instanton and antiinstanton involves a fermion
zero mode \cite{Hooft}. Assuming the constant density of
quasi-particles $\propto \mu_{hadr}^4$, the total number of zero
modes in the Euclidean volume $V$ is $N \sim V\mu_{hadr}^4$.
However, these are not {\it exact} zero modes. They are shifted
from zero due to interaction between instantons and
antiinstantons (a nonzero overlap between individual instanton
and antiinstanton zero modes. Assuming their uniform spreading in the range of
eigenvalues $\Delta \lambda \sim \mu_{hadr}$, the volume density
of {\it quasi-zero modes} is $\rho(0)
\sim N/(V\Delta \lambda) \sim \mu_{hadr}^3$. Due to
Eq.(\ref{Banks}), a non-zero quark condensate appears
\footnote{The assumption of quasi-uniform spreading of eigenvalues is not so
innocent. It probably holds only in the theory with several light dynamical
quarks, but not in the quenched theory ($N_f = 0$) where it is natural to
expect a singular behaviour of the spectral density near zero: $\rho(\lambda)
\sim 1/\lambda$ so that the ``fermion condensate'' (i.e. the vacuum
expectation value $<\bar q q>_0$ where quark fields are treated as external
sources) is infinite \cite{SMvac}.}.
This picture is rather similar to what happens in a doped
superconductor with high enough doping. When a characteristic
distance between individual atoms of the admixture is not large,
the wave functions of outer electrons of these atoms overlap,
and the electrons can jump from site to site. If the set of
atoms of admixture with a noticeable overlap of wave functions
forms a connected network in the space, the electrons can travel
through this network at large distances and the specimen is a
{\it conductor}. Note that it is not a standard metal mechanism
of conductivity when the medium is a crystal, has the long-range
order, and the electron wave functions are periodic Bloch waves.
Here the distribution of the dope whose electrons are
responsible for conductivity is stochastic and wave functions
are complicated. The essential is that they are {\it
delocalized}.
Thus, one can say that the vacuum of $QCD$ is the ``conductor'' in
a certain sense. For sure, there is no conductivity of anything
in usual Minkowski space-time. Only the Euclidean vacuum
functional has ``conducting'' properties. In principle, one can
introduce formally the fifth time and write an analog of Kubo
formula for conductivity in $QCD$, but the physical meaning of
this ``conductivity'' is not clear. It is sufficient to say that,
in a characteristic Euclidean gauge field background, the
eigenfunctions of Dirac operator corresponding to small
eigenvalues are delocalized.
What happens if we heat the system ? The effective coupling
constant $g^2(T)$ decreases, the action of individual instantons
$S = 8\pi^2/g^2(T)$ increases, and the density of
quasi-particles $\propto \exp\{-S\}$ decreases.
Let us look first at the doped superconductor when we decrease
the density of admixture. Below some critical density, the set
of atoms with essential overlapping of wave functions does not
form a connected network in 3-dimensional space anymore. The
electrons can no longer travel far through this network, wave functions become
localized, and the
specimen is an insulator. This is called the percolation phase
transition (see e.g.
\cite{Shkl} for detailed discussion).
Likewise, there is a critical temperature in $QCD$ above which
instantons and antiinstantons do not form anymore a connected
cluster with an essential overlap of individual fermion zero
modes [what overlap is ``essential'' and what is not is a
numerical question. For condensed matter systems (but not for
$QCD$ in this context) a computer estimates for the critical
admixture density has been performed]. At high temperatures, few
remaining quasi-particles tend to form ``instanton-antiinstanton
molecules'' (See Fig.4). The individual zero modes are not {\it
spread out} uniformly in the range $\Delta \lambda \sim
\mu_{hadr}$ as is the case at zero temperature where instantons
and antiinstantons form an infinite cluster, but are just {\it
shifted} by the value $\sim \mu_{hadr}$ due to interaction in
individual molecules. Small eigenvalues in the spectrum of Dirac
operator are absent and the fermion condensate is zero
\cite{Shur}.
\begin{picture}(90,85)
\put(10,10){\circle{15}}
\put(9.5,8){{\Large I}}
\put(27,11){\circle{15}}
\put(25.5,9){{\Large A}}
\put(50,58){\circle{15}}
\put(49.5,56){{\Large I}}
\put(52,42){\circle{15}}
\put(50.5,40){{\Large A}}
\put(85,8){\circle{15}}
\put(84.5,6){{\Large I}}
\put(69,11){\circle{15}}
\put(67.5,9){{\Large A}}
\put(130,65){\circle{15}}
\put(129.5,63){{\Large I}}
\put(146.5,64){\circle{15}}
\put(145,62){{\Large A}}
\end{picture}
{\bf Fig. 4}. Gas of instanton-antiinstanton molecules (high $T$).
\vspace{0.6cm}
Of course, this picture is too heuristic and qualitative. A
serious quantitative study of fermion eigenvalues and
eigenfunctions at non-zero temperature, and especially in the
region $T \sim T_c$ has not yet been done. It is the task (a
very interesting and important one) for future explorers.
It is worthwhile to emphasize once more that this scenario of percolation
phase transition leading to the molecular high-temperature phase is expected
to hold only at $N_f \geq 2$. For $N_f =1$ with arbitrary small but nonzero
fermion mass, molecules get ionized and the ``medium'' presents a very dilute
instanton-antiinstanton gas --- the instanton density involves a product of two
small factors: $\exp\{-8\pi^2/g^2(T)\}$ and the fermion mass $m$.
Differentiating ${\rm log} Z$ over $m$ and sending $m$ to zero, one gets a
small but non-zero quark
condensate \cite{GPJ,KY}. Cf. the analogous situation in the Schwinger model
\cite{Schwinst}
\section{Disoriented chiral condensate.}
\setcounter{equation}0
When we talked in previous sections about ``experimental'' tests
of theoretical predictions, we meant numerical lattice
experiment. It is the unfortunate reality of our time that the
feedback between theory and real laboratory experiment has
drastically deteriorated: what is interesting from theoretical
viewpoint cannot very often be measured in laboratory and what
can be measured is not interesting.
However, speaking of the particular problem of the phase
transition in $QCD$ associated with chiral symmetry restoration,
an intriguing possibility exists that a direct experimental
evidence for such a transition can be obtained at the
high-energy heavy ion collider RHIC which is now under
construction. After a head-on collision of two energetic heavy
nuclei, a high temperature hadron ``soup'' is created.
We do not call this soup the quark-gluon plasma because, even at
RHIC energies, the temperature would not be high enough to
provide a sufficient smallness of the effective coupling
$g^2(T)$ and to make the perturbation theory over this parameter
meaningful. What is important, however, is that, at RHIC
energies, the temperature of the soup would be well above the
estimate (\ref{est}) for the phase transition temperature. The
high-temperature state created in heavy nuclei collision would
exist for a very short time after which it expands, is cooled
down and decays eventually into mesons.
Let us look in more details at the cooling stage. At high
temperature, the fermion condensate is zero. Below phase
transition, it is formed and breaks spontaneously chiral
symmetry. This breaking means that the vacuum state is not
invariant under the chiral transformations (\ref{chi}) and a
direction in isotopic space is distinguished. What particular
direction --- is a matter of chance. This direction is specified
by the condensate matrix
\begin{equation} \label{condmat}
\Sigma_{f f'} = <\bar q_{Lf} q_{Rf'}>
\end{equation}
For simplicity, we have assumed up to now that
\begin{equation} \label{diag}
\Sigma_{ff'} = -\Sigma \delta_{ff'}
\end{equation}
, but any unitary matrix can be substituted for $\delta_{ff'}$
(of course, it can be brought back in the form $\delta_{ff'}$ by
a chiral transformation ). In different regions of space,
cooling occurs independently and directions of condensate are
not correlated. As a result, domains with different directions
of condensate shown in Fig.5 are formed (cf. cooling down of a
ferromagnetic below the Curie point).
In our World, we do not observe any domains, however. The
direction of the condensate in all spatial points is identical.
This is a consequence of the fact that $u$- and $d$- quarks have
non-zero masses which break chiral symmetry explicitly, the
vacuum energy involves a term
\begin{equation} \label{EMSig} E_{vac} \sim
{\rm Tr} \{{\cal M}^\dagger \Sigma \} + {\rm c.c.}
\end{equation} and the
only true vacuum state is (\ref{diag}) (in the basis where the
quark mass matrix ${\cal M}$ is diagonal).
However, the masses of $u$- and $d$- quarks are rather small and
one can expect that the domains with ``wrong'' direction of the
condensate are sufficiently developed during the cooling stage
before they eventually decay into true vacuum (\ref{diag}) with
emission of pions.
\footnote{Fig.5 implies the existence of several domains
and describes better the physical situation immediately after
the ``phase crossover'' in early Universe. Probably, the size of
the hot fireball produced in collision of two nuclei is too
small and the cooling occurs too fast for several domains to be
developed. The popular ``baked Alaska'' scenario \cite{Bj} implies
the formation of only one domain with (generally) wrong flavour
orientation. }
This is a crucial assumption. A theoretic estimate of the
characteristic size of domains they reach before decaying is
very difficult and there is no unique opinion on this question
in the literature. But if this assumption is true, we can expect
to observe a very beautiful effect \cite{Bj}. From the true
vacuum viewpoint, a domain with disoriented $\Sigma_{ff'}$ is a
classical object --- kind of a ``soliton'' (parentheses are put
because it is not stable) presenting a {\it coherent}
superposition of many pions. The mass of this quasi-soliton is
much larger than the pion mass. The existence of such multipion
coherent states was discussed long ago in pioneer papers
\cite{Ans} but not in relation with thermal phase transition.
Eventually, these objects decay into pions. Some of the latter
are neutral and some are charged. As all isotopic orientations
of the condensate in the domains are equally probable, the {\it
average} fractions of $\pi^0$, $\pi^+$, and $\pi^-$ are equal:
$<f_{\pi^0}> = <f_{\pi^\pm}> =
\frac 13$ as is also the case for incoherent production of
pions in, say, $pp$ collisions where no thermalized high-$T$
hadron soup is created.
But the {\it distribution} $P(f)$ over the fraction of, say,
neutral pions is quite different in the case of incoherent and
coherent production. In incoherent case, $P(f)$ is a very narrow
Poissonic distribution with the central value $<f_{\pi^0}> =
1/3$. The events with $f_{\pi^0} = 0$ or with $f_{\pi^0} = 1$
are highly unprobable: $P(0) \sim P(1) \sim
\exp\{ - C N \}$ where $N \gg 1$ is the total number
of pions produced.
For coherent production, the picture is quite different.
$\Sigma_{ff'}$ is proportional to a $SU(2)$ matrix. Factorizing
over $U(1)$, one can define a unit vector in isotopic space $\in
S^2$. The fraction of $\pi^0$ produced would be just $f = \cos
^2 \theta$ where $\theta$ is a polar angle on $S^2$. The
probability to have a particular polar angle $\theta$ normalized
in the interval $0 \leq \theta
\leq \pi/2$ [ the angles $\theta > \pi/2$ do not bring about
anything new as $f(\pi - \theta) = f(\theta)$ ] is $P(\theta) =
\sin \theta$. After an elementary transformation, we get a
normalized probability in terms of $f$:
\begin{equation} \label{Pf}
P(f) df =
\frac {df}{2 \sqrt{f}}
\end{equation} As earlier, $<f> = 1/3$, but the
distribution in $f$ is now wide and the values $f = 0$ and $f =
1$ are quite probable.
Thus, a hope exists that in, experiments with heavy ion
collisions at RHIC, wild fluctuations in the fractions of
neutral and charged pions would be observed. That would be a
direct experimental indication that a quasi-phase-transition
occurs where domains of disoriented chiral condensate of
noticeable size are developed in a cooling stage. One can recall
in this respect mysterious Centauro events with anomalously
large fraction of neutral or of charged particles observed in
cosmic ray experiments \cite{Cent}. Who knows, may be that {\it
was} the first experimental observation of the $QCD$ phase
transition.
\section{Aknowlegdements}
It is a pleasure to thank the organizers of the Enrico Fermi School
for the kind hospitality. This work was partially supported
by the INTAS grant 93-0283.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the last two decades theoretical
physics and mathematics have been greatly developed through mutual stimulation
[1]. At this present Seiberg-Witten theory[2] has attracted the attention of
both
theoretical physicists and mathematicians.
In this paper we discuss Witten's pioneering work on supersymmetric
quantum mechanics and de Rham theory proposed in 1982[3]. He has given a
quantum mechanical
interpretation about de Rham theory on a Riemannian manifold $M$. He has
considered certain supersymmetric quantum mechanics on the manifold.
His idea is to adopt a superpotential which is obtained from
the Morse function $h$ of the manifold.
For each critical point of $h$, an approximate vacuum
can be identified. By instanton effects some of them found to be false
vacuums. True vacuums of the theory correspond to harmonic forms on the
manifold. Witten's conjecture is that the number of true vacuums
agrees with the dimension of de Rham cohomology. The diminishing of the
number of vacuums implies the Morse inequality.
His idea has been established in the operator formalism[4]
However, in the Laglangian formalism the Witten's program has been performed
only for few cases. The case $M={\bf R}$ has well been investigated
in the context of supersymmtry breaking[5]. Recently, Yasui et al.[6]
have investigated the case $M=SO(3)$. It has been shown that among four
approximate vacuums two survive as true vacuums under instanton effects
in agreement with de Rham cohomology of $M=SO(3)$.
Our purpose in this paper is to
examine a more complicated case $M=SO(4)$ in the Laglangian formalism.
We discuss a condition for occurrence of instanton effects and identify
true vacuums.
In Sec.2 supersymmetric quantum mechanics on a manifold $M$ is formulated.
In Sec.3 $M=SO(2)$ case is discussed for later convenience. In Sec.4
coordinates,metric and critical points for $M=SO(4)$ are treated.
In Sec.5 Hessian matrices are calculated and instanton effects are discussed.
Section 6 is devoted to summary
and discussion.
\section{Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics on a Manifold}
In this section the relevant supersymmetric quantum mechanics on a
manifold $M$ is formulated. In particular, approximate vacuums, a gradient flow
equation and Hessian matrices are described.
The supersymmetric quantum mechanics on $M$ is derived from the following
Laplacian:
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}={1 \over 2}(d_{h} d_{h}^{\dagger} +d_{h}^{\dagger} d_{h}),
\end{equation}
where $d_{h}=e^{-h}de^{h}, d_{h}^{\dagger}=e^{h}d^{\dagger}e^{-h},
d$ is the exterior derivative and $d^{\dagger}$ is its adjoint operator.
Fermion creation and annihilation operators $\hat{\psi} ^{*}{}^{i}$ and
$\hat{\psi} ^{i}$
can be identified with the exterior multiplication $e_{dx ^{i}}$ and the
interior multiplication $i_{\partial \over \partial x^{i}}$. Subsequently,
on a flat metric
$d=\hat{\psi} ^{*}{}^{i} {\partial \over \partial x^{i}}, d^{\dagger}=
\hat{\psi} ^{i}{\partial \over \partial x^{i}}$
and $\hat{\psi} ^{*}{}^{i_{1}} {\ldots}
\hat{\psi} ^{*}{}^{i_{m}}|0>_{F}$ can be identified with bases of $m$-forms[3].
An approximate vacuum $|\Omega _{l}>$ localized near a critical point
$P^{(l)}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
d_{h}|\Omega _{l}>=d_{h}^{\dagger}|\Omega _{l}>=0
\end{equation}
up to quantum effects. Some of approximate vacuums cease to satisfy
(2.2) by quantum effects. If $|\Omega _{l}>$ is a true vacuum, it remains
satisfying (2.2) after taking quantum effects into account. Because
$d_{h}^{\dagger}$ is the adjoint of $d_{h}$ , states satisfying (2.2)
are elements
in $\displaystyle{ Ker d_{h} \over Im d_{h}}$ called the Witten
complex. We examine $d_{h}|\Omega _{l}>$
quantum mechanically on $M=SO(4)$.
If $<\Omega _{l+1}|d_{h}|\Omega _{l}>
\neq 0$, neither approximate vacuum is a true vacuum. According to [3],
the following form is valid:
\begin{equation}
<\Omega _{l+1}|d_{h}|\Omega _{l}>= \sum_{\gamma}
n_{\gamma} e^{-(h(P^{(l+1)})-h(P^{(l)}))},
\end{equation}
where $n_{\gamma}$ is an integer assigned for each instanton path
$\gamma$ .
The supersymmetric hamiltonian derived from (2.1) is
\begin{equation}
2\hat{H} =-g^{-{1 \over 2}} \nabla _{i}g^{1 \over 2}g^{ij} \nabla _{j}
+R_{ijkl}\hat{\psi}^{k}\hat{\psi} ^{*}{}^{l}\hat{\psi}^{*}{}^{j}\hat{\psi} ^{i}
+g^{ij} {\partial h \over \partial x^{i}}{\partial h \over \partial x^{j}}
+H_{ij}\{\hat{\psi} ^{*}{}^{j},\hat{\psi}^{*}{}^{i}\},
\end{equation}
where $g_{ij}$ and $R_{ijkl}$ are the Riemann metric and tensor, and
$\nabla _{i}=
{\partial \over \partial x^{i}}-\Gamma_{ik}^{l}\hat{\psi} ^{*}{}^{k}
\hat{\psi}_{l}$ is the covariant derivative; $H_{ij}$ is the Hessian matrix
\begin{equation}
H_{ij}=(\partial_{i}\partial_{j}-\Gamma_{ij}^{k}\partial_{k})h.
\end{equation}
Corresponding Laglangian is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} ={1 \over 2}g_{ij}{dx^{i} \over dt}{dx^{j} \over dt}
+{1 \over 2}g^{ij}{\partial h \over \partial x^{i}}
{\partial h \over \partial x^{j}}
+\psi ^{*}{}^{i}({d \over dt}\psi_{i}-\Gamma_{ij}^{k}\psi_{k}
{dx^{j} \over dt})+H_{ij}\psi ^{*}{}^{j}\psi^{i}
+{1\over4}R_{ijkl}\psi^{i}\psi^{j}\psi^{*}{}^{k}\psi^{*}{}^{l}.
\end{equation}
Classical solutions give main contribution to a pathintegral.
In a supersymmetric model, we only have to consider quasi classical
solutions satisfying equation of motion with fermion disregarded.
Quasi classical solutions of $(2.6)$ obey
\begin{equation}
{dx^{i} \over dt}=\pm g^{ij}{\partial h \over \partial x^{j}}.
\end{equation}
By the operation of $d_{h}$, the Morse index $l$ identical to the
number of excited fermions increases by one. We choose one of the
sign in $(2.7)$ so that the value of the Morse function $h$ increases.
For $M=SO(3)$, Eq.(2.7) has a pair of
instanton solutions connecting two critical
points whose Morse indices differ by one. Corresponding action for
each instanton solution is written to the one-loop level as[6]
\begin{equation}
S=S_{cl}+ \int _{-\infty}^{\infty}
dt\{-{1 \over 2}\xi^{a}({d \over dt}+\lambda _{a}(t))
({d \over dt}-\lambda _{a}(t))\xi^{a}+\psi ^{a}({d \over dt}-\lambda _{a}(t))
\psi _{a}^{*}\},
\end{equation}
where $\xi^{a}$ are some linear combinations of geodesic coordinates around
the instanton path and $t$ is the time parameter of the instanton mode;
$\lambda _{a}(t)$ are eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix
$H_{i}^{j}=H_{ik}g^{kj}$
at a time $t$. Corresponding approximate hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
2\tilde{H}=\sum _{a}(-({\partial \over \partial \xi ^{a}})^{2}
+\lambda _{a}^{2}(t)(\xi ^{a})^{2}+\lambda _{a}(t)\{\hat{\psi}_{a}^{*},
\hat{\psi}^{a}\}).
\end{equation}
An approximate vacuum near a critical point with the Morse index $l$ is
expressed as
\begin{equation}
|\Omega _{l}>=\pi ^{-{3 \over 2}} \prod_{a} |\lambda_{a}|^{1 \over 4}
\rm{exp}(-{1 \over 2} \sum_{a} |\lambda_{a}|(\xi ^{a})^{2})
\hat{\psi} _{b _{1}}^{*}\ldots \hat{\psi} _{b _{l}}^{*}|0>_{F},
\end{equation}
where $b_{1},\ldots ,b_{l}$ correspond to negative eigenvalues
of the Hessian matrix $H_{i}^{j}$ at the critical point.
Like this, approximate vacuums are decided by eigenvalues of $H_{i}^{j}$.
Similar situation will hold for $M=SO(4)$. We calculate the Hessian
matrix $H_{i}^{j}$ to examine approximate vacuums. Moreover, we discuss
instanton effects between adjacent
approximate vacuums. Transition
amplitudes are calculated from eigenvalues of
$H_{i}^{j}$ up to signs[6].
Owing to the notorious minus signs associated with fermions, it is not
easy to determine the signs. It is crucial to determine the signs,
because a pair of instanton effects can cancel each other.
\section{$SO(2)$ Case}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we discuss the case $SO(2)$.
We see how instanton effects occur or disappear.
We denote a group element in $SO(n)$ by $A=(a_{ij})$. The Morse
function $h$ for $SO(n)$ is given by[7]
\begin{equation}
h=\sum _{a} c_{i}a_{ii} , (c_{i}>2c_{i+1}>0).
\end{equation}
For $M=SO(2)$, $A$ is represented as
\begin{eqnarray}
A=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta & -\sin \theta \\
\sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}
\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
The Morse function is $h=(c_{1}+c_{2}) \cos \theta$ and the critical points
are
\begin{equation}
P^{(0)}=\rm{diag}(-1-1), P^{(1)}=\rm{diag}(\quad 1\quad 1),
\end{equation}
with the Morse indices $l=0$ and $l=1$ respectively.
Since $g_{\theta \theta}=g^{\theta \theta}=1$, the gradient flow
equation (2.7) simplifies to
\begin{equation}
{d\theta \over dt}=-(c_{1}+c_{2})\sin \theta.
\end{equation}
This equation has the following instanton solution
\begin{equation}
\cos\theta=\tanh((c_{1}+c_{2})t+\alpha),
\end{equation}
with an arbitrary constant $\alpha$. Corresponding to $\sin \theta \ge 0$
or $\sin \theta \le 0$, there are two paths connecting the critical points.
For the latter path, we introduce a new coordinate $\theta ^\prime$
by $\theta ^\prime=-\theta$. We call the coordinates $\theta$ and
$\theta ^\prime$ odd, because they are opposite in the sign. Thus, we
only have to consider the path $0 \le \theta \le \pi$ in each coordinate
system. We have now two instanton paths
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta & \mp \sin \theta \\
\pm \sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}
\right) \hspace{1cm} ( \sin\theta \ge 0)
\end{eqnarray}
with $\cos \theta$ (3.5).
These instanton paths lead to transitions between approximate vacuums
\begin{eqnarray}
&|0>& \longrightarrow |1> \equiv \hat{\psi ^{*}}|0> \equiv |\theta > \sim
d\theta |0>
,\nonumber \\
&|0>& \longrightarrow \hat{\psi^{\prime}{}^{*}}|0> \equiv |\theta ^{\prime}>
\sim d\theta ^{\prime} |0>
,
\end{eqnarray}
where the state $|0>$ on the left(right) hand side means
a bosonic(bosonic parts of an)
approximate vacuum around the critical point $P^{(0)}(P^{(1)})$;
the state $|1>$ implies one fermionic mode is excited;moreover, we mean
by $|\theta>$ a fermionic mode corresponding to the coordinate $\theta$
is excited;the symbol $\sim$ means the identification of a $p$ fermion
excited state and a $p-$form[3].
Since $d\theta ^{\prime} = -d\theta$, we see $\hat{\psi} ^{\prime}{}^{*}|0>
=-\hat{\psi} ^{*}|0>$. The appearance of the relative minus sign for a
pair of fermionic excitations is a general feature for an instanton mode.
By the operator $d_{h}$, the approximate vacuum $|0>$ transforms as
\begin{equation}
d_{h}|0>= e^{-2(c_{1}+c_{2})} (\hat{\psi}^{*}+\hat{\psi^{\prime *}})
|0>=0,
\end{equation}
and the matrix element $<1|d_{h}|0>$ vanishes. Thus, there is no instanton
effect between the two approximate vacuums $|0>$ and $|1>$. Both of them
remain to be true vacuums. We have one true vacuum at each critical point
in agreement with the result
of de Rham cohomology; $H^{0}(SO(2))=H^{1}(SO(2))
=\bf R $.
As we have seen, a pair of instanton paths lead to fermionic states
with opposite signs and there is no instanton effect. In the present case
the original state is $|0>$, which is common to both instanton paths.
In general, this is not the case. An approximate vacuum may provide
opposite signs for a pair of instanton paths.
We call a state,like $|0>$, common to a pair of instanton paths
an even state. We call a state, like $\hat{\psi} ^{*} |0>$, providing
different signs for a pair of instanton paths an odd state.
We call the evenness and oddness parity. We can summarize the condition
instanton effects occur. An approximate vacuum has definite parity for
a pair of instanton paths. Instanton effects do not cancel
each other for a pair of
paths only when the parity of an approximate vacuum does not change along
the paths. This judgment will be used later.
\section{Coordinates, Metric and Critical Points on $SO(4)$}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we first introduce a coordinate system and an invariant
metric on $M=SO(4)$. Let us introduce the generalized Euler angles[8].
Consider the following three infinitesimal generators of $SO(4)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
[E_{1} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0&1&0&0\\
-1&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
\end{array} \right) ] ,
[E_{2} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&-1&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
\end{array} \right) ],
[E_{3} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&1\\
0&0&-1&0\\
\end{array} \right) ].
\end{eqnarray}
A group element $A$ in $SO(4)$ can be parametrized as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\it A} = e^{cE_{1}}e^{zE_{2}}e^{yE_{3}}e^{bE_{1}}e^{xE_{2}}e^{aE_{1}}=
\nonumber \\
\vspace{10mm}
\begin{tiny}
\left( \begin{array}{llll}
(\cos b \cos c - \sin b \sin c \cos z)\cos a &
(\cos b \cos c - \sin b \sin c \cos z)\sin a &
(\sin b \cos c + \cos b \sin c \cos z)\sin x &
\sin c \sin y \sin z \cr
+(-(\sin b \cos c + \cos b \sin c \cos z) \cos x &
+((\sin b \cos c + \cos b \sin c \cos x) \cos x &
+\sin c \cos x \cos y \sin z & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
+\sin c \sin x \cos y \sin z)\sin a &
- \sin c \sin x \cos y \sin z)\cos a & & \cr
-(\cos b \sin c + \sin b \cos c \cos z)\cos a &
-(\cos b \sin c + \sin b \cos c \cos z)\sin a &
(- \sin b \sin c + \cos b \cos c \cos z) \sin x &
\cos c \sin y \sin z \cr
+((\sin b \sin c - \cos b \cos c \cos z) \cos x &
-((\sin b \sin c - \cos b \cos c \cos z) \cos x &
+\cos c \cos x \cos y \sin z & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
+ \cos c \sin x \cos y \sin z)\sin a &
+\cos c \sin x \cos y \sin z)\cos a & & \cr
\sin x( \cos y \cos z + \cos b \cos x \sin z)\sin a &
(\sin x \cos y \cos z + \cos b \cos x \sin z)\cos a &
\cos x \cos y \cos z - \cos b \sin x \sin z &
\sin y \cos z \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
+\cos a \sin b \sin z &
+ \sin a \sin b \sin z & & \cr
-\sin a \sin x \sin y, & \cos a \sin x \sin y &
-\cos x \sin y & \cos y \cr
\end{array}
\right)
\end{tiny}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\end{equation}
In appendix A left invariant vector fields are noted.
{}From (A.4)
an $SO(4)$-invariant metric is obtained:
\begin{eqnarray}
(\sin^{2} y \ \ g^{ij})= \\
\begin{tiny}
\bordermatrix{
\vspace{5 mm} & a & b & c & x & z & y \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
a & \displaystyle{\frac1{\sin^{2} x}}
& - \displaystyle{\frac {\cos x}{\sin^{2} x}}
- \displaystyle{\frac {\cos b \cos y \cos z}{\sin x \sin z}}
& \displaystyle{\frac{\cos b \cos y}{\sin x \sin z}}
& 0 & - \displaystyle{\frac{\sin b \cos y}{\sin x}} & 0 \cr
b & - \displaystyle{\frac{\cos x}{\sin^{2} x}}
- \displaystyle{\frac{\cos b \cos y \cos z}{\sin x \sin z}}
& \cot ^{2} x
+ \cot ^{2} z
+ \sin^{2} y & - \displaystyle{\frac{\cos b \cos x \cos y}{\sin x \sin z}}
- \displaystyle{\frac{\cos z}{\sin^{2} z}}
& \displaystyle{\frac{\sin b \cos y \cos z}{\sin z}}
& \displaystyle{\frac{\sin b \cos x \cos y}{\sin x}} & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
& & + 2 \displaystyle{\frac{\cos b \cos x \cos y \cos z}{\sin x \sin z}}
& & & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
c & \displaystyle{\frac{\cos b \cos y}{\sin x \sin z}}
& - \displaystyle{\frac{\cos b \cos x \cos y}{\sin x \sin z}}
- \displaystyle{\frac{\cos z}{\sin^{2} z}}
& \displaystyle{\frac1{\sin^{2} z}} &
- \displaystyle{\frac{\sin b \cos y}{\sin z}} & 0 & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
x & 0 & \displaystyle{\frac{\sin b \cos y \cos z}{\sin z}}
& - \displaystyle{\frac{\sin b \cos y}{\sin z}}
& 1 & - \cos b \cos y & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
z & - \displaystyle{\frac{\sin b \cos y}{\sin x}}
& \displaystyle{\frac{\sin b \cos x \cos y}{\sin x}}
& 0 & - \cos b \cos y & 1 & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
y & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \sin^{2} y \cr
} ,
\end{tiny}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray*}
(g_{ij}) = \\
\begin{small}
\bordermatrix{
\vspace{5 mm} & a & b & c & x & z & y \cr
& & & \cos x \cos z & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
a & 1 & \cos x & - \cos b \sin x \cos y \sin z &
0 & \sin b \sin x \cos y & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
b & \cos x & 1 & \cos z & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
& \cos x \cos z & & & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
c & - \cos b \sin x \cos y \sin z & \cos z &
1 & \sin b \cos y \sin z & 0 & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
x & 0 & 0 & \sin b \cos y \sin z & 1 & \cos b \cos y & 0
\cr \vspace{5 mm}
z & \sin b \sin x \cos y & 0 & 0 & \cos b \cos y & 1 & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
y & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
}
\end{small}
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{equation}
\end{equation}
In appendix B non-zero Christoffel symbols for this metric are noted.
{}From (3.1) the Morse function $h$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
h=c_{1}(\cos a \cos b \cos c-\cos a \sin b \sin c \cos z-\sin a \sin b \cos c \cos x
\nonumber \\+\sin a \sin c \sin x \cos y \sin z-\sin a \cos b \sin c \cos x \cos z)
\nonumber \\
+ c_{2}(-\sin a \cos b \sin c-\sin a \sin b \cos c \cos z -\cos a \sin b \sin c \cos x \nonumber \\
-\cos a \cos a \sin x \cos y \sin z + \cos a \cos b \cos c \cos x \cos z) \nonumber \\
+c_{3}(\cos x \cos y \cos z-\cos b \sin x \sin z)+c_{4}\cos y, \nonumber \\
(c_{1} > 2c_{2} > 4c_{3} >8c_{4}>0).
\end{eqnarray}
At critical points on $M$ the Morse function $h$ takes extremal values.
The Morse function $h$ (4.5) has eight critical points, which correspond
to diagonal rotations in $SO(4)$;
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{(0)}&=&(-1 -1 -1 -1), P^{(1)}=(-1 -1 \quad 1 \quad 1),
P^{(2)}=(-1 \quad 1 -1 \quad 1),\nonumber \\
P^{(3A)}&=&(-1 \quad 1 \quad 1 -1),P^{(3B)}=(1 -1 -1 \quad 1),
P^{(4)}=(1 -1 \quad 1 -1), \nonumber \\
P^{(5)}&=&(1 \quad 1 -1 -1),P^{(6)}=(1 \quad 1 \quad 1 \quad 1).
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig.1 instanton paths connecting these critical points are noted.
\vspace{10mm}
\\
\vspace{10mm}
\begin{flushleft}
${ \begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
& & & & & & P^{(3A)}
& & & & & & \cr
& & & & & \nearrow & & \searrow & & & & & \cr
P^{(0)} & \rightarrow & P^{(1)} & \Rightarrow & P^{(2)} & & & &
P^{(4)}& \Rightarrow & P^{(5)} & \rightarrow & P^{(6)} \cr
& & & & & \searrow & & \nearrow & & & & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
& & & & & & P^{(3B)} & & & & & & \cr
\end{array} }$\\
\end{flushleft}
FIG.1. Instanton paths connecting critical points. The thick arrows show
there exist instanton effects. \\
\vspace{10mm}
\\
Now, the gradient flow equation is consist of simultaneous six differential
equations. It will be difficult to find the general solution of the
equation. However, we can find easily a pair of instanton solutions
connecting adjacent two critical points. In the next section we discuss
the instanton solutions and Hessian matrices. Transition amplitudes between
approximate vacuums are also computed.
\section{Instanton Solutions, Hessian Matrices and Transiton Amplitudes }
\setcounter{equation}{0}
{\bf A. $ P^{(0)} \rightarrow P^{(1)} $} \\
In this subsection we examine instanton solutions connecting
$P^{(0)}$ and $P^{(1)}$. We find a pair of solutions satisfying (2.7).
The one is
\begin{equation}
a \equiv c \equiv 0, b \equiv \pi,x=z=0,
y=\cos ^{-1}\tanh (c_{3}+c_{4})(t+\alpha),
\end{equation}
where $y$ is the general solution of
$\displaystyle{dy \over dt}=-(c_{3}+c_{4})\sin y.$
The symbol $\equiv$ means that we can safely make the substitution
in $g^{ij}$. On the other hand, $x=z=0$ corresponds to singular points
in $g^{ij}$, but it is meaningful in the form $g^{ij} \partial _{j}h$.
The other is obtained by replacing $x=z=0$ by $x=z=\pi$ in (5.1).
Corresponding instanton paths are
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-1& & & \\
&-1& & \\
& & \cos y& \pm \sin y \\
& & \mp \sin y & \cos y \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\sin b =0$, the $6\times 6$ matrix $g^{ij}$ is reduced to a direct
sum of a $3\times 3$ matrix, a $2\times 2$ matrix and a $1\times 1$ matrix.
To obtain $H_{i}^{j}=H_{ik}g^{kj}$, we only have to calculate relevant
elements of $H_{ij}$. We note them in Appendix C.
The Hessian matrix $H_{i}^{j}$ for the first path is found to be \\
\begin{eqnarray}
(H^{j}_{i}) =\\
\begin{tiny}
\bordermatrix{
\vspace{5 mm} & a & b & c & x & & z & y \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
a & c_{1} + \frac{c_{3}}2 - \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 \cos y
& \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 (1- \cos y)
& \frac{c_{4}}2 & & & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
b & \frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2 & c_{1} - c_{3}
& \frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2 & & & \smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}} & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
c & \frac{c_{2}+c_{4}}2 & \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 (-1+ \cos y)
& c_{1} + \frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2 - \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 \cos y & & & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
x & & & & c_{2} - \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 \cos y & & \frac{c_{3}-c_{4}}2 & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
z & & \smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}} & & \frac{c_{3}-c_{4}}2 & & c_{2}
- \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 \cos y & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
y & & & & & & & -(c_{3}+c_{4}) \cos y \cr
}
\end{tiny} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\end{equation}
where the indices $a, \cdots ,y$ represent quantum fluctuations
$\xi _{a}, \cdots , \xi _{y}$ around the classical solution (5.1).
Taking some linear combinations of the fluctuation coordinates,
the Hessian matrices $H_{i}^{j}$ can be diagonalized. Eigenvalues
of (5.3) are
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda _ {\tilde{a}}&=& c_{1} + \frac{c_{3}-c_{4}}2 - \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 \cos
y ,
\quad
\lambda _{\tilde{c}}=c_{1}+\frac{c_{2}}2+
\frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 (1- \cos y),\nonumber \\
\lambda _{ {x \pm z} \over \sqrt{2}}
&=&c_{2} \pm \frac{c_{3}-c_{4}}2 - \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 \cos y ,\quad
\lambda _ {\tilde{b}}= c_{1}-c_{3}, \quad
\lambda _{y} = -(c_{3}+c_{4})\cos y,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{a},\tilde{b}$ and $\tilde{c}$ are some linear combinations
of $a,b$ and $c$. The Hessian matrix for the second path is obtained by
changing signs of $H_{a}^{b},H_{b}^{a},H_{b}^{c}$ and $H_{c}^{b}$
in (5.3). Thus, the eigenvalues of $H_{i}^{j}$ are common to the two
instanton paths. Accordingly, bosonic transition amplitudes of the two
instanton solutions are equal. In the following subsections, we will see
this situation holds for any pair of instanton paths. We only have to
concentrate on fermionic contributions to find whether the two transition
amplitudes cancel each other or not. From (5.4) we see any eigenvalue
is positive at $t=-\infty$, and no fermionic mode is exited. So, the
approximate vacuum is a bosonic one
\begin{equation}
|0>=\pi ^{-{3 \over 2}} \prod _{i=1}^{6} \lambda _{i}^{1 \over 4}
\displaystyle{e}^{-{1 \over 2}\lambda _{i}\xi _{i}^{2}}|0>_{F},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda _{i}$ are eigenvalues of the Hessian matrices at
this point. We represent by $|l>$ the approximate vacuum at
each critical point $P^{(l)}$. At $t=\infty$ the $y$ mode has the only \\
negative
eigenvalue. This implies that the fermionic mode corresponding to $y$ is
exited at $t=\infty$ and the following approximate vacuum
$|1>=\hat{\psi}_{y}^{*}|0>\sim dy|0>$ is induced. The second path
induces the following approximate vacuum $\hat{\psi}_{y^{\prime}}^{*}|0>
\sim dy^{\prime}|0>$. In this process $y$ is an odd
coordinate (See Appendix D.) and we have $dy^{\prime}=-dy$. The parity
of the state $|0>$ does not change and we see
\begin{equation}
d_{h} |0>\sim (dy+dy^{\prime})|0>=0.
\end{equation}
The operator $d_{h}$ increases the fermion number by 1. Since there is
no state with fermion number -1, $|0>$ can not be written as $|0>=d_{h}
|-1>$. Hence, $|0>$ is a true vacuum localized around $P^{(0)}$.
\vspace{10mm}
\\
{\bf B. $P^{(5)} \rightarrow P^{(6)}$}
In this subsection we examine instanton solutions connecting $P^{(5)}$
and $P^{(6)}$. Owing to the Poincar$\acute{e}$ duality[9], we can
easily perform analysis from the knowledge of the previous subsection.
We find a pair of solutions:
\begin{equation}
a\equiv c \equiv b \equiv 0, y=\cos ^{-1}\tanh((c_{3}
+c_{4})t+\alpha),x=z=0 (x=z=\pi).
\end{equation}
These solutions are represented by the following paths
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1& & & \\
& 1& & \\
& & \cos y& \pm \sin y \\
& & \mp \sin y & \cos y \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
{}From (C.1) we see $H_{ij}$ for these instanton solutions are obtained from
that of $P^{(0)} \rightarrow P^{(1)}$ by changing the signs except for
linear terms of $\cos y$. From (4.3) we see the metric $g^{ij}$ for
$P^{(5)} \rightarrow P^{(6)}$ is obtained from that of
$P^{(0)} \rightarrow P^{(1)}$ by changing the signs of linear terms of
$\cos y$. Accordingly, $H_{i}^{j}$ for $P^{(5)} \rightarrow P^{(6)}$ is
the opposite sign of (5.3) except for linear terms of $\cos y$. Thus,
eigenvalues of $H_{i}^{j}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda _ {\tilde{a}}&=& -c_{1} + \frac{c_{4}-c_{3}}2 - \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2
\cos y ,
\quad
\lambda _{\tilde{c}}=-c_{1}-\frac{c_{2}}2-
\frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 (1+ \cos y),\nonumber \\
\lambda _{ {x \pm z} \over \sqrt{2}}
&=&-c_{2} \mp \frac{c_{3}-c_{4}}2 - \frac{c_{3}+c_{4}}2 \cos y ,\quad
\lambda _ {\tilde{b}}= c_{3}-c_{1}, \quad
\lambda _{y} = -(c_{3}+c_{4})\cos y.
\end{eqnarray}
At $t=-\infty$ any mode except for $y$ has a negative eigenvalue.
Therefore, at $t=-\infty$ the following fermionic state is an approximate
vacuum $|5>$ around $P^{(5)}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
|5>\equiv |\tilde{a},\tilde{b},\tilde{c},{{x + z} \over \sqrt{2}},
{{x-z} \over \sqrt{2}}>\sim d\tilde{a}\wedge d\tilde{b}\wedge d\tilde{c}
\wedge d{{x + z} \over \sqrt{2}} \wedge d{{x-z} \over \sqrt{2}}|0> \nonumber \\
\sim da\wedge db\wedge dc\wedge dx \wedge dz |0>.
\end{eqnarray}
At $t=\infty$ the mode $y$ has a negative eigenvalue. This means a fermionic
mode corresponding to $y$ is excited. Thus, the first instanton path induces an
approximate vacuum $|6>$ around $P^{(6)}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
|6>\equiv |\tilde{a},\tilde{b},\tilde{c},{{x + z} \over \sqrt{2}},
{{x-z} \over \sqrt{2}},y>
\sim da\wedge db\wedge dc\wedge dx \wedge dz \wedge dy|0>.
\end{eqnarray}
In this process the coordinates
$a,c,x,z$ are even and $b,y$ are odd (See Appendix D.). Accordingly,
we see $|5>$ is odd and $|6>$ is even. Thus, from the general consideration in
section 3 we conclude
\begin{equation}
<6|d_{h} |5>=0.
\end{equation}
The number of exited fermions is at most 6, so we have $d_{h}|6>=0$.
Hence, $|6>$ is a true vacuum.
\vspace{10mm}
\\
{\bf C. $P^{(2)} \rightarrow P^{(3A)}$}
In this subsection we discuss instanton solutions connecting $P^{(2)}$
and $P^{(3A)}$. We find a pair of solutions:
\begin{equation}
a\equiv c \equiv 0, b \equiv \pi,
y=\cos ^{-1}\tanh(-((c_{3}
-c_{4})t+\alpha)),
x=0,z=\pi (x=\pi,z=0),
\end{equation}
where $y$ is the general solution of
${dy \over dt}=(c_{3}-c_{4})\sin y$.
These solutions are represented as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-1& & & \\
& 1& & \\
& & -\cos y& \mp \sin y \\
& & \mp \sin y & \cos y \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\sin b =0$, we can calculate $H_{i}^{j}$ as before.
For the first solution we find
\begin{eqnarray}
(H^{j}_{i}) =\\
\begin{tiny}
\bordermatrix{
\vspace{5 mm} & a & b & c & x & & z & y \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
a & c_{1} - \frac{c_{2}}2 + \frac{c_{3}}2 ( \cos y -1)
& \frac{c_{3}}2 (1- \cos y)
& \frac{c_{2}}2 & & & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
b & -\frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2 & c_{1} + c_{3}
& \frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2 & & & \smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}} & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
c & \frac{c_{2}}2 & \frac{c_{3}}2 (\cos y -1)
& c_{1} - \frac{c_{2}}2 + \frac{c_{3}}2 (\cos y -1) & & & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
x & & & & -c_{2} - \frac{c_{4}}2 \cos y & & -c_{3}-\frac{c_{4}}2 & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
z & & \smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}} & & -c_{3}-\frac{c_{4}}2 & &- c_{2}
- \frac{c_{4}}2 \cos y & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
y & & & & & & & (c_{3}-c_{4}) \cos y \cr
}
\end{tiny} \nonumber ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\end{equation}
For the second solution, the Hessiam matrix $H_{i}^{j}$ is obtained
by changing sings of $H_{a}^{b},H_{b}^{a},H_{b}^{c}$ and $H_{c}^{b}$ in
(5.15). Therefore, eigenvalues are common to the two paths. They are
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda _ {\tilde{a}}&=& c_{1} + \frac{c_{3}}2 (\cos y-1) ,\quad
\lambda _{\tilde{c}}=c_{1}+\frac{c_{3}}2 (1+ \cos y),\nonumber \\
\lambda _{{x \pm z} \over \sqrt{2}}
&=&-c_{2} \pm c_{3} \pm \frac{c_{4}}2 (1-\cos y) ,\quad
\lambda _ {\tilde{b}}= c_{1}-c_{2}, \quad
\lambda _{y} = (c_{3}-c_{4})\cos y.
\end{eqnarray}
At $t=-\infty$ fermionic modes corresponding to ${{x \pm z} \over \sqrt{2}}$
are exited. At $t=\infty$ fermionic mode corresponding to $y$ is also
exited. Thus, the instantons induce
\begin{equation}
|{{x+ z} \over \sqrt{2}},{{x- z} \over \sqrt{2}}> \longrightarrow
|{{x+ z} \over \sqrt{2}},{{x- z} \over \sqrt{2}},y>
\end{equation}
Now, the coordinates $x,z,a,c$ are even and $b,y$ are odd(See Appendix D.).
So, the original state is odd and the new one is even. From the
general consideration we conclude there is no instanton effect in the process
$P^{(2)} \rightarrow P^{(3A)}$.
\vspace{10mm}
\\
{\bf D. $P^{(3B)} \rightarrow P^{(4)}$}
{}From the duality of $P^{(2)} \rightarrow P^{(3A)}$ we find two solutions
connecting $P^{(3B)}$ and $P^{(4)}$:
\begin{equation}
a \equiv c \equiv b \equiv 0,y=\cos ^{-1}(-\tanh ((c_{3}-c_{4})t+\alpha))
,
x=0,z=\pi (x=\pi, z=0).
\end{equation}
These solutions are represented by the paths
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1& & & \\
& -1& & \\
& &- \cos y& \mp \sin y \\
& & \mp \sin y & \cos y \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
In this process $x,z,a,c$ are even coordinates and $b,y$ are odd ones(See
Appendix D.). Eigenvalues of the corresponding Hessian matrix are
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{a+c \over \sqrt{2}}&=& -c_{1} + \frac{c_{3}}2( \cos y +1) ,\quad
\lambda _{a-c+b\over \sqrt{2}}
=c_{1}+\frac{c_{3}}2 (\cos y- 1 ),\nonumber \\
\lambda _{ {x \pm z} \over \sqrt{2}}
&=&c_{2} \mp c_{3} - \frac{c_{4}}2(\cos y \pm 1) ,\quad
\lambda _ {\tilde{b}}= -c_{1}+c_{2}, \quad
\lambda _{y} = (c_{3}-c_{4})\cos y,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{b}$ denotes $b$ at $t=-\infty $ and $b+{c_{3} \over
{c_{2}+c_{3}}}(a-c)$ at $t=\infty$. From (5.20) we find the instantons
induce the following transition between approximate vacuums:
\begin{equation}
|{a+c \over \sqrt{2}},b,{a-c+b\over \sqrt{2}}>
\rightarrow
|{a+c\over \sqrt{2}},b+{c_{3} \over{c_{2}+c_{3}}}(a-c)
,{a-c+b\over \sqrt{2}},y>.
\end{equation}
The original and the new states are essentially an odd one
$da \wedge db \wedge dc |0>$ and an even one
$da \wedge db \wedge dc \wedge dy |0>$ respectively.
Thus, there is no instanton effect in the process $P^{(3B)}$ and $P^{(4)}$.
\vspace{10mm}
\\
{\bf E. $P^{(2)} \rightarrow P^{(3B)}$}
In this subsection we discuss instanton solutions connecting $P^{(2)}$
and $P^{(3B)}$. Setting $b \equiv 0, y=0,x \equiv z \equiv
\displaystyle{\pi / 2}$,
the gradient flow equation (2.7) reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
{d(a-c) \over dt}&=&-(c_{1}-c_{2})\sin (a-c), \nonumber \\
{d(a+c) \over dt}&=&-(c_{1}+c_{2})\sin (a+c).
\end{eqnarray}
Setting $a+c \equiv 0$, we get the following solutions:
\begin{equation}
b \equiv 0, y=0,x \equiv z \equiv \displaystyle{\pi / 2},a+c \equiv 0 ,
a-c = \pm \cos ^{-1}\tanh ((c_{1}-c_{2})t+\alpha) .
\end{equation}
These are represented by the paths
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
\cos (a-c)&\pm \sin (a-c) & & \\
\pm \sin (a-c) & -\cos (a-c)& & \\
& & -1& \\
& & & 1 \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\sin b \equiv \cos x \equiv \cos z \equiv 0$, the metric $g^{ij}$
reduces to a direct sum of two $2\times 2$ matrices and two $1 \times 1$
matrices. Relevant $H_{ij}$ to obtain $H_{i}^{j}$ are given in (C.2).
We get the following Hessian matrix for the both solutions. Non-zero
matrix elements are
\begin{eqnarray}
(H_{i}^{j})=\bordermatrix{
\vspace{5mm} & a & c& \cr
a &c_{1}({\sin ^{2} a \over 2} -\cos ^{2} a)+c_{2}({\cos ^{2} a \over 2} -\sin ^{2} a)
&-{c_{1} \over 2}\sin ^{2}a-{c_{2} \over 2}\cos ^{2}a & \cr
\vspace{5mm}
c &-{c_{1} \over 2}\sin ^{2}a-{c_{2} \over 2}\cos ^{2}a
&c_{1}({\sin ^{2} a \over 2} -\cos ^{2} a)+c_{2}({\cos ^{2} a \over 2} -\sin ^{2} a)
& \cr
} \nonumber ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
(H_{i}^{j})=\bordermatrix{
\vspace{5mm} & x & z & \cr
x &{c_{1} \over 2}\sin ^{2} a +{c_{2} \over 2} \cos ^{2} a +c_{3}-{c_{4} \over 2}
&{c_{1} \over 2}\sin ^{2} a +{c_{2} \over 2} \cos ^{2} a +{c_{4} \over 2}
& \cr
\vspace{5mm}
z &{c_{1} \over 2}\sin ^{2} a +{c_{2} \over 2} \cos ^{2} a +{c_{4} \over 2}
&{c_{1} \over 2}\sin ^{2} a +{c_{2} \over 2} \cos ^{2} a +c_{3}-{c_{4} \over 2}
& \cr
} \nonumber ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{b}^{b}=-c_{1}\cos ^{2} a -c_{2}\sin ^{2} a +c_{3}, \qquad
H_{y}^{y}=c_{1}\sin ^{2} a +c_{2}\cos ^{2} a -c_{4}.
\end{eqnarray}
Eigenvalues of this matrix are
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda _{{a+c} \over \sqrt{2}}&=&-c_{1}\cos ^{2} a-c_{2}\sin ^{2} a ,\qquad
\lambda _{{a-c} \over \sqrt{2}}=(c_{2}-c_{1})\cos (a-c) , \nonumber \\
\lambda _{{x+z} \over \sqrt{2}}&=&c_{1}\sin ^{2} a+c_{2}\cos ^{2} a,
\qquad
\lambda _{ {x- z} \over \sqrt{2}}
=c_{3}-c_{4} ,\nonumber \\
\lambda _ {b}&=&-c_{1}\cos ^{2} a-c_{2}\sin ^{2} a +c_{3}, \qquad
\lambda _{y} = c_{1}\sin ^{2} a+c_{2}\cos ^{2} a-c_{4}.
\end{eqnarray}
{}From (5.26) we see the instanton solutions cause the following transition:
\begin{equation}
| {{a+c} \over \sqrt{2}},b> \rightarrow
| {{a+c} \over \sqrt{2}},b,{{a-c} \over \sqrt{2}}>.
\end{equation}
In this process $a,c $ are odd coordinates and $x,y,z,b$ are even ones and
the original state is odd and the new state is even. Hence, the two instanton
effects cancel each other.
\vspace{10mm}
\\
{\bf F. $P^{(3A)} \rightarrow P^{(4)}$}
Setting $b \equiv \pi, y= \pi$ and changing $a \rightarrow -a,
c \rightarrow -c $ in (5.23) we obtain two solutions connecting $P^{(3A)}$
and $P^{(4)}$. Corresponding paths are
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-\cos (a-c)&\mp \sin (a-c) & & \\
\mp \sin (a-c) & \cos (a-c)& & \\
& & 1& \\
& & & -1 \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
The Hessian matrix $H_{i}^{j}$ and its eigenvalues are given by the
opposite sign of (5.25) and (5.26) respectively. The following transition
is induced:
\begin{equation}
| {{x+z} \over \sqrt{2}},{{x-z} \over \sqrt{2}},y> \rightarrow
|{{x+z} \over \sqrt{2}},{{x-z} \over \sqrt{2}} ,y,{{a-c} \over \sqrt{2}}>.
\end{equation}
The parities of the coordinates are the same as in the previous subsection.
These two states have opposite parities. Hence,there is no instanton
effect.
\vspace{10mm}
\\
{\bf G. $P^{(1)} \rightarrow P^{(2)}$}
As we have seen there is no instanton effect in the previous six
processes. In the following two processes we will see there exist
instanton effects.
We find two instanton solutions connecting $P^{(1)}$ and $P^{(2)}$:
\begin{equation}
a \equiv -c \equiv \pm {\pi \over 2},x \equiv z \equiv {\pi \over 2},
y=0,b=\cos ^{-1}(-\tanh((c_{2}-c_{3})t+\alpha)).
\end{equation}
Corresponding paths are
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-1& & & \\
& \cos b &\pm \sin b & \\
& \pm \sin b& -\cos b& \\
& & & 1 \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
In this process $a,c$ are even coordinates and $x,z,y,b$ are odd ones.
Since $y=0$ corresponding to a singular metric, we set $y=\epsilon $.
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray}
(g^{ij})= \nonumber \\
\bordermatrix{
\vspace{5 mm} & a & b & c & x & z & y \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
a & \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac13} & 0
& \pmatrix{ \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} - \frac16}} \cos b & 0
& \pmatrix{ - \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac16}} \sin b & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
b & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
c & \pmatrix{ \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} - \frac16}} \cos b & 0
& \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac13}
& \pmatrix{ - \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac16}} \sin b
& 0 & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
x & 0 & 0 & \pmatrix{ - \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac16}} \sin b
& \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac13}
& \pmatrix{ - \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac16}} & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
z & \pmatrix{ - \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac16}} \sin b & 0 & 0
& \pmatrix{ - \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac16}} \cos b
& \displaystyle{\frac1{\epsilon^{2}} + \frac13} & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
y & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr
} .
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\end{equation}
This expression shows that the modes $b$ and $y$ do not combine
with another mode. Since $g^{ij}$ and $\Gamma _{ij}^{k}$ are
independent of $a$ and $c$, $H_{ij}$ and $H_{i}^{j}$ are common to
the two solutions. From (5.32) and (C.3) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
(H^{j}_{i}) = \nonumber \\
\bordermatrix{
\vspace{5 mm} & a & c & & x & z & b & y \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
a & \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2}-c_{2} \cos b
& - \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2} \cos b
& & \displaystyle{\frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2} \sin b
& \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2} \sin b & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
c & - \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2} \cos b
& \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2}-c_{2} \cos b
& & \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2} \sin b
& \displaystyle{\frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2} \sin b & & \smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}} \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
x & \displaystyle{\frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2} \sin b
& \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2} \sin b
& & \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2}+c_{3} \cos b
& \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2} \cos b & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
z & \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2} \sin b
& \displaystyle{\frac{c_{2}+c_{3}}2} \sin b
& & \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2} \cos b
& \displaystyle{\frac{c_{1}}2}+c_{3} \cos b & & \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
b & & & & & & (c_{3}-c_{2}) \cos b & 0 \cr
\vspace{5 mm}
y & & & \smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}}& & & 0 & c_{1}-c_{4} \cr
}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\end{equation}
Eigenvalues of (5.33) are
\begin{eqnarray}
2\lambda _{1}&=&2c_{1}-c_{2}-c_{3}+(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b, \qquad
2\lambda _{2}= c_{2}+c_{3}+(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b, \nonumber \\
2\lambda _{3}&=& 2c_{1}+c_{2}+c_{3}+(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b, \qquad
2\lambda _{4}= -c_{2}-c_{3}+(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b, \nonumber \\
\lambda _{b}&=&(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b, \qquad
\lambda _{y}=c_{1}-c_{4}.
\end{eqnarray}
Linear combinations of modes $a,c,x$ and $c$ correspond to
the first four eigenvalues. Only the fourth eigenvalue $\lambda _{4}$
is negative. At $t=-\infty $ the negative eigenvalue is $-c_{3}$ and
the corresponding mode is ${x+z \over \sqrt{2}}$, which is an odd coordinate.
At $t=\infty $ the negative eigenvalue has changed to $-c_{2}$ and the
corresponding mode is ${a-c \over \sqrt{2}}$, which is an even coordinate.
The excited eigenmode has changed from the odd one to the even one.
This is a new feature that can not be seen in the previous six
processes. Thus, the instanton solutions cause transition between odd states:
\begin{equation}
| {x+z \over \sqrt{2}}> \rightarrow
| {a-c \over \sqrt{2}},b>.
\end{equation}
{}From the general argument in Sect.3 the two instanton effects do not cancel
each other.
\vspace{10mm}
\\
{\bf H. $P^{(4)} \rightarrow P^{(5)}$}
Replacing $y=0$ by $y=\pi$ in (5.30), we obtain
two instanton solutions connecting $P^{(4)}$ and $P^{(5)}$.
These solutions are represented as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1& & & \\
& -\cos b &\mp \sin b & \\
& \pm \sin b& \cos b& \\
& & & -1 \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Corresponding Hessian matrix $H_{i}^{j}$ is obtained by the following
replacements $c_{1} \rightarrow -c_{1}, c_{4} \rightarrow -c_{4}$ in the
diagonal part of $H_{i}^{j}$ (5.33).
Eigenvalues of $H_{i}^{j}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
2\lambda _{1}&=&c_{2}+c_{3}+(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b,\qquad
2\lambda _{2}= -2c_{1}+c_{2}+c_{3}+(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b, \nonumber \\
2\lambda _{3}&=& -c_{2}-c_{3}+(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b,\qquad
2\lambda _{4}= 2c_{1}-c_{2}-c_{3}+(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b, \nonumber \\
\lambda _{b}&=&(c_{3}-c_{2})\cos b, \qquad
\lambda _{y}=c_{4}-c_{1}.
\end{eqnarray}
At $t=-\infty $ there are three negative eigenvalues $-c_{1}+c_{2},-c_{3}$
and $-c_{1}-c_{3}$ except for $c_{4}-c_{1}$.
Corresponding modes are ${a-c \over \sqrt{2}}$, ${x-z \over \sqrt{2}}$
and ${x+z \over \sqrt{2}}$ respectively. The three eigenvalues gradually
change to $-c_{1}+c_{3},-c_{2}$ and
$-c_{1}-c_{2}$ respectively at $t=\infty $ . Corresponding modes are
${x-z \over \sqrt{2}}$, ${a-c \over \sqrt{2}}$
and ${a+c \over \sqrt{2}}$ respectively. We have now the following
transition of states:
\begin{equation}
|{a-c \over \sqrt{2}},{x-z \over \sqrt{2}}, {x+z \over \sqrt{2}},y>
\rightarrow
|{x-z \over \sqrt{2}},{a-c \over \sqrt{2}} {a+c \over \sqrt{2}},y,b>.
\end{equation}
The parities of the coordinates are the same as in the previous
subsection and the parities of both states are odd.
Hence,there exist instanton effects.
\section{Summary and Discussion}
We have investigated instanton solutions connecting the approximate
vacuums on $SO(4)$. For any pair of adjacent approximate vacuums we have found
two instanton paths and have discussed the transition amplitude.
We have found in the two processes instanton effects
exist. We have given the criterion for the presence of instanton
effects; if the parities of the two approximate vacuums are identical,
there exist instanton effects. If they are opposite, the two instanton
effects cancel each other. Two approximate vacuums coupled by instanton
effects are not true vacuums. The approximate vacuums around
$P^{(1)},P^{(2)},P^{(4)}$ and $P^{(5)}$ are not true vacuums. We have left
the four true vacuums around $P^{(0)},P^{(3A)},P^{(3B)}$ and $P^{(6)}$.
This result is in agreement with the de Rham cohomology of $SO(4)$.
In the $SO(3)$ case, two time dependent harmonic oscillator modes
accompany with one instanton mode[6]. One definite Euler angle
corresponds to the instanton mode in every process.
In the $SO(4)$ case,a particular coordinate corresponds to the instanton mode
in each process. The other five coordinates except for the
instanton mode play the role of
time dependent harmonic oscillators.
We have found a pair of instanton solutions connecting two critical
points with Morse index differs by one. We do not have discussed the
general solution of the gradient flow equation (2.7). However, I believe
there are not any other solutions connecting the critical points.
To make this point clear, further investigation will be needed.
\vspace{20mm}
\\
{\bf Acknowledgments}
The author thanks for Dr.K.Kuribayashi for useful discussion.
He is indebted to Dr.Y.Yasui for valuable discussion.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
|
\section{ Introduction}
"GRAMA" is a MATHEMATICA package for doing symbolic tensor
computations and complicated algebraic manipulations in
ten-dimentional $(D=10)$, simple $(N=1)$ supergravity. The main
new ingredients of this package inside the general MATHEMATICA
invironment is the computation of complicated products
of Dirac matrices and treatment of covariant derivatives:
spinorial and vectorial.
Other {\it Mathematica} packages for high-energy physics and gravitation
theory include: \cite{L},\cite{B},\cite{JL},\cite{HY},\cite{KBD},
\cite{MBD},\cite{M},\cite{STZ},\cite{T1},\cite{T2}.
The space-time dimension is introduced by the variable "dim".
Analogously the dimension of spinorial representation is
introduced by the variable "sdim". In our case of $"dim"=10$ and
we use 16-component description of spinors, i.e. $"sdim"=16$.
In principle with small
modifications GRAMA may be applied for doing calculations in
the four-dimensional supergravity ("dim"=4, "sdim" = 4).
\section{ Program. Overall picture}
The program consists from the following sections \footnote{There are
additional subsections of the type A1b.1, A1b.2, etc. in the program itself,
which are not shown below in the GRAMA (contents)}:
\bigskip
\centerline{"GRAMA" (contents): }
\bigskip
\begin{description}
\item PART A
\indexspace
\item SECTION A1 ~~~~ Function "delprod".
\subitem sec. A1a. Definition of "delprod"
\subitem sec. A1b. Summation over dummy indices
\indexspace
\item SECTION A2 ~~~~Levi-Civita "eps" tensor.
\indexspace
\item SECTION A3 ~~~~Spinorial delta-symbol "sdelta".
\indexspace
\item SECTION A4 ~~~~Function "gamprod"
\subitem sec. A4a. Definition of "gamprod"
\subitem sec. A4b. Some properties of "gamprod"
\subitem sec. A4c. Tracing of "gamprod"
\indexspace
\item SECTION A5 ~~~~Summation over dummy indices in the "gamprod".
\subitem sec. A5a. Useful explicit formulae
\subitem sec. A5b. Product of "gamprod" with an
\subitem ~~~~~~~~~~arbitrary antisymmetric function
\subitem sec. A5c. The most general summation formula
\indexspace
\item SECTION A6 ~~~~ Standard form of expressions.
\subitem sec. A6a. New properties of "NonCommutativeMultiply"
\subitem ~~~~~~~~~~Anticommutive properties of fermionic functions
\subitem sec. A6b. Fermionic functions
\subitem sec. A6c. Operator "newexp" transforming
\subitem ~~~~~~~~~ expressions to the "standard" form
\indexspace
\item SECTION A7 ~~~~Physical functions
\subitem sec. A7a. Spintorsion: "STor[\{a,b\},Up[x]]" .
\subitem sec. A7b. Torsion: "Tor[\{a,b,c\}]"
\subitem sec. A7c. Components of curvature tensor
\subitem ~~~~~~~~ "Rim[\{a,b\},\{c,d\}]", "Ric[a,b]",
\subitem ~~~~~~~~ "SRim[a,\{b,c\},Lo[x]]", "Rss[{a,b},Lo[x],Lo[y]]".
\subitem sec. A7d. Auxiliary antisymmetric function "Asm"
\indexspace
\item SECTION A8 ~~~~Derivatives
\subitem sec. A8a. Vectorial derivative "vder"
\subitem sec. A8b. Spinorial derivative "sder"
\subitem sec. A8c. Explicit formulas for spinorial derivatives
\subitem sec. A8d. Commutation relations between "vder" and "sder"
\indexspace
\item SECTION A9 ~~~~Auxiliary operators
\subitem sec. A9a. "MySymm", "MyAsymm"
\subitem sec. A9b. "SameTerms1", "SameTerms2"
\subsubitem A9b.1. "AllvecIndex", "AllspinIndex", "AllgaugeIndex"
\subsubitem A9b.2. "DummyIndex"
\subsubitem A9b.3. List of spinorial indices
\subsubitem ~~~~~~~ List of vectorial indices
\subsubitem ~~~~~~~ List of gauge indices
\subsubitem A9b.4. "ReplaceIndex"
\subsubitem A9b.5. Definition of "SameTerms1", "SameTerms2"
\indexspace
\item PART B
\indexspace
\item SECTION B1 ~~~ Expansion formula for "gamprod"
\indexspace
\item SECTION B2 Constraints on "STor". Function "SAux"
\subitem sec. B2a. Cosequences of the constraint $ \Gamma^{ab}T_{ab} =0 $.
\subitem sec. B2b. Contraction of dummy indices in products of
-"gamprod" and "STor".
Function "SAux".
\indexspace
\item SECTION B3 ~~~Matrix Elements: Spintorsion - Spintorsion.
\subitem ~~~~~~~~~ ( "meTT", "meAT", "meTA", "meAA")
\indexspace
\item PART C
\indexspace
\item SECTION C1~~~ Matter fields "Glu" and "SGlu".
\item SECTION C2~~~ Spinorial derivatives of matter fields.
\item SECTION C3~~~Matrix elements:
\subitem ~~~~~~~~~~~ Gluino-Spintorsion, Gluino-Gluino
\subitem ~~~~~~~~~~~ ("meGA", "meGT", "meGG").
\indexspace
\item PART D
\indexspace
\item IDENTITIES
\end{description}
\bigskip
The program consists from four files: "progr-a.ma", "progr-b.ma",
"progr-c.ma", "progr-id.ma", which are the {\em Mathematica} scripts.
The main text
(PART A, SECTIONS A1-A9) is contained in the file "progr-a.ma", the PART
B, SECTIONS B1 - B3, are contained in the file "progr-b.ma",
PART C is contained in the file "progr-c.ma" and PART D is contained in the
file "progr-id.ma". The last script ("progr-id.ma") contains
useful identities, which
help to simplify expressions, containing $\Gamma$-matrices,
torsion
and curvature superfields.
The order, in which the files are loaded, is crucial for optimal
performance of GRAMA. Loading all the scripts "a", "b", "c" and "id"
simultaneously, or indiscriminately, may increase the number of
computation steps by an order of magnitude. The time of calculation of
any specific expression is much reduced, if these files are loaded
in sequence, as described below.
First, one loads the "progr-a.ma" script and then the file or expresion
which must be calculated (simplified). (If this file/expresion contains matter
degrees of freedom, than the script "progr-c.ma" must be loaded simultaneously
with "progr-a.ma").
The calculation of the input expression with the help of the "progr-a.ma"
(and, if necessary, "progr-c.ma") scripts is the {\it first step} of the
procedure.
After it is finished, one should
load the file "progr-b.ma" and perform manipulations with
the output obtained at the
first step. Calculations with the help of the "progr-b.ma" script is the
{\it second step} of the calculation procedure.
Finally, as the {\it third step}, the output of the second step is
simplified with the help of various identities, contained in the
"progr-id.ma" script. That provides
the final result of the GRAMA calculation procedure.
At each {\it step} of this procedure one should simplify outputs using
operators Expand, SameTerms1, SameTerms2, etc, which are described in
the standard {\em Mathematica} handbook and in the Section 4 of this document.
\section{ Main physical objects }
We define here the correspondence between functions which are
used in physical formulas and functions used in the Program.
We are using flat tangent-space vectorial
indices, so it is not necessary to fix their position (upper
or lower) in the MATHEMATICA notations if the rules of
contactions for identical (dummy) indices are defined
independently.
In the 16-dimensional formalizm upper and
lower spinorial indices are distinguished. We use the notation
"Up[x]", for upper spinorial index "x", and "Lo[y]" for lower
spinorial index "y". We do not use in the Program an explicit
form of matrices, an explicit summation over dummy indices, etc.
All operations are defined by their properties as in
corresponding theoretical formulas. We use physical notations
and sign conventions from \cite{STZ} (these notations
corresponds to that from \cite{T1}, \cite{T2} up to the change
of sign of the curvature tensor components).
Functions which one considers in
GRAMA are superfields on the mass-shell, so their zero-superspace
components and zero components of
their spinorial derivatives are unambiguously connected with
physical fields of D=10 supergravity.
The list of main physical objects is presented in the table. The left
column is the MATHEMATICA notation, the right column is the
corresponding physical notation.
\bigskip
$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
delprod[\{a1 , \ldots , an \}, \{b1 , \ldots, bn \}] &
\delta^{\, a_1
\ldots a_n}_{[b_1 \ldots b_n]} \\
\hline
gamprod[\{a1,\ldots ,an\}, \ldots, \{c1, \ldots, cm\},Lo[x],Lo[y]] &
(\Gamma_{a_1
\ldots\, a_n} \ldots
\Gamma^{c_1 \ldots\, c_m})_{xy} \\
\hline
gamprod[\{a1,\ldots ,an\}, \ldots, \{c1, \ldots, cm\} ,Up[x],Lo[y]] &
{(\Gamma_{a_1
\ldots \,a_n} \ldots \Gamma^{c_1 \ldots\, c_m} )^x}_y \\
\hline
eps[\{a1,\ldots,an\}] & \epsilon_{a_1\ldots a_n} \\
\hline
sdelta[Up[x],Lo[y]] & {\delta^x}_y \\
\hline
STor[\{a,b\},Up[x]] & (T_{ab})^x \\
\hline
SAux[a,Lo[x]] & (T_a)_x \, ; \ \ T_a = \Gamma^b \, T_{ab} \\
\hline
Tor[\{a,b,c\}] & T_{abc} \\
\hline
Tor2[a,b] & T_{acd}{T_b}^{cd} \\
\hline
Tor^2 & T_{abc}T^{abc} \\
\hline
SGlu[J,Up[x]] & (\lambda^{J})^x \\
\hline
Glu[\{a,b\},J] & {{\cal F}_{ab}}^{J} \\
\hline
Rim[\{a,b\},\{c,d\}] & {\cal R}_{abcd} \\
\hline
Ric[a,b] & {\cal R}_{ab} = {{\cal R}_{acb}}^c \\
\hline
SRim[a,\{b,c\},Lo[x]] & {\cal R}_{xabc} \\
\hline
vder[ f, a] & D_a\, f \\
\hline
sder[ f, Lo[x]] & D_x\, f \\
\hline
Dil & \phi \\
\hline
SDil[Lo[x]] & \chi_x \equiv D_x \phi \\
\hline
meTT[\{a1,\ldots,an\}, \{a,b\},\{c,d\}]
& T_{ab}\, \Gamma_{a_1\ldots a_n}\,T_{cd} \\
\hline
meTA[\{a1,\ldots,an\},\{c,d\} ,b] & T_{cd} \,\Gamma_{a_1\ldots a_n}\, T_b \\
\hline
meGT[\{a1,\ldots,an\}, J,\{c,d\}], \ \ etc. &
\lambda^J \,\Gamma_{a_1\ldots a_n}T_{cd}, \ \ etc. \\
\hline
Asm[\{a1,\ldots, an\}] & Asm^{a_1\ldots a_n} \\
\hline
\end{array} $$
NOTE!: 1) one must use for vectorial indices the variables
start with letters: a,b,c,\ldots,q; \ spinorial
indices start with letters: r,s,\ldots,z\ and enter
as the arguments of functions "Up[\ ]" and "Lo[\ ]"; \
Yang-Mills indices start with
letters: I,J,K;\ 2) all objects containing odd number of
spinorial indices are fermionic in nature, the product of any
pair of fermionic objects $X$ and $Y$ must be represented by the
NonCommutiveMultiply function in MATHEMATICA, \ i.e. $X**Y$.
3) "Asm[\{ \ldots\}]"
is an auxilliary completely antisymmetric function, which is
used for contraction of antisymmetric external indices
in any expression.
Some comments are presented below which are related with
lines of the table.
1) "delprod" is the completely antisymmetric product of
$\delta$-symbols. (GRAMA, Sec. A1). The example is:
$$
delprod [\{a,b\}, \{c,d\}] \equiv \delta_{[a,b]}^{\, c,d}
\equiv {1\over 2!}\, (\delta_a^c\, \delta_b^d -
\delta_b^c \, \delta_a^d), \eqno(3.1)$$
The lists, which are arguments of
"delprod", must have equal lengths, not exeeding "dim".
The Sec. 1 includes also
contraction rules of "delprod" with an arbitrary
tensor.
2) "gamprod" is the product of arbitrary number
of completely antisymmetric products of
$\gamma_a$ matrices. (GRAMA, Sec. A4). The example is:
$$ gamprod [\{a,b\}, \{c,d,e\},Lo[x],Lo[y]] \equiv \,
(\Gamma_{ab}\, \Gamma_{cde})_{xy} \eqno(3.2)$$
where:
$$ \Gamma_{ab} \equiv {1\over 2!} (\Gamma_{a}\, \Gamma_b-
\Gamma_{b}\, \Gamma_a )\,
\ \ \ \Gamma_{abc} ={1\over3!}(\Gamma_a\Gamma_b\Gamma_c \pm permutations)
\eqno(3.3) $$.
There is the difference between spinorial and vectorial arguments
of "gamprod". Vectorial indices are always put in braces ("Lists" in
MATHEMATICA notations), this
is not the case for spinorial indices. There is an obvious
restriction for the number of vectorial indices in each list
$Length \{ \ldots \} \leq dim. $ But the total number of lists
is not limited.
The function "gamprod" with odd total number of vectorial indices contains
Up-Up or Lo-Lo spinorial indices, but "gamprod" with even total number
of vectorial indices contains Up-Lo or Lo-Up spinorial indices.
Symmetry properties of "gamprod" in vectorial and spinorial indices
are defined in the GRAMA.
3) "eps"-Levi-Chevita epsilon tensor (GRAMA, Sec. A2).
The number of arguments in the function eps[\{ \ldots \}]
must be equal to "dim".
4) "sdelta"-spinorial delta-symbol (GRAMA, sec. A3).
5) "STor" and "SAux" are the fermionic (spin)
torsion-components $(T_{ab})^x $ and $\Gamma^bT_{ab}$ (GRAMA, sec. A7a).
$T_{ab}$ is antisymmetric in vector indices
and subjected to the
constraint: $\Gamma^{ab}\, T_{ab} = 0 $ (GRAMA, SECTION B2).
6) "Tor" is the torsion-component $ T_{abc} $ (GRAMA, sec. A7b).
It is the completely antisymmetric tensor.
7) "SGlu" is the fermionic chiral gluino field $(\lambda^{J})^x$
(GRAMA, sec. C1).
8) "Glu" is the gluon field-strength ${{\cal F}_{ab}}^J $
which is antisymmetric in vectorial indices (GRAMA, sec. C1).
9) "Rim" is the super-curvature tensor $R_{abcd}$ (GRAMA, sec. A7c).
It has usual symmetry properties and is subjected to the
constaints:
$$ {R_{ab}}^{cd}\, \delta^{ab}_{cd} =
{1\over3}\, T_{abc}^2 \eqno(3.4) $$.
$$Asm^{abc}\, (R_{abcd} - D_{a}T_{bcd}
- T_{jab}{T^j}_{cd})=0 \eqno(3.5)$$
$$ Asm^{ab}{R^j}_{ab}j = 0 \eqno(3.6)$$
$$ Asm^{abc}\,(D_{a}R_{bcij}+
T_{ab} \, R_{c ij}) = 0 \eqno(3.7)$$
(Here and below we do not write spinorial indices explicitely in the
cases, where their position may be reconstructed unambiguously).
Function "Ric" is a Ricci tensor.
(see GRAMA, sec. A7c).
10) "SRim" is the spinorial components of the corresponding
superspace curvature $R_{ABCD}$. (GRAMA, sec. A7c.). The
"SRim" is not independent function:
$$ R_{abc} = 2\,\Gamma_{[b}\, T_{c]a} + {3\over 2}
\Gamma_{[ab}\,T_{c]} \eqno(3.8) $$
11) "vder" and "sder" are vec\-torial and spino\-rial deri\-va\-tives
(GRAMA,\- Sec. A8).
The action of "sder" is de\-fined according to the following rules.
If "sder" appears to the left from "vder" then the GRAMA put it to the
right using the commutation relations (see \cite{STZ} and GRAMA sec. A8d).
The example is:
$$ (D_x\, D_b - D_b\, D_x)\, (V_c)_y =
{1\over 72} T^{ijk}\,(\Gamma_{ijk}\,\Gamma_b\,D)_x\,(V_c)_y - $$
$$- (R_{bij})_x \,({1\over4}\Gamma^{ij}\,V_c)_y - (R_{bcd})_x\, (V^d)_y - $$
$$ - (\Gamma_b\lambda)_x \,(V_c)_y - (V_c)_y\, (\Gamma_b\lambda)_x
\eqno(3.9) $$
Here it is supposed that an arbitrary field $(V_c)_y$ is in the
algebra of Yang-Mills group G.
The application of "sder" to the main physical superfields is
calculated in according to the rules:
$$ D\,T_{abc} = 3\,\Gamma_{[a} T_{bc]}+
3\,\Gamma_{[ab} \, T_{c]} \eqno(3.10) $$
$$ D_x\,(T_{ab})^y = {({\hat O}_{ab})^y}_x \eqno(3.11) $$
where:
$${\hat O}_{ab} =-{1\over 36}\Gamma_{[a} \Gamma^{ijk}D_{b]}\, T_{ijk}
+ {1 \over 36 \cdot 72}\,
\Gamma_{[a} \Gamma^{mnp}\Gamma_{b]} \Gamma^{ijk}\,
T_{mnp}T_{ijk} -$$
$$+ {1\over 72}\, \Gamma^m \Gamma^{ijk} T_{abm}T_{ijk}-
{1\over 4} R_{abij}\Gamma^{ij} $$
and:
$$ D_x\lambda^y =
{1\over 4}{\cal F}_{ab}{(\Gamma^{ab})_x}^y \eqno(3.12)$$
Furthemore:
$$ D\,{\cal F}_{ab}= 2\Gamma_{[a}\,
D_{b]}\,\lambda-
T_{abc}\,\Gamma^c\,\lambda
-{1\over36}\,
T^{ijk}\Gamma_{ijk}\Gamma_{ab}\,\lambda \eqno(3.13)$$
$$ D R_{abij} = 2\, D_{[a}\, R_{b]ij} +
{1\over36}\, T^{mns}\, \Gamma_{mns}\Gamma_{[a}\,
R_{b]ij} +$$
$$+ R_{dij}\, {T_{ab}}^d
- ({5\over6}\, T_{ijk}\Gamma^k +{1\over36}\, T_{mnp}{\Gamma^{mnp}}_{ij})\,
T_{ab} \eqno(3.14)$$
12) "meTT", "meTA", "meAA", "meGA", "meGT", "meGG"
are matrix elements (see GRAMA SECTIONS B3 and C3.).
The GRAMA (see sec. A7d.) contains also the auxilliary
function "Asm". This function is a
"quasiconstant" (its vectorial and spinorial derivative is
zero, see SEC. A9) and completely antisymmetric in their arguments. It is
used in the Program at intrmediate stages for
contraction of external indices. It helps to avoid the
antisymmetrization procedure in external indices.
\bigskip
\section{ Main operators }
{\it NOTE! , Only the information, related with the "SameTerms1" and
"SameTerms2" operators is necessary for User, who is not interested
in the internal structure of
the Program. This information is contained in the 4) subsection
of this Section }
Here we are discussing new operators, which are defined in GRAMA
in additional to the standard MATHEMATICA operators.
1) Operator "newexp" (GRAMA, sec.A6c) transforms expressions to
the "standard" form. We use the notation "standard" for the
expresion, where the symbol " ** " stands inside each pair of
fermions, meanwhile any such pair is connected with other
pairs, or, with single fermion, or with scalars by means of " *
". For instance (here s,r are any scalars):
$$ \mbox{newexp}[(s*SGlu)**(r*STor)]=
s*r*SGlu**STor $$
$$ \mbox{newexp}[(s*SGlu)**(SGlu*r*STor**STor)]=$$
$$=s*r*SGlu**SGlu*STor**STor $$
We are forced to work with the "standard" form, since the symbol
" * " means the commutative multiplication and can't stand
inside the pair of fermionic functions. Fermions in each pair
are automatically transposed according to the anticommutative
law so that their spinorial indices are put in lexicographical
order (GRAMA, sec.A6a ).
2) Operator "vderSimplify" (GRAMA, sec.A8a) serves for pulling
quasiconstants "gamprod", "eps", "delprod", etc. from
under the symbol "vder".
(By definition of a quasiconstant objects, their
derivatives are equal to zero). Example:
$$ \mbox{vderSimplify}[vder[gamprod[...]*Tor[{a,b,c}]]] =$$
$$=gamprod[...]*vder[Tor[{a,b,c}]] $$
In some cases (for example in commutation
relations of spinorial and vectorial derivatives) it is
convenient to keep quasiconstants under the symbol of "vder" and
to pull them from under this symbol only at the end of
calculations with the help of operator "vderSimplify".
3) Operators "MySymm" ("MyAsymm") (GRAMA, sec.A9a) make
symmetrisation (antisymmetrisation) of any expression in any
indices. For example
$$ \mbox{MySymm}[expression, \ a,b]\ \ \mbox{or} \ \
\mbox{MyAsymm}[expression, \ a,b] $$
produce the expression, symmetric or antisymmetric in indices a,b.
4) Operators "SameTerms1", "SameTerms2" (GRAMA, sec.A9b) serve to
simplify any expression. They make identical those terms in an
expression, which are equal after rearrangement and
redefinition of dummy indices. They differ from each other, and
one must use both of them (one after another) in order to
identify all equal terms. (The first operator studies an
expression identifying identical terms from the left to the right,
the second one - from the right to
the left).
5) Operator "CountAll" gives the number of all fermions in an expression
(GRAMA, sec.A6b).
6) Operator "AllvecIndex" gives the list of all vectorial indices
in an expression.
Operator "AllspinIndex" gives the list of all spinorial indices
in an expression.
Operator "DummyIndex" is applied to the list of indices and gives the list
of repeating indices.
All these operators are used as auxiliary in the "SameTerms1", "SameTerms2".
\bigskip
\centerline{\bf \large Appendix}
\bigskip
\centerline{\bf \ Main expansion formulas}
\bigskip
We are using here simultaneously the physical notations and
notations from GRAMA defined according to the Table from Sec. 3
1. Symplification of products of gamma-matrices is realized by
the successive application of expansion formula:
$$ \Gamma_{a_1 \ldots a_n}\, \Gamma^{b_1 \ldots b_m} =$$
$$ \sum_{k=0}^{min(m,n)} \eta_k\, (-1)^{k(n+1)}\, k!\,
\left( \begin{array}{l}
n \\ k
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{l}
m \\ k
\end{array} \right)
\delta_{[a_1 \ldots a_k}^{[b_1 \ldots b_k}\ {\Gamma_{a_{k+1}\ldots a_n]}}^
{b_{k+1} \ldots b_m]} \eqno(A1) $$
$Traces$ are calculated according to relations:
$$ tr\ (\Gamma_{b_1...b_k}\Gamma^{a_1...a_k}) =
16\, k!\, \eta_k\, \delta_{\,b_1...\,b_k}^{[a_1...a_k]} ,
\ \ \ k\not= 5 $$
$$ tr\ (\Gamma_{b_1...b_n}\Gamma^{a_1...a_m}) =0, \ \ \ n\not= 10-m
\eqno (A.2) $$
$${(\Gamma_{a_1...a_5}\Gamma^{b_1...b_5})_\alpha}^\alpha =
16\cdot5!\,\delta_{a_1...a_5}^{b_1...b_5} -
16\,{\epsilon_{a_1...a_5}}^{b_1...b_5} \eqno (A.3) $$
$$ {(\Gamma_{a_1...a_k}\Gamma^{b_1...b_{10-k}})_\alpha}^\alpha =
-16\,{\epsilon_{a_1...a_k}}^{b_1...b_{10-k}} \eqno (A.4) $$
In the preceeding relations the sign before the $\epsilon$-term in the
r.h.s. should be changed to $+$ for ${(\ )^\alpha}_\alpha$ position of
indices in the l.h.s.
Note! {\it The "Trace" operator is not used in the program.} The {\it Trace}
is calculated automatically, if User write a matrix with equal
upper and lower indices (i.e a matrix of the type
gamprod[\ldots , Up[x], Lo[x] ] or gamprod[\ldots , Lo[x], Up[x] ] ).
In the process of calculations we are using the equation (A1) and other
similar equations
in the form where all the antisymmetrisators $[\ldots ] $ are
calculated explicitely with the help of the relation:
$$ f([a_1 \ldots a_k)\, g(a_{k+1}\ldots a_n]) =
\sum_{j_k,j_{k-1},\ldots , j_1 =1}^{n}$$ $$ \, (-1)^{k(k+1)/2}\,
(-1)^{(j_1 + \ldots + j_k) }\ {k!(n-k)!\over n!}
\, f(a_{j_1} \ldots a_{j_k})\,
g(a_1 \ldots {\dot a}_{j_1} \ldots {\dot a}_{j_k}\ldots a_n)
$$
$$j_k > j_{k-1} > \ldots > j_1\, ; \ \ \ n-k \geq k \eqno(A5') $$
$$ f([a_1 \ldots a_k)\, g(a_{k+1}\ldots a_n]) =
\sum_{s_{n-k}, s_{n-k-1},\ldots , s_1 =1}^{n} (-1)^{k(n-k)}\,
(-1)^{(n-k)(n-k+1)/2}$$
$$ \,
(-1)^{(s_1 + \ldots + s_{n-k}) }\ {k!(n-k)!\over n!}
\, f(a_1 \ldots {\dot a}_{s_1}\ldots {\dot a}_{s_{n-k}} \ldots a_n)\,
g(a_{s_1} \ldots a_{s_{n-k}})
$$
$$s_{n-k} > s_{n-k-1} > \ldots > s_1\, ; \ \ \ n-k \leq k \eqno(A5'') $$
where arguments should be cut away from their places in the
cases, when they are dotted, $f(\ldots)$ and $g(\ldots)$ are
any completely antisymmetric functions of their arguments ( In
the case of eq. (A1) these functions play the role of $gamprod$
and $delprod$). Eq's (A5') and (A5'') help
to reduce the $n!$ terms in the
antisymmetrizator in the r.h. side of (A1) into the $n!\over k!
(n-k)!$ terms in the r.h. side of (A5). In the case $ n=2k $
eq's (A5'), (A5") give the same result.
All the formulas (A1)-(A5) (i.e. file "B")
are applied $after$ the contraction of
all dummy indices is fulfilled (this succession helps to decrease the
calculation time).
The contaction of indices in the $gamprod$'s is fulfilled with the help
of the relation:
$$ gamprod[\{a_1\ldots a_k b\},\{b d_1\ldots d_m\}] =$$
$$-\sum_{j=1}^k (-1)^{k-j}\ gamprod[\{a_1\ldots {\dot a}_j \ldots a_k\},
\{a_j d_1\ldots d_m\}] + $$
$$+(d-m) \,gamprod[\{a \},\{ d \}] \eqno(A6) $$
And in more general case:
$$gamprod[\{a_1\ldots a_k \nu\},\{b_1\ldots b_n\}, \{c_1\ldots c_m\},
\{ \nu d_1\ldots d_p\}] = $$
$$= - \sum_{j=1}^k (-1)^{k-j}\, gamprod[\{a_1\ldots {\dot a}_j \ldots a_k\},
\{b \},\{c \}, \{a_j d_1 \ldots d_p\}] - $$
$$- 2\,(-1)^n \sum_{j=1}^n (-1)^{n-j} gamprod[\{a \},
\{b_1\ldots {\dot b}_j \ldots b_n\}, \{c \},
\{b_j d_1\ldots d_p\}]- $$
$$-2\,(-1)^{n+m}\sum_{j=1}^m (-1)^{m-j} gamprod[\{a \},\{b
\},
\{c_1\ldots {\dot c}_j\ldots c_m\},\{c_j d_1\ldots d_p\}] +$$
$$+ (-1)^{m+n} (d-p)\, gamprod[\{a \},\{b \},
\{c \},\{d \}] \eqno(A7) $$
where $ \{a \}= \{a_1 \ldots a_k\}, \ \{b\}=\{b_1 \ldots b_n\}$, etc.
More general formula, where $gamprod$ contains an arbitrary nuber of
arguments is a direct generalization of eq. (A7).
The contraction of dummy indices in the $delprod$ is realized by
the relation:
$$ \delta^{[a_1\ldots a_p c_1\ldots c_k]}_{[a_1\ldots a_p
d_1\ldots d_k]} = {(dim -k)!\,k! \over (dim -k-p)!\,(k+p)!}
\delta^{[c_1\ldots c_k]}_{[d_1 \ldots d_k]} \eqno(A8) $$
The action of $delprod$ is defined by the relation:
$$ \delta^{a_1\ldots a_ka_{k+1}\ldots a_n}_{b_1\ldots b_k c_{k+1}\ldots c_n }
f^{c_{k+1}\ldots c_nc_{n+1}\ldots c_p}
=\delta_{\,b_1\ldots b_k}^{[a_1\ldots a_k}
f^{a_{k+1}\ldots a_n]\,c_{n+1}\ldots c_p} \eqno(A9) $$
where $f_{c_{k+1}\ldots c_p}$ is an arbitrary completely antisymmetric
tensor.
. The further simplification of the r.h.s. of (A9)
must be realized with the help of (A5).
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently there has been considerable interest in the construction of
{\em quantum group gauge theories\/} (QGGTs)
\cite{arefeva91a,isaev92,hira92,castell92,arefeva93a,brzez93a,brzez93b,isaev93,arefeva93b,zhong94,castell94},
where a quantum
group plays the role of the gauge group. One source of motivation for this work
has been the suggestion that relaxing the rigid structure of the Lie group
based gauge theories may lead to new explanations for fundamental theoretical
problems such as spontaneous symmetry breaking and quark confinement.
Lie group theory, as the predominant mathematical tool for the analysis of
physical symmetries, has been extraordinarily successful in providing a
unified description of many aspects of particle physics. In particular the
currently accepted descriptions of the strong, weak,
and electromagnetic interactions,
have the common theme of an underlying gauge symmetry described by a Lie
group. Despite this success there continue to be difficulties in unifying
the various forces, and indeed in explaining some of the features
of the individual forces such as those mentioned above. It would seem
reasonable
to consider the possibility that a full unification of the fundamental forces
may require a mathematical structure beyond groups.
In the first instance we might intuitively expect that such a structure
would be generalisation of the Lie group.
The quantum group approach, regardless of how it was originally conceived,
is clearly a construction
of this type wherein the Lie group
gauge
symmetry is replaced by a more general quantum group symmetry which reduces
to the standard case in the limit of some parameter.
The transition from theories based on Lie group
internal symmetry spaces to those
where the symmetry is that of a quantum group has, however, proved to be rather
problematic. The main efforts have focussed on keeping the classical form of
the
gauge transformations. The gauge potential $A$ transforms as follows,
\be
A & \longrightarrow & A' = UAU^{-1} - \frac{i}{g} (\ptl U)U^{-1},
\ee
where $U$ is chosen to be an element of a quantum
group.
The difficulty as described by Aref'eva and Arutyunov \cite{arefeva93b}
is to determine the relevant differential
calculus and also the algebra from which the gauge potentials $A$
should be drawn to ensure that $A'$ also belongs to that algebra.
Recently it has
been claimed \cite{arefeva93b} that it is only possible to present an algebraic
group gauge potential based on $U_q(N)$, and that groups such as $SU_q(N)$ are
not allowed. It has also been claimed \cite{brzez93a} that if the gauge fields
have values in $U_q(g)$, the quantum universal enveloping algebra
of the Lie algebra $g$, then the resulting gauge theory will be
isomorphic to the non-deformed theory if the base space is classical spacetime.
The implication being that to obtain non-trivial
results an underlying quantum space must be considered
\cite{brzez93b}. Although the situation is far from clear at this stage it
would
appear that the most general QGGTs require detailed analysis of both the
differential calculus on quantum groups (see for example Woronowicz
\cite{woron87,woron89}),
and also the non-commutative geometric structure of quantum spaces.
With this complex situation in mind, we present in this
letter an alternative approach
to the generalisation of the standard Yang-Mills type gauge theories.
Our approach will be to extend the standard (Lie) gauge group
while retaining as much of the Lie algebraic structure as possible.
Consequently this will allow construction of the gauge theory to proceed
in the standard manner, with the resulting theory being a deformation of the
standard one. Gauge theories based on extensions of simple Lie groups such as
non-semisimple Lie
groups have been considered recently \cite{tseytlin94}. In this letter we will
take a larger step to a theory where the underlying gauge ``group'' is
non-associative. A non-associative algebra has no group structure in the
normal sense but by considering the algebra as a deformation of a Lie algebra
we can obtain the form of the resulting deformation of the gauge field.
For this reason the theory will apparently break the gauge symmetry, but
only when this symmetry is assumed to be of the Lie group form. It is in
this sense that we can regard the resulting theory as one involving
a higher ``non-associative gauge symmetry''.
Our justification for considering non-associativity as the mechanism for
extending the Lie group structure is twofold. Firstly, non-associative
algebras have been linked with a number of interesting gauge groups. The
exceptional GUT groups, such as $E_6$, and the internal symmetry group of the
anomaly free heterotic string $E_8 \times E_8$ have in common the
fact that they are automorphism groups of the non-associative exceptional
Jordan
algebra $M_3^8$ of $3 \times 3$ matrices over the octonions
\cite{jordan33,gursey78,sorgsepp79}. G\"unaydin \& G\"ursey
\cite{gunay73,gunay74} also used the fact
that $SU(3)$ is a subgroup of the automorphism group of the octonions to
obtain a theory of quark confinement, which was subsequently extended by
Dixon \cite{dixon90a,dixon90b}.
Although the gauge groups in these cases are not strictly non-associative
this common link is suggestive of a deeper underlying non-associative
``symmetry''.
The non-associative octonions, the last in the sequence of four division
algebras of the Hurwitz theorem, have also been linked to spacetime
symmetries in 10 dimensions. The Lorentz ``group'' in this case is
essentially $SL(2)$ over the octonions \cite{kugo83,foot87a}.
Consequently octonionic
spinors \cite{kugo83,davies86,chung87,tachi89} have also been linked
to 10 dimensional spacetime and
the Green-Schwarz superstring finds a natural formulation in terms
of the exceptional
Jordan algebra $M_3^8$ \cite{foot86,foot87a,foot87b,foot88,foot89a}.
These correlations, and the association of
supersymmetry in ten dimensions with the octonions
\cite{kugo83,evans88,tachi89},
suggests that a non-associative internal symmetry may be particularly
relevant for theories in ten spacetime dimensions.
Finally, on a more technical point, non-associative
structures such as 3-cocycles
have been linked with chiral anomalies in field theories
\cite{jackiw85a,jackiw85b,hou86} and therefore removal of such problems may
also require a non-associative description.
Our second justification for considering a non-associative deformation,
and as a motivation behind the algebraic structure we shall
choose, is that it provides a framework for considering tensor product gauge
groups, i.e.
$ G = A \otimes B \otimes C \otimes \ldots$,
where there is some {\em coupling\/} between the algebras of the different
elements.
The coupling then implies that the gauge group is no longer a direct product
and therefore a more complete unification of the groups $A,B,C,...$ into
the group $G$ is achieved.
The major problem with considering a non-associative gauge theory is that
a gauge group in the normal sense does not exist, due to the non-associativity.
Our technique for dealing with this
owes its inspiration partly to the gauge theories considered by
Waldron \& Joshi \cite{waldron92}, and Lassig \& Joshi \cite{lassig95}, where
the gauge algebra was that of the octonions.
The octonions form a non-associative alternative algebra, and thus a
generalisation of the Lie group approach to gauging is required.
Our approach will not specifically involve octonions but for
clarity it is worth reviewing the form of the octonionic gauge theory making
reference to how it relates to the generalisation of gauge theories.
It is well known that the octonionic units can be
represented in terms of (associative) left and right matrices in the bimodular
representation. The details of how this representation is obtained have been
considered previously (see \cite{sorgsepp79,waldron92,lassig95})
and will not be reproduced here.
In this representation the non-associativity is manifest in the inability of
either the left matrix or right matrix algebra to {\em close\/}.
When considered in isolation the left matrices can be considered as generators
of a Lie algebra where the extra generators required to close the algebra
are missing. In the octonion case these missing generators are replaced by
a coupling between the left and right matrices. i.e. the left matrix algebra
is ``closed'' via a coupling to the right matrices, and vice versa.
If we were to consider only the left matrices as a gauge algebra
\cite{waldron92} then the ``missing'' generators in the Lie algebra, and their
construction via coupling to another algebra (the right matrices), give
the new physics which will become apparent in the resulting gauge field
Lagrangian. This can be made more explicit by noting that the left matrices
in the bimodular octonion representation are also generators of the $SO(8)$
symmetry group. Thus the octonionic symmetry can be visualised as some
particular observable channels of the $SO(8)$ symmetry.
Importantly calculations can still be made as though the full $SO(8)$, i.e. Lie
group, symmetry were present. The restriction on the generators available
will then lead to the new physics in the system.
The octonionic case discussed qualitatively above was used to indicate how the
methodology of using a non-associative generalisation of the Lie algebra
structure allows the Lie structure of the gauge group to be retained modulo
the closure problem. The fact that the standard Lie algebraic calculational
techniques can still be used (cf. QGGTs) implies that we can consider a
standard
Yang-Mills type theory. Having considered this possibility qualitatively
we propose a possible algebraic structure for the gauge symmetry in Section 2,
and develop the corresponding gauge theory in Section 3. A possible
correspondence
between this approach and QGGTs is also considered in this section.
\section{A Parameterised Non-associative Algebra}
Standard Yang-Mills type gauge theories based on internal symmetries
described by non-Abelian Lie groups have been extraordinarily successful
in particle physics with electroweak theory and QCD being the most prominent
examples. Some possible reasons for generalising this structure were
mentioned in Section 1, however it is clear that we would wish to retain
most of the nice features of these theories. Thus we would expect the
generalised theory to reduce to the standard theory in the limit of some
parameter,
as in QGGTs. We can achieve this, and our previously mentioned aim to consider
coupling in tensor product gauge groups, in our non-associative formalism
with the
following algebraic structure of the gauge group.
Consider $M$ sets of $N$ generators which we can represent in the following
matrix.
\be
(T)_{ji} & = & \left(\begin{array}{c}
T_{1i} \\
T_{2i} \\
\vdots \\
T_{Mi}
\end{array}\right)
= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
T_{11} & & \cdots & T_{1N} \\
T_{21} & T_{22} & & \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
T_{M1} & & \cdots & T_{MN}
\end{array} \right).
\ee
For generality we allow the possibility that the algebras are not all of equal
dimension. Then for a particular set of generators it may be that
\be
T_{(p)(1)}\ldots T_{(p)(r)} \neq 0 & \;\;\;\;\; &
T_{(p)(r+1)}\ldots T_{(p)(N)} = 0.
\ee
We regard each set of generators $T_{pi}$, for fixed $p \in 1..M$, as the
generators of a simple Lie algebra which may or
may not {\em close\/}. We
represent this in the following way:
\be
[T^p_i,T^p_j] & = & f_{ijk}^p T_k^p + \sum^M_{n=1} \si^p_n [T^n_j,T^p_i],
\ee
where $p \in 1..M$ and the $\si^p_n$ are constants. In this representation
the parameters $\si^p_n$, for $n \in 1..M$, determine the closure of each set
of generators $T_{pi}$. For a given $p \in 1..M$, if $\si_n^p = 0\;\; \forall
n$
then the generators $T_{pi}$ close and we have a normal associative Lie
algebra.
If, however, there exist $n \in 1..M, \;\; n \neq p$ such that $\si_n^p \neq 0$
then the generators $T_{pi}$ do not close and this is manifest in some
{\em mixing\/} between the sets of generators. This {\em nonlinearity\/}
will imply non-associativity for the algebra of the set $T_{pi}$.
This can be made explicit by considering the {\em Jacobi function\/}
\be
J (a,b,c) & = & [a,[b,c]]+[b,[c,a]]+[c,[a,b]],
\ee
where $J(a,b,c)=0$ for $a,b,c$ elements of an associative algebra.
For the case at hand, for fixed $p$,
\be
J(T^p_i,T^p_j,T^p_k) & = & \si_n^p \left([T_i^p,[T_k^n,T_j^p]] +
[T_j^p,[T_i^n,T_k^p]]+[T_k^p,[T_j^n,T_i^p]] \right).
\ee
Thus associativity is restored for $\si_n^p=0 \;\; \forall n \in
1..M$ or alternatively if all the sets of generators commute. We can
write this explicitly in terms of the {\em associator\/},
\be
(a,b,c) & = & (ab)c - a(bc),
\ee
by noting
\be
\ep^{ijk}(a_i,a_j,a_k) & = & J(a_i,a_j,a_k).
\ee
Thus we have an algebraic structure where the non-associativity is manifest
in the inability of the set of Lie algebraic generators $T_{pi}$ to close.
This ensures that the generators will still have a matrix representation, and
we can retain the nice features of Lie algebras, and to some extent its group
structure. The non-associativity can be ``turned on'' by closing the algebra
via mixing with generators from other sets.
\section{Non-associative Gauging}
We consider a Yang-Mills type theory where the gauge ``group'' has the
algebraic structure ${\cal A}$ considered in the previous section:
\be
[T_i^p,T_j^p] = f_{ijk}^p T_k^p + \si_n^p [T_j^n,T_i^p],
\ee
where the $\si_n^p$ are constants, and the summation over $n=1..M$ is implicit.
We assume $p \in [1..M]$ and that the indices $i,j,k \in [1..N]$ label the
elements of each particular set of generators.
The constants $\si_n^p$ parameterise the level of non-associativity.
The Lie algebraic structure retained in this algebra allows the Yang-Mills
gauge theory to be developed in the standard way.
We introduce the following matter fields:
\be
\ps & = & \left( \begin{array}{c}
\ps_1 \\
\ps_2 \\
\vdots \\
\ps_D
\end{array}\right),
\ee
where $D$ is the dimension of the representation of ${\cal A}$.
Since the constituent generators of ${\cal A}$ are equivalent to those of a
Lie algebra we can consider exponentiating to produce a structure which,
in the limit $\si_n^p \rightarrow 0 \;\; \forall n$, will correspond to a
Lie group.
This allows consideration of the following standard gauge transformation,
\be
\ps(x) \longrightarrow \ps '(x) & = & e^{-i\ta_i^p \theta_p^i(x)} \ps(x)
= U(\theta_p) \ps(x),
\ee
where $p \in 1..M$ is not summed. The particular representation of
${\cal A}$, in
this case given by $D \times D$ matrices $\ta_i^p$, satisfies the algebra,
\be
[\ta_i^p,\ta_j^p] & = & f_{ijk}^{p'} \ta_k^p + \si_n^{p'} [\ta_j^n,\ta_i^p],
\label{alg}
\ee
and we impose
\be
\mbox{Tr} (\ta_i^p \ta_j^p) & = & \frac{1}{2} \de_{ij} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\forall p \in 1..M,
\ee
on the adjoint representation via
the relevant normalisation. Since we will henceforth work only with this
representation the primes in $f_{ijk}^{p'}$ and $\si_n^{p'}$ will be
suppressed.
We can now proceed in the standard way by defining the covariant derivative
as
\be
{\cal D}_{\mu}^p & = & \ptl_{\mu} + ig A_{\mu}^p(x), \label{covd}
\ee
where
\be
A_{\mu}^p(x) & = & ^i A_{\mu}^p(x) \ta_i^p, \label{gfields}
\ee
and summation over $i = 1..N$, but not $p \in 1..M$, is implicit. This
explicitly introduces the vector gauge fields $^i A_{\mu}^p(x)$ which,
in the standard case, would ensure
that the Lagrangian density ${\cal L}$ is invariant under local gauge
transformations.
The $A_{\mu}^p(x)$ transform as
\be
A_{\mu}^p \longrightarrow A_{\mu}^{p'} & = & U A_{\mu}^p U^{-1} -
\frac{i}{g} U \ptl_{\mu} U^{-1}.
\ee
On evaluation for infinitesimal transformations,
\be
A_{\mu}^{p'} & = & \left(^i A_{\mu}^{p'} \right)\ta_i^p +
i\si_n^p \theta_p^i(x)\; ^j A_{\mu}^p [\ta_j^n,\ta_i^p],
\ee
where
\be
^i A_{\mu}^{p'} & = & ^i A_{\mu}^p + f_{ijk}^{p'} \theta_p^i\; {^k}A_{\mu}^p
+ \frac{1}{g} \ptl_{\mu} \theta_p^i (x),
\ee
is the algebraically closed part in the usual form.
Thus the non-associativity is manifest in the
inability of the transformation
to close. We note that for $\si_n^p=0\;\; \forall n$ the
transformation does close as required.
The antisymmetric curvature tensor can be defined in the normal way:
\be
F_{\mu\nu}^p & = & -\frac{i}{g} [{\cal D}_{\mu}^p,{\cal D}_{\nu}^p]
\nonumber \\
& = & \ptl_{[\mu}A^p_{\nu ]} + ig [A_{\mu}^p,A_{\nu}^p]
\nonumber \\
& = & ^iF_{\mu\nu}^p \ta_i^p + i\si_n^p g\;
^jA_{\mu}^p \;{^k} A_{\nu}^p
[\ta_k^n,\ta_j^p],
\ee
where again,
\be
^iF_{\mu\nu}^p & = & \ptl_{[\mu} ^i A_{\nu]}^p - g f_{ijk}^p \;{^j}A_{\mu}^p
\;{^k}A_{\nu}^p, \label{curvti}
\ee
is the algebraically closed part.
We can now evaluate the gauge field kinetic term in the Lagrangian density. We
obtain:
\be
{\cal L}_{gauge}^p & = & - \frac{1}{2} \mbox{Tr} (F_{\mu\nu}^p F^{p\mu\nu})
\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{1}{2}\; ^iF_{\mu\nu}^p\; ^iF^{p\mu\nu} -
\frac{1}{2}i\si_n^p g \;^jA_{\mu}^p \; ^kA_{\nu}^p \;
^tF_{\mu\nu}^p (\mbox{Tr}([\ta_k^n,\ta_j^p]\ta_t^p))
\nonumber\\
& & -\frac{1}{2}i\si_n^p g \;^uA_{\mu}^p \; ^vA_{\nu}^p \;
^iF_{\mu\nu}^p (\mbox{Tr}(\ta_i^p[\ta_v^n,\ta_u^p]))
\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{1}{2}(\si_n^p)^2 g^2 \;^jA_{\mu}^p \; ^kA_{\nu}^p \;
^uA_{\mu}^p \; ^vA_{\nu}^p
(\mbox{Tr}([\ta_k^n,\ta_j^p][\ta_v^n,\ta_u^p])).
\ee
This Lagrangian represents the kinetic term for a gauge field where the algebra
of the primary generators (the p'th set) is altered by mixing with external
generators. We note that the terms corresponding to this mixing are suppressed
by factors of $\si_n^p$, and thus by setting these coupling constants to zero
the non-associativity is turned off and a standard Yang-Mills gauge kinetic
term
results.
We note that this Lagrangian is however
biased in favour of the p'th set of generators,
with the other sets entering via the nonlinear algebraic relations.
This is the relevant situation if we are considering a small coupling
between a primary algebra and a secondary algebra, however the implicit bias
towards the $p^{th}$ set used so far may be artificial in others.
We can obtain a symmetric Lagrangian density for the gauge field by
summing the contributions $\forall p \in 1..M$. This implies the gauge
transformation is now
\be
\ps(x) \rightarrow \ps '(x) & = & e^{-i\ta_i^p \theta_p^i(x)} \ps(x)
\ee
where now both $i$ and $p$ are summed. The relations for the covariant
derivative, Eq. \ref{covd}, and the gauge fields, Eq. \ref{gfields}, can now
be reinterpreted with $p$ summed over $1..M$. The
covariant derivative now takes on a form similar in appearance to that
encountered with tensor product gauge groups. The difference being in that
here there exists the possibility for coupling between the components.
The curvature tensor in
symmetrised form is then,
\be
F_{\mu\nu} & = & \ptl_{\mu}A_{\nu}^p - \ptl_{\nu}A_{\mu}^p +
ig[A_{\mu}^p,A_{\nu}^p] + ig[A_{\mu}^r,A_{\nu}^s],
\ee
where $p,r,s = 1..M,\;\; r \neq s$. Thus we have
\be
F_{\mu\nu} & = & ^iF_{\mu\nu}^p \ta_i^p + ig\si_n^p \;{^j}A_{\mu}^p
\;{^k}A_{\nu}^p
[\ta_k^n,\ta_j^p] + ig \;^tA_{\mu}^r \;{^u}A_{\nu}^s [\ta_t^r,\ta^s_u],
\ee
where $^iF_{\mu\nu}^p$ is given by Eq. \ref{curvti}, $i,j,k,t,u$ are summed
over $1..N$, and $p$ is now summed over $1..M$.
This symmetric formulation fundamentally alters the covariant
derivative and thus the limit $\si_n^p \rightarrow 0$ alone no
longer reduces the
theory to one with no coupling. If, however, all the generators in different
sets commute then the Lagrangian for each set will decouple and have
the standard form.
This will obviously lead to a more complicated gauge kinetic term for the
symmetrised Lagrangian which we include for completeness,
\be
{\cal L}_{gauge} & = & - \frac{1}{2} \mbox{Tr} (F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu})
\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{1}{2}\; ^aF_{\mu\nu}^p \; ^f F_{\mu\nu}^q \mbox{Tr}
[\ta_a^p\ta_f^q]
- \frac{1}{2}i\si_m^q g \;^gA_{\mu}^q \; ^hA_{\nu}^q \;
^a F_{\mu\nu}^p \mbox{Tr}[\ta_a^p[\ta_h^m,\ta_g^q]]
\nonumber\\
& & -\frac{1}{2}i g \;^iA_{\mu}^t \; ^jA_{\nu}^u \;
^a F_{\mu\nu}^p \mbox{Tr}[\ta_a^p[\ta_i^t,\ta_j^u]]
-i\si_n^p g \; ^b A^p_{\mu} \; ^c A_{\nu}^p \; ^fF_{\mu\nu}^q
\mbox{Tr}[[\ta_c^n,\ta_b^p]\ta_f^q]
\nonumber\\
& & + \frac{1}{2}\si_n^p \si_m^q g^2 \; ^b A_{\mu}^p \;
^c A_{\nu}^p \;^gA_{\mu}^q \; ^hA_{\nu}^q \;
\mbox{Tr}[[\ta_c^n,\ta_b^p][\ta_h^m,\ta_g^q]]
\nonumber\\
& & + \frac{1}{2}\si_n^p g^2 \; ^bA_{\mu}^p \;
^cA_{\nu}^p \;^iA_{\mu}^t
\; ^jA_{\nu}^u \;
\mbox{Tr}[[\ta_c^n,\ta_b^p][\ta_i^t,\ta_j^u]]
\nonumber\\
& & -\frac{1}{2} i g \; ^dA_{\mu}^r \; ^eA_{\nu}^s \;
^fF_{\mu\nu}^q \; \mbox{Tr}[[\ta_d^r,\ta_e^s]\ta_f^q]
\nonumber\\
& & + \frac{1}{2} \si_m^q g^2 \; ^dA_{\mu}^r \;
^eA_{\nu}^s \;^gA_{\mu}^q
\; ^hA_{\nu}^q \; \mbox{Tr}[[\ta_d^r,\ta_e^s]
[\ta_h^m,\ta_g^q]] \nonumber\\
& & + \frac{1}{2} g^2 \; ^dA_{\mu}^r \; ^eA_{\nu}^s
\;^iA_{\mu}^t \;
^jA_{\nu}^u \;\mbox{Tr}[[\ta_d^r,\ta_e^s]
[\ta_i^t,\ta_j^u]]
\ee
where $a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j = 1..N$ and $p,q,r,s,t,u=1..M$,
$r \neq s$, $t \neq u$.
This gives us the full gauge field kinetic term in the general case, which
represents the result of the non-associative deformation of the gauge group.
With regard to renormalisation, superficially
this Lagrangian density has no terms of higher than quartic
power in the gauge fields. However a full
consideration of renormalisability would
require calculations to loop level which have not been considered as this
is very much a toy model at this stage.
The analysis has been of a general nature thus far. We will now indicate
how the general algebraic structure introduced in Section 2 includes
various subalgebras which have been previously been
considered as possible gauge algebras.
\subsection{Specific Cases}
\subsubsection{Associative Lie Algebras}
The standard form gauge groups are realised trivially when
\be
\si_n^p & = & 0\;\;\; \forall n \in 1..M.
\ee
The generator sets then decouple and there is no need for symmetrisation.
The normal Yang-Mills type Lagrangian density results. i.e.
\be
{\cal L}_{gauge} & = & - \frac{1}{4} F^i_{\mu\nu}F^{i\mu\nu}.
\ee
In practice since there are so many nice features of these theories, we might
expect that the situation of most interest in the low energy regime
might be when the $\si_n^p$
are small,
and thus the theory approaches the Lie algebra case. The Lie algebra structure
of the gauge group would then only be slightly perturbed by the induced
non-associativity.
\subsubsection{Octonionic Algebras}
Gauge theories based on an octonionic gauge algebra have been considered
before \cite{waldron92,lassig95} and they represent the first non-trivial
instance of the general algebraic structure considered. This is observed by
using the left/right matrix bi-representation for octonions. This implies two
sets of generators, the left and right matrices in this case. The gauge
theories mentioned above, in the notation of Lassig \& Joshi \cite{lassig95},
can be realised when
\be
\si_n^p & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2 & \mbox{for}\;\; n,p=1,2;\;\; n \neq p \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}\right. ,
\ee
and
\be
f_{ijk}^p & = & (-1)^{p-1} \frac{i}{2} \ep_{ijk},
\ee
where $\ep_{ijk}$ is the anti-symmetric tensor for octonions where, using the
standard multiplication table,
$\ep_{ijk}=1$ for each cycle $ijk=123,145,176,246,257,347,365$.
Thus there are two coupled sets
of generators, which are the $\la_i,\rh_i$ matrices of \cite{waldron92} and
\cite{lassig95}, representing the left and right matrices of the bimodular
representation.
\subsubsection{Quantum Groups}
As mentioned in the introduction quantum group gauge theories have been the
subject of considerable recent interest. In these theories the process
of gauging was altered to generate a more general quantum group
symmetry. In contrast, in this discussion we have retained
the standard Yang-Mills machinery allowing the standard symmetry to be broken
by the deformation. Despite this difference in approach we show in this
section how the general algebraic structure can be linked to the
quantum universal enveloping algebra of a Lie algebra.
For concreteness we consider the quantum universal enveloping algebra
$U_q(su(2))$ in the Drinfel'd-Jimbo basis (see for
example \cite{biedenharn89,macfar89}), whose
generators satisfy the following relations
\be
[J_{\pm},J_3] & = & \mp J_{\pm}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; [J_{+},J_{-}] = [2J_3]_q,
\ee
where, in the notation of Macfarlane \cite{macfar89},
the $q$-integers are given by
\be
[x]_q & = & \frac{q^{x}-q^{-x}}{q-q^{-1}}.
\ee
Writing $J_{\pm} = J_1 \pm iJ_2$ we have
\be
\left[J_1,J_2\right] & = & \frac{1}{2}i [2J_3]_q \nonumber\\
\left[J_2,J_3\right] & = & \frac{1}{2}i (2J_1) \label{q-alg} \\
\left[J_3,J_1\right] & = & \frac{1}{2}i (2J_2). \nonumber
\ee
To make this tractable, we assume $q=1+\de$, where $|\de| \ll 1$, but
$\de \neq 0$. Then we
can expand the $q$-integers as a power series and we have
\be
q^{2J_3}-q^{-2J_3} & = & (1+\de)^{2J_3}-(1+\de)^{-2J_3} \nonumber \\
& \approx & \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} C_n J_3^n,
\ee
where
\be
C_n & = & C_n (\de^n, \de^{n+1}, \de^{n+2}, \ldots)
\ee
is a constant, which will be convergent for small $\de$. Note that in this case
the above approximation becomes exact. As an aside
we also note that for $U_q(su(2))$
$C_n$ is only non-zero for odd n.
In this case we can now rewrite Eq.s \ref{q-alg} as
\be
& &
\begin{array}{lll}
\left[J_1,J_2\right] & = & i \left( \frac{C_1}{2(q-q^{-1})}\right)J_3 +
\frac{i}{2(q-q^{-1})} \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} C_n J_3^n \\
\left[J_2,J_3\right] & = & iJ_1 \\
\left[J_3,J_1\right] & = & iJ_2.
\end{array}
\ee
Thus the algebra can be represented in the following form
\be
[J_i,J_j] & = & f_{ijk}J_k + N_{ijk},
\ee
with the nonzero antisymmetric structure constants
\be
f_{ijk} & = & i\ep_{ijk} + i\ep_{ijk}\de_{k3}\left( \frac{C_1}{2(q-q^{-1})}
-1 \right),
\ee
where $\ep_{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita antisymmetric tensor, and the
extra term $N_{ijk}$, which represents the inability of the algebra to close,
is given by
\be
N_{ijk} & = &
i\ep_{ijk} \de_{k3} \frac{1}{2(q-q^{-1})} \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} C_n J_3^n.
\ee
We now assume that there exist generators $K_{ni}$, where $n \in 2..\infty$
and $i,j \in 1,2,3$, such that
\be
[K_{nj},J_i] & = & \ep_{ijk} \de_{k3} J_k^n .
\ee
Thus we have
\be
N_{ijk} & = & \frac{i}{2(q-q^{-1})} \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} C_n [K_{nj},J_i].
\ee
Therefore we can finally represent the algebra as
\be
[J_i,J_j] & = & f_{ijk} J_k + \frac{i}{2(q-q^{-1})} C_n [K_{nj},J_i],
\ee
where the summation over $n=2..\infty$ is implicit. This is exactly the form
required for our general procedure, and thus the $q$-algebra is realised in
this
form when we interpret
\be
M & = & \infty \nonumber \\
\si_n & = & \frac{i}{2(q-q^{-1})} C_n.
\ee
It is therefore apparent that to fully represent the quantum group as a gauge
group in this manner requires mixing between an infinite number of generators!
We should also note that the algebra is not symmetric and the required gauge
term in the Lagrangian would also be unsymmetric with respect to all the
generators. This is due to the bias towards the set $\{J_i\}$ as a result of
our construction.
Clearly it would appear that this formalism is not particularly useful
for considering quantum gauge groups, however for practical calculational
purposes we can note that if
$q \sim 1$ then the terms in the infinite series for $C_n$ would quickly
tend to zero. Then a truncation of the series would seem reasonable and the
constants $\si_n$ could be explicitly evaluated giving, in effect, a
perturbation to a given order in $(1-q)$. The perturbation series would
then interpolate to some extent between the Lie algebra and the full
quantum group, for the case when $q \sim 1$.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
In this letter we have considered a possible formalism for the
analysis of a gauge
theory based on a ``group'' with a non-associative algebraic structure.
The gauge algebra presented was obtained initially
as a generalisation of the standard Lie algebraic structure, where coupling
between different Lie algebras is allowed. This non-associative formalism is
apparently quite different from other Lie algebra generalisations such as
the infinite dimensional Kac-Moody algebras.
Gaining inspiration from the bimodular
representation of octonions the
non-associativity inherent in the algebra, for ease of calculation,
is implicit as a
closure problem for the algebra of the generators.
The analysis of the resulting gauge theory has been somewhat cursory, and
in particular renormalisability for this toy model has not been considered.
Finally, we would like to point out that the viewpoint taken
in this letter has resulted in a theory
where the gauge symmetry is broken via the non-associative coupling between
the sets of generators. This formalism was used to explicitly show the
new physics obtained by deforming the symmetry, and this explicit gauge
symmetry
breaking is manifest when the constants $\si^p_n$ become non-zero and the
individual generator sets no longer close. An alternative viewpoint is that
although a Lie group symmetry has been broken a higher ``non-associative''
symmetry is retained. This viewpoint requires a significant alteration
to the current understanding of what constitutes a gauge symmetry. If this
seems to radical then an alternative to our construction could be
considered where a full (generalised) symmetry is retained. This is the
approach taken with QGGTs and would require
deformation of the standard gauge transformations,
and most likely the form of the gauge field Lagrangian density.
The Lie group type symmetry is then
deformed and reduces to the standard one in the limit of some parameter.
It is clear
that obtaining such a theory where a full symmetry, in something
approaching the Lie group sense,
is retained
would be worthwhile, and this is under investigation.
|
\section{Introduction}
The diffractive photoproduction of neutral vector mesons $V$
is studied in many theoretical [1--12] and experimental
[13--15] papers.
In this paper we study this photoproduction on quark, gluon or
other photon, initiated by off shell photon $\gamma^*$ (with
virtuality $Q^2$):
\begin{equation}
\gamma^* q\to Vq,\quad \gamma ^* g\to Vg;\qquad
\gamma^*\gamma \to V V^{\prime}.\label{0}
\end{equation}
in the region of parameters where the perturbative QCD (pQCD)
validity is beyond doubts:
\begin{equation}
s\gg p_{\bot}^2,\;Q^2;\;\;\; p_{\bot}^2\gg\mu^2\qquad
(\mu\approx 0.2\div 0.3 \mbox { GeV}).
\label{range}
\end{equation}
The transverse momentum of produced meson relative to collision
axis \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} is small as compared to energy but it is large as
compared to QCD scale $\mu \approx 0.3$ GeV.
These reactions can be studied in the photoproduction on proton
with the rapidity gap $\eta>\eta_0$ between produced meson and
other produced hadrons X. {\em We denote such processes as
diffractive photoproduction.} The cross section of
the process $\gamma^* p \to V X$ with rapidity gap is related with
that for the
photoproduction on quark and gluon via the well known
relation\footnote{ $G(x,t)$ and $q(x,t)$ are the gluon and quark
densities in proton.}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\sigma (\gamma^* p\to VX)}{dtdx}&=&
\sum_f\left(q(x,t)+\bar q(x,t)\right)
\frac{d\sigma(\gamma^* q\to Vq)}{dt}+\nonumber\\
&&G(x,t)\frac{d\sigma(\gamma^* G\to VG)}{dt};\quad
x>\fr{4\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}}{s}\cosh^2\fr{\eta_0}{2}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The photon--photon collisions of the discussed type can be
also studied at the future photon colliders \cite{GKST}.
To estimate the bounds of the pQCD validity region, we simulate
the nonperturbative effects near these bounds by the specific
model. Its idea is to use the pQCD equations, in which quark mass
is considered as a parameter (which is near the constituent quark
mass). We also use this model for the qualitive description of
some phenomena below this bound.
Our efforts are focused on the problems: {\em What are main
features of $Q^2$-dependence in these processes within pQCD,
without any phenomenological hypotheses? What are the bounds for
pQCD validity at the description of diffractive processes?} To
this end we restrict our consideration by calculation in the
lowest nontrivial approximation of pQCD --- two--gluon exchange
for production of vector mesons (Fig. \ref{fig1}). The obtained results
provide opportunity to discuss the relation between the
point--like and hadron--like components of a photon in the
discussed reactions as well.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\unitlength 1mm
\begin{picture}(160,115)(0,-10)
\multiput(36,100)(4,0){9}{\oval(2,1.5)[b]}
\multiput(38,100)(4,0){9}{\oval(2,1.5)[t]}
\put(71,100){\line(2,1){12}}
\put(71,100){\line(2,-1){12}}
\put(96,100){\oval(30,15)}
\put(109,106){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(125,94){\vector(-1,0){16}}
\put(119,106){\line(1,0){6}}
\put(114,108){\makebox(0,0){$ q_1$}}
\put(114,97){\makebox(0,0){$ q_2$}}
\put(53,104){\makebox(0,0){$ p_1$}}
\put(143,104){\makebox(0,0){$ p'_1=q_1+q_2$}}
\put(135,100){\line(-5,3){10}}
\put(135,100){\line(-5,-3){10}}
\put(134,100.5){\vector(1,0){16}}
\put(134,99.5){\vector(1,0){16}}
\put(35,65){\vector(1,0){115}}
\put(60,65){\vector(1,0){10}}
\multiput(91,67)(0,5){5}{\line(0,1){3}}
\multiput(101,67)(0,5){5}{\line(0,1){3}}
\put(53,68){\makebox(0,0){$ p_2$}}
\put(143,68){\makebox(0,0){$ p_{2}^{'}$}}
\put(88,75){\makebox(0,0){$ k$}}
\put(107,75){\makebox(0,0){$ p-k$}}
\put(130,78){\makebox(0,0){$ p=p'_1-p_1$}}
\put(45,78){\makebox(0,0){$ s=(p_1+p_2)^2$}}
\put(85,61){\makebox(0,0){ \bf A. Basic diagram}}
\multiput(51,45)(4,0){3}{\oval(2,1.5)[b]}
\multiput(53,45)(4,0){3}{\oval(2,1.5)[t]}
\put(62,45){\line(2,1){12}}
\put(62,45){\line(2,-1){12}}
\put(87,45){\oval(30,15)}
\put(100,51){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(110,39){\vector(-1,0){10}}
\put(105,53){\makebox(0,0){$ q_1$}}
\put(105,42){\makebox(0,0){$ q_2$}}
\put(79,32){\makebox(0,0){$ k$}}
\put(98,32){\makebox(0,0){$ p-k$}}
\put(82,37){\line(0,-1){3}}
\put(82,32){\vector(0,-1){3}}
\put(92,37){\line(0,-1){3}}
\put(92,32){\vector(0,-1){3}}
\put(114,45){\makebox(0,0){$ =$}}
\put(1,19){\oval(2,1.5)[b]}
\put(3,19){\oval(2,1.5)[t]}
\put(4,19){\line(2,1){12}}
\put(4,19){\line(2,-1){12}}
\put(16,25){\vector(1,0){24}}
\put(40,13){\vector(-1,0){14}}
\put(16,13){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(35,27){\makebox(0,0){$ q_1$}}
\put(35,16){\makebox(0,0){$ q_2$}}
\multiput(20,25)(0,-5){4}{\line(0,-1){3}}
\multiput(30,13)(0,-5){2}{\line(0,-1){3}}
\put(18,8){\makebox(0,0){$ k$}}
\put(36,8){\makebox(0,0){$ p-k$}}
\put(20,25){\circle*{1}}
\put(30,13){\circle*{1}}
\put(41,19){\makebox(0,0){$ +$}}
\put(47,19){\oval(2,1.5)[b]}
\put(49,19){\oval(2,1.5)[t]}
\put(50,19){\line(2,1){12}}
\put(50,19){\line(2,-1){12}}
\put(62,25){\vector(1,0){24}}
\put(86,13){\vector(-1,0){14}}
\put(62,13){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(81,27){\makebox(0,0){$ q_1$}}
\put(81,16){\makebox(0,0){$ q_2$}}
\multiput(76,25)(0,-5){4}{\line(0,-1){3}}
\multiput(66,25)(0,-5){4}{\line(0,-1){3}}
\put(64,8){\makebox(0,0){$ k$}}
\put(82,8){\makebox(0,0){$ p-k$}}
\put(76,25){\circle*{1}}
\put(66,25){\circle*{1}}
\put(89,19){\makebox(0,0){$ +$}}
\put(94,19){\oval(2,1.5)[b]}
\put(96,19){\oval(2,1.5)[t]}
\put(97,19){\line(2,1){12}}
\put(97,19){\line(2,-1){12}}
\put(109,25){\vector(1,0){22}}
\put(131,13){\vector(-1,0){14}}
\put(109,13){\line(1,0){8}}
\put(127,27){\makebox(0,0){$ q_1$}}
\put(127,16){\makebox(0,0){$ q_2$}}
\multiput(123,13)(0,-5){2}{\line(0,-1){3}}
\multiput(113,13)(0,-5){2}{\line(0,-1){3}}
\put(111,8){\makebox(0,0){$ k$}}
\put(129,8){\makebox(0,0){$ p-k$}}
\put(123,13){\circle*{1}}
\put(113,13){\circle*{1}}
\put(145,19){\makebox(0,0){\large$+\left( k \leftrightarrow
p-k\right). $}}
\put(80,-5){\makebox(0,0){\bf B. Impact factor}}
\end{picture}
\caption{\em Photoproduction of vector meson on a quark
(two--gluon exchange).}
\end{center}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
The known for us papers, treated similar problems, are discussed
briefly in the last section.
The study of pQCD validity in the discussed processes is on line
with that in other exclusive processes. The relation between
perturbative and nonperturbative contributions in their
description and the bounds for pQCD validity are discussed widely
(see refs. \cite{I,Br} and references therein). The advantage of
processes considered is the possibility to study this subject by
two probes simultaneously --- via investigation of dependence on
both the produced meson transverse momentum $p_{\bot}$ and the
photon virtuality $Q^2$.
\section{Basic relations}
The process discussed can be described as two stage one. At the
first stage, photon fragments into a $q\bar q$ pair, the quarks
with energies $\varepsilon_i$ move along the photon momentum.
Their transverse momenta are relatively small and the total
energy of quark's pair is close to the energy of the photon,
$\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2\approx E$. This first stage
describes also the processes with production of jet-like system
(both resolved for two quark jets and unresolved one) with
rapidity gap.
At the second stage then quarks are glued into meson.
The basic kinematical notations are presented in Fig. \ref{fig1}. We
denote also the virtuality of photon by $Q^2\equiv -p_{1}^2 >0$,
the quark mass --- by $m$, the transverse momentum of produced
meson (relative to the collision axis) --- by ${\bf p_{\bot}}$.
For the description of the photon fragmentation into quarks, we
use quark spinors $u_1=u(q_1)$ and $u_2=u(-q_2)$. The relative
motion of the quark and antiquark is described by a variable $\xi
$ that is the ratio:
\begin{equation}
\xi =\fr{2\left(q_1-q_2\right)p_2}{s}\equiv \fr
{\varepsilon _1-\varepsilon _2}{E} ;\qquad -1\leq \xi \leq 1.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Next, we denote
\begin{equation}
{\bf n} = {{\bf p}_{\bot} \over \mid {\bf p}_{\bot}\mid};\quad
\delta = {2m\over p_{\bot}};\quad u={Q^2\over {\bf
p}_{\bot}^2};\; v= \delta^2 + (1-\xi^2)u= {4m^2+(1-\xi^2)Q^2
\over {\bf p}_{\bot}^2}.
\label{u}
\end{equation}
Besides, $e= (0,{\bf e},0)$ and $e_V=(0,{\bf e}_V,0)$ are the
polarization vectors of the transverse photon and the
transversely polarized vector meson (in the state with helicity
$\lambda =\pm 1$).
As usually, $ \alpha _s= g^2/4\pi,\;\alpha =e^2/4\pi =1/137,\;Q_q
e$ is the quark charge, $N=3$ is the number of colors.\\
{\large\bf Impact representation}\\
The amplitude of the process in the lowest nontrivial order of
pQCD is described by diagrams of Fig. \ref{fig1} (with accuracy
$\sim\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}/s,\; Q^2/s $). Just as in refs. \cite{GPS1,GPS2,GIv},
the sum of these diagrams is transformed with the same accuracy
to an integral over the gluon transverse momentum --- {\em the
impact representation}:
\begin{equation}
M_{\gamma ^*q\to Vq}=is\int \fr {J_{\gamma ^*V}({\bf
k}_{\bot},{\bf p}_{\bot})\; J_{qq}(-{\bf k}_{\bot},-{\bf
p}_{\bot})} {{\bf k}^2_{\bot}\; ({\bf k}_{\bot}- {\bf
p}_{\bot})^2}\fr{d^2k_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^2}.
\label{4}
\end{equation}
Impact factors $J_{\gamma ^* V}$ and $J_{qq}$ correspond to the
upper and lower blocks in Fig. \ref{fig1}. They are $s$-independent. The
entire dependence on the photon virtuality is concentrated in
the impact factor $J_{\gamma^* V}$. For colorless exchange
impact factors include factors $\delta_{ab}$, where $a$ and $b$
are the color indices of the exchanged gluons.
The impact factors for the transition between two colorless
states vanish when the gluon momenta tend to zero \cite{GPS1}.
This general property takes place independent on validity of
perturbation theory. (In the coordinate space this property can
be treated as zero's color charge of object. This property is
named "dipole shielding", "quark coherence", etc.). In our case
this property is written as
\begin{equation}
J_{\gamma^* V}({\bf k}_{\bot},{\bf p}_{\bot})\to 0\;\mbox{ at }\;
\left\{
\begin{array}{cr}
{\bf k}_{\bot}&\to 0,\\ {\bf (p-k)}_{\bot}& \to 0.
\end{array}\right.
\label{dipol}
\end{equation}
The derivation of impact representation and impact factors
repeats in main features that given in Appendices to ref.
\cite{GPS1} (see refs. \cite{LFr,ChWu} also) with two
variations.
First, Sudakov variables are introduced precisely for the
reaction with "massive" collided particles. All momenta are
decomposed over "almost light-like" vectors combined from initial
ones: $ p'_1 = p_1-(p^2_1/s) p_2=p_1 +(Q^2/s) p_2\;$, $\;p'_2=p_2
-(p^2_2/ s) p_1 $, and in the plane perpendicular to them.
Simple calculations with these vectors show that the masses
squared in the denominators of quark propagators become more
"heavy":
\begin{equation}
m^2\to m^2+ Q^2(1-\xi^2)/4.\label{mq}
\end{equation}
Second, the impact factors for these photons are different for
the production by transverse ($\gamma^*_T$) and scalar
(or longitudinal) ($\gamma^*_S$) off shell photons.
When consider the entire pQCD series in the leading log
approximation (LLA), one can use the method of calculation from
ref. \cite{MT}. In this case the impact representation
transforms to the form (see Fig. \ref{fig2}):
\begin{equation}
M_{\gamma ^*q\to Vq}=is\int J_{\gamma ^*V}({\bf k}_{\bot},{\bf
p}_{\bot})\; J_{qq}(-{\bf k'}_{\bot},-{\bf p}_{\bot}) {\cal
P}(s;{\bf\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}, k_{\bot},k'_{\bot}})
\fr{d^2 k_{\bot}d^2 k'_{\bot}}{(2\pi)^4}. \label{pomerimp}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\unitlength 1mm
\begin{picture}(120,50)
\multiput(1,45)(4,0){9}{\oval(2,1.5)[b]}
\multiput(3,45)(4,0){9}{\oval(2,1.5)[t]}
\put(36,45){\line(2,1){12}}
\put(36,45){\line(2,-1){12}}
\put(61,45){\oval(30,15)}
\put(74,51){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(84,51){\vector(1,0){6}}
\put(90,39){\vector(-1,0){16}}
\put(0,0){\vector(1,0){115}}
\put(25,0){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(18,49){\makebox(0,0){$ p_1$}}
\put(18,3){\makebox(0,0){$ p_2$}}
\put(53,32){\makebox(0,0){$ k$}}
\put(72,32){\makebox(0,0){$ p-k$}}
\put(56,37){\line(0,-1){3}}
\put(56,32){\vector(0,-1){3}}
\multiput(56,7)(0,5){2}{\line(0,1){3}}
\put(56,5){\vector(0,-1){3}}
\put(53,8){\makebox(0,0){$k'$}}
\put(66,37){\line(0,-1){3}}
\put(66,32){\vector(0,-1){3}}
\multiput(66,7)(0,5){2}{\line(0,1){3}}
\put(66,5){\vector(0,-1){3}}
\put(72,8){\makebox(0,0){$ p-k'$}}
\put(61,22){\oval(16,16)}
\put(61,22){\makebox(0,0){\large$\cal P$}}
\put(100,45){\line(-5,3){10}}
\put(100,45){\line(-5,-3){10}}
\put(99,45.5){\vector(1,0){16}}
\put(99,44.5){\vector(1,0){16}}
\put(108,42){\makebox(0,0){\large V}}
\end{picture}
\caption{}
\end{center}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The discussed lowest nontrivial approximation of pQCD (\ref{4})
corresponds to
$$
{\cal P}({\bf \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$},k_{\bot},k'_{\bot}})=
\fr{(2\pi)^2\delta({\bf k}_{\bot}-{\bf k}'_{\bot})}
{{\bf k}^2_{\bot}\; ({\bf k}_{\bot}- {\bf p}_{\bot})^2}
\delta_{aa'}\delta_{bb'}.
$$
The kernel ${\cal P}$ of this equation relates to the
perturbative Pomeron (pP). The impact factors, obtained in the
basic approximation of pQCD, are also valid for the description
of process in LLA for both mass shell and off shell photons
until virtuality $Q^2$ is not too large.
In its asymptotic form the amplitude (\ref{pomerimp}) is
Regge--like:
\begin{equation}
M=is G_{\gamma^* V}(\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$},Q^2)\cdot K(s/\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$})\cdot G_{q q}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
The kernel $K$ is pP itself, it is obtained in refs. \cite{Lip}.
Each vertex $G_{\gamma^* V}$ is the convolution of our $\gamma^*
V$ impact factor with some standard factor from ${\cal P}$. The
corresponding integration is similar to that in our case, and
the $Q^2$ dependence near mass shell is rougjly the same. The
detailed calculation of $Q^2$ dependence here is absent now. The
calculations of ref. \cite{Iv} shows that this Regge--like form
is valid at large enough $\eta\approx\ln(s/\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}) \stackrel{>}{\sim} 3$ for
real photons. At smaller values of rapidity gap $\eta $ the
lowest order calculations related to approximation of Fig. \ref{fig1}
seems more adequate for the description of data.
The theoretical and experimental study of pP is of great
interest, since this object should be common for different
reactions and it is sensitive to the inner structure of pQCD. In
particular, it is important to test BFKL \cite{Lip} predictions
about pP in its pure form without mixing with large distance
(soft) effects.\\
{\large\bf Quark and gluon impact factors}\\
The impact factor for the colorless transitions $q\to q$ (from
\cite{GPS1}) and $g\to g$ are similar:
\begin{equation}
J_{qq}=g^2\;{\delta_{ab} \over 2N};\quad J_{gg}=-g^2\delta _{ab}
\;{N\over N^2-1}.
\label{14}
\end{equation}
The helicity and color state of the quark or gluon target are
conserved in these vertices.
{\large\em Gluon dominance.} The relations (\ref{14}) shows that
the cross section for the photoproduction of vector meson on a
gluon is about 5 times larger than that on a quark:
\begin{equation}
d\sigma _{\gamma ^* g \to Vg} = \left(\fr{2N^2}{N^2-1}\right)^2
d\sigma _{\gamma ^*q \to Vq}={81\over 16 } d\sigma _{\gamma ^*
q \to Vq}.\label{GlQ}
\end{equation}
It means that the photoproduction of vector meson on proton with
a rapidity gap can be used for study of the gluon content of a
proton.
Having in mind these facts, we will present the formulae for the
photoproduction on the quark for the definiteness.
\newpage
{\large\bf Impact factor $J_{\gamma^* q\bar q}$}\\
{\large\em The impact factor for a transverse photon} has the
same form as for the on shell photon \cite{GPS1} but with the
replacement (\ref{mq}) in denominators:
\begin{equation}
J_{\gamma ^*_T q\bar q}=eQ_qg^2 \;{\delta_{ab}\over 2N}\;{\bar u}_1
\left[mR(m){\hat e}-\left(1+\xi\right){\bf P}(m){\bf e}-\hat P(m)\hat e
\right] \; {{\hat p}_2 \over s}\;u_2. \label{5}
\end{equation}
Here transverse vector $P(m)=(0,{\bf P}(m),0)$ and scalar $R(m)$ are:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf P}(m)&=&
\left[\fr{{\bf q}_{1\bot}}{ {\bf q}^2_{1\bot}+m^2+(1-\xi
^2)Q^2/4} \;+ \;\fr {{\bf k}_{\bot}-{\bf q}_{1\bot}}{ ({\bf
k}_{\bot}-{\bf q}_{1\bot})^2 +m^2+(1-\xi ^2)Q^2/4}\right] - \label{7}\\
&&-\left[{\bf q}_{1\bot}\leftrightarrow {\bf q}_{2\bot}\right];\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
R(m)&=&\left[{1 \over {\bf q}^2_{1\bot}+m^2+(1-\xi ^2)Q^2/4} \;- \;
{1 \over ({\bf k}_{\bot}-{\bf q}_{1\bot})^2 +m^2+(1-\xi
^2)Q^2/4}\right] +\label{7a}\\
&& +\left[{\bf q}_{1\bot}\leftrightarrow {\bf q}_{2\bot}\right]. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
To describe {\large \em the impact factor for a scalar photon},
it is necessary to know the polarization vector of scalar photon
$e_S$. Taking into account the gauge invariance,one can use a
reduced form of this vector $ e_S=2\sqrt{Q^2}\; (p'_2/ s)$ in
our kinematical region. Then the calculations similar to those
for $T$ photon result in:
\begin{equation}
J_{\gamma ^*_S q\bar q}=-eQ_qg^2{
\delta_{ab}\over 2N}\; \fr{1-\xi ^2}{2}\sqrt{Q^2}\;R(m)\;
{\bar u}_1 \; {{\hat p}_2 \over s}\; u_2.
\label{6}
\end{equation}
It is easily seen that these impact factors obey eq. (\ref{dipol}).\\
{\large\bf Impact factors for a meson production}\\
To produce a meson, the relative transverse momenta of quarks
should be small ($\stackrel {<}{\sim} \mu$). With our accuracy
($\mu^2/\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}\ll 1$) the transverse momenta of quarks relative to
the collision axis are proportional to their energies
$\varepsilon_i$, i.e.
$$
{\bf q}_{1\bot}=\fr{1}{2}(1+\xi ){\bf p}_{\bot},\quad {\bf
q}_{2\bot}=\fr{1}{2}(1-\xi ){\bf p}_{\bot},\quad
\varepsilon_{1,2}=\fr{1}{2}(1\pm \xi )E.
$$
The $q \bar q \to V$ transition is described, as usual (see
\cite{LeBr}), by change of product $\bar u_1...u_2$ for the
meson wave function $\varphi_V (\xi)$:
\begin{equation}
Q_q\bar u_1\dots u_2\to \fr{Q_V}{4N}\int \limits_{-1}^{1}d\xi
\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
f_V^L \varphi_V^L(\xi )\mbox {Tr}\left( \dots\hat p_3\right)&
\mbox{ for }V_L\\
f_V^T \varphi_V^T(\xi ) \mbox {Tr}\left(\dots
\hat e^*_V\hat p_3\right) & \mbox{ for } V_T.
\end{array}\right.\label{2}
\end{equation}
(The trace over vector and color indices is assumed). The
quantity $Q_V$ relates to the quark charges in the meson $V$.
The specific forms for these wave functions is given in \eq{3a},
\eq{3}. We use the coupling
constants from refs. \cite{ChAZh,BaGr}:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
&$\rho^0$&$\omega$&$\phi$&$\Psi$&
$\Psi'$&$\Upsilon$&$\Upsilon'$&$\Upsilon''$\\ \hline
&&&&&&&&\\$f_V$, GeV
&0.21&0.21&0.23&0.38&0.28&0.66&0.49&0.42\\ &&&&&&&&\\ $Q_V$
&$1/\sqrt {2}$&$1/(3 \sqrt{2})$ &1/3&2/3&2/3&1/3&1/3&1/3\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.3cm}
The impact factors $J_{\gamma^* V}$ are obtained by substitution
of eq. (\ref{2}) into eqs. (\ref{5}),(\ref{6}):
a) For {\em a transverse photon} we have two opportunities:
\begin{equation}
J_{\gamma _T ^* V}({\bf k}_{\bot},{\bf p}_{\bot})= {1\over 2}eQ_V
g^2 {\delta _{ab} \over 2N}\; \int
\limits^{1}_{-1}d\xi \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(-f^L_V)\varphi ^L_V(\xi )\;\xi \;({\bf P} {\bf e}) & \mbox{ for
} V_L\\ f^T_V\varphi ^T_V(\xi )\;mR\;({\bf e}{\bf e}^*_V) & \mbox
{ for } V_T.\end{array}\right.\nonumber
\end{equation}
b) {\em A scalar photon} produces a longitudinal vector meson
only:
\begin{equation}
J_{\gamma _S ^* V _L}({\bf k}_{\bot},{\bf p}_{\bot})= -{1\over
2}eQ_V g^2 {\delta _{ab} \over 2N}\; \int
\limits^{1}_{-1}d\xi f^L_V \varphi ^L_V (\xi)
{1-\xi ^2 \over 2}\; \sqrt{Q^2}\;R.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Below we neglect difference between $\varphi^L$ and $\varphi^T$,
$f^L$ and $f^T$.
It is useful to introduce dimensionless vector ${\bf r}$ via
equation $ {\bf k}_{\bot}= ({\bf r}+{\bf n}) p_{\bot}/2$. Then
the above impact factors acquire the forms:
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{\gamma ^* V}& = & eQ _V g^2 {\delta _{ab} \over 2N} \;{ f_V
\over \mid p_{\bot}\mid}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\left({\bf e}{\bf F}_{T\to V_L}\right)& \mbox{ for T-photon}\to
\mbox { meson }V_L\\
\delta\left({\bf e}{\bf e} ^*_V\right) F_{T\to V_T}&
\mbox{ for T-photon}\to\mbox { meson }V_T\\
F_{S\to V_L} & \mbox{ for S-photon}\to\mbox { meson }V_L.
\end{array}\right.\label{12}\\
{\bf F}_{T\to V_L}& =& - \int \limits^{1}_{-1}d\xi \varphi _V(\xi
)\cdot \xi
\left\{\left[\fr{(1+\xi){\bf n}}{v+(1+\xi)^2 }+
\fr{{\bf r}-{\bf n}\xi}{v+\left({\bf r}-{\bf n}\xi\right)^2}
\right]-\left[\xi \leftrightarrow - \xi\right]\right\};\label{12a}\\
F_{T\to V_{T}}&=&\int \limits^{1}_{-1}\varphi_V(\xi) d\xi\cdot {\cal R};\quad
F_{S\to V_{L}}=-\int \limits^{1}_{-1}d\xi \sqrt{u}(1-\xi^2)\varphi_V(\xi)
\cdot{\cal R}\label{12b}\\
{\cal R}&=& \left[\fr{1}{v+(1+\xi)^2 }-\fr{1}{v+\left({\bf r}+
{\bf n}\xi\right)^2}\right]+\left[\xi \leftrightarrow -
\xi\right].\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\section {The neutral vector meson photoproduction
on a quark or gluon}
To calculate amplitudes under interest we substitute these impact
factors into eq. (\ref{4}). The result for the meson production
on a quark is
\begin{equation}
M_{\gamma ^*q\to Vq}=i {eQ_V g^4 \over \pi}\; {s f_V\over
|p_{\bot}| ^3} \;{N^2-1\over N^2}\; \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left({\bf e}{\bf n}\right)I_{T\to V_L} &\mbox{ for T-photon}
\to\mbox { meson }V_L \\
\left({\bf e}{\bf e}_V^{\ast} \right)
\delta \cdot I_{T\to V_T} & \mbox{ for T-photon}\to
\mbox { meson }V_T \\
I_{S\to V_L} &\mbox{ for S-photon}\to\mbox { meson }V_L
\end{array}\right.\label{15}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
I_a\,=\,{1\over 4\pi}
\int \fr{\displaystyle {F_a({\bf r},{\bf n})}}
{\displaystyle {\left({\bf r}-{\bf n}\right)^2\left({\bf r}+ {\bf
n}\right)^2}} d^2r\equiv
\int \limits^{1}_{-1}d\xi\;\varphi_{V}(\xi)\Phi_a(\xi)
\;\;\left(a= T\to V_L,\;T\to V_T,\; S\to V_L\right).\label{T0}
\end{equation}
(For $a= T\to V_L$ the quantity $({\bf n F}_{T\to V_L})$ is
used.)
Just as in refs. \cite{GPS1,GPS2}, we integrated over component
of vector ${\bf r}$ along ${\bf n}$ using residues. Last
integration is trivial (but bulky). Then the quantities in eq.
(\ref{15}) get the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{T\to V_L}&=&{\xi \over 4(1-\xi^2-v )}
\left [{(1+\xi )^2-v \over (1+\xi )^2+v}
\ln{{(1+\xi )^2+v \over 2\sqrt{v}}} -
{(1-\xi )^2-v \over (1-\xi )^2+v}
\ln{{(1-\xi )^2+v \over 2\sqrt{v}}}
\right ] \nonumber\\
\Phi_{T\to V_T}&=&{1 \over 2(1-\xi^2-v )}
\left [{(1+\xi ) \over (1+\xi )^2+v}
\ln{{(1+\xi )^2+v \over 2\sqrt{v}}} +
{(1-\xi ) \over (1-\xi )^2+v}
\ln{{(1-\xi )^2+v \over 2\sqrt{v}}}
\right ] \nonumber\\
\Phi_{S\to V_L}&=&-\sqrt{u}(1-\xi^2)\Phi_{T\to V_T}
\ .
\label{16}
\end{eqnarray}
We will discuss below the scale of $Q^2$--dependence for cross
sections. Let us define this scale $\Lambda^2$ by equation
\begin{equation}
I_T(\Lambda^2) ={1\over 2}I_T(Q^2=0).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Production of mesons consisting of heavy quarks}
The calculations and results below differ for the production of
mesons consisting of heavy or light quarks. We begin with a more
simple case of mesons consisting of heavy quarks ($J/\Psi$ or
$\Upsilon$). It seems more clean since the large quark mass
suppresses nonperturbative effects. The results are similar in
main features to those obtained in ref.\cite{GPS2} for the mass
shell photons. We will speak below about the $J/\Psi$ meson
photoproduction for definiteness.
For the wave function of discussed mesons we use the usual main
approximation:
\begin{equation}
\varphi(\xi)\;=\;\delta(\xi).\label{3a}
\end{equation}
With this wave function the impact factor $T\to V_L$ (for
production of longitudinally polarized vector meson by transverse
photon) vanishes. The deviation from the simple form (\ref{3a})
can be described by the quantity $<\xi^2>=\int\xi^2\varphi(\xi)\,
d\xi \sim 0.1$.
Let us begin with the {\large\bf photoproduction on a quark.} The
main results for the transverse photon coincide with those for
real photons \cite{GPS2} with the replacement $\delta^2 \to \nu$.
Finally, in eq. (\ref{15})
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{T\to \Psi_T}&=& {1\over 2(\nu^2-1)} L(\nu);\quad L(\nu)=
\ln{{(1+\nu )^2 \over 4\nu } };\;I_{S\to \Psi_L}=-\sqrt{u}
I_{T\to \Psi_T};\label{PsiT}\\
I_{T\to \Psi _L}&=& {<\xi ^2>\over (1+\nu)^2}\left[1-{\nu
\over \nu-1} L(\nu)\right];\qquad \nu =
(4m^2+Q^2)/{\bf p}_{\bot}^2 .\label{Psi0}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the helicity conserves in these reactions. {\em The
transverse photon produces mainly transverse $\Psi$}. The
admixture of longitudinally polarized $\Psi$ is $\sim(<\xi^2>)^2
\sim 0.01 $ \cite{GPS2}. {\em Scalar photon produce
longitudinal $\Psi _L$ only.} The ratio of amplitude with
production of transverse $J/\Psi$ by $T$-photons to that with
production of longitudinal $J/\Psi$ by $S$-photons is
$\sqrt{4m_c^2/ Q^2}\,$, it is independent on $p_{\bot}$. At
$Q^2\;> 4m^2$ the dominant polarization becomes longitudinal.
The largest amplitudes $\gamma^*_T q\to \Psi_T q$ and $\gamma^*_S
q\to \Psi_L q$ vanish at $p^2_\bot = 4m_c^2+Q^2$ (or $\nu =1$).
These zeroes shift strongly due to $<\xi^2>$ corrections. At the
higher values of $p_{\bot}$ these cross sections are small (cf.
ref. \cite{GPS2}).
The shape of both main amplitudes is determined by the single
function $I_{T\to \Psi_T}$. One can see that the scale $\Lambda^2
$ of $Q^2$ dependence increases from the natural value $4m_c^2/2$
at small $p_{\bot}$ to $\sim p_{\bot}^2/10$ at large enough
$p_{\bot}$.
The similar calculations give us the amplitudes for the {\large
\bf\boldmath production of two mesons $V',\,V$ consisting of heavy
quarks in \mbox{$\gamma\gamma\,$} collision}. We consider the production of both
identical and different mesons by real or virtual photons. In
particular, the collision of the virtual photon with the real
one is described by two nonzero amplitudes, the first ---
for the production by $T$-photon and the second --- for the
production by $S$-photon (these amplitudes are finite at $p_\bot
\to 0$):
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\gamma ^*_T \gamma \to V'_T V_T}&=& {is \over p_{\bot} ^4}
\;{e^2 g^4 \over \pi} Q_V Q_{V'} f_V f_{V'} {N^2-1\over N^2}\;
({\bf e}_1 {\bf e}_{V'}^*)\;({\bf e}_2 {\bf e}_V^*)\;\delta
\delta '\cdot I_{V'V} ; \nonumber\\
M_{\gamma ^*_S \gamma \to V'_L V_T }&=& -{is \over p_{\bot} ^4}
\;{e^2 g^4 \over \pi} Q_V Q_{V'} f_V f_{V'} {N^2-1\over N^2}
\;({\bf e}_2 {\bf e} _{V}^*)\;\sqrt{u'} \delta\cdot I_{V'V} ;
\label{V'V}\\
&&I_{V'V}={1\over u'} \left[ {L(\delta^2)\over (\nu'+1)(\delta
-1)}\; - \; {L(\nu')\over (\nu'-1)(\delta +1)}\right].
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\nu'$ corresponds to meson produced by off shell photon,
and $\delta$ --- to on shell one.
\subsection{Production of mesons consisting of light quarks on
a quark or gluon}
The impact factor $J_{\gamma ^*_T V_T}$ contains factor $\delta
= 2m/p_{\bot}$. Therefore, {\bf in the range of pQCD validity
(at large enough \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}) the transverse photons produce mesons
consisting of light quarks in the states with helicity $0$ only}
for any polarization of an initial photon\footnote{ It is in
contrast with well known fact, that at small $p_{\bot}$ helicity
conserves mainly, i.e. vector mesons are transversely
polarized.}. It is due to the chiral nature of perturbative
couplings in the massless limit.
We write in this section for shortness $I_{T}$ instead
of $I_{T\to V_L}$ and
\begin{equation}
I_S\equiv I_{S\to V_L}(u)\,\equiv\,- {2\sqrt{u}\over
1+u}(I_{T}\,+\,U).\label{IST}
\end{equation}
We use the wave functions of mesons consisting of light quarks in
the form \cite{ChAZh}:
\begin{equation}
\varphi _V(\xi )=\fr{3}{4} \left( 1-\xi
^2\right)\left(1-\fr{1}{5}b_V+b_V\xi^2\right).\label{3}
\end{equation}
Coefficient $b_V$ tends to 0 slowly with growth of $\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$} \quad
(b_{\rho}=b_{\omega}=1.5;\;\; b_{\phi}=0$ at $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}\approx 1$ GeV).
For the asymptotical wave function ($b_V = 0$) we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_T(u)&\equiv& I_0 (u)=\fr{\displaystyle 3}{\displaystyle
8(1-u)^3} \left[ 2+10u-u\left(\fr{\displaystyle
1+u}{\displaystyle 1-u}\right) \left(\ln^2{\fr{\displaystyle
1}{\displaystyle u}}+6\ln{ \fr{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle
u}}\right)\right]; \nonumber\\ U(u)&\equiv&U_0
(u)\,=\,\fr{\displaystyle 3}{\displaystyle 8(1-u)}
\left( 2- \fr{\displaystyle 1+u}{\displaystyle 1-u}
\ln{\fr{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle u}}
\right).\label{19}
\end{eqnarray}
For the case $b_V\neq 0$ the more complicated expressions are
obtained:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{T}(u)&=&I_0 (u)\left [ 1- {b_V\over 5}+b_V \left( {1+u\over
1-u}\right)^2 \right] + \nonumber\\
&+&{ b_V\over
12(1-u)^4}\left[-(3-10u)(1-u)+16u(u^2+5u+1)U_0
(u)\right];\label{21}\\
U(u)&=&U_0 (u)+\,\fr{b_V}{60(1-u)^2}\left[
5(1-u) \,+\,8(1+8u+u^2) U_0 (u)\right].
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
These expressions are regular at $u=1$. At $u=0$ (real
photoproduction) $I_T\;=\;{3\over 4}(1+{7\over 15} b_V)$
\cite{GPS1}.
The dependence on photon virtuality is concentrated in factors
$I_{T},\; I_{S}$. The shapes of these functions depend weakly on
the form of wave function (value of quantity $b_V$). They are plotted
in Fig. \ref{fig3} for the $\rho ^0 $ meson production
($b_V=1.5$).
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=15cm
\centerline{\epsffile{amplit.ps}}
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\caption{Functions $I_T$ and $I_S$ for the process $\gamma ^*
q\to \rho^0 q$ or $\gamma ^* g\to \rho ^0 g$.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
{\em If the virtuality of photon is less than \mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$} (or $u<1$)},
the amplitude for transverse photon dominates over longitudinal
one. Fig. \ref{fig3} shows very sharp peak in $I_T$ near $Q^2=
0$. It is due to items $\propto u\ln^2 u$ in eqs. (\ref{19}),
(\ref{21}). The derivative of amplitude in $Q^2$ (in $u$)
diverges at $Q^2=0$, it is infrared unstable in contrast with
amplitude itself, which is infrared stable. The quantity $I_T$ is
reduced by half at $u\approx 0.1$. It means, that the scale of $Q^2$
dependence here is
\begin{equation}
\Lambda^2_{pert} \approx \mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}/10.\label{lpert}
\end{equation}
The quantity $I_{S}(u)$ changes its sign at small enough $u=u_0$.
$u_0\approx 0.1$ for the asymptotical form of wave function
($b_V=0$); and $u_0\approx 0.02$ for the more wide wave function
with $b_V=1.5$. This behavior is similar to that for $J/\Psi$
production.
{\em If photon virtuality is large, $Q^2 > p_{\bot}^2$} (or $u>1$),
the amplitude with the scalar photon is dominant:
\begin{equation}
M_{\gamma ^*_S q\to V_L q} \propto {\ln{u} \over (Q^2)^{3/2}};
\;\;\;
M_{\gamma ^*_T q\to V_L q} \propto {p_{\bot} (\ln {u})^2 \over
(Q^2)^{2}}\quad \left(u={Q^2\over \mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}} \right).\label{u>1}
\end{equation}
The pQCD cross sections for the light vector meson production on
gluon (the sum $d(\sigma _{\gamma ^* _T g\to V g} +d\sigma
_{\gamma ^* _S g\to V g})/ dp^2_{\bot}$ ) are presented in Fig.
\ref{fig3}. They are $s$-independent in the used first nontrivial pQCD
approximation.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=15cm
\centerline{\epsffile{sechen.ps}}
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\caption{Differential cross section of $\gamma^* g\to \rho^0 g$
process at $Q^2=0$, $Q^2=2\mbox{ GeV}^2$ and $Q^2= 10\mbox{
GeV}^2$.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
{\large\em Some remarks related to $Q^2$ dependence.}
{\em (i)} The obtained scale of $Q^2$ dependence is substantially
lower than it was expected before calculations. Using of this
dependence will allow to improve the estimates for corresponding
production rate at $ep$ collisions.
{\em (ii)} Some features of $Q^2$ dependence for the high energy
asymptotic of LLA result were obtained in ref. \cite{Iv}. Here
the picture at small $Q^2$ (near mass shell) is similar to that
discussed above. Oppositely, far from mass shell (at $u\gg 1$)
the LLA amplitude contains an additional factor $\propto Q/\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}$
in comparison with two--gluon approximation.
\section{Small \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} limit for high $Q^2 \; (u<1)$ and coherence}
In the pQCD limit the amplitudes of photoproduction on quark or
gluon (\ref{PsiT},\ref{19},\ref{21}) diverge at $p_{\bot} \to 0$
(see \cite{GPS2} too). It means that "soft" nonperturbative
region $k_{\bot}\stackrel{<}{\sim}\mu$ contributes substantially in this
range and pQCD calculations are infrared unstable. Therefore,
the details of \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} dependence at $p_{\bot} \to 0$ are out of
range of the pQCD validity even at large $Q^2$ when we consider
production on color target.
The reason for this divergence is simple: in the above limit the
poles of both gluon propagators coincide, and we deal with the
integral
$$
\int J({\bf k}_{\bot}) d^2k_{\bot}/ k_{\bot}^4.
$$
In accordance with eq. (\ref{dipol}), $J \propto {\bf k}_{\bot}$
at ${\bf k}_{\bot} \to 0$ and $J \propto({\bf p-k})_{\bot}$
at $({\bf p-k})_{\bot}\to 0$. At ${\bf p}_{\bot}\to 0$ both
these zeroes coincide, and $J \propto k_{\bot}^2$. Then the
discussed divergence is logarithmic one only and the above
divergence is integrable, the total cross section is finite.
On the contrary, the $\gamma^*\gamma\to \Psi \Psi$ amplitude is
finite at $p_{\bot}\to 0$ due to additional factor $J\propto
k_{\bot}^2$ in the integrand. Therefore, soft part of integration
region gives a negligible contribution here.
The main difference between these amplitudes originates from the
fact that in the last case we deal with collision of two real
colorless objects; coherence between quarks results in the
additional suppression of soft nonperturbative contribution there
(\ref{dipol}).
The above comparison shows us that the coherence in both collided
particles should be taken into account to describe phenomena at
any $p_{\bot}$ within pQCD even in the region of large $Q^2$.
\section{The range of validity of pQCD results}
The above results show us that the using of pQCD for the
description of experimental data can be inaccurate in some
region of parameters. For example, the obtained scale of $Q^2$
dependence $\Lambda^2_{pert}\approx \mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}/10$ (\ref{lpert}) is
smaller than the natural scale of this dependence near mass
shell $\Lambda^2_{soft} \approx m_{\rho}^2$ even at $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} =2.5$
GeV when our small parameter $\mu^2/\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}< 0.02$.
In this section we discuss the bounds of the pQCD validity
region in dependence of \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} for {\em the photoproduction of
vector mesons consisting of light quarks}, like $\rho$ (provided
$s\gg\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}$). Below we use some single scale of QCD
nonperturbative effects (confinement, gluon correlations, etc.)
--- $\mu$. We will have in mind the value $\mu=0.2\div 0.3$ GeV,
which is close to the confinement scale, constituent quark mass,
etc.
In the discussion below we assume the impact representation to
be valid independent on validity of pQCD for description of
different factors in it. In particular, the proof of impact
representation in the lowest nontrivial approximation of pQCD is
valid even in the regions near the poles of quark propagators in
the impact factor, where its perturbative form (\ref{7},\ref{7a})
becomes incorrect.\\
{\large\em The model for amplitude near the bound of region of
pQCD validity.}
To study the bound of pQCD validity, we simulate nonperturbative
effects by adding of quantity $\mu^2$ (instead of $m^2$) in all
quark propagator denominators (assuming $\mu=200\div 300$
MeV)\footnote{ The nonperturbative effects in the vicinity of
poles of gluon propagators are suppressed due to property
(\ref{dipol}).}. Besides, we change the quantity $m$ from the
quark propagator nominator (in front of item $R$ in eq.
(\ref{5})) for some new quantity $A\sim\mu$:
\begin{equation}
{\bf P}(m)\to {\bf P}(\mu); \qquad mR(m)\to A\cdot R(\mu)\quad
(A\sim \mu).
\label{amu}
\end{equation}
The regions, where the amplitude is sensitive to value of $\mu$,
are beyond pQCD validity. {\bf\em We denote the bound ${\bf
p_{pert}}$ of pQCD validity region by relation}
\begin{equation}
d\sigma(\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}\geq p_{pert}|\mu) > 0.5\cdot d\sigma(\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}\geq
p_{pert}|\mu =0). \label{ppertdef}
\end{equation}
We begin with {\em the meson photoproduction by real (on shell)
photons}.
Contribution of item $R$ provides helicity conservation
(production of $V_T$) in the process. The item {\bf P} in the
impact factor gives longitudinal polarization of produced mesons
($V_L$). The contribution of this item decreases more slow with
\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} due to extra power of momentum in nominator. Therefore,
this item gives amplitude at high enough \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}.
Let us discuss the limit $\mu \ll\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}$ in more detail. The
contribution of $R$ diverges in this limit due to integration
near the poles of quark propagators at $k_{\bot}=q_{i\bot}$, it
is $\sim \ln(\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$} /\mu^2)$ (i.e. infrared unstable). It
dominates at not too large \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} . Oppositely, the contribution
of ${\bf P}$ is finite in the discussed limit. It is infrared
stable, and it defines amplitude within the range of pQCD
validity.
Therefore, it is natural to assume that {\bf \boldmath the
contribution $P$ describes the point--like component of photon}
in the region where confinement effects are negligible. It
dominates at high values of \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} and it provides production of
longitudinally polarized mesons. Similarly, {\bf \boldmath the
contribution $R$ for transverse photons describes the
hadron--like component of photon}. It dominates at not too high
values of \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} and it provides helicity conservation here. In
addition to the boundary $p_{pert}$ (\ref{ppertdef}) we denote
boundary value ${\bf p_{hel}}$ by condition: At $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}> p_{hel}$
the mean helicity of produced V changes from transversal to
longitudinal one (i.e. hadron--like component $R$ becomes
relatively small).\\
{\large\bf\boldmath The bound of pQCD validity region, estimate of
$p_{pert}$}\\
We expect that $p_{hel}<p_{pert}$. Threfore, to find the bound
$p_{pert}$, one should consider point--like component of photon
(contribution {\bf P} in impact factor) only. We present two
estimate here.
{\em First estimate}. It is well known that the typical scale
of the $Q^2$ dependence for soft processes $\Lambda_{soft}^2
\approx m_{\rho}^2$ (here $m_{\rho}$ is the $\rho$ meson mass).
The known data shows us that this scale increases with $p_{\bot}$
growth.
The scale of $Q^2$ dependence obtained is $\Lambda^2_{pert}
\approx p_{\bot}^2/10$ for the $\rho$ photoproduction
(\ref{lpert}). The pQCD can be valid for description of the
discussed phenomena if only $\Lambda^2_{pert}>\Lambda^2_{soft}$,
i.e. at $\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}/ 10\; >\; m_{\rho}^2$ which leads to $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}
\stackrel{>}{\sim} 3$ GeV. It does not contradict more refined estimate
below (\ref{ppert}).
{\em Second estimate.} We calculated numerically the contribution
of item {\bf P} in impact factor (\ref{15})--(\ref{16}) with some
finite value of $\mu$ for different meson wave functions. Results
--- the ratios of $\Phi=M(\delta ,u)/ M(\delta =0, u)$), --- are
shown in Fig. \ref{fig5} for the important case of real photons ($u=0$).
Naturally, the ratio $\Phi\to 1$ at $(\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}/\mu)\to \infty$. That
is pQCD limit. We define value $p_{pert}$ by condition
$\Phi(p_{pert},\mu) =0.7$. At higher values of \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} influence of
confinement effects for pQCD result in cross section is described
by factor $\Phi^2$ which is between 0.5 and 1.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=15cm
\centerline{\epsffile{ratt.ps}}
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\caption{The ratios $\Phi=M(\delta)/M(\delta =0)$ for mass shell
photons ($u=0$) in dependence on $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}/\mu=2\delta^{-1}$.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
It is seen that for mass shell photons $(p_{pert}/\mu)
\approx 30\div 40$. In this region the coefficient $b_V$ in the
$\rho$ meson wave function decreases up to $b_V\approx 0.7$.
Taking this fact into account, we have for $\mu =0.2$ GeV
\begin{equation}
p_{pert} \approx \left\{
\begin{array}{rlr}
7.5\mbox{ GeV}& \mbox{ for } b_V=0.7& (\rho - \mbox{ meson at }
\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}\approx 7 \mbox { GeV}),\\
6.2\mbox{ GeV}& \mbox{ for } b_V=0 &(\phi - \mbox{ meson}).
\end{array}\right .\label{ppert}
\end{equation}
For $\mu=0.3$ GeV these quantities should be 1.5 times larger.
The obtained values of $p_{pert}$ (\ref{ppert}) for the mass shell
photons are very high. It is because the correction to the pQCD
result is governed by the parameter $\mu^2/\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$} \ln^2(\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}
/\mu^2) $ but not the "natural" parameter $\mu^2/\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}$. The
effect of "$\mu$ corrections" in pQCD equations is enhanced near
the bounds of kinematical region, at $\xi\to \pm 1$. Therefore,
their influence is higher for the wave function, which is
"shifted" to these bounds (with $b_V>0$). <<It corresponds to the
table 1.>> In other words, the bounds for pQCD validity region
$p_{pert}$ are lower for the $\phi$ meson photoproduction
($b_V=0$) in comparison with that for $\rho$ photoproduction
($b_V=1.5$). The photon virtuality prevents quark propagators
from their poles while $\xi\neq\pm 1$. It is the reason why
$p_{pert}$ decreases fast with photon virtuality.
<<For example, >>
Our calculations show that
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{pert}^2& \approx& \left\{
\begin{array}{rr}
1.3 \mbox{ GeV}^2& \mbox { for } \rho \\
1 \mbox{ GeV}^2& \mbox { for } \phi \\
\end{array}\right\} \mbox { at } \mu =0.2\mbox{ GeV}, Q^2 =1
\mbox{ GeV}^2; \nonumber\\
p_{pert}^2& \approx& \left\{
\begin{array}{rr}
28 \mbox{ GeV}^2& \mbox { for } \rho \\
10 \mbox{ GeV}^2& \mbox { for } \phi \\
\end{array}\right\} \mbox { at } \mu =0.3\mbox{ GeV}, Q^2 =1
\mbox{ GeV}^2; \label{ppertq}\\
p_{pert}^2& \approx& \left\{
\begin{array}{rr}
3.3 \mbox{ GeV}^2& \mbox { for } \rho \\
2 \mbox{ GeV}^2& \mbox { for } \phi \\
\end{array}\right\} \mbox { at } \mu =0.3\mbox{ GeV}, Q^2 =2.25
\mbox{ GeV}^2; \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
It is seen, that the the pure pQCD description with longitudinal
meson photoproduction become valid ealier in the $\phi$
photoproduction as compare with $\rho$ one.\\
{\large\bf \boldmath Signature of the pQCD validity for discussed
processes. Polarization of produced mesons. Estimate of
$p_{hel}$}\\
The above description shows that the signature of pQCD validity
is given by polarization of mesons consisting of light quarks and
the correct dependence on \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}.
First, in the range of pQCD validity {\em these mesons should be
produced in the state with helicity 0 only}. This result takes
place for the production of both vector and tensor mesons
\cite{GPS1,GIv}. It is in strong contrast with the production in
"soft" region where helicity conservation takes place, and real
photons produce transversaly polarized mesons. (On the contrary,
at the production of mesons consisting of heavy quarks the
photon helicity transmits to meson in the main approximation.)
Second, the number of independent variables in the description of
cross section is reduced from three to two\footnote{ This
statement is valid for both discussed two--gluon approximation
and LLA. In the last case the dependence of the size of rapidity
gap $\eta$ corresponds to the perturbative Pomeron.}:
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}^6\fr{d\sigma}{d\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}} = F(\eta ,u);\quad \eta=\ln(s/\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}),\;
u=\fr{Q^2}{\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$}}. \label{fin}
\end{equation}
Besides, the striking feature of results obtained is the very
{\em sharp dependence on photon virtuality near $Q^2=0$} (more
precise, on ratio $u$ for reactions (\ref{0}). The observation of
such a behavior will be a good additional test of pQCD.\\
Next point is to see for the crossover point, in which the
longitudinal polarization become dominant for the transversal
initial photon (the boundary $p_{hel}$). This boundary is below
boundary $p_{pert}$. Therefore, the calculations near this point
depend on detail of model more strong. To see qualitive features
of this crossover, the model (\ref{amu}) is used, in which
we fix coefficient $A=1$ GeV for definiteness.
Figs. \ref{fig6a},\ref{fig6b}
shows the cross sections of photoproduction by
real photons for $\mu=200$ MeV. In these figures curves R
correspond to the production of transverse mesons (helicity
conserved contribution, item $R$ (\ref{7a}), hadron--like
component of photon) and curves P correspond to the production
of longitudinal mesons (item ${\bf P}$ (\ref{7}), point--like
component of photon). Fig. \ref{fig6a} shows curves for the
$\rho^0$ meson production ($b_V=1.5$). Fig. \ref{fig6b} shows
curves for the $\phi$ meson production (asymptotical wave
function, $b_V=0$).
In both cases the crossover point $p_{hel}$ is $1.5\div 5$ GeV. Next, the
admixture of transversaly polarized mesons at $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}>p_{hel}$ for
the $\rho$ photoproduction decriases with \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} faster than that
for $\phi$ mesons. We expect, that this feature conserves for
virtual photons. It means, that in the data averaged over some
\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} interval the fraction of longitudinal $\phi$'s is larger than
that for $\rho$'s. This conclusion is supported by data
\cite{exp2}.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=15cm
\centerline{\epsffile{rho.ps}}
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\caption{The diffrerential cross sections of
$\rho^0$ meson photoproduction ($b_V=1.5$) by
real photons for $\mu=200$ MeV. In these figures curves R
correspond to the production of transverse mesons (helicity
conserved contribution, item $R$, hadron--like
component of photon) and curves P correspond to the production
of longitudinal mesons (item ${\bf P}$, point--like
component of photon).}
\label{fig6a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=15cm
\centerline{\epsffile{phi.ps}}
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\caption{The same figure as previous one, but for photoproduction
of $\phi$ meson ($b_V=0.0$) }
\label{fig6b}
\end{figure}
\section{Brief discussion about some related papers}
All known for us papers, which treat the similar problems,
contain the essential phenomenological components (usually pQCD
inspired).
These models are based, in fact, on the impact representation
like (\ref{4}). The description begins with the diffractive
region (small \mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}). It is one of reasons why authors uses the
hadron--like component of photon (item $R$ but no point--like one
${\bf P}$) only with some parameter $\mu$ for detail description
of cross section. Therefore, these models predict the helicity
conservation in reaction $\gamma q\to\rho^0 q$. They don't
predict change of polarization of produced mesons at high
\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}.
The quasi-elastic process $\gamma^*p\to\rho p$ (without proton's
dissociation) was studied in refs. \cite{Land,Cud}. In these
papers it was used the QCD inspired phenomenological model, which
can be represented as impact representation (\ref{4})
with the replacement of pQCD gluon propagators on the reggeized
ones. The $Q^2$ dependence for the forward scattering in this
model differs from that obtained in pQCD \cite{BrF}.
Recently the papers \cite{BrF,Rys,Nic} were published, where the
problems are studied that are close to those discussed above. In
these papers quasi-elastic photoproduction of vector mesons on
proton without proton's dissociation ($\gamma^* p\to Vp$) is
studied (with $V=\rho $ in \cite{BrF,Nic} and $V=J/\Psi$ in
\cite{Rys}).
The first stage in these papers corresponds to the simplest pQCD
diagram just as in our paper. The following stages are used some
features of processes at $p_{\bot}\approx 0$. To describe the
picture at large $p_{\bot}$ some phenomenological assumptions
were added in papers \cite{Rys,Nic}.
The $\rho$ meson photoproduction at $p_{\bot}\approx 0$ was
studied in ref. \cite{BrF}. The same very region for the
$J/\Psi$ photoproduction is the starting point for ref.
\cite{Rys}. Just in this case some features of LLA provides an
opportunity to use unitarity for construction of cross section
in terms of the LLA proton's gluon distribution\footnote{ This
basic construction is broken up at $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}\neq 0$. To describe the
$J/\Psi$ production in this region, it is used the additional
assumption in ref. \cite{Rys} that the object, which was the
proton's gluon distribution at $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}=0$, transforms to the
product of this distribution and some proton form factor
dependent on $p_{\bot}^2$ only.}. We consider quite other
kinematical region (\ref{range}).
The papers \cite{Nic} treat the process (\ref{0}). The crucial
point here is using of hadron--like component of photon (factor
$R$). It is the reason why these authors obtain transversal
polarization of $\rho$ meson for on shell photoproduction even
at large enough $p_{\bot}$.
{\large\em The photoproduction of pseudoscalar or tensor mesons
--- processes with three gluon exchange in the $t$ channel} (like
$\gamma^* q \to\pi^0 q$) relates to the Odderon problem. For the
mass shell photons these processes were considered in the similar
approach in ref. \cite{GIv}.
The impact representation like (\ref{4}) with three gluon
denominators and impact factors similar to those in \eq{14}
describe these processes \cite{GIv}).
These processes with virtual photon were also calculated. Here
the last integrations were numerical ones \cite{Iv2}. The
results obtained are similar to those for discussed case. The
new curve $I_T$ is similar to that in Fig. \ref{fig3}, but they are more
sharp at small $u$ as compare with the 2-gluon exchange (Fig. \ref{fig3}).
Note that the photoproduction of scalar (or tensor) meson on a
gluon is forbidden due to C parity conservation \cite{Gin}.
Therefore, the comparative study of the vector and scalar (or
tensor) meson production in $ep$ collision can give an
additional information about a gluon content of proton and
shadowing effects at small $x$.
\section{ Concluding remarks}
Let us summarize our predictions (mainly for HERA experiments)
related to the photoproduction of mesons consisting of light
quarks.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the real photoproduction we expect change of mean
polarization of produced vector mesons at $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}\sim 1.5\div 5$
GeV. Above this bound produced vector mesons should be mainly
longitudinally polarized. We expect that for the $\phi$
photoproduction this bound is lower than that for $\rho$, and
the fraction of transversal $\phi$ decreases with
\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} more fast.
\item The pure pQCD regim is hardly observable for real photons
since the corresponding boundary values are very high, even for
$\mu =0.2$ GeV (\ref{ppert}). This regim can be seen better
in photoproduction by virtual photons (\ref{ppertq}). The
signatures for this regim are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Mesons are polarized longitudinally.
\item The number of independent variables is reduced up to
two in the description of quantity $\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$}^6(d\sigma/d\mbox{$p_{\bot}^2\,$})$
(\ref{fin}).
\end{itemize}
\item One can consider the special region of large enough
\mbox{$p_{\bot}\,$} (within the region of pQCD validity) and not too high
values of rapidity gap (say, $y<3$). In accordance with the
results of refs. \cite{Rys,Iv}, we expect that in this region
our two gluon approximation works good, i.e. the $y$--dependence
is weak and $u$--dependence is given by eqs. (\ref{19},\ref{21}).
\end{enumerate}
The photoproduction of jets in the "direct" configuration and
with the rapidity gap provides opportunity to see the same
mechanisms in processes with larger cross sections. First data
in this problem were reported recently \cite{exp3}. The results
of corresponding calculations are rather bulky and needs for
detail discussions. One can expect that the point $p_{pert}$
will be lower here than that for the vector meson production
(\ref{ppert}). \\
We are grateful to P.~Aurhence, A.C.~Bawa, W.~Buchmuller,
V.~Chernyak, R.~Cudell, A.~Efremov, A.~Grozin, A.~Kotikov,
L.~Lipatov, K.~Melnikov, M.~Ryskin and A.~Vainshtein for useful
discussions. This work is supported by grants ISF and Russian
Ministery of Science RPL300 and INTAS -- 93 -- 1180.
|
\section{Introduction}
The last five elements that have been
discovered [1--5]
were all formed in cold-fusion reactions between spherical nuclei.
As the proton number increases, the cross section for heavy-element
production decreases. For example, element 107 was produced with a 167 pb
cross section [1],
whereas for element 111 the production cross section
was only 2--3 pb [5].
There is reason to suspect that few additional new elements can
be reached in reactions between spherical nuclei because of the strong
decreasing trend of the cross sections.
In fusion reactions where the number of protons in the
projectile and target add up to about 100, the overwhelming inelastic
cross-section component is fusion-fission. In a classical
picture a necessary condition for complete fusion and the formation
of a compound nucleus is that the fusing system evolves into
a configuration inside the fission saddle point in a multi-dimensional
deformation space [6--9].
In heavy-ion collisions where the projectile and target are of roughly
equal size and with a nucleon number $A$ above about 100,
the touching configuration is outside the fission saddle
point on the side of a steep
hill [10].
For energies
just above the Coulomb barrier this topographical feature results
in a trajectory that is deflected away from
the direction towards the spherical shape. Instead, it
leads from the touching configuration to the fission valley, so that
no compound-nucleus formation occurs.
There are two simple possibilities that immediately suggest themselves
to overcome the above limitation to compound-nucleus formation and
increase the cross section for heavy-element production. First, if
the projectile energy is increased, the trajectory will, for sufficiently high
energy, pass inside the fission saddle point. However, frictional
forces may make such trajectories difficult to realize. Second,
highly asymmetric touching configurations
may be sufficiently close to the ground-state shape of the compound
nucleus that the touching configuration is inside the
fission saddle point. Thus, these two simple principles would suggest
that to produce elements in the superheavy region one should select
highly asymmetric configurations and increase the projectile energy
above the Coulomb barrier. However, high excitation energies
and resultant high angular momenta
of the compound system may favor fission instead of de-excitation by
neutron emission. In the cold-fusion approach that led to the
identification of the five heaviest elements the very nature of
cold fusion leads to a low excitation energy of the compound system.
The entrance-channel configuration is also
fairly asymmetric and compact. However, the maximum cross section
for the production of the heaviest elements occurs at
sub-barrier energies as very rare, non-classical events.
Our discussion above revealed that from very general principles
one can expect that heavy-element production in heavy-ion reactions
is most favorable when the touching configuration is compact.
The excitation energy of the compound system should be high
enough to allow a trajectory inside the fission saddle point,
but as low as possible to reduce the fission branch of the compound
system. A spherical picture of nuclei in heavy-ion collisions allows
few new possibilities for very-heavy-element production beyond what
has already been accomplished. It is therefore of interest to
investigate if consideration of deformation will identify
entrance-channel configurations that have some possibility of
being more favorable for heavy-element production than is expected
from the spherical picture.
To facilitate the discussion of deformed
fusion configurations we introduce a
classification scheme, notation and terminology.
\section{Fusion configurations of
deformed nuclei:\protect\\
Classification, notation and terminology}
Obviously, the multi-dimensional fusion potential is a continuous
function of the incident direction and orientation of the
projectile nucleus and of the deformation of the
projectile and target. However, to allow the identification and discussion
of major physical effects it is useful to identify and
study a few limiting
situations.
\subsection{Limiting fusion configurations}
Our discussions of specific cases below will show
that for prolate shapes there are significant differences
in the fusion process depending on the sign of the hexadecapole
moment.
Nuclei with a
large negative hexadecapole moment
develop a neck which allows a close approach.
As a result the fusion configuration
for some orientations of the projectile-target combinations
is considerably more compact than the corresponding
configurations for shapes with large positive
hexadecapole moments.
Thus, we identify four limiting situations as far as deformations
are concerned. They are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Well-developed oblate shapes
\item
Spherical shape
\item
Well-developed prolate
shapes with large negative
hexadecapole moments $Q_4$
\item
Well-developed prolate
shapes with large positive
hexadecapole moments $Q_4$
\end{enumerate}
Furthermore, we assume mass symmetry
and axial symmetry as this is consistent with the vast majority
of nuclear ground-state configurations.
In our studies here we use alternatively the
Nilsson perturbed-spheroid parameterization
$\epsilon$ [11] and the $\beta$ parameterization
to generate deformed nuclear shapes.
In the $\beta$ parameterization, assuming
axial symmetry, the radius vector $R(\theta,\phi)$
to the nuclear surface is defined by
\begin{equation}
R(\theta,\phi) = R_0\left[ 1 +\sum_{l=1}^\infty \beta_{l}Y_l^0(\theta,\phi)
\right]
\eeq{radvec}
where $R_0$ is deformation dependent so as to conserve the
volume inside the nuclear surface. The variation in $R_0$ due to
volume conservation is only a fraction of one percent.
The definition of the $\epsilon$ parameterization is more complicated.
A recent, extensive presentation is given in Ref.~[12].
One should note that large positive $Q_4$ corresponds to positive
$\beta_4$ but to negative $\epsilon_4$ and that
large negative $Q_4$ corresponds to negative
$\beta_4$ but to positive $\epsilon_4$.
As limiting orientations we consider only situations where
the projectile center is on the x, y or z axis of the target and
orientations of the projectile where the projectile symmetry axis is either
parallel to or perpendicular to the target symmetry axis.
Since we restrict ourselves to axial symmetry, configurations with
the projectile center located on the x or y axis are identical.
If the projectile is located in the equatorial region of
the target it can be oriented in three major orientations,
and if it is located in the polar
region it can be oriented in two major orientations. Thus, for a particular
projectile-target deformation combination there are five
possible limiting configurations.
Because there are five orientations and three major types of deformations
for both projectile and target there are 45 different
configurations when the projectile and target
are deformed and of unequal mass.
When the projectile and target are of equal
mass, one would at first sight expect 30 different configurations.
We later show that in the case of equal projectile and target mass
there are three pairs of configurations where the two configurations
in the pairs are identical. Therefore, there are in this case only 27 deformed
configurations that are different.
Situations where either the projectile or target
is deformed add another six configurations and, finally,
we designate a spherical target and a spherical projectile
as a separate configuration. Thus, in our classification scheme
we find 34 configurations of projectile and target in
heavy-ion collisions that are different
also in the special case of equal projectile
and target mass. For the case of unequal projectile and target mass
one may wish to count a total of 45 different deformed configurations,
for a total of 52 different fusion configurations.
We will in a separate study systematically
review the barrier parameters of
these configurations for projectiles and targets throughout
the periodic system. Here, we will just discuss a few
configurations with potential importance for very-heavy-element
production. However, to be able to simply and transparently refer
to any of the limiting configurations we start by introducing a notation
convention for deformed fusion configurations.
\subsection{Notation for deformed fusion configurations}
We denote a particular fusion configuration by
[P,T,O], where the three letters stand for
Projectile deformation, Target deformation, and relative
Orientation of the projectile-target combination.
For configurations where the projectile or target or both
are spherical, the number of different limiting orientations
is less than when both the projectile and target are deformed.
It is therefore most clear to introduce notation that distinguishes
between these possibilities.
The following values are
possible for the three entities P, T and O:
\begin{description}
\item[P and T]\mbox{ }\\
Oblate:\dotfill o\\
Spherical \dotfill s\\
Prolate with negative $Q_4$ \dotfill p$^-$\\
Prolate with positive $Q_4$ \dotfill p$^+$
\item[O] {\bf Spherical projectile and spherical target}\\
Spherical (s) \dotfill
$\circ \! \bigcirc$
\item[O] {\bf Spherical-deformed projectile-target combination}\\
Polar (p) \dotfill
$\stackrel{\circ}{_|}$
\\%&
Equatorial (e) \dotfill
$\circ \! |$
\item[O] {\bf Deformed-deformed projectile-target configuration}\\
Polar-transverse (pt) \dotfill
$\top$ \\
Polar-parallel (pp) \dotfill
$^|_|$ \\
Equatorial-transverse (et) \dotfill
$\dashv$ \\
Equatorial-parallel (ep) \dotfill
$||$ \\
Equatorial-cross (ec) \dotfill
\oriec
\end{description}
We prefer the graphical short-hand notation given in the table above
for the different orientations, but we also provide in parenthesis
an alternative notation, based on letters only.
In Fig.~\ref{orisphe} we show the seven different configurations that can occur
with
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\vspace{4.5in}
\caption[orisphe]{\baselineskip=12pt\small
The seven limiting touching configurations with
spherical projectiles.
The simplest configuration with a spherical target is in
the top row third from the left.
To the left of this configuration are configurations with prolate
target shapes
whereas to the right are the two limiting configurations that occur
for oblate target shape.
The ratio between the projectile and target volume is 0.343.
The deformation is
$\beta_2=0.30$ and $\beta_4=0.11$
for p$^+$,
$\beta_2=0.24$ and $\beta_4 = - 0.09$ for p$^-$, and
$\beta_2 = - 0.25$ and $\beta_4=0.0$
for o shapes.
The arrows give the direction of the incident beam.
The nuclear symmetry axis is indicated by a thin line emerging from
the nuclear polar regions.}
\label{orisphe}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
a spherical projectile. We have sandwiched the familiar
spherical-projectile spherical-target case between the prolate-target and
oblate-target configurations in the top row so that the appearance
of the configurations evolves smoothly from the polar, spherical-prolate
positive-hexadecapole configuration [s,p$^-$,$\stackrel{\circ}{_|}$]
on the extreme left to the polar, spherical-projectile oblate-target
configuration [s,o,$\stackrel{\circ}{_|}$] on the far right.
In Fig. \ref{oripmpm} we show the five different limiting
orientations that occur for fixed target and projectile deformation
for the case where both target and projectile have prolate
deformation with large negative hexadecapole momnents.
In our classification scheme 45 different
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\vspace{4.5in}
\caption[oripmpm]{\baselineskip=12pt\small
Five limiting touching configurations with
prolate, negative-hexadecapole projectiles
and targets.
Specifically
$\beta_2=0.24$ and $\beta_4=-0.09$.
The ratio between the projectile and target volume is 0.343.
Only the relative positions and orientations change between the
configurations. The arrows give the direction of the incident beam.
The nuclear symmetry axis is indicated by a thin line emerging from
the nuclear polar regions. }
\label{oripmpm}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
configurations occur when both the projectile and target
are deformed and of unequal mass.
In the case of equal projectile and target mass
the configuration [p$^+$,p$^-$,$\top$] and [p$^-$,p$^+$,$\dashv$], for
example, are
identical.
Indeed, in this case all the configurations
[p$^-$,p$^+$,any] have a corresponding configuration
[p$^+$,p$^-$,any], and other similar correspondences also occur.
Therefore, for equal-mass projectile-target
combinations the configurations
[p$^+$,p$^+$,$\top$],
[p$^-$,p$^-$,$\top$] and
[o,o,$\top$] are equivalent to
[p$^+$,p$^+$,$\dashv$],
[p$^-$,p$^-$,$\dashv$] and
[o,o,$\dashv$], respectively. This is the reason there are only
27 different configurations when the projectile and target are of
equal mass.
In Figs. \ref{orisphe} and \ref{oripmpm} we use the $\beta$ parameterization
to describe the nuclear shape. Volume conservation has not
been applied in these and subsequent figures of nuclear shapes,
but this is an
insignificant approximation since volume conservation only changes
$R_0$ by fractions of a percent for the deformations considered. However, in
energy
calculations it is essential to include volume conservation, as we do
in our calculations here.
As representative deformations we make the following choices.
As the prolate--positive hexadecapole deformation
p$^+$ we choose $\beta_2=0.30$ and $\beta_4=0.11$.
This corresponds to the experimentally determined deformation of
$^{154}$Sm [12]. The prolate-negative hexadecapole
deformation
p$^-$ is chosen as $\beta_2=0.24$ and $\beta_4=-0.09$, corresponding
to the experimentally determined deformation of $^{186}$W [12].
Finally, as a representative oblate deformation we have selected
$\beta_2=-0.25$ and $\beta_4=0.0$. The ratio between $R_0$ of the
projectile and target is 0.7.
\section{Deformation and heavy-ion collisions}
Although the implications of deformation on cross sections for
superheavy-element production have not been very extensively
considered so far, deformation certainly is already known to affect
fusion cross sections leading to somewhat lighter compound systems.
For example, a clear signature of the importance of deformation
effects in heavy-ion reactions is the enhancement of sub-barrier
fusion cross sections, for which deformation often plays a major role.
It may be useful to observe that the designation sub-barrier is
somewhat of a misnomer. An implicit assumption behind this
designation is that both projectile and target nuclei are spherical.
Furthermore, if the measured cross section at energies below the
maximum of this assumed spherical fusion barrier is higher than the calculated
cross section for this configuration then the term {\it enhanced
sub-barrier fusion} is used. In a more realistic picture one can in
many cases show that (1) the energy is not sub-barrier and (2) the
measured cross section is not enhanced. To illustrate these features
we select the reaction $^{16}{\rm O}+\mbox{}^{154}$Sm.
\subsection{Deformation and the fusion potential-energy surface}
We present in Table 1 four fusion-barrier quantities for particular
orientations between the projectile and target. Each line corresponds to
\begin{table}[t]
{\small
\begin{center}
\caption[taberr]{\baselineskip=12pt\small
Comparison of entrance-channel fusion configurations.
When the sign $<$ is given in the column for $R_{\rm max}$
and $>$ is given in the column for $V_{\rm max}$
it means that the maximum of the fusion barrier occurs inside
the touching point and consequently is higher than
the potential of the touching configuration.
\\}
\begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrrrcrrrrr}
\hline\\[-0.07in]
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Target} & &
\multicolumn{5}{c}{Projectile} & &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Barrier}
\\[0.08in]
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-10} \cline{12-15}\\[-0.07in]
&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_2$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_4$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_6$} &
&
&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_2$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_4$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon_6$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Or.}&
&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$R_{\rm max}$}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$V_{\rm max}$}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$R_{\rm t}$}&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$V_{\rm t}$}
\\
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } &
&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{(fm)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{(MeV)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{(fm)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{(MeV)}
\\[0.08in]
\hline\\[-0.07in]
$^{154}$Sm &
0.000 &
0.000 &
0.000 &
&
$^{16}$O &
0.000 &
0.000 &
0.000 &
$\circ \! \bigcirc$ &
&
$10.54$ &
$62.21$ &
9.14 &
56.22 \\
$^{154}$Sm &
0.250 &
$-0.067$ &
0.030 &
&
$^{16}$O &
0.000 &
0.000 &
0.000 &
$\circ \! |$ &
&
$10.10$ &
$63.29$ &
8.80 &
57.90 \\
$^{154}$Sm &
0.250 &
$-0.067$ &
0.030 &
&
$^{16}$O &
0.000 &
0.000 &
0.000 &
{\footnotesize $\stackrel{\circ}{_|}$} &
&
$11.87$ &
$57.18$ &
10.67 &
53.34 \\
$^{150}$Nd &
0.000 &
0.000 &
0.000 &
&
$^{150}$Nd &
0.000 &
0.000 &
0.000 &
$\circ \! \bigcirc$ &
&
$<$ &
$>$ &
12.33 &
379.10 \\
$^{150}$Nd &
0.225 &
$-0.067$ &
0.025 &
&
$^{150}$Nd &
0.225 &
$-0.067$ &
0.025 &
{\footnotesize
\oriec } &
&
$<$ &
$>$ &
11.74 &
390.96
\\[1ex]
$^{150}$Nd &
0.225 &
$0.200$ &
$-0.100$ &
&
$^{150}$Nd &
0.225 &
$0.200$ &
$-0.100$ &
\oriec } &
&
11.69 &
399.51 &
10.29 &
383.98
\\
$^{150}$Nd &
0.225 &
$0.100$ &
$-0.044$ &
&
$^{150}$Nd &
0.225 &
$0.100$ &
$-0.044$ &
\oriec } &
&
11.66 &
396.73 &
10.86 &
392.38
\\
$^{186}$W &
0.208 &
$0.100$ &
$-0.044$ &
&
$^{110}$Pd &
0.200 &
$0.027$ &
$-0.013$ &
{
$\top$ } &
&
$<$ &
$>$ &
12.29 &
358.13
\\
$^{186}$W &
0.208 &
$0.100$ &
$-0.044$ &
&
$^{110}$Pd &
0.200 &
$0.027$ &
$-0.013$ &
{\footnotesize
$^|_|$ } &
&
$<$ &
$>$ &
13.46 &
342.61
\\
$^{186}$W &
0.208 &
$0.100$ &
$-0.044$ &
&
$^{110}$Pd &
0.200 &
$0.027$ &
$-0.013$ &
{
$\dashv$ } &
&
$<$ &
$>$ &
12.15 &
359.01
\\[1ex]
$^{186}$W &
0.208 &
$0.100$ &
$-0.044$ &
&
$^{110}$Pd &
0.200 &
$0.027$ &
$-0.013$ &
{\footnotesize
$||$ } &
&
11.69 &
375.12 &
10.99 &
372.84
\\
$^{186}$W &
0.208 &
$0.100$ &
$-0.044$ &
&
$^{110}$Pd &
0.200 &
$0.027$ &
$-0.013$ &
{\footnotesize
\oriec } &
&
11.69 &
376.20 &
10.99 &
374.14
\\
$^{186}$W &
0.000 &
$0.000$ &
$0.000$ &
&
$^{110}$Pd &
0.000 &
$0.000$ &
$0.000$ &
$\circ \! \bigcirc$ &
&
$<$ &
$>$ &
12.18 &
361.10
\\
$^{192}$Os&
0.142 &
$0.073$ &
$-0.032$ &
&
$^{104}$Ru &
0.233 &
$-0.013$ &
$0.012$ &
\oriec &
&
$11.72$ &
$367.82$ &
11.22 &
367.11
\\[0.08in]
\hline
\end{tabular}\\[3ex]
\end{center}
}
\end{table}
one orientation and one incident direction.
The first eight columns specify the
projectile and target nuclei and the deformation used
for these nuclei in the calculation of
the fusion barrier.
The shapes of the projectile and target are given in the Nilsson
perturbed-spheroid parameterization [11].
The next column gives the relative orientation of
projectile and target
in the notation introduced above.
The last four
columns indicate (1) the distance between the centers of the
projectile and target
at the maximum of the barrier, (2) the maximum of the fusion
barrier, (3) the center-of-mass distance when the projectile and target
just touch and (4) the fusion-barrier height at this point.
The first three lines of Table 1 show fusion-barrier data for the
reaction $^{16}{\rm O}+\mbox{}^{154}$Sm. In the first line of the table we
show, for reference, the calculated barrier parameters for a
hypothetical spherical target shape. The second line gives the
fusion-barrier parameters for the configuration [s,p$^+$,$\circ \! |$]
corresponding to the equatorial plane $z=0$
and the third line
corresponds to the potential in the [s,p$^+$,$\stackrel{\circ}{_|}$] configuration.
\subsection{Deformation and fusion cross sections}
In Fig.~\ref{crsmo} the measured and
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\vspace{3.5in}
\caption[crsmo]{\baselineskip=12pt\small
Calculated fusion cross sections for the reaction
$^{16}{\rm O} + ^{154}$Sm,
compared to experimental data.
The solid curve corresponds to the calculated fusion cross section obtained
when the shape of the target corresponds
to the calculated ground-state shape. The long-dashed curve is the cross
section obtained for a hypothetical spherical target.
The arrows show the fusion-barrier height in the polar direction
(p), the equatorial plane (e), and the barrier height for a
hypothetical
spherical target (s).
Both the curves and the arrows have
been translated in energy by $E_{\rm tran} = - 3.1 $ MeV from
their calculated values.
}
\label{crsmo}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
calculated cross sections corresponding to the reaction
$^{16}{\rm O} + ^{154}$Sm are presented.
The deformed fusion potential is obtained in a
model calculation with no free parameters
and is the sum of the nuclear and Coulomb potentials according to Ref.
[12] and
a centrifugal barrier term, which is treated
in the spherical limit.
The calculated cross section is from a study~[13]
of fusion cross sections in reactions
of spherical projectiles and deformed targets. It has no free
parameters except a simple translation in energy of the calculated
cross-section curves.
The cross section is obtained by integrating over angle the
transmission
coefficients which are obtained by calculating the barrier
penetrability at each angular momentum by use of the WKB
approximation.
The deformation parameters of
the target are obtained from a mass calculation [14].
Obviously there are large deformation effects both in the potential
energy and in the fusion cross section. Clearly our model,
incorporating significant aspects of
deformation, accounts well for the ``enhancement'' of the
cross section relative to the fusion cross section
obtained for a hypothetical spherical target,
at least for energies down to the Coulomb barrier in
the polar direction.
\subsection{Gentle fusion?}
Because the evaporation residue cross sections
in cold fusion between spherical projectiles and targets
drop so strongly
towards heavier nuclei, N{\"{o}}renberg [15,16]
suggested that ``gentle fusion''
of two well-deformed rare-earth nuclei in an equatorial-cross
orientation \oriec\
should be investigated because, he stated,
``this orientation leads to
the most compact touching configuration
out of all possible orientations of the two deformed nuclei.'' Consequently,
the
evaporation-residue cross sections may be sufficiently large to allow
detection.
We first observe that according to our calculations [14],
only the lightest nuclei in the rare-earth region would lead to
compound systems with $\alpha$ half-lives over 1 ${\mu}$s, which is
the approximate transit time from the target to detection area in the
SHIP experimental setup. Already the reaction $^{160}{\rm
Gd}+\mbox{}^{160}$Gd$\rightarrow \mbox{}^{320 - {\rm xn}}128 + {\rm
xn}$ leads to nuclei where the calculated
[14,17] $\alpha$-decay half-lives are less than
about 0.01 $\mu$s. To study the concept of gentle fusion we must
therefore select a reaction in the beginning of the rare-earth region,
so we choose the reaction $^{150}{\rm Nd}+\mbox{}^{150}$Nd to illustrate
N\"{o}renberg's suggestion. We show the configuration of two
$^{150}$Nd nuclei with calculated ground-state
shapes in Fig.~\ref{ndndgent}. The configuration is
[p$^+$,p$^+$,\oriec]
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\vspace{3.5in}
\caption[ndndgent]{\baselineskip=12pt\small
Touching configuration of $^{150}{\rm Nd}+\mbox{}^{150}$Nd with the nuclear
shapes taken to be the calculated [14] ground-state
shape;
that is, the configuration is $[{\rm p}^+,{\rm p}^+,$\oriec $]$.
The arrow gives the direction of the incident beam.
Fusion-barrier parameters for this configuration/direction
are given on line 5 of Table 1.
}
\label{ndndgent}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
and is the one proposed by N{\"{o}}renberg as favorable
for SHE production. Calculated fusion-barrier data for the
hypothetical spherical case and the configuration in
Fig.~\ref{ndndgent} are found in Table 1, on lines 4 and 5,
respectively.
It is clear
that the fusion
configuration \oriec\
suggested by N{\"{o}}renberg is limited to
[p$^+$,p$^+$,\oriec] configurations, since
projectiles and targets must be chosen from the beginning of the
rare-earth region.
This configuration is not particularly compact relative to
a collision between similar-size spherical nuclei,
as is clear from Fig.~\ref{ndndgent} and Table 1.
Indeed, because of the large negative $\epsilon_4$ of the ground
state, which results in a bulging equatorial region
and a large positive hexadecapole moment, the configuration
in Fig.~\ref{ndndgent} is quite similar to the spherical configuration.
This observation is supported by the
quantitative results in Table 1: the distance between mass centers of
the gentle fusion configuration is 11.74 fm, only 0.59 fm more compact
than the spherical configuration.
The idea that configurations where deformed nuclei
touch each other in the equatorial regions are more compact than
some other configurations and may therefore be
favorable for SHE production is not new. It was for instance mentioned
in Ref.~[12] in a discussion of the reaction
$^{48}{\rm Ca}+\mbox{}^{248}$Cm, and we will return to this reaction below.
Clearly, the fusion barrier for deformed systems
along a one-dimensional path will be very different
in the polar direction and in an
equatorial direction.
When the projectile is deformed the fusion barrier
will also depend strongly on the
orientation of the incident deformed projectile.
It is obvious that when colliding heavy ions have well-developed
prolate deformation, then the most compact configurations occur
when the point of touching is in the equatorial region of both
nuclei. Which relative orientation of the two
nuclei, \oriec\ or {$||$}, is the most
favorable is perhaps not known at present. However, the orientation
suggested by N\"{o}renberg is one possible favorable configuration,
but its properties will depend strongly on the value of the
hexadecapole deformation, that is, in our case on the value of the
deformation parameter $\epsilon_4$. Large negative values of
$\epsilon_4$ correspond to bulging equatorial regions, whereas
positive values lead to neck formation. We now look at the latter, more
compact configurations.
\subsection{Hugging fusion!}
To clearly illustrate the effect of large positive values of
the deformation parameter $\epsilon_4$ we first study an example where we for
clarity exaggerate somewhat the effect.
We show in Fig.~\ref{ndndhugp} the configuration in
Fig.~\ref{ndndgent}, with one change, namely we select $\epsilon_4$ and
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\vspace{3.5in}
\caption[ndndhugp]{\baselineskip=12pt\small
Touching configuration of $^{150}{\rm Nd}+\mbox{}^{150}$Nd for
hypothetical nuclear shapes with a large positive $\epsilon_4$
and a choice of $\epsilon_6$ that further develops the waistline;
that is, the configuration is $[{\rm p}^-,{\rm p}^-,$\oriec $]$.
The arrow gives the direction of the incident beam.
Fusion-barrier parameters for this configuration/direction
are given on line 6 of Table 1.
}
\label{ndndhugp}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
$\epsilon_6$ so that a well-developed neck results.
The configuration is [p$^-$,p$^-$,\oriec]. The corresponding
calculated fusion-barrier parameters are listed on line 6 of Table 1.
This hypothetical shape is presented to show the effect
of a well-developed neck on the fusion barrier
and touching configuration. Clearly this configuration is
very different from both the spherical configuration and
the gentle configuration and quite compact. Similar
configurations with necks in the equatorial regions
instead of bulging midsections could favor a large
cross section for complete fusion. Because the nuclei
``grab'' each other we call this configuration corresponding to
this specific orientation and where both
projectile and target exhibit some neck formation {\it
hugging fusion}. In our classification scheme hugging
fusion corresponds to
the [p$^-$,p$^-$,\oriec]
class of touching fusion configurations.
The $\epsilon_4$ deformation value
selected to clearly show this principle is probably unrealistically
large. However, large positive $\epsilon_4$ deformations occur in the
end of the rare-earth region. To compare the effect of a realistic
positive value of $\epsilon_4$ with the effect of a large negative
$\epsilon_4$ we apply the deformation calculated [14] for
$^{186}$W to $^{150}$Nd and obtain the
fusion barrier given on line 7 of Table 1.
We see that the distance between mass centers of this configuration is
only 10.86 fm, that is, 1.47 fm more compact than the spherical
configuration and 0.88 fm more compact than a configuration with
a large negative $\epsilon_4$. To exploit the enhancement of
the evaporation-residue cross section that we expect in the hugging
configuration [p$^-$,p$^-$,\oriec]
we must find
suitable projectiles and targets with large positive $\epsilon_4$
ground-state deformations that lead to superheavy elements with
half-lives that are sufficiently long that the evaporation residues
are observable.
\section{Heavy-ion reactions for distant superheavy-element
production}
The most stable nuclei on the superheavy island are predicted to occur
in the vicinity of $^{288\mbox{\rm --}294}$110
even though the magic proton number
in this region is calculated to be 114 [17].
However, nuclei at some considerable distance away from
the center of the island are calculated to be sufficiently long-lived
to allow observation after formation; that is, they are predicted to
have half-lives in excess of 1~$\mu$s. We refer to elements with
proton number larger than 114 as distant superheavy elements.
We now look at some heavy-ion reactions that may lead to
this far part of the superheavy island.
\subsection{Hugging fusion candidates for distant superheavy-element
production}
Above we noted that to achieve very compact configurations of deformed
nuclei one should find projectiles and targets with large positive
values of the $\epsilon_4$ deformation parameter. Clearly then, the
best candidates for a stable target
above proton number 50 would be nuclei near the
end of the rare-earth region. To be specific, we select $^{186}$W as a
target in our first example. For this nucleus, calculations [14]
give $\epsilon_4=0.100$ and
$\epsilon_6=-0.044$. The large negative value
of $\epsilon_6$ also
contributes to the development of a neck. A suitable projectile that
would take us to the region of distant superheavy elements would then
be $^{110}$Pd leading to the compound system $^{296}$120. The hugging
configuration for this choice is shown from four different angles in
Fig.~\ref{wpd4}. The fusion barrier for the hugging configuration
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\vspace{3.5in}
\caption[wpd4]{\baselineskip=12pt\small
Touching configuration of $^{110}{\rm Pd}+\mbox{}^{186}$W for
calculated ground-state shapes viewed from four different angles.
The shapes used are the calculated ground-states shapes, so the
configuration is $[{\rm p}^-,{\rm p}^-,$\oriec $]$.
The arrows and $\bigotimes$ sign give the direction of the incident beam.
Fusion-barrier parameters for this configuration/direction
are given on line 12 of Table 1.
}
\label{wpd4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
[p$^-$,p$^-$,\oriec] is listed on line 12 of Table 1,
where we to illustrate the orientation effect on the fusion
barrier also list the barrier parameters for the four other deformed
configurations
[p$^-$,p$^-$,$\top$],
[p$^-$,p$^-$,$^|_|$],
[p$^-$,p$^-$,$\dashv$] and
[p$^-$,p$^-$,$||$] on lines 8--11.
These five deformed configurations also appear in Fig.~\ref{oripmpm}
for slightly different projectile-target sizes and deformations.
The table listing on lines 8--12 is in the order the configurations
occur in
Fig.~\ref{oripmpm}.
In Table 1 we also list on line 13, for reference,
the barrier parameters for the [s,s,$\circ \! \bigcirc$] configuration.
To make an estimate of the decay properties of the compound system we make
the following assumptions.
The heavy-ion reaction takes place at the fusion-barrier energy.
We do not calculate the branching ratio between fusion-fission
and complete fusion, but are primarily interested in studying
the alpha-decay rates of the compound nuclei that possibly do not
fission but de-excite by neutron emission.
One expects of course that at high excitation energy some washing
out of shell effects has taken place and that
$\Gamma_{\rm f}/\Gamma_{\rm n}$ is large. It is a remaining,
important problem to calculate this quantity.
We assume that
neutrons are emitted as long as energetically possible.
The $Q$-values and masses required for these calculations are obtained
from Ref.~[14]. The $\alpha$-decay half-lives are
calculated as discussed in Ref.~[17].
With these assumptions we find for the reaction
and configuration [p$^-$,p$^-$,\oriec]
shown in Fig.~\ref{wpd4} at a center-of-mass energy
equal to the Coulomb barrier energy listed on line 12 in Table
1 that two neutrons are emitted. Thus
\begin{equation}
^{110}{\rm Pd}+ \mbox{}^{186}{\rm W}
\rightarrow \mbox{}^{296}120^*
\rightarrow \mbox{}^{294}120 + {\rm 2n}
\eeq{react1a}
where the compound nucleus has an excitation energy of 35.04 MeV
before neutron emission. The $\alpha$-decay-chain half-lives and
$Q$-values are shown in Fig.~\ref{cpdw}. Although the first few
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\vspace{4.5in}
\caption[cpdw]{\baselineskip=12pt\small
Calculated $Q$-values for $\alpha$ decay and corresponding calculated
half-lives for the decay chain starting
at $^{294}120$. }
\label{cpdw}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
decays are calculated to be only a few $\mu$s, these decays should
be within the detection limit of SHIP. Fission half-life calculations
are characterized by large uncertainties [17], but
the calculated ground-state microscopic corrections in the
region of the compound system are about $-7$~MeV, so one expects a
fission barrier about this high in this region of nuclei.
Such a high barrier would probably be associated with fission
half-lives that are longer than the calculated $\alpha$ half-lives
down to about element 104 for all the decay chains considered here.
We have also considered the reaction
\begin{equation}
^{104}{\rm Ru}+ \mbox{}^{192}{\rm Os}
\rightarrow \mbox{}^{296}120^*
\rightarrow \mbox{}^{294}120 + {\rm 2n}
\eeq{react1b}
The barrier parameters are listed on line 14 in Table 1. A
beam energy equal to the Coulomb barrier value of 367.82 MeV leads to
a compound-nucleus excitation energy of 34.06 MeV, which is about 1 MeV lower
than in the reaction~(\ref{react1a}), and consequently to the
same $\alpha$-decay sequence after 2n emission.
\section{Summary}
In heavy-ion collisions between deformed projectiles and targets
we have shown that the fusion reaction
depends strongly on the relative orientation of the
projectile and target.
Both the fusion-barrier height and the compactness of the
touching configuration are so strongly affected that
a variation of relative orientation may have a similar impact as
varying the projectile and/or target nuclear species. Therefore,
a detailed consideration of deformation is necessary in both theory
and experimental work so that we can understand more about
the many features of heavy-ion reactions between deformed nuclei.
To facilitate such studies we have introduced a classification scheme
of deformed fusion configurations.
Systematic experimental work on understanding cold-fusion reactions
and associated cross sections for evaporation-residue formation
and parallel investigations of microscopic nuclear-structure models
have over the last 20 years or so led to the discovery of five new
elements on the side of the superheavy island closest to us. Similar
or more extensive work will be required to describe in detail the
fusion reactions between two deformed nuclei. However, the reward may
be access to the far side of the superheavy island. Of particular
interest is to study how the high charge numbers of these nuclei
affect nuclear and atomic properties. Above we have given a few
examples of heavy-ion reactions that could serve as particularly
suitable starting points for exploring both theoretically and
experimentally the new physics of deformed heavy-ion reactions, and
possibly the new physics of the far side of the superheavy island.
In particular we have suggested that a few special fusion configurations may
be especially favorable for forming superheavy elements. In hot fusion,
we suggest as most favorable an asymmetric projectile-target
combination in the {\it hugging} configuration
$[{\rm p}^-,{\rm p}^-,$\oriec $]$.
A more extensive discussion of the ideas presented here may be found
in Ref.~[18].
This work was supported by the Japan Atomic Energy Research
Institute
and by the U.~S.\ Department of
Energy.
\begin{small}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
During the last years some biological features of real neurons
have been incorporated into the Hopfield model \cite{Hopfield} in
order to make it more realistic and trying to improve its
performance. Suitable modifications of the original model taking
into account biological ingredients such as thermal noise,
dilution, asymmetry, dynamical delays, among others, have been vastly
analized in the literature
\cite{Amit1,Amit2,Amit3,Derrida,Watkin,Gutfreund,Sompolinsky,Buhmann,Kleinfeld,Horn,Lopes}.
Although they usually deteriorate the retrieval
ability, it has been shown they enable the
implementation of new tasks, such as recognition of temporal
sequences\cite{Gutfreund,Sompolinsky,Buhmann,Kleinfeld,Horn,Lopes}
and categorization \cite{Fontanari,Stariolo,Silva}.
One crucial biological element originally absence in the
Hopfield model is the so called {\em refractory period}
\cite{LAmit,Schulten,Airaha}. Real neurons take about 1-2 milliseconds
to complete a cycle from the emission of a spike in the
pre-sinaptic neuron to the emission of a spike in the
post-sinaptic neuron. After this time, the neuron need again about
2 milliseconds to recover, and during this time, called {\em absolute
refractory period} (ARP), it is insensitive to afferent activiy
(i.e.,it cannot emit a second spike, no matter how large the
post-synaptic potential (PSP) may be). Following this short
ARP, the neuron enters in a new regime of about 5-7 milliseconds, in which
it partially recovers the capacity of emitting spikes, but now with a greater
excitation threshold which decreases with time. This is called
the {\em relative refractory period} (RRP). Following this
somewhat longer RRP, the threshold tends to return to its rest value and
the neuron can fire again with typical intra-network potentials.
The simplest way one can introduce these periods into the
dynamics of the Hopfield model is by means of a time
dependent threshold acting as an external field, which depends on
the recent history of the neuron. Since we want this threshold to mimic the
effects of fatigue observed in real neurons \cite{Horn}, it
should act only after the cell has emitted an electric
signal. So, we expect that the threshold depends on the mean
activity of the neuron in the previous time. The main
effect on the dynamics of the model is to introduce a tendency to
destabilize the fixed point attractors, allowing the appearance of
oscillatory behaviors. In the last years different threshold functions have
been studied\cite{Horn,Moreira,Opris,Kurten}, showing that they
enable the system to wander through the phase space, eventually
visiting different basins of attraction and simulating the
process by which the brain recognizes temporal sequences of
patterns . On the other hand, oscillating and chaotic
trajectories in the phase space seem to be more realistic than
fixed points attractors from a biological point of
view (see \cite{Airaha} and references therein).
In this work we analyze, using a mean field approach and through
numerical simulations, the behavior of the Hopfield model for associative
memory when the effect of these refractory periods are taken
into account in the dynamics of the system. Instead of
considering a fatigue like threshold function that would depend
on the large term history of the neuron \cite{Horn,Opris}, we introduce a
threshold that depends only on the state of the neuron in the previous time,
i.e., it is activated only when the neuron fires a spike. In
the section \ref{Model}, we introduce the model and describe how the
refractory periods are incorporated into its dynamics. In
section \ref{Fixed}, we obtain an equation for the
value of the superposition between the state of the system and
one of the memories (which is only valid for fixed points
dynamics), from which we can study the retrieval properties of
the model in this region. In section \ref{Numerical}, we obtain a
complete phase diagram and identified the regions of fixed points, cyclic
orbits and chaotic orbits. We have used a synchronous parallel
updating, which allows an efficient use of modern
parallel-processing computers. Finally, in section
\ref{conclution}, we discuss the main results.
\section{The model}
\label{Model}
As in the Little \cite{Little} and Hopfield models we consider a
network of $N$ binary neurons, each one modeled by an Ising variable $%
S_i$ which take the values $\{-1,+1\}$, representing the passive and
active states, respectively. In order to take into account the effect of the
refractory period in the neuron $i$ we add a threshold that depends on the
time, but only through the value of the state $S_i(t)$ of the
neuron $i$. So the
post-synaptic potential at time $t$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
h_i(t)\;=\;h_i^H(t)-\frac \Delta 2(1+S_i(t))\;\;,
\end{equation}
where $h_i^H$ is the usual Hopfield post-synaptic potential:
\begin{equation}
\label{campo}h_i^H(t)=\sum_{j\neq i}^N\;J_{ij}\;S_j(t)\;\;.
\end{equation}
Here $J_{ij}$ is the Hopfield synaptic matrix connecting the pre and
post-synaptic neurons $j$ and $i$ and whose elements have the form:
\begin{equation}
J_{ij}=\frac 1N\;\sum_{\mu =1}^p\;\xi _i^\mu \;\xi _j^\mu \;.
\end{equation}
The $\xi_{i}^{\mu}$ are random independent variables which take the
values $\pm 1$ with the same probability and the N-bits words $\{\xi _1^\mu
,\xi _2^\mu ,\ldots ,\xi _N^\mu \}$ stand for the $p$ stored configurations (%
$\mu =1,2,\ldots ,p$). The dynamics of the network is governed by a Monte
Carlo heat bath dynamics:
\begin{equation}
S_i(t+1)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
+1 & \mbox{ with probability }\left( 1+exp(-\frac{h_i(t)}{T})\right)
^{-1} \\ & \\
-1 & \mbox{ with probability }\left( 1+exp(+\frac{h_i(t)}{T})\right)
^{-1}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{probability}
\end{equation}
where all the neurons are updated simultaneously (like in the Little model).
The parameter $T$ measures the noise level of the net and in the noiseless
limit ($T=0$) we recover the deterministic dynamics:
\begin{equation}
S_i(t+1)=Sign \left( h_i^H(t)-\frac \Delta 2(1+S_i(t) \right)
\end{equation}
{}From this expression we can easily understand the effect of this extra field:
if the neuron $i$ fires a spike at time $t$ ($S_{i}(t)=+1$), it will
requires an extra contribution $\Delta$ to the PSP in order to fire again.
On the other hand, if this neuron was at rest at time $t$ ($S_{i}(t)=-1$),
then it will work like an usual Hopfield neuron. Observe that this model
does not distinguish between absolute and relative periods neither includes
any fatigue like effect (long time history). As usual, we will
characterize the recognition ability by calculating the long time behavior
of the overlap $m_{\mu}$ between the state of the system $\{S_i(t)\}$ and
the stored patterns, defined as:
\begin{equation}
m_{\mu}(t) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \; \xi_{i}^{\mu}\; \langle S_{i}(t)
\rangle_{T}
\end{equation}
where $\langle \ldots \rangle$ means a thermal average at
temperature $T$. We say that the system recognizes a pattern every
time it evolves to an attractor for which only one overlap is
non-zero and all the others vanish as (${\cal O}(1/\sqrt(N))$).
The two relevant parameters in our model are then $\Delta $ and $%
\alpha $ (the ratio between the number of stored patterns ($p$)
and the total number of neurons of the network ($N$)). In the
following sections we analyze the behavior of the model on the
($\Delta $,$\alpha $) plane.
\section{Fixed Point Equation}
\label{Fixed}
Following the statistical method developed by Geszti
\cite{Geszti} (see also \cite{Peretto,Hertz,Zertuche,Marcus}),
we give in this section a heuristic derivation of the critical
capacity $\alpha_{c}$ as a function of the parameter $\Delta$
for the stochastic version of the model.
By taking the limit $T \rightarrow 0 $ we obtain a noiseless phase diagram
in the ($\Delta $,$\alpha $) plane which will be compared with numerical
simulations in the next section.
Let us suppose that the initial state of the system is such that $m_1=m$ is
the only macroscopically non-zero overlap and so $m_\mu={\cal O}(1/\sqrt(N))$
for any $\mu \neq 1$. Furthermore, we will assume that although the threshold
tends to destabilize the fixed point attractors, its effect is not strong
enough to anable the system to visit different basins of
attractors. So, since initially only the first overlap was non
zero, let us suppose that this will be valid for any time $t$.
This a priori assumption will be justified in the next section
by the numerical simulation, where we will find that in the
region where the system recognizes (that is, where $m=m_1
(t\rightarrow \infty )\neq 0$) the dynamics of the model is
dominated by fixed point attractors.
We then start considering the overlap between the state of the system and
the first pattern, that can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation}
m=\frac 1N\sum_{i=1}^Ntanh\left( \beta \left( m+\sum_{\mu =2}^p\xi
_i^\mu \xi _i^1m_\mu-\xi _i^1\frac \Delta 2(1+S_i)\right) \right)
\;\;.
\end{equation}
Since we are storing an extensive number of pattern, we cannot neglect
any more the effect of the others $(p-1)$ overlaps:
\begin{equation}
m_\nu =\frac 1N\sum_{i=1}^N\xi _i^\nu \xi _i^1tanh\left( \beta \left(
m+\xi _i^\nu \xi _i^1m_\nu +\sum_{\mu \neq 1,\nu }^p\xi _i^\mu \xi
_i^1m_\mu -\xi _i^1\frac \Delta 2(1+S_i)\right) \right) \;\;.
\end{equation}
In order to make an self-consistent treatment for the overlap $m$ we need to
introduce two other parameters, namely:
\begin{eqnarray}
q & = & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \langle S_{i} \rangle^{2} \\
& & \nonumber\\
r & = & \frac{1}{\alpha} \sum_{nu \neq 1}^{p} m_{\nu}^{2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $q$ is the Edwards-Anderson order parameter and $r$ is
indentified as the mean square overlap of the system
configuration with the nonretrieved patterns \cite{Hertz}.
After some standard calculations we get the following set of equation for
the values of $m$, $q$ and $r$ {\em in the attractor}:
\begin{eqnarray}
m & = & \frac{1}{2} \int Dz \left( tanh\left(\beta L_{z}^{+}\right) +
tanh\left(\beta L_{z}^{-}\right) \right) \\
& & \nonumber\\
q & = & \frac{1}{2} \int Dz \left( tanh^{2}\left(\beta L_{z}^{+}\right) +
tanh^{2}\left(\beta L_{z}^{-}\right) \right) \\
& & \nonumber\\
r & = & \frac{q}{\left(1-\beta (1-q) \right)^{2}} \;\; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $L_z^{\pm }=(1-\frac \Delta 2)m\pm \frac \Delta 2+\sqrt{\alpha r}z$
and
$$
Dz=\frac{dz\exp {-z^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\;\;.
$$
Notice that for the particular case $\Delta =0$ we recover the equations
obtained for the Hopfield model \cite{Hertz} which also agree with those
obtained by Amit et al \cite{Amit3} through a thermodynamical mean-field
study (which unlike this method requires the use of the replica trick).
We start analyzing the noiseless case $(T=0)$ for which we have performed
numerical simulations. In this limit our equations take the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}
m & = & \frac{1}{2} erf\left( \frac{ (1-\frac{\Delta}{2}) m +
\frac{\Delta}{2} }{ \sqrt{2 \alpha r} } \right) +
\frac{1}{2} erf\left( \frac{ (1-\frac{\Delta}{2}) m -
\frac{\Delta}{2} }{ \sqrt{2 \alpha r} } \right) \\
& & \nonumber\\
C & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \alpha r}} \left(
exp \left( - \frac{ ( (1-\frac{\Delta}{2}) m +
\frac{\Delta}{2} )^{2} }{ 2 \alpha r } \right) +
exp \left( - \frac{ ( (1-\frac{\Delta}{2}) m -
\frac{\Delta}{2} )^{2} }{ 2 \alpha r } \right)
\right) \\
& & \nonumber\\
r & = & \frac{1}{ (1-C)^{2} } \;\;.
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig. 1 we display $m$ as function of $\alpha $ for several values of $%
\Delta $. For any value of $\Delta <\Delta _c=1$ there always exists a
critical value $\alpha _c$ below which the system recovers the stored
patterns with a non-zero fraction of errors $\epsilon$. At $\alpha _c(\Delta
)$ the systems undergoes a discontinuos transition from the retrieval phase
(in which the dynamics is governed by the fixed point attractors) to a
non-retrieval phase where our analytical approach is no longer valid,
since the self-consistent equation does not predict a fixed point
attractor (which was our original assumption). Observe that $\alpha _c$
decreases as $\Delta $ increases. As $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ the fraction of
errors at the transition $\epsilon_{c}=\frac 12(1-m)$ goes to $0$
accordingly to the following expression:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon=\frac 12\sqrt{\frac \alpha {2\pi }}\left( exp(-\frac 1{2\alpha })+
\frac{exp(-\frac{(1-\Delta )^2}{2\alpha })}{1-\Delta }\right)
\end{equation}
We have also analyzed the fixed point equations in the presence of noise. In
Fig. 2 we present the $(T,\alpha)$ phase diagram for different values
of $\Delta$. For $\Delta =0$ we recover the phase diagram
obtained in \cite{Amit3}. Along the lines $T_{c}(\alpha )$ the
system undergoes a discontinuos transition from the retrieval
phase (below) to the non-retrieval phase (above). Notice that the
recognition phase decreases as $ \Delta $ increases; i.e., the
main effect of introducing this refractory periods seems to be a
degradation of the retrieval properties of the model.
In Fig. 3 we present the critical line $T$ versus $\Delta$ for
$\alpha =0$. For $\Delta < 0.611$ the system undergoes a second
order transition while for $\Delta > 0.611$ the transition is
discontinuos (the point $(T,\Delta)\simeq (0.46,0.611)$ separates
both lines). In the inset we show the behavior the
retrieval overlap around the critical point as function of $T$.
\section{Numerical Simulation}
\label{Numerical}
In this section we present a numerical study of both recognition ability and
dynamical properties of the model at $T=0$ and compare it with the
analitical results obtained in the previous section. The simulations were
performed on systems of $N=800$, $1600$ and $3200$ neurons and the network
was updated synchronously. Setting the initial configuration as the first
stored pattern, we let the system evolve until it reaches the attractor.
In order to characterize the dynamical behavior we first determined whether
the system was in a periodic orbit or not, by waiting until it returned to a
given configuration that was stored after a transient. Depending on the
value of the parameters and on the size of the system it could also happen
that the system did not return to the initial configuration after a given
period of time (typically 100 Monte Carlo Steps). In such cases, we said that
the system follows a chaotic orbit, although we have not
performed a through analysis in order to determine whether these
were really chaotic orbits or orbits with large periods.
To analyze the recognition ability we calculated for each sample a temporal
average between the stored patterns and the state of the system in the
attractor. If the system reached a cyclic orbit of period $t_c$, we measured
(in the attractor) the following quantity:
\begin{equation}
m_\mu =\frac 1{t_c}\sum_{t=t_0}^{t_0+t_c}m_\mu (t)
\end{equation}
Since the initial state was chosen to be always the first memory, we say
that the network recognizes when
\begin{equation}
m=m_1\sim {1}\hspace{2cm}m_\mu \sim {\cal
O}(1/\sqrt(N)),\hspace{0.2cm}for \hspace{0.1cm}\mu >1
\end{equation}
In order to make a configurational average of $m$, for any value of the
parameters we repeated this procedure over $100$ different samples using
different memories, initial configurations and random number sequences. To
characterize the dynamical behavior we present the frequency with which
each kind of attractor appears and also the mean activity,
defined as the average number of active neurons, in the attractor.
\begin{equation}
a =\frac 1{2N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(1+S_{i})
\end{equation}
In Fig. 4 we display the phase diagram $\Delta$ vs. $\alpha$
for $N=3200$. For $\Delta = 0$ the system presents only fixed
points (FP). For fixed $\alpha$, as $\Delta$ increases we found that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for low values of $\Delta $ the dynamics is governed only by fixed
points attractors. The full circle indicates where this kind of behavior
disappears;
\item the region between the two full triangles indicate the region where
cycles of order two (C2) appear;
\item the hollow circle indicates the value of $\Delta $ above which
chaotic orbit (Ch) emerges.
\end{enumerate}
Observe that there are many region of coexistence of attractors. In fact,
between the C2 and the Ch we have also found cyclic orbits (OC)
of order greater than two, but they are not indicated in the diagram.
Independently of the dynamical behavior, we have also studied the critical
recognition capacity. The dashed line separates the recognition phase
(below) from the non-retrieval phase (above) obtained numerically and the
full line corresponds to the analytical results obtained in the previous
section. The simulation curve fits very well the analytical result only for
small values of $\alpha $.
In order to understand why the analytical and the numerical curves do not
agree, we have carefully analyzed the behavior of the system along two cuts
with fixed $\alpha $, namely $0.01$ and $0.04$. In Fig. 5 we plot both $m$
(top) and the frequency with which each kind of orbits appears (bottom) as a
function of $\Delta $. The first thing we note is that the FP
region coincides with the retrieval phase, and that the C2 region
corresponds to the non-retrieval phase. In such cases, where the
systems only recognizes through FP, the analytical curve
predicts very well the transition. On the other hand, in Fig. 6 we present
the same curves for $\alpha =0.04$. Notice now that the recognition phase
presents two different dynamical behaviors: for small values of $\Delta $ the
system evolves to FP while for intermediate values it goes to
C2. Unlike the $\alpha =0.01$ case, now the theoretical curve
does not predict correctly the retrieval non-retrieval phase transition, but
the FP to C2 transition. In both cases we have studied the
finite-size effects by working with three different sizes, namely, $N=800$, $%
1600$ and $3200$. In Figs. 5 and 6 we present the overlaps as function of $%
\Delta $ for all these system sizes. Note that as $N$ increases the
numerical simulation tends to display a more abrupt decay of $m$ at the
transition, resembling the first order transition found in the analytical
calculation.
Finally, in Fig. 7 we show the mean activity as function of
$\Delta$ for $\alpha = 0.01$ and $0.04$. We can notice that where
there are fixed points and periodic orbits with recognition
within, the mean activity remains around the value $\sim 0.5$ (random
variables) and it only decreases in the transition to
non-retrieval phase. This shows that the parameter $\Delta$ not only
damages the recognition ability but also destabilizes the
tendency of the system to evolve to fixed point attractors,
allowing the appearence of more complicated retrieval attractors.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
\label{conclution}
In this work we study analytically and through of numerical simulations a
model for associative memory where we have incorporated in the dynamics of the
network a new kind of threshold that simulate the effect of the
refractory period.
The main result is that the parameter $\Delta $ that activates
this threshold yields to the appearing of Chaotic and periodic
attractors. Nevertheless, the system seems to recognizes only through
fixed point and cycles of order two. Only in a small region the
system recognizes with higher order cycles and with chaotic
trajectories, but this behavior appears just in the boundary
between the retrieval and the non-retrieval phases. It would be
interesting to make a more detailed study to elucidate whether this kind
of trajectories are due to finite size effects or not. As much
as we could see, as $N$ increases they do not seem to
dissapear, so we suspect that they will exist also in the
thermodynamical limit.
In the recognition phase (small values of $\Delta$), the PSP is strong
enough to drive the system to stable attractors, FP and
periodic orbits, where the average overlap in each regime is of
the order $1$. For large values of $\Delta $ the performance is
drastically damaged, and in these regions the dynamics is
dominated by very large cycles or chaotic trajectories.
The numerical simulation fits very well the analytical results
only for small values of $\alpha$, where the transition occur
from fixed point FP to cycle order two C2. Actually, the
analytical curve seems to fit only the line where the fixed
point behavior disappears. We also observe that in the
transition the mean activity decreases with the increase of
$\Delta$.
\vskip 3\baselineskip
{\bf Acknowledgements:} We acknowledge to D. A. Stariolo and
F. S. de Menezes for fruitful
discussion. We thank the Supercomputing Center of the Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (CESUP-UFRGS) for use of the Cray
YMP-2E. This work was supported by Brazilian agencies CNPq and
FINEP.
\newpage
\noindent {\bf CAPTIONS FOR FIGURES}
\vspace{1cm}
{\bf Figure 1.} Plot of $m$ versus $\alpha$ at $T=0$ for different
values of $\Delta$. At $\alpha_{c}(\Delta)$ the system undergoes
a discontinuous transition from the recognition phase to
non-retrieval phase.\\
{\bf Figure 2.} Phase diagram $T$ versus $\alpha$ for $\Delta =
0,0.2,0.4$ and $0.6$. Below of the critical lines the system
recognizes with fixed point and the transition to non-retrieval
phase is discontinuos.\\
{\bf Figure 3.} The critical line $T=f(\Delta)$ for $\alpha=0$.
For $\Delta < 0.611$ the transition is of second order (full
line) while for $\Delta > 0.611$ the transition is discontinuos
(dashed line). $(T,\Delta)\simeq (0.46,0.611)$ is a critical point.\\
{\bf Figure 4.} The numerical phase diagram $\Delta$ versus
$\alpha$ at $T=0$ and $N=3200$, showing the regions FP (below full
circles), periodic (between the two full triangles) and Ch (above hollow
circles). The simulation (dashed line) and analytical (full
line) curves separetes the recognition phase (below) from
non-retrieval phase (above).\\
{\bf Figure 5.} Plot of $m$ (top) and of the frequency (bottom) in
the which each kind of orbits appears as a function of $\Delta$
for $\alpha=0.01$. The full line corresponds to the analytical curve.\\
{\bf Figure 6.} Plot of $m$ (top) and of the frequency (bottom)
in the which each kind of orbits appears as a function of
$\Delta$ for $\alpha=0.04$. The full line corresponds to the analytical
curve.\\
{\bf Figure 7.} The mean activity vs. $\Delta$ for $\alpha=0.01$
and $\alpha=0.04$.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
In a recent letter \cite{KKS} critical indices of the superconducting-to-normal
phase transition were derived starting from a dual formulation of the
Ginzburg-Landau theory. The purpose of the present article is to review this
approach. The article, which is pedagogical in tone and attempts to be
self-contained, highlights also some recent developments related to the
symmetry aspects of the dual formulation which are important for understanding
the phase transition.
The basic idea of the dual approach originates from three-dimensional ($3D$)
lattice studies carried out more than 15 years ago \cite{BMK,Peskin,TS,Savit}.
These studies were instigated by the success of the
Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) theory of the $2D$ $xy$ model developed
in the early seventies to describe the phase transition in a superfluid film
\cite{Be,KT73}. It was argued that the phase transition has its origin in the
behavior of point-like vortices. In the ordered low-temperature phase, pairs
of vortices with opposite topological charge are tightly bound. Above the
critical temperature, these pairs unbind and the liberated vortices disorder
the system, turning the superfluid into a normal fluid.
The lattice studies of the pure $3D$ $xy$ model \cite{BMK} and its extension
to a lattice superconductor \cite{Peskin,TS} were aimed at obtaining an
analogous description of the phase transitions in these models in terms of
vortex {\it loops}. A detailed account of these matters as well as an
extensive list of references to the literature can be found in the textbook by
Kleinert \cite{GFCM}.
Another development illuminating the dual approach to the Ginzburg-Landau
model was initiated in Ref.\ \cite{KRE}. The basic observation was that since a
local gauge symmetry can never be broken \cite{Elitzur}, a
local gauge description of a phase transition is not feasible. It was argued
that the $3D$ Ginzburg-Landau theory contains, in addition to the local gauge
symmetry, another {\it global} U(1) symmetry. When considered in $2+1$
space-time dimensions with a Minkowski metric, this symmetry is generated by
the magnetic flux operator. It was demonstrated that this
symmetry is broken in the normal phase, while it is unbroken in the
superconducting phase. An order parameter was given, and it was shown that
the massless photon of the normal phase is the Goldstone particle associated
with the broken flux symmetry.
To clarify the concept of duality it is expedient to remain for the moment in
$2+1$ space-time dimensions. There the theory is a quantum field theory
possessing particle states which are created by field operators. This is to
be contrasted with the space-time approach of Feynman \cite{Feynman} where
worldlines of particles are the fundamental objects. The particle's mass is
given by the tension of the worldline. Now, suppose that a quantum field
theory contains point-like solitons, i.e., topologically stable,
time-independent solutions of the field equations. When set into motion such
a soliton traces out a non-trivial worldline in space-time. An operator
description of these excitations in terms of the original fields is non-local
and quite difficult. The aim of the dual approach of the type we are
considering is to describe them by a local field, called a disorder field
\cite{GFCM}. The space-time description of the particle is thus converted
into an equivalent field-theoretic one.
In the context of the (three dimensional Euclidean) Ginzburg-Landau theory the
notion of a particle state is of course missing. The above picture has,
however, a direct counterpart, viz., worldlines of the space-time approach
correspond to vortices in the Euclidean theory. More precisely, in the
setting of statistical (as opposed to quantum) field theory, a dual theory
describes vortices by a disorder field. (In this discussion we restricted the
notion of duality to line defects, thereby omitting dual theories of other
topological defects such as domain walls and---in the context of quantum field
theory---instantons.)
The advantage of the dual theory is that it allows for a simple description of
the superconducting phase transition in the sense of Landau which is
impossible in the original formulation, as we shall discuss. The order
parameter of the transition is the field representing the magnetic vortices.
This Landau theory, involving only a global symmetry and a genuine order
parameter, can---as usual---be taken as a convenient starting point of a
renormalization group analysis of the superconducting phase transition
\cite{KKS}.
The layout of the paper is as follows. In the next section we illustrate the
dual approach by considering the Ginzburg-Landau model in two space
dimensions. This example gives us important clues towards the form of the
dual formulation in $3D$. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:twofold} we review the fact that
a loop gas can be succinctly described near a critical point by a $|\psi|^4$
field theory. This equivalence plays a central role in the subsequent part of
the paper. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:3DL} we discuss the dual formulation of a $3D$
lattice superconductor, and in Sec.\ \ref{sec:dual} we review the formulation
in the continuum. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:mixed} we argue that the dual theory
yields the standard description of the mixed state of a type-II
superconductor. As a consistency check we consider in Sec.\ \ref{sec:normal}
the dual formulation of the dual theory and demonstrate that the resulting
theory is the original Ginzburg-Landau model. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:sop} we
discuss the gauge-invariant superconducting order parameter. Finally, in
Sec.\ \ref{sec:Landau} we apply renormalization group theory to the dual
theory to show that the superconducting phase transition is of second order.
The critical exponents are shown to be in the universality class of the $xy$
model with the temperature axis reversed.
\section{Dual map of a 2$D$ superconductor}
\label{sec:2D}
Before discussing the theory of a superconductor in three space dimensions, it
is instructive to first study the two-dimensional case. This exercise will
exhibit the relevant variables in a dual description and show what in
principle can be expected from such a description.
The Ginzburg-Landau model resulting from the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS)
theory of superconductivity is specified by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\label{GL}
H = \int d^2 x \left[ {1 \over 2} (\nabla \times {\bf A})^2 + |(\nabla -2 i e
{\bf A})\phi|^2 + m_\phi^2 |\phi|^2 + \lambda |\phi|^4 \right],
\end{equation}
with ${\bf A}$ the electromagnetic gauge potential. We adopt the standard
notation and denote by $\nabla \times {\bf A} = \epsilon_{i j} \partial_i A_j$
the local induction. The symbol $B$ is reserved for the spatial average
of the local field, and will be referred to as the magnetic induction, or flux
density. These quantities have only one component in two space dimensions,
pointing in the missing third direction. The coupling $2e$ accounts for the
double charge of Cooper pairs. The complex scalar field $\phi$ is the
superconducting order field with a mass parameter $m_\phi$ and a self-coupling
$\lambda$. In the superconducting phase of the model, $m_\phi^2 < 0$.
A useful limit of the theory is the so-called London limit where $m_\phi^2
\rightarrow -\infty$ and $\phi$ can be written as $\phi (x) = \exp[i\theta(x)]
w/\sqrt{2}$, with a constant $w$. This limit properly represents many
relevant properties of the superconducting state. The functional integral
over the size fluctuations of the scalar field can in this limit be
approximated by the saddle point, and $H$ becomes, omitting irrelevant terms
\begin{equation}
\label{hydroenergy}
H = \int d^2 x \left[ \frac{w^2}{2} {\bf p}_{\rm s}^2 +
\frac{1}{2} (\nabla \times {\bf A})^2 \right],
\end{equation}
with ${\bf p}_{\rm s}$ the superfluid momentum
\begin{equation}
\label{velo}
{\bf p}_{\rm s} = \nabla \theta - 2e {\bf A} +
\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}.
\end{equation}
A so-called plastic field $\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$ must be introduced for
the following reason. The variable $\theta$ is a phase variable and
is thus cyclic with periodicity $2\pi$. A jump in $\theta$ by $2\pi$
along a cut in the spatial plane indicates the presence of a point
vortex. When this is the case the Hamiltonian requires a field
$\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$ to compensate for these jumps so that $H$
remains smooth. Such a construction with a compensating field is well
known in the Villain formulation of lattice models, and it can also be
given in the continuum \cite{GFCM}. The curl of $\bbox{\theta}^{\rm
P}$ gives the density of vortices consisting of $\delta$ functions at
each vortex position
\begin{equation}
\label{vdensity}
\nabla \times \bbox{\theta}^{\rm P} = 2\pi
\sum_{\alpha} n_{\alpha} \delta({\bf x} - {\bf x}_{\alpha}),
\end{equation}
where $n_{\alpha}$ is the winding number of a vortex, and ${\bf
x}_{\alpha}$ its location. We will restrict ourselves to vortices
with unit winding number, $n_{\alpha} = \pm 1$ for a vortex and
antivortex, respectively. Since the theory is charged, vortices carry
also a magnetic flux quantum $n_{\alpha} \, \pi/e$, and are more
properly called {\it magnetic vortices}.
The solution of (\ref{vdensity}) is given by \cite{GFCM}
\begin{equation}
\label{line}
\theta_i^{\rm P} = - 2 \pi \sum_{\alpha} n_{\alpha} \epsilon _{ij} \,
\delta_j({\bf x},L_{\alpha}).
\end{equation}
where $\delta_i({\bf x},L_{\alpha})$ is the $\delta$ function on the
line $L_{\alpha}$ which starts at the position of the $\alpha$th
vortex ${\bf x}_{\alpha}$ and runs to spatial infinity along
an arbitrary path:
\begin{equation}
\delta_i({\bf x},L_{\alpha}) = \int_{{\bf x}_{\alpha}}^{\infty} d y_i
\, \delta({\bf x} - {\bf y}).
\end{equation}
With the help of Stokes' theorem in two dimensions which can be
expressed in differential form as $\nabla \cdot \bbox{\delta}({\bf
x},L_{\alpha}) = \delta({\bf x} - {\bf x}_{\alpha})$ it is easy to
check that the explicit expression (\ref{line}) for the field
$\theta_i^{\rm P}$ indeed solves Eq.\ (\ref{vdensity}). The shape of
the line $L_{\alpha}$ is physically irrelevant, only the starting
point which marks the position of the vortex matters. Leaving this
point fixed the shape of $L_{\alpha}$ may be changed at will by
performing the transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{vgt}
\theta_i^{\rm P}({\bf x}) \rightarrow \theta_i^{\rm P} ({\bf x}) +
\partial _i \delta ({\bf x},S),
\end{equation}
where $\delta ({\bf x},S)$ is the $\delta$ function on the surface $S$
swept out by $L_{\alpha}$:
\begin{equation}
\delta ({\bf x},S) := \int_S d\sigma d\tau \, \epsilon_{i j} \,
\partial_{\sigma} y_i \partial_{\tau} y_j \, \delta[{\bf
x} - {\bf y} (\sigma ,\tau )],
\end{equation}
with ${\bf y} (\sigma, \tau )$ being a parameterization of $S$. The
superfluid momentum and thus the Hamiltonian is invariant under these
so-called vortex gauge transformations \cite{GFCM}.
For the time being vortices are ignored by setting the plastic field
$\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$ to zero. The partition function of the system
is then given by
\begin{equation}
\label{znovor}
Z = \int {\cal D}\theta \int {\cal D}{\bf A} \, \Xi ({\bf A})
\, {\rm e}^{-H},
\end{equation}
with $\Xi({\bf A})$ a gauge-fixing factor for the gauge field ${\bf A}$, and
$H$ the Hamiltonian (\ref{hydroenergy}). Here, fields and coupling constants
are rescaled so that no explicit temperature dependence appears in the
Boltzmann factor. In (\ref{znovor}) it is easy to integrate out the $\theta$
fluctuations. This yields for the partition function
\begin{equation}
\label{schwlike}
Z = \int {\cal D}{\bf A} \, \Xi({\bf A}) \, {\rm
exp}\left\{-\frac{1}{2} \int d^2 x \left[(\nabla \times {\bf A})^2 +
m_A^2 A_i \left( \delta_{i j} - \frac{\partial _i
\partial_j}{\nabla^2} \right) A_j \right] \right\},
\end{equation}
where the last term with $m_A = 2 e w$ is a gauge-invariant, albeit non-local
mass term for the gauge field generated by the Higgs mechanism. A massless
gauge field in $2D$ represents no physical degrees of freedom. In Minkowski
space-time, this is easily understood by recognizing that in $1+1$ dimensions
there is no transverse direction. The system contains therefore only a single
physical degree of freedom before the Higgs mechanism took place, namely
$\theta$. This equals the number afterwards since a massive vector field
represents only one independent degree of freedom in $2D$. Note that the
absence of genuine long-range order in $2D$ is no obstacle to the Higgs
mechanism. (The massless Schwinger model \cite{Schwingermodel} provides the
simplest soluble example for this.)
We next introduce an auxiliary field ${\sf h}$ to linearize the first term in
(\ref{schwlike}),
\begin{equation}
\label{efield}
\exp \left[-\frac{1}{2} \int d^2 x (\nabla \times {\bf A})^2
\right] = \int {\cal D}{\sf h} \, {\rm exp}\left[-\frac{1}{2} \int d^2
x \, {\sf h}^2 + i \int d^2 x \, {\sf h} \cdot (\nabla
\times {\bf A}) \right],
\end{equation}
and integrate out the gauge-field fluctuations [after adding a
gauge-fixing term $(1/2\zeta)(\nabla \cdot {\bf A})^2$]. The result is a
manifestly gauge-invariant expression for the partition function in
terms of a massive scalar field ${\sf h}$, which represents the single
degree of freedom contained in the theory:
\begin{equation}
\label{massivescalar}
Z = \int {\cal D} {\sf h} \, {\rm exp}\left\{-\frac{1}{2} \int d^2 x
\left[ \frac{1}{m_A^2} (\nabla {\sf h})^2 + {\sf h}^2 \right] \right\}.
\end{equation}
To understand the physical significance of the ${\sf h}$ field
appearing in this functional integral, we note that it follows from
(\ref{efield}) that the auxiliary field ${\sf h}$ satisfies the
equation
\begin{equation}
\label{id}
{\sf h} = i \nabla \times {\bf A}.
\end{equation}
That is, the fluctuating field ${\sf h}$ coincides up to a factor $i$ with the
local induction. Equation (\ref{massivescalar}) shows that the magnetic
field has a finite penetration depth $\lambda = 1/m_A$. In contrast to the
Ginzburg-Landau description where the functional integral runs over the gauge
potential, the integration variable in (\ref{massivescalar}) is the physical
field.
We now include vortex contributions. The mass $m_A$ provides the system with
an infrared cutoff so that a single vortex in the charged theory has a finite
energy, implying that there will always exist thermally activated vortices.
This is different from the neutral model, describing a $2D$ superfluid, where
the absence of an infrared cutoff permits only tightly bound vortex-antivortex
pairs to exist. We expect, accordingly, the superconducting phase to describe
a plasma of vortices, each carrying one magnetic flux quantum $\pm \pi/e$. The
partition function now reads
\begin{equation}
\label{vincluded}
Z = \sum_{n_{+},n_{-}=0}^{\infty} \frac{z^{n_{+}+n_{-}}}{n_{+}!\,
n_{-}!} \int \prod_{\alpha} d^2 x_{\alpha} \, \int {\cal D}\theta
\int {\cal D}{\bf A} \, {\rm exp}\left\{-\frac{1}{2} \int d^2 x \,
[w^2 {\bf p}_{\rm s}^2 + (\nabla \times {\bf A})^2] \right\},
\end{equation}
where the superfluid momentum ${\bf p}_{\rm s}$ contains the vortex gauge
field $\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$, as in (\ref{velo}). In (\ref{vincluded}),
$\int \prod_{\alpha} d^2 x_{\alpha}$ denotes the integration over the
positions of the vortices and the factor $1/n_{+}! \; (1/n_{-}!)$ accounts for
the fact that the (anti-)vortices are indistinguishable. The fugacity $z$ is
the Boltzmann factor for an isolated vortex $z = \exp(-\epsilon_{\rm c})$,
with $\epsilon_{\rm c}$ being the vortex core energy.
The field $\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$ can be shifted from the first to the second
term in (\ref{vincluded}) by applying the transformation ${\bf A} \rightarrow
{\bf A} - \bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}/(2e)$. This results in the shift
\begin{equation}
\nabla \times {\bf A} \rightarrow \nabla \times {\bf A} - B^{\rm P},
\end{equation}
with the plastic field
\begin{equation}
\label{BP}
B^{\rm P} = -\frac{\pi}{e} \sum_{\alpha}
n_{\alpha} \, \delta({\bf x} - {\bf x}_{\alpha })
\end{equation}
representing the magnetic flux density. Repeating the steps of the
previous paragraph we now obtain instead of (\ref{massivescalar})
\begin{equation}
\label{vortexsum}
Z = \sum_{n_{+},n_{-}=0}^{\infty} \frac{z^{n_{+}+n_{-}}}{n_{+}!\,
n_{-}!} \int \prod_{\alpha} d {\bf x}_{\alpha} \, \int {\cal D} {\sf
h} \, {\rm exp}\left\{-\frac{1}{2} \int d^2 x \left[ \frac{1}{m_A^2}
(\nabla {\sf h})^2 + {\sf h}^2 \right] + i \int d^2 x B^{\rm P}
{\sf h}\right\}.
\end{equation}
where ${\sf h}$ represents the physical local field
\begin{equation}
{\sf h} = i (\nabla \times {\bf A} - B^{\rm P}),
\end{equation}
as will be clarified in a later section (Sec.\ \ref{sec:dual}). The last term
in (\ref{vortexsum}) shows that the charge $g$ with which a magnetic vortex
couples to the fluctuating ${\sf h}$ field is the product of an elementary
flux quantum $\pi/e$ (which is contained in the definition of $B^{\rm
P}$) and the inverse penetration depth $m_A$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{g}
g = \frac{\pi}{e} m_A.
\end{equation}
For small fugacities the summation indices $n_{+}$ and $n_{-}$ can be
restricted to the values $0,1$ and we arrive at the partition function of the
massive sine-Gordon model \cite{Schaposnik}
\begin{equation}
\label{sineGordon}
Z = \int {\cal D} {\sf h} \, {\rm exp} \left( - \int d^2 x
\left\{\frac{1}{2} \left[\frac{1}{m_A^2} (\nabla {\sf h})^2 + {\sf
h}^2\right]- 2N \cos \left( \frac{\pi}{e} {\sf h} \right) \right\}
\right).
\end{equation}
This is the dual formulation of a $2D$ superconductor. The vortices of unit
winding number $n_\alpha = \pm 1$ turned the otherwise free theory
(\ref{massivescalar}) into an interacting one.
The final form (\ref{sineGordon}) demonstrates the basic concepts of a dual
formulation: it is a formulation directly in terms of a (gauge-invariant)
field representing the physical local induction. This is different from the
Ginzburg-Landau description of a two-dimensional superconductor where the
magnetic field is the curl of an unphysical gauge potential ${\bf A}$.
The dual formulation also accounts for the topological excitations, viz., the
magnetic vortices which in $2D$ are point defects. They are coupled with a
charge $g = (\pi/e) m_A$ to the magnetic field.
In three space dimensions these two basic ingredients will surface again.
Since in $3D$ the magnetic field has three components of which two are
independent, the dual formulation will involve a massive {\it vector} field,
rather than a simple massive scalar field ${\sf h}$ as in $2D$. But what is
more important, the point vortices of the two dimensional case become line
defects in $3D$. A grand canonical ensemble of closed loops requires, as will
be demonstrated in the next section, a fluctuating field of its own to specify
it. That is, accounting for the vortices does not simply add an interaction
term to the theory without vortices, but adds a whole new theory. The
coupling of this new theory---which turns out to be a complex $|\psi|^4$
theory---to the field representing the local field is again given by $(\pi/e)
m_A$ as in two dimensions.
\section{Functional-integral description of a loop gas}
\label{sec:twofold}
The subject of this section is the well-known fact that a loop gas can be
described with the help of a functional integral involving a complex
$|\psi|^4$ theory \cite{GFCM,Parisi}. This will be used in a later section
when formulating the dual theory of the Ginzburg-Landau theory in $3D$. This
theory features fluctuating closed magnetic vortices described by a disorder
field theory. We will review here the derivation in the continuum, the
discussion of the lattice derivation is relegated to the Appendix
\cite{GFCM,AID}.
Our point of departure is the correlation function $G({\bf x})$ of a
free complex field theory defined by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\label{Hamilton}
H = \int d^3x \left(|\nabla \psi|^2 + m^2 |\psi|^2 \right).
\end{equation}
Explicitly,
\begin{equation}
G({\bf x}) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{{\rm e}^{i {\bf k}
\cdot {\bf x}}}{{\bf k}^2 + m^2}.
\end{equation}
This is written in the Schwinger proper-time representation as an integral
over the proper time $s$ \cite{proptime}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{green}
G({\bf x}) &=& \int_0^{\infty} ds \, {\rm e}^{-s m^2} \int \frac{d^3
k}{(2 \pi)^3} {\rm e}^{i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf x} } {\rm
e}^{-s{\bf k}^2} \nonumber \\ &=& \int_0^{\infty} ds \, {\rm e}^{-s m^2}
\left( \frac{1}{4 \pi s} \right)^{3/2} {\rm
e}^{-\case{1}{4} {\bf x}^2/s},
\end{eqnarray}
where we used the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{gamma}
\frac{1}{a} = \int_0^\infty d s \, {\rm e}^{- s a}.
\end{equation}
According to Feynman's formulation of quantum mechanics \cite{Feynman} the
right-hand side of (\ref{green}) can be represented as a sum over all
real-space paths of a particle with mass $\case{1}{2}$ running from $0$ at
imaginary time 0 to ${\bf x}$ at time $s$:
\begin{equation}
\label{feynrep}
\left( \frac{1}{4 \pi s} \right)^{3/2} {\rm e}^{-\case{1}{4}{\bf x}^2/s}
= \int_{{\bf x}(0)=0}^{{\bf
x}(s)={\bf x}} {\cal D} {\bf x}(s') \exp \left[ - \case{1}{4}
\int_0^s ds' \, \dot{\bf x}^2 (s') \right],
\end{equation}
involving the free ``Lagrangian'' $L = \dot{\bf x}^2 /4$. The extra
Boltzmann factor $\exp (-s m^2)$ in (\ref{green}) suppresses large
proper-time values exponentially, and the integral $\int_0^\infty d s$
shows that all positive values of $s$ are allowed and accounted for.
From integrating the identity (\ref{gamma}) with respect to $a$ it
follows that to within an additive constant
\begin{equation}
\ln (a) = - \int_0^\infty \frac{d s}{s} {\rm e}^{-s a}.
\end{equation}
Employing this we can use the previous result to write
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{oint}
{\rm Tr} \ln (- \nabla^2 + m^2) &=& - \int_0^{\infty}
\frac{ds}{s} {\rm e}^{-s m^2} \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} {\rm
e}^{-s {\bf k}^2} \nonumber \\ &=& - \int_0^\infty \frac{d s}{s} {\rm e}^{-s
m^2} \oint {\cal D} {\bf x} (s') \exp \left[ - \case{1}{4} \int_0^s ds' \,
\dot{\bf x}^2 (s') \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where Tr denotes the integral over the momentum variables
\begin{equation}
{\rm Tr} \ln (- \nabla^2 + m^2) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \ln ({\bf k}^2
+ m^2).
\end{equation}
The path integral $\oint {\cal D} {\bf x} (s')$ in (\ref{oint}) runs over
closed loops starting and ending in $0$. Using the identity
\begin{equation}
{\rm Tr} \ln (- \nabla^2 + m^2) = \ln {\rm Det} (- \nabla^2 + m^2),
\end{equation}
we can write the inverse determinant as
\begin{equation}
\label{det}
{\rm Det}^{-1}(-\nabla^2 + m^2) = \exp (-W_0),
\end{equation}
with $W_0$ denoting the right-hand side of (\ref{oint}). The exponential
$\exp(-W_0)$ has the expansion
\begin{equation}
\label{explicit}
{\rm e}^{-W_0} = \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{N!} \prod_{l=1}^N \left[
\int_0^\infty \frac{d s_l}{s_l} {\rm e}^{-m^2 s_l} \oint {\cal D} {\bf
x}(s'_l) \right] \exp \left[ - \frac{1}{4} \sum_{l=1}^N \int_0^{s_l} d
s'_l \, \dot{\bf x}^2(s'_l) \right],
\end{equation}
which we recognize as the partition function $Z$ of a grand canonical ensemble
of fluctuating closed oriented random loops, of arbitrary length and shape.
We will refer to such an ensemble as {\it loop gas}. On account of
(\ref{det}), the exponential $\exp (-W_0)$ may alternatively be viewed as an
inverse functional determinant. As such it is easily recognized as the
partition function of the free complex field theory,
\begin{equation}
Z = \int {\cal D} \psi^* {\cal D} \psi \, {\rm e}^{- H},
\end{equation}
with $H$ the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamilton}). Thus we have proved the
equivalence of a free complex field theory and a free loop gas.
In a superconductor, the vortices have short-range interactions. To describe
these we start again from the field theoretic side. We shall prove that the
Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H = \int d^3 x \left[ |\nabla \psi|^2 +
m^2 |\psi|^2 + \lambda (|\psi|^2)^2 \right],
\end{equation}
with the additional interaction term, accounts for the steric repulsion in the
loop gas. For this we write the complex field $\psi$ as $\psi = (\psi_1 + i
\psi_2)/\sqrt{2}$ and express the interaction term as a functional integral
over an auxiliary field $\sigma$
\begin{equation}
\exp \left[ - \frac{\lambda}{4} \int d^3 x (\psi_a^2)^2 \right] =
\int {\cal D} \sigma \exp \left[ -\int d^3 x \left( \frac{1}{\lambda}
\sigma^2 - i \psi_a^2 \sigma \right) \right],
\end{equation}
where the index $a$ runs over $1,2$. The partition function becomes now
\begin{eqnarray}
Z &=& \int {\cal D} \psi_1 {\cal D} \psi_2 {\cal D} \sigma \exp
\left\{- \int d^3 x \left[ \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \psi_a)^2 +
\frac{m^2}{2} \psi_a^2 - i \sigma \psi_a^2 +
\frac{1}{\lambda} \sigma^2 \right] \right\} \nonumber \\ &=& \int
{\cal D} \sigma \, {\rm Det}^{-1} (- \nabla^2 + m^2 - 2i \sigma) \exp
\left( -\frac{1}{\lambda} \int d^3 x \, \sigma^2 \right) \nonumber
\\ &=& \int {\cal D} \sigma \exp \left( -\frac{1}{\lambda} \int d^3
x \, \sigma^2 \right) \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{N!} \prod_{l=1}^N
\left[ \int_0^\infty \frac{d s_l}{s_l} {\rm e}^{-m^2 s_l} \oint {\cal
D} {\bf x}(s'_l) \right] \nonumber \\ & & {} \times \exp \left( -
\sum_{l=1}^N \int_0^{s_l} d s'_l \left\{ \frac{1}{4} \dot{\bf
x}^2(s'_l) - 2i \sigma [ {\bf x} (s'_l) ] \right\} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where the last equality follows from the previous result
(\ref{explicit}). A simple Gaussian integration yields
\begin{equation}
\int {\cal D} \sigma \exp \left\{ -\frac{1}{\lambda} \int d^3 x
\sigma^2 + 2 i \int_0^{s} d s' \, \sigma \left[ {\bf x} (s') \right] \right\}
= \exp \left\{ - \lambda \int_0^{s} d s' d s'' \, \delta \left[ {\bf
x} (s') - {\bf x} (s'') \right] \right\}.
\end{equation}
Using this in the last expression for $Z$, we obtain the real-space
representation for the partition function of a complex $|\psi|^4$ theory
\begin{eqnarray}
Z = \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{N!} \prod_{l=1}^N \left[
\int_0^\infty \frac{d s_l}{s_l} {\rm e}^{-m^2 s_l} \oint {\cal D} {\bf
x}(s'_l) \right] \exp & & \left\{ - \frac{1}{4} \sum_{l=1}^N
\int_0^{s_l} d s'_l \, \dot{\bf x}^2(s'_l) \right. \nonumber \\ & & {} {}
\left. - \lambda \sum_{l,k=1}^N \int_0^{s_l} d s'_l
\int_0^{s_k} d s''_k \, \delta \left[ {\bf x} (s'_l) - {\bf x} (s''_k)
\right] \right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
This is recognized as the partition function of a loop gas with short-range
repulsion. The field theoretic representation of an interacting loop gas by
a $|\psi|^4$ field theory will be employed in Sec.\ \ref{sec:dual} to
formulate the dual theory of a $3D$ superconductor.
\section{Dual transformation of a $3D$ lattice superconductor}
\label{sec:3DL}
In this section we set up a dual formulation of a $3D$ superconductor on a
lattice. In contrast to the continuum case to be discussed in the next
section, the lattice model can be transformed exactly to its dual version. We
take as starting point the partition function \cite{Peskin}
\begin{equation}
\label{LSC}
Z = \prod_{\bf x} \left[\int d {\bf A} ({\bf x}) \delta
(\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf A}) \right] {\rm e}^{- \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{\bf x} (\overline{\nabla} \times {\bf A})^2} \prod_{\bf x}
\left[ \int_{\pi/a}^{\pi/a} \frac{d \theta({\bf x})}{2 \pi} \right]
\exp \left\{ \beta \sum_{i,{\bf x}} \cos [ \partial_i \theta({\bf x})
- q A_i({\bf x}) ] \right\} ,
\end{equation}
where $\theta({\bf x})$ is a phase variable at site ${\bf x}$ of a
$3D$ cubic lattice, ${\bf A} ({\bf x})$ is the electromagnetic gauge
potential which is a real non-compact variable defined on the directed
links between adjacent sites, $\beta$ is the inverse temperature, and
$q$ is the electric charge. Moreover, ${\bf x} = a x_i \bf{i}$, with
$a$ the lattice spacing, $x_i$ integers labeling the sites, and
$\bf{i}$ three orthogonal vectors spanning the lattice. The sum
$\sum_{\bf x}$, which includes a factor $a^3$, runs over all lattice
sites, while the sum $\sum_i$ runs over all directions; $\nabla$ is a
lattice derivative with components
\begin{equation}
\partial_i f ({\bf x}) = \frac{1}{a} [ f({\bf x} + a {\bf i}) - f(
{\bf x})]; \;\;\; \overline{\partial}_i f ({\bf x}) = \frac{1}{a} [
f({\bf x}) - f({\bf x} - a {\bf i})],
\end{equation}
and the delta function $\delta (\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf A})$ in
(\ref{LSC}) fixes the gauge. The lattice model (\ref{LSC}) is
appropriate for a non-compact gauge group. We shall be working in the
Villain approximation \cite{Villain} of the model, which is obtained
by the following replacement
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{xy}
Z_{xy} &=& \prod_{\bf x} \left[ \int_{\pi/a}^{\pi/a} \frac{d
\theta({\bf x})}{2 \pi} \right] \exp \left\{ \beta \sum_{i,{\bf x}}
\cos [ \partial_i \theta({\bf x}) - q A_i({\bf x}) ] \right\}
\nonumber \\ &\rightarrow& \prod_{\bf x} \left[ \int_{\pi/a}^{\pi/a}
\frac{d \theta({\bf x})}{2 \pi} \right] \sum_{\{{\bf n} ({\bf x}) \} }
\exp \left\{ -\frac{\beta}{2} \sum_{\bf x} [ \nabla \theta({\bf x}) -
q {\bf A} ({\bf x}) - 2 \pi {\bf n} ({\bf x}) ]^2 \right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf n} ({\bf x})$ are integers which are---like the gauge
potential ${\bf A} ({\bf x})$---defined on the directed links between
adjacent sites. The partition function in (\ref{xy}) is given the
index $xy$ to indicate that this part of the theory is simply the
$xy$ model when the electric charge $q$ is set to zero. We proceed by
introducing an auxiliary field ${\bf v} ({\bf x})$ via a quadratic
completion
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ Z_{xy} = \prod_{\bf x} \left[ \int_{\pi/a}^{\pi/a}
\frac{d \theta({\bf x})}{2 \pi} \int d {\bf v} ({\bf x}) \right] }
\hspace{2.0cm} \nonumber \\ & &
\times \sum_{\{{\bf n} ({\bf x}) \} }
\exp \left\{- \frac{1}{2\beta} \sum_{\bf x} {\bf v}^2 ({\bf x}) + i
\sum_{\bf x} {\bf v} ({\bf x}) \cdot \left[ \nabla \theta ({\bf x}) -
q {\bf A} ({\bf x}) - 2 \pi {\bf n} ({\bf x}) \right] \right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The integration over $\theta ({\bf x})$ can then be carried out to
yield the constraint $\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf v} ({\bf x}) = 0$,
while the sum $\sum_{\{{\bf n} ({\bf x}) \} } \exp [- 2 \pi i {\bf v}
({\bf x}) \cdot {\bf n} ({\bf x})]$ forces the integral over the real
variable ${\bf v}$ to take on only integer values ${\bf l}$, say. This
last observation follows from the Poisson summation formula
\begin{equation}
\label{Poisson}
\sum_n {\rm e}^{-2 \pi i v n} = \sum_l \delta (v -l).
\end{equation}
In this way the partition function $Z_{xy}$ becomes:
\begin{equation}
\label{xyspacetime}
Z_{xy} = \sum_{\{{\bf l} ({\bf x}) \} } \delta_{\overline{\nabla}
\cdot {\bf l},0 } \exp \left[ - \frac{1}{2 \beta} \sum_{\bf x} {\bf
l}^2 ({\bf x}) - i q \sum_{\bf x} {\bf l} ({\bf x}) \cdot {\bf A}
({\bf x}) \right].
\end{equation}
Whereas representation (\ref{xy}) of $Z_{xy}$ is a field theoretic
description of the lattice model, Eq.\ (\ref{xyspacetime}) describes it
in the real-space language of (charged) closed loops. This is
analogous to the twofold description of a loop gas in the continuum
which we discussed in the preceding section.
The constraint $\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf l} = 0$ in
(\ref{xyspacetime}) can be explicitly solved by introducing an
auxiliary integer-valued potential ${\bf i} ({\bf x})$, via ${\bf l} =
\overline{\nabla} \times {\bf i}$, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{xydual}
Z_{xy} = \prod_{\bf x} \left[ \int d {\bf {\sf h}} ({\bf x})
\delta(\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf {\sf h}} ) \right] \sum_{\{{\bf m}
({\bf x}) \} } \delta_{\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf m},0 } \, {\rm
e}^{-2 \pi i \sum_{\bf x} {\bf m} \cdot {\bf {\sf h}} } \exp \left[ -
\frac{1}{2\beta} \sum_{\bf x} (\overline{\nabla} \times {\bf {\sf
h}})^2 - i q \sum_{\bf x} (\overline{\nabla} \times {\bf {\sf h}})
\cdot {\bf A} \right].
\end{equation}
Here, because of the presence of the factor $\exp (-2 \pi i \sum_{\bf x} {\bf
m} \cdot {\bf {\sf h}})$, the sum over the integer-valued fields ${\bf m}({\bf
x})$ ensures, on account of the Poisson formula (\ref{Poisson}), that only
integer-valued fields ${\bf {\sf h}} ({\bf x}) = {\bf i} ({\bf x})$ contribute
to the integral $\int d {\bf {\sf h}} ({\bf x})$, as required. For $q=0$,
corresponding to the uncharged $xy$ model, Eq.\ (\ref{xydual}) gives a dual
representation in terms of vortices ${\bf m}$ coupled to a massless vector
field ${\bf {\sf h}}$. The condition $\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf m} = 0$ in
(\ref{xydual}) is to assure that the vortices form closed loops, which is
physically the case. When the integration over the field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ is
carried out, so that one is only left with vortices, one finds them
interacting via long-range forces of the Biot-Savart type.
For the lattice superconductor we have to add the electromagnetic
part to $Z_{x y}$ \cite{TS}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{lscdual}
Z &=& \prod_{\bf x} \left[ \int d {\bf A} ({\bf x}) \delta(
\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf A} ) \int d {\bf {\sf h}} ({\bf x})
\delta ( \overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf {\sf h}}) \right] \sum_{\{{\bf
m} ({\bf x}) \} } \delta_{\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf m},0 }
\nonumber \\ & & {} \times \exp \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\bf x} (
\overline{\nabla} \times {\bf A} )^2 -2 \pi i \sum_{\bf x} {\bf m}
\cdot {\bf {\sf h}} - \frac{1}{2 \beta} \sum_{\bf x}
(\overline{\nabla} \times {\bf {\sf h}})^2 - i q \sum_{\bf x}
(\overline{\nabla} \times {\bf {\sf h}}) \cdot {\bf A} \right]
\nonumber \\ &=& \prod_{\bf x} \left[ \int d {\bf {\sf h}} ({\bf x})
\delta ( \overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf {\sf h}} ) \right] \sum_{\{{\bf
m} ({\bf x}) \} } \delta_{\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf m},0 } \, {\rm
e}^{-2 \pi i \sum_{\bf x} {\bf m} \cdot {\bf {\sf h}} } \exp \left\{ -
\frac{1}{2 \beta} \sum_{\bf x} \left[ (\overline{\nabla} \times {\sf
h})^2 + \beta q^2 {\bf {\sf h}}^2 \right] \right\} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where in the last step we carried out the integral over the
electromagnetic gauge potential which resulted in a mass term for the
vector field ${\bf {\sf h}}$. The constraint $\nabla {\bf {\sf h}} =
0$ is an intrinsic part of the description of a fluctuating massive
vector field. For a non-fluctuating field it follows automatically
from the field equation. Physically, (\ref{lscdual}) represents a
loop gas of vortices coupled to a massive vector field. The
massiveness of ${\bf {\sf h}}$ is in fact the only difference with the
dual description of the $xy$ model, Eq.\ (\ref{xydual}) with $q=0$. As
a result, when integrating out this vector field, one obtains again a
Biot-Savart type of force between the vortices, but now of finite
range.
In the next section, an equivalent dual map will be carried out in the
continuum, yielding a continuum version of the lattice model (\ref{lscdual}).
The fluctuating vector field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ will be related to the physical
local induction. With this identification in mind the constraint
$\overline{\nabla} \cdot {\bf {\sf h}}=0$ in (\ref{xydual}) can be understood
as representing the fact that the magnetic induction is divergence-free.
\section{Dual map of a $3D$ superconductor}
\label{sec:dual}
This section is the central part of the paper, in which we derive the
dual formulation of the Ginzburg-Landau model. We shall argue that
this description is one in terms of a genuine order parameter which
involves a global rather than a local symmetry as is the case in the
Ginzburg-Landau formulation \cite{KRE}. For this reason the dual
theory can be employed to arrive at a conventional Landau description
of the superconducting phase transition \cite{GFCM,KKR,MA}, which will
be the subject of Sec.\ \ref{sec:Landau}.
The fundamental object of the dual description is the magnetic vortex, or
Abrikosov flux tube. Such a topological defect is either closed, infinitely
long, or---in the case of a finite system---starts and ends at the boundary of
the specimen. A magnetic vortex can never terminate inside a superconductor.
However, for reasons that shall become clear when we proceed, we will employ a
construct that allows us to describe, at least theoretically, magnetic
vortices that do terminate inside the superconductor. To this end we allow
the system to contain a Dirac monopole \cite{Dirac} as a test particle.
Recall that due to the Meissner effect, a magnetic field can penetrate a
superconductor only by forming quantized flux tubes. Since also the flux
lines emanating from the monopole are squeezed into a tube, a monopole
produces precisely such a vortex.
Section \ref{sec:2D} revealed that a magnetic vortex is described by a plastic
field ${\bf B}^{\rm P}$ which appears in the theory in the combination $\nabla
\times {\bf A} - {\bf B}^{\rm P}$ with the gauge field \cite{Dirac}. In other
words, in the presence of a test tube, the Hamiltonian becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{HP}
H^{\rm P} = \int d^3 x \left[ \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \times {\bf A} - {\bf
B}^{\rm P})^2 + \frac{1}{2} m_A^2 A_i \left( \delta_{i j} - \frac{\partial_i
\partial_j }{\nabla^2} \right) A_j + \frac{1}{2\zeta}(\nabla \cdot
{\bf A})^2 \right],
\end{equation}
where we added a gauge-fixing term $(1/2\zeta)(\nabla \cdot {\bf A})^2$, and
given $H$ the superscript ${\rm P}$ to indicate the presence of the test
particle with its emanating tube. We recall that we consider the
Ginzburg-Landau model (\ref{GL}) in the London limit, where the
superconducting order field is written as $\phi (x) = \exp[i\theta(x)]
w/\sqrt{2}$, with $w$ a constant. The mass term, with $m_A = 2 e w$, is a
result of integrating out the phase field $\theta$. In three dimensions, the
plastic field ${\bf B}^{\rm P}$ has the form \cite{Dirac,Kleinert}
\begin{equation}
\label{BP3}
B_i^{\rm P} ({\bf x}) = \frac{\pi}{e} \int_{L_{\bf z}} ds \frac{d
y_i}{d s} \delta[ {\bf x} - {\bf y} (s) ] = \frac{\pi}{e} \int_{L_{\bf
z}} d y_i \, \delta ({\bf x} - {\bf y}),
\end{equation}
which is the proper three-dimensional generalization of the $2D$ result
(\ref{BP}). The field satisfies the equation $\nabla \cdot {\bf B}^{\rm P}
({\bf x}) = (\pi/e) \, \delta ({\bf x} - {\bf z})$ on account of Stokes'
theorem, implying that it indeed describes a monopole located at ${\bf z}$.
The line $L_{\bf z}$ starting at the point ${\bf z}$ and running to infinity
is the Dirac string accompanying the monopole. As will be clarified
below, the location of the flux tube coincides with that of the Dirac string
(see Fig.\ \ref{fig:flux}).
From (\ref{HP}) we infer that the operator $V(L_{\bf z})$ describing
the test tube is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{dop}
V(L_{\bf z}) = {\rm e}^{- \case{1}{2} \int d^3 x \left({\bf B}^{\rm P}
\right)^2} \exp \left[ \int d^3 x \, (\nabla \times {\bf A}) \cdot {\bf
B}^{\rm P} \right].
\end{equation}
We are interested in the expectation value of this operator:
\begin{equation}
\label{VV}
\langle V(L_{\bf z}) \rangle = \int {\cal D} {\bf A} \, {\rm e}^{-
H^{\rm P}}.
\end{equation}
Since the integral over ${\bf A}$ is Gaussian, it can be evaluated by
substituting the field equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{clas}
A_i ({\bf x}) = \int d^3 y \Delta_{i j} ({\bf x} - {\bf y})
\left[\nabla \times {\bf B}^{\rm P} ({\bf y})\right]_j,
\end{equation}
back into the exponent. The gauge-field correlation function $\Delta_{i
j}$ appearing here is
\begin{equation}
\label{gfprop}
\Delta_{i j} ({\bf x}) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \left(
\frac{\delta_{i j} - (k_i k_j)/{\bf k}^2}{{\bf k}^2+m_A^2} + \zeta
\frac{k_i k_j}{{\bf k}^4} \right) {\rm e}^{i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf x}}.
\end{equation}
The gauge-dependent longitudinal part of the correlation function does not
contribute to (\ref{VV}) since $\nabla \cdot (\nabla \times {\bf B}^{\rm P})
= 0$. The expectation value is therefore independent of gauge choice.
The local induction corresponding to the classical solution (\ref{clas})
in the presence of the test tube is
\begin{equation}
\label{bclas}
\nabla \times {\bf A}({\bf x}) - {\bf B}^{\rm P}({\bf x}) =
\frac{\pi}{e} \nabla \Delta({\bf x} - {\bf z}) - m_A^2 \int d^3 y
\Delta({\bf x}- {\bf y}) {\bf B}^{\rm P} ({\bf y}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{Yuka}
\Delta ( {\bf x} ) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{( 2\pi
)^3} \frac{ {\rm e}^{i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf x}}}{{\bf k}^2+m^2_A} =
\frac{{\rm e}^{-m_A |{\bf x}|}}{4\pi |{\bf x}|}
\end{equation}
is the Yukawa potential. The term ${\bf B}^{\rm P}$ in (\ref{bclas})
describes the Dirac string $L_{\bf z}$, the first term on the right-hand side
corresponds to the screened Coulomb force generated by the monopole. The last
term, which is only present when $m_A \neq 0$---i.e., when there is a Meissner
effect---describes the magnetic flux tube. A closer inspection of
(\ref{bclas}) reveals that the subtraction of the Dirac string ${\bf B}^{\rm
P}$ from the field $\nabla \times {\bf A}$ is necessary in order to obtain the
physical local induction ${\bf h}$ \cite{Dirac,Kleinert}. Indeed, if we
calculate from the right-hand side of (\ref{bclas}) the magnetic flux through
a plane perpendicular to the Dirac string, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{Diracisright}
\int d^2 x_i \left[ \frac{\pi}{e} \partial_i \Delta({\bf x} - {\bf z})
- m_A^2 \int d^3 y \Delta({\bf x}- {\bf y}) B^{\rm P}_i ({\bf y})
\right] = - \frac{\pi}{e}
\end{equation}
that precisely one flux quantum pierces the surface in the negative direction
(see Fig.\ \ref{fig:flux}). Here, $d^2x_i$ is an element of the surface
orthogonal to the Dirac string, and we used Gauss' law to rewrite the first
term on the left-hand side as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\pi}{e} \int d^2x_i \, \partial_i \Delta({\bf x} - {\bf z}) =
\frac{\pi}{e} \int d^3x \, \nabla^2 \Delta ({\bf x} - {\bf z}).
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{Diracisright}) confirms Dirac's statement that the magnetic
flux emanating from a monopole must be supplied by an infinitesimally thin
string of magnetic dipoles and that in order to obtain the true local field of
a genuine point monopole, this string has to be subtracted. While this string
is indeed completely unphysical in the normal phase, it acquires a physical
relevance in the superconducting phase \cite{Nambu} where it serves as the
core of the Abrikosov flux tube.
Substituting the field equation (\ref{clas}) back into the theory, we
obtain for the vacuum expectation value $\langle V(L_{\bf z}) \rangle$
in the London limit
\begin{equation}
\label{propstate}
\langle V( L_{\bf z} ) \rangle = {\rm e}^{\case{1}{2} \int d^3 x
\left({\bf B}^{\rm P} \right)^2} \exp \left\{ {1 \over 2} \int d^3
x d^3 y \, [\nabla \times {\bf B}^{\rm P}({\bf x})]_i \,
\Delta_{i j } ( {\bf x} - {\bf y}) \, [\nabla \times {\bf B}^{\rm
P}({\bf y})]_j \right\},
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{vv*}
\langle V( L_{\bf z} ) \rangle = \exp \biggl\{
- \frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x d^3 y \left[ \rho ({\bf x})\,
\Delta({\bf x} - {\bf y}) \, \rho ({\bf y}) + m_A^2 B^{\rm P}_i
({\bf x}) \, \Delta({\bf x} - {\bf y}) \, B^{\rm P}_i ({\bf y})
\right] \biggr\},
\end{equation}
where $\rho ({\bf x}) = (\pi/e) \delta ({\bf x} - {\bf z})$ is the
monopole density. In deriving this we have omitted terms depending only
on $w$.
It should be noted that the first factor in (\ref{propstate}) diverges
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x \, \left( {\bf B}^{\rm P} \right)^2 =
\frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\pi}{e}
\right)^2 \int_{L_{\bf z}} d x_i \int_{L_{\bf z}} d y_i
\, \delta({\bf x} - {\bf y}),
\end{equation}
representing the self-interaction of the Dirac string. This term canceled
in (\ref{vv*}). The first term in (\ref{vv*}) contains for ${\bf x} = {\bf
y}$ a diverging monopole self-interaction. This divergence is irrelevant and
can be eliminated by defining a renormalized operator
\begin{equation}
\label{renop}
V_{\rm r} (L_{\bf z}) = V(L_{\bf z}) \exp\left[ \frac{\pi^2}{2 e^2}
\Delta(0) \right].
\end{equation}
The second term in (\ref{vv*}) is the most important one for our
purposes. It represents a Biot-Savart interaction between two line
elements $d x_i$ and $d y_i$ of the magnetic vortex (see
Fig. \ref{fig:biot}). It contains an ultraviolet singularity due to
fact that in the London limit, where the mass $|m_{\phi}|$ of the
superconducting order field is taken to be infinite, the
vortices are considered to be ideal lines. For a finite mass the
magnetic vortices have a typical width of the order of the coherence
length $\xi =1/|m_{\phi}|$. This mass therefore provides a natural
ultraviolet cutoff to the theory. The last term in (\ref{vv*}) then
takes the form \cite{Nambu}
\begin{equation}
\label{moncon}
- {m_A^2 \over 2}\left( \frac{\pi}{e}
\right)^2 \int_{L_{\bf z}} d x_i \int_{L_{\bf z}} d y_i
\, \Delta({\bf x} - {\bf y})
= - M_V \left| L_{\bf z} \right|,
\end{equation}
with $|L_{\bf z}|$ the (infinite) length of the flux tube, and
\cite{Abrikosov}
\begin{equation}
\label{M}
M_V=\left( \frac{\pi}{e} \right)^2 \frac{m^2_A}{8\pi} \ln\left(
\frac{|m_{\phi}^2|}{m_A^2} \right) = \frac{\pi w^2}{2} \ln\left(
\frac{\lambda^2}{\xi^2} \right)
\end{equation}
being the free energy per unit length. The combination $\lambda/\xi$
defines the dimensionless Ginzburg-Landau parameter $\kappa$, which in
the London limit is much larger than $1$.
For a monopole-antimonopole pair, (\ref{moncon}) amounts to a confining linear
potential between the monopole and antimonopole in the superconducting phase.
Let $V^*(L_{\bar {\bf z}})$ describe an antimonopole located at ${\bar {\bf
z}}$, with $L_{\bar {\bf z}}$ being a line running from infinity to ${\bar
{\bf z}}$. Collecting all terms, we find for such a pair
\begin{equation}
\label{correlation}
\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{{\bf z}} ) V_{\rm r}^*( L_{\bar {\bf z}} )
\rangle = \exp(-M_V\left| L_{{{\bf z}}{\bar {\bf z}}}
\right|) \exp\left(\frac{\pi}{4e^2} \frac{
{\rm e}^{-m_A\left| L_{{{\bf z}}{\bar {\bf z}}} \right|} }{ \left|
L_{{{\bf z}}{\bar {\bf z}}} \right| } \right),
\end{equation}
where $L_{{{\bf z}}{\bar {\bf z}}}$ is the flux tube connecting the
monopole at ${{\bf z}}$ with the antimonopole at ${\bar {\bf z}}$, and
$|L_{{{\bf z}}{\bar {\bf z}}}|$ is its length.
We remark that the two Dirac strings may initially run to any point at
infinity. Due to the string tension, they join on the shortest path $L_{{{\bf
z}}{\bar {\bf z}}}$ between the monopoles. The result (\ref{correlation}) is
central to our line of arguments. It shows that the correlation
function $\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z} ) V_{\rm r}^*( L_{\bar {\bf z}} )
\rangle$ behaves differently in the two phases \cite{KRE,Marino}. In the
superconducting phase, where the gauge field is massive, the ``confinement''
factor dominates and the correlation function decays exponentially for
distances larger than $1/M_V$:
\begin{equation}
\label{correlator}
\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z} ) V_{\rm r}^*(
L_{\bar {\bf z}}) \rangle \stackrel{| L_{{{\bf z}}{\bar {\bf z}}} |
\rightarrow \infty }{\longrightarrow} 0.
\end{equation}
This behavior is typical for an operator in a phase without massless
excitations. On the other hand, in the high-temperature phase, where the
gauge field is massless, the confinement factor in the correlation function
(\ref{correlation}) disappears, while the argument of the second exponential
turns into a pure Coulomb potential. The correlation function remains,
consequently, finite for large distances:
\begin{equation}
\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z} ) V_{\rm r}^*(
L_{\bar {\bf z}} ) \rangle \stackrel{| L_{{\bf z}{\bar {\bf z}}} |
\rightarrow \infty }{\longrightarrow} 1.
\end{equation}
By the cluster property of correlation functions this implies
that the operator describing the test tube develops a vacuum
expectation value. This signals a proliferation of magnetic vortices.
Indeed, according to (\ref{M}) the free energy $M_V$ per unit length
of a vortex vanishes at the transition point, where $w \rightarrow
0$. It should be noted that it is the high-temperature phase and not
the superconducting phase where $V_{\rm r}(L_{\bf z})$ develops an
expectation value.
Before deriving the full-fledged dual theory let us rederive the
correlation function (\ref{correlation}) in a way that reveals some
aspects of the nature of the dual theory. To this end we linearize
the functional integral over the gauge field by introducing an
auxiliary field ${\bf {\sf h}}$. In the gauge $\nabla \cdot {\bf A}
= 0$, which corresponds to setting $\zeta=0$, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{Vdu}
\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z} ) V_{\rm r}^*(
L_{\bar {\bf z}}) \rangle = \int {\cal D} {\bf A} {\cal D} {\bf
{\sf h}} \exp \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x \, {\bf {\sf h}}^2 + i \int
d^3 x \, {\bf {\sf h}} \cdot (\nabla \times {\bf A} - {\bf B}^{\rm P}) -
\frac{m_A^2}{2} \int d^3 x \, {\bf A}^2 \right],
\end{equation}
where now $\nabla \cdot {\bf B}^{\rm P}({\bf x}) = (\pi/e) [ \delta ({\bf
x}-{\bf z})- \delta({\bf x} - {\overline {\bf z}})]$. Also the divergence
$\nabla \cdot (\nabla \times {\bf A} - {\bf B}^{\rm P})$ is non-zero only at
the location of the artificially introduced monopoles. In the absence of
monopoles it follows that only the transverse part of ${\bf {\sf h}}$ couples
to $\nabla \times {\bf A} - {\bf B}^{\rm P}$. We therefore restrict the
integral over the auxiliary field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ to the transverse degrees of
freedom. This is justified by considering the field equation for ${\bf {\sf
h}}$ following from (\ref{Vdu})
\begin{equation}
\label{phys}
{\bf {\sf h}} = i (\nabla \times {\bf A} - {\bf B}^{\rm P}) = i {\bf
h}.
\end{equation}
It tells us that apart from a factor $i$, the fluctuating field ${\bf
{\sf h}}$ may be thought of as representing the local induction
${\bf h}$, which we know to be divergence-free in the absence of
monopoles.
The integral over the vector potential is again easily carried out by
substituting the field equation for ${\bf A}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{fieldeq}
{\bf A} = \frac{i}{m_A^2} \nabla \times {\bf {\sf h}},
\end{equation}
back into (\ref{Vdu}), with the result
\begin{equation}
\label{Vdua}
\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z} ) V_{\rm r}^*(
L_{\bar {\bf z}}) \rangle = \int {\cal D} {\bf {\sf h}} \, \delta
(\nabla \cdot {\bf {\sf h}}) \exp \left\{ -\frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x
\left[ \frac{1}{m_A^2}(\nabla \times {\bf {\sf h}})^2 + {\bf {\sf
h}}^2 \right] - i \int d^3 x \, {\bf {\sf h}} \cdot {\bf B}^{\rm P}
\right\}.
\end{equation}
We have incorporated a $\delta$ function enforcing explicitly the constraint
$\nabla \cdot {\bf {\sf h}} = 0$. In the present formulation this constraint
is an intrinsic part of the description of a fluctuating massive vector field.
For a non-fluctuating field it is a consequence of the field equation of ${\sf
{\bf h}}$:
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{m_A^2} (\partial_i \partial_j - \nabla^2 \delta_{i j} ) h_j
-h_i - i B_i^{\rm P} = 0.
\end{equation}
Applying $\partial_i$ to this equation, we obtain $\nabla \cdot {\bf {\sf
h}} = 0$ provided no monopoles are present and the mass $m_A$ is
non-zero.
Expression (\ref{Vdua}) shows that the test tube described by the plastic
field ${\bf B}^{\rm P}$ couples to the fluctuating massive vector field ${\bf
{\sf h}}$, with a coupling constant given by $g = (\pi/e) m_A = 2 \pi w$ as in
two dimensions. As $T$ approaches the critical temperature from below, $w$
goes to zero, and ${\bf {\sf h}}$ decouples from the test tube described by
${\bf B}^{\rm P}$. After carrying out the integral over ${\bf {\sf h}}$ in
(\ref{Vdua}) we recover the result (\ref{correlation}).
The fact that the magnetic field has a finite penetration depth in
the superconducting phase is reflected by the mass term of the
${\bf {\sf h}}$ field.
It is interesting to consider the limit $m_A \rightarrow 0$ in detail,
where the massive vector field decouples from the magnetic vortex.
This limit yields the constraint $\nabla \times {\bf {\sf h}} = 0$
which can be solved by setting ${\bf {\sf h}} = \nabla \gamma$. The
correlation function $\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z} ) V_{\rm r}^*(
L_{\bar {\bf z}}) \rangle$ then takes the simple form
\begin{equation}
\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z}) V_{\rm r}^*(
L_{\bar {\bf z}}) \rangle = \int {\cal D} \gamma \exp \left[
-\frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x (\nabla \gamma)^2 + i \int d^3 x \gamma \rho
\right],
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the monopole density. In the absence of monopoles, the theory
reduces to that of a free massless mode $\gamma$ that may be thought of as
representing the magnetic scalar potential. This follows from combining the
physical interpretation of the vector field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ (\ref{phys}) with
the equation ${\bf {\sf h}} = \nabla \gamma$. Specifically,
\begin{equation}
\label{gammaid}
\nabla \gamma = i ( \nabla \times {\bf A} - {\bf B}^{\rm P} ).
\end{equation}
Using the definition of the monopole density, $\rho({\bf x}) = (\pi/e)
[ \delta({\bf x}-{\bf z}) - \delta({\bf x}-{\overline {\bf z}})]$, we
see that in terms of the field $\gamma$ the correlation function
reads
\begin{equation}
\label{localrep}
\langle V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z} ) V_{\rm r}^*(
L_{\bar {\bf z}}) = \left\langle {\rm e}^{ ( \pi/e) i [\gamma ({\bf
z})- \gamma({\overline {\bf z}})] } \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
This demonstrates that the operator $V_{\rm r}( L_{\bf z} )$
describing the test tube, which was introduced in (\ref{dop}) in a
real-space formulation involving the singular plastic field ${\bf
B}^{\rm P}$ (\ref{BP3}), is now represented as an ordinary field.
Since we are in the normal conducting phase, where $V_{\rm r}$
develops a non-zero expectation value, the presence of the phase
$\gamma$ indicates that this expectation value breaks a global U(1)
symmetry, with $\gamma$ the ensuing Goldstone field. This will be
further clarified below.
Equation (\ref{localrep}) reveals in addition that in the normal conducting
phase the Dirac string looses its physical relevance, the right-hand side
depending only on the end points ${\bf z}$ and ${\overline {\bf z}}$, not on
the line $L_{{\bf z}{\bar {\bf z}}}$. This fact is also apparent from our
starting formula (\ref{vv*}), where the last term and therefore any reference
to $L_{\bf z}$ disappears in the limit $m_A \rightarrow 0$. It makes no sense
to talk about magnetic vortices in this phase because they are condensed and
do not exist as physical excitations. There is also no non-trivial topology
to assure their stability.
We are now in a position to derive the dual theory of a $3D$
superconductor. This theory features a grand-canonical ensemble of
fluctuating closed magnetic vortices, of arbitrary shape and length,
which have a steric repulsion, i.e., a loop gas of magnetic vortices.
We know that such an ensemble can be described by a disorder field
theory, consisting of a complex $|\psi|^4$ theory. On the other hand,
our study of a single magnetic vortex revealed that it couples with a
coupling constant $g$ to the fluctuating vector field ${\bf {\sf h}}$.
These two observations uniquely determine the dual theory in the
London limit as being given by \cite{BS,Kawai,GFCM,KKR,MA}
\begin{equation}
\label{funcZ}
Z = \int {\cal D} {\bf {\sf h}} {\cal D} \psi^{*} {\cal D} \psi
\, \delta (\nabla \cdot {\bf {\sf h}}) \exp
\left(- H_{\psi} \right)
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{Hpsi}
H_{\psi} = \int d^3 x \left[ \frac{1}{2 m_A^2} (\nabla \times {\bf {\sf h}})^2
+ \frac{1}{2} {\bf {\sf h}}^2 + |(\nabla -i \frac{\pi}{e} {\bf {\sf h}})
\psi|^2 + m_\psi^2 |\psi|^2 + u |\psi|^4 \right],
\end{equation}
where the $\psi$ field is minimally coupled to the vector field ${\bf {\sf
h}}$. Equation (\ref{Hpsi}) replaces the lattice Hamiltonian (\ref{lscdual})
near the critical point. It is a description of the superconducting state in
terms of physical variables: the field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ describes the local
induction, whereas $\psi$ accounts for the loop gas of magnetic vortices.
There are no other physical objects present in a superconductor. The dual
theory has no local gauge symmetry because the vector field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ is
massive. In fact, the two observations are connected. The presence of a
local gauge symmetry in a given theory may be looked upon as reflecting a
redundancy in the description. Since the dual theory is formulated in terms
of physical variables, there is no redundancy, and thus no local gauge
symmetry.
Although (\ref{funcZ}) was derived starting from the London limit, it is
also relevant near the phase transition. The point is that integrating out the
size fluctuations of the scalar field $\phi$ would only generate higher-order
interaction terms and a possible change of the mass and interaction parameter
$m_\psi$ and $u$. But these modifications do not alter the critical behavior
of the theory.
The energy $M_V$ (\ref{M}) appears in the dual theory as a one-loop
on-shell mass correction stemming from the graph depicted in Fig.\
\ref{fig:biot}, which we now interpret as a Feynman graph. The
straight and wiggly lines represent the $\psi$ and ${\bf
A}$ field correlation functions, respectively.
A measure for the interaction strength of a massive vector field in $3D$ is
given by the dimensionless parameter equal to the square of the coupling
constant multiplied by the range of the interaction. For the dual theory this
factor is $g^2/m_A \sim m_A/e^2$, which is the inverse of the strength of the
electromagnetic gauge field ${\bf A}$ in the superconducting phase. This is a
common feature of theories which are dual to each other.
Another notable property of the dual theory is that in the limit $e
\rightarrow 0$ it changes into a local gauge theory \cite{GFCM},
\begin{equation}
H_{\psi} \rightarrow \int d^3 x \left[ \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \times
{\bf {\sf h}})^2 + |(\nabla -i g {\bf {\sf h}}) \psi|^2 + m_\psi^2
|\psi|^2 + u |\psi|^4 \right],
\end{equation}
as can be checked by rescaling the dual field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ in the
Hamiltonian (\ref{Hpsi}).
We next investigate what happens with the dual theory when we approach the
critical temperature. Remember that $w$ and therefore $m_A$ tends to zero in
the limit where $T$ tends to the critical temperature from below. From the
first term in the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hpsi}) it again follows that $\nabla
\times {\bf {\sf h}} \rightarrow 0$ in this limit, so that we can write once
more ${\bf {\sf h}} = \nabla \gamma$, and (\ref{Hpsi}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{Hpsi'}
H_{\psi} = \int d^3 x \left[ \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \gamma)^2 + |(\nabla -i
\frac{\pi}{e} \nabla \gamma) \psi|^2 + m_\psi^2 |\psi|^2 + u |\psi|^4 \right].
\end{equation}
This equation shows that $\gamma$, representing the magnetic scalar potential,
cannot be distinguished from the phase of the disorder field. Indeed, let
$(\pi/e) \vartheta$ be this phase. Then, the canonical transformation
$\vartheta \rightarrow \vartheta + \gamma$ absorbs the scalar potential into
the phase of $\psi$; the first term in (\ref{Hpsi'}) decouples from the theory
and yields a trivial contribution to the partition function. In this way, the
dual theory reduces to a pure $|\psi|^4$ theory
\begin{equation}
\label{Hpsi''}
H_{\psi} = \int d^3 x \left( |\nabla \psi|^2 + m_\psi^2 |\psi|^2 + u |\psi|^4
\right).
\end{equation}
It was already concluded that in the high-temperature phase the
magnetic vortices proliferate as indicated by the fact that $\psi$,
giving a field theoretic description of the loop gas of these
objects, develops a non-zero expectation value at the transition point.
This transition is triggered by a change in sign of $m_\psi^2$. In
the London limit the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hpsi''}) then takes the simple
form
\begin{equation}
\label{psisim}
H_{\psi} = \int d^3 x \left[ \frac{1}{2} v^2
\left(\frac{\pi}{e}\right)^2 (\nabla \gamma)^2 \right],
\end{equation}
with $v$ the expectation value of the disorder field, $v/\sqrt{2} = \langle
|\psi| \rangle$, and where we now represented the phase of $\psi$ by $(\pi/e)
\gamma$ to bring out the fact that $\gamma$ describes the magnetic scalar
potential. As we will demonstrate below, $v$ has the value $v = e/\pi$
\cite{KRE} of an inverse flux quantum, so that with our normalization choice
of the phase of the $\psi$ field, Eq.\ (\ref{psisim}) takes the canonical
form.
The picture of the superconducting phase transition that emerges in
the dual formulation of the Ginzburg-Landau theory is the following.
When the critical temperature is approached from below, there is a
proliferation of magnetic vortices. We recall that in the London
limit parallel vortices repel each other, so that a single vortex
prefers to crumple. Near $T_{\rm c}$ we then have a spaghetti of
vortices which fill the space completely at and above the transition
temperature. Since inside the core of a vortex one has the normal
phase, the system thus becomes normal conducting. Whereas in the
Ginzburg-Landau formulation a magnetic vortex is described by a
singular plastic field ${\bf B}^{\rm P}$, in the dual formulation it
is represented by the Noether current $j_i = \psi^*
\tensor{\partial_i} \psi -2 i g {\sf h}_i \psi^* \psi$. This follows
from comparing the terms coupling linearly to the fluctuating ${\bf
{\sf h}}$ field. In the normal conducting phase the field $\psi$
develops a vacuum expectation value, and thereby breaks the global
U(1) symmetry of the $|\psi|^4$ theory; $\gamma$ is the ensuing
Goldstone field. The Noether current becomes in the London limit
${\bf j} = \nabla \gamma$, with $\gamma$ representing the massless
photon of the high-temperature phase. It should be noted that at
$T_{\rm c}$ the fluctuating local field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ decouples from
$\psi$ because $g \rightarrow 0$.
\section{The Mixed State}
\label{sec:mixed}
In the previous section it was shown that the dual theory of the
Ginzburg-Landau model features a loop gas of magnetic vortices, i.e.,
closed random vortices of arbitrary shape and length which are
generated by fluctuations. It is well known that magnetic vortices
can also be generated by applying an external magnetic field $H$.
Above a certain critical value $H_{{\rm c}_1}$ magnetic vortices start
to penetrate the superconductor, provided it is a type-II
superconductor. Below this lower critical field, the Meissner effect
expels all flux lines from the system. In thermodynamic equilibrium
the vortices in the so-called mixed state form a $2D$ triangular
lattice perpendicular to the applied field, a so-called Abrikosov flux
lattice \cite{Abrikosov} (see Fig. \ref{fig:fluxlattice}). The $2D$
vortex density in such a lattice is given by $\rho _\otimes =
2/(\sqrt{3}a^2)$, with $a$ the lattice spacing. The magnetic flux
$\Phi = \int d^2 x B$ through the lattice, which is given by the
number of vortices $N$ multiplied by the fundamental flux unit $\pi/e$
carried by a single flux tube, increases with the applied field. At a
second critical value $H_{{\rm c}_2}$ the magnetic induction $B$
becomes homogeneous and saturates the applied field; no more vortices
are nucleated. The maximum vortex density $\rho_{\otimes, {\rm max}}$
reads
\begin{equation}
\label{rmax}
\rho _{\otimes, {\rm max}} = H_{{\rm c}_2} \frac{e}{\pi } = \frac{1}{2
\pi \xi ^2},
\end{equation}
where $H_{{\rm c}_2} = 1/(2 e \xi^2)$ is the upper critical field
expressed in terms of the coherence length $\xi= 1/|m_\phi|$
\cite{saintjames}. At this value the magnetic vortices are closely
packed and the system becomes normal conducting (see below). The area
that can be assigned to a single vortex is $S_\otimes = 1/\rho_\otimes
= 2 \pi \xi^2$, so that $N S_\otimes$ covers the whole surface $S$
perpendicular to the applied field.
Let us study the Abrikosov flux lattice in the London limit, where the
thickness of a magnetic vortex is considered to be infinitesimal small
as compared to the penetration depth $\lambda= 1/m_A$. In this limit,
where $|m_\phi|=1/\xi$ may be taken to be infinite, the
superconducting order field $\phi$ is frozen in, so that
there is only one type of interaction between the magnetic vortices
mediated by the gauge field ${\bf A}$. This magnetic interaction is
repulsive for two parallel vortices. (Outside the London limit, where
the coherence length is finite, there is a second interaction mediated
by $\phi$. This interaction is attractive for parallel vortices.)
The Abrikosov flux lattice is easily understood in the London limit.
Due to the repulsive magnetic interaction the vortices are driven
apart, but this is called to an halt by the finiteness of the system.
The vortices then order themselves in a regular lattice---which turns
out to be a triangular lattice---so as to minimize the repulsive
interaction.
The lattice is described by the plastic field ${\bf B}^{\rm ext}$
which has only a component in say the negative third direction:
\begin{equation}
B^{\rm ext}({\bf x}) = - \sum_\alpha \frac{\pi}{e} \int d x_3 \,
\delta ({\bf x} - {\bf x}_\alpha ),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all lattice points ${\bf x}_\alpha$, and where
we took the external field as pointing in the third direction. In a
first approximation, the $\psi$ field in (\ref{Hpsi}) may be neglected.
The field equation for the local field ${\bf h}= (0,0,h({\bf x}))$
which we infer from (\ref{Hpsi}) augmented with the term $-i {\bf {\sf
h}} \cdot {\bf B}^{\rm ext}$ then reads
\begin{equation}
\label{euler}
-\lambda ^2 \nabla^2 h + h = - B^{\rm ext},
\end{equation}
where we accounted for the factor $i$ between the fluctuating field
${\bf {\sf h}}$ and the physical local field ${\bf h}$. The form
(\ref{euler}) is well-known, and can also be obtained from the
Ginzburg-Landau theory. We consider the lattice in two different
limits. The first limit is the one of low vortex density. Just above
the lower critical field $H_{{\rm c}_1}$ the density is such that one
may consider the system as non-interacting. In this case the field
equation (\ref{euler}) has the solution
\begin{equation}
\label{feld}
h({\bf x}) = \frac{1}{2e \lambda ^2} \sum_{\alpha } K_0(\lambda
^{-1}|{\bf x}-{\bf x}_\alpha |),
\end{equation}
where $K_0$ is a modified Bessel function. The corresponding free
energy (density) is
\begin{eqnarray}
F &=& -\frac{1}{2V} \int d^3 x \, h B^{\rm ext} \nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{\pi}{4 e^2 \lambda ^2 S} \sum_{\alpha , \beta}
K_0(\lambda^{-1}|{\bf x}_\alpha - {\bf x}_\beta |),
\end{eqnarray}
with $V$ the volume of the system, and $S$ the area perpendicular to
the applied field. In the limit of low density one only has to
account for the self-interaction $(\alpha = \beta)$ and the
nearest-neighbor interaction, so that the free energy can be
approximated by
\begin{equation}
\label{hc1lim}
F = B H_{{\rm c}_1} \left[1+ \frac{6}{\ln (\kappa)} K_0(\lambda^{-1}a)
\right],
\end{equation}
where we used the standard result that $H_{{\rm c}_1} = \ln
(\kappa)/(4e \lambda^2)$ \cite{saintjames}. This equation shows that
by raising the applied field an increasing part of the field energy is
used to overcome the repulsive interaction between the magnetic
vortices. This is represented by the last term in (\ref{hc1lim}),
which not only contains a factor of $B$, like the first term, but in
addition depends on the lattice spacing $a$. For increasing fields
$a$ decreases, implying that indeed the nearest-neighbor interaction
term becomes more important. This observation can be nicely
illustrated by solving the thermodynamic relation $H = \partial
F/\partial B$ in terms of the magnetic induction $B$, which is related
to the vortex density via $B = (\pi /e) \rho_\otimes$ (see
Fig. \ref{fig:vortexdensity}). For fields slightly larger than
$H_{{\rm c}_1}$, there is a rapid increase in the vortex density which
for larger fields, when the interaction between vortices becomes
important, is leveled off.
This indicates that the existence of a mixed state is due to the
repulsive magnetic interaction between magnetic vortices. If one
takes away the interaction term in the free energy, one finds a
magnetization curve resembling that of type-I superconductors, which
do not support a mixed state. The picture is confirmed by the
fact that the two critical field values $H_{{\rm c}_1}$ and $H_{{\rm
c}_2}$, marking the boundaries of the mixed state, become closer to
each other the smaller the value of the Ginzburg-Landau parameter
$\kappa = \lambda/\xi$ is. With $\xi$ kept fixed, a smaller $\kappa$
value implies a smaller penetration depth which results in a stronger
shielding of the repulsive magnetic force.
There exist dirty superconductors which have a Ginzburg-Landau
parameter close to the critical value $\kappa = 1/\sqrt{2}$ separating
a type-II from a type-I superconductor. Such a value indicates that
the screening of the two forces which are present outside the London
limit, are of the same order of magnitude. These so-called type-II/1
materials exhibit a remarkable experimental phenomenon. If the lower
critical field $H_{{\rm c}_1}$ is crossed from below, a whole flux
lattice jumps in instead of single vortices being produced one by one
as is the case of a deep type-II superconductor. This is related to
the fact that for these materials the dominant force at large
distances is the attractive one mediated by the superconducting
order field \cite{KraLeu}, while at short distances the
repulsive magnetic interaction dominates (see Fig. \ref{fig:II/1}).
The lattice spacing in the flux lattice produced in such a type-II/1
superconductor is namely an equilibrium spacing resulting from the
balance between the repulsive and attractive force. It is indicated
by $a_0$ in Fig. \ref{fig:II/1}.
Type-I superconductors, for which the two critical fields $H_{{\rm
c}_1}$ and $H_{{\rm c}_2}$ have the same value $H_{{\rm c}}$, and for
which $\kappa < 1/\sqrt{2}$, do not support a mixed state because the
screening length of the repulsive magnetic force for those materials
is smaller than the coherence length $\xi$ defining the core radius.
That is, effectively the magnetic repulsion is screened to zero
outside the vortex core, so that vortices in a type-I material
experience only an attractive force. They will consequently coalesce,
with the result that the entire sample becomes normal.
The other limit we briefly discuss is that of high-vortex density,
where the lattice spacing $a$ is much smaller than the penetration
depth. Because of the periodicity of the lattice, one can consider a
single unit cell and the Fourier transform becomes a series
\begin{equation}
h({\bf x}) = \sum_{\{{\bf l}\}} h({\bf k}_l)\,e^{i {\bf k}_l \cdot
{\bf x}},
\end{equation}
where ${\bf l}$ stands for the index pair ${\bf l} = (l_1,l_2)$, and
${\bf k}_l$ is the reciprocal lattice vector
\begin{equation}
{\bf k}_l = \frac{4 \pi}{\sqrt{3}a} (l_1 {\bf E}^1 + l_2 {\bf E}^2),
\end{equation}
with ${\bf E}^1=(\case{\sqrt{3}}{2},-\case{1}{2})$ and ${\bf E}^2=(0,
1)$ two vectors spanning the reciprocal lattice. The Fourier
components of the plastic field $B^{\rm ext}({\bf x})$ are
\begin{equation}
B^{\rm ext}({\bf k}_l) = -\frac{\pi}{e} \rho_\otimes {\rm e}^{i {\bf
k}_l \cdot {\bf x}_\alpha},
\end{equation}
with ${\bf x}_\alpha$ the position of the vortex we are considering.
This leads to the free energy
\begin{equation}
\label{needsalabel}
F=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\pi }{e}\right)^2 \rho_\otimes^2 \sum_{\{{\bf
l}\}} \frac{1}{1+\lambda ^2 {\bf k}_l^2}.
\end{equation}
In deriving this we used the fact that all vortices give the same
contribution, so that it suffice to consider a single vortex, say,
located at the origin ${\bf x}_{\alpha}=0$. The term with ${\bf l} =
0$ in (\ref{needsalabel}) represents the homogeneous part. The
remaining sum is diverging for large ${\bf l}$, but this is
artificial, stemming from the fact that we are in the London limit
where the core radius is taken to be infinitesimal small. As before,
we take an ultraviolet cutoff of the order of the inverse coherence
length $|m_{\phi}| = 1/\xi$. Since in the limit of large vortex
density $\lambda /a >> 1$, one can for ${\bf l} \neq 0$ neglect 1
compared to $\lambda ^2 {\bf k}_l^2$ in the denominator of
(\ref{needsalabel}). In this way, approximating the sum by an
integral, one finds for the free energy
\begin{eqnarray}
F &=& \frac{B^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\pi
}{e}\right)^2\rho_\otimes \int_{k_{\rm min}< |{\bf k}|< k_{\rm max}
}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2} \frac{1}{(\lambda {\bf k})^2} \nonumber \\ {}
&=& \frac{B^2}{2} + \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}
B H_{{\rm c}_2} \ln \left( \frac{k_{\rm max}}{k_{\rm min}}
\right),
\end{eqnarray}
The infrared cutoff is taken of the order of the inverse lattice
spacing $k_{\rm min} \sim 1/a$. To be precise,
\begin{equation}
\frac{k_{\rm max}}{k_{\rm min}}=\beta \frac{a}{\xi } = \beta
\frac{\sqrt{4\pi }}{3^{1/4}}\sqrt{\frac{H_{{\rm c}_2}}{B}} \approx 1.026
\sqrt{\frac{H_{{\rm c}_2}}{B}} ,
\end{equation}
where $\beta \approx 0.381$ is a numerical factor \cite{deGennes}
which is adjusted so that the approximate calculation is in accordance
with the exact result. One thus finds for the free energy
\begin{equation}
F \approx \frac{B^2}{2}-\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}BH_{{\rm c}_2} \ln
\left(\frac{B}{H_{{\rm c}_2}}\right),
\end{equation}
which in the limit $B\rightarrow H_{{\rm c}_2} $ reduces to the free
energy of the normal phase, as it should.
Intuitively, the phase transition at $H_{{\rm c}_2}$ may be pictured
as follows. When increasing the external field, the Abrikosov flux
lattice becomes denser, and the spherical cross-section of the
normal-conducting cores will be continuously deformed into a hexagonal
one. This picture is nicely confirmed by numerical calculations
\cite{Rammer} (see Fig. \ref{fig:Josef}). Precisely at $H_{{\rm c}_2}$
the magnetic vortices are densely packed, and the superconducting cell
borders are squeezed to zero thickness. In this way the mixed state
becomes a homogeneous, normal conducting state.
\section{The normal phase}
\label{sec:normal}
In Sec.\ \ref{sec:dual} we saw that the normal conducting phase is
described by a disorder theory, consisting of a $|\psi|^4$ theory in
the broken-symmetry phase. This theory possesses again topological
defects, viz., vortices, known from the theory of superfluid $^4$He
\cite{Fetter}. In this section a dual formulation of the
$|\psi|^4$ theory is considered in which the grand canonical ensemble
of closed vortices is described by a field theory. The theory turns
out to be the original Ginzburg-Landau model (in the high-temperature
phase). This is not surprising because a dual map of a dual theory
should recover the original model.
We proceed in the same manner as in Sec.\ \ref{sec:dual} and consider
a vortex ending at the point ${\bf z}$ inside the system. To describe
such an object we would introduce in the London limit (\ref{psisim})
of the $|\psi|^4$ theory the operator
\begin{equation}
\label{vc}
W(L_{\bf z}) = {\rm e}^{-\case{1}{2} v^2 \int d^3 x \left(
\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P} \right)^2} {\rm exp}\left(\frac{\pi }{e}\,
v^2\int d^3x \, \nabla \gamma \cdot \bbox{\theta}^{\rm P} \right),
\end{equation}
where the first factor is a singular contribution due to the core of
the vortex, cf. (\ref{dop}). In (\ref{vc}), the factor $\pi/e$ stems
from our normalization choice of the phase of the $\psi$ field, and
the vector field $\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$, first introduced in the
context of superfluid $^4$He \cite{GFCM}, should be such that $\nabla
\times \bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$ yields a delta function along the line
$L_{\bf z}$ which starts at the point ${\bf z}$ and runs to infinity
along the trajectory ${\bf y}(s)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{current}
\left( \nabla \times \bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}\right)_i ({\bf x})
= 2\pi \int_{L_{\bf z}} d s \frac{ d y_i }{d s} \delta [{\bf x} -
{\bf y}(s)],
\end{equation}
with the divergence of this equation yielding a delta function at the
point ${\bf z}$. But this is impossible since for a regular field $
\nabla \cdot (\nabla \times \bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}) = 0$. Hence, the
only regular $\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$ field that can be constructed is
one representing a closed, or infinitely long vortex $L$. To
understand this in another way \cite{GFCM}, imagine a sphere $\Sigma$
surrounding the hypothetical endpoint of a vortex at ${\bf z}$, with a
little hole $\partial \Sigma$ where the vortex pierces the surface.
While on the one hand the loop integral $\oint_{\partial \Sigma }dx_i
\partial_i \gamma$ gives the vortex strength $2 \pi$, the surface
integral $\int_{\Sigma} d^2 x_i \epsilon_{i j k} \partial_i \partial_j
\gamma$, on the other hand, vanishes since $\gamma$ is regular on
$\Sigma$. This contradicts Stokes' theorem which states that both
integrals should be equal and leads to the conclusion that vortices in
a $|\psi|^4$ theory can only form finite closed loops, or infinite
loops which are so to speak ``closed at infinity''.
It should be noted that the above argument does not apply to the
Ginzburg-Landau theory. A {\em magnetic} vortex could start in a
given point by simply introducing a magnetic monopole there. When
described with help of a gauge potential, the monopole is inevitably
accompanied by a Dirac string. Choosing the Dirac string to pierce
the surface $\Sigma$ surrounding the monopole at $\partial \Sigma$,
one obtains $\oint_{\partial \Sigma } dx_i A_i = \int_{\Sigma} d^2 x_i
\epsilon_{i j k} \partial_j A_k$, where the right-hand side measures
the magnetic flux through the surface $\Sigma$ (see
Fig. \ref{fig:surface}). Both sides of the equation yield the same
result, in accordance with Stokes' theorem.
For a closed loop $L$, the expectation value of $W(L)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{<W>}
\langle W(L) \rangle = \int {\cal D} \gamma \exp \left[ -\frac{1}{2} v^2
\int d^3 x \left(\frac{\pi}{e} \nabla \gamma - \bbox{\theta}^{\rm
P} \right)^2 \right].
\end{equation}
The integration over $\gamma$ can be carried out by substituting the
field equation of the Goldstone field
\begin{equation}
\label{fegm}
\gamma ({\bf x})= - \frac{e}{\pi} \int d^3 y \, \Delta^0({\bf x} -
{\bf y}) \nabla \cdot \bbox{\theta}^{\rm P} ({\bf y}),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta^0$ is the correlation function (\ref{Yuka}) with
$m_A=0$. This yields an expression
\begin{equation}
\label{ww*}
\left\langle W( L ) \right\rangle =
\exp \left\{ -{1 \over 2} v^2 \int {d^3 x }\int {d^3 y} \, [\nabla
\times \bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}({\bf x})]_i \, \Delta^0
\left( {{\bf x} - {\bf y}} \right) \, [\nabla \times
\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}({\bf y})]_i \right\},
\end{equation}
very similar to the one obtained for a magnetic vortex in the
superconducting phase, Eq.\ (\ref{vv*}). Using (\ref{current}), we
obtain, cf.\ (\ref{moncon})
\begin{equation}
\label{Wil}
\langle W(L) \rangle = {\rm e}^{-M_W |L|},
\end{equation}
with $|L|$ the vortex length and, cf.\ (\ref{M})
\begin{equation}
\label{MW}
M_W = \frac{\pi
v^2}{2} \ln\left(\frac{|m_{\psi}|^2}{\mu^2}\right)
\end{equation}
its energy per unit length. In analogy with the previous calculation,
we have taken the mass $|m_{\psi}|$ of the scalar field appearing in
the theory as ultraviolet cutoff. Since $\gamma$ is massless, $M_W$
diverges in the infrared. This is regularized by introducing a small
mass $\mu$.
In order to find the dual theory which gives a field theoretic
description of the vortex loop gas, we rewrite the expectation value
$\langle W(L) \rangle$ via a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation as
\begin{equation}
\label{HS}
\langle W(L) \rangle = \int {\cal D} \gamma {\cal D} {\bf b}
\exp\left\{-\int d^3 x \, \left[\frac{1}{2} {\bf b}^2 + i\, v
{\bf b} \cdot \left(\frac{\pi }{e}\,\nabla \gamma - \bbox{\theta}^{\rm
P}\right) \right]\right\}.
\end{equation}
The integral over the $\gamma$ fluctuations now yields the constraint
$\nabla \cdot {\bf b} = 0$, demanding ${\bf b}$ to be the rotation of
a vector field, ${\bf b} = \nabla \times {\bf A}$. This gives
\begin{equation}
\label{sum}
\langle W (L) \rangle = \int {\cal D} {\bf A} \, {\rm exp}\left\{-\int
d^3x\, \left[ \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \times {\bf A})^2 - 2 \pi i \, v
{\bf A} \cdot {\bf J} \right] \right\},
\end{equation}
where $J_i({\bf x}) := \oint_{L} dy_i \delta ({\bf x} - {\bf y} )$
describes the closed vortex. It is natural to interpret the
fluctuating massless gauge field ${\bf A}$ as the electromagnetic
gauge field. This identification yields the relation we alluded to
above
\begin{equation}
\label{rel}
2 \pi \, v = 2 e
\end{equation}
between the expectation value $v$ of the disorder field $\psi$ and the
electric charge $2e$. It is the analog of relation (\ref{g}) between
the expectation value $w$ of the superconducting order field
$\phi$ and the coupling constant $g = (\pi/e) m_A$ of the dual theory:
\begin{equation}
2\pi \, w = g.
\end{equation}
The expectation value (\ref{sum}) we now recognize as the Wilson loop. Since
$v$ vanishes as $T$ approaches the critical temperature from above, the
coupling constant vanishes at the critical point and ${\bf A}$ decouples from
the vortex. Precisely the same phenomenon happened with the magnetic vortex
in the superconducting phase. Adding a gauge-fixing term to (\ref{sum}) and
carrying out the integration over the gauge field, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\langle W(L) \rangle = \langle {\rm e}^{2 i e \oint_{L} d {\bar y}_i
A_i} \rangle = \exp\left[ - 2 e^2 \int d^3 x d^3
y \, J_i({\bf x}) \Delta_{i j}^0({\bf x} - {\bf y} )J_j ({\bf y})\right],
\end{equation}
where $\Delta^0_{i j}$ is the correlation function (\ref{gfprop}) with
$m_A=0$. Because we consider closed vortices, for which $\nabla \cdot
{\bf J}= 0$, only the first term of the correlation function
contributes, so that the result is independent of gauge choice and
is given by the previous expression (\ref{ww*}).
If we consider a loop gas of vortices, we recover, following the same
line of arguments as in Sec.\ \ref{sec:dual}, the (normal phase of the)
original Ginzburg-Landau model (\ref{GL}). As expected, the
dual map of the dual theory gives back the original model.
Since the expectation value $v$ of the $\psi$ field vanishes when the
critical point is approached from above, it follows that also the
energy (\ref{MW}) tends to zero here. This supports the picture that
the phase transition in a pure $|\psi|^4$ theory is associated with
the proliferation of vortices \cite{GFCM}.
The question arises now How can we physically understand a vortex loop
in the normal phase? As is well known from $^4$He physics
\cite{Fetter,GFCM}, inside the core of a $^4$He vortex, the superfluid
order parameter vanishes, indicating that the core consists of normal
fluid. Translated into the present context, where a finite
expectation value of the disorder $\psi$ field indicates the onset of
the normal conducting phase, we are to interpret its vanishing inside
the vortex core as the absence of the normal phase, i.e., as the
presence of the superconducting phase. If one takes the Maxwell
equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla \times {\bf h} = 2 e {\bf j}
\end{equation}
as the defining equation of the electromagnetic current ${\bf j}$, one
has to view the purely imaginary object $2\pi i v {\bf J}$ in
(\ref{sum}) as describing an electric circuit. (The analog between
vortices and electric currents was first pointed out by von Helmholtz.)
At first glance the presence of the factor $i$ seems strange.
In particular, the Biot-Savart law for these currents yields the
opposite sign from what is usually the case: we find two parallel
currents repelling instead of attracting each other because they carry
an imaginary charge. (This can be checked by considering the
interaction energy $E_{\rm int}$ between two parallel vortices
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm int}= 2\pi^2 v^2 \int d x_i\int d
y_i\frac{1}{|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|},
\end{equation}
which is positive.) But a closer inspection reveals that this has to
be the case. Remember that an electric circuit generates a magnetic
moment
\begin{equation}
{\bf m}= e \int d^3x ({\bf x}\times {\bf j})
\end{equation}
orthogonal to the surface enclosed by the loop. (Note that we defined
the current without a charge factor---$2e$ in our case---included,
that is why the equation for ${\bf m}$ contains a factor $\case{1}{2}
2 e = e$). If we take two real-life circuits I and II as sketched in
Fig. \ref{fig:circuit}, where the lower laying loop I is held fixed
while the upper one is free to rotate, then the latter would settle
such that the two magnetic moments point in the same direction. A
state where these real-life electric circuits are condensed would
inevitably be connected with a permanent magnetization. Due to the
fact that vortex loops carry an imaginary charge, there is an
antiferromagnetic coupling rather than a ferromagnetic one between
the loops, and a vortex condensate has zero magnetization.
We note that because of the imaginary charge, the local field
generated by a vortex loop $L$ is also purely imaginary as follows
from Ampere's law,
\begin{equation}
\label{Ampere}
{\bf h}({\bf x})= i \frac{v}{2} \oint d{\bf y} \times \frac{{\bf
x}-{\bf y}}{ |{\bf x}-{\bf y}|^3} = i \frac{v}{2} \nabla \Omega ({\bf
x}),
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is the solid angle that the loop subtends at ${\bf x}$
(see Fig. \ref{fig:omega}). The same result can be obtained from the
dual theory, bearing in mind that the local field, apart from a
factor $i$, can be identified with the gradient of the phase variable
$\gamma$
\begin{equation}
\label{hgamma}
{\bf h} = -i \nabla \gamma,
\end{equation}
see (\ref{gammaid}). Rewriting the field equation (\ref{fegm}) for
$\gamma$, we find that this field can be related to the solid angle in
the following way \cite{GFCM}
\begin{equation}
\gamma({\bf x}) = \frac{e}{2\pi} \int_S d^2y_i \frac{({\bf x}-{\bf
y})_i}{|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|^3} = - \frac{e}{2\pi}\Omega,
\end{equation}
where $d^2 y_i$ is an element of the surface $S$ spanned by the loop.
Together with (\ref{hgamma}) this yields the previous result
(\ref{Ampere}). [The magnetic moment density, or magnetization, is
represented in the dual theory by $\bbox{\theta}^{\rm P}$. This
follows from the fact that according to (\ref{<W>}) a closed vortex
couples to the magnetic field $\nabla \gamma$ via $\bbox{\theta}^{\rm
P}$.] The order parameter $V_{\rm r}({\bf x})$ of the normal state
essentially measures the angle $\Omega$
\begin{equation}
\label{monometer}
V_{\rm r}({\bf x}) = {\rm e}^{i \pi \gamma ({\bf x})/e} = {\rm
e}^{i\Omega ({\bf x})/2}.
\end{equation}
We recall that the operator $V({\bf x})$ was constructed by putting a
magnetic monopole at ${\bf x}$. With this kept in mind,
Eq.\ (\ref{monometer}) becomes obvious: $\Omega/2$ is the magnetic flux
through the closed vortex $L$ emanated by the monopole. As a last
remark we note that one can chose two topologically different surfaces
spanning the loop $L$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:monopolejail}). Both lead,
however, to the same phase factor because $\Omega$ differs only by a
factor of $4 \pi$.
\section{Superconducting Order Parameter}
\label{sec:sop}
In the previous section it was argued that the transition to the
superconducting phase could be understood as a proliferation of (closed)
vortices of the pure $|\psi|^4$ theory. This was concluded from the behavior
of the real-space representation (\ref{<W>}) of the single loop operator
$W(L)$, which was shown to develop an expectation value when $T$ approaches
the critical temperature from above. The question naturally arises Is $W(L)$
related to the superconducting order field $\phi$? To answer this question we
have to investigate how $W(L)$ is described in terms of the variables of the
Ginzburg-Landau theory. To this end we study the object
\begin{equation}
\label{scop}
O(L_{\bf z}) = {\rm e}^{i \theta ({\bf z})}\, {\rm e}^{2 i e \int d^3
x \, {\bf A} ({\bf x}) \cdot {\bf E}^{\rm P} ({\bf x})},
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the phase of $\phi$, the plastic field ${\bf
E}^{\rm P}$ describes a static charge $2e$ at ${\bf z}$,
\begin{equation}
\nabla \cdot {\bf E}^{\rm P} ({\bf x}) = \delta({\bf x} - {\bf z}),
\end{equation}
and $L_{\bf z}$ is a line emanating from ${\bf z}$ and running to
infinity,
\begin{equation}
E_i^{\rm P} = \int_{L_{\bf z}} dy_i \delta ({\bf x} - {\bf y}).
\end{equation}
The second factor in (\ref{scop}) is incorporated in order
to render the operator gauge invariant. Indeed, under a gauge
transformation
\begin{equation}
{\bf A} ({\bf x}) \rightarrow {\bf A} ({\bf x}) + \nabla \Lambda ({\bf
x} ), \; \; \; \theta ({\bf z}) \rightarrow \theta ({\bf z}) + 2e
\Lambda ({\bf z}),
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
O(L_{\bf z}) \rightarrow O(L_{\bf z}) \exp \left[ 2ie \Lambda ({\bf
z}) + 2ie \int d^3 x \, \nabla \Lambda ({\bf x}) \cdot {\bf E}^{\rm P}
({\bf x}) \right] = O(L_{\bf z}),
\end{equation}
where in the last step we performed an integration by parts. To bring
out the gauge invariance of $O(L_{\bf z})$ more clearly we write it in
the equivalent form
\begin{equation}
O(L_{\bf z}) = \exp \left[ -i \int d^3 x ( \nabla \theta - 2 e {\bf
A}) \cdot {\bf E}^{\rm P} \right].
\end{equation}
We will be working in the low-temperature phase of the Ginzburg-Landau
model, where the gauge field is massive. We are interested in the
expectation value
\begin{equation}
\langle O(L_{\bf z}) \rangle = \int {\cal D} {\bf A} {\cal D} \theta \,
O(L_{\bf z}) \, {\rm e}^{-H},
\end{equation}
with $H$ the Ginzburg-Landau Hamiltonian (\ref{hydroenergy}) in the
London limit. Since both integrations are Gaussian, they are easily
carried out to yield
\begin{equation}
\label{expO}
\langle O(L_{\bf z}) \rangle = \exp \biggl\{
- \frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x d^3 y \left[ \frac{1}{w^2} n ({\bf x})\,
\Delta({\bf x} - {\bf y}) \, n ({\bf y}) + (2e)^2 E^{\rm P}_i
({\bf x}) \, \Delta({\bf x} - {\bf y}) \, E^{\rm P}_i ({\bf y})
\right] \biggr\},
\end{equation}
with $n ({\bf x}) = \delta ({\bf x} - {\bf z})$ the charge density.
This expression closely resembles the one we found for the operator
$V$ in (\ref{vv*}), describing a magnetic vortex, which can be
rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\label{expV}
\langle V( L_{\bf z} ) \rangle = \exp \biggl\{
- \frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x d^3 y \left[ \frac{1}{v^2} n ({\bf x})\,
\Delta({\bf x} - {\bf y}) \, n ({\bf y}) + g^2 {\bar
B}^{\rm P}_i ({\bf x}) \, \Delta({\bf x} - {\bf y}) \, {\bar
B}^{\rm P}_i ({\bf y}) \right] \biggr\},
\end{equation}
where ${\bar B}^{\rm P}_i$ is defined so that it contains no
factor $\pi/e$, $B^{\rm P}_i = (\pi/e) {\bar B}^{\rm P}_i$.
We see that (\ref{expO}) can be obtained from (\ref{expV}) by simply
replacing the high-temperature expectation value $v$ of the
$\psi$ field by the low-temperature expectation value $w$ of the
$\phi$ field, and by replacing the ``magnetic'' coupling $g$ by the
electric coupling $2e$. In this sense the operators $O$ and $V$ are
dual to each other.
We continue to discuss the behavior of the expectation value
(\ref{expO}) in the two phases. In the high-temperature phase we
argued that there can only be closed vortices. This we achieve by
setting $n ({\bf x})$ to zero in (\ref{expO}), so that only the last
term survives. In fact, using the relation $\pi v = e$, we
recover the right-hand side of (\ref{ww*}). That is, the operators
$O(L)$ and $W(L)$ are the same in the high-temperature phase:
\begin{equation}
\langle O(L) \rangle = \langle W(L) \rangle = {\rm e}^{-M_W |L|},
\end{equation}
with $|L|$ the length of the vortex loop and $M_W$ given in (\ref{M}).
In the low-temperature phase the (electric) vortices are condensed and for
that reason not existing as physical excitations, only the endpoints are
physical. The plastic field ${\bf E}^{\rm P}$ in (\ref{expO}) can then be
written as a gradient of a potential $U^{\rm P}$,
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}^{\rm P} = - \nabla U^{\rm P},
\end{equation}
with $\nabla^2 U^{\rm P} ({\bf x}) = - n({\bf x})$. Taking a positive
charge $2e$ at ${\bf z}$ and a negative one $-2e$ at ${\bar {\bf z}}$,
we obtain for the correlation function
\begin{equation}
\langle O(L_{\bf z}) O^* (L_{\bar {\bf z}}) \rangle = \exp \left[ -
\frac{1}{2 w^2} \int d^3 x d^3 y \, n({\bf x}) \Delta^0 ({\bf x} - {\bf
y}) n ({\bf y}) \right],
\end{equation}
where now $n({\bf x}) = \delta ({\bf x} - {\bf z}) - \delta ({\bf x} -
{\bar {\bf z}} )$, and $\Delta^0 ({\bf x} - {\bf y})$ is the {\it
massless} scalar correlation function. For ${\bf x} = {\bf y}$ we
have again a diverging self-interaction which is irrelevant and can
be eliminated by defining a renormalized operator $O_{\rm r}$ in the
same way as we did before in (\ref{renop}). We then find
\begin{equation}
\langle O_{\rm r}({\bf z}) O_{\rm r}^* ({\bar {\bf z}}) \rangle =
\exp \left( \frac{1}{4 \pi w^2} \frac{1}{|L_{ {\bf z} {\bar {\bf
z}}}|} \right).
\end{equation}
This low-temperature expression is completely analogous to the one in
the high-temperature phase for the correlation function $\left\langle
V_{\rm r}({\bf z}) V_{\rm r}^*({\bar {\bf z}}) \right\rangle$,
Eq.\ (\ref{correlation}). Using the relation $e = \pi v$, we can write
the latter as
\begin{equation}
\left\langle V_{\rm r}({\bf z}) V_{\rm r}^*({\bar
{\bf z}}) \right\rangle = \exp \left(\frac{1}{4 \pi v^2} \frac{1}{|
L_{{\bf z} {\bar {\bf z}}} |} \right).
\end{equation}
For large separation $\langle O_{\rm r}({\bf z}) O_{\rm r}^* ({\bar
{\bf z}}) \rangle \rightarrow 1$, implying that $O_{\rm r}({\bf z})$
develops an expectation value in the superconducting phase. That is,
$O_{\rm r}({\bf z})$ is the superconducting order parameter. Being
gauge invariant this operator makes no statement about the local U(1)
symmetry. Referring back to the first representation (\ref{scop}) of
the superconducting order parameter, we find that a non-zero
expectation value indicates that the {\it global} U(1) symmetry
parameterized by a constant transformation parameter $\Lambda_0$ is
spontaneously broken.
In closing this section, we remark that the superconducting order
parameter can also be represented in the dual theory. The result is
that ${\bf E}^{\rm P}$ appears in (\ref{Hpsi}) in the combination
$\nabla \times {\bf {\sf h}} - 2e {\bf E}^{\rm P}$ with the
fluctuating ${\bf {\sf h}}$ field. To derive this result it is
prudent not to proceed in the manner we exploited before to obtain the
dual theory (\ref{Hpsi}) and linearize the gauge-field fluctuations,
but instead linearize the $\theta$ fluctuations. The result can also
be inferred using a duality argument, remembering that the disorder
parameter was incorporated in the original theory by the combination
$\nabla \times {\bf A} - {\bf B}^{\rm P}$, see Eq.\ (\ref{HP}).
\section{Disorder field theory for the superconducting phase transition}
\label{sec:Landau}
We have argued that the dual description of the Ginzburg-Landau model is one
in terms of physical variables, and that it possesses no local gauge symmetry.
A disorder field $\psi$ was identified which vanishes in the superconducting
phase, and which develops an expectation value in the normal conducting phase,
thereby breaking a global U(1) symmetry. We recall that central to Landau's
theory of continuous phase transitions is the presence of an order parameter
which signals through its vacuum expectation value whether or not a certain
symmetry is broken. This is precisely what the disorder field $\psi$ does.
On that ground $\psi$ is ideally suited to formulate a Landau type of
description of the superconducting phase transition \cite{KRE,KKR}. To
understand why the Ginzburg-Landau theory itself is not well suited to do
this, we note that it has a {\it local} gauge symmetry. According to
Elitzur's theorem \cite{Elitzur} such a symmetry can never be broken, so that
for a local symmetry no order parameter exists in the sense of Landau. This
may be one of the reasons for the fact that no infrared stable fixed point was
found within the Ginzburg-Landau formulation of the superconducting
phase transition \cite{HLM,KS}, although it is generally accepted that the
transition is of second order in the type-II regime, and thus should possess
such a point.
Below the transition temperature we saw that the dual theory consists
of a $|\psi|^4$ theory coupled to a massive vector field. Above
$T_{\rm c}$ this field decouples, and the disorder field $\psi$
simultaneously develops a vacuum expectation value. Despite the
apparent difference in the description of the low- and
high-temperature phase, it is readily argued that at the mean-field
level the critical behavior is governed by a simple $|\psi|^4$ theory.
This can be seen by integrating out the massive vector field in the
low-temperature phase. Apart from irrelevant terms, this leads to
only a change in the coefficients of the $|\psi|^4$ theory, no
additional relevant terms such as $|\psi|^3$ are generated.
Explicitly,
\begin{equation}
H_{\psi,{\rm eff}} = \int d^3 x \left[ |\nabla \psi|^2 +
\left(m_\psi^2 - g^2 \frac{m_A}{2 \pi} \right) |\psi|^2 +
\left(u - \frac{g^4}{4\pi m_A} \right) |\psi|^4 \right].
\end{equation}
In deriving this effective Hamiltonian we used dimensional regularization;
(irrelevant) higher-order terms were omitted. We note that all contributions
stemming from the vector field ${\bf {\sf h}}$ vanish in the limit $T$
approaching $T_{\rm c}$ from below, so that $H_{\psi,{\rm eff}}$ reduces to
(\ref{Hpsi''}) in this limit. It is well known that a $|\psi|^4$ theory with a
positive coupling has a non-trivial infrared stable fixed point and undergoes a
second-order phase transition. We therefore conclude that at the mean-field
level also the superconducting phase transition is of second order if the
system is sufficiently deep in the type-II regime. The same
conclusion can be reached starting from the Ginzburg-Landau formulation.
Below we will apply renormalization group theory to see if this
conclusion holds also beyond mean-field theory. Halperin, Lubensky,
and Ma \cite{HLM} performed this study within the Ginzburg-Landau
theory. Using an $\epsilon$ expansion, they showed that at the
one-loop level the theory no longer possesses an infrared stable fixed
point. They interpreted this as indicating that the transition is of
first order. This conclusion was in accordance with results obtained
by Coleman and Weinberg \cite{CW} who studied the electrodynamics of
{\it massless} scalar mesons in four dimensions and discovered that at
the one-loop level the photon acquires a mass. A study of the
effective action shows a precocious onset of the Higgs mechanism with
a sudden appearance of a finite photon mass. This is typical for a
first-order transition. Only by artificially enlarging the number of
components of the complex scalar field $\phi$ appearing in the
Ginzburg-Landau model did Halperin, Lubensky, and Ma find an infrared
stable fixed point, provided this number is taken to be larger as 183.
However, the corresponding critical exponent $\eta$, which determines
the anomalous dimension of $\phi$, depends on the gauge-fixing choice
and is therefore unphysical. This should not come as a surprise since
$\phi$ itself is not gauge invariant, and therefore not physical.
We shall carry out the renormalization group theory within the dual
formulation which, being casted in terms of physical fields, does not
suffer from the flaws of local gauge invariance \cite{KKS}. The dual
theory (\ref{Hpsi}) involving a massive vector field is perturbatively
renormalizable in four dimensions $(D=4)$ \cite{Collins}, so that
usual perturbation theory can be applied to calculate the critical
exponents. However, the derivation of the dual theory (\ref{Hpsi})
from the Ginzburg-Landau model hinged on the fact that the number of
space dimensions is three, for which the dual object $\epsilon _{i j
k } \partial_j A_k$ is a vector. In other words, the dual theory
describes the superconducting phase transition only in three
dimensions. For this reason, we carry out the renormalization group
theory in fixed ($D=3$) dimension, and not in $D=4-\epsilon$
dimensions as is often done. The fixed-dimension approach to critical
phenomena was introduced by Parisi, who applied it to a pure
$|\psi|^4$ theory \cite{Plect,Parisi}. The method makes explicitly
use of the fact that near the critical point the system has only one
relevant length scale, viz., the correlation length which diverges at
this point. This length is used to convert dimensionful coupling
constants into dimensionless ones.
In the present setting the relevant scale is the (renormalized)
inverse mass $m_\psi^{-1}$. (The bare mass vanishes as $m_{\psi,0}^2
\sim T_{\rm c}-T$ at the critical temperature $T_{\rm c}$). We know
from the Ginzburg-Landau theory that the bare penetration depth also
diverges at $T_{\rm c}$, viz., $\lambda_0 \sim (T_{\rm c}-T)^{-1/2}$.
However, the renormalized length $\lambda$ should not
constitute an independent diverging length scale. We will see below
that this is indeed the case. As usual, the critical exponents are
computed in the symmetric phase of the model, which in the present
context corresponds to the superconducting phase.
We write the bare Hamiltonian (\ref{Hpsi}) as a sum of the renormalized
Hamiltonian and counterterms $\delta H$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{counter}
\delta H = \int d^3x & & \left[ (Z_\psi - 1) |(\nabla -i g \bbox{\sf h})
\psi|^2 + (Z_\psi m_{\psi,0}^2 - m_\psi^2) |\psi|^2 + u (Z_u-1)
|\psi_0|^4 \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.
+ \frac{1}{2}(Z_{{\sf h}} - 1) (\nabla \times
{\bf {\sf h}})^2 + \frac{1}{2} (Z_{{\sf h}} m_{A,0}^2- m_A^2)
{\bf {\sf h}}^2 \right].
\end{eqnarray}
(All quantities appearing in (\ref{Hpsi}) should have been given an
index 0 to indicate that they refer to bare quantities. For
convenience we rescaled the $\bbox{\sf h}$ field by a factor $m_A$:
$\bbox{\sf h} \rightarrow m_A \bbox{\sf h}$.) The renormalized
objects are related to the bare ones via
\begin{equation}
\label{r-b}
{\sf h}_{i} = Z_{{\sf h}}^{-1/2} {\sf h}_{0,i} , \;\;\;
g = Z_g^{-1} Z_\psi Z_{{\sf h}}^{1/2} g_0, \;\;\;
\psi = Z_{\psi}^{-1/2} \psi_0 , \;\;\; u = Z_{u}^{-1} Z_{\psi}^2
\, u_0.
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to calculate the one-loop diagrams. The correlation
functions can be read off from the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hpsi}). With
a wiggly line denoting the correlation function of the vector
field, and a straight line denoting the one of the $\psi$ field, it follows
that
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsfbox{PhotonProp.eps} &=& \frac{1}{{\bf k}^2 + m_A^2} \left( \delta_{ij} -
\frac{k_i k_j}{{\bf k}^2} \right) \label{hcorr} \\
& & \nonumber \\
\epsfbox{fluxProp.eps} &=& \frac{1}{{\bf k}^2 + m_\psi^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
The correlation function (\ref{hcorr}) reflects the constraint $\nabla \cdot
\bbox{\sf h}= 0$ which we imposed upon the fluctuating field $\bbox{\sf h}$.
The correlation function has been obtained by representing the $\delta$
function $\delta (\nabla \cdot \bbox{\sf h})$ as $\exp[-(\nabla \cdot
(\bbox{\sf h})^2/(2 \zeta)]$ with $\zeta$ taken to zero at the end. We
find for the diagrams depicted below
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\raisebox{-0.25cm}{\epsfbox{feld.eps}}\hspace{2cm}
&=& \frac{2}{3\pi} \frac{g^2}{m_\psi+ m_A} {\bf k}^2 \label{dia1} \\
& & \nonumber \\
\raisebox{-0.5cm}{\epsfbox{Vertexkorrektur.eps}}\hspace{2.2cm}
&=& i \frac{2}{3\pi} \frac{g^3}{m_\psi+ m_A} k_i
\label{dia2} \\ & & \nonumber \\
\raisebox{-0.62cm}{\epsfbox{dispersion1.eps}}
\, \, + \, \, \raisebox{-0.62cm}{\epsfbox{dispersion2.eps}}
&=& -\frac{1}{24 \pi }
\frac{g^2}{m_\psi} {\bf k}^2 \left( \delta_{i j} - \frac{k_i k_j}{{\bf
k}^2} \right). \label{dia3} \\ & & \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
We considered these particular diagrams to illustrate the following
observations. The first diagram yields a $Z_\psi$ factor given by
\begin{equation}
Z_\psi = 1 + \frac{2}{3\pi} \frac{g^2}{m_\psi+ m_A}.
\end{equation}
From the second diagram we extract the factor $Z_g$,
\begin{equation}
Z_g = 1 + \frac{2}{3\pi} \frac{g^2}{m_\psi+ m_A},
\end{equation}
which turns out to be equal to $Z_\psi$. To this order, the renormalized
coupling constant $g$ is thus related to the bare one simply via
\begin{equation}
g = Z_{\sf h}^{1/2} g_0.
\end{equation}
This means that the minimal coupling to the vector field is preserved
at the one-loop level. In fact, it is preserved to any order in the
loop expansion. The reason is that the Ward identity which guarantees
that the minimal coupling is always maintained in the case of a massless
vector field, also operates in the massive case \cite{Collins}.
The diagrams (\ref{dia3}) show that the one-loop contributions to the
self-energy of the vector field is transverse. This too remains true
to all orders in perturbation theory thanks to the Ward identity. The
mass term of the vector field is consequently not renormalized and
does not need a counterterm. That is, $m_{A} = Z_{{\sf h}}^{1/2}
m_{A,0}$, so that the last term in (\ref{counter}) vanishes. It
follows that the critical exponent $\gamma_{{\sf h}}$ is
unaffected by the fluctuations, and retains its mean-field value
$\gamma_{{\sf h}} = 1$.
Incidently, the electric charge does not renormalize in the dual theory since
$g = (\pi/e) m_A$, and both $g$ and $m_A$ renormalize in the same manner.
We now come to an important observation related to the fact that in
the dual theory the inverse penetration depth $m_A$ plays the role of
a mass as well as of a coupling constant because $g = (\pi/e) m_A$,
with $e$ a constant. The standard definition of the critical exponent
$\nu$ which determines how the correlation length $m_\psi^{-1}$
diverges when the temperature approaches $T_{\rm c}$: $m_\psi^{-1}
\sim (T_{\rm c} - T)^{-\nu}$, is
\begin{equation}
\label{nupsi}
\frac{1}{\nu} = \frac{\partial \ln(m_{\psi,0}^2)}{\partial \ln
(m_\psi)}.
\end{equation}
In our case this can be rewritten as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{rew}
\frac{\partial m_{A,0}^2}{\partial \ln (m_\psi)} =
\frac{m_{A,0}^2}{\nu}
\end{equation}
because $m_{\psi,0}^2 \sim m_{A,0}^2$ near $T_{\rm c}$. The
$\beta$ function is defined by the equation
\begin{equation}
\beta (\hat{g}^2) := m_\psi \frac{\partial }{\partial m_\psi} \left.
\frac{g^2}{m_\psi} \right|_{u_0,g_0},
\end{equation}
with the properly scaled coupling constant $\hat{g}^2 := g^2/m_\psi$.
By virtue of (\ref{rew}), this can be cast in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{beta}
\beta (\hat{g}^2) = \hat{g}^2 \left( -1 + \frac{1}{\nu} +
\gamma_{{\sf h}}(\hat{g}^2,\hat{u}) \, \frac{\partial
\ln(m_A)}{\partial \ln (m_\psi)} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{{\sf h}}(\hat{g}^2,\hat{u})$, with $\hat{u}:=u/m_\psi$,
is the function
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{{\sf h}}(\hat{g}^2,\hat{u}) := m_A \frac{\partial }{\partial m_A}
\ln(Z_{{\sf h}})|_{u_0,g_0}
\end{equation}
which yields the critical exponent $\eta_{{\sf h}}$ when evaluated at
the critical point. Without the explicit mass dependence, the
coefficient of the $\hat{g}^2$ term in the $\beta
(\hat{g}^2)$ function would be $-1$, implying that the origin
$\hat{g}=0$ is an ultraviolet stable fixed point. In (\ref{beta}),
however, the coefficient is $-1+1/\nu$ which is positive if $\nu < 1$.
In this case, the origin $\hat{g}^2=0$ becomes infrared stable and the
coupled theory reduces to a pure $|\psi|^4$ theory. The best estimate
for $\nu$ available from summed perturbation theory at fixed $D=3$
\cite{Z-J} gives $\nu \approx .6695$, which is smaller than one.
Hence, the trivial fixed point $\hat{g}^{*^{\scriptstyle 2}} = 0$ is
infrared stable (see Fig. \ref{fig:stable}). This situation differs
dramatically from that in the Ginzburg-Landau theory where the
coupling $e$ to the electromagnetic gauge field has an infrared stable
fixed point away from the origin, see Fig. \ref{fig:unstable}, and the
corresponding value $\hat{e}^{*^{\scriptstyle 2}}$ is too large to
allow the coupled system to develop an infrared stable fixed point.
To recapitulate, the dual theory of the superconducting phase
transition possesses an infrared stable fixed point given by
$\hat{g}^{*^{\scriptstyle 2}} = 0$ and $\hat{u}^* = \hat{u}^*_{\rm
WF}$, where $\hat{u}^*_{\rm WF}$ is the Wilson-Fisher fixed point of a
pure $|\psi|^4$ theory with reversed temperature axis. The critical
exponents of the $\psi$ field are the ones of a superfluid. The
critical exponents pertaining to the $\bbox{\sf h}$ field, which
physically represents the local induction, have their mean-field
values. In particular, $\nu_{\sf h} = 1/2$. This exponent reveals
that the magnetic penetration depth diverges near $T_{\rm c}$ as
$(T_{\rm c}-T)^{-1/2}$, meaning that inside the critical region the
empirical formula $\lambda \sim [1-(T/T_{\rm c})^4]^{-1/2}$ found
outside this region remains unchanged.
A last point of interest is the Gaussian fixed point, corresponding to
${\hat g}^{*^{\scriptstyle 2}} = 0, \hat{u}^* = 0$. This fixed point
is infrared stable in the $\hat{g}^2$ direction, and unstable in the
${\hat u}$ direction. It describes a loop gas of free vortices. At
this point the phase transition changes from second to first order,
i.e., it is a tricritical point, the existence and location of which
was first established in Ref.\ \cite{tricritical}. At the level we are
working, the critical exponents characterizing this point are Gaussian.
A $|\psi|^6$ term which should now be included will generate
logarithmic corrections.
\acknowledgments
We thank A. Kovner and J. Rammer for useful discussions.
|
\section*{1) Introduction}
Superstring--inspired $E(6)$ models \cite{1} contain a large number of
particles in addition to those present in the Standard Model (SM):
Superpartners of the known matter fermions and gauge bosons; scalar di-- or
lepto--quarks; extended gauge and Higgs sectors; and new ``exotic" quarks and
leptons. Indeed, this class of models can almost be considered to be a maximal
(weakly interacting) extension of the SM. It is this aspect, rather than the
by now quite tenuous connection to superstring theory \cite{2}, that keeps
interest in these models alive \cite{3}.
Unfortunately most of the new particles predicted by $E(6)$ models could be
very heavy. In the absence of a comprehensive theory of supersymmetry breaking
we are not able to give firm upper bounds on sparticle masses \cite{4}. The
masses of the new gauge bosons contained in such models can be made very large
by postulating large vacuum expectation values (vevs) for Higgs fields that
are singlets under the SM gauge group. Finally, most of the exotic fermions
reside in vector--like representations of the SM gauge group; they can
therefore also be made very heavy. In the simplest of these models, where one
requires gauge symmetry breaking to be triggered by radiative corrections
\cite{5,6}, these possibly large scales are in fact all related: The vevs of
most Higgs singlets cannot exceed the SUSY breaking scale significantly, and
the same vevs also give rise to the masses of the exotic leptons, with Yukawa
couplings of order 1 or less if the theory is to remain weakly interacting all
the way up to the scale of grand unification (GUT). This allows to derive
non--trivial relations \cite{6} between some of these masses, but
unfortunately does not exclude the possibility that they are all very large.
There are exceptions to this rule, however. Each fermion generation of $E(6)$
contains 27 degrees of freedom. Two of those are SM singlets, commonly called
$\nu_R$ and $N$. The $\nu_R$ resides in the {\bf 16} of $SO(10)$, together
with the 15 degrees of freedom that form a complete fermion generation in the
SM. The $\nu_R$ fields might be exactly massless; alternatively, they might
get very large masses through non--renormalizable operators if some scalar
$\tilde{\nu}_R$ field gets a vev at an ``intermediate" scale around 10$^{10}$
GeV or more, which could also give rise to see--saw type neutrino mass
matrices \cite{7}. Either way it is very difficult to derive significant
constraints on these $\nu_R$ fields.\footnote{Successful nucleosynthesis in
the early universe requires a large freeze--out temperature, i.e. large masses
for gauge bosons coupling to $\nu_R$, if $\nu_R$ is exactly massless \cite{8};
however, direct experimental searches \cite{3} by now constrain these gauge
bosons to be heavier than several hundred GeV anyway.}
In contrast, the $N$ superfields are singlets under $SO(10)$. Their fermionic
components can acquire masses at the weak scale only by mixing with the
neutral components of exotic $SU(2)$ doublet fermions \cite{9}; there are no
terms of the type $N^3$ in the superpotential, since $N$ is not a singlet
under the complete gauge group. Note that the vevs that give rise to this
mixing also break the $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ symmetry of the SM, which means
that they contribute to the masses of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons. This allows to
derive a firm upper bound \cite{10} of just over 100 GeV for the mass of the
lightest eigenstate resulting from this mixing, if the relevant Yukawa
couplings are required not to have a Landau pole below the GUT scale. This
bound can only be avoided if some $N$ scalar has a vev of order $10^{10}$ GeV
or more, and if the superfields containing the light exotics have
non--renormalizable couplings to this vev. However, the same vev would also
allow to give very large masses to all new gauge bosons and charged new matter
fermions; at scales below $\langle N \rangle$ one would then just end up with
the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) \cite{4}. We will therefore
assume that $N$ scalars can only get vevs of the order of the weak or SUSY
breaking scales, i.e. a few TeV or less; in this case the bound of
ref.\cite{10} holds.
The existence of an upper bound on the mass of an exotic fermion does not yet
mean that we can test this model decisively, however. To begin with, present
\mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders do not have sufficient energy to produce even the lightest
exotics for all combinations of parameters. This will change as soon as the
next generation of linear \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders goes into operation. However, even
here the neutral exotics might be impossible to find. We will argue that the
lightest neutral exotic lepton is likely to be stable. In this case it will
only give rise to an observable signal at colliders if it is produced in
association with a heavier exotic. Unfortunately {\em no} upper bound on the
masses of these heavier states can as yet be given.
In this seemingly hopeless situation cosmological arguments come to the
rescue. It turns out that the upper bound on the mass of the lightest exotic
{\em decreases} as the experimental lower bounds on the masses of the heavier
exotics increase. Moreover, in this situation the light exotics are forced to
have smaller and smaller $SU(2)$ doublet components, which suppresses their
couplings to gauge and Higgs bosons. Since the light exotics are stable, some
fraction of such particles produced in the very early universe is still around
today \cite{11}. This fraction, and hence the contributions of such exotic Big
Bang relics to the present matter density, is (approximately) inversely
proportional to the annihilation cross section of the exotics. The crucial
observation is that light, singlet--dominated exotics will have small
annihilation cross sections by virtue of their suppressed couplings, and hence
large relic densities. It is therefore clear that at some point the lower
experimental bound on the masses of the {\em heavier} exotic leptons can force
the cosmological relic density of the {\em light} exotic to become
unacceptably large. We find that, before this happens, light neutral exotics
will become accessible to Higgs boson decays, leading to a large invisible
branching ratio for at least one light Higgs boson. It is the purpose of the
present paper to study these connections quantitatively. Of course, the
heavier exotics might well be discovered at rather low masses, in which case
the relic density constraint could be fulfilled easily. In this optimistic
scenario one can study the properties of the new fermions in order to further
test the model. We wish to emphasize here that at some future time, the
combination of collider searches and the relic density constraint will test
the model {\em decisively}, independent of the values of the (many) free
parameters. Unfortunately we find that a 500 GeV \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider is not quite
sufficient to probe the entire parameter space; one will have to push the
energy to 1 or even 1.5 TeV in order to close the last loophole. Nevertheless
we find it remarkable that a decisive test is possible at all; after all, most
experimental bounds can be evaded by simply increasing the ``new physics"
scale.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~2 we describe
those parts of the model that are of relevance to us, i.e. the exotic leptons
and Higgs bosons; we also give the couplings of the (neutral) exotics to gauge
and Higgs bosons. In Sec.~3 the cross sections for the production of neutral
exotics at \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders are listed. In Sec.~4 the calculation of the
cosmological relic density of the light neutral exotics is discussed; some
care must be taken here, due to the prominent role played by $s-$channel
exchange diagrams, as well as the presence of a second light exotic, which can
suppress the relic density by co--annihilation. Sec.~5 contains our numerical
results, and Sec.~6 is devoted to a brief summary.
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\section*{2) The Model}
For defineteness we will work in the framework of the minimal rank 5 subgroup
of $E(6)$ \cite{1}, which does not require the introduction of an intermediate
scale between the GUT and weak scales. However, our analysis would go through
with only minor modifications in models with a gauge group of rank 6 at the
weak scale, as well as in models where some $\tilde{\nu}_R$ field has a vev
around $10^{10}$ GeV or more. As already stated in the Introduction, the only
important assumption we have to make is that none of the scalar $N$ fields
gets a vev much above $10^9$ GeV.
In $E(6)$ models each {\bf 27}--dimensional representation contains one $N$
superfield, which is an SM singlet, as well as the exotic $SU(2)$ doublet
superfields $H$ and $\bar{H}$, whose scalar components have just the right
quantum numbers to serve as the Higgs bosons of the MSSM, i.e. to provide
masses for the $W$ and $Z$ bosons. At least one of the $N$ scalars also has to
get a vev in order to give a sufficiently large mass to the single new $Z'$
boson of the rank--5 model. Using rotations in generation space, we can always
work in a basis where only one $H^0$, one $\bar{H^0}$ and one $N$ field have
non--vanishing vev; following the notation of ref.\cite{9} we call these true
Higgs fields \mbox{$H_3^0$}, \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$}\ and \mbox{$N_3$}. Their fermionic superpartners then mix with
the superpartners of the three neutral gauge bosons to form the six neutralino
states of this model \cite{9}.
Here we are interested in the first two generations of fermionic $H, \
\bar{H}$ and $N$ fields. They obtain their masses from the superpotential
\begin{equation} \label{e1}
W_{\rm lep} = \sum_{i,j,k=1}^3 \mbox{$\lambda$}_{ijk} H_i \bar{H}_j N_k.
\end{equation}
In order to give masses to all charged exotic leptons\footnote{We call these
fields ``leptons" merely in order to indicate that they do not have strong
interactions; they need not carry the same lepton number as the charged
leptons and neutrinos of the SM}, we at least have to allow those couplings
where exactly one of the indices $i,j,k$ in eq.(\ref{e1}) equals 3, the other
two being either 1 or 2. By further rotations between fields of the first two
generations we can define $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{123} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{213} = 0$, without loss of
generality; the contribution of these couplings to the mass matrix of the
charged exotic fermions is then diagonal, with
\begin{subequations} \label{e2} \begin{eqalignno}
\mbox{$m_{L_1^\pm}$} &= \mbox{$\lambda$}_{113} x; \label{e2a} \\
\mbox{$m_{L_2^\pm}$} &= \mbox{$\lambda$}_{223} x, \label{e2b}
\end{eqalignno} \end{subequations}
where we have introduced $x \equiv \langle \mbox{$N_3$} \rangle$.
In the basis $(\widetilde{H_1^0}, \widetilde{\bar{H^0_1}}, \widetilde{N_1}, \widetilde{H_2^0},
\widetilde{\bar{H^0_2}}, \widetilde{N_2})$, the contribution of these couplings to the mass
matrix of the neutral exotic leptons reads:
\begin{equation} \label{e3}
{\cal M}_{L^0} = \mbox{$
\left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & \mbox{$m_{L_1^\pm}$} & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{131} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} & 0 & 0 & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{132} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} \\
\mbox{$m_{L_1^\pm}$} & 0 & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{311} v & 0 & 0 & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{312} v \\
\mbox{$\lambda$}_{131} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{311} v & 0 & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{231} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{321} v & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{231} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} & 0 & \mbox{$m_{L_2^\pm}$} & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{232} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} \\
0 & 0 & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{321} v & \mbox{$m_{L_2^\pm}$} & 0 & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{322} v \\
\mbox{$\lambda$}_{132} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{312} v & 0 & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{232} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} & \mbox{$\lambda$}_{322} v & 0
\end{array} \right) $},
\end{equation}
with $v \equiv \langle \mbox{$H_3^0$} \rangle, \ \mbox{$\bar{v}$} \equiv \langle \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$} \rangle$. The
neutral exotic leptons are Majorana fermions; the mass matrix (\ref{e3}) is
therefore symmetric.
The coupling $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}$ in eq.(\ref{e1}) must also be non--zero, in order to
avoid the presence of a dangerous axion (see below). Terms where none of the
three subscripts equals 3 do not contribute to the mass matrices. Finally,
there could be contributions to the superpotential (\ref{e1}) where only one
of the three indices is not equal to 3. In this case the charged exotic
leptons would mix with the charginos, and the neutral exotic leptons would mix
with the neutralinos. However, if such couplings are present, the rotatations
in field space that define the basis where only \mbox{$H_3^0$}, \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$}\ and \mbox{$N_3$}\ have
non--zero vevs would depend on the renormalization scale. Worse, all $H_i$ and
$\bar{H}_i$ would then couple to SM quarks and leptons at least at the one
loop level, which could lead to dangerous flavour changing neutral currents
(FCNC) \cite{12}. We therefore forbid these terms. Fortunately, this is not
only technically natural, but even follows automatically if one requires all
potentially dangerous terms in the low energy superpotential (which can lead to
fast proton decay, large neutrino masses, or tree--level FCNC) to be forbidden
by a single discrete $Z_2$ symmetry \cite{13}.
This further restriction of the allowed terms in eq.(\ref{e1}) greatly
simplifies the calculation, and leads to a much more appealing model, but has
no significant impact on the properties that are of interest to us. This can
be seen from the fact that even if all terms in eq.(\ref{e1}) were present,
in the limit $v,\mbox{$\bar{v}$} \rightarrow 0$ the $12 \times 12$ neutral fermion mass
matrix would have two zero eigenvalues, corresponding to SM singlet fermions
$\widetilde{N}_1, \ \widetilde{N}_2$. Since all couplings in eq.(\ref{e1}) are required to
be of order 1 or less \cite{6,10}, this observation implies that even in the
realistic situation with non--vanishing $v$ and \mbox{$\bar{v}$}, there will be two neutral
Majorana fermions whose masses are roughly of order $M_Z$ or less. Moreover,
the upper bound on the masses of these neutral fermions will decrease as the
(experimental lower bounds on the) masses of the charged exotic fermions is
increased. We repeat, these crucial properties of the model follow from
eq.(\ref{e1}) without further assumptions. For the remainder of our analysis
we will concentrate on the simpler case where the mass matrix (\ref{e3}) is
decoupled from the neutralino mass matrix, just to avoid needless
complications.
A little calculation shows that the determinant of the matrix (\ref{e3}) is
proportional to $(v \mbox{$\bar{v}$} x)^2$; this means that all three vevs have to be
non--zero if all eigenvalues are to be non--vanishing. It is also quite easy
to see that in the limit $m_{L^\pm_{1,2}} \gg v,\mbox{$\bar{v}$}$, and with all couplings
${\cal O}(1)$ or less, there will be four large eigenvalues, approximately
equal to $\pm \mbox{$m_{L_1^\pm}$}$ and $\pm \mbox{$m_{L_2^\pm}$}$. The other two eigenvalues are \cite{9}
then of order $\mbox{$\lambda$}^2 v \mbox{$\bar{v}$} / m_{L^\pm_{1,2}}$. This is why the upper bound on
the smaller eigenvalues decreases with increasing mass of the charged exotics,
as stated above. Indeed, in ref.\cite{10} it was shown that the mass \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ of
the lightest neutral exotic lepton is maximized if all entries of the mass
matrix (\ref{e3}) are of the same order (or zero). Numerically one has $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}
\leq 110$ GeV if $m_{L^\pm_{1,2}} \geq 45$ GeV.
In general the matrix (\ref{e3}) has to be diagonalized numerically. The
resulting eigenstates $L_i^0$ are given by
\begin{equation} \label{e4}
L_i^0 = \sum_{j=1}^6 U_{ij} \widetilde{N}_j,
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the 6--component vector $\widetilde{N} \equiv (\widetilde{H_1^0},
\widetilde{\bar{H^0_1}}, \widetilde{N_1}, \widetilde{H_2^0}, \widetilde{\bar{H^0_2}}, \widetilde{N_2})$, and $U$
is an othogonal\footnote{We assume that all couplings in eq.(\ref{e1}) are
real.} matrix chosen such that
\begin{equation} \label{e5}
U {\cal M}_{L^0} U^T = {\rm diag} (m_{L_i^0}), \ \ i=1, \dots, 6.
\end{equation}
The couplings of the charged and neutral exotic mass eigenstates to the
standard $Z$ boson are then given by the Lagrangean \cite{14}
\begin{equation} \label{e6}
{\cal L}_{ZLL} = \frac {g} {2 \mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} Z_\mu \left[ \sum_{a=1}^2
\overline{L_a^\pm} \gamma^\mu L_a^\pm (1 - 2 \sin^2 \theta_W )
+ \sum_{i,j=1}^6 \overline{L_i^0} \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 L_j^0 t_{ij} \right],
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the $SU(2)$ gauge coupling, $\theta_W$ the weak mixing angle, and
\begin{equation} \label{e7}
t_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \left( U_{i2} U_{j2} + U_{i5} U_{j5}
- U_{i1} U_{j1} - U_{i4} U_{j4} \right).
\end{equation}
A few comments are in order here. First, when writing
eqs.(\ref{e5}),(\ref{e6}) we have allowed the masses of the neutral exotic
leptons to have either sign. We could also insist that all $m_{L_i^0} \geq 0$
by inserting appropriate factors of $i$ in the matrix $U$, which would then no
longer be orthogonal (but would still be unitary, of course). In this case the
diagonal couplings of the $Z$ boson to neutral exotics would still be purely
axial vector, but the off--diagonal couplings would become purely vector if
the two corresponding eigenvalues have opposite signs. Secondly, recall that
the $L_i^0$ are (4--component) Majorana spinors. This means that their
couplings appearing in Feynman diagrams are twice as large as those in the
Lagrangean (\ref{e6}). Finally, following ref.\cite{9}, and contrary to the
usual MSSM notation, we have defined $H_{1,2,3}$ to have hypercharge $+ 1/2$,
while the hypercharge of $\bar{H}_{1,2,3}$ is $-1/2$; this explains the
overall sign of the coupling $t_{ij}$ in eq.(\ref{e7}).
In our calculation of cosmological relic densities we also have to specify the
Higgs sector of the model. Recall that we are working in a basis where only
\mbox{$H_3^0$}, \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$}\ and \mbox{$N_3$}\ have non--zero vevs. The relevant part of the Higgs
potential is then given by \cite{15}
\begin{eqalignno} \label{e8}
V_{\rm Higgs} &= m^2_{H_3} | \mbox{$H_3^0$} |^2 + m^2_{\bar{H}_3} | \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$} |^2
+ m^2_{N_3} | \mbox{$N_3$} |^2 + (\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333} A_{333} \mbox{$H_3^0$} \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$} \mbox{$N_3$} + h.c.) \nonumber \\
&+ \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333} \left[ | \mbox{$H_3^0$} \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$} |^2 + | \mbox{$N_3$} |^2 \left( | \mbox{$H_3^0$} |^2 +
| \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$} |^2 \right) \right] \\
&+ \frac {g^2} {8 \cos^2 \theta_W} \left( | \mbox{$H_3^0$} |^2 - | \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$} |^2 \right)^2
+ \frac {g'^2}{72} \left( 5 | \mbox{$N_3$} |^2 - 4 | \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$} |^2 - | \mbox{$H_3^0$} |^2 \right)^2,
\nonumber \end{eqalignno}
where $g'$ is the $U(1)$ gauge coupling. We will assume the Higgs mass
parameters as well as the soft breaking parameter $A_{333}$ to be real. The
vevs can then all chosen to be real \cite{16}, and the mass matrices for the
real (scalar) and imaginary (pseudoscalar) parts of the neutral Higgs fields
decouple. The former is given by \cite{9}
\begin{equation} \label{e9}
{\cal M}^2_H = \mbox{$
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\left( \frac{g^2}{2} + \frac {25}{18} g'^2 \right) v^2
- \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} \frac {\bar{v} x}{v} &
\left(2 \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333} -\frac{g^2}{2} -\frac{5}{18} g'^2 \right) v \mbox{$\bar{v}$} + \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} x &
\left( 2 \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333} - \frac{10}{9} g'^2 \right) vx + \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} \\
\left(2 \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333} -\frac{g^2}{2} -\frac{5}{18} g'^2 \right) v \mbox{$\bar{v}$} + \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} x &
\left( \frac{g^2}{2} + \frac {5}{9} g'^2 \right) \mbox{$\bar{v}$}^2
- \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} \frac {v x}{\bar{v}} &
\left( 2 \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333} - \frac{5}{18} g'^2 \right) \mbox{$\bar{v}$} x + \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} v \\
\left( 2 \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333} - \frac{10}{9} g'^2 \right) vx + \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} \mbox{$\bar{v}$} &
\left( 2 \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333} - \frac{5}{18} g'^2 \right) \mbox{$\bar{v}$} x + \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} v &
\frac{25}{18} g'^2 x^2 - \mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} \frac {v \bar{v}}{x}
\end{array} \right) $},
\end{equation}
with $\mbox{$\widetilde{A}$} \equiv \mbox{$\lambda$}_{333} A_{333}$. In writing eq.(\ref{e9}) we have used the
requirement that the first derivatives of the potential (\ref{e8}) with
respect to the fields should vanish in the minimum. Notice that the smallest
eigenvalue $m^2_{h_1^0}$ of the matrix (\ref{e9}) is again only of order
$v^2 + \mbox{$\bar{v}$}^2$, not of order of the $Z'$ boson mass or the SUSY breaking scale
\cite{17}:
\begin{equation} \label{e10}
m^2_{h_1^0} \leq M_Z^2 \left[ \cos^2 (2 \beta) + \frac {2 \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333} \cos^2
\theta_W} {g^2} \sin^2(2 \beta) + \frac {\sin^2 \theta_W} {9} \left( 4
\sin^2 \beta + \cos^2 \beta \right)^2 \right],
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$} \equiv v / \mbox{$\bar{v}$} \ (> 1)$. Eqs.(\ref{e9}) and (\ref{e10}) only hold
at tree level. There are sizable radiative corrections from top and stop
loops, as well as possibly from loops involving exotic (s)quarks and
(s)leptons \cite{18}. However, for our purpose their effect can largely be
mimicked by allowing $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}$ at the weak scale to be quite large. The
reason is that these corrections tend to increase the mass of the lightest
scalar Higgs boson; eq.(\ref{e10}) shows that increasing $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}$ has the
same effect. Moreover, the radiative corrections are only important if they
involve large Yukawa couplings, e.g. that of the top quark. However, the
introduction of these large couplings also {\em reduces} the upper bound on
$\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}$ which follows from the requirement that the model remains weakly
interacting up to the GUT scale. The final upper bound on $m_{h_1^0}$ is
therefore not much changed by these corrections.
Since the model contains two massive neutral gauge bosons, only one physical
pseudoscalar $A$ survives. It can be written as \cite{9}
\begin{eqalignno} \label{e11}
A &= \frac {1} {\sqrt{ \bar{v}/v + v/\bar{v} + v \bar{v} / x^2 }}
\frac{1} {\sqrt{2}} \Im \left( \frac{\mbox{$\bar{v}$}}{v} \mbox{$H_3^0$} + \frac{v}{\mbox{$\bar{v}$}} \mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$} +
\frac {v \mbox{$\bar{v}$}}{x^2} \mbox{$N_3$} \right) \nonumber \\
&\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{j=1}^{3} P_j \Im \left( H_j \right),
\end{eqalignno}
where we have introduced the complex 3--component vector $H \equiv \left( \mbox{$H_3^0$},
\mbox{$\bar{H^0_3}$}, \mbox{$N_3$} \right)$, and the symbol $\Im$ denotes the imaginary part. The mass
of the physical pseudoscalar is given by \cite{9} \begin{equation} \label{e12}
m_A^2 = -\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333} A_{333} x \left( \frac{\mbox{$\bar{v}$}}{v} + \frac{v}{\mbox{$\bar{v}$}} +
\frac{v \mbox{$\bar{v}$}}{x^2} \right).
\end{equation}
Notice that this state would be massless if $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}=0$, as mentioned
earlier. There is also a physical charged Higgs boson, with mass \cite{9}
\begin{equation} \label{ech}
m^2_{H^\pm} = M_W^2 ( 1 - \frac {2 \mbox{$\lambda$}^2_{333}} {g^2} )
+ m_A^2 + \mbox{$\lambda$}_{333} A_{333} \frac {v \mbox{$\bar{v}$}} {x}.
\end{equation}
Note that this Higgs boson can be lighter than the $W$ boson if $m_A$ is small
and $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}$ is sizable.
In general the mass matrix (\ref{e9}) is most easily diagonalized numerically.
Since it is real and symmetric, the diagonalization can be achieved by an
orthogonal matrix $S$:
\begin{equation} \label{e13}
S {\cal M}^2_H S^T = {\rm diag}(m^2_{h_1^0}, m^2_{h_2^0}, m^2_{h_3^0} ).
\end{equation}
The physical scalars $h_i^0$ are then given by
\begin{equation} \label{e14}
h_i^0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{j=1}^3 S_{ij} \Re \left( H_j \right).
\end{equation}
The matrix $S$ and the vector $P$ introduced in eq.(\ref{e11}) determine the
couplings of the physical Higgs bosons to SM particles. We need the
$Z-Z-h^0_i$ couplings in order to interpret bounds on the Higgs sector from
searches at LEP; they are given by
\begin{equation} \label{e15}
g_{ZZh_i^0} = \frac {g M_Z} {\cos \theta_W} \left( S_{i1} \mbox{$\sin \! \beta$} + S_{i2}
\mbox{$\cos \! \beta$} \right).
\end{equation}
Bounds on $Z \rightarrow h_i^0 A$ decays involve the couplings
\begin{equation} \label{e16}
g_{ZAh_i^0} = \frac{g} {2 \cos \! \theta_W} \left( S_{i1} P_1 -
S_{i2} P_2 \right).
\end{equation}
In Sec.~4 we will also need the couplings of the Higgs bosons to the quarks
and leptons of the SM. We write the corresponding Lagrangean as
\begin{equation} \label{e17}
{\cal L}_{Hff} = \frac{g} {\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \bar{f} \left[ c^{(f)} (-i \gamma_5) A +
\sum_{i=1}^3 d_i^{(f)} h_i^0 \right] f,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{subequations} \label{e18} \begin{eqalignno}
c^{(f)} &= -\frac {m_f}{2 M_Z} \cdot \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
P_1/\mbox{$\sin \! \beta$}, \ \ \ & f=u,c,t \\
P_2/\mbox{$\cos \! \beta$}, \ \ \ & f=e,\mu,\tau,d,s,b
\end{array} \right. \label{e18a} \\
d_i^{(f)} &= -\frac {m_f}{2 M_Z} \cdot \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
S_{i1}/\mbox{$\sin \! \beta$}, \ \ & f=u,c,t \\
S_{i2}/\mbox{$\cos \! \beta$}, \ \ & f=e,\mu,\tau,d,s,b
\end{array} \right. \label{e18b}
\end{eqalignno} \end{subequations}
Finally, we will need the couplings of the physical Higgs bosons to the
neutral exotic leptons. They can most easily be expressed in terms of the
couplings $\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{ijk}$ between the lepton and Higgs current eigenstates:
\begin{equation} \label{e19}
{\cal L}_{\widetilde{N} \widetilde{N} H} = - \frac{1}{4} \sum_{i,j=1}^6 \sum_{k=1}^3
\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{ijk} \overline{\widetilde{N}}_i (1 - \gamma_5) \widetilde{N}_j H^0_k + h.c.,
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{N}$ is the 6--component vector of Majorana spinors introduced in
eq.(\ref{e4}), and $H$ the 3--component vector of complex neutral Higgs fields
defined in eq.(\ref{e11}). The couplings $\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{ijk}$ are determined by the
superpotential (\ref{e1}):
\begin{eqalignno} \label{e20}
\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{123} &= \mbox{$\lambda$}_{113}, \ \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{132} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{131}, \
\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{153} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{123}, \ \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{162} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{132}, \
\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{231} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{311}, \ \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{243} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{213}, \nonumber \\
\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{261} &= \mbox{$\lambda$}_{312}, \ \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{342} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{231}, \
\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{351} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{321}, \ \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{453} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{223}, \
\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{462} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{232}, \ \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{561} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{322};
\end{eqalignno}
this has to be symmetrized in the first two indices ($\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{ijk} = \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{jik}
$), and all other $\mbox{$\lambda$}'$ couplings vanish. Recall that without loss of
generality we can work in a basis where the mass matrix for the charged exotic
leptons is diagonal, i.e. $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{123} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{213} = 0$; this implies
$\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{153} = \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{243} = 0$ in this basis. The interaction between lepton
and Higgs mass states can then be written as
\begin{eqalignno} \label{e21}
{\cal L}_{LLH} &= - \frac {1} {2 \sqrt{2}} \sum_{i,j=1}^6 \sum_{k=1}^3
\mbox{$\lambda$}'_{ijk} \sum_{l=1}^3 S_{lk} h^0_l \sum_{m,n=1}^6 U_{mi} U_{nj}
\overline{L^0_m} L^0_n \nonumber \\
&+ \frac {i} {2 \sqrt{2}} \sum_{i,j=1}^6 \sum_{k=1}^3 \mbox{$\lambda$}'_{ijk}
P_k A \sum_{m,n=1}^6 U_{mi} U_{nj} \overline{L^0_m} \gamma_5 L^0_n,
\end{eqalignno}
where the orthogonal matrices $U$ and $S$ have been defined in eqs.(\ref{e5})
and (\ref{e13}), respectively, and the eigenvector $P$ of the pseudoscalar
mass matrix is given in eq.(\ref{e11}). Recall that the $L^0_m$ are Majorana
fermions, and the physical Higgs bosons $h^0_l$ and $A$ are described by real
fields.
\section*{3) Constraints from \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ Colliders}
In this section we discuss how new physics searches at existing and future
\mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders can constrain the class of $E(6)$ models we are considering.
At present the most stringent constraints on both the exotic leptons and the
Higgs sector come from LEP. To begin with, the failure to observe the charged
exotic leptons immediately implies that their masses must exceed 45 GeV, since
eq.(\ref{e6}) shows that they always couple with essentially full gauge
strength to the $Z$ boson.
The decay of the $Z$ into two neutral exotic leptons needs a somewhat more
detailed discussion. The heavier $L_i^0$ states can always decay into $L_1^0$
plus a real or virtual $Z$ or Higgs boson. However, the lightest state $L_1^0$
can only decay into SM particles or the right--handed neutrino state $\nu_R$,
or their superpartners. Such decays could be due to terms in the
superpotential of the type $\bar{H}_{1,2} l_L e_R, \ \bar{H}_{1,2}q_L d_R$ or
$H_{1,2} q_L u_R$, where $q_L$ and $l_L$ are quark and lepton $SU(2)$ doublet
superfields and $e_R, \ d_R$ and $u_R$ the corresponding singlets. However,
couplings of this kind will in general generate tree--level FCNC; these terms
are therefore severely constrained \cite{19}, which is why they are often
completely forbidden in (potentially) realistic models, e.g. by means of a
discrete symmetry \cite{13}. The model in general also allows couplings of the
kind $H_{1,2} l_L \nu_R$. Such couplings can lead to flavor changing processes
in the lepton sector ($\mu \rightarrow e \gamma, \ \tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$, etc), but
only at one--loop level; they are therefore somewhat less tightly constrained
\cite{19}. If any of these couplings exists, the exotic leptons become odd
under $R$ parity. This means that the decay product of $L_1^0$ must contain a
superparticle. Since \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ is quite light, we can expect that only final
states containing the lightest sparticle, which in almost all cases is the
lightest neutralino $\widetilde{Z}_1$, can occur. The least tightly constrained of
the above couplings, $H_{1,2} l_L \nu_R$, will then lead to an invisible final
state, if we assume that $R$ parity is conserved. Of course, it is not at all
clear that such decays are kinematically allowed, since $\widetilde{Z}_1$ could very
well be heavier than $L_1^0$. Indeed, in view of the fact that present bounds
\cite{3,8} require the $Z'$ boson mass to exceed several hundred GeV, we need
a rather high value of the SUSY breaking scale in this model \cite{5,6}. We
therefore conclude that $L_1^0$ most probably is either absolutely stable, or
decays invisibly; in particular, this is always true if tree--level FCNC are
suppressed by a simple symmetry and $R$ parity is conserved. In this case
$L_1^0$ cannot be detected directly by collider experiments. Since we want to
devise a test of the model that works even under the least favorable
circumstances we will assume that $L_1^0$ is indeed invisible.
The partial width of $Z \rightarrow L_i^0 L_j^0$ decays is given by \cite{14}:
\begin{eqalignno} \label{e22}
\Gamma ( Z \rightarrow L_i^0 L_j^0 ) &= \frac { |\vec{k}| } {24 \pi M_Z^2}
(2 - \delta_{ij}) \left( \frac {g t_{ij}} {\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \right)^2 \nonumber \\
& \cdot \left[ 2M_Z^2 - m_i^2 - m_j^2 - 6 m_i m_j - \frac { \left( m_i^2 -
m_j^2 \right)^2 } {M_Z^2} \right],
\end{eqalignno}
where we have used the shorthand notation $m_i \equiv m_{L_i^0}$. The coupling
$t_{ij}$ has been defined in eq.(\ref{e7}), and the $L_i^0$ 3--momentum in the
$Z$ rest frame $|\vec{k}|$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{e23}
|\vec{k}| = \frac {1} {2 M_Z} \sqrt{ \left( M_Z^2 - m_i^2 - m_j^2 \right)^2
- 4 m_i^2 m_j^2}.
\end{equation}
Recall that in our convention the neutral lepton masses, and hence the
bi--linear term in eq.(\ref{e22}), can have either sign.
We have argued above that the combination $i=j=1$ only contributes to the
invisible width of the $Z$ boson. However, even though the heavier neutral
leptons will almost always decay inside the detector, their production might
not lead to an experimentally observable final state if the mass difference
to the lightest lepton is too small. We have quite conservatively required
$|m_i| - |m_1| \geq 3$ GeV for an ``experimentally visible" $L_i^0$. The
signature for the production of these visible states is quite similar to that
for the production of the heavier neutralino states of the MSSM. Searches
\cite{20} for such neutralinos have so far not been sucessful; the bound on
the resulting branching ratio is of the order of (a few times) $10^{-5}$, the
precise value depending on the masses of the particles involved. We have
therefore imposed the upper bound
\begin{equation} \label{e24}
\Gamma (Z \rightarrow {\rm visible \ exotics}) < 0.13 \ {\rm MeV},
\end{equation}
which corresponds to a bound on the branching ratio of about $5 \cdot
10^{-5}$.
The best bound on non--SM contributions to invisible $Z$ decays comes from the
measurement of $\Gamma_{\rm inv}(Z) / \Gamma(Z \rightarrow l^+ l^-)$; this can be
interpreted \cite{21} as a measurement of the number of SM neutrino species,
$N_\nu = 2.988 \pm 0.023$. Taking into account that the model predicts $N_\nu
\geq 3$, this translates into the bound
\begin{equation} \label{e25}
\Delta \Gamma_{\rm inv} \leq 6.7 \ {\rm MeV}
\end{equation}
at 95\% confidence level. Note that ``invisible" includes everything that is
not counted in any explicitly reconstructed final state; in particular, $L_i^0
L_j^0$ final states where neither of the two leptons is at least 3 GeV heavier
than $L_1^0$ are included here.
At future high energy \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders the neutral exotic leptons can be
produced via the exchange of a virtual $Z$ boson. The cross section is given
by
\begin{eqalignno} \label{e26}
\sigma( \mbox{$e^+ e^- $} \rightarrow L_i^0 L_j^0) &= \frac {|\vec{k}|} {4 \pi \mbox{$\sqrt{s}$}} ( 2 -
\delta_{ij} ) \left( \frac {g} {\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \right)^4 \frac { \left( v_e^2 + a_e^2
\right) t_{ij}^2} { \left( s - M_Z^2 \right)^2 + M_Z^2 \Gamma_Z^2 }
\nonumber \\
& \cdot \left( E_i E_j - m_i m_j + \frac {1}{3} |\vec{k}|^2 \right),
\end{eqalignno}
with $a_e = -1/4$ and $v_e = 1/4 - \sin^2 \theta_W$. $|\vec{k}|$ is given by
eq.(\ref{e23}) with $M_Z$ replaced by the center--of--mass energy \mbox{$\sqrt{s}$}, and
$E_i = \sqrt{ m_i^2 + |\vec{k}|^2 }$. In principle this cross section also
receives contributions from $Z'$ boson exchange. However, if these
contributions are sizable, $Z'$ exchange will also lead to observable effects
in the pair production of SM fermions. Future \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders will therefore
be able \cite{2} to find evidence for a $Z'$ boson with mass up to several
times \mbox{$\sqrt{s}$}. The discovery of a $Z'$ signal would not only (obviously) rule out
the SM, but would also allow significant new tests of the type of model we are
studying here. In order to be conservative we therefore always assume that the
contributions from $Z'$ exchange are too small to be detectable. Finally, we
will always assume that future \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders will probe for the existence
of charged exotic leptons almost up to the kinematical limit, since they have
full strength couplings to both the $Z$ boson and the photon.
The Higgs sector of the model is also constrained by unsuccessful new physics
searches at LEP. We have used the results of the ALEPH collaboration
\cite{22}, which has published bounds on the $ZZh_i^0$ and $ZAh_i^0$ couplings
of light Higgs bosons. Their numerical bounds can be approximated by:
\begin{subequations} \label{e27} \begin{eqalignno}
\left( S_{i1} \sin \! \beta + S_{i2} \cos \! \beta \right)^2 & \leq
\left\{ \mbox{$ \begin{array} {ll}
0.025, & m_{h_i^0} \leq 10 \ {\rm GeV} \\
0.005 m_{h_i^0} - 0.025, & 10 \ {\rm GeV} \leq m_{h_i^0} \leq 20 \ {\rm GeV}
\\
0.0175 m_{h_i^0} - 0.275,& 20 \ {\rm GeV} \leq m_{h_i^0} \leq 30 \ {\rm GeV}
\\
0.025 m_{h_i^0} - 0.5,& 30 \ {\rm GeV} \leq m_{h_i^0} \leq 60 \ {\rm GeV}
\end{array} $} \right. \label{e27a} \\
\left( S_{i1} P_1 - S_{i2} P_2 \right)^2 & \leq \left\{ \mbox{$
\begin{array} {ll}
0.1, & m_{h_i^0} + m_A \leq 81 \ {\rm GeV} \\
0.1 \left( m_{h_i^0} + m_A - 81 \ {\rm GeV} \right) + 0.1, & m_{h_i^0} + m_A
\leq M_Z
\end{array} $} \right. \label{e27b}
\end{eqalignno} \end{subequations}
where all masses are in GeV.
As emphasized in Sec.~2, at least one of the three neutral scalar Higgs bosons
of the model must have mass below 150 GeV or so; moreover, this boson will
couple to the $Z$ with full strength if the bound (\ref{e10}) on its mass is
saturated. For some combinations of parameters the lightest Higgs scalar will
have a very weak coupling to the $Z$; however, in this case the
next--to--lightest Higgs scalar will have unsuppressed coupling to the $Z$,
and its mass will also satisfy the bound (\ref{e10}). In fact, the scalar
Higgs sector of our model is quite similar to that of the MSSM with additional
Higgs singlet superfield, where it has been shown \cite{23} that an \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\
collider with $\mbox{$\sqrt{s}$} \geq 300$ GeV has to detect at least one neutral scalar
Higgs boson. Unfortunately this may not be sufficient to allow a significant
test of the model, since this Higgs boson might look very similar to the
single Higgs boson of the SM. Even if several Higgs bosons are discovered, it
might be quite difficult to distinguish between the $E(6)$ model were are
discussing here and the MSSM, since large $x$ means that one of the three
neutral Higgs scalars is quite heavy and essentially a pure singlet; the
singlet components of the other two scalar Higgs bosons and the single
pseudoscalar Higgs boson are then very small. We therefore try to avoid making
assumptions about searches for neutral Higgs bosons at future colliders as
much as possible. There is one exception, however: The light Higgs boson(s) of
the model might have large branching ratios into neutral exotic leptons, which
could lead to a large invisible branching ratio for these Higgs particles.
This would be fairly distinctive; in the MSSM a large invisible branching
ratio of a Higgs boson would imply that the light chargino will be discovered
at LEP2 \cite{24}. In contrast, we will always require that the charged exotic
leptons are too heavy to be produced at the \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider under
consideration.
The partial widths for Higgs decays into exotic lepton can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{e28}
\Gamma (H \rightarrow L_i^0 L_j^0) = \frac {\mbox{$\lambda$}^2} {4 \pi m_H^3} (2 - \delta_{ij})
\sqrt{ m_H^2 - (m_i+m_j)^2 } \sqrt{ m_H^2 - (m_i-m_j)^2 }
\cdot \left[ m_H^2 - \left( m_i \pm m_j \right)^2 \right].
\end{equation}
As usual, the lepton masses $m_{i,j}$ can have either sign here. The ``$+$"
(``$-$") sign in the last term of eq.(\ref{e28}) applies if $H$ is scalar
(pseudoscalar), and \mbox{$\lambda$}\ is the relevant $H L_i^0 L_j^0$ coupling in the
Lagrangean (\ref{e21}); recall that a factor of $2 \mbox{$\lambda$}$ appears in the
relevant Feynman rule, due to the Majorana nature of $L_i^0$. When computing
the total decay widths of the neutral Higgs bosons of our model, we include
decays into SM fermion pairs as well as (for the scalar Higgs bosons) $W^+W^-$
and $ZZ$ final states, where we allow one (but not both) of the gauge bosons
to be off--shell. Expressions for the relevant partial widths can, e.g., be
found in the recent review article \cite{24}; of course, we have to use the
couplings listed in eqs.(\ref{e15})--(\ref{e18}) here. Note that the quark
masses in eqs.(\ref{e18}) are meant to be running masses, taken at scale
$m_H$; we also include the leading non--logarithmic QCD corrections \cite{25}
(which remain finite in the limit $m_q/m_H \rightarrow 0$) to the $c \bar{c}$ and $b
\bar{b}$ partial widths. An accurate estimate of the decay widths of the light
Higgs bosons of the model is necessary not only for the evaluation of
branching ratios for exotic Higgs decays, but also for the calculation of the
cosmological relic density, to which we turn next.
\section*{4) The Cosmological Relic Density}
We argued in the previous section that the exotic leptons will have odd $R$
parity if they have any Yukawa interactions with ordinary matter. The lightest
exotic lepton \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ will then be absolutely stable if it is lighter than
the lightest neutralino $\widetilde{Z}_1$. The only way out would be to introduce
$R$ parity breaking interactions in the superpotential. However, in this case
the model, although very complicated, would no longer be able to explain the
existence of cold dark matter (CDM); this seems to be required \cite{25a} for
a successful fit of all data on large scale structure in the universe. The
fact that $\widetilde{Z}_1$ makes an excellent CDM candidate is often viewed as one
of the strengths of the MSSM; a significantly more complicated model that
gives up this advantage does not look very appealing to us. We will therefore
require $R$ parity to be conserved.
Unfortunately the usual approximation \cite{11} for the calculation of the
relic density is often not reliable in this model. Two of the three cases
discussed in ref.\cite{26} as examples where the usual method is not
applicable can occur here, possibly simultaneously: Narrow $s-$channel (Higgs)
poles play a very important role in the calculation of the annihilation cross
section; and the next--to--lightest neutral exotic \mbox{$L_2^0$}\ can be quite close
in mass to \mbox{$L_1^0$}, in which case \mbox{$L_1^0$}\mbox{$L_2^0$}\ co--annihilation as well as
\mbox{$L_2^0$}\ltwo\ annihilation have to be considered as well.
We have followed ref.\cite{26} in our computation of the relic density. For
completeness we list, but do not derive, the relevant expressions here. The
calculation proceeds in two steps. First one has to determine the freeze--out
temperature $T_f$, where the relic particles fall out of thermal equilibrium.
It is given by
\begin{equation} \label{e29}
x_f = \ln \frac {0.038 g_{\rm eff} M_P |m_1| \mbox{$\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$} (x_f)}
{\sqrt{ g_* x_f}},
\end{equation}
where we have introduced $x_f \equiv |m_1|/T_f$, $m_1$ being the mass of the
lightest neutral exotic. $M_P = 1.22 \cdot 10^{19}$ GeV is the Planck mass,
and $g_*$ is the number of degrees of freedom that are in thermal equilibrium
at temperature $T_f$; we have for simplicity used a fixed $\sqrt{g_*}=9$,
which introduces a negligible error in our calculation. Eq.(\ref{e29}) has to
be solved iteratively, since the r.h.s. depends on $x_f$ both explicitly and
via the thermal average \mbox{$\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$}, defined as
\begin{equation} \label{e30}
\mbox{$\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$} (x) = \frac {x^{3/2}} {2 \sqrt{\pi}} \int_0^\infty dv v^2 e^{-v^2 x/4}
\sigma_{\rm eff} v,
\end{equation}
where $v$ is the relative velocity of the two annihilating particles in their
center--of--mass frame. In the presence of co--annihilation, the effective
annihilation cross section $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{e31}
\sigma_{\rm eff} (x) = \frac {4} {g_{\rm eff}^2} \left[ \sigma_{11} + 2
\sigma_{12} ( 1 + \Delta)^{3/2} e^{-x \Delta} + \sigma_{22} (1 + \Delta)^3
e^{-2x \Delta} \right],
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{ij} = \sigma(L_i^0 L_j^0 \rightarrow$ anything), and we have introduced
\begin{subequations} \label{e32} \begin{eqalignno}
\Delta &= \left| \frac {m_2} {m_1} \right| - 1; \label{e32a} \\
g_{\rm eff} &= 2 \left[ 1 + (1 + \Delta)^{3/2} e^{-x \Delta} \right].
\label{e32b} \end{eqalignno} \end{subequations}
$g_{\rm eff}$ is the effective number of degrees of freedom of CDM particles
($g=2$ for a single Majorana fermion). Numerically, $x_f \simeq 20$ or so for
models leading to an acceptable relic density.
Once $x_f$ has been determined, the relic density is given by
\begin{equation} \label{e33}
\mbox{$\Omega h^2$} = \frac { 1.07 \cdot 10^9 \ {\rm GeV}^{-1} }
{J(x_f) \sqrt{g_*} M_P },
\end{equation}
where the annihilation integral $J$ is defined as
\begin{equation} \label{e34}
J(x_f) = \int_{x_f}^\infty \frac {\mbox{$\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$} (x) } {x^2} dx.
\end{equation}
As usual, we have expressed the relic density $\Omega$ in units of the
critical (closure) density, so that $\Omega = 1$ corresponds to a flat
universe as predicted by inflationary models \cite{11}. Finally, $h$ is the
present Hubble parameter in units of 100 km/(s$\cdot$Mpc); it lies in the
range $0.4 \leq h \leq 1$. The constraint that the universe be older than
10 billion years implies $\mbox{$\Omega h^2$} \leq 1$; the true upper bound is almost
certainly tighter than this, but we want to be conservative since our
calculation will only be precise on the 10\% level.
In our calculation of the annihilation cross section $\sigma_{ij}$ of
eq.(\ref{e31}) we have only included annihilation into \mbox{$f \bar{f}$}\ pairs, where
$f$ is a fermion contained in the Standard Model. This under--estimates the
total annihilation cross section, and hence over--estimates the relic
density, if \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ is heavy enough to annihilate into pairs of gauge or Higgs
bosons, or mixed gauge--Higgs final states. However, in this case annihilation
into \mbox{$f \bar{f}$}\ final states is by itself usually sufficient to give an
acceptable relic density. The reason is that a large $|m_1|$ also implies
fairly large $SU(2)$ doublet components of \mbox{$L_1^0$}, and hence sizable couplings
to gauge and Higgs bosons.
The process $L_i^0 L_j^0 \rightarrow \mbox{$f \bar{f}$}$ can proceed via the exchange of a neutral
(scalar or pseudo--scalar) Higgs boson, or a $Z$ boson, in the $s-$channel. As
discussed in Sec.~3, there might also be terms in the superpotential that
couple exotic letpons to (s)fermions present in the MSSM. However, the
resulting contributions to the annihilation cross section are strongly
suppressed. We already saw that bounds on rare processes severely constrain
these couplings \cite{19}. Moreover, they would contribute to annihilation
only through the exchange of a sfermion in the $t-$ or $u-$channel. The
experimental lower bound on squark masses is already quite high \cite{27};
furthermore, as mentioned earlier, one expects sfermion masses to be of order
$M_{Z'}$ in this model \cite{5,6}, which leads to a strong suppression of
sfermion exchange contributions. Finally, these couplings involve the $SU(2)$
doublet components of $L_i^0$, which are usually quite small for $i=1,2$; the
corresponding contribution to the annihilation matrix element therefore
involves two small mixing factors. This is also true for the $Z-$exchange
contribution, but the $H L_i^0 L_j^0$ coupling (\ref{e21}) contains only one
small mixing angle if the Higgs boson is mostly an $SU(2)$
doublet.\footnote{Recall that this coupling results from the superpotential
(\ref{e1}), which couples one singlet to two doublets. An $SU(2)$ doublet
Higgs boson therefore couples to $L_i^0 L_j^0$ via one singlet and one doublet
component. Recall also that in this model all light Higgs bosons must be
dominantly doublets, since $x \gg v, \mbox{$\bar{v}$}$ in eq.(\ref{e9}), so that the
singlet Higgs boson essentially decouples from physics at scale $M_Z$.} We
therefore neglect possible $t-$channel exchange diagrams.
Including the $s-$channel exchange of $Z$ and Higgs bosons, the relevant
matrix element can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{e35}
{\cal A} \left( L_i^0 (k_1) L_j^0 (k_2) \rightarrow f(p_1) \bar{f}(p_2) \right) =
{\cal A}_{ij}^{(Z)} + {\cal A}_{ij}^{(A)} + {\cal A}_{ij}^{(h)},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{subequations} \label{e36} \begin{eqalignno}
{\cal A}_{ij}^{(Z)} &= i \left( \frac {g} {\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \right)^2 t_{ij} \bar{v}(k_2)
\gamma^\mu \gamma_5 u(k_1) \frac {g_{\mu\nu} - \frac {P_\mu P_\nu} {M_Z^2} }
{s - M_Z^2 + i M_Z \Gamma_Z} \bar{u}(p_1) \gamma^\nu ( a_f + b_f \gamma_5)
v(p_2); \label{e36a} \\
{\cal A}_{ij}^{(A)} &= i \frac {g} {\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} t_{ij}^{(A)} c^{(f)} \bar{v}(k_2)
\gamma_5 u(k_1) \frac {1} {s -m_A^2 + i m_A \Gamma_A} \bar{u}(p_1) \gamma_5
v(p_2); \label{e36b} \\
{\cal A}_{ij}^{(H)} &= i \frac {g} {\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \bar{v}(k_2) u(k_1) \bar{u}(p_1)
v(p_2) \sum_{k=1}^3 \frac {t_{ijk}^{(h)} d_k^{(f)} } {s - m^2_{h_k^0} + i
m_{h_k^0} \Gamma_{h_k^0} }. \label{e36c}
\end{eqalignno} \end{subequations}
The $Z L_i^0 L_j^0$ couplings $t_{ij}$ are given in eq.(\ref{e7}), while the
$A L_i^0 L_j^0$ couplings $t_{ij}^{(A)}$ and the $h^0_k L_i^0 L_j^0$ couplings
$t_{ijk}^{(h)}$ can be read off eq.(\ref{e21}). The $A \mbox{$f \bar{f}$}$ couplings
$c^{(f)}$ and $h_k^0 \mbox{$f \bar{f}$}$ couplings $d_k^{(f)}$ are listed in
eqs.(\ref{e18a},\ref{e18b}). Finally, the $Z \mbox{$f \bar{f}$}$ couplings $a_f$ and $b_f$
are as usual given by $a_f = - \frac{1}{2} I_3^f + q^f \sin^2 \theta_W, \
b_f = \frac{1}{2} I_3^f$, with $I_3^f$ and $q^f$ the weak isospin and electric
charge of fermion $f$, respectively. In eq.(\ref{e36a}) we have introduced the
total momentum $P_\mu = (k_1+k_2)_\mu = (p_1+p_2)_\mu$, and $s = P^\mu P_\mu$.
The $A$ and $Z$ exchange diagrams interfere with each other, but not with the
scalar Higgs exchange contribution. The annihilation cross section can most
readily be computed using standard trace techniques. The result can be written
as
\begin{equation} \label{e37}
\sigma \left( L_i^0 L_j^0 \rightarrow \mbox{$f \bar{f}$} \right) v = \frac {\beta_f N_f} {8 \pi s}
\left[ \widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}^{(ZZ)} + \widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}^{(ZA)} +
\widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}^{(AA)} + \widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}^{(hh)} \right],
\end{equation}
where $\beta_f = \sqrt{1 - 4 m_f^2 /s}, \ N_f = 1 \ (3)$ for leptons (quarks),
and the scaled annihilation cross sections $\widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}$ are given by:
\begin{subequations} \label{e38} \begin{eqalignno}
\widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}^{(ZZ)} &= 4 \left( \frac {g}{\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \right)^4 \left( t_{ij}
\right)^2 \left( a_f^2 + b_f^2 \right)
\left[ \frac { s^2/4 + s \beta_f^2 \vec{k}^2/3 - s (m_f^2 + m_i m_j)
+ 4 m_f^2 m_i m_j} { (s - M_Z^2)^2 + M_Z^2 \Gamma_Z^2}
\right. \nonumber \\ & \left. \hspace*{2.5cm}
+ \frac {2 m_f^2}{M_Z^2} \left( 1 - \frac {s} {2 M_Z^2} \right)
\frac { (m_i^2 - m_j^2)^2 } { (s - M_Z^2)^2 + M_Z^2 \Gamma_Z^2} +
\frac { m_f^2 (m_i+m_j)^2} {M_Z^4} \right]; \label{e38a} \\
\widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}^{(ZA)} &= 4 \left( \frac {g}{\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \right)^2 t_{ij}
t_{ij}^{(A)} c^{(f)} b_f m_f (m_i+m_j) \frac {s-m_A^2}
{ (s - m_A^2)^2 + m_A^2 \Gamma_A^2} \frac {s-(m_i-m_j)^2} {M_Z^2};
\label{e38b} \\
\widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}^{(AA)} &= \left( \frac{g}{\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \right)^2 \left( t_{ij}^{(A)}
c^{(f)} \right)^2 \frac {s - (m_i-m_j)^2} { (s - m_A^2)^2 + m_A^2 \Gamma_A^2};
\label{e38c} \\
\widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}^{(hh)} &= \left( \frac{g}{\mbox{$\cos \! \theta_W$}} \right)^2
\left[ s - (m_i+m_j)^2 \right] s \beta_f^2 \left| \sum_{k=1}^3 \frac
{t_{ijk}^{(h)} d_k^{(f)} } {s - m^2_{h_k^0} + i m_{h_k^0} \Gamma_{h_k^0} }
\right|^2 . \label{e38d}
\end{eqalignno} \end{subequations}
Here, the initial 3--momentum $\vec{k}^2$ is again given by eq.(\ref{e23})
with $M_Z^2$ replaced by $s$. As before, the masses $m_i$ and $m_j$ can have
either sign.
A few comments are in order. When writing the thermal average (\ref{e30}),
we have used non--relativistic kinematics; for consistency we therefore also
have to use a non--relativistic expression for $s$ in eqs.(\ref{e38}),
\begin{equation} \label{e39}
s = \left( |m_i| + |m_j| \right)^2 + |m_i m_j | v^2.
\end{equation}
this might seem dangerous, since in the presence of narrow poles the integral
in eq.(\ref{e30}) can receive sizable contributions from $v \sim 1$. However,
we have checked that using fully relativistic kinematics everywhere does not
change the result significantly; on the other hand, combining eq.(\ref{e30})
with a relativistic expression for $s$ can under--estimate the relic density
by a factor of 2 or 3.
In principle we now could compute \mbox{$\Omega h^2$}\ numerically, by inserting
eqs.(\ref{e37}) and (\ref{e38}) into eqs.(\ref{e29})--(\ref{e34}). Note,
however, that inserting eq.(\ref{e30}) into eq.(\ref{e34}) leads to a double
integration. Since we want to test several million combinations of model
parameters, in order to make sure that we covered all relevant regions of
parameter space, a direct numerical integration is not practical. We used
the following approximate method instead.
As well known \cite{11,26}, the integral in eqs.(\ref{e30}) and (\ref{e34})
can be computed quite reliably from a simple analytical expression {\em if}
the annihilation cross section $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ does not depend too
sensitively on $v$. In this case one can use the Taylor expansion
\begin{equation} \label{e40}
\sigma_{\rm eff} = a_{\rm eff} + b_{\rm eff} v^2,
\end{equation}
which gives $\mbox{$\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$} (x) = a_{\rm eff} + 6 b_{\rm eff}/x$, and $J(x_f) =
a_{\rm eff} / x_f + 3 b_{\rm eff}/x_f^2$. Since $x_f \simeq 20$, annihilation
from an $s-$wave initial state, which contributes to $a_{\rm eff}$, reduces
the relic density more efficiently than annihilation from a $p-$wave does,
which only contributes to $b_{\rm eff}$. However, in our case this expansion
can be used with some reliability only for those contributions that do not
have an $s-$channel pole. Specifically, this includes the last term in the
squared $Z$ exchange contribution (\ref{e38a}), which is due to the
longitudinal polarization state of the $Z$; the $Z-A$ interference term
(\ref{e38b}); and the $H_k^0 - H_l^0$ interference terms in eq.(\ref{e38d}).
All other contributions do in general show strong variation with $v^2$, and
have to be treated separately.
Since we use the expansion (\ref{e40}) for all interference terms, we now only
need to compute the thermal average over a Breit--Wigner propagator,
multiplied with a power of $v^2$:
\begin{equation} \label{e41}
I_n \equiv C \frac {x^{3/2}} {2 \sqrt{\pi}} \int_0^\infty dv e^{-x v^2/4}
\frac { (v^2)^{1+n} s(v) } { \left[ s(v) - m_P^2 \right]^2 + m_P^2
\Gamma_P^2},
\end{equation}
where $s(v)$ is given by eq.(\ref{e39}), $C$ is a constant, and $P=Z, \ A$ or
$h_k^0$. Setting for simplicity $s= \left( |m_i| + |m_j| \right)^2$ in the
numerator (but not the denominator) of eq.(\ref{e41}), $I_n$ can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{e42}
I_n = C \frac {x^{3/2}} {2 \sqrt{\pi}} \left( \frac {|m_i|+|m_j|} {m_i m_j}
\right)^2 \int_0^\infty dv e^{-x v^2/4} \frac {(v^2)^{1+n}} { \left( v^2 -
v_0^2 \right)^2 + \gamma},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{subequations} \label{e43} \begin{eqalignno}
v_0^2 &= \frac {m_P^2 - \left( |m_i| + |m_j| \right)^2 } {|m_i m_j|};
\label{e43a} \\
\gamma &= \left( \frac {m_P \Gamma_P}{m_i m_j} \right)^2.
\label{e43b}
\end{eqalignno} \end{subequations}
Note that $v_0^2 < 0$ implies $s > m_P^2$ for all $v \geq 0$, so that the pole
is never accessible. On the other hand, if $v_0^2 > 0$, the contribution from
$v \simeq v_0$ to the integral in eq.(\ref{e42}) scales like $e^{-x v_0^2/4}
(v_0^2)^{1+n} \gamma^{-0.5}$, which can be substantial even for $v_0 \sim 1$
if $\gamma \ll 1$, i.e. if the pole is very narrow.
The integral in eq.(\ref{e42}) still seems to depend on three parameters (the
inverse temperature, and the position and width of the pole). Further progress
can be made by using the substitution $v' = \sqrt{x} v$:
\begin{eqalignno} \label{e44}
I_n &= C \frac { x^{2-n}} {2 \sqrt{\pi}} \left( \frac {|m_i|+|m_j|} {m_i m_j}
\right)^2 \int_0^\infty dv' e^{-v'^2/4} \frac { (v'^2)^{1+n} }
{ \left( v'^2 - \tilde{v}_0^2 \right)^2 + \tilde{\gamma} }
\nonumber \\
&\equiv C x^{2-n} \left( \frac {|m_i|+|m_j|} {m_i m_j} \right)^2 \tilde{I}_n
(\tilde{v}_0^2, \tilde{\gamma}),
\end{eqalignno}
with $\tilde{v}_0^2 = x v_0^2$ and $\tilde{\gamma} = x^2 \gamma$. We have
computed $\tilde{I}_0$ and $\tilde{I}_1$ numerically for 200 values of
$\tilde{v}_0^2$ between $-100$ and $+225$, and 50 values of $\tilde{\gamma}$
between $6.3 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and $3.5 \cdot 10^3$.\footnote{Recall that we need
to compute $I_n$ only for $x \geq 20$. Moreover, $\Gamma_P/m_P \geq 10^{-4}$
even for the light Higgs bosons of the model.} Note that these 10,000 values
of $\tilde{I}_0$ and $\tilde{I}_1$ need to be computed only once; afterwards
the thermal average over the annihilation cross section can be computed
without numerical integration: If $\tilde{v}_0^2$ does not lie in this range,
the pole is so distant that the expansion (\ref{e40}) can be used for it; for
values of $\tilde{v}_0^2$ and $\tilde{\gamma}$ in the specified range, the
$\tilde{I}_n$ are estimated by interpolation.
Specifically, for $i=j \ (\mbox{$L_1^0$}\lone$ or \mbox{$L_2^0$}\ltwo\ annihilation), only the
squared $A$ exchange term (\ref{e38c}) gets contributions $\propto
\tilde{I}_0$ when inserted in eq.(\ref{e30}); the resonant contributions to
eq.(\ref{e38a}), as well as eq.(\ref{e38d}), are proportional to $v^2$ for
$m_i = m_j$, i.e. only contribute via $\tilde{I}_1$. The reason is that
on--shell $Z$ and scalar Higgs bosons can only be produced from two identical
Majorana fermions if they are in a $p-$wave state, while on--shell
pseudo--scalar bosons can be produced from an $s-$wave state. However, squared
$Z$ and scalar Higgs exchange do contribute to $\tilde{I}_0$ terms if $m_i
\neq m_j$. In the important special case where \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ and \mbox{$L_2^0$}\ form a Dirac
fermion, one has $m_1 = -m_2$; in this case squared $A$ exchange only starts
at order $v^2$ ($\tilde{I}_1$ terms only), while squared scalar Higgs and $Z$
exchange start at order $v^0$. Finally, for all contributions that start at
order $v^0$ ($\tilde{I}_0$ terms), we have expanded the numerator to order
$v^2$, i.e. added a (properly normalized) $\tilde{I}_1$ term. We checked
numerically that our combination of eq.(\ref{e40}) for non--resonant
(interference) terms, and eq.(\ref{e44}) with interpolation to the actual
values of $\tilde{v}_0^2$ and $\tilde{\gamma}$, reproduces the exact thermal
average of the annihilation cross section to an accuracy of about 10\% or
better; this is quite sufficient for us. In contrast, simply using the
expansion (\ref{e40}) for the entire cross section can both over-- and
under--estimate the true thermal average by a large factor; this had been
observed previously \cite{28} in the similar case of the MSSM with scalar
Higgs mass close to twice the LSP mass. Finally, the annihilation integral
(\ref{e34}) usually converges rather quickly; we have therefore computed it
numerically, still using the method outlined above to determine $\mbox{$\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$}(x)$ in
the integrand.
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\section*{5) Results}
We are now in a position to describe our numerical studies of the model, using
the expressions given in the previous three sections. Our basic approach is to
randomly sample the parameter space, and to count the number of solutions that
satisfy all the constraints we impose, including those that can be derived
from searches at future (linear) \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders. The ultimate goal is to
devise a set of constraints such that there are no acceptable solutions left.
This means that either a signal characteristic for the model has been found,
i.e. one of the hypothetical future searches is successful, or the model is
completely excluded, independent of the values of the free parameters.
We chose this Monte Carlo approach since the number of free parameters is too
large to allow for a systematic scan of the entire parameter space. The mass
matrix (\ref{e3}) for the neutral exotic leptons already contains ten free
parameters. For each scan of parameter space, we impose a lower bound on the
charged leptons masses $m_{L_i^\pm}$, since these particles should be trivial
to discover at an \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider unless their production is kinematically
suppressed. We also fix the ratio $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$} \equiv v/\mbox{$\bar{v}$}$ for a given run; this
determines $v$ and \mbox{$\bar{v}$}, since $\sqrt{v^2+\mbox{$\bar{v}$}^2} = 2 M_W/g$ is known. The
Yukawa couplings appearing in eq.(\ref{e3}) are then chosen randomly in the
interval $|\mbox{$\lambda$}_{ijk}|\leq \mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$}$. We take $\mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$}=0.85$, which is approximately
the upper bound on any one coupling from the requirement that there should be
no Landau pole at scales below the GUT scale. This is a conservative approach,
since this bound is significantly stronger if several Yukawa couplings are
sizable \cite{10}, which is required if \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ is to be close to its upper
bound.
Having specified the exotic lepton sector, we check whether the present LEP
constraints (\ref{e24}) and (\ref{e25}) are satisfied. If so, we check whether
the total ``visible" exotic cross--section, determined from eq.(\ref{e26}),
is sufficiently small so that a given \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider will not detect pair
production of exotic leptons; this constraint obviously depends on the
collider we are considering, as described below. Recall that we consider a
neutral exotic lepton to be ``visible" only if it is at least 5 GeV heavier
than \mbox{$L_1^0$}.
This exhausts the constraints from searches for exotic leptons at present and
future \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders. If our choice of parameters is still viable, we next
randomly pick a Higgs sector, subject to the constraints (\ref{e27}). Since
present bounds on the mass of the $Z'$ boson are already quite high \cite{2},
we always find that there is one singlet--like neutral Higgs boson, which
plays no role in any of the process we are considering; it is therefore
sufficient to simply fix the SM singlet vev $x$ to some large value, say 2
TeV. Since our runs are for fixed \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}, we only need to chose the values of
two additional parameters in order to completely specify the Higgs sector of
the model, see eq.(\ref{e8}). We chose these to be the coupling $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}$,
which also has to lie in the interval $|\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}| \leq 0.85$, and the mass
$m_A$ of the physical pseudo--scalar Higgs boson; this then fixes the
parameter $A_{333}$ via eq.(\ref{e12}). Note that for each set of leptonic
parameters that satisfy constraints from \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders, we keep chosing
pairs $(\mbox{$\lambda$}_{333}, m_A)$ at random until we have found an acceptable Higgs
sector.
This is necessary because Higgs exchange contributions can play an important
role in the calculation of the \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ relic density. Once the exotic lepton
sector and the Higgs sector are specified, all quantities appearing in the
annihilation cross sections (\ref{e38}) are fixed, and we can compute the
relic density as described in Sec.~4, and check whether it is acceptable.
Figs.~1a,b show that present constraints [the bounds (\ref{e24}), (\ref{e25})
and (\ref{e27}), together with $\mbox{$\Omega h^2$} \leq 1$] are still quite far from
testing the model decisively. For these figures we have allowed charged lepton
masses as low as 40 GeV when sampling the parameter space; we have however
required $|m_{L_i^\pm}| \geq 45$ GeV for all acceptable solutions. This
explains why the survival fraction after imposing LEP1 constraints only is
less than unity in some bins with $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} > M_Z/2$.
Note that LEP1 searches only impose weak constraints for very small values of
\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}. The reason is that most parameter sets with small \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ have large masses
for the charged exotic leptons. In this case four of the six neutral exotics
are also heavy, while the remaining two states are mostly SM singlets, i.e.
couple only weakly to the $Z$ boson. However, the relic density constraint is
most effective precisely in this situation, since it leads to small
annihilation cross sections: The couplings of singlet--like exotics to the
light Higgs bosons are also weak, and their small masses suppress the cross
sections even further; far below the pole, $s-$channel exchange contributions
scale like $m^2_{L_i^0}/m_P^4$, where $P$ is the exchanged particle. We
therefore find no cosmologically acceptable scenario with $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} \leq m_b \simeq
5$ GeV; this is not surprising since the $b \bar b$ final state, if
accessible, contributes most to Higgs exchange diagrams.
Figs.~1 also reveal a technical problem: even though each figure is based on
$10^5$ sets of leptonic parameters (``hundred thousand models"), the region of
large \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ is only sparsely populated. This is perhaps not surprising, since
all ten parameters appearing in the mass matrix (\ref{e3}) must be chosen
within a narrow range if \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ is to come out close to its upper bound. At the
same time, combinations of parameters leading to large \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ are most difficult
to exclude, i.e. most easily evade all bounds. For one thing, large \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\
implies large $SU(2)$ doublet components of \mbox{$L_1^0$}, and hence large
annihilation cross sections and a small relic density. Further, constraints
from collider searches can most easily be evaded if \mbox{$L_2^0$}\ is close in mass to
\mbox{$L_1^0$}, since \mbox{$L_2^0$}\ then also becomes effectively invisible. In such a
situation $\mbox{$L_1^0$} \mbox{$L_2^0$}$ co--annihilation can also reduce the relic density
even further. Since our goal is to test the model decisively, it would be
advantageous if in our sampling of parameter space we could give preference to
regions that are most difficult to exclude.
Fortunately a large \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ is correlated with a small $\mbox{$L_1^0$}-\mbox{$L_2^0$}$ mass
difference. In ref.\cite{10} it has been shown that choices of parameters that
maximize \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ always lead to a situation where the six eigenvalues of the mass
matrix (\ref{e3}) come in three pairs that only differ by a sign; in such a
situation the six Majorana states can also be described by three neutral Dirac
fermions. In particular, the Majorana state \mbox{$L_2^0$}\ will now be completely
invisible, being degenerate in mass with \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ and hence (by assumption)
stable; this obviously also maximizes $\mbox{$L_1^0$} \mbox{$L_2^0$}$ co--annihilation. From now
on we will therefore only show results for the subset of parameter space where
the six neutral exotic leptons do indeed form three Dirac fermions. This can
be enforced by chosing
\begin{equation} \label{e45}
\mbox{$\lambda$}_{131} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{132}, \ \mbox{$\lambda$}_{231} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{232}, \ \mbox{$\lambda$}_{311} = - \mbox{$\lambda$}_{312},
\ \mbox{$\lambda$}_{321} = - \mbox{$\lambda$}_{322}.
\end{equation}
For given \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}, this reduces the number of parameters in the exotic lepton
sector from ten to six; this reduced parameter space is obviously much easier
to sample exhaustively. We have checked that our runs with eqs.(\ref{e45})
imposed do always find significantly more acceptable solutions than scans of
the entire parameter space with equal statistics.
Figs.~2a,b show that, at least if the mass matrix (\ref{e3}) has Dirac
structure, neutral lepton searches at LEP2 will not lead to significant new
constraints, unless a light charged exotic is found. We have assumed here that
LEP2 will reach a center--of--mass energy \mbox{$\sqrt{s}$}\ of 190 GeV, and that the
production of neutral leptons is detectable if the cross section, summed over
all ``visible" modes, exceeds 20 fb, which corresponds to 10 events per
experiment for the foreseen integrated luminosity of 500 pb$^{-1}$. Comparison
with Figs.~1 shows that the fraction of parameter space excluded by present
LEP1 constraints has become smaller, even for light \mbox{$L_1^0$}. This is mostly
because $\mbox{$L_1^0$} \mbox{$L_2^0$}$ and $\mbox{$L_2^0$} \mbox{$L_2^0$}$ final states are now invisible. Note
also that we now find some cosmologically acceptable solutions with
$\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}=1.2$ and \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ as small as 10 GeV; this indicates that co--annihilation
can indeed reduce the relic density significantly. Further, even though the
absolute upper bound on \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ decreases with increasing mass of the charged
exotic leptons \cite{10}, Figs.~2a,b extend to larger values of \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ than
Figs~1a,b do; clearly the restrictions (\ref{e45}) have made it much more
likely to produce scenarios with large \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}. Finally, comparison of Figs. 2a
and 2b shows that LEP constraints exclude a larger fraction of parameter space
for large \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}; this can already be seen from Figs.~1a,b. We showed in Sec.~2
that increasing \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}\ decreases the upper bound on \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}, since $\det {\cal
M}_{L^0} \propto (v \mbox{$\bar{v}$} x)^2$; however, the size of the $SU(2)$ doublet
components of the light exotics, and hence their couplings to the $Z$ boson,
remains more or less the same. Reducing the masses of the exotics while
leaving their couplings essentially unchanged obviously increases the partial
width for $Z$ decays into exotic leptons.
Figs.~2 clearly show that LEP2 will not be able to test the model decisively;
there are many choices of parameters that lead to an acceptable cosmology, but
no ``new physics" signal at this collider. One will therefore need (linear)
colliders operating at higher energies in order to probe the entire parameter
space. Such colliders are often assumed to be built in three stages, where the
energy is increased from about 0.5 TeV to 1.0 TeV and, eventually, 1.5 TeV or
even higher. We generically call these three stages NLC1, NLC2 and NLC3.
Figs.~3a,b show the situation if a 500 GeV \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider fails to discover
pair production of exotic leptons, which we have interpreted as meaning that
the total cross section into visible exotic final states is less than 0.5 fb;
the integrated luminosity of such a collider is usually assumed to be several
tens of fb$^{-1}$ per year. For these runs we have required the masses of the
charged exotic leptons to exceed 240 GeV. This reduces both the upper bound on
\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ and the maximal $SU(2)$ doublet component of \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ significantly. As a
result, for $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}=1.2$ present LEP1 searches do not constrain the model any
further. For $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}=5$, these constraints still do exclude some combinations
of parameters, but they are clearly much less restrictive here than for lower
masses of the charged exotics, see Fig.~2b. On the other hand, unlike at LEP2,
searches for neutral exotics at NLC1 can probe sizable regions of parameter
space even if no charged exotic leptons are found; this can be seen from the
large differences between the dotted and dashed histograms in Figs.~3.
Finally, the relic density constraint again excludes parameter choices giving
$\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} \leq m_b$, and impose significant constraints as long as $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} \leq 15$ to
20 GeV. However, a substantial number of parameter sets still satisfies all
constraints (solid histograms).
This remains true even if a 1 TeV collider fails to discover pair production
of exotic leptons. Indeed, Figs.~4a,b show that a small region of parameter
space survives even if searches for pairs of exotic leptons at a 1.5 TeV
collider remain unsucessful; here we have assumed that the integrated
luminosity scales like the square of the beam energy, so that a signal
exceeding 0.05 fb would be detectable. We evidently need to find some
additional constraint(s) if we want to test the model decisively.
There are significant differences between Figs.~4a,b and 3a,b, which might
offer a clue as to what these additional constraints might be. To begin with,
the minimal allowed value of \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ for small \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}\ has increased from about
6 GeV (Fig.~3a) to about 23 GeV (Fig.~4a). Unsuccessful earches at a 1.5 TeV
collider force the $SU(2)$ doublet components of \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ to be much smaller
than searches at an 0.5 TeV collider do, which leads to considerably reduced
couplings of the light exotic leptons to gauge and Higgs bosons. This has to
be compensated by an increase of \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ in order to keep the relic density
acceptably small; recall that for light \mbox{$L_1^0$}, the annihilation cross sections
scale like $m^2_{L_1^0}$. Even more importantly, if a 1.5 TeV collider fails
to find evidence for the pair production of exotic leptons, the upper bound
on \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ is reduced to about 30 (11) GeV for $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}=1.2$ (5), as compared to
84 (27) GeV after unsuccessful searches at NLC1.
Recall that the masses of the two lightest exotic Majorana states, or the
lightest exotic Dirac state if eqs.(\ref{e45}) hold, come from vevs that break
$SU(2)$. This indicates that there is a correlation between \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ and the size
of the couplings between light exotics and $SU(2)$ doublet Higgs bosons,
although the relation is not as simple as that between the masses and Yukawa
couplings of the quarks and leptons of the SM. Further, Higgs searches at LEP1
imply that the mass of a scalar Higgs boson with unsuppressed $ZZH$ coupling
must exceed 60 GeV, see eq.(\ref{e27a}). Such a Higgs boson can therefore
decay into pairs of light neutral exotic leptons for all allowed combinations
of parameters shown in Figs.~4; this could lead to a large invisible branching
ratio of this Higgs boson. Indeed, we find that all surviving scenarios shown
in Fig.~4a have one rather light neutral scalar Higgs boson, with essentially
unsuppressed coupling to two $Z$ bosons, and with invisible branching ratio
exceeding 80\%. Moreover, it will be produced copiously at any \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider
with $\mbox{$\sqrt{s}$} \geq 300$ GeV, since its mass cannot exceed 150 GeV or so, see
eq.(\ref{e10}). Note that such a Higgs boson is easily detectable even if it
decays invisibly \cite{29}, since it would be produced in association with a
$Z$ boson, whose decay products would be sufficient to reconstruct $m_H$.
Finally, a large invisible branching ratio for a light scalar Higgs boson
cannot be accommodated in the SM; in the MSSM it would imply the existence of
a chargino light enough to be discovered at LEP2 \cite{24}. It therefore
constitutes a signal for the kind of model we are considering.
The situation at large \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}, Fig.~4b, is somewhat more complicated. Notice
that, unlike in Fig.~4a, now only a small fraction of all parameter sets that
give \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ close to its upper bound, and do not lead to a detectable signal for
exotic lepton pair production, survives the relic density constraint. The
reason is that for small \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}\ and with \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ close to its upper bound, $Z$
exchange by itself is usually sufficient to give an acceptable relic density.
On the other hand, increasing \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}\ to 5 reduces the maximal \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ so much
that $Z$ exchange, the cross section for which scales like
$m^2_{L_1^0}/M_Z^4$, is no longer sufficient; light Higgs bosons have to be
present to enhance the annihilation cross section. In particular, a light
pseudo--scalar Higgs boson $A$ allows $\mbox{$L_1^0$} \mbox{$L_1^0$}$ and $\mbox{$L_2^0$} \mbox{$L_2^0$}$ to
annihilate from an $s-$wave initial state, which gives a larger thermal
average than annihilation from a $p-$wave initial state does, as discussed
below eq.(\ref{e40}) in Sec.~4.\footnote{\mbox{$L_1^0$}\mbox{$L_2^0$}\ co--annihilation via
scalar Higgs exchange could come from an $s-$wave initial state; however, if
the neutral lepton mass matrix has Dirac structure, the off--diagonal $\mbox{$L_1^0$}
\mbox{$L_2^0$} h_i^0$ couplings vanish identically, as does the $\mbox{$L_1^0$} \mbox{$L_2^0$} A$
coupling.} Therefore even if \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ is close to its upper bound, the relic
density will only be acceptable if $m_A$ is chosen to be fairly small, which
is true only for some fraction of Higgs parameter space. We find that all
surviving parameter sets in Fig.~4b have $m_A < 110$ GeV, and also have two
neutral scalar Higgs bosons with masses below 125 GeV. At least one of these
three light neutral Higgs bosons has invisible branching ratio exceeding 50\%.
All three of these Higgs bosons will be produced copiously, either in
association with a $Z$ boson or as $A h_i^0$ pairs. A large invisible
branching ratio for any of these Higgs particles is therefore again a
distinctive signature. Note that now the invisible branching ratio is always
less than 75\%, so that in at least 50\% of all $A h_i^0$ pairs at least one
of the two Higgs bosons will decay into a visible final state, mostly $b \bar
b$ pairs. This not only guarantees the detectability of this final state, but
also ensures that the invisible branching ratios can be measured with some
accuracy, e.g. by comparing the rate for events with one invisible Higgs boson
(single--sided events) with that for events where both Higgs particles leave a
detectable final state. Finally, we note that in the surviving cases the
charged Higgs boson mass (\ref{ech}) also is below 125 GeV, and usually below
100 GeV; such a light charged Higgs boson is already almost excluded in the
MSSM, and might thus give a second indication for physics beyond the MSSM.
Based on the results of Figs.~4 we therefore conclude that in this model
either a signal for the pair production of exotic leptons will be observed, at
the latest at an \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider with $\mbox{$\sqrt{s}$}=1.5$ TeV; or at least one neutral
Higgs boson with mass below 150 GeV and invisible branching ratio exceeding
50\% will be found at any \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider with $\mbox{$\sqrt{s}$} \geq 300$ GeV. If neither
of these two signals is detected, the model can be completely excluded.
Since this conclusion is based on a large but finite Monte Carlo sampling of
parameter space (Figs.~4a,b contain $5 \cdot 10^5$ sets of leptonic parameters
each), we have checked that it also holds in a ``worst case" scenario. To this
end we have chosen the parameters entering the mass matrix (\ref{e3}) such
that \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ is maximized \cite{10}:
\begin{subequations} \label{e46} \begin{eqalignno}
\mbox{$\lambda$}_{131} &= \mbox{$\lambda$}_{132} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{311} = - \mbox{$\lambda$}_{312} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{231} = - \mbox{$\lambda$}_{321}
= \mbox{$\lambda$}_{232} = \mbox{$\lambda$}_{322} = \mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$}; \label{e46a} \\
m_{L_1^\pm} &= - m_{L_2^\pm}. \label{e46b}
\end{eqalignno} \end{subequations}
Note that this ansatz is consistent with eqs.(\ref{e45}). In Fig.~5 we show
the resulting maximal value of \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ as a function of \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}, subject to the
constraints $m_{L_1^\pm} > m_{L^\pm,{\rm min}}$ and $|\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}| + |m_{L_3^0}| > 2
m_{L^\pm,{\rm min}}$. The latter bound approximates the constraint that can be
derived from an unsuccessful search for associate $\mbox{$L_1^0$} L_3^0$ production;
note that the relevant coupling is always quite large for the ansatz
(\ref{e46}).\footnote{Recall that the production of two light neutral exotic
leptons leads to an invisible final state.} For our choice $\mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$}=0.85$, the
maximal allowed \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ for $m_{L^\pm,min} = 700$ GeV is indeed around 30 GeV, in
agreement with results shown in Fig.~4a; for $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}=5$, $m_{L_1^0,max}$ falls
to about 11 GeV, in agreement with Fig.~4b. We should mention here that the
choice $\mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$} = 0.85$ in eq.(\ref{e46a}) is very conservative. In
ref.\cite{10} it has been pointed out that $\mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$} > 0.7$ implies the existence
of a Landau pole at a scale below $10^{10}$ GeV, the smallest energy scale
where one might expect the gauge group (and hence the relevant renormalization
group equations) to change in this class of models. Note that for large
$m_{L^\pm,{\rm min}}$, the upper bound on \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ scales like the square of
\mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$}; reducing \mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$}\ to 0.7 therefore means that $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} \leq 30$ GeV already
for $m_{L^\pm,{\rm min}} = 480$ GeV, in which case a 1 TeV collider would be
sufficient to test the model decisively in the manner described
above.\footnote{The larger value of \mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$}\ we are using here also explains why
Fig.~5 allows larger values of \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ than ref.\cite{10} does.}
We also checked whether it is possible to chose parameters such that the
SM--like Higgs boson only has very weak couplings to light neutral exotics.
This is indeed possible, but only for sizable \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}, and only if the
pseudoscalar Higgs boson is quite light. In this case the model contains two
light $SU(2)$ doublet neutral scalar Higgs bosons, as mentioned earlier; the
``SM--like Higgs" is defined to be the one with the larger coupling to two $Z$
bosons. We saw in Fig.~4b that for large \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}, the relic density constraint
can only be satisfied if $m_A$ is rather small; the conditions for a scenario
with small invisible width of the SM--like Higgs are therefore satisfied.
However, Fig.~6 shows that either the pseudoscalar Higgs or the lightest
neutral scalar can always decay into an \mbox{$L_1^0$}\lone\ pair if searches at a 1.5
TeV collider do not find a signal for the pair production of exotic leptons.
In this figure we show the minimal allowed values of $m_A$ and of $m_{h_1^0}$,
as well as the minimum of the sum of these two masses, as a function of \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$},
where we have only used the present LEP1 constraints (\ref{e27}). For $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}
\simeq 1.5$, $m_A$ could be as low as 34 GeV, so that $A \rightarrow \mbox{$L_1^0$}\lone$
decays would be kinematically forbidden over a sizable region of parameter
space. However, in this case the lightest scalar Higgs boson must be heavier
than 50 GeV, since $m_A + m_{h_1^0} > 84$ GeV. Note that in this scenario,
$h_1^0$ is usually not the SM--like Higgs, and does have sizable couplings to
light exotic leptons. Moreover, we find that the invisible branching ratio of
the SM--like scalar Higgs can only be reduced to a value below 10\% if $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}
\geq 3$, in which case unsuccessful searches for lepton pair production at
NLC3 imply $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} < 20$ GeV, see Fig.~5. In this case both $A$ and $h_1^0$ have
large invisible branching ratios; remember that a sizable contribution from
$A$ exchange to \mbox{$L_1^0$}\ annihilation, and hence a substantial $A \mbox{$L_1^0$} \mbox{$L_1^0$}$
coupling, is required to satisfy the relic density constraint for $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$} > 2$.
Finally, we found no acceptable solutions where the invisible branching ratio
of a light Higgs boson can be diluted by decays into pairs of even lighter
Higgs bosons ($h_2^0 \rightarrow h_1^0 h_1^0$ or $h_2^0 \rightarrow AA$). We conclude that it
is indeed impossible to devise a Higgs sector such that no light Higgs boson
has large invisible branching ratio if NLC3 fails to find a signal for the
pair production of exotic leptons.
Finally, we investigated the question whether Higgs searches at LEP2 will
allow us to sharpen our predictions. This does not seem to be the case, at
least as far as searches at a 1.5 TeV collider are concerned. As mentioned
earlier, for small \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}, $Z$ exchange by itself can be sufficient to give an
acceptable relic density, so increasing the experimental lower bounds on Higgs
masses will have little effect on Fig.~4a. For $\mbox{$\tan \! \beta$} \geq 3$ one needs $m_A
\leq 110$ GeV in order to achieve $\mbox{$\Omega h^2$} \leq 1$. This upper bound is almost
independent of \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}\ once it exceeds 3 or so; the decrease of \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ caused by
increasing \mbox{$\tan \! \beta$}\ is balanced almost perfectly by the increase of the $A b
\bar b$ and $A \tau^+ \tau^-$ couplings, leading to a constant $A$ exchange
contribution, as long as $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} > m_b$. However, this bound still allows values
of $m_A$ just beyond the reach of LEP2.
On the other hand, if LEP2 can increase the lower bound on the SM Higgs to 90
GeV or more, a 1 TeV \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider would be sufficient to test the model
decisively even with our choice $\mbox{$\lambda_{\rm max}$} = 0.85$, since the absence of a signal
for exotic lepton pair production at such a collider implies $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} < 45$ GeV,
see Fig.~5; one would then again be in the situation where at least one
copiously produced Higgs boson has to have a large invisible branching ratio.
Unfortunately in the absence of a positive signal for lepton pair production,
a 0.5 TeV collider would never be sufficient to test the model uniquely,
since, as shown in Fig.~3a, if would only allow to establish the bound $\mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$} <
85$ GeV, well above half the maximal allowed mass of the SM--like Higgs boson.
One can then always find cosmologically acceptable scenarios where only one
Higgs boson is experimentally accessible, with small or vanishing invisible
branching ratio; such a model would be indistinguishable from the MSSM, or
even the SM, as far as the NLC1 is concerned.
\section*{6) Summary and Conclusions}
In this paper we have shown that searches for exotic leptons and Higgs bosons
at future \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders, when combined with cosmological constraints, can
test a large class of $E(6)$ models decisively. The basic idea is that, due to
the structure of the mass matrix for the 6 neutral exotic leptons predicted by
the model, the failure to detect the production of heavy (charged or neutral)
exotic leptons at such colliders will allow to derive increasingly stronger
upper bounds on the masses of the light neutral exotics. Eventually these
leptons will have to be lighter than half the mass of the light neutral Higgs
bosons of the model. The only way to suppress the couplings of these light
exotic leptons to all light Higgs bosons is to make the leptons almost pure
$SU(2)$ singlets. However, in this case exotic leptons produced in the very
early universe would have small annihilation cross sections, so that their
present relic density would be unacceptably large. All cosmologically
acceptable parameter sets therefore predict that either the pair production of
exotic leptons is visible at a 1.5 TeV \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider, or at least one light
neutral Higgs boson will have an invisible branching ratio exceeding 50\%; if
LEP2 fails to discover a Higgs boson, a 1 TeV \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ collider would be
sufficient.
In order to arrive at this conclusion, we had to make two crucial assumptions.
First, no $SO(10)$ singlet scalar $N$ is allowed to have a vev at an
``intermediate scale" of ${\cal O}(10^{10})$ GeV or more. This assumption is
not unreasonable, since such a large vev would allow to push the masses of
almost all new particles predicted by $E(6)$ up to this high scale, including
the new gauge bosons, the exotic quarks and leptons, and their superpartners.
Apart from the possible presence of light right--handed (s)neutrinos, the
model would then look like the MSSM at scales below this vev. Note that we do
allow $SO(10)$ nonsinglets to have such a large vev. Secondly, we have to
assume that $R-$parity is conserved. Otherwise the lightest exotic lepton,
which has odd $R-$parity, could decay even if it is lighter than the lightest
neutralino, in which case the relic density constraint would be satisfied
trivially. However, if $R-$parity is broken, this rather complicated model
would not be able to accommodate cold dark matter; recent attempts to
understand structure formation in the universe strongly favor scenarios with a
substantial amount of cold dark matter \cite{25a}.
We also made a few additional assumptions in order to simplify our
calculation. However, since we have been very conservative in our
interpretation of the cosmological constraint, and of the upper bound on the
Yukawa couplings of the exotic leptons that follows from the requirement that
no coupling should have a Landau pole below the intermediate scale of
$10^{10}$ GeV, we believe that our final result holds even if these
additional, technical assumptions are relaxed. Specifically, we have assumed
that the exotic leptons do not mix with charginos and neutralinos. This
assumption is technically natural. Moreover, in ref.\cite{10} it has been
argued that, while such mixing might increase the upper bound on \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ for {\em
fixed} Yukawa couplings, it would also necessitate the existence of additional
terms in the superpotential; these would lower the upper bound on the relevant
Yukawa couplings from the absence of Landau poles. The total change of the
upper bound on \mbox{$m_{L_1^0}$}\ is therefore quite modest.
Further, when computing the annihilation cross sections, we have assumed that
there are no terms in the superpotential which couple exotic leptons to
ordinary quark and lepton superfields. However, we argued in Sec.~4 that such
couplings would in any case contribute negligibly to the total annihilation
cross section. Finally, we have taken the $Z'$ boson(s) of the model to be too
heavy to contribute either to the pair production or to the annihilation of
exotic leptons. Present lower bounds on $M_{Z'}$ already ensure that $Z'$
exchange contributions to the annihilation cross sections are negligible. They
could still affect the production of exotic leptons at TeV--scale \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\
colliders, but in this case the existence of a $Z'$ boson could also be
inferred from studies of ordinary quark and lepton pair production, which
would again give a good signal for the class of models we are studying.
Besides, the constraints on the exotic lepton sector that could be derived
from new particle searches at future colliders are likely to be more, not
less, severe if there is a significant contribution from $Z'$ exchange, since
even the $SU(2)$ singlet fields $\widetilde{N}$ couple to the $Z'$ boson with full
gauge strength.
There is one more assumption that we have not mentioned so far: when using the
formalism described in Sec.~4 to estimate the relic density, we have assumed
that the exotic leptons are non--relativistic (``cold") when they drop out of
thermal equilibrium. This is true if their masses exceed a few hundred MeV or
so, and the relic density constraint will remain valid down to much smaller
masses, in the keV range, but our calculation clearly breaks down if the light
exotics are (nearly) massless. This could, for example, be achieved by setting
all couplings in the superpotential (\ref{e1}) to zero, except for $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{113}$
and $\mbox{$\lambda$}_{223}$ which are needed to give masses to the charged exotic leptons.
The two lightest neutral exotics would then be massless $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$
singlets. However, this would increase the density of relativistic particles,
and hence the expansion rate of the universe, in the epoch when light nuclei
are formed. The most recent analysis \cite{30} finds that data seem to favor
models where the effective number of SM neutrinos is smaller, not larger,
than three. A model with additional massless fermions is therefore strongly
disfavored.
Finally, it can be argued that the upper bound (\ref{e10}) on the mass of the
lightest neutral scalar Higgs boson of the model allows a much easier test.
However, a very similar bound also holds in the MSSM and, indeed, in all SUSY
models where the Higgs sector is required to remain perturbative up to some
high scale \cite{31,18}. This test would therefore not be very specific. While
the failure to detect such a Higgs boson would rule out a very large class of
models, including the $E(6)$ models we are considering here, discovery of the
Higgs boson may not be sufficient to distinguish between the present model and
the MSSM, or even the non--supersymmetric SM. In contrast, the large mass
splitting between the light and heavy exotic leptons implies that exotic
lepton production should not be confused with the production of charginos and
neutralinos predicted by the MSSM. Large invisible branching ratios for light
Higgs bosons also clearly indicate the presence of (super)fields beyond those
contained in the (MS)SM, unless the mass of the light chargino is close to its
present lower bound. Singlet Majoron models \cite{32} can also have light
Higgs bosons with large invisible branching ratios \cite{33}. However, in such
models the light bosons have sizable $SU(2)$ singlet components, in contrast
to the models we are studying here, where the large mass of the $Z'$ boson
forces all light Higgs bosons to be predominantly $SU(2)$ doublets. A detailed
study of the production and decay of the light Higgs boson(s) should therefore
be able to distinguish between the $E(6)$ model and the singlet Majoron model.
Finally, we would like to emphasize that the decisive test we have devised
here relies on the versatility of high energy \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders. Clearly the
cross sections we are studying are too small to give viable signals at hadron
colliders. Moreover, the search for the production of neutral leptons, in
particular the associate production of a light and a heavy neutral exotic,
plays an important role in our analysis. This would not be feasible at $e
\gamma$ or $\gamma \gamma$ colliders, which may also be unable to discover,
let alone study, Higgs bosons with large invisible branching ratios. All these
colliders will be able to impose constraints on, or -- with luck -- to
discover, some of the new particles predicted by $E(6)$ models. However, only
searches at \mbox{$e^+ e^- $}\ colliders, when combined with cosmological considerations,
seem capable of excluding these models completely.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The work of M.D. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under
grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896, by the Wisconsin Research Committee with funds
granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, as well as by a grant
from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under the Heisenberg program.
\clearpage
|
\section{Motivation}
It is generally considered that the atomic nucleus, which composes of protons and neutrons, is one of the most complex quantum-mechanical systems in nature.
In an independent-particle model picture, nucleons move in
the average nuclear field created by their mutual attractive interactions with
momenta less than the Fermi-momentum \cite{shell05}.
While recent analysis of electron- and proton-scattering experiments
indicates about 20$\sim$25\% nucleons in heavier nuclei move
with momenta greater than the Fermi-momentum \cite{nature2018,RMP2017,Claudio15,sci14,sci08,pia06,tang03,fomin12,Egiyan06}.
A fraction of nucleons in a heavier nucleus can form pairs with larger relative momenta
and small center-of-mass momenta \cite{pia06,sh07}. This
phenomenon is considered to be caused by the short-range nucleon-nucleon tensor
interactions \cite{tenf05,tenf07}. The nucleon-nucleon short-range
correlations (SRC) in heavier nuclei lead to a high-momentum tail (HMT)
in the single-nucleon momentum distribution \cite{sci14,bethe71,anto88,Rios09,yin13}.
Experimentally, the high-momentum tail of the nucleon momentum distributions appears to decrease as $1/k^{4}$ \cite{henkp415}. And in the HMT of nucleon momentum distribution,
the nucleon components are significantly isospin-dependent. The number of
n-p SRC pairs is about 18 times the p-p or n-n SRC pairs
\cite{sci08,sci14}. In the neutron-rich nuclei, proton thus has a greater
probability than neutron to have momentum greater than the
Fermi-momentum \cite{nature2018}.
Proton transition momentum refers to the starting point of its HMT \cite{yongjump18}. It directly relates to proton's energy distribution in the nuclei.
It is undoubted that in symmetric nuclei, nucleon transition momentum is its Fermi-momentum \cite{sci14}. However, for asymmetric nuclei (in which the number of neutrons is usually larger than that of protons), the transition momentum of minority has not yet been determined.
It is naturally considered that below the Fermi-momentum, for the momentum distribution function n(k), in the nuclear matter, both proton and neutron have constant distributions while above the Fermi-momentum they have $1/k^{4}$ distributions starting from their \emph{respective} Fermi-momenta. However, in the neutron-rich matter the above assumption contradicts the short-range correlation picture of the neutron-proton pairs \cite{sci14}, i.e., the short-range correlated neutron and proton should have the same magnitude of momentum with opposite directions \cite{pia06,sh07}. Extrapolating to an extreme case, such as in neutron-star matter (the ratio of neutron number over proton number may reach 9), neutron and proton would have very unequal Fermi-momenta due to their very different local densities according to the local Thomas-Fermi relation. If the short-range correlated neutron and proton have $1/k^{4}$ distributions starting from their \emph{respective} Fermi-momenta, then they should possess quite different momenta, i.e., proton's momentum would be much smaller than that of neutron. This case not only conflicts with the short-range correlation picture, but evidently contradicts the findings in Ref.~\cite{Rios14}, in which it is shown by the ladder summation techniques in a self-consistent Green's function approach that the integrated single-particle strength for protons is evidently larger than that for neutrons at very high momenta in the very neutron-rich matter.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{ (Color online) Momentum distribution n(k) of nucleon with different starting points of proton $1/k^{4}$ distribution in nearly symmetric matter (A=100 \& Z=40, left panel) and extremely asymmetric matter (A=100 \& Z=10, right panel) with normalization condition $\int_{0}^{k_{max}}n(k)k^{2}dk$ = 1. For neutron, the HMT's starting point is its Fermi-momentum. While for proton's HMT starting point, one case is its Fermi-momentum, the other is the same as neutron's Fermi-momentum labeled by ``jump''. Proton momentum gap refers to the ``jump'' of proton's momentum distribution around its Fermi-momentum.} \label{nk}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{nk} shows proton and neutron momentum distributions in nearly symmetric (panel (a)) and extremely asymmetric matter (panel (b)). It is seen that if one uses respective Fermi-momenta as the HMT's starting points, there is no clear difference in nearly symmetric matter (shown in panel (a)). But the difference becomes prominent in extremely asymmetric matter (shown in panel (b)). If letting proton's starting momentum in the HMT be the same as neutron's, proton's momentum distribution would be noncontinuous. Proton momentum gap refers to the ``jump'' of proton's HMT starting momentum from proton's Fermi-momentum to neutron's Fermi-momentum in the neutron-rich matter. The existence of proton momentum gap guarantees the integrated single-particle strength for protons is evidently larger than that for neutrons at very high momenta in extreme neutron-rich matter \cite{Rios14}.
In the very neutron-rich matter, since the single-particle strength of protons becomes more prominent at high momenta as proton's concentration decreases, the starting momentum of proton's HMT should not be proton's Fermi-momentum. This is because proton's Fermi-momentum would become very small in magnitude as proton's concentration (i.e., its local density) decreases sharply. Theoretically, it is hard to directly obtain the information on the proton momentum gap in momentum distribution in asymmetric matter from microscopic calculations \cite{Rios09,wangp2013,yongjump18}. This is not only because the proton momentum gap is a certain kind of delicate structure of proton momentum distribution around the Fermi momentum, but because around the Fermi momentum the proton momentum distribution has a characteristic of sharp decrease or plunge, which is hard for most microscopic approaches to deal with. As a consequence, the proton momentum gap around its Fermi momentum is most likely to be smoothed out.
Proton momentum gap exists only in the neutron-rich matter, thus should be more clearly shown
in neutron-star matter. For the light-medium nuclei calculated by Wiringa \emph{et al} using the quantum Monte Carlo methods \cite{Wiringa14}, due to very small asymmetry, the so-called proton momentum gap is not clearly demonstrated. For the same reason, one cannot find the proton momentum gap in the calculations for medium to heavy nuclei given by Jan Ryckebusch \emph{et al} using a low-order correlation operator approximation \cite{Ryckebusch15}. The calculations given by A. Rios \emph{et al} using the self-consistent Green's function displayed proton momentum distribution in very neutron-rich matter \cite{Rios14}, but their calculations with finite temperature cannot give fine structure of the nucleon momentum distributions around the Fermi momentum at zero temperature, the proton momentum gap is thus smoothed out. However, the stronger integrated single-particle strength at very high momenta for protons than neutrons in very neutron-rich matter shown in Ref. \cite{Rios14} is a circumstantial evidence of the existence of the proton momentum gap. In this Letter, I make an effort to try to achieve the confirmation of proton momentum gap by using the heavy-ion collisions with the reaction systems in possession of unequal numbers of proton and neutron.
In the present transport model, in colliding nuclei, nucleon's $1/k^{4}$ momentum distribution with a high-momentum tail is adopted. Although the roughly $1/k^{4}$ dependence of high momentum tail of nucleon is in fact observed only for deuteron, assuming the motion of the center of mass of correlated nucleons is isotropic, in heavier nuclei the single nucleon's $1/k^{4}$ dependence of the high momentum tail is averagely used. The short-range correlations cause a rough 20$\sim$25\% depletion of nucleon distribution in the Fermi sea \cite{sci08,sci14}. Specifically, nucleon momentum distribution in the nuclear matter is set to be \cite{yongjump18,henkp415}
\begin{eqnarray}
n(k)=\left\
\begin{array}{ll}
C_{1}, & \hbox{$k \leq k_{F}$;} \\
C_{2}/k^{4}, & \hbox{$k_{F} < k < k_{max}$} \\
\end{array
\right.
\label{nk}
\end{eqnarray}
with normalization
\begin{equation}\label{norm}
\int_{0}^{k_{max}}n(k)k^{2}dk = 1.
\end{equation}
Where $k_{F}$ is the Fermi-momentum and $k_{max}$= 2$k_{F}$ in this study.
By using the local Thomas-Fermi relation
\begin{equation}
k_{F_{n,p}}(r)= [3\pi^{2}\rho(r)_{n,p}]^{\frac{1}{3}},
\end{equation}
nucleon momentum distribution in nuclei is then given by \cite{yongli2017}
\begin{equation}
n_{n,p}(k)= \frac{1}{N,Z}\int _{0}^{r_{max}}d^{3}r\rho_{n,p}(r)\cdot n(k,k_{F}(r)),
\end{equation}
with $N$ and $Z$ being the total numbers of neutron and proton in the nucleus,
$r_{max}$ is the radius of the nucleus and $n(k,k_{F}(r))$ is the nucleon momentum distribution
with local Fermi-momentum $k_{F}(r)$.
With the above settings, the nucleon momentum initialization of $^{56}$Fe fits experimental data quite well \cite{yongli2017}.
The n-p dominance in the short-range correlations causes protons have larger probability than neutrons with momenta greater than the Fermi momentum in the neutron-rich matter \cite{nature2018,sargnp14}.
The n-p dominance model demands the number of neutrons is equal to that of protons in the HMT (the n-p dominance model neglects 2\% n-n and p-p SRCs which weaken the proton momentum gap very slightly). This is achieved via
\begin{equation}\label{frac20}
\int_{k_{F}}^{k_{max}}n^{HMT}(k)k^{2}dk \bigg/ \int_{0}^{k_{max}}n(k)k^{2}dk = 20-25\% (1\pm \delta),
\end{equation}
where ``+'' for protons and ``-'' for neutrons, $\delta$ = $(\rho_{n}-\rho_{p})/\rho$ is the asymmetry.
Pion production in nucleus-nucleus collisions at intermediate energies is modeled in the framework of the isospin-dependent Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport model \cite{bali1991,npa2002,pion2017}. In this model, pion is produced via the isospin-dependent nucleon-nucleon elastic and inelastic scatterings. Nucleonic resonance may be produced in nucleon-nucleon scatterings. Once produced, the resonance would take part in collision process with all other baryons. Meanwhile, the resonance may decay into nucleon and pion, and the pion may also collide with nucleon and further form resonance. At the last stage of the reaction, all the residual resonances decay into nucleons and pions. More details on the pion production in the model can be found in the literature \cite{pion2017}. In this model, the isospin and density plus momentum-dependent single particle potential and the in-medium cross sections for the baryon-baryon scatterings are used. The isospin dependent both initialization and fermion pauli-blockings are also taken into account. Particularly, effects of the nucleon-nucleon short-range correlations are involved into this transport model \cite{yongp4,yongprc2016,yongli2017}. The present model has been successfully used in many studies relating to pion production in heavy-ion collisions at intermediate energies.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{ (Color online) Fractions of short-range correlated neutrons and protons as a function of asymmetry. Symbols denote $Al$, $Fe$ and $Pb$ nuclei analyses (solid symbols are for protons and hollows for neutrons) of Sargsian \cite{sargnp14}.} \label{frac}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{frac} demonstrates the fractions of neutrons and protons as a function of asymmetry $\delta$ ($\delta= \frac{\rho_{n}-\rho_{p}}{\rho_{n}+\rho_{p}}$, $\rho_{n}$ and $\rho_{p}$ respectively denote neutron and proton densities). Also shown are the high momentum nucleon fractions in several typical finite nuclei based on the analyses of Sargsian \cite{sargnp14}. From Fig.~\ref{frac}, it is clearly seen that as increase of the asymmetry, the fraction of protons in the HMT increases gradually while the fraction of correlated neutrons decreases. The nucleon fractions in the HMT shown here are in fact the integral results of the nucleon momentum distributions demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{nk}. The ``jump'' of proton momentum results in the change of the proton kinetic energy distribution in neutron-rich nuclei, thus definitely causes dynamical effects in heavy-ion collisions at lower beam energies in which nucleon fermi motion plays an important role.
\begin{figure}[thb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{ (Color online) Doubly differential cross sections of $\pi^{+}$ production as a function of pion kinetic energy in the C+Au collisions at 85A MeV versus the total cross section of $\pi^{0}$ production in the C+C collisions at 84A MeV. The solid, dash and dot lines show the transport model calculations by using the nucleon short-range correlations with (solid) and without (dash) proton momentum gap and the case without short-range correlations, respectively. Date are taken from Refs. \cite{cern1982,noll1984}.} \label{datacom}
\end{figure}
To confirm proton momentum gap in the neutron-rich nuclei by using heavy-ion collisions, it is preferable to make far below the sub-threshold $\pi^{+}$ production (the threshold energy of pion production is 290 MeV) measurements. This is because the far below sub-threshold $\pi^{+}$ production is closely related to the Fermi motion of proton in nuclei. $\pi^{+}$ production is mainly from proton-proton collision \cite{Sto86}, and the Fermi energy of nucleon plays an important role for far below the sub-threshold $\pi^{+}$ production. $\pi^{+}$ production in heavy-ion collisions is therefore an ideal probe of the proton momentum gap in the neutron-rich nuclei. The measurements of the far below sub-threshold pion production in heavy-ion collisions in fact had been studied about 35 years ago. At that time, the energies of the colliding nuclei provided by accelerators were generally not high and the production mechanism of pion was in debate \cite{cern1982,nag1982,noll1984,bra1984}. To study the proton momentum gap, calculations of the doubly differential cross sections of $\pi^{+}$ as a function of pion kinetic energy in the C+Au collisions at 85A MeV are carried out using my transport model by switching on and off the proton momentum gap as well as the nucleon-nucleon short-range correlations. To reduce systematic errors, such as theoretical uncertainties of the in-medium inelastic cross section and experimental measurement errors, ratios of the pion productions in the two reaction systems, i.e., $\pi^{+}$ production in the C+Au collisions versus $\pi^{0}$ production in the C+C collisions are analyzed. The results are then compared with the available pion data ratio, which are respectively taken from Ref.~\cite{cern1982} and Ref.~\cite{noll1984}. From Fig.~\ref{datacom}, it is seen that there are large differences between my theoretical results and the experimental data without considering SRC in the transport model. By adding SRC in the model, however, my results approach but still cannot well reproduce the data. Only with the proton momentum gap in the model can one obtain good agreement between theory and experiments. Fig.~\ref{datacom} indicates the existence of the proton momentum gap in the neutron-rich nuclei.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{ (Color online) Double ratios of the $\pi^{-}/\pi^{+}$ yields vs pion kinetic energy in the reactions of Ne+U and Ne+NaF at the beam energy of 250A MeV with and without the proton momentum gap. Data are taken from Ref. \cite{wben79}.} \label{rpionj}
\end{figure}
To further reduce the systematic errors from the used transport model and experiments, the double ratios of the yields of $\pi^{-}$ and $\pi^{+}$ as a function pion kinetic energy from the two reactions of Ne+U and Ne+NaF at 250A MeV with and without the proton momentum gap are calculated and compared with the experimental data in Ref. \cite{wben79}. Since the $\pi^{-}/\pi^{+}$ yields ratio is sensitive to the symmetry energy, in the calculations, a mildly soft symmetry energy with a slope of about 58.7 MeV at saturation density is employed, which is the most probable form from 55 analyses \cite{Oertel17}. From Fig.~\ref{rpionj}, it is seen that the double ratios of the $\pi^{-}/\pi^{+}$ yields overall decrease as the increase of pion kinetic energy and the splitting of the double ratios becomes prominent at high kinetic energies with and without the proton momentum gap. This is understandable since the proton momentum gap in neutron-rich matter mainly affects the high-energy nucleons thus the energetic pions. Fig.~\ref{rpionj} demonstrates the experimental data supports the existence of the proton momentum gap in the neutron-rich matter.
To summarize, due to the neutron-proton short-range correlations, in the neutron-rich nuclei there in principle should exist proton momentum gap in nucleon momentum distribution. Circumstantial evidence on the existence of the proton momentum gap in the neutron-rich nuclei is provided in the production of $\pi^{+}$ and $\pi^{-}/\pi^{+}$ ratio in the neutron-rich C+Au and Ne+U collisions at low incident beam energies. To reduce the systematic errors, neutron-deficient systems are used as comparisons.
Likewise, there should also exist neutron momentum gap in the proton-rich nuclei or matter. The nucleon momentum gap may change our understanding on the nucleon motion in the nuclei and thus has fundamental implications in the research fields relevant to nucleon motion.
The studies of the neutron-proton short-range interactions and the proton momentum gap could have broad implications on the studies of, such as, the nuclear few-body and many-body systems, the cooling rate and the equation of state of neutron stars, the double-beta decay rate of nuclei, the neutrino-nucleus reactions studying the nature of the electro-weak interaction, the modifications of the nuclear parton distribution functions and the EMC effect as well as the imbalanced ultra-cold atomic gases \cite{nature2018,RMP2017,sci14,sci08}.
This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11775275 and the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDB34000000).
|
\section{Introduction}
We consider two-dimensional \emph{canonical systems} on an interval $(0,L)$
\begin{equation}\label{Z1}
y'(t) = zJH(t)y(t),\qquad t\in(0,L),
\end{equation}
where $L>0$ or $L=\infty$, $J\DE\smmatrix 0{-1}10$, $z\in\bb C$,
and where the \emph{Hamiltonian} $H$ of the system satisfies
\begin{Itemize}
\item $H\DF(0,L)\to\bb R^{2\times 2}$ is measurable
and locally integrable on $[0,L)$,
\item $H(t)\geq 0$ and $\tr H(t)>0$, $t\in(0,L)$ a.e.,
\item $\int_0^L \tr H(t)\RD t=\infty$.
\end{Itemize}
Many differential and difference equations can be written as canonical systems:
one-dimensional Schr\"odinger equations, Sturm--Liouville equations, Dirac systems,
Krein strings, generalised indefinite strings, and the eigenvalue equation
for Jacobi operators.
A crucial construction is Weyl's nested discs method,
originally invented by H.~Weyl in the context of Sturm--Liouville equations;
see \cite{weyl:1910}.
Given a Hamiltonian $H$, this method produces a function $q_H$, called its
\emph{Weyl coefficient}, via the fundamental solution of \eqref{Z1} and a
geometric observation; see \eqref{Z111} for the definition of $q_H$.
The Weyl coefficient is a \emph{Nevanlinna function}, i.e.\ it is analytic in the
open upper half-plane $\bb C^+$ with $\Im q_H(z)\ge 0$, $z\in\bb C^+$,
or identically equal to $\infty$.
All essential properties of $H$ are encoded in $q_H$: by de~Branges' theory
the set of all Hamiltonians --- up to reparameterisation --- corresponds bijectively
to the set of all Nevanlinna functions,
see \cite{debranges:1968}; an explicit deduction can be found in \cite{winkler:1995}.
Some general reference for the theory of canonical systems are
\cite{atkinson:1964,gohberg.krein:1967,hassi.snoo.winkler:2000,romanov:1408.6022v1,remling:2018}.
The system \eqref{Z1} has an operator model, which consists of a Hilbert space $L^2(H)$
and a self-adjoint operator\footnote
In some cases, $A_H$ is a multi-valued operator (or linear relation).
For simplicity of presentation we systematically neglect these cases throughout
the present introduction.
Of course, therefore, some of the following statements have to be understood appropriately.
In fact, this situation corresponds to ``$b>0$'' in \eqref{Z4} below, which is excluded
in our main theorem; see the discussion in \thref{Z90}.
$A_H$ in $L^2(H)$.
This construction is due to I.\,S.~Kac; see \cite{kac:1984,kac:1986a};
a more accessible reference is \cite{hassi.snoo.winkler:2000}.
The operator $A_H$ has simple spectrum, and a \emph{spectral measure} $\sigma_H$ is obtained
from the Herglotz integral representation of $q_H$:
\begin{equation}\label{Z4}
q_H(z) = a+bz+\int_{-\infty}^\infty \biggl(\frac{1}{t-z}-\frac{t}{1+t^2}\biggr)\RD\sigma_H(t),
\qquad z\in\bb C^+;
\end{equation}
here $a\in\bb R$, $b\ge0$ and $\sigma_H$ is a positive measure on $\bb R$ that
satisfies $\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\RD\sigma_H(t)}{1+t^2}<\infty$.
We consider the question how the asymptotic behaviour of $\sigma_H$ towards $\pm\infty$
relates to $H$. In order to study this question, it turns out to be appropriate to work
with the Weyl coefficient $q_H$ rather than with the measure $\sigma_H$ directly.
In view of \eqref{Z4} classical Abelian and Tauberian theorems can be used to translate
between $\sigma_H$ and $q_H$. Generically, it does not make a difference whether
one considers the asymptotics of a measure or its Cauchy transform.
However, it must be said that for asymptotics of $q_H$ close to a non-zero constant a full
translation to the measure side is not possible anymore.
The asymptotic behaviour of Weyl coefficients and spectral measures has been studied
for a long time, especially in the context of Sturm--Liouville equations.
Maybe the paper \cite{marchenko:1952} of V.\,A.~Marchenko can be viewed as a
starting point, where the asymptotics of the spectral measure for one-dimensional
Schr\"odinger equations is determined.
A selection of other references dealing mainly with the Sturm--Liouville case, are
\cite{kac:1973a,bennewitz:1989,clark.gesztesy:2002,kaper.kwong:1986}.
Our present work grew out of a line of research which was started
by Y.~Kasahara in \cite{kasahara:1975} for Krein strings,
and continued in \cite{kasahara.watanabe:2010} for so-called Kotani strings,
and in \cite{bennewitz.wood:1997} and \cite{eckhardt.kostenko.teschl:2018}
for canonical systems.
To quantify the asymptotic behaviour, we use comparison functions which behave roughly
like a power in the sense of regular variation.
Recall that a measurable function $f\DF(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$
is called \emph{regularly varying at $\infty$ with index $\alpha\in\bb R$} if
\begin{equation}\label{Z32}
\forall \lambda>0\DP
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{f(\lambda r)}{f(r)} = \lambda^\alpha.
\end{equation}
Examples include functions $f$ behaving for large $r$ like
\[
f(r) = r^\alpha\cdot\big(\log r\big)^{\beta_1}\cdot\big(\log\log r\big)^{\beta_2}
\cdot\ldots\cdot
\big(\underbrace{\log\cdots\log}_{\text{\footnotesize$m$\textsuperscript{th} iterate}}r\big)^{\beta_m},
\]
where $\alpha,\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_m\in\bb R$.
Other examples are $f(r) = r^\alpha e^{(\log r)^\beta}$ with $\beta\in(0,1)$,
or $f(r) = r^\alpha e^{\frac{\log r}{\log\log r}}$;
see \cite[\S 1.3]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989}.
The property to have regular variation can equally well be considered for $r$ tending to $0$
instead of $\infty$. A function $f\DF(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$
is called \emph{regularly varying at $0$ with index $\alpha\in\bb R$} if
\begin{equation}\label{Z33}
\forall \lambda>0\DP
\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{f(\lambda t)}{f(t)} = \lambda^\alpha.
\end{equation}
Note that $f$ is regularly varying at $0$ with index $\alpha$ if and only if
the function $g(r)\DE f(r^{-1})^{-1}$ has the respective property at $\infty$.
Moreover, we also need the notion of rapid variation:
$f$ is called \emph{rapidly varying at $\infty$} (\emph{or at} $0$) \emph{with index $\infty$}
if \eqref{Z32} (or \eqref{Z33}, respectively) holds for $\alpha=\infty$, where we set
\[
\lambda^{\infty}\DE
\begin{cases}
0, & \lambda\in(0,1),
\\[0.5ex]
1, & \lambda=1,
\\[0.5ex]
\infty, & \lambda\in(1,\infty).
\end{cases}
\]
An example for a rapidly varying function at zero with index $\infty$
is $f(t)\DE e^{-\frac 1t}$. We denote the set of regularly or rapidly varying functions
with index $\rho\in(-\infty,\infty]$ at $0$ or $\infty$
by $R_\rho(0)$ and $R_\rho(\infty)$ respectively.
In our main theorem, \thref{Z10} below, we show that regularly varying asymptotics
of $q_H$ towards $i\infty$ corresponds precisely to regularly or rapidly varying asymptotics
of the primitive of $H$ towards $0$.
Before we formulate this theorem, let us recall what the situation is for the cases
of extremal growth or decay.
\begin{remark}\thlab{Z90}
Since $q_H$ is a Nevanlinna function, we have
\[
\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac 1r|q_H(ri)|<\infty
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\liminf_{r\to\infty}r|q_H(ri)|>0.
\]
The following equivalences hold, see, e.g.\ \cite{kac.krein:1968a,winkler:1995}:
\begin{align*}
\exists b_2>0\DP &\, q_H(ri)=ib_2r\cdot \big(1+R(r)\big)
\quad\text{with} \ \lim_{r\to\infty}R(r)=0
\\
& \Longleftrightarrow\quad
\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac 1r|q_H(ri)|>0
\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
\exists\varepsilon>0\DP h_2|_{(0,\varepsilon)}=0\text{ a.e.}
\\
\exists b_1>0\DP &\, q_H(ri)=\frac{i}{b_1}\cdot\frac{1}{r}\cdot \big(1+R(r)\big)
\quad\text{with} \ \lim_{r\to\infty}R(r)=0
\\
& \Longleftrightarrow\quad
\liminf_{r\to\infty}r|q_H(ri)|<\infty
\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
\exists\varepsilon>0\DP h_1|_{(0,\varepsilon)}=0\text{ a.e.}
\\
& \Longleftrightarrow\quad
q_H(z) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{1}{t-z}\RD\sigma_H(t)
\quad \text{with a finite measure} \ \sigma_H.
\end{align*}
If one of these equivalent statements holds, then $b_j=\int_0^{c_j} h_j(s)\RD s$ where
$c_j\DE\max\{\varepsilon\DS h_j|_{(0,\varepsilon)}=0\}$, $j=1,2$.
\end{remark}
The following theorem is the main result of the paper.
It gives a characterisation when the Weyl coefficient of a Hamiltonian $H$
is asymptotically equal to a constant times a regularly varying function
along the imaginary axis (statements (i) and (iii)).
The characterisation is given in terms of the behaviour
of the primitives of the functions $h_j$ towards the left endpoint (statement (ii)).
Note that statement (iii) is a uniform version of (i).
The two extreme cases that are discussed in \thref{Z90} are excluded.
\begin{theorem}\thlab{Z10}
Let $H=\smmatrix{h_1}{h_3}{h_3}{h_2}$ be a Hamiltonian on an interval $(0,L)$
that satisfies the assumptions stated at the beginning of the introduction,
let $q_H$ be the corresponding Weyl coefficient, and set, for $t\in (0,L)$,
\[
m_j(t) \DE \int_0^t h_j(s)\RD s,\ j=1,2,3,\qquad
\mf t(t) \DE \int_0^t\tr H(s)\RD s = m_1(t)+m_2(t).
\]
Assume that neither $h_1$ nor $h_2$ vanishes a.e.\ on any neighbourhood of $0$
and that $\mf t$ is regularly varying at $0$ with positive index.
The function $m_1m_2$ is a strictly increasing bijection from $[0,L)$ onto $[0,\infty)$.
Let $\mr t$ be the strictly decreasing bijection from $(0,\infty)$ onto $(0,L)$
such that $\mr t(r)$ is the unique number that satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{Z38}
(m_1m_2)\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr) = \frac{1}{r^2}\,, \qquad r>0.
\end{equation}
Then the following statements are equivalent.
\begin{Enumerate}
\item
There exists a function $\ms a\DF(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$ that is
regularly varying at $\infty$ and a constant $\omega\in\bb C\setminus\{0\}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{Z110}
\forall r>0\DP
q_H(ri)=i\omega\ms a(r)\cdot\big(1+R(r)\big),
\end{equation}
with $\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}R(r)=0$.
\item
The functions $m_1$ and $m_2$ are regularly or rapidly varying at $0$, and the limit
\begin{equation}\label{Z56}
\delta\DE\lim\limits_{t\to0}\frac{m_3(t)}{\sqrt{m_1(t)m_2(t)}\,}
\end{equation}
exists.
\item
The function
\begin{equation}\label{Z109}
\ms a_H(r)\DE\sqrt{\frac{m_1(\mr t(r))}{m_2(\mr t(r))}\,},\qquad r>0,
\end{equation}
is regularly varying at $\infty$,
satisfies $\frac{1}{r}\ll\ms a_H(r)\ll r$ as $r\to\infty$\footnote
We use the Vinogradov notation $f\ll g$ for $\frac fg\to 0$.}
and we have\footnote
We always use the branch of the complex power which is analytic on $\bb C\setminus(-\infty,0]$
and satisfies $1^\alpha=1$.}
\begin{equation}\label{Z57}
\forall r>0,\,z\in\bb C^+\DP
q_H(rz)=i\omega\Bigl(\frac zi\Bigr)^\alpha\ms a_H(r)\cdot\big(1+R(z,r)\big),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{Itemize}
\item $\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}R(z,r)=0$ locally uniformly for $z\in\bb C^+$,
\item $\alpha\in[-1,1]$, and $\alpha$ coincides with the index of $\ms a_H$,
\item $\omega\in\bb C\setminus\{0\}$
with $|\arg\omega|\leq\frac{\pi}{2}\big(1-|\alpha|\big)$.
\end{Itemize}
\end{Enumerate}
When, in \textup{(ii)}, either $m_1$ or $m_2$ is rapidly varying at $0$,
then the existence of the limit in \eqref{Z56} follows automatically, and $\delta=0$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
Similar to \cite{kasahara:1975,kasahara.watanabe:2010,eckhardt.kostenko.teschl:2018,bennewitz.wood:1997},
the starting point of our argument is the rescaling trick invented by Y.~Kasahara,
which makes it possible to relate the asymptotics of $q_H$ to the convergence of
certain rescalings of $H$. The essential steps in our proof then are to explicitly solve
the inverse problem for Weyl coefficients being an arbitrary complex multiple of a power
(\thref{Z132} and \thref{Z133}), and to relate regular or rapid variation
of the entries of $M$ to convergence of rescalings of $H$, which is done in Section~\ref{Z63}.
Let us add a few remarks concerning \thref{Z10}.
\begin{list}{$\triangleright$}{\leftmargin=0pt \labelwidth=10pt \itemindent=\labelwidth\itemsep=5pt\listparindent=\parindent}
\item
The assumptions made in \thref{Z10} are no essential restrictions.
First, if there exists a neighbourhood such that $h_1$ or $h_2$ vanishes on this neighbourhood,
we know the behaviour of $q_H$ from \thref{Z90}.
Second, the assumption that $\mf t$ is regularly varying at $0$ with positive index
is no loss of generality since we could even assume $H$ to be
trace-normalised (which implies $\mf t(t)=t$); this can be achieved by
rescaling (i.e.\ a change of the independent variable); see \S\ref{Z128}.
\item
Explicit relations between the data $\alpha,\omega$ in \eqref{Z57},
and the indices of $m_1,m_2$ and the limit $\delta$, can be given.
They are a bit lengthy; therefore we defer them to \S\ref{Z100} below.
\end{list}
For the purpose of illustration, let us explicitly formulate a corollary about Hamiltonians
with power asymptotics at $0$; the deduction from \thref{Z10} is carried out in \S\ref{Z92}.
\begin{corollary}\thlab{Z124}
Let $H$ and $m_j$ be as in the first paragraph of \thref{Z10} and assume
that $\mf t(t)=ct^\sigma(1+\Smallo(1))$ as $t\to0$ for some $c>0$ and $\sigma>0$.
Then the following statements are equivalent.
\begin{Enumerate}
\item
There exist $\rho_1,\rho_2>0$, $c_1,c_2>0$ and $c_3\in\bb R$ such that,
with $\rho_3=\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2}$,
\begin{equation}\label{Z135}
m_i(t) = c_it^{\rho_i}\bigl(1+\Smallo(1)\bigr) \qquad \text{as} \ t\to0,\;
i\in\{1,2,3\}.
\end{equation}
\item
There exist $\alpha\in(-1,1)$ and $\omega'\in\bb C\setminus\{0\}$
such that
\[
q_H(ri)=i\omega'r^\alpha\bigl(1+\Smallo(1)\bigr) \qquad \text{as} \ r\to\infty.
\]
\end{Enumerate}
If \textup{(i)} and \textup{(ii)} are satisfied, then
\begin{equation}\label{Z136}
\alpha = \frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{\rho_2+\rho_1}, \qquad
\omega' = c_1^{\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}c_2^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}}\omega,
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is as in \eqref{Z98} below with $\delta=\frac{c_3}{\sqrt{c_1c_2}\,}$,
and
\begin{equation}\label{Z137}
q_H(z)=i\omega'\Big(\frac zi\Big)^\alpha\cdot\big(1+\Smallo(1)\big)
\qquad\text{for} \ |z|\to\infty
\end{equation}
uniformly in each Stolz angle $\{z\in\bb C\DS \gamma\le\arg z\leq\pi-\gamma\}$
where $\gamma\in(0,\frac\pi2)$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent
Note that, according to item \ding{195} in \S\ref{Z100}, $\sgn(\arg\omega')=-\sgn c_3$;
in particular, $\omega'>0$ if and only if $c_3=0$.
\begin{example}\thlab{Z94}
Assume we are given a Hamiltonian $H=\smmatrix{h_1}{h_3}{h_3}{h_2}$ with
\[
h_i(t) = \kappa_it^{\rho_i-1}\bigl(1+\Smallo(1)\bigr)
\qquad\text{as} \ t\to0,
\]
where
\begin{Itemize}
\item
$\rho_1,\rho_2>0$, $\rho_3=\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2}$,
\item
$\kappa_1,\kappa_2>0$, $\kappa_3\in\bb R$,
\item
$\kappa_3^2\le\kappa_1\kappa_2$.
\end{Itemize}
Then \eqref{Z135} is satisfied with $c_i=\frac{\kappa_i}{\rho_i}$,
$i\in\{1,2,3\}$. Hence \eqref{Z137} holds with $\alpha$ and $\omega'$
as in \eqref{Z136}.
and set $\alpha\DE\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{\rho_2+\rho_1}$.
Then there exists $\omega\in\bb C\setminus\{0\}$ such that
\[
q_H(z)=i\omega\Big(\frac zi\Big)^\alpha\cdot\big(1+\Smallo(1)\big)
\qquad\text{for} \ |z|\to\infty
\]
uniformly in each Stolz angle $\{z\in\bb C\DS \gamma\leq\arg z\leq\pi-\gamma\}$ where $\gamma\in(0,\frac\pi2)$.
If $\rho_3>\frac 12(\rho_1+\rho_2)$, then $\omega>0$. If $\rho_3=\frac 12(\rho_1+\rho_2)$, then $\arg\omega$
is, as a function of $\frac{\kappa_3}{\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2}\,}$, a decreasing and odd bijection of $[-1,1]$
onto $[-\frac\pi2(1-|\alpha|),\frac\pi2(1-|\alpha|)]$.
\end{example}
\noindent
The structure of the paper is as follows.
In the preliminary Section~\ref{Z60} we collect a few well-known facts in order
to make the exposition self-contained.
In Section~\ref{Z61} we solve the inverse problem mentioned above:
we determine those Hamiltonians whose Weyl coefficients are multiples of a power.
The proof of \thref{Z10} then proceeds through two stages.
The first step is to relate the asymptotics of $q_H$ to convergence of a
certain sequence of transforms of $H$, which is done in Section~\ref{Z128}.
The second step is to relate convergence of this sequence
to regular or rapid variation of the functions $m_j$, which is done in Section~\ref{Z63}.
\subsection{Explicit formulae relating constants}\label{Z100}
Assume that $H$ is given as in \thref{Z10}, and that the equivalent
properties \Enumref{1}--\Enumref{3} of \thref{Z10} hold.
Denote the index of $m_j$ by $\rho_j$ if $m_j$ is regularly varying,
and set $\rho_j\DE\infty$ if $m_j$ is rapidly varying. Further, denote by $\sigma$
the index of $\mf t$, and let $\delta,\alpha,\omega$ be the quantities appearing in \thref{Z10}.
The following facts will be seen in course of the proof of \thref{Z10}.
\begin{Steps}
\item
The following formulae hold:
\begin{align}
& \min\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}=\sigma,
\label{Z86}
\\[2mm]
& \alpha =
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{\rho_2+\rho_1} &\text{if}\ \max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty,
\\[2ex]
+1 &\text{if}\ \rho_2=\infty,
\\
-1 &\text{if}\ \rho_1=\infty,
\end{cases}
\label{Z78}
\end{align}
\item
We have the bound
\begin{equation}\label{Z97}
|\delta| \leq \sqrt{1-\alpha^2}.
\end{equation}
Note that $\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}=\frac{2\sqrt{\rho_1\rho_2}\,}{\rho_1+\rho_2}$
if $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty$.
\item
The coefficient $\omega$ in \eqref{Z110} and \eqref{Z57} can be expressed in
terms of $\alpha$ and $\delta$:
\begin{equation}\label{Z98}
\omega
=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle
\bigl(2\sqrt{1-\alpha^2-\delta^2}\bigr)^{1+\alpha}
\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(2+\alpha)}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma\bigl(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1+i\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{1-\alpha^2-\delta^2}\,}\bigr)\bigr)}
\Gamma\bigl(-\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1-i\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{1-\alpha^2-\delta^2}\,}\bigr)\bigr)}
\hspace*{-27ex}\\[3ex]
& \text{if} \ \alpha\ne0,\pm1,\, |\delta|<\sqrt{1-\alpha^2},
\\[1ex]
\displaystyle
(i\alpha\delta)^{1+\alpha}\cdot\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(2+\alpha)}
& \text{if} \ \alpha\ne0,\pm1,\, |\delta|=\sqrt{1-\alpha^2},
\\[2ex]
\displaystyle
\sqrt{1-\delta^2}-i\delta
& \text{if} \ \alpha=0,
\\[1ex]
1
& \text{if} \ \alpha=1 \ \text{or} \ \alpha=-1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\item
The argument of $\omega$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Z6}
\arg\omega
=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle
-\arctan\biggl[\tan\Bigl(\frac{\pi}{2}\bigl(1-|\alpha|\bigr)\Bigr)
\tanh\Bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|\delta}{2\sqrt{1-\alpha^2-\delta^2}\,}\Bigr)\biggr]
\hspace*{-24ex}\\[3ex]
& \text{if} \ \alpha\ne0,\, |\delta|<\sqrt{1-\alpha^2},
\\[2ex]
\displaystyle
-(\sgn\delta)\frac{\pi}{2}\bigl(1-|\alpha|\bigr)
& \text{if} \ \alpha\ne0,\, |\delta|=\sqrt{1-\alpha^2},
\\[3ex]
\displaystyle
-\arcsin\delta
& \text{if} \ \alpha=0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note that, when $\alpha\in[-1,1]$ is fixed, $\arg\omega$ depends only on $\delta$.
Viewed as a function of $\delta$, it is a strictly decreasing and odd bijection
from $[-\sqrt{1-\alpha^2},\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}]$ onto
the interval $[-\frac\pi2(1-|\alpha|),\frac\pi2(1-|\alpha|)]$.
In particular, $\arg\omega=0$ if and only if $\delta=0$.
\item
The number $\delta$ in \eqref{Z56} can be expressed explicitly
in terms of $\alpha$ and $\arg\omega$:
\begin{equation}\label{Z11}
\delta
=
\begin{cases}
-\dfrac{c\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}\,}{\sqrt{1+c^2}\,}
\qquad\text{where} \quad
c = \dfrac{2}{\pi|\alpha|}
\artanh\biggl[\dfrac{\tan(\arg\omega)}{\tan(\frac{\pi}{2}(1-|\alpha|))}\biggr]
\hspace*{-25ex}
\\[2ex]
& \text{if} \ \alpha\ne0, |\arg\omega|<\frac{\pi}{2}(1-|\alpha|),
\\[2ex]
-\sgn(\arg\omega)\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}
& \text{if} \ \alpha\ne0, |\arg\omega|=\frac{\pi}{2}(1-|\alpha|),
\\[2ex]
-\sin(\arg\omega)
& \text{if} \ \alpha=0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Moreover, $\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1}=\frac{1+\alpha}{1-\alpha}$ if $\alpha\in(-1,1)$.
\item
The function $\ms a_H$ defined in \eqref{Z109} can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{Z17}
\ms a_H(r) = rm_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr) = \frac{1}{rm_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}\,,
\qquad r>0.
\end{equation}
\end{Steps}
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{Z60}
\subsection{Hamiltonians and their Weyl coefficients}
We denote by $W(t,z)=\smmatrix{w_{11}}{w_{12}}{w_{21}}{w_{22}}(t,z)$
the \emph{fundamental solution} of the canonical system \eqref{Z1},
i.e.\ the unique solution of the initial value problem
\begin{equation}\label{Z7}
\begin{cases}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} W(t,z) J = z W(t,z)H(t), \quad t \in [0,L), \\[1ex]
W(0,z)=I.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note that the transposes of the rows of $W$ are solutions of \eqref{Z1}.
The image of the closed upper half-plane under the linear fractional transformation
\[
\tau\mapsto \frac{w_{11}(t,z)\tau + w_{12}(t,z)}{w_{21}(t,z)\tau + w_{22}(t,z)}
\]
is a disc in the upper half-plane. For fixed $z\in \bb C^+$, these discs are nested and
converge to a single point as $t\to L$ due to the assumption $\int_0^L \tr H(t)\RD t=\infty$.
This limit is denoted by $q_H(z)$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}\label{Z111}
q_H(z) \DE \lim_{t\to L}\frac{w_{11}(t,z)\tau + w_{12}(t,z)}{w_{21}(t,z)\tau + w_{22}(t,z)}\,,
\qquad z\in\bb C^+,
\end{equation}
with $\tau\in\bb C^+\cup\bb R\cup\{\infty\}$ arbitrary.
The function $q_H$ is called the \emph{Weyl coefficient} corresponding
to the Hamiltonian $H$.
Unless $H\equiv\smmatrix 1000$ (in which case $q_H\equiv\infty$),
the Weyl coefficient is a \emph{Nevanlinna function}, i.e.\ it is analytic in the
open upper half-plane $\bb C^+$ and has non-negative imaginary part.
\begin{remark}\thlab{Z35}
In some papers, e.g.\ \cite{eckhardt.kostenko.teschl:2018,romanov:1408.6022v1},
the equation $Jy'(t)=zH(t)y(t)$ is considered instead of \eqref{Z1}.
The corresponding Weyl coefficient is $\widetilde q_H(z)=-q_H(-z)$.
The latter function is also the Weyl coefficient (according to our definition)
of the Hamiltonian $\widehat H\DE\smmatrix{h_1}{-h_3}{-h_3}{h_2}$,
i.e.\ $q_{\widehat H}(z)=-q_H(-z)=\widetilde q_H(z)$.
\end{remark}
Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be Hamiltonians on the intervals $[0,L_1)$ and $[0,L_2)$, respectively.
We say that $H_1$ and $H_2$ are \emph{reparameterisations} of each other
if there exists a strictly increasing bijection $\varphi:(0,L_1)\to (0,L_2)$
such that both $\varphi$ and $\varphi^{-1}$ are locally absolutely continuous and
\begin{equation}\label{Z34}
H_1(t) = H_2(\varphi(t))\varphi'(t), \qquad t\in (0,L_1)\ a.e.
\end{equation}
Two Hamiltonians are reparameterisations of each other if and only if
their Weyl coefficients coincide.
If \eqref{Z34} holds and $y$ is a solution of \eqref{Z1} with $H$ replaced by $H_2$,
then $y\circ\varphi$ is a solution of \eqref{Z1} with $H$ replaced by $H_1$.
Moreover, if \eqref{Z34} holds and $M_1$, $M_2$ denote the primitives
of $H_1$, $H_2$, respectively, i.e.\ $M_i(t)=\int_0^t H_i(s)\RD s$, $t\in[0,L_i)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Z36}
M_1(t) = M_2(\varphi(t)), \qquad t\in[0,L_1).
\end{equation}
Let $\Ham$ denote the set of all Hamiltonians on the half-line $[0,\infty)$,
and let $\NHam\subseteq\Ham$ be the subset of all \emph{trace-normalised} Hamiltonians,
i.e.\ those which satisfy $\tr H(t)=1$ for a.e.\ $t>0$.
For each Hamiltonian $H$ on an interval $[0,L)$ there is a unique
trace-normalised reparameterisation of $H$, denoted by $\tn{H}$.
In fact, the strictly increasing, bijective and locally absolutely continuous map
\[
\mf t: [0,L) \to [0,\infty), \quad x\mapsto \int_0^x \tr H(s)\RD s,
\]
can be used to define
\[
\tn{H}(t) \DE H\left(\mf t^{-1}(t)\right) \cdot (\mf t^{-1})'(t).
\]
Note that $\mf t^{-1}$ is locally absolutely continuous, since $\mf t'(x)=\tr H(x)>0$
almost everywhere.
A deep theorem due to de~Branges, see \cite{debranges:1968}, states that
the map that assigns to each Hamiltonian $H$ its Weyl coefficient $q_H$
is a bijection from the set of all trace-normalised Hamiltonians, $\NHam$,
onto the set $\mc N\cup\{\infty\}$, where $\mc N$ denotes the set of
all Nevanlinna functions.
We equip $\NHam$ with the topology such that this mapping is a homeomorphism
when $\mc N$ carries the topology of locally uniform convergence.
This topology on $\NHam$ was implicitly used by de~Branges and has been studied explicitly,
e.g.\ in \cite[Chapter~5.2]{remling:2018} and \cite{pruckner.woracek:limp-arXiv}.
In particular, for $H_n,H\in \NHam$ we have $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}H_n =H$
if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{Z20}
\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_0^x H_n(s) \RD s =\int_0^x H(s) \RD s, \quad x>0.
\end{equation}
A standard compactness argument shows that this convergence is locally uniform
in $x\in(0,\infty)$;
cf.\ \cite[Remark~2.4]{eckhardt.kostenko.teschl:2018}. For completeness, we provide a proof.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z22}
Let $H_n,H\in \NHam$ be given and assume that $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}H_n =H$.
Then \eqref{Z20} holds locally uniformly for $x\in [0,\infty)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $T>0$ and consider the family of functions
\[
M_H:
\begin{cases}
[0,T]\!\!\!&\to \ \bb R^{2\times 2} \\[1ex]
x & \mapsto \ \displaystyle\int_0^x H(s) \RD s,
\end{cases}
\qquad H\in \NHam.
\]
Due to $\|M_H(x)-M_H(x')\|_{\ell^1(\bb R^{2\times2})}\le 2 |x-x'|$,
this family is pointwise bounded and uniformly equicontinuous.
The Arzel\`a--Ascoli theorem implies pre-compactness in the space of all
continuous matrix-valued functions on $[0,T]$.
Now let $H_n,H$ satisfy \eqref{Z20} pointwise for every $x>0$.
Then, each subsequence of $M_{H_n}$ has a subsubsequence that converges uniformly on $[0,T]$.
Due to \eqref{Z20} the limit is $M_H$.
\end{proof}
\noindent
The notion of convergence on $\NHam$ is pulled back to $\Ham$ in the obvious way.
\begin{definition}\thlab{Z62}
We say that a sequence $H_n\in \Ham$ converges to a Hamiltonian $H\in \Ham$
if the sequence of trace-normalised Hamiltonians $\tn H_n$ converges to $\tn{H}$ in $\NHam$,
i.e.\
\[
\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_0^x\tn H_n(s) \RD s = \int_0^x \tn{H}(s) \RD s, \quad x>0.
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z74}
Let $H_n,H\in \Ham$ be given, and set
\[
\mf t_n(x) \DE \int_0^x \tr H_n(s)\RD s,\quad \mf t(x) \DE \int_0^x \tr H(s)\RD s,
\qquad x\ge0,\, n\in\bb N_0
.
\]
\begin{Enumerate}
\item Then $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}H_n =H$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{Z23}
\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_0^{\mf t_n^{-1}(x) } H_n(t) \RD t
= \int_0^{\mf t^{-1}(x) } H(t) \RD t,
\end{equation}
for all $x\in[0,\infty)$. Further, this is equivalent
to $\eqref{Z23}$ locally uniformly for $x\in[0,\infty)$.
and to $q_{H_n}\to q_H$ locally uniformly.
\item We have
\begin{equation}\label{Z31}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_0^x H_n(t)\RD t = \int_0^x H(t)\RD t
\end{equation}
locally uniformly for $x\in[0,\infty)$ if and only if
$\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}H_n=H$ and $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\mf t_n(x)=\mf t(x)$
locally uniformly for $x\in[0,\infty)$.
\end{Enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\widehat H_n$ and $\widehat H$ be the trace normalised reparameteristions of $H_n$ and $H$, respectively.
Then
\[
\int_0^x H_n(s)\RD s=\int_0^{\mf t_n^{-1}(x)}H_n(t)\RD t,\quad
\int_0^x H(s)\RD s=\int_0^{\mf t^{-1}(x)}H(t)\RD t,\quad
.
\]
The first equivalence in (i) follows. For the second one note \thref{Z22}. The last equivalence follows from
the fact that the mapping $\NHam\to\mc N$, $H\mapsto q_H$ is a homeomorphism.
For the proof of (ii), assume first that \eqref{Z31} holds. Then $\mf t_n\to\mf t$ locally uniformly, in particular,
pointwise. Since the functions $\mf t_n$ and $\mf t$ are increasing and continuous, it follows that
$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mf t_n^{-1}(s) =\mf t^{-1}(s)$ for $s\in [0,\infty)$.
Since the limit in \eqref{Z31} is assumed to be locally uniform in $x$,
we can use it with $\mf t_n^{-1}(x)$ instead of $x$, which yields \eqref{Z23} pointwise and hence $H_n\to H$.
Conversely, assume that $H_n\to H$ and $\mf t_n\to\mf t$ locally uniformly. Then \eqref{Z23} holds locally uniformly,
and it follows that \eqref{Z31} holds locally uniformly.
\end{proof}
\noindent
The next lemma shows that the non-negativity of the limit Hamiltonian is automatic.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z112}
Let $H_n\in \Ham$, $n\in\bb N$, and $H\in L^1_{\textup{loc}}([0,\infty),\bb R^{2\times2})$
be given and assume that $\tr H(t)>0$ for a.e.\ $t\in(0,\infty)$ and that \eqref{Z20} holds.
Then $H\in\Ham$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from \eqref{Z20} and the relations $H_n(t)\ge0$ for a.e.\ $t\in(0,\infty)$
that, for all $x_1,x_2\in[0,\infty)$ with $x_1<x_2$ and every $\xi\in\bb R^2$, we have
\[
\int_{x_1}^{x_2} \xi^T H(s)\xi\RD s \ge0.
\]
This implies that $H(t)\ge0$ for a.e.\ $t\in(0,\infty)$;
hence $H\in\Ham$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Regular Variation}
When dealing with regularly varying functions, we use the usual convention for algebra in $[0,\infty]$:
$0\cdot\infty\DE 0$, $\infty+1\DE\infty$, $\infty-1\DE\infty$.
Note the following simple consequence of the Potter bounds \cite[Theorem~1.5.6\,(iii)]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989}.
If $\ms a$ is regularly varying at $\infty$ with index $\alpha$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Z27}
\lim_{r\to\infty} \frac{\ms a(r)}{r^\beta}
=
\begin{cases}
0, & \beta>\alpha,
\\[0.5ex]
\infty, & \beta<\alpha;
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Analogously, if $\ms a$ is regularly varying at $0$ with index $\alpha$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Z18}
\lim_{r\to 0} \frac{\ms a(r)}{r^\beta}
=
\begin{cases}
\infty, & \beta>\alpha,
\\[0.5ex]
0, & \beta<\alpha;
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent
We need the following variant of \cite[Theorem~1.5.11]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989}.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z122}
Let $f\in L_{\textup{\textsf{loc}}}^1([0,\infty))$ such that $f(t)>0$ a.e.\
and define
\[
F(t) \DE \int_0^t f(s)\RD s, \qquad t>0.
\]
\begin{Enumerate}
\item
Assume that $f\in R_\rho(0)$ with $\rho\in(-1,\infty]$.
Then $F\in R_{\rho+1}(0)$.
\\
If, in addition, $\rho\in(-1,\infty)$, then
\[
F(t) \sim \frac{1}{\rho+1}tf(t) \qquad\text{as} \ t\to0.
\]
\item
Assume that $f$ is increasing on $(0,t_0]$ for some $t_0>0$
and that $F\in R_\rho(0)$ with $\rho\in(0,\infty]$.
Then $f\in R_{\rho-1}(0)$.
\\
If, in addition, $\rho\in(0,\infty)$, then
\[
f(t) \sim \rho\frac{F(t)}{t} \qquad\text{as} \ t\to0.
\]
\end{Enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i)
The statement for $\rho\in(-1,\infty)$ follows
from \cite[Theorem~1.5.11]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989} by transforming
the limit towards infinity to $0$.
Now assume that $\rho=\infty$. Let $\lambda\in(0,1)$ and $\varepsilon>0$.
There exists $\delta>0$ such that $\frac{f(\lambda s)}{f(s)}<\varepsilon$
for all $s\in(0,\delta)$.
Then, for all $t\in(0,\delta)$, we have
\[
\frac{F(\lambda t)}{F(t)}
= \lambda\frac{\int_0^t f(\lambda s)\RD s}{\int_0^t f(s)\RD s}
\le \lambda\varepsilon,
\]
which shows that $F\in R_\infty(0)$.
(ii)
The case $\rho\in(0,\infty)$ follows directly
from \cite[Theorem~1.7.2b]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989}.
Now consider the case $\rho=\infty$. Let $\lambda\in(0,1)$. For $t\in(0,t_0]$ we have
\begin{align*}
F(t)-F(\lambda t) &= \int_{\lambda t}^t f(s)\RD s
\le (1-\lambda)tf(t),
\\[1ex]
F(\lambda t)-F(\lambda^2 t) &= \int_{\lambda^2 t}^{\lambda t} f(s)\RD s
\ge \lambda(1-\lambda)tf(\lambda^2 t)
\end{align*}
and hence
\[
\frac{f(\lambda^2 t)}{f(t)}
\le \frac{1}{\lambda}\cdot\frac{F(\lambda t)-F(\lambda^2 t)}{F(t)-F(\lambda t)}
= \frac{1}{\lambda}\cdot
\frac{\,\frac{F(\lambda t)}{F(t)}-\frac{F(\lambda^2t)}{F(t)}\,}{1-\frac{F(\lambda t)}{F(t)}}
\to 0
\]
as $t\to0$, which implies that $f\in R_\infty(0)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Rescaling Hamiltonians}
\label{Z128}
We use a symmetrised variant of the transformations of Hamiltonians
that are used in \cite[Lemma~2.7 and (3.9)]{eckhardt.kostenko.teschl:2018}.
\begin{definition}\thlab{Z2}
For $r,b_1,b_2>0$ we define a map $\mc A_r^{b_1,b_2}\DF\Ham\to\Ham$ by
\[
\bigl(\mc A_r^{b_1,b_2}H\bigr)(t)
\DE
\begin{pmatrix}
b_1^2\cdot h_1\bigl(\frac{b_1b_2}rt\bigr) & b_1b_2\cdot h_3\bigl(\frac{b_1b_2}rt\bigr)
\\[2ex]
b_1b_2\cdot h_3\bigl(\frac{b_1b_2}rt\bigr) & b_2^2\cdot h_2\bigl(\frac{b_1b_2}rt\bigr)
\end{pmatrix},
\]
where, as usual, $H=\smmatrix{h_1}{h_3}{h_3}{h_2}$.
For $\ms b_1,\ms b_2\DF(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$, we set (slightly overloading notation)
\[
\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H\DE \mc A_r^{\ms b_1(r),\ms b_2(r)}H,
\qquad r>0,\, H\in\Ham.
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Two transforms $\mc A_r^{b_1,b_2}H$ and $\mc A_r^{b_1',b_2'}H$ are reparameterisations
of each other whenever $\frac{b_1}{b_2}=\frac{b_1'}{b_2'}$.
In fact, if this equality holds, we have
\[
\mc A_r^{b_1',b_2'}H(t)=\big[\mc A_r^{b_1,b_2}H\circ\varphi(t)\big]\cdot\varphi'(t)
\]
with $\varphi(t)\DE\frac{b_1'}{b_1}t$. Still, it turns out to be practical
to keep the two independent parameters $b_1,b_2$.
\end{remark}
The elementary calculation in \cite[Lemma~2.7]{eckhardt.kostenko.teschl:2018} yields
\begin{equation}\label{Z39}
q_{\mc A_r^{b_1,b_2}H}(z) = \frac{b_1}{b_2}q_H(rz),
\qquad z\in\bb C^+,\, r,b_1,b_2>0.
\end{equation}
The asymptotics of the Weyl coefficient is related to the convergence of rescaled Hamiltonians.
Indeed, the following lemma shows that the rescaling transformation $\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}$
is an appropriate tool to study the behaviour of $q_H$ towards $i\infty$.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z14}
Let $H,\mr H\in\Ham$ with $q_H,q_{\mr H}\notin\{0,\infty\}$,
and let $\ms b_1,\ms b_2\DF(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$.
Define a remainder term $R(z,r)$ by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{Z3}
q_H(rz) = \frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}q_{\mr H}(z)\cdot\bigl(1+R(z,r)\bigr),
\qquad r>0,\, z\in\bb C^+.
\end{equation}
Then the following statements are equivalent.
\begin{Enumerate}
\item We have $\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}R(z,r)=0$ locally uniformly for $z\in\bb C^+$.
\item The set $\bigl\{z\in\bb C^+\DS \lim\limits_{r\to\infty}R(z,r)=0\bigr\}$ has an
accumulation point in $\bb C^+$.
\item \Display{\lim_{r\to\infty}\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H=\mr H}.
\end{Enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First note that $R(z,r)$ is well defined since neither $q_H$ nor $q_{\mr H}$
can assume one of the values $0$ and $\infty$ in $\bb C^+$.
Using \eqref{Z39} and the definition of $R(z,r)$ we obtain the relation
\[
q_{\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H}(z)-q_{\mr H}(z)=q_{\mr H}(z) R(z,r).
\]
Since $q_{\mr H}$ is bounded away from $0$ and $\infty$ on every compact subset
of $\bb C^+$, this shows that (i) is equivalent
to $\lim_{r\to \infty} q_{\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H}(z) = q_{\mr H}(z)$
locally uniformly in $\bb C^+$.
On the other hand, (ii) means that the set of points $z$
with $\lim_{r\to \infty} q_{\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H}(z) = q_{\mr H}(z)$
has an accumulation point in $\bb C^+$.
Hence the equivalence ``\Enumref{1}$\Leftrightarrow$\Enumref{2}'' is just Vitali's theorem;
note here that $\mc N$ is a normal family (in the sense of meromorphic functions on $\bb C^+$).
Finally, \thref{Z74}\,(i) implies that (iii) is equivalent to the locally uniform convergence of
$q_{\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H}$ to $q_{\mr H}$, which is (i).
\end{proof}
For later reference note the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \thlab{Z19}
Let $H\in \Ham$ and assume that $\ms b_1,\ms b_2\DF(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$ are continuous.
For $r>0$ define
\[
\mf t_r: [0,\infty) \to [0,\infty), \quad
t\mapsto \ \int_0^t \tr\bigl(\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H\bigr)(s) \RD s,
\]
and fix $T>0$. Then $r\mapsto \mf t_r^{-1}(T)$ is continuous on $(0,\infty)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Obviously $t=\mf t_r^{-1}(T)$ is the unique solution of $F(t,r) \DE T-\mf t_r(t)=0$.
Note that $F$ is continuous in $t$ and $r$, and $t\mapsto F(t,r)$ is one-to-one
for all $r>0$.
Now we obtain the result from an application of a variant of the
implicit function theorem; see \cite{kumagai:1980}.
\end{proof}
\subsection[Dependence on $z$ of regularly varying asymptotics]{Dependence on $\bm z$ of regularly varying asymptotics}
The significance of regular variation is that having a regularly varying asymptotics
for $q(rz)$ for one single point $z$ already suffices to get locally uniform asymptotics
depending on $z$ as a power. The reason for this is the multiplicative nature of the argument in $q(rz)$.
\begin{proposition}\thlab{Z125}
Let $q\in\mc N$ and let $f:(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$ be measurable.
Then the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{Enumerate}
\item there exists $M\subseteq\bb C^+$ with an accumulation point in $\bb C^+$
such that
\[
\forall z\in M\DP
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(rz)}{f(r)} \quad\text{exists and is non-zero;}
\]
\item $f$ is regularly varying and there exists $z_0\in\bb C^+$ such that
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(rz_0)}{f(r)} \quad\text{exists and is non-zero;}
\]
\item $f$ is regularly varying with index $\alpha\in[-1,1]$
and there exists $\omega\in\bb C\setminus\{0\}$ such that
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(rz)}{f(r)} = i\omega\Bigl(\frac zi\Bigr)^\alpha
\qquad\text{locally uniformly for} \ z\in\bb C^+.
\]
\end{Enumerate}
If \textup{(i)}--\textup{(iii)} hold, then $\alpha$ and $\omega$ in \textup{(iii)} satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{Z13}
|\arg\omega| \le \frac{\pi}{2}\bigl(1-|\alpha|\bigr).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\noindent
We start the proof with a general lemma.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z126}
Let $z_0\in\bb C^+$, $r_0>0$ and let $q:z_0\cdot(r_0,\infty)\to\bb C\setminus\{0\}$
be a continuous function on the ray $z_0\cdot(r_0,\infty)$.
Further, let $f:(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$ be a measurable function
and let $B\subseteq(r_0,\infty)$ be a set with positive Lebesgue measure.
Assume that
\[
\forall z\in z_0B\DP
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(rz)}{f(r)} \quad\text{exists and is non-zero}.
\]
Then there exist $\alpha\in\bb R$ and $\omega\in\bb C\setminus\{0\}$
such that $f$ is regularly varying with index $\alpha$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Z127}
\forall z\in z_0\cdot(0,\infty)\DP
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(rz)}{f(r)} = i\omega\Big(\frac zi\Big)^\alpha
.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Set $\mr q(z)\DE\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(rz)}{f(r)}$, $z\in z_0B$.
Choose $s_0\in B$. For every $\lambda\in\frac{1}{s_0}B$
we have $\lambda s_0z_0\in z_0B$ and $s_0z_0\in z_0B$ and hence
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(r\cdot\lambda s_0z_0)}{f(r)}
= \mr q(\lambda s_0z_0),
\qquad
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(\lambda r\cdot s_0z_0)}{f(\lambda r)}
= \mr q(s_0z_0).
\]
Taking quotients of these equations we obtain
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{f(\lambda r)}{f(r)}
= \frac{\mr q(\lambda s_0z_0)}{\mr q(s_0z_0)}.
\]
Since the set $\frac{1}{s_0}B$ has positive measure, the Characterisation Theorem
\cite[Theorem~1.4.1]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989} yields that $f$ is regularly varying. Let $\alpha\in\bb R$ be the
index of $f$. Then, for every $\lambda>0$ we have
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(r\cdot\lambda s_0z_0)}{f(r)}
= \lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(\lambda r\cdot s_0z_0)}{f(\lambda r)}
\cdot\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{f(\lambda r)}{f(r)}
= \mr q(s_0z_0)\lambda^\alpha.
\]
Replacing $\lambda s_0z_0$ by $z$ we obtain that, for every $z\in z_0\cdot(0,\infty)$,
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(rz)}{f(r)} = \mr q(s_0z_0)\Bigl(\frac{z}{s_0z_0}\Bigr)^\alpha,
\]
which implies \eqref{Z127}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \thref{Z125}.]
The implication (iii)\,$\Rightarrow$\,(ii) is trivial.
Assume that (ii) holds. Then for each $s>0$ the limit
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(r\cdot sz_0)}{f(r)}
= \lim_{r\to\infty}\biggl(\frac{q(rs\cdot z_0)}{f(rs)}\cdot\frac{f(rs)}{f(r)}\biggr)
= \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{q(tz_0)}{f(t)}\cdot\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{f(rs)}{f(r)}
\]
exists and is non-zero. Hence (i) is satisfied with $M=\{sz_0:s\in(0,\infty)\}$.
We have to prove the implication (i)\,$\Rightarrow$\,(iii).
Let $(r_n)_{n\in\bb N}$ be an arbitrary sequence of positive numbers
with $r_n\to\infty$, and set
\[
q_n(z) \DE \frac{q(r_nz)}{f(r_n)}, \qquad z\in\bb C^+.
\]
Then, clearly, $q_n\in\mc N$.
By Vitali's Theorem the limit $\lim_{n\to\infty}q_n=\mr q$ exists locally uniformly
in $\bb C^+$. Obviously, this limit satisfies $\mr q\in\mc N$.
Since the sequence $(r_n)$ was arbitrary, it follows that
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{q(rz)}{f(r)} = \mr q(z)
\]
locally uniformly for $z\in\bb C^+$. Now \thref{Z126} implies that there
exist $\alpha\in\bb R$ and $\omega\in\bb C\setminus\{0\}$ such that $f$ is
regularly varying with some index $\alpha\in\bb R$
and that $\mr q(z)=i\omega\big(\frac zi\big)^\alpha$ with
some $\omega\in\bb C^+\setminus\{0\}$.
Relation \eqref{Z13} follows from the fact that $\mr q\in\mc N$
by checking onto which sector the upper half-plane is mapped.
\end{proof}
\section{The model situation: $\bm{q_H}$ is a power}
\label{Z61}
In this section we prove a direct and inverse spectral theorem for power functions.
Recall that we use the branch of the complex power which is analytic
in $\bb C\setminus(-\infty,0]$ and takes the value $1$ at $1$.
Correspondingly, we understand the argument $\arg z\in(-\pi,\pi)$
for $z\in\bb C\setminus(-\infty,0]$.
\begin{definition}\thlab{Z131}
\phantom{}
\begin{Enumerate}
\item For $\omega\in\bb C$ and $\alpha\in\bb R$ set
\begin{equation}\label{Z16}
Q_{\alpha,\omega}(z) \DE i\omega\Big(\frac zi\Big)^\alpha
, \qquad z\in\bb C^+
.
\end{equation}
\item For $\uprho=(\rho_1,\rho_2,\rho_3),\upkappa=(\kappa_1,\kappa_2,\kappa_3)\in\bb R^3$ set
\begin{equation}\label{Z45}
H_{\uprho,\upkappa}(t) \DE
\begin{pmatrix}
\kappa_1 t^{\rho_1-1} & \kappa_3 t^{\rho_3-1}
\\[1ex]
\kappa_3 t^{\rho_3-1} & \kappa_2 t^{\rho_2-1}
\end{pmatrix}
,\qquad t\in(0,\infty)
.
\end{equation}
\end{Enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\thlab{Z15}
\phantom{}
\begin{Enumerate}
\item We have $Q_{\alpha,\omega}\in\mc N$, if and only if
\begin{Itemize}
\item $\omega=0$, or
\item $\alpha\in[-1,1]$ and $|\arg\omega|\le\frac\pi2(1-|\alpha|)$.
\end{Itemize}
This is seen by checking onto which sector the upper half-plane is mapped.
In fact, the function $Q_{\alpha,\omega}$ has a continuous extension
to $(\bb C^+\cup\bb R)\setminus\{0\}$ with
\begin{equation}\label{Z58}
\arg Q_{\alpha,\omega}(x)
=
\begin{cases}
\arg\omega+\frac\pi2(1-\alpha) &\text{if}\ x>0,
\\[0.5ex]
\arg\omega+\frac\pi2(1+\alpha) &\text{if}\ x<0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and the function $\arg Q_{\alpha,\omega}$ is decreasing if $\alpha\geq 0$ and
increasing otherwise.
\item We have $H_{\uprho,\upkappa}\in\bb H$, if and only if
\begin{Itemize}
\item $\kappa_1,\rho_1>0$ and $\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$, or
\item $\kappa_2,\rho_2>0$ and $\kappa_1=\kappa_3=0$, or
\item $\kappa_1,\rho_1,\kappa_2,\rho_2>0$ and $\kappa_3^2\leq\kappa_1\kappa_2$ and
$\kappa_3\neq 0$ implies $\rho_3=\frac 12(\rho_1+\rho_2)$.
\end{Itemize}
This is seen by checking $H_{\uprho,\upkappa}(t)\geq 0$ for $t=1$, $t\to 0$, and $t\to\infty$, and
checking integrability at $0$.
\end{Enumerate}
\end{remark}
\noindent
With exception of some boundary cases, power Nevanlinna functions $Q_{\alpha,\omega}$ correspond to power Hamiltonians
$H_{\uprho,\upkappa}$. This is proven in the below \thref{Z132}. Before we give this result, let us settle the mentioned
boundary cases.
\begin{remark}\thlab{Z133}
\phantom{}
\begin{Itemize}
\item If $\kappa_1,\rho_1>0$ and $\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$, then $q_{H_{\uprho,\upkappa}}=\infty$.
\item If $\kappa_2,\rho_2>0$ and $\kappa_1=\kappa_3=0$, then $q_{H_{\uprho,\upkappa}}=0$.
\item If $\alpha=1$ and $\omega\neq 0$ (hence $\omega>0$), then $Q_{\alpha,\omega}$ is the Weyl coefficient of the
Hamiltonian\footnote{We denote by $\mathds{1}_M$ the indicator function of a set $M$.}
\[
H(t)\DE
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathds{1}_{(0,\omega]}(t) & 0
\\[1ex]
0 & \mathds{1}_{(\omega,\infty)}(t)
\end{pmatrix}
,\qquad t\in(0,\infty)
,
\]
\item If $\alpha=-1$ and $\omega\neq 0$ (hence $\omega>0$), then $Q_{\alpha,\omega}$ is the Weyl coefficient of the
Hamiltonian
\[
H(t)\DE
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathds{1}_{(\frac 1\omega,\infty)}(t) & 0
\\[1ex]
0 & \mathds{1}_{(0,\frac 1\omega]}(t)
\end{pmatrix}
,\qquad t\in(0,\infty)
.
\]
\end{Itemize}
\end{remark}
\noindent
Now we formulate the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\thlab{Z132}
The Weyl coefficient map $H\mapsto q_H$ induces a surjection
\[
\big\{H_{\uprho,\upkappa}\in\bb H\DS \kappa_1,\kappa_2>0\big\}
\to
\big\{Q_{\alpha,\omega}\in\mc N\DS \omega\neq 0,|\alpha|<1\big\}
.
\]
The data $\uprho,\upkappa$ and $\alpha,\omega$ are related via
\begin{equation}\label{Z102}
\alpha = \frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{\rho_2+\rho_1}
\end{equation}
and \textup{(}with $\kappa\DE\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2-\kappa_3^2}$\textup{)}
\begin{equation}\label{Z134}
\omega
= \begin{cases}
\displaystyle
\frac{(2\kappa)^{1+\alpha}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma\bigl(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1+i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}
\Gamma\bigl(-\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1-i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}\,,
& \rho_1\ne\rho_2, \ \kappa>0,
\\[3ex]
\displaystyle
\frac{(i\alpha\kappa_3)^{1+\alpha}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}\,,
& \rho_1\ne\rho_2, \ \kappa=0,
\\[3ex]
\displaystyle
\frac{\kappa-i\kappa_3}{\kappa_2}\,,
& \rho_1=\rho_2.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\noindent
We prove this result in several steps formulated as separate lemmata.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z40}
Assume that $h_2(t)\ne0$, $t\in(0,\infty)$ a.e., and
let $y=\binom{y_1}{y_2}$ be a solution of \eqref{Z1}.
Then $y_1$ satisfies the differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{Z41}
\Bigl(\frac{1}{h_2}y_1'\Bigr)' + \biggl[z\Bigl(\frac{h_3}{h_2}\Bigr)'
+ z^2\Bigl(h_1-\frac{h_3^2}{h_2}\Bigr)\biggr]y_1 = 0
\end{equation}
and, for $z\ne0$, the functions $y_1$ and $y_2$ are related by
\begin{equation}\label{Z42}
y_2 = -\frac{1}{h_2}\Bigl(\frac{1}{z}y_1'+h_3y_1\Bigr).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Equation \eqref{Z1} is equivalent to the two scalar equations
\begin{align*}
y_1' &= z(-h_3y_1-h_2y_2),
\\[0.5ex]
y_2' &= z(h_1y_1+h_3y_2).
\end{align*}
We can solve the first equation for $y_2$, which yields \eqref{Z42}.
Plugging this expression into the second equation we obtain \eqref{Z41}.
\end{proof}
\noindent
The next lemma follows from \cite[2.273\,(12)]{kamke:1961}.
In the latter reference the solution is written in terms of Whittaker functions,
which can be expressed in terms of Kummer functions.
For the convenience of the reader we give a direct proof.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z43}
Let $c,d\in\bb C$ with $d\ne0$ and let $\gamma>0$ with $\gamma\ne1$.
Two linearly independent solutions of the differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{Z113}
u''(x) + \bigl(cx^{\gamma-2}-d^2x^{2\gamma-2}\bigr)u(x) = 0, \qquad x>0,
\end{equation}
are given by
\begin{align*}
u_+(x) &= x\exp\Bigl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
M\biggl(\frac{\gamma+1-\frac{c}{d}}{2\gamma},\frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma},
\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr),
\\[1ex]
u_-(x) &= \exp\Bigl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
M\biggl(\frac{\gamma-1-\frac{c}{d}}{2\gamma},\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma},
\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr),
\end{align*}
where $M$ is Kummer's confluent hypergeometric function,
\[
M(a,b,x) = \Fhyperg{1}{1}(a;b;x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(a)_n}{(b)_n}\cdot\frac{x^n}{n!}
\]
with the Pochhammer symbol $(a)_0=1$ and $(a)_n=a(a+1)\cdots(a+n-1)$ for $n\ge1$.
Further,
\begin{alignat*}{2}
u_+(x) &= x - \frac{c}{\gamma(\gamma+1)}x^{\gamma+1} + \BigO\bigl(x^{2\gamma+1}\bigr),
\quad &
u_+'(x) &= 1 - \frac{c}{\gamma}x^\gamma + \BigO\bigl(x^{2\gamma}\bigr),
\\[1ex]
u_-(x) &= 1 - \frac{c}{(\gamma-1)\gamma}x^\gamma + \BigO\bigl(x^{2\gamma}\bigr),
\quad &
u_-'(x) &= -\frac{c}{\gamma-1}x^{\gamma-1} + \BigO\bigl(x^{2\gamma-1}\bigr)
\end{alignat*}
as $x\to 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We write
\[
u(x) = \exp\biggl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr)y(x).
\]
with some new unknown function $y$.
Since
\begin{align*}
u'(x) &= \exp\biggl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr)y'(x)
-dx^{\gamma-1}\exp\biggl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr)y(x)
\\[1ex]
u''(x) &= \exp\biggl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr)y''(x)
- 2dx^{\gamma-1}\exp\biggl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr)y'(x)
\\[0.5ex]
&\quad + \Bigl(d^2x^{2\gamma-2}-d(\gamma-1)x^{\gamma-2}\Bigr)
\exp\biggl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr)y(x),
\end{align*}
the differential equation \eqref{Z113} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{Z114}
y''(x)-2dx^{\gamma-1}y'(x)+\bigl(c-d(\gamma-1)\bigr)x^{\gamma-2}y(x) = 0.
\end{equation}
With $\alpha=0$ or $\alpha=1$ we use
\[
y(x) = x^\alpha v\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr).
\]
with a new unknown function $v$.
The first two derivatives of $y$ are
\begin{align*}
y'(x) &= 2dx^{\alpha+\gamma-1}v'\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
+ \alpha x^{\alpha-1}v\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr),
\\[1ex]
y''(x) &= 4d^2x^{\alpha+2\gamma-2}v''\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
+2d(\alpha+\gamma-1)x^{\alpha+\gamma-2}v'\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
\\[0.5ex]
&\quad + 2d\alpha x^{\alpha+\gamma-2}v'\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
+ \underbrace{\frac{\RD}{\RD x}\bigl(\alpha x^{\alpha-1}\bigr)}_{=0}
v\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
\\[1ex]
&= 4d^2x^{\alpha+2\gamma-2}v''\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
+ 2d(2\alpha+\gamma-1)x^{\alpha+\gamma-2}v'\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr).
\end{align*}
Hence \eqref{Z114} is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
& 4d^2x^{\alpha+2\gamma-2}v''\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
+ 2d(2\alpha+\gamma-1)x^{\alpha+\gamma-2}v'\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
\\[0.5ex]
& - 4d^2x^{\alpha+2\gamma-2}v'\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
- 2d\alpha x^{\alpha+\gamma-2}v\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
\\[0.5ex]
& + \bigl(c-d(\gamma-1)\bigr)x^{\alpha+\gamma-2}v\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
= 0;
\end{align*}
dividing by $x^{\alpha+\gamma-2}$ we obtain
\[
4d^2x^\gamma v''\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
+ 2d\bigl(2\alpha+\gamma-1-2dx^\gamma\bigr)v'\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
- \bigl(2d\alpha+d(\gamma-1)-c\bigr)v\Bigl(\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr) = 0
\]
Setting $t=\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma$ we see that this is equivalent to
\[
2d\gamma tv''(t) + 2d\bigl(2\alpha+\gamma-1-\gamma t\bigr)v'(t)
- \bigl(2d\alpha+d(\gamma-1)-c\bigr)v(t) = 0,
\]
which, in turn, is equivalent to
\[
tv''(t) + \biggl(\frac{2\alpha+\gamma-1}{\gamma}-t\biggr)v'(t)
- \biggl(\frac{2\alpha+\gamma-1}{2\gamma}-\frac{c}{2d\gamma}\biggr)v(t) = 0.
\]
This is Kummer's equation; a solution is given by
\[
v(t) = M\biggl(\frac{2\alpha+\gamma-1}{2\gamma}-\frac{c}{2d\gamma},\,
\frac{2\alpha+\gamma-1}{\gamma},\, t\biggr).
\]
Substituting back we obtain the solutions $u_+$ and $u_-$
for the choices $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha=0$ respectively.
The asymptotic behaviour of the solutions can be obtained from
\begin{align*}
u(x) &= x^\alpha\exp\Bigl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
M\biggl(\frac{2\alpha+\gamma-1}{2\gamma}-\frac{c}{2d\gamma},\,
\frac{2\alpha+\gamma-1}{\gamma},\, \frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr)
\\[1ex]
&= x^\alpha\biggl(1-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma+\ldots\biggr)
\biggl[1+\biggl(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{c}{2d(2\alpha+\gamma-1)}\biggr)\frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma
+ \ldots\biggr]
\\[1ex]
&= x^\alpha - \frac{c}{\gamma(2\alpha+\gamma-1)}x^{\alpha+\gamma} + \ldots
\end{align*}
and differentiation.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z44}
Let $\rho_1,\rho_2>0$ with $\rho_1\ne\rho_2$, and
let $\kappa_1,\kappa_2>0$ and $\kappa_3\in\bb R$ be such that
$\kappa_3^2\leq\kappa_1\kappa_2$.
Set $\rho_3\DE\frac 12(\rho_1+\rho_2)$ and $\kappa\DE\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2-\kappa_3^2}$, and consider the Hamiltonian
$H_{\uprho,\upkappa}(t)$ where $\uprho=(\rho_1,\rho_2)$, $\upkappa=(\kappa_1,\kappa_2,\kappa_3)$.
The entries $w_{i1}$, $i=1,2$, of the corresponding fundamental solution $W$,
defined in \eqref{Z7}, are given by
\begin{equation}\label{Z49}
\begin{aligned}
w_{11}(x,z) &= \exp\Bigl(\frac{\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\Bigr)
M\Bigl(a_-,\,b_-,\,-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\Bigr),
\\[1ex]
w_{21}(x,z) &= -\frac{\kappa_2}{\rho_2}zx^{\rho_2}
\exp\Bigl(\frac{\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\Bigr)
M\Bigl(a_+,\,b_+,\,-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\Bigr),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{Z47}
a_\pm = \frac{1}{2}\biggl(1\pm\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}
-\frac{i\kappa_3}{\kappa}\cdot\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{\rho_1+\rho_2}\biggr),
\qquad
b_\pm = 1 \pm \frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To shorten notation, we skip indices and write $H\equiv H_{\uprho,\upkappa}$.
We multiply both sides of \eqref{Z41} by $\kappa_2$, which gives
\begin{equation}\label{Z46}
\bigl(x^{-\rho_2+1}y_1'(x)\bigr)'
+ \Bigl[z\kappa_3\Bigl(x^{\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{2}}\Bigr)'
+ z^2\bigl(\kappa_1\kappa_2-\kappa_3^2\bigr)x^{\rho_1-1}\Bigr]y_1(x) = 0.
\end{equation}
Define the function $u$ by $u(x^{\rho_2}) \DE y_1(x)$. Then \eqref{Z46} is
equivalent to
\[
\rho_2^2 x^{\rho_2-1}u''(x^{\rho_2})
+ \biggl[z\kappa_3\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{2}x^{\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{2}-1}
+ z^2\bigl(\kappa_1\kappa_2-\kappa_3^2\bigr)x^{\rho_1-1}\biggr]u(x^{\rho_2})
= 0.
\]
Divide both sides by $\rho_2^2x^{\rho_2-1}$, which yields
\[
u''(x^{\rho_2})
+ \biggl[z\kappa_3\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{2\rho_2^2}x^{\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2}-2\rho_2}
+ z^2\frac{\kappa_1\kappa_2-\kappa_3^2}{\rho_2^2}x^{\rho_1+\rho_2-2\rho_2}\biggr]u(x^{\rho_2})
= 0.
\]
Setting $t=x^{\rho_2}$ we obtain
\[
u''(t) + \biggl[z\kappa_3\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{2\rho_2^2}t^{\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2\rho_2}-2}
+ z^2\frac{\kappa^2}{\rho_2^2}t^{\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{\rho_2}-2}\biggr]
u(t) = 0.
\]
For $z\ne0$ we can use \thref{Z43} with
\[
c \DE z\kappa_3\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{2\rho_2^2}\,, \qquad
d \DE -\frac{\kappa iz}{\rho_2}\,, \qquad
\gamma \DE \frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2\rho_2} = \frac{\rho_3}{\rho_2}
\]
to obtain two linearly independent solutions,
\begin{align*}
u_\pm(x) &= x^{\frac{1\pm1}{2}}\exp\Bigl(-\frac{d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\Bigr)
M\biggl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(1\pm\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{c}{\gamma d}\Bigr),\,
1\pm\frac{1}{\gamma},\, \frac{2d}{\gamma}x^\gamma\biggr)
\\[1ex]
&= x^{\frac{1\pm1}{2}}\exp\biggl(\frac{\kappa iz}{\rho_3}
x^{\frac{\rho_3}{\rho_2}}\biggr)
M\biggl(a_\pm,\,b_\pm,\,-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}
x^{\frac{\rho_3}{\rho_2}}\biggr)
\end{align*}
with $a_\pm,b_\pm$ as in \eqref{Z47}.
Set
\[
y_{\pm,1}(x) \DE u_\pm(x^{\rho_2}), \qquad
y_{\pm,2}(x) \DE -\frac{1}{\kappa_2}\biggl(\frac{1}{z}x^{-\rho_2+1}y_{\pm,1}'(x)
+ \kappa_3x^{\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{2}}y_{\pm,1}(x)\biggr)
\]
according to \eqref{Z42}. Then $\binom{y_{\pm,1}}{y_{\pm,2}}$ are linearly
independent solutions of \eqref{Z1} and hence
\[
w_{ij}(x,z) = A_i y_{+,j}(x) + B_i y_{-,j}(x),
\qquad i,j=1,2,
\]
with some constants $A_i$ and $B_i$, $i=1,2$.
To determine the constants $A_i$, $B_i$, we have to study the behaviour
of $y_{\pm,j}$ at $0$. \thref{Z43} implies that
\begin{alignat*}{2}
y_{+,1}(x) &= x^{\rho_2} + \BigO\bigl(x^{\frac{\rho_1+3\rho_2}{2}}\bigr),
\qquad &
y_{+,1}'(x) &= \rho_2x^{\rho_2-1} + \BigO\bigl(x^{\frac{\rho_1+3\rho_2}{2}-1}\bigr),
\\[1ex]
y_{-,1}(x) &= 1 - \frac{\kappa_3z}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}
+ \BigO\bigl(x^{\rho_1+\rho_2}\bigr),
\qquad &
y_{-,1}'(x) &= -\kappa_3zx^{\rho_3-1} + \BigO\bigl(x^{\rho_1+\rho_2-1}\bigr)
\end{alignat*}
as $x\to 0$, and hence
\begin{align*}
y_{+,2}(x) &= -\frac{1}{\kappa_2}\biggl(\frac{1}{z}x^{-\rho_2+1}\rho_2x^{\rho_2-1}
+ \BigO\bigl(x^{\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2}}\bigr)\biggr)
\to -\frac{\rho_2}{\kappa_2z}\,,
\\[1ex]
y_{-,2}(x) &= -\frac{1}{\kappa_2}
\biggl(\frac{1}{z}x^{-\rho_2+1}(-\kappa_3z)x^{\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2}-1}
+ \kappa_3x^{\frac{\rho_1-\rho_2}{2}} + \BigO\bigl(x^{\rho_1}\bigr)\biggr)
\to 0
\end{align*}
as $x\to 0$. The initial condition $W(0,z)=I$ implies that
\[
A_1 = 0, \qquad B_1 = 1, \qquad A_2 = -\frac{\kappa_2z}{\rho_2}\,, \qquad B_2 = 0,
\]
which proves \eqref{Z49} when $z\ne0$.
These representations remain true for $z=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\thlab{Z52}
In the case of a diagonal Hamiltonian, i.e.\ when $\kappa_3=0$,
the functions $w_{11}$ and $w_{21}$ can be written in terms of Bessel functions:
\begin{align*}
w_{11}(x,z) &= \mf J_{-\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1+\rho_2}}
\biggl(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2}\,}{\rho_3}zx^{\rho_3}\biggr),
\\[1ex]
w_{21}(x,z) &= -\frac{\kappa_2}{\rho_2}z\mf J_{\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1+\rho_2}}
\biggl(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2}\,}{\rho_3}zx^{\rho_3}\biggr),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\mf J_\nu(x) \DEalign \Gamma(\nu+1)\Bigl(\frac{x}{2}\Bigr)^{-\nu}J_\nu(x)
\\
&= \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n}{n!(\nu+1)_n}\cdot\Bigl(\frac{x}{2}\Bigr)^{2n}
= \Fhyperg{0}{1}\Bigl(\,;\nu+1;-\frac{x^2}{4}\Bigr)
\end{align*}
is the entire function associated with the Bessel function, which is used in,
e.g.\ \cite{askey:1973};
cf.\ also \cite[Example~2]{eckhardt.kostenko.teschl:2018} for the case
when $\kappa_1=\rho_1>1$ and $\kappa_2=\rho_2=1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \thref{Z132}; direct part]
We show that the Weyl coefficient of $H_{\uprho,\upkappa}$ is given by the asserted formula.
Again we shorten notation and write $H\equiv H_{\uprho,\upkappa}$.
Assume first that $\rho_1\ne\rho_2$ and $\kappa>0$.
Then we can apply \thref{Z44}, which yields
\[
\frac{w_{11}(x,z)}{w_{21}(x,z)}
= -\frac{\rho_2}{\kappa_2z}x^{-\rho_2}
\frac{M\bigr(a_-,b_-,-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\bigr)}{M\bigl(a_+,b_+,-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\bigr)}
\]
Let $z\in\bb C^+$. Then $\Re(-iz)>0$, and hence \cite[13.2.23]{nist:2010}
implies that, as $x\to\infty$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{w_{11}(x,z)}{w_{21}(x,z)}
&\sim -\frac{\rho_2}{\kappa_2z}x^{-\rho_2}
\frac{\frac{\Gamma(b_-)}{\Gamma(a_-)}\exp\bigl(-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\bigr)
\bigl(-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\bigr)^{a_--b_-}}{\frac{\Gamma(b_+)}{\Gamma(a_+)}
\exp\bigl(-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\bigr)
\bigl(-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\bigr)^{a_+-b_+}}
\\[1ex]
&= -\frac{\rho_2}{\kappa_2z}x^{-\rho_2}
\frac{\Gamma(a_+)\Gamma(b_-)}{\Gamma(a_-)\Gamma(b_+)}
\Bigl(-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\Bigr)^{-a_-+a_-+b_+-b_-}
\\[1ex]
&= -\frac{\rho_2}{\kappa_2z}x^{-\rho_2}
\frac{\Gamma(a_+)\Gamma(b_-)}{\Gamma(a_-)\Gamma(b_+)}
\Bigl(-\frac{2\kappa iz}{\rho_3}x^{\rho_3}\Bigr)^{\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}}
\\[1ex]
&= -\frac{\rho_2}{\kappa_2z}x^{-\rho_2}
\frac{\Gamma(a_+)\Gamma(b_-)}{\Gamma(a_-)\Gamma(b_+)}
\Bigl(\frac{2\kappa}{\rho_3}\Bigr)^{\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}}
\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^{\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}}x^{\rho_2}
\\[1ex]
&= i\frac{\rho_2}{\kappa_2}\cdot\frac{\Gamma(a_+)\Gamma(b_-)}{\Gamma(a_-)\Gamma(b_+)}
\Bigl(\frac{2\kappa}{\rho_3}\Bigr)^{\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}}
\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^{\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}-1}.
\end{align*}
With $\alpha=\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}-1=\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{\rho_1+\rho_2}$
and using \eqref{Z47} we obtain
\begin{align}
q_H(z) &= \lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{w_{11}(x,z)}{w_{21}(x,z)}
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&= i\frac{\rho_2}{\kappa_2}\Bigl(\frac{2\kappa}{\rho_3}\Bigr)^{\alpha+1}\,
\frac{\Gamma\bigl(\frac12\bigl[\alpha+2+i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\alpha\bigr]\bigr)
\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma\bigl(\frac12\bigl[-\alpha+i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\alpha\bigr]\bigr)
\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}\Gamma\bigl(\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_3}\bigr)}
\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&= i\frac{(2\kappa)^{\alpha+1}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma\bigl(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1+i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}
\Gamma\bigl(-\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1-i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}
\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha
\label{Z53}
\end{align}
which is the asserted formula for the Weyl coefficient in the case when $\rho_1\neq\rho_2$ and $\kappa>0$.
Using the reflection formula for the gamma function we can rewrite $\omega$,
\begin{align}
\omega &= \frac{(2\kappa)^{\alpha+1}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma\bigl(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1+i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}
\Gamma\bigl(-\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1-i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&= \frac{(2\kappa)^{\alpha+1}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma\bigl(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1+i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)
\Gamma\bigl(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1-i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)
\sin\bigl(-\pi\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1-i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}{\pi}\cdot
\nonumber\\
&\quad \cdot\frac{\pi}{\bigl(\Gamma(1+\alpha)\bigr)^2\sin(-\pi\alpha)}
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&= \frac{(2\kappa)^{\alpha+1}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\cdot\frac{\big|\Gamma\bigl(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}\bigl(1+i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)\big|^2}
\bigl(\Gamma(1+\alpha)\bigr)^2}
\cdot\frac{\sin\bigl(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\bigl(1-i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}{\sin(\pi\alpha)}\,.
\label{Z21}
\end{align}
Next let us consider the case when $\rho_1=\rho_2=\rho_3$ and $\kappa>0$.
Let $\hat\rho_1\DE\rho_3-\varepsilon$, $\hat\rho_2\DE\rho_3+\varepsilon$, $\hat\rho_3=\rho_3$
with $\varepsilon\in(0,\rho_3)$ and define $H_\varepsilon\DE H_{\hat\uprho,\upkappa}$.
Then $\hat\alpha=(\hat\rho_2-\hat\rho_1)/(\hat\rho_1+\hat\rho_2)\to0$ as $\varepsilon\to0$.
Moreover, $\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}H_\varepsilon=H$, and
hence the Weyl coefficients converge locally uniformly.
From \eqref{Z21} we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Z54}
q_H(z) = \lim_{\varepsilon\to0}q_{H_\varepsilon}(z)
= i\frac{2\kappa}{\kappa_2}\cdot\frac{|\Gamma(1)|^2}{(\Gamma(1))^2}
\cdot\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(1-i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\Bigr)\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^0
= i\frac{\kappa-i\kappa_3}{\kappa_2}\,.
\end{equation}
Consider now the case when $\rho_1\ne\rho_2$ and $\kappa=0$, i.e.\
$|\kappa_3|=\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2}$.
Let $\hat\kappa_3\in(-\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2},\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2})$
and let $H_{\hat\kappa_3}$ be the power Hamiltonian with data $\uprho,\kappa_1,\kappa_2$ and $\hat\kappa_3$.
Further, set $\hat\kappa\DE\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2-\hat\kappa_3^2}$.
Since $\lim_{\hat\kappa_3\to\kappa_3}H_{\hat\kappa_3}=H$,
we have $\lim_{\hat\kappa_3\to\kappa_3}q_{H_{\hat\kappa_3}}(z)=q_H(z)$
locally uniformly.
According to \cite[5.11.12]{nist:2010}
we have $\frac{\Gamma(a+w)}{\Gamma(b+w)}\sim w^{a-b}$ as $w\to\infty$
in a sector $|\arg w|\le \phi<\pi$ for arbitrary $a,b\in\bb C$.
Using this and \eqref{Z53} we can deduce that, as $\hat\kappa_3\to\kappa_3$,
\begin{align*}
q_H(z) &= \lim_{\hat\kappa_3\to\kappa_3}q_{H_{\hat\kappa_3}}(z)
\\
&= i\lim_{\hat\kappa_3\to\kappa_3}
\frac{(2\hat\kappa)^{\alpha+1}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma\bigl(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{i\alpha\hat\kappa_3}{2\hat\kappa}\bigr)}
\Gamma\bigl(-\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{i\alpha\hat\kappa_3}{2\hat\kappa}\bigr)}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha
\\[1ex]
&= i\lim_{\hat\kappa_3\to\kappa_3}
\frac{(2\hat\kappa)^{\alpha+1}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\Bigl(\frac{i\alpha\hat\kappa_3}{2\hat\kappa}\Bigr)^{1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-(-\frac{\alpha}{2})}
\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha
\\[1ex]
&= i\frac{(i\alpha\kappa_3)^{1+\alpha}}{\kappa_2\rho_3^\alpha}
\cdot\frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}
\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha\,,
\end{align*}
which proves the formula for $\omega$ when $\rho_1\ne\rho_2$ and $\kappa=0$.
In a similar way we can establish the case when $\rho_1=\rho_2$ and $\kappa=0$
by taking the limit as $\hat\kappa_3\to\kappa_3$ in the formula \eqref{Z54}
with $\kappa_3$ and $\kappa$ replaced by $\hat\kappa_3$ and $\hat\kappa$ respectively.
It is easy to check that $\omega\ne0$.
\end{proof}
\noindent
For later reference, let us formulate a key observation about the argument of $\omega$
from \eqref{Z134} as a separate lemma.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z88}
The argument of the number $\omega$ in \eqref{Z134} satisfies
\[
\arg\omega
=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle
-\arctan\biggl[\tan\Bigl(\frac{\pi}{2}\bigl(1-|\alpha|\bigr)\Bigr)
\tanh\Bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|\kappa_3}{2\kappa}\Bigr)\biggr],
& \rho_1\ne\rho_2, \ \kappa>0,
\\[3ex]
\displaystyle
-\arctan\Bigl(\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\Bigr),
& \rho_1=\rho_2, \ \kappa>0,
\\[3ex]
\displaystyle
-(\sgn\kappa_3)\frac{\pi}{2}\bigl(1-|\alpha|\bigr),
& \rho_1=\rho_2, \ \kappa=0.
\end{cases}
\]
For each fixed $\rho_1,\rho_2,\kappa_1,\kappa_2$, the function $\kappa_3\mapsto\arg\omega$
is a strictly decreasing and odd bijection from $[-\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2},\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2}]$
onto $\bigl[-\frac{\pi}{2}(1-|\alpha|),\frac{\pi}{2}(1-|\alpha|)\bigr]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider first the case when $\rho_1\ne\rho_2$ and $\kappa>0$.
From \eqref{Z21} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\arg\omega
&= \arg\biggl(\frac{\sin\bigl(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\bigl(1-i\frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa}\bigr)\bigr)}{\sin(\pi\alpha)}\biggr)
\\[1ex]
&= \arg\biggl(\frac{\sin\bigl(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\bigr)\cosh\bigl(\frac{\pi\alpha\kappa_3}{2\kappa}\bigr)
-i\cos\bigl(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\bigr)\sinh\bigl(\frac{\pi\alpha\kappa_3}{2\kappa}\bigr)}
2\sin\bigl(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\bigr)\cos\bigl(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\bigr)}\biggr)
\\[1ex]
&= \arg\biggl(\frac{\cosh\bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|\kappa_3}{2\kappa}\bigr)}{\cos\bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|}{2}\bigr)}
-i\frac{\sinh\bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|\kappa_3}{2\kappa}\bigr)}{\sin\bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|}{2}\bigr)}
\biggr)
\\[1ex]
&= -\arctan\biggl[\cot\Bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|}{2}\Bigr)
\tanh\Bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|\kappa_3}{2\kappa}\Bigr)\biggr]
\\[1ex]
&= -\arctan\biggl[\tan\Bigl(\frac{\pi}{2}\bigl(1-|\alpha|\bigr)\Bigr)
\tanh\Bigl(\frac{\pi|\alpha|\kappa_3}{2\kappa}\Bigr)\biggr].
\end{align*}
The other cases follow easily by taking limits.
The last statement of the lemma follows by inspecting the given explicit formulae.
\end{proof}
\noindent
To show the inverse part of \thref{Z132}, i.e., that the Weyl coefficient map is surjective, we use the following observation.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z87}
Let $\alpha\in(-1,1)$, $\kappa_1,\kappa_2>0$, $\sigma>0$
and $\hat\omega\in\bb C\setminus\{0\}$
such that $|\arg\hat\omega|\le\frac{\pi}{2}(1-|\alpha|)$. Set
\begin{equation}\label{Z37}
\begin{alignedat}{3}
\rho_1 &= \sigma, \quad & \rho_2 &= \frac{1+\alpha}{1-\alpha}\sigma
\qquad & &\text{if} \ \alpha \ge 0,
\\
\rho_1 &= \frac{1-\alpha}{1+\alpha}\sigma, \quad & \rho_2 &= \sigma
\qquad & &\text{if} \ \alpha < 0,
\end{alignedat}
\end{equation}
and $\rho_3=\frac12(\rho_1+\rho_2)$.
Then there exist $\gamma>0$ and $\kappa_3\in\bb R$ such that $\kappa_3^2\le\kappa_1\kappa_2$,
$\min\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}=\sigma$, and the Weyl coefficient of $H_{\uprho,\upkappa}$ with $\uprho=(\rho_1,\rho_2)$ and
$\upkappa=(\kappa_1,\kappa_2,\kappa_3)$ satisfies
\[
q_{H_{\uprho,\upkappa}}(z) = \frac{1}{\gamma}i\hat\omega\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha,
\qquad z\in\bb C^+.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to check that \eqref{Z102} and $\min\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}=\sigma$ hold.
By \thref{Z88} there exists a unique
$\kappa_3\in[-\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2},\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2}]$ such that
$\arg\omega=\arg\hat\omega$ where $\omega$ is from \eqref{Z134}.
Now the representation for $q_{H_{\uprho,\upkappa}}$ follows from \thref{Z132}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \thref{Z132}; inverse part]
This is now obtained easily by using rescalings.
Choose $\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\sigma=1$ and $\hat\omega=\omega$ in \thref{Z87},
which yields $\rho_1,\rho_2\ge1$, $\tilde\kappa_3\in[-1,1]$ and $\gamma>0$ such that
\[
q_{H_{\uprho,\tilde\upkappa}}(z) = \frac{1}{\gamma}i\omega\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha,
\qquad z\in\bb C^+,
\]
where $\tilde\upkappa=(1,1,\tilde\kappa_3)$.
We apply the transformation $\mc A_r^{b_1,b_2}$ from \thref{Z2} with $b_1=\gamma$
and $b_2=r=1$:
\[
\bigl(\mc A_1^{\gamma,1}H_{\uprho,\tilde\upkappa}\bigr)(t)
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\gamma^{\rho_1+1}t^{\rho_1-1} & \gamma^{\rho_3}\tilde\kappa_3t^{\rho_3-1}
\\[1ex]
\gamma^{\rho_3}\tilde\kappa_3t^{\rho_3-1} & \gamma^{\rho_2-1}t^{\rho_2-1}
\end{pmatrix}
,
\]
which is again a power Hamiltonian. The asserted form of the Weyl coefficient follows from \eqref{Z39}.
\end{proof}
\noindent
Also the kernel of the Weyl coefficient map on power Hamiltonians can be determined explicitly.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z106}
Let $\rho_1,\rho_2,\kappa_1,\kappa_2,\tilde\rho_1,\tilde\rho_2,\tilde\kappa_1,
\tilde\kappa_2>0$ and $\kappa_3,\tilde\kappa_3\in\bb R$ with $\kappa_3^2\le\kappa_1\kappa_2$
and $\tilde\kappa_3^2\le\tilde\kappa_1\tilde\kappa_2$
and set $\rho_3=\frac12(\rho_1+\rho_2)$ and $\tilde\rho_3=\frac12(\tilde\rho_1+\tilde\rho_2)$
and $\uprho=(\rho_1,\rho_2)$, $\upkappa=(\kappa_1,\kappa_2,\kappa_3)$,
$\tilde\uprho=(\tilde\rho_1,\tilde\rho_2)$
and $\tilde\upkappa=(\tilde\kappa_1,\tilde\kappa_2,\tilde\kappa_3)$.
Then $q_{H_{\uprho,\upkappa}}=q_{H_{\tilde\uprho,\tilde\upkappa}}$
if and only if there exist $\beta,c>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Z108}
\begin{alignedat}{2}
\tilde\rho_i &= \beta\rho_i, \qquad & & i=1,2,
\\
\tilde\kappa_i &= \beta c^{\rho_i}\kappa_i, \qquad & & i=1,2,3.
\end{alignedat}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $q_{H_{\uprho,\upkappa}}=q_{H_{\tilde\uprho,\tilde\upkappa}}$.
Then $H_{\uprho,\upkappa}$ and $H_{\tilde\uprho,\tilde\upkappa}$
are reparameterisations of each other.
Hence there exists a strictly increasing bijection $\varphi:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$
such that $\varphi$ and $\varphi^{-1}$ are locally absolutely continuous
and $\tildeM(t)=M(\varphi(t))$, $t\in[0,\infty)$; see \eqref{Z36}.
Explicitly, we have
\[
\frac{\tilde\kappa_j}{\tilde\rho_j}t^{\tilde\rho_j}
= \frac{\kappa_j}{\rho_j}\bigl(\varphi(t)\bigr)^{\rho_j},
\qquad j=1,2,3; \, t\in[0,\infty),
\]
and therefore
\[
\varphi(t) = \Bigl(\frac{\tilde\kappa_j\rho_j}{\kappa_j\tilde\rho_j}\Bigr)^{\frac{1}{\rho_j}}
t^{\frac{\tilde\rho_j}{\rho_j}}
\ED ct^\beta,
\qquad j=1,2,3; \, t\in[0,\infty),
\]
which implies \eqref{Z108}.
The converse is clear.
\end{proof}
\noindent
Note that one can choose a unique representative modulo the kernel of the Weyl coefficient map
e.g.\ by fixing $\rho_1=\kappa_1=1$, i.e.\ $h_1(t)=1$.
\section{Proof of the main theorem}
\label{Z63}
In this section we prove \thref{Z10}.
Throughout this section, fix a Hamiltonian $H$ such that neither $h_1$ nor $h_2$
vanishes on a neighbourhood of $0$.
Note that the implication ``\Enumref{3}$\Rightarrow$\Enumref{1}'' in \thref{Z10} is trivial.
We prove the implications \Enumref{1}$\Rightarrow$\Enumref{2}$\Rightarrow$\Enumref{3} first for
trace-normalised $H$ (including the explicit relations among the constants stated in \S1.1),
and then deduce the general case.
\subsection[{Proof of (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) in Theorem~\ref{Z10} ($\tr H=1$ a.e.)}]{Proof of (i)$\bm\Rightarrow$(ii) in Theorem~\ref{Z10} ($\bm{\tr H=1$} a.e.)}
Assume that we have a regularly varying function $\ms a$ and a non-zero constant $\omega$
such that
\[
q_H(ri)=i\omega\ms a(r)\cdot\big(1+R(r)\big),\ r>0,
\qquad\text{with} \ \lim_{r\to\infty}R(r)=0.
\]
By \cite[Theorem~1.3.3]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989}, we may assume w.l.o.g.\ that $\ms a$ is continuous.
Denote the index of $\ms a$ by $\alpha$. By the assumption that neither $h_1$ nor $h_2$
vanishes on any neighbourhood of $0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Z51}
\frac{\ms a(r)}{r} \to 0 \quad\text{and}\quad r\ms a(r) \to\infty,
\qquad r\to\infty;
\end{equation}
see \thref{Z90}. By \eqref{Z27} this implies that $\alpha\in[-1,1]$.
\begin{Steps}
\item \textit{We show convergence of rescalings of $H$ to a comparison Hamiltonian.}
\noindent
\thref{Z125} implies that $|\arg\omega|\le\frac\pi 2(1-|\alpha|)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Z115}
q_H(rz) = i\omega\Bigl(\frac zi\Bigr)^\alpha \ms a(r)\cdot\bigl(1+R(z,r)\bigr),
\qquad r>0,\, z\in\bb C^+
\end{equation}
holds where $\lim_{r\to\infty}R(z,r)=0$ locally uniformly for $z\in\bb C^+$.
An appropriate comparison Hamiltonian is obtained from \thref{Z87} and \thref{Z133}.
If $\alpha\in(-1,1)$, then there exist
\begin{Itemize}
\item
$\rho_1,\rho_2\geq 1$ with $\min\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}=1$
and $\alpha=\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{\rho_2+\rho_1}$
(namely, choose $\rho_1,\rho_2$ as in \eqref{Z37} with $\sigma=1$),
\item
$\kappa_3\in[-1,1]$ and $\gamma>0$,
\end{Itemize}
such that the Hamiltonian (with $\rho_3\DE\frac 12(\rho_1+\rho_2)$)
\[
\widetilde H(t)\DE
\begin{pmatrix}
t^{\rho_1-1} & \kappa_3t^{\rho_3-1}
\\[1ex]
\kappa_3t^{\rho_3-1} & t^{\rho_2-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\]
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{Z93}
i\omega\Bigl(\frac zi\Bigr)^\alpha = \gamma q_{\widetilde H}(z),
\quad z\in\bb C^+.
\end{equation}
If $\alpha=1$, we have $\gamma\DE\omega>0$, and \eqref{Z93} holds for the Hamiltonian
\[
\widetilde H(t)\DE
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathds{1}_{[0,1]}(t) & 0
\\[1ex]
0 & \mathds{1}_{(1,\infty)}(t)
\end{pmatrix}
.
\]
If $\alpha=-1$, we again have $\gamma\DE\omega>0$, and \eqref{Z93} holds for
\[
\widetilde H(t)\DE
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathds{1}_{(1,\infty)}(t) & 0
\\[1ex]
0 & \mathds{1}_{[0,1]}(t)
\end{pmatrix}
.
\]
Let $\ms b_1,\ms b_2\DF(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$ be any two functions
(a particular choice will be made later) such that
\begin{equation}\label{Z68}
\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)} = \gamma\ms a(r),
\qquad r>0.
\end{equation}
Then we obtain from \eqref{Z115}, \eqref{Z68} and \eqref{Z93} that
\[
q_H(rz)
= i\omega\Bigl(\frac zi\Bigr)^\alpha\cdot\frac 1\gamma\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}
\cdot\bigl(1+R(z,r)\bigr)
= \frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}q_{\tilde H}(z)\cdot\bigl(1+R(z,r)\bigr),
\]
and hence \thref{Z14} yields
\begin{equation}\label{Z24}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H = \widetilde H.
\end{equation}
Recall that, with the notation
\begin{equation}\label{Z75}
\mf t_r(x)\DE\int_0^x\tr(\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H)(s)\RD s,
\qquad
\tilde{\mf t}(x)\DE\int_0^x\tr\widetilde H(s)\RD s,
\end{equation}
the limit relation \eqref{Z24} means that
\begin{equation}\label{Z25}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\int_0^{\mf t_r^{-1}(T)}(\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H)(s)\RD s
= \int_0^{\tilde{\mf t}^{-1}(T)}\widetilde H(s)\RD s
\end{equation}
holds locally uniformly for $T\in[0,\infty)$; see \thref{Z74}\,(i).
\item \textit{We relate the functions $\mf t_r^{-1}$ and $\tilde{\mf t}^{-1}$.}
\noindent
Let us evaluate integrals over the entries of $\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H$.
For $x\ge0$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{Z70}
\begin{aligned}
& \binom 10^*\int_0^x (\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H)(s)\RD s\,\binom 10
= \int_0^x \ms b_1(r)^2 h_1\Bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}s\Bigr)\RD s
\\[1ex]
&= \ms b_1(r)^2 \int_0^{\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}x}
\frac{r}{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}h_1(t)\RD t
= r\frac{\ms b_1(r)}{\ms b_2(r)}m_1\Bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}x\Bigr),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and similarly,
\begin{align}
\binom 01^*\int_0^x (\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H)(s)\RD s\,\binom 01
&= r\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}m_2\Bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}x\Bigr),
\label{Z71}
\\[1ex]
\binom 10^*\int_0^x (\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H)(s)\RD s\,\binom 01
&= r m_3\Bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}x\Bigr).
\label{Z72}
\end{align}
Hence, with the notation
$\tildeM(x)=\smmatrix{\widetilde m_1(x)}{\widetilde m_3(x)}{\widetilde m_3(x)}{\widetilde m_2(x)}
=\int_0^x \widetilde H(t)\RD t$ the limit relation \eqref{Z25} can be written as
\begin{align}
r\frac{\ms b_1(r)}{\ms b_2(r)}m_1\Bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\cdot\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\Bigr)
&= \widetilde m_1\bigl(\tilde{\mf t}^{-1}(T)\bigr)+R_1(T,r),
\label{Z29}
\\[1ex]
r\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}m_2\Bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\cdot\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\Bigr)
&= \widetilde m_2\bigl(\tilde{\mf t}^{-1}(T)\bigr)+R_2(T,r),
\label{Z30}
\\[1ex]
rm_3\Bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\cdot\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\Bigr)
&= \widetilde m_3\bigl(\tilde{\mf t}^{-1}(T)\bigr)+R_3(T,r),
\label{Z95}
\end{align}
for $T\in[0,\infty)$, $r>0$, where
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}R_1(T,r) =\lim_{r\to\infty}R_2(T,r)=\lim_{r\to\infty}R_3(T,r) = 0
\]
locally uniformly for $T\in[0,\infty)$.
Since $\tr H=1$ a.e., we have $m_1(x)+m_2(x)=x$, $x\ge0$.
Dividing \eqref{Z29} by $\ms b_1(r)^2$ and \eqref{Z30} by $\ms b_2(r)^2$,
and taking the sum, we obtain
\begin{align}
\mf t_r^{-1}(T) &=
\frac{1}{\ms b_1(r)^2}\widetilde m_1\bigl(\tilde{\mf t}^{-1}(T)\bigr)
+\frac{1}{\ms b_2(r)^2}\widetilde m_2\bigl(\tilde{\mf t}^{-1}(T)\bigr)
\nonumber
\\[1ex]
&\quad +\Bigl(\frac 1{\ms b_1(r)^2}+\frac 1{\ms b_2(r)^2}\Bigr)
\biggl[\underbrace{\frac{\ms b_2(r)^2}{\ms b_1(r)^2+\ms b_2(r)^2}R_1(T,r)+
\frac{\ms b_1(r)^2}{\ms b_1(r)^2+\ms b_2(r)^2}R_2(T,r)}_{\ED\tilde R(T,r)}\biggr]
\label{Z26}
\end{align}
for all $T\in[0,\infty)$ and $r>0$. Clearly, $\lim_{r\to\infty}\tilde R(T,r)=0$
locally uniformly for $T\in[0,\infty)$.
\item \textit{We specify a choice of $\ms b_1$ and $\ms b_2$.}
\noindent
It turns out to be appropriate to let $\ms b_1$ and $\ms b_2$ balance the contributions
of upper and lower entries in the following way: set
\[
\ms b_2(r) \DE \sqrt{1+(\gamma\ms a(r))^2},
\qquad
\ms b_1(r) \DE \frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\gamma\ms a(r)}.
\]
A couple of properties of these functions are obvious:
\begin{Itemize}
\item \eqref{Z68} holds;
\item $\ms b_2\geq\max\{1,\gamma\ms a\}$ and $\ms b_1\geq\max\{1,(\gamma\ms a)^{-1}\}$;
\item $\frac 1{\ms b_1^2}+\frac 1{\ms b_2^2}=1$;
\item $\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)=[\gamma\ms a(r)]+[\gamma\ms a(r)]^{-1}$.
\end{Itemize}
For later reference, observe that $\ms b_1\ms b_2$ is continuous since $\ms a$ is, and that
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r=0
\]
by \eqref{Z51}.
From now on this choice of $\ms b_1$ and $\ms b_2$ is kept fixed.
\item \textit{We show that the limit $\delta$ in \eqref{Z56} involving the
off-diagonal entries exists.}
\noindent
Fix $x_1>1$ and set $T\DE\tilde{\mf t}(x_1)$. The function $r\mapsto\mf t_r^{-1}(T)$ is continuous by \thref{Z19}
and bounded by \eqref{Z26}. Moreover, $\widetilde m_1(x_1)\widetilde m_2(x_1)>0$ (if $\alpha\in\{-1,1\}$, because
$x_1>1$). Using \eqref{Z29}--\eqref{Z95} we conclude that
\begin{align*}
& \lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m_3(t)}{\sqrt{m_1(t)m_2(t)}\,}
= \lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{m_3\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)}
\sqrt{m_1\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)
m_2\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)}\,}
\\[1ex]
&= \lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{rm_3\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)}
\sqrt{r\frac{\ms b_1(r)}{\ms b_2(r)}m_1\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)\cdot
r\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}m_2\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)}\,}
\\[1ex]
&= \frac{\widetilde m_3(x_1)}{\sqrt{\widetilde m_1(x_1)\widetilde m_2(x_1)}\,}.
\end{align*}
\item \textit{We show that rescalings converge on fixed intervals.}
\noindent
First, we establish
\begin{equation}\label{Z69}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mf t_r^{-1}(T) = \tilde{\mf t}^{-1}(T),\qquad T\in[0,\tilde{\mf t}(1)],
\end{equation}
by distinguishing cases for $\alpha$.
If $\alpha>0$, then $\lim_{r\to\infty}\ms a(r)=\infty$ and $\widetilde m_1(x)=x$
for all $x\in[0,1]$.
Thus $\lim_{r\to\infty}\ms b_2(r)=\infty$, which implies that $\lim_{r\to\infty}\ms b_1(r)=1$.
Together with \eqref{Z26}, this shows that
\begin{equation}\label{Z55}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mf t_r^{-1}(T) = \widetilde m_1\bigl(\tilde{\mf t}^{-1}(T)\bigr),
\qquad T\in[0,\infty),
\end{equation}
which, in turn, establishes \eqref{Z69}.
If $\alpha<0$, then $\lim_{r\to\infty}\ms a(r)=0$ and $\widetilde m_2(x)=x$
for all $x\in[0,1]$.
Thus $\lim_{r\to\infty}\ms b_1(r)=\infty$ and $\lim_{r\to\infty}\ms b_2(r)=1$.
Also in this case \eqref{Z69} follows from \eqref{Z26}.
If $\alpha=0$, then $\widetilde m_1(x)=\widetilde m_2(x)=x$ for all $x\ge 0$,
and again \eqref{Z26} implies \eqref{Z69}.
Since $\tilde{\mf t}$ is an increasing bijection from $[0,1]$ onto $[0,\tilde{\mf t}(1)]$,
and all functions $\mf t_r$ are non-decreasing, the limit relation \eqref{Z69} implies that
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mf t_r(x)=\tilde{\mf t}(x), \qquad x\in(0,1).
\]
As \eqref{Z25} holds locally uniformly in $T$, we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{Z28}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\int_0^x(\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H)(s)\RD s
= \int_0^x\widetilde H(s)\RD s,
\qquad x\in(0,1).
\end{equation}
\item \textit{We prove regular variation of $m_1$ and $m_2$.}
\noindent
Assume first that $\alpha\in(-1,1]$. Then $\widetilde m_1(x)=\frac 1{\rho_1}x^{\rho_1}$
for all $x\in[0,1]$ (here $\rho_1\DE 1$ if $\alpha=1$).
We can use \eqref{Z70} to rewrite the left upper entry of the left-hand side of \eqref{Z28},
which then yields
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}r\frac{\ms b_1(r)}{\ms b_2(r)}m_1\Bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}rx\Bigr)
= \frac{x^{\rho_1}}{\rho_1},
\qquad x\in(0,1),
\]
and therefore
\[
\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m_1(xt)}{m_1(t)}
= \lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{r\frac{\ms b_1(r)}{\ms b_2(r)}\cdot m_1\bigl(x\cdot\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}rx\bigr)}
r\frac{\ms b_1(r)}{\ms b_2(r)}\cdot m_1\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}rx\bigr)}
= x^{\rho_1},
\qquad x\in(0,1).
\]
It follows from \cite[Theorem~1.4.1]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989} that $m_1$ is regularly varying at $0$ with index
$\rho_1$.
Assume now that $\alpha\in[-1,1)$. This case is completely dual. We have
$\widetilde m_2(x)=\frac 1{\rho_2}x^{\rho_2}$ for all $x\in[0,1]$
(where $\rho_2\DE 1$ if $\alpha=-1$).
Based on \eqref{Z71} we obtain
\[
\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m_2(xt)}{m_2(t)}
= \lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{r\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}\cdot m_2\bigl(x\cdot\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}rx\bigr)}
r\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}\cdot m_2\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}rx\bigr)}
= x^{\rho_2},
\qquad x\in(0,1).
\]
and conclude that $m_2$ is regularly varying at $0$ with index $\rho_2$.
\item \textit{The case of rapid variation of $m_1$ or $m_2$.}
\noindent
Assume that $\alpha=1$; then
\[
\widetilde m_1(t)
= \begin{cases}
t, & t\in[0,1],
\\[0.5ex]
1, & t\in(1,\infty),
\end{cases}
\qquad
\widetilde m_2(t)
= \begin{cases}
0, & t\in[0,1],
\\[0.5ex]
t-1, & t\in(1,\infty),
\end{cases}
\]
and $\tilde{\mf t}(t)=t$ for all $t\geq 0$. Fix $x_1>1$ and $x\in(0,1)$.
It follows from \eqref{Z55} that
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mf t_r^{-1}(x_1)=1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{\mf t_r^{-1}\bigl(\sqrt{x}\bigr)}{x}
= \frac{\sqrt{x}\,}{x} >1.
\]
Hence, for large enough $r$ we have $\mf t_r^{-1}(x_1)\le \frac{1}{x}\mf t_r^{-1}(\sqrt{x})$
and, by the monotonicity of $m_2$,
\[
m_2\Big(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\cdot\mf t_r^{-1}(x_1)\Big)
\le m_2\Big(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\cdot\frac{1}{x}\mf t_r^{-1}(\sqrt{x})\Big).
\]
We can use \eqref{Z30} to obtain
\begin{align*}
\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m_2(xt)}{m_2(t)}
&= \lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{m_2\bigl(x\cdot \frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\frac 1x\mf t_r^{-1}(\sqrt{x})\bigr)}
m_2\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\frac{1}{x}\mf t_r^{-1}(\sqrt{x})\bigr)}
\\[1ex]
&\le \lim_{r\to\infty}
\frac{r\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}\cdot m_2\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\mf t_r^{-1}(\sqrt{x})\bigr)}
r\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}\cdot m_2\bigl(\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}r\mf t_r^{-1}(x_1)\bigr)}
= \frac{\widetilde m_2(\sqrt{x})}{\widetilde m_2(x_1)}=0,
\end{align*}
which shows that $m_2$ is rapidly varying at $0$
because the case when $x\in(1,\infty)$ can be reduced to the case $x\in(0,1)$
by considering reciprocals.
The proof that $m_1$ is rapidly varying when $\alpha=-1$ is completely dual; we skip details.
\end{Steps}
\noindent
All properties stated in \thref{Z10}\,\Enumref{2} are established;
see Steps~\ding{175}, \ding{177}, \ding{178}.
\subsection[Proof of (ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii) in Theorem~\ref{Z10} ($\tr H=1$ a.e.)]{Proof of (ii)$\bm\Rightarrow$(iii) in Theorem~\ref{Z10} ($\bm{\tr H=1}$ a.e.)}
Assume that $m_1$ and $m_2$ are regularly or rapidly varying at $0$
with indices $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ respectively, and that
\[
\delta\DE\lim_{t\to0}\frac{m_3(t)}{\sqrt{m_1(t)m_2(t)}\,}
\]
exists if $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty$.
Further, set $\rho_3\DE\frac 12(\rho_1+\rho_2)$ if $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty$.
It follows from \eqref{Z18} that
\[
\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m_j(t)}{t}=
\begin{cases}
0, & \rho_j>1,
\\[0.5ex]
\infty, & \rho_j<1.
\end{cases}
\]
The fact that $\tr H=1$ a.e.\ implies that $m_1(t)+m_2(t)=t$, and thus
\begin{equation}\label{Z101}
\min\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}=1.
\end{equation}
We define a matrix-valued function $\widetilde H\DF(0,\infty)\to\bb R^{2\times 2}$
such that $\tilde H(t)$ equals
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho_1 t^{\rho_1-1} & \delta\rho_3 t^{\rho_3-1}
\\[1ex]
\delta\rho_3 t^{\rho_3-1} & \rho_2 t^{\rho_2-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\;\;\text{or}\;\;
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathds{1}_{[0,1]}(t) & 0
\\[1ex]
0 & \mathds{1}_{(1,\infty)}(t)
\end{pmatrix}
\;\;\text{or}\;\;
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathds{1}_{(1,\infty)}(t) & 0
\\[1ex]
0 & \mathds{1}_{[0,1]}(t)
\end{pmatrix}
\]
a.e.\ according to the cases ``$\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty$'' or ``$\rho_2=\infty$''
or ``$\rho_1=\infty$'', respectively. Further, we set
\[
\ms b_1(r) \DE r\sqrt{\mr t(r)m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)},
\qquad
\ms b_2(r)\DE r\sqrt{\mr t(r)m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}
.
\]
The essence of the proof is to show that corresponding rescalings of $H$ converge to $\widetilde H$. Recall that $\mr t(r)$ is
the unique number with $(m_1m_2)\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr) = \frac{1}{r^2}$; see \eqref{Z38}.
We start with the generic case when $m_1$ and $m_2$ are both regularly varying.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z96}
Assume that \textup{(ii)} holds with $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty$. Then $\widetilde H\in\Ham$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Z77}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H = \widetilde H
.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To start with, note that
\[
\frac{\ms b_1(r)\ms b_2(r)}{r}
= r\mr t(r)\sqrt{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}
= \mr t(r),
\qquad r>0.
\]
The relations \eqref{Z70}--\eqref{Z72} applied with the present functions
$\ms b_1,\ms b_2$ show that
\begin{align}
& \binom10^*\int_0^x \bigl(\mc A_r^{\ms b_1\ms b_2}H\bigr)(s)\RD s\,\binom10
= r\sqrt{\frac{m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}\,}
m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)
= \frac{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)}{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)},
\label{Z80}
\\[1ex]
& \binom01^*\int_0^x \bigl(\mc A_r^{\ms b_1\ms b_2}H\bigr)(s)\RD s\,\binom01
= r\sqrt{\frac{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}{m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}\,}
m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)
= \frac{m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)}{m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)},
\label{Z82}
\\[1ex]
& \binom10^*\int_0^x \bigl(\mc A_r^{\ms b_1\ms b_2}H\bigr)(s)\RD s\,\binom01
= r m_3\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)
= \frac{m_3\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)}{\sqrt{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}\,}
\nonumber
\\[1ex]
&\mkern105mu
= \frac{m_3\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)}{\sqrt{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)}\,}
\cdot\sqrt{\frac{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)}{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}\,}
\cdot\sqrt{\frac{m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)x\bigr)}{m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}\,}.
\label{Z84}
\end{align}
for all $x>0$.
Note that the non-negativity of $H$ implies that
\begin{equation}\label{Z103}
\begin{aligned}
|m_3(t)| &\le \int_0^t |h_3(s)|\RD s
\le \int_0^t \sqrt{h_1(s)h_2(s)}\,\RD s
\\[1ex]
&\le \biggl[\int_0^t h_1(s)\RD s\biggr]^{1/2}\biggl[\int_0^t h_2(s)\RD s\biggr]^{1/2}
= \sqrt{m_1(t)m_2(t)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{Z80}--\eqref{Z84}, \eqref{Z103}, the assumption in (ii),
and the Uniform Convergence Theorems \cite[Theorems~1.2.1 and 2.4.1]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989} that
\begin{equation}\label{Z73}
\lim_{r\to\infty} \int_0^x \bigl(\mc A_r^{\ms b_1\ms b_2}H\bigr)(s)\RD s
= \int_0^x \widetilde H(s)\RD s
\end{equation}
holds locally uniformly for $x\in(0,\infty)$. Now \thref{Z112} implies
that $\widetilde H\in\Ham$, and \thref{Z74}\,(ii) yields \eqref{Z77}.
\end{proof}
\noindent
The case when one of $m_1$ and $m_2$ is rapidly varying requires a slightly different argument.
We elaborate the case when $m_2$ is rapidly varying;
the case when $m_1$ is rapidly varying is completely analogous.
\begin{lemma}\thlab{Z129}
Let $H$ be a Hamiltonian defined on $(0,\infty)$ which does not start with an indivisible interval of type $0$ or
$\frac\pi 2$. Assume that $m_1$ is regularly varying at $0$ with index $\rho_1\in(0,\infty)$ and that $m_2$ is rapidly
varying at $0$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{Z130}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mc A_r^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathds{1}_{[0,1]} & 0
\\[1ex]
0 & \mathds{1}_{(1,\infty)}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Z141}
\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m_3(t)}{\sqrt{m_1(t)m_2(t)}\,}=0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start again with the formulae \eqref{Z80}, \eqref{Z82} and \eqref{Z84}
and abbreviate the left-hand sides by $m_{r,1}$, $m_{r,2}$ and $m_{r,3}$ respectively.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{Z138}
\lim_{r\to\infty}m_{r,1}(x) = x^{\rho_1}
\end{equation}
for $x\in(0,\infty)$ locally uniformly (by the Uniform Convergence Theorem), and
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}m_{r,2}(x)
=
\begin{cases}
0, & x\in(0,1),
\\[0.5ex]
\infty, & x\in(1,\infty).
\end{cases}
\]
Let $\mf t_r$ be again as in \eqref{Z75}. Then we see that
\[
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mf t_r(x)
=
\begin{cases}
x^{\rho_1}, & x\in(0,1),
\\[0.5ex]
\infty, & x\in(1,\infty),
\end{cases}
\]
and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{Z139}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\mf t_r^{-1}(T)
=
\begin{cases}
T^{\frac 1{\rho_1}}, & T\in(0,1),
\\[0.5ex]
1, & T\in(1,\infty).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Let $r_n\to\infty$, and assume that the limit
$\lim_{n\to\infty}\mc A_{r_n}^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H$ exists.
Denote the (unique) trace-normalised Hamiltonian of this limit by $\widehat H$
with entries $\hat h_i$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{Z140}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_0^{\mf t_{r_n}^{-1}(T)}
\bigl(\mc A_{r_n}^{\ms b_1,\ms b_2}H\bigr)(t)\RD t
= \int_0^T \widehat H(t)\RD t
\end{equation}
locally uniformly for $T\in[0,\infty)$.
Let $\hat m_i$ be the primitive of $\hat h_i$.
From \eqref{Z138}, \eqref{Z139} and \eqref{Z140} we obtain
\[
\hat m_1(T)
= m_{r_n,1}\bigl(\mr t_{r_n}^{-1}(T)\bigr)
=
\begin{cases}
T, & T\in(0,1),
\\[0.5ex]
1, & T\in(1,\infty).
\end{cases}
\]
Thus $\hat h_1(t)=1$ for $t\in(0,1)$ a.e., and $\hat h_1(t)=0$ for $t\in(1,\infty)$ a.e. Since $\tr\widehat H=1$, it
follows that $\hat h_2(t)=0$ for $t\in(0,1)$ and $\hat h_2(t)=1$ for $t\in(1,\infty)$ a.e. The limit relation
\eqref{Z130} follows since $\Ham$ is compact.
To prove \eqref{Z141}, fix $T>1$. It follows from \eqref{Z141} and \eqref{Z84} that
\begin{align*}
0 &= \hat m_3(T) = \lim_{r\to\infty}m_{r,3}\bigl(\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)
\\[1ex]
&= \lim_{r\to\infty}\Biggl[\frac{m_3\bigl(\mr t(r)\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)}{\sqrt{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)
m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)}\,}
\cdot\underbrace{\sqrt{\frac{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)}{m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}\,}}_{
\to\hat m_1(T)^{\frac 12}=1}
\cdot\underbrace{\sqrt{\frac{m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\mf t_r^{-1}(T)\bigr)}{m_2\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)}\,}}_{
\to\hat m_2(T)^{\frac 12}=\sqrt{T-1}}\,\Biggr].
\end{align*}
Since the second and third factors on the right-hand side tend to non-zero numbers,
the first factor must converge to $0$.
The function $r\mapsto\mr t(r)\mf t_r^{-1}(T)$ is continuous, positive, and
$\lim_{r\to\infty}\mr t(r)\mf t_r^{-1}(T)=0$.
Hence the required limit relation \eqref{Z141} follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \thref{Z10} ``\Enumref{2}$\bm\Rightarrow$\Enumref{3}''
and the formulae \eqref{Z86}--\eqref{Z6} in \S\ref{Z100}]
\hfill
\begin{Itemize}
\item
\thref{Z14} shows that
\[
q_H(rz) = \underbrace{\frac{\ms b_2(r)}{\ms b_1(r)}}_{=\ms a_H(r)}\cdot\,
q_{\widetilde H}(z)\cdot\bigl(1+R(z,r)\bigr),
\qquad r>0,\, z\in\bb C^+,
\]
with $\lim_{r\to\infty}R(z,r)=0$ locally uniformly for $z\in\bb C^+$.
\item
It follows from \thref{Z132} (when $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty$)
or \thref{Z133} (when $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}=\infty$) that
\[
q_{\widetilde H}(z) = i\omega\Bigl(\frac{z}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha,
\qquad z\in\bb C^+,
\]
where $\alpha$ is as in \eqref{Z78}, and $\omega$ is as in \thref{Z132}
if $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty$ and $\omega=1$ otherwise.
Note that, in particular, $\omega\ne0$.
\item
\thref{Z125} yields that $\ms a_H$ is regularly varying with index $\alpha$,
that $\alpha\in[-1,1]$ and that $|\arg\omega|\le\frac{\pi}{2}\bigl(1-|\alpha|\bigr)$.
\item
Relation \eqref{Z86} is just \eqref{Z101}.
Assume first that $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}<\infty$.
The relation $\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}=\frac{2\sqrt{\rho_1\rho_2}\,}{\rho_1+\rho_2}$
can be easily shown, from which we obtain (with the notation from \thref{Z132})
\[
\frac{\kappa}{\rho_3} = \frac{\sqrt{\rho_1\rho_2-(\delta\rho_3)^2}\,}{\rho_3}
= \sqrt{\frac{\rho_1\rho_2}{\rho_3^2}-\delta^2}
= \sqrt{1-\alpha^2-\delta^2}.
\]
This, together with \thref{Z132} and \thref{Z88}, implies \eqref{Z98} and \eqref{Z6}.
Since $\widetilde H\in\Ham$, we have $\rho_1\rho_2-(\delta\rho_3)^2\ge0$,
which shows the inequality in \eqref{Z97}.
In the case when $\max\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}=\infty$, relation \eqref{Z98}
has already been shown, \eqref{Z6} is clear, and \eqref{Z97} follows
from \thref{Z96,Z129}.
Finally, in both cases \eqref{Z98} and \eqref{Z38} imply \eqref{Z11} and \eqref{Z17},
respectively.
\end{Itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Deducing the non-trace-normalised case}
Assume that we are given a Hamiltonian $H$ as in \thref{Z10}.
We pass to the trace-normalised reparameterisation of $H$,
i.e.\ we consider the Hamiltonian $\widehat H$ defined by
\[
\widehat H(t) \DE H\bigl(\mf t^{-1}(t)\bigr)\cdot(\mf t^{-1})'(t),\qquad t\in(0,\infty),
\]
where $\mf t(x)=\int_0^x \tr H(s)\RD s$.
Let $\widehat m_j$ and similar notation have the corresponding meaning. Then
\[
q_{\widehat H} = q_H,\quad \hatM=M\circ\mf t^{-1},
\]
and, with $g(r)=\frac{1}{r^2}$,
\[
\widehat{\mr t} = (\widehat m_1\widehat m_2)^{-1}\circ g
= \bigl((m_1m_2)\circ\mf t^{-1}\bigr)^{-1}\circ g
= \mf t\circ\mr t.
\]
Since $\mf t$ is regularly varying with positive index, also $\mf t^{-1}$
is regularly varying by \cite[Theorems~1.5.12]{bingham.goldie.teugels:1989}.
Thus $\widehat m_j$ is regularly varying if and only if $m_j$ is.
From these facts it is clear that none of \Enumref{1}, \Enumref{2} and \Enumref{3}
in \thref{Z10} changes its truth value when passing from $H$ to $\widehat H$.
Further, $\hat\delta=\delta$ and
\[
\ms a_{\widehat H} = \sqrt{\frac{\widehat m_1}{\widehat m_2}}\circ\widehat{\mr t}
= \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_2}}\circ\mf t^{-1}\circ\mf t\circ\mr t
= \ms a_H,
\]
and hence $\widehat\omega=\omega$ for $\widehat\omega$ and $\omega$ as in \eqref{Z57}.
Denote the index of $\mf t$ by $\sigma$. Then $\widehat\rho_j=\frac{\rho_j}{\sigma}$
and hence $\widehat\alpha=\alpha$.
This shows that the formulae \eqref{Z86}--\eqref{Z11} hold true.
\subsection{The case of power asymptotics (Corollary~\ref{Z124})}
\label{Z92}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \thref{Z124}]
\rule{0ex}{1ex}
\begin{Steps}
\item
(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) and proof of \eqref{Z137} \\
Assume that (i) in the corollary is satisfied.
Then statement (ii) in \thref{Z10} is true with $\delta=\frac{c_3}{\sqrt{c_1c_2}\,}$,
and hence also (iii) is true. Let us determine $\ms a_H$.
By \eqref{Z38} we have $c_1c_2(\mr t(r))^{\rho_1+\rho_2}\sim\frac{1}{r^2}$
and hence
\[
\mr t(r) \sim \bigl(c_1c_2r^2\bigr)^{-\frac{1}{\rho_1+\rho_2}},
\qquad r\to\infty.
\]
This yields
\[
\ms a_H(r) \sim \sqrt{\frac{c_1}{c_2}\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)^{\rho_1-\rho_2}}
\sim \sqrt{\frac{c_1}{c_2}\,}
\bigl(c_1c_2r^2\bigr)^{\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{2(\rho_1+\rho_2)}}
= c_1^{\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}c_2^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}}r^\alpha
\]
where $\alpha=\frac{\rho_2-\rho_1}{\rho_2+\rho_1}$ as in the statement of the corollary.
Now, with $z$ ranging in the compact set $\{e^{i\phi}\DS \gamma\le\phi\le\pi-\gamma\}$,
we obtain from \eqref{Z57} that
\begin{align*}
q_H(re^{i\phi}) &= i\omega\Bigl(\frac{e^{i\phi}}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha\ms a_H(r)
\cdot\bigl(1+R(e^{i\phi},r)\bigr)
\\[1ex]
&= ic_1^{\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}c_2^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}}\omega
\Bigl(\frac{re^{i\phi}}{i}\Bigr)^\alpha\cdot\bigl(1+R_1(e^{i\phi},r)\bigr)
\end{align*}
where $\lim_{r\to\infty}R(e^{i\phi},r)=\lim_{r\to\infty}R_1(e^{i\phi},r)=0$ uniformly in $\phi\in[\gamma,\pi-\gamma]$.
This shows that (ii) and \eqref{Z137} in the corollary hold.
\item
Now assume that (ii) is satisfied.
Then (i) in \thref{Z10} and hence also (ii) and (iii) hold.
Since $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ are finite by \eqref{Z78} and the fact that $\alpha\in(-1,1)$,
the functions $m_1$ and $m_2$ are regularly varying with indices $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$
respectively.
By assumption, $\ms a_H(r)\sim dr^\alpha$ with some $d>0$.
We distinguish two cases.
\\[1ex]
Case~1: $\rho_1\ne\rho_2$. \\
We consider only the case when $\rho_1<\rho_2$; the case $\rho_1>\rho_2$ is
completely analogous. It follows from \eqref{Z18} that $\frac{m_2(t)}{m_1(t)}\to0$
as $t\to0$. Now the assumption that $m_1(t)+m_2(t)\sim ct^\sigma$ implies
that $m_1(t)\sim ct^\sigma$. This, together with \eqref{Z17}, shows that
\[
c\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)^\sigma \sim m_1\bigl(\mr t(r)\bigr)
= \frac{\ms a_H(r)}{r} \sim dr^{\alpha-1}
\]
and hence $\mr t(r)\sim c'r^{\frac{\alpha-1}{\sigma}}$ with some $c'>0$, which,
in turn, implies that $\mr t^{-1}(t)\sim c''t^{\frac{\sigma}{\alpha-1}}$
with $c''>0$. Hence
\[
m_2(t) = \frac{(m_1m_2)(t)}{m_1(t)} = \frac{1}{m_1(t)\bigl(\mr t^{-1}(t)\bigr)^2}
\sim c_2t^{\rho_2}
\]
with $c_2>0$.
\\[1ex]
Case 2: $\rho_1=\rho_2$. \\
In this case we have $\alpha=0$ and hence $\ms a_H(r)\to d$, which implies that
\[
\lim_{t\to0}\frac{m_1(t)}{m_2(t)}
= \lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{m_1(\mr t(r))}{m_2(\mr t(r))} = d^2.
\]
Now the relation $m_1(t)+m_2(t)\sim ct^\sigma$ yields
\[
m_1(t) \sim \frac{c}{d^2+1}t^\sigma, \qquad
m_2(t) \sim \frac{cd^2}{d^2+1}t^\sigma.
\]
Hence in both cases the limit relation in \eqref{Z135} holds for $i\in\{1,2\}$.
Now the existence of the limit in \eqref{Z56} implies that
\[
m_3(t) = \delta\sqrt{m_1(t)m_2(t)}\bigl(1+\Smallo(1)\bigr)
= \delta\sqrt{c_1c_2}\,t^{\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2}}\bigl(1+\Smallo(1)\bigr),
\]
which proves \eqref{Z135} also for $i=3$.
\end{Steps}
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this work, the quantum versions of Monte Carlo algorithms are applied to the problem of integrating elementary-particle cross sections.
In particle physics, integration methods and Monte Carlo programs play a very special role as they are the central link between theory and experiment.
On the one hand, they allow the encoding of theoretical predictions including higher-order or beyond-the-Standard-Model effects. On the other hand, by generating \emph{theoretical} events according to the underlying distribution, they allow a one-to-one correspondence with \emph{experimental} events.
Hence theoretical predictions can be directly compared to experimental measurements in order to get insight into elementary interactions.
For collider experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), Monte Carlo simulations are crucial as they simulate all the scattering processes generated in the experiment.
It means that considerable computing resources are needed and they are expected to increase further \cite{Buckley:2019wov,HSFPhysicsEventGeneratorWG:2020gxw}.
For some analysis, the limited Monte Carlo statistics is even becoming a significant source of uncertainty \cite{ATLAS:2019thr,CMS:2019qfk}.
This calls for a continuous improvement of the performance of such Monte Carlo generators.
It appears therefore particularly timely to apply quantum versions of Monte Carlo algorithms to this problem, given the promising advancements in the industry of quantum devices.
The core algorithm of interest for us is Quantum Amplitude Estimation (QAE) \cite{Brassard:2000,Grinko:2019,Suzuki:2019,Nakaji:2020}, that was proven to provide a speedup for the integration of probability distributions, by scaling as $\mathcal{O}\left(1/M\right)$, where $M$ is the number of (quantum) samples, as opposed to classical integrators scaling as $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{M})$ with $M$ (classical) samples.
In the context of high-energy physics, this would translate into a gain in simulation performance, similarly to what was already assessed in other application fields, and specifically in finance \cite{Rebentrost2018QuantumCF,Zoufal:2019,Stamatopoulos:2020xez,Stamatopoulos:2021eyd}.
To apply these techniques, classical data must be loaded into a quantum computer, which is a nontrivial task in terms of computational cost. More precisely, the quantum states that correspond to the data have to be prepared.
In order to encode the data, several algorithms and techniques are used in the literature \cite{grover2002creating,adedoyin2018quantum,woerner2019quantum,gacon2020quantum,holmes2020efficient,garcia2021quantum,Zoufal:2019}.
While the present work is the first application of QAE algorithms to integration, there have been numerous applications of quantum computing to other aspects of collider physics.
Such applications have been mainly experiment-oriented: pixel images \cite{Chang:2021ufg}, event topologies \cite{Kim:2021wrr}, event classification \cite{Bargassa:2021jmk}, Higgs analysis \cite{Belis:2021zqi}, background suppression \cite{Heredge:2021vww}, measurement unfolding \cite{Cormier:2019kcq} or jet clustering \cite{Wei:2019rqy}.
Applications to parton-distribution functions (PDF) have also been carried out by several groups \cite{Perez-Salinas:2020nem,Li:2021kcs} in a quantum context.
In addition, several investigations of quantum parton shower as well as matrix elements evaluation \cite{Bepari:2020xqi,Ramirez-Uribe:2021ubp} have been carried out \cite{Bauer:2019qxa,Bepari:2020xqi,Williams:2021lvr}.
Finally, in Ref.~\cite{Bravo-Prieto:2021ehz} quantum Generative Adversarial Networks (qGAN) \cite{Zoufal:2019} techniques have been used for the purpose of data augmentation.
Here, we focus on two representative cases ($\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q$ and $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q' \ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace$ processes) to illustrate the application of QAE.
A particularly important point is that the functions to be integrated are significantly more complicated to than usual Gaussian or log-normal distributions.
These are typically made of trigonometric functions, polynomials, and logarithms (at least for what concerns the lowest order in perturbative theory).
We therefore explore two methods to prepare the quantum states according to the underlying distribution, namely the qGAN \cite{Zoufal:2019} and an exact loading \cite{shende2006synthesis}, respectively.
Of particular interest for this application, is the ability to provide correct results when restricting the domain of integration.
Finally, we carry out one- and two-dimensional integration of cross sections.
For the latter case, we devise a method that is extendable to $n$ dimensions while still allowing the arbitrary reduction of the integration domain.
In general, the integrations are accurate at the per-cent level with up to six qubits.
The article is organised as follows:
in the first part, the method and tools used for this work are presented.
The second part deals with two methods to load the probability distributions.
The third one focuses on integrating such probability distributions with quantum amplitude estimate methods.
Finally, the last sections contains a brief summary as well as some concluding remarks.
\section{Method and tools}
In this section, we first recall some general considerations about Monte Carlo integration and explain how we translate it to our problem.
Second, we briefly describe the processes under investigation.
Finally, the tools used in the next Sections are presented as well as the numerical input of the cross sections.
\subsection*{General considerations}
To start, let us recall some basics of particle physics.
A Monte Carlo integration aims at estimating the cross section of scattering processes which can be written schematically as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:xsection}
\sigma = \frac{1}{F} \int \mathrm d \Phi \left|\mathcal{M}\right|^2 \Theta(\Phi-\Phi_c),
\end{align}
where $F$ is the flux factor, $\mathrm d \Phi$ the phase-space factor [possibly including parton-distribution function (PDF)],
and $\left|\mathcal{M}\right|^2$ the matrix element squared which encodes the quantum mechanical process.
In addition, the phase space (also called \emph{integration domain} below) can be restricted by the use of so called phase-space cuts which is represented in Eq.~\eqref{eq:xsection} by $\Theta(\Phi-\Phi_c)$ which we refer to as the \emph{domain function} in the following.
In particular, the integration is performed over variables that allow to describe the full phase space.
While these are not physically observable, they allow the full reconstruction of the event kinematic.
In the following, the results are only expressed in terms of these variables that serve as proxies for physical ones.
In particular, the domain restriction (or event selection) is only applied to the variables of integration.
To obtain a \emph{physical} restriction of the domain of integration, a simple mapping can be performed.
In more general terms, any integral $I$ can be cast into the following form
\begin{equation}
I = \int \mathrm d x f(x) g(x) .
\end{equation}
The function $f$ describes the probability distribution, while the function $g$ is the integrand function. In the QAE, $f$ is computed classically, while $g$ is represented by means of a quantum operator.
For example, in Ref.~\cite{Zoufal:2019}, the $g$ function is a linear function which represents the payoff.
In our case, referring to Eq.~\eqref{eq:xsection}, we take $f=\left|\mathcal{M}\right|^2$.
We then take $g=\Theta(\Phi-\Phi_c)$, so that $g$ is a generalised Heaviside function which only takes the value 1 or 0; such a function is sometimes called the \textit{indicator function} over the integration domain $D$, and denoted by $\chi_D$ or $\mathbf{1}_D$.\footnote{
In principle one may also take $f = 1$ and $g = \left|\mathcal{M}\right|^2 \Theta(\Phi-\Phi_c)$, thus eliminating a costly classical pre-computation. Nonetheless, the implementation complexity on the quantum side rises, and more importantly, the quantum circuit becomes deeper and wider, meaning that it could not run on currently available quantum hardware. Consequently we focused our proof of principle on a simplified scenario.
}
Implementing this procedure on a quantum computer involves in general two main steps:
the definition of the quantum states and the integration of the probability distribution.
The two approaches that we follow in this work are graphically represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:workflow}.
The first one is based on an exact loading while the second relies on the qGAN to prepare the quantum states.
The details of the implementations are explained in the relevant Sections below.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/block_diagram-crop}
\caption{Graphical representation of the two approaches followed in this work.
The upper one uses an exact loading method while the lower one is based on the qGAN.}
\label{fig:workflow}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Particle processes investigated}
In order to test our numerical approach with the quantum simulations, we have focused on two simple though non-trivial scattering processes $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q$ and $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q' \ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace$.
In particular, we have not considered hadronic processes as these would require the use of parton distribution functions.
The first process is $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q$.
%
In quantum electrodynamics (QED), this process is rather simple.
By parametrising the phase space with two angles, the cross section reads:
%
\begin{equation}
\sigma \sim \int^{1}_{-1} \int^{2\pi}_0 \mathrm d \cos \theta \mathrm d \phi \left( 1+\cos^2 \theta\right) .
\label{eq:Xsection22}
\end{equation}
%
This means that computing such a process (up to an overall normalisation factor) simply amounts to integrate the function $1+x^2$ on the integration domain $\left[-1; 1\right]$ while there is no dependence on $\phi$.
%
The second one is $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q' \ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace$.
%
In this case, we have considered the full electroweak Standard Model and not only QED.
Due to the three particles in the final state, this process has 5 variables of integration.
These can be chosen as two invariants and three angles and the cross section becomes \cite{byckling1973particle}
\begin{equation}
\sigma \sim \int^{s}_{M_\ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace^2} \int^{s_1^\textrm{Max}}_0 \int^{1}_{-1} \int^{2\pi}_0 \int^{2\pi}_0 \mathrm d \Phi_3 \left| \mathcal{M}_{\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q' \ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace}\right|^2 ,
\label{eq:Xsection23}
\end{equation}
with $s_1^\textrm{Max} = \left(s_2-M_\ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace\right)\left(s-s_2\right)/s_2$ and $\mathrm d \Phi_3 = \mathrm d s_2 \mathrm d s_1 \mathrm d \cos \theta_1 \mathrm d \phi_1 \mathrm d \phi_2$.
As in the previous case, one of the $\phi$ angle is a trivial integration.
The main characteristics of the process are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:processes}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\multirow{2}{*}{Process number} & \multirow{2}{*}{Description} & Integral & Number of \\
& & definition & integration variables \\
\midrule
Process 1 & $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q$ & Eq.~\eqref{eq:Xsection22} & $2$ \\
\midrule
Process 2 & $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q' \ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace$ & Eq.~\eqref{eq:Xsection23} & $5$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the elementary processes under investigation.}
\label{tab:processes}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Software}
To check our results, we resorted to an in-house Monte Carlo program, that was used for the computation of various high-energy physics processes before \cite{Gavin:2013kga,Gavin:2014yga,Cavasonza:2014xra,Cavasonza:2016qem}.
It is based on the MONACO integration routine which is a modified version of VEGAS \cite{Lepage:1977sw} which is part of the VBFNLO program \cite{Arnold:2008rz,Baglio:2011juf,Baglio:2014uba}.
For the matrix elements, we use either analytical expressions or the matrix-element generator {\sc Recola} \cite{Actis:2012qn,Actis:2016mpe}.
Instead, the results in this article are obtained from the open-source distribution {\sc Qiskit} \cite{Qiskit} which is written in Python. Starting from its libraries, we developed our code to load events, build probability distributions, and calculating integrals.
The specific functions used are described below in the relevant Sections.
With Qiskit, the IBM Quantum Services offer the possibility to run algorithms on simulated quantum computer as well as test some specific configurations on real quantum chips.
\subsection*{Input parameters}
In order to ease reproduction of our results, we provide below the numerical inputs of our simulations.
For the centre-of-mass energy, we have used $\sqrt{s}=500\ensuremath{\,\text{GeV}}\xspace$.
The electromagnetic coupling is defined with the help of the $G_\mu$ scheme \cite{Denner:2000bj} which leads to
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} G_\mu \ensuremath{M_\PW}\xspace^2 \left( 1 - \frac{\ensuremath{M_\PW}\xspace^2}{\ensuremath{M_\PZ}\xspace^2} \right) \qquad \text{with} \qquad {\ensuremath{G_\mu} = 1.16638\times 10^{-5}\ensuremath{\,\text{GeV}}\xspace^{-2}}.
\end{equation}
The masses and widths of the massive particles are chosen as
\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eqn:ParticleMassesAndWidths}
\ensuremath{M_\PZ^\text{OS}}\xspace &= 91.1876\ensuremath{\,\text{GeV}}\xspace, & \quad \quad \quad \ensuremath{\Gamma_\PZ^\text{OS}}\xspace &= 2.4952\ensuremath{\,\text{GeV}}\xspace, \nonumber \\
\ensuremath{M_\PW^\text{OS}}\xspace &= 80.379\ensuremath{\,\text{GeV}}\xspace, & \ensuremath{\Gamma_\PW^\text{OS}}\xspace &= 2.085\ensuremath{\,\text{GeV}}\xspace, \nonumber \\
\end{alignat}
All other fermions are considered massless.
The pole masses and widths of the heavy gauge bosons are determined from the measured on-shell (OS) values \cite{Bardin:1988xt} via
\begin{equation}
M_V = \frac{\MVOS}{\sqrt{1+(\GVOS/\MVOS)^2}}\,,\qquad
\Gamma_V = \frac{\GVOS}{\sqrt{1+(\GVOS/\MVOS)^2}}.
\end{equation}
\section{Definition of probability distributions}
A necessary step that enables the usage and exploitation of a quantum algorithm, is the encoding of data into quantum states, by means of a quantum circuit.
Today, it is not possible to rely on any quantum native techniques like QRAM \cite{qram}. Hence, to solve this potential bottleneck, several approaches were proposed in the literature that allow to encode classical data into quantum states \cite{schuld2021}.
This is particularly important as the approximation introduced in data loading could affect the quality of the integration.
This procedure corresponds to the first steps depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:workflow}.
To investigate it, we have classically generated samples (here $10,000$ events) to be loaded into the quantum state.
In particular, we have used two methods: qGAN \cite{Zoufal:2019} and an exact loading \cite{shende2006synthesis}, respectively.
Both approaches will be outlined and compared in the following.
In this Section, we focus on the simple case of $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q$ in QED which amounts to integrate $ \int^{+1}_{-1} \mathrm d x \left( 1+x^2\right)$, meaning that the distribution to be loaded is $1+x^2$.
We discuss first the qGAN method for our application.
A Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) \cite{goodfellow2014generative}, in its classical form, is characterised by the interplay of a generative network and a discriminative network to learn the probability distribution underlying the training data \cite{gui2021review}.
A qGAN has a similar structure, but the generator is a parametrised quantum circuit (PQC) instead of a classical neural network.
This way the generator is trained to load a quantum state, approximating the discretised version of the target distribution.
As a consequence, this algorithm belongs to the general class of quantum variational algorithms, namely hybrid algorithms that rely on a continuous interaction between a quantum computer and a classical computer.
An initial PQC is defined (called \textit{ansatz}) and then using a classical optimiser this circuit is trained iteratively.
The update of the parameters is driven by the evolution of the related loss function. There are no general prescriptions about the structure of the variational circuit, so that challenges remain, including the trainability, accuracy and efficiency of any variational quantum circuits.
For a general overview of variational algorithms, we refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{variatalgo2021}.
To apply such a method to the integration of the $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q$ cross section, we have loaded the normalised distribution $1+x^2$, which we define as $p(x) = (1+x^2)\frac38$ such that $\int^{+1}_{-1} {\rm d} x p(x) = 1$, using the implementation of the qGAN in Qiskit \cite{Zoufal:2019}.\footnote{See for example \url{https://Qiskit.org/documentation/tutorials/finance/10_qgan_option_pricing.html} for the original implementation of Ref.~\cite{Zoufal:2019}.}
The results obtained are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison} and Table~\ref{tab:comparisonqGAN} where several loaded distributions are compared against the true value of the distribution for two cases.
The first one is the default loading obtained from default qGAN parameters defined in Qiskit, while the second one is an optimised version of the neural network for this particular functional form obtained after several tests of different variational forms and optimiser parameters.
In both cases, five random seeds have been used to estimate the spread of the loading procedure.
From this example, it should be rather clear that an optimisation of the neural network in terms of architecture (rotation gates and entanglement gates) as well as parameters tuning is needed and that a default configuration cannot be used for arbitrary distributions.
Specifically, from our study, the best entanglement is the
\emph{circular} one and the best results are obtained with a learning rate of $5.10^{-4}$ and $1.10^{-3}$ for the generator and
discriminator, respectively.\footnote{The default values of the learning rate for the generator and
discriminator are $1.10^{-3}$ and $1.10^{-5}$, respectively.}
The improvement in the accuracy of the loading can be observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison} and Table~\ref{tab:comparisonqGAN}.
Other strategies for the entanglement layers (\emph{full}, \emph{linear}, or \emph{SCA}) give rather unstable results depending on the seeds used.
Increasing the number of repetitions does not appear to improve the loading accuracy.
In our example, the default qGAN can lead to loading errors up to $40\%$ with an average deviation above $10\%$ per bin.
In the case of an optimised neural network, the average accuracy of the loading per bin is significantly better and lies around $5\%$.
To measure the quality of the whole loaded distribution, one can revert to the root mean squared error defined as
\begin{align}
\sigma_x = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N} \sum^N_{i=1} (x_i - \mu_i)^2 } ,
\end{align}
where $i$ denotes the bins, $x_i$ the value of the distributions loaded, and $\mu_i$ the true value of the distribution.
Finally, the better behaviour of the tuned qGAN can be also observed in the relative entropy as a function of the time steps in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}.
The relative entropy $S$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
S = \sum_{x=0}^{N-1} P(x) \log \frac{P(x)}{Q(x)} ,
\end{equation}
where $P$ and $Q$ are the output distribution of the quantum generator and the discretised version of the target distribution, respectively.
The tuned network shows a much smoother converge than the default one.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,page=1]{plots/qGAN_1px2_qubits_3_Ep_1000_circular_rep_1_seed1234_default}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,page=1]{plots/qGAN_1px2_qubits_3_Ep_1000_circular_rep_1_seed1234_optimised}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,page=3]{plots/qGAN_1px2_qubits_3_Ep_1000_circular_rep_1_seed1234_default}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,page=3]{plots/qGAN_1px2_qubits_3_Ep_1000_circular_rep_1_seed1234_optimised}
\caption{Loading with qGAN of the normalised $1+x^2$ distribution with the default learning rate (left) and an optimised one (right).
In both cases, it is compared to the compared to the theoretical value (thick orange curve) and the entanglement is circular.}
\label{fig:comparison}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|c}
\multirow{2}{*}{qGAN loading} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Difference per bin [$\%$]} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\sigma_x$} \\
& Min. & Max. & Average \\
\midrule
Default 1 & $+3.46$ &$-25.1$ & $14.6$ & $0.0206$ \\
Default 2 & $+3.90$ &$+19.3$ & $12.0$ & $0.0152$ \\
Default 3 & $+2.36$ &$-21.1$ & $8.51$ & $0.0118$ \\
Default 4 & $+1.48$ &$-40.2$ & $13.7$ & $0.0230$ \\
Default 5 & $+0.224$ &$-31.7$ & $12.0$ & $0.0171$ \\
\midrule
Optimised 1 & $-0.351$ & $-10.0$ & $4.70$ & $7.13\times 10^{-3}$ \\
Optimised 2 & $-0.811$ & $-18.1$ & $7.69$ & $0.0121$ \\
Optimised 3 & $-0.052$ & $-10.1$ & $4.92$ & $7.83\times 10^{-3}$ \\
Optimised 4 & $+0.599$ & $-15.4$ & $5.16$ & $7.64\times 10^{-3}$ \\
Optimised 5 & $-0.995$ & $-12.4$ & $4.65$ & $7.00\times 10^{-3}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of qGAN loading of the normalised $1+x^2$ distribution for the default learning rates and an optimised one. The results are given for 5 different seeds.
The minimum, maximum, and average difference per bin with respect to the true value is provided (in per cent). The root mean squared error from the true value is also given.}
\label{tab:comparisonqGAN}
\end{table}
We now turn to the \emph{exact loading} which is represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:loading}.
Such a technique is an analytical way to initialise complex amplitude on qubit register.
Being an exact method, the accuracy of the loaded distribution is obviously better than with the qGAN.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{plots/initialize_3.pdf}
\caption{Direct loading of the the normalised $1+x^2$ distribution (blue histogram) compared to the theoretical value (orange curve).}
\label{fig:loading}
\end{figure}
This is shown quantitatively in Table~\ref{tab:comparisonLoading} where the differences per bin are shown for the best bin, the worst, and the average.
For the two qGAN cases above, the best seed has been selected.
From Table~\ref{tab:comparisonLoading}, it is rather clear that the exact loading is performing significantly better in this case.
In particular, it shows discrepancies from the truth by no more than $2\%$ and is on average around $1\%$.
This order of magnitude should be kept in mind as the best possible loading accuracy with a sample of $10,000$ events.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|c}
\multirow{2}{*}{Loading} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Difference per bin [$\%$]} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\sigma_x$} \\
& Min. & Max. & Average \\
\midrule
Direct & $+0.207$ & $-1.88$ & $1.35$ & $1.80\times 10^{-3}$ \\
qGAN default & $+2.36$ & $-21.1$ & $8.51$ & $0.0118$ \\
qGAN optimised & $-0.995$ & $-12.4$ & $4.65$ & $7.00\times 10^{-3}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of qGAN loading of the normalised $1+x^2$ distribution for the default learning rates and an optimised one as well as the direct loading.
The qGAN results are the ones of the best seed in table \ref{tab:comparisonqGAN}.
The minimum, maximum, and average difference per bin with respect to the true value is provided (in per cent). The root mean squared error from the true value is also given.}
\label{tab:comparisonLoading}
\end{table}
If instead, one loads the exact distribution which is known analytically (as opposed to a sample generated according to it), there is simply no deviation from the true distribution.
This aspect is particularly important as in principle, a closed form of the distribution is not necessarily available.
It also means that the quality of the exact loading is directly dependent on the statistics of the sample given as input.
In order to represent the target distributions with $N$ bins, one needs to encode a statevector of size $N$, and this translates into a number of qubits $n$ such that $N=2^n$. In other words, the data resolution is a direct consequence of the number of qubits used.
Obviously, the computational complexity is related to such $n$, as well.
As far as the qGAN approach is concerned, and discarding the training process that will be discussed in the next paragraph, the pure loading phase requires $\mathcal{O}(poly(kn))$ gates, where $k$ is the number of layers, which is intrisic in the definition of the ansatz. Assuming that $k$ can be kept under control, qGANs become an efficient data loading technique, and preserve the speedup of the Quantum Amplitude Estimation algorithm for integration \cite{Zoufal:2019}.
Conversely, for the \emph{exact loading} algorithm, the number of 2-qubit gates scales as $\mathcal{O}(2^n)$ \cite{shende2006synthesis}.
In the argument above, the training cost of a qGAN is neglected. This is motivated by the fact that the same distribution is typically used for multiple simulations, and in this case the training process is performed once, so that the training time can be seen as a constant. Nonetheless, it is worth saying that the scaling of the training cost when the distribution size grows, is an open question, whose complexity lies in the unpredictable number of epochs needed to achieve training convergence, in the desired level of approximation, and in the different behavior of various optimisers. The interaction of such hyperparameters on small-scale problems is discussed in Ref.~\cite{agliardi2022optimal}.
Given the limited amount of qubits in our study, we could not appreciate the benefits of qGANs in terms of scaling, while on the contrary we had to face the learning, possibly the tuning of the network, and the verification of the result.
Moreover, the current absence of analytical estimates for approximations induced by qGANs, limits their applicability for computing arbitrary processes in a quantum Monte Carlo program, especially when probability distributions are known from first principle or vast amounts of classical data representing them are available.
\section{Integration of probability distributions}
In this section, we exclusively discuss the integration of probability distributions.
While we could also use the qGAN loading, we use exclusively the exact loading method in this Section in order to isolate the integration step from the loading one.
In particular, we look at the integration of one- and two-dimensional distributions.
This procedure corresponds to the core of the work flow depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:workflow}.
Once the target distribution has been loaded into a quantum channel, the integration is performed through QAE.
Assuming efficient data loading, the algorithm achieves a quadratic improvement, compared with classical Monte Carlo simulation. QAE is a very interesting and studied quantum algorithm due to its potential application in different fields such as quantum chemistry, machine learning, finance and high energy physics.
QAE is a fundamental routine in quantum computing which generalises the idea behind the Grover's search algorithm,
and gives rise to a family of quantum algorithms. The basic idea is that given an operator $\mathcal{A}$ that acts as \\
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}|0\rangle = \sqrt{1 - a}|\Psi_0\rangle + \sqrt{a}|\Psi_1\rangle
\end{equation}
where $a \in [0,1]$ and $| \Psi_0\rangle$ and $| ex\Psi_1\rangle$ are two normalised states.
Quantum Amplitude Estimation (QAE) is the task of finding an estimate for the amplitude $a$ of the state $|\Psi_1\rangle$:
\begin{equation*}
a = |\langle\Psi_1 | \Psi_1\rangle|^2.
\end{equation*}
This can be achieved by the definition of a Grover's like operator of the form \cite{Brassard:2000}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:qoperator}
\mathcal{Q} = \mathcal{A}\mathcal{S}_0\mathcal{A}^\dagger\mathcal{S}_{\Psi_1} ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{S}_0$ and $\mathcal{S}_{\Psi_1}$ are reflections about the $|0\rangle$ and $|\Psi_1\rangle$ states, respectively, and phase estimation.
This formulation represents the canonical version of QAE which is a combination of Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE) and Grover’s Algorithm \cite{nielsen_chuang_2010}.
On one hand, QPE is theoretically able to achieve exponential speedup, like in the famous Shor's Algorithm for factoring \cite{shor1999polynomial},
on the other hand its practical implementation in terms of qubits and circuit depth represents an interesting challenge in current technological scenario.
Removing the dependence on QPE for a QAE-like routine in a simplified version such that it uses only Grover iterations has been largely studied in the literature.
Indeed, there exist different implementations, with respect to the original QAE implementation by Brassard et al. \cite{Brassard:2000},
such as the Iterative Amplitude Estimation (IAE) version which does not rely on Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE) as defined in Eq.\eqref{eq:qoperator}.
This is the adopted version for this work which can achieve a provable quadratic speedup over classical Monte Carlo simulation, with a desired asymptotic
behaviour in its iterative queries to the quantum computer, reducing the required number of qubits and gates \cite{Grinko:2019}.
Additional implementations are the Maximum Likelihood Amplitude Estimation \cite{Suzuki:2019,Nakaji:2020} which limit resorting to expensive
controlled operations.
\subsection*{One-dimensional distribution}
As mentioned in the previous section, the direct loading adds no approximation to the probabilities given as input. If such probabilities are obtained through sampling, though, they are in turn approximated.
This means eventually that the result of the integration will strongly depend on the quality of the input.
To illustrate this, we have use the QAE with samples of different sizes: 1000 events (low statistics), 100,000 events (high statistics), 1M events (very high statistics).
In particular, we have made used of the Qiskit functions {\sc LinearAmplitudeFunction} \cite{woerner2019quantum,gacon2020quantum}, {\sc EstimationProblem}, and {\sc IterativeAmplitudeEstimation}.
The latter implement and improved version of the original QAE method \cite{Grinko:2019}.
The results for the different samples and the loading of the exact distribution are compared to the analytical result in Tables~\ref{tab:integrationSym} and \ref{tab:integrationAsym}.
In these Tables and the following ones, $\delta [\%] = \frac{\sigma-\sigma_{\rm truth}}{\sigma_{\rm truth}}$ in per cent, where $\sigma_{\rm truth}$ denotes the true analytical integration.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\multirow{2}{*}{Domain} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{low stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{high stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{very high stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{exact} \\
& $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ \\
\midrule
$[-0.75; 0.75]$ & $0.664$ & $0.592$ & $0.664$ & $0.622$ & $0.668$ & $0.0280$ & $0.668$ & $-2.01\times 10^{-3}$ \\
$[-0.5; 0.5]$ & $0.403$ & $0.794$ & $0.402$ & $1.16$ & $0.406$ & $0.122$ & $0.406$ & $-6.01\times 10^{-3}$ \\
$[-0.25; 0.25]$ & $0.196$ & $-2.42$ & $0.189$ & $1.01$ & $0.192$ & $-0.166$ & $0.191$ & $-0.0175$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Symmetric integration of the normalised $1+x^2$ probability distribution based on samples with different statistics (low, high, and very high) or the exact probability distribution.
The results are compared to the analytical result in per cent. The results are obtained for three qubits.
The low, high, and very high statistics refer to $10,000$, $100,000$, and $1$ million events, respectively.}
\label{tab:integrationSym}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\multirow{2}{*}{Domain} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{low stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{high stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{very high stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{exact} \\
& $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ \\
\midrule
$[-0.75; 0]$ & $0.345$ & $-3.31$ & $0.332$ & $0.706$ & $0.334$ & $0.0331$ & $0.334$ & $-8.31\times 10^{-3}$ \\
$[-0.5; 0]$ & $0.215$ & $-5.86$ & $0.201$ & $1.15$ & $0.203$ & $0.0986$ & $0.203$ & $-0.0161$ \\
$[-0.25; 0]$ & $0.112$ & $-17.1$ & $0.0939$ & $1.87$ & $0.0960$ & $-0.284$ & $0.0957$ & $-0.0389$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Asymmetric integration of the normalised $1+x^2$ probability distribution based on samples with different statistics (low, high, and very high) or the exact probability distribution.
The results are compared to the analytical result in per cent. The results are obtained for three qubits.
The low, high, and very high statistics refer to $10,000$, $100,000$, and $1$ million events, respectively.}
\label{tab:integrationAsym}
\end{table}
It is particularly visible that the quality of the integration is dependent on the statistics used.
For 1 million events, the result of the integration is accurate at around the per-mille level.
The loading of the exact distribution, on the other hand, is systematically below half a per mille accuracy.
In addition, it is worth emphasising that the relevant statistics for the integration precision is not the one of the full sample but of the sample in the integrated region.
This is particularly clear in Tables~\ref{tab:integrationSym} and \ref{tab:integrationAsym} where the smaller integration domain have a lower accuracy.
This holds true also for the the loading of the exact distribution.
It is worth noticing that the relative differences with respect to the true values in Tables~\ref{tab:integrationSym} and \ref{tab:integrationAsym} do not necessarily display a scaling behaviour according to the statistics.
This is due to the fact that the samples are subject to statistical fluctuation and their central value (as opposed to the error) follow a scaling behaviour only on average and not for every single point.
These numbers are particularly useful as they provide an estimate of the error which originates from not knowing the original distribution analytically (as in the 2D case below). In the present case, this error is about few per cent.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\multirow{3}{*}{Qubits number} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$[-0.7; 0.7]$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$[-0.625; 0.625]$} \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{high stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{exact} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{high stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{exact} \\
& $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ \\
\midrule
$3$ & $0.402$ & $-34.3$ & $0.406$ & $-33.5$ & $0.402$ & $-24.2$ & $0.406$ & $-23.3$ \\
$4$ & $0.525$ & $-14.1$ & $0.530$ & $-13.2$ & $0.525$ & $-0.933$ & $0.530$ & $3.67\times 10^{-3}$ \\
$5$ & $0.592$ & $-3.05$ & $0.597$ & $-2.27$ & $0.525$ & $-0.933$ & $0.530$ & $3.67\times 10^{-3}$ \\
$6$ & $0.592$ & $-3.05$ & $0.597$ & $-2.27$ & $0.525$ & $-0.933$ & $0.530$ & $3.67\times 10^{-3}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Symmetric integration of the normalised $1+x^2$ probability distribution based on a 1 million-events samples as well as the exact probability distribution.
The results are compared to the analytical result in per cent as a function of the number of qubits.
The high statistics refer to $100,000$ events.}
\label{tab:integrationSymQ}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\multirow{3}{*}{Qubits number} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$[-0.7; 0.6]$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$[-0.625; 0.375]$} \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{high stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{exact} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{high stat.} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{exact} \\
& $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ \\
\midrule
$3$ & $0.402$ & $-28.0$ & $0.406$ & $-27.1$ & $0.296$ & $-28.1$ & $0.299$ & $-27.5$ \\
$4$ & $0.463$ & $-17.0$ & $0.468$ & $-16.0$ & $0.408$ & $-1.07$ & $0.412$ & $5.96
\times 10^{-3}$ \\
$5$ & $0.527$ & $-5.46$ & $0.532$ & $-4.62$ & $0.408$ & $-1.07$ & $0.412$ & $5.96
\times 10^{-3}$ \\
$6$ & $0.542$ & $-2.76$ & $0.547$ & $-1.81$ & $0.408$ & $-1.07$ & $0.412$ & $5.96
\times 10^{-3}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Asymmetric integration of the normalised $1+x^2$ probability distribution based on a 1 million-events samples as well as the exact probability distribution.
The results are compared to the analytical result in per cent as a function of the number of qubits.
The high statistics refer to $100,000$ events.}
\label{tab:integrationAsymQ}
\end{table}
While in Tables~\ref{tab:integrationSym} and \ref{tab:integrationAsym}, the limits of integration corresponds to the eight bins ($n=3$ qubits give $2^n$ bins) on the domain $\left[-1; 1\right]$, in Tables~\ref{tab:integrationSymQ} and \ref{tab:integrationAsymQ} the same exercise is performed with this time integration domains that do not fit the binning of the piecewise definition of the function.
In the present case, only the results of the integration of the high-statistics sample as well as the exact result are provided as a function of the number of qubits.
In general, one observes that the results are significantly worse than in the previous case.
This is simply due to the ill-defined value of the distribution between two bins.
By increasing the number of qubits, one observes an improvement of the results until the bin edges correspond to the integration boundaries.
Once the bin edges fit the integration boundaries, increasing the number of qubits does not lead to any improvement as the distribution is already best defined within the integration boundaries.
This implies that when taking the limit of large numbers of qubits, these artifacts disappear.
\subsection*{Two-dimensional distribution}
We now turn to the integration of a two-dimensional function for the case of $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q' \ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace$.
As it can be seen from Eq.~\eqref{eq:Xsection23}, the 3-particles phase space requires the integration over 5 variables.
To simplify the problem while keeping it non-trivial, we integrate over the two invariants $s_1$ and $s_2$.
To that end, we take a slice in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Xsection23} by setting $\cos \theta_1=0$, $\phi_1 = \pi/2$, and $\phi_2 = \pi/2$.
The cross section then becomes
\begin{equation}
\sigma \sim \int^{s}_{M_\ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace^2} \int^{s_1^\textrm{Max}}_0 \mathrm d \tilde\Phi_3 \left| \mathcal{M'}\right|^2,
\label{eq:2D}
\end{equation}
%
with $\mathrm d \tilde\Phi_3 = \mathrm d s_2 \mathrm d s_1$ and $\mathcal{M'} = \mathcal{M}_{\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q' \ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace}\left(\cos \theta_1=0, \; \phi_1=\pi/2, \; \phi_2=\pi/2 \right)$.
The integration of the cross section therefore amounts to integrate over the variables $s_2$ and $s_1$.
The integrand is graphically represented on the left-hand side of Fig.~\ref{fig:Snake} as a function of $x=s_2$ and $y=s_1$.
Again, we would like to stress that, as in the one-dimensional case, the type of functions to be integrated are rather different and more complicated than those that have been tested so far such as Gaussian or log-normal distributions.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.52\linewidth]{plots/2D_data}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figures/Snake}
\caption{Two-dimensional numerical representation of the integrand in Eq.~\eqref{eq:2D} with $x=s_2$ and $y=s_1$ (left).
Graphical representation of the mapping of the two-dimensional function to a one dimensional function (right). The blue shaded area represents a restriction of the domain of integration.}
\label{fig:Snake}
\end{figure}
To encode the multidimensional distribution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:2D} on qubits register, we revert to the same method as in the one-dimensional case by defining it piecewise.
To that end, we introduce a mapping from the two dimensional function to one-dimensional.
The way the mapping is performed is represented in the right-hand side of Fig.~\ref{fig:Snake}.
We opt for this solution instead of simply scanning from left to right and top to bottom, in order to ensure that any physically motivated integration domain restrictions can be mapped to the one-dimensional function in a continuous way, hence minimising the error due to interpolations that are not evident nor considered in previous one-dimensional case.
We note that this method is fully general and can be extended to $n$-dimensional integral.
It has also the advantage to be fully flexible and allow for the arbitrary phase-space cut in the integrand.
For example in Fig.~\ref{fig:Snake}, the blue shaded area represents the restriction of the integration domain.
In this case, assuming that the first bin of the 1D function [$\tilde f \mapsto \tilde f(X)$] is in the top left corner and that it is mapped to $\mathcal{S}_X =\left[0; 16 \right]$, break points will be introduced at $X=6$, $X=10$, $X=14$, and $X=15$.
For the present experiment, we have produced $100,000$ events according to the two-dimensional distribution over the full integration domain.
We reduced the latter by setting the maximum value of $s_2$ to $20,000$ in order to avoid populating bins with very few events.
This leads to a total of $97,581$ events.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|cc|cc}
Qubits & \multirow{2}{*}{Grid dim.\ } & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\mathcal{S}_1$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\mathcal{S}_2$} \\
number & & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ & $\sigma$ & $\delta [\%]$ \\
\midrule
$4$ & $4\times4$ & $0.55$ & $0$ & $0.70$ & $-4.1$ \\
$5$ & $5\times5$ & $0.52$ & $-4.92$ & $0.53$ & $-26.6$ \\
$6$ & $6\times6$ & $0.47$ & $-14.1$ & $0.79$ & $9$ \\
$6$ & $7\times7$ & $0.62$ & $-14.4$ & $0.70$ & $-3.0$ \\
$6$ & $8\times8$ & $0.55$ & $0$ & $0.78$ & $7.6$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Two-dimensional integration with two different integration domains:
one which matches bin edges ($\mathcal{S}_1$) and the other does not ($\mathcal{S}_2$).
The numerical integrations are compared to the value obtained from the classical sample for different grid dimensions corresponding to different number of qubits.
.}
\label{tab:2Dintegration}
\end{table}
The results of our experiments are given in Table~\ref{tab:2Dintegration}.
In this case, we consider two cases of integrand reduction or cuts:
$\mathcal{S}_1$ which implement the cut $\left[62,500; 187,500 \right] \times \left[5,000; 10,000 \right]$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ which corresponds to $\left[80,000; 150,000 \right] \times \left[5,000; 10,000 \right]$.
The main difference between these two sub-domains is that the boundaries of $\mathcal{S}_1$ fits the edges of the bins of a $4\times4$ grid while the ones of $\mathcal{S}_2$ do not for the first variable.
This explains why in Table~\ref{tab:2Dintegration} for the $4\times4$ grid,
the result of the integration is perfectly reproducing the truth ($\sigma = 0.545833717629457$) which is here the classical sample.
While in the one-dimensional case, each increase in the number of qubits translates into the halving of the bins, it is not the case here.
Indeed, going from 4 qubits to 5, only allows to extend the grid from $4\times4$ to $5\times5$.
It explains why for $\mathcal{S}_1$, while increasing the grid and making the binning finner, the accuracy of the integration does not improve.
It only becomes perfect again when the binning is again perfectly fitting the boundaries of the integration domain.
This is further exemplified with the case of $\mathcal{S}_2$ where the improvement is not uniform when increasing the grid dimension.
For this case, the true value of the cross section is $\sigma = 0.7244852993923$.
This is due, on the one hand, to the fact that the edges of the second dimension are only matched for the cases of the $4\times4$ and $8\times8$ grids.
On the other hand, as seen in the one dimensional case, when the domain of integration does not match the piecewise definition of the function, the result of the integration is uncontrolled.
In the present case, the interpolation is such that doubling the number of bins in each dimension does not necessarily increase the precision of the integration (grid $4\times4$ vs.\ grid $8\times8$).
This implies that only a large number of qubits (implying finer bins) can allow a reliable estimate of the integral.
In particular, for the present application which the computation of cross sections in collider experiments, the usual standard for Monte Carlo error is to reach a per mille accuracy.
With current technology, this goal could be challenging.
Nonetheless, we believe that with the advent of machines with $1000$ qubits or more\footnote{See for example, IBM recent \emph{Roadmap to Scaling Quantum Technology} announcing aiming at 1000-plus qubits by 2023.}, this is perfectly conceivable. Not only a greater number of qubits is needed but also a greater quantum volume \cite{moll2018quantum} that could allow to run QAE on a quantum computer, where further improvements are required, \emph{e.g.}, longer coherence times and higher gate fidelity.
We note in passing that with our method,
we could in principle also sample events according to the underlying distribution as done in Ref.~\cite{Bravo-Prieto:2021ehz}.
We defer the study of this aspect to future work.
In particular, while the integration of probability distributions with QAE methods has shown to provide a quantum advantage, it is not clear yet if such an advantage can also be observed for the sampling of events.
\section{Conclusion and outlook}
This work constitutes the first application of Quantum Amplitude Estimate (QAE) algorithm to high-energy physics.
To test its feasibility we have checked two non-trivial elementary processes, namely $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q$ and $\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^+\ensuremath{\text{e}}\xspace^- \to q \bar q' \ensuremath{\text{W}}\xspace$.
Complex function appearing in elementary scattering processes can successfully be loaded onto qubits consistently with the results of Ref.~\cite{Bravo-Prieto:2021ehz}.
To load the functions we have used two methods, namely:
the quantum Generative Adversarial Networks (qGAN) \cite{Zoufal:2019} and an exact loading \cite{shende2006synthesis}.
For our purposes, we have found that the latter one is more appropriate due to its versatility and reliability for what concerns application with a small number of qubits.
In particular, it does not require any training nor tuning which makes it very easy to use.
In addition, we have successfully used the QAE algorithm for the integration of the two elementary processes in one and two dimensions, respectively.
In particular, we have tested the reliability of the integration when restricting its domain of integration, which would correspond to imposing physical event selection in an experiment.
To integrate multi-dimensional functions, we have devised a general method which can be extended to $n$ dimensions.
Following this purely numerical strategy requires large number of qubits in order to be accurate.
For our application, we have found that QAE provides per-cent accurate results for one- and two-dimensional integration with up to six qubits.
The results support the framework where future physical devices will make quantum computing a viable solution for integrating elementary processes in high-energy physics. An increase in the number of available qubits is critical for the practical application to our domain of study. It should be noted here, though, that other issues emerge in the current era of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Computers \cite{preskill_quantum_2018}. Indeed, additional challenges originate from the imperfection of present hardware construction, from the limited topological connectivity of qubits, and from the inability to put in place full error correction protocols that would require additional qubits and resources. Practical usage of the algorithms shall therefore be validated and perfected also through the execution on real quantum devices.
This work opens new perspectives for the computation of particle processes with quantum Monte Carlo integration techniques.
Following the same method, more complicated processes (with higher multiplicities and hadronic processes) can be investigated.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The Authors are grateful to Julien Gacon, Ivano Tavernelli, Sofia Vallecorsa, and Christa Zoufal for useful discussions.
We acknowledge use of the IBM Quantum platform for this work.
This project is supported by CERN Quantum Technology Initiative.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of IBM company or the IBM Quantum team.
GA is grateful to IBM for supporting his Executive PhD.
GA and EP are thankful for the access to the IBM Quantum Researchers Program.
MP acknowledges support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the Research Training Group RTG2044.
\bibliographystyle{utphys.bst}
|
\section{Introduction}
The nature of low energy excitations in glasses have attracted a
lot of attention in the last years. Though glasses behave as solids,
disorder induces low energy excitations -both of linear and
non-linear- of of very different nature from the one of the ordered
solids. Remarkably, low energy excitations of glasses display a high
degree of universality. In addition to usual phonons, in a varity of
model glassy system one finds the presence of ungapped low
energy, quasi-localized excitiations with density of states (DOS)
behaving quartically at low frequences
$\rho_{QLS}(\omega)\sim A_4\omega^4$
\cite{lerner2016statistics,mizuno2017continuum,lerner2017effect,shimada2018anomalous,kapteijns2018universal,angelani2018probing,wang2019low, Wang2019sound, richard2020universality,bonfanti2020universal,ji2019,ji2020thermal,ji2021geometry}.
The $\omega^4$ behavior seems to be very
general, independent of the system, preparation protocol and even of
the space dimension. The coefficient $A_4$ on the other hand depends
on the system and the preparation protocol. It appears that deeper
states in the landscape, corresponding to better optimized glasses,
have less and less the low energy excitations, reflecting in smaller and smaller values of $A_4$, and
correspondingly, the excitations are more and more
localized \cite{ji2020thermal,ji2021geometry}.
This spectrum of localized modes was first rationalized
through phenomenological
theories \cite{gurevich2003anharmonicity,gurarie2003bosonic}, while new predictions have recently enriched the
picture \cite{bouchbinder2021low, rainone2021mean, folena2021marginal,ji2019,ji2020thermal,ji2021geometry, Arceri2020UnificationAtJamming}.
In addition to typical ungapped minima,
found by usual minimization protocols,
it has been noticed in \cite{Kaptjeins2019fastgenultrast} that
in some model glasses gapped mimima can be found through the use of smart minimization protocols that include particle swap \cite{BerthierSwapHS2016, BerthierNinnarelloSwap2017}. In such ultrastable minima the $\omega^4$ spectrum is cut-off at low frequencies and localized excoriations are suppressed.
A theoretical comprehension based on microscopic models is however
desirable. In such context, spin glasses with continuous degrees of
freedom provide a natural playground, the Hessian matrices turn out to
be random matrices from classical ensembles and their spectral
properties can be simply derived. Emblematic is the case of spherical
disordered models where the Hessian belongs to either the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE) ---for instance, the spherical p-spin
models \cite{Crisanti1992, cavagna1998stationary}--- or Wishart ensembles \cite{franz2015universal} (perceptron model), with a constant shift on the
diagonal that ensure that all eigenvalues are positive. In these cases,
either the minima are gapped and the minimal
excitations have a positive energy, or there is a square-root pseudo-gap,
the spectrum behaves as $\rho(\lambda)\sim\sqrt{\lambda}$ and the
non-linear (spin-glass) susceptibility, associated to the inverse
second moment of $\lambda$ is divergent. In all cases, eigenvectors
are fully delocalized. In a recent paper \cite{franz2021delocalization} we have shown that if one departs from spherical models the situation can be different.
In a spin glass model with vectorial spins, we showed that stable minima with a
finite spin glass
susceptibility, still have low energy quasi-localized excitations,
resulting in a pseudo-gap in the spectral density. In this paper we generalize
the analysis to glassy minima of models with a glass transition of the One Replica Symmetry Broken/Random First Order Transition (1RSB/RFOT) kind \cite{parisi2020theory}. These provide good mean-field models of the glass transition and have a finite complexity (configurational
entropy) of stable glassy minima in a finite interval of low energy.
We consider then a natural generalization of the $p$-spin model to vector spins \cite{taucher1992annealedn, taucher1993quenchedn, panchenko2018free},
characterize the complexity of the energy minima, and study the spectral properties of the corresponding hessian matrices. We find find that typical stable minima have quasi-localized low energy excitations and no spectral gap. In addition, there are rare ultrastable
minima where localized excitations are suppressed and the spectrum is gapped.
The structure of the paper is the following: in Section II we define the model and study its minima. In Section III we study the complexity as a function
of the energy. Then we study the spectral density in section IV and the eigenvector statistics in section V. In section VI we study rare ultra-stable minima, where localized excitations are absent.
Finally, in the Discussion we draw our conclusions.
\section{The model}
We consider the following version of a $p$-spin model with vector
spins. We have $N$ $m$-dimensional vector variables ${\bm S}_i$ with
$i=1,...,N$ such that $|{\bm S}_i|^2=\sum_{\alpha=1}^m
(S_i^\alpha)^2=1$, interacting through a disordered Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:26}
{\cal H}[{\bm S}]=-\sum_{p} a_p \sum_{{\bm i},{\bm \alpha}}J_{i_1,...,i_p}^{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_p}S_{i_1}^{\alpha_1}... S_{i_p}^{\alpha_p}
\end{eqnarray}
where the couplings $J_{i_1,...,i_p}^{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_p}$ are
Gaussian variables symmetric over all the indexes but otherwise
independent, with zero mean and variance
$\overline{(J_{i_1,...,i_p}^{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_p})^2}=\frac{p!}{2}
N^{-(p-1)}$. The model generalizes to $O(m)$ spins the mixed p-spin
model usually considered for Ising or spherical variables. It
differs from the model considered by Panchenko in \cite{panchenko2018free}
by the fact that here all the spin components interact with each others,
while in that model only components with the same label interact. This
is a minor difference that does not affect the physics and it is only
for notational simplicity that we choose the present version. As in
the usual mixed p-spin model an alternative formulation of the model,
is provided by defining the Hamiltonian as a Gaussian function with
correlation function
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:35}
\overline{ {\cal H}[{\bm S}]{\cal H}[{\bm S'}] } = N f(q({\bm S},{\bm S'}))
\end{eqnarray}
where $q({\bm S},{\bm S'})$ is the overlap
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:36}
q({\bm S},{\bm S'})=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N {\bm S}_i\cdot {\bm S'}_i
\end{eqnarray}
and the function $f$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:37}
f(q)=\frac 1 2 \sum_{p} a_p^2 q^p.
\end{eqnarray}
In this paper we concentrate on the cases $m>2$ and the pure monomial case where a single $a_p$ with $p>2$ is non vanishing.
\subsection{Minima of the Hamiltonian}
The equations defining the minima of the model
state that each spin is aligned with its molecular field:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:38}
\partial{\cal H}[{\bm S}]/\partial S_i^\alpha+\mu_i S_i^\alpha\equiv \partial{\cal H}_i^\alpha+\mu_i S_i^\alpha=0
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:39}
\mu_i=-{\bm S}_i\cdot \partial{\cal H}_i=|\partial{\cal H}_i|.
\end{eqnarray}
We will be interested to low temperature linear excitations around
minima of energy $E$. These are ruled by the Hessian matrix.
The Hessian, which we will implicitly think to be restricted
to fluctuations orthogonal to each of the ${\bm S}_i$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:40}
M_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}=\partial\partial{\cal H}_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}+\mu_i\delta_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}.
\end{eqnarray}
It is well know in these problems \cite{cavagna1998stationary,auffinger2013random} that
independently of the value $E$ of the energy, the matrix $\partial\partial{\cal H}$ can
be considered as a GOE Wigner-Dyson matrix with random Gaussian i.i.d. elements
with variance $\overline{(\partial\partial{\cal H}_{ij}^{\alpha\beta})^2}=f''(1)/N$. The Hessian $M$ is therefore a random matrix of the
Porter-Rosenzweig (or deformed Wigner-Dyson) ensemble \cite{rosenzweig1960repulsion,brezin1998universal} with elements $\mu_i$
on the diagonal. Once known the $\mu_i$, the statistical properties of eigenvalues
and eigenvectors can be obtained by the `local resolvent' elements
$G_{ii}^{\alpha\alpha}(\lambda)=[( M-\lambda+i\epsilon)^{-1}]_{ii}^{\alpha\alpha}$, which verify the
well known equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:41}
\sum_\alpha G_{ii}^{\alpha\alpha}(\lambda)=
(m-1)\frac{1}{\mu_i-\lambda-f''(1) G(\lambda)}
\end{eqnarray}
and $G(\lambda)=\sum_{i,\alpha}G_{ii}^{\alpha\alpha}(\lambda)/N$. Notice that for $\lambda=0$, $G_{ii}^{\alpha\alpha}(0)$ is just the local susceptibility of the spin ${\bm S}_i$ to an applied field on site $i$. This should be a positive quantity for all $i$ implying that $\mu_i> f''(1) G(0)$ for all $i$ \cite{palmer1979internal,bray1981metastable,bray1982spin,bray1982eigenvalue}.
In order to study the stability properties of the minima we need
therefore access to the distribution of the molecular fields $\mu_i$.
Before addressing this task, let us relate the true molecular field moduli
$\mu_i$ to the `cavity fields': that is the molecular fields computed when the
$i$-th variable is removed from the system.
\subsection{A glimpse of the Cavity Method}
At the basis of the application of the ``Cavity Method'' \cite{MPV87} there is the
hypothesis that the solutions to Eq.~(\ref{eq:38}) are continuous upon
removal or addition of a single spin.
Suppose that a spin configuration ${\bm S}_j$ solves the complete set
of Eq.~(\ref{eq:38}), which includes the coupling with the spin
$i$. Thanks to the fact that couplings are small, we
can use linear response theory
to relate ${\bm S}_j$ to the corresponding solution ${\bm S}_{j\to i}$
where the spin $i$ is removed.
We then write
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:50}
S_j^\alpha = S^\alpha_{j\to i}
+\sum_{\beta,\gamma}\chi_{jj}^{\alpha\beta}\partial\partial{\cal H}_{ji}^{\beta\gamma} S_i^{\gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
which, introducing the cavity field $h_i=|\partial{\cal H}_i({\bm S}_{\to i})|$,
allows us to conclude
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:52}
\mu_i=h_i+f''(1) G_0 \quad\text{with}\quad
G_0= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{\alpha j}\chi_{jj}^{\alpha\alpha}.
\end{eqnarray}
While Eq.~(\ref{eq:52}) is generally valid for all minima, it does not inform us about the the distribution of the cavity fields and its dependence on the energy level.
We can obtain this information through the study of the complexity
(configurational entropy) of typical minima with fixed energy $E$.
Notice that Eq.~(\ref{eq:52}) allows to write a self-consistent equation for the resolvent from Eq.~(\ref{eq:41}) that reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:53}
G(\lambda)=(m-1)\left\langle \frac{1}{h-\lambda-f''(1)[ G(\lambda)-G_0]}\right\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
where the angular average is performed on the (still unknown) distribution of the cavity fields.
Eq.~(\ref{eq:53}) implies that the susceptibility inside a state is related to the first inverse moment of the field distribution,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:54}
\chi=G_0=G(0)=(m-1)\left\langle \frac{1}{h}\right\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
while the spin glass susceptibility $\chi_{sg}=\left.\frac{\partial
G}{\partial \lambda}\right|_{\lambda=0}$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:55}
&&\chi_{sg}=\frac{1}{f''(1)}\frac{1-\Lambda}{\Lambda}\\
&&\Lambda=1-(m-1)f''(1)\left\langle \frac{1}{h^2}\right\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
leading to the stability condition $\Lambda>0$. It can be shown that $\Lambda$ is the `replicon eigenvalue' appearing in the $T=0$ replica formalism, and whose positivity is necessary for stability.
\section{The Complexity}
According to the theory developed by Monasson in \cite{monasson1995structural}, the complexity of stable states
can be computed through the replica method studying the Replica Symmetric free-energy for non vanishing number of replicas $n$.
Compared with other existing methods this has the advantage that with the same token one can study both thermodynamics and the properties of the metastable states.
We need then to consider the average partition function of $n$ replicas at temperature $T=1/\beta$ where all
the replicas have a mutual overlap $q$:
\begin{equation*}
Z_n=\overline{\int \boldsymbol{dS}\exp\left(-\beta\sum_{a=1}^n {\cal H}[\boldsymbol{S}_a]\right)
\prod_{a,b}\delta(\boldsymbol{S}_a\cdot\boldsymbol{S}_b-N q)}.
\end{equation*}
At the saddle point for $q$, the free-energy as a function of $n$, considered now as a positive real number, is related to the Legendre transform of the complexity of metastable states as a function of the free-energy $g$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:42}
{\cal G}(n,T)=\frac 1 N \log Z_n=\Sigma(g,T)-\beta n g
\end{eqnarray}
at the point where $\Sigma'(g)=\beta n$. In order to obtain the
complexity of the energy minima one should consider the limit
$T\to 0$ and $n\to 0$ with $y=\beta n$ fixed:
the result is ${\cal G}_0(y)=\Sigma(E)-y E$.
A standard calculation that we reproduce in the appendix provides the expression of the replica symmetric finite $n$ free-energy as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:43}
{\cal G}(n,T)=&\frac{n \beta^2}{2}\left[ f(1) + (n - 1) (f(q) - q f'(q)) - f'(q) \right] \nonumber\\
&+\log\left[\frac{\int_0^\infty dh\; h^{m-1} e^{-\frac{h^2}{2f'(q)}}Y(\beta h)^n} {\int_0^\infty dh\; h^{m-1} e^{-\frac{h^2}{2f'(q)}}}
\right]\;,
\\
&Y(u)= (2\,\pi)^{m/2}\frac{I_{\frac{m-2}{2}}(u)}{u^{\frac{m-2}{2}}}\;,\nonumber
\end{align}
where $I_{\nu}(u)$ is the modified Bessel function of order
$\nu$. The overlap $q$ between the replicas verifies the saddle point equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:45}
q=\frac{\int_0^\infty dh\; h^{m-1} \exp\left[-\frac{h^2}{2f'(q)}\right] Y(\beta
h)^{n-2}Y'(\beta h)^2}{\int_0^\infty dh\; h^{m-1} \exp\left[-\frac{h^2}{2f'(q)}\right] Y(\beta h)^n}.\quad
\end{eqnarray}
From the replica free-energy one can also compute the `replicon eigenvalue' $\Lambda$, whose positiveness is a necessary stability condition for the free-energy \eqref{eq:43}. Its expression is rather lengthy and we give it in Appendix \ref{sec:appA}.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:45} has always a trivial $q=0$ solution with vanishing complexity. Depending on the temperature, two $q>0$ solutions can appear.
The one with a small value of $q$ is always unstable. The one with a larger $q$ can be stable or unstable depending on the sign of $\Lambda$.
From simple thermodynamics, we get the complexity of metastable states at temperature $T$ as a function of the internal free-energy $g$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:44}
g=-\frac 1 \beta \frac{\partial {\cal G}}{\partial n} \qquad
\Sigma=-n^2 \frac{\partial {\cal G}/n }{\partial n}
\end{eqnarray}
The complexity of equilibrium states at temperature $T$ is obtained, as usual, considering the limit $n\to1$ in the previous formulae. Different values of $n$ on the other
hand, allow to explore different families of metastable states, which have collective vanishing weight at equilibrium. Notice that for fixed $n$ and $T$, the
present analysis gives us access to the distribution of the cavity field $h$. This distribution can be read
directly from Eq.~(\ref{eq:43}) and writes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:48}
P(h)=\frac{ h^{m-1} \exp\left[-\frac{h^2}{2f'(q)}\right] Y[\beta
h]^n}{\int_0^\infty dh\; h^{m-1} \exp\left[-\frac{h^2}{2f'(q)}\right] Y[\beta
h]^n}
\end{eqnarray}
The behavior of metastable states is qualitatively similar to the case of the familiar spherical $p$-spin model and follows closely the RFOT pattern.
The model is paramagnetic at high temperature, Eq.~\eqref{eq:45} has only the $q=0$ solution and the Gibbs measure is concentrated on a single pure state.
Below a dynamical transition transition temperature $T_d$ ergodicity is broken.
In the interval of temperatures $T_K,T_d$ an exponential number of mutually inaccessible metastable states dominate the equilibrium measure: in this situation Eq.~\eqref{eq:45} admits a stable solution with $q> 0$.
Below $T_K$ the number of states is sub-exponential, the equilibrium measure concentrates on the lowest free-energy states.
We notice that the replicon eigenvalue, which is vanishing for the states that dominate at $T_d$, is positive at all temperatures below.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{SigmaTbis.png}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{RepliconTbis.png}
\caption{\textbf{Top}: The equilibrium complexity $\Sigma$ for the pure models with $m=4$ and $p=3$ (blue), $p=4$ (red) and $p=5$ (green). The complexity is different from zero in the interval of temperatures $(T_K,T_d)$ and vanishes at $T_K$. The value of the configurational entropy at $T_d$ is $\Sigma_{d}=0.0627787$ ($p=3$), $\Sigma_{d}=0.220444$ ($p=4$), and $\Sigma_{d}=0.396359$ ($p=5$).\newline
\textbf{Bottom}: The replicon eigenvalue $\Lambda$ for the pure models with $m=4$ and $p=3$ (blue), $p=4$ (red) and $p=5$ (green). The replicon eigenvalue vanishes at $T_d$ as $(T_d-T)^{1/2}$.}
\label{fig:fig0}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig0} we show the equilibrium complexity and the replicon eigenvalue as a functions of $T$, for $m=4$ and $p=3, 4, 5$. Notice that $\Lambda$ is positive for $T<T_d$ and vanishes at $T_d$ as $\Lambda\sim (T_d-T)^{1/2}$.
The number of stable {\it energy} minima can be obtained performing
the limit of $\cal G$ for
$\beta\to \infty$, $n\to 0$, keeping the value $y=n \beta$
fixed. In this case, important simplifications occur and, observing that $Y(\beta h)^n\approx e^{y h}$, we get
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:47}
{\cal G}_0(y)= \frac{1}{2} y^2 \left(f(1)-f'(1)\right) + \\
+\log \left[ \frac{\int_0^{\infty}dh\,h^{m-1}\exp \left(-\frac{h^2}{2 f'(1)}+y h\right)}{\int_0^{\infty}dh\,h^{m-1}\exp \left(-\frac{h^2}{2 f'(1)}\right)}\right]\;,
\end{multline}
where the last term can be written in terms of confluent hypergeometric functions
\begin{multline}
\frac{\int_0^{\infty}dh\,h^{m-1}e^{-\frac{h^2}{2 f'(1)}+y h}} {\int_0^{\infty}dh\,h^{m-1}e^{-\frac{h^2}{2 f'(1)}}}= {}_1F_1\left(\frac{m}{2};\frac{1}{2};\frac{y^2 f'(1)}{2} \right)+\\
+\frac{\Gamma \left(\frac{m+1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma \left(\frac{m}{2}\right)} y \sqrt{2 f'(1)} {}_1F_1\left(\frac{m+1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{y^2 f'(1)}{2}\right)
\end{multline}
The cavity field distribution in this limit takes the simple form of a reweighed chi distribution:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:49}
P(h)=p_0 h^{m-1} \exp\left[-\frac{h^2}{2f'(1)}+y h\right]
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_0$ is a normalization constant
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:p0}
p_0\,=\,\frac{1}{\int_0^{\infty}dh\,h^{m-1}\,e^{-\frac{h^2}{2 f'(1)}+y h}}\equiv \frac{1}{Z_0}
\end{eqnarray}
The replicon eigenvalue takes exactly the form in Eq.~(\ref{eq:55})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:61}
\Lambda=1-(m-1)f''(1)\left\langle \frac{1}{h^2}\right\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
The study of $\Lambda$ shows that the solution giving the complexity as a function of energy is stable around the ground state energy $E_{gs}$, and only becomes unstable at some higher value $E_{mg}$ of the energy before disappearing at $E_{last}$ \footnote{This is at variance with the Ising case, where all metastable states undergo a Gardner transition at a level specific temperature \cite{Gardner1985, montanari2003nature, GardnerReview2019}}. In order to study the complexity beyond $E_{mg}$ replica symmetry breaking should be included \cite{montanari2003nature,rizzo2013replica}, a task that we will not undertake in this paper. The complexity of the energy minima, within the 1RSB approximation and the corresponding values of the replicon eigenvalue are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Sigma0_nogap.png}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Replicon0_nogap.png}
\caption{\textbf{Top}: The complexity of the energy minima for the pure models with $m=4$ and $p=3$ (blue), $p=4$ (red) and $p=5$ (green). The maximum complexity is $\Sigma_{max}=0.0760961$ ($p=3$), $\Sigma_{max}=0.236176$ ($p=4$) and $\Sigma_{max}=0.409372$ ($p=5$). The number of stable minima is considerably larger that the number of states at $T_d$.\newline
\textbf{Bottom}: The replicon eigenvalue in the energy minima for the pure models with $m=4$ and $p=3$ (blue), $p=4$ (red) and $p=5$ (green). Notice that here the replicon eigenvalue vanishes as $E_{mg}-E$, although the slope is very large: we have $|\Lambda'(E_{mg})|\simeq 23, 82, 212$ respectively for $p=3, 4, 5$.
}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
Comparing Fig.~\ref{fig:fig0} and Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} we notice that $\Sigma_d < \Sigma_\text{max}$, that is the number of energy minima is much larger than the maximum number of equilibrium states (those dominating the measure at $T_d$).
This feature is at variance to what has been observed in the spherical pure $p$-spin model \cite{castellani2005spin}, where the lack of chaos in temperature preserves the number of states in the whole range of temperatures in the spin glass phase.
Instead it reminds what has been observed in the Ising $p$-spin model \cite{montanari2004cooling} and in the spherical mixed $p$-spin model \cite{Giamp2020}, where the complexity of dominating states may change with the temperature.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{coefficiente_rho_VS_E.png}
\caption{The prefactor $A_4$ of stable glassy minima is smaller for better optimized glasses. The dependence on the energy level $E$ is very strong for high values of $p$: even far from $E_{mg}$ this quantity varies by several order of magnitudes.}
\label{fig:fig2a}
\end{figure}
\section{The spectral density}
\label{sec:TheSpectralDensity}
We have now all the elements for studying the spectral density of the Hessian matrix in the energy minima from Eq.~(\ref{eq:53}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:49}).
Let us first make an argument allowing to estimate the
spectrum in the region
\begin{eqnarray}
\Re G(\lambda)-G_0 \ll 1 \;,\quad \Im G(\lambda) \ll 1\;.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to make the argument simpler, let us assume that $m>3$ so that $\left\langle\frac{1}{h^3}\right\rangle <\infty$.
In that region, the leading contribution to the integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:53}) can be estimated expanding the denominator for small (but non vanishing) values of $\lambda$,
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:59}
G(\lambda)\simeq(m-1)\Bigg[ \left\langle\frac1h\right\rangle
+\left\langle\frac1{h^2}\right\rangle\big[\lambda+f''(1)(G(\lambda)-G_0)\big]+\\
\left\langle\frac1{h^3}\right\rangle \big[\lambda+f''(1)(G(\lambda)-G_0)\big]^2\Bigg]
\end{multline}
which gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:60}
\rho(\lambda) \propto \Im G(\lambda) \propto &&
\sqrt{\lambda-\lambda^*}\\
\text{for} \quad \lambda > \lambda^* \equiv
&&\frac{\Lambda^2}{4 (m-1)f''(1)\left\langle\frac 1
{ h^3}\right\rangle}\;.
\label{eq:lamStar}
\end{eqnarray}
This expression would suggests the existence of a spectral gap $\lambda^*\sim\Lambda^2$ that vanishes only on marginal states where $\Lambda=0$.
However the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{eq:59}) is not valid for $\lambda\to 0$.
In fact, any distribution of cavity fields extending its support to $h=0$ is incompatible with a spectral gap, because close to $\lambda=0$ we have $\Re G(\lambda)-G_0=\chi_{SG} \lambda$ and the real part of the denominator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:53}) reads $h-\lambda/\Lambda$. That is, for all the minima but the marginal ones, if we had to admit $\Im G=0$, we would find that the integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:53}) is divergent. The only possible solution is to have $\rho(\lambda)>0$ for any $\lambda>0$, that is a pseudo-gap for $\lambda<\lambda^*$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{rho_VS_lambda_m=4_p=3_yscomp.png}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{IPR_VS_lambda_m=4_p=3_yscomp.png}
\caption{\textbf{Top}: The spectrum of the Hessian in log-log scale for $m=4$ and $p=3$. The curves for $y<y_{mg}$ cross-over from a $\lambda^3$ behavior to a $\sqrt{\lambda}$ behavior at $\lambda_*$ marked by coloured vertical dashed lines. In the bulk of the spectrum, the spectral density does not depend on $y$.\\
\textbf{Bottom}: The scaled bulk inverse participation ratio $i(\lambda)$ as a function of $\lambda$ for $m=4$ and $p=3$ on a log-log scale. Notice the different behavior between the stable minima and the marginal one. The curve at $y_{mg}$ diverges logarithmically, while the other curves behave as $\lambda^{-6}$ for $\lambda\to 0$.}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}
Detailed estimates presented in Ref.~\cite{franz2021delocalization} allow us to conclude that, whenever the field distribution behaves as $P(h) \sim h^{m-1}$ close to the origin (which is the case here), in a stable minimum we have $\Lambda>0$ and a spectral density behaving for small $\lambda$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:57}
\rho(\lambda)=\frac{1}{\Lambda}
P\left(\frac{\lambda}{\Lambda}\right)\approx A_m\lambda^{m-1}\qquad
A_m=\frac{p_0}{\Lambda^m}
\end{equation}
This is a pseudo-gap with a power law directly related to the cavity fields `density of states' in the origin and is independent from the energy of the minimum.
The prefactor $A$, conversely, depends on the energy and diverges for $\Lambda\to 0$. Notice that $p_0$ also depends on $\Lambda$ implicitly, since it depends on $y$ which is a function of $\Lambda$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2a} we show the dependence of the prefactor $A_m$ with respect to the energy $E$, in the case of the pure p-spin with $m=4$ and $p=3, 4, 5$. We can see that this term has a strong dependence on the energy, varying by several order of magnitudes in the energy range of the 1RSB landscape. This feature is consistent with what observed for the computer glasses cited in the introduction of this work: the more the minimum is stable and low in energy, the smaller is the prefactor and, consequently, the more localised are the excitations (see discussion below).
As to the case $E=E_{mg}$ or $\Lambda=0$, it was shown in Ref.~\cite{franz2021delocalization} (and we convey the same calculation in Appendix \ref{sec:appB}) that the spectrum behaves as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:58}
\rho(\lambda)\approx \sqrt{\lambda} \;\;\;\; m>3\\
\rho(\lambda) \approx \sqrt{\frac{ \lambda}{ |\log
\lambda|}} \;\;\;\; m=3.
\end{eqnarray}
For finite $\Lambda$, the value $\lambda^*\propto\Lambda^2$, defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:lamStar}, marks the crossover from the $\lambda^{m-1}$ to the $\sqrt{\lambda}$ behaviors of the spectrum. In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2} we display the spectrum $\rho(\lambda)$ for $m=4$, $p=3$ and some values of $y$ in the range $[y_{mg},y_{gs}]$ where $y_{mg}=1.42578$ and $y_{gs}=1.94874$. In the plot we check the scaling laws in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:57}, \eqref{eq:58} and show the position of the crossover $\lambda_*$ for each value of $y$.
\section{The eigenvectors}
The statistics of eigenvectors can be obtained from the study of the
resolvent. It has been shown in \cite{franz2021delocalization} that the eigenvector
components $\psi_i^\alpha$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $\lambda$ in the
bulk of the spectrum are Gaussian variables with a variance given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:33}
\langle |\psi_i^\alpha|^2 \rangle= \frac{m-1}{N
m|h_i+f''(1)(G_0-G(\lambda))-\lambda|^2 }\;.
\end{eqnarray}
where the mean is performed at fixed value of $h_i$ \footnote{For growing size $N$, the cavity fields become uncorrelated to the couplings, and we can therefore treat the off-diagonal elements and the diagonal ones of the Hessian as independent.}.
Notice that the components $\alpha$ are not all independent, as ${\bm \psi}_i$ should be perpendicular to the spin ${\bm S}_i$ in the minimum under consideration. As a result, the Inverse Participation Ratio, $\text{IPR}(\lambda)=\sum_{i\alpha} \langle(v_i^\alpha)^4\rangle$, can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:2}
&&\text{IPR}(\lambda)=\frac 1 N i(\lambda)= \\
&& \frac {3(m^2-1)}{N (m+2)} \int dh \;
\frac{P(h)}{|h+f''(1)(G_0-G(\lambda))-\lambda|^4}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In the bulk, the IPR is of order $O(N^{-1})$ as it should for a dense matrix. However, close to the edge the eigenvectors are more and more localized. The quantity $i(\lambda)$ grows and diverges at the edges. In particular at the lower edge one can see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:3}
i(\lambda)\sim \Lambda^3\left(\frac
\lambda\Lambda\right)^{-2(m-1)}
\end{eqnarray}
for stable minima and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:27}
i(\lambda) \propto \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{|\log \lambda|/\lambda} & m=3\\
{|\log{\lambda}|} & m=4 \\
\text{const} & m>4
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
for the marginal ones. Notice that the minimum eigenvalues
$\lambda_{min}$ are of the order $\lambda_{min}\sim \Lambda
N^{-1/m}$ for stable minima and $\lambda_{min}\sim N^{-2/3}$ for
marginal ones. It is clear that for stable minima Eq.~(\ref{eq:3})
cannot hold till $\lambda\sim \Lambda
N^{-1/m}$, as this would imply an IPR of order $N^{1-2/m}$ which
badly violate the bound $\text{IPR}\le 1$. This suggest that the IPR could
remain finite for the lower eigenvalues, as we will see it is the case
in the next section; we shall then refer to the IPR defined by Eqs.~\eqref{eq:3} and \eqref{eq:27} as \emph{bulk} IPR. For marginally stable minima, { the IPR of the smallest eigenvalue vanishes in the thermodynamic limit, meaning that also the softest modes are delocalised; according to (\ref{eq:27}) the IPR of $\lambda_{min}\sim N^{-2/3}$ goes to zero for $N\to\infty$ as $N^{-2/3}|\ln N|^{1/2}$ for $m=3$, as $N^{-1}\ln(N)$ for $m=4$ and as $N^{-1}$ for $m\geq 5$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2} we show the rescaled bulk IPR, $i(\lambda)$, for $m=4$, $p=3$ and some values of $y$: stable minima have a rapidly diverging $i(\lambda)\sim \lambda^{-2(m-1)}$, whereas at the critical point the divergence is logarithmically slow, in accordance with Eqs.~\eqref{eq:3} and \eqref{eq:27}. Notice that in the case of stable minima the IPRs of lowest eigenvalues should depart from the curves shown at a value $\lambda_*\simeq \Lambda^2$.}
{The necessity of presence of localised excitations in the limit $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ can be understood in a more elegant way, by considering the normalisation condition of eigenvectors given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:33}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:normeig}
{1=\frac 1 N \sum_i \frac{f''(1)(m-1)}{\left| h_i+f''(1)[G_0-G(\lambda)]-\lambda\right|^2}}
\end{eqnarray}
which is valid for all $\lambda$ in the support of the spectral density. If one assumes that all sites provides a fine contribution to normalisation in the $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ limit, the normalisation condition then would be violated, since for $E<E_{mg}$ the replicon is positive and eq. \eqref{eq:normeig} would imply $1=(m-1)\frac{f''(1)}{N}\sum_i 1/h_i^2$, i.e. $\Lambda=0$. In order to correctly satisfy the normalisation condition at the lower edge, it is necessary to have a condensate component, that yields a finite weight to normalisation in the thermodynamic limit:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:BE}
1\,=\,f''(1)(m-1)\left\langle\frac{1}{h^2}\right\rangle+|\Vec{\psi}_C|^2.
\end{equation}
This phenomenon, reminiscent of the Bose-Einstein condensation mechanism, is a very general feature of deformed Wigner matrices \cite{lee2016extremal}}.
\subsection{The spectral edge}
It is interesting to study the statistics of the minimal eigenvalues and their relation
with the low fields.
This can be done using perturbation
theory \cite{landau1981quantum} around the diagonal matrix, which has the fields $h_i$ as
eigenvalues, which, without loss of generality we will suppose ordered
in increasing order. The low eigenvalues of deep minima are associated
to sites with small cavity field $h_i$ with $i$ finite for $N\to
\infty$, which for deep minima are such that $h_i\sim N^{-1/m}$ and $h_{i+1}-h_i\sim N^{-1/m}$.
In fact in correspondence of the lowest
fields $h_i$, one finds multiplets of quasi-degenerate eigenvalues
$\lambda_i^a$, $a=1,...,m-1$ with typical splitting of order
$N^{-1/2}\ll N^{-1/m}$. The eigenvalues can be computed in perturbation theory around the
diagonal matrix ${\rm diag}(\mu_1,...,\mu_N)$, which to the leading order gives \footnote{The same result can be obtained if one considers the condensation condition $|h_i+f''(1)[G(\lambda_i^{a})-G_0]-\lambda_i^a]|=O(N^{-1/2})$ (compare with formula \eqref{eq:normeig}).
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:62}
\lambda_i^a=h_i+f''(1)G_0+\frac{f''(1)}{N}\sum_{j\ne i} \frac
{1}{h_i-h_j}\approx \Lambda h_i.
\end{eqnarray}
We obtain for the correspondent eigenvector
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:1}
&& \psi_{k\alpha}^a=\sum_{\beta=1}^{m} \frac{\partial\partial{\cal H}_{ik}^{\alpha\beta} u_{k\beta}^a}{h_k} \;\;\;k\ne i\\
&&\psi_{i\alpha}^a=\sqrt{\Lambda}u_{i\alpha}^a
\end{eqnarray}
where the $m-1$ vectors ${\bm u}_i^a$ are $m$-dimensional
unit norm vectors orthogonal to ${\bm S}_i$ and to each other that at
this level of accuracy in the perturbation theory are left unspecified. Notice that the eigenfunction $\psi$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\lambda_i^a$ has finite components on the site $i$. The value of the condensate component is in agreement with Eq.~\eqref{eq:BE}.
\section{Ultra-Stable Minima}
\label{sec:UltraStable}
Typical minima are ungapped due to localized excitations associated to sites with small cavity field $h_i$.
Since the number of minima is exponentially large, one can wonder if rare minima with a gap exist and what is their nature.
In order to search for gapped minima we need to include constraints in the computation of the complexity. Since low energy excitations are related to low
cavity fields, it is natural to impose a hole in the distribution of the cavity field, $h_i>h_0$ $\forall\; i$ for some $h_0$, which we shall call cavity gap.
The computation of the number of gapped minima is best performed using the Bray-Moore or Kac-Rice formalism \cite{Bray_1981}, computing
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{{\cal G}_0(h_0)}&&= \overline{\int_{h_i>h_0} d{\bm S} d {\bm \mu}\;e^{-y{\cal H}}
\prod_{i,\alpha}\delta\left(
\partial{\cal H}_i^\alpha-\mu_i S_i^\alpha
\right)} \\
&&\overline{\times\left| \det\left( \partial\partial{\cal H}-\text{diag}(\mu)\right)\right|}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Since the cavity fields are related to the physical fields $\mu_i=|\partial{\cal H}_i|$ by the equation $\mu_i=f''(1) G_0+h_i$ we impose that $\mu_i>f''(1) G_0 +h_0$.
The determinant for fixed $\mu_i$ can be computed separately using self-averageness and one can see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{\left|\det\left( \partial\partial{\cal H}-\text{diag}(\mu)
\right)\right|}= e^{\frac{Nf''(1) \chi_{h_0}^2}{2 }}\prod_i [\mu_i-f''(1) \chi_{h_0}]^{m-1}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $\chi_{h_0}$ given by the solution of the saddle point equation \footnote{Notice that, in general, this is not the susceptibility defined by Eq.~\eqref{eq:54}, since in \eqref{eq:chih0} for $h_0>0$ one should integrate from a $\mu_0=h_0+f''(1)\chi>f''(1)\chi$.}.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:chih0}
\chi_{h_0}=(m-1) \frac 1 N \overset{N}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}} \,\frac{1}{\mu_i-f''(1)\chi_{h_0}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The remaining part can be averaged separately and gives
\begin{multline}
\left[
\frac{1}{\Gamma(m/2)f'(1)^{m/2}}
\right]^N \exp\Bigg[\frac 1 2 Ny^2f(1)-N\frac { f''(1) u^2}{2}\\ -\sum_i\frac {1}{2f'(1)}[yf'(1)+f''(1) u-\mu_i]^2\Bigg]
\end{multline}
with $u$ given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:u}
u=\frac{1}{f'(1)N}\overset{N}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}} [\mu_i-yf'(1)-f''(1) u]
\end{eqnarray}
Putting the two terms together, and defining the cavity fields
$h_i=\mu_i-f''(1)\chi$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{{\cal G}_0(y; h_0)= \frac{y^2}{2}[f(1)-f'(1)]-\frac{f''(1)}{2 f'(1)}(\chi-u)^2} \nonumber\\
&& {-f''(1) y (u-\chi)-\frac{f''(1)}{2}(u^2-\chi^2)+\ln I(y; h_0)} \label{eq:g0} \\
&& {I = \frac{\int_{h_0}^{\infty}dh\,h^{m-1}e^{-\frac{h^2}{2 f'(1)}+\frac{h}{f'(1)}[f''(1)(u-\chi)+yf'(1)]}}{\int_0^{\infty}\,dh\,h^{m-1}e^{-\frac{h^2}{2f'(1)}}}} \nonumber
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that the cavity field probability distribution
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cavFpdfh0}
P_{h_0}(h)\,=\,\frac{\theta(h-h_0)}{Z(y; h_0)}h^{m-1}e^{-\frac{h^2}{2 f'(1)}+\left[y+f''(1)\frac{(u-\chi)}{f'(1)}\right]h}
\end{equation}
for $h_0>0$ has a finite cut on the lower edge, that is $P_{h_0}(h_0)>0$, and is re-weighted by the exponential term $y(h_0)\,=\,y+\frac{f''(1)(u-\chi)}{f'(1)}>y$. As a consequence, the gapped minima are therefore more stable than the typical ungapped ones at the same value of $y$, with an energy $E(y;h_0)\,=\,-\partial \mathcal{G}_0(y; h_0)/\partial y$. Different families of ultra-stable minima can be studied by varying $y$ and $h_0$.
If the lower integration limit is $h_0=0$ it is easy to see by integration by part of \eqref{eq:u} that $\chi=u$, and one gets back \eqref{eq:47} and \eqref{eq:48}. However, this is not the case if $h_0>0$, indeed in such case one finds
\begin{equation}
u\,=\,\chi_{h_0}+P_{h_0}(h_0).
\end{equation}
In fact, Eq.~(\ref{eq:chih0}), which should be verified substituting the sum by the average over the cavity field distribution, cannot be interpreted as a saddle point condition for the expression in Eq.~(\ref{eq:g0}). The value of $u$ represents linear response of the system to a magnetic perturbation: this quantity, for fixed $y$, is strictly lower than the response $\chi_0$ of the system with $h_0=0$.
A more detailed discussion of the response in ultra-stable minima can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:appE}.
In the remainder of this section we will discuss the spectral properties and the complexity of ultra-stable minima. The analytical details behind the formulae we are going to expose
are provided in Appendices \ref{sec:appD}, \ref{sec:appF}.
As we said, ultra-stable minima have a gapped spectrum, with a lower edge $\lambda_0>0$. It is found for small $\lambda-\lambda_0$ and for small $h_0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:gap_spec}
&& \rho(\lambda)\propto\sqrt{\lambda-\lambda_0} \\
&& \lambda_0\propto
\begin{cases}
\Lambda\,h_0,\qquad\,y>y_{mg} \\
h_0^{2(m-2)},\qquad\,m>3,\quad y=y_{mg} \\
h_0^2/|\ln h_0|,\qquad m=3,\quad y=y_{mg}.
\end{cases} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
{The linear dependence $\lambda_0=\Lambda h_0$ valid for $y>y_{mg}$ is easily interpreted. It tells that Eq.~\eqref{eq:62} relating small eigenvalues to small fields of typical minima is just cut-off here at the value $h_0$. The localized modes with $\lambda<\lambda_0$ are eliminated without much other effect on the spectrum.
For $y=y_{mg}$ coherently, the induced spectral gap has a much weaker
dependence on $h_0$.}
The study of the IPR confirms that in ultrastable minima the most localized are cut-off.
In presence of a gap $h_0$, the integral appearing in the bulk IPR formula \eqref{eq:2}, remains finite in the limit $\lambda\rightarrow\lambda_0$. By expanding
close to $\lambda=\lambda_0$, it is found at leading order
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
i(\lambda)\sim h_0^{-2\,(m-1)},\,\,\,y>y_{mg} \\
i(\lambda)\sim 1/h_0,\,\,\,y=y_{mg},\,\,\,m=3 \\
i(\lambda)\sim \ln h_0,\,\,\,y=y_{mg},\,\,\,m=4 \\
i(\lambda)\sim const,\,\,\,y=y_{mg},\,\,\,m\geq 5.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Details are provided in appendix \ref{sec:appF}.
In the first panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_gap} we show the spectral density of gapless minima for $m=4$, $p=3$ and $y=(y_{gs}+y_{mg})/2$, comparing it with the spectral density of gapped minima with $h_0=0.15, 0.25, 0.8$: the square root behavior of the spectral edge of ultra-stable minima is confirmed. The spectral density has been computed by solving numerically the following equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:spectrum}
& 1\,=(m-1)f''(1)\,\int_{h_0}^{\infty}dh\,\frac{P_{h_0}(h)}{|h+x(\lambda)|^2} \\
& \lambda_0\,=\,f''(1)\chi_{h_0}-x_0-f''(1)(m-1)\left\langle\frac{h+\Re x}{|h+x|^2}\right\rangle_{h_0},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $x(\lambda)\,=\,f''(1)[\chi_{h_0}-G(\lambda)]-\lambda$. Eqs. \eqref{eq:spectrum} are respectively the imaginary and real part of the equivalent of eq. \eqref{eq:53} when the cavity field PDF is given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:cavFpdfh0}.
In the second panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_gap} we show, for same $m$ and $p$, the spectral gap as a function of the cavity gap for the values of $y>y_{mg}$ reported in the legend of the plot, comparing the curves with $\Lambda(y)\,h_0$ in each case. The curves were obtained by solving numerically Eq.~\eqref{eq:spectrum} fixing $\lambda=\lambda_0$.
Finally, in the third panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_gap} we show the spectral gap for the case $y=y_{mg}$ and $m=3, 4, 5$, $p=3$, showing the low cavity gap scaling of the $\lambda_0$, which is in good agreement with Eq.~\eqref{eq:gap_spec}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{rho_nogap_gap_zoom_loweredge_3.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{gapSpettrale_VS_h0_y1y2y3_m=4_p=3.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{gap_VS_h0_crity.png}
\caption{\textbf{Top}: Spectral properties in presence of a cavity gap $h_0$, for the $m=4$ and $p=3$ pure p-spin at $y=(y_{gs}+y_{mg})/2$. The spectral density of gapless minima is compared to that of minima with cavity gaps $h_0=0.15, 0.25, 0.8$. The dashed vertical line marks the position of the crossover $\lambda_*$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:lamStar}.
\newline
\textbf{Center}: The relation between the spectral gap and the cavity gap for the three values of $y\in[y_{mg}, y_{gs}]$, the dotted lines are $\Lambda(y)\,h_0$.
\newline
\textbf{Bottom}: The spectral gap at the critical point $y=y_{mg}$ for $m=3, 4, 5$: the scaling provided in Appendix \ref{sec:appF} is verified. Marginal minima develop extremely small gaps in a broad range of values of $h_0$.}
\label{fig:spec_gap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{Sigma_VS_h0_y4y2y3.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.87\columnwidth]{h0max_vs_y.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.90\columnwidth]{Eh0max_VS_y.png}
\caption{\textbf{Top}: The normalised complexity $\Sigma/\Sigma_0$ for three values of $y\in[y_{mg},y_{gs}]$ and $m=4$: the complexity is a decreasing function of $h_0$, vanishing at a value $h_0^{(max)}(y)$. In the inset, a plot in double log scale of $\Delta\Sigma=1-\Sigma/\Sigma_0$, which shows that for small cavity gap at leading order $\Delta\Sigma=O(h_0^4)$, in agreement with formula \eqref{eq:SigmaGapSmallh0}.
\newline
\textbf{Center}: The maximal cavity gap as a function of $y_{gs}-y$ in double log scale, for $m=3, 4, 5$: close to $y=y_{gs}$, this quantity is singular as $(y_{gs}-y)^{1/m}$.
\newline
\textbf{Bottom}: The difference between the energy at the maximal cavity gap and the ground state level as a function of $y=y_{gs}$, for $m=3, 4, 5$: there are no ultra-stable configurations down to the ground state.
}
\label{fig:complex_gap}
\end{figure}
The energy and the complexity of the minima can be computed as usual from ${\cal G}_0(y; h_0)\,=\,-y\,E+\Sigma(E; h_0)$ and $E=-\partial {\cal G}_0(y;h_0)/\partial y$. For any value of $y$, $\Sigma$ is a decreasing function of $h_0$: ultra-stable minima are exponentially small in number with respect to gapless ones. For small cavity gap, the leading behavior is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SigmaGapSmallh0}
\Sigma=\,\Sigma_0-\left[\frac{1+y\,\langle h\rangle_0}{m\,Z_0}\right]h_0^m+O(h_0^{m+1})
\end{equation}
where $\langle\cdot\rangle_0$ is the mean in absence of gap and $Z_0=1/p_0$ (cfr with \eqref{eq:p0}). In Fig.~\ref{fig:complex_gap} (top) we show the complexity as a function of the cavity gap $h_0$.
The complexity is a decreasing function of $h_0$ that vanishes linearly at a value $h_0^{(max)}(y)$. The value of $h_0^{(max)}(y)$ goes to zero as $y$ approaches its value on the ground state of the system. We have in fact $h_0^{(max)}(y)\sim (y_{gs}-y)^{1/m}$: in Fig.~\ref{fig:complex_gap} (center) we check this behavior of the maximal cavity gap for the values of $m=3, 4, 5$.
As a consistency check, to conclude this section, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:complex_gap} (bottom) that the energy $E(y; h_0)$ at the maximum cavity gap $h_0^{(max)}(y)$ is always greater than the ground state level $E_{gs}$, for any $y<y_{gs}$: there cannot be ultra-stable minima at the ground state level.
\section{Discussion}
In this paper we have seen that generically, in long range glassy models with continuous variables, stable glassy minima
posses quasi-localized low energy excitations. In this respect, spherical models, where stable minima are gapped and all excitiations are
fully extended appear to be the exception rather then the rule.
We studied the energy minima of a p-spin glass model with $m$-components vector spins. The cases $m=1$ and $m\to \infty$ reduce respectively to the familiar Ising and spherical p-spin models. Similarly to these cases, the model has a 1RSB-RFOT glassy phenomenology, with an exponential multitude of equilibrium states for temperatures between $T_K$ and $T_d$.
We studied the complexity of the typical minima, which can either be `stable' i.e.\ display a finite spin glass susceptibility, or marginal, with infinite spin glass susceptibility. In this paper we concentrated on the stable minima and the lowest marginal ones, that are described by replica symmetric theories.
Typical minima at each energy level are characterized by a cavity field distribution that extends down to zero. This in turn implies the existence of localized low energy excitations and the absence of a spectral gap. Differently from what observed for models in physical space, the spectrum does not follow a universal $\omega^4$ law. It is still a power law, but the power depends on $m$, the number of components of the vector spins. The prefactor of this power is function of the depth of the minima in the energy landscape, and it is smaller for lower energy. In addition to becoming less numerous, low energy excitations become more and more localized the deeper the minima in the landscape. Much less numerous than typical minima, also exist rare ultrastable minima where the small fields are absent, localized excitations are suppressed and spectra have a gap.
In this paper we did not attempt a full characterization of marginal minima. The study of the complexity suggests the existence of marginally stable minima in some intervals of energy above the level $E_{mg}$ that separates stable minima from marginal ones.
These minima are described by replica symmetry breaking and could be the continuation of some high temperature states that undergo a Gardner transition \cite{Gardner1985, montanari2003nature, montanari2004cooling, rizzo2013replica, GardnerReview2019, Scalliet2019marginal} at low temperature. Without much surprise we can expect in these minima a divergent spin glass susceptibility, a square root spectral pseudogap and fully delocalized states.
A natural continuation of this work would be to investigate the spectral properties of low energy excitations of vector spin glass models with finite-connectivity, such as models on random graphs \cite{skantzos2005cavity,coolen2005finitely,marruzzo2015nonlinear,lupo2017approximating,lupo2018comparison,lupo2019random,metz2021mean} or lattice models \cite{baity2015soft,baity2015inherent}. This path would widen our knowledge of the nature of glassy excitations.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
We study regular linear variable coefficient differential-algebraic equations (DAEs)
\begin{equation}\label{lindae}
E(t) \dot x =A(t) x+f(t),\quad
\begin{array}{l}
E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n}),\
f\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n})\mbox{ sufficiently smooth},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
which additionally possess certain symmetries, in particular self-adjoint and skew-adjoint structures.
Here ${\mathbb I}\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ is a compact non-trivial time interval
and $C^k({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ with $k\in{\mathbb N}_0\cup\{\infty\}$ denotes the set of $k$ times continuously differentiable functions
from $\mathbb I$ into the set of real $n\times n$ matrices ${\mathbb R}^{n,n}$.
In the case $k=0$ we drop the superscript. A function is said to be sufficiently smooth
if $k$ is sufficiently large such that all needed derivatives exist.
The discussed classes of DAEs with symmetries are defined as follows.
\begin{definition}\label{def:self}
The DAE (\ref{lindae}) and its associated pair $(E,A)$ of matrix functions are called
{\em self-adjoint} if
\begin{equation}\label{self}
E^T=-E,\quad A^T=A+\dot E
\end{equation}
as equality of functions.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:skew}
The DAE (\ref{lindae}) and its associated pair $(E,A)$ of matrix functions are called
{\em skew-adjoint} if
\begin{equation}\label{skew}
E^T=E,\quad A^T=-A-\dot E
\end{equation}
as equality of functions.
\end{definition}
Systems with these type of symmetries arise in the modeling of physical systems,
e.g., by a (generalized) Hamiltonian formalism or in optimal control problems
leading to a self-adjoint structure or by so-called dissipative Hamiltonian systems
leading to a skew-adjoint structure.
Our main motivation to study differential-algebraic equations with self-adjoint and skew-adjoint pairs arises
from multi-physics, multi-scale models that are coupling different physical domains that may include mechanical, mechatronic, fluidic, thermic, hydraulic, pneumatic, elastic, plastic, or electric components, see e.g. \cite{AltMU21,AltS17,EicF98,HilH06,Sch93,SchK01}.
An important class of problems where multi-physics and multi-scale modeling arises is the human cariovascular system, where model hierarchies of detailed models for the blood flow in large vessels, modeled via the Navier-Stokes equations, and reduced or surrogate models for the capillary vessels, modeled via electrical network equations, are coupled together to improve computational efficiency, while at the same time achieving a desired simulation accuracy, see \cite{ForGNQ01,ForQV10,QuaF04,QuaMV17,QuaLRR17}. Due to the physical background, after space discretization and linearization along a solution, as well as ignoring dissipation terms, all the components arising in this application can be expressed as DAE systems with symmetries.
To deal with general multi-physics and multi-scale coupling in recent years the framework of port-Hamiltonian systems has become an important modeling paradigm \cite{BeaMXZ18,GolSBM03,JacZ12,MehM19,OrtSMM01,Sch04,Sch06} that encodes underlying physical principles directly into the algebraic structure of the coefficient matrices and in the geometric structure associated with the flow of the dynamical system. This leads to a remarkably flexible modeling approach, which has also been extended to include algebraic constraints, so that the resulting model is a port-Hamiltonian differential-algebraic equation (pHDAE), \cite{BeaMXZ18,MehM19,Sch13}. Such systems allow for automated modeling in a modularized network based fashion, and they are ideal for building model hierarchies of very fine models for numerical simulation and reduced or surrogate models for control and optimization. This makes them particularly suited also for large networks, such as power, gas, or district heating networks where such model hierarchies are used to adapt the simulation and optimization techniques to user needs, \cite{DomHLMMT21,HauMMMMRS19,MehM19}.
Since in this paper we will mainly discuss linear time-varying DAE systems with symmetries, we introduce the structure of pHDAEs for this case as in \cite{BeaMXZ18}, see \cite{MehM19} for the more general nonlinear framework.
Linear time-varying \emph{pHDAE systems with quadratic Hamiltonian} have the form
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqn:pHDAE:linear}
\begin{align}
E(t)\dot{x} + E(t)K(t)x &=(J(t)-R(t))x + (G(t)-P(t))u,\\
y &= (G(t)+P(t))^T x + (S(t)-N(t))u,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with state $x$, input $u$, output $y$ and coefficients
$E\in C^1(\mathbb I,\mathbb R^{n,n})$, $J,R,K \in C(\mathbb I,\mathbb R^{n,n})$, $G,P\in C(\mathbb I,\mathbb R^{n, m})$,
$S,N\in C(\mathbb I,\mathbb R^{m, m})$, $S = S^T, N=-N^T$.
As energy function one has the quadratic \emph{Hamiltonian}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Hamiltonian:linear}
\mathcal H \colon \mathbb I \times \mathbb R^{n}\to \mathbb R,\qquad (t,x) \mapsto \tfrac{1}{2}x^H E(t)x,
\end{equation}
and the pair of coefficients $(E, J - EK)$ is skew-adjoint, while the matrix function associated with dissipation of energy
$$
\mathcal W = \begin{bmatrix}
R & P\\
P^T & S
\end{bmatrix}
$$
is pointwise positive semidefinite. Furthermore, typically one also has that $E$ is pointwise positive semidefinite as well. If the system does not have an output equation and the input is considered as an inhomogeneity then this is called a dissipative Hamiltonian DAE (dHDAE).
The underlying skew-adjoint structure arises if the dissipation term $R$ is neglected, i.e., if $\mathcal W=0$ in \eqref{eqn:pHDAE:linear}. Typically the problems with dissipation can be considered as a perturbed symmetry structure and a dissipative term can be treated separately as a by-product in simulation methods.
To illustrate applications for dHDAEs and DAEs with symmetries consider the following simple examples, for further applications see \cite{BeaMXZ18,MehM19,Sch13,SchJ14}.
\begin{example} \label{ex1} {\rm Consider the pHDAE formulation of an electrical circuit from \cite{MehM19}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{circuitikz}[scale=1.5,/tikz/circuitikz/bipoles/length=1cm]
\draw (0,0) node[ground] {} to[american controlled voltage source,invert,v>=$E_G$] (0,1) to[R=$R_G$,i>=$I_G$] (0,2) to (1,2) to[L=$L$,i>=$I$] (2,2) to[R=$R_L$] (3,2) to (4,2) to[R=$R_R$,i<=$I_R$] (4,0) node[ground] {};
\draw (1,2) to[C=$C_1$,v>=$V_1$,i<=$I_1$,*-] (1,0) node[ground] {};
\draw (3,2) to[C,l_=$C_2$,v^>=$V_2$,i<_=$I_2$,*-] (3,0) node[ground] {};
\end{circuitikz}
%
\caption{circuit example}\label{fig:circuit}
\end{figure}
Denoting by $V_i$ the voltages and by $I_i$ the currents, where $L>0$ models an inductor, $C_1,C_2>0$ capacitors, $R_G,R_L,R_R>0$ resistances, and $E_G$ a controlled voltage source, one obtains a pHDAE
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:circuit2}
\begin{align}
E\dot x &= (J-R) x + G u, \\
y &= G^T x,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with
$x=\begin{bmatrix} I &V_1&V_2&I_G&I_R\end{bmatrix}^T $, $u=E_G$, $y=I_G$, $E=\diag(L,C_1,C_2,0,0)$,
\begin{equation*}
G=\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 0\end{bmatrix},\quad
J = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}, \quad
R = \begin{bmatrix}R_L & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & R_G & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & R_R\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
The quadratic Hamiltonian, describing the energy stored in the inductor and the two capacitors, is given by
\[
\mathcal H(I,V_1,V_2) = \frac12LI^2 + \frac12C_1V_1^2 + \frac12C_2V_2^2.
\]
If the generator is shut down (i.e.\ $E_G=0$), then the system approaches an equilibrium solution for which $\ensuremath{\tfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}} \mathcal H(x)=0$, so that $I=I_G=I_R=0$ and thus $x=0$ in the equilibrium.
Without the damping by the resistances (i.e.\ setting $R_L=R_G=R_R=0$) this is a skew-adjoint DAE.
}
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{ex:ns}{\rm
A classical example of a partial differential equation which, after proper space discretization leads to a pHDAE,
see e.g.\ \cite{EmmM13,QuaQ09}, are the incompressible or nearly incompressible
{\em Navier-Stokes equations} describing the flow of a Newtonian fluid in a domain $\Omega$,
\begin{align*}
\partial_t{v} &= \nu \Delta v - (v\cdot\nabla) v - \nabla p +
f \qquad \text{in } \Omega \times \mathbb T ,\\
0 &=\nabla^T v \qquad \text{in } \Omega \times \mathbb T,
\end{align*}
together with suitable initial and boundary conditions, see e.g.\ \cite{Tem77}. When one linearizes around a prescribed vector field $v_{\infty}$, then one
obtains the \emph{linearized Navier-Stokes equations},
and if $v_{\infty}$ is constant in space
and the term $(v_{\infty}\cdot\nabla) v$ is neglected then one obtains the \emph{Stokes equation}.
Performing a finite element discretization in space, see for instance \cite{Lay08}, a Galerkin projection leads to a dHDAE of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:P-instat-op-general}
\begin{bmatrix} M & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \dot{v} \\ \dot{p} \end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix} A_S(t)-A_H(t) & -B\\ B^T & -C\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} v\\p\end{bmatrix}+\begin{bmatrix}f(t)\\ 0\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $M=M^T>0$ is the mass matrix, $A_S=-A_S^T$, $A_H=A_H^T\geq 0$ are skew-symmetric and symmetric part of the discretized and linearized convection-diffusion operator, $B$ is the discretized gradient operator, $B^T$ is the discretized divergence operator, which we assume to be normalized so that it is of full row rank, and $C=C^T>0$ is a stabilization term of small norm that is needed for some
finite element spaces, see e.g.\ \cite{BreF91,QuaQ09,Ran00,RooST08}. Here $v$ and $p$ denote the discretized velocity and pressure, respectively, and $f$ is a forcing term.
Without the damping (i.e.\ for $A_H=0$ and $C=0$) we again have a skew-adjoint DAE.
}
\end{example}
The class of problems with self-adjoint structure arises most prominently in the context of constrained generalized Hamiltonian systems and in optimal control problems, where the operators associated with the optimality conditions have this structure.
\begin{example}\label{ex:OCP} {\rm In \cite{KunM08} the optimality conditions were derived for
the linear-quadratic optimal control problem of minimizing a cost functional
%
\begin{equation}\label{linOCP}
{\mathcal J}(x,u)=\frac 12 x(t_f)^T M_f x(t_f)+\frac 12
\int_{t_0}^{t_f}\left(x^T W x +x^T S u +u^T S^T x +u^T R u\right)\,dt ,
\end{equation}
subject to the DAE constraint
\begin{equation}\label{DAE_1}
E \dot x= A x+ B u + f,\quad x(t_0)={x_0}\in{\mathbb R}^{n},
\end{equation}
with
$E,A,W\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$,
$B \in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,m})$,
$S \in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,m})$,
$R \in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{m,m})$,
$f \in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n})$ and $M_e \in {\mathbb R}^{n,n}$, where
$R=R^T$, $W=W^T$ and $M_f=M_f^T$.
After some appropriate reformulation (via some index reduction process) and under some smoothness conditions, the optimality condition is given by a boundary value problem
\begin{equation*}\label{e:DAE_op}
\mat{ccc}
0 & E & 0\\
-E^T & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] \frac{d}{dt}
\mat{c} \lambda \\ x \\ u\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}
0 & A & B\\
A^T+\frac{d}{dt} E^T & W & S\\
B^T & S^T & R\end{array}\right]\mat{c} \lambda \\ x \\ u\end{array}\right]+
\mat{c} f\\ 0 \\ 0\end{array}\right],
\end{equation*}
with boundary conditions $x(t_0)={x_0}$,
$E(t_f)^T \lambda(t_f)- M_f x(t_f)=0$.
The associated pair of coefficient functions obviously is a a self-adjoint pair, see \cite{KunMS14}.
}
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{ex:conHam}{\rm
Linear multibody systems with linear holonomic constraints, see \cite{HaiLW02,LeiR94}, take the form
{\arraycolsep 2.4pt
\begin{eqnarray*}
M \dot p & =& -W q -G^T \lambda,\\
\dot q & = & p,\\
0 & =&G q,
\end{eqnarray*}}%
where $p,q \in C^1(\mathbb I, \mathbb R^{n})$,
$W,M\in \mathbb R^{n,n}$ with $W=W^T$, $M=M^T$,
and $G\in \mathbb R^{m,n}$.
If the mass matrix is positive definite, i.e.\ $M>0$,
then we can multiply the second equation by $-M$ and the constraint by $-1$ to obtain, after switching the first and second equation,
\[
\mat{ccc} 0 & M & 0 \\ -M & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \mat{c} \dot q \\ \dot p \\ \dot \lambda \end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc} -W & 0 & -G^T \\ 0 & -M & 0 \\ -G & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \mat{c} q \\ p \\ \lambda \end{array}\right],
\]
which has the structure of a self-adjoint DAE.
If $W>0$ then we can also multiply the second equation of the constrained Hamiltonian system
by~$W$ to obtain
%
\[
\mat{ccc} W & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & M & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \mat{c} \dot q \\ \dot p \\ \dot \lambda \end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc} 0 & W & 0 \\ -W & 0 & -G^T \\ 0 & G & 0 \end{array}\right] \mat{c} q \\ p \\ \lambda \end{array}\right]
\]
which now has the structure of a skew-adjoint DAE.
}
\end{example}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:trafo}{\rm
It should be noted that if in a self-adjoint system $E \dot x=A x+f$, both $E$ and $A$ are constant in time and invertible, then by multiplication with $E^{-1}$ and a change of variables $z= Ax$ we get a system
$ A^{-1} \dot z = E^{-1} z+ E^{-1} f$ that is skew-adjoint.
A similar construction has also been proposed for dissipative Hamiltonian systems in \cite{Egg19}.
}
\end{remark}
Having illustrated the importance of DAEs with symmetries, in this paper we present canonical forms for DAEs (\ref{lindae})
with self-adjoint and skew-adjoint structure and show the consequences for the resulting flows.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:prelim} we recall some results for general DAEs. In Section~\ref{sec:self} we discuss canonical forms for self-adjoint and in Section~\ref{sec:skew} for skew-adjoint DAEs.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}
Linear time-varying DAE systems have been extensively discussed, see \cite{KunM06} for a detailed analytical and numerical treatment. In this section we recall some basic concepts from the general theory of DAEs.
Our first concept is that of \emph{regularity} for DAEs that is concerned with the existence of solutions at least for
sufficiently smooth inhomogeneity (surjectivity) and uniqueness
of the solution in the cases where the initial condition $x(t_0)=x_0$
allows for a solution (injectivity).
\begin{definition}\label{def:regular}
The pair $(E,A)$ and the corresponding DAE\ (\ref{lindae})
are called \emph{regular} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the DAE\ (\ref{lindae}) is solvable for every sufficiently smooth~$f$,
\item
the solution is unique
for every $t_0\in{\mathbb I}$ and every
$x_0\in{\mathbb R}^n$ allowing for a solution of the DAE with $x(t_0)=x_0$,
\item
the solution depends smoothly on~$f$, $t_0$, and~$x_0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The most important technique for the analysis of general linear DAEs is the construction of suitable local
and global canonical forms under global equivalence. Since we will refer to these results and some techniques from
their derivation, we include here the necessary material from the general (square) case.
We start with (global) equivalence which refers to time-dependent scaling
of the DAE and changes of basis.
\begin{definition}\label{def:global}
Two pairs $(E_i,A_i)$, $E_i,A_i\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$, $i=1,2$,
of matrix functions
are called {\em $($globally$)$ equivalent} if there exist pointwise nonsingular
matrix functions
$P\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ and
$Q\in C^1({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{global}
E_2=PE_1Q,\quad A_2=PA_1Q-PE_1\dot Q
\end{equation}
as equality of functions.
We write $(E_1,A_1)\sim(E_2,A_2)$.
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that the relation defined in Definition~\ref{def:global}
indeed is an equivalence relation, \cite{KunM06}.
The derivation of canonical forms then relies on the following property
of matrix functions on intervals, see~\cite{Dol64,KunM06}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:rank}
Let $E\in C^k({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{m,n})$,
$k\in{\mathbb N}_0\cup\{\infty\}$,
with $\rank E(t)=r$ for all $t\in{\mathbb I}$.
Then there exist pointwise orthogonal functions
$U\in C^k({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{m,m})$ and
$V\in C^k({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sep}
U^TEV= \begin{bmatrix} \Sigma&0\\0&0\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
with pointwise nonsingular $\Sigma\in C^k({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{r,r})$.
\end{theorem}
We then have the following result on a local canonical form, i.~e.,
a canonical form that requires the restriction to certain subintervals, see~\cite[Section~3.1,Section~3.3]{KunM06}.
In the following, non-specified blocks of matrices or matrix functions are denoted by~$*$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:lcfgen}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth.
Then there exist pairwise disjoint open intervals ${\mathbb I}_j$, $j\in{\mathbb N}$, with
\begin{equation}\label{dec}
\overline{\bigcup_{j\in{\mathbb N}}{\mathbb I}_j}={\mathbb I}
\end{equation}
such that on every ${\mathbb I}_j$ one has
\begin{equation}\label{lcfgen}
(E,A)\sim\left(\mat{cc}I_d&W\\0&G\end{array}\right],\mat{cc}0&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]\right),
\end{equation}
where $G$ is structurally nilpotent according to
\begin{equation}\label{nil}
G=\mat{cccc}0&*&\cdots&*\\&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots\\&&\ddots&*\\&&&0\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the size~$d$ of the differential part and the size~$a$ of the algebraic part
are the same for every interval.
\end{theorem}
A global canonical form, i.e., a canonical form that does not require
the restriction to certain subintervals, was given in~\cite{Cam87a}.
We state this result here in a version for real-valued problems omitting
the last step of the proof which would require complex-valued transformations.
We include the proof for later reference.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:gcf}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth.
Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{gcf}
(E,A)\sim\left(
\left[\begin{array}{cc} I_{d}&E_{12}\\0&E_{22} \end{array}\right],
\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0&A_{12}\\0&A_{22} \end{array}\right]\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{gcfq}
E_{22}(t)\dot x_2=A_{22}(t)x_2+f_2(t)
\end{equation}
is uniquely solvable for every sufficiently smooth~$f_2$
without specifying initial conditions.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If the homogeneous equation
\[
E(t)\dot x=A(t)x
\]
has only the trivial solution, then
the first block in (\ref{gcf}) is missing (i.~e., $d=0$) and the
claim holds trivially by assumption. In any case, the solution space is
finite dimensional, since otherwise we could not select a unique solution
by prescribing initial conditions.
Let therefore $d\ne0$ and let $\{\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_{d}\}$
be a basis of the solution space. Setting
$\Phi=[\>\phi_1\>\>\cdots\>\>\phi_{d}\>]$,
we have
\[
\hbox{$\rank \Phi(t)=d$ for all $t\in{\mathbb I}$,}
\]
since, if we had $\rank \Phi(t)<d$ for some $t_0\in{\mathbb I}$,
then there would exist coefficients
$\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{d}\in{\mathbb R}$,
not all being zero, with
\[
\alpha_1\phi_1(t_0)+\cdots+\alpha_{d}\phi_{d}(t_0)=0
\]
and $\alpha_1\phi_1+\cdots+\alpha_{d}\phi_{d}$
would be a nontrivial solution of the homogeneous initial value problem.
Hence, by Theorem~\ref{th:rank}
there exists a smooth, pointwise nonsingular matrix function~$U$ with
\[
U^H\Phi=\left[\begin{array}{c} I_{d}\\0 \end{array}\right].
\]
Defining
\[
\Phi'=U\left[\begin{array}{c} 0\\I_{a} \end{array}\right]
\]
yields a pointwise nonsingular matrix function $Q=[\>\Phi\>\>\Phi'\>]$.
Since $E\dot\Phi=A\Phi$, we obtain
\[
(E,A)\sim
([\>E\Phi\>\>E\Phi'\>],
[\>A\Phi\>\>A\Phi'\>]-[\>E\dot\Phi\>\>E\dot\Phi'\>])=
([\>E_1\>\>E_2\>],[\>0\>\>A_2\>]).
\]
In this relation, $E_1$ has full column rank~$d$.
To see this, suppose that $\rank E_1(\hat t)<d$
for some $\hat t\in{\mathbb I}$.
Then there would exist a vector $w\ne0$ with
\[
E_1(\hat t)w=0.
\]
Defining in this situation
\[
f(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{1\over t-\hat t}E_1(t)w&\hbox{for $t\ne\hat t$},\\[1mm]
{d\over dt}(E_1(t)w)&\hbox{for $t=\hat t$} ,
\end{array}\right.
\]
we would obtain a smooth inhomogeneity~$f$. The function~$x$ given by
\[
x(t)=\left[\begin{array}{c} \log(\vert t-\hat t\vert)w\\0 \end{array}\right]
\]
would then solve
\[
[\>E_1(t)\>\>E_2(t)\>]\dot x=[\>0\>\>A_2(t)\>]x+f(t)
\]
on ${\mathbb I}\setminus\{\hat t\}$ in contradiction to the assumption
of unique solvability, which includes by definition that solutions are defined
on the entire interval~${\mathbb I}$.
Hence, since $E_1$ has full column rank,
there exists a smooth, pointwise nonsingular matrix function~$P$ with
\[
PE_1=\left[\begin{array}{c} I_{d}\\0 \end{array}\right],
\]
and thus
\[
(E,A)\sim\left(
\left[\begin{array}{cc} I_{d}&E_{12}\\0&E_{22} \end{array}\right],
\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0&A_{12}\\0&A_{22} \end{array}\right]\right).
\]
The equation
\[
E_{22}(t)\dot x_2=A_{22}(t)x_2
\]
only admits the trivial solution. To see this, suppose that
$x_2\ne0$ is a nontrivial solution
and~$x_1$ a solution of the ODE
\[
\dot x_1+E_{12}(t)\dot x_2(t)=A_{22}(t)x_2(t).
\]
Then we obtain
\[
[\>E_1(t)\>\>E_2(t)\>]
\left[\begin{array}{c} \dot x_1(t)\\\dot x_2(t) \end{array}\right]=
[\>0\>\>A_2(t)\>]
\left[\begin{array}{c} x_1(t)\\x_2(t) \end{array}\right].
\]
Since $x_2\ne0$, transforming back gives
\[
E(t)Q(t)
\left[\begin{array}{c} \dot x_1(t)\\\dot x_2(t) \end{array}\right]=
(A(t)Q(t)-E(t)\dot Q(t))
\left[\begin{array}{c} x_1(t)\\x_2(t) \end{array}\right]
\]
or $E(t)\dot x(t)=A(t)x(t)$ with
\[
x=Q\left[\begin{array}{c} x_1\\x_2\end{array}\right]\ne0,\quad
x\not\in\pspan\{\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_{d}\}.
\]
But this contradicts the construction of $\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_{d}$,
and hence (\ref{gcf}) holds.
\end{proof}
In the presence of symmetries, we of course want to maintain these properties,
which requires to restrict the allowed equivalence transformations.
We will make use of the following notions and properties.
\begin{definition}\label{def:congruence}
Two pairs $(E_i,A_i)$, $E_i,A_i\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$, $i=1,2$,
of matrix functions
are called {\em congruent} if there exist a pointwise nonsingular
matrix function
$Q\in C^1({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{congruence}
E_2=Q^TE_1Q,\quad A_2=Q^TA_1Q-Q^TE_1\dot Q
\end{equation}
as equality of functions.
We write $(E_1,A_1)\equiv(E_2,A_2)$.
\end{definition}
Again, it is easy to see that the relation defined in Definition~\ref{def:congruence}
indeed is an equivalence relation, see \cite{KunMS14}.
The following result then modifies Theorem~\ref{th:rank} provided some symmetry property holds.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:ranksym}
Let $E\in C^k({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$,
$k\in{\mathbb N}_0\cup\{\infty\}$,
with $\rank E(t)=r$ for all $t\in{\mathbb I}$
and let $\kernel E(t)^T=\kernel E(t)$ for all $t\in{\mathbb I}$.
Then there exist a pointwise orthogonal function
$Q\in C^k({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sepsym}
Q^TEQ= \begin{bmatrix} \Sigma&0\\0&0\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
with pointwise nonsingular $\Sigma\in C^k({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{r,r})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
With $Q=V$ from Theorem~\ref{th:rank}, the pointwise property $\kernel E^T=\kernel E$
allows to choose $U=Q^T$.
\end{proof}
In the next two sections we will employ these preliminary results to derive
canonical forms for self-adjoint and skew-adjoint DAEs.
\section{Canonical forms for self-adjoint pairs of matrix functions}\label{sec:self}
In this section we study canonical forms under congruence for self-adjoint DAEs.
We first show that congruence preserves the self-adjoint structure.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:self} Consider two pairs of matrix functions
$(E,A)$ and $(\widetilde E,\widetilde A)$ that are congruent and let $(E,A)$ be self-adjoint.
Then $(\widetilde E,\widetilde A)$ is self-adjoint as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
\widetilde E=Q^TEQ,\quad\widetilde A=Q^TAQ-Q^TE\dot Q
\]
and assume that (\ref{self}) holds. Then
\[
\widetilde E^T=Q^TE^TQ=-Q^TEQ=-\widetilde E
\]
and
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde A^T=
Q^TA^TQ-\dot Q^TE^TQ=Q^T(A+\dot E)Q+\dot Q^TEQ\\[1mm]
\hphantom{\widetilde A^T}=
Q^TAQ-Q^TE\dot Q+Q^TE\dot Q+Q^T\dot EQ+\dot Q^TEQ\\
\hphantom{\widetilde A^T}=
(Q^TAQ-Q^TE\dot Q)+\ensuremath{\tfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}} (Q^TEQ)=\widetilde A+\dot{\widetilde E}.
\end{array}
\]
\end{proof}
For self-adjoint pairs the following local canonical form under pointwise orthogonal
congruence transformations is due to \cite{KunMS14} stated here for the special
case of a regular pair of matrix functions.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:lcfself1}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth and let $(E,A)$ be skew-adjoint. Then
there exist pairwise disjoint open intervals~${\mathbb I}_j$, $j\in{\mathbb N}$, with (\ref{sep})
such that on every~${\mathbb I}_j$ there exists a pointwise orthogonal~$Q\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ with
\begin{equation}\label{lcfself1}
(Q^TEQ,
Q^T\!AQ-Q^TE\dot Q)=
\left(\mat{c|cc|c}
*&*&*&E_{14}\\\hline
*&\Delta&0&0\\
*&0&0&0\\\hline
E_{41}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right],\mat{c|cc|c}
*&*&*&A_{14}\\\hline
*&\Sigma_{11}&\Sigma_{12}&0\\
*&\Sigma_{21}&\Sigma_{22}&0\\\hline
A_{41}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right]\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{nilself1}
E_{14}=\mat{cccc}
*&\cdots&*&0\\
\vdots&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
*&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
0
\end{array}\right],\quad
A_{14}=\mat{cccc}
*&\cdots&*&\Gamma_w\\
\vdots&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
*&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
\Gamma_1
\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
and $\Delta,\Sigma_{22},\Gamma_1,\ldots,\Gamma_w$ are pointwise nonsingular. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{propself1}
\Delta^T=-\Delta,\quad\Sigma_{11}^T=\Sigma_{11}\.+\dot\Delta,\quad
\Sigma_{21}^T=\Sigma_{12}\.,\quad\Sigma_{22}^T=\Sigma_{22}\.,\quad A_{41}^T=A_{14}\.+\dot E_{14}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{th:lcfself1} can be further refined by allowing for a restricted class of non-orthogonal transformations, see again~\cite{KunMS14}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:lcfself2}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth and let $(E,A)$ be skew-adjoint. Then
there exist pairwise disjoint open intervals~${\mathbb I}_j$, $j\in{\mathbb N}$, with (\ref{sep})
such that on every~${\mathbb I}_j$ there exists a pointwise nonsingular~$Q\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ with
\begin{equation}\label{lcfself2}
(Q^TEQ,
Q^T\!AQ-Q^TE\dot Q)=
\left(\mat{c|cc|c}
*&*&*&E_{14}\\\hline
*&J&0&0\\
*&0&0&0\\\hline
E_{41}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right],\mat{c|cc|c}
*&*&*&A_{14}\\\hline
*&C&0&0\\
*&0&\Sigma_{22}&0\\\hline
A_{41}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right]\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{nilself2}
E_{14}=\mat{ccccc}
*&\cdots&*&0\\
\vdots&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
*&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
0
\end{array}\right],\quad
A_{14}=\mat{ccccc}
*&\cdots&*&I\\
\vdots&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
*&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
I
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
and $\Sigma_{22}$ pointwise nonsingular. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{propself2}
J=\mat{cc}0&I_p\\-I_p&0\end{array}\right],\quad C^T=C\.,\quad
\Sigma_{22}^T=\Sigma_{22}\.,\quad A_{41}^T=A_{14}\.+\dot E_{14}\..
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
By successively resolving the algebraic equations in the fourth, third and first row of the DAE with solution
$[\>x_1^T \>\> x_2^T \>\> x_3^T \>\> x_4^T \>]^T$ and inhomogeneity
$[\>f_1^T \>\> f_2^T \>\> f_3^T \>\> f_4^T \>]^T$
associated with \eqref{lcfself2}, we can directly solve for $x_1$ in terms of linear combinations of derivatives of $f_4$,
for $x_3$ in terms of $x_1$ and $f_3$, and for $x_4$ in terms of linear combinations of derivatives of $f_1$ and all other components. The only dynamic behavior related to (\ref{lcfself2}) is described
by the second block row. Inserting $x_1$ obtained from the last block row and calling the updated inhomogeneity $\widetilde f_2$, the associated ODE reads
\begin{equation}\label{odeself}
\dot x_2=J^{-1}C(t)x_2+J^{-1}\widetilde f_2(t).
\end{equation}
The matrix function $M=J^{-1} C$ satisfies $M^TJ-JM=0$ and lies therefore pointwise in the \emph{Lie algebra of Hamiltonian matrices}, see e.g.\ \cite{Hal03}. Thus, the flow corresponding to (\ref{odeself})
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{odeselffunda}
\dot \Phi_2=J^{-1}C(t) \Phi_2,\quad \Phi_2(t_0)= I
\end{equation}
satisfies $\Phi_2^T J \Phi_2 =J$, see e.g.\ \cite{HaiLW02}, and is therefore symplectic.
In~\cite{KunMS14}, also a global canonical form for self-adjoint DAEs and the associated pairs $(E,A)$ was derived.
The following modified result differs slightly in the assumptions, and, moreover, the resulting canonical form is more refined.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:gcfself}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth and let $(E,A)$ be self-adjoint. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{gcfself}
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 0&I_{p}&0\\-I_{p}&0&0\\0&0&E_{33} \end{array}\right],
\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 0&0&0\\0&A_{22}&A_{23}\\0&A_{32}&A_{33} \end{array}\right]\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{gcfselfq}
E_{33}(t)\dot x_3=A_{33}(t)x_3+f_3(t),
\end{equation}
is uniquely solvable for every sufficiently smooth~$f_3$
without specifying initial conditions. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{gcfselfp}
E_{33}^T=-E_{33}\.,\quad A_{22}^T=A_{22}\.,\quad A_{32}^T=A_{23}\.,\quad A_{33}^T=A_{33}+\dot E_{33}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
According to Theorem~\ref{th:lcfself2}, the size~$d$ of the differential part
is given by $d=2p$. This implies that the solution space of the
homogeneous equation
\[
E(t)\dot x=A(t)x
\]
is of dimension~$2p$. If $p=0$, then
the first two blocks are missing and the
claim holds trivially by assumption.
Let therefore $p\ne0$ and let $\{\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_{2p}\}$
be a basis of the solution space. Setting
$\Phi=[\>\phi_1\>\>\cdots\>\>\phi_{2p}\>]$,
we have
\[
\hbox{$\rank \Phi(t)=2p$ for all $t\in{\mathbb I}$}
\]
as in the general case of Theorem~\ref{th:gcf}.
Hence, by Theorem~\ref{th:rank}
there exists a smooth, pointwise nonsingular matrix function~$U$ with
\[
U^H\Phi=\left[\begin{array}{c} I_{2p}\\0 \end{array}\right].
\]
Defining
\[
\Phi'=U\left[\begin{array}{c} 0\\I_{a} \end{array}\right]
\]
with $a=n-2p$
yields a pointwise nonsingular matrix function $Q=[\>\Phi\>\>\Phi'\>]$.
Since $E\dot\Phi=A\Phi$, we obtain
\[
(\widetilde E,\widetilde A)=(Q^TEQ,Q^TAQ-Q^TE\dot Q)
\]
with
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde E=\mat{cc}\Phi^TE\Phi&\Phi^TE\Phi'\\\Phi'^TE\Phi&\Phi'^TE\Phi'\end{array}\right]=
\mat{cc}\widetilde E_{11}&\widetilde E_{12}\\-\widetilde E_{12}^T&\widetilde E_{22}\end{array}\right],\\
\widetilde A=\mat{cc}\Phi^T(A\Phi-E\dot\Phi)&\Phi^T(A\Phi'-E\dot\Phi')\\\Phi'^T(A\Phi-E\dot\Phi)&\Phi'^T(A\Phi'-E\dot\Phi')\end{array}\right]=
\mat{cc}0&\widetilde A_{12}\\0&\widetilde A_{22}\end{array}\right].
\end{array}
\]
To simplify the notation, we omit now and later at similar instances
the tildes thus re-using the same notation for possibly different quantities
and write
\[
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\mat{cc}E_{11}&E_{12}\\-E_{12}^T&E_{22}\end{array}\right],
\mat{cc}0&A_{12}\\0&A_{22}\end{array}\right]\right).
\]
As in the general case, we can conclude that
\[
\rank\mat{c}E_{11}\\-E_{12}^T\end{array}\right]=2p.
\]
Since self-adjointness is conserved, we additionally have
\[
E_{11}^T=-E_{11},\quad E_{22}^T=-E_{22},\quad 0=\dot E_{11},\quad
0=A_{12}+\dot E_{12},\quad A_{22}^T=A_{22}+\dot E_{22}.
\]
In particular, $E_{11}$ is constant and skew-symmetric.
Hence, see \cite{KunMS14}, there exists an orthogonal symplectic matrix~$U\in{\mathbb R}^{2p,2p}$ with
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde E=
\mat{cc}U^T&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}E_{11}&E_{12}\\-E_{12}^T&E_{22}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}U&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}0&\widetilde E_{12}&\widetilde E_{13}\\-\widetilde E_{12}^T&\widetilde E_{22}&\widetilde E_{23}\\-\widetilde E_{13}^T&-\widetilde E_{23}^T&\widetilde E_{33}\end{array}\right],\\
\widetilde A=
\mat{cc}U^T&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}0&A_{12}\\0&A_{22}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}U&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}0&0&\widetilde A_{13}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{23}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{33}\end{array}\right],
\end{array}
\]
where $\widetilde E_{12}\in{\mathbb R}^{p,p}$.
Omitting again the tildes, we write
\[
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\mat{ccc}0&E_{12}&E_{13}\\-E_{12}^T&E_{22}&E_{23}\\-E_{13}^T&-E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right],
\mat{ccc}0&0&A_{13}\\0&0&A_{23}\\0&0&A_{33}\end{array}\right]\right).
\]
Conservation of self-adjointness and full rank of the leading block yields
\[
E_{22}^T=-E_{22},\quad E_{33}^T=-E_{33},\quad 0=\dot E_{12},\quad 0=\dot E_{22},\quad\rank[\>E_{12}\>\>E_{13}\>]=p.
\]
Hence, there exists a smooth, pointwise nonsingular matrix function~$V$ with
\[
[\>E_{12}\>\>E_{13}\>]V=[\>I_p\>\>0\>]
\]
leading to
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde E=
\mat{cc}I_p&0\\0&V^T\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&E_{12}&E_{13}\\-E_{12}^T&E_{22}&E_{23}\\-E_{13}^T&-E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}I_p&0\\0&V\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}0&I_p&0\\-I_p&\widetilde E_{22}&\widetilde E_{23}\\0&-\widetilde E_{23}^T&\widetilde E_{33}\end{array}\right],\\
\widetilde A=
\mat{cc}I_p&0\\0&V^T\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&0&\widetilde A_{13}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{23}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}I_p&0\\0&V\end{array}\right]\\
\qquad\qquad{}-
\mat{cc}I_p&0\\0&V^T\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&E_{12}&E_{13}\\-E_{12}^T&E_{22}&E_{23}\\-E_{13}^T&-E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}0&0\\0&\dot V\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}0&\widetilde A_{12}&\widetilde A_{13}\\0&\widetilde A_{22}&\widetilde A_{23}\\0&\widetilde A_{32}&\widetilde A_{33}\end{array}\right].
\end{array}
\]
Omitting the tildes again, we write
\[
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\mat{ccc}0&I_p&0\\-I_p&E_{22}&E_{23}\\0&-E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right],
\mat{ccc}0&A_{12}&A_{13}\\0&A_{22}&A_{23}\\0&A_{32}&A_{33}\end{array}\right]\right).
\]
Conservation of self-adjointness yields
\[
E_{22}^T=-E_{22},\quad E_{33}^T=-E_{33},\quad 0=A_{12},\quad 0=A_{13}.
\]
Finally, after a congruence transformation with,
\[
\mat{ccc}I_p&\frac12E_{22}&E_{23}\\0&I_p&0\\0&0&I_a\end{array}\right],
\]
we arrive at
\[
\arraycolsep 4pt
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde E=
\mat{ccc}I_p&0&0\\-\frac12E_{22}&I_p&0\\E_{23}^T&0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&I_p&0\\-I_p&E_{22}&E_{23}\\0&-E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}I_p&\frac12E_{22}&E_{23}\\0&I_p&0\\0&0&I_a\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}0&I_p&0\\-I_p&0&0\\0&0&\widetilde E_{33}\end{array}\right],\\
\widetilde A=
\mat{ccc}I_p&0&0\\-\frac12E_{22}&I_p&0\\E_{23}^T&0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&A_{12}&A_{13}\\0&A_{22}&A_{23}\\0&A_{32}&A_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}I_p&\frac12E_{22}&E_{23}\\0&I_p&0\\0&0&I_a\end{array}\right]\\
\qquad\qquad{}-
\mat{ccc}I_p&0&0\\-\frac12E_{22}&I_p&0\\E_{23}^T&0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&I_p&0\\-I_p&E_{22}&E_{23}\\0&-E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&\frac12\dot E_{22}&\dot E_{23}\\0&0&0\\0&0&0\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}0&0&0\\0&\widetilde A_{22}&\widetilde A_{23}\\0&\widetilde A_{32}&\widetilde A_{33}\end{array}\right].
\end{array}
\]
Omitting again the tildes then yields
\[
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\mat{ccc}0&I_p&0\\-I_p&0&0\\0&0&E_{33}\end{array}\right],
\mat{ccc}0&0&0\\0&A_{22}&A_{23}\\0&A_{32}&A_{33}\end{array}\right]\right)
\]
which is just (\ref{gcfself}),
where (\ref{gcfselfq}) follows along the same lines as in the general case
and (\ref{gcfselfp}) follows by the conservation of self-adjointness.
\end{proof}
After having derived canonical forms for self-adjoint DAEs, in the next section we derive an analogous form for skew-adjoint DAEs.
\section{Canonical forms for skew-adjoint pairs of matrix functions}\label{sec:skew}
In this section we show that canonical forms under congruence can be derived also for skew-adjoint DAEs.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:skew} Consider two pairs of matrix functions
$(E,A)$ and $(\widetilde E,\widetilde A)$ that are congruent
and let $(E,A)$ be skew-adjoint.
Then $(\widetilde E,\widetilde A)$ is skew-adjoint as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
\widetilde E=Q^TEQ,\quad\widetilde A=Q^TAQ-Q^TE\dot Q
\]
and assume that (\ref{skew}) holds. Then
\[
\widetilde E^T=Q^TE^TQ=Q^TEQ=\widetilde E
\]
and
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde A^T=
Q^TA^TQ-\dot Q^TE^TQ=Q^T(-A-\dot E)Q-\dot Q^TEQ\\[1mm]
\hphantom{\widetilde A^T}=
-Q^TAQ+Q^TE\dot Q-Q^TE\dot Q-Q^T\dot EQ-\dot Q^TEQ\\
\hphantom{\widetilde A^T}=
-(Q^TAQ-Q^TE\dot Q)-\ensuremath{\tfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}} (Q^TEQ)=-\widetilde A-\dot{\widetilde E}.
\end{array}
\]
\end{proof}
The following result on a local canonical form under pointwise orthogonal
congruence transformations is due to \cite{Sch19}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:lcfskew1}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth and let $(E,A)$ be skew-adjoint. Then
there exist pairwise disjoint open intervals~${\mathbb I}_j$, $j\in{\mathbb N}$, with (\ref{sep})
such that on every~${\mathbb I}_j$ there exists a pointwise orthogonal~$Q\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ with
\begin{equation}\label{lcfskew1}
(Q^TEQ,
Q^T\!AQ-Q^TE\dot Q)=
\left(\mat{c|cc|c}
*&*&*&E_{14}\\\hline
*&\Delta&0&0\\
*&0&0&0\\\hline
E_{41}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right],\mat{c|cc|c}
*&*&*&A_{14}\\\hline
*&\Sigma_{11}&\Sigma_{12}&0\\
*&\Sigma_{21}&\Sigma_{22}&0\\\hline
A_{41}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right]\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{nilskew1}
E_{14}=\mat{cccc}
*&\cdots&*&0\\
\vdots&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
*&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
0
\end{array}\right],\quad
A_{14}=\mat{cccc}
*&\cdots&*&\Gamma_w\\
\vdots&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
*&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
\Gamma_1
\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
and $\Delta,\Sigma_{22},\Gamma_1,\ldots,\Gamma_w$ are pointwise nonsingular. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{propskew1}
\Delta^T=\Delta,\quad\Sigma_{11}^T=-\Sigma_{11}\.-\dot\Delta,\quad
\Sigma_{21}^T=-\Sigma_{12}\.,\quad\Sigma_{22}^T=-\Sigma_{22}\.,\quad A_{41}^T=-A_{14}\.-\dot E_{14}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{th:lcfself1} can be further refined by allowing for a restricted class of non-orthogonal transformations, which yields the following local canonical form which, using a recent result of~\cite{Kun20}, is more refined than that in~\cite{Sch19}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:lcfskew2}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth and let $(E,A)$ be skew-adjoint. Then
there exist pairwise disjoint open intervals~${\mathbb I}_j$, $j\in{\mathbb N}$, with (\ref{sep})
such that on every~${\mathbb I}_j$ there exists a pointwise nonsingular~$Q\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ with
\begin{equation}\label{lcfskew2}
(Q^TEQ,
Q^T\!AQ-Q^TE\dot Q)=
\left(\mat{c|cc|c}
*&*&*&E_{14}\\\hline
*&S&0&0\\
*&0&0&0\\\hline
E_{41}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right],\mat{c|cc|c}
*&*&*&A_{14}\\\hline
*&J&0&0\\
*&0&\Sigma_{22}&0\\\hline
A_{41}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right]\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{nilskew2}
E_{14}=\mat{ccccc}
*&\cdots&*&0\\
\vdots&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
*&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
0
\end{array}\right],\quad
A_{14}=\mat{ccccc}
*&\cdots&*&I\\
\vdots&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
*&\mbox{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt\\
I
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
and $\Sigma_{22}$ pointwise nonsingular. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{propskew2}
S=\mat{cc}I_p&0\\0&-I_q\end{array}\right],\quad J^T=-J\.,\quad
\Sigma_{22}^T=-\Sigma_{22}\.,\quad A_{41}^T=-A_{14}\.-\dot E_{14}\..
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Compared with the result in~\cite{Sch19}, to obtain the stated local canonical form
we need a smooth version of Sylvester's law of inertia, which is proved in~\cite{Kun20}.
In particular, this result shows the
existence of a smooth transformation~$W$ with $W^T\!\Delta\,W=S$, where $\Delta$ is
pointwise nonsingular and symmetric.
\end{proof}
By successively resolving the algebraic equations in the fourth, third and first row of the DAE with solution
$[\>x_1^T \>\> x_2^T \>\> x_3^T \>\> x_4^T \>]^T$ and inhomogeneity
$[\>f_1^T \>\> f_2^T \>\> f_3^T \>\> f_4^T \>]^T$
associated with \eqref{lcfself2}, we can directly solve for $x_1$ in terms of linear combinations of derivatives of $f_4$,
for $x_3$ in terms of $x_1$ and $f_3$, and for $x_4$ in terms of linear combinations of derivatives of $f_1$ and all other components. The only dynamic behavior related to (\ref{lcfself2}) is described
by the second block row. Inserting $x_1$ obtained from the last block row and calling the updated inhomogeneity $\widetilde f_2$, the associated ODE reads
\begin{equation}\label{odeskew}
\dot x_2=S^{-1}J(t)x_2+S^{-1}\widetilde f_2(t).
\end{equation}
The matrix function $M=S^{-1}J$ has the property that $SM$ is skew-symmetric,
i.e., that $(SM)^T=-(SM)$ or $M^TS+SM=0$, and lies therefore pointwise in the Lie algebra
belonging to the quadratic Lie group
\[
O(p,q)=\{\Phi\in{\mathbb R}^{n,n}\mid\Phi^TS\Phi=S\},
\]
the so-called \emph{generalized orthogonal group with inertia $(p,q,0)$}, see e.g.\ \cite{Hal03},
implying that the flow belonging to (\ref{odeskew}) lies in $O(p,q)$.
Observe the special case $p=0$ or $q=0$ where the flow is then orthogonal.
We also obtain a global canonical form.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:gcfskew}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth and let $(E,A)$ be skew-adjoint. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{gcfskew}
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\left[\begin{array}{ccc} I_{p}&0&0\\0&-I_{q}&0\\0&0&E_{33} \end{array}\right],
\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 0&0&0\\0&0&0\\0&0&A_{33} \end{array}\right]\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{gcfskewq}
E_{33}(t)\dot x_3=A_{33}(t)x_3+f_3(t)
\end{equation}
is uniquely solvable for every sufficiently smooth~$f_3$
without specifying initial conditions. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{gcfskewp}
E_{33}^T=E_{33}\.,\quad A_{33}^T=-A_{33}-\dot E_{33}\.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
According to Theorem~\ref{th:lcfskew2}, the size~$d$ of the differential part
is given by $d=p+q$. This implies that the solution space of the
homogeneous equation
\[
E(t)\dot x=A(t)x
\]
is of dimension~$p+q$. If $p+q=0$, then
the first two blocks are missing and the
claim holds trivially by assumption.
Let therefore $p+q\ne0$ and let $\{\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_{p+q}\}$
be a basis of the solution space. Setting
$\Phi=[\>\phi_1\>\>\cdots\>\>\phi_{p+q}\>]$,
we have
\[
\hbox{$\rank \Phi(t)=p+q$ for all $t\in{\mathbb I}$}
\]
as in the general case of Theorem~\ref{th:gcf}.
Hence, by Theorem~\ref{th:rank}
there exists a smooth, pointwise nonsingular matrix function~$U$ with
\[
U^H\Phi=\left[\begin{array}{c} I_{p+q}\\0 \end{array}\right].
\]
Defining
\[
\Phi'=U\left[\begin{array}{c} 0\\I_{a} \end{array}\right]
\]
with $a=n-(p+q)$
yields a pointwise nonsingular matrix function $Q=[\>\Phi\>\>\Phi'\>]$.
Since $E\dot\Phi=A\Phi$, we obtain
\[
(\widetilde E,\widetilde A)=(Q^TEQ,Q^TAQ-Q^TE\dot Q)
\]
with
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde E=\mat{cc}\Phi^TE\Phi&\Phi^TE\Phi'\\\Phi'^TE\Phi&\Phi'^TE\Phi'\end{array}\right]=
\mat{cc}\widetilde E_{11}&\widetilde E_{12}\\ \widetilde E_{12}^T&\widetilde E_{22}\end{array}\right],\\
\widetilde A=\mat{cc}\Phi^T(A\Phi-E\dot\Phi)&\Phi^T(A\Phi'-E\dot\Phi')\\\Phi'^T(A\Phi-E\dot\Phi)&\Phi'^T(A\Phi'-E\dot\Phi')\end{array}\right]=
\mat{cc}0&\widetilde A_{12}\\0&\widetilde A_{22}\end{array}\right].
\end{array}
\]
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:gcfself}, we omit now and later at similar instances
the tildes thus re-using the same notation for possibly different quantities
and write
\[
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\mat{cc}E_{11}&E_{12}\\E_{12}^T&E_{22}\end{array}\right],
\mat{cc}0&A_{12}\\0&A_{22}\end{array}\right]\right).
\]
As in the general case, we can conclude that
\[
\rank\mat{c}E_{11}\\E_{12}^T\end{array}\right]=p+q.
\]
Since skew-adjointness is conserved, we additionally have
\[
E_{11}^T=E_{11},\quad E_{22}^T=E_{22},\quad 0=\dot E_{11},\quad
0=-A_{12}-\dot E_{12},\quad A_{22}^T=-A_{22}-\dot E_{22}.
\]
In particular, $E_{11}$ is constant and symmetric.
Moreover, in the following we will show that~$E_{11}$ is nonsingular.
Due to Sylvester's law of inertia, there is a nonsingular matrix~$U\in{\mathbb R}^{d,d}$,
$d=p+q+r$, with
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde E=
\mat{cc}U^T&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}E_{11}&E_{12}\\E_{12}^T&E_{22}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}U&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}S&0&\widetilde E_{13}\\0&0&\widetilde E_{23}\\\widetilde E_{13}^T&\widetilde E_{23}^T&\widetilde E_{33}\end{array}\right],\\
\widetilde A=
\mat{cc}U^T&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}0&A_{12}\\0&A_{22}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cc}U&0\\0&I_a\end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc}0&0&\widetilde A_{13}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{23}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{33}\end{array}\right].
\end{array}
\]
where $S=\diag(I_p,-I_q)$.
Omitting again the tildes, we write
\[
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\mat{ccc}S&0&E_{13}\\0&0&E_{23}\\E_{13}^T&E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right],
\mat{ccc}0&0&A_{13}\\0&0&A_{23}\\0&0&A_{33}\end{array}\right]\right).
\]
Conservation of skew-adjointness and full rank of the leading block yields
\[
E_{33}=E_{33}^T,\quad 0=-A_{13}-\dot E_{13},\quad 0=-A_{23}-\dot E_{23},\quad A_{33}^T=-A_{33}-\dot E_{33},\quad\rank E_{23}=r.
\]
Hence, there exists a smooth, pointwise nonsingular matrix function~$V$ with
\[
E_{23}V=[\>I_r\>\>0\>]
\]
leading to
\[
\arraycolsep 4pt
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde E=
\mat{ccc}I_{p+q}&0&0\\0&I_r&0\\0&0&V^T\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}S&0&E_{13}\\0&0&E_{23}\\E_{13}^T&E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}I_{p+q}&0&0\\0&I_r&0\\0&0&V\end{array}\right]=
\mat{cccc}S&0&\widetilde E_{13}&\widetilde E_{14}\\0&0&I_r&0\\\widetilde E_{13}^T&I_r&\widetilde E_{33}&\widetilde E_{34}\\\widetilde E_{14}^T&0&\widetilde E_{34}^T&\widetilde E_{44}\end{array}\right],\\
\widetilde A=
\mat{ccc}I_{p+q}&0&0\\0&I_r&0\\0&0&V^T\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&0&A_{13}\\0&0&A_{23}\\0&0&A_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}I_{p+q}&0&0\\0&I_r&0\\0&0&V\end{array}\right]\\
\qquad\qquad{}-
\mat{ccc}I_{p+q}&0&0\\0&I_r&0\\0&0&V^T\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}S&0&E_{13}\\0&0&E_{23}\\E_{13}^T&E_{23}^T&E_{33}\end{array}\right]
\mat{ccc}0&0&0\\0&0&0\\0&0&\dot V\end{array}\right]=
\mat{cccc}0&0&\widetilde A_{13}&\widetilde A_{14}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{23}&\widetilde A_{24}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{33}&\widetilde A_{34}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{43}&\widetilde A_{44}\end{array}\right].
\end{array}
\]
Omitting again the tildes, we write
\[
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\mat{cccc}S&0&E_{13}&E_{14}\\0&0&I_r&0\\E_{13}^T&I_r&E_{33}&E_{34}\\E_{14}^T&0&E_{34}^T&E_{44}\end{array}\right],
\mat{cccc}0&0&A_{13}&A_{14}\\0&0&A_{23}&A_{24}\\0&0&A_{33}&A_{34}\\0&0&A_{43}&A_{44}\end{array}\right].
\right).
\]
Conservation of self-adjointness yields
\[
E_{33}^T=E_{33},\quad E_{44}^T=E_{44},\quad 0=-A_{13}-\dot E_{13},\quad 0=-A_{14}-\dot E_{14},\quad 0=A_{23},\quad 0=A_{24},
\]
and
\[
A_{33}^T=-A_{33}-\dot E_{33},\quad A_{43}^T=-A_{34}-\dot E_{34},\quad A_{44}^T=-A_{44}-\dot E_{44}.
\]
Finally, after a congruence transformation with,
\[
\mat{cccc}I_{p+q}&0&-S^{-1}E_{13}&-S^{-1}E_{14}\\0&I_r&0&0\\0&0&I_r&0\\0&0&0&I_a\end{array}\right],
\]
we arrive at
\[
\arraycolsep 4pt
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde E=
\mat{cccc}I_{p+q}&0&0&0\\0&I_r&0&0\\-E_{13}^TS^{-1}&0&I_r&0\\-E_{14}^TS^{-1}&0&0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{cccc}S&0&E_{13}&E_{14}\\0&0&I_r&0\\E_{13}^T&I_r&E_{33}&E_{34}\\E_{14}^T&0&E_{34}^T&E_{44}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cccc}I_{p+q}&0&-S^{-1}E_{13}&-S^{-1}E_{14}\\0&I_r&0&0\\0&0&I_r&0\\0&0&0&I_a\end{array}\right]\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad{}=
\mat{cccc}S&0&0&0\\0&0&I_r&0\\0&I_r&\widetilde E_{33}&\widetilde E_{34}\\0&0&\widetilde E_{34}^T&\widetilde E_{44}\end{array}\right],\\
\widetilde A=
\mat{cccc}I_{p+q}&0&0&0\\0&I_r&0&0\\-E_{13}^TS^{-1}&0&I_r&0\\-E_{14}^TS^{-1}&0&0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{cccc}0&0&A_{13}&A_{14}\\0&0&A_{23}&A_{24}\\0&0&A_{33}&A_{34}\\0&0&A_{43}&A_{44}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cccc}I_{p+q}&0&-S^{-1}E_{13}&-S^{-1}E_{14}\\0&I_r&0&0\\0&0&I_r&0\\0&0&0&I_a\end{array}\right]\\
\qquad\qquad{}-
\mat{cccc}I_{p+q}&0&0&0\\0&I_r&0&0\\-E_{13}^TS^{-1}&0&I_r&0\\-E_{14}^TS^{-1}&0&0&I_a\end{array}\right]
\mat{cccc}S&0&E_{13}&E_{14}\\0&0&I_r&0\\E_{13}^T&I_r&E_{33}&E_{34}\\E_{14}^T&0&E_{34}^T&E_{44}\end{array}\right]
\mat{cccc}0&0&-S^{-1}\dot E_{13}&-S^{-1}\dot E_{14}\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\end{array}\right]\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad{}=
\mat{cccc}0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&\widetilde A_{33}&\widetilde A_{34}\\0&0&\widetilde A_{43}&\widetilde A_{44}\end{array}\right].
\end{array}
\]
The corresponding homogeneous DAE $\widetilde E\dot{\widetilde x}=\widetilde A{\widetilde x}$ has the form
\[
\begin{array}{l}
S\dot{\widetilde x}_1=0,\\
\dot{\widetilde x}_3=0,\\
\dot{\widetilde x}_2+\widetilde E_{33}\dot{\widetilde x}_3+\widetilde E_{34}\dot{\widetilde x}_4=\widetilde A_{33}{\widetilde x}_3+\widetilde A_{34}{\widetilde x}_4,\\
\widetilde E_{34}^T\dot{\widetilde x}_3+\widetilde E_{44}\dot{\widetilde x}_4=\widetilde A_{43}{\widetilde x}_3+\widetilde A_{44}{\widetilde x}_4.
\end{array}
\]
If we take~${\widetilde x}_1$ and~${\widetilde x}_3$ as solutions of the first two equations,
the fourth equation must determine~${\widetilde x}_4$, possibly imposing a suitable
initial condition. Finally, the third equation then fixes~${\widetilde x}_2$
using a suitable initial condition. Hence the dimension of the solution space is at least $p+q+2r$.
But the dimension was assumed to be $p+q$ implying that $r=0$.
Omitting the tildes again, skipping the second and third block row and column,
which are of zero dimension, and renumbering the indices gives
\[
(E,A)\equiv\left(
\mat{ccc}I_p&0&0\\0&-I_q&0\\0&0&E_{33}\end{array}\right],
\mat{ccc}0&0&0\\0&0&0\\0&0&A_{33}\end{array}\right]\right)
\]
which is just (\ref{gcfskew}),
where (\ref{gcfskewq}) follows along the same lines as in the general case
and (\ref{gcfskewp}) follows by the conservation of skew-adjointness.
\end{proof}
The presented canonical forms have some direct consequences in the case that $E$ is pointwise positive semidefinite.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:index}
Let $(E,A)$ be regular with $E,A\in C({\mathbb I},{\mathbb R}^{n,n})$ sufficiently smooth and let $(E,A)$ be skew-adjoint with $E$ pointwise positive semidefinite. Then in the canonical form \eqref{lcfskew2}
$E_{41}=0$ and the flow associated with the dynamical part of the system is orthogonal.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $Q^TEQ$ is positive semidefinite for positive semidefinite~$E$,
it follows that the blocks in positions $(1,3)$, $(3,1)$, $(4,1)$ and $(1,4)$ of (\ref{lcfskew2}) are zero and that~$S$ is pointwise positive definite. Thus $q=0$ and the flow corresponding to (\ref{odeskew}) is orthogonal.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:index}{\rm
Corollary~\ref{cor:index} immediately implies also an upper bound on the so-called differentiation index of the DAE, see \cite{KunM06}, which is at most two.
This follows directly from \eqref{lcfskew2}, since with $E_{41}=0$ at most one differentiation of the inhomogeneity is needed.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{example}{\rm
Consider the circuit in Example~\ref{ex1}. Reordering the rows and columns in the order second, third, first, fourth, and fifth, we obtain the skew-adjoint system in canonical form
\[
\mat{cc|c|cc} C_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & C_2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & L & 0 & 0\\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right]
\mat{c} \dot V_1 \\ \dot V_2\\ \hline \dot I \\ \hline \dot I_G \\ \dot I_R \end{array}\right]=
\mat{cc|c|cc} 0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1\\
\hline
0 & -1 & -R_L & 0 & 0\\
\hline
1 & 0 & 0 & -R_G & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -R_R \end{array}\right]
\mat{c} V_1 \\ V_2\\ \hline I \\ \hline I_G \\ I_R \end{array}\right]
+
\mat{c} 0 \\ 0 \\\hline 0 \\ \hline 1 \\ 0 \end{array}\right] u.
\]
If $u$ is given and the resistive terms are neglected, i.e.\ $R_L,R_G,R_R=0$, then this is skew-adjoint DAE, in which the last two equations can be solved as $V_2=0$ and $V_1=-u$ and from the first two equations we get
$I_G=-C_1 \dot V_1= C_1 \dot u$ and $I_R=-C_2 \dot V_2=0$ and the dynamic equation is
\[
L \dot I =-V_2 =0,
\]
which has the orthogonal flow $I=1$.
}
\end{example}
\begin{example}{\rm
Consider the linear time-varying DAE \eqref{eq:P-instat-op-general} in Example~\ref{ex:ns} with $A_H=0$ and $C=0$. Performing a full rank decomposition
\[
U^T B =\mat{c} B_1 \\ 0 \end{array}\right],
\]
with $B_1$ nonsingular (which corresponds to the partitioning of the velocity into the parts that have divergence zero and nonzero), and applying a congruence transformation with
\[
\mat{cc} U & 0 \\ 0 & I \end{array}\right]
\]
yields a transformed system
\begin{equation*
\mat{ccc} M_{11} & M_{12} & 0 \\ M_{21} & M_{22} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \mat{c} \dot v_1 \\ \dot v_2 \\ \dot p \end{array}\right]=
\mat{ccc} J_{11}(t) & J_{12}(t) & -B_1 \\ J_{21}(t) & J_{22}(t) & 0 \\ B_1^T & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right] \mat{c} v_1 \\ v_2 \\ p \end{array}\right]+
\mat{c} f_1(t) \\ f_2(t) \\ 0 \end{array}\right].
\end{equation*}
The third equation yields $v_1=0$ and the first equation gives
\[
p= B_1^{-1} (J_{12}(t) v_2 -M_{12} \dot v_2+f_1(t)),
\]
while the underlying dynamics of the system is described by the skew-adjoint DAE
\[
M_{22} \dot v_2 = J_{22}(t) v_2 +f_2(t)
\]
with constant $M_{22}=M_{22}^T>0$ and pointwise skew-symmetric $J_{22}$.
After a change of basis with the positive definite square root $\smash{M_{22}^{1/2}}$ of $M_{22}$ according to $\smash{\tilde v_2= M_{22}^{1/2}v_2}$
and scaling the equation by its inverse $\smash{M_{22}^{-1/2}}$,
we obtain an ODE system
\[
\dot{\tilde v}_2 =\tilde J_{22}(t) \tilde v_2+ \tilde f_2(t),
\]
with pointwise skew-symmetric $\tilde J_{22}$, which has an orthogonal flow.
}
\end{example}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec}
We have derived local and global canonical forms under congruence transformations for self-adjoint and skew-adjoint systems of linear variable coefficient differential-algebraic equations. The associated flows for the dynamical part of the system are shown to be symplectic or in the generalized orthogonal groups. The results are illustrated at the hand of examples from electrical network and flow simulation.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
Volker Mehrmann was partially supported by {\it Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft} through
the Excellence Cluster {\sc Math$^+$} in Berlin and Priority Program 1984 `Hybride und multimodale Energiesysteme:
Systemtheoretische Methoden f\"ur die Transformation und den Betrieb komplexer Netze'.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Technical Lemmas}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Geman}
Suppose that $\tilde{\mathcal{M}} \subset \mathbb{R}^D$, $D \in \mathbb{N}$, has non-empty interior and that $f: \tilde{\mathcal{M}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a stationary Gaussian random field. Then if $f$ satisfies \textbf{(C1)} (with respect to the identity chart) it satisfies the generalized Geman condition on $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, assume that $ 0 $ lies within the interior of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ and choose $ \delta > 0 $ such that $ B_\delta(0) \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $. Let $r$ denote the covariance function of $f$. Then for all $ t \in B_\delta(0) $ and each $ 1 \leq i,j,k,l \leq D, $ letting $r_{ijkl} = \frac{\partial^4 r}{\partial t_i\partial t_j\partial t_k\partial t_l}$,
\begin{align*}
\left\vert\, r_{ijkl}(0) - r_{ijkl}(t) \,\right\vert &=
\left|\, \mathbb{E}\left[\, f_{ij}(0)f_{kl}(0) \,\right] - \mathbb{E}\left[\, f_{ij}(0)f_{kl}(t) \,\right]\,\right|
= \left|\, \mathbb{E}\big[\, f_{ij}(0)\,\big(f_{kl}(0) -f_{kl}(t)\big) \,\big]\,\right| \\
&\leq \sqrt{\,\mathbb{E}\left[\, f_{ij}(0)^2 \,\right]\,}\sqrt{\, \mathbb{E}\left[\, \big(\,f_{kl}(0) - f_{kl}(t)\,\big)^2 \,\right]\,} \leq
M L^{1/2}\left\lVert t \right\rVert^{\eta}.
\end{align*}
where $ M = \max_{1 \leq i,j \leq D}\sqrt{\,\mathbb{E}\left[ f_{ij}(0)^2 \right]\,} $ is finite because $ f_{ij} $ is a Gaussian random field. In particular, since $ \eta - D > -D, $
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\left\lVert t \right\rVert < \delta} \frac{\left\lVert\, r^{(4)}(0) - r^{(4)}(t) \,\right\rVert}{\left\lVert t \right\rVert^{D}}
\leq
\sum_{1 \leq i,j \leq D} \int_{\left\lVert t \right\rVert < \delta} \frac{ \left|\, r_{ijkl}(0) - r_{ijkl}(t) \,\right|}{\left\lVert t \right\rVert^{D}} \leq
D^2 M L^{1/2} \int_{\left\lVert t \right\rVert < \delta} \left\lVert t \right\rVert^{\eta - D}
<
\infty.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:MU}
Let $ U \in \mathbb{R}^{D} $ be a random vector. Then for all $M_1, M_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}$ such that $\det(M_1)\det(M_2)=1$ we have that
\begin{equation}
{\rm detcov }\big[ U \big] = \det\!\Big( { \rm Cov }\big[\, U, U \,\big] \Big)
= \det\!\Big( { \rm Cov }\big[ \,M_1U, M_2U \,\big] \Big)
\end{equation}
In particular, for any invertible $M \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}$, this implies that
\begin{equation}
{\rm detcov }\big[ U \big]
= {\rm detcov }\big[ M U \big] \,/
\det\big( M \big)^{2D}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The determinant multiplication theorem yields
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\rm detcov }\big[ U \big]
= \det(M_1){\rm detcov }\big[ U \big] \det(M_2^T)
= \det\!\Big( M_1{ \rm Cov }\big[ U \big] M_2^T\Big)
= \det\!\Big( { \rm Cov }\big[\, M_1U, M_2U \,\big] \Big)\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Taking $ M_1 = M_2 = M\,/\det(M)$ establishes the second claim.
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
The variance of the number of critical points of a Gaussian random field $ f $ has been studied by many authors over the last 60 years. Papers considering this topic have typically assumed that the random field is stationary and that the underlying domain of interest is a compact subset of $ \mathbb{R}^D $ where $ D \in \mathbb{N}$ denotes the dimension of the random field. In our work we generalize these results to non-stationary fields on arbitrary $ C^3 $ manifolds, showing that, under certain regularity conditions, the variance of the number of critical points of the random field is finite.
Formulae for the moments of the expected number of critical points were originally developed by \cite{Rice1944}. These were generalized to formulae for the expected factorial $ n $th moment of the number of critical points (for $ n \in \mathbb{N} $) in \cite{Cramer1965}, \cite{Belyaev1966} and \cite{Belyaev1967b} in 1D, see also \cite{Cuzick1975}. \cite{Malevich1989} extended these results to fields on domains of arbitrary dimension, see \cite{Adler2010} for a comprehensive overview of the proof. These papers showed that it is sufficient to show that the Rice integral for the $ n $th factorial moment converges in order to show that the $ n $th moment of the number of critical points is finite.
Using this approach, applied to the second moment and assuming stationarity, simplifies the problem and has lead to a number of results. Working in 1D \cite{Cramer1967} showed, letting $ r $ denote the covariance function of the random field, that if there exists some $ \delta > 0 $ such that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{\delta} \frac{r^{(4)}(0) - r^{(4)}(t)}{t} \,dt
\end{equation*}
is finite then this is sufficient (where $ r^{(4)} $ denotes the fourth derivative of $ r $). \cite{Geman1972} showed that this is also a necessary condition. It was only recently that \cite{Estrade2016} extended these results to stationary Gaussian random fields on $\mathbb{R}^D, D \in \mathbb{N}$, showing that (letting $ r $ denote the now multivariate covariance function) if there exists some $ \delta > 0 $ such that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\left\lVert t \right\rVert < \delta} \frac{\left\lVert r^{(4)}(0) - r^{(4)}(t) \right\rVert}{\left\lVert t \right\rVert^D} \,dt
\end{equation*}
is finite (where $r^{(4)}(t)$ denotes the 4th derivative), then this generalized Geman condition is sufficient. A similar result was stated in \cite{Elizarov1985}, however the proof presented there lacks sufficient detail to make it rigorous. Under the additional assumption of isotropy, \cite{Estrade2016b} showed that the result holds under minimal other assumptions.
When the assumption of stationarity is removed the problem becomes more difficult. The reason for this is that the Rice integral integrates twice over the same domain and this leads to non-degeneracies within the integrand which are difficult to bound. Recently, by adapting the arguments of \cite{Piterbarg1996}, \cite{Cheng:2015extremes} showed that, under regularity assumptions, the second factorial moment of the number of critical points within an epsilon ball around a given point is $ o\big( \epsilon^D \big) $. In this paper we use this result to show that the second moment of the number of critical points of Gaussian random fields over certain classes of compact stratified spaces is finite. The classes of stratified spaces we consider include compact manifolds with and without boundary and Whitney-stratified spaces (e.g., \cite[Chapter 8.1]{Adler:RFT2009}.
This paper is laid out as follows. Section 2 introduces the notation and definitions that we will need and then lays out the assumptions under which our results hold. In Section 3 we state and prove a lemma that shows that our assumptions hold under diffeomorphic transformations and include our main result regarding the finiteness of the second moment.
\section{Notation and Definitions}
In this section we shall introduce a number of the definitions and key assumptions upon which our results depend. Let $ (\, \tilde{\mathcal{M}}, g \,) $ be a $ D $-dimensional $ C^3 $-Riemannian manifold without boundary for some $D \in \mathbb{N}$, where $\mathbb{N}$ denotes the set of positive integers. Throughout the article any submanifold $\mathcal{M}\subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ is assumed to be an embedded submanifold, i.e. such that the map $\iota:~\mathcal{M} \rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{M}}$, $x\mapsto x$, is an embedding. We shall denote the dimension of a (sub)-manifold $\mathcal{N}$ by $\text{dim}(\mathcal{N}) \in \{\, 1,\ldots, D \,\,\}$.
Recall that a compact manifold without boundary is called \emph{closed}.
For any $ \mathcal{A} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ we shall denote the toplogical closure/interior of $\mathcal{A}$ as $\text{cl}(A) / \text{int}(A)$ respectively.
In order for our results to hold we shall require the following notion of extendability.
\begin{definition}
We say that a submanifold $ \mathcal{N} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ is extendable, if there exists a
$ \text{dim}(\mathcal{N}) $-dimensional, $ C^3 $-submanifold $ \mathcal{A} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $, $ \text{dim}(\mathcal{N}) \in \{\, 1, \ldots, D \,\} $, without boundary, such that $ {\rm cl}\big( \mathcal{N} \big) $ is a $ C^3 $-submanifold of $ \mathcal{A} $.
\end{definition}
This extendability condition is widely satisfied. First, $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ itself is trivially extendable.
Secondly, if $ {\rm cl}\big( \mathcal{ N } \big) $ is a $ D $-dimensional compact
$ C^3 $-submanifold with boundary $ \partial \mathcal{ N } $ such that
$ \partial \mathcal{ N } $ is a $ (D - 1) $-dimensional orientable $ C^3 $-submanifold
of $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $, then $ \mathcal{N} $ is extendable, since $ {\rm cl}\big( \mathcal{ N } \big) $ can be embedded into the union of $ {\rm cl}\big( \mathcal{ N } \big) $ and a tubular neighbourhood, which exists by \cite[Exercise 8-5.]{Lee1997}.
Thirdly, any open $d$-dimensional polygon $\mathcal{P}$, $d\in \{\,1,\ldots,D\,\}$, where $ {\rm cl}\big( \mathcal{P} \big) $ is contained in an open subset $ \mathcal{O} $ of an $ d $-dimensional affine plane of $ \mathbb{R}^D $ is extendable, since $ \mathcal{O} $ can be used for $ \mathcal{A} $. In particular this implies that the interior, all faces and all edges of the unit cube
$ [-1,1]^D \subset \mathbb{R}^D $ are extendable.
Moreover the same applies to many curved submanifolds which are themselves proper $ d $-dimensional submanifolds of a $ d $-dimensional submanifold of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$, for example, $ \mathbb{S}^{D-1} = \{\, x \in \mathbb{R}^{D}:~ x_1^2 + \ldots + x_D^2 = 1\,,~ x_D > c \,\} $ for some $c \in (-1, 1)$.
Finally, if $ {\rm cl}\big( \mathcal{ N } \big) $ is a $ d $-dimensional closed $ C^3 $-submanifold, then $\mathcal{ N }$ is extendable. This implies that spaces like the unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^{D-1}$ and
$ \mathbb{S}^{D-1} \backslash \{\,(1,0,\ldots,0)\,\} $ are extendable.
To define critical values of a function $ h \in C^1( \mathcal{N} ) $ recall
that any vector field $ X:~\mathcal{N} \rightarrow T\mathcal{N} $, where
$ T\mathcal{N} $ denotes the tangent bundle of $ \mathcal{N} $, defines
a function $ X\!h: \mathcal{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{N} $ be a $d$-dimensional submanifold of $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $, then the set of critical points of $ h\in C^1( \mathcal{N} ) $ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DefCrits}
\mathcal{C}_h(\mathcal{N}) = \left\{ s \in \mathcal{N} :~
X\!h (s) = 0 \text{ for all vector fields }
X \text{ on } \mathcal{N}
\,\right\}\,.
\end{equation}
We will denote the number of critical points by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NumCrits}
\mu_h\big( \mathcal{N} \big)
= \# \mathcal{C}_h\big( \mathcal{N} \big)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Let $ \mathcal{U} \subset \mathcal{N} $ and $ \mathcal{V} \subset\mathbb{R}^{\text{dim}(\mathcal{N})} $ be open and
$ \varphi: \mathcal{U} \rightarrow \mathcal{V} $ be a differentiable chart of $ \mathcal{N} $.
For $ i \in \{\, 1,\ldots, {\text{dim}(\mathcal{N})} \,\} $ we define the vector field
$ E_{i}: \mathcal{U} \rightarrow T \mathcal{U} $
by
$ E_i h(s) = \frac{d}{dt}\left(\, (h \circ \varphi^{-1})( \varphi(s) + t e_i ) \,\right)\big\vert_{t=0} $, where $ e_i $ is the $i$-th standard Euclidean basis vector.
For all $s \in \mathcal{U}$, the tangent vectors $ E_1(s), \ldots, E_{\text{dim}(\mathcal{N})}(s) $ form a basis of the tangent space
$ T_s \mathcal{U} $ and so it follows that $ E_ih (s) = 0 $ for all $ i\in\{\, 1, \ldots, {\text{dim}(\mathcal{N})} \,\} $
if and only if $ X\!h(s) = 0 $ for all vector fields $ X $.
Moreover, $ E_ih (s) = 0 $ if and only if
$ \frac{\partial (h\circ\varphi^{-1}) }{ \partial x_i}\big(\varphi(s)\big) = 0 $.
Therefore $ s \in \mathcal{N} $ is a critical point in the manifold sense defined by $ X\!h(s) = 0 $
for all vector fields $ X $ if and only if there exists a chart $ \varphi $ such that $ \varphi(s) \in \mathbb{R}^{\text{dim}(\mathcal{N})} $
is a critical point of $ h\circ \varphi^{-1} $ in the usual Euclidean sense.
\end{remark}
The set of critical values and number of critical values can be naturally extended to functions $ h\in C^1( \mathcal{M} )$ defined on disjoint unions
$ \mathcal{M} = \bigsqcup_{ d = 0 }^D {\partial_d \mathcal{M}} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $, where each $ {\partial_d \mathcal{M}} $
is either empty or a $d$-dimensional $ C^3 $-submanifold without boundary.
Letting $ h\vert_{\partial_d \mathcal{M}} $ denote the restriction of $h$ to $ {\partial_d \mathcal{M}} $, this is done by setting
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DefCritsII}
\mathcal{C}_h(\mathcal{M}) = \bigcup_{ d = 0 }^D
\mathcal{C}_{h\vert_{\partial_d \mathcal{M}}}({\partial_d \mathcal{M}})\,,~ ~ ~
\mu_h\big( \mathcal{M} \big) = \sum_{d=0}^D \mu_{h\vert_{\partial_d \mathcal{M}}}\big( {\partial_d \mathcal{M}} \big)\,.
\end{equation}
This broader definition means that our results will apply, among others, to manifolds with boundary, manifolds with corners and more general Whitney stratified manifolds (e.g., \cite[Chapter 8.1]{Adler:RFT2009}).
In particular note that, if $ \mathcal{M} $ is a Whitney stratified manifold, the set of critical points defined in \eqref{eq:DefCritsII} is the same as the set of critical points defined in \cite[p. 194]{Adler:RFT2009}. To see this recall that if $\tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ has a Riemannian metric $ g $,
then $ g $ induces a Riemannian metric on any $ C^3 $-submanifold $ \mathcal{N} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ without boundary.
We will also denote this induced Riemannian metric by $ g $.
The gradient of $ h \in C^1(\, \mathcal{N} \,) $, denoted by $ \nabla^{\mathcal{N}}\! h $, is the unique continuous vector field on $ \mathcal{N} $ such that $ g\big(\, \nabla^{\mathcal{N}}\!h, X \,\big) = X\!h $ for every vector field $ X $ on $ \mathcal{N} $. Hence given $s \in \mathcal{N}$, $ \nabla^{\mathcal{N}}\! h(s) = 0 $ if and only if $ X\!h(s) = 0 $ for every vector field $ X $ on $ \mathcal{N} $, which establishes the
connection between the two definitions.
Recall that $ (\,\mathcal{U}, \varphi \,) $ is a $C^3$-chart around $ s \in \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ if
$\mathcal{U}\subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ is open and contains $ s $ and $ \varphi\in C^3(\,\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{V}\,) $ is a diffeomorphism onto an open set $ \mathcal{V} \subset \mathbb{R}^D $. For such a chart and a function
$ h \in C^2( \tilde{\mathcal{M}} )$ we define the functions $ h^{\varphi} = h \circ \varphi^{-1} $ and its derivatives as
$ h^{\varphi}_i = \partial h^{\varphi} / \partial x_i $ and
$ h^{\varphi}_{ij} = \partial^2 h^{\varphi} / \partial x_i\partial x_j $ for $i,j=1,\ldots,D$.
Moreover, we write
$ \nabla h^{\varphi} = \big(\, h^{\varphi}_1, \ldots, h^{\varphi}_D \,\big) $ for the gradient of $ h^{\varphi} $ and
$ \nabla^2{h^{\varphi}} $ for the Hessian of $ h^{\varphi} $, which has as
the $(i,j)$-th entry $ h^{\varphi}_{ij} $.
Furthermore, given $D, D' \in \mathbb{N}$ and a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D'}$ we define its \emph{vectorization} as $ \mathbf{vec}( A ) = (\, A_{11},\ldots, A_{D'1}, \ldots, A_{1D},\ldots, A_{DD'} \,)^T $, and the \emph{half-vectorization} of a symmetric matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}$ as $ \mathbf{vech}( A ) = (\, A_{11}, \ldots, A_{D1}, A_{22}, \ldots, A_{D2}, \ldots, A_{D-1D-1}, A_{DD-1}, A_{DD}\,)^T $.
With these definitions we formulate the following assumption on a random field $ f $ on $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $.
\begin{assumption}\label{assumption:Fields}
$ f $ has almost surely $ C^2( \tilde{\mathcal{M}} ) $
sample paths and for all $s \in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ there exists
a $C^3$-chart $ (\,\mathcal{U}, \varphi \,) $ around
$ s $ mapping $\mathcal{U} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ to an open set $\mathcal{V}\subset\mathbb{R}^D$, such that the following conditions hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{(C1)}]
There exist positive constants $ L \in (0, \infty ) $ and $\eta > 0 $ such that
$$
\mathbb{E}\big[\, f_{ij}^{\varphi}(x) - f_{ij}^{\varphi}(y) \,\big]^2 \leq L \Vert\, x - y \,\Vert^{2\eta}\,,
$$
for all $ x, y \in \mathcal{V} $ and all $ i,j \in \{\, 1, \ldots, D \,\} $.
\item[\textbf{(C2)}]
For each $ (x, y) \in \mathcal{V} \times \mathcal{V} $
with $x \neq y$, the Gaussian random vector
$$ \Big(\,
\nabla f^{\varphi}(x),
\mathbf{vech}\big( \nabla^2{f^{\varphi}}(x) \big)^T,
\nabla f^{\varphi}(y),
\mathbf{vech}\big( \nabla^2{f^{\varphi}}(y) \big)^T \,\Big)^T $$
is non-degenerate in the sense that its covariance matrix is positive definite.
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}
Given a $C^3$-chart $(\,\mathcal{U}, \varphi\,)$ such that \textbf{(C1)}/\textbf{(C2)} holds with respect to a random field $f$ on $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$, we shall say that $f^{\varphi}$ satisfies \textbf{(C1)}/\textbf{(C2)} on $\mathcal{U}$ and when the existence of $f$ is clear we will simply say that $(\,\mathcal{U}, \varphi\,)$ satisfies \textbf{(C1)}/\textbf{(C2)} and take $f$ to be implicit.
\begin{remark}
\cite{Cheng:2015extremes} introduced slightly different conditions (their (C1') and (C2')) in order to obtain a manifold version of their Lemma 4.2.
These are not quite what we want, since
if they are assumed for a random field $ f $
over $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $, they do not necessarily hold for the restriction of $ f $ to arbitrary submanifolds $\mathcal{N}$ of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$. This is because for an arbitrary submanifold $ \mathcal{N} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ in general there is no collection of $\text{dim}(\mathcal{N})$ orthonormal fields of the $D$ orthonormal fields chosen on $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ such that all of these fields are orthonormal fields for $\mathcal{N}$. However, in Lemma \ref{lem:TransformationAssumption} we show that, if \textbf{(C1)}, \textbf{(C2)} hold in any chart containing $s \in \tilde{\mathcal{M}}$, then they hold in all charts containing $s$. Thus, in particular they hold for the the special charts chosen in \cite{Cheng:2015extremes}. Note also that the inclusion of $f(x)$ and $f(y)$ in the vector in \textbf{(C2)} is unnecessary, despite its inclusion in the conditions of \cite{Cheng:2015extremes}, as it was not used in the proof of their Lemma 4.2.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If $\tilde{\mathcal{M}} \subset \mathbb{R}^D$ and $f$ is stationary and satisfies \textbf{(C1)} then it satisfies the generalised Geman condition, see Lemma \ref{lem:Geman}.
\end{remark}
\section{Proof of the main result}
In order to prove our main result we first prove an important technical lemma. This lemma justifies the use of Conditions \textbf{(C1)} and \textbf{(C2)} since it shows that they are compatible with changing coordinates. We will use this, in Lemma \ref{lem:SimpleSubmanifolds}, to show that if these conditions hold for a random field $ f $ on $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $, then they also hold for the restriction of $ f $ to any $ C^3 $-submanifold $ \mathcal{N} $ of $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:TransformationAssumption}
Let $ f $ be a Gaussian random field on
$ \tilde{ \mathcal{M} } $ satisfying Assumption
\ref{assumption:Fields} for the $C^3$ chart $ (\,\mathcal{U}, \varphi\,) $.
Let $ (\,\mathcal{U}', \phi\,) $ be another
$C^3$-chart such that $ \mathcal{W} = \mathcal{U} \cap \mathcal{U}' $ is non-empty.
Then for any $s \in \mathcal{W}$ there exists an open set $ s \in \mathcal{W}_s \subset \mathcal{W} $ such that $ (\,\mathcal{W}_s, \phi\,) $ satisfies Assumption \ref{assumption:Fields}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $ f^{\phi} = f^{\varphi} \circ \varphi \circ
\phi^{-1} $ on $ \phi(\mathcal{W}) $, the chain rule implies that for $ \psi = (\, \psi_1,\ldots, \psi_D\,) = \varphi \circ \phi^{-1},$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1stDeriv}
f^\phi_{i} = \big( f^\varphi\circ\psi\big)_{i}
= \sum_{d=1}^D \frac{\partial f^\varphi\circ\psi}{ \partial \psi_d } \frac{\partial \psi_d}{\partial s_i}
= \sum_{d=1}^D f^\varphi_d\circ\psi \frac{\partial \psi_d}{\partial s_i}\,,~ ~ i = 1,\ldots, D\,,
\end{equation}
which shows that $ \nabla f^\phi(x) = \nabla f^{\varphi}(\tilde x ) J_\psi(x)$ for all $x\in \phi(\mathcal{W})$, where $ \tilde x = \psi(x)$ and $ J_\psi(x) $ is the Jacobian matrix of $ \psi $ at $x$. For the second order derivatives we obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2ndDeriv}
\begin{split}
f^\phi_{ij}
&= \sum_{d=1}^D \frac{\partial f^\varphi\circ\psi}{ \partial \psi_d } \frac{\partial^2 \psi_d}{\partial s_i \partial s_j} + \sum_{d,d'=1}^D \frac{\partial ^2f^\varphi\circ\psi}{ \partial \psi_d\partial \psi_{d'} } \frac{\partial \psi_d}{\partial s_i }\frac{\partial \psi_{d'}}{ \partial s_j }\\
&= \sum_{d=1}^D f^\varphi_d\circ\psi \frac{\partial^2 \psi_d}{\partial s_i \partial s_j} + \sum_{d,d'=1}^D f^\varphi_{dd'}\circ\psi \frac{\partial \psi_d}{\partial s_i }\frac{\partial \psi_{d'}}{ \partial s_j } \,,~ ~ i,j = 1,\ldots, D\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This can be written in vector notation as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{vech}\Big(\, \nabla^2{f^{\phi}}(x) \,\Big)
= L\,\mathbf{vec}\Bigg(\, \sum_{d=1}^D f_d^{\varphi}\big( \tilde x \big)\nabla^2{\psi_d}(x) \,\Bigg) + L\, \big(\, J_\psi(x) \otimes J_\psi(x) \,\big)\,R\,\mathbf{vech}\Bigg( \nabla^2{f^{\varphi}} \big( \tilde x \big) \Bigg)\,.
\end{equation}
Here $ L \in \mathbb{R}^{D(D+1)/2 \times D^2}
$ is the elimination matrix
and $ R \in \mathbb{R}^{D^2 \times D(D+1)/2} $ is the duplication matrix, the precise definitions of which can be found in
\cite{Magnus1980}. The matrix $L \big(\, J_\psi(x) \otimes J_\psi(x) \,\big)R$ is invertible by Lemma 4.4.iv of \cite{Magnus1980}, and the fact that $J_\psi(x)$ is invertible because $ \psi $ is a diffeomorphism.
Furthermore note that, letting ${\rm detcov}( U ) = \text{det}\big(\,{\rm Cov}[U]\,\big)$, for any random vector $U \in \mathbb{R}^D$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detcov}
{\rm detcov}( U ) = {\rm detcov}( MU ) \,/ \det(M)^{2D}
\end{equation}
for any invertible matrix $ M \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D} $, see Lemma \ref{lem:MU}.
\textit{Proof of} \textit{\textbf{(C2)} for the chart} $(\, \mathcal{W}, \phi \,)$\textit{:} We shall show that for all $ x, y \in \phi(\mathcal{W})$ the distribution of the random vector $V$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
V &= \Big(\,
\nabla^T f^{\phi}(x);
\mathbf{vech}\Big(\, \nabla^2{f^{\phi}}(x) \,\Big);
\nabla^T f^{\phi}(y);
\mathbf{vech}\Big(\, \nabla^2{f^{\phi}}(y) \,\Big) \,\Big)\\
&=
\Bigg(
J_\psi(x)^T\nabla^T f^{\varphi}(\tilde x);
L\,\mathbf{vec}\Bigg(\, \sum_{d=1}^D f_d^{\varphi}\big( \tilde x \big)\nabla^2{\psi_d} \,\Bigg) + L\, \big(\, J_\psi(x) \otimes J_\psi(x) \,\big)\,R\,\mathbf{vech}\Big(\, \nabla^2{f^{\varphi}} \big( \tilde x \big) \,\Big);\\
&~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
J_\psi(y)^T\nabla^T f^{\varphi}(\tilde y);
L\,\mathbf{vec}\Bigg(\, \sum_{d=1}^D f_d^{\varphi}\big( \tilde y \big)\nabla^2{\psi_d} \,\Bigg) + L\, \big(\, J_\psi(y) \otimes J_\psi(y) \,\big)\,R\,\mathbf{vech}\Big(\, \nabla^2{f^{\varphi}} \big( \tilde y \,\big) \,\Big) \Bigg),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{y} = \psi(y)$ (and we have used ; to vertically stack vectors), is non-degenerate.
Let $I_{D\times D}$ denote the identity matrix in $\mathbb{R}^{D\times D}$. Multiplying $V$ by the the block diagonal matrix $B$ which has diagonal blocks
$$\big(J_\psi^T(x)\big)^{-1}, I_{D(D+1)/2 \times D(D+1)/2}, \big(J_\psi^T(y)\big)^{-1}, I_{D(D+1)/2 \times D(D+1)/2} $$
only changes $\text{detcov}[V]$ by a positive scalar by applying \eqref{eq:detcov}.
Scaling the gradient appropriately and adding it to the vectors in
the third and sixth components it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\Bigg(
\nabla^T f^{\varphi}(\tilde x);
L\, \big(\, J_\psi(x) \otimes J_\psi(x) \,\big)\,R\,\mathbf{vech}\Big(\, \nabla^2{f^{\varphi}} \big( \tilde x \big) \,\Big);\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\nabla^T f^{\varphi}(\tilde y);
L \big(\, J_\psi(y) \otimes J_\psi(y) \,\big)\,R\,\mathbf{vech}\Big(\, \nabla^2{f^{\varphi}} \big( \tilde y \big) \Big) \,\Bigg)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
has, up to a positive scalar, the same $ {\rm detcov} $ as the random vector $V$.
For all $x\in \phi(\mathcal{W}) $, $ L \big(\, J_\psi(x) \otimes J_\psi(x) \,\big)R $ is invertible, and so applying \eqref{eq:detcov} once more with an appropriate block diagonal matrix shows that, up to a positive scalar, the random vector
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\Big(\,
\nabla^T f^{\varphi}(\tilde x);
\mathbf{vech}\big(\,\nabla^2{f^{\varphi}}(\tilde x)\,\big);
\nabla^T f^{\varphi}(\tilde y);
\mathbf{vech}\big(\,\nabla^2{f^{\varphi}}(\tilde y)\,\big) \,\Big)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
has the same $ {\rm detcov} $ as $V$. Since \textit{\textbf{(C2)}} holds for the chart $\varphi$ this last vector is non-degenerate for all $\tilde x, \tilde y \in \varphi(\mathcal{W})$ and hence $V$ is non-degenerate.
\textit{Proof of} \textit{\textbf{(C1)} for a chart} $(\, \mathcal{W}_s, \phi \,)$ \textit{for} $s\in\mathcal{W}$\textit{:} Since $ \mathcal{W} $ is non-empty and open there exists an open set $ \mathcal{W}_s $ around $ s $ such that $ {\rm cl}\left( \mathcal{W}_s \right) \subset \mathcal{W} $.
Using equation \eqref{eq:2ndDeriv} and the fact that $ \big( \sum_{n=1}^N a_n \big)^2 \leq 2^{N-1} \sum_{n=1}^N a_n^2 $ for all $a_1,\ldots, a_N \in \mathbb{R}$, proving \textit{\textbf{(C1)}} reduces to showing that for all $d,d',i,j \in \{\, 1,\ldots, D \,\}$
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \Bigg( f^\varphi_d\big( \psi(x) \big) \frac{\partial^2 \psi_d}{\partial s_i \partial s_j}(x) - f^\varphi_d\big( \psi(y) \big) \frac{\partial^2 \psi_d}{\partial s_i \partial s_j}(y) \Bigg)^2 \,\Bigg]
\leq M \Vert\, x - y \,\Vert^{2\eta'}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\text{ and }\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \Bigg( f^\varphi_{dd'}\big( \psi(x) \big) \frac{\partial \psi_d}{\partial s_i }(x)\frac{\partial \psi_d}{ \partial s_j }(x) -
f^\varphi_{dd'}\big( \psi(y) \big) \frac{\partial \psi_d}{\partial s_i }(y)\frac{\partial \psi_{d'}}{ \partial s_j }(y) \Bigg)^2 \,\Bigg]
\leq M \Vert\, x - y \,\Vert^{2\eta'}
\end{align*}
for some $ \eta' > 0 $, some $ M \in (0,\infty)$ and all $x,y\in \phi(\mathcal{W}_s)$. In order to bound the left hand side of these expressions, notice that given a function $g: \tilde{\mathcal{M}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and a random field $Y: \tilde{\mathcal{M}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \Bigg( g(x)Y\big(\psi(x)\big) - g(y)Y\big(\psi(y)\big) \Bigg)^2 \,\Bigg]\\
&~~~~~~~~~~\leq 2g(x)^2\, \mathbb{E}\Bigg[ \,\Bigg( Y\big(\psi(x)\big) - Y\big(\psi(y)\big) \Bigg)^2 \,\Bigg]
+2\mathbb{E}\big[\,Y^2\big(\psi(y)\big)\,\big]\big(\, g(x) - g(y) \,\big)^2\\
&~~~~~~~~~~\leq 2 \max_{x \in \phi(\mathcal{W}_s)}\{\, g^2(x)\,\} \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \Bigg( Y\big(\psi(x)\big) - Y\big(\psi(y)\big) \Bigg)^2 \,\Bigg]
+2\max_{x\in \varphi(\mathcal{W}_s)}\left\{\,\mathbb{E}\big[\,Y^2(x) \,\big] \,\right\} \big(\, g(x) - g(y) \,\big)^2.
\end{align*}
Taking $ g = \frac{\partial \psi_d}{ \partial s_i }\frac{\partial \psi_{d'}}{ \partial s_j }$ and $ Y = f^\varphi_{dd'} $ or $ g = \frac{\partial^2 \psi_d}{\partial s_i \partial s_j} $ and $ Y = f^\varphi_{d} $ allows us to provide the desired bounds. Both possible choices of $ g $ are continuous on $ \phi\left( {\rm cl}\left( \mathcal{W}_s \right) \right)$ and hence $\max_{x \in \phi(\mathcal{W}_s)}\{\, g^2(x)\,\} < \infty $. A similar argument establishes finiteness for the maximum of the expected value of $Y$ squared. Furthermore both choices of $g$ are differentiable, as $\psi$ is $C^3$, and thus Lipschitz on $ \phi\left( {\rm cl}\left( \mathcal{W}_s \right) \right)$. Also,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \Bigg( f^\varphi_{dd'}\big(\psi(x)\big) - f^\varphi_{dd'}\big(\psi(y)\big) \Bigg)^2 \,\Bigg]
\leq L \Vert\, \psi(x) - \psi(y) \,\Vert^{2\eta}
\leq \tilde L \Vert\, x - y \,\Vert^{2\eta}
\end{equation}
for some $L, \tilde{L} \in (0, \infty)$ by \textit{\textbf{(C1)}} and Lipschitz continuity of $\psi$. A similar argument works for $ Y = f^\varphi_{d} $ since $f$ is $C^2$ and Gaussian.
\end{proof}
The key observation, that is needed to prove our main result, is the following extension of Lemma 4.2
from \cite{Cheng:2015extremes} to certain submanifolds of $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:SimpleSubmanifolds}
Let $ \mathcal{N} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ be a relatively compact and
extendable $ d $-dimensional submanifold for some $ d \in \mathbb{N}. $ Let $ \tilde f $ be a Gaussian random field on $ \tilde{ \mathcal{M} } $ satisfying
Assumption \ref{assumption:Fields} and let $ f $
denote the restriction of $ \tilde f $ to $ \mathcal{N} $.
Then $ \mathbb{E}\big[\, \mu_f\big( \mathcal{N} \big)^2 \,\big] < \infty $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $ \mathcal{N} $ is extendable there exists a $d$-dimensional
submanifold $ \mathcal{A} $ without boundary such that
$ {\rm cl}( \mathcal{N} ) \subset \mathcal{A} $.
For $ s\in {\rm cl}( \mathcal{N} ) $, let $ (\,\mathcal{U}_s, \varphi \,) $
be a chart around $ s $ satisfying Assumption \ref{assumption:Fields}.
Let $ \left(\, \mathcal{U}^\mathcal{A}_s, \varphi_\mathcal{A} \,\right) $
be a submanifold chart of $ \mathcal{A} $ around $ s $, i.e. such that,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:submfChart}
\varphi_\mathcal{A}\big( \mathcal{U}^\mathcal{A}_s \cap
\mathcal{A} \big) = \left\{\, (\,x_1,\ldots, x_D\,) \in \mathbb{R}^D: ~ x_{d+1} = \ldots = x_D = 0 \,\right\} \cap \varphi_\mathcal{A}\big( \mathcal{U}^\mathcal{A}_s \big)\,.
\end{equation}
By Lemma 1, there exists some non-empty open set $\mathcal{W}_s \subset \mathcal{U}_s^{\mathcal{A}}$ such that $f^{\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}$ satisfies assumptions \textbf{(C1)} and \textbf{(C2)} on $\mathcal{W}_s$. By \eqref{eq:submfChart} it follows that
\begin{equation}
\varphi_\mathcal{A}\big( \mathcal{W}_s \cap
\mathcal{A} \big) = \left\{\, (x_1,\ldots, x_D) \in \mathbb{R}^D: ~ x_{d+1} = \ldots = x_D = 0 \,\right\} \cap \varphi_\mathcal{A}\big( \mathcal{W}_s \big)\,.
\end{equation}
Define the projection $\pi: \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}\big(\mathcal{W}_s \cap \mathcal{A}\big) \rightarrow \mathcal{V}_s, (\,x_1, \dots, x_D\,) \mapsto (\,x_1, \dots, x_d\,)$, where $ \mathcal{V}_s = \{\, (\, e_1^T\varphi_\mathcal{A}(y),\ldots, e_d^T\varphi_\mathcal{A}(y)\,):~ y\in\mathcal{U}^\mathcal{A}_s \cap \mathcal{A} \,\} \subset \mathbb{R}^d $ and $\lbrace e_i \rbrace_{i = 1, \dots, d}$ is the standard basis on $\mathbb{R}^d$. Then $\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}: \mathcal{W}_s \cap \mathcal{A}\rightarrow \mathcal{V}_s$ is a diffeomorphism since $\pi^{-1}:~\mathcal{V}_s \rightarrow \varphi_\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{W}_s)$ can be defined as the differentiable map $(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\mapsto(x_1,\ldots,x_d, 0,\ldots, 0)\in \mathbb{R}^D$. Now, $f^{\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}=f^{\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}\circ\pi^{-1}: \mathcal{V}_s \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfies conditions (C1) and (C2) from \cite{Cheng:2015extremes} since the same calculation as in equations \eqref{eq:1stDeriv} and \eqref{eq:2ndDeriv} shows that, for $x \in \mathcal{V}_s$, the random vectors obtained from $f^{\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}\circ\pi^{-1}(x)$ in these conditions are identical to the random vectors obtained from $f^{\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}$, evaluated at $\pi^{-1}(x)$, if the coordinates with indices $ i,j \in \{\, d+1,\ldots, D \,\} $ are removed. Therefore Lemma 4.2 from \cite{Cheng:2015extremes} can be applied and as such there exists $\epsilon(s) > 0$ such that $\mu_{f^{\pi \circ \varphi_\mathcal{A}}}\big(\,B_{\epsilon(s)}\big(\pi\circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big)\,\big) < \infty$.
For what follows, let $ \mathcal{O}_s = \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}^{-1} \circ \pi^{-1} \big(\, B_{\epsilon(s)}\big(\pi \circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big) \,\big)$. The family $\left\{\, \mathcal{O}_s \cap \mathcal{A} \,\right\}_{s\in{\rm cl}( \mathcal{N}) } $ forms an open cover of the compact space $ {\rm cl}( \mathcal{N} ) $. Hence there exist $s_1,\ldots,s_K$, $K \in \mathbb{N}$, such that $ \bigcup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{O}_{s_k} \cap \mathcal{A} \supset {\rm cl}( \mathcal{N} ) $.
Now,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mu_{f}\big( \mathcal{N} \big) \leq \mu_{f}\big( {\rm cl}( \mathcal{N} ) \big) \leq \sum_{k=1}^K \mu_f\Big( \mathcal{O}_{s_k} \cap \mathcal{A} \Big)
= \sum_{k=1}^K \mu_{f^{\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}}\Big( B_{\epsilon(s_k)}\big(\pi \circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big) \Big)
\end{split},
\end{equation}
since $\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}$ is a diffeomorphism, and so it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big[\, \mu_f\big( \mathcal{N} \big)^2 \,\Big]
\leq&
\sum_{ k = 1 }^K \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \mu_{f^{\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}}\Big(B_{\epsilon(s_k)}\big(\pi \circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big) \Big)^2 \,\Bigg] \\ ~ ~ ~ ~& +
\sum_{ k = 1 }^K\sum_{ \substack{k' = 1\\ k'\neq k} }^K \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \mu_{f^{\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}}\Big( B_{\epsilon(s_k)}\big(\pi \circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big) \Big)
\mu_{f^{\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}}\Big( B_{\epsilon(s_{k'})}\big(\pi \circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big) \Big) \,\Bigg]\\
\leq&
\sum_{ k = 1 }^K \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \mu_{f^{\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}}\Big( B_{\epsilon(s_k)}\big(\pi \circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big) \Big)^2 \,\Bigg] \\ ~ ~ ~ ~& +
\sum_{ k = 1 }^K\sum_{ \substack{k' = 1\\ k'\neq k} }^K \sqrt{ \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \mu_{f^{\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}}\Big( B_{\epsilon(s_k)}\big(\pi \circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big) \Big)^2 \,\Bigg]}\sqrt{ \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\, \mu_{f^{\pi \circ \varphi_{\mathcal{A}}}}\Big( B_{\epsilon(s_{k'}t)}\big(\pi \circ\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}(s)\big) \Big)^2 \,\Bigg]}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The right hand side of this inequality is finite since all
expectations in the sums are finite by Lemma 4.2 from \cite{Cheng:2015extremes}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $ \mathcal{M} = \bigsqcup_{ d = 0 }^D {\partial_d \mathcal{M}} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $,
where $ {\partial_d \mathcal{M}} $, for $ d = \{\, 1, \ldots,D \,\} $, is either empty or a disjoint union of finitely
many $ d $-dimensional relatively compact and extendable $ C^3 $-submanifolds of
$ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $ without boundary and $ {\partial_0 \mathcal{M}} $ is either empty or
is the union of finitely many points of $ \tilde{\mathcal{M}} $.
Let $ \tilde f $ be a Gaussian random field on $ \tilde{ \mathcal{M} } $ satisfying
Assumption \ref{assumption:Fields} and let $ f $ denote its restriction to $ \mathcal{M} $.
Then $ \mathbb{E}\Big[ \mu_f^2\big( \mathcal{M} \big) \Big] < \infty $.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The number of critical points of $ \mathcal{M} $ is given by
$ \mu_f\big(\mathcal{M}\big) = \sum_{d=1}^D \mu_{f\vert_{\partial_d\mathcal{M}}}\big( \partial_d\mathcal{M}\big) $. Thus, applying Lemma \ref{lem:SimpleSubmanifolds} to $\partial_d \mathcal{M}$ and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big[\, \mu_f^2\big(\mathcal{M}\big) \,\Big]
= \sum_{d=1}^D\sum_{d'=1}^D \mathbb{E}\Big[\, \mu_{f\vert_{\partial_d\mathcal{M}}}\big( \partial_d\mathcal{M}\big) \mu_{f\vert_{\partial_d\mathcal{M}}}\big( \partial_{d'}\mathcal{M}\big) \,\Big]
\leq \left(\, \sum_{d=1}^D \sqrt{ \mathbb{E}\Big[\, \mu_{f\vert_{\partial_d\mathcal{M}}}^2\big( \partial_d\mathcal{M}\big) \,\Big] }\,\right)^2
< \infty\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
F.T. is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Excellence Strategy The Berlin Mathematics Research Center MATH+ (EXC-2046/1, project ID:390685689). S.D. was partially supported by NIH grant R01EB026859.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction and main result}
\subsection{Context}
We define the convolution $a\ast b$ of two elements $a$ and $b$ of $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ by
$$\forall j \in \mathbb{Z}, \quad (a\ast b)_j:=\sum_{l\in\mathbb{Z}}a_lb_{j-l}.$$
When equipped with this product, $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ is a Banach algebra. For $a \in \ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$, we define the Laurent operator $L_a$ associated with $a$ which acts on $\ell^q(\mathbb{Z})$ for $q\in[1,+\infty]$ as
$$\forall u\in \ell^q(\mathbb{Z}), \quad L_au:=a\ast u\in \ell^q(\mathbb{Z}).$$
Young's inequality implies that those operators are well defined and are bounded for all $q\in [1,+\infty]$. Furthermore, we have that $L_{a\ast b}=L_a\circ L_b$ for $a,b\in \ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$. Finally, Wiener's theorem \cite{Newman} characterizes the invertible elements of $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ and thus allows us to describe the spectrum of $L_a$ via the Fourier series $F$ associated with $a$:
$$\sigma(L_a)=\left\lbrace F(t):=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}a_k e^{itk}, t\in\mathbb{R}\right\rbrace.$$
We observe that the spectrum is independent of the index $q$ and that $F$ is continuous since $a$ belongs to $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$.
If we suppose that the sequence $a$ has real nonnegative coefficients and $\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} a_k=1$, then the sequence $a^n:=a\ast \ldots\ast a$ is the probability distribution\footnote{We say that a sequence $a$ is the probability distribution of a random variable $Y$ with values in $\mathbb{Z}$ when $\mathbb{P}(Y=j)=a_j$ for all $j\in\mathbb{Z}$.} of the sum of $n$ independent random variables supported on $\mathbb{Z}$ each with the probability distribution $a$. A lot is known on the pointwise asymptotic behavior of the sequence $a^n$ in this case. In particular, the local limit theorem states, under suitable hypotheses on the sequence $a$, that there exists a family of functions $(q_\sigma:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R})_{\sigma\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\lc0,1\right\rbrace}$ such that for all $s\in \mathbb{N}^*$ we have the following asymptotic expansion for the elements $a_j^n$
\begin{equation}\label{cas_proba}
a_j^n - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi V n}} \exp\left(-\frac{X_{n,j}^2}{2}\right) - \sum_{\sigma=2}^s\frac{q_\sigma(X_{n,j})}{n^\frac{\sigma}{2}}\underset{n\rightarrow+\infty}=o\left(\frac{1}{n^\frac{s}{2}}\right)
\end{equation}
with $X_{n,j}=\frac{j-n\alpha}{\sqrt{Vn}}$ where $\alpha=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}ka_k$ and $V=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}k^2a_k-\alpha^2$ are respectively the mean and the variance of a random variable with probability distribution $a$ and where the error term is uniform with respect to $j\in\mathbb{Z}$ (see \cite[Chapter VII, Theorem 13]{Petrov} for more details). Furthermore, the terms in the asymptotic expansion \eqref{cas_proba} can be explicitely computed using Hermite polynomials since the functions $q_\sigma$ are explicit linear combinations of derivatives of the Gaussian function $x\mapsto \exp\left(-\frac{x^2}{2}\right)$. The asymptotic expansion \eqref{cas_proba} gives a precise description of the asymptotic behavior of $a^n_j$ in the range $|j-n\alpha|\lesssim \sqrt{n}$ and implies that the convolution powers of $a$ are attracted towards the heat kernel.
Following, among other works, \cite{D-S,R-S,Cou-Faye}, we are interested in generalizing the local limit theorem to the case where $a$ is complex valued. This problem is relevant for instance when one studies the large time behavior of finite difference approximation of evolution equations. Extending the works of Schoenberg \cite{Schoenberg}, Greville \cite{Greville} and Diaconis and Saloff-Coste \cite[Theorem 2.6]{D-S}, the article \cite{R-S} of Randles and Saloff-Coste already provides a generalization of the local limit theorem for a large class of complex valued finitely supported sequences. By doing so, the authors of \cite{R-S} describe an asymptotic expansion similar to \eqref{cas_proba} for $s=1$ and identify the leading asymptotic term (the so-called "attractors" in \cite{R-S}). Our goal in this paper is to generalize the result of \cite{R-S} by obtaining an asymptotic expansion similar to \eqref{cas_proba} for any $s\in\mathbb{N}$ with explicitely computable terms. We also prove a sharp rate of convergence together with a generalized Gaussian bound for the remainder of our new-found asymptotic expansion (see Theorem \ref{thPrinc}). In the case where $a$ is the probability distribution of a random variable, as above, the main theorem of this paper would translate in saying that, under suitable assumptions on $a$ (namely that $a$ is finitely supported with at least two nonzero elements), for all $s\in \mathbb{N}^*$, there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*,\forall j\in\mathbb{Z},\quad \left|a^n_j -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi V n}} \exp\left(-\frac{X_{n,j}^2}{2}\right) - \sum_{\sigma=2}^s\frac{q_\sigma(X_{n,j})}{n^\frac{\sigma}{2}}\right| \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2}} \exp\left(-c{X_{n,j}}^2\right)$$
with $X_{n,j}=\frac{j-n\alpha}{\sqrt{Vn}}$. As an example of application, these improvements on the local limit theorem allow us in the probabilistic case to prove the well-known Berry-Esseen inequality (see \cite{Berry,Esseen}) which states that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*, \forall J\in\mathbb{Z}, \quad \left|\sum_{j\leq J}a^n_j-\sum_{j\leq J}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi V n}}\exp\left(-\frac{|j-n\alpha|^2}{2nV}\right)\right|\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}.$$
However, we will need stronger hypotheses on the elements of $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ than the conditions imposed in \cite{R-S}. We will consider here elements $a$ of $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which are finitely supported and such that the sequence $(a^n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is bounded in $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$. The fundamental contribution \cite{Thomee} by Thomée completely characterizes such elements and is an important starting point for our work.
In the articles \cite{D-S} and \cite{R-S}, the proofs mainly rely on the use of Fourier analysis to express the elements $a^n_j$ via the Fourier series associated with $a$. In this paper, we will rather follow an approach usually referred to in partial differential equations as "spatial dynamics". It aims at using the functional calculus (see \cite[Chapter VII]{Conway}) to express the temporal Green's function (here the coefficients $a_j^n$) with the resolvent of the operator $L_a$ via the spatial Green's function which is the unique solution of
$$(zId- L_a)u= \delta, \quad z \in \mathbb{C}\backslash\sigma(L_a),$$
where $\delta$ is the discrete Dirac mass $\delta := (\delta_{j,0})_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}$. This approach has already been used in \cite{Cou-Faye} to extend the result of \cite[Theorem 1.1]{D-S} and obtain a uniform generalized Gaussian bound for the elements $a^n_j$. It has also been used in \cite{Cou-Faye2} to prove similar results on finite rank perturbations of Toeplitz operators (convolution operators on $\ell^q(\mathbb{N})$ rather than on $\ell^q(\mathbb{Z})$). The present paper is very much inspired by \cite{Cou-Faye,Cou-Faye2} and we will use notations and methods similar to those articles. We will now present in more details the hypotheses we need on the elements $a\in\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ that we shall consider and we shall then present our main theorem.
\subsection{Hypotheses}
We consider a given sequence $a\in \ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$. We let $\mathscr{L}_a$ be the bounded operator acting on $\ell^q(\mathbb{Z})$ defined as
$$\forall u\in \ell^q(\mathbb{Z}), \quad \mathscr{L}_a u := \left(\sum_{l\in\mathbb{Z}} a_lu_{j+l}\right)_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}.$$
This operator is obviously linked to Laurent operators and could be written as one of them ($\mathscr{L}_a=L_b$ for $b:=(a_{-j})_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$). Our goal will be to study the powers $\mathscr{L}_a^n$ for $n$ large. This problem arises for instance as the large time behavior of finite difference approximations of partial differential equations and is equivalent to studying the asymptotic behavior of the coefficients of $b^n:=b\ast\ldots\ast b$ as $n$ tends to infinity. We define the symbol $F$ associated with $a$ as
\begin{equation}\label{def_f}
\forall \kappa \in \mathbb{S}^1, \quad F(\kappa):= \sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}} a_j \kappa^j.
\end{equation}
The Wiener theorem \cite{Newman} allows us to conclude that the spectrum of $\mathscr{L}_a$ is given, for any $q\in[1, +\infty]$, by:
$$\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)=F(\mathbb{S}^1).$$
We are now going to introduce some hypotheses that are necessary for the rest of the paper.
\begin{hypo}\label{H1}
The sequence $a$ is finitely supported and has at least two nonzero coefficients.
\end{hypo}
Looking at the definition of the operator $\mathscr{L}_a$, in terms of applications for numerical analysis, this hypothesis translates the fact that we are only considering the case of explicit finite difference schemes. Hypothesis \ref{H1} implies that we can extend the definition \eqref{def_f} of $F$ to the pointed plane $\mathbb{C}\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace$ and $F$ becomes a holomorphic function on this domain. We introduce the two following elements
$$k_m:=\min \left\lbrace k\in\mathbb{Z},\quad a_k\neq0\right\rbrace,\quad k_M:=\max \left\lbrace k\in\mathbb{Z},\quad a_k\neq0\right\rbrace.$$
Observing that Hypothesis \ref{H1} implies $k_m<k_M$, we then distinguish three different possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case 1: $k_M\leq-1$. We then define $r:=-k_m$ and $p:=0$.
\item Case 2: $k_m\leq 0 \leq k_M$. We then define $r:=-k_m$ and $p:=k_M$.
\item Case 3: $1\leq k_m$. We then define $r:=0$ and $p:=k_M$.
\end{itemize}
In every case, we have $r,p\in\mathbb{N}$ and $-r<p$. Also, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{expLa}
\forall u\in\ell^q(\mathbb{Z}),\forall j\in\mathbb{Z}, \quad (\mathscr{L}_a u)_j=\sum_{l=-r}^pa_lu_{j+l}.
\end{equation}
The natural integers $r$ and $p$ we just introduced define the common stencil of the operators $\mathscr{L}_a$ and the identity operator and they will be useful to study the so-called resolvent equation \eqref{def_G} below. We now introduce an assumption on the Laurent series $F$ which is based on \cite{Thomee}. Just like in \cite{D-S,R-S,Cou-Faye}, we normalize the sequence $a$ so that the maximum of $F$ on $\mathbb{S}^1$ is $1$.
\begin{hypo}\label{H2}
There exists a finite set of distinct points $\left\lbrace\underline{\kappa}_1,\ldots,\underline{\kappa}_K\right\rbrace$, $K\geq 1$, in $\mathbb{S}^1$ such that for all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, $\underline{z}_k:=F(\underline{\kappa}_k)$ belongs to $\mathbb{S}^1$ and
$$\forall \kappa\in \mathbb{S}^1\backslash \left\lbrace\underline{\kappa}_1,\ldots,\underline{\kappa}_K\right\rbrace, \quad |F(\kappa)|<1.$$
Moreover, we suppose that for each $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, there exist a nonzero real number $\alpha_k$, an integer $\mu_k\geq1$ and a complex number $\beta_k$ with positive real part such that
\begin{equation}\label{F}
F(\underline{\kappa}_ke^{i\xi})\underset{\xi\rightarrow0}= \underline{z}_k\exp(-i\alpha_k \xi - \beta_k \xi^{2\mu_k} + O(|\xi|^{2\mu_k+1})).
\end{equation}
\end{hypo}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2]
\fill[color=gray!20] (-1.5,-1.5) -- (-1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,-1.5) -- cycle;
\draw[color=black!60] (-1,1) node {$\mathcal{O}$};
\fill[color=white] plot [samples = 100, domain=0:2*pi] ({cos(\x r)},{sin(\x r)/2}) -- cycle ;
\fill[color=white] (0,0) circle (0.7) ;
\draw (0,0) circle (1);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) circle (0.7);
\draw (0.2,-0.2) node {$\exp(-\underline{\eta})\mathbb{S}^1$};
\draw (45:1.2) node {$\mathbb{S}^1$};
\draw[thick,red] plot [samples = 100, domain=0:2*pi] ({cos(\x r)},{sin(\x r)/2});
\draw[red] (0,0.3) node {$\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)$};
\draw[blue] (1,0) node {$\bullet$} node[right] {$\underline{z}_1$};
\draw[blue] (-1,0) node {$\bullet$} node[left] {$\underline{z}_2$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{An example of spectrum $\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)$. The spectrum $\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)$ (in red) is inside the closed disk $\bar{\mathbb{D}}$ and touches the boundary $\mathbb{S}^1$ in finitely many points. In gray, we have $\mathcal{O}$ the intersection of the unbounded connected component of $\mathbb{C}\backslash\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)$ and $\left\lbrace z\in\mathbb{C}, |z|>\exp(-\underline{\eta})\right\rbrace$.}
\label{spec}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Geometrically, this means that the spectrum $\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)$ is contained in the disk $\overline{\mathbb{D}}$ and it intersects $\mathbb{S}^1$ at finitely many points (see Figure \ref{spec} for an example with $K=2$, $\underline{z}_1=1$, $\underline{z}_2=-1$) and that the logarithm of $F$ has a specific asymptotic expansion at those intersection points. From a general point of view, it is proved in \cite[Theorem 1]{Thomee} that Hypothesis \ref{H2} is one of two conditions that characterize the elements $a$ of $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ such that the geometric sequence $(a^n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is bounded in $\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$. In the more specific field of numerical analysis, the condition \eqref{F} has been studied closely because of its link with the stability of finite difference approximations in the maximum norm (see \cite{Thomee}). We can observe that, under Hypotheses \ref{H1} and \ref{H2}, there holds
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*,\quad \left\|\mathscr{L}_a^n\right\|_{\mathcal{L}(\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))}=\left\|F^n\right\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{S}^1)}=1.$$
It assures the $\ell^2$-stability, or strong stability (see \cite{Strang}, \cite{Tad}), of the numerical scheme defined as
\begin{equation}\label{an_num}\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{cc}
u^{n+1}=\mathscr{L}_a u^n,& n\geq0,\\
u^0\in \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}). &
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
However, it has further consequences, as the asymptotic expansion \eqref{F} assures the $\ell^q$-stability of the scheme \eqref{an_num} for every $q$ in $[1,+\infty]$ (see \cite[Theorem 1]{Thomee} which focuses on the $\ell^\infty$-stability but also studies the $\ell^q$-stability as a consequence). In terms of numerical scheme, the meaning of \eqref{F} is that the numerical scheme introduces an artificial numerical diffusion (like the Lax-Friedrichs scheme for example).
We now introduce yet another hypothesis.
\begin{hypo}\label{H3}
For all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, the set
$$\mathcal{I}_k:= \left\lbrace\nu \in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace, \quad \underline{z}_\nu=\underline{z}_k\right\rbrace$$
has either one or two elements, where we recall that $\underline{z}_\nu:=F(\underline{\kappa}_\nu)$. Moreover, if there are two distinct elements $\nu_{k,1}$ and $\nu_{k,2}$ in $\mathcal{I}_k$, then $\alpha_{\nu_{k,1}}\alpha_{\nu_{k,2}}<0$.
\end{hypo}
Hypothesis \ref{H3} will simplify part of the analysis when we will study the spatial Green's function defined in \eqref{def_G} below. It will allow us to study precisely the spectrum of the matrix $\mathbb{M}(z)$ defined below as \eqref{def_M} near the tangency points $\underline{z}_k$. Combining Hypothesis \ref{H3} with the fact that the $\alpha_k$'s are nonzero real numbers (see Hypothesis \ref{H2}) implies that, for $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, we have three different possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Case I:} $\mathcal{I}_k$ is the singleton $\left\lbrace k\right\rbrace$ and $\alpha_k>0$,
\item \textbf{Case II:} $\mathcal{I}_k$ is the singleton $\left\lbrace k\right\rbrace$ and $\alpha_k<0$,
\item \textbf{Case III:} $\mathcal{I}_k$ has two distinct elements $\nu_{k,1}$ and $\nu_{k,2}$ such that $\alpha_{\nu_{k,1}}>0$ and $\alpha_{\nu_{k,2}}<0$.
\end{itemize}
Distinguishing between those three cases will be useful later on. The three hypotheses we presented above will be crucial in the rest of the paper. Some hypotheses might be relaxable, but this would be considerations for future works.
Finally, by defining the discrete Dirac mass $\delta := (\delta_{j,0})_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}$, we introduce the so-called temporal Green's function defined by
\begin{equation}\label{defGreenTempo}
\forall n\in\mathbb{N}, \forall j\in \mathbb{Z}, \quad \mathscr{G}_j^n:=\left(\mathscr{L}_a^n\delta\right)_j.
\end{equation}
It is interesting to observe that the equality between the operator $\mathscr{L}_a$ and the Laurent operator $L_b$ with $b=\left(a_{-j}\right)_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$ implies that
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}, \forall j\in \mathbb{Z}, \quad \mathscr{G}_j^n=b^n_j$$
where $b^n=b\ast \ldots\ast b$.
\subsection{Main results and comparison to previous results}
Our main goal is to determine the asymptotic behavior of $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ when $n$ becomes large. The identification of the leading asymptotic term was achieved in \cite[Theorem 1.2]{R-S}. We aim here at extending the result of \cite[Theorem 1.2]{R-S} into a complete asymptotic expansion up to any order and at proving sharp bounds for the remainder. To express the asymptotic expansion of $\mathscr{G}_j^n$, we introduce the functions $H_{2\mu}^\beta: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, where $\mu\in\mathbb{N}^*$ and $\beta \in \mathbb{C}$ has positive real part, which are defined as
$$\forall x \in \mathbb{R},\quad H_{2\mu}^\beta(x) := \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_\mathbb{R} e^{ixu}e^{-\beta u^{2\mu}}du.$$
We call those functions generalized Gaussians since for $\mu=1$, we have
$$\forall x \in \mathbb{R},\quad H_{2}^\beta(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi\beta}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{4\beta}}.$$
Let us state the main result of this paper.
\begin{theorem}\label{thPrinc}
Let $a\in \ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which verifies Hypotheses \ref{H1}, \ref{H2} and \ref{H3}. Then, for all integers $s_1,\ldots,s_K\in\mathbb{N}$ there exist a family of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{\sigma\in\lc1, \ldots,s_k\right\rbrace}$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$ for each $k\in\lc1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^*$ and $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, there holds:
\begin{equation}\label{devPrinc}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n-\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_{k}}}\left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right|\leq\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c|X_{n,j,k}|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{equation}
where $X_{n,j,k}=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thPrinc} gives the asymptotic behavior of the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ up to any order with a sharp generalized Gaussian estimate of the remainder. We would also like to point out that the proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} (mainly Lemmas \ref{lemEstInterm}, \ref{lemDevAsymp} and equality \eqref{egHjalp}) gives us an explicit expression of the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ of Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. Examples are provided in Section \ref{secComput} where we compute these polynomials for $\sigma=1,2$ and numerically verify the claim of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} for some sequences $a$.
The following lemma, which is proved using integration by parts, implies that we cannot prove the uniqueness of the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ of Theorem \ref{thPrinc}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemH}
For $\mu\in\mathbb{N}^*$, $\beta\in \mathbb{C}$ with positive real part and $m\in \mathbb{N}^*$, we have
$$\forall x\in\mathbb{R},\quad x{H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(m)}(x)= (-1)^\mu2\mu\beta {H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(m+2\mu-1)}(x)-m{H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(m-1)}(x),$$
and
$$\forall x\in\mathbb{R},\quad xH_{2\mu}^\beta(x)= (-1)^\mu2\mu\beta {H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(2\mu-1)}(x).$$
\end{lemma}
In other words, one can either choose to multiply $H_{2\mu}^{\beta}$ by a polynomial or to differentiate it sufficiently many times. Hence, there may hold
$$P(\cdot, \frac{d}{dx})H_{2\mu}^\beta=0$$
for a nonzero $P\in \mathbb{C}[X,Y]$.
In our proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc}, the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ depend on the chosen integers $s_1, \ldots,s_k$. It might be possible to prove the existence of a family of polynomials $\left(\mathscr{P}^k_{\sigma}\right)_{(k,\sigma)\in\left\lbrace 1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace \times \mathbb{N}^*}$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$ for which the estimates \eqref{devPrinc} are verified for all $s_1,\ldots,s_K\in\mathbb{N}$. However, we do not yet have a proof of this fact in full generality. We now compare Theorem \ref{thPrinc} with prior results:\newline
$\bullet$ In the probabilistic case presented in the introduction, Theorem \ref{thPrinc} allows us to prove sharp bounds with Gaussian estimates on the remainder of the asymptotic expansion of $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ that were not proved via the asymptotic expansion \eqref{cas_proba} of the local limit theorem. \newline
$\bullet$ \cite[Theorem 3.1]{D-S} gives sharp generalized Gaussian estimates for the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ when the sequence $a$ satisfies Hypotheses \ref{H1}, \ref{H2} and \ref{H3} with a single tangency point (i.e. $K=1$), which in comparison to Theorem \ref{thPrinc} would match the case $s_k=0$. \cite[Theorem 1]{Cou-Faye} generalizes those generalized Gaussian estimates for sequences $a$ with any number $K\in \mathbb{N}^*$ of tangency points and a relaxed Hypothesis \ref{H1}. Theorem \ref{thPrinc} thus improves those results by proving similar sharp generalized Gaussian estimates for the remainder of the asymptotic expansion of the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ up to any order $s_1,\ldots,s_K\in\mathbb{N}$.\newline
$\bullet$ For a sequence $a\in\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which satisfies Hypotheses \ref{H1} and \ref{H2}, we introduce the the so-called "attractors":
$$\forall k\in\lc1,\ldots, K\right\rbrace, \forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*, \forall j\in \mathbb{Z}, \quad \mathscr{H}_{k,j}^n := \frac{{\underline{z}_k}^n{\underline{\kappa}_k}^j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\left(\frac{j-n\alpha_k}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right).$$
In \cite[Theorem 1.2]{R-S}, it is proved that if we introduce $\mathcal{K}_\mu=\left\lbrace k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace, \mu_k=\mu\right\rbrace$ where $\mu=\max_{k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace}\mu_k$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq_R-S}
\mathscr{G}_j^n-\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}_\mu}\mathscr{H}_{k,j}^n\underset{n\rightarrow +\infty}= o\left(\frac{1}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu}}\right)
\end{equation}
where the error term in \eqref{eq_R-S} is uniform on $\mathbb{Z}$. Compared to Theorem \ref{thPrinc}, this is equivalent to finding the asymptotic expansion up to order $s_1,\ldots,s_K=1$. The result of Randles and Saloff-Coste gives a precise description of the behavior of $\mathscr{G}^n_j$ for $j$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{dom}
\left|j-n\alpha_k\right|\lesssim n^\frac{1}{2\mu},
\end{equation}
where $k\in \mathcal{K}_\mu$. Theorem \ref{thPrinc} allows us to extend the result of \cite{R-S} by going even farther in the asymptotic expansion of the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$, and proving sharp generalized Gaussian bounds on the remainder with a more precise speed of convergence. However, \cite[Theorem 1.2]{R-S} also treats the case where the asymptotic expansion \eqref{F} has the form
$$F(\underline{\kappa}_ke^{i\xi})\underset{\xi\rightarrow0}= \underline{z}_k\exp(-i\alpha_k \xi +i \gamma_k \xi^{\nu_k} + O(|\xi|^{\nu_k+1})),$$
where $\gamma_k$ is a real number and the integer $\nu_k\in \mathbb{N}\backslash\left\lbrace 0,1\right\rbrace$ can be even or odd. A generalization of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} in this difficult case has not yet been found, even though the result of \cite{JFCLW} indicates that such a result might be attainable.
\subsection{Extending the result when the drift vanishes}
As we have seen, Theorem \ref{thPrinc} allows us to have generalize the local limit theorem for complex valued sequences but it still has some limits. Relaxing some of the hypotheses we made could be interesting and theoretically doable in some cases. For example, Theorem \ref{thPrinc} is constrained by Hypothesis \ref{H2} which imposes that $\alpha_k$ is nonzero even though the result \cite[Theorem 1.2]{R-S} does not have this kind of restriction. The hypothesis $\alpha_k\neq0$ is essential in the proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} below but it seems to be a technical hypothesis that we would want to avoid. The following corollary will allow us to extend Theorem \ref{thPrinc} to some sequences $a$ for which we allow $\alpha_k$ to be equal to $0$. First, we introduce a relaxed version of Hypothesis \ref{H2}.
\begin{hypo}[Hypothesis 2 bis]\label{H2_bis}
The sequence $a$ verifies Hypothesis \ref{H2} but with the possibility that some $\alpha_k$ are equal to $0$.
\end{hypo}
We now consider a finitely supported sequence $a\in\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which verifies Hypothesis \ref{H2_bis} and let $J\in\mathbb{Z}$. Then, if we define the sequence $b=(a_{j+J})_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\widetilde{F}$ the symbol associated with $b$, we have that $b$ satisfies Hypothesis \ref{H2_bis} since
$$\forall \kappa\in\mathbb{S}^1, \quad \widetilde{F}(\kappa)=\kappa^{-J}F(\kappa),$$
and therefore
$$\forall \kappa\in\mathbb{S}^1, \quad \left|\widetilde{F}(\kappa)\right|=\left|F(\kappa)\right|.$$
Also, we have for $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{F}(\underline{\kappa}_ke^{i\xi})\underset{\xi\rightarrow0}= \underline{\kappa}_k^{-J}\underline{z}_k\exp(-i(\alpha_k+J) \xi - \beta_k \xi^{2\mu_k} + o(|\xi|^{2\mu_k})).
\end{equation*}
Considering this new sequence $b$ allows us to "shift" the elements $\alpha_k$. In particular, if we choose $J$ large enough, then $b$ satisfies Hypothesis \ref{H2}. However, it is not clear that the sequence $b$ would satisfy Hypothesis \ref{H3}. We can then prove the following corollary of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} which generalizes Theorem \ref{thPrinc} in the case where $\alpha_k$ can be equal to $0$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor_prin}
Let $a\in \ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which verifies Hypotheses \ref{H1} and \ref{H2_bis}. If there exists some integer $J\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that the sequence $(a_{j+J})_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$ verifies Hypotheses \ref{H2} and \ref{H3}, then for all $s_1,\ldots,s_K\in\mathbb{N}$ there exist a family of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{\sigma\in\lc1, \ldots,s_k\right\rbrace}$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$ for each $k\in\lc1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^*$ and $j\in \mathbb{Z}$
$$\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n-\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_{k}}}\left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right|\leq\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c|X_{n,j,k}|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)$$
with $X_{n,j,k}=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
\end{corollary}
We prove Corollary \ref{cor_prin} in Section \ref{secCor}.
\subsection{Plan of the paper}
The main goal of the paper is the proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. As explained in the introduction, the proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} will rely on an approach referred to as spatial dynamics. In Section \ref{sec_GS}, we will introduce the spatial Green's function on which Coulombel and Faye proved holomorphic extension properties and sharp bounds in \cite[Section 2]{Cou-Faye}. Our goal in Section \ref{sec_GS} is to improve the analysis of \cite{Cou-Faye} and to obtain the precise behavior of the spatial Green's function for $z$ close to $\underline{z}_k$ and to prove sharp bounds on the remainder. More precisely, the main novelty of this section is the introduction of the explicit function $f_k$ in Lemmas \ref{green_spatial_près_1} and \ref{green_spatial_près_2} which allows us to properly describe the spatial Green's function for $z$ close to $\underline{z}_k$.
In Section \ref{sec_GT}, we prove Theorem \ref{thPrinc} while assuming that the elements $\alpha_k$ are distinct. This assumption will allow us to separate the different Gaussian waves in the estimate \eqref{devPrinc}. Section \ref{subsec_est_far} will be dedicated to the easier part of the proof which is proving estimate \eqref{devPrinc} when $j$ is far from the axes $j=n\alpha_k$. The bulk of the proof resides in Sections \ref{subsecPlan}-\ref{subsecLemImpTh} which will be dedicated to proving estimate \eqref{devPrinc} when $j$ is close to the axes $j=n\alpha_k$. In Section \ref{sec_GS/GT}, we will express the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ with the spatial Green's function using functional calculus. We will then use the results of Section \ref{sec_GS} on the spatial Green's function to prove generalized Gaussian estimates on the difference of the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ and a linear combination of terms of the form
\begin{equation}\label{termesY}
\frac{1}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{l}{2\mu_k}}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m)}\left(Y_{n,j,k}\right)\quad \text{where }l\in\mathbb{N}^*, m\in\mathbb{N},Y_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}.
\end{equation}
Keeping in mind that we are considering the case where $j$ is close to $n\alpha_k$, Section \ref{secAsymp} will deal with approaching the terms \eqref{termesY} with linear combinations of the following terms appearing in Theorem \ref{thPrinc}:
$$\frac{1}{n^\frac{l}{2\mu_k}}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)^{m_2}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m_1)}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\quad \text{where }l\in\mathbb{N}^*, m_1,m_2\in\mathbb{N},X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}.$$
Section \ref{subsecLemImpTh} will combine the results of the previous sections to conclude the proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} by constructing the polynomials $\mathcal{P}^k_\sigma$.
In Section \ref{secConcluTh}, we prove Theorem \ref{thPrinc} when the elements $\alpha_k$ can be equal. We also prove Corollary \ref{cor_prin}.
Finally, in Section \ref{secComput}, we will explicitly compute the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} for $\sigma=1,2$ for any $s_k\in \mathbb{N}\backslash\lc0,1\right\rbrace$ and numerically verify the estimate \eqref{devPrinc} of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} in two cases. The first one is the probabilistic case, i.e. a sequence $a$ with non negative coefficients. We will compare the result of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} with the local limit theorem. The second example will be the sequence $a$ associated with the so-called O3 scheme for the transport equation (see \cite{Despres}). This is an example of sequence $a$ where $\mu=2$ in the asymptotic expansion \eqref{F}.
\section{Spatial Green's function}\label{sec_GS}
From now on, we consider a sequence $a$ that satisfies Hypotheses \ref{H1}, \ref{H2} and \ref{H3}. In this section, we are going to introduce the spatial Green's function and prove some estimates for it. We will start by defining the necessary objects for our study. First, we can observe the following lemma for which the proof can be found in the Appendix (Section \ref{sec_appendix}).
\begin{lemma}\label{arp}
For $a\in\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which verifies Hypotheses \ref{H1} and \ref{H2}, we have that $a_{-r}$ and $a_p$ belong to $\mathbb{D}$.
\end{lemma}
We define for $z\in \mathbb{C}$ and $j\in \left\lbrace-r,\ldots,p\right\rbrace$
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{A}_j(z):= z \delta_{j,0}-a_j.\label{def_Aj}
\end{equation}
The definition of $r$ and $p$ implies that the functions $\mathbb{A}_{-r}$ and $\mathbb{A}_p$ can vanish at most on one point which are respectively $a_{-r}$ and $a_p$. Lemma \ref{arp} allows us to find $\underline{\eta}>0$ such that $\mathbb{A}_{-r}$ and $\mathbb{A}_p$ do not vanish on $\left\lbrace z \in \mathbb{C}, |z|>\exp(-\underline{\eta})\right\rbrace.$ We can therefore define for all $z \in \mathbb{C}$ such that $|z|>\exp(-\underline{\eta})$ the matrix
\begin{equation}\label{def_M}\mathbb{M}(z):= \begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{\mathbb{A}_{p-1}(z)}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)} & \ldots & \ldots & -\frac{\mathbb{A}_{-r}(z)}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)} \\
1 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0& 0 & 1& 0
\end{pmatrix} \in \mathcal{M}_{p+r}(\mathbb{C}).\end{equation}
The application which associates $z$ with $\mathbb{M}(z)$ is holomorphic on the annulus $\left\lbrace z \in \mathbb{C}, |z|>\exp(-\underline{\eta})\right\rbrace.$ Moreover, since $\mathbb{A}_{-r}(z)\neq0$, the upper right coefficient of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ is always nonzero and $\mathbb{M}(z)$ is invertible. We define the open set $\mathcal{O}$ which corresponds to the intersection of the unbounded connected component of $\mathbb{C}\backslash F(\mathbb{S}^1)$ and $\left\lbrace z\in\mathbb{C}, |z|>\exp(-\underline{\eta})\right\rbrace$ (see Figure \ref{spec}). Hypothesis \ref{H2} implies that $\overline{\mathcal{U}}\backslash\left\lbrace \underline{z}_1,\ldots,\underline{z}_K\right\rbrace$ is contained within $\mathcal{O}$. By recalling that $\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)=F(\mathbb{S}^1)$, when we consider that $\mathscr{L}_a$ acts on $\ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$, we have the existence for every $z\in \mathcal{O}$ of a unique sequence $G(z):=(G_j(z))_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\in \ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$ such that
\begin{equation}
(zI-\mathscr{L}_a)G(z)=\delta, \label{def_G}
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ still denotes the discrete Dirac mass. The sequence $G(z)$ is the so-called spatial Green's function which has already been studied in \cite{Cou-Faye}. In \cite[Lemma 2]{Cou-Faye}, we can find a proof of local sharp exponential bounds on $G_j(z)$ when $z\in \mathcal{O}$ is far from the tangency points $\underline{z}_k$. This bound will be sufficient for our purpose. Furthermore, in \cite[Lemmas 3 and 4]{Cou-Faye}, the authors proved that the spatial Green's function $G_j(z)$ could be holomorphically extended near the points $\underline{z}_k$ through the spectrum of the operator $\mathscr{L}_a$ which is not immediate based on the definition \eqref{def_G} of the spatial Green's function and they proved sharp bounds on $G_j(z)$ in this case. To prove Theorem \ref{thPrinc}, we will need to get a more precise description of the behavior of the sequence $G_j(z)$ close to any tangency point $\underline{z}_k$. This section will therefore follow \cite[Section 2]{Cou-Faye} and make it more precise by specifying where our study of the sequence $G(z)$ differs from \cite[Section 2]{Cou-Faye}.
Using the functions $\mathbb{A}_l$ which are defined by \eqref{def_Aj}, the equation \eqref{def_G} can be rewritten as
$$\forall z\in\mathcal{O},\forall j \in \mathbb{Z}, \quad \sum_{l=-r}^p\mathbb{A}_l(z)G_{j+l}(z)=\delta_{j,0}.$$
We introduce the vectors
$$\forall z\in\mathcal{O},\forall j\in \mathbb{Z}, \quad W_j(z) := \begin{pmatrix}
G_{j+p-1}(z) \\ \vdots \\ G_{j-r}(z)
\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbb{C}^{p+r}, \quad e := \begin{pmatrix}
1\\0\\ \vdots \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}\in \mathbb{C}^{p+r}.$$
We then end up with the following dynamical system
\begin{equation}
\forall z\in \mathcal{O}, \forall j\in \mathbb{Z}, \quad W_{j+1}(z)-\mathbb{M}(z)W_j(z) = -\frac{\delta_{j,0}}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}e. \label{Wj}
\end{equation}
The study of the recurrence relation \eqref{Wj} relies on the following lemma introduced in \cite{Kre} that studies the eigenvalues of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ for $z\in \mathcal{O}$ and $z\in\left\lbrace\underline{z}_k, 1\leq k\leq K\right\rbrace$. We recall that we defined cases \textbf{I}, \textbf{II} and \textbf{III} according to the cardinality of $\mathcal{I}_k$ and the sign of $\alpha_k$ right after Hypothesis \ref{H3}. We also recall that we consider that the sequence $a$ verifies Hypotheses \ref{H1}, \ref{H2} and \ref{H3}.
\begin{lemma}[Spectral Splitting]\label{spec_spl}
For $z\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $|z|>\exp(-\underline{\eta})$, the eigenvalues $\kappa\in\mathbb{C}$ of the matrix $\mathbb{M}(z)$ are nonzero and satisfy the equality
$$F(\kappa)=z.$$
Let $z\in \mathcal{O}$. Then the matrix $\mathbb{M}(z)$ has
\begin{itemize}
\item no eigenvalue on $\mathbb{S}^1$,
\item $r$ eigenvalues in $\mathbb{D}\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace$ (that we call stable eigenvalues),
\item $p$ eigenvalues in $\mathcal{U}$ (that we call unstable eigenvalues).
\end{itemize}
We now consider $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$. The eigenvalues of the matrix $\mathbb{M}(\underline{z}_k)$ are described by the following possibilities depending on $k$.
\begin{itemize}
\item In case \textbf{I}, $\mathbb{M}(\underline{z}_k)$ has $\underline{\kappa}_k\in\mathbb{S}^1$ as a simple eigenvalue, $r-1$ eigenvalues in $\mathbb{D}$ and $p$ eigenvalues in $\mathcal{U}$.
\item In case \textbf{II}, $\mathbb{M}(\underline{z}_k)$ has $\underline{\kappa}_k\in\mathbb{S}^1$ as a simple eigenvalue, $r$ eigenvalues in $\mathbb{D}$ and $p-1$ eigenvalues in $\mathcal{U}$.
\item In case \textbf{III}, if we denote $\nu_{k,1}$ and $\nu_{k,2}$ the two distinct elements of $\mathcal{I}_k$, then $\mathbb{M}(\underline{z}_k)$ has $\underline{\kappa}_{\nu_{k,1}}\in\mathbb{S}^1$ and $\underline{\kappa}_{\nu_{k,2}}\in\mathbb{S}^1$ as simple eigenvalues, $r-1$ eigenvalues in $\mathbb{D}$ and $p-1$ eigenvalues in $\mathcal{U}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{spec_spl} is proved in \cite[Lemma 1]{Cou-Faye} and is the key to study the recurrence relation \eqref{Wj}. We now want to prove some estimates on the spatial Green's function $G(z)$. We recall that the set $\mathcal{O}$ is the intersection of the set $\left\lbrace z\in \mathbb{C}, |z|\geq\exp(-\underline{\eta})\right\rbrace$, where the matrix $\mathbb{M}(z)$ is defined, and the set $\sigma(\mathscr{L})=\mathbb{C}\backslash F(\mathbb{S}^1)$, where the spatial Green's function $G(z)$ is defined. We begin with the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Bounds far from the tangency points \cite{Cou-Faye}]
For all $\underline{z}\in \mathcal{O}$, there exist a radius $\delta>0$ and constants $C,c>0$ such that for all $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, $z\mapsto G_j(z)$ is holomorphic on $B_\delta(\underline{z})$ and satisfies
$$\forall z\in B_\delta(\underline{z}), \forall j \in \mathbb{Z}, \quad |G_j(z)|\leq C\exp(-c|j|).$$
\label{green_spatial_loin}
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{green_spatial_loin} is proved in \cite[Lemma 2]{Cou-Faye} and allows us to study the spatial Green's function far from the points $\underline{z}_k$, where the spectrum of $\mathscr{L}_a$ intersects the unit circle $\mathbb{S}^1$. We will now have to study the spatial Green's function $G(z)$ near those points $\underline{z}_k$ while still remembering that $G_j(z)$ and the vector $W_j(z)$ are only defined on $\mathcal{O}$ in the neighborhood of $\underline{z}_k$. We are going to extend holomorphically $G_j(z)$ in a whole neighborhood of $\underline{z}_k$, and thus pass through the spectrum $\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)$.
\begin{lemma}[Bounds close to the tangency points : cases\textbf{ I} and \textbf{II}]\label{green_spatial_près_1}
Let $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ so that we are either in case \textbf{I} or \textbf{II}. Then, there exist a radius $\varepsilon>0$, some constants $C,c>0$ and some holomorphic functions $\kappa_k,f_k:B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ such that for all $z \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$, $\kappa_k(z)$ is a simple eigenvalue of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ with $\kappa_k(\underline{z}_k)=\underline{\kappa}_k$, for all $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, the function $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)\cap \mathcal{O} \mapsto G_j(z)$ can be holomorphically extended on $B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$ and
\textbf{Case I: ($\alpha_k>0$)}
\begin{align}
\forall z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \forall j \geq 1, \quad |G_j(z)- f_k(z) \kappa_k(z)^j|\leq C\exp(-cj).\label{est_spa_B_cas1}\\
\forall z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \forall j \leq0, \quad |G_j(z)|\leq C\exp(-c|j|).\label{est_spa_B_2_cas1}
\end{align}
\textbf{Case II: ($\alpha_k<0$)}
\begin{align}
\forall z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \forall j \geq 1, \quad |G_j(z)|\leq C\exp(-cj).\label{est_spa_B_cas2}\\
\forall z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \forall j \leq0, \quad |G_j(z)- f_k(z) \kappa_k(z)^j|\leq C\exp(-c|j|).\label{est_spa_B_2_cas2}
\end{align}
Furthermore, we have
\begin{equation}\label{fk_1}
\forall z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \quad f_k(z)=-\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)\frac{\kappa_k^\prime(z)}{\kappa_k(z)}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Bounds close to the tangency points : case\textbf{ III}]\label{green_spatial_près_2}
Let $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ so that we are in case\textbf{ III}. The set $\mathcal{I}_k$ has two elements $\nu_{k,1}$ and $\nu_{k,2}$ so that $\alpha_{\nu_{k,1}}>0$ and $\alpha_{\nu_{k,2}}<0$. Then, there exist a radius $\varepsilon>0$, some constants $C,c>0$ and some holomorphic functions $\kappa_{\nu_{k,1}},\kappa_{\nu_{k,2}},f_{\nu_{k,1}},f_{\nu_{k,2}}:B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ such that for all $z \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$, $\kappa_{\nu_{k,1}}(z)$ and $\kappa_{\nu_{k,2}}(z)$ are simple eigenvalues of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ with $\kappa_{\nu_{k,1}}(\underline{z}_k)=\underline{\kappa}_{\nu_{k,1}}$ and $\kappa_{\nu_{k,2}}(\underline{z}_k)=\underline{\kappa}_{\nu_{k,1}}$, for all $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, the function $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)\cap \mathcal{O} \mapsto G_j(z)$ can be holomorphically extended on $B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$ and
\begin{align}
\forall z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \forall j \geq 1, \quad |G_j(z)- f_{\nu_{k,1}}(z) \kappa_{\nu_{k,1}}(z)^j|\leq C\exp(-cj).\label{est_spa_B_cas3}\\
\forall z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \forall j \leq0, \quad |G_j(z)- f_{\nu_{k,2}}(z) \kappa_{\nu_{k,2}}(z)^j|\leq C\exp(-c|j|).\label{est_spa_B_2_cas3}
\end{align}
Furthermore, knowing that $\underline{z}_k=\underline{z}_{\nu_{k,1}}=\underline{z}_{\nu_{k,2}}$, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{fk_2}
\forall z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k),\quad f_{\nu_{k,1}}(z)=-\frac{\kappa_{\nu_{k,1}}^\prime(z)}{\kappa_{\nu_{k,1}}(z)},\quad f_{\nu_{k,2}}(z)=\frac{\kappa_{\nu_{k,2}}^\prime(z)}{\kappa_{\nu_{k,2}}(z)}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Lemmas \ref{green_spatial_près_1} and \ref{green_spatial_près_2} are similar to \cite[Lemmas 3 and 4]{Cou-Faye} but instead of proving sharp bounds on the spatial Green's function, we express its precise behavior near the points $\underline{z}_k$. This is the crucial improvement with respect to \cite{Cou-Faye} that will allow us to find their asymptotic behavior and prove a sharp bound for the remainder.
\begin{proof}\textbf{of Lemma \ref{green_spatial_près_1}}
Our proof will follow that of \cite[Lemmas 3, 4]{Cou-Faye}. First, we observe that case\textbf{ II} would be dealt similarly as case\textbf{ I} and that case\textbf{ III} is a mixture of both cases\textbf{ I} and \textbf{II}. Therefore, we will only detail the proof of Lemma \ref{green_spatial_près_1} in case\textbf{ I} and leave the proof of Lemma \ref{green_spatial_près_2} to the interested reader. We therefore consider $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ so that we are in case\textbf{ I}. Lemma \ref{spec_spl} implies that $\underline{\kappa}_k$ is a simple eigenvalue of $\mathbb{M}(\underline{z}_k)$. Thus, we can find a holomorphic function $\kappa_k$ defined on a neighborhood $B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$ of $\underline{z}_k$ such that for all $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$, $\kappa_k(z)$ is an algebraically simple eigenvalue of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ and $\kappa_k(\underline{z}_k)=\underline{\kappa}_k$. We also know that for all $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$, the vector
$$R_k(z):= \begin{pmatrix}
\kappa_k(z)^{p+r-1} \\
\vdots\\
\kappa_k(z)\\
1
\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbb{C}^{p+r}$$
is an eigenvector of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ associated with $\kappa_k(z)$. Because of Lemma \ref{spec_spl}, even if we have to take a smaller radius $\varepsilon$, we can assume that for all $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$, $\mathbb{M}(z)$ has $\kappa_k(z)$ as a simple eigenvalue, $r-1$ eigenvalues different from $\kappa_k(z)$ in $\mathbb{D}$ and $p$ eigenvalues different from $\kappa_k(z)$ in $\mathcal{U}$. We define $E^s(z)$ (resp. $E^u(z)$) the strictly stable (resp. strictly unstable) subspace of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ which corresponds to the subspace spanned by the generalized eigenvectors of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ associated with eigenvalues different from $\kappa_k(z)$ in $\mathbb{D}$ (resp. $\mathcal{U}$). We therefore know that $E^s(z)$ (resp. $E^u(z)$) has dimension $r-1$ (resp. $p$) thanks to Lemma \ref{spec_spl} and we have the decomposition
$$\mathbb{C}^{p+r} = E^s(z) \oplus E^u(z) \oplus \text{ Span } R_k(z).$$
The associated projectors are denoted $\pi^s(z)$, $\pi^u(z)$ and $\pi^k(z)$. Those linear maps commute with $\mathbb{M}(z)$ and depend holomorphically on $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$ (see \cite[I. Problem 5.9]{Kato}).
For all $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)\cap\mathcal{O}$ and $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, $G_j(z)$ and the vector $W_j(z)$ are well defined. Also, by Lemma \ref{spec_spl}, we have that $|\kappa_k(z)|<1$ for all $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)\cap\mathcal{O}$. By reasoning in the same manner as in the proof of \cite[Lemma 3]{Cou-Faye}, we have for all $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)\cap\mathcal{O}$ and $j\in \mathbb{Z}$
\begin{align}
\pi^u(z)W_j(z) &= -\frac{\mathds{1}_{j\in]-\infty,0]}}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}\mathbb{M}(z)^{j-1}\pi^u(z)e, \label{wj_u_2}\\
\pi^s(z)W_j(z) &= \frac{\mathds{1}_{j\in[1,+\infty [}}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}\mathbb{M}(z)^{j-1}\pi^s(z)e, \label{wj_s_2}\\
\pi^k(z)W_j(z) &= \frac{\mathds{1}_{j\in[1,+\infty [}}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}\mathbb{M}(z)^{j-1}\pi^k(z)e = \frac{\mathds{1}_{j\in[1,+\infty [}}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}\kappa_k(z)^{j-1}\pi^k(z)e. \label{wj_k}
\end{align}
We observe that the right hand side in the equations \eqref{wj_u_2}, \eqref{wj_s_2} and \eqref{wj_k} can be holomorphically extended on $B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$. Therefore, we can extend holomorphically the applications which associates $z$ to $\pi^s(z)W_j(z)$, $\pi^u(z)W_j(z)$ and $\pi^k(z)W_j(z)$ on the whole open ball $B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$ and this allows us to extend $W_j(z)$ on $B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$. Since $G_j(z)$ is a coordinate of the vector $W_j(z)$, the holomorphic extension property is proved.
By reasoning in the same manner as in the proof of the inequality \cite[(23)]{Cou-Faye}, we prove that there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that
$$\forall z \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \forall j \in \mathbb{Z}, \quad \|\pi^s(z)W_j(z) + \pi^u(z)W_j(z)\|\leq C\exp(-c|j|).$$
This implies that
$$\forall z \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \forall j \in \mathbb{Z}, \quad \|W_j(z) - \pi^k(z)W_j(z)\|\leq C\exp(-c|j|).$$
This is now where our proof differs from the proof of \cite[Lemmas 3, 4]{Cou-Faye}. In \cite{Cou-Faye}, the authors find bounds on $\pi^k(z)W_j(z)$ and thus obtain estimates on $G_j(z)$. In our case, we have a stronger hypothesis (Hypothesis \ref{H1}) that allows us to have a much simpler expression \eqref{wj_k} of $\pi^k(z)W_j(z)$ and this will enable us to find the precise behavior of $G_j(z)$.
For $j\leq 0$, we observe from \eqref{wj_k} that $\pi^k(z)W_j(z)=0$ and that $G_j(z)$ is a component of $W_j(z)$. We therefore get the inequality \eqref{est_spa_B_2_cas1}.
We now consider the case $j\geq 1$. We have that $G_j(z)=(W_j(z))_p$ for all $z\in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k)$ where $(X)_p$ refers to the $p$-th coordinate of a vector $X\in\mathbb{C}^{p+r}$. Then,
$$\forall z \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k), \quad |G_j(z) - (\pi^k(z)W_j(z))_p|\leq C\exp(-c|j|).$$
We then define the holomorphic function
$$\begin{array}{cccc}
f_k: & B_\varepsilon(\underline{z}_k) & \rightarrow & \mathbb{C} \\
& z & \mapsto & \frac{1}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)\kappa_k(z)}(\pi^k(z)e)_p
\end{array}.$$
By observing that $(\pi^k(z)W_j(z))_p = f_k(z)\kappa_k(z)^j$, we get the inequality \eqref{est_spa_B_cas1} and it now remains to obtain the expression \eqref{fk_1}. We first need to determine the spectral projector $\pi^k(z)$. We recall that $\kappa_k(z)\in\mathbb{S}^1$ is a simple eigenvalue of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ and the vector
$$R_k(z)= \begin{pmatrix}
\kappa_k(z)^{p+r-1} \\
\vdots\\
\kappa_k(z)\\
1
\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbb{C}^{p+r}$$
is an eigenvector of $\mathbb{M}(z)$ associated with $\kappa_k(z)$. We also know that there exists a unique eigenvector $L_k(z)=(l_j(z))_{j\in\lc1,\ldots,p+r\right\rbrace}\in\mathbb{C}^{p+r}$ of $\mathbb{M}(z)^T$ associated with the eigenvalue $\kappa_k(z)$ such that
$$L_k(z)\cdot R_k(z)=1$$
where the symmetric bilinear form $\cdot$ on $\mathbb{C}^{p+r}$ is defined as\footnote{Observe that this symetric bilinear form is not the Hermitian product on $\mathbb{C}^{p+r}$.}
$$\forall X,Y\in \mathbb{C}^{p+r},\quad X\cdot Y := \sum_{l=1}^{p+r} X_iY_i.$$
Then, we have that
$$\forall Y\in \mathbb{C}^{p+r},\quad \pi^k(z)Y = (L_k(z)\cdot Y)R_k(z).$$
Thus, applying to the vector $e$ implies that
\begin{equation}\label{fInt}
f_k(z)= \frac{l_1(z)\kappa_k(z)^{r-1}}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}.
\end{equation}
We thus need to find the value of the coefficient $l_1(z)$. Since $L_k(z)$ is an eigenvalue of $\mathbb{M}(z)^T$ for the eigenvalue $\kappa_k(z)$, we get
$$\forall j \in\lc1,\ldots,p+r\right\rbrace,\quad l_j(z) = -\left(\sum_{l=-r}^{p-j} \frac{\mathbb{A}_l(z)}{\kappa_k(z)^{p-j+1-l}}\right)\frac{l_1(z)}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}.$$
We now have an expression of each $l_j(z)$ depending on $l_1(z)$. To determine the value of $l_1(z)$, we have to use the normalization condition that we have made between $L_k(z)$ and $R_k(z)$. We have
$$1= L_k(z)\cdot R_k(z) = \sum_{j=1}^{p+r} \kappa_k(z)^{p+r-j}l_j(z) = -\left(\sum_{j=1}^{p+r} \sum_{l=-r}^{p-j} \mathbb{A}_l(z)\kappa_k(z)^{l+r-1}\right)\frac{l_1(z)}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}.$$
By the expression of $\mathbb{A}_l(z)$, this implies that
\begin{align*}
1= -\left( \sum_{l=-r}^{p} (p-l)\mathbb{A}_l(z)\kappa_k(z)^{l+r-1}\right)\frac{l_1(z)}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)} &= -\left(p\kappa_k(z)^{r-1}z - \sum_{l=-r}^{p} (p-l)a_l\kappa_k(z)^{l+r-1}\right)\frac{l_1(z)}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}\\
&=-\left(p\kappa_k(z)^{r-1}(z - F(\kappa_k(z))) + \kappa_k(z)^rF^\prime(\kappa_k(z))\right)\frac{l_1(z)}{\mathbb{A}_p(z)}.
\end{align*}
Since $\kappa_k(z)$ is an eigenvalue of $\mathbb{M}(z)$, Lemma \ref{spec_spl} implies that
$$F(\kappa_k(z))=z\quad \text{and} \quad \kappa_k^\prime(z)F^\prime(\kappa_k(z))=1.$$
Thus,
$$1=-\frac{\kappa_k(z)^rl_1(z)}{\kappa_k^\prime(z)\mathbb{A}_p(z)}.$$
Combining this equality with \eqref{fInt} implies the equality \eqref{fk_1}.
\end{proof}
\section{Temporal Green's function}\label{sec_GT}
We are now ready to start proving Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. In Section \ref{subsec_est_far}, we will prove the result of the theorem far from the axes $j=n\alpha_k$. In this regime, the estimates proved in \cite[Theorem 1]{Cou-Faye} on $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ and estimates on the derivatives of the function $H_{2\mu}^\beta$ will allow us to prove bounds that are even stronger than those claimed in Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. The bulk of the proof will happen in the case where $j-n\alpha_k$ is close to $0$ as the limiting estimates of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} occur in this case. Section \ref{subsecPlan} will summarize the idea of the proof in the case where $j$ is close to $n\alpha_k$ and Sections \ref{sec_GS/GT}-\ref{subsecLemImpTh} give the details. The main tools are the use of functional calculus (see \cite[Chapter VII]{Conway}) to express the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ with the spatial Green's function $G_j(z)$ and the estimates on the spatial Green's function proved in Section \ref{sec_GS}.
Before we start, we are going to make two hypotheses to simplify the proof. The first one is that $-1\notin\left\lbrace\underline{z}_1,\ldots,\underline{z}_K\right\rbrace$. This hypothesis is actually not restrictive. If it were not verified, we would just have to multiply the sequence $a$ by some well chosen element of $\mathbb{S}^1$ to find a new sequence $b$ that will verify this hypothesis and prove the theorem for this new sequence. The theorem for our previous sequence $a$ would directly follow.
The second hypothesis we make is that all $\alpha_k$ are distinct from one another. This hypothesis has a real impact on the proof, symplifying greatly some parts of the calculations. We will come back in Section \ref{sec_alpha_eg} to the case where the elements $\alpha_k$ can be equal and explain which elements of the proof should be modified.
\subsection{Estimates far from the axes $j=n\alpha_k$}\label{subsec_est_far}
As explained at the beginning of the section, we suppose that all $\alpha_k$ are distinct from one another. Without loss of generality, we suppose that we arranged them so that there holds:
$$\alpha_1<\ldots<\alpha_k<\ldots<\alpha_K.$$
For all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, we define two elements $\underline{\delta}_k,\overline{\delta}_k\in\mathbb{R}^*$ such that $\underline{\delta}_k,\overline{\delta}_k$ and $\alpha_k$ have the same sign and
$$\underline{\delta}_1<\alpha_1<\overline{\delta}_1<\ldots<\underline{\delta}_k<\alpha_k<\overline{\delta}_k<\ldots<\underline{\delta}_K<\alpha_K<\overline{\delta}_K.$$
We now define for every $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ the sector
$$\mathcal{D}_k:= \left\lbrace(n,j)\in \mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}, \quad n\underline{\delta}_k\leq j \leq n\overline{\delta}_k\right\rbrace$$
that do not intersect each other. We also introduce
$$\mathcal{D}:=\bigcup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{D}_k.$$
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
\draw (-0.5,0.5) node[fill=white] {$\mathcal{D}_1$};
\draw (0.71,0.75) node[fill=white] {$\mathcal{D}_2$};
\draw (0.5,0.3) node[fill=white] {$\mathcal{D}_3$};
\fill[color=gray!20] (0,0) -- (-1,0.7) -- (-1,0.3) -- cycle;
\fill[color=gray!20] (0,0) -- (1/3,1) -- (0.7,1) -- cycle;
\fill[color=gray!20] (0,0) -- (1,0.4) -- (1,0.1) -- cycle;
\draw[color=gray!60] (-1,0) grid[step=0.2] (1,1);
\draw[->] (-1,0) -- (1,0) node[right] {$j$};
\draw[->] (0,-0.1) -- (0,1) node[above right] {$n$};
\draw[thick, red] (0,0) -- (-1,0.3) node[left] {$\underline{\delta}_1$};
\draw[thick, blue] (0,0) -- (-1,0.5) node[left] {$\alpha_1$};
\draw[thick, red] (0,0) -- (-1,0.7) node[left] {$\overline{\delta}_1$};
\draw[thick, red] (0,0) -- (1/3,1) node[above] {$\underline{\delta}_2$};
\draw[thick, blue] (0,0) -- (1/2,1) node[above] {$\alpha_2$};
\draw[thick, red] (0,0) -- (0.7,1) node[above] {$\overline{\delta}_2$};
\draw[thick, red] (0,0) -- (1,0.4) node[right] {$\underline{\delta}_3$};
\draw[thick, blue] (0,0) -- (1,0.25) node[right] {$\alpha_3$};
\draw[thick, red] (0,0) -- (1,0.1) node[right] {$\overline{\delta}_3$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{An illustration of the sectors $\mathcal{D}_k$. Here, we have $\alpha_1=-2$, $\alpha_2=0.5$ and $\alpha_3=4$. The rays labeled $\alpha_k$ (resp. $\underline{\delta}_k$, $\overline{\delta}_k$) correspond to the ray $j=n\alpha_k$ (resp. $j=n\underline{\delta}_k$, $j=n\overline{\delta}_k$). We observe that, because $\underline{\delta}_k$, $\alpha_k$ and $\overline{\delta}_k$ have the same sign, $j$ and $\alpha_k$ have the same sign for $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$. Also, the sectors $\mathcal{D}_k$ do not intersect each other.}
\label{sec}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We represent the sectors $\mathcal{D}_k$ on the Figure \ref{sec}. In this section, we are going to prove the following two lemmas, which give estimates on the Green's function $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ and on the elements in its asymptotic expansion \eqref{devPrinc} outside of the sectors $\mathcal{D}_k$.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop_loin_G}
We have that
$$\forall (n,j)\in\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{Z}, \quad j<-np \text{ or } j>nr \Rightarrow \mathscr{G}_j^n=0.$$
Furthermore, there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{inLoinG}
\forall (n,j)\in(\mathbb{N}^*\times\mathbb{Z})\backslash \mathcal{D}, \quad -np\leq j\leq nr \Rightarrow \left|\mathscr{G}_j^n\right|\leq C\exp(-c(n+|j|)).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{prop_loin_H}
We consider $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and $\mathscr{P}\in\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$. For all $s\in \mathbb{N}$, there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{inLoinH}
\forall (n,j)\in(\mathbb{N}^*\times\mathbb{Z})\backslash \mathcal{D}_k, \quad \left|\left(\mathscr{P}\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right) \right|\leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{equation}
where $X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
\end{lemma}
Both lemmas are proved in a similar way.
\begin{proof}\textbf{of Lemma \ref{prop_loin_G}}
The first part of Lemma \ref{prop_loin_G} is directly proved recursively using the definition \eqref{defGreenTempo} of the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ and the equality \eqref{expLa} on the operator $\mathscr{L}_a$. We now focus our attention on the inequality \eqref{inLoinG} of Lemma \ref{prop_loin_G}. The result \cite[Theorem 1]{Cou-Faye} gives us the existence of two constants $C,c>0$ such that
$$\forall n \in\mathbb{N}^*, \forall j \in \mathbb{Z}, \quad |\mathscr{G}_j^n|\leq \sum_{k=1}^K\frac{C}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}} \exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
For a sufficiently small $\tilde{c}>0$, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{inegLemPropLoinG}
\forall k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace, \forall (n,j)\in(\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z})\backslash \mathcal{D}, \quad -np\leq j \leq nr \Rightarrow c\left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\geq \tilde{c}(n+|j|).
\end{equation}
Therefore, we prove that there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in(\mathbb{N}^*\times\mathbb{Z})\backslash \mathcal{D}, \quad -np\leq j \leq nr \Rightarrow \left|\mathscr{G}_j^n\right|\leq C\exp(-c(n+|j|)).$$
\end{proof}
To prove Lemma \ref{prop_loin_H}, we use the following lemma which gives sharp estimates on the derivatives of the function $H_{2\mu}^\beta$.
\begin{lemma}\label{ineg_H}
For $\mu\in\mathbb{N}^*$, $\beta\in \mathbb{C}$ with positive real part and $m\in \mathbb{N}$, there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that
$$\forall x\in \mathbb{R}, \quad \left|{H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(m)}(x)\right|\leq C\exp\left(-c|x|^\frac{2\mu}{2\mu-1}\right).$$
\end{lemma}
This lemma is proved in \cite[Proposition 5.3]{Rob}. For the sake of completeness, we give a complete proof in the appendix (Section \ref{sec_appendix}).
\begin{proof}\textbf{of Lemma \ref{prop_loin_H}}
We fix a $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and we verify the estimate of Lemma \ref{prop_loin_H} for the monomial $\mathscr{P}=X^{l_X}Y^{l_Y}$ where $l_X,l_Y\in\mathbb{N}$. We use Lemma \ref{ineg_H} which implies the existence of two constants $C,c>0$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z},\quad \left|\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^{l_X}\left(H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)^{(l_Y)}\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)\right|\leq C\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^{l_X}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
This implies that there exists $\tilde{C}>0$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z},\quad \left|\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^{l_X}\left(H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)^{(l_Y)}\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)\right|\leq \tilde{C}\exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
Using the definition of the set $\mathcal{D}_k$, we prove the existence of a constant $\tilde{c}>0$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in (\mathbb{N}^*\times\mathbb{Z})\backslash\mathcal{D}_k, \quad \frac{c}{4}\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\geq \tilde{c} n.$$
Therefore, we easily conclude that there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that the inequality \eqref{inLoinH} of Lemma \ref{prop_loin_H} is verified for $\mathscr{P} = X^{l_X}Y^{l_Y}$.
\end{proof}
Now that the two Lemmas \ref{prop_loin_G} and \ref{prop_loin_H} are proved, we observe that for any family of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{k\in\lc1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace, \sigma\in\mathbb{N}^*}$ which belong to $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$, for all $s_1, \ldots,s_K\in\mathbb{N}$, there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times\mathbb{Z}\backslash\mathcal{D}$
\begin{equation}\label{inHorsD}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^{\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_k}}} \left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right| \leq \sum_{k=1}^K\frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right),
\end{equation}
and for any $k_0\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and for all $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_{k_0}$, since the sets $\mathcal{D}_k$ do not intersect each other
\begin{multline}\label{inHorsDk}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^{\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_k}}} \left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right| \leq \sum_{\underset{k\neq k_0}{k=1}}^K\frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right) \\ +\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_{k_0}}\frac{\underline{z}_{k_0}^n\underline{\kappa}_{k_0}^j}{n^{\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_{k_0}}}} \left(\mathscr{P}^{k_0}_{\sigma}\left(X_{n,j,k_0},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_{k_0}}^{\beta_{k_0}}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k_0}\right)\right|
\end{multline}
with $X_{n,j,k}=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$. There just remains to find a family of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{k,\sigma}$ to bound the last term in \eqref{inHorsDk} when $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_{k_0}$.
\subsection{Plan of the proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} close to the axes $j=n\alpha_k$}\label{subsecPlan}
We claim that to conclude the proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc}, there only remains to prove the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemPrinc}
For all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and $s_k\in\mathbb{N}$, there exist a family of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{\sigma\in\lc1,\ldots,s_k\right\rbrace}$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$ and two positive constants $C,c$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{inPrinc}
\forall (n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k, \quad \left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^{\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_k}}} \left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right|\leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c|X_{n,j,k}|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{equation}
with $X_{n,j,k}=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
\end{lemma}
Once the existence of families of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{k,\sigma}$ satisfying Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} is proved, the inequalities \eqref{inHorsD} and \eqref{inHorsDk} we deduced from Lemmas \ref{prop_loin_G} and \ref{prop_loin_H} imply that Theorem \ref{thPrinc} is also verified for the same family of polynomials. It is important to observe that we use intensively the fact that the sectors $\mathcal{D}_k$ do not intersect each other. In Section \ref{sec_alpha_eg}, we will see that when the elements $\alpha_k$ are not supposed to be different, we will need to adapt Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} to take into account that for each sector there could be multiple generalized Gaussian waves that are superposed in the estimate \eqref{devPrinc}.
We now focus our attention on proving Lemma \ref{lemPrinc}. We fix $k\in\lc1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and $s\in \mathbb{N}$. For $s=0$, the result has been proved in \cite[Theorem 1]{Cou-Faye}. Therefore, we will focus on the case where $s\geq 1$. The proof of Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} in this case will be separated in three steps:
$\bullet$ \textbf{Step 1:} In Section \ref{sec_GS/GT}, we will express the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ using the spatial Green's function $G_j(z)$ via the inverse Laplace transform and use the results of Section \ref{sec_GS} to prove the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemEstInterm}
For all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and for all $s\in \mathbb{N}^*$, there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$
\begin{multline*}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}P_{s,k}(it+\underline{\tau}_k)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(j R_{s,k}(it+\underline{\tau}_k))^l}{l!}\right)\exp\left(it\left(n-\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right) -\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}t^{2\mu_k}\right) dt\right|\\ \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{multline*}
where $\underline{\tau}_k:=i\theta_k$ is the only element of $i ]-\pi,\pi[$ such that
$$\underline{z}_k =\exp(\underline{\tau}_k) =\exp(i\theta_k)$$
and the polynomial functions $P_{s,k}$ and $R_{s,k}$ have explicit expressions defined in Lemma \ref{lem_varpi}.
\end{lemma}
$\bullet$ \textbf{Step 2:} We observe that in Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}, we approach the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ for $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$ by an explicit linear combination of the following terms where $l,m\in \mathbb{N}$ and $m\geq (2\mu_k+1)l$
\begin{equation}\label{egHjalp}
\frac{j^l}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}(it)^m\exp\left(it\left(n-\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right) -\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}t^{2\mu_k}\right) dt= \frac{\alpha_k^{m+l}|\alpha_k|}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{m-2\mu_kl+1}{2\mu_k}}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m)}\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right).
\end{equation}
If we compare the terms in \eqref{egHjalp} with the terms appearing in the estimate \eqref{devPrinc} of Theorem \ref{thPrinc}, since we are considering $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$, we see that $\frac{j}{\alpha_k}$ is close to $n$. Therefore, once Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm} is proved, we will only need some standard analysis in Section \ref{secAsymp} to prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemDevAsymp}
For all $s \in \mathbb{N}$, $m\in \mathbb{N}$, $l\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace$ and $k\in \left\lbrace 1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$, if we consider $d\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$$d\geq \frac{s+1}{2\mu_k-1}$$
then there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$,
$$\left|\frac{{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m)}\left(Y_{n,j,k}\right)}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{l}{2\mu_k}}- \sum_{k_1=0}^{d-1}\sum_{k_3=0}^{d-1} \frac{\mathscr{B}^k_{l,k_1,k_3}}{n^\frac{l+(2\mu_k-1)k_3}{2\mu_k}}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)^{k_1+k_3}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+k_1)}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right) \right| \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)$$
where $Y_{n,j,k}:= \frac{n\alpha_k-j}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$, $X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$ and
$$\mathscr{B}^k_{l,k_1,k_3}:= \sum_{k_2=0}^{k_1}\frac{\binom{k_1}{k_2}(-1)^{k_1-k_2}}{k_1!k_3!\alpha_k^{k_3}}\left(\prod_{k_4=0}^{k_3-1} \frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}+k_4\right) .$$
\end{lemma}
$\bullet$ \textbf{Step 3:} In Section \ref{subsecLemImpTh}, we will explicitly construct the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ satisfying Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} using Lemmas \ref{lemEstInterm} and \ref{lemDevAsymp}. This will conclude the proof of Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} and Theorem \ref{thPrinc} in the case where the elements $\alpha_k$ are distinct.
\subsection{Step 1: Link between the spatial and temporal Green's functions and proof of Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}}\label{sec_GS/GT}
As explained at the end of the previous section, we start by proving Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}. The first step will be to express the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ via the spatial Green's function $G_j(z)$. The equation \eqref{def_G} implies by using the inverse Laplace transform that if we define a path which surrounds $\sigma(\mathscr{L}_a)=F(\mathbb{S}^1)$, like for example $\widetilde{\Gamma}_\rho=\exp(\rho)\mathbb{S}^1$ for $0<\rho\leq\pi$, then
$$\forall n\in \mathbb{N}^*, \forall j\in \mathbb{Z}, \quad \mathscr{G}_j^n=\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_\rho} z^nG_j(z)dz.$$
We fix this choice of path for now but we are going to modify it in what follows. The idea will be to deform the path on which we integrate so that we can best use the estimates on $G_j(z)$ proved in Section \ref{sec_GS}. We start with a change of variable $z=\exp(\tau)$ in the previous equality. Therefore, if we define $\Gamma_\rho:= \left\lbrace \rho+il, l\in[-\pi,\pi]\right\rbrace$ and $\textbf{G}_j(\tau)= e^\tau G_j(e^\tau)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{exp_Gcc}
\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*, \forall j\in\mathbb{Z}, \quad \mathscr{G}_j^n=\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\Gamma_\rho} e^{n\tau}\textbf{G}_j(\tau)d\tau.
\end{equation}
We will therefore need a lemma that allows us to get from estimates on $G_j(z)$ to estimates on $\textbf{G}_j(\tau)$. First, recalling that $\underline{z}_k\neq -1$, we define for all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ the unique element $\underline{\tau}_k:=i\theta_k$ of $i ]-\pi,\pi[$ such that
$$\underline{z}_k =\exp(\underline{\tau}_k) =\exp(i\theta_k) .$$
We also introduce for all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ the unique $\tilde{\theta}_k\in]-\pi,\pi]$ such that
$$\underline{\kappa}_k=e^{i\tilde{\theta}_k}.$$
We now introduce a lemma to pass from estimates on $G_j(z)$ to estimates on $\textbf{G}_j(\tau)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_varpi}
There exist a radius $\varepsilon_\star>0$ and for all $k\in \lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ two holomorphic functions $\varpi_k:B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and $g_k:B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ such that for all $\varepsilon\in]0,\varepsilon_\star[$, there exist a width $\eta_\varepsilon\in]0,\varepsilon[$ and two constants $C,c>0$ such that if we define
$$U_\varepsilon:=\left\lbrace\tau\in \mathbb{C}, \Re(\tau)\in]-\eta_\varepsilon, \pi], \Im(\tau)\in [-\pi,\pi]\right\rbrace \quad \text{and} \quad \Omega_\varepsilon := U_\varepsilon \backslash\bigcup_{k=1}^KB_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k),$$
then for all $j\in\mathbb{Z}$, the application $\tau\mapsto \textbf{G}_j(\tau)$ can be holomorphically extended on $U_\varepsilon\cup\bigcup_{k=1}^KB_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$ and we have that
\begin{equation}\label{varpi_loin}
\forall \tau \in \Omega_\varepsilon, \forall j\in\mathbb{Z}, \quad |\textbf{G}_j(\tau)|\leq Ce^{-c|j|}.
\end{equation}
Also, for all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, depending on the case, we have that
\textbf{Case I:}
\begin{align}
\forall \tau \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k), \forall j\geq 1, \quad |\textbf{G}_j(\tau)-e^\tau g_k(\tau)e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)}|\leq Ce^{-c|j|}, \label{varpi_près_pos_I}\\
\forall \tau \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k), \forall j\leq 0, \quad |\textbf{G}_j(\tau)|\leq Ce^{-c|j|}, \label{varpi_près_neg_I}
\end{align}
\textbf{Case II:}
\begin{align}
\forall \tau \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k), \forall j\geq 1, \quad |\textbf{G}_j(\tau)|\leq Ce^{-c|j|}, \label{varpi_près_pos_II}\\
\forall \tau \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k), \forall j\leq 0, \quad |\textbf{G}_j(\tau)-e^\tau g_k(\tau)e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)}|\leq Ce^{-c|j|}, \label{varpi_près_neg_II}
\end{align}
\textbf{Case III:}
\begin{align}
\forall \tau \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k), \forall j\geq 1, \quad |\textbf{G}_j(\tau)-e^\tau g_{\nu_{k,1}}(\tau)e^{j\varpi_{\nu_{k,1}}(\tau)}|\leq Ce^{-c|j|}, \label{varpi_près_pos_III}\\
\forall \tau \in B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k), \forall j\leq 0, \quad |\textbf{G}_j(\tau)-e^\tau g_{\nu_{k,2}}(\tau)e^{j\varpi_{\nu_{k,2}}(\tau)}|\leq Ce^{-c|j|}, \label{varpi_près_neg_III}
\end{align}
where we have $\mathcal{I}_k=\left\lbrace\nu_{k,1}, \nu_{k,2}\right\rbrace$, $\alpha_{\nu_{k,1}}>0$ and $\alpha_{\nu_{k,2}}<0$.
For all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqVarpi}
\varpi_k(\tau)\underset{\tau\rightarrow \underline{\tau}_k}=i\tilde{\theta}_k -\frac{(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)}{\alpha_k}+(-1)^{\mu_k+1}\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k+1}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}+o(|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k}).
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqG}
\forall \tau \in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k), \quad e^\tau g_k(\tau)=-\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)\varpi_k^\prime(\tau)
\end{equation}
For $s\in \mathbb{N}^*$, we define the functions
$$\begin{array}{cccc}
P_{s,k}: & \tau\in \mathbb{C} & \mapsto & -\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k) \displaystyle\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{\varpi_k^{(l+1)}(\underline{\tau}_k)}{l!}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^l, \\
\varphi_k : &\tau\in \mathbb{C} & \mapsto & i\tilde{\theta}_k-\displaystyle\frac{(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)}{\alpha_k}+(-1)^{\mu_k+1}\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k+1}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k},\\
Q_{s,k}: & \tau\in \mathbb{C} & \mapsto & \displaystyle\sum_{l=0}^{2\mu_k+s-1}\frac{\varpi_k^{(l)}(\underline{\tau}_k)}{l!}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^l, \\
R_{s,k}: & \tau\in \mathbb{C} & \mapsto & Q_{s,k}(\tau)-\varphi_k(\tau).
\end{array}$$
The functions $P_{s,k}$, $Q_{s,k}$ and $\varphi_k$ are asymptotic expansions of the function $e^\tau g_k$ and $\varpi_k$ at $\underline{\tau}_k$ up to different orders. We can then define a bounded holomorphic function $\xi_{s,k}:B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)\mapsto \mathbb{C}$ such that
$$\forall \tau \in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k), \quad \varpi_k(\tau)=Q_{s,k}(\tau)+\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}.$$
We then can prove that there exist two positive constants $A_R, A_I$ such that for all $\tau \in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$
\begin{align}
\alpha_k\Re(\varphi_k(\tau))&\leq -\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+A_R\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}-A_I\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k},\label{estVarphi}\\
\alpha_k\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))+|\alpha_k||\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|&\leq -\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+A_R\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}-A_I\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k},\label{estVarpi}\\
\alpha_k\Re(\varphi_k(\tau))+|\alpha_k||R_{s,k}(\tau)|&\leq -\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+A_R\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}-A_I\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}.\label{estR}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the Lemmas \ref{green_spatial_près_1} and \ref{green_spatial_près_2} and writing $\kappa_k(z)=\exp(\omega_k(z))$ for $z$ near $\underline{z}_k$ with $\omega_k(\underline{z}_k)=i\tilde{\theta}_k$, we can define for a choice of $\varepsilon_\star$ small enough two holomorphic functions $\varpi_k$ and $g_k$ such that
$$\forall \tau\in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k),\quad \varpi_k(\tau)= \omega_k(e^\tau), g_k(\tau)= f_k(e^\tau).$$
Lemmas \ref{green_spatial_près_1} and \ref{green_spatial_près_2} directly imply the inequalities \eqref{varpi_près_pos_I}, \eqref{varpi_près_neg_I}, \eqref{varpi_près_pos_II}, \eqref{varpi_près_neg_II}, \eqref{varpi_près_pos_III} and \eqref{varpi_près_neg_III} on the open balls $B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$ and the fact that the functions $\tau\mapsto \textbf{G}_j(\tau)$ are holomorphic on $B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$. We now consider $\varepsilon\in]0,\varepsilon_\star[$. The inequalities we just proved remain true on $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$. Using a compactness argument and Lemma \ref{green_spatial_loin}, we also get the existence of $\eta_\varepsilon$ and the inequality \eqref{varpi_loin}.
We observe that the asymptotic expansion \eqref{F} implies that
$$\tau-\underline{\tau}_k\underset{\tau\rightarrow \underline{\tau}_k}{=} -\alpha_k(\varpi_k(\tau)-i\tilde{\theta}_k) +(-1)^{\mu_k+1}\beta_k (\varpi_k(\tau)-i\tilde{\theta}_k)^{2\mu_k} + O\left(\left|\varpi_k(\tau)-i\tilde{\theta}_k\right|^{2\mu_k+1}\right).$$
We then deduce the equation \eqref{eqVarpi}.
For $\tau \in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$, the equations \eqref{fk_1} and \eqref{fk_2} imply the equality \eqref{eqG}.
There only remains to prove the existence of $A_R$ and $A_I$ to verify the inequalities \eqref{estVarphi} - \eqref{estR}.
We are going to prove \eqref{estVarphi} first. Because of Young's inequality, we have that for $l\in\lc1,\ldots,2\mu_k-1\right\rbrace$, for all $\delta>0$, there exists $C_\delta>0$ such that for all $\tau \in \mathbb{C}$
$$|\Re(\tau)|^l|\Im(\tau)|^{2\mu_k-l}\leq \delta \Im(\tau)^{2\mu_k} + C_\delta \Re(\tau)^{2\mu_k}.$$
Furthermore, we have that
$$\alpha_k\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) =-\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k) + (-1)^{\mu_k+1}\left(\frac{\Re(\beta_k)}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}\Re((\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}) - \frac{\Im(\beta_k)}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}\Im((\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k})\right).$$
Then, for $\delta>0$, there exists $C_\delta>0$ such that
$$\alpha_k\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) \leq -\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k) +\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} \left(\frac{\Re(\beta_k)}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}+C_\delta\right)+ \Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} \left(-\frac{\Re(\beta_k)}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}+\delta\right).$$
Therefore, by taking $\delta$ small enough, we can end the proof of inequality \eqref{estVarphi}. The proof of inequality \eqref{estVarpi} is similar. We have for $\tau\in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$
\begin{multline*}
\alpha_k\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) +|\alpha_k||\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|
\leq -\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+ |\alpha_k|\left (2|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)| |\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s} +|R_{s,k}(\tau)|\right)\\+ (-1)^{\mu_k+1}\left(\frac{\Re(\beta_k)}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}\Re((\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}) - \frac{\Im(\beta_k)}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}\Im((\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k})\right) .
\end{multline*}
We know there exists $c_1,c_2>0$ such that
$$\forall k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace, \forall \tau \in \mathbb{C},\quad |\tau|^{2\mu_k}\leq c_1\Re(\tau)^{2\mu_k} + c_2 \Im(\tau)^{2\mu_k}.$$
Since $\xi_{s,k}$ and $\frac{R_{s,k}}{X^{2\mu_k+1}}$ can be bounded by some constant $\tilde{C}>0$ on $B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$, using the same reasoning as previously gives us
\begin{multline*}
\alpha_k\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) +|\alpha_k||\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|
\leq -\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k) + |\alpha_k| \tilde{C}\left(2 \varepsilon_\star^{s}+\varepsilon_\star\right) (c_1\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} + c_2 \Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}) \\ +\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} \left(\frac{\Re(\beta_k)}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}+C_\delta\right)+ \Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} \left(-\frac{\Re(\beta_k)}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}+\delta\right).
\end{multline*}
Taking $\delta$ and ${\varepsilon_\star}$ small enough allows us to prove \eqref{estVarpi}. We prove the inequality \eqref{estR} the same way.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We observe that the constants in the inequalities \eqref{varpi_près_pos_I}, \eqref{varpi_près_neg_I}, \eqref{varpi_près_pos_II}, \eqref{varpi_près_neg_II}, \eqref{varpi_près_pos_III} and \eqref{varpi_près_neg_III} can (and will) be chosen uniformly with respect to $\varepsilon\in]0,\varepsilon_\star[$. However, it is not the case for the constants in inequality \eqref{varpi_loin}.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{ Choice of integration paths for the proof of Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}}
From now on, we fix a $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and an integer $s\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace$ and our goal is to prove the claim of Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm} for this $k$ and $s$, i.e. we want to prove the existence of two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$ we have
\begin{multline}\label{inlemEstINterm}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}P_{s,k}(it+\underline{\tau}_k)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(j R_{s,k}(it+\underline{\tau}_k))^l}{l!}\right)\exp\left(it\left(n-\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right) -\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}t^{2\mu_k}\right) dt\right|\\ \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{multline}
We will suppose that $\alpha_k>0$. The major consequence is that for $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$, we have $j\geq 1$. This implies that we will use the inequalities \eqref{varpi_près_pos_I}, \eqref{varpi_près_pos_II} and \eqref{varpi_près_pos_III}. The case where $\alpha_k<0$ would need some little modifications, in particular we will have that $j\leq 0$ for $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$ and we would rather use the inequalities \eqref{varpi_près_neg_I}, \eqref{varpi_près_neg_II} and \eqref{varpi_près_neg_III}.
Before we begin with the proof, we will need to introduce some lemmas and define some elements. First, we can easily prove the following lemma which allows us to pass from bounds that are exponentially decaying in $n$ to the generalized Gaussian bounds expected in \eqref{inlemEstINterm}.
\begin{lemma}\label{est_expn}
We consider $C,c>0$. Then, for all $s\in \mathbb{N}^*$, there exist $\tilde{C},\tilde{c}>0$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k, \quad C\exp(-cn)\leq \frac{\tilde{C}}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-\tilde{c}\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)$$
with $X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
\end{lemma}
We now apply Lemma \ref{lem_varpi} and consider $\varepsilon\in]0,\varepsilon_\star[$ small enough so that
$$\forall i,j\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace, \quad \underline{z}_i\neq \underline{z}_j \Rightarrow B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_i)\cap B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_j)=\emptyset $$
and
$$\forall l\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace,\quad B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_l)\subset \left\lbrace\tau\in \mathbb{C}, \quad\Im(\tau)\in [-\pi,\pi]\right\rbrace.$$
This can be done because we supposed that $\underline{z}_l\neq -1$ which implies $\underline{\tau}_l\notin\left\lbrace-i\pi,i\pi\right\rbrace$ for all $l$. We also introduce some conditions on the values $\eta_\varepsilon$ we defined in Lemma \ref{lem_varpi} which will be useful later on in the proof, especially for Lemma \ref{lemDécal}. We define the function
\begin{equation}\label{defR}
\begin{array}{cccc}
r_\varepsilon: & ]0,\varepsilon[& \rightarrow & \mathbb{R} \\
& \eta & \mapsto & \sqrt{\varepsilon^2-\eta^2}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
which serves to define the extremities of $-\eta+i\mathbb{R}\cap B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$ for any $k\in\left\lbrace 1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$. We impose that $\eta_\varepsilon$ is small enough so that
\begin{equation}\label{inEta}
\eta_\varepsilon<\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
This condition implies that
$$r_\varepsilon(\eta_\varepsilon)>\frac{\varepsilon}{2}.$$
Finally, we also impose that
\begin{equation}\label{inEta2}
\forall k\in\left\lbrace 1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace, \quad \eta_\varepsilon+A_R\eta_\varepsilon^{2\mu_k} -A_I \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k}<0.
\end{equation}
We now fix a constant $\eta\in]0,\eta_\varepsilon[$ which we will use to express the modified path on which we will integrate the right-hand term of equality \eqref{exp_Gcc}.
We will now follow a strategy developed in \cite{ZH}, which has also been used in \cite{Godillon}, \cite{Cou-Faye} and \cite{Cou-Faye2}, and introduce a family of parameterized curves. For $\tau_p\in \mathbb{R}$, we introduce
$$\Psi_k(\tau_p)=\tau_p-A_R{\tau_p}^{2\mu_k}.$$
The function $\Psi_k$ is continuous and strictly increasing on $\left]-\infty,\left(\frac{1}{2\mu_kA_R}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k-1}\right[$. We choose $\varepsilon$ small enough so that it is strictly increasing on $]-\infty,\varepsilon]$. We can therefore introduce for $\tau_p\in[-\eta,\varepsilon]$
$$\Gamma_{k,p} = \left\lbrace \tau\in \mathbb{C}, -\eta\leq \Re(\tau)\leq \tau_p, \quad \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k) - A_R \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} + A_I \Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}= \Psi_k(\tau_p)\right\rbrace.$$
It is a symmetric curve with respect to the axis $\mathbb{R}+\underline{\tau}_k=\mathbb{R}+i\theta_k$ which intersects this axis on the point $\tau_p+\underline{\tau}_k$. If we introduce $\ell_{k,p}= \left(\frac{\Psi_k(\tau_p)-\Psi_k(-\eta)}{A_I}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}$, then $-\eta +i(\theta_k+\ell_{k,p})$ and $-\eta +i(\theta_k-\ell_{k,p})$ are the end points of $\Gamma_{k,p}$. We can also introduce a parametrization of this curve by defining $\gamma_{k,p}:[-\ell_{k,p}, \ell_{k,p}]\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{param}
\forall \tau_p\in\left[-\eta,\varepsilon\right], \forall t\in[-\ell_{k,p},\ell_{k,p}],\quad \Im(\gamma_{k,p}(t))=t+\theta_k, \quad \Re(\gamma_{k,p}(t))=h_{k,p}(t):=\Psi_k^{-1}\left(\Psi_k(\tau_p)-A_It^{2\mu_k}\right).
\end{equation}
The above parametrization immediately yields that there exists a constant $M>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{hp}
\forall \tau_p \in[-\eta,\varepsilon], \forall t \in[-\ell_{k,p},\ell_{k,p}], \quad |h_{k,p}^\prime(t)|\leq M.
\end{equation}
Also, there exists a constant $c_\star>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\forall \tau_p\in[-\eta,\varepsilon], \forall \tau \in \Gamma_{k,p}, \quad \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)-\tau_p\leq -c_\star \Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}. \label{ine_Re}
\end{equation}
We introduce those integration paths $\Gamma_{k,p}$ because they allow us to use optimally the inequalities \eqref{estVarphi}-\eqref{estR}. For example, if we seek to bound $e^{n\tau+j\varpi_k(\tau)}$ when $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$ and $\tau\in \Gamma_{k,p}$, it follows from the equality $\mathrm{sgn}(j)=\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)$ and the inequalities \eqref{estVarpi} and \eqref{ine_Re} that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))& \leq n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)-\frac{j}{\alpha_k} \left(\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)-A_R\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}+A_I\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}\right)\\
& \leq -nc_\star \Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}- \left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}-n\right)\tau_p +\frac{j}{\alpha_k}A_R\tau_p^{2\mu_k}.
\end{split}\label{estClas}
\end{align}
Such calculations will happen regularly in the following proof (see Lemmas \ref{ine_taup} and \ref{ine_res}). There remains to make an appropriate choice of $\tau_p$ depending on $n$ and $j$ that minimizes the right-hand side of the inequality \eqref{estClas} whilst the paths $\Gamma_{k,p}$ remain within the ball $B_{\varepsilon}(\underline{\tau}_k)$. Even if we have to consider a smaller $\eta$, we can define a real number $0<\varepsilon_{k,0}<\varepsilon$ such that the curve $\Gamma_{k,p}$ associated to $\tau_p=\varepsilon_{k,0}$ intersects the axis $-\eta+i\mathbb{R}$ within $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$. Then, we let
$$\zeta_k=\frac{j-n\alpha_k}{2\mu_k n}, \quad \gamma_k=\frac{A_Rj}{n}, \quad \rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)=\mathrm{sgn}(\zeta_k)\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k-1}.$$
The inequality \eqref{estClas} thus becomes
\begin{equation}\label{estClas2}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))\leq -nc_\star \Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}+\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(\gamma_k \tau_p^{2\mu_k}-2\mu_k\zeta_k\tau_p).
\end{equation}
Our limiting estimates will come from the case where $\zeta_k$ is close to $0$. We observe that the condition $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$ implies
\begin{equation}
A_R\underline{\delta}_k\leq \gamma_k \leq A_R\overline{\delta}_k.\label{ineg_gamma}
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have that $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)$ is the unique real root of the polynomial
$$\gamma_k x^{2\mu_k-1}=\zeta_k.$$
Then, we take
$$\tau_p:=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{ccc}
\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right), & \text{ if }\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)\in[-\frac{\eta}{2},\varepsilon_{k,0}],& \text{(Case \textbf{A})}\\
\varepsilon_{k,0}, & \text{ if }\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)>\varepsilon_{k,0}, &\text{(Case \textbf{B})}\\
-\frac{\eta}{2}, & \text{ if }\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)<-\frac{\eta}{2}.&\text{(Case \textbf{C})}\\
\end{array}\right.$$
The case \textbf{A} corresponds to the choice to minimize the right-hand side of \eqref{estClas2}. The cases \textbf{B} and \textbf{C} allow the path $\Gamma_{k,p}$ to stay within $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$.
There just remains to define the path $\Gamma_k$ defined on the Figure \ref{chem}. As we can see, it follows the ray $-\eta+i[-\pi,\pi]$ and is deformed inside $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$ into the path $\Gamma_{k,p}$. We define
\begin{align*}
\Gamma_{k,res}:=&\left\lbrace-\eta +it, t\in[-\pi,\pi]\backslash[\theta_k-\ell_{k,p},\theta_k+ \ell_{k,p}]\right\rbrace\cap B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k),\\ \Gamma_{k,out}:=&\left\lbrace-\eta +it, t\in[-\pi,\pi]\right\rbrace\cap B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)^c,\\
\Gamma_{k,in}:=&\Gamma_{k,p}\cup\Gamma_{k,res},\\
\Gamma_k:= & \Gamma_{k,in} \cup \Gamma_{k,out}.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\draw[->] (-2,0) -- (3,0) node[right] {$\Re(\tau)$};
\draw[->] (0,-3.4) -- (0,3.4) node[above] {$\Im(\tau)$};
\draw[dashed] (-2,pi) -- (3,pi);
\draw[dashed] (-2,-pi) -- (3,-pi);
\draw (0,pi) node {$\bullet$} node[below right] {$i\pi$};
\draw (0,-pi) node {$\bullet$} node[above right] {$-i\pi$};
\draw (-0.5,0) node {$\bullet$} node[below left] {$-\eta$};
\draw (0,0) node {$\times$} circle (1.5);
\draw (1.5,0) node[above right] {$B_\varepsilon(0)$};
\draw[blue] (1,0) node {$\bullet$} node[below right] {$\tau_p$};
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,-pi) -- (-0.5,{-sqrt(1.5^2-0.5^2)}) node[midway, sloped] {$>$};
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,{sqrt(1.5^2-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,pi) node[midway, left] {$\Gamma_{k,out}$} node[midway, sloped] {$>$};
\draw[dartmouthgreen,thick] (-0.5,{-sqrt(1.5^2-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,{-sqrt((3/4+0.5+1/16)/3)});
\draw[dartmouthgreen,thick] (-0.5,{sqrt((3/4+0.5+1/16)/3)}) -- (-0.5,{sqrt(1.5^2-0.5^2)}) ;
\draw[dartmouthgreen] (-1.7,{(sqrt(1.5^2-0.5^2)+sqrt((3/4+0.5+1/16)/3))/2}) node {$\Gamma_{k,res}$};
\draw[dashed,thick] (-0.5,{-sqrt((3/4+0.5+1/16)/3)}) -- (-0.5,{sqrt((3/4+0.5+1/16)/3)});
\draw[thick,blue] plot [samples = 100, domain={-sqrt((3/4+0.5+1/16)/3)}:{sqrt((3/4+0.5+1/16)/3)}] ({2*(1-sqrt(1/4+3*abs(\x)^2))},\x) ;
\draw[blue] (0.6,0.6) node {$\Gamma_{k,p}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A representation of the path $\Gamma_k$ for $\underline{\tau}_k=0$. It is composed of $\Gamma_{k,out}$ (in red), $\Gamma_{k,res}$ (in green) and $\Gamma_{k,p}$ (in blue). The section of $\Gamma_k$ which lies inside the ball $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$ (i.e. the reunion of $\Gamma_{k,res}$ and $\Gamma_{k,p}$) is notated $\Gamma_{k,in}$.}
\label{chem}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Using Cauchy's formula and taking into account the "$2i\pi$-periodicity" of $\textbf{G}_j(\tau)$, we have that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^*$ and $j\in\mathbb{Z}$
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{G}_j^n = \frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\Gamma_\rho} e^{n\tau}\textbf{G}_j(\tau)d\tau= \frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\Gamma_k} e^{n\tau}\textbf{G}_j(\tau)d\tau. \label{new_exp_G}
\end{equation}
In order to prove Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}, we will start by proving the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemEstIntermMVC}
For all $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and for all $s\in \mathbb{N}^*$, there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$
$$\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}P_{s,k}(\tau)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(j R_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)e^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right|\leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
\end{lemma}
Our main focus now will be to prove Lemma \ref{lemEstIntermMVC}. We observe that the triangular inequality implies
\begin{equation}\label{egDecoup}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}P_{s,k}(\tau)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(j R_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)e^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right| \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{l=1}^8 E_l
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
E_1& = \left|\int_{\Gamma_{k,out}}e^{n\tau}\textbf{G}_j(\tau)d\tau\right|, & E_2& = \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}e^{n\tau}\left(\textbf{G}_j(\tau)-e^\tau g_k(\tau) \exp(j\varpi_k(\tau))\right)d\tau \right| , \\
E_3& = \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}e^{n\tau+j\varpi_k(\tau)} \left( e^\tau g_k(\tau) - P_{s,k}(\tau)\right)d\tau \right| , & E_4& = \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}}e^{n\tau+j\varpi_k(\tau)} \left( e^\tau g_k(\tau) - P_{s,k}(\tau)\right)d\tau \right|, \\
E_5& = \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} - e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)d\tau \right|, & E_6& = \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} - e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)d\tau \right|,\\
\end{align*}
$$E_7 = \left|\int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} P_{s,k}(\tau) e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left(e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)}-\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right) d\tau\right|,$$
$$E_8 = \left|\int_{\Gamma_{k,res}} P_{s,k}(\tau) e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left(e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)}-\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right) d\tau\right|.$$
We will now have to determine estimates on all these terms depending on $k$ (case\textbf{ I}, \textbf{II} and \textbf{III}) and also on $\tau_p$ and $\Gamma_{k,p}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Case A:} $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) \in \left[-\frac{\eta}{2},\varepsilon_{k,0}\right]$,
\item \textbf{Case B:} $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) >\varepsilon_{k,0}$,
\item \textbf{Case C:} $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) <-\frac{\eta}{2}$.
\end{itemize}
The main contribution will come from the terms $E_3$, $E_5$ and $E_7$ in the case \textbf{A}. We will prove much sharper estimates for the other terms.
\subsubsection{Preliminary lemmas}
Before we start to determine the estimates on the different terms, we are going to introduce some lemmas to simplify the redaction. Those lemmas assemble inequalities in the different cases (\textbf{A}, \textbf{B} and \textbf{C}) for which the proofs are similar with variations depending on the case we are in. They mainly rely on the inequalities \eqref{estVarphi}, \eqref{estVarpi} and \eqref{estR}. The proofs of those lemmas can be found in the appendix.
We start with a lemma which will be useful to study the terms $E_5$, $E_6$, $E_7$ and $E_8$.
\begin{lemma}[Inequalities in $B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$]\label{est_Beps}
There exists $C>0$ such that for all $\tau \in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$ and $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$, we have
$$ \left|e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} -e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)\right| \leq C n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s} \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s+1}|)) $$
and
$$\left|e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left( e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)} -\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)\right| \leq C \left(n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+1}\right)^s \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|)). $$
\end{lemma}
This next lemma will be useful for terms where the integral is defined along the path $\Gamma_{k,p}$ (terms $E_3$, $E_5$ and $E_7$).
\begin{lemma}[Inequalities on $\Gamma_{k,p}$]\label{ine_taup}
For $(n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\mathrm{sgn}(j)=\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)$ and $\tau\in \Gamma_{k,p}$, we have
$\bullet$ Case \textbf{A}: $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) \in \left[-\frac{\eta}{2},\varepsilon_{k,0}\right]$
\begin{align}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|) &\leq -nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} - \frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1},\label{ine_varpi}\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) &\leq -nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} - \frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1},\label{ine_varpi2}\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|) &\leq -nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} - \frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}.\label{ine_varpi3}
\end{align}
$\bullet$ Case \textbf{B}: $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) >\varepsilon_{k,0}$
\begin{align}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|)&\leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k},\label{ine_varpi_cas2}\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) &\leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k},\label{ine_varpi2_cas2}\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|) & \leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k}.\label{ine_varpi3_cas2}
\end{align}
$\bullet$ Case \textbf{C}: $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) <-\frac{\eta}{2}$
\begin{align}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|) &\leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k},\label{ine_varpi_cas3}\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) &\leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k},\label{ine_varpi2_cas3}\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|) & \leq-\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k}.\label{ine_varpi3_cas3}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Finally, we introduce in the next lemma some inequalities that will help us for the terms with integrals defined on $\Gamma_{k,res}$ (terms $E_4$, $E_6$ and $E_8$).
\begin{lemma}[Inequalities on $\Gamma_{k,res}$]\label{ine_res}
For $(n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\mathrm{sgn}(j)=\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)$ and $\tau\in \Gamma_{k,res}$, we have in all cases
\begin{align}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))+ \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k) \left|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}\right|) &\leq -n\frac{\eta}{2}, \label{ine_varpi_res}\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) &\leq -n\frac{\eta}{2}, \label{ine_varpi_res2}\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|)&\leq -n\frac{\eta}{2}. \label{ine_varpi_res3}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Estimates of part of the terms}
We are going to first prove estimates for the terms where the proof will not depend on the case\textbf{ A}, \textbf{B} or \textbf{C} in which we are.
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_2$:}
We introduce the path $\Gamma_{\eta,k}$ defined as
$$\Gamma_{\eta,k}:=\left\lbrace -\eta+it, t\in[-\pi,\pi]\right\rbrace \cap B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k).$$
Using Cauchy's formula, we have that
$$\int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}e^{n\tau}\left(\textbf{G}_j(\tau)-e^\tau g_k(\tau) \exp(j\varpi_k(\tau))\right)d\tau= \int_{\Gamma_{\eta,k}}e^{n\tau}\left(\textbf{G}_j(\tau)-e^\tau g_k(\tau) \exp(j\varpi_k(\tau))\right)d\tau.$$
Because we supposed that $\alpha_k>0$, depending on whether we are in case\textbf{ I} or \textbf{III}, the previous equality and the inequalities \eqref{varpi_près_pos_I} and \eqref{varpi_près_pos_III} imply
$$\left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}e^{n\tau}\left(\textbf{G}_j(\tau)-e^\tau g_k(\tau) \exp(j\varpi_k(\tau))\right)d\tau \right| \lesssim e^{-n\eta - c j}.$$
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_4$:}
The inequality \eqref{ine_varpi_res2} implies
$$\left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}}e^{n\tau+j\varpi_k(\tau)} \left( e^\tau g_k(\tau) - P_{s,k}(\tau)\right)d\tau \right| \lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}} \exp\left(n\Re(\tau)+ j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))\right)|d\tau| \lesssim e^{-n\frac{\eta}{2}} .$$
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_6$:}
If we use Lemma \ref{est_Beps}, we have
\begin{multline*}
\left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} - e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)d\tau \right|
\\ \lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}} \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|))n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s} |d\tau|.
\end{multline*}
Therefore, the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi_res} implies
$$ \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} - e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)d\tau\right| \lesssim ne^{-n\frac{\eta}{2}}
\lesssim e^{-n\frac{\eta}{4}}.$$
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_8$:}
If we use Lemma \ref{est_Beps}, we have
\begin{multline*}
\left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left( e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)} - \sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)d\tau \right|
\\ \lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}} \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|))(n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+1})^s |d\tau|.
\end{multline*}
Therefore, the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi_res3} implies
$$ \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,res}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left( e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)} - \sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)d\tau \right| \lesssim n^{s}e^{-n\frac{\eta}{2}}
\lesssim e^{-n\frac{\eta}{4}}.$$
It remains to study the terms $E_1$, $E_3$, $E_5$ and $E_7$.
\subsubsection{The terms $E_3$, $E_5$ and $E_7$, Case A : $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) \in \left[-\frac{\eta}{2},\varepsilon_{k,0}\right]$}
This part of the proof is the most important because those terms will create the limiting estimates.
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_3$:}
Because of Taylor's theorem, we have
$$E_3 = \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}\left( e^\tau g_k(\tau) - P_{s,k}(\tau)\right)e^{n\tau+j\varpi_k(\tau)} d\tau \right| \lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} |\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^s\exp\left(n\Re(\tau)+ j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))\right)|d\tau|.$$
The inequality \eqref{ine_varpi2} implies
$$ E_3 \lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} |\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^s e^{-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}}|d\tau| \exp\left(-\frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
But, the inequality \eqref{ineg_gamma} and the fact that $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)=\tau_p$ imply
$$\frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\geq \frac{2\mu_k-1}{\alpha_k}A_R\underline{\delta}_k n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}.$$
If we introduce $c>0$ small enough, then
$$ E_3 \lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} |\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^s e^{-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}}|d\tau| \exp\left(-cn|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right).$$
Using the parametrization \eqref{param} and the inequality \eqref{hp}, we have
$$\int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} |\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^s e^{-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}}|d\tau| \lesssim \int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}(|\tau_p|^s+|t|^s)e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt. $$
The change of variables $u=n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}t$ and the fact that the function $\displaystyle x\geq0\mapsto x^s\exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}x^{2\mu_k}\right)$ is bounded imply
$$\left\lbrace \begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle \int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|t|^se^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt\lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}},\\
\displaystyle \int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|\tau_p|^se^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt\lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right).
\end{array}\right.$$
Thus,
$$E_3 \lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2 \mu_k}} \exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right). $$
Lastly, the inequality \eqref{ineg_gamma} implies that we have a constant $\tilde{c}>0$ independent from $j$ and $n$ such that
$$\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k} \geq \tilde{c}\left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}$$
so,
$$E_3 \lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}} \exp\left(-\tilde{c} \left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_5$:}
Using Lemma \ref{est_Beps} and the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi}, we have
\begin{align*}
E_5 &= \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} - e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)d\tau \right|\\
&\lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s} \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|)) |d\tau|\\
& \lesssim \exp\left(- \frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)n\int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} |\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s} \exp(-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}) |d\tau|.
\end{align*}
Just like in the estimate for the previous term, because of the inequality \eqref{ineg_gamma}, if we introduce $c>0$ small enough, we have
$$E_5 \lesssim n \exp\left(-cn|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right) \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s}\exp(-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k})|d\tau|.$$
The same reasoning as for the estimate of $E_3$ implies that
$$n\int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s}\exp(-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k})|d\tau| \lesssim n \int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|t|^{2\mu_k+s}e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt +n \int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k+s}e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt.$$
The change of variables $u=n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}t$ and the fact that the function $\displaystyle x\geq0\mapsto x^{2\mu_k+s}\exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}x^{2\mu_k}\right)$ is bounded imply
$$\left\lbrace \begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle n\int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|t|^{2\mu_k+s}e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt\lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}},\\
\displaystyle n\int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k+s}e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt\lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right).
\end{array}\right.$$
Thus,
$$E_5 \lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}} \exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right). $$
Lastly, the inequality on $\gamma_k$ \eqref{ineg_gamma} implies that we have a constant $\tilde{c}>0$ independent from $j$ and $n$ such that
$$\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k} \geq \tilde{c}\left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}$$
so,
$$E_5 \lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}} \exp\left(-\tilde{c} \left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_7$:}
Using Lemma \ref{est_Beps} and the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi3}, we have
\begin{align*}
E_7 &= \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left( e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)} - \sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right) d\tau\right|\\
&\lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} (n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+1})^s \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|)) |d\tau|\\
& \lesssim \exp\left(- \frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)n^s\int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} |\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{s(2\mu_k+1)} \exp(-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}) |d\tau|.
\end{align*}
Just like in the estimate for the previous term, because of the inequality \eqref{ineg_gamma}, if we introduce $c>0$ small enough, we have
$$E_7 \lesssim n^s \exp\left(-cn|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right) \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{s(2\mu_k+1)}\exp(-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k})|d\tau|.$$
The same reasoning as for the estimate of $E_3$ implies that
\begin{multline*}
n^s\int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{s(2\mu_k+1)}\exp(-nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k})|d\tau| \\ \lesssim n^s \int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|t|^{s(2\mu_k+1)}e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt +n^s \int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|\tau_p|^{s(2\mu_k+1)}e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt.
\end{multline*}
The change of variables $u=n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}t$ and the fact that the function $\displaystyle x\geq0\mapsto x^{s(2\mu_k+1)}\exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}x^{2\mu_k}\right)$ is bounded imply
$$\left\lbrace \begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle n^s\int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|t|^{s(2\mu_k+1)}e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt\lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}},\\
\displaystyle n^s\int_{-\ell_{k,p}}^{\ell_{k,p}}|\tau_p|^{s(2\mu_k+1)}e^{-nc_\ast t^{2\mu_k}}dt\lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right).
\end{array}\right.$$
Thus,
$$E_7 \lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}} \exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k}\right). $$
Lastly, the inequality on $\gamma_k$ \eqref{ineg_gamma} implies that we have a constant $\tilde{c}>0$ independent from $j$ and $n$ such that
$$\frac{c}{2}n|\tau_p|^{2\mu_k} \geq \tilde{c}\left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}$$
so,
$$E_7 \lesssim \frac{1}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}} \exp\left(-\tilde{c} \left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
\subsubsection{The terms $E_3$, $E_5$ and $E_7$, Case B and C:}
We now consider that we are either in case\textbf{ B} or case\textbf{ C} (i.e. $\rho_k(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k})\notin\left[-\frac{\eta}{2},\varepsilon_{k,0}\right]$).
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_3$:}
Because of Taylor's theorem, we have
$$E_3 = \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}e^{n\tau+j\varpi_k(\tau)} \left( e^\tau g_k(\tau) - P_{s,k}(\tau)\right)d\tau \right| \lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} |\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^s\exp\left(n\Re(\tau)+ j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))\right)|d\tau|.$$
Using the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi2_cas2} or \eqref{ine_varpi2_cas3} whether we are in case\textbf{ B} or \textbf{C}, they imply that there exists $c>0$ independent from $j$ and $n$ such that
$$E_3\lesssim e^{-cn}. $$
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_5$:}
Using Lemma \ref{est_Beps}, we have
\begin{align*}
E_5 &= \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}e^{n\tau}P_{s,k}(\tau) \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} - e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)d\tau \right|\\
&\lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s} \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) +\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|)) |d\tau|.
\end{align*}
Using the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi_cas2} or \eqref{ine_varpi_cas3} whether we are in case\textbf{ B} or \textbf{C}, they imply that there exists $c>0$ independent from $j$ and $n$ such that
$$E_5\lesssim ne^{-cn} \lesssim e^{-\frac{c}{2}n}. $$
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_7$:}
Using Lemma \ref{est_Beps}, we have
\begin{align*}
E_7 &= \left| \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}}P_{s,k}(\tau)e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left( e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)} - \sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right) d\tau\right|\\
&\lesssim \int_{\Gamma_{k,p}} (n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+1})^s \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|)) |d\tau|.
\end{align*}
Using the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi3_cas2} or \eqref{ine_varpi3_cas3} whether we are in case\textbf{ B} or \textbf{C}, they imply that there exists $c>0$ independent from $j$ and $n$ such that
$$E_7\lesssim n^se^{-cn} \lesssim e^{-\frac{c}{2}n}. $$
\subsubsection{Estimate for the term $E_1$}
\underline{$\bullet$ Estimate for $E_1$:}
We recall that
$$E_1 = \left|\int_{\Gamma_{k,out}} e^{n\tau} \textbf{G}_j(\tau) d\tau\right|.$$
For $\tau \in \Gamma_{k,out}$, we have different estimates depending on whether we are inside a ball $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_l)$ or not. Therefore, we introduce the set of distinct points $$\left\lbrace\hat{\tau}_1,\ldots,\hat{\tau}_R\right\rbrace = \left\lbrace\underline{\tau}_l, \quad l\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace\rc\backslash \left\lbrace\underline{\tau}_k\right\rbrace.$$
It allows us to decompose the path $\Gamma_{k,out}$ as
$$\Gamma_{k,out}:= \bigcup_{l=0}^R \widehat{\Gamma}_l,$$
where for all $l\in\lc1,\ldots,R\right\rbrace$
$$\widehat{\Gamma}_l := \Gamma_{k,out}\cap B_\varepsilon(\hat{\tau}_l)$$
and
$$\widehat{\Gamma}_0 := \Gamma_{k,out}\backslash \bigcup_{l=1}^R \widehat{\Gamma}_l.$$
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\draw[->] (-2,0) -- (3,0) node[right] {$\Re(\tau)$};
\draw[->] (0,-3.4) -- (0,3.4) node[above] {$\Im(\tau)$};
\draw[dashed] (-2,pi) -- (3,pi);
\draw[dashed] (-2,-pi) -- (3,-pi);
\draw (0,pi) node {$\bullet$} node[below right] {$i\pi$};
\draw (0,-pi) node {$\bullet$} node[above right] {$-i\pi$};
\draw (-0.5,0) node {$\bullet$} node[below left] {$-\eta$};
\draw (0,-1.5) node {$\times$} circle (1);
\draw (1,-1.5) node[above right] {$B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$};
\draw (0,1.7) node {$\times$} circle (1);
\draw (1,1.7) node[above right] {$B_\varepsilon(\hat{\tau}_l)$};
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,-pi) -- (-0.5,{-1.5-sqrt(1-0.5^2)}) node[midway, sloped] {$>$};
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,{-1.5+sqrt(1-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,{1.7-sqrt(1-0.5^2)}) node[near end, sloped] {$>$};
\draw[red] (-1,{(-1.5+sqrt(1-0.5^2)+3*(1.7-sqrt(1-0.5^2)))/4}) node {$\widehat{\Gamma}_0$};
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,{1.7+sqrt(1-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,pi) node[midway, sloped] {$>$};
\draw[thick,blue] plot [samples = 100, domain={-sqrt(0.4)}:{sqrt(0.4)}] ({0.3-2*abs(\x)^2},\x-1.5) ;
\draw[blue,thick] (-0.5,{-1.5-sqrt(0.75)}) -- (-0.5,{-1.5-sqrt(0.4)});
\draw[blue,thick] (-0.5,{-1.5+sqrt(0.4)}) -- (-0.5,{-1.5+sqrt(0.75)});
\draw[blue] (-0.5,-1.5) node {$\Gamma_{k,in}$};
\draw[dartmouthgreen,thick] (-0.5,{1.7-sqrt(0.75)}) -- (-0.5,{1.7+sqrt(0.75)});
\draw[dartmouthgreen] (-1.5,1.7) node {$\widehat{\Gamma}_l$};
\draw[thick,dartmouthgreen,dashed] plot [samples = 100, domain={-1/2}:{1/2}] ({0.5-4*abs(\x)^2},\x+1.7) ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{This is a representation of $\Gamma_k$ where we decompose $\Gamma_{k,out}$. The red path corresponds to $\widehat{\Gamma}_0$ the part of $\Gamma_{k,out}$ which lies outside the balls $B_\varepsilon(\hat{\tau}_l)$. The green path corresponds to $\widehat{\Gamma}_l$ the part of $\Gamma_{k,out}$ which lies inside the ball $B_\varepsilon(\hat{\tau}_l)$. The dashed green path corresponds to the deformation we use in the proof of the estimate for $E_1$. }
\label{chem_2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This decomposition of $\Gamma_{k,out}$ is represented on Figure \ref{chem_2}. The inequality \eqref{varpi_loin} gives us that
$$\left|\int_{\widehat{\Gamma}_0} e^{n\tau} \textbf{G}_j(\tau) d\tau\right|\lesssim e^{-n\eta-c|j|}.$$
We now consider $l\in\lc1,\ldots,R\right\rbrace$. There are two possibilities because of Hypothesis \ref{H3}:
$\bullet$ The set $\left\lbrace i\in\left\lbrace 1,\ldots,R\right\rbrace, \quad \underline{\tau}_i=\hat{\tau}_l\right\rbrace$ is the singleton $\left\lbrace i\right\rbrace$ with $\alpha_i<0$ (i.e. we are in case\textbf{ II}). Then, knowing that for $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$ we have $j\geq 1$, because of the inequality \eqref{varpi_près_pos_II}, we have
$$ \left|\int_{\widehat{\Gamma}_l} e^{n\tau} \textbf{G}_j(\tau) d\tau\right|\lesssim e^{-n\eta-c|j|}.$$
$\bullet$ The set $\left\lbrace i\in\left\lbrace 1,\ldots,R\right\rbrace, \quad \underline{\tau}_i=\hat{\tau}_l\right\rbrace$ is the singleton $\left\lbrace i\right\rbrace$ with $\alpha_i>0$ (i.e. we are in case\textbf{ I}) or it has two distinct elements $\left\lbrace i,j\right\rbrace$ with $\alpha_i>0$ and $\alpha_j<0$ (i.e. we are in case\textbf{ III}). Either way, the inequalities \eqref{varpi_près_pos_I} and \eqref{varpi_près_pos_III} imply that
$$ \left|\int_{\widehat{\Gamma}_l} e^{n\tau} \textbf{G}_j(\tau) d\tau\right|\leq 2\pi Ce^{-n\eta-c|j|} +\left|\int_{\widehat{\Gamma}_l} \exp(n\tau+j\varpi_i(\tau))e^\tau g_i(\tau) d\tau\right| .$$
Just like we defined the path $\Gamma_{k,p}$, $\Gamma_{k,res}$ and $\Gamma_{k,in}:= \Gamma_{k,p}\sqcup\Gamma_{k,res}$, we can define a path $\Gamma_{i,p}$, $\Gamma_{i,res}$ and $\Gamma_{i,in}:= \Gamma_{i,p}\sqcup\Gamma_{i,res}$. The path $\Gamma_{i,in}$ is represented with a dashed green line on the Figure \ref{chem_2}. Using Cauchy's formula, we then have
$$\int_{\widehat{\Gamma}_l} \exp(n\tau+j\varpi_i(\tau))e^\tau g_i(\tau) d\tau =\int_{\Gamma_{i,in}} \exp(n\tau+j\varpi_i(\tau))e^\tau g_i(\tau) d\tau$$
The function $\tau\mapsto e^\tau g_i(\tau)$ can be bounded so we just have to bound $\displaystyle\int_{\Gamma_{i,in}} \exp(n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_i)+j\Re(\varpi_i(\tau)))d|\tau|$. We observe that the proofs of the Lemmas \ref{ine_taup} and \ref{ine_res} are also true for $\Gamma_{i,p}$ and $\Gamma_{i,res}$. Using the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi_res2} for the integral along the path $\Gamma_{i,res}$, we prove that there exists a constant $c>0$ independent from $n$ and $j$ so that
$$\int_{\Gamma_{i,res}} \exp(n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_i)+j\Re(\varpi_i(\tau)))d|\tau|\lesssim e^{-cn}.$$
It remains to bound the integral along the path $\Gamma_{i,p}$. In the case\textbf{ A} (i.e. $\rho_i(\frac{\zeta_i}{\gamma_i})\in[-\frac{\eta}{2},\varepsilon_{i,0}]$), we observe that for $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$, $\gamma_i$ is bounded between two positive constants and
$$|\zeta_i|\geq \frac{1}{2\mu_i}\min(|\alpha_i-\underline{\delta}_k|,|\alpha_i-\overline{\delta}_k|).$$
Therefore, using the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi2} and the previous observation in case\textbf{ A} and using the inequalities \eqref{ine_varpi2_cas2} and \eqref{ine_varpi2_cas3} in cases\textbf{ B} and \textbf{C}, we prove that there exists a constant $c>0$ independent from $n$ and $j$ so that
$$\int_{\Gamma_{i,p}} \exp(n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_i)+j\Re(\varpi_i(\tau)))d|\tau|\lesssim e^{-cn}.$$
Therefore, there exists a constant $c>0$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k, \quad \left|\int_{\widehat{\Gamma}_l} e^{n\tau} \textbf{G}_j(\tau) d\tau\right| \lesssim e^{-cn}.$$
This gives a sharp estimate of $E_1$.
If we recapitulate the estimates we found, we can define two constants $C,c>0$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k, \forall l\in\lc1,2,4,6,8\right\rbrace, \quad E_l\leq Ce^{-cn},$$
and
$$\forall (n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k, \forall l\in\lc3,5,7\right\rbrace, \quad E_l\leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}} \exp\left(-c \left(\frac{|j-n\alpha_k|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).$$
The estimates we proved on all the terms and Lemma \ref{est_expn} allow us to conclude the proof of Lemma \ref{lemEstIntermMVC}.
\subsubsection{From Lemma \ref{lemEstIntermMVC} to Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}}
Now that Lemma \ref{lemEstIntermMVC} is proved, we know that there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$,
\begin{equation}\label{estInterm}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}P_{s,k}(\tau)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(j R_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)e^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right|\leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{equation}
Proving Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm} amounts to proving a similar estimate as \eqref{estInterm} where the integration path would be $\left\lbrace it+\underline{\tau}_k, t\in\mathbb{R}\right\rbrace$. This is the goal of this subsection. We prove the following lemma, which will use the conditions \eqref{inEta} and \eqref{inEta2} we introduced on $\eta_\varepsilon$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemDécal}
We define the path
$$\Gamma^0_{k, in} := \left\lbrace it, \quad t \in [\theta_k-r_\varepsilon(\eta),\theta_k+r_\varepsilon(\eta)]\right\rbrace$$
where the function $r_\varepsilon$ is defined in \eqref{defR}. Then, for all $m\in \mathbb{N}^*$, there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k, \quad \left|\int_{\Gamma^0_{k, in}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^me^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau -\int_{\Gamma_{k, in}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^me^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau \right|\leq Ce^{-cn}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As in Figure \ref{figDecal}, we define the paths
$$\Gamma^+_{comp} := \left\lbrace t + i (\theta_k+r_\varepsilon(\eta)), \quad t \in[-\eta,0]\right\rbrace, \quad \Gamma^-_{comp} := \left\lbrace t + i (\theta_k-r_\varepsilon(\eta)), \quad t \in[-\eta,0]\right\rbrace.$$
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\draw[->] (-2,0) -- (3,0) node[right] {$\Re(\tau)$};
\draw[->] (0,-3.4) -- (0,3.4) node[above] {$\Im(\tau)$};
\draw[dashed] (-2,pi) -- (3,pi);
\draw[dashed] (-2,-pi) -- (3,-pi);
\draw (0,pi) node {$\bullet$} node[below right] {$i\pi$};
\draw (0,-pi) node {$\bullet$} node[above right] {$-i\pi$};
\draw (-0.8,0) node {$\bullet$} node[below right] {$-\eta$};
\draw (0,0) node {$\times$} circle (1.5);
\draw (1.5,0) node[above right] {$B_\varepsilon(0)$};
\draw[dartmouthgreen,thick] (-0.8,{-sqrt(1.5^2-0.8^2)}) -- (-0.8,{sqrt(1.5^2-0.8^2)}) node[near end, sloped] {$>$} node[near start, sloped] {$>$};
\draw[dartmouthgreen] (-1.7,{(sqrt(1.5^2-0.5^2)+sqrt((3/4+0.5+1/16)/3))/2}) node {$\Gamma_{k,in}$};
\draw[dartmouthgreen,thick] (0,{-sqrt(1.5^2-0.8^2)}) -- (0,{sqrt(1.5^2-0.8^2)}) node[near end, sloped] {$>$} node[near start, sloped] {$>$};
\draw[dartmouthgreen] (0.5,{1}) node {$\Gamma_{k,in}^0$};
\draw[blue,thick] (0,{-sqrt(1.5^2-0.8^2)}) -- (-0.8,{-sqrt(1.5^2-0.8^2)}) node[midway, sloped, rotate=180] {$>$};
\draw[blue] (-0.5,-{1.8}) node {$\Gamma_{comp}^-$};
\draw[blue,thick] (-0.8,{sqrt(1.5^2-0.8^2)}) -- (0,{sqrt(1.5^2-0.8^2)}) node[midway, sloped] {$>$};
\draw[blue] (-0.5,{1.8}) node {$\Gamma_{comp}^+$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A representation of the path $\Gamma_{k,in}$, $\Gamma_{k,in}^0$ and $\Gamma^\pm_{comp}$ for $\underline{\tau}_k=0$ used in Lemma \ref{lemDécal}.}
\label{figDecal}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Cauchy's formula then implies that
\begin{multline*}
\left|\int_{\Gamma^0_{k, in}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^me^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau -\int_{\Gamma_{k, in}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^me^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau \right|\\\leq\left|\int_{\Gamma^+_{comp}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^me^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right|+\left|\int_{\Gamma^-_{comp}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^me^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right|.
\end{multline*}
We need to find estimates for the two terms on the right-hand side. Both terms will be bounded similarly so we will focus on the first one. Since $\Gamma^+_{comp}\subset B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$, we have
$$\left|\int_{\Gamma^+_{comp}}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^me^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right|\lesssim \int_{-\eta}^0\exp\left(nt+j\Re\left(\varphi_k\left(t+i(\theta_k+r_\varepsilon(\eta))\right)\right)\right)dt.$$
For $t\in ]-\eta, 0[$, since $t+i(\theta_k+r_\varepsilon(\eta))\in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$ and $\frac{j}{\alpha_k}>0$, using the inequality \eqref{estVarphi}, we prove
$$nt+j\Re(\varphi_k(t+i(\theta_k+r_\varepsilon(\eta))))\leq \frac{j}{\alpha_k}\left(\eta+A_R\eta^{2\mu_k}-A_Ir_\varepsilon(\eta)^{2\mu_k}\right).$$
Using the inequality \eqref{inEta}, we have that $r_\varepsilon(\eta)\geq r_\varepsilon(\eta_\varepsilon)>\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$. Inequality \eqref{inEta2} then implies that
$$\eta+A_R\eta^{2\mu_k}-A_Ir_\varepsilon(\eta)^{2\mu_k}\leq \eta_\varepsilon+A_R\eta_\varepsilon^{2\mu_k}-A_I\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k}<0.$$
Since $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$, we have that $\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\geq \frac{\tilde{\delta}_k}{\alpha_k} n$ so there must exist $c>0$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k, \forall t \in ]-\eta, 0[, \quad nt+j\Re(\varphi_k(t+i(\theta_k+r_\varepsilon(\eta))))\leq -cn.$$
This concludes the proof of Lemma \ref{lemDécal}.
\end{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{lemEstIntermMVC} and the estimate \eqref{estInterm}, we have thus proved that for all $s\in \mathbb{N}^*$, there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$
\begin{multline}\label{inGinterm}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{2\pi} \int_{-r_\varepsilon(\eta)}^{r_\varepsilon(\eta)}P_{s,k}(it+\underline{\tau}_k)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(j R_{s,k}(it+\underline{\tau}_k))^l}{l!}\right)\exp\left(it\left(n-\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right) -\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}t^{2\mu_k}\right) dt\right|\\ \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{multline}
There just remains to prove the following lemma to conclude the proof of Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemExt}
For all $m\in\mathbb{N}$ and $c_0>0$, there exist two positive constants $C,c>0$ such that
$$\forall (n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k, \quad \int_{r_\varepsilon(\eta)}^{+\infty} t^m\exp\left(-\frac{j}{\alpha_k}c_0t^{2\mu_k}\right)dt\leq Ce^{-cn}. $$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is done recursively and using the following equality proved by integrating by parts
\begin{multline}\label{lemExt_egRecu}
\int_{r_\varepsilon(\eta)}^{+\infty} t^m\exp\left(-\frac{j}{\alpha_k}c_0t^{2\mu_k}\right)dt = \frac{r_\varepsilon(\eta)^{m+1-2\mu_k}}{2\mu_kc_0\frac{j}{\alpha_k}}\exp\left(-c_0r_\varepsilon(\eta)^{2\mu_k}\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)\\+\frac{m+1-2\mu_k}{2\mu_kc_0\frac{j}{\alpha_k}}\int_{r_\varepsilon(\eta)}^{+\infty} t^{m-2\mu_k}\exp\left(-\frac{j}{\alpha_k}c_0t^{2\mu_k}\right)dt.
\end{multline}
\begin{itemize}
\item For $m\in\left\lbrace 0, \ldots, 2\mu_k-1\right\rbrace$, since the second term of the sum on the right hand side of \eqref{lemExt_egRecu} is non-positive, using the fact that $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$, we directly prove the result.
\item If we consider $\tilde{m}\geq 2\mu_k$ such that the result of lemma has been proved for all $m\in \lc0, \ldots, \tilde{m}-1\right\rbrace$, then the equality \eqref{lemExt_egRecu} implies the result for $m=\tilde{m}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
Combining Lemmas \ref{lemExt}, \ref{est_expn} and the inequality \eqref{inGinterm}, we easily conclude the proof of Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}.
\subsection{Step 2 : Proof of Lemma \ref{lemDevAsymp}}\label{secAsymp}
As we explained in Section \ref{subsecPlan}, Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm} and the equality \eqref{egHjalp} imply that we proved generalized Gaussian estimates on the difference between the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ and a linear combination of
$$\frac{1}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{l}{2\mu_k}}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m)}\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)\quad \text{where }l\in\mathbb{N}^*, m\in\mathbb{N}.$$
We now need to approach the above terms by the elements appearing in Theorem \ref{thPrinc}, i.e. a linear combination of
$$\frac{1}{n^\frac{l}{2\mu_k}}\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^{m_2}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m_1)}\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)\quad \text{where }l\in\mathbb{N}^*, m_1,m_2\in\mathbb{N}.$$
This is the goal of Lemma \ref{lemDevAsymp} that we recall here:
\begin{lemma*}[Lemma \ref{lemDevAsymp}]
For all $s \in \mathbb{N}$, $m\in \mathbb{N}$, $l\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace$ and $k\in \left\lbrace 1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$, if we consider $d\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$$d\geq \frac{s+1}{2\mu_k-1}$$
then there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$,
$$\left|\frac{{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m)}\left(Y_{n,j,k}\right)}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{l}{2\mu_k}}- \sum_{k_1=0}^{d-1}\sum_{k_3=0}^{d-1} \frac{\mathscr{B}^k_{l,k_1,k_3}}{n^\frac{l+(2\mu_k-1)k_3}{2\mu_k}}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)^{k_1+k_3}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+k_1)}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right) \right| \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)$$
where $Y_{n,j,k}:= \frac{n\alpha_k-j}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$, $X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$ and
$$\mathscr{B}^k_{l,k_1,k_3}:= \sum_{k_2=0}^{k_1}\frac{\binom{k_1}{k_2}(-1)^{k_1-k_2}}{k_1!k_3!\alpha_k^{k_3}}\left(\prod_{k_4=0}^{k_3-1} \frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}+k_4\right) .$$
\end{lemma*}
First, we prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemDevH}
For all $s \in \mathbb{N}$, $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and $k\in \left\lbrace 1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$, if we consider $d\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$$d\geq \frac{s+1}{2\mu_k-1}$$
then there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$,
\begin{multline*}
\left|{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m)}\left(Y_{n,j,k}\right)- \sum_{k_1=0}^{d-1}\frac{{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+k_1)}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)}{k_1!}(n\alpha_k-j)^{k_1}\left(\left(\frac{\alpha_k}{j}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}-\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}\right)^{k_1}\right| \\ \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{multline*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will apply Taylor's Theorem to bound the term on the left hand side of the inequality. We observe using the bounds of Lemma \ref{ineg_H} on the derivatives of $H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}$ that there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{lemDevHin1}
\forall (n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k, \forall x\in \left[X_{n,j,k},Y_{n,j,k}\right], \quad \left|{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+d)}(x)\right|\leq C\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{equation}
We also observe that the mean value inequality implies that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{lemDevHin2}
\forall (n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k, \quad \left|\left(\frac{\alpha_k}{j}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}-\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}\right|\leq \frac{C}{n^{1+\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}}|n\alpha_k-j|.
\end{equation}
Combining Taylor's Theorem and both inequalities \eqref{lemDevHin1} and \eqref{lemDevHin2}, we can prove the existence of two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$
\begin{multline*}
\left|{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m)}\left(Y_{n,j,k}\right)- \sum_{k_1=0}^{d-1}\frac{{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+k_1)}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)}{k_1!}(n\alpha_k-j)^{k_1}\left(\left(\frac{\alpha_k}{j}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}-\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}\right)^{k_1}\right| \\ \leq\frac{C}{n^{d\left(1-\frac{1}{2\mu_k}\right)}}\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^{2d}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{multline*}
Since the function $x\mapsto x^{2d}\exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}x^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)$ is bounded, our choice for $d$ allows us to conclude.
\end{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{lemDevH}, we have now approached the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ via a linear combination of
\begin{equation}\label{termes}
\frac{(n\alpha_k-j)^{k_1}}{n^\frac{k_1-k_2}{2\mu_k}\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+k_1)}\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)\quad \text{where }l\in\mathbb{N}^*, m\in\mathbb{N}, k_1\in\mathbb{N}, k_2\in\lc0,\ldots,k_1\right\rbrace.
\end{equation}
We approach the terms in \eqref{termes} using the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemDevJAlp}
We consider $s \in \mathbb{N}$, $m\in \mathbb{N}$, $l\in \mathbb{N}\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace$, $k_1\in \mathbb{N}$, $k_2\in\lc0, \ldots,k_1\right\rbrace$ and $k\in \left\lbrace 1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$. We define the function
$$\Psi_q:x\in \mathbb{R}_+^*\rightarrow \frac{1}{x^q}.$$
If we consider $d\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$$d\geq \frac{s+1}{2\mu_k-1}$$
then there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$,
\begin{multline*}
\left|{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+k_1)}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right) \frac{(n\alpha_k-j)^{k_1}}{n^\frac{k_1-k_2}{2\mu_k}}\left(\Psi_{\frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}}\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)-\sum_{k_3=0}^{d-1}\frac{\Psi_{\frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}}^{(k_3)}\left(n\right)}{k_3!}\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}-n\right)^{k_3}\right)\right| \\ \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{multline*}
with $X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will apply Taylor's theorem to bound the term on the left hand side of the inequality. We observe that there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{lemDevJAlpIn}
\forall (n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k, \forall x\in \left[n,\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right], \quad \left|\Psi_{\frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}}^{(d)}(x)\right|\leq \frac{C}{n^{\frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}+d}}.
\end{equation}
Thus, the inequality \eqref{lemDevJAlpIn} and Taylor's theorem imply the existence of two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_k$
\begin{multline*}
\left|{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+k_1)}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right) \frac{(n\alpha_k-j)^{k_1}}{n^\frac{k_1-k_2}{2\mu_k}}\left(\Psi_{\frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}}\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)-\sum_{k_3=0}^{d-1}\frac{\Psi_{\frac{l+k_2}{2\mu_k}}^{(k_3)}\left(n\right)}{k_3!}\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}-n\right)^{k_3}\right)\right| \\ \leq\frac{C}{n^{\frac{l}{2\mu_k}+d\left(1-\frac{1}{2\mu_k}\right)}}\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^{k_1+d}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{multline*}
Since the function $x\mapsto x^{k_1+d}\exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}x^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)$ is bounded, our choice for $d$ allows us to conclude.
\end{proof}
Lemmas \ref{lemDevH} and \ref{lemDevJAlp} allow us to conclude the proof of Lemma \ref{lemDevAsymp}.
\subsection{Step 3: Construction of the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ satisfying Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} and Theorem \ref{thPrinc}}\label{subsecLemImpTh}
Now that Lemmas \ref{lemEstInterm} and \ref{lemDevAsymp} are proved, we will construct the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$ which will verify Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} and Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. We start by introducing some notations. We fix $k\in \lc1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and $s_k\in\mathbb{N}$. For $l\in \lc0,\ldots,s_k-1\right\rbrace$, we define the coefficients $\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,l,m}\in \mathbb{C}$ for $m\in \left\lbrace (2\mu_k+1)l, \ldots,(2\mu_k+s_k-1)l+s_k-1\right\rbrace$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{defC}
\forall \tau\in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k), \quad P_{s_k,k}(\tau) \frac{R_{s_k,k}(\tau)^l}{l!} = \sum_{m= (2\mu_k+1)l}^{(2\mu_k+s_k-1)l+s_k-1}\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,l,m}(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^m.
\end{equation}
where the polynomial functions $P_{s_k, k}$ and $R_{s_k, k}$ are defined in Lemma \ref{lem_varpi}. Using Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm} and equality \eqref{egHjalp}, we prove that there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$
\begin{equation}\label{step3Est1}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n-\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j\sum_{l=0}^{s_k-1}\sum_{m=(2\mu_k+1)l}^{(2\mu_k+s_k-1)l+s_k-1}\frac{\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,l,m}\alpha_k^{m+l}|\alpha_k|}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{m-2\mu_kl+1}{2\mu_k}}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m)}\left(Y_{n,j,k}\right)\right|\leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{equation}
where $Y_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{\left(\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right)^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
We now want to apply Lemma \ref{lemDevAsymp}, so we need to define an integer $d\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$$d \geq \frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k-1}.$$
We will consider that $d=s_k+1$ so that when we will do computations of the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ in Section \ref{secComput}, we will not have to distinguish the value of $d$ depending on the value of $\mu_k$. Then, for $l\in \lc0,\ldots,s_k-1\right\rbrace$, $m\in \left\lbrace (2\mu_k+1)l, \ldots,(2\mu_k+s_k-1)l+s_k-1\right\rbrace$ and $k_1,k_3\in \lc0,\ldots,s_k\right\rbrace$, we define the coefficients
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,l,m,k_1,k_3}&:= \mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,l,m}\alpha_k^{m+l}|\alpha_k|\mathscr{B}^k_{m-2\mu_kl+1,k_1,k_3} \\
&= \frac{\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,l,m}\alpha_k^{m+l-k_3}|\alpha_k|}{k_1!k_3!}\sum_{k_2=0}^{k_1}\binom{k_1}{k_2}(-1)^{k_1-k_2}\left(\prod_{k_4=0}^{k_3-1} \frac{m-2\mu_kl+1+k_2}{2\mu_k}+k_4\right)
\end{split}\label{defCcc}
\end{align}
where the coefficients $\mathscr{B}^k_{m-2\mu_kl+1,k_1,k_3}$ are defined in Lemma \ref{lemDevAsymp}. Combining the result of Lemma \ref{lemDevAsymp} with the estimates \eqref{step3Est1}, we prove the existence of two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$
\begin{multline}\label{step3Est2}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n-\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j\sum_{l=0}^{s_k-1}\sum_{m=(2\mu_k+1)l}^{(2\mu_k+s_k-1)l+s_k-1}\sum_{k_1=0}^{s_k}\sum_{k_3=0}^{s_k}\frac{\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,l,m,k_1,k_3}}{n^\frac{m-2\mu_kl+k_3(2\mu_k-1)+1}{2\mu_k}}{X_{n,j,k}}^{k_1+k_3}{H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}}^{(m+k_1)}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right|\\ \leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{multline}
with $X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$. For $\sigma \in \left\lbrace 1 ,\ldots,s_k\right\rbrace$, we define the polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{Pcc}
\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma(X,Y):= \sum_{l=0}^{s_k-1}\sum_{m=(2\mu_k+1)l}^{(2\mu_k+s_k-1)l+s_k-1}\sum_{k_1=0}^{s_k}\sum_{k_3=0}^{s_k} \mathds{1}_{m-2\mu_kl+k_3(2\mu_k-1)+1=\sigma}\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,l,m,k_1,k_3}X^{k_1+k_3}Y^{m+k_1}\in \mathbb{C}[X,Y].
\end{equation}
Using the estimates on the derivatives of $H_{2\mu}^\beta$ (Lemma \ref{ineg_H}) to take care of the terms where $m-2\mu_kl+k_3(2\mu_k-1)+1\geq s_k+1$, the inequality \eqref{step3Est2} implies that the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ verify the estimates \eqref{inPrinc} of Lemma \ref{lemPrinc}. Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} is proved and Theorem \ref{thPrinc} in the case where the elements $\alpha_k$ are supposed to be distinct ensues from Lemma \ref{lemPrinc} and inequalities \eqref{inHorsD} and \eqref{inHorsDk}.
\section{Closing arguments on Theorem \ref{thPrinc} and proof of Corollary \ref{cor_prin}}\label{secConcluTh}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} when the elements $\alpha_k$ can be equal}\label{sec_alpha_eg}
As we said in the beginning on Section \ref{sec_GT}, we supposed in the proof that the elements $\alpha_k$ were distinct from one another. In the case where the $\alpha_k$ can be equal, there are some changes that need to be done but the calculations remain similar. Most modifications will happen on the part of the proof contained in Section \ref{sec_GS/GT}.
First, just as in Section \ref{subsec_est_far}, we would define $\overline{\delta}_k$, $\underline{\delta}_k$ and $\mathcal{D}_k$ in the same manner but with the added condition that if $\alpha_k=\alpha_l$, then $\overline{\delta}_k=\overline{\delta}_l$ and $\underline{\delta}_k=\underline{\delta}_l$.
If we consider $k_0\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, we define
$$\mathcal{J}_{k_0}:= \left\lbrace k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace, \quad \alpha_k=\alpha_{k_0}\right\rbrace.$$
We observe that for $k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}$, we have $\mathcal{D}_k= \mathcal{D}_{k_0}$ because of our new condition.
Lemmas \ref{prop_loin_G} and \ref{prop_loin_H} remain true. The inequality \eqref{inHorsD} thus remains true, however inequality \eqref{inHorsDk} now becomes that for $k_0\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that for all $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_{k_0}$
\begin{multline*}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^{\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_k}}} \left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right| \leq \sum_{\underset{k\notin \mathcal{J}_{k_0}}{k=1}}^K\frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right) \\ +\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\sum_{k\in \mathcal{J}_{k_0}}\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_{k}}\frac{\underline{z}_{k}^n\underline{\kappa}_{k}^j}{n^{\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_{k}}}} \left(\mathscr{P}^{k}_{\sigma}\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_{k}}^{\beta_{k}}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right|.
\end{multline*}
Therefore, to prove Theorem \ref{thPrinc}, we now have to prove the following lemma which is a modification of Lemma \ref{lemPrinc}.
\begin{lemma}[Modified Lemma \ref{lemPrinc}]\label{lemPrincNew}
For all $k_0\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and $(s_k)_{k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}}\in \mathbb{N}^{\mathcal{J}_{k_0}}$, there exist a family of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{\sigma\in\left\lbrace 1,\ldots,s_k\right\rbrace}$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$ for each $k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}$ and two positive constants $C,c$ such that for $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_{k_0}$
$$\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\sum_{k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}}\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^{\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_k}}} \left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right|\leq \sum_{k\in \mathcal{J}_{k_0}} \frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right) $$
with $X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
\end{lemma}
Just as in the case where the elements $\alpha_k$ were supposed distinct, if Lemma \ref{lemPrincNew} is verified, then the families of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{k,\sigma}$ constructed in Lemma \ref{lemPrincNew} will also verify the estimates \eqref{devPrinc} of Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. Since the equality \eqref{egHjalp} and Lemma \ref{lemDevAsymp} remain true, to prove Lemma \ref{lemPrincNew}, we only have to prove the following Lemma which is a modification of Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}.
\begin{lemma}[Modified Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm}]\label{lemEstIntermNew}
For all $k_0\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and for all $(s_k)_{k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}}\in {\mathbb{N}^*}^{\mathcal{J}_{k_0}}$, there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in \mathcal{D}_{k_0}$
\begin{multline*}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\sum_{k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}P_{s_k,k}(it+\underline{\tau}_k)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s_k-1}\frac{(j R_{s_k,k}(it+\underline{\tau}_k))^l}{l!}\right)\exp\left(it\left(n-\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\right) -\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k^{2\mu_k}}t^{2\mu_k}\right) dt\right|\\ \leq \sum_{k\in \mathcal{J}_{k_0}}\frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha_k-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{multline*}
where the polynomial functions $P_{s_k,k}$ and $R_{s_k,k}$ have explicit expression defined in Lemma \ref{lem_varpi}.
\end{lemma}
Therefore, there just remains to prove Lemma \ref{lemEstIntermNew} and Theorem \ref{thPrinc} will ensue. We recall that, to prove Lemma \ref{lemEstInterm} in the case where the elements $\alpha_k$ were distinct from one another, we found an expression of the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ as an integral along the path $\Gamma_k$
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*,\forall j\in\mathbb{Z}, \quad \mathscr{G}_j^n=\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\Gamma_k} e^{n\tau}\textbf{G}_j(\tau)d\tau$$
and used the triangular inequality to find the inequality \eqref{egDecoup} that we recall here
$$\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}P_{s,k}(\tau)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(j R_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)e^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right| \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{l=1}^8 E_l.$$
We then bounded all the terms $E_i$ to find an estimate on
$$\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}P_{s,k}(\tau)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(j R_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)e^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right|.$$
In the case where the elements $\alpha_k$ are no longer supposed to be distinct, the reasoning is the same but with a better suited choice of path to express the elements $\mathscr{G}_j^n$. We fix $k_0\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and introduce the path $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k_0}$ which is the ray $\left\lbrace -\eta +it, t\in[-\pi,\pi]\right\rbrace$ deformed into the path $\Gamma_{k,in}$ inside the balls $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$ for $k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}$ (see Figure \ref{chem_3}). Using Cauchy's formula and taking into account the "$2i\pi$-periodicity" of $\textbf{G}_j(\tau)$, we have that
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*,\forall j\in\mathbb{Z}, \quad \mathscr{G}_j^n=\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k_0}} e^{n\tau}\textbf{G}_j(\tau)d\tau.$$
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\draw[->] (-2,0) -- (3,0) node[right] {$\Re(\tau)$};
\draw[->] (0,-3.4) -- (0,3.4) node[above] {$\Im(\tau)$};
\draw[dashed] (-2,pi) -- (3,pi);
\draw[dashed] (-2,-pi) -- (3,-pi);
\draw (0,pi) node {$\bullet$} node[below right] {$i\pi$};
\draw (0,-pi) node {$\bullet$} node[above right] {$-i\pi$};
\draw (0,-2) node {$\times$} circle (0.75);
\draw (0.75,-2) node[above right] {$B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_{k_1})$};
\draw (0,-0.2) node {$\times$} circle (0.75);
\draw (0.75,-0.2) node[below right] {$B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_l)$};
\draw (0,1.9) node {$\times$} circle (0.75);
\draw (0.75,1.9) node[above right] {$B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_{k_2})$};
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,-pi) -- (-0.5,{-2-sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)});
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,{-2+sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,{-0.2-sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)});
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,{-0.2+sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,{1.9-sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)});
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,{1.9+sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,pi);
\draw[thick,blue] plot [samples = 100, domain={-sqrt(0.2)}:{sqrt(0.2)}] ({0.3-4*abs(\x)^2},\x-2) ;
\draw[blue,thick] (-0.5,{-2-sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,{-2-sqrt(0.2)});
\draw[blue,thick] (-0.5,{-2+sqrt(0.2)}) -- (-0.5,{-2+sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)});
\draw[blue,thick,dotted] (-0.5,{-2-sqrt(0.2)}) -- (-0.5,{-2+sqrt(0.2)});
\draw[thick,blue] plot [samples = 100, domain={-sqrt(0.15)}:{sqrt(0.15)}] ({-0.2-2*abs(\x)^2},\x+1.9) ;
\draw[blue,thick] (-0.5,{1.9-sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,{1.9-sqrt(0.15)});
\draw[blue,thick] (-0.5,{1.9+sqrt(0.15)}) -- (-0.5,{1.9+sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)});
\draw[blue,thick,dotted] (-0.5,{1.9-sqrt(0.15)}) -- (-0.5,{1.9+sqrt(0.15)});
\draw[red,thick] (-0.5,{-0.2-sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)}) -- (-0.5,{-0.2+sqrt(0.75^2-0.5^2)});
\draw[blue] (-0.75, 1.9) node[left] {$\Gamma_{k_2,in}$};
\draw[blue] (-0.75, -2) node[left] {$\Gamma_{k_1,in}$};
\draw[red] (-0.75, 0.8) node[left] {$\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k_0,out}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A representation of the path $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k_0}$. Inside the balls $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$ where $k$ belongs to $\mathcal{J}_{k_0}$, it follows the path $\Gamma_{k,in}$ composed of $\Gamma_{k,res}$ and $\Gamma_{k,p}$. For $l\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, if there is no $k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}$ such that $\underline{\tau}_k=\underline{\tau}_l$, then the path $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k_0}$ inside $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_l)$ just corresponds to the ray $\left\lbrace-\eta+it, t\in[-\pi,\pi]\right\rbrace$.}
\label{chem_3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We end up with an inequality similar to \eqref{egDecoup}.
\begin{equation}\label{egDecoupNew}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n -\frac{1}{2i\pi} \sum_{k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}}\int_{\Gamma_{k,in}}P_{s_k,k}(\tau)\left(\sum_{l=0}^{s_k-1}\frac{(j R_{s_k,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)e^{n\tau}e^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}d\tau\right| \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\left(E_{out}+\sum_{k\in \mathcal{J}_{k_0}}\sum_{l=2}^8 E_{l,k}\right)
\end{equation}
where $E_{l,k}$ has the same definition as $E_l$ in \eqref{egDecoup} but depends on the $k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}$ we consider. The term $E_{out}$ is similar to $E_1$ in \eqref{egDecoup} and is equal to
$$E_{out} = \left|\int_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k_0,out}} e^{n\tau} \textbf{G}_j(\tau) d\tau\right|,$$
where $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k_0,out}$ corresponds to the part of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k_0}$ outside the balls $B_\varepsilon(\underline{\tau}_k)$ for $k\in\mathcal{J}_{k_0}$ (see the red path on Figure \ref{chem_3}). Reasoning in the same manner as in the case where the elements $\alpha_k$ are different from one another, we get estimates on the different terms. The minor modifications are left to the reader. Notice that Lemmas \ref{lemDécal} and \ref{lemExt} are still verified, Lemma \ref{lemEstIntermNew} ensues. Therefore, Theorem \ref{thPrinc} in the case where the elements $\alpha_k$ can be equal is proved for the same polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ given in Section \ref{subsecLemImpTh}.
\subsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor_prin}}\label{secCor}
We are now going to prove Corollary \ref{cor_prin} that we recall here:
\begin{corollary*}[Corollary \ref{cor_prin}]
Let $a\in \ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which verifies Hypotheses \ref{H1} and \ref{H2_bis}. If there exists some integer $J\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that the sequence $b:=(a_{j+J})_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$ verifies Hypotheses \ref{H2} and \ref{H3}, then for all $s_1,\ldots,s_K\in\mathbb{N}$ there exist a family of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{\sigma\in\lc1, \ldots,s_k\right\rbrace}$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$ for each $k\in\lc1, \ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^*$ and $j\in \mathbb{Z}$
$$\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n-\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_{k}}}\left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(X_{n,j,k}\right)\right|\leq\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c|X_{n,j,k}|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)$$
with $X_{n,j,k}=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
\end{corollary*}
We consider that $a$ satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary \ref{cor_prin}. As we said just before we introduced the corollary, we observe that if we define $\widetilde{F}$ the symbol associated with $b$, then we have that
$$\forall \kappa\in\mathbb{S}^1, \quad \widetilde{F}(\kappa)=\kappa^{-J}F(\kappa).$$
and we have for $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$
\begin{equation}\label{G}
\widetilde{F}(\underline{\kappa}_ke^{i\xi})\underset{\xi\rightarrow0}= \underline{\kappa}_k^{-J}\underline{z}_k\exp(-i(\alpha_k+J) \xi - \beta_k \xi^{2\mu_k} + o(|\xi|^{2\mu_k})).
\end{equation}
We fix $s_1, \ldots,s_K\in\mathbb{N}$. Applying Theorem \ref{thPrinc} for the sequence $b$, there exist a family of polynomials $(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma)_{\sigma\in\lc1,\ldots,s_k\right\rbrace}$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$ for each $k\in\lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^*$ and $j\in \mathbb{Z}$
\begin{multline*}
\left|\left(\mathscr{L}_b^n\delta\right)_j-\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\sigma=1}^{s_k}\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^\frac{\sigma}{2\mu_{k}}}\left(\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma\left(\frac{n(\alpha_k+J)-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\right)\left(\frac{n(\alpha_k+J)-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)\right| \\ \leq\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{C}{n^\frac{s_k+1}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n(\alpha_k+J)-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{multline*}
By observing that
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*,\forall j\in\mathbb{Z}, \quad (\mathscr{L}_b^n\delta)_j = (\mathscr{L}_a^n\delta)_{j-nJ}= \mathscr{G}_{j-nJ}^n,$$
we conclude the proof of Corollary \ref{cor_prin}.
\section{Computations of the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$} \label{secComput}
Now that Theorem \ref{thPrinc} is proved, we want to compute the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ defined with \eqref{Pcc} in the proof of Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. We separate this section in three parts:
\begin{itemize}
\item The coefficients of the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ depend on the elements $\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,l,m}$ defined as \eqref{defC}. Based on the definition of the polynomials $P_{s_k,k}$ and $Q_{s_k,k}$ defined in Lemma \ref{lem_varpi}, the elements $\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,l,m}$ are expressed using derivatives of $\varpi_k$ at $\underline{\tau}_k$. In Section \ref{subsecVarpi}, we present a reliable way to compute the value $\varpi_k^{(n)}(\underline{\tau}_k)$.
\item In Section \ref{subsecP}, we compute the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ for $\sigma=1,2$. We compare those results with the asymptotic expansion determined in \cite[Theorem 1.2]{R-S}.
\item In Section \ref{subsecNum}, we compute numerically the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ and verify the sharpness of the estimates \eqref{devPrinc} in Theorem \ref{thPrinc} for two specific examples of sequences $a$:
$\star$ A case where the sequence $a$ has real non negative coefficients.
$\star$ The sequence $a$ associated to the O3 scheme for the transport equation.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Computing the derivatives of $\varpi_k$ at $\underline{\tau}_k$}\label{subsecVarpi}
The coefficients $\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,l,m}$ defined in \eqref{defC} are expressed using the derivatives of $\varpi_k$ at $\underline{\tau}_k$. We now present a reliable way to compute $\varpi_k^{(n)}(\underline{\tau}_k)$. For $\tau\in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$, $e^{\varpi_k(\tau)}=\kappa_k(e^\tau)$ is an eigenvalue of $\mathbb{M}(e^\tau)$. Lemma \ref{spec_spl} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{Fvarpi}
\forall \tau\in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k), \quad F(e^{\varpi_k(\tau)})=e^\tau.
\end{equation}
For all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, we define the moment function
\begin{equation}\label{defMn}
\begin{array}{cccc}
M_n:& \mathbb{C}^* & \rightarrow & \mathbb{C}\\
& \kappa & \mapsto & \sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}j^na_j\kappa^j
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
We observe that we have the equality $M_0=F$ and
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}, \forall \kappa\in\mathbb{C}^*, \quad M_{n+1}(\kappa)=\kappa\frac{d M_n}{d\kappa}(\kappa),$$
thus
\begin{equation}\label{computDer}
\forall n\in\mathbb{N}, \forall \tau\in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k), \quad \frac{d}{d\tau}\left(M_n\left(e^{\varpi_k(\tau)}\right)\right) =\varpi_k^\prime(\tau)M_{n+1}\left(e^{\varpi_k(\tau)}\right).
\end{equation}
We will differentiate the equality \eqref{Fvarpi} and use the equality \eqref{computDer} to find an expression of $\varpi_k^{(n)}(\underline{\tau}_k)$. To do so, we introduce the Bell polynomials (see \cite{Comtet}, Chapter 3.3) defined for $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $j\in\lc1, \ldots, n\right\rbrace$ as
$$B_{n,j}(X_1,\ldots,X_{n+1-j}):= \sum \frac{n!}{l_1!\ldots l_{n+1-j}!}\left(\frac{X_1}{1!}\right)^{l_1}\ldots\left(\frac{X_{n+1-j}}{(n+1-j)!}\right)^{l_{n+1-j}}$$
where the sum is taken over the integers $l_1,\ldots,l_{n+1-j}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{align*}
j &= l_1+l_2+\ldots+l_{n+1-j},\\
n& = l_1+2l_2+\ldots+(n+1-j)l_{n+1-j}.
\end{align*}
The Bell polynomials $B_{n,j}$ verify the following equalities:
\begin{equation}
\forall n \in \mathbb{N}^*, \forall j\in\lc1,\ldots,n\right\rbrace, \quad B_{n,j} = \sum_{i=1}^{n+1-j}\binom{n-1}{i-1}X_i B_{n-i,j-1}, \label{bell1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\forall n \in \mathbb{N}^*, \forall j\in\lc1,\ldots,n\right\rbrace, \forall i \in \lc1,\ldots,n+1-j\right\rbrace, \quad \frac{\partial B_{n,j}}{\partial X_i} = \binom{n}{i} B_{n-i,j-1}.\label{bell2}
\end{equation}
We can now prove the following lemma which allows us to express recursively the derivatives of $\varpi_k$ at $\underline{\tau}_k$ with the moments $M_n(\underline{\kappa}_k)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{expVarpi}
For all $k\in \lc1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)=\frac{\underline{z}_k}{M_1(\underline{\kappa}_k)},\\
\forall n\geq 2, \quad & \varpi_k^{(n)}(\underline{\tau}_k)=\frac{1}{M_1(\underline{\kappa}_k)}\left(\underline{z}_k-\sum_{j=2}^n M_j(\underline{\kappa}_k)B_{n,j}\left(\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k),\ldots,\varpi_k^{(n+1-j)}(\underline{\tau}_k)\right)\right).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the equalities \eqref{computDer}, \eqref{bell1} and \eqref{bell2}, we can prove recursively the following equality for all $n\in\mathbb{N}^*$ and $\tau\in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$ which looks like Faà di Bruno's formula :
\begin{equation}\label{derMn}
\frac{d^n}{d\tau^n}\left(M_0(e^{\varpi_k(\tau)})\right) = \sum_{j=1}^n M_j(e^{\varpi_k(\tau)})B_{n,j}\left(\varpi_k^\prime(\tau),\ldots,\varpi_k^{(n+1-j)}(\tau)\right).
\end{equation}
Using the equalities \eqref{derMn}, \eqref{Fvarpi} and $M_0=F$, we conclude the proof of Lemma \ref{expVarpi}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Computation of $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ for $\sigma=1,2$}\label{subsecP}
In this section, we will compute the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_\sigma$ for $\sigma=1,2$. The goal is to compare the asymptotic expansion \eqref{devPrinc} with the result of \cite[Theorem 1.2]{R-S} and with the local limit theorem (see \cite[Chapter VII, Theorem 13]{Petrov}). We consider $k\in \left\lbrace 1,\ldots,K\right\rbrace$ and $s_k\in \mathbb{N}^*$.
$\bullet$ We start to compute the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_{1}$. We have using \eqref{Pcc}
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{P}^k_1 &= \sum_{l=0}^{s_k-1}\sum_{m=(2\mu_k+1)l}^{(2\mu_k+s_k-1)l+s_k-1}\sum_{k_1=0}^{s_k}\sum_{k_3=0}^{s_k} \mathds{1}_{m-2\mu_kl+k_3(2\mu_k-1)+1=1}\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,l,m,k_1,k_3}X^{k_1+k_3}Y^{m+k_1}\\
& = \sum_{k_1=0}^{s_k} \mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,0,0,k_1,0}X^{k_1}Y^{k_1}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, for $k_1\in\lc0,\ldots,s_k\right\rbrace$, we have using the definition \eqref{defCcc} of $\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,l,m,k_1,k_3}$ that
$$\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,0,0,k_1,0}=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0 & \quad \text{ if }k_1\geq 1,\\ \mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,0,0}|\alpha_k| & \quad \text{ if }k_1=0.\end{array}\right. $$
Furthermore, using the equality \eqref{defC} and the asymptotic expansion \eqref{eqVarpi}, we have
$$\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,0,0} = -\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k) = \frac{1}{|\alpha_k|}.$$
We then have
$$\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,0,0,k_1,0} = \mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,0,0}|\alpha_k| = 1.$$
Therefore, we have proved that
\begin{equation}\label{Pcc1}
\forall s_k\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace, \quad \mathscr{P}^k_1=1.
\end{equation}
Theorem \ref{thPrinc} implies that there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{devPrincS1}
\forall (n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}, \quad \left|\mathscr{G}_j^n - \sum_{k=1}^K\frac{\underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\left(\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)\right|\leq \sum_{k=1}^K\frac{C}{n^\frac{1}{\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left(\frac{|n\alpha-j|}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right).
\end{equation}
The estimate \eqref{devPrincS1} deduced from Theorem \ref{thPrinc} gives us the same leading term for the asymptotic behavior of $\mathscr{G}_j^n$ as expected from \cite[Theorem 1.2]{R-S}.
$\bullet$ We now compute the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_{2}$. We have using \eqref{Pcc}
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{P}^k_2 &= \sum_{l=0}^{s_k-1}\sum_{m=(2\mu_k+1)l}^{(2\mu_k+s_k-1)l+s_k-1}\sum_{k_1=0}^{s_k}\sum_{k_3=0}^{s_k} \mathds{1}_{m-2\mu_kl+k_3(2\mu_k-1)+1=2}\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,l,m,k_1,k_3}X^{k_1+k_3}Y^{m+k_1}\\
& = \sum_{k_1=0}^{s_k} \mathds{1}_{\mu_k=1} \mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,0,0,k_1,1}X^{1+k_1}Y^{k_1}+\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,0,1,k_1,0}X^{k_1}Y^{1+k_1}+\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,1,2\mu_k+1,k_1,0}X^{k_1}Y^{2\mu_k+1+k_1}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, for $k_1\in\lc0,\ldots,s_k\right\rbrace$, we have using the definition \eqref{defCcc} of $\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,l,m,k_1,k_3}$ that
$$\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,0,1,k_1,0}=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0 & \quad \text{ if }k_1\geq 1,\\ \mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,0,1}\alpha_k|\alpha_k| & \quad \text{ if }k_1=0,\end{array}\right. $$
$$\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,1,2\mu_k+1,k_1,0}=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0 & \quad \text{ if }k_1\geq 1,\\ \mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,1,2\mu_k+1}\alpha_k^{2\mu_k+2}|\alpha_k| & \quad \text{ if }k_1=0,\end{array}\right. $$
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{C}^k_{s_k,0,0,k_1,1} & = \mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,0,0} \alpha_k^{-1}|\alpha_k| \sum_{k_2=0}^{k_1}\binom{k_1}{k_2}(-1)^{k_1-k_2} \frac{k_2+1}{2\mu_k}\\
& = \left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0 & \quad \text{ if }k_1\geq 2,\\ \frac{\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,0,0}\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)}{2\mu_k} & \quad \text{ if }k_1=0,1.\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
Also, using the equality \eqref{defC} and Lemma \ref{expVarpi}, we have
$$\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,0,0} = -\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k),$$
$$\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,0,1} = -\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)\varpi_k^{(2)}(\underline{\tau}_k),$$
$$\mathscr{A}^k_{s_k,1,2\mu_k+1} = -\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)\frac{\varpi_k^{(2\mu_k+1)}(\underline{\tau}_k)}{(2\mu_k+1)!}.$$
Thus, for all $s_k\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace$,
\begin{equation}\label{Pcc2}
\mathscr{P}^k_2=\mathds{1}_{\mu_k=1}\left(-\frac{\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)}{2\mu_k}\right)\left(X+X^2Y\right) -\alpha_k^2\varpi_k^{(2)}(\underline{\tau}_k)Y - \alpha_k^{2\mu_k+3}\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)\frac{\varpi_k^{(2\mu_k+1)}(\underline{\tau}_k)}{(2\mu_k+1)!}Y^{2\mu_k+1}.
\end{equation}
Theorem \ref{thPrinc} thus implies that there exist two positive constants $C,c$ such that for all $(n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}$
\begin{equation}\label{devPrincS2}
\left|\mathscr{G}_j^n - \underline{z}_k^n\underline{\kappa}_k^j\sum_{k=1}^K\frac{1}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}\left(X_{n,j,k}\right) + \frac{1}{n^\frac{1}{\mu_k}}\mathscr{P}^k_2\left(X_{n,j,k},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2\mu_k}^{\beta_k}(X_{n,j,k})\right|\leq \sum_{k=1}^K\frac{C}{n^\frac{3}{2\mu_k}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j,k}\right|^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\right)
\end{equation}
with $X_{n,j,k}:=\frac{n\alpha_k-j}{n^\frac{1}{2\mu_k}}$.
$\star$ When $\mu_k\geq 2$, the asymptotic expansion \eqref{eqVarpi} implies that $\varpi_k^{(2)}(\underline{\tau}_k)=0$. Thus, the equality \eqref{Pcc2} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{Pcc2mu>1}
\mathscr{P}^k_2=- \alpha_k^{2\mu_k+3}\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)\frac{\varpi_k^{(2\mu_k+1)}(\underline{\tau}_k)}{(2\mu_k+1)!}Y^{2\mu_k+1}.
\end{equation}
$\star$ We now look at the case $\mu_k=1$. The equality \eqref{Pcc2} becomes
$$ \mathscr{P}^k_2=\left(-\frac{\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)}{2}\right)\left(X+X^2Y\right) -\alpha_k^2\varpi_k^{(2)}(\underline{\tau}_k)Y - \alpha_k^{5}\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)\frac{\varpi_k^{(3)}(\underline{\tau}_k)}{6}Y^{3}.$$
As we said in the introduction of the paper, the polynomials satisfying Theorem \ref{thPrinc} are not unique. We will now propose a more convenient choice of polynomials to replace $\mathscr{P}_{k,s_k,2}$. Using Lemma \ref{lemH}, if we define the polynomial
$$\mathcal{Q}^k_2(X,Y)= \left(-2\beta_k\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)-\alpha_k^2\varpi_k^{(2)}(\underline{\tau}_k)\right) Y + \left(-2\beta_k^2\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)-\alpha_k^{5}\varpi_k^\prime(\underline{\tau}_k)\frac{\varpi_k^{(3)}(\underline{\tau}_k)}{6}\right) Y^3\in\mathbb{C}[X,Y]$$
we have
\begin{equation}\label{egPccQc}
\mathscr{P}^k_2\left(.,\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2}^{\beta_k} = \mathcal{Q}^k_2\left(.,\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{2}^{\beta_k}.
\end{equation}
We can then replace $\mathscr{P}^k_2$ with $\mathcal{Q}^k_2$ in the estimate \eqref{devPrincS2} when $\mu_k=1$. This allows us to express the second term of the asymptotic expansion using a linear combination of derivatives of $H_{2}^{\beta_k}$ since $\mathcal{Q}^k_2(X,Y)$ does not have any terms where $X$ intervenes. We notice that the asymptotic expansion \eqref{eqVarpi} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{egBeta}
\frac{\varpi_k^{(2)}(\underline{\tau}_k)}{2}=\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k^3}.
\end{equation}
Using Lemma \ref{expVarpi} and equality \eqref{egBeta}, we can prove that actually
\begin{equation}\label{egQc}
\mathcal{Q}^k_2(X,Y)=-\frac{1}{6\underline{z}_k^2}\left(\underline{z}_k^2M_3(\underline{\kappa}_k)-3\underline{z}_kM_2(\underline{\kappa}_k)M_1(\underline{\kappa}_k)+2M_1(\underline{\kappa}_k)^3\right)Y^3.
\end{equation}
We will see in Section \ref{subsecNumProba} that, in the probabilistic case we presented in the introduction of the paper that motivated our result, this expression of $\mathcal{Q}^k_2$ gives exactly the second term of the asymptotic expansion \eqref{cas_proba} when we apply the local limit theorem (which is fortunate).
\subsection{Numerical examples}\label{subsecNum}
In this section, we consider some examples of elements $a\in\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which satisfy the conditions of Theorem \ref{thPrinc} and see how sharp the estimations we found are.
\subsubsection{Probability distribution : real non negative sequences}\label{subsecNumProba}
First, we consider the case where $a$ has real non negative coefficients. If we introduce the sequence $b=(a_{-j})_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$, then $b$ is the probability distribution of some random variable $X$ supported on $\mathbb{Z}$. We observe that $L_b=\mathscr{L}_a$, so, recalling that $b^n=b\ast \ldots\ast b$, we have
$$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*,\forall j\in\mathbb{Z}, \quad b^n_j=\mathscr{G}_j^n.$$
We will settle on $a\in\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ such that $a_j=0$ for $j\neq -1,0,1$ and
$$a_{-1}=2/3, a_0=1/6, a_1=1/6.$$
This sequence verifies Hypothesis \ref{H1}. In this case, we have $r=p=1$. Also, $F(1)=1$ and
$$\forall \kappa\in\mathbb{S}^1\backslash\lc1\right\rbrace, \quad |F(\kappa)|<1.$$
The function $F$ satisfies that
$$F(e^{i\xi})\underset{\xi\rightarrow 0}=\exp(-i\alpha\xi -\beta\xi^2+o(\xi^2))$$
where $\alpha=\mathbb{E}(X)=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\beta=\frac{V(X)}{2}=\frac{7}{24}$. We have $\mu=1$ in this case and Hypothesis \ref{H2} is satisfied with $K=1$, $\underline{\kappa}_1=1$ and $\underline{z}_1=1$. It also directly satisfies Hypothesis \ref{H3} since $K=1$. Since $K=1$, we lose the subscript $k$ in most the notations that follow. The sequence $a$ verifies Hypotheses \ref{H1}, \ref{H2} and \ref{H3}, so we can apply Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. As an example, we will apply Theorem \ref{thPrinc} for $s=2$ and use the calculations of Section \ref{subsecP} to determine the terms of the asymptotic expansion:
$\bullet$ Using the equality \eqref{Pcc1} on $\mathscr{P}^k_1$, the leading order term of the asymptotic expansion given by Theorem \ref{thPrinc} is
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}H_{2}^\beta\left(\frac{n\alpha-j}{\sqrt{n}}\right) &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi\beta n}}\exp\left(-\frac{|j-n\alpha|^2}{4\beta n}\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi V(X) n}}\exp\left(-\frac{|j-n\mathbb{E}(X)|^2}{2V(X) n}\right).
\end{align*}
$\bullet$ We notice that using the moments function $M_n$ defined with \eqref{defMn}, we have
$$\forall n\in \mathbb{N}, \quad M_n(1)=(-1)^n\mathbb{E}(X^n).$$
Using the equalities \eqref{egPccQc} and \eqref{egQc} that respectively links the polynomials $\mathscr{P}^k_2$ and $\mathcal{Q}^k_2$ and allows us to compute the polynomial $\mathcal{Q}^k_2$, the second order term of the asymptotic expansion given by Theorem \ref{thPrinc} is
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{n}\left(-\frac{1}{6}(M_3(1)-3M_2(1)M_1(1)+2M_1(1)^3)\right)\left(H_{2}^\beta\right)^{(3)}\left(X_{n,j}\right)\\
&=\frac{\mathbb{E}((X-\mathbb{E}(X))^3)}{6(2\beta)^2n}\left(H_{2}^\frac{1}{2}\right)^{(3)}\left(\frac{X_{n,j}}{\sqrt{2\beta}}\right)\\
&=\frac{q_1\left(\frac{X_{n,j}}{\sqrt{V(X)}}\right)}{n}
\end{align*}
where $X_{n,j}:=\frac{n\mathbb{E}(X)-j}{\sqrt{n}}$ and the function $q_1:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined as
$$\forall x\in\mathbb{R},\quad q_1(x):=-\frac{\mathbb{E}((X-\mathbb{E}(X))^3)}{6\sqrt{2\pi}V(X)^2}(x^3-3x)e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}}. $$
Theorem \ref{thPrinc} then states that there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ine_proba}
\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*,\forall j\in\mathbb{Z},\quad \left|\mathrm{Err}(n,j)\right|\leq \frac{C}{n^\frac{3}{2}}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j}\right|^2\right),
\end{equation}
with $X_{n,j}=\frac{n\mathbb{E}(X)-j}{\sqrt{n}}$ and
$$\mathrm{Err}(n,j):=\mathscr{G}_j^n-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi V(X) n}}\exp\left(-\frac{|X_{n,j}|^2}{2V(X)}\right)-\frac{q_1\left(\frac{X_{n,j}}{\sqrt{V(X)}}\right)}{n}$$.
The estimate \eqref{ine_proba} is exactly the asymptotic expansion of the elements $b^n_j=\mathscr{G}_j^n$ we expected via the local limit theorem (see \cite[Chapter VII, Theorem 13]{Petrov} for more details). This behavior is represented on Figure \ref{im_cas_proba} where we even see that the remainder $n^\frac{3}{2}Err(n,j)$ seems to scale like $f\left(\frac{n\alpha-j}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$. This would correspond to the next term in the asymptotic expansion of $\mathscr{G}_j^n$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=160mm]{Erreur_proba.eps}
\caption{On the left : A representation of $n^\frac{3}{2}\max_{j\in\left\lbrace-nr,\ldots,np\right\rbrace} |\mathrm{Err}(n,j)|$ depending on $n$. As expected knowing that $-r<\alpha<p$, we see that the function is bounded and even seems to converge. On the right : We fixed $n=100$ and represented $j\in\mathbb{Z}\mapsto n^\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{Err}(n,j)$.}
\label{im_cas_proba}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The O3 scheme for the transport equation}
We will now consider an example linked to finite difference schemes. We consider the transport equation
$$\partial_t u + a \partial_x u =0, \quad (t,x)\in\mathbb{R}_+\times \mathbb{R}$$
with Cauchy data at $t=0$. The O3 scheme is an explicit third order accurate finite difference approximation of the previous transport equation. We refer to \cite{Despres} for a detailed analysis of this scheme. It corresponds to the numerical scheme \eqref{an_num} for $a\in\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ such that $a_j=0$ for $j\notin \left\lbrace-2,-1,0,1\right\rbrace$ and
$$a_{-2}=-\frac{\lambda a (1-(\lambda a)^2)}{6} , \quad a_{-1} = \frac{\lambda a (1+\lambda a)(2-\lambda a)}{2},\quad a_0=\frac{ (1-(\lambda a)^2)(2-\lambda a)}{2} ,\quad a_1 =- \frac{\lambda a (1-\lambda a)(2-\lambda a)}{6},$$
with $\lambda =\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}>0$. The parameter $\lambda a$ is the Courant number. We have in this case that $r=2$ and $p=1$. For $\lambda a\in]-1,1[\backslash\lc0\right\rbrace$, we have that $F(1)=1$ and
$$\forall \kappa\in\mathbb{S}^1\backslash\lc1\right\rbrace, \quad |F(\kappa)|<1.$$
Also, there exists $\beta\in\mathbb{R}_+^*$ such that
$$F(e^{i\xi})\underset{\xi\rightarrow 0}=\exp(-i\lambda a \xi - \beta \xi^4+o(\xi^4)).$$
We have $\mu=2$ in this case and Hypothesis \ref{H2} is satisfied with $K=1$, $\underline{\kappa}_1=1$ and $\underline{z}_1=1$. Since $K=1$, we lose the subscript $k$ in most the notations that follow. The sequence $a$ verifies hypotheses \ref{H1}, \ref{H2} and \ref{H3}, so we can apply Theorem \ref{thPrinc}. As an example, we will apply Theorem \ref{thPrinc} for $s=3$ and $\lambda a=\frac{1}{2}$.
$\bullet$ Using the equality \eqref{Pcc1}, we have
$$\mathscr{P}_1=1.$$
$\bullet$ Using the equality \eqref{Pcc2mu>1} and Lemma \ref{expVarpi} to compute $\varpi^{(3)}(1)$, we have
$$\mathscr{P}_2=0.$$
$\bullet$ Using the equality \eqref{Pcc} to express the polynomial $\mathscr{P}_3$ and Lemma \ref{expVarpi} to compute the coefficients $\mathscr{A}_{l,m}$, we numerically compute the polynomials $\mathscr{P}_{3}$:
$$\mathscr{P}_3=p_3Y^6$$
where $p_3\approx-1,953125.10^{-3}$.
Theorem \ref{thPrinc} then states that there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ine_O3}
\forall n\in\mathbb{N}^*,\forall j\in\mathbb{Z},\quad \left|\mathrm{Err}(n,j)\right|\leq \frac{C}{n}\exp\left(-c\left|X_{n,j}\right|^\frac{4}{3}\right),
\end{equation}
with $X_{n,j}=\frac{n\alpha-j}{n^\frac{1}{4}}$ and
$$\mathrm{Err}(n,j):=\mathscr{G}_j^n-\sum_{\sigma=1}^3\frac{1}{n^\frac{\sigma}{4}}\mathscr{P}_{\sigma}\left(X_{n,j},\frac{d}{dx}\right)H_{4}^\beta(X_{n,j})$$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=160mm]{Erreur_O3.eps}
\caption{For these figures, we chose $\lambda a=1/2$. On the left : A representation of $n\max_{j\in\left\lbrace-nr,\ldots,np\right\rbrace} |\mathrm{Err}(n,j)|$ depending on $n$. As expected, the function seems to be bounded. On the right : We fixed $n=100$ and represented $j\in\mathbb{Z}\mapsto n\mathrm{Err}(n,j)$. We observe the exponential decay in $j$. Also, we can see a particular shape of curve that arises that would correspond to the next term in the asymptotic expansion of $\mathscr{G}_j^n$.}
\label{im_O3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This behavior is represented on Figure \ref{im_O3} where we even see that the remainder $nErr(n,j)$ seems to scale like $f\left(\frac{n\alpha-j}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$. Hence, the estimate \eqref{ine_O3} seems to be sharp.
\section{Appendix: Proof of auxiliary results}\label{sec_appendix}
\subsection{Proof of the Lemma \ref{arp}}
We recall here the statement of Lemma \ref{arp}.
\begin{lemma*}[Lemma \ref{arp}]
For $a\in\ell^1(\mathbb{Z})$ which verifies Hypotheses \ref{H1} and \ref{H2}, we have that $a_{-r}$ and $a_p$ belong to $\mathbb{D}$.
\end{lemma*}
\begin{proof}
We introduce the polynomial function $g$ defined by
$$\forall \kappa\in\mathbb{C}, \quad g(\kappa):= \sum_{l=-r}^{p} a_l\kappa^{l+r}.$$
For all $\kappa\in\mathbb{S}^1$, Hypothesis \ref{H2} implies that
$$|g(\kappa)|=\left|\kappa^rF(\kappa)\right|=|F(\kappa)|\leq 1.$$
Observing that $g$ is not a constant function, the maximum principle for holomorphic functions \cite{Rudin} allows us to conclude that
$$|a_{-r}|=|g(0)|<1.$$
The same kind of argument allows us to conclude for the coefficient $a_p$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Lemma \ref{ineg_H}}
We recall here the statement of Lemma \ref{ineg_H}.
\begin{lemma*}[Lemma \ref{ineg_H}]
For $\mu\in\mathbb{N}^*$, $\beta\in \mathbb{C}$ with positive real part and $m\in \mathbb{N}$, there exist two constants $C,c>0$ such that
$$\forall x\in \mathbb{R}, \quad \left|{H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(m)}(x)\right|\leq C\exp\left(-c|x|^\frac{2\mu}{2\mu-1}\right).$$
\end{lemma*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=3]
\draw (-1.5,0) -- (-1,0);
\draw[->] (1,0) -- (1.5,0);
\draw[->] (0,-0.1) -- (0,1);
\draw[thick,color=blue] (-1,0) -- (1,0) node[near start, sloped] {$>$} node[near end, sloped] {$>$} -- (1,0.5)node[midway, sloped] {$>$} -- (-1,0.5) node[near start, sloped] {$<$} node[near end, sloped] {$<$} -- cycle node[midway, sloped] {$>$};
\draw (-1,0) node {$\bullet$};
\draw (-1,0) node[below] {$-R$};
\draw (1,0) node {$\bullet$};
\draw (1,0) node[below] {$R$};
\draw (0,0.5) node {$\bullet$};
\draw (0,0.5) node[above right] {$i\eta$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Integrating path for the proof of Lemma \ref{ineg_H}.}
\label{int_path}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
We fix $\eta\in\mathbb{R}$ that we will choose more precisely later. Integrating the function $z\mapsto (iz)^m\exp(izx-\beta z^{2\mu})$ on the rectangle depicted in the Figure \ref{int_path} using the Cauchy formula and passing to the limit $R\rightarrow +\infty$, we obtain
$$\forall \eta\in\mathbb{R}, \quad {H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(m)}(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\mathbb{R} (i(t+i\eta))^me^{i(t+i\eta)x}e^{-\beta (t+i\eta)^{2\mu}}dt.$$
Thus,
$$\left|{H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(m)}(x)\right| \leq \frac{e^{-\eta x}}{2\pi}\int_\mathbb{R} (t^2+\eta^2)^\frac{m}{2}\exp\left(-\Re\left(\beta (t+i\eta)^{2\mu}\right)\right)dt.$$
Using Young's inequality, we can show that there exists a constant $c>0$ such that
$$\forall t\in\mathbb{R}, \quad\Re\left(\beta (t+i\eta)^{2\mu}\right)\geq \frac{\Re(\beta)}{2}t^{2\mu}-c \eta^{2\mu}.$$
and thus there exists $C>0$ independent from $x$ and $\eta$ such that
$$\left|{H_{2\mu}^\beta}^{(m)}(x)\right| \leq C(1+|\eta|^m) e^{-\eta x+c\eta^{2\mu}}.$$
Optimizing $e^{-\eta x+c\eta^{2\mu}}$ with respect to $\eta$ yields the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Lemma \ref{est_Beps}}
We recall here the statement of Lemma \ref{est_Beps}.
\begin{lemma*}[Lemma \ref{est_Beps}, Inequalities in $B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$]
There exists $C>0$ such that for all $\tau \in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$ and $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$, we have
$$ \left|e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} -e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)\right| \leq C n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s} \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|)) $$
and
$$\left|e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left( e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)} -\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)\right| \leq C \left(n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+1}\right)^{s} \exp(n \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j (\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|)). $$
\end{lemma*}
\begin{proof}
We begin with the first inequality. We define the holomorphic function $\mathcal{S}$ such that $$\forall z\in \mathbb{C}, \quad \mathcal{S}(z) = \left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \text{ if }z=0, \\ \frac{\sinh(z)}{z} & \text{ else.} \end{array}\right.$$
We consider $(n,j)\in\mathcal{D}_k$ and $\tau \in B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$. We have
\begin{multline*}
\left|e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} - e^{jQ_{s,k}(\tau)}\right)\right|
= |j||\xi_{s,k}(\tau)||\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s}\left|\mathcal{S}\left(j\frac{\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}}{2}\right)\right|\\ \exp\left(n\Re(\tau) + j \left(\Re(\varpi_{k}(\tau))-\Re\left( \frac{\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}}{2}\right)\right)\right).
\end{multline*}
We observe that the function $z\in\mathbb{C}\mapsto |\mathcal{S}(z)|\exp(-|z|)$ is bounded. Therefore, because the function $\xi_k$ can be bounded on $B_{\varepsilon_\star}(\underline{\tau}_k)$ and $\Re(\tau)= \Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)$,
\begin{multline*}
\left|e^{n\tau} \left( e^{j\varpi_k(\tau)} - \underline{\kappa}_k^je^{j\varphi_k(\tau)}\right)\right| \\ \lesssim n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+s} \exp\left(n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k) + j \left(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))-\Re\left( \frac{\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}}{2}\right)\right)+|j|\frac{|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|}{2}\right).
\end{multline*}
Since we have
\begin{multline*}
j \left(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))-\Re\left( \frac{\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}}{2}\right)\right)+|j|\frac{|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|}{2} \\ \leq j\left(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))+\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|\right).
\end{multline*}
The proof of the second inequality is similar. We define the holomorphic function $\Psi_s$ such that $$\forall z\in \mathbb{C}, \quad \Psi_s(z) = \frac{1}{z^s}\left(e^z-\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{z^l}{l!}\right).$$
We then have
$$e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left( e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)} -\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)=(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^s\Psi_s(jR_{s,k}(\tau))e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} .$$
We observe that the function $z\in\mathbb{C}\mapsto |\Psi_s(z)|\exp(-|z|)$ is bounded. Therefore,
$$\left|e^{n\tau+j\varphi_k(\tau)} \left( e^{jR_{s,k}(\tau)} -\sum_{l=0}^{s-1}\frac{(jR_{s,k}(\tau))^l}{l!}\right)\right|\lesssim (n|\tau-\underline{\tau}_k|^{2\mu_k+1})^{s}\exp(n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k) +j\Re(\varphi_k(\tau))+|jR_{s,k}(\tau)|).$$
We can then conclude the proof of the second inequality.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Lemma \ref{ine_taup}}
We recall here the statement of Lemma \ref{ine_taup}.
\begin{lemma*}[Lemma \ref{ine_taup}, Inequalities on $\Gamma_{k,p}$]
For $(n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\mathrm{sgn}(j)=\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)$ and $\tau\in \Gamma_{k,p}$, we have
$\bullet$ Case A: $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) \in \left[-\frac{\eta}{2},\varepsilon_{k,0}\right]$
\begin{align*}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|) &\leq -nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} - \frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1},\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) &\leq -nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} - \frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1},\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|) &\leq -nc_\star\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} - \frac{n}{\alpha_k} (2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k\left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}.
\end{align*}
$\bullet$ Case B: $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) >\varepsilon_{k,0}$
\begin{align*}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|)&\leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k},\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) &\leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k},\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|) & \leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k}.
\end{align*}
$\bullet$ Case C: $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right) <-\frac{\eta}{2}$
\begin{align*}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|) &\leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k},\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) &\leq -\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k},\\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|) & \leq-\frac{n}{\alpha_k}(2\mu_k-1)A_R\underline{\delta}_k\left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma*}
\begin{proof}
In every case, the second inequality is a direct consequence of the first one. Furthermore, the proof of the first and third inequalities are very similar. For the first one, we will use inequality \eqref{estVarpi} and the third one will rely on inequality \eqref{estR}. Thus, we will focus in each case on the first inequality.
We consider $(n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\mathrm{sgn}(j)=\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)$ and $\tau \in \Gamma_{k,p}$. Using first the inequality \eqref{estVarpi}, the fact that $\tau\in\Gamma_{k,p}$ and finally the inequality \eqref{ine_Re}, we have
\begin{align*}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))+ \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|)&
\leq n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)- \frac{j}{\alpha_k} \Psi_k(\tau_p) \\
&\leq -nc_\star \Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k} +\frac{n}{\alpha_k}\left(\gamma_k \tau_p^{2\mu_k} - 2\mu_k \zeta_k\tau_p \right).
\end{align*}
$\bullet$ First, we consider the case A. Then, we have $\tau_p= \rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_k\tau_p^{2\mu_k} - 2\mu_k\zeta_k\tau_p = -(2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k \left(\frac{|\zeta_k|}{\gamma_k}\right)^\frac{2\mu_k}{2\mu_k-1}\leq0. \label{cas1}
\end{equation}
$\bullet$ We consider the case B. Because $\tau_p= \varepsilon_{k,0}$, we have
$$n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))+ \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|) \leq\frac{n}{\alpha_k}\left(\gamma_k \varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k} - 2\mu_k \zeta_k\varepsilon_{k,0} \right) .$$
We recall that $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)>\varepsilon_{k,0}$ and that $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)$ is the only real root of $-\zeta_k+\gamma_k x^{2\mu_k-1}=0$. Therefore, $-\zeta_k\leq -\gamma_k\varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k-1}$ and
\begin{equation}
\gamma_k\tau_p^{2\mu_k} - 2\mu_k\zeta_k\tau_p \leq -(2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k \varepsilon_{k,0}^{2\mu_k}\leq0.\label{cas2}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{ineg_gamma} to bound $\gamma_k$, we deduce the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi_cas2}.
$\bullet$ Finally, we place ourselves in case C. We have that $\tau_p= -\frac{\eta}{2}$, so
$$n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))+\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k) |\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}|) \leq\frac{n}{\alpha_k}\left(\gamma_k \left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k} + 2\mu_k \zeta_k\frac{\eta}{2}\right) .$$
We recall that $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)<-\frac{\eta}{2}$ and that $\rho_k\left(\frac{\zeta_k}{\gamma_k}\right)$ is the only real root of $-\zeta_k+\gamma_k x^{2\mu_k-1}=0$. Then,
$\zeta_k \leq -\gamma_k\left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k-1}$ and
\begin{equation}
\gamma_k\tau_p^{2\mu_k} - 2\mu_k\zeta_k\tau_p \leq -(2\mu_k-1)\gamma_k \left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^{2\mu_k}\leq0.\label{cas3}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{ineg_gamma} to bound $\gamma_k$, we deduce the inequality \eqref{ine_varpi_cas3}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Lemma \ref{ine_res}}
We recall here the statement of Lemma \ref{ine_res}.
\begin{lemma*}[Lemma \ref{ine_res}]
For $(n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\mathrm{sgn}(j)=\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)$ and $\tau\in \Gamma_{k,res}$, we have in all cases
\begin{align*}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))+ \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k) \left|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}\right|) &\leq -n\frac{\eta}{2}, \\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau)) &\leq -n\frac{\eta}{2}, \\
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varphi_k(\tau)) + \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)|R_{s,k}(\tau)|)&\leq -n\frac{\eta}{2}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma*}
\begin{proof}
For the same reasons as for the proof of Lemma \ref{ine_taup}, we will only focus on the first inequality. We consider $(n,j)\in\mathbb{N}^*\times \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\mathrm{sgn}(j)=\mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)$ and $\tau \in \Gamma_{k,res}$. Using the inequality \eqref{estVarpi} and the facts that $\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}\geq\ell_{k,p}^{2\mu_k}$ and $-\eta+i\ell_{k,p}+\underline{\tau}_k\in \Gamma_{k,p}$, we have
\begin{align*}
n\Re(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)+j(\Re(\varpi_k(\tau))+ \mathrm{sgn}(\alpha_k)\left|\xi_{s,k}(\tau)(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k+s}\right|)&\leq -n\eta -\frac{j}{\alpha_k}\left( -\eta -A_R\eta^{2\mu_k} + A_I\Im(\tau-\underline{\tau}_k)^{2\mu_k}\right)\\
&\leq -n\eta -\frac{j}{\alpha_k} \Psi_k(\tau_p).
\end{align*}
We know that $\eta+\tau_p\geq \frac{\eta}{2}$, so
$$-n\eta- \frac{j}{\alpha_k}(\tau_p - A_R\tau_p^{2\mu_k}) = -n(\eta+\tau_p)+\frac{n}{\alpha_k}\left(\gamma_k\tau_p^{2\mu_k}-2\mu_k\zeta_k\tau_p\right) \leq -n\frac{\eta}{2} + \frac{n}{\alpha_k}\left(\gamma_k\tau_p^{2\mu_k} - 2\mu_k\zeta_k\tau_p\right).$$
We proved at the end of the proof of Lemma \ref{ine_taup} that, in the three cases A, B and C, $\gamma_k\tau_p^{2\mu_k} - 2\mu_k\zeta_k\tau_p$ are non positive (see \eqref{cas1}, \eqref{cas2} and \eqref{cas3}). This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Acknowledgments : } The author would like to thank Jean-François Coulombel and Grégory Faye for their many useful advice and suggestions as well as their attentive reading of the paper. He also would like to thank the referees for their numerous comments and their suggestion to search for an asymptotic expansion up to any order and not only up to order $1$.
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\chapter{Robustness of Graph States Subjected to Noise}
Recall that a graph $G=(V,E)$ is divided into disjoint subsets $U_1,U_2,\ldots,U_l,\ldots$ such that $\bigcup_{l} U_l = V$. The vertices are partitioned in accordance to commonly shared neighbourhoods, hence, if $v_i \in U_a$ and $v_j \in U_b$, then $N(v_i)=N(v_j)$ if $a=b$ and $N(v_i) \neq N(v_j)$ if $a \neq b$. We write that $|U_l|=u_l$ and the shared neighbourhood of $U_l$ is $M_l$ with $|M_l|=m_l$.
In both proofs, sums are taken over all possible combinations of qubits, indexed by vectors. When these vectors are summed, it is taken modulo $2$. For example if $\vec{j}= \{ 1, 1 ,0 \}$ and $\vec{k} = \{ 1, 0 ,1 \}$, then $\vec{j}+\vec{k}=\{ 0, 1 , 1\}$.
\section{Robustness Against IID Dephasing}
After a graph state undergoes iid dephasing, it can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\vec{j}} p^j (1-p)^{n-j} Z_{\vec{j}} \dyad{G} Z_{\vec{j}}.
\end{equation}
Conveniently, the above quantum state is already expressed as a sum of orthogonal pure states, computing the QFI is then a straightforward use of the general expression
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(G^\text{dephasing}) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\vec{j},\vec{k}} \frac{(\lambda_{\vec{j}}-\lambda_{\vec{k}})^2}{\lambda_{\vec{j}}+\lambda_{\vec{k}}} \big| \bra{G} Z_{\vec{j}} \sum_i X_i Z_{\vec{k}} \ket{G} \big|^2,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{\vec{j}}=\lambda_j=p^j(1-p)^{n-j}$. The only non-vanishing terms in the sum occurs when $\vec{j}+\vec{k}=M_l$ for some $l$. We divide $\vec{k}$ into three disjoint parts, $a$ qubits with a flipped phase from the set $U_l$, $b$ qubits with a flipped phase from $M_l$, and $c$ qubits from the remaining qubits
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{Q}(G^\text{dephasing}) &= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{l} \sum_{\vec{k}} \frac{(\lambda_{\vec{k}+M_l}-\lambda_{\vec{k}})^2}{\lambda_{\vec{k}+M_l}+\lambda_{\vec{k}}} \big| \bra{G} Z_{\vec{k}+M_l} \sum_i X_i Z_{\vec{k}} \ket{G} \big|^2 \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{l} \sum_{a=0}^{u_l} \sum_{b=0}^{m_l} \sum_{c=0}^{n-u_l-m_l} \frac{(\lambda_{a-b+c+m_l}-\lambda_{a+b+c})^2}{\lambda_{a-b+c+m_l}+\lambda_{a+b+c}} (u_l-2a)^2 \\
&= \sum_{l} f_l g_l,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
f_l=u_l^2 (1-2p)^2 +4u_l p(1-p) \geq u_l^2 (1-2p)^2,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
g_h &= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=0}^{m_l} \binom{m_l}{j} \frac{\big(p^{m_l-j}(1-p)^j - p^{j}(1-p)^{m_l-j} \big)^2}{p^{m_l-j}(1-p)^j + p^{j}(1-p)^{m_l-j}} \\
&\geq 1-\big(2p(1-p)+1/2 \big)^{m_l} \\
&\geq 1-\big(2p(1-p)+1/2 \big)^{m},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $m=\min_l m_l$. Combining the bounds of $f_l$ and $g_l$ with the fact that $\sum_{l} u_l^2 = \mathcal{Q}(G)$, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(G^\text{dephasing}) \geq (1-2p)^2 \Big( 1-\big(2p(1-p)+1/2 \big)^{m} \Big) \mathcal{Q}(G).
\end{equation}
\section{Robustness Against Finite Erasures}
We return to the stabilizer representation to obtain a useful closed form expression for a graph state $\vec{G}$ subjected to erasures indexed by $\vec{e}$
\begin{equation}
\ket{G} \rightarrow \Tr_{\vec{e}} \dyad{G} = \frac{1}{2^n} \sum_{S \in \mathcal{S}} \Tr_{\vec{e}} S.
\end{equation}
Recall that the stabilizer group $\mathcal{S}$ can be generated by generators $g_i = X_i \bigotimes_{j \in N(i)} Z_j$. Therefore each stabilizer $S$ can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
S=g_1^{a_1}g_2^{a_2} \ldots g_n^{a_n},
\end{equation}
where $a_j \in \{ 0, 1 \}$. Thus, $\Tr_{\vec{e}} S$ vanishes under two conditions. The first is if $a_x=1$ for any $x$ indexed by $\vec{e}$. The second is if $\sum_{j \in N(x)} a_j \equiv 1 \mod 2$ for any $x$ indexed $\vec{e}$. Define the set $L_{\vec{e}}$ to be set of erased qubits and their neighbourhoods
\begin{equation}
L_{\vec{e}} = \bigcup_{x \in \vec{e}} \{ x \} \cup N(x).
\end{equation}
Define $\tilde{Z}$ to be the set of all possible combination of $Z$ operators indexed by a subset of $L_{\vec{e}}$
\begin{equation}
\tilde{Z} = \{ Z_{\vec{j}} \; | \; \vec{j} \subseteq L_{\vec{e}} \}.
\end{equation}
Any stabilizer $S$ which is traced out, i.e $\Tr_{\vec{e}} S = 0$, will commute with half of Pauli operators in $\tilde{Z}$ and anti-commute with the other half. Any stabilizer which is not traced out will commute with all of the operators. From which it follows that, the quantum state after going erasures indexed by $\vec{e}$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:erasedstate}
2^{-|L_{\vec{e}}|}\sum_{\vec{j} \in L_{\vec{e}}} Z_{\vec{j}} \dyad{G} Z_{\vec{j}}.
\end{equation}
As it was noted in the main text, the above mixed state is left as $n$ qubit state for clarity. The traced out systems are equivalent to maximally mixed states, $\mathbb{I}/2$, which are irrelevant with respect to the QFI.
The quantum state in Eq.~\eqref{eq:erasedstate} is written as a sum of orthonormal pure states. The QFI is thus
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{Q}(G^{\text{erasures } \vec{e}}) &= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\vec{j},\vec{k}} \frac{(\lambda_{\vec{j}}-\lambda_{\vec{k}})^2}{\lambda_{\vec{j}}+\lambda_{\vec{k}}} \big| \bra{G} Z_{\vec{j}} \sum_i X_i Z_{\vec{k}} \ket{G} \big|^2 \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{l} \sum_{\vec{k}} \frac{(\lambda_{\vec{k}+M_l}-\lambda_{\vec{k}})^2}{\lambda_{\vec{k}+M_l}+\lambda_{\vec{k}}} \big| \bra{G} Z_{\vec{k}+M_l} \sum_i X_i Z_{\vec{k}} \ket{G} \big|^2,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $2^{-|L_{\vec{e}}|}$ if $\vec{j} \subseteq L_{\vec{e}}$ and $0$ otherwise. It follows then that $\lambda_{\vec{k}+M_l}-\lambda_{\vec{k}}=0$ if $\vec{k},\vec{k}+M_l \subseteq L_{\vec{e}}$. Regardless of $\vec{k}$, this only occurs if $M_l \subseteq L_{\vec{e}}$. If $M_l \nsubseteq L_{\vec{e}}$, the sum over $\vec{k}$ depends on if $U_l \subseteq L_{\vec{e}}$ or $U_l \nsubseteq L_{\vec{e}}$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(G^{\text{erasures } \vec{e}}) = \sum_{l} h_l (\vec{e}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
h_l (\vec{e}) = \begin{cases}
u_l^2 & \text{if } M_l \nsubseteq L_{\vec{e}} \text{ and } U_l \nsubseteq L_{\vec{e}}\\
u_l & \text{if } M_l \nsubseteq L_{\vec{e}} \text{ and } U_l \subseteq L_{\vec{e}} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
\end{document}
\chapter{QFI of a Noisy GHZ State}
\section{Solving the Master Equation}
The dynamics of \textbf{Chapter 5} are governed by the master equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MasterEqAppedix}
\frac{d \rho}{dt}=-\frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \rho ] + \gamma \sum_{m=1}^n (X_m \rho X_m - \rho),
\end{equation}
with $H = \frac{\hbar \omega}{2} \sum_{m=1}^n Z_m$. In this appendix, we derive the solutions to the dynamics, as well as the modified version in which error correction is incorporated.
Without loss of generality, it can be assumed that the solution is of the form
\begin{equation}
\rho = \sum_{j,k} \alpha_{j,k} \dyad{j}{k},
\end{equation}
where $j,k \in \{0,1 \}^{\otimes n}$ are bit strings of length $n$. As such, one approach to solving the master equation, Eq.~\eqref{eq:MasterEqAppedix}, is to view it a system of linear differential equations with respect to the amplitudes $\alpha_{j,k}$. Because, the quantum state is initialized in a GHZ state, the only non-zero amplitudes are those of the form $\alpha_{j,j}$ or $\alpha_{j,\bar{j}}$, where $\ket{\bar{j}}=X^{\otimes n}\ket{j}$. Furthermore, the system of differential equation can be divided into two independent equations
\begin{align}
\frac{d \vec{a}}{dt} &=A \vec{a}, \\
\frac{d \vec{b}}{dt} &=B \vec{b},
\end{align}
where $\vec{a}$ ($\vec{b}$) is a vector of size $2^n$ containing all of the amplitudes of the form $\alpha_{j,j}$ ($\alpha_{j,\bar{j}}$), and
\begin{align}
A &= \sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes m} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
-\gamma & \gamma \\
\gamma & -\gamma
\end{pmatrix} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n-m-1}, \\
B &= \sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes m} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
-i \omega -\gamma & \gamma \\
\gamma & i \omega -\gamma
\end{pmatrix} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n-m-1}.
\end{align}
Both and $A$ and $B$ are time-independent, therefore the solutions are given by the corresponding matrix exponential: $\vec{a}=e^{At}\vec{a}_0$ and $\vec{b}=e^{Bt}\vec{b}_0$ (here $\vec{a}_0$ and $\vec{b}_0$ are the initial amplitude vectors), where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diffeqA}
e^{A t} = e^{-n \gamma t} \begin{pmatrix}
\cosh ( \gamma t ) & \sinh ( \gamma t ) \\
\sinh ( \gamma t ) & \cosh ( \gamma t )
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} = e^{-n \gamma t} \begin{pmatrix}
c_\gamma & s_\gamma \\
s_\gamma & c_\gamma
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diffeqB}
e^{B t} = e^{-n \gamma t} \begin{pmatrix}
\cos ( \Delta t ) - i \frac{\omega}{\Delta} \sin ( \Delta t ) & \frac{\gamma}{\Delta} \sin ( \Delta t ) \\[5pt]
\frac{\gamma}{\Delta} \sin (\Delta t ) & \cos ( \Delta t ) + i \frac{\omega}{\Delta} \sin ( \Delta t )
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} = e^{-n \gamma t} \begin{pmatrix}
x_- & y \\[5pt]
y & x_+
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n},
\end{equation}
with $\Delta=\sqrt{\omega^2-\gamma^2}$. Because this is a solution with complex solutions, there are no issues when $\gamma^2 > \omega^2$, this maps the usual trigonometric functions ($\cos$ and $\sin$) to their hyperbolic counterparts ($\cosh$ and $\sinh$). The notation - $c_\gamma = \cosh ( \gamma t )$, $s_\gamma = \sinh ( \gamma t )$, $y=\frac{\gamma}{\Delta} \sin (\Delta t )$ and $x_\pm = \cos ( \Delta t ) \pm i \frac{\omega}{\Delta} \sin ( \Delta t )$ - is used for conciseness.
\section{QFI without Error Correction}
In the case without error correction, one can simply use the solutions of the differential equations, Eq.~\eqref{eq:diffeqA} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:diffeqB}. The quantum state at time $t$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1}{2} \sum_j \lambda_{j,+} \dyad*{\psi_{j,+}}+\lambda_{j,-} \dyad*{\psi_{j,-}},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{j,\pm}=e^{-n \gamma t} \frac{s_j \pm r_j}{2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi_{j,\pm}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(e^{-i \theta_j /2}\ket{j} \pm e^{+i \theta_j /2} \ket{\bar{j}} \big).
\end{equation}
The factor of $1/2$ in front of the sum is to avoid double counting, because $\lambda_{j,\pm}=\lambda_{\bar{j},\pm}$ and $\ket{\psi_{j,\pm}}=\ket{\psi_{\bar{j},\pm}}$. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors are parameterized by
\begin{align}
s_j &= c_\gamma^{n-h_j} s_\gamma^{h_j}+c_\gamma^{h_j} s_\gamma^{n-h_j}, \\
r_j e^{\pm i \theta_j} &= x_\pm^{h_j} y^{n-h_j}+x_\mp^{n-h_j} y^{h_j},
\end{align}
where $h_j$ is the Hamming weight (number of $1$'s) of $j$. Using the general formula for the QFI, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{Q}_\text{noisy} &= \frac{1}{2}\sum_j \Bigg( \frac{\dot{\lambda}_{j,+}^2}{\lambda_{j,+}} + \frac{\dot{\lambda}_{j,-}^2}{\lambda_{j,-}} + 2\frac{(\lambda_{j,+}-\lambda_{j,-})^2}{\lambda_{j,+}+\lambda_{j,-}} \Big( \big| \braket*{\psi_{j,+}}{\dot{\psi}_{j,-}} \big|^2+\big| \braket*{\psi_{j,-}}{\dot{\psi}_{j,+}} \big|^2 \Big) \Bigg)\\
&= \frac{e^{-n \gamma t}}{2}\sum_j \frac{s_j \dot{r}_j^2}{s_j^2-r_j^2} +\frac{r_j^2}{s_j} \dot{\theta}_j^2 \\
&= n^2t^2\Big(1-\big(2-\frac{4}{3n}\big)\gamma t\Big)+ \mathcal{O}\big( t^4 \big),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the notation $\dot{\square}=\partial_\omega \square$ for clarity and the factor of $1/2$ in front of the sum is again used to avoid double counting.
\section{QFI using the Parity Check Code}
The overall dynamics are modified upon inclusion of error correction. The system evolves in accordance to the master equation, Eq.~\eqref{eq:MasterEqAppedix}, for time $\tau$, after which an error correction operation is performed. This process is repeated until the total time $t$ has passed (it is assumed that $t/\tau$ is an integer).
To incorporate the parity check code into the dynamics, the evolution of the ancillary qubit (indexed by $m=n+1$), which is subjected to dephasing with a rate of $\xi$, must be tracked. The matrix solutions of this altered system are
\begin{equation}
e^{A \tau} = e^{-(n \gamma+\xi) \tau} \begin{pmatrix}
c_\gamma & s_\gamma \\
s_\gamma & c_\gamma
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
c_\xi & s_\xi \\
s_\xi & c_\xi
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
e^{B \tau} = e^{-(n \gamma+\xi) \tau} \begin{pmatrix}
x_- & y \\
y & x_+
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
c_\xi & s_\xi \\
s_\xi & c_\xi
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $c_\xi = \cosh (\xi \tau)$ and $s_\xi = \sinh ( \xi \tau)$. Note that the other variables - $c_\gamma$, $s_\gamma$, $y$ and $x_\pm$ - are in terms of $\tau$ here (not $t$).
When using the parity check code, a correction is made on a sensing qubit if it has a different parity than the ancillary qubit. Imperfect syndrome diagnosis is simulated by adding a probability that the syndrome diagnosis outputs an incorrect result with probability $p$. The overall dynamics of the error correction can be translated into the matrix language
\begin{equation}
E =\begin{pmatrix}
1-p & 1-p \\
p & p \\
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix}
p & p \\
1-p & 1-p \\
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Combing everything, the amplitudes after time $t$, and therefore $t/\tau$ applications of the parity check code, is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:AEvo}
\begin{aligned}
\vec{a} = \big( E e^{A\tau} \big)^{t/\tau} \vec{a}_0
=e^{-\xi t} \Bigg( & \begin{pmatrix}
1-p & 1-p \\
p & p
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
c_\xi & s_\xi \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \\
+& \begin{pmatrix}
p & p \\
1-p & 1-p
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
s_\xi & c_\xi
\end{pmatrix} \Bigg)^{t/\tau} \vec{a}_0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:BEvo}
\begin{aligned}
\vec{b} = \big( E e^{B\tau} \big)^{t/\tau} \vec{b}_0
=r^{nt/\tau}e^{-\xi t} \Bigg( & \begin{pmatrix}
(1-p)e^{-i\phi} & (1-p)e^{i\phi} \\
pe^{-i\phi} & pe^{i\phi}
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
c_\xi & s_\xi \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \\
+& \begin{pmatrix}
pe^{-i\phi} & pe^{i\phi} \\
(1-p)e^{-i\phi} & (1-p)e^{i\phi}
\end{pmatrix}^{\otimes n} \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
s_\xi & c_\xi
\end{pmatrix} \Bigg)^{t/\tau} \vec{b}_0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
re^{\pm i \phi} = e^{-\gamma \tau} ( x_\pm + y ) = e^{-\gamma \tau} \Big( \cos ( \Delta \tau ) + \frac{\gamma \pm i \omega}{\Delta} \sin ( \Delta \tau) \Big).
\end{equation}
It easy to show using Eq.~(\ref{eq:AEvo}) that the final amplitude corresponding to the outer product $\dyad{j0}$ is equal to $\frac{(1-p)^{n-h_j}p^{h_j}}{2}$, and similarly the amplitude corresponding to the outer product $\dyad{\bar{j}1}$ is also equal to $\frac{(1-p)^{n-h_j}p^{h_j}}{2}$ - here $h_j$ is the Hamming weight of the bit string of the sensing qubits, and does not include the ancillary qubit. The solution to Eq.~(\ref{eq:BEvo}) is more complex. After the first round of error correction (and each subsequent round), the amplitude corresponding to the outer product $\dyad{j0}{\bar{j}1}$ is of the form $\frac{(1-p)^{n-h_j}p^{h_j} Re^{-i \theta}}{2}$, and the amplitude corresponding to the outer product $\dyad{\bar{j}1}{j0}$ is of the form $\frac{(1-p)^{n-h_j}p^{h_j} Re^{i \theta}}{2}$. By translating the problem to a recurrence relation between $Re^{-i \theta}$ and $Re^{i \theta}$, the problem becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
Re^{-i \theta} \\
Re^{+i \theta}
\end{pmatrix} &= r^{nt/\tau} e^{-\xi t} \begin{pmatrix}
c_\xi q_- & s_\xi q_+ \\
s_\xi q_- & c_\xi q_+ \\
\end{pmatrix}^N \begin{pmatrix}
\upsilon_- \\
\upsilon_+
\end{pmatrix} \\
&= r^{n t/\tau} e^{-\xi t} \left( \frac{\mu_+ \mu_-^N-\mu_-\mu_+^N}{\mu_+-\mu_-} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} + \frac{ \mu_+^N-\mu_-^N}{\mu_+-\mu_-} \begin{pmatrix}
c_\xi q_- & s_\xi q_+ \\
s_\xi q_- & c_\xi q_+ \\
\end{pmatrix} \right) \begin{pmatrix}
\upsilon_- \\
\upsilon_+
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $N(nt/\tau-1)$, and
\begin{equation}
q_\pm=(1-p)e^{\pm i \phi}+p e^{\mp i \phi},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mu_\pm = c_\xi \cos \phi \pm \sqrt{q_+ q_- s_\xi^2-(1-2p)^2 c_\xi^2 \sin^2 \phi},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\upsilon_\pm = c_\xi e^{\pm i n \phi} + s_\xi e^{\mp i n \phi}.
\end{equation}
In the general setting, with a noisy ancilla and imperfect error correction, the quantum state after time $t$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\rho = \sum_j \lambda_{j,+} \dyad{\psi_{j,+}}+\lambda_{j,-} \dyad{\psi_{j,-}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{j,\pm}=(1-p)^{n-h_j}p^{h_j}\frac{1\pm R}{2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi_{j,\pm}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big( e^{-i\theta/2} \ket{j0}\pm e^{+i\theta/2} \ket{\bar{j}1} \big).
\end{equation}
From which, the QFI can be computed
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q} &= \sum_j \Bigg( \frac{\dot{\lambda}_{j,+}^2}{\lambda_{j,+}} + \frac{\dot{\lambda}_{j,-}^2}{\lambda_{j,-}}+2\frac{(\lambda_{j,+}-\lambda_{j,-})^2}{\lambda_{j,+}+\lambda_{j,-}} \Big( \big| \braket*{\psi_{j,+}}{\dot{\psi}_{j,-}} \big|^2+\big| \braket*{\psi_{j,-}}{\dot{\psi}_{j,+}} \big|^2 \Big) \Bigg)\\
&= \frac{\dot{R}^2}{1-R^2}+R^2 \dot{\theta}^2 .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The various sub-cases are explored in the following subsections.
\subsection{Ideal Error Correction}
The simplest case is when $\xi=0$ and $p=0$. In this scenario $Re^{\pm i \theta}=\big( re^{\pm i \phi}\big)^{nt/\tau}$. The QFI simplifies greatly, it can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}_1 = n^2 t^2 r^{2nt/\tau} f,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:propconstant1}
f=\frac{1}{\tau^2}\Big( \frac{1}{1-r^{2nt/\tau}}\frac{\dot{r}^2}{r^2}+\dot{\phi}^2 \Big) = 1-2 \gamma \tau + \frac{7 \gamma^2 \tau^2}{3} + \frac{4\gamma \tau^2}{3nt} + \mathcal{O} \big(\tau^3 \big),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
r^{2nt/\tau}=1-\frac{4}{3} n t \gamma \omega^2 \tau^2 + \mathcal{O} \big( \tau^3 \big).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Noisy Ancilla}
The second case has a noisy ancillary qubit ($\xi \neq 0$). The analytic expression for $Re^{\pm i \theta}$ is quite complicated; to gauge the effects of the noise a Taylor expansion is performed
\begin{equation}
Re^{\pm i \theta} = (1-\xi t)\big( r e^{\pm i \phi} \big)^{nt/\tau} + \xi \tau \frac{\sin ( n t \phi/\tau )}{\sin ( n \phi )} \big( r e^{\mp i \phi} \big)^{n} + \mathcal{O} \big( \xi^2 \big).
\end{equation}
Which leads to a QFI of
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}_2 =n^2 t^2 r^{2n t /\tau}(f-g \xi)+\mathcal{O} \big( \xi^2 \big),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
g = &\Big(\frac{n \omega t \big(1+3 \cos (2n \omega t)\big)+(n^2 \omega^2 t^2 -2) \sin (2 n \omega t)}{n^3 \omega^3 t^3}+2 \Big)t \\
& + \frac{2\big(n \omega t \cos ( n \omega t )- \sin (n \omega t) \big)^2}{n^2 \omega^2 t^2} \tau \\
& + \Big( \frac{(4n \omega t-2n^3 \omega^3 t^3)\cos (2n \omega t) - (2-5n^2 \omega^2 t^2) \sin (2n \omega t)}{n^3 \omega^3 t^3} - 4 \Big) \gamma t \tau + \mathcal{O} \big( \tau^2 \big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
To simplify analysis, the following inequalities are used:
\begin{gather}
\frac{2}{3} \leq \frac{n \omega t \big(1+3 \cos (2n \omega t)\big)+(n^2 \omega^2 t^2 -2) \sin (2 n \omega t)}{n^3 \omega^3 t^3}+2 \leq \frac{5}{2}, \\
0 \leq \frac{2\big(n \omega t \cos ( n \omega t )- \sin (n \omega t) \big)^2}{n^2 \omega^2 t^2} \leq \frac{5}{2}, \\
-7 \leq \frac{(4n \omega t-2n^3 \omega^3 t^3)\cos (2n \omega t)-(2-5n^2 \omega^2 t^2) \sin (2n \omega t)}{n^3 \omega^3 t^3} -4 \leq 0,
\end{gather}
from which it follows that
\begin{equation}
\Big(\frac{2}{3}-7\gamma \tau \Big)t \leq g + \mathcal{O} \big( \tau^2 \big) \leq \frac{5}{2}(t+\tau).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Imperfect Error Correction}
The third case has imperfect syndrome diagnosis ($p \neq 0$). It is straightforward to show
\begin{equation}
Re^{\pm i \theta} = \big( r e ^{\pm i \phi} \big)^{nt/\tau} \big( q_\pm e^{\mp i \phi} \big)^{n(t/\tau-1)}.
\end{equation}
Which leads to a QFI of
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}_3 = n^2 t^2 (rq)^{2nt/\tau} h,
\end{equation}
with $q^2=q_+ q_-$, which also satisfies
\begin{equation}
q^{2nt/\tau}=1-4p(1-p) \omega^2 t \tau+ \mathcal{O} \big( \tau^2 \big),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
h =(1-2p)^2 f + 4p\Big( \frac{1-p}{n}+1-2p\Big) \frac{\tau}{t} + \mathcal{O} \big( \tau^2 \big).
\end{equation}
\section{QFI using the Generalized Bit Flip Code}
The generalized bit flip code \cite{gottesman1997} does not use an ancillary qubit, instead a global stabilizer measurement is made. The correction made maps the outer product $\dyad{j}{j}$ to $\dyad{0}^{\otimes n}$ if $h_j < n/2$ and $\dyad{1}^{\otimes n}$ if $h_j > n/2$ (it is assumed that $n$ is odd to avoid complications when $h_j = n/2$), it similarly maps $\dyad{j}{\bar{j}}$ to $\dyad{0}{1}^{\otimes n}$ if $h_j < n/2$ and $\dyad{1}{0}^{\otimes n}$ if $h_j > n/2$. This transformation can (just as with the parity check code) be represented as a matrix $E$, where $E^{(j,k)}$ is defined to be the entry of $E$ in the $j$th row and $k$th column
\begin{equation}
E^{(j,k)} = \begin{cases}
1, \text{ if } h_j=0 \text{ and } h_k < \frac{n}{2}\\
1, \text{ if } h_j=n \text{ and } h_k > \frac{n}{2}\\
0, \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Using the same methodology as the parity check code (the main difference being that there is no ancillary qubit), the amplitudes of the final quantum state are given by
\begin{equation}
\vec{a} = \Big( E e^{A \tau} \Big)^{t/\tau} \vec{a}_0,
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation}
\vec{b} = \Big( E e^{B \tau} \Big)^{t/\tau} \vec{b}_0.
\end{equation}
The solution of $\vec{a}$ is trivial; the only non-zero entries are the first and last, both of which are equal to $1/2$. The solution for $\vec{b}$ is more complicated, but the only significant terms of the matrix are the four corner entries. By discarding the other entries, a reduced version of the problem is obtained
\begin{equation}
\vec{b}^\prime = \begin{pmatrix}
\eta_- & \zeta_+ \\
\zeta_- & \eta_+
\end{pmatrix}^{t/\tau} \begin{pmatrix}
1/2 \\
1/2
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
where the first and second entry of $\vec{b}^\prime$ corresponds to the amplitudes of $\dyad{0}{1}^{\otimes n}$ and $\dyad{1}{0}^{\otimes n}$ respectively, and
\begin{equation}
\eta_\pm = e^{-n \gamma \tau }\sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} \binom{n}{m} x_\pm ^{n-m} y^m,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\zeta_\pm = e^{-n \gamma \tau} \sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} \binom{n}{m} x_\pm ^{m} y^{n-m},
\end{equation}
and additionally, $\eta_\pm + \zeta_\pm = \big(r e^{\pm i \phi} \big)^n$. Because $\zeta_\pm \in \mathcal{O} \big( \tau^\frac{n+1}{2} \big)$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
\eta_- & \zeta_+ \\
\zeta_- & \eta_+
\end{pmatrix}^{t/\tau} = \begin{pmatrix}
r^n e^{-ni \phi} & 0 \\
0 & r^n e^{+ni \phi}
\end{pmatrix}^{t/\tau} + \mathcal{O}\big((\tau ^\frac{n-1}{2} \big).
\end{equation}
Therefore, for large $n$ the final quantum state in this scenario is very similar to the final quantum state using the parity check code (with a noiseless ancilla and perfect error correction). Mathematically, it is equivalent up to $\mathcal{O}\big( \tau ^\frac{n-1}{2} \big)$. Thus, the QFI is similarly equivalent up to the same order.
\end{document}
\chapter{Soundness Proofs}
\section{Recurring Mathematical Tools}
Before introducing the derivations of the soundness proofs, some frequently recurring tools present in (most of) the proofs are explained here for the sake of organization.
\subsection{Twirling Lemmas}
The first type recurring tool used in the soundness proofs in this Appendix are Clifford twirling lemmas. The Pauli twirling lemma states \cite{dankert2009} that for any $m$ qubit quantum state $\rho$ and Pauli operators $Q, Q^\prime \in \mathcal{P}_m$, with $Q \neq Q^\prime$
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:PauliTwirl}
\sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} P Q P \rho P Q^\prime P = 0.
\end{equation}
The reason is that because $Q \neq Q^\prime$, $\mathcal{P}_m$ can be divided into four equal sets. One set of operators which commutes with both $Q$ and $Q^\prime$, one set which commutes $Q$ and anti-commutes with $Q^\prime$, one set which anti-commutes with $Q$ and commutes with $Q^\prime$, and one set which anti-commutes with both $Q$ and $Q^\prime$. All four of these are equal in size, from which it follows that the above sum is zero.
The proof of the Clifford twirling lemma \cite{dankert2009} is slightly more involved, but the statement is similar: for any $m$ qubit quantum state $\rho$ and Pauli operators $Q, Q^\prime \in \mathcal{P}_m$, with $Q \neq Q^\prime$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CliffordTwirl}
\sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_m} C Q C^\dagger \rho C Q^\prime C^\dagger = 0.
\end{equation}
The basis of the proof is similar: for any $Q$ and $Q^\prime$ which are not equal and neither of which is the identity, the operators of the Clifford group can be partitioned into sets of four $C_a,C_b,C_c,C_d$ where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:miscgarb1}
C_a Q C_a^\dagger = C_b Q C_b^\dagger = - C_c Q C_c^\dagger = - C_d Q C_d^\dagger,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:miscgarb2}
C_a Q^\prime C_a^\dagger = -C_b Q^\prime C_b^\dagger = C_c Q^\prime C_c^\dagger = - C_d Q^\prime C_d^\dagger.
\end{equation}
When either one of $Q$ or $Q^\prime$ is the identity, the idea is still true except the corresponding relationship, Eq.~\eqref{eq:miscgarb1} or Eq.~\eqref{eq:miscgarb2}, is no longer true by definition, $C \mathbb{I} C^\dagger=\mathbb{I}$.
A corollary of the Clifford twirling lemma is that the results still holds when the sum is restricted to locally acting Clifford operators
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LocalCliffordTwirl}
\sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} C Q C^\dagger \rho C Q^\prime C^\dagger = 0.
\end{equation}
This is apparent when $\rho$ is written as a sum over the Pauli group $P$, and all operators are decomposed into locally acting operators
\begin{equation}
\sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} C Q C^\dagger \rho C Q^\prime C^\dagger = \frac{1}{2^m} \Tr(P \rho) \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} \bigotimes_{j=1}^m \Big( \sum_{C_j \in \mathcal{C}_1} C_j Q_j C_j^\dagger P C_j Q_j^\prime C_j^\dagger \Big).
\end{equation}
Because $Q \neq Q^\prime$ there exists a $j$ such that $Q_j\neq Q_j^\prime$, the Clifford twirling lemma dictates
\begin{equation}
\sum_{C_j \in \mathcal{C}_1} C_j Q_j C_j^\dagger P_j C_j Q_j^\prime C_j^\dagger =0,
\end{equation}
and thus the whole sum is zero, proving the locally acting Clifford twirling lemma. Note that $P_j$ not being a quantum state is irrelevant to the proof of the Clifford twirl.
\subsection{CPTP Representation of a Malicious Attack}
Another recurring mathematical tool used in the soundness proofs is to represent an arbitrary attack as a CPTP map $\Gamma$, which can be expanded in terms of a Kraus decomposition $\{A_\alpha\}$
\begin{equation}
\rho \rightarrow \Gamma ( \rho) = \sum_{\alpha} A_\alpha \rho A_\alpha^\dagger,
\end{equation}
where $\sum_\alpha A_\alpha A_\alpha^\dagger = \mathbb{I}$. Next, a $m$ dimensional Kraus operator can be written with respect to the Pauli basis
\begin{equation}
A_\alpha= \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} a_{\alpha,P} P,
\end{equation}
where $a_{\alpha,P}=2^{-m}\Tr(P A_\alpha)$. Therefore, in the Pauli representation, the action of $\Gamma$ is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\rho) = \sum_{\alpha} \sum_{P,Q} a_{\alpha,P} a_{\alpha,Q}^* P \rho Q,
\end{equation}
where the asterisk denotes the complex conjugate. The completeness relationship reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KrausCompleteness}
\sum_\alpha \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} |a_{\alpha,P} |^2=1.
\end{equation}
\section{Unsecured Quantum Channel}
For this protocol, we assume that the ideal output state $\rho_\text{id}$\footnote{We make this assumption for both the single use of the quantum channel, and the double use of the quantum channel.} is a pure state. This is logical assumption since pure states are superior candidates as a resource for quantum metrology. In doing so, the fidelity component of the soundness is equal to trace, greatly simplifying the expression
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:soundnessexpressions}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} p_\text{acc} (k, \Gamma ) \cdot \Big( 1- \mathscr{F} \big(\rho_\text{id}, \rho_\text{out} ( k,\Gamma ) \big) \Big) \\
=& \frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} p_\text{acc} (k, \Gamma ) \cdot \Big( 1- \Tr \big(\rho_\text{id} \rho_\text{out} ( k,\Gamma ) \big) \Big) \\
=& \frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \Big( \Pi_{\text{acc}}(k) \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \Big),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_f(k,\Gamma)$ is understood as the final ensemble of both ancillary flag qubits and the qubits intended for quantum metrology, and $\Pi_\text{acc}(k)$ projects the ancillary flag qubits onto the `accept state', and the qubits intended for quantum metrology onto $\mathbb{I}-\rho_{\text{id}}$.
\subsection{Trap Code (Single Use)}
When using the trap code, there are a total of $\big|\mathcal{K}\big|=\big| \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m} \big| \binom{m}{t}$ possible classical keys; describing both the choices $k$ and $\ell$. The projector $\Pi_\text{acc}(k)$ depends only on the choice of $\ell$ and is independent of the choice of encryption operation $C$. But for all intents and purposes, it can be expressed as $\Pi_\text{acc}(\ell) = \pi(\ell) \Pi \pi(\ell)^\dagger$ where $\pi(\ell)$ is the permutation corresponding to the random placement of the flag qubits and
\begin{equation}
\Pi = (\mathbb{I}-\rho) \otimes \dyad{0}^{\otimes t}.
\end{equation}
Upon receipt and decryption by Bob, the quantum state for a specific key $k$ and attack $\Gamma$ is
\begin{equation}
\rho_f(k,\Gamma)=C^\dagger \Gamma \big( C \rho_{\text{in},\ell} C^\dagger \big) C,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\text{in},\ell}= \pi(\ell) \rho \otimes \dyad{0}^{\otimes t} \pi(\ell)^\dagger$. Thus the soundness is a bound on the quantity
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\binom{m}{t}|\mathcal{C}_1|^m} \sum_{\ell} \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \Tr \Big( \Pi \pi(\ell)^\dagger \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \pi(\ell) \Big).
\end{equation}
Because of the linearity of the trace, the sum over $C$ can be brought into the trace, which is simplified by expanding $\Gamma$ into a Kraus decomposition and the locally acting Clifford twirling lemma
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \rho_f (k,\Gamma) = & \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \sum_{\alpha} C^\dagger A_\alpha C \rho_{\text{in},\ell} C^\dagger A_\alpha^\dagger C \\
=& \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \sum_{\alpha} \sum_{P_1,P_2 \in \mathcal{P}_m} a_{\alpha,P_1} a_{\alpha,P_2}^* C^\dagger P_1 C \rho_{\text{in},\ell} C^\dagger P_2 C \\
=& \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \sum_{\alpha} \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} |a_{\alpha,P}|^2 C^\dagger P C \rho_{\text{in},\ell} C^\dagger P C. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The next simplification uses the fact that the single qubit Clifford group $\mathcal{C}_1$ maps any non-identity Pauli into an equal distribution over the set $\{ \pm X, \pm Y, \pm Z \}$. It then follows that if $P$ has $d(P)$ non-identity terms, then $CPC^\dagger$ is a similar Pauli operator $\tilde{P}$ (with a phase of $\pm 1$). Specifically, $\tilde{P}$ has the same number of non-identity terms which are indexed by the same positions as the non-identity terms of $P$. The notion of `similarity' is denoted using $
\sim$, for example $\mathbb{I} \otimes X \sim \mathbb{I} \otimes Y \sim \mathbb{I} \otimes Z$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{C}_1|^m} \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \rho_f (k,\Gamma) = \sum_{\alpha} \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} \frac{|a_{\alpha,P}|^2 }{3^{d(P)}} \sum_{\tilde{P} \sim P} \tilde{P} \rho_{\text{in},\ell} \tilde{P}.
\end{equation}
Combining everything thus far
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \Big( \Pi_{\text{acc}}(k) \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \Big)\\
=& \frac{1}{\binom{m}{t}} \sum_\ell \sum_\alpha \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} \frac{|a_{\alpha,P}|^2}{3^{d(P)}} \sum_{\tilde{P} \sim P} \Tr \Big( \Pi \pi(\ell)^\dagger \tilde{P} \pi(\ell) \rho \otimes \dyad{0}^{\otimes t} \pi(\ell)^\dagger \tilde{P} \pi(\ell) \Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If $d(P)=0$, then $P$ is identically the identity and the trace is zero. For any $d(P) >0$ and $s \leq d(P)$, there are $\binom{m-d(P)}{t-s}$ permutations $\ell$ where the non-identity terms of $P$ interact with $s$ trap qubits. The only $\tilde{P}$ which results in a non-zero trace is the unique possibility of $Z$ acting on all the $s$ trap qubits. Additionally, when $d(P) \leq t$ and $s=d(P)$ the trace is identically zero, since the Pauli is uniquely acting on the qubits intended for quantum metrology. Otherwise, the trace onto the first $n$ qubits can be bounded by $1$. Hence,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \Big( \Pi_{\text{acc}}(k) \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \Big) &\leq \sum_{\alpha} \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} |a_{\alpha,P}|^2 \sum_{s=0}^{s_\text{max}} \frac{1}{3^s} \frac{\binom{m-d(P)}{t-s}}{\binom{m}{t}} \\
&= \frac{1}{\binom{m}{t}} \sum_{r=1}^m c_r \sum_{s=0}^{s_\text{max}} \frac{1}{3^s} \frac{\binom{m-r}{t-s}}{\binom{m}{t}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $d(P)$ has been replaced by $r$ as it is no longer dependent on a specific Pauli $P$, $s_\text{max}=r-1$ if $r \leq t$ and $s_\text{max}=t$ otherwise, and $c_r$ is the sum of all $|a_{\alpha,P}|^2$ with $r$ total non-identity indices spanned by $P$. The completeness relationship, Eq.~\eqref{eq:KrausCompleteness}, guarantees that $c_r \leq 1$. Using the upper bound for $c_r$ and swapping the sums of $s$ and $r$, the inequality becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \Big( \Pi_{\text{acc}}(k) \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \Big) &\leq \frac{1}{\binom{m}{t}} \sum_{s=0}^t \Big( \frac{1}{3} \Big)^s \sum_{r=s+1}^{m} \binom{m-r}{t-s} \\
&=\frac{1}{\binom{m}{t}} \sum_{s=0}^t \Big( \frac{1}{3} \Big)^s \binom{m-s}{t-s+1} \\
&= \frac{m-t}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^t \Big( \frac{1}{3} \Big)^s \frac{(t+1)!(m-s)!}{(t-s+1)!m!} \\
&= \frac{m-t}{t+1}+\frac{m-t}{t+1}\sum_{s=1}^t \Big( \frac{1}{3} \Big)^s \prod_{j=0}^{s-1} \frac{t+1-j}{m-j} \\
&\leq \frac{m-t}{t+1}+\frac{m-t}{t+1}\sum_{s=1}^t \Big( \frac{1}{3} \Big)^s \big(\frac{t+1}{m}\big)^s \\
&\leq \frac{3}{2} \frac{m-t}{t}. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Clifford Code (Single Use)}
Using the Clifford code, the key is solely dependent on the choice of $C \in \mathcal{C}_m$. The projector $\Pi_{\text{acc}}(k)=(\mathbb{I}-\rho) \otimes \dyad{0}^{\otimes t}$ is independent from this choice.
The derivation begins in a similar fashion to that of the trap code, where the output quantum state is simplified using the Clifford twirling lemma
\begin{equation}
\sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \rho_f (C,\Gamma) = \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_m} \sum_{\alpha} \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} |a_{\alpha,P}|^2 C^\dagger P C \rho_{\text{in}} C^\dagger P C.
\end{equation}
However, in this case the above can be further simplified as the Clifford group maps any non-identity Pauli uniformly to all other non-identity Pauli operators (up to a phase of $\pm 1$)
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{C}_m|} \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_m} C^\dagger P C \rho C^\dagger P C = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{P}_m|-1}\sum_{P^\prime \neq \mathbb{I} \in \mathcal{P}_m} P^\prime \rho P^\prime =\frac{1}{4^m-1} (2^m\mathbb{I}-\rho).
\end{equation}
Denoting $a=\sum_\alpha |a_{\alpha,\mathbb{I}}|^2$, the expected final state is
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{C}_m|} \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_m} \rho_f(C,\Gamma) = a \rho_\text{in} +\frac{1-a}{4^m-1}(2^m\mathbb{I}-\rho_\text{in}),
\end{equation}
from which it follows that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \Big( \Pi_{\text{acc}}(k) \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \Big) = \Big(a-\frac{1-a}{4^m-1}\Big) \Tr \big( \Pi \rho_\text{in} \big)+2^m\frac{1-a}{4^m-1} \Tr \big( \Pi \big).
\end{equation}
The first trace is null because $\Tr\big(( \mathbb{I}-\rho)\rho \big)=0$ and the second trace is equal to $2^{m-t}-1$, hence
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \Big( \Pi_{\text{acc}}(k) \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \Big) \leq \frac{2^m(2^{m-t}-1)}{4^m-1} \leq \frac{2^m \cdot 2^{m-t}}{4^m} \leq 2^{-t}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Trap Code (Double Use)}
In the double use of the quantum channel, depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QM_channeltwice}), a malicious eavesdropper can interact with the quantum channel twice. These interactions can both be represented as CPTP maps, $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$. For the trap code, the set of keys is now comprised of the random placement of the flags $\ell$, and two Clifford operations $C_1,C_2 \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}$. The projector $\Pi_\text{acc}(k)$ is once again of the form $\pi(\ell) \Pi \pi(\ell)^\dagger$, with the change that $\Pi$ projects onto the encoded quantum state (which is still assumed to be a pure state)
\begin{equation}
\Pi = (\mathbb{I}-\Lambda_\theta(\rho)) \otimes \dyad{0}^{\otimes t}
\end{equation}
After undergoing the final decryption by Alice, the final quantum state for a specific key $k$ and attacks $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_f(k,\Gamma)=C_2^\dagger \Gamma_2 \big( C_2 \Lambda_\theta^{(\ell)} \big( C_1^\dagger \Gamma_2 \big( C_1 \rho_{\text{in},\ell} C_1^\dagger \big) C_1 \big) C_2^\dagger \big) C_2,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_\theta^{(\ell)}$ is the parameter encoding operation which only acts on the qubits intended for quantum metrology, if $\sigma$ is an $m$ dimensional quantum state then
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_\theta^{(\ell)}(\sigma) = \pi(\ell) \big( \Lambda_\theta \otimes \mathbb{I} \big) \big( \pi(\ell)^\dagger \sigma \pi(\ell) \big) \pi(\ell)^\dagger,
\end{equation}
where the identity term in the above equation represents the identity channel acting on the final $t$ qubits. Using the same techniques used in the trap code (single use) proof, the sum over $C_1$ and $C_2$ can be brought into the trace. By representing $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ using Kraus decomposition $\{A_\alpha \}$ and $\{ B_\beta \}$ respectively, and further reducing these operators in the Pauli basis, the sum over $C_1$ and $C_2$ is greatly simplified thanks to the local Clifford twirling lemmas
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{C_1,C_2 \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \rho_f(k,\Gamma) \\
=& \sum_{C_1,C_2 \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \sum_{\alpha,\beta} \sum_{P,Q \in \mathcal{P}_m} |a_{\alpha,P}|^2 |b_{\beta,Q}|^2 C_2^\dagger Q C_2 \Lambda_\theta^{(\ell)} \big( C_1^\dagger P C_1 \rho_{\text{in},\ell} C_1^\dagger P C_1 \big) C_2^\dagger Q C_2,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $a_{\alpha,P} = \Tr(A_\alpha P)$ and $b_{\beta,Q} = \Tr(B_\beta Q)$, which satisfy the completeness relationships $\sum_{\alpha,P}|a_{\alpha,P}|^2=\sum_{\beta,Q}|b_{\beta,Q}|^2=1$. This is once again simplified using the notation of similar Pauli operators
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{C}_1|^{2m}} \sum_{C_1,C_2 \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \rho_f (\Gamma) = \sum_{\alpha,\beta} \sum_{P,Q \in \mathcal{P}_m} \frac{|a_{\alpha,P}|^2 |b_{\beta,Q}|^2 }{3^{d(P)+d(Q)}} \sum_{\substack{\tilde{P} \sim P \\ \tilde{Q} \sim Q}} \tilde{Q} \Lambda_\theta^{(\ell)} \big( \tilde{P} \rho_{\text{in},\ell} \tilde{P} \big) \tilde{Q}.
\end{equation}
Combining everything thus far
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \Big( \Pi_{\text{acc}}(k) \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \Big)\\
=& \frac{1}{\binom{m}{t}} \sum_\ell \sum_{\alpha,\beta} \sum_{P,Q \in \mathcal{P}_m} \frac{|a_{\alpha,P}|^2 |b_{\beta,Q}|^2 }{3^{d(P)+d(Q)}} \sum_{\substack{\tilde{P} \sim P \\ \tilde{Q} \sim Q}} \Tr \Big( \Pi \pi(\ell) \tilde{Q} \Lambda_\theta^{(\ell)} \big( \tilde{P} \rho_{\text{in},\ell} \tilde{P} \big) \tilde{Q} \pi(\ell)^\dagger \Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To simplify the above expression, we use a slightly different argument to the protocol for the single use case. This time we define $r$ to be the number of non-identity indices spanned by $P$ or $Q$. For example the total number of non-identity indices spanned by $P=\mathbb{I} \otimes X \otimes Z$ and $Q=\mathbb{I} \otimes X \otimes \mathbb{I}$ is $r=2$. Again, for any $s \leq r$, there are $\binom{m-r}{t-s}$ permutations of the trap qubits where the non-identity indices spanned by $P$ or $Q$ interact with $s$ trap qubits. The number of $\tilde{P}$ and $\tilde{Q}$ which results in an accepted outcome is less than $(\frac{5}{9})^s\cdot{3^{d(P)+d(Q)}}$. This is because when the non-identity terms of $\tilde{P}$ and $\tilde{Q}$ do not overlap, the only accepted Pauli is $Z$ (which is $1/3<5/9$ of the possibilities), however, when there is overlap at said index, the Pauli's which are accepted are $ZZ$, $XX$, $YY$, $XY$ and $YX$ (which is $5/9$ of the possibilities). The orthogonal compliment portion of the projector $\Pi$ is again equal to zero when all of the $r$ non-identity terms interact with the trap qubits. Mathematically, in this version of the protocol, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \big( \Pi_\text{acc}(k) \rho_f (k, \Gamma) \big) &\leq \sum_{\alpha,\beta} \sum_{P,Q} |a_{\alpha,P}|^2 |b_{\beta,Q}|^2 \sum_{s=0}^{s_\text{max}} \Big( \frac{5}{9} \Big)^s \frac{\binom{m-r}{t-s}}{\binom{m}{t}} \\
&= \sum_{r=0}^m c_r \sum_{s=0}^{s_\text{max}} \Big( \frac{5}{9} \Big)^s \frac{\binom{m-r}{t-s}}{\binom{m}{t}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
once again $s_\text{max}=r-1$ for $r \leq t$ and $s_\text{max}=t$ otherwise, and here $c_r \leq 1$ is the sum of all $|a_{\alpha,P}|^2 |b_{\beta,Q}|^2$ with $r$ total non-identity indices spanned by $P$ and $Q$. Using the upper bound for $c_r$ and swapping the sums of $s$ and $r$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \big( \Pi_\text{acc}(k) \rho_f (k, \Gamma) \big) &\leq \frac{1}{\binom{m}{t}} \sum_{s=0}^t \Big( \frac{5}{9} \Big)^s \sum_{r=s+1}^{m} \binom{m-r}{t-s} \\
&=\frac{1}{\binom{m}{t}} \sum_{s=0}^t \Big( \frac{5}{9} \Big)^s \binom{m-s}{t-s+1} \\
&= \frac{m-t}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^t \Big( \frac{5}{9} \Big)^s \frac{(t+1)!(m-s)!}{(t-s+1)!m!} \\
&= \frac{m-t}{t+1}+\frac{m-t}{t+1}\sum_{s=1}^t \Big( \frac{5}{9} \Big)^s \prod_{j=0}^{s-1} \frac{t+1-j}{m-j} \\
&\leq \frac{m-t}{t+1}+\frac{m-t}{t+1}\sum_{s=1}^t \Big( \frac{5}{9} \Big)^s \big(\frac{t+1}{m}\big)^s \\
&\leq \frac{9}{4} \frac{m-t}{t+1} \\
&\leq \frac{9}{4} \frac{m-t}{t}. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Clifford Code (Double Use)}
In the double use of the quantum channel, the soundness derivation for the Clifford code is very similar to the proof in the single use case. Simplification using the Clifford twirling lemma leads to the expression
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{C_1,C_2 \in \mathcal{C}_m} \rho_f(k,\Gamma) \\
=& \sum_{C_1,C_2 \in \mathcal{C}_m} \sum_{\alpha,\beta} \sum_{P,Q \in \mathcal{P}_m} |a_{\alpha,P}|^2 |b_{\beta,Q}|^2 C_2^\dagger Q C_2 \Lambda_\theta \big( C_1^\dagger P C_1 \rho_{\text{in}} C_1^\dagger P C_1 \big) C_2^\dagger Q C_2,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where it is understood that $\Lambda_\theta$ acts exclusively on the first $n$ qubits. Define $a=\sum_\alpha |a_{\alpha,\mathbb{I}}|^2$ and $b=\sum_\beta |a_{\beta,\mathbb{I}}|^2$. Using the same logic introduced in the single use case, the expected final state is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \rho_f(k,\Gamma) \\
=& \Big(ab-\frac{a(1-b)+b(1-a)}{4^m-1}+\frac{(1-a)(1-b)}{(4^m-1)^2} \Big) \Lambda_\theta \big(\rho_\text{in} \big) \\
&+\frac{(1-a)b+a(1-b)}{4^m-1} 2^m \mathbb{I}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Because
\begin{equation}
\max_{0 \leq a,b \leq 1} \big( (1-a)b+a(1-b) \big)=1,
\end{equation}
it follows that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \big( \Pi_\text{acc}(k) \rho_f(k,\Gamma) \big) = \frac{(1-a)b+a(1-b)}{4^m-1} 2^{m}(2^{m-t}-1) \leq \frac{1}{2^t}.
\end{equation}
\section{Delegated Measurements}
After post-processing, the measurement result Alice receives stems from the measurement statistics of
\begin{equation}
\pi^\dagger C^\dagger \mathcal{M} \big( \tilde{\rho}=\Gamma(C \pi \rho_\text{in} \pi^\dagger C^\dagger ) \big) C \pi,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{M}$ corresponds to measuring the quantum states in the basis of $C (P^{\otimes n} \otimes Z^{\otimes t}) C^\dagger$. If $\mathcal{M}_{\text{id}}$ is the measurement with respect to the basis of $P^{\otimes n} \otimes Z^{\otimes t}$, then
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(\sigma) = C \pi \mathcal{M}_\text{id}(\pi^\dagger C^\dagger \sigma C \pi ) \pi^\dagger C^\dagger,
\end{equation}
and thus, after post-processing, the measurement result Alice receives stems from the measurement statistics of
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_\text{id}\big( \pi^\dagger C^\dagger \Gamma(C \pi \rho_\text{in} \pi^\dagger C^\dagger ) C \pi \big).
\end{equation}
Suppose that Alice accepts measurement results, then the remaining measurement statistics will be of the form $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_\text{id}(\rho_\text{out}(k,\Gamma)$, where $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_\text{id}$ is restricted to the measurement results of the $n$ qubits for quantum metrology. The fidelity term in the soundness is bounded
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{F} \Big( \bar{\mathcal{M}}_\text{id} \big( \rho_\text{id} \big), \bar{\mathcal{M}}_\text{id} \big( \rho_\text{out}(k,\Gamma) \big) \Big) \geq \mathscr{F} \Big( \rho_\text{id} , \rho_\text{out}(k,\Gamma) \Big) = \Tr \Big( \rho_\text{id} \rho_\text{out}(k,\Gamma) \Big) ,
\end{equation}
due to the monotonicity of the fidelity. Thus, the soundness is again bounded by the quantity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:soundnessexpressions2}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} p_\text{acc} (k, \Gamma ) \cdot \Big( 1- \mathscr{F} \big(\mathcal{M}_1(\rho_\text{id}), \mathcal{M}_1(\rho_\text{out} ( k,\Gamma )) \big) \Big) \\
\leq & \frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} p_\text{acc} (k, \Gamma ) \cdot \Big( 1- \Tr \big(\rho_\text{id} \rho_\text{out} ( k,\Gamma ) \big) \Big) \\
=& \frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \Tr \Big( \Pi_{\text{acc}}(k) \rho_f (k,\Gamma) \Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The same notation is used here as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:soundnessexpressions}, where
\begin{equation}
\rho_f(k,\Gamma) = \pi^\dagger C^\dagger \Gamma(C \pi \rho_\text{in} \pi^\dagger C^\dagger ) C \pi
\end{equation}
is understood as the ensemble of both ancillary flag qubits and the qubits intended for quantum metrology from which the measurement statistics are derived from, and
\begin{equation}
\Pi_\text{acc}(k)=\Pi=(\mathbb{I}-\rho_\text{id}) \otimes \dyad{0}^{\otimes t}
\end{equation}
projects the ancillary flag qubits onto the `accept state', and the qubits intended for quantum metrology onto $\mathbb{I}-\rho_{\text{id}}$. More specifically, this combination of $\rho_f(k,\Gamma)$ and $\Pi_\text{acc}(k)$ is equivalent to that of the soundness derivaiton for the single use of the trap code over a quantum channel, and thus the same techniques mathematical techniques can be applied to find that the soundness is bounded by $\frac{3n}{2t}$.
\end{document}
\chapter{Introduction}
\section{Quantum Technologies}
The advent of quantum theory has completely revolutionized modern physics. The underlying dynamics are perplexing and counter intuitive - e.g. depending on the circumstance, electrons exhibit wave-like or particle-like behaviour \cite{davisson1928} - and has since changed our perspective of the universe at the microscopic level.
\begin{quote}
\textit{Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.} \begin{flushright} -Niels Bohr \end{flushright}
\end{quote}
Erwin Schrödinger received a Nobel prize in 1933 for his work establishing the basis of quantum mechanics and atomic theory. Be that as it may, nearly twenty years later in 1953, he begins a lecture in Dublin with a humorous forewarning that the contents of the lecture may seem `lunatic' \cite{bitbol1996}. Clearly said in jest, there is inherent truth in this statement. Quantum theory allows for dynamics which are not observed at the macroscopic level, and as a result are difficult to envisage. The most prominent of which are: entanglement and superposition. \textit{Quantum entanglement} is a term coined to indicate non-classical correlations between quantum systems. When a single constituent of an entangled quantum system is measured, the effects propagate amongst the complete system. \textit{Quantum superposition} is the principle that any configuration of superposed quantum states is also an allowable quantum state.
The first theoretical prototypes of quantum computers were pioneered in the 1980's \cite{benioff1980, feynman1982, deutsch1985}; this was the beginning of the quantum information zeitgeist. Such a computer would be compromised of microscopic objects subjected to the realm of quantum mechanics. In particular, a two level quantum system, such as the spin of an electron, is characterized as a quantum version of the traditional binary bit - usually abbreviated to \textit{qubit}. By virtue of quantum mechanical effects, such as entanglement and superposition, a quantum computer can greatly outperform the abilities of a classical (i.e. inherently \textit{not}-quantum) computer \cite{preskill2012}. For example, Shor's algorithm (an algorithm designed to be carried out on quantum computers) can find the prime factorization of large numbers in a small amount of time \cite{shor1994}; a task which is extremely difficult for the world's most state of the art supercomputer. In 2019, Google demonstrated that their 53 qubit quantum computer could execute a sampling task in 200 seconds \cite{arute2019}. Even though IBM showed that this task could be executed by a classical computer in two and a half days \cite{pednault2019}, it quickly converges to an impossible problem for a classical computer as the number of qubits increase incrementally. Practically, we are entering the era where classical computers cannot compete.
Quantum computing is not the unique technology proposed as an advantageous version of its classical analogue. For the past few decades, academic and government institutions, and even some companies such as Google and IBM, have increased their investment and support in the quest of designing quantum technologies \cite{dowling2003}. In China, satellites are being used for long distance quantum key distribution \cite{liao2017}. In Europe, a rudimentary version of a quantum internet is in development \cite{kimble2008, wehner2018}. Quantum technologies are often divided into four categories depending on their scope: quantum computation, quantum simulation, quantum communication, and quantum metrology and sensing \cite{acin2018}. The focal point of this thesis is quantum metrology and sensing technologies enhanced by other quantum information techniques, namely graph states (computation and communication), quantum error correction (computation) and quantum cryptography (communication).
\textit{Quantum metrology and sensing} is a relatively new and auspicious type of quantum technology \cite{paris2009, toth2014, degen2017}, in which quantum phenomena are exploited to accurately estimate physical parameters with a precision which cannot matched with the best classical strategies \cite{caves1981}. Since the publication of \textit{Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit} \cite{giovannetti2004} by Giovannetti, Lloyd and Maccone, there has been a surge of interest in the field. Current research is flourishing at a theoretical and experimental level.
\section{Metrology: From Classical to Quantum}
\textit{Metrology}, the science of measurement and precision, is often not discussed and regularly misunderstood as meteorology (the science of weather). Be that as it may, metrology plays a critical role in the advancement of science. Scientific theories are tested by observing a physical processes predicted by said theory; in physics and chemistry this step is often carried out by performing a measurement. As the accuracy of technology improves, more theories are put to the test. In 2016, LIGO (in collaboration with VIRGO) announced successful observations of gravitational waves\footnote{The experiment is currently being upgraded to use squeezed light which will allow for an even more accurate measurement \cite{LIGOSqueezed}.}\footnote{A Michelson interferometer with arms which spanned four kilometers in length was used in the experiment, and the achieved precision was comparable to measuring the distance from Earth to the nearest star (besides the sun) with an uncertainty smaller than the width of a human hair \cite{LIGOfacts}.} \cite{LIGO}, a phenomenon predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. In 2021, the standard model for particle physics was put under scrutiny after Fermilab released their measurement results of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the muon \cite{fermilab2021}, in which the measured value was different than the predicted value by the current theory. In a similar vein to its importance to science, metrology is an unsung hero of engineering, architecture and design. A chair/table/house/bridge in which the lengths are measured up to the nearest tenth of millimeter is more reliable and safe than a counterpart in which the lengths are measured up to the nearest centimeter.
Alas, most physical parameters of interest cannot be associated with a direct measurement process. A more accurate description is to say such a parameter is \textit{estimated}. The underlying tool of constructing an estimate is still a measurement of a related (measurable) quantity. In the LIGO experiment, the gravitational wave introduced a relative phase in the light source. A relative phase is not a directly measurable quantity, instead the phase was estimated from the observed interference pattern. Formally, \textit{estimation theory} is the branch of statistics which establishes techniques and the mathematical formalism pertaining to estimating unknown parameters from measured empirical data \cite{kay1993, cox2006}. It is the principal mathematics of metrology.
There are two major philosophies of estimation theory: the Bayesian approach and the frequentist approach. The Bayesian approach is used for stochastic parameters and the frequentist approach is used for deterministic parameters. This thesis focuses uniquely on the frequentist approach to quantum metrology\footnote{A summary of Bayesian estimation theory is provided in \textbf{Chapter 3} for completeness.}. With sufficient measurement data, the frequency of observations will begin to mimic the true probability distribution, hence the name `frequentist'. In principle, a deterministic parameter can be estimated to any degree of precision with a sufficiently large set of empirical data. The precision of an estimate is denoted by the mean-squared error. Within the frequentist framework, this is ultimately bounded by the reciprocal of the Fisher information - a measure of how much information the measurable data contains about the unknown data \cite{fisher1925, kullback1997}. This bound is called the Cramér-Rao bound \cite{cramer1946, radhakrishna1945}.
Estimation theory was formally adapted to realm of quantum information in the latter half of the 20th century by Helstrom \cite{helstrom1967, helstrom1968, helstrom1969} and Holevo \cite{holevo1973, holevo1982}. The established terminology to describe quantum parameter estimation is difficult to misconstrue; as the rhetorical tradition dictates, existing terminology is preceded by the word \textit{quantum}, for example \textit{quantum Cramér-Rao bound}, \textit{quantum Fisher information}, et cetera \cite{braunstein1994, hayashi2005}. In quantum parameter estimation problems, an unknown parameter is encoded into a quantum probe by a physical interaction. As a result of quantum phenomena, quantum parameter estimation problems can attain a precision impossible to a purely classical system \cite{caves1981, bondurant1984}. An experimental quantum advantage has been reported using optical systems \cite{okamoto2008, kacprowicz2010, xiang2011}, atomic systems \cite{meyer2001, taylor2008, facon2016, chalopin2018, dietsche2019} and superconducting circuits \cite{wang2019}.
\textit{Phase estimation} is the canonical problem of quantum metrology \cite{holland1993, giovannetti2004, toth2014}. An unknown phase is encoded in an $n$ qubit highly entangled GHZ state, and a simple measurement strategy can be implemented to estimate the unknown phase such that the mean squared error scales as $1/n^2$. This notion of precision (where the quantum Cramér-Rao bound is saturated) is referred to as the \textit{Heisenberg limit}: the ultimate limit of precision enabled by quantum mechanics \cite{giovannetti2006}. With respect to phase estimation, the Heisenberg limit is a quadratic advantage over the analogous scenario sans non-classical correlations (i.e. the $n$ qubits are not entangled). Here the mean-squared error is dictated by the central limit theorem and scales as $1/n$, this notion of precision is commonly referred to as the \textit{standard quantum limit}, classical limit or the shot-noise limit.
The applicability of quantum metrology spans a number of domains. These include, but are not limited to, magnetometry \cite{taylor2008, wasilewski2010, sewell2012, brask2015, razzoli2019}, thermometry \cite{neumann2013, toyli2013, correa2015}, spectroscopy \cite{meyer2001, leibfried2004, kira2011, dorfman2016,shaniv2018}, imaging \cite{lugiato2002, barzanjeh2015, genovese2016}, gravimetry \cite{qvarfort2018, kritsotakis2018} and clock synchronization \cite{giovannetti2001, appel2009, ludlow2015, schioppo2017}. Quantum metrology is particularly appealing for biology and medicine \cite{pena2012, schirhagl2014, taylor2016, mejia2018}, where probing a sample is often destructive in nature, and so the non-classical correlations of quantum systems may lead to a reduction in the number of probes required whilst still attaining a required precision.
\section{Motivation}
The overarching theme of this thesis is the incorporation of other quantum information techniques within the usual quantum metrology framework. Specifically, we explore the immersion of graph states \cite{SM20}, quantum error correction \cite{SMMN21}, and quantum cryptography \cite{SMK21, SM21}. All of these technologies offer a unique functionality to the standard quantum metrology problem with respect to different circumstances.
Firstly, in the case of graph states, having an multi-purposeful resource is very desirable for the realm of quantum technologies, as focusing on a specific class of quantum states will greatly facilitate the design and implementation of quantum hardware. Graph states \cite{hein2004} come to mind as a potential `super resource', as they are used for many tasks in quantum computation \cite{schlingemann2001a, raussendorf2003} and quantum communication \cite{markham2008, meignant2019, hahn2019}. In this context then, it is a natural question to ask which graph states are an efficient resource for quantum metrology \cite{SM20}.
Secondly, we consider the utility of error correction. One of the biggest obstacles for early generations quantum hardware will be its susceptibility to quantum noise. It is known that said noise imposes many challenge for quantum metrology \cite{escher2011a, escher2011b, demkowicz2012, kolodynski2013}. It has been shown that quantum error correction can be used to completely mitigate the effects of noise \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018}. Unfortunately, the necessary frequency of error correction is impossible for current quantum hardware \cite{cramer2016, ofek2016}. Thus, it is important to determine the utility of quantum error correction in a real world scenario \cite{SMMN21}.
Finally, we consider a cryptographic framework. Another obstacle for the early generations of quantum hardware is the lack of `all-in-one' devices. Because quantum metrology is technologically demanding, one solution is to delegate some of the difficult tasks to a third party with more computational power. In this event, quantum information will have to be transmitted through a quantum channel. This raises several security issues, as quantum channels can be intercepted by malicious adversaries. It is critical to properly adapt the parameter estimation problem in such a cryptographic setting as many of the standard assumptions, namely having an unbiased estimator, may not necessarily be true \cite{SMK21}. An equally important task is to create cryptographic protocols which do not interfere with the underlying quantum metrology problem, but provide a sense of privacy and security \cite{SMK21, SM21}.
Formally, multiple parties communicating through a quantum channel is known as a quantum network \cite{chiribella2009}. Quantum networks have been proposed as a resource for spatially separated quantum metrology and multiparameter quantum metrology \cite{komar2014, komar2016, eldredge2018, ge2018, proctor2018, zhuang2018, qian2019, rubio2020a, guo2020}. The quantum technologies discussed in this thesis (graph states, error correction and cryptography) all fit in naturally within the framework of quantum networks. A future perspective is to combine these works in interesting and useful ways. Currently, we are combining the cryptographically themed results to establish a notion of a secure quantum sensing network.
\section{Thesis Outline}
The subsequent chapters of this thesis are partitioned into two preliminary chapters, three research chapters and a discussion chapter. The research chapters provide insight on the projects I worked on during my PhD in a pedagogical fashion. Following the main chapters are three appendices, which contain proofs omitted from the main text due to length or complexity.
The preliminary chapters equip the reader with the necessary definitions and mathematical tools to comprehend the subsequent research chapters. \textbf{Chapter 2} acts a crash course on the mathematics of quantum mechanics specific to quantum information. Key concepts such as quantum states, entanglement and quantum measurements are explained. \textbf{Chapter 3} overviews the foundations of the parameter estimation problem and its adaptation to the realm of quantum information. The canonical example of a highly entangled quantum state used for phase estimation is explored in this chapter and it is regularly used as a comparison in the research chapters.
\textbf{Chapter 4} is based on the work \textit{Graph states as a resource for quantum metrology} \cite{SM20}. We characterize the use of graph states for quantum metrology by linking the quantum Fisher information to the shape of the corresponding graph. We construct a class of graph states which approximately achieve the Heisenberg limit for phase estimation and are thus a practical resource for quantum metrology. We name this class of graph states bundled graph states, as many vertices in the corresponding graph are in bundles which are permutation invariant. We also show that the Heisenberg limit can maintain a quantum advantage in the presence of noise and that the Cramér-Rao bound can be saturated with a simple measurement strategy.
\textbf{Chapter 5} is based on the work \textit{Practical limits of error correction for quantum metrology} \cite{SMMN21}. We analyze the effectiveness of a realistic quantum error correction scheme to mitigate the impact of noise for quantum metrology. This is accomplished by incorporating impediments an implementation of an error correction code may face, such as a delay in any error correction operations, noisy ancillary qubits and imperfect operations. We outline the circumstances in which the Heisenberg limit may be recovered. Even though this work focuses on a specific error correction code (the parity check code), we hypothesize that other error correction strategies encounter the same limitations.
\textbf{Chapter 6} is based on the work \textit{A Cryptographic approach to Quantum Metrology} \cite{SMK21} as well as \textit{Quantum Metrology with Delegated Tasks} \cite{SM21}. We provide a rigorous framework of the functionality of quantum metrology problems in a cryptographically motivated setting. By integrating an appropriate cryptographic protocol, the functionality of the parameter estimation scheme is mostly unchanged. We show that the added bias and additional uncertainty in the cryptographic framework can be bounded in terms of the soundness of the protocol. We establish protocols for a variety of possible settings, such as exchanging information over an unsecured quantum channel \cite{SMK21}, and delegating a portion of the quantum metrology scheme to an untrusted party \cite{SM21}.
\textbf{Chapter 7} is a discussion chapter; the key ideas from the main research chapters are summarized and future perspectives are listed. Insight on a current project is given, where the core concept is an amalgamation of quantum networks and the cryptographic framework for quantum metrology to devise a notion of a secure quantum sensing network.
\end{document}
\chapter{Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Information}
Quantum theory is an extensive area of physics with a rich mathematical history. The majority of its subtleties are beyond the scope of this thesis. This chapter is intended to familiarize the reader with the underlying mathematics of the subsequent chapters. See \cite{griffiths2018} for a broader overview of quantum mechanics, and \cite{nielsen2002} for a more detailed analysis of quantum information.
\begin{quote}
\textit{As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason!}
\begin{flushright} -Professor Farnsworth \end{flushright}
\end{quote}
\section{Quantum States}
\subsection{Qubits}
The bit is the primitive building block of information theory. It can be thought of as a physical switch, or any object subjected to a binary state: 0 or 1, yes or no, on or off, et cetera. The quantum bit, commonly referred to as a qubit, is the analogous primitive building block of \textit{quantum information}. Just as a bit can be in the states 0 and 1, a qubit can be in the states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$\footnote{The notation $\ket{\square}$, known as Dirac notation or bra-ket notation, is ubiquitously used in quantum mechanics to describe quantum states.}. Unlike a classical bit, the state of a qubit can be any linear combination of $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$:
\begin{equation}
\alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ being complex numbers subjected to $|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1$. This is the \textit{superposition principle}, which asserts that any linear combination of valid quantum states is also a valid quantum state.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{Figures/Chapter2/blochsphere}
\caption{The Bloch sphere is a geometric representation of single qubit quantum states. A point on the surface of the sphere with polar angle $\theta$ and azimuthal angle $\phi$ represents the quantum state $\ket{\psi}= \cos ( \theta/2) \ket{0} + e^{i \phi} \sin ( \theta /2) \ket{1}$.}
\label{fig:blochsphere}
\end{figure}
Just as a bit can be thought of as a physical object, so can a qubit. There exists a variety of physical implementations to realize a qubit, for example, the spin of an electron \cite{childress2006,dutt2007}, the direction of current in a superconducting circuit \cite{wendin2017} or the polarization of a photon \cite{strauf2007}. Having said that, in this thesis (unless it is otherwise stated) a quantum state should be thought of as a mathematical element of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, formally one writes $\ket{\psi} \in \mathcal{H}$. For a qubit, $\mathcal{H}$ is a two dimensional space, hence $\{ \ket{0}, \ket{1} \}$ corresponds to an orthonormal basis. This is not the sole basis representation for qubits; other commonly used bases are $\{ \ket{+}, \ket{-} \}$, where $\ket{\pm} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big( \ket{0} \pm \ket{1} \big)$ and $\{ \ket{+_i}, \ket{-_i} \}$, where $\ket{\pm_i} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big( \ket{0} \pm i\ket{1} \big)$. For any orthonormal basis $\{ \ket{x}, \ket{y} \}$, the inner product of quantum states $\ket{\psi}= \alpha \ket{x} + \beta \ket{y}$ and $\ket{\phi}= \gamma \ket{x} + \delta \ket{y}$ is defined to be
\begin{equation}
\braket{\phi}{\psi} = \braket{\psi}{\phi}^* = \alpha \gamma^* + \beta \delta^*,
\end{equation}
where an asterisk is used to signify the complex conjugate.
The 2-dimensional Hilbert space of a qubit naturally generalizes to $d$-dimensional spaces. These quantum states are commonly known as \textit{qudits} and can be represented via
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \alpha_{k} \ket{k},
\end{equation}
where $\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} |\alpha_k|^2=1$ and $\{\ket{0},\ldots,\ket{d-1} \}$ forms a basis for said Hilbert space. Even though the results presented throughout this thesis are derived with respect to systems composed of qubits, the techniques presented (quantum metrology, graph states, error correction and cryptography) have higher dimensional forms, and thus the results presented can be generalized to systems composed of qudits.
\subsection{Multiple Qubits and Quantum Entanglement}
A bipartite quantum system composed of $\ket{\psi_A} \in \mathcal{H}_A$ and $\ket{\psi_B} \in \mathcal{H}_B$ is represented via
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi_{AB}} = \ket{\psi_A} \ket{\psi_B} \in \mathcal{H}_{AB}=\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B.
\end{equation}
The above quantum states are called \textit{separable}, as the composite system is (by construction) a product of quantum states each belonging to a separate Hilbert space. By the superposition principle, the composite Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{AB}=\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B$ also contains superpositions of separable quantum states. The two-qubit quantum state
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big( \ket{0}_A \ket{0}_B + \ket{1}_A \ket{1}_B \big)
\end{equation}
cannot be written as a product of two one-qubit quantum states. In other words, each qubit in the composite system cannot be described independently from one another. This property is better known as \textit{entanglement} and is a peculiarity unique to quantum mechanics. Quantum entanglement is the root of the well-known (and frequently misinterpreted in popular media\footnote{If someone has forgotten whether or not they have food in their fridge, their fridge is not in a macroscopic superposition of `empty' and `full'. Instead, they are a simply a forgetful person.}) Schrödinger's thought experiment \cite{schrodinger1935}. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat is placed in a box with a radioactive source and a flask of poison. The poison is released upon detecting that the radioactive source has decayed: killing the cat. The premise is that the nature of the cat is entangled with the radioactive source. When the state of the source evolves to a superposition of `not-decayed' and `decayed', the cat would ultimately evolve to be in a macroscopic superposition of `alive' and `dead'.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter2/smbc-comic.png}
\caption{It is worth stressing that quantum properties such as \textit{superposition} and \textit{entanglement} are theoretically possible at a macroscopic level, but are not observed \cite{zurek2006}. Ergo, quantum effects are difficult to visualize. Illustration by Zach Weinersmith, \textit{Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal: Quantum-2} (2019), see \cite{SMBC} in the bibliography for the source details.}
\end{figure}
In general, a quantum state $\ket{\psi}$ in the composite Hilbert space $\bigotimes_{k=1}^n \mathcal{H}_{A_k}$ is called separable if and only if there exists $\ket{\psi_{A_k}} \in \mathcal{H}_{A_k}$ for all $k$ such that
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi} = \bigotimes_{k=1}^n \ket{\psi_{A_k}},
\end{equation}
otherwise it is entangled. For example, the $n$ qubit Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) state
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:GHZstate}
\ket{\psi_\text{GHZ}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big( \ket{0}^{\otimes n}+\ket{1}^{\otimes n} \big),
\end{equation}
is a highly entangled state with many practical applications, including quantum metrology. GHZ states are the canonical resource for the quantum metrology problem of phase estimation \cite{giovannetti2004, toth2014}. The utility of a GHZ state is frequently referenced in this thesis and used as a benchmark in \textbf{Chapter 4} and \textbf{Chapter 5}.
Although quantum entanglement was originally coined as \textit{spooky} by Einstein \cite{einstein1935}, it has since been shown to be a valuable resource for the field of quantum information. Numerous quantum-based protocols (e.g. superdense coding \cite{bennett1992communication}, teleportation \cite{bennett1993teleporting}) are contingent on the non-classical correlations of entangled quantum states. Quantum metrology is no different: entanglement\footnote{In continuous variable systems, non-classical correlations can also be achieved through a process called squeezing \cite{lvovsky2015}. Squeezing is not the same as entanglement, but also leads to a quantum advantage for metrology problems \cite{caves1981, demkowicz2015, schnabel2017}.} allows for estimation strategies to surpass the limits of classical statistics \cite{giovannetti2004, giovannetti2006, giovannetti2011, toth2014}.
\subsection{Mixed States}
It is often practical to consider statistical ensembles of quantum states $\{(p_i, \ket{\psi_i}) \}$, where $p_i$ is the probability of the system being in the quantum state $\ket{\psi_i}$. This abstraction is useful to incorporate stochastic processes and classical randomness into the description of a quantum system. Mathematically this is represented as a linear and positive semi-definite\footnote{$\rho$ is positive semi-definite if $\mel{\phi}{\rho}{\phi} \geq 0 \; \forall \ket{\phi} \in \mathcal{H}$.} operator
\begin{equation}
\rho = \sum_i p_i \dyad{\psi_i},
\end{equation}
which is often referred to as a density operator, density matrix or (most commonly) a \textit{mixed state}. Because the set $\{ p_i \}$ represents a set of classical probabilities, we must have that $\sum_i p_i=1$, from which it follows that all mixed states have unit trace $\Tr \rho =1$. The purity of a mixed state is a measure on the classical randomness present in a quantum system and defined by $\Tr \rho^2$. For a general mixed state $0 \leq \Tr \rho^2 \leq 1$, and the upper-bound is saturated if and only if there is no inherent classical randomness present, i.e. the system is in a definite quantum state - more commonly referred to as a \textit{pure state}. Density operator formalism is predominantly used in this thesis and, depending on the context, may signify a general mixed state or specifically a pure state.
When dealing with composite systems, $\rho_{AB} \in \mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B$, it can be beneficial to describe a subsystem when one does not have access to the other systems, e.g. $A$ does not have access to $B$. This is better known as a reduced density operator and can be computed via the partial-trace
\begin{equation}
\rho_A = \Tr_B \rho_{AB} = \sum_{k} \mel{b_k}{\rho_{AB}}{b_k},
\end{equation}
where $\{ \ket{b_k} \}$ is any orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}_B$. If a composite system is an entangled pure quantum state, then the reduced density operator is guaranteed to be a mixed state with purity less than one. Therefore, by discarding a portion of a composite quantum system, one introduces classical randomness into the non-discarded systems.
The opposite is similarly true, in that it can be beneficial to extend the Hilbert space of a mixed state to a composite system in which it is a pure state. This is known as a purification process. If $\rho_A=\sum_i p_i \dyad{\psi_i} \in \mathcal{H}_A$ and $\mathcal{H}_B$ is an auxiliary Hilbert space with orthonormal basis $\{ \ket{\phi_i}\}$, then the pure state
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:purification}
\ket{\Psi_{AB}}= \sum_i \sqrt{p_i} \ket{\psi_i} \ket{\phi_i}
\end{equation}
is a purification of $\rho_A$ because $\Tr_B \dyad{\Psi_{AB}}=\rho_A$. The purification is not unique.
\subsection{Vector and Matrix Representation}
Up until now, pure states have been represented as an abstract mathematical element of a Hilbert space, and general mixed states as a linear and non-negative operator acting on said Hilbert space. For the most part of this thesis, this abstract representation is sufficient. However, some of the mathematical derivations in \textbf{Appendix~B} make use of an alternative representation using vectors and matrices.
The vector representation of a pure qubit state is a two dimensional\footnote{This representation extends to qudits, where the vectors are $d$ dimensional objects.} column vector
\begin{equation}
\alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1} \longleftrightarrow
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\
\beta
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and the representation of the corresponding dual is a two-dimensional row vector
\begin{equation}
\alpha^* \bra{0} + \beta^* \bra{1} \longleftrightarrow
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha^* & \beta^*
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Combining the above, the mixed state $\{(p_1, \alpha\ket{0}+\beta \ket{1}), (p_2,\gamma\ket{0}+\delta \ket{1}) \}$ is represented with the matrix
\begin{equation}
p_1 \begin{pmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha^* & \beta^* \end{pmatrix} + p_2 \begin{pmatrix} \gamma \\ \delta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \gamma^* & \delta^* \end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
p_1|\alpha|^2 + p_2 |\gamma|^2 & p_1 \alpha \beta^* + p_2 \gamma \delta^* \\
p_1 \alpha^* \beta + p_2 \gamma^* \delta & p_1|\beta|^2 + p_2 |\delta|^2
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\section{Quantum Operations}
Operator formalism in quantum mechanics is used to describe transformations to quantum states\footnote{In this thesis, quantum states are viewed as the \textit{variables}, this is known as the Schrödinger picture. There is another formulation in which the operators act as the \textit{variables}, better known as the Heisenberg picture \cite{griffiths2018}.}. At the most general level, a \textit{quantum operator} $\Gamma$ is a linear map from an input Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_1$ to an output Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_2$
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Gamma : \mathcal{H}_1 &\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_2 \\
\rho &\rightarrow \Gamma(\rho).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It is demanded that $\Gamma$ has two properties. The first is for $\Gamma ( \rho )$ to have unit-trace (for it to qualify as a quantum state); this is known as being \textit{trace-preserving}. The second is for $\Gamma ( \rho )$ to be positive semi-definite, and more so, if a partial trace is taken, then the remaining subsystem is also positive semi-definite; this is known as being \textit{completely positive}. If $\Gamma$ satisfies both properties, it is called a completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP) map. A CPTP map can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CPTPKraus}
\Gamma ( \rho ) = \sum_{j} A_j \rho A_j^\dagger,
\end{equation}
where $\{ A_j \}$ are known as Kraus operators \cite{hellwig1969} which satisfy $\sum_j A_j A_j^\dagger = \mathbb{I}$.
\subsection{Pauli and Clifford Operators}
The three Pauli operators, $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, are conceivably the most widely used operators in the field quantum information. The Pauli operators are Hermitian and involutory operators which act on single qubit quantum states, and along with the identity map, form a group. Listed are the bra-ket and matrix representations of the Pauli operators:
\begin{align}
X &= \dyad{0}{1}+\dyad{1}{0} \rightarrow \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\
Y &= -i \dyad{0}{1} + i \dyad{1}{0} \rightarrow \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -i \\ i & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\
Z &= \dyad{0}{0}-\dyad{1}{1} \rightarrow \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
The Pauli group $\{ \mathbb{I}, X, Y, Z \}$ is a basis for all $2 \times 2$ complex matrices, and thus a single qubit quantum state can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1}{2} \Big(\mathbb{I} + \Tr (X \rho) X + \Tr (Y \rho) Y + \Tr (Z \rho) Z \Big).
\end{equation}
In general, defining the $m$th degree Pauli group to be $\mathcal{P}_m= \{\mathbb{I}, X, Y, Z \}^{\otimes m}$, a quantum system composed of $m$ qubits can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1}{2^m} \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} \Tr(P \rho) P.
\end{equation}
Another class of operators which are well known is the Clifford group. The Clifford group is an important set of unitary operators in the realm of quantum computing and quantum algorithms, as they were shown to be efficiently simulated with a classical computer \cite{gottesman1998}. Mathematically, the Clifford group of degree $m$, denoted $\mathcal{C}_m$, is the set of unitary operators which normalize $\mathcal{P}_m$ (up to a phase of $\pm 1$), thus $\forall C \in \mathcal{C}_m$ and $\forall P \in \mathcal{P}_m$
\begin{equation}
C P C^\dagger \in \pm \mathcal{P}_m.
\end{equation}
The set of local Clifford operations $\mathcal{C}_1$ can be decomposed as a sequence of a Pauli operations or a $\pi/4$ phase shift $e^{\pm i\frac{\pi}{4}P}$ (with $P \in \{X,Y,Z \}$). Evidently, $C_1$ is much simpler to implement than an arbitrary local unitary \cite{niemann2014}. For this reason, all but one of the cryptographic protocols we devise in $\textbf{Chapter 6}$ consist solely of local Clifford operations.
\subsection{Dynamics}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.495\textwidth}
\centering
\scalebox{1.35}{\input{Figures/Chapter2/dynamics1}}
\caption{Unitary evolution.}
\label{fig:rotationdynamics}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.495\textwidth}
\centering
\scalebox{1.35}{\input{Figures/Chapter2/dynamics2}}
\caption{Environmental decoherence.}
\label{fig:decoherencedynamics}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Visual representation of the dynamics of a single qubit (initialized in the $\ket{+}$ state) is governed by the master equation $\frac{d \rho (t)}{dt}=-\frac{i}{\hbar}[\frac{\omega}{2}Z,\rho(t)]+\gamma \big((X \rho(t) X-\rho(t) \big)$. The evolution of the qubit traces a path in the $X-Y$ plane of the Bloch sphere. In (a) the environmental term is ignored ($\gamma = 0$) and the qubit forever oscillates between $\ket{+}$ and $\ket{-}$ with frequency $\omega$. In (b) the decoherence term ($\gamma \neq 0$) causes the qubit to eventually decohere to the maximally mixed state (the center of the Bloch sphere).}
\label{fig:dynamics}
\end{figure}
The parameter encoding mechanism is the predominant element in a quantum metrology problem. Formally, this is a physical process which influences the evolution of a quantum state. In a closed and isolated system with a Hamiltonian $H$, the evolution of a quantum state $\rho$ is governed by the Schrödinger equation \cite{schrodinger1926, griffiths2018}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \rho(t)}{dt} = -\frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \rho(t)].
\end{equation}
As a result, the evolution is described as a unitary transformation
\begin{equation}
\rho(t)=U_{t-t_0} \rho(t_0) U_{t-t_0}^\dagger,
\end{equation}
where $U_\tau = e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}H \tau}$.
It is worth noting that closed and isolated systems do not emulate reality and are effectively a fantasy for experimentalists and engineers. Real world quantum technologies are plagued with noise (the subject of \textbf{Chapter 5}) due to interactions with the environment \cite{gardiner1991, breuer2002}. As a result, information is lost to the surroundings, causing decoherence, dephasing, losses and fluctuations. There is no explicit equation which governs the evolution of a quantum system for a general environmental interaction. However, with some assumptions (namely that the system and environment are weakly-coupled and the interaction is time-independent) then one can model evolution by modifying the Schrödinger equation \cite{breuer2002}
\begin{equation}
\dot{\rho}(t) = -\frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \rho(t)] + \mathcal{L} \big( \rho(t) \big),
\end{equation}
where the super-operator $\mathcal{L}$ is better known as the Liouvillian. It was demonstrated that for the evolution to yield a valid transformation (CPTP), the Liouvillian will take on the form \cite{lindblad1976}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \big( \rho(t) \big)= \sum_{j=1}^{d^2-1} \gamma_j \big[ L_k \rho(t) L_k^\dagger - \frac{1}{2} \big\{ \rho(t),L_k L_k^\dagger \big\} \big],
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space, $\gamma_j$ are non-negative decay rates, and $L_1,\ldots,L_{d^2-1}$ are Lindblad operators. This equation is often referred to as the Lindblad master equation.
The contrast between the Schrödinger equation and the Linblad master equation is depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:dynamics}). When a single qubit pure state is governed solely by unitary dynamics, it perpetually oscillates between pure states. But, when the system is coupled to the environment, the qubit spirals towards the maximally mixed state.
\section{Quantum Measurements}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter2/SternGerlach.png}
\caption{The Stern-Gerlach experiment \cite{gerlach1922} is an early prototype for a quantum measurement. A beam of silver (Ag) atoms is sent through an inhomogeneous magnetic field towards a detector screen. Initially, the spin of the silver atoms are in arbitrary superpositions of $\ket{\uparrow}$ and $\ket{\downarrow}$. Classical physics predicts that the silver atoms would be detected along the length of the detector screen. Instead, the silver atoms were detected in two bunches, one bunch of spin $\ket{\uparrow}$ atoms and one bunch of spin $\ket{\downarrow}$ atoms.}
\label{fig:sterngerlach}
\end{figure}
The principal goal of quantum metrology is to use a quantum system to estimate the value a physical unknown parameter. With this in mind, it is crucial to extract physical information from a quantum system; in the language of quantum mechanics, this is done by measuring an \textit{observable} \cite{von2018}. Formally, a (finite) observable $O$ is a linear and Hermitian ($O=O^\dagger$) operator. By the spectral value theorem, $O$ can be decomposed into a set of projectors $\{ P_i \}$ satisfying $P_i P_j = P_i \delta_{i,j}$ and $\sum_i P_i = \mathbb{I}$ along with a corresponding set of real-values eigenvalues $\{ o_i \}$ such that $O=\sum_i o_i P_i$. Here, the index $i$ signifies different measurement outcomes. If the quantum state $\rho$ is measured, then outcome $i$ is observed with probability $\Tr (P_i \rho)$ and the expectation value of $O$ is $\expval{O}=\sum_i o_i \Tr (P_i \rho) = \Tr (O \rho )$. This is the simplest description of a quantum measurement, and is called a projection-valued measurement (PVM).
A quantum measurement can be further generalized by abandoning the notion that measurement outcomes are orthogonal. This abstraction is called a positive-operator-valued measure (POVM) \cite{nielsen2002,jacobs2014}. A POVM is designed to accompany any allowable measurement statistics, bearing in mind that the post-measurement state is ambiguous (see the next subsection). A POVM can be described by a set of positive semi-definite operators $\{ M_m \}$ which satisfy the completeness relationship $\sum_m M_m = \mathbb{I}$. The outcome $m$ is observed with probability $\Tr (M_m \rho)$. Comparable to the purification of mixed states, Eq.~\eqref{eq:purification}, it has been shown that a POVM can always be obtained from a PVM acting on a higher dimensional space \cite{nielsen2002}.
In this thesis we focus on single parameter quantum metrology problems. Although many of the results naturally generalize to multiparameter problems, it is important to be cognisant of the incompatibility of simultaneous measurements in the multiparameter setting. Specifically, if two observables, $A$ and $B$, do not commute
\begin{equation}
[A,B] \neq 0,
\end{equation}
then measuring $A$ and then $B$ is different than measuring $B$ then $A$. In fact, this is one of the major reasons why the cryptographic protocols outlined in \textbf{Chapter~6} can be deemed secure. The incompatibility of simultaneous measurements gives rise to the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle \cite{robertson1929}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Uncertainty}
\Delta^2 A \Delta^2 B \geq \frac{1}{4} \big| \expval*{[A,B]} \big|^2,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta^2 A=\expval{A^2}-\expval{A}^2$ is the variance of an observable.
\subsection{Collapse of the wave function}
After a measurement is performed the quantum state undergoes a non-unitary transformation, more commonly referred to as the `collapse of the wave function'\footnote{The collapse of the wave function, a postulate of the Copenhagen interpretation, is arguably the most widely used model for quantum measurements. It is important to note though, to date, the dynamics of quantum measurements are still debated \cite{zeh1970, schlosshauer2005}.}. If a PVM is performed on the state $\rho$ and outcome $i$ is observed, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:collapsePVM}
\rho \rightarrow \frac{P_i \rho P_i}{\Tr (P_i \rho)}.
\end{equation}
The post-measurement state is drastically more complex when considering a general POVM. As mentioned, the post-measurement state is ambiguous, this is in consequence to the POVM elements $\{ M_m \}$ not having a unique Kraus decomposition \cite{hellwig1969}, as a multitude of measurement schemes may result in the same measurement statistics \cite{jacobs2014}. A Kraus decomposition of $M_m$ is a product of an (not necessarily self-adjoint) operator with its conjugate transpose, i.e for each $M_m$ there exists an $A_m$ such that $M_m = A_m A_m^\dagger$. The set $\{ A_m\}$ are the measurement operators which define a physical process which corresponds with the POVM. For a specific set of measurement operators, if outcome $m$ is observed, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:collapsePOVM}
\rho \rightarrow \frac{A_m \rho A_m^\dagger}{\Tr (M_m \rho)}.
\end{equation}
By comparing Eq.~\eqref{eq:collapsePVM} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:collapsePOVM}, one can interpret a PVM as a special case of a POVM when the set of measurement operators are all projectors.
\section{Distance Measures}
Quantum states are elements of a Hilbert space, so it is natural to consider the proximity of quantum states. Distance measures can be useful, as quantum states which are \textit{close} to one another can be expected to behave similarly under appropriate transformations. Distance measures, namely the trace-distance and fidelity, play a crucial role in \textbf{Chapter~6}, where the quantum states in question are bounded with respect to the above measures, from which, their utility for quantum metrology can be gauged.
\subsection{Trace Distance}
The trace distance, denoted by $\mathscr{D}$, between quantum states $\rho$ and $\sigma$ can be calculated using
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{D} \big( \rho, \sigma \big) = \frac{1}{2} \Tr |\rho-\sigma|,
\end{equation}
where $|A|=\sqrt{A^\dagger A}$. An alternative definition of the trace distance can be expressed in terms of POVMs. Let $\{ M_m \}$ be a POVM, in which outcome $m$ is witnessed with probabilities $p_m=\Tr ( M_m \rho )$ and $q_m=\Tr ( M_m \sigma )$. The trace distance is equivalently defined via
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{D} \big( \rho, \sigma \big) = \max_{ \{ M_m\} } \Big( \frac{1}{2}\sum_m |p_m - q_m | \Big),
\end{equation}
where the maximization is taken over all POVMs. The contents of the brackets on the right-hand side of the above equation is in fact the definition of the trace distance between probability distributions $\{p_m \}$ and $\{q_m \}$ \cite{nielsen2002}. The second expression listed to compute the trace distance between quantum states is certainly impractical to calculate, however it does provide an insightful inequality: for any POVM $\{ M_m \}$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TraceDistanceAlt}
\frac{1}{2} \sum_m |\Tr \big(M_m (\rho-\sigma) \big)| \leq \mathscr{D} \big( \rho, \sigma \big).
\end{equation}
The trace distance is contractive under a CPTP map $\mathcal{E}$, that is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TDcontractive}
\mathscr{D} \big( \mathcal{E} (\rho), \mathcal{E}( \sigma) \big) \leq \mathscr{D} \big( \rho, \sigma \big).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Fidelity}
The fidelity between quantum states is perhaps the most renowned measure of closeness in quantum information, even though it is not a metric in the mathematical sense. The fidelity, denoted with $\mathscr{F}$, between quantum states $\rho$ and $\sigma$ can be computed using
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fidelity}
\mathscr{F} \big( \rho,\sigma \big) = \Big( \Tr \sqrt{\sqrt{\rho} \sigma \sqrt{\rho}} \Big)^2,
\end{equation}
which greatly simplifies to $\mathscr{F} \big( \rho,\sigma \big) = \Tr ( \rho \sigma)$ when either $\rho$ or $\sigma$ is a pure state. Note that this version of the fidelity is the square of what is defined in \cite{nielsen2002}. The fidelity and trace distance are related by the Fuchs–van de Graaf inequalities \cite{fuchs1999}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fuchs}
1-\sqrt{\mathscr{F} \big( \rho,\sigma \big)} \leq \mathscr{D} \big( \rho,\sigma \big) \leq \sqrt{1-\mathscr{F} \big( \rho,\sigma \big)}.
\end{equation}
\end{document}
\chapter{Estimation Theory}
Estimation theory is the mathematical language of metrology. Statistical error in classical estimation theory is ultimately constrained by the central limit theorem. \textit{Quantum metrology} overcomes this limitation thanks to quantum entanglement. With the vast number of applications and straightforward proof of principle, it is unsurprising that quantum metrology is witnessing a boon of theoretical and experimental developments \cite{giovannetti2011, degen2017, pirandola2018}.
This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section summarizes important concepts from classical estimation theory \cite{kay1993, cox2006, sheskin2003, rice2006, poor2013}. The second section is devoted to the analogous concepts of quantum estimation theory formalized by Helstrom \cite{helstrom1967, helstrom1968, helstrom1969} and Holevo \cite{holevo1973, holevo1982}. The final section examines example applications of quantum metrology (phase estimation and amplitude estimation) to put into perspective the mathematical tools and concepts introduced throughout the first two sections. For a quantum information perspective on quantum metrology see \cite{toth2014}. For a more mathematical rigorous review of quantum metrology and quantum estimation theory see \cite{simon2017}. For more information on estimation theory and statistical inference see \cite{kay1993, cox2006}.
\begin{quote}
\textit{An experiment is a question which science poses to Nature and a measurement is the recording of Nature's answer.}
\begin{flushright} -Max Planck \end{flushright}
\end{quote}
\section{Classical Estimation Theory}
In an abstract sense, the scientific and mathematical knowledge of humankind is reflected in the mathematical models used to describe the contents of the universe: planetary orbits, bacterial growth in a petri dish, even social constructs like financial trends. These models, are not fabricated haphazardly, instead they are a manifestation of a multitude of observations and tested by making predictions. As our efficiency of gathering and interpreting data increases, so do the mathematical models, and in turn our understanding of the universe. For example, the theory of gravity has evolved along with the capabilities of telescopes; from Galilean and Newtonian gravity to Einstein's theory of general relativity to the (currently unconfirmed) theory of dark matter and dark energy.
\textit{Estimation theory} is a branch of statistics at the heart of mathematical modelling. It addresses the question: `What is the most efficient way of extracting information from a set of data?'. This seemingly simple question is difficult to answer. Typically, the variables used to describe a mathematical model can be partitioned in two categories
\begin{enumerate}
\item observables - an attribute which can be inherently measured (e.g. position and speed).
\item latent parameters - an attribute which cannot be inherently measured, (e.g. strength of an electromagnetic field).
\end{enumerate}
The \textit{parameter estimation problem} is concerned with the extent at which collected data (observables) can be used to estimate the unknown latent parameters \cite{sheskin2003}. With respect to the listed examples, one could observe the dynamics of a charged particle to estimate the strength of an electromagnetic field.
Formally, observed data $\mathbf{x}=\{x_1, \ldots, x_N \}$ is treated as a realisation of $N$ independent and identically distributed (iid) random variables $X$. A probably density function $p(X | \theta )$ dictates the distribution of observed data, where $\theta$ is a latent parameter. The goal of the parameter estimation problem is to construct an \textit{estimator} $\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x})$, which should be interpreted as a function whose input is the collected data $\mathbf{x}$ and outputs an estimate of $\theta$. The explicit dependence on $\mathbf{x}$ is sometimes dropped for clarity, $\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) \rightarrow \hat{\theta}$. Estimators are subjected to two conditions. The first condition is that the expected estimate is the true value of the parameter, this is known as having an unbiased estimator
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:unbiased}
\expval*{\hat{\theta}} = \int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} = \theta.
\end{equation}
The integral equation is used for observed data which can take on a continuum of values, it is interchangeable with a sum in the discrete case. The second condition is that an estimator tends towards the correct value as the amount of data increases, this is known as being consistent
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \hat{\theta} = \theta.
\end{equation}
An estimator is a manifestation of random variables, and is thus also a random variable, hence, statistical moments such as mean and variance are well-defined.
The statistical inference process adopted to the parameter estimation problem is dependent on the nature of the latent variable: deterministic or stochastic. Usually, a frequentist inference approach is taken for deterministic parameters and a Bayesian inference approach is taken for stochastic parameters \cite{li2018}. Mathematically, these two approaches vary greatly, the primary differences are listed in Tab.~(\ref{tab:estimation_summary}), but they are not mutually exclusive. The subsequent chapters of this thesis employ the frequentist approach, and therefore the frequentist approach is summarized in greater detail in this chapter. That being said, the Bayesian approach has been adapted to the realm of quantum information \cite{holevo1982, tsang2011}, and has been gaining traction in the community \cite{berry2009, gammelmark2013, jarzyna2015, wiebe2016, rubio2020b}. Specifically, to circumvent problems of the frequentist approach: i) lack of a priori knowledge \cite{kolodynski2010, demkowicz2011} and ii) inaccuracies with limited resources \cite{rubio2020b}. Even though it is not applied to the research presented in this thesis, for the sake of completeness, a brief summary of the Bayesian approach used in classical parameter estimation problems and its adaptation to quantum parameter estimation problems is included in this chapter.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
& Frequentist Approach & Bayesian Approach \\
\hline
Parameter(s) & Deterministic & Stochastic \\
Figure of Merit & Mean squared error & Cost function \\
Optimization & Local & Global
\end{tabular}
\caption{The main differences between the frequentist approach and Bayesian approach for statistical inference. This is a broad perspective and the statistical inference approaches are not restricted by this table.}
\label{tab:estimation_summary}
\end{table}
\subsection{The Frequentist Approach}
The \textit{frequentist approach} is typically used when $\mathbf{\theta}$ is deterministic (sometimes called static). As $N \rightarrow \infty$ the frequency of collected data tends to reflect the probability density function, hence the etymology. Therefore with a sufficient amount of collected data, the unknown parameter can be estimated to any desired precision. The figure of merit used by the frequentist approach is the mean-squared error (MSE)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MSE}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta} = \expval*{ (\hat{\theta} - \theta)^2}=\int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \big(\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big)^2 \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x},
\end{equation}
in which the aim is to find an estimator which minimizes the above equation. Because the estimator is assumed to be unbiased, the MSE is equal to the variance, which is often a more significant statistical quantity.
The first controversy of the the frequentist approach arises due to the fact that an optimal estimator (one where Eq.~\eqref{eq:MSE} is minimized) is potentially dependent on $\theta$. Some estimators may be optimal for specific values of $\theta$ (local), whereas an estimator which is optimal for all values of $\theta$ (global) can only be worse than ones which are locally optimized. At first glance, this appears counter intuitive because a locally optimized estimator requires exact knowledge of $\theta$, which defeats the purpose of parameter estimation. However, it is reasonable to assume that a priori approximate knowledge $\theta \approx \theta_0$ is often known because of theory or previous estimates. In the absence of a priori knowledge, one can construct a locally efficient estimator by increasing $N$. To do so, a fraction of the results are first used to obtain a local approximation $\theta_0$, and the remaining are used within the locally optimized estimator. Unfortunately, the frequentist approach does not provide a method on bounding $N$ such that the local regime can be assured; thus the saturation of an optimal estimator may not be possible without the ability to infinitely increase $N$.
\subsection{Cramér-Rao Bound and Fisher Information}
The \textit{Cramér-Rao Bound} (CRB) is an inequality which assigns a lower bound to the MSE of unbiased estimators \cite{cramer1946}, the derivation of which is straightforward. The unbiased condition, Eq.~\eqref{eq:unbiased}, can be re-written as
\begin{equation}
\int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \big( \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big)\mathrm{d} \mathbf{x}=0,
\end{equation}
from which it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:crbproof}
\begin{split}
0&=\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \big( \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big) \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} \\
&=\int \frac{\partial p(\mathbf{x}|\theta)}{\partial \theta} \big( \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big)\mathrm{d} \mathbf{x}-\int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} \\
&=\int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \frac{\partial \ln p(\mathbf{x}|\theta)}{\partial \theta} \big( \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big)\mathrm{d} \mathbf{x}-1.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CauchySchwarz}
\bigg| \int f(x)g(x)\mathrm{d}x \bigg|^2 \leq \bigg( \int f(x)^2\mathrm{d}x \bigg) \cdot \bigg( \int g(x)^2\mathrm{d}x \bigg),
\end{equation}
with $x \rightarrow \mathbf{x}$, $f(x) \rightarrow \sqrt{p(\mathbf{x}|\theta)} \frac{\partial \ln p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) }{\partial \theta} $ and $g(x) \rightarrow \sqrt{p(\mathbf{x}|\theta)} \big( \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big) $, Eq.~\eqref{eq:crbproof} is transformed into the inequality
\begin{equation}
1 \leq \bigg( \int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \big(\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big)^2 \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} \bigg) \cdot \bigg( \int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \Big( \frac{\partial \ln p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) }{\partial \theta} \Big)^2 \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} \bigg).
\end{equation}
The above can be manipulated to obtain the CRB
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CRB}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta} \geq \frac{1}{\mathcal{I}\big( p( \mathbf{x} | \theta ) \big)},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FisherInfo}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{I}\big( p( \mathbf{x} | \theta ) \big) &= \int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \Big( \frac{\partial \ln p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) }{\partial \theta} \Big)^2 \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} \\
&= \int \frac{1}{p(\mathbf{x}|\theta)} \Big( \frac{\partial p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) }{\partial \theta} \Big)^2 \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} \\
&= - \int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \frac{\partial^2 \ln p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) }{\partial \theta^2} \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
is the \textit{Fisher Information} (FI), where three equivalent (assuming that $p$ is twice differentiable) expressions given. The FI is a non-negative and additive quantity. Because $\mathbf{x}$ is $N$ independent realisations of the random variable $X$, the CRB can be equivalently expressed as
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta} \geq \frac{1}{N \mathcal{I}\big( p( X | \theta ) \big)}.
\end{equation}
The above form of the CRB reflects the limitations of central limit theorem: as $N \rightarrow \infty$ the sample average will take on a normal distribution with a variance of $\mathcal{O} \big( N^{-1} \big)$.
The FI is often interpreted as a measure of how much information about an unknown parameter can be extracted from a probability density function \cite{fisher1925}. In particular, $\theta$ can be learned perfectly when $\mathcal{I} \rightarrow \infty$, and conversely no information can be learned about $\theta$ when $\mathcal{I} = 0$. In fact, when viewing probability density functions as points on a manifold (parameterized by $\theta$), the FI is a Riemannian metric between neighbouring probability density functions $p(X|\theta)$ and $p(X|\theta + \delta \theta)$ \cite{nielsen2013}. Similarly, the statistical angle\footnote{This is the classical version of the Bures angle \cite{wootters1981}.} between probability density functions
\begin{equation}
D\big(p_1(x),p_2(x) \big)= \arccos \int \sqrt{p_1(x) p_2(x)} \mathrm{d}x,
\end{equation}
can be expressed as \cite{barndorff1986}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:AngularDistance}
D \big( p(X|\theta),p(X|\theta + \delta \theta) \big) = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\mathcal{I}\big( p(X|\theta) \big)} \delta \theta +\mathcal{O} \big( \delta \theta ^2 \big).
\end{equation}
Hence, a probability density function with a high FI will deviate more upon small perturbations $\delta \theta$ than the opposing case of a probability density function with a small FI.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\include{Figures/Chapter3/FIplots}
\caption{The FI for a normal distribution $p(X|\mu,\sigma)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}e^{-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma})^2}$. Regardless of whether $\mu$ or $\sigma$ is the latent parameter, the FI is exclusively dependent on the standard deviation of the normal distribution. This is logical because it is more difficult to interpret data with a larger standard deviation; which is in accordance with the interpretation of the FI being a measure of extractable information. One could equally consider the scenario in which both $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are unknown parameters. Here multiparameter parameter estimation techniques are needed - which are discussed in a latter part of this chapter.}
\label{fig:FINormal Distribution}
\end{figure}
The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, Eq.~\eqref{eq:CauchySchwarz}, is saturated if
\begin{equation}
\frac{|f(x)|}{|g(x)|}=\frac{\int f(x)^2 \mathrm{d}x}{\int g(x)^2 \mathrm{d}x}
\end{equation}
Therefore an estimator which saturates the CRB for all $\theta$ (global) satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CRBcond}
\frac{\partial \ln p( \mathbf{x} | \theta )}{\partial \theta}= \mathcal{I} \big( \mathbf{x} | \theta \big) \big( \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big).
\end{equation}
An estimator which saturated the CRB is said to be \textit{efficient}. The above expression can be equivalently written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:efficientestimator}
\begin{split}
p( \mathbf{x} | \theta ) &= \exp \bigg( \int \mathcal{I} \big( \mathbf{x} | \theta \big) \big( \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big) \mathrm{d} \theta \bigg)\\
&=\exp \bigg( \frac{\partial \mathcal{J}\big( \mathbf{x}|\theta)}{\partial \theta} \big( \hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) - \theta \big)+ \mathcal{J}\big(\mathbf{x}|\theta) + c(\mathbf{x}) \bigg),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{J}\big( \mathbf{x} |\theta \big)$ is a function which satisfies $\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{J}\big(\mathbf{x}|\theta \big)}{\partial \theta^2} = \mathcal{I}\big(\mathbf{x}|\theta \big)$ and $c(\mathbf{x})$ is an arbitrary function independent of $\theta$, both of which are chosen such that the unbiased condition, Eq.~\eqref{eq:unbiased}, is satisfied. This general expression for a probability density function can correspond to a multitude of well-known distributions in statistics with exponential tendencies: Gaussian, Bernoulli, Poisson, et cetera. It should be stressed that an efficient global estimator does not necessarily exist, further it may encounter the earlier stated problem of having a dependence on $\theta$. A locally (approximately) efficient estimator can be constructed with prior knowledge that $\theta \approx \theta_0$ by re-arranging Eq.~\eqref{eq:CRBcond}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:localestimator}
\hat{\theta}_{\text{Local}}=\theta_0+\frac{1}{\mathcal{I} \big( \mathbf{x} |\theta_0 \big) } \frac{\partial \ln p( \mathbf{x} | \theta )}{\partial \theta} \bigg|_{\theta \rightarrow \theta_0}.
\end{equation}
Unfortunately, the locally approximate estimator is ultimately constrained by ones prior knowledge, as shifting $\theta_0 \rightarrow \theta_0 + \delta \theta_0$ will similarly shift Eq.~\eqref{eq:localestimator} by $\mathcal{O}(\delta \theta_0)$. Furthermore, the locally approximate estimator may be ill defined on certain domains, for example one of circular symmetry (such as the problem of phase estimation which is discussed in a later section of this chapter).
\subsection{Maximum Likelihood Estimation}
The \textit{likelihood function} $L(\theta | \mathbf{x})=p(\mathbf{x} | \theta )$ is a goodness of fit between a model and the sampled data. It should be understood that the likelihood function is not a probability density function; the observed data $\mathbf{x}$ is held fixed and the latent parameter $\theta$ is considered a variable. The intuition is simplistic: if $L(\theta_1 | \mathbf{x}) > L(\theta_2 | \mathbf{x} )$, then it is more likely that the true value of $\theta$ is $\theta_1$ rather than $\theta_2$. This is the principal idea of maximum likelihood estimation \cite{berger1988}. The maximum likelihood estimator, $\hat{\theta}_{\text{ML}}$, outputs the value of $\theta$ which maximizes $L(\theta | \mathbf{x} )$
\begin{equation}
\hat{\theta}_{\text{ML}}(\mathbf{x}) = \underset{\theta}{\text{argmax}} L(\theta | \mathbf{x}) = \underset{\theta}{\text{argmax}} \ln L(\theta| \mathbf{x}).
\end{equation}
Because $p(\mathbf{x} | \theta )$ is a joint probability density function of $N$ independent probability density functions, $p(\mathbf{x} | \theta ) = \prod_{j=1}^N p(x_j | \theta )$, it is often simpler to maximize the log of the likelihood function, $\ln L (\theta | \mathbf{x} )$, sometimes shortened to the log-likelihood.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.495\textwidth}
\centering
\input{Figures/Chapter3/Likelihood1}
\caption{$N=4$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.495\textwidth}
\centering
\input{Figures/Chapter3/Likelihood2}
\caption{$N=100$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Likelihood function for a biased coin where $p_H$ is an unknown probability of the coin toss resulting in heads. The maximum likelihood estimation strategy outputs $\hat{p}_H=\frac{\text{\# Heads}}{N}$. The estimate is sensitive to small fluctuations in the observed data for small $N$ (a), but becomes more robust to fluctuations as $N$ increases (b).}
\label{fig:likelihoodplots}
\end{figure}
One controversy with maximum likelihood estimation is that $\hat{\theta}_\text{ML}$ does not generally satisfy the unbiased condition, Eq.~\eqref{eq:unbiased}. Specifically, for small $N$, where the estimator is much more susceptive to statistical outliers within the collected data. However, as $N \rightarrow \infty$ the estimator becomes more unbiased, $\expval*{\hat{\theta}_{\text{ML}}} \rightarrow \theta$. The sensitivity of the maximum likelihood estimator to small fluctuations in $\mathbf{x}$ is illustrated in Fig.~(\ref{fig:likelihoodplots}). Additionally, the MSE of the maximum likelihood estimator tends to saturate the CRB as it becomes more unbiased \cite{kay1993, van2000}. It is important to remark that there is no general formula to determine an appropriate value of $N$. However, within the framework of quantum metrology, unknown parameters are encoded into quantum resources; because of the abundance of these resources the issue of small $N$ is often ignored.
\subsection{Example: Biased Coin}
Consider a biased coin, which when flipped results in heads with an unknown probability $p_H$ and tails with probability $1-p_H$. For the sake of creating a locally optimized estimator, previous coin tosses suggest that the bias is $p_H \approx p_{H,0}$. The FI of a single flip is easy to compute
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}_\text{coin} = \frac{1}{p_H} \Big( \frac{\partial p_H}{\partial p_H} \Big)^2 + \frac{1}{1-p_H} \Big( \frac{\partial (1-p_H)}{\partial p_H} \Big)^2 = \frac{1}{p_H(1-p_H)},
\end{equation}
thus the CRB imposes that the MSE of an unbiased estimator using $N$ outcomes is bounded by
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2 \hat{p}_H \geq \frac{p_H(1-p_H)}{N}.
\end{equation}
To remain somewhat general, the data collected is from $N$ coin tosses, $h$ of which resulted in heads and $N-h$ of which resulted in tails, which occurs with probability $\binom{N}{h}p_H^h(1-p_H)^{N-h}$. Using the locally optimized estimation strategy, Eq.~\eqref{eq:localestimator}, the estimator is
\begin{equation}
\hat{p}_H^{\text{Local}} = p_{H,0} + \frac{1}{N \mathcal{I}_\text{coin}} \frac{\partial \ln p_H^{h}(1-p_H)^{N-h}}{\partial p_H} \bigg|_{p_H \rightarrow p_{H,0}}=\frac{h}{N},
\end{equation}
which is unbiased because
\begin{equation}
\expval*{\hat{p}_H^{\text{Local}}} = \sum_{h=0}^N \binom{N}{h} p_H^h(1-p_H)^{N-h} \frac{h}{N}= p_H.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the estimator is efficient because it saturates the CRB
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2 \hat{p}_H^{\text{Local}} = \sum_{h=0}^N \binom{N}{h} p_H^h(1-p_H)^{N-h} \big( \frac{h}{N} - p_H)^2= \frac{p_H(1-p_H)}{N}=\frac{1}{N \mathcal{I}_\text{coin}}.
\end{equation}
Despite the fact that the estimator was initially constructed using a local approximation, the estimator is independent of $p_{H,0}$, and is thus globally optimized. In addition, the same estimator is realized using the maximum likelihood estimation strategy, see Fig.~(\ref{fig:likelihoodplots}). The biased coin exemplifies the underlying nature of the frequentist approach: as $N$ increases, the quantity $\frac{h}{N}$ converges to the quantity $p_H$, from which the (albeit simple) probability density function can be reverse engineered.
\subsection{The Bayesian Approach}
The \textit{Bayesian approach} is typically used to estimate unknown parameters which are stochastic. In other words, the latent parameters are themselves a random variable and have an intrinsic probability distribution $p(\theta )$ - which should to be confused with $p(\mathbf{x} | \theta)$. Therefore, the observed data $\mathbf{x}$ is dependent on specific realisations of $\theta$. Consequently, a well-constructed estimator within the Bayesian approach aims to minimize the MSE for all values (global) of $\theta$, and not subjected to local values like the frequentist approach. To achieve this, the Bayesian approach minimizes the average of a cost function $C(\hat{\theta},\theta)$ \cite{kay1993, trees2007}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:costfunction}
\expval*{C(\hat{\theta},\theta)}=\int p(\theta) \bigg( \int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta) \big( C(\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}),\theta) \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x} \bigg) \mathrm{d} \theta.
\end{equation}
In principle, a cost function is a generalisation of the MSE for the frequentist approach. It is a function which decreases as $\hat{\theta}$ approaches $\theta$. The MSE is an example of a cost function, so too is the absolute error $C=|\hat{\theta}-\theta|$. Different cost functions are tailored to specific probability density functions to take advantage of specific symmetries or properties.
By merging the two probability distributions, the average cost can be interpreted as an average over the simultaneous realisations of $X$ and $\theta$. According to Bayes' theorem (hence the name of this approach), the joint probability distribution can be interpreted in two ways
\begin{equation}
p(\mathbf{x},\theta)=p(\mathbf{x} |\theta)p(\theta)=p( \theta | \mathbf{x})p(\mathbf{x}),
\end{equation}
thus the average cost can be written as
\begin{equation}
\expval*{C(\hat{\theta},\theta)}=\int p(\mathbf{x}) \bigg( \int \mathrm{d} \theta p(\theta | \mathbf{x}) C(\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}),\theta) \mathrm{d} \theta \bigg) \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x}.
\end{equation}
The average cost can then be minimized through standard optimization techniques, i.e by solving the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bayesianestimator}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{\theta}} \int p(\theta | \mathbf{x}) C(\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}),\theta) \mathrm{d} \theta = 0,
\end{equation}
where the quantity $p(\theta | \mathbf{x})$ can be computed using Bayes' theorem
\begin{equation}
p(\theta | \mathbf{x}) = \frac{p(\mathbf{x}|\theta)p(\theta)}{p(\mathbf{x})}=\frac{p(\mathbf{x}|\theta)p(\theta)}{\int p(\mathbf{x}|\theta)p(\theta) \mathrm{d} \theta}.
\end{equation}
A priori knowledge of $p(\theta)$ is needed to evaluate Eq.~\eqref{eq:bayesianestimator}, which is why the Bayesian approach is often used in tandem with adaptive techniques. The estimator continually outputs a new probability density function $p(\theta)$ based on the previous density function and collected data, and as the number of repetitions increases it will converge towards the correct value. There are precision bounds similar to the CRB within the Bayesian framework, but they are dependent on the cost function \cite{bobrovsky1987}. More information about Bayesian inference can be found in \cite{trees2007}.
\section{Quantum Estimation Theory}
In the quantum setting, the foundations of the parameter estimation problem remains mostly unchanged from the classical setting \cite{helstrom1969,holevo1982}. An unknown parameter $\theta$ governs an $n$ qubit quantum state $\rho_\theta$, the individual qubits can be measured with respect to a PVM $M$, and the measurement outcomes $m_1,\ldots,m_n$ are used to construct an estimate $\hat{\theta}$\footnote{The assumptions that the qubits are acted on independently and identically (both the encoding and the measurement) are unnecessary and impose a limit on the most general framework of a quantum parameter estimation scheme, see Fig.~(\ref{fig:MetrologySchematics}). These assumptions are introduced to provide a natural extension from a classical framework to a quantum framework.}. The main difference from the classical setting is that the measurement outcomes (analogous to $\mathbf{x}$) are not necessarily independent from each other because of entanglement. As a result, estimates can be made with a super-classical precision known as the \textit{Heisenberg limit}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter3/MetroScheme_Phase.png}
\caption{Phase estimation.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter3/MetroScheme_General.png}
\caption{General framework.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Diagrams of the prepare, encode and measure segment of a quantum parameter estimation problem. (a) The canonical example of quantum metrology is phase estimation \cite{giovannetti2006}, in which a phase $\theta$ is independently and identically encoded into each of the $n$ qubits of $\rho$ through a unitary $U_\theta$. Each of the qubits are individually measured in accordance with a PVM $M$. (b) A more general framework involves $\theta$ being encoded through a general CPTP map $\Lambda_\theta$, which does not necessarily act identically on the $n$ qubits. Additionally, the PVM $M$ is replaced by a POVM $\mathcal{M}$. The generalized setting depicted in (b) is allowable in the realm of quantum mechanics, but unlike the problem of phase estimation, it is difficult to compare to classical setting. Further, highly entangling operations and measurements are not feasible for current quantum technologies \cite{calsamiglia2001}, so it is often more practical to consider the simplistic setting of phase estimation as a benchmark for quantum metrology.}
\label{fig:MetrologySchematics}
\end{figure}
A quantum parameter estimation problem can be viewed as a two step process. The first is the `prepare, encode and measure' step, which is inherently quantum by construction and depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:MetrologySchematics}). The second is the statistical inference step, which is uniquely classical, thus the techniques discussed in the the previous section can be applied. Therefore, using a frequentist approach with an unbiased estimator, if the quantum portion is repeated $\nu$ times, the MSE is bounded by a quantum version of the CRB, otherwise known as the quantum Cramér-Rao bound (QCRB)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:QCRB}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta} \geq \frac{1}{\nu \mathcal{I}(\rho_\theta,\mathcal{M})} \geq \frac{1}{\nu \mathcal{Q(\rho_\theta)}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{Q}$ is the quantum Fisher information (QFI), which is the FI maximized over all POVM's $\mathcal{M}$ \cite{braunstein1994}. Evidently, the goal of finding an optimal estimator $\hat{\theta}$ naturally divides into a classical goal and a quantum goal. The classical goal is to devise an optimal estimation technique, e.g. a locally optimized estimator or the maximum likelihood estimator, whilst the quantum goal is to find an optimal combination of initialized states $\rho$ and POVM $\mathcal{M}$. For the task of phase estimation, this the QCRB can be saturated using highly entangled states, such as the GHZ state or NOON states, and a local measurement strategy \cite{giovannetti2004}. In general, the QFI is a highly non-linear equation, and there is no universal optimization strategy which is applicable to an arbitrary encoding $\Lambda_\theta$. There are different mathematical techniques to approximately solve this optimization problem \cite{gill2013,koczor2020,meyer2021}.
The quantum metrology schematics in Fig.~(\ref{fig:MetrologySchematics}) are idealized settings. In reality, it is much more complicated: environmental decoherence occurs in simultaneity with the parameter encoding, resulting in noisy measurement statistics and added uncertainty \cite{escher2011a, escher2011b, demkowicz2012}. More so, quantum technologies are not perfect, and an error may be introduced in either the quantum state preparation step or quantum measurement step. This more realistic noisy scenario is explored in greater detail in \textbf{Chapter~5}.
\subsection{Inferring an Estimate from an Observable}
A simple frequentist estimation strategy used in quantum metrology is to construct an estimator for the expectation value of an observable $O$ and infer the value of the latent parameter from this estimate \cite{toth2014}. Assuming that $O$ is chosen appropriately, the expectation value $\expval{O}=\Tr ( O \rho_\theta)$ will be a function of $\theta$, denoted by $f(\theta)=\Tr ( O \rho_\theta)$. An estimate of $f(\theta)$, $\hat{f}$, can be inverted to obtain $\hat{\theta}=f^{-1}(\hat{f})$. The estimator $\hat{f}$ is designed using the frequentist philosophy: with sufficient data $\nu \gg 1$, the frequency of the measurement results will mimic the true probability density function. Denote the eigenvalues of $O$ as $\{ \lambda_j \}$ with corresponding eigenvectors $\{ \ket{\phi_j} \}$
\begin{equation}
O= \sum_j \lambda_j \dyad{\phi_j}.
\end{equation}
The state $\rho_\theta$ is measured with respect to the eigenbasis of $O$. The results are recorded as $m_1, \ldots, m_\nu$: if the $k$th measurement results in $\ket{\phi_j}$, then $m_k=\lambda_j$ and the maximum likelihood estimate can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{k=1}^\nu m_k.
\end{equation}
This is an unbiased estimate because
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(\hat{f})= \frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{k=1}^\nu \mathbb{E}(m_k) = \frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{k=1}^\nu \sum_{j} \lambda_j \Tr ( \rho_\theta \dyad{\phi_j} ) = \frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{k=1}^\nu \expval{O} = \expval{O},
\end{equation}
and the MSE is proportional to the variance of $O$
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2 \hat{f} = \frac{\Delta^2 O}{\nu} = \frac{\Tr(O^2 \rho_\theta) - \Tr(O \rho_\theta)^2}{\nu}.
\end{equation}
An issue with this estimation technique is that $f(\theta)$ is not necessarily an invertible function, and thus $\hat{f}=f^{-1} (\hat{f})$ may be ambiguous. That is of course, unless one has a priori knowledge of $\theta \approx \theta_0$ such that one can properly define a local inverse in the region surrounding $f(\theta_0)$. Assuming this is true and that the MSE is small, $\Delta^2 \hat{f} \ll 1$, then by the central limit theorem $\hat{f}$ fluctuates close to $\expval{O}$, validating the first order Taylor approximation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TaylorExpansion}
\hat{\theta}=f^{-1}(\hat{f}) \approx f^{-1}(\expval{O}) + \frac{\partial f^{-1}(\hat{f})}{\partial \hat{f}} \Big|_{\hat{f} \rightarrow \expval{O}} (\hat{f} - \expval{O})=\theta + \frac{1}{\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}}(\hat{f}-\expval{O}).
\end{equation}
It follows from the above approximation that the estimator $\hat{\theta}$ is unbiased and has MSE
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ErrorPropagation}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta} = \frac{\Delta^2 \hat{f}}{|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|^2}= \frac{\Delta^2 O}{\nu |\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|^2}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter3/ErrorPropagation.png}
\caption{Graphical calculation of the MSE $\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}$ using the error propagation formula. The solid red curve depicts $\hat{\theta}=f^{-1}(\hat{f})$, which at the point $\hat{f}\rightarrow \expval{O}$ has a tangent with angle $\alpha$, therefore, $\frac{\Delta \hat{\theta}}{\Delta \hat{f}}=|\tan \alpha | = | \frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta} | ^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:ErrorPropagation}
\end{figure}
Eq.~\eqref{eq:ErrorPropagation} is the error propagation formula, which quantifies the amount that $\hat{\theta}$ fluctuates around $\theta$ in terms of the fluctuations of $\hat{f}$ around $\expval{O}$ \cite{ku1966}. A geometric intuition of the formula is depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:ErrorPropagation}). The term in the denominator $|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|^2$ encapsulates the difficulty of inverting a function when there is uncertainty. The effects of uncertainty are amplified near a local maxima or minima, but diminish as $|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}| \rightarrow \infty$.
\subsection{Quantum Fisher Information}
Using the semantics of quantum information theory, the explicit expression for the FI with respect to a POVM $\mathcal{M}$ with outcomes $\{ E_m \}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}(\rho_\theta,\mathcal{M}) = \int \frac{\big( \Tr ( E_m \dot{\rho}_\theta ) \big)^2}{\Tr ( E_m \rho_\theta )} \mathrm{d}m,
\end{equation}
where the notation $\dot{\square}=\frac{\partial \square}{\partial \theta}$ is used for conciseness. Just as the FI is interpreted as an information measure, so too is the QFI \cite{barndorff2000}. Eq.~\eqref{eq:AngularDistance} suggests that the POVM which maximizes the distinguishability between the probability density functions associated to $\rho_\theta$ and $\rho_{\theta+\delta \theta}$ will similarly maximize the FI. This is a principle idea behind the derivation of the closed form expression of the QFI \cite{braunstein1994}.
The derivation begins by defining the superoperator
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta} (O) = \frac{1}{2}(\rho_\theta O + O \rho_\theta),
\end{equation}
whose inverse\footnote{The inverse $\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1} (O)$ is not always well defined for all $O$, however the quantity used in the derivation of the QFI, $\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1} (\dot{\rho}_\theta)$, always converges to a well-defined Hermitian operator.} is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Rinverse}
\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1} (O) = \sum_{j,k} \frac{2}{\lambda_j+\lambda_k} O_{jk} \dyad{j}{k},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_\theta = \sum_{j} \lambda_j \dyad{j}$ is the orthonormal expansion of $\rho_\theta$ and $O_{jk}=\mel{j}{O}{k}$. A property of $\mathcal{R}$ is that for any Hermitian $A$ and $B$, $\Tr \big( AB \big)=\text{Re} \big[ \Tr \big( \rho_\theta A \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}(B) \big) \big]$, from which it follows that the FI can be written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{I}(\rho_\theta,\mathcal{M}) &= \int \frac{ \text{Re} \big[ \Tr \big( \rho_\theta E_m \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta) \big) \big]^2}{\Tr ( E_m \rho_\theta )} \mathrm{d}m \\
&\leq \int \frac{ \big| \Tr \big( \rho_\theta E_m \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta) \big) \big|^2}{\Tr ( E_m \rho_\theta )} \mathrm{d}m \\
&= \int \frac{ \big| \Tr \big( \sqrt{\rho_\theta} \sqrt{E_m} \sqrt{E_m} \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta) \sqrt{\rho_\theta} \big) \big|^2}{\Tr ( E_m \rho_\theta )} \mathrm{d}m.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The final step in the derivation uses the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $|\Tr(A^\dagger B)|^2 \leq \Tr(A A^\dagger) \Tr (B B^\dagger)$ with $A=\sqrt{E_m}\sqrt{\rho_\theta}$ and $B=\sqrt{E_m} \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta) \sqrt{\rho_\theta}$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{I}(\rho_\theta,\mathcal{M}) &\leq \int \Tr \big( E_m \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta) \rho_\theta \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta) \big) \mathrm{d} m \\
&= \Tr \big( \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta) \rho_\theta \mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta) \big) \\
&= \mathcal{Q} ( \rho_\theta ).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The Hermitian operator $\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta)$ is the symmetric logarithmic derivative. The QCRB can be saturated by setting $\mathcal{M}$ to be the measurement in the eigenbasis of $\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta)$ \cite{braunstein1994, luo2000, matsumoto2002}. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, such a measurement is encumbered by the usual quandary of the frequentist approach: the measurement basis is dependent on $\theta$\footnote{Similar to how a locally optimized estimator, Eq.~\eqref{eq:localestimator}, approximately saturates the CRB, measuring in the eigenbasis of $\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta)|_{\theta \rightarrow \theta_0}$ approximately saturates the QCRB.}. Furthermore, this measurement strategy is very sophisticated and out of reach for current technologies \cite{calsamiglia2001}. Fortunately, this is not the unique measurement strategy which saturates the QCRB \cite{giovannetti2004}. As mentioned, the quantum goal of parameter estimation problems is to determine feasible measurement schemes which best saturate the QCRB.
A closed form expression for the QFI can be derived using the definition of $\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_\theta)$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:Rinverse},
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(\rho_\theta) = \sum_{j} \frac{\dot{\lambda}_j^2}{\lambda_j} + 2\sum_{j,k} \frac{(\lambda_j-\lambda_k)^2}{\lambda_j+\lambda_k} | \braket{\dot{j}}{k}|^2.
\end{equation}
The first sum is reminiscent of the classical FI and quantifies the amount of extractable information from the eigenvalues $\{ \lambda_j \}$. Whilst the second sum accounts for quantum effects such as superposition and entanglement and quantifies the amount of extractable information from the quantum states $\{ \ket{j} \}$. To a certain extent, the classical term is limited to `amplitudes', while the quantum term has access to `amplitudes' and `phases'. As such, the quantum term is significantly more influential than the classical term, this is reinforced by the convexity property of the QFI \cite{alipour2015}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}\big( p \rho_1 + (1-p) \rho_2 \big) \leq p \mathcal{Q} ( \rho_1 ) + (1-p) \mathcal{Q} ( \rho_2 ).
\end{equation}
For the special case of pure states $\rho_\theta = \dyad{\psi_\theta}$, the expression is much more aesthetically pleasing. It follows from $\rho_\theta^2=\rho_\theta$ that $\dot{\rho}_\theta= \rho_\theta \dot{\rho}_\theta + \dot{\rho}_\theta \rho_\theta$ and thus $\mathcal{R}_{\rho_\theta}^{-1} ( \dot{\rho}_\theta ) = 2 \dot{\rho}_\theta$. The QFI simplifies greatly to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:QFIpure}
\mathcal{Q} ( \ket{\psi_\theta} ) = 4 \Tr ( \rho_\theta \dot{\rho}_\theta^2 ) = 4 \big( \braket*{\dot{\psi}_\theta} - | \braket*{\dot{\psi}_\theta}{\psi_\theta}|^2 \big).
\end{equation}
In fact, it was shown that a similar expression holds for arbitrary mixed states \cite{escher2011b}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}( \rho_\theta) = \min_{\ket{\Psi_\theta}} 4 \big( \braket*{\dot{\Psi}_\theta} - | \braket*{\dot{\Psi}_\theta}{\Psi_\theta}|^2 \big),
\end{equation}
where the minimization is taken over all possible purifications, Eq.~\eqref{eq:purification}, of $\rho_\theta$.
\subsection{Geometric Perspectives of the QFI}
The representation introduced in \textbf{Chapter 2} is that a quantum state $\ket{\psi}$ can be thought of as a vector which is an element of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. An alternative to this is a geometric representation, where $n$ qubit quantum states are thought to be elements of the complex projective space $\mathbb{CP}^{n}$ \cite{wootters1981, petz1996, grabowski2005}. Pure states reside on the surface of this Riemannian manifold and mixed states in the interior, the $n=1$ case is the well-known Bloch sphere portrayed in Fig.~(\ref{fig:blochsphere}). $\mathbb{CP}^{n}$ is equipped with an infinitesimal metric called the Fubini-Study metric $ds^2$, which is called the Bures metric \cite{bures1969, sommers2003} when it is extended to include the interior. Such a metric allows one to compare neighbouring quantum states $\rho_\theta$ and $\rho_{\theta+\delta \theta}$, analogous to the FI metric for (classical) statistical manifolds, it can be shown that $ds^2=\frac{1}{4}\mathcal{Q(\rho_\theta)} \delta \theta^2$ \cite{facchi2010, sidhu2020}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter3/GeometricQFI.PNG}
\caption{The length of the chord between $\ket{\psi_\theta}$ and $\ket{\psi_{\theta+ \delta \theta}}$ is $2 \sin \frac{d_A}{2}$. For small $d_A$, the length of the chord is approximately equal to the length of the geodesic, $ds \approx 2 \sin \frac{d_A}{2} \approx d_A $. This idea generalizes to higher dimensional abstract surfaces $\mathbb{CP}^n$ as well as their interior points (mixed states).}
\label{fig:GeomQFI}
\end{figure}
The Bures angle $d_A$ is the angle between the rays of $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$, explicitly \cite{amari2016, bengtsson2017}
\begin{equation}
d_A(\rho_1, \rho_2 ) = \arccos \sqrt{\mathscr{F}(\rho_1,\rho_2)},
\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{F}$ is the fidelity, Eq.~\eqref{eq:fidelity}. For neighbouring quantum states, the Bures angle can be approximated two different ways. The first way is by using a first order Taylor expansion
\begin{equation}
d_A(\rho_\theta, \rho_{\theta + \delta \theta} ) = \sqrt{ 2-2\sqrt{\mathscr{F}(\rho_\theta, \rho_{\theta + \delta \theta})}} + \mathcal{O}( \delta \theta^2).
\end{equation}
The second is a geometric approximation using the Bures metric (and by extension the QFI), the intuition of which is given in Fig.~(\ref{fig:GeomQFI})
\begin{equation}
d_A ( \rho_{\theta}, \rho_{\theta+\delta \theta} ) = ds + \mathcal{O}(\delta \theta^2 ) =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathcal{Q}(\rho_{\theta}, \rho_{\theta+\delta \theta} )} \delta \theta + \mathcal{O}(\delta \theta^2 ).
\end{equation}
A new expression for the QFI is obtained by merging the two equations \cite{sidhu2020}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:QFIlimit}
\mathcal{Q}(\rho_\theta) = \lim_{\delta \theta \rightarrow 0} 8\frac{1-\sqrt{\mathscr{F}(\rho_\theta, \rho_{\theta + \delta \theta})}}{\delta \theta^2},
\end{equation}
which can be useful to derive analytic bounds for the QFI and other information theoretic quantities \cite{suzuki2019, tsang2020}. A corollary of Eq.~\eqref{eq:QFIlimit} is the concavity of the QFI under CPTP maps $\mathcal{E}$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q} \big( \mathcal{E}(\rho_\theta) \big) \leq \mathcal{Q} \big( \rho_\theta \big),
\end{equation}
which follows from the monotonicity of the fidelity $\mathscr{F} \big( \mathcal{E}(\rho_1),\mathcal{E}(\rho_2) \big) \geq \mathscr{F} \big( \rho_1, \rho_2 \big)$. If $\mathcal{E}$ is thought of as an interaction with an environment (\textbf{Chapter~5}) or a malicious adversary (\textbf{Chapter~6}), then the concavity of the QFI can be understood as information about $\theta$ being lost to these outside sources.
\subsection{Ultimate Precision: The Heisenberg Limit}
To recapitulate: the CRB is a bound on the MSE by optimizing over estimation strategies, and the QCRB extends the bound by optimizing over measurement strategies. The next natural extension is to optimize over initialized quantum states, to find the true limit of precision attainable through quantum mechanics. The upper bound for which is referred to as the \textit{Heisenberg Limit} (HL) \cite{yurke1986, holland1993}.
Originally, the HL was derived within the framework of phase estimation. In the phase estimation problem, a phase $\theta$ is encoded into each qubit of an $n$ qubit pure state $\ket{\psi}$ by a unitary $U_\theta =e^{-i \theta H}$, where the Hamiltonian $H$ acts independently and identically on all $n$ qubits. The QFI can be calculated to be
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q} = 4 \big( \mel*{\psi}{H^2}{\psi} - |\mel*{\psi}{H}{\psi}|^2 \big) = 4 \Delta^2 H.
\end{equation}
The etymology of the term `Heisenberg limit' stems from the fact that the QCRB (with $\nu=1$) can be manipulated to mimic the the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta} \Delta^2 H \geq \frac{1}{4}.
\end{equation}
The QFI for phase estimation can be maximized by setting $\ket{\psi}$ to be a highly entangled state, such as the GHZ state for qubit systems or the NOON state for photonic systems, which results in $\mathcal{Q} = n^2$. Hence, the ultimate allowable precision by quantum mechanics (the HL) is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:HL}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}_\text{HL} = \frac{1}{\nu n^2}.
\end{equation}
The HL offers a quadratic improvement compared to the standard quantum limit (SQL), where the $\ket{\psi}$ is limited to separable states
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SQL}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}_\text{SQL} = \frac{1}{\nu n}.
\end{equation}
The SQL is also referred to as the classical limit or the shot-noise limit \cite{xiao1987}.
For qubit (and qudit) systems\footnote{For CV systems a quantum advantage can be achieved with squeezing \cite{yurke1986,ono2010}.}, entanglement is a crucial resource for quantum metrology \cite{pezze2009, pezze2018}. In fact, the quadratic tendencies of the QFI of a quantum state for phase estimation can be bounded with respect to the geometric measure of entanglement $G$\footnote{The geometric measure of entanglement for a pure state $\ket{\psi}$ is $G(\ket{\psi})=1-\max_{\ket{\phi}} |\braket{\phi}{\psi}|^2$, where $\ket{\phi}$ is maximized over all fully separable states. The definition is extended to mixed states by finding the convex roof of the geometric measure of entanglement over all possible statistical ensembles \cite{wei2003}.} \cite{augusiak2016}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(\rho_\theta) \leq n + 8n^2 \sqrt{G(\rho_\theta)}.
\end{equation}
It is worth stressing that entanglement may be a necessary condition to surpass the SQL but it is not a sufficient condition \cite{hyllus2010, oszmaniec2016}. Additionally, the bounds in Eq.~\eqref{eq:HL} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:SQL} are exclusive to the problem of phase estimation with an iid encoding. The QFI can surpass $n^2$ for non-linear $H$ \cite{luis2004, boixo2007, choi2008,braun2018}, and scenarios can be devised in which entanglement is not a necessary resource \cite{tilma2010}.
\subsection{Bayesian Approach to Quantum Metrology}
In the quantum version of the frequentist approach, the MSE is minimized by optimizing over all possible POVM's and input quantum states. The quantum version of the Bayesian approach \cite{holevo1982, jarzyna2015, rubio2018} is enhanced in an analogous fashion. As the estimator is updated adaptively, so too can the initialized quantum state as well as choice of POVM.
For parameter estimation problems which exhibit periodicity, such as phase estimation, the circular cost function
\begin{equation}
C_\circ ( \hat{\theta}, \theta ) = 4\sin^2 \Big( \frac{\hat{\theta}-\theta}{2} \Big)
\end{equation}
is a natural choice as a figure of merit \cite{demkowicz2011, demkowicz2015}, and converges to the MSE as $\hat{\theta}$ approaches $\theta$. If the initial choice of input quantum state and POVM are $\rho_\theta=U_\theta \rho_0 U_\theta^\dagger$ and $\int E_m \mathrm{d}m$ respectively, then the average cost is
\begin{equation}
\expval{C_\circ } = \int p(\theta) \bigg( \int \Tr ( \rho_\theta E_m ) C_\circ (\hat{\theta}(m),\theta)\mathrm{d}m \bigg) \mathrm{d}\theta,
\end{equation}
which is invariant when replacing the POVM $\{ E_m \}$ with a covariant POVM $\{ E_{\hat{\theta}} \}$ \cite{holevo1982, derka1998, chiribella2004, chiribella2005}
\begin{equation}
E_{\hat{\theta}}=U_{\hat{\theta}} \Sigma U_{\hat{\theta}}^\dagger
\end{equation}
and $\Sigma$ is the positive-semi definite operator defined for a specific $\hat{\theta}$
\begin{equation}
\Sigma = \int U_{\hat{\theta}(m)}^\dagger E_m U_{\hat{\theta}(m)} \mathrm{d} m.
\end{equation}
This re-parametrization allows the average cost to be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\expval{C_\circ } &= \int \int p(\theta) \Tr ( \rho_\theta E_{\hat{\theta}} ) C_\circ ( \hat{\theta}, \theta ) \mathrm{d} \hat{\theta} \mathrm{d} \theta \\
&= \int p(\theta) \Tr ( \rho_\theta \Sigma ) 4 \sin^2 \frac{\theta}{2} \mathrm{d} \theta.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By optimizing the above expression, the initialized quantum state $\rho_0$ and POVM characterized by $\Sigma$ can be updated adaptively \cite{derka1998, chiribella2005}.
As mentioned, the Bayesian statistical inference approach addresses the issues inherent to the frequentist approach: lack of a priori knowledge \cite{kolodynski2010, demkowicz2011} and limited resources \cite{rubio2020b}. The work presented in the subsequent chapters exclusively focus on the frequentist approach, as such, an interesting future perspective would be to generalize some of the findings to the Bayesian approach. Specifically in \textbf{Chapter~6}, where the estimation process is adapted in some capacity to account for the cryptographic framework.
\subsection{Multiple Parameters}
In the interest of simplicity, this chapter introduced the problem of parameter estimation with a single unknown parameter. The problem naturally generalizes to include multiple latent parameters $\theta \rightarrow \boldsymbol{\theta}=\{\theta_1,\ldots, \theta_m \} $, where the goal extends to devising estimators for each parameter $\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) \rightarrow \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\mathbf{x})=\{ \hat{\theta}_1(\mathbf{x}), \ldots, \hat{\theta}_m(\mathbf{x}) \}$. There are two major quandaries which arise in the multiparameter setting. First, the parameters may be statistically dependent on one another, which adds ambiguity when trying to interpret the observed data $\mathbf{x}$. Second, it is not always possible to simultaneously construct an efficient estimator for each unknown parameter.
Within the frequentist inference framework, assuming that each estimator satisfies the unbiased estimator constraint, $\mathbb{E}( \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}} ) =\boldsymbol{\theta} $, the generalization of the QCRB is the matrix equation \cite{yuen1973, helstrom1974, tsang2011}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:multiQCRB}
\textbf{Cov}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \geq \frac{1}{\nu} \boldsymbol{\mathcal{I}}^{-1} (\boldsymbol{\theta}) \geq \frac{1}{\nu} \boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}^{-1} (\boldsymbol{\theta}),
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{Cov}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is the covariance matrix with entries $\textbf{Cov}(\boldsymbol{\theta})_{i,j}=\expval*{(\hat{\theta}_i-\theta_i)(\hat{\theta}_j-\theta_j)}$, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{I}} (\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is the FI matrix
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{I}} (\boldsymbol{\theta})_{i,j} = \int p(\mathbf{x}|\boldsymbol{\theta}) \Big( \frac{\partial \ln p(\mathbf{x}|\boldsymbol{\theta}) }{\partial \theta_i} \Big) \Big( \frac{\partial \ln p(\mathbf{x}|\boldsymbol{\theta}) }{\partial \theta_j} \Big) \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x},
\end{equation}
and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}} (\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is the QFI matrix
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}} (\boldsymbol{\theta})_{i,j} = \Tr \Big( \mathcal{R}^{-1}_{\rho_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}} \big( \frac{ \partial \rho_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}{\partial \theta_i} \big) \rho_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \mathcal{R}^{-1}_{\rho_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}} \big( \frac{ \partial \rho_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}{\partial \theta_j} \big) \Big).
\end{equation}
The diagonal elements of an invertible positive semi-definite matrix $M$ satisfy $M_{i,i} \geq 1/M_{i,i}$, and equality holds for each $i$ when $M$ is diagonal. Hence, when the $m$ parameters are statistically independent from each other, Eq.~\eqref{eq:multiQCRB} reduces to the QCRB for each individual parameter $\theta_i$. Multiparameter estimation sustains additional complications in the quantum context with respect to optimizing quantum states and measurements. The superoperator $\mathcal{R}^{-1}_{\rho_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}} \big( \frac{ \partial \rho_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}{\partial \theta_i} \big)$ is the symmetric logarithmic derivative with respect to $\theta_i$, and measuring in all of these bases will saturate the QCRB. However, these measurements may not be compatible and thus cannot be realized in simultaneity \cite{vidrighin2014, crowley2014, ragy2016}.
Despite the additional complexity of simultaneously estimating multiple parameters, multiparameter quantum metrology is an active research topic \cite{szczykulska2016, nichols2018, albarelli2019, rubio2020b, meyer2021}. With respect to phase estimation, when the phase encoding unitaries do not commute, it is more efficient to estimate them in simultaneity rather than independently \cite{ baumgratz2016}; when the encoding unitaries do commute, one can devise a simultaneous estimation strategy which is at least as efficient as estimating the phases independently \cite{humphreys2013}. Multiparameter quantum metrology is a natural framework for eigenvalue estimation of higher dimensional unitaries \cite{fujiwara2001, ballester2004, berry2015, baumgratz2016} and for spatially distributed estimation problems \cite{eldredge2018, ge2018, proctor2018, zhuang2018, rubio2020a, guo2020}. The subsequent research chapters focus on the single parameter setting. Nonetheless, the mathematical techniques and derivations can easily be adapted to the multiple parameter setting. Formally addressing these generalizations is a future perspective of the works presented.
\section{Example Applications of Quantum Metrology}
The final section of this chapter explores well-known applications of quantum metrology where the concepts and tools that were introduced are put into practise. The examples chosen, phase estimation and amplitude estimation, have a simple mathematical formalism and highlight the novelty of a quantum parameter estimation problem. Specifically, phase estimation, which is indisputably the canonical usage of quantum metrology \cite{caves1981, giovannetti2004}, clearly showcases the advantages a quantum system can provide. Additionally, phase estimation is the core problem of \textbf{Chapter~4} and \textbf{Chapter~5}. The example of amplitude estimation, although not present in the subsequent research chapters, is included to showcase a simple usage which is not phase estimation.
\subsection{Phase Estimation (Photonic Interferometry)}
Phase estimation is a benchmarking problem for quantum metrology \cite{holland1993}. It encapsulates a variety of applications for quantum sensors, notably magnetometry \cite{taylor2008, wasilewski2010, sewell2012, brask2015, razzoli2019}, frequency estimation for optomechanical sensors \cite{zheng2016, djorwe2019, tsang2013}, spectroscopy \cite{meyer2001, leibfried2004, kira2011, dorfman2016,shaniv2018} and unitary tomography \cite{svore2013, o2019}. The premise of phase estimation is simple, yet the results are an elegant display of a quantum advantage. A relative phase is encoded into a quantum system via a physical interaction, and using highly entangled states and a simple measurement strategy, the QCRB can be saturated to attain the HL \cite{giovannetti2006}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter3/MachZehnder.png}
\caption{Schematic of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. A photonic source is fired onto a 50:50 beam splitter, which reflects a photon with 50\% probability (path $a$), otherwise the photon is transmitted (path $b$). A phase shift of $\theta$ is introduced uniquely on path $a$, after the paths interfere via a second beam splitter. The quantum state is measured with photon-counters, whose outcomes $j$ are dependent on the relative phase $\theta$.}
\label{fig:Interferometer}
\end{figure}
For photonic sources, a relative phase can be introduced using a Mach-Zehnder interferometer \cite{zetie2000}, depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Interferometer}. A photonic quantum state passes through a 50:50 beam splitter, in which photons are either transmitted or reflected, both with probability of one half, where reflection induces a phase shift of $\pi/2$ \cite{dowling2008}. After passing through the first beam splitter, a single photon will be in a superposition of the two possible modes, labelled by the respective paths $\ket{a}$ and $\ket{b}$. Since photons are indistinguishable particles, it is customary to write an $n$ photon quantum state as
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi}=\sum_{k=0}^n \alpha_k \ket{k,n-k},
\end{equation}
where the notation $\ket{k,n-k}$ denotes the quantum state with $k$ photons in mode $\ket{a}$ and $n-k$ photons in mode $\ket{b}$. The path-dependent phase shift is represented by the unitary
\begin{equation}
U_\theta = \exp (-i\frac{\theta}{2}\big(\dyad{a}-\dyad{b}\big))^{\otimes n},
\end{equation}
thus
\begin{equation}
U_\theta \ket{k,n-k} = e^{-i\frac{2k-n}{2}\theta}\ket{k,n-k}.
\end{equation}
After the phase shifts, the two paths interfere by passing through a second beam splitter. This causes the detection probabilities to be dependent on $\theta$, from which the statistics can be used to generate an estimate $\hat{\theta}$. The precision of the estimate is ultimately bounded by the QFI
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:qfiEx1}
\mathcal{Q}(\ket{\psi}) = \sum_{k=0}^n |\alpha_k|^2 (2k-n)^2-\Big( \sum_{k=0}^n |\alpha_k|^2 (2k-n) \Big)^2 = 4 \sum_{k=0}^n |\alpha_k|^2 k^2 - 4 \Big( \sum_{k=0}^n |\alpha_k|^2 k \Big)^2 .
\end{equation}
Suppose that the source of photons is uncorrelated such that the quantum state after passing through the first beam splitter is
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi}_\text{sep}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}\Big( \ket{a}+\ket{b} \Big)^{\otimes n}=\sum_{k=0}^n \sqrt{2^{-n}\binom{n}{k}} \ket{k,n-k}.
\end{equation}
Using Eq.~\eqref{eq:qfiEx1}, the QFI can be computed to be equal to the SQL, $\mathcal{Q}_\text{sep} = n$. In contrast, if the quantum state is initialized in the NOON state \cite{dowling2008, matthews2016, zhang2018}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:N00N}
\ket{\psi}_\text{ent}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big( \ket{n,0}+\ket{0,n} \Big),
\end{equation}
then the HL is attained\footnote{This has been experimentally accomplished using $n=4$ photons \cite{nagata2007}}, $\mathcal{Q}_\text{ent}=n^2$. The QCRB can be saturated using the previously described method of inferring an estimate from an observable. The chosen observable is the parity of the detected photons in detector $a$, labelled $D_a$ in, Fig.~\ref{fig:Interferometer},
\begin{equation}
O_\text{parity} = \sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k \dyad{k,n-k}.
\end{equation}
Assuming no dark counts, if $D_a$ detects $j$ photons, $D_b$ is fixed to $n-j$ photons, hence the parity of $D_b$ could have equally been considered. After intercepting the second beam splitter, the quantum state (up to a global phase) is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ket{\psi_\theta}_\text{ent} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n}}} \sum_{k=0}^n \sqrt{\binom{n}{k}} \Big( e^{-in \theta/2} i^{n-k} + e^{in \theta/2} i^k \Big) \ket{k,n-k} \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n-1}}} \sum_{k=0}^n \sqrt{\binom{n}{k}} \cos \Big( \frac{n\theta}{2}+\frac{\pi}{4}(2k-n) \Big) \ket{k,n-k},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
from which it can be computed that
\begin{equation}
\expval*{O}_\text{ent}=\cos \big( n \theta - \frac{\pi n}{2} \big).
\end{equation}
If the prepare and measure protocol is repeated $\nu$ times, the MSE of the estimator is
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}_\text{ent} = \frac{\Delta^2 O_\text{ent}}{\nu \big|\frac{\partial \expval*{O}_\text{ent}}{\partial \theta} \big|^2}=\frac{1}{\nu n^2},
\end{equation}
thus the QCRB is saturated with a simple measurement strategy. This example highlights the achievability of a quantum advantage, but simultaneously the locality of the frequentist approach. The periodicity of $\expval*{O}_\text{ent}$ implies that a priori knowledge of $\theta$ is required to an order of $2 \pi/n$. If $\theta$ is completely unknown, a frequentist approach can still be employed using varying $n=2^m$, where successive rounds of estimation are used to estimate the $m$th (binary) digit of $\theta$ \cite{kitaev1995}.
In this example, a relative phase is encoded using a photonic source by means of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Notably though, analogous results are obtained using spin systems \cite{toth2014}. In fact, the NOON state, Eq.~\eqref{eq:N00N}, can be interpreted as a GHZ state
\begin{equation}
\ket{\text{GHZ}} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}( \ket{0}^{\otimes n}+\ket{1}^{\otimes n}),
\end{equation}
which when used for phase estimation, similarly saturates the HL.
\subsection{Amplitude Estimation (Thermometry)}
After phase estimation, the next obvious example of a quantum metrology problem is amplitude estimation. A well-known example of amplitude estimation is quantum thermometry \cite{correa2015, de2018, mehboudi2019}, where the unknown parameter in question is temperature. Temperature is a seemingly intuitive notion ever present in our daily lives, and measuring this quantity may appear trivial. For every day objects, an infra-red thermometer converts infra-red radiation into a voltage which is converted into a temperature. This is done extremely quickly and accurately. Even so, in the `very cold' regime near zero Kelvin, measuring temperature is a complicated task, but very necessary for modern technologies such as superconductors.
Experimental implementations of quantum thermometry differ greatly \cite{neumann2013, toyli2013, kucsko2013}, yet the underlying principle is straightforward \cite{mehboudi2019}. An $N$ level system interacts with an external source at temperature $T$. Eventually, the collective ensemble of the system and the bath will reach thermal equilibrium, and the state of the system is given by the Gibbs ensemble
\begin{equation}
\rho_T = \frac{1}{Z} e^{-\frac{H}{k_B T}},
\end{equation}
where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $H$ is the system Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k \dyad{\epsilon_k}
\end{equation}
with energy eigenvalues $\epsilon_k$ and eigenstates $\ket{\epsilon_k}$, and $Z= \Tr e^{-\frac{H}{k_B T}}$ is the partition function. Within the standard convention of setting $k_B=1$, the derivative of the quantum system with respect to temperature is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:thermalequilibrium}
\dot{\rho}_T= \frac{H}{T^2} \rho_T - \frac{\expval*{H}}{T^2} \rho_T=\frac{1}{2T^2}\big((H-\expval*{H})\rho_T+\rho_t (H-\expval*{H}) \big).
\end{equation}
From which it is clear that the symmetric logarithmic derivative is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\rho_T}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_T) = \frac{1}{T^2}(H-\expval*{H}),
\end{equation}
therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:QFIthermometry}
\mathcal{Q}(\rho_T)=\Tr \big( \mathcal{R}_{\rho_T}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_T) \rho_T \mathcal{R}_{\rho_T}^{-1}( \dot{\rho}_T) \big)=\frac{1}{T^4} \Tr \big( (H-\expval{H})^2 \rho_T\big) = \frac{\Delta^2 H}{T^4}.
\end{equation}
In fact, the heat capacity
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \expval{H}}{\partial T} = \frac{\Delta^2 H}{T^2}
\end{equation}
is directly proportional to the QFI \cite{phillies1984}, hence the QCRB can be re-written as
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2 \hat{T} \geq \frac{1}{\nu \mathcal{Q}} = \frac{\Delta^2 H}{\nu|\frac{\partial \expval{H}}{\partial T} |^2}.
\end{equation}
Which suggests that the QCRB can be saturated by using the previously described estimation strategy of inferring the temperature from an observable, Eq.~\eqref{eq:ErrorPropagation}. In this instance the observable is the energy of the system \cite{jahnke2011}, $H$, which may not be surprising because of how intertwined energy and temperature are as quantities within the realm of statistical mechanics\footnote{On a macroscopic scale, temperature is an average quantity of a system composed of many many particles. This definition is somewhat ambiguous on a microscopic scale. In Eq.~\eqref{eq:thermalequilibrium}, temperature can be interpreted as a variable which governs the probability of the quantum system occupying a specific energy eigenstate.}.
Analogous to a GHZ state or NOON state being the optimal probe for phase estimation, Eq.~\eqref{eq:QFIthermometry} can be maximized to find the optimal probe for thermometry. The solution is an effective two level system with a single eigenstate having an energy of $\epsilon_-$ and $N-1$ eigenstates having a degenerate energy of $\epsilon_+$, the relative error of such a probe is $\Delta^2 \hat{T}/T^2 = \mathcal{O}(1/\log N)$ \cite{correa2015, mehboudi2019}. Note that the information presented in this example holds only for fully thermalized systems, which may be a time consuming process. The analysis is significantly more complex for partially thermalized systems \cite{correa2015}.
\end{document}
\chapter{Graph States as a Resource for Quantum Metrology}
It is obviously very desirable to have an easy to implement quantum resource with a large span of applications. One class of quantum states which satisfies these criteria are graph states: a versatile resource for quantum computation and quantum communication. In this chapter, to help determine the full extent of the applicability of qubit graph states, we explore their practicality for the quantum metrology problem of phase estimation. Before beginning this work, it had been shown that cluster states (a subset of graph states) are an efficient resource for certain quantum metrology problems, namely with a non-local parameter encoding scheme \cite{rosenkranz2009} or after undergoing local rotations \cite{friis2017}. We consider the standard (local) phase estimation problem and are able to quantify the effectiveness of a general graph state based on the shape of the corresponding graph \cite{SM20}. Since our work has been published, others have explored the practicality of continuous variable graph states for quantum metrology \cite{wang2020}.
\section{Graph States}
Graph theory \cite{west2001} is a rich and diverse branch of mathematics. A \textit{graph} is a structure used to model pairwise relationships with respect to a set of elements. A graph is devised of two types of elements: i) a set of \textit{vertices} (or nodes) which are connected with ii) \textit{edges}\footnote{This is the simplest description of a graph. More general graphs can have edges with assigned weights and/or a direction. These extra parameters are unnecessary for the scope of our work.}. Graphs are a customary tool in mathematics - they are the standard representation of the popular travelling salesmen problem and minimum colouring problem, for example. Outside of mathematics, graph theory is a tool to model all sorts of relations. In computer science, it can model the flow of information, where vertices are websites and an edge a hyperlink from one website to another. In animal biology, a vertex could signify a geographical region and the edges denote migration patterns for a species. With the broad scope of utility and existing research surrounding graph theory, it is unsurprising that it is used in the field of quantum information \cite{hein2004}.
\textit{Graph states} are an incredible useful resource in quantum information \cite{hein2006}. In the language of graph theory, quantum systems (qubits, qudits, CV states) are the vertices and entangling operations are the edges. These quantum states have a wide range of applications, including, but not limited to, cryptography \cite{markham2008, qian2012}, verification \cite{markham2020}, quantum networks \cite{pirker2018, meignant2019, hahn2019}, t-designs \cite{mezher2018} and error correction \cite{schlingemann2001a}. Marginally more complex graphs, where the vertices are either a quantum system, a quantum operation or a quantum measurement, is the foundation of measurement based quantum computing \cite{raussendorf2001, raussendorf2003, van2006}. In terms of implementation, graph states have been experimentally constructed using trapped ions \cite{barreiro2011, lanyon2013}, superconducting circuits \cite{song2017, gong2019}, squeezed states of light \cite{yokoyama2013, chen2014} and photons \cite{lu2007, gu2019, russo2019}.
\subsection{Graphical Representation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{Figures/Chapter4/graph1.png}
\caption{Complete graph.}
\label{fig:graph1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{Figures/Chapter4/graph2.png}
\caption{Star graph.}
\label{fig:graph2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{Figures/Chapter4/graph3.png}
\caption{Cyclic graph.}
\label{fig:graph3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{Figures/Chapter4/graph4.png}
\caption{Lattice graph.}
\label{fig:graph4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Graphical representation of frequently used graphs in quantum information. (a) A complete graph (or fully connected graph) is where each vertex is connected to every other vertex; $E_a= \{(v_i,v_j) \; \forall v_i,v_j \in V_a\}$. (b) A star graph is where there is a central vertex which forms an edge with all of the other vertices; $E_b= \{(v_1,v_j) \; \forall j \geq 2 \}$. (c) A cyclic graph is where the vertices are connected by a ring like series of edges; $E_c= \{(v_j,v_{j+1})\}$. (d) A lattice graph is where the vertices are arranged in an array. By using only single qubit Clifford operations, the complete graph state (a) and star graph state (b) can be transformed into the (all important) GHZ state using local Clifford operations. A cyclic graph (c) is one of the simplest models for a chain of quantum repeaters \cite{azuma2017}. A lattice graph state (d) wrapped around itself to form a torus is the basic structure of topological quantum error correcting codes \cite{bombin2006, bombin2007}. All four graphs could be used to represent a quantum network with varying complexities and purposes.}
\label{fig:graph_examples}
\end{figure}
Formally, a graph is a set of vertices $V=\{ v_1, \ldots, v_n \}$ and edges $E= \{e_1, \ldots, e_m \}$, where each edge $e_j=(v_{j_1},v_{j_2})$ is a length-2 tuple of two vertices. The graph is denoted by $G=(V,E)$. In quantum information, the set of vertices correspond to quantum systems (for this work these are qubits) and the edges correspond to an entangling operation. Each qubit is prepared in the $\ket{+}$ state, and a controlled-$Z$ operation is performed on the $i$th and $j$th qubit if $(v_i, v_j) \in E$. As an example, consider a 3 qubit star graph state, Fig.~(\ref{fig:graph2}), where the first qubit is the central qubit. The bra-ket representation of this quantum state is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examplegraphstate}
\begin{split}
\ket{G} &= CZ_{(1,2)} CZ_{(1,3)} \ket{+++} \\ &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{8}} \big( \ket{000}+\ket{001}+\ket{010}+\ket{011}+\ket{100}-\ket{101}-\ket{110}+\ket{111}\big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Other graphical nomenclature used is this chapter is `neighbourhood' and `isolated vertex'. The neighbourhood of a vertex $v$, denoted as $N(v)$, is the set of vertices which are connected to $v$: $N(v)= \{ u \in V | \; (u,v) \in E \}$. A vertex $w$ is said to be isolated if it has an empty neighbourhood: $|N(w)|=0$.
\subsection{Stabilizer Representation}
Graph states belong to a larger family of quantum states called \textit{stabilizer states}. The (general) stabilizer formalism does not have a graphical and illustrative analogue, instead, it is built upon mathematical symmetries and elegance. Stabilizer formalism, originally developed for quantum error correction \cite{gottesman1997} and adapted for measurement based quantum computing \cite{raussendorf2001}, is efficiently simulated \cite{aaronson2004} and verifiable \cite{pallister2018, markham2020} due to the fact that the underlying structure is symmetries arising from the Pauli group. The set of stabilizer states is closed under local Clifford operations, and a large number of stabilizer states are highly entangled.
A quantum state $\ket{\psi}$ is said to be stabilized by an operator $S$ if $S\ket{\psi} = \ket{\psi}$. An $n$ qubit quantum state $\ket{\psi}$ is a stabilizer state if it is stabilized by $n$ non-identity stabilizing operators $g_1, \ldots, g_n$ which i) all commute, ii) are multiplicatively independent and iii) are elements of the Pauli group $\pm \mathcal{P}_n$ \cite{garcia2017}. The bra-ket representation of a stabilizer state is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:stabrepresentation}
\dyad{\psi} = \frac{1}{2^n} \prod_{j=1}^n \big( \mathbb{I} + g_j \big) = \frac{1}{2^n} \sum_{S \in \mathcal{S}} S,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{S}$ is the stabilizer group of $\ket{\psi}$. Each $S \in \mathcal{S}$ stabilises $\ket{\psi}$ and is multiplicatively generated by $g_1, \ldots, g_n$ (hence the name generators). The generators are not necessarily unique, but the corresponding stabilizer group is unique. For example, the stabilizer group of the $3$ qubit GHZ state, Eq.~\eqref{eq:GHZstate}, can be written as $\langle X_1 X_2 X_3, Z_1 Z_2, Z_2 Z_3 \rangle$ or as $\langle X_1 X_2 X_3, -Y_1 Y_2 X_3, -X_1 Y_2 Y_3 \rangle$ (here the subscripts indicates which qubit a Pauli operator is acting on.
It is easy to verify that for all $1 \leq j \leq n$, operators of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:graphstabilizer}
g_j=X_j \bigotimes_{k \in N(j)} Z_k,
\end{equation}
stabilize a graph state with neighbourhoods $N(1),\ldots,N(n)$. This follows from
\begin{equation}
X_j CZ_{(l,m)} X_j = \begin{cases}
Z_l CZ_{(l,m)} & \text{if } j=m \\
Z_m CZ_{(l,m)} & \text{if } j=l \\
CZ_{(l,m)} & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
\end{equation}
thus
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
X_j \bigotimes_{k \in N(j)} Z_k \ket{G} &= \Big( \bigotimes_{k \in N(j)} Z_k \Big) \Big( \prod_{(l,m) \in E} X_j CZ_{(l,m)} X_j \Big) X_j \ket{+}^{\otimes n} \\
&= \Big( \bigotimes_{k \in N(j)} Z_k \Big)^2 \Big( \prod_{(l,m) \in E} CZ_{(l,m)} \Big) \ket{+}^{\otimes n} \\
&= \ket{G}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The operators of the form Eq.~\eqref{eq:graphstabilizer} all commute and are multiplicatively independent, and hence correspond to the stabilizer group for a graph state. The stabilizer representation of the graph state from Eq.~\eqref{eq:examplegraphstate} is
\begin{equation}
\dyad{\psi} = \frac{1}{8}\big(\mathbb{I} +X_1 Z_2 Z_3 \big)\big(\mathbb{I} +Z_1 X_2 \big)\big(\mathbb{I} +Z_1 X_3 \big).
\end{equation}
In fact, every stabilizer state can be transformed to a (not necessarily unique) graph state \cite{schlingemann2001b} by constructing a locally acting Clifford operator $C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes n}$ which maps the generators for a stabilizer state to generators of the form in Eq.~\eqref{eq:graphstabilizer}.
Because all non-identity Pauli operators have a trace of zero, it follows that for any Pauli operator $Q$ and stabilizer state $\ket{\psi}$ with stabilizer group $\mathcal{S}$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:traceprop}
\expval{Q}{\psi} = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } Q \in \mathcal{S}\\
-1 & \text{if } -Q \in \mathcal{S} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
\section{Graph States for Phase Estimation}
In order to gauge the practicality of graph states for quantum metrology, we restrict the problem to phase estimation. As discussed in \textbf{Chapter~3}, phase estimation is versatile in its applications and the expression for the QFI is much more manageable than the general expression. Having said that, it is still not obvious which quantum states achieve a quantum advantage when it comes to phase estimation. Of course, for qubit systems, entanglement is a required resource to surpass the SQL. However, entanglement does not guarantee Heisenberg-like scaling; it was shown in \cite{oszmaniec2016} that, on average, a randomly selected entangled quantum state would not attain a quantum advantage (even with the allowance of local unitary transformations). Notably though, it was shown in the same study that most symmetric states\footnote{Symmetric states, sometimes called permutation invariant states, are a class of quantum states which remain unchanged when any number of subsystems are swapped with one another.} are (up to local unitary transformations) an efficient resource for phase estimation. It is no surprise that the standard resources for phase estimation are highly symmetric, eg. the GHZ state \cite{giovannetti2004, giovannetti2006}, half-Dicke state \cite{toth2014} and spin squeezed states \cite{gross2012, zhang2014}. A sensible conclusion is that entanglement paired with symmetry makes for an efficient resource for phase estimation.
The canonical phase estimation problem encodes an unknown phase $\theta$ through a unitary of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:unitary}
U_\theta = e^{-i \theta \sum_{j=1}^n H_i} = \big( e^{-i \theta H} \big)^{\otimes n},
\end{equation}
where $H_j=H \; \forall j$ are locally acting Hermitian operators. In \cite{SM20}, we set $H=\frac{1}{2} X$, as this choice leads to an easily described class of states which approximately saturate the HL. That being said, the solutions and results can be generalized to any Hermitian generator by rotating beneficial graph states appropriately. Using Eq.~\eqref{eq:QFIpure}, the QFI of an $n$ qubit graph state $\ket{G}$ is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(G) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \Big( \expval{X_i X_j}{G} - \expval{X_i}{G} \hspace{-5pt} \expval{X_j}{G} \Big).
\end{equation}
This equation can be evaluated using the trace property of stabilizer states, Eq.~\eqref{eq:traceprop}, and the stabilizer group of graph states. For a graph without any isolated vertices $\expval{X_i}{G}=0$ for all $j$. The quantity $X_i X_j$ stabilizes $\ket{G}$ if and only if the neighbourhood of the $i$th qubit is equal to the neighbourhood of the $j$th qubit. By construction, the negation, $-X_i X_j$, never stabilizes $\ket{G}$. Therefore, the QFI of a graph state $\ket{G}$ with no isolated vertices is equal to the number of ordered pairs $(i,j)$ such that $N(i)=N(j)$. For the sake of a mathematical expression
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:qfigraph}
\mathcal{Q}(G) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \delta_{N(i),N(j)},
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{x,y}$ is the Kronecker delta which evaluates to $1$ if $x=y$ and $0$ otherwise. One can conclude that the graph states, although not totally symmetric states, still require a form of internal symmetry (i.e pairs of qubits with equal neighbourhoods) to attain a quantum advantage.
As an example, all of the external vertices of a $n$ qubit star graph state, Fig.~(\ref{fig:graph2}), have the same neighbourhood (the central vertex). Thus, the QFI is $\mathcal{Q}(G_\text{star})=(n-1)^2+1$, which is approximately equal to the HL. This is unsurprising as it is a highly symmetric state. Conversely, an $n$ qubit cyclic graph state, Fig.~(\ref{fig:graph3}), may appear to be highly symmetric at a graphical level (rotational symmetry), it does not have any permutation symmetries. An $n$ qubit lattice graph state, Fig.~(\ref{fig:graph4}), similarly does not have any permutations and also is limited by the SQL. This is in accordance with \cite{friis2017}, where it is stated that unmodified cluster states are not good resources for quantum metrology. Note that this does not contradict the results of \cite{rosenkranz2009}, where an unconventional parameter encoding scheme is used.
Because of the choice of $H_i=\frac{1}{2} X_i$, many highly symmetric states do not achieve a quantum advantage. For example, the complete graph, Fig.~(\ref{fig:graph1}), is invariant under any permutation and achieves the SQL. However, using the alternative choice for the unitary encoding $H_i = \frac{1}{2} Y_i$, the the QFI of the complete graph is the HL and the QFI of the star graph is the SQL. This alternative choice Hamiltonian also leads to an alternative, but more complicated, topological expression: the QFI is equal to the number of ordered pairs $(i,j)$ such that $N(i) \cup \{ i \} = N(j) \cup \{ j \}$. The problem concerning the choice of the encoding Hamiltonian vanishes by allowing for local transformations before the parameter is encoded. With this assumption, a graph state (or more generally, a stabilizer state) $\ket{\psi}$ is a practical resource for phase estimation if there exists a $C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes n}$ such that $C \ket{\psi}$ is a graph state whose corresponding graph has many pairs of vertices with identical neighbourhoods. Logically, the final possibility to examine is when the encoding Hamiltonian is set to $H_i=\frac{1}{2} Z_i$. However a quick computation leads to the conclusion that this choise leads to a QFI equal to the SQL of $\mathcal{Q}=n$ for any graph state.
\subsection{Generalization to Stabilizer States}
The QFI of a graph state was computed by finding the overlap of the Pauli operators of $\pm X_i$ and $\pm X_i X_j$ with the stabilizer group. This argument is not unique to graph states and can be made for any stabilizer state, further it can be reverse engineered to determine the number of stabilizer states which achieve a desired level of QFI.
Begin by defining the sets
\begin{equation}
A= \{X_1 X_2, X_1 X_3, \ldots, X_1 X_n \},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
B_k = \{ Q_1 \ldots Q_k | Q_j \in \{Y,Z \} \; \forall 1\leq j \leq k \},
\end{equation}
where $k > 1$. The set $A$ is ordered such that if a group is generated with the first $k-1$ elements, it will contain all operators of the form $X_iX_j$ with $1 \leq i,j \leq k$ (and $i \neq j$). Each $b \in B_k$ will commute with all elements of said group. We do not allow $Q_j = \mathbb{I}$ as then there exists a $b \in B_k$ which anti-commutes with certain operators.
Next construct the stabilizer group
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sgroup}
\mathcal{S} = \langle a_1, \ldots a_{k-1}, b, bg_1, \ldots, b g_{n-k} \rangle,
\end{equation}
where $a_1, \ldots, a_{k-1}$ are all unique operators from the set $A$, $b \in B_k$ and $g_1, \ldots, g_{n-k}$ act exclusively on the final $n-k$ qubits of the quantum state and are the generators for an $n-k$ qubit stabilizer state. By construction, $\mathcal{S}$ does not contain any stabilizer of the form $\pm X_i$ or $-X_i X_j$. Therefore, similar to a graph state with no isolated vertices, the QFI is equal to the number of stabilizers of the form $X_i X_j$, which is $k^2$ by construction. To determine a bound on the number of stabilizers states which achieve a QFI of $n^{2-\varepsilon}$, labelled via $\tilde{N}(n;\varepsilon)$, we count the total number of possible stabilizer groups which is of the form of Eq.~\eqref{eq:sgroup} with $k \geq n^{1-\varepsilon/2}$. Mathematically, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:numberofstab}
\tilde{N}(n;\varepsilon) \geq \sum_{k \geq n^{1-\varepsilon/2}} \binom{n-1}{k-1} 2^k s_{n-k},
\end{equation}
where $s_m$ is the number of $m$ qubit stabilizer states \cite{aaronson2004}
\begin{equation}
s_m = 2^m \prod_{j=0}^{m-1} (2^{n-j}+1).
\end{equation}
It is quite apparent that $\tilde{N}(n;\varepsilon) \ll s_n$ for small $\varepsilon$. This is because of a few different factors. The first is that most quantum states do not saturate the HL \cite{oszmaniec2016}. The second is that the bound in question is restricted to the problem of phase estimation via the specific unitary encoding with $H_i = \frac{1}{2}X_i$. Third, to simplify the mathematics, it was demanded that operators of the form $\pm X_j$ or $-X_j X_k$ were not in the stabilizer group; discrediting some stabilizer states which would still achieve the necessary QFI. In retrospect, a tighter bound could have been achieved by allowing for other encoding operations and a more concrete mathematical analysis.
\section{Bundled Graph States}
As it was formerly mentioned, graph states are a resource with many applications. It would be very desirable and convenient if a specific graph state with a specific application was also a practical resource for quantum metrology. Evidently from Eq.~\eqref{eq:qfigraph} and the previously mentioned examples, most graph states are not a good resource for quantum metrology, at least not before undergoing some sort of transformation \cite{friis2017}. In order to capitalize on graph states which are multipurpose, we provide a recipe to transform any graph into a (larger) graph which is practical for quantum metrology. The new graph maintains the underlying structure of the old graph and can still be used for the original purpose.
We name the new constructed graph a \textit{bundled graph state}, as the construction process involves replacing individual qubits by a bundle of qubits with identical neighbourhoods in order to maximize the QFI.
\subsection{Construction}
\definecolor{green1}{HTML}{33FF33}
\definecolor{blue1}{HTML}{7EA6E0}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figures/Chapter4/bundlegraph.PNG}
\begin{tabular}{ c | c | c | c }
\textbf{Vertex} & \tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[black,fill=red] (0,0) circle (1ex); & \tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[black,fill=green1] (0,0) circle (1ex); & \tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[black,fill=blue1] (0,0) circle (1ex); \\
\hline
\textbf{Quantity} & $n_1=3$ & $n_2=4$ & $n_3=3$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Transforming a $k=3$ vertex graph into a $n=10$ vertex bundled graph. The QFI of the corresponding bundled graph state (in this specific example) is $\mathcal{Q}=n_1^2+n_2^2+n_3^2 \approx n^{1.5}$.}
\label{fig:bundlegraph}
\end{figure}
The recipe transforms a smaller graph $G=(V,E)$ with $k$ vertices (none of which are isolated) into a larger graph $G_\text{bundled} = (V^\prime, E^\prime)$ with $n \geq k$ vertices.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Begin with any $k$ qubit graph state $G=(V,E)$ with no isolated vertices.
\item Vertex $v_i$ is replaced with $n_i$ vertices, labelled $v_i^{(1)}, \ldots, v_i^{(n_i)}$, with $\sum_{i=1}^k n_i = n$.
\item If $(v_i,v_j) \in E$ then $(v_i^{(a)},v_j^{(b)}) \in E^\prime \; \forall a,b$.
\end{enumerate}
The resulting graph $G_\text{bundled} = (V^\prime, E^\prime)$ has vertices
\begin{equation}
V^\prime = \{ v_1^{(1)}, \ldots, v_1^{(n_1)}, \ldots, v_k^{(1)}, \ldots, v_k^{(n_k)} \}
\end{equation}
and edges
\begin{equation}
E^\prime = \{ (v_i^{(a)},v_j^{(b)} ) \; \forall a,b \; | \; (v_i,v_j) \in E \}.
\end{equation}
The constructed bundled graph has many vertices with identical neighbourhoods: $N(v_i^{(a)}) = N(v_i^{(b)}) \; \forall i,a,b$. The above recipe is depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:bundlegraph}), in which an $n=10$ vertex bundled graph from a smaller $k=3$ vertex graph.
The QFI of a bundled graph state satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bundledqfi}
\mathcal{Q}(G_\text{bundled}) \geq \sum_{i=1}^k n_i^2 \geq \frac{n^2}{k} = n^{2-\log_n k}.
\end{equation}
If $k \ll n$, the resulting bundled graph approximately saturates the HL and the underlying structure of the graph state is preserved. Needless to say, the QFI is still dependent on the shape of the original graph. For example, a bundled cyclic graph state, where each of the $k$ bundles contains an equal number of $n/k$ qubits has a QFI
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(G_\text{cyclic,bundled})=\frac{n^2}{k}.
\end{equation}
A bundled star graph, built in the same manner, has a QFI
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(G_\text{star,bundled})=n^2\big(1-\frac{1}{k}\big)^2+\frac{n^2}{k}.
\end{equation}
Unsurprisingly, $\mathcal{Q}(G_\text{star,bundled}) \geq \mathcal{Q}(G_\text{cyclic,bundled})$, this is due to the fact that the underlying structure of the star graph state contained symmetries, whereas the cyclic graph state did not. Nevertheless, both the bundled star graph state and the bundled cyclic graph state have a Heisenberg-like QFI.
\section{Robustness}
An important criteria for quantum states to possess to be a practical resource for quantum metrology is robustness against noise. Environmental noise is the primary obstacle for current quantum metrology technologies \cite{escher2011b, demkowicz2012, tsang2013}. This topic, along with error correction based noise mitigation strategies is explored in much more detail in \textbf{Chapter~5}. In this chapter, a different approach to noise is taken: which is pinpointing resources which have a naturally built-in robustness. Two noise models are explored: i) iid dephasing, and ii) a finite number of erasures. These two noise models are frequently used in other noisy phase estimation problems \cite{demkowicz2012, kolodynski2013}. In particular, the GHZ state is famously fragile against the effects of loss and becomes useless for quantum metrology in a lossy environment \cite{kolodynski2013}. We subject the graph states to the noise models to having the unknown parameter $\theta$ encoded. The QFI calculations for noisy graph states can be found in \textbf{Appendix~A}.
As expected, the shape of a graph greatly influences the severity of the noise on the corresponding graph state. Without loss of generality, we again only consider graphs which have no isolated vertices. To bound the QFI as elegantly as possible, we partition the vertices of a graph $G=(V,E)$ into disjoint subsets $U_1,U_2,\ldots,U_l,\ldots$ such that $\bigcup_{l} U_l = V$. The vertices are partitioned in accordance to commonly shared neighbourhoods, hence, if $v_i \in U_a$ and $v_j \in U_b$, then $N(v_i)=N(v_j)$ if $a=b$ and $N(v_i) \neq N(v_j)$ if $a \neq b$. We write that $|U_l|=u_l$ and the shared neighbourhood of $U_l$ is $M_l$ with $|M_l|=m_l$.
\definecolor{green2}{HTML}{008000}
\definecolor{HLmagenta}{HTML}{ff00ff}
\definecolor{SQLorange}{HTML}{ffa500}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.495\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter4/PhaseErrors.png}
\caption{Effects of iid dephasing.}
\label{fig:dephasingplot}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.495\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{Figures/Chapter4/ErasureErrors.png}
\caption{Effects of erasures.}
\label{fig:erasureplot}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{3.2ex}
\begin{tabular}{ l m{1cm} l m{1cm} l }
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.7ex]
\draw[line width=0.8 mm, color=HLmagenta] (0,0) -- (0.75,0);
\end{tikzpicture} HL & &
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.45ex]
\node[tri,red,fill=red]{};
\end{tikzpicture}} $k=6$ (star) & &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[red,fill=red] (0,0) circle (1ex); $k=6$ (cyclic) \\
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.7ex]
\draw[line width=0.8 mm, color=SQLorange] (0,0) -- (0.75,0);
\end{tikzpicture} SQL & &
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.45ex]
\node[tri,blue,fill=blue]{};
\end{tikzpicture}} $k=10$ (star) & &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[blue,fill=blue] (0,0) circle (1ex); $k=10$ (cyclic) \\
& &
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.45ex]
\node[tri,green2,fill=green2]{};
\end{tikzpicture}} $k=15$ (star) & &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[green2,fill=green2] (0,0) circle (1ex); $k=15$ (cyclic) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Robustness of an $n=120$ qubit bundled star graph states and bundled cyclic graph states subjected to (a) iid dephasing and (b) $e \leq 5 $ erasures. In both scenarios, the bundled graphs have $k$ equal size bundles of $n/k$ qubits. After being subjected to iid dephasing (a), $\log_n \mathcal{Q}$ decreases linearly for small $p$. This is expected from Eq.~\eqref{eq:qfidephasing}, and ultimately, a quantum advantage is maintained. To gauge the effects of erasures (b), the quantity $\log_{n-e} \mathcal{Q}$ is plotted, where $\bar{\mathcal{Q}}$ is the average QFI of the bundled graph state after $e$ erasures - it is necessary to take the average prior to the logarithm to avoid the problem of $\log_n 0$. Because bundled star graph states have an enormous amount of symmetry, a single erasure (regardless of where it occurs) will cause the QFI to fall below the SQL. In contrast, the bundled cyclic graph are more resilient to noise and can maintain an advantage after a small number of erasures; furthermore, the amount of qubits which are (on average) affected by the erasures decrease as $k$ increases.}
\label{fig:robustnessplots}
\end{figure}
\subsection{IID Dephasing}
After being subjected to iid dephasing, each qubit has probability $p$ of being dephased with respect to the $Z$ operator. Define $Z_{\vec{j}}$ to be the Pauli operator which applies $Z$ to all qubits indexed in $\vec{j}$ with $|\vec{j}|=j$. Post iid dephasing, an $n$ qubit graph state $\ket{G}$ is mapped to
\begin{equation}
\ket{G} \rightarrow \sum_{\vec{j}} p^j (1-p)^{n-j} Z_{\vec{j}} \dyad{G} Z_{\vec{j}},
\end{equation}
which has a QFI of
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{Q}(G^\text{dephasing}) &\geq \sum_{l} \big( (1-2p)^2u_l^2+4p(1-p)u_l \big) \big( 1-(2p(1-p)+1/2)^{m_l} \big) \\
&\geq (1-2p)^2 \big( 1-(2p(1-p)+1/2)^m \big) \mathcal{Q}(G),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $m=\min_l m_l$. The quantity $(2p(1-p)+1/2)^m$ is approximately zero for large enough $m$ and small enough\footnote{$(2p(1-p)+1/2)^m < 0.006$ for $m \geq 10$ and $p \leq 0.05$.} $p$, using this approximation in tandem with the QFI of a bundled graph state Eq.~\eqref{eq:bundledqfi},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:qfidephasing}
\mathcal{Q}(G^\text{dephasing}_\text{bundled} ) \geq (1-2p)^2 \frac{n^2}{k} = n^{2-\log_n k-\frac{4}{n}p + \mathcal{O}(p^2)}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, for small $p$, bundled graph states retain a quantum advantage for phase estimation. This is shown in Fig.~(\ref{fig:dephasingplot}), where the QFI of bundled star graph states and bundled cyclic graph states surpass the SQL for $p \leq 0.25$.
\subsection{Erasures}
A qubit becomes unusable after undergoing erasure, to model this the erased qubits are traced out
\begin{equation}
\ket{G} \rightarrow \Tr_{\vec{e}} \dyad{G},
\end{equation}
where $\vec{e}$ indexes which qubits are erased. This maps the above state into an equally weighted mixed state\footnote{The mixed state in Eq.~\eqref{eq:erasedgraph} is left as an $n$ qubit state for clarity. The traced out systems are equivalent to maximally mixed states, $\mathbb{I}/2$, which are irrelevant with respect to the QFI.}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:erasedgraph}
2^{-|L_{\vec{e}}|} \sum_{\vec{j} \subseteq L_{\vec{e}} } Z_{\vec{j}} \dyad{G} Z_{\vec{j}},
\end{equation}
where $L_{\vec{e}}$ is the set of vertices corresponding to the traced out qubits as well as their neighbourhoods and the sum is taken over all possible subsets of $L_{\vec{e}}$, denoted with $\vec{j} \subseteq L_{\vec{e}}$. As a consequence, the QFI is extremely dependent on the shape of the graph. In general
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(G^{\text{erasures } \vec{e}}) = \sum_{l} h_l (\vec{e}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
h_l (\vec{e}) = \begin{cases}
u_l^2 & \text{if } M_l \nsubseteq L_{\vec{e}} \text{ and } U_l \nsubseteq L_{\vec{e}}\\
u_l & \text{if } M_l \nsubseteq L_{\vec{e}} \text{ and } U_l \subseteq L_{\vec{e}} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
An interpretation, is that the `noise' produced by an erasure effects all the similar qubits and propagates to the shared neighbourhood. Therefore, bundled graphs which were constructed from graphs that did not originally possess much symmetry are more robust against erasures then bundled graphs constructed from graphs with preexisting symmetries. This is witnessed in Fig.~(\ref{fig:erasureplot}), in which bundled cyclic graphs of varying size maintain a quantum advantage up to $e=3$ erasures, in contrast, the QFI of the analogous bundled star graphs is below the SQL after a single erasure.
A possible method to circumvent erasure errors is to construct graph states with two types of qubits. One type would be used for metrology but prone to noise (e.g. the spin of an electron), and the other type is more naturally robust to noise but not used for metrology (e.g. the spin of a neutron). By constructing a hybrid graph state one could reduce the propagation of noise caused by the erasure of a sensing qubit. Graphically, this transformation can be described as adding a `naturally robust' vertex in the center of each edge. If the naturally robust qubits are immune to erasures, the size of $L_{\vec{e}}$ would reduce drastically resulting in a higher QFI (on average).
\section{Saturating the QCRB}
Another important criteria for a quantum state to have in order to qualify as a practical resource for quantum metrology is the existence of a simple measurement scheme to saturate the QCRB. For a graph state with no isolated vertices, $\ket{G}$, this can be executed by measuring in the basis of a stabilizer, $S_M$, which consists entirely of $Y$ and $Z$ operators. Observe that the expected value of the observable (with respect to the phase encoded graph state) is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\expval{S_M} &= \bra{G} U_\theta^\dagger S_M U_\theta \ket{G} \\
&= \bra{G} (U_\theta^\dagger)^2 S_M \ket{G} \\
&= \bra{G} (U_\theta^\dagger)^2 \ket{G} \\
&= \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{(i\theta)^j}{j!}\bra{G} \Big( \sum_{i=1}^n X_i \Big)^j \ket{G}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For a graph state with no isolated vertices, the second order term is proportional to the QFI. Because the expectation value of an observable is real valued, the sum of all odd terms must be zero. Hence the above simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\expval{S_M} = 1- \frac{\theta^2}{2}\mathcal{Q}(G) + \mathcal{O}(\theta^4).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using the error propagation formula, the variance of the estimate scales as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta^2 S_M}{| \partial_\theta \expval{S_M} |^2 }= \frac{\theta^2 Q(G) + \mathcal{O}(\theta^4)}{\theta^2 Q(G)^2 + \mathcal{O}(\theta^4)} = \frac{1}{\mathcal{Q}(G)} + \mathcal{O}(\theta^2) \approx \frac{1}{\mathcal{Q}(G)}.
\end{equation}
The above approximation is only valid when the phase being estimated is very small, $\theta \approx 0$, fortunately this is naturally the regime explored for phase estimation. If the unknown phase is large, but it is known up to approximation because of a pre-existing model or another estimate, then the quantum state can be first transformed by local unitary operations such that the effective phase is small.
The condition that a graph state has a stabilizer $S_M$ which only consists of $Y$ and $Z$ operators is necessary for $S_M U_\theta = U_\theta^\dagger S_M$. Such a stabilizer is not guaranteed to exist and depends on the shape of the graph. For example, it always exists for bundled star graph states\footnote{Take the product of the generator of a central qubit and a generator of an external qubit.}, but for bundled star graph states, it exists only when $k=0 \mod 4$\footnote{Divide the bundles into sequences of four. Take the product of a generator from the two central bundles from each group of four.}. If the graph state does not have such a stabilizer, a solution can be remedied using an ancillary qubit. Let $S_M$ be the stabilizer with as many $Y$ or $Z$ operators, in any index which there is not $Y$ or $Z$ operator, entangle the corresponding qubit to the new ancillary qubit with a controlled-$Z$ operation. This will form an $n+1$ qubit graph state where the stabilizer $g_{n+1}S_M$ consists of entirely of $Y$ and $Z$ operators, thus the new graph, which would have a very similar structure to the original graph, can approximately saturate the QCRB with a simple single qubit measurement scheme.
\section{Quantum Sensing Networks}
An immediate application for graph states with respect to parameter estimation problems and metrology is quantum sensing networks \cite{komar2014, komar2016, eldredge2018, ge2018, proctor2018, zhuang2018, qian2019, rubio2020a, guo2020}. A quantum network is collection of nodes and edges, where the nodes have some quantum functionality and an edge represent some form of connection between a pair of nodes, this can be either entanglement of a quantum channel \cite{kimble2008, van2012, schoute2016, wehner2018}. This is a much more general framework than the graph state framework, nonetheless the similarities between the two simplify the adaptation of a graph state into a quantum network \cite{meignant2019, hahn2019}. A quantum sensing network is a quantum network designed for quantum parameter estimation. Quantum sensing networks come in two flavours depending on the functionality of the nodes and edges.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.495\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter4/SensingNetworks_Type1.png}
\caption{Type 1 Quantum Sensing Network.}
\label{fig:SensingNetwork_Type1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.495\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{Figures/Chapter4/SensingNetworks_Type2.png}
\caption{Type 2 Quantum Sensing Network.}
\label{fig:SensingNetwork_Type2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{There are two main descriptions for quantum sensing networks. The first type (a) of quantum sensing networks aligns with the description of a graph state, where a node represents a qubit and an edge represents an entangling operation. This type of quantum network is a popular framework for multiparameter quantum problems \cite{proctor2018, rubio2020a}, as each node can encode a different unknown parameter $\theta_j$. The second type (b) of quantum sensing networks resembles the usual description of quantum networks \cite{van2012}, where an edge represents a quantum channel between two nodes. In particular, not all nodes are created equal and serve different purposes. In this schematic the central square nodes distribute quantum states to the exterior triangle nodes where an unknown parameter is encoded, the encoded quantum states are then returned to a central node to be measured.}
\label{fig:SensingNetworks}
\end{figure}
The first type of quantum sensing networks is when the nodes represent a quantum state the edges represent a form of entanglement, depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:SensingNetwork_Type1}). Evidently, graph states are a subset of possible quantum sensing networks. Quantum sensing networks, with a suitable choice for entangling operations and initialized quantum states, have been shown to be an effective resource for multiparameter quantum metrology problems \cite{proctor2018, rubio2020a}. Graph states are no exception, and thus a future natural direction for this work is to formally classify utility of graph states for quantum metrology in the multiparameter setting. Likely, the most efficient graphs will resemble bundled graph states where a different parameter is encoded into a different bundle.
The second type of quantum sensing networks is when the nodes have different technological functionality and edges represent a quantum channel, depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:SensingNetwork_Type2}). For example, the authors of \cite{komar2014, komar2016} construct a quantum network where a central node is much more powerful technologically than the exterior nodes. There, the central node prepares quantum states, which are then distributed to exterior nodes where a local phase is encoded, after which the encoded quantum state is returned to the central node to be measured. A current project of mine is combining the results from this chapter and the cryptographic protocols outlined in \textbf{Chapter 6} to devise a notion of a secure quantum sensing network for phase estimation problems.
\section{Discussion}
To recapitulate, graph states are applicable to many disciplines of quantum information and can be implemented with different technologies. In our work \cite{SM20}, we showed that quantum metrology problems can be added to the versatility of graph states. This was done by constructing a class of graph states, called bundled graph states, which have a Heisenberg-like QFI with respect to phase estimation. By design, bundled graph states can have any desired underlying structure, making them multi purposeful.
In addition to the Heisenberg-like QFI, graph states are robust against iid dephasing and (conditional on the shape of the graph) a small number of erasures. As a comparison, the GHZ state is similarly robust against dephasing but cannot tolerate a single erasure \cite{toth2014}. Even though we explored specific error models, we expect similar robustness results in other settings. For example errors during or after the parameter encoding, or a spatially correlated noise model \cite{jeske2014}, in which vertices (or bundle of vertices) of a graph is subjected to different error rates.
Lastly, a simple measurement scheme is presented to approximately saturate the QCRB. Even though this can always be done in theory by measuring in the basis of the symmetric logarithmic derivative \cite{braunstein1994}, doing so is unfeasible for real world quantum technologies. The measurement scheme we present uses local Pauli measurements, which is realizable for real world quantum technologies \cite{waldherr2012}.
There are a number of exciting future perspectives for graph states and quantum metrology. One direction is to explore more general scenarios, such as metrology problems other than phase estimation or phase estimation with non-local parameter encoding unitaries \cite{luis2004}. Another direction is to adapt the underlying structure of a graph state to that of a quantum sensing network \cite{komar2014, komar2016, eldredge2018, ge2018, proctor2018, zhuang2018, qian2019, rubio2020a, guo2020}. Likely, the most efficient graph states to adapt to a quantum sensing network problem is bundled graph states. This is because the inherent symmetries which boost their utility for quantum metrology remains unchanged in a multiparameter setting. Of course, this needs to be shown formally and may not be so straightforward to devise a measurement scheme with compatible measurements.
\end{document}
\chapter{Limits of Error Correction for Quantum Metrology}
Noise is the greatest obstacle for quantum metrology that limits the achievable precision and sensitivity \cite{escher2011a, escher2011b, demkowicz2012}. As a noisy system evolves in time, it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish the effects of the encoding Hamiltonian and the effects of noise \cite{haase2016}. A proposed solution to mitigate the effects of noise is to repeatedly perform quantum error correction \cite{kessler2014, dur2014, arrad2014, lu2015}. Recently, it has been shown that if the encoding Hamiltonian and the environmental noise satisfy an orthogonality condition, then the HL may be recovered indefinitely \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018}. This euphonic conclusion has the added caveat that the assumed frequency of which error correction is performed is infinite. Needless to say, this is an impractical assumption for current quantum technologies, where the rate of implementable error correction is on a similar time scale to the dephasing rates of spin qubits \cite{cramer2016, ofek2016} and superconducting qubits \cite{dutt2007, taminiau2014}.
In this chapter, we determine the limitations of error correction enhanced quantum metrology by accounting for imperfections of near term quantum technologies. These include a non-infinitesimal wait time between applications of error correction, noisy ancillary qubits and imperfect error correction operations. The work done in \cite{kessler2014} makes similar assumptions, however higher order error terms are ignored, which is equally presumptuous as infinitely frequent applications of error correction.
\section{Environmental Noise and Errors}
Quantum systems are extremely sensitive to small perturbations. These perturbations can arise from interactions with external degrees of freedom, e.g. an electron getting excited by an incident photon, or from the finite precision in which quantum operations and control can be performed. These interactions alter the evolution of a quantum system in an undesirable fashion, where the final quantum state is not the targeted quantum state in an idealistic scenario. This is perhaps the biggest hurdle in creating quantum technologies \cite{suter2016}, to such an extent that many have come to accept the current inevitability of errors and search for problems which may be solved with noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) technologies \cite{preskill2018, torlai2020, bharti2021}.
The standard nomenclature for `interactions with external degrees of freedom' is environmental noise. Models for open quantum systems subject to environmental noise comes in many flavours \cite{gardiner1991, breuer2002, clerk2010} and ultimately depend on the type of quantum technology. Photonic systems are prone to lossy effects \cite{wang2014}, whereas spin systems are prone to decoherence effects \cite{zurek2006}. Similarly, the consequences of noise is model dependent, but in principle entanglement in composite systems is lost, and the likely reason why quantum effects are not observed at a macroscopic scale \cite{schlosshauer2005, zurek2006}.
\subsection{Noisy Quantum Metrology}
In the past decade, the effects of noise on quantum metrology problems have been well established \cite{escher2011a, escher2011b, demkowicz2012, chaves2013, tsang2013, kolodynski2013, jeske2014, kolodynski2014, demkowicz2015, haase2016}. Optical systems are prone to loss and diffusion \cite{lee2009, demkowicz2009, knysh2011, zhang2013, demkowicz2015}, while atomic systems are prone to dephasing and decoherence \cite{shaji2007, borregaard2013, macieszczak2014, zheng2014}. In principle, as a noisy system evolves in time, it becomes more difficult to extract information about the encoded unknown parameter(s), and as a consequence of lost entanglement, the sensitivity is limited to that achievable by classical approaches \cite{chin2012}.
The canonical example of a noisy quantum metrology scheme involves $n$ qubits governed by two interactions. The first is a signal $\omega$ which causes a detuning in each of the qubits, represented by $H=\frac{\hbar \omega}{2}\sum_{m=1}^n Z_m$. The second, an interaction with the environment which causes dephasing with rate $\gamma$ in the $X$ direction. Lastly, the qubit evolves in accordance to its natural resonance frequency, which is assumed to be known to a high degree of precision. In the rotating reference frame, where the natural frequency of the qubit is suppressed, the Lindbladian master equation can be written as \cite{rivas2012}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MasterNoisy}
\frac{d \rho}{d t} = -\frac{i}{\hbar} [H,\rho] + \gamma \sum_{m=1}^n (X_m \rho X_m - \rho ).
\end{equation}
After time $t$ the QFI of the system can be computed (see \textbf{Appendix B}) to be
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noisymetro_noecc}
Q_\text{noisy} = n^2 t^2 \Big(1-\big(2-\frac{4}{3n} \big) \gamma t \Big) + \mathcal{O} ( t^4 ).
\end{equation}
In the short time limit, where the first two non-zero terms of the Taylor expansion
dominate the behaviour of the QFI, the HL is lost once the quantity $2 \gamma t$ becomes large. This is true regardless of the value of $\omega$, as depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFI_noECC}). This is not a practical time scale for quantum metrology \cite{huelga1997}, specifically in the interest of small values of $\omega$ where it is necessary for the system to evolve for a long enough time to distinguish between the effects of the signal and imperfections of real world measurement technologies.
\definecolor{green2}{HTML}{008000}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{.65\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter5/QFI_noECC.png}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{.2\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{c l}
\tikzcircle[red,fill=red]{0.7ex} & $\omega/\gamma = 100$ \\
& \\
\tikzcircle[blue,fill=blue]{0.7ex} & $\omega/\gamma = 1$ \\
& \\
\tikzcircle[green2,fill=green2]{0.7ex} & $\omega/\gamma = 1/100$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Normalized QFI $\mathcal{Q}/(nt)^2$ after an $n=10$ qubit GHZ state is used for phase estimation in the presence of environmental decoherence, Eq.~\eqref{eq:MasterNoisy}. Regardless of the signal-to-noise ratio, $\omega/\gamma$, the QFI tends to zero around $2\gamma t \approx 1$.}
\label{fig:QFI_noECC}
\end{figure}
There are a number of proposed strategies to mitigate the effects of noise. A passive approach is to engineer the noise model so that is better suited for quantum metrology. For example, non-Markovian noise models\footnote{A Non-Markovian noise model is one which does not use the Born-Markov \cite{kolovsky2020} approximation to formulate the master equation.} can be tailored to outperform standard Markovian noise models \cite{chin2012, berrada2013}. Similarly, decoherence free subspaces (where qubit dephasing is not independent) outperform the standard uncorrelated depashing noise models \cite{dorner2012}. A more active approach is to monitor the effects of the environment using continuous measurements \cite{clerk2010, plenio2016, albarelli2018, rossi2020}.
Quantum control is a very promising technique to suppress the effects of noise on quantum metrology \cite{sekatski2017}. Broadly speaking, the quantum system is occasionally modified, and if done appropriately can reduce the impact of noise. \cite{zheng2015} proposes feedback to based off of a coupled to a cavity or reservoir to `reverse' the effects of noise. Dynamical decoupling protocols \cite{rong2011, souza2012, sekatski2016} apply a sequence of unitary operation in rapid succession can cancel out the effects of noise. Signal amplification in optical systems can be used to mitigate the effects of loss \cite{caves1981, ou2012, frascella2021}. This chapter focuses on incorporating quantum error correction as a means of control.
\section{Quantum Error Correction}
The fragility of quantum systems is a major obstacle for quantum computing \cite{unruh1995, raimond1996}. Suppose each quantum operation has a small probability of being done incorrectly: $\varepsilon \ll 1$; embedding an error in the quantum system. Then the probability that no errors occur after $N$ operations is $(1-\varepsilon)^N$, which will decrease to zero as $N$ increases. \textit{Quantum error correction} \cite{devitt2013} is a vital tool developed to combat the effects of noise and actualize fault tolerant quantum computing \cite{preskill1998}. Using clever encoding schemes, in which quantum states are encoded into larger systems (often called `logical' quantum states), the effects of environmental decoherence can be reduced substantially enough such that arbitrarily long protocols and computations can be fulfilled.
The \textit{no-cloning theorem}\footnote{It is impossible to create an independent and identical copy of an arbitrary unknown quantum state.} \cite{wootters1982} and the \textit{collapse of the wave-function} are the predominant reasons as to why classical error correction techniques cannot be seamlessly integrated into a quantum framework. Furthermore, qubits are susceptible to bit flips and phase flips, for which there is no classical analogue for the latter. Despite the challenges and constraints, primitive error correction models and protocols were established in the 1990's \cite{shor1995, steane1996a, steane1996b, calderbank1996, bennett1996, gottesman1996, gottesman1997, kitaev1997}. In the last two and half decades, the field of quantum error correction has flourished. Nowadays, a range of error correction protocols exist, such as topological codes \cite{kitaev1997, bombin2006, bombin2007}, permutation invariant codes \cite{pollatsek2004, ouyang2014, ouyang2019} and approximate codes \cite{leung1997, schumacher2002}; each with their own advantages and disadvantages. In addition, quantum error correction has been experimentally demonstrated using different resources, such as spin qubits \cite{dutt2007, taminiau2014, cramer2016}, continuous variable optical systems \cite{aoki2009} and superconducting circuits \cite{reed2012, ofek2016}.
\subsection{Example: Bit-Flip Code}
A bit-flip error, denoted by $\mathcal{E}$, maps the quantum state $\ket{0}$ to the quantum state $\ket{1}$ and vice versa. If $p$ is the probability of a bit-flip error, then
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(\rho) = (1-p) \rho + p X \rho X.
\end{equation}
The three qubit bit-flip code \cite{gottesman1997} is a rudimentary error correcting code designed to correct a single bit-flip error. The physical states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ are encoded\footnote{The encoding can be implemented with two ancillary $\ket{0}$ states and controlled-$X$ operations.} into three qubit logical states $\ket{0_L}=\ket{000}$ and $\ket{1_L}=\ket{111}$ respectively, and in general,
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi} = \alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1} \rightarrow \ket{\psi_L} = \alpha \ket{0_L}+\beta \ket{1_L}.
\end{equation}
Each of the three qubits physical qubits are independently susceptible to a bit-flip error
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \mathcal{E}( \dyad{\psi_L} ) = \\
& (1-p)^3 \dyad{\psi_L} \\
+ & p(1-p)^2 \big(X_1 \dyad{\psi_L}X_1 + X_2 \dyad{\psi_L}X_2 + X_3 \dyad{\psi_L}X_3 \big) \\
+ & p^2(1-p) \big(X_1 X_2 \dyad{\psi_L}X_1 X_2 + X_1 X_3 \dyad{\psi_L}X_1 X_3 + X_2 X_3 \dyad{\psi_L} X_2 X_3 \big) \\
+ & p^3 X_1 X_2 X_3 \dyad{\psi_L} X_1 X_2 X_3,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
equivalently, there is a probability: $(1-p)^3$ of no errors occurring, $3p(1-p)^2$ of exactly one error occurring, $3p^2(1-p)$ of exactly two errors occurring, or $p^3$ of exactly three errors occurring. Assuming that $p$ is small, it is far more likely that $0$ or $1$ errors occur than $2$ or $3$ errors occur. Thus, by comparing the parity of the three qubits (which can be done using non-destructive and entangled measurements), one can apply a `majority-is-correct' correction rule, and (with high probability) recover the quantum state\footnote{The quantum state is recovered if zero or one errors occurred, but not if two or zero errors occurred. If $p \ll 1$, the former scenario is much more likely.}. Formally, this measurement is better known as a \textit{syndrome measurement} or \textit{syndrome diagnosis}, the measurement results are better known as \textit{error syndromes} and the correction rule is better known as a \textit{recovery operation}. The error syndromes and recovery operations of the bit-flip code are listed in Table~(\ref{tab:bitflip}).
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
Error Syndrome & Recovery Operation \\
\hline
$\dyad{000}+\dyad{111}$ & $\mathbb{I}$ \\
$\dyad{100}+\dyad{011}$ & $X_1$ \\
$\dyad{010}+\dyad{101}$ & $X_2$ \\
$\dyad{001}+\dyad{110}$ & $X_3$
\end{tabular}
\caption{The error syndromes and corresponding recovery operations for the bit-flip code.}
\label{tab:bitflip}
\end{table}
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{1}
The bit-flip code, is not `technically' an error correction code, because, although it can correct bit-flip errors, it cannot correct any error, for example phase-flips. One can correct a single phase-flip using a similarly constructed phase-flip code \cite{gottesman1997}. Notably the 9-qubit code is constructed by superimposing the phase-flip and bit-flip code, which can correct any single qubit error \cite{shor1995}. It was later shown that any single qubit error can be corrected using a more compact code of five qubits \cite{laflamme1996}.
\section{Error Correction Enhanced Quantum Metrology}
It was shown in \cite{kessler2014} that repeated applications of error correction can be used to significantly increase the sensitivity of a quantum probe for quantum metrology. Since then, the extent of error correction enhanced quantum metrology has been well explored\footnote{As it happens, the converse setting of using mathematical techniques of quantum metrology for quantum error correction has also been explored in \cite{kubica2021}, where QFI bounds were used to provide a proof of the approximate Eastin-Knill Theorem.}: the general limitations have been established \cite{dur2014, arrad2014, lu2015, demkowicz2017, zhou2018, zhou2020}, and codes have been engineered for specific scenarios \cite{herrera2015, matsuzaki2017, layden2018, layden2019, zhuang2020, wang2021}. Error correction enhanced magnetometry has been experimentally realized in \cite{unden2016}, where the sensing time exceeded the natural dephasing times of the spin qubits.
For general Markovian noise, quantum error correction can be used to correct errors which can be distinguished from the Hamiltonian which encodes the signal (transverse noise). When the signal Hamiltonian and environmental noise commute (parallel noise), error correction cannot be used. Parallel noise can be corrected for non-Markovian noise models \cite{layden2018, layden2019} or using continuous measurements \cite{albarelli2018}.
\subsection{Theoretical Limitations: Recovering the HL}
Recall from \textbf{Chapter 2} that the dynamics of a general Markovian noise model are governed by the master equation
\begin{equation}
\dot{\rho}(t) = -\frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \rho(t)] + \sum_{j=1}^{d^2-1} \gamma_j \big[ L_k \rho(t) L_k^\dagger - \frac{1}{2} \big\{ \rho(t),L_k L_k^\dagger \big\} \big],
\end{equation}
$L_1,\ldots,L_{d^2-1}$ are Lindblad operators. It follows that, for a small time $\tau$, the evolution can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:smallevo}
\rho(t+\tau) = \rho(t)-\frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \rho(t)] \tau + \sum_{j=1}^{d^2-1} \gamma_j \big[ L_k \rho(t) L_k^\dagger - \frac{1}{2} \big\{ \rho(t),L_k L_k^\dagger \big\} \big] \tau + \mathcal{O} ( \tau^2 ).
\end{equation}
It was shown in \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018} that for a general transverse noise model, an error correction code can be constructed, which when applied, will not interrupt the encoding Hamiltonian, i.e
\begin{equation}
\rho(t)-\frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \rho(t)] \tau
\end{equation}
and correct first order errors, i.e
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{d^2-1} \gamma_j \big[ L_k \rho(t) L_k^\dagger - \frac{1}{2} \big\{ \rho(t),L_k L_k^\dagger \big\} \big] \tau.
\end{equation}
The distinguishable criteria (transverse noise) is called Hamiltonian-not-in-Linblad span in \cite{zhou2018}, because the necessity condition is rephrased as
\begin{equation}
H \notin \text{span} \{\mathbb{I},L_j,L_j^\dagger,L_j^\dagger L_k \},
\end{equation}
where the span is taken over all subscripts $j$ and $k$. It is demonstrated that, if the frequency at which error correction is performed is fast enough such that the higher order evolution terms are negligible, $\mathcal{O}(\tau^2) \rightarrow 0$, then the HL can be maintained indefinitely.
\subsection{Practical Limitations: Current Quantum Technologies}
Unfortunately, the mathematical assumption of arbitrarily fast error correction does not coincide with current quantum technologies. In fact, higher order error terms should not be ignored whatsoever, reason being that current error correction rates scale similarly to current dephasing rates \cite{dutt2007, schindler2011, taminiau2014, cramer2016, ofek2016}. The experimental realization of error correction enhanced quantum metrology \cite{unden2016} had a wait time between periods of error correction of 20$\mu$s (or 50kHz) - comparable to the reported decoherence rate of 30kHz. This experiment used a single NV center as a sensor and performed two applications of error correction.
Even supposing that the higher order terms $\mathcal{O}(\tau^2)$ in Eq.\eqref{eq:smallevo} are negligible compared to the first order approximation, the argument in itself falls short of expectations. If $t$ is the sensing time, and $\tau$ is the time between applications of error correction; the assumption of $\tau$ being arbitrarily small is equivalent with the number of rounds of error correction, $t/\tau$, being arbitrarily large. Although the higher order evolution term is negligible after a single round of error correction, which in turn adds a negligible amount of uncertainty to the final quantum state, this does not necessarily imply that the total uncertainty added to the quantum state after $t/\tau$ rounds is also negligible.
Furthermore, current quantum error correction technologies are not perfect. Ancillary qubits are also encumbered to the effects of noise. Syndrome diagnosis and recovery operations cannot be implemented with perfect fidelity. These imperfections will hinder the utility of the quantum state for quantum metrology.
\section{Our Model}
A more pragmatic approach for error correction enhanced quantum metrology is to make no assumptions regarding the time between applications of error correction and draw conclusions from an exact solution. It should be noted that the noise models in \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018} are completely general. Inevitably, obtaining an exact solution for an arbitrary noise model is infeasible, which is why we use a relevant noise model: dephasing in a direction orthogonal to the signal, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:MasterNoisy}.
Similarly, we make use of a realizable error correction code: a parity check code \cite{hsieh2009,fujiwara2015, roffe2018}. A parity check code makes use of an ancillary qubit which is less sensitive to environmental interactions (and thus less noisy). For example, the experiment in \cite{unden2016} used an electron spin for sensing and a nuclear spin as the ancillary qubit. In each application of error correction, the syndrome diagnosis outputs the parity between individual sensing qubits and the ancillary qubit. The subsequent recovery operation will correct any qubits which demonstrated a difference in parity by applying an $X$ operation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter5/ECCschematic.PNG}
\caption{Schematic of our error correction enhanced quantum metrology model. The input state, $\rho_\text{in}$, is initialized as an $n+1$ qubit GHZ state composed of $n$ sensing qubits and one ancillary qubit. The sensing qubits are influenced by a signal $\omega$ and dephasing $\gamma$. The parity check code, denoted by $\mathcal{C}$, is repeatedly applied after a given time $\tau$ to mitigate the effects of dephasing. The final quantum state used for parameter estimation, $\rho_\text{out}$, undergoes $t/\tau$ rounds of error correction. The scheme can easily be generalized; allowing for arbitrary input states, error correction strategies and more ancillary qubits.}
\label{fig:ECCQM}
\end{figure}
In our model, exhibited in Fig.~(\ref{fig:ECCQM}), the quantum state is initialized as an $n+1$ qubit GHZ state, where $n$ qubits are used for sensing and the remaining one qubit (which is more resistant to environmental noise) acts as an ancilla for error correction. The sensing qubits are influenced by a signal $\omega$ and dephasing with rate $\gamma$. The sensing qubits evolve per Eq.~\eqref{eq:MasterNoisy} for time $\tau$, after which the parity check code is applied; the procedure is then repeated $t/\tau$ times where $t$ is the total sensing. Without loss of generality, it is assumed that $t/\tau$ is an integer. The set-up is similar to that of \cite{kessler2014}, however the authors disregard higher order error terms, which is similarly presumptuous to assuming an arbitrarily small $\tau$.
To augment the reality of our model, we account for other hindrances current error correction technologies are burdened by: noisy ancilla and imperfect syndrome diagnosis. The noisy ancilla is subjected to a dephasing rate $\xi$, which changes the master equation to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MasterNoisyWithAncilla}
\frac{d \rho}{d t} = -\frac{i}{\hbar} [H,\rho] + \gamma \sum_{m=1}^n (X_m \rho X_m - \rho )+\xi(X_{n+1} \rho X_{n+1} - \rho ),
\end{equation}
where the ancillary qubit is indexed by the subscript $n+1$. Imperfect syndrome diagnosis is simulated by assuming that the syndrome diagnosis is incorrect with probability $p$, which results in an unnecessary recovery operation (or lack thereof).
\section{Results}
A completely general result for the final quantum state after $t/\tau$ rounds of error correction with a noisy ancilla and imperfect syndrome diagnosis is derived in \textbf{Appendix B}. The general solution is quite complicated and difficult to analyse. For clarity, each subcase is analysed individually: i) ideal error correction ($\xi=0$, $p=0$), ii) noisy ancilla ($\xi \neq 0$, $p=0$), and iii) imperfect syndrome diagnosis ($\xi=0$, $p \neq 0$).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter5/QFIPlotsECC.png}
\vspace{0.7ex}
\begin{tabular}{ l m{1cm} l }
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.45ex]
\draw[line width=0.3 mm, color=black] (0,0) -- (0.7,0);
\end{tikzpicture} $\omega/\gamma=20$ & &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[red,fill=red] (0,0) circle (1ex); No QECC \\
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.45ex]
\draw[line width=0.3 mm, color=black, densely dashed] (0,0) -- (0.7,0);
\end{tikzpicture} $\omega/\gamma=1/20$ & &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[blue,fill=blue] (0,0) circle (1ex); $t=10^3 \tau$ \\
& &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[green2,fill=green2] (0,0) circle (1ex); $t=10^6 \tau$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Plot of $\mathcal{Q}/\tau^2$ for an $n=25$ qubit GHZ state after undergoing repeated error correction with (a) ideal error correction, (b) a noisy ancilla ($\xi/\gamma=10^{-4}$), and (c) imperfect syndrome diagnosis ($p=0.01$), with total sensing times $t/\tau=10^3,10^6$. The characteristics of a noisy state without the inclusion of a quantum error correction code (QECC) after sensing time $t=\tau$ is also displayed. As the total sensing time $t$ increases, the necessary rate at which error correction is needed to maintain the HL increases. Hence the reason why the curve with $t=10^6 \tau$ begins to decrease before the curve with $t=10^3 \tau$, which similarly begins to decrease before the curve without the application of the error correction code. The curves are cutoff when $\mathcal{Q}/\tau^2=1$ for clarity purposes. Additionally, we illustrate the corresponding normalized QFI curves, $\mathcal{Q}/(nt)^2$, in plots (d), (e) and (f) respectively, to emphasize the deviation from the HL.}
\label{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter5/QFIPlotsECC2.png}
\vspace{0.7ex}
\begin{tabular}{ l m{1cm} l }
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.45ex]
\draw[line width=0.3 mm, color=black] (0,0) -- (0.7,0);
\end{tikzpicture} $\omega/\gamma=20$ & &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[red,fill=red] (0,0) circle (1ex); $\gamma t = 100$ \\
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.45ex]
\draw[line width=0.3 mm, color=black, densely dashed] (0,0) -- (0.7,0);
\end{tikzpicture} $\omega/\gamma=1/20$ & &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[blue,fill=blue] (0,0) circle (1ex); $\gamma t = 1000$ \\
& &
\tikz[baseline=-0.75ex]\draw[green2,fill=green2] (0,0) circle (1ex); $\gamma t = 10000$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{An alternative perspective on illustrating the tendencies of $\mathcal{Q}/\tau^2$ for an $n=25$ qubit GHZ state after repeated applications of error correction. Here, the total sensing time $\gamma t$ is held constant and deviations from the linear curve on the log-log plot represent the QFI tending away from the HL and towards a QFI of zero. The same scenarios are plotted: (a) ideal error correction, (b) a noisy ancilla ($\xi/\gamma=10^{-4}$), and (c) imperfect syndrome diagnosis ($p=0.01$). Without any error correction, the QFI after total sensing times $\gamma t=100,1000,10000$ is effectively zero. Note that the three values chosen for the total sensing time, $\gamma t$, deviate less than the values chosen in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}). This choice was intentional to properly illustrate the scenario of imperfect syndrome diagnosis. Regardless, the curves display here have an analogous curve with similar tendencies displayed in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}).}
\label{fig:QFIPlotsECC2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ideal Error Correction}
In the ideal error correction scenario (noiseless ancilla and perfect error correction), after $t/\tau$ rounds of error correction, the final quantum state can be expressed as a bipartite mixed state
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:finalstate}
\rho = \frac{1+r^{nt/\tau}}{2}\dyad*{\psi_+} + \frac{1-r^{nt/\tau}}{2} \dyad*{\psi_-},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\ket*{\psi_\pm}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big(\ket{0}^{\otimes n+1} \pm e^{i n \phi t/\tau} \ket{1}^{\otimes n+1} \big),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:small_r}
re^{\pm i \phi}= e^{-\gamma \tau} \big(\cos (\Delta \tau )+ \frac{\gamma \pm i \omega}{\Delta}\sin ( \Delta \tau ) \big),
\end{equation}
with $\Delta=\sqrt{\omega^2-\gamma^2}$. There is no mathematical issue when $\omega^2 < \gamma^2$, in this regime the trigonometric functions are replaced by the corresponding hyperbolic functions (as per their definition). Because the quantum state is evaluated immediately after the $t/\tau$th application of error correction, a mixture of GHZ-like states is obtained. Assuming that $\gamma \tau > 0$ and $\omega \neq 0$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
r^2 = e^{-2 \gamma \tau} \big( 1 + \frac{\gamma}{\Delta} \sin ( 2 \Delta \tau ) + \frac{2\gamma^2}{\Delta^2} \sin^2 ( \Delta \tau ) \big) < e^{-2 \gamma \tau} \big( 1 + \sinh (2 \gamma \tau) + \sinh^2 ( \gamma \tau) \big)=1,
\end{equation}
consequently, the quantum state becomes more mixed (and less useful for quantum metrology) once the quantity $n t/\tau$ becomes very large.
The QFI of the quantum state in Eq.~\eqref{eq:finalstate} can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ECCQFI1}
\mathcal{Q}_1 = n^2 t^2 r^{2nt/\tau} f,
\end{equation}
where for small times $\tau$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:propconst1}
f = 1-2\gamma \tau + \mathcal{O} (\tau ^2 ).
\end{equation}
It is immediately clear that a Heisenberg level of precision is obtained if two conditions are met. The first being that $2\gamma \tau \ll 1$; it was derived in \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018} and is equivalent to the constraint for noisy metrology without quantum error correction, Eq.~\eqref{eq:noisymetro_noecc}. The second condition is $r^{2nt/\tau} \approx 1$, which suggests that the HL cannot be maintained indefinitely in a noisy environment (because $r^2 < 1$) and that the QFI will eventually tend to zero. For small $\tau$ we have
\begin{equation}
r^{2nt/\tau} = 1-\frac{4}{3}n (\omega \tau)^2 \gamma t+ \mathcal{O} (\tau^3 ),
\end{equation}
meaning the second condition can be written as $\frac{4}{3} n \omega^2 \tau^2 \gamma t \ll 1$. This condition goes unnoticed in \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018} because it is of second order with respect to $\tau$.
Both of these conditions are illustrated in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}a), Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}d) and Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC2}a), where the QFI of an $n=25$ qubit GHZ state is plotted. In the regime $\omega^2 \gg \gamma^2$ ($\omega/\gamma = 20$), the HL of precision is lost once $r^{2nt/\tau}$ begins to tend to zero.
For each value of $r$ there is a critical value which the exponent will take such that the QFI will begin to rapidly converge to zero. Hence the difference in values of $\gamma \tau$ for when the curves with $\omega/\gamma = 20$ in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}a), Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}d) and Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC2}a) deviate from the HL.
In the regime $\omega^2 \ll \gamma^2$ ($\omega/\gamma = 1/20$), the HL level of precision is lost once $\gamma \tau \approx 10^{-2}$, regardless of if $t=10^3\tau$ or $t=10^6\tau$. The stark contrast in the families of curves ($\omega^2 \gg \gamma^2$ versus $\omega^2 \ll \gamma^2$) is due to larger deviations from the ideal case when $\omega^2 \gg \gamma^2$. Information about $\omega$ is stored in the relative phase, $n \phi t/\tau $, and if an error does occur between applications of error correction, the phase will deviate further from the ideal case. Thus, each round of error correction introduces a small amount of variance to the phase which scales with the magnitude of $\omega$.
In the noisy scenario without error correction, the optimal sensing time (which maximizes the QFI) is $t_\text{opt} \approx 1/(n \gamma)$ \cite{chaves2013}. The analogous quantity for the error correction enhanced setting can be computed by first realizing that $\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \mathcal{O} ( \tau )^2$, therefore the optimal sensing time is obtained by (approximately) maximizing the quantity $t^2r^{2nt/\tau}$. The resulting optimal sensing time is
\begin{equation}
t_\text{opt} = \frac{1}{\frac{2}{3}n \gamma \omega^2 \tau^2+\mathcal{O} ( \tau^3 )}.
\end{equation}
As expected, $t_\text{opt}$ increases as $\tau$ decreases, and decreases as $n$ increases. The dependence on $\omega$ is linked to the effective variance in the phase of the quantum state.
\subsection{Noisy Ancilla}
The inclusion of the noisy ancilla alters the QFI to be
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ECCQFI2}
\mathcal{Q}_2 =n^2 t^2 r^{2nt/\tau}(f-g\xi) + \mathcal{O} ( \xi^2 ),
\end{equation}
where $g$ is bounded by
\begin{equation}
\Big(\frac{2}{3}-7\gamma \tau \Big)t \leq g + \mathcal{O} ( \tau^2 ) \leq \frac{5}{2}(t+\tau),
\end{equation}
which can be interpreted as another necessary condition to obtain a Heisenberg-like scaling: $\xi t \ll 1$. This is not very surprising, since error correction will becomes less effective as time increases, and ultimately become ineffectual once the ancilla decoheres, $t \approx 1/\xi$. The new condition is displayed in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}b) and Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}e), in which the ancillary qubit is set to have a dephasing rate 10000 times weaker than the sensing qubits. The noisy ancilla causes the HL to be lost sooner when compared to the case with a noiseless ancilla. The impact is more pronounced for the curve with $\omega/\gamma=1/20$ and $t=10^6 \tau$, where the loss of the HL is strictly due to $\xi t$ becoming too large instead of $\gamma \tau$. In Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC2}b), where the total sensing time is static (and thus $\xi t$ is a constant), the QFI curve with $\gamma t =10000$ is noticeable shifted when compared to the same curve with ideal error correction in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC2}a). The problem of noisy ancillary qubits can be overcome by occasionally re-initializing the ancillary qubit (before it becomes too noisy) using an additional layer of error correction.
\subsection{Imperfect Syndrome Diagnosis}
The second hindrance explored is the inclusion of imperfect syndrome diagnosis due to flaws in the error correction hardware. To model this, for each instance of error correction, there is a probability $p$ that the parity measurement between a sensing qubit and the ancillary qubit is incorrect. Hence, if there is a difference parity, then no error correction is performed with probability $p$. Similarly, if there is no difference in parity (and no correction is needed), there is also a probability $p$ that an unnecessary correction is performed. An unnecessary correction (or lack thereof) will subject the quantum state to additional noise. Furthermore, each round of error correction introduces a small amount of variance to the quantum state due to the imperfect hardware, which will grow as the number of rounds of error correction increases. With the inclusion of imperfect syndrome diagnosis, the QFI is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ECCQFI3}
\mathcal{Q}_3=n^2 t^2 (rq)^{2nt/\tau}h,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
q^{2nt/\tau}=1-4p(1-p)\omega^2 t \tau + \mathcal{O} ( \tau^2 ),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
h=(1-2p)^2f+4p\Big( \frac{1-p}{n}+1-2p \Big) \frac{\tau}{t} + \mathcal{O} ( \tau^2 ).
\end{equation}
The inclusion of imperfect syndrome diagnosis makes the true HL unattainable; $\mathcal{Q} \rightarrow n^2 t^2 (1-2p)^2$ as $\tau \rightarrow 0$. The multiplicative factor $(1-2p)^2$ is a result of the added uncertainty from each application of error correction. The exponential term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ECCQFI3}, $(rq)^{2nt/\tau}$, must be approximately equal to $1$ to achieve Heisenberg-like precision. This is a more strict version of $r^{2nt/\tau} \approx 1$, and is again due to deviations in the relative phase, which are amplified by the imperfect syndrome diasgnosis. This stronger condition can be seen in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}c), Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}f) and Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC2}c), in which the probability of faulty syndrome diagnosis is $1\%$. The additional condition of $q^{2nt/\tau} \approx 1$ is more pronounced in the regime where $\omega^2 \gg \gamma ^2$. The upper bound of precision is displayed in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIPlotsECC1}f); as $\gamma \tau \rightarrow 0$, $\mathcal{Q}/(nt)^2 \rightarrow (1-2p)^2 \approx 0.96$.
\subsection{Fisher Information}
Given that the achievable precision of a metrology problem is also constrained by the estimation strategy, a more practical figure of merit is the Fisher information with respect to implementable estimation strategies. Consider measuring the output quantum state, Eq.~\eqref{eq:finalstate}, in the basis spanned by $\{ \ket{\alpha_+}, \ket{\alpha_-} \}^{\otimes (n+1)}$, in which
\begin{equation}
\ket{\alpha_\pm} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0} \pm e^{i \alpha} \ket{1}),
\end{equation}
and reverse engineering the measurement results to estimate $\omega$. Because of the symmetry of $\rho$, one only needs to consider the projectors of the form
\begin{equation}
E_j = \dyad{\alpha_+}^{\otimes n+1-j} \otimes \dyad{\alpha_-}^{\otimes j},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Tr \big( E_j \rho \big) = \frac{1+(-1)^j R \cos \big( \theta - \alpha \big)}{2^{n+1}},
\end{equation}
with $R=r^{nt/\tau}$ and $\theta=n \phi t/\tau$. The Fisher information of this estimation strategy is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I} = \sum_j \frac{\Tr \big( E_j \dot{\rho} \big)^2}{\Tr \big( E_j \rho \big)}=\frac{\Big( \dot{R} \cos \big( \theta - \alpha \big) - R \dot{\theta}\sin \big( \theta - \alpha \big) \Big)^2}{1-R^2 \cos \big( \theta - \alpha \big)},
\end{equation}
where the notation $\dot{\square}=\partial_\omega \square$ is used for conciseness. If $\alpha$ is chosen such that $\cos(\theta-\alpha) \approx 0$, then this estimation strategy approximately saturates the QFI
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I} = \mathcal{Q} + \mathcal{O} ( \tau ^2 ).
\end{equation}
Of course, this requires exact knowledge of $\omega$ to implement perfectly, which defeats the purpose of quantum metrology. However, this could be implemented with a high degree of precision using an adaptive estimation strategy \cite{gill2005, fujiwara2006, wiseman2009, pang2017}. On a similar note, saturating the QCRB requires that the value of $\gamma$ is precisely known. Any uncertainty in the noise model will naturally translate to uncertainty in the estimation of $\omega$. Alternatively, if $\gamma$ is unknown, one can consider estimating both $\omega$ and $\gamma$ in simultaneity, i.e. consider the setting as a multiparameter quantum metrology problem.
\subsection{QFI and Entanglement}
In \textbf{Chapter 3} a relationship between the geometric measure of entanglement $G$ and the QFI is given by \cite{augusiak2016}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q}(\rho_\theta) \leq n + 8n^2 \sqrt{G(\rho_\theta)}.
\end{equation}
This is an inequality and not an equality because entanglement is a necessary condition and not a sufficient condition \cite{oszmaniec2016}. However, the relationship between QFI and entanglement is much more pronounced for quantum states of the form
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1+R}{2}\dyad*{\psi_+} + \frac{1-R}{2} \dyad*{\psi_-},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\ket*{\psi_\pm}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big(\ket{0}^{\otimes N} \pm e^{i \theta} \ket{1}^{\otimes N} \big).
\end{equation}
Hence, $\rho$ is a highly entangled pure state when $R=1$ and a mixture of two separable states when $R=0$. Using the recipe for rank-2 mixed symmetric mixed states in \cite{das2016}, the geometric measure of entanglement for the above quantum state is
\begin{equation}
G(\rho) = \frac{1}{2}(1-\sqrt{1-R^2}).
\end{equation}
Therefore, the `quantum part' of the QFI can be written
\begin{equation}
R^2 \dot{\theta}^2 = 4 G (1-G) \dot{\theta}^2.
\end{equation}
This result, albeit interesting, is mostly a bi-product of the fact that the initialized quantum state was a maximally entangled GHZ state. It is not surprising that the deterioration of the entanglement and the loss of the HL are dependent on the same quantity $R^2$. In fact, many quantities which measure some aspect of `quantum-ness' are similarly dependent, such as purity
\begin{equation}
\Tr \rho^2 = \frac{1+R^2}{2},
\end{equation}
and Von Neumann entropy
\begin{equation}
-\Tr \rho \log \rho = -\frac{1+R}{2} \log \Big( \frac{1+R}{2} \Big) -\frac{1-R}{2} \log \Big( \frac{1-R}{2} \Big).
\end{equation}
\section{Current Technologies}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{.77\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter5/QFI_benchmark.png}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{.2\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{c l}
& $\gamma \tau =1$ \\
\tikzcircle[red,fill=red]{0.7ex} & $\xi \tau = 0.002$ \\
& $p=0.06$ \\\vspace{1ex}
& \\
& $\gamma \tau =1$ \\
\tikzcircle[blue,fill=blue]{0.7ex} & $\xi \tau = 0$ \\
& $p=0.001$ \\\vspace{1ex}
& \\
& $\gamma \tau =0.1$ \\
\tikzcircle[green2,fill=green2]{0.7ex} & $\xi \tau = 0$ \\
& $p=0.001$ \\\vspace{1ex}
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Normalized QFI in the small signal regime $\omega/\gamma =0.01$. \tikzcircle[red,fill=red]{0.7ex} Today's quantum technologies ($\gamma^{-1} = \tau = 10^{-6}$s, $\xi^{-1}= 5\times10^{-4}$s, $p=0.06$) \cite{dutt2007, taminiau2014} suggest a QFI of $\sim 20\%$ of the HL can be attained for sensing times $t=10^1 \tau$. \tikzcircle[blue,fill=blue]{0.7ex} With improved error correction hardware and a noiseless ancilla, this can be sustained for a sensing time $t=10^3 \tau$. \tikzcircle[green2,fill=green2]{0.7ex} The QFI is significantly improved when the rate of error correction is increased by a factor of ten.}
\label{fig:QFIBenchmarking}
\end{figure}
In \cite{dutt2007, taminiau2014}, the electron spin of a nitrogen-vacancy center is entangled to carbon-13 nuclear spins. The nuclear spins act as ancillary qubits, and error correction is performed on the electron spin using the parity check code. The reported dephasing rates are $\gamma^{-1} \sim 10^{-6}$s and $\xi^{-1} \sim 5\times10^{-4}$s. The error correction is being performed on a comparable timescale of $\tau \sim 10^{-6}$s, with infidelity reported at $p=0.06$ \cite{taminiau2014}. In Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIBenchmarking}), this data is used to benchmark the abilities of current error correction technologies as a means of enhancing the precision of a noisy quantum metrology scheme in the regime $\omega^2 \ll \gamma^2$. Because the error correction rate is similar to the dephasing rate, the HL is unattainable. This is still the case with better hardware: $p=0.001$ and $\xi=0$ (the latter is justified by regularly re-initializing the ancilla). Notably, if the error correction rate increases by a factor of ten, the achievable QFI is $80\%$ of the HL for a total sensing time of $t=10^5 \tau$. This greatly outclasses the precision achieved in current experiments \cite{taylor2008, wasilewski2010, razzoli2019}. Although this result is promising, it is important to realize that experiments are hindered by more than what is considered in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIBenchmarking}), such as parallel noise, imperfect gate fidelity when applying the recovery operations and flaws in the quantum state initialization.
\section{Other Noise Mitigation Strategies}
In striving for an exact solution, it was necessary to consider a specific noise model and a specific error correction protocol. Whereas \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018} make no assumptions regarding the noise model. Although a completely general result is more satisfying, it is unfeasible with our methods. Nevertheless, our model and mathematical methodology are easy to adapt. One can substitute any combination of noise model and error correction strategy in place of iid dephasing and the parity check code respectively. In fact, repeated error correction can be forgone entirely and replaced with a suitable quantum control technique \cite{sekatski2017}, such as dynamical decoupling \cite{rong2011, sekatski2016} or reservoir engineering \cite{schirmer2010, zheng2015}.
We conjecture that, just as with discrete applications of the parity check code, for any noise mitigation strategy, the QFI will depend on term similar to $r^{2nt/\tau}$: one which suggests that there exist a critical time where the QFI begins to tend to zero. In fact, using the $n$ qubit bit flip code \cite{gottesman1997} yields the results
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q} = n^2 t^2 r^{2nt/\tau}f+\mathcal{O} ( \tau^{\frac{n-1}{2}} ).
\end{equation}
Hence, for large $n$ the QFI using the bit flip code is effectively the same as if one utilizes the parity check code. The reasoning supporting the aforementioned conjecture is that any errors which occur will cause the relative phase to deviate from the ideal value, and the deviation will remain even after performing a correction. Thus, after each round of error correction, the variance in the phase will increase, which propagates to an increase in variance in the eventual estimate of $\omega$. This conjecture is easily extended to any realistic noise model; as one expects the relative phase to deviate from the ideal value after performing error correction, regardless of the noise model.
We are not suggesting that the parity check code is the most efficient noise mitigation strategy (for transverse noise) at retaining the HL. For example, an adaptive parameter estimation \cite{gill2005, fujiwara2006, wiseman2009, pang2017} could be used to supplement the parity check code by incorporating an unitary operation which approximately corrects the deviations in the relative phase. This strategy is more difficult to implement, as the unitary rotations would be quite small and unlikely to be accurately realizable with current quantum hardware. Indisputably, as quantum technologies continue to improve, and the frequency at which these noise mitigation tools can be applied increases, so too does our ability to maintain the HL for increased sensing times.
\section{Discussion}
Our analysis is in agreement with previous results \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018}, which suggests that the inequality $2 \gamma \tau \ll 1$ is crucial for an error correction enhanced quantum metrology scheme to maintain a Heisenberg-like scaling. However, the findings in \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018} are based on the assumption that higher order terms are negligible, $\mathcal{O}( \tau^2 ) \rightarrow 0$, and as a result, Heisenberg-like scaling can be maintained permanently with repeated applications of (arbitrarily fast) error correction. This is not in accordance with today's quantum technologies, as the rate at which error correction can be performed is on a similar order of magnitude to the dephasing rate of physical qubits \cite{dutt2007, schindler2011, taminiau2014, cramer2016, ofek2016}. When the assumption $\mathcal{O}( \tau^2 ) \rightarrow 0$ is discarded, a second necessary condition to maintain the Heisenberg-like scaling emerges, $r^{2nt/\tau} \approx 1 \rightarrow \frac{4}{3} n \omega^2 \tau^2 \gamma t \ll 1$.
Whenever an error occurs, it causes the phase to deviate from the ideal value of $n \omega t$, which is why the HL cannot be maintained indefinitely. That being said, in practise, no quantum metrology requires indefinite sensing time. For spin quibts, a more appropriate upper bound could be the relaxation time, which is typically a few orders of magnitude larger than the dephasing time \cite{wang2017}. With the limitations of current technologies, Fig.~(\ref{fig:QFIBenchmarking}), this may as well be indefinite.
We specifically analyse the effects of repeated applications of error correction for the specific case when the probe state is initialized in an $n$ qubit GHZ state. A logical generalization is to expand the results to a broader scope of initial states; such as squeezed states \cite{gross2012, zhang2014}, symmetric states \cite{toth2014}, or bundled graph states (\textbf{Chapter 4}). It is possible that these quantum states (which do not achieve the true HL, but do achieve a quantum advantage and Heisenberg-like scaling) are more robust to the effects of noise and can maintain a quantum advantage for a longer total sensing time when enhanced by error correction.
Further, we chose to analyse a dephasing noise model, something which is more applicable to atomic systems \cite{shaji2007, borregaard2013, macieszczak2014, zheng2014}. A future perspective is to consider noise models more relevant to optical systems, such as loss and phase diffusion \cite{lee2009, demkowicz2009, knysh2011, zhang2013, demkowicz2015}. Error correction codes for continuous variable systems are typically more complex \cite{paz1998, sarovar2005, zhuang2020}; it is not obvious how our results translate to these systems, if at all.
\end{document}
\chapter{Quantum Cryptography for Quantum Metrology}
Quantum channels are likely to be the most vulnerable aspect of quantum communication protocols. Without proper cryptographic precautions, a malicious adversary can intercept the information being sent through a quantum channel while the honest parties remain none the wiser. As quantum network sensing and spatially distributed schemes become increasingly popular \cite{komar2014, proctor2018, rubio2020a}, it is important to verify which techniques from quantum cryptography are compatible with quantum metrology.
Until very recently, quantum metrology and quantum cryptography were non-overlapping disciplines. Gradually, the idea of security has been introduced to quantum metrology by considering scenarios involving unsecured quantum channels \cite{xie2018, huang2019}, delegated measurements to an untrusted party \cite{takeuchi2019, okane2020, yin2020}, or unwanted eavesdroppers \cite{kasai2021}. Although this direction is new and exciting, the aforementioned references fail to quantify the effects a malicious adversary poses to the quantum metrology problem, i.e the effects on the estimate and its precision. This chapter addresses this problem by linking the cryptographic notion of soundness to an overall uncertainty added to the quantum resource, which propagates to the quantum metrology problem.
In addition to developing a toolbox for the merging of quantum cryptography and quantum metrology, several cryptographic protocols are devised for a variety of cryptographically motivated settings. Such as quantum metrology with an unsecured quantum channel \cite{SMK21} and quantum metrology with delegated tasks \cite{SM21}. The protocols devised are completely private, meaning that even if a malicious adversary intercepts the quantum data, they cannot interpret it, and maintain the integrity of the underlying metrology problem with no more than a quadratic increase in the number of resources. More so, (most of) the protocols devised take into account the limitations of real world quantum hardware and use nothing more complex than local Clifford operations.
\section{Quantum Cryptography}
\textit{Cryptography} is the practise and study of data security. For a long time, up until the advent of the computer, cryptography was synonymous with encryption - a method to cipher and decipher a message. Without knowledge of the cipher, an adversary could not intercept and learn the contents of the message. Nowadays, in the digital age, cryptography is much more than just encryption, yet the general philosophy of data security remains. Sophisticated techniques are manufactured for a range of tasks, such as sender/receiver authentication, secure data storage, secure computation, et cetera. Cryptography is undeniably essential for safeguarding confidential information and establishing trust between severs in the digital era.
\textit{Quantum cryptography} is the natural generalization of cryptography where quantum mechanical properties are allowed to be exploited. The quantum framework is accompanied by advantages and disadvantages alike. It is advantageous as quantum systems have built-in security aspects due to the no-cloning theorem and the collapse of the wave function. It is disadvantageous in the fact that an adversary with a quantum computer is much more powerful than an adversary with a classical computer. For example, the modern (classical) RSA encryption scheme is based on the difficulty of factoring large numbers efficiently \cite{rivest1978}; this encryption scheme can be broken with Shor's factoring algorithm\footnote{No need for panic; Shor's factoring algorithm is very much out of reach for modern quantum technologies.} \cite{shor1994}. As such, quantum cryptography differentiates from classical cryptography in the notion of security. A cryptographic protocol is said to be \textit{computationally secure} if it is immune to an adversary with `reasonable' computational power and time. Whereas quantum cryptography protocols opt for \textit{unconditionally security}, which is to say that no assumptions are made about the adversaries' computational power and time.
The premise of the first formulation of quantum cryptography \cite{wiesner1983} was simple but powerful: by randomly encoding the bit `0' (`1') in either $\ket{0}$ ($\ket{1}$) or $\ket{+}$ ($\ket{-}$), then the value of the bit is completely concealed from a malicious adversary if they are not aware of the preparation basis. This result stems from the uncertainty principle, Eq.~\eqref{eq:Uncertainty}, which has no classical analogue. This concept paved the way to the famous BB84 protocol for quantum key distribution \cite{bennett1984}. Since then the applicability of quantum cryptography has thrived \cite{broadbent2016, pirandola2020}; for example: quantum money \cite{aaronson2009, bozzio2018}, quantum coin flipping \cite{ambainis2004, pappa2014}, verification of quantum processes \cite{ying2013, gheorghiu2019, zhu2019a} and blind quantum computing \cite{broadbent2009, barz2012, fitzsimons2017}.
Just as (classical) cryptography is essential for confidentiality and trust in the digital era, so too is quantum cryptography in the quantum era. This is the core idea supporting the integration of quantum cryptography into a quantum metrology problem. If the problem involves multiple parties or communication through a quantum channel, then it is imperative to use quantum cryptography to certify the results and maintain a notion of privacy. Otherwise, a malicious adversary who intercepts an encoded quantum state can either bias the estimation result or estimate the latent parameter themselves. However, the problem is not as simple as using existing cryptographic protocols; in addition to adding security and privacy, the cryptographic protocol must not interfere with the mechanisms of the quantum metrology problem.
\section{Cryptographic Figures of Merit}
There is no unique cardinal figure of merit for cryptographic protocols due to the sheer vastness of quantum cryptography in both functionality and perspectives. Ergo, a suitable figure of merit for a cryptographic protocol should be relevant to the scope of the protocol and provide a method of comparison between similar protocols. The protocols we devise for quantum metrology take inspiration from quantum message authentication \cite{barnum2002}, so it is natural use the same figures of merit: \textit{privacy} and \textit{soundness}. These are both commonly used for most cryptographic protocols whose aim is to verify/authenticate/certify a process. Other than quantum messages \cite{barnum2002}, examples include quantum state preparation \cite{zhu2019a, zhu2019b} and quantum computation \cite{fitzsimons2017}. Providentially, the soundness of a protocol can be related to the additional bias and uncertainty of the quantum metrology problem.
\subsection{Privacy}
Privacy is a straightforward concept which quantifies the amount of information a malicious eavesdropper can extract from a message (quantum or otherwise). The protocols outlined in this chapter are all \textit{completely private}, this is to say that an eavesdropper can extract no information. If an eavesdropper can access the quantum state $\rho_E$, then this is achieved if
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} ( \rho_E ) = \mathbb{I}/d,
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the dimension of $\rho_E$. Thus, a protocol is completely private when the expected quantum state accessible to an eavesdropper is indistinguishable from the maximally mixed state.
Having a completely private protocol is paramount for quantum metrology, as this prevents an eavesdropper from learning anything about the unknown parameter for themselves. This was overlooked in the first work which established the idea of quantum metrology integrated into a cryptographic framework \cite{huang2019}, in the appendix of \cite{SMK21} we show that their protocol is not completely private and that an eavesdropper can go completely undetected while learning performing parameter estimation for themselves.
\subsection{Soundness}
For authentication schemes, the soundness of a cryptographic protocol is the standard figure of merit used to judge the security of a protocol \cite{barnum2002}. In essence, the soundness of a protocol quantifies the ability of a malicious adversary to alter the quantum state whilst remaining undetected. The formal mathematical definition of soundness varies depending on the formulation of the cryptographic protocol \cite{barnum2002, fitzsimons2017, zhu2019a, takeuchi2019b}, and is sometimes referred to as verifiability \cite{gheorghiu2019}. The version used in the work presented in this thesis uses a slightly modified version of the definition presented in \cite{barnum2002}.
Authentication schemes have two outputs: a binary accept or reject clause as well as a quantum output. The quantum output varies as per the protocol, in this chapter, it will either be a quantum state or a measurement result. The protocols are also equipped with ancillary qubits, which are constructed to have a deterministic measurement outcome in an ideal scenario in which there is no malicious activity. If the expected measurement result is observed, the outcome of `accept' is assigned. However, if an unexpected result is observed, then it must be the result of malicious activity, and the outcome of `reject' is assigned. For the sake of unconditional security, no assumptions are made with respect to the computational power of a malicious adversary. More so, it is assumed that a malicious adversary is completely familiar with the inner mechanisms of the protocol. In order to dissuade a malicious adversary, the protocols are supported by a set of classical keys $\mathcal{K}$, where each key alters the protocol differently. Before implementing a protocol, a key is chosen at random, and even if a malicious adversary may have access to the set of possible keys, it is assumed that they do not have access to the random choice. If there are multiple trusted parties who need access to the key, it is assumed that the key can be shared securely. This can be accomplished through a secure classical channel or quantum key distribution \cite{bennett1984}. For all intents and purposes we assume that a malicious adversary cannot access the (random) choice classical key.
The mathematical definition of soundness is a bound on the probability of witnessing `accept', while the quantum output, $\rho_\text{out}$ is simultaneously far from the ideal $\rho_\text{id}$. In \cite{barnum2002}, the protocol is constructed for $\rho_\text{id}$ being a pure state, and the `distance' is recorded in $1-\Tr(\rho_\text{id} \rho_\text{out})$. In \cite{SM21}, the outputs are not necessarily pure states, and we generalize the `distance' as $1-\mathscr{F}(\rho_\text{id},\rho_\text{out})$. Both expressions are equivalent in the event that $\rho_\text{id}$ is a pure state. Mathematically, a protocol has soundness $\delta$ if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:soundness}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} p_\text{acc} (k, \Gamma ) \cdot \Big( 1- \mathscr{F} \big(\rho_\text{id}, \rho_\text{out} ( k,\Gamma ) \big) \Big) \leq \delta.
\end{equation}
Here, $\Gamma$ represents any possible attack a malicious adversary may perform, and $k \in \mathcal{K}$ is the specific key chosen. The probability of the protocol outputting `accept', $p_\text{acc}(k,\Gamma)$, and the output $\rho_\text{out}(k,\Gamma)$ are dependent on both of these quantities. A well designed protocol should be provide a sense of security for all malicious attacks, thus Eq.~\eqref{eq:soundness} must hold for all $\Gamma$.
When it can be written that $p_\text{acc} (k , \Gamma ) \geq \alpha $, then Eq.~\eqref{eq:soundness} can be transformed into the inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:soundnessfidelity}
1-\mathbb{E} \Big( F \big(\rho_\text{id}, \rho_\text{out} \big) \Big) \leq \frac{\delta}{\alpha},
\end{equation}
where the dependence of $\rho_\text{out}$ on the key $k$ and the attack $\Gamma$ has been omitted for clarity. The quantity $\alpha$ is sometimes referred to as the statistical significance \cite{zhu2019a}. This alternative formulation permits more easily permits the use of other common figures of merit which are intertwined with the soundness and statistical significance \cite{zhu2019a, zhu2019b}. More so, it will be shown that Eq.~\eqref{eq:soundnessfidelity} can be manipulated to determine the utility of $\rho_\text{out}$ for quantum metrology. This is done by bounding the trace distance, which can be found using the the Fuchs-van de Graaf inequalities \cite{fuchs1999}, Eq.~\eqref{eq:fuchs}, and the arithmetic-quadratic mean inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:soundnesstracedistance}
\mathbb{E} \Big( \mathscr{D} \big(\rho_\text{id}, \rho_\text{out} \big) \Big) \leq \sqrt{ \mathbb{E} \Big( \mathscr{D} \big(\rho_\text{id}, \rho_\text{out} \big)^2 \Big) } \leq \sqrt{1-\mathbb{E} \Big( F \big(\rho_\text{id}, \rho_\text{out} \big) \Big)} \leq \sqrt{\frac{\delta}{\alpha}}.
\end{equation}
\section{Cryptographic Quantum Metrology}
The first adaptation of a quantum metrology problem in a cryptographic framework can be found in \cite{komar2014}. In the article, an entangled state is distributed from a central node to several exterior nodes, where a local phase is encoded and sent back to the central node for phase estimation. The authors propose occasionally distributing non-entangled decoy qubits throughout the sensing network. These decoy qubits have a deterministic measurement and are used to detect and thwart malicious activity. As this was not focal point of \cite{komar2014}, the `proof' of security is substandard, nonetheless the protocol was a good starting point for a cryptographic framework of quantum metrology.
The concept was later picked up in \cite{huang2019}, where two honest parties wish to perform phase estimation over an unsecured quantum channel. Alice sends a non-encoded quantum state to Bob, who encodes a phase using a unitary, and sends the quantum state back to Alice to be measured. The quantum states are sent back and forth through an unsecured quantum channel. The authors of \cite{huang2019} suggest a simple protocol to prevent a malicious adversary from intercepting the channel and tampering with the results. In each use of the quantum channel, Alice randomly prepares one of four quantum states: either a decoy quantum state $\ket{0}^{\otimes n}$ or $\ket{1}^{\otimes n}$, which will not serve any utility for phase estimation, or a GHZ state $\ket{\psi_+}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0}^{\otimes n}+\ket{1}^{\otimes n})$ or $\ket{\psi_-}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0}^{\otimes n}-\ket{1}^{\otimes n})$. Additionally, Bob will either randomly encode the unknown phase $\theta$, or a phase $\phi$ which maps $\ket{\psi_\pm}$ to $\ket{\psi_\mp}$. Even though this protocol is more sophisticated than what was presented in \cite{komar2014}, we show in \cite{SMK21} that it is vulnerable to a malicious attack which is undetectable by Alice and Bob. Additionally, \cite{huang2019} and many others who have since investigated `cryptographic quantum metrology' \cite{xie2018, takeuchi2019, okane2020, yin2020, kasai2021} fail to elaborate on the ramifications on the underlying metrology problem.
In a cryptographic framework, many of the concepts from estimation theory discussed in \textbf{Chapter 3} have to be altered in some capacity. This is because there is no guarantee that the resource used for the parameter estimation problem is the ideal resource. To fit the language of statistics, the cryptographic framework of quantum metrology injects uncertainty into the estimate. This additional uncertainty can be bounded by taking proper precautions and employing appropriate cryptographic protocols. However, this uncertainty in the resource leads to ambiguity with respect to the construction of an estimator; it is not immediately obvious how to select a measurement or how to process the measurement data. Assuming that the additional uncertainty is small, the most straightforward strategy is to process the data as if it was the ideal resource. Evidently, the unbiased condition, Eq.~\eqref{eq:unbiased}, is not necessarily satisfied. Since an unbiased estimator is integral to saturate the CRB, the QFI would be a naive choice of a figure of merit for quantum metrology within a cryptographic framework. Instead, we introduce the concept of \textit{integrity} in \cite{SMK21} as a figure of merit. Integrity refers to the ability of a cryptographic protocol to retain the quantum state and functionality in the presence of malicious adversaries. In this chapter, the notation $\square^\prime$ is used to signify the quantity $\square$ in a cryptographic framework. For example, $\hat{\theta}$ is an estimator with a MSE of $\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}$ in an ideal framework and $\hat{\theta}^\prime$ is an estimator with a MSE of $\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}^\prime$ in the cryptographic framework. The integrity of the cryptographic quantum metrology problem is measured in two ways, the first is the added bias
\begin{equation}
\big| \mathbb{E}( \hat{\theta}^\prime ) - \mathbb{E}( \hat{\theta}) \big|,
\end{equation}
and the second is the increase in the MSE
\begin{equation}
\big| \Delta^2 \hat{\theta}^\prime - \Delta^2 \hat{\theta} \big|.
\end{equation}
For simplicity, we restrict estimation strategies, in which the value of the unknown parameter is inferred from expectation value of an observable $O$. The specific details of this strategy can be found in \textbf{Chapter 3}.
\subsection{Bounding the Integrity}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.8\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter6/MetrologyIdealFramework.png}
\caption{Quantum Metrology in an Ideal Framework.}
\label{fig:MetroIdeal}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{20pt}
\begin{subfigure}{.8\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter6/MetrologyCryptoFramework.png}
\caption{Quantum Metrology in a Cryptographic Framework.}
\label{fig:MetroCrypto}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison between a quantum metrology problem in an ideal framework (sans malicious adversary) and a cryptographic framework (potentially a malicious adversary). In the ideal framework (a), a quantum state $\rho$ is prepared, then an unknown parameter is encoded into the quantum states through a CPTP map $\rho_\theta = \Lambda_\theta(\rho)$, finally a measurement $\mathcal{M}$ is performed on the encoded quantum state. After $\nu$ repetitions, the measurement results are used to construct an estimate $\hat{\theta}$. In the cryptographic framework (b), a malicious adversary can intercept and alter the process at any step of the problem. For example, the state preparation can be done by an untrusted source, or an unsecured quantum channel may be intercepted. In fact, the subscript $\theta$ in the cryptographic framework is somewhat misleading as there is no guarantee that either $\rho_\theta^\prime$ or $\sigma_\theta^\prime$ is dependent on $\theta$. Additionally, the assumption of an iid process is discarded in the cryptographic framework: $\rho^\prime$ in the first round may be different from the $\rho^\prime$ in the second round (or any other round). Note that this figure depicts a completely general cryptographic setting, while the latter sections of this chapter explore specific cryptographic settings, in which it will be clear how and when a malicious adversary may alter the quantum metrology problem.}
\label{fig:MetrologyFrameworkComparison}
\end{figure}
As Fig.~(\ref{fig:MetrologyFrameworkComparison}) suggests, a quantum metrology problem can be altered at many stages of the estimation process by a malicious adversary: state preparation, parameter encoding, or the measurements. Because the measurement is the final `quantum step' in the process before creating the estimate, the measurement statistics in the cryptographic framework must resemble the measurement statistics in the ideal framework. Otherwise, the estimate would not be practical.
Even though measurement results are a classical quantity, the measurement statistics can always be written as a mixed state with no coherence terms, where the amplitudes correspond to probabilities of witnessing a certain measurement outcome. If the observable the estimate is being inferred from has an eigenbasis with projectors $\{ E \}$, then the corresponding measurement statistics of an encoded quantum state $\rho_\theta$ is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta) = \sum_E E \rho_\theta E.
\end{equation}
For example if $\ket{\psi}=\alpha \ket{0}+ \beta \ket{1}$ is measured with respect to the computational basis, then the measurement statistics are $\mathcal{M}(\ket{\psi})=|\alpha|^2 \dyad{0} + |\beta|^2 \dyad{1}$. Similarly, the measurement statistics in a cryptographic framework can always be derived from an arbitrary (not necessarily encoded) quantum state $\rho_\theta^\prime$. Mathematically, we demand that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cryptographicTDrequirement}
\frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{j=1}^\nu \mathscr{D}\big( \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta), \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \big) \leq \varepsilon \ll 1,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}$ is a quantum state which outputs the measurement statistics of the $j$th round of the prepare, encode and measure portion of the quantum metrology problem in the cryptographic framework. Eq.~\eqref{eq:soundnessfidelity} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:soundnesstracedistance} suggests that this can be achieved by implementing appropriate cryptographic protocols.
Suppose that the measurements are done in a secure fashion without malicious interference. If the encoded quantum states in the cryptographic framework obey the analogous restriction
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cryptographicTDrequirementOLD}
\frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{j=1}^\nu \mathscr{D}\big(\rho_\theta, \rho^{\prime (j)}_\theta \big) \leq \varepsilon \ll 1,
\end{equation}
then Eq.~\eqref{eq:cryptographicTDrequirement} will still hold because of the monotonicity of the trace distance, Eq.~\eqref{eq:TDcontractive},
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{D}\big( \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta), \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \big) \leq \mathscr{D}\big(\rho_\theta, \rho^{\prime (j)}_\theta \big).
\end{equation}
The same argument holds if the malicious interference is localised to the state preparation step in Fig.~(\ref{fig:MetroCrypto}). In fact, Eq.~\eqref{eq:cryptographicTDrequirementOLD} was the imposed inequality in \cite{SMK21}, however, we needed to generalize to Eq.~\eqref{eq:cryptographicTDrequirement} in \cite{SM21} because we explore the possibility of delegating the measurement step to an untrusted party. In either case, the trace distance was chosen because of the relationship to distance of resulting classical probability distributions, Eq.~\eqref{eq:TraceDistanceAlt}: if $\varepsilon$ is small, then any measurement will give rise to similar probability distributions \cite{nielsen2002}.
To properly gauge the effects of a malicious adversary, we examine a specific estimation strategy. We revisit that which was established in \textbf{Chapter~3}: inferring an estimate from an observable. That is, the expectation value of the observable $O$ is estimated and then inverted. This strategy was chosen due to the mathematical simplicity and for the fact that it can be used to saturate the HL. In the ideal framework, this initial estimate is labelled $\hat{f}$. Specifically
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{j=1} m_j,
\end{equation}
where $m_j$ is the eigenvalue associated to the $j$th measurement result, where $\mathbb{E}(m_j)=\Tr(O \rho_\theta)$. This is equivalent to $\mathbb{E}(m_j)=\Tr \big(O \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta) \big)$. In the cryptographic framework, the analogous estimate is constructed
\begin{equation}
\hat{f}^\prime = \frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{j=1} m_j^\prime,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}(m_j^\prime) = \Tr \big( O \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \big)$, which is then inverted as if it were the ideal framework. Assuming that $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small, the first order Taylor expansion of $f^{-1}(\hat{f}^\prime)$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CryptoTaylorApprox}
\hat{\theta}^\prime = \theta + \frac{1}{\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}}(\hat{f}^\prime-\expval{O})
\end{equation}
provides a valid approximation even in the cryptographic framework. Here, $\expval{O}$ is the expectation value with respect to the ideal framework, thus $\expval{O}=\Tr(O\rho_\theta)$. Eq.~\eqref{eq:CryptoTaylorApprox} suggests that in the cryptographic framework, the added bias is bounded by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:biasbound}
\begin{split}
\big| \mathbb{E}(\hat{\theta}^\prime) - \mathbb{E}(\hat{\theta}) \big| &= \frac{1}{|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|} \big| \mathbb{E}(\hat{f}^\prime) - \mathbb{E}(\hat{f}) \big| \\
&= \frac{1}{\nu|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|} \big| \sum_{j=1}^\nu \Tr \big( O \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)})-O\mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta) \big) \big| \\
&\leq \frac{2o}{\nu|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|} \sum_{j=1}^\nu \mathscr{D}\big( \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta), \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \big) \\
& \leq \frac{2o \varepsilon}{|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $o$ is the maximum magnitude of the eigenvalues of $O$. Recall from \textbf{Chapter~3} that in the ideal framework
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2 \hat{f} = \frac{\Tr(O^2 \rho_\theta)-\Tr(O \rho_\theta)^2}{\nu} = \frac{ \Tr ( \mathbf{O} \rho_\theta \otimes \rho_\theta )}{\nu},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{O}=O^2 \otimes \mathbb{I} - O \otimes O$. Note that the maximum magnitude of the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{O}$ is bounded below $2o^2$. In the cryptographic framework, the MSE is the sum of the variance and the square of the bias
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Delta^2 \hat{f}^\prime &= \mathbb{E} \big( (\hat{f}^\prime -f)^2 \big) \\
&= \mathbb{E} \big( \hat{f}^\prime - \mathbb{E}(\hat{f}^\prime) \big)^2 + \big(\mathbb{E}(\hat{f}^\prime)-f \big)^2 \\
&\leq \frac{1}{\nu^2}\sum_{j=1}^\nu \Tr \big( \mathbf{O} \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \otimes \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \big) + 4o^2 \varepsilon^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It follows that the increase of the MSE is bounded by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MSEintegrity}
\begin{split}
\big| \Delta^2 \hat{\theta}^\prime - \Delta^2 \hat{\theta} \big| &= \frac{1}{|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|^2} \big| \Delta^2 \hat{f}^\prime - \Delta^2 \hat{f} \big| \\
&\leq \frac{4o^2}{\nu^2 |\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|^2} \sum_{j=1}^\nu \mathscr{D}\big( \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta) \otimes \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta), \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \otimes \mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \big) + \frac{4o^2 \varepsilon^2}{ |\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|^2} \\
&\leq \frac{8o^2 \nu^{-1} \varepsilon+4 o^2 \varepsilon^2}{|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|^2},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the triangle inequality
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{D}(\rho_1 \otimes \rho_1, \rho_2 \otimes \rho_2) \leq \mathscr{D}(\rho_1 \otimes \rho_1, \rho_1 \otimes \rho_2) + \mathscr{D}(\rho_1 \otimes \rho_2, \rho_2 \otimes \rho_2) = 2 \mathscr{D}(\rho_1, \rho_2)
\end{equation}
is used in the derivation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:MSEintegrity}.
Notice that as $\nu \rightarrow \infty$, the added bias in Eq.~\eqref{eq:biasbound} does not vanish, and as a consequence, neither does the increase in the MSE, Eq.~\eqref{eq:MSEintegrity}. This is due to the construction of the cryptographic framework, where Eq.~\eqref{eq:cryptographicTDrequirement} can be interpreted as an average amount of uncertainty in the measurement statistics. If the uncertainty in each round is constant, $\varepsilon$ is of course independent of $\nu$, which ultimately limits the achievable precision of the quantum metrology problem. For the functionality of said quantum metrology problem to be the same in the cryptographic framework when compared to the ideal framework, $\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}^\prime$ must scale similarly to $\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}$. This is equivalent to the difference in the MSE scaling similarly to $\Delta^2 \hat{\theta}$, which occurs when
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:varepsilonbound}
\varepsilon^2 \leq \nu^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The factor of $4o^2$ is ignored as it is dependent on the metrology portion of the problem whereas $\varepsilon$ is dependent on the cryptographic portion of the problem. The term $8o^2 \nu^{-1} \varepsilon$ term is ignored, as it is appropriately small if $\varepsilon^2 \leq \nu^{-1}$.
It follows from the equations for the added bias and difference in MSE, Eq.~\eqref{eq:biasbound} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:MSEintegrity} respectively, along with the relationship between trace distance and soundness, Eq.~\eqref{eq:soundnesstracedistance}, that if a cryptographic protocol has soundness $\delta$ and statistical significance $\alpha$, then the integrity of the quantum metrology problem is represented by the added bias
\begin{equation}
\big| \mathbb{E}( \hat{\theta}^\prime ) - \mathbb{E}( \hat{\theta}) \big| \leq \frac{2o}{|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|} \sqrt{\frac{\delta}{\alpha}},
\end{equation}
and the the increase in the MSE
\begin{equation}
\big| \Delta^2 \hat{\theta}^\prime - \Delta^2 \hat{\theta} \big| \leq \frac{4o^2}{|\frac{\partial \expval{O}}{\partial \theta}|^2} \big( 2 \nu^{-1} \sqrt{\frac{\delta}{\alpha}} + \frac{\delta}{\alpha} \big).
\end{equation}
More so, Eq.~\eqref{eq:varepsilonbound} suggests that the effective functionality is retained when
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:metrology_interity}
\frac{\delta}{\alpha} \leq \nu^{-1}.
\end{equation}
It should be noted that the trace distance and soundness relationship, Eq.~\eqref{eq:soundnesstracedistance}, and the demanded proximity of the average measurement statistics, Eq.~\eqref{eq:cryptographicTDrequirement}, are not a function of the same quantities. The former is a function of the expected trace distance while the latter is simply the trace distance. This is because a metrology problem is designed for specific states, while it is atypical for a cryptography protocol to have a precise output. Although these ideologies may seem to contrast with each other, we propose two solutions to remedy the difference. The first is that the measurement statistics of each round can be interpreted as the average measurement statistics after implementing the protocol, from which the integrity relationships still hold because of the strong convexity of trace distance \cite{nielsen2002}
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{D} \big( \rho_\text{id}, \mathbb{E}(\rho_\text{out}) \big) \leq \mathbb{E} \big( \mathscr{D} ( \rho_\text{id}, \rho_\text{out} ) \big).
\end{equation}
The second, is that for sufficiently large $\nu$, the law of large numbers dictates that the proximity of the average measurement statistics will tend towards the expected value
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\nu} \sum_{j=1}^\nu \mathscr{D}( \sigma_\theta, \sigma_\theta^{\prime (j)}) \approx \mathbb{E} \big( \mathscr{D}( \sigma_\theta, \sigma_\theta^{\prime}) \big).
\end{equation}
\section{Quantum Metrology over an Unsecured Quantum Channel}
The first cryptographic setting established in this chapter is when the quantum metrology problem uses an unsecured quantum channel \cite{SMK21}. In quantum sensing networks, the quantum channels will likely be the most vulnerable to malicious attacks \cite{komar2014}, so it important to include a cryptographic protocol to carry out the metrology problem in a secure fashion. This was the basis of the work presented in \cite{huang2019}, however, as described above, the authors fail to create a secure protocol. To achieve a notion of security, the protocols presented in this section take inspiration from quantum authentication schemes \cite{barnum2002, broadbent2016b}. Quantum authentication schemes are cryptographic protocols designed to send quantum states across an unsecured quantum channel in a private and secure fashion, which is precisely the nature of the task at hand.
\subsection{The Protocols}
Two protocols are presented for the task of quantum metrology over an unsecured quantum channel: i) a modified version of the trap code \cite{broadbent2013}, and ii) a modified version of the Clifford code \cite{aharonov2017}. From a functional stand point the two protocols are nearly identical, however the encryption and decryption methods vary drastically from a complexity standpoint and ease of implementation. The encryption scheme for the trap code is restricted to locally acting Clifford operations, $C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}$. In contrast, the encryption scheme for the Clifford code is an arbitrary $C \in \mathcal{C}_m$. As expected, the Clifford code leads to a much stronger soundness statement, due to the additional entanglement gained from the encryption.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.9\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter6/QAS_metrology_source.jpg}
\caption{Initialized quantum state before using the unsecured quantum channel.}
\label{fig:QM_UnsecuredChannel_source}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{20pt}
\begin{subfigure}{.9\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter6/QAS_metrology_protocol.PNG}
\caption{Schematic of the protocols.}
\label{fig:QM_UnsecuredChannel_protocol}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) Alice prepares the quantum state $\rho_\text{in}$, which is a combination of $t$ ancillary flag qubits (randomly positioned) as well as the quantum state $\rho$ intended for quantum metrology. The flag qubits are indexed at positions $l_1,l_2,\ldots,l_t$. (b) Before utilizing the quantum channel, Alice and Bob randomly select a classical key $k$. This classical key corresponds to the encryption operation ($\mathcal{E}_k$) performed by Alice, and the decryption operation ($\mathcal{D}_k=\mathcal{E}_k^\dagger$) performed by Bob upon receipt. A malicious eavesdropper, labeled Eve, has complete access to the quantum quantum channel. Without loss of generality, Eve can perform any CPTP map $\Gamma$ when interacting with the channel. Bob encodes the unknown parameter into the portion of the quantum state intended for quantum metrology. Finally, Bob measures the qubits accordingly: the ancillary flag qubits in the computational basis, and the metrology qubits in the appropriate basis to construct an estimate. If the flag qubit measurement is an unexpected output, then a malicious adversary must have tampered with the quantum channel.}
\label{fig:QM_UnsecuredChannel}
\end{figure}
In this setting, Alice and Bob are the trusted parties who wish to execute a quantum metrology problem. They are separated by an unsecured quantum channel, which may be intercepted by a malicious eavesdropper, labelled Eve. Note that Alice and Bob share a secure classical channel to communicate classical information, such as the choice of the random key. This is a standard assumption in quantum cryptography.
To have the ability to detect Eve, Alice prepares an input state $\rho_\text{in}$, which is a combination of the quantum state intended for the metrology problem $\rho_\text{id}$, as well as $t$ ancillary flag qubits. An example of an input state is depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QM_UnsecuredChannel_source}). The flag qubits are all initialized in the state $\ket{0}$, and upon receipt Bob measured the flag qubits in the computational basis. In an ideal setting, the measurement will ubiquitously witness the result $\ket{0}^{\otimes t}$; any other result suggests that the quantum channel was compromised. This deterministic measurement result aids in certifying whether or not Eve tampered with the quantum channel.
After preparing the input state $\rho_\text{in}$, Alice encrypts it using a random Clifford operation. The set from which the Clifford operation is chosen from is dependent on the protocol. Upon receipt, Bob decrypts the quantum state by applying the inverse operation applied by Alice. Bob then measures the ancillary flag qubits in computational basis. If the expected measurement result $\ket{0}^{\otimes t}$ is witnessed, Bob will utilize the remaining qubits for the quantum metrology problem, otherwise they are discard the quantum state as Eve must have tampered with the quantum channel. This process is illustrated in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QM_UnsecuredChannel_protocol}).
\vspace{\baselineskip}
\textit{Implementation Instructions:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Prior to using the quantum channel, Alice and Bob randomly select a key $k \in \mathcal{K}$, which is linked to an encryption operator $\mathcal{E}_{k}$. Specific to trap code, the key also contains information about a tuple $\ell=(l_1,\ldots,l_t)$ of length $t$, this tuple contains the index locations of the ancillary flag qubits.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the trap code, $\mathcal{E}_k \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}$.
\item For the Clifford code, $\mathcal{E}_k \in \mathcal{C}_m$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Alice creates the $m=n+t$ qubit state $\rho_\text{in}$ by inserting $t$ ancillary flag qubits $\ket{0}$ at the positions indexed by $\ell$, and the remaining $n$ qubit state $\rho$ is the quantum state designated for quantum metrology.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the trap code, it is important that $\ell$ is randomly chosen because the encryption operation does not generate entanglement.
\item For the Clifford code, $\ell$ can be static. This is because the encryption will generate entanglement between the ancillary qubits and the rest of the quantum state.
\end{enumerate}
\item Alice encrypts the input state by applying the Clifford operator $\mathcal{E}_k$ and sends the quantum state to Bob.
\item Upon receipt, Bob decrypts the quantum state by applying the inverse operator $\mathcal{E}_k^\dagger$ upon receipt.
\item Bob measures the ancillary flag qubits in the computational basis. The result is accepted if $\dyad{0}^{\otimes t}$ is measured. The quantum state is discarded otherwise.
\item If the result is accepted, Bob continues with the quantum metrology problem using the remaining qubits.
\end{enumerate}
The random choice of encryption operation makes it impossible for Eve to extract any information about $\rho_\text{in}$, meaning that protocols are completely private. To see explicitly why, consider $\rho_\text{in}$ in the Pauli basis
\begin{equation}
\rho_\text{in} = \frac{1}{2^m}\sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} \Tr (P \rho_\text{in}) P.
\end{equation}
Using the Clifford code, the expected quantum state available to Eve is
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}( \rho_E ) = \frac{1}{2^m |\mathcal{C}_m|} \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_m} \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} \Tr (P \rho_\text{in}) C P C^\dagger.
\end{equation}
For every $P \neq \mathbb{I}$, the Clifford group can be partitioned into pairs of operators $(C_a,C_b)$ such that $C_a P C_a^\dagger = -C_b P C_b^\dagger$, hence the only-non vanishing term is $P=\mathbb{I}$, and thus Eve cannot distinguish the quantum state from the maximally mixed state. For the trap code, the Pauli and Clifford operations can be decomposed into local operations, $C=\bigotimes_{j=1}^m C_j$ and $P=\bigotimes_{j=1}^m P_j$. Here, the expected quantum state available to Eve is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:privacyTrapCode}
\mathbb{E}( \rho_E ) = \frac{1}{2^m |\mathcal{C}_1|^m} \sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}} \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}_m} \Tr (P \rho_\text{in}) \bigotimes_{j=1}^m C_j P_j C_j^\dagger.
\end{equation}
By the same intuition, the only non-vanishing term is when $P$ is identically the identity, and thus using the trap Code, Eve cannot distinguish the quantum state from the maximally mixed state. Even though no information about the unknown parameter with respect to the metrology problem is passed through the quantum channel, as per Fig.~(\ref{fig:QM_UnsecuredChannel_protocol}), having complete privacy is still important. The same protocol can be used in the nearly identical setting where it is Alice who encodes the unknown parameter. More so, it will be shown that the protocol can be extended to a setting where Alice and Bob use the same quantum channel twice, similar to the setting of \cite{huang2019}. In either of these two settings, having a completely private protocol prevents Eve from extracting information about the unknown parameter in question.
Privacy is achieved as a consequence of randomly sampling $\mathcal{E}_k$ from a large set of Clifford operations. For example, the set $\mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}$ has $24^m$ elements. Although we do not focus on the logistics of the classical channel in our protocol, it is important to acknowledge that the size of the classical key required is quite large. As an alternative, one can consider sampling $\mathcal{E}_k$ from a smaller set of $\mathcal{O}(m2^m)$ unitary operators, which approximately guarantees privacy \cite{hayden2004}. Although in doing so, other assumptions are needed, namely that Eve not having access to a quantum memory \cite{lupo2015}.
A derivation for the soundness\footnote{We derive the soundness with the assumption that the quantum state intended for quantum metrology, $\rho_\text{id}$, is a pure state, because this greatly simplifies the derivation. This is a logical assumption since pure states are superior resources for quantum metrology.} of the two protocols can be found in \textbf{Appendix~C}, in which it is shown that the soundness of the trap code is $\delta_{\text{trap}}=\frac{3n}{2t}$, and the soundness of the Clifford code is $\delta_{\text{Cliff}}=\frac{1}{2^t}$. Eq.~\eqref{eq:metrology_interity} states that the integrity of the underlying metrology problem is maintained when $\frac{\delta}{\alpha} \leq \nu^{-1}$. Equivalently, the number of ancillary flag qubits required is $t_\text{trap} \geq \frac{3n \nu}{2\alpha}$ for the trap code, and $t_\text{Cliff} \geq \log_2 \frac{\nu}{\alpha}$ using the Clifford code. In the ideal framework, the total number of qubits is $\nu n$, in the cryptographic framework it is $\nu (n+t)$. This is a quadratic increase in resources if using the trap code, and a log-linear increase in resources if using the Clifford code.
\subsection{Generalizations}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter6/QAS_twice.png}
\caption{In the extended version of the protocol, the unsecured quantum channel is used twice. Alice sends the quantum state $\rho_\text{in}$ to Bob to be encoded, after which it is sent back to Alice. Because the quantum channel is used twice, the classical key shared by Alice and Bob describes the encryption and decryption operation for the first use of the quantum channel ($\mathcal{E}_{k_1}, \mathcal{D}_{k_1}$) and the second use of the quantum channel ($\mathcal{E}_{k_2}, \mathcal{D}_{k_2}$).}
\label{fig:QM_channeltwice}
\end{figure}
The work in \cite{huang2019} addresses the distribution of entangled resources over quantum channels for quantum metrology, however, with a more restricted Bob, so that the measurement is also left to Alice, requiring the state be sent back to Alice once Bob has done the encoding. Both the trap code and Clifford code can be easily adapted to this setting. To do so, Alice and Bob perform a second encryption operation before the second usage of the quantum channel. The generalization of the protocol is illustrated in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QM_channeltwice}). Using two encryption operations is imperative for the success of the protocol; if it was just Alice who performed the encryption and the decryption, then Eve could simply apply a unitary on the use of the quantum channel, and its inverse on the second usage. This will not alter any of the ancillary flag qubits but can bias the qubits intended for quantum metrology. In \textbf{Appendix~C}, the soundness of the generalized protocols are computed to be $\delta_\text{trap}=\frac{9n}{4t}$ and $\delta_\text{Cliff}=\frac{1}{2^t}$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering \includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter6/QAS_multipartite.PNG}
\caption{Generalization to a multipartite framework, where a central node $\mathcal{N}_0$ distributes a portion of a quantum state amongst external nodes $\mathcal{N}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{N}_k$ (in this illustration $k=4$). This distribution is done through quantum channels, and thus may be vulnerable to a malicious eavesdropper, whose (potential) interaction is depicted with a red ring. To ensure a sense of security, the trusted nodes can adopt the trap code since the decryption operations are all performed locally.}
\label{fig:QM_multipartite}
\end{figure}
An alternative generalization is a multipartite setting, depicted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:QM_multipartite}). This would be a practical tool for any quantum sensing network problem \cite{komar2014, proctor2018, rubio2020a} with unsecured quantum channels. Here a central node $\mathcal{N}_0$ is connected to external nodes $\mathcal{N}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{N}_k$ via quantum channels, which may be simultaneously intercepted by a malicious adversary. The central node sends a portion of an entangled quantum state to each of the external nodes, after which the external nodes encode a local parameter on their portion of the quantum state for a spatially distributed quantum metrology scheme. The trap code can be adopted in this spatially distributed and multipartite framework since the decryption operations are local, and thus recover the same notions of privacy and soundness.
\section{Quantum Metrology with Delegated Tasks}
In the previous section, together the honest parties, Alice and Bob, had all of necessary quantum technologies to fully carry out a quantum metrology problem. In reality, fully implementing a quantum metrology problem is technologically demanding. Entangled quantum states must be generated and measured with high fidelity. The quantum internet \cite{wehner2018}, and other asymmetric quantum networks, is a possible solution where parties which lack the necessary hardware can delegate the desired task to another party in the network. Of course, when delegating tasks, it is important to be mindful of possible risks. Within the framework of quantum metrology, a malicious third party could bias the estimation results or conduct the estimate themselves. In this section, which is based off of work currently in preparation \cite{SM21}, we propose cryptographic protocols to allow for delegating a portion of the quantum metrology scheme to an untrusted third party. This is done by partitioning a quantum metrology problem into three tasks: state preparation, parameter encoding and measurements, and explore the repercussions when a specific task, or a combination, is delegated. The different scenarios are summarized in Fig.~(\ref{fig:DelegatedScenarios}). There is an additional task of processing the measurement results and creating the estimate, however we ignore this since it is inherently a classical computation.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter6/DelegatedMetrology.png}
\caption{The different delegated quantum metrology scenarios addressed in the section. A quantum metrology problem can be decomposed into three (quantum) tasks: state preparation, parameter encoding and measurements. A red rectangle with a `\ding{55}' indicates that the task is delegated to a third party, as opposed to a green rectangle with a `\checkmark' which indicates that the task is not delegated. In \textit{scenario 1}, state preparation is delegated and verification protocols \cite{zhu2019a, markham2020} are used to achieve a sense of security. In \textit{scenario 2}, the measurements are delegated and we devise an authentication based protocol to achieve a sense of security. Finally, in \textit{scenario 3}, the parameter encoding is delegated, and we discuss the impossibility of constructing a computationally secure protocol for such a scenario.}
\label{fig:DelegatedScenarios}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Delegated State Preparation}
The first scenario explored is when the task of quantum state preparation is delegated to an untrusted party. In the absence of a proper cryptographic protocol, the untrusted party could distribute any quantum state $\rho^\prime$, which could be preemptively biased to mask the true result of the parameter estimation. Because the metrology portion part of the problem has not yet come into effect, we can utilize one of the many existing quantum state verification protocols \cite{takeuchi2018, pallister2018, markham2020, liu2019, takeuchi2019b}, which ensure that the quantum state prepared is the desired quantum state.
Verification protocols are used to (as the name suggests) verify quantum states \cite{zhu2019a, zhu2019b}. Typically, this is done by requesting additional copies of the desired quantum state and by measuring the additional copies in specific bases. The measurement results are used to decide if the protocol is accepted or rejected. It should be noted that most verification protocols are tailored for specific classes of quantum states, such as graph states \cite{markham2020, takeuchi2019b} or Dicke states \cite{liu2019}. More general protocols tend to require significantly more resources to achieve the same level of soundness for arbitrary quantum states \cite{takeuchi2018, pallister2018}.
Of course, the soundness is dependent on the protocol chosen to be integrated into the cryptographic quantum metrology framework. For the sake of an example, consider the protocol outlined in \cite{markham2020}. The protocol is a verification protocol for graph states (and can thus be used for the bundled graph states introduced in \textbf{Chapter~4}), but naturally extends to all stabilizer states, including the GHZ state. The protocol takes advantage of the deterministic measurement results when a stabilizer state is measured in a basis of any of its stabilizers, Eq.~\eqref{eq:stabrepresentation}. In summary, the protocol requests $N$ copies of the desired stabilizer state, all but one (randomly selected) is measured with respect to an arbitrary stabilizer. The result is accepted if the $N-1$ measurements results all witness a $+1$ eigenvalue of their respective stabilizer. The protocol achieves a soundness of $\delta=1/N$. Therefore, the integrity of the underlying quantum metrology problem is maintained if
\begin{equation}
N \geq \frac{\nu}{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
After $\nu$ repetitions of the protocol, this translates to a quadratic increase in resources compared to the ideal framework.
Quantum state verification uses several figures of merit (besides just soundness) which are intertwined \cite{zhu2019a,zhu2019b}. Specifically, the soundness is bounded for a fixed $N$, however the characterisation introduced in \cite{zhu2019a} permits the optimization of $N$ for a fixed $\delta$ and $\alpha$. For qubit stabilizer states the answer is $N=2(\ln2)^{-1} \delta^{-1} \ln \alpha^{-1}$. The bounds are different because the `worst case' attack which saturates the soundness for a fixed $N$ is different than the `worst case' attack for a fixed $\delta$.
\subsection{Delegated Measurements}
The second scenario we explore is the when the measurements are delegated to an untrusted third party. A simplistic version of this scenario with an honest-but-curious adversary has been explored \cite{takeuchi2019, okane2020, yin2020}, where the authors propose using a blind quantum computing protocol \cite{broadbent2009} to achieve privacy by masking the measurement results from an eavesdropper. However, blind quantum computing is not sufficient to achieve unconditional security, where no assumptions are made with respect to the adversary. For all intents and purposes, the untrusted party may return arbitrary measurement results, and without proper cryptographic precautions, the untrusted party can bias the estimate to their own accord. To combat this, the protocol we propose takes inspiration from verified blind quantum computing \cite{morimae2014, fitzsimons2017} and the protocol proposed for quantum metrology over an unsecured quantum channel.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Figures/Chapter6/DelegatedMeasurementProtocol.png}
\caption{Alice prepares the quantum state $\rho_\text{in}$, which is a combination of an $n$ for quantum metrology and $t$ flag qubits. Before sending the quantum state to Eve, Alice randomly permutes the flag qubits amongst the encoded qubits and subsequently encrypts the quantum state by applying a random Pauli $C$. Without loss of generality, the measurement result, $x$, returned by Eve will coincide with the measurement statistics of $\mathcal{M}\big(\Gamma(C\pi\rho_\text{in}\pi^\dagger C^\dagger)\big)$, where $\Gamma$ is any CPTP map. Upon receipt, Alice performs classical post-processing on $x$ such that it can be properly interpreted. This is represented as applying $C^\dagger$ and $\pi^\dagger$ on $\mathcal{M}\big(\Gamma(C\pi\rho_\text{in}\pi^\dagger C^\dagger)\big)$.}
\label{fig:DelegatedMeasProtocol}
\end{figure}
Using the same nomenclature as the protocol for quantum metrology over an unsecured quantum network: Alice is the trusted party who lacks the necessary quantum hardware to execute quantum measurements, and Eve is the untrusted party who is delegated the measurements task. In a trusted setting, Alice sends Eve an encoded quantum state $\rho_\theta$, and the probability of Eve returning a specific measurement result corresponds to the amplitudes of $\mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta)$. In the untrusted setting, Eve can return arbitrary measurement results, but without loss of generality, they will correspond to the amplitudes of $\mathcal{M}(\rho_\theta^\prime)$, where $\rho_\theta^\prime$ is an arbitrary and not necessarily encoded quantum state. In addition, Eve can perform the correct measurement, such that they can construct an estimate of $\theta$ for themselves and send a biased or nonsensical results back to Alice. To attain a notion of security and privacy, Alice employs the protocol illustrated in Fig.~(\ref{fig:DelegatedMeasProtocol}) and described below.
The protocol we outline is specific to the case when, in the ideal framework, Alice would request Eve to measure each qubit respect to the basis of a (non-identity) Pauli operator $P$. It can be adapted to other non-entangled measurements by appropriately rotating the encryption operations. We focus on simple measurements as the protocol is more tangible: it only requires local Clifford operations to encrypt the quantum state. It is also practical as feasible measurement strategies in quantum metrology are typically with respect to the eigenbasis of a Pauli operator because they are the simplest to implement.
\vspace{\baselineskip}
\textit{Implementation Instructions:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice prepares the $m=n+t$ qubit state $\rho_\text{in}=\rho_\theta \otimes \dyad{0}^{\otimes t}$. Here, $\rho_\theta$ is the $n$ qubit encoded quantum state and $\dyad{0}^{\otimes t}$ is used ancillary flag qubits as ancillary flag qubits because of their deterministic measurement outcome.
\item Alice encrypts $\rho_\text{in}$ by first performing a permutation $\pi$ and then applies a random Clifford $C \in \mathcal{C}_1^{\otimes m}$. The permutation will insert the flag qubits at random positions so that Eve cannot distinguish between the encoded qubits and flag.
\item Alice requests Eve to measure the quantum state in the basis of $C \pi P^{\otimes n} \otimes Z^{\otimes t} \pi^\dagger C^\dagger$, the measurement is represented by the map $\mathcal{M}$.
\item Eve returns a measurement result $x$, which are derived from the measurement statistics $\mathcal{M}\big(\Gamma(C\pi\rho_\text{in}\pi^\dagger C^\dagger)\big)$, where $\Gamma$ is any CPTP map.
\item Alice performs classical post-processing on $m$ to obtain the measurement result as if it had not been encrypted. With respect to the measurement statistics, this is represented by applying $\pi^\dagger C^\dagger$ to $\mathcal{M}\big(\Gamma(C\pi\rho_\text{in}\pi^\dagger C^\dagger)\big)$.
\item Alice accepts the measurement result if, after post-processing, the measurement results of the $t$ flag qubits coincide with the expected result of $\dyad{0}^{\otimes t}$. Otherwise, Alice rejects the measurement results as Eve must have acted maliciously.
\end{enumerate}
The reason the protocol is designed\footnote{To adapt the protocol to more complex measurements, the encryption on the requested measurement basis would have to mimic the actions of an arbitrary Clifford operation on a Pauli operator.} for measuring with respect to an eigenbasis of a Pauli operator $P^{\otimes n}$, is because regardless of the encryption $C$, the requested measurement is an random string of Pauli operators, and Eve cannot decipher which measurements coincide with qubits for quantum metrology and which measurement results coincide with ancillary flag qubits. As a result, the protocol is completely private
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(\rho_E) =\mathbb{I}/2^m,
\end{equation}
where the above privacy statement can be shown using the same logic as the privacy of the trap code for quantum metrology over an unsecured quantum channel, Eq.~\eqref{eq:privacyTrapCode}.
In \textbf{Appendix~C}, we show that the soundness of this protocol is bounded below the soundness of the trap code for quantum metrology over an unsecured quantum channel, and thus $\delta = \frac{3n}{2t}$. Therefore, the integrity of the underlying quantum metrology problem is maintained if $\frac{3n}{2\alpha t} \leq \nu^{-1} $. Equivalently, the number of ancillary flag qubits required is $t \geq \frac{3n \nu}{2\alpha}$. Thus, the cryptographic framework requires a quadratic increase in the number of resources to maintain the same level of precision as the ideal framework.
\subsection{Delegated Parameter Encoding}
The final scenario considered is when the task of parameter encoding is delegated to an untrusted third party. From a verification perspective, the goal is to assure that some output state $\rho_\text{out}$ is close to the ideal encoded state $\rho_\theta$ with high probability. Unsurprisingly, this is an impossible task from an information theoretic standpoint without having perfect knowledge of $\theta$, which would entirely defeat the purpose of quantum metrology. The impossibility of this task stems from the fact that an adversary can manipulate the lack of information about $\theta$ to their advantage. For example, an adversary can introduce a slight bias $\Lambda_{\theta+\delta \theta}$, encode a different parameter altogether $\Lambda_{\varphi}$, encode $\theta$ into a different quantum state $\tilde{\rho}$, or do nothing at all $\mathbb{I}$. Furthermore, there is no way of guaranteeing that an adversary acts identically each round.
Suppose that the information theoretic standpoint is abandoned and the abilities of the adversary are greatly limited to either applying $\Lambda_\theta$ or the identity $\mathbb{I}$. If one has a priori knowledge that $\theta \approx \theta_0$, a loose `accept' criteria is for the estimate to be within some range of $\theta_0$. This `protocol' can still be manipulated by an adversary if they learn the range of acceptance: $\mathbb{I}$ is applied a small number of times such that the expected estimate falls within the acceptance range despite the added bias.
Finally, if the adversary is further hindered by assuming that they cannot access any sort of classical information - such as an a priori approximation $\theta \approx \theta_0$, or the acceptance range of the aforementioned protocol - then one can continue on with the quantum metrology scheme. This is because in this specific setting, the effective encoding map is now the CPTP map
\begin{equation}
\rho \rightarrow (1-p)\Lambda_\theta(\rho)+p\rho,
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the effective probability that the adversary does nothing, and hence applies $\Lambda_\theta$ with effective probability $1-p$. Here, the metrology problem of estimating $\theta$ has evolved into the multiparameter problem \cite{ragy2016} of estimating $\theta$ and $p$. However, in making these assumptions, we have ventured out of the realm of cryptographic quantum metrology and into a fusion of quantum channel tomography \cite{bendersky2008} and quantum metrology.
\section{Discussion}
The work presented in this chapter is a novel approach to immerse a general quantum metrology problem in a cryptographic framework. By demanding the final measurement statistics used to construct an estimate are close to that of the ideal framework (sans malicious adversary), the cryptographic notion of soundness can be related to the integrity of the quantum metrology problem. Within the frequentist approach, in an ideal framework, the estimate converges to the true value as $\nu \rightarrow \infty$, so any added uncertainty as a result of the cryptographic framework, $\varepsilon$, will be the factor which limits the precision in the cryptographic framework. The `cryptographic uncertainty' was presented as a result of the interference of a (potentially) malicious adversary, but in reality, the integrity statements hold for any resource satisfying Eq,~\eqref{eq:cryptographicTDrequirement}. For example, the uncertainty caused by faulty quantum hardware or environmental noise.
The soundness of the protocols are derived for unconditional security, i.e no assumptions about the adversary are made. Of course, by discarding this assumption and limiting the abilities of an adversary (for example, only local Clifford operations, etc), the soundness bounds can be greatly improved, thus reducing the number of ancillary flag qubits to maintain the functionality of the underlying quantum metrology. Additionally, the protocols are designed for qubit systems, which naturally generalize to qudit systems, however, the protocols do not easily translate to a continuous variable quantum system; properly deriving the analogous results is a future perspective of this work.
From a cryptographic standpoint, there are numerous ways to broaden the perspective of quantum metrology in a cryptographic framework. For example, the untrusted parties in the delegated task framework can be replaced by untrusted devices to attain a notion of device independent \cite{mayers1998, xu2014} quantum metrology. Alternatively, the notions of cryptography introduced can be further abstracted \cite{maurer2011} to attain a notion of quantum metrology in an abstract cryptographic framework.
At first glance of the integrity statements throughout this chapter, the statistical significance $\alpha$ may seem like an undesirable quantity and counter-intuitive to the unconditional security assumptions. However, a bound on the trace distance cannot be made in any other way. Consider the problem of performing quantum metrology over an unsecured quantum channel, if a malicious party replaces the quantum state by the maximally mixed state, then (regardless of the protocol) the measurement results of the `flag qubits' will result in accept with a very small but non-zero probability. In this example, the quantum state then used for quantum metrology would be useless. Formally, the statistical significance parameter $\alpha$ used throughout quantum authentication and verification \cite{zhu2019a, zhu2019b} is identical to the notion of confidence level $1-\alpha$ used in traditional statistics. In which, $\alpha$ is a pre-decided upon value related to the probability of rejecting the null-hypothesis, or in this case the outcome of the protocol.
The two protocols presented for quantum metrology over an unsecured quantum channel differ in practicability and efficiency. Although the Clifford code is more efficient, the required entanglement is highly impractical. In contrast the trap code is only slightly more demanding than non-secure versions, requiring only local Clifford operations for encryption. For the task of delegated measurements, we designed a protocol analogous to the trap code. We could have additionally made an analogous protocol to the Clifford code for the same task, however this would require Alice requesting highly entangled measurements to be performed, which seems more out of reach than a highly entangled unitary operation. These protocols can also be made somewhat robust to noise by tweaking acceptance parameters \cite{unnikrishnan2020}.
In Fig.~(\ref{fig:DelegatedScenarios}), three scenarios for quantum metrology with delegated tasks are presented. Separately, we show that the task of state preparation and measurements can be delegated to an untrusted third party if reinforced with a proper cryptographic protocol. The natural question to ponder is if both tasks can be delegated to a third party, where the trusted party, Alice, can only perform the encoding map $\Lambda_\theta$ and a set of encryption operations. At first glance, this seems possible by fusing the verification protocol of \cite{markham2020} and the protocol presented for delegated measurements. A local Clifford encryption guarantees absolute privacy and soundness is easily derived for the case when $\Lambda_\theta=\mathbb{I}$. As the nature of $\Lambda_\theta$ should have little to no impact on the soundness, it ought to follow that a similar derivation can be performed for any CPTP encoding $\Lambda_\theta$. A future perspective is to prove and verify this claim.
\end{document}
\chapter{Remarks}
\begin{quote}
\textit{La volonté trouve, la liberté choisit. Trouver et choisir, c'est penser.}
\begin{flushright} -Victor Hugo \end{flushright}
\end{quote}
Quantum metrology is a promising discipline of quantum information; it has a broad scope of applications in a variety of scientific fields and is currently witnessing an abundance experimental and theoretical developments. The objective of quantum metrology is to use quantum probes to estimate unknown parameters as accurately as possible. By capitalizing on quantum properties, it is possible to achieve a precision which is unobtainable using the best classical strategies. This thesis explored how other quantum techniques can be appropriately incorporated within the realm of quantum metrology. Specifically, the utility of graph states, the limitations of quantum error correction, and the consequences of a cryptographic framework. Within each scenario, the idealized `Heisenberg limit precision' is used as a figure of merit.
The work in this thesis is uniquely theoretical, even so, the general philosophy was to be relevant and applicable to the first generations of quantum hardware. Graph states can be constructed using only control-$Z$ operations and the QFI of graph states can be approximately saturated using single qubit measurements (\textbf{Chapter~4}). The error correction protocol in \textbf{Chapter~5} is currently realizable \cite{dutt2007, taminiau2014, waldherr2014}. Most of the cryptographic protocols presented in \textbf{Chapter~6} use local encryption/decryption operations and use local measurements on ancillary qubits. One concern may be that the noise models are `too idealized' and the adversarial tools are `too abstract', and in general these will be dependent on the quantum hardware. In reply, the models presented in this thesis are a baseline and can be straightforwardly adapted to better describe the desired setting - as any experimental setup will be extremely dependent on the implementation and the available technologies.
Another general philosophy we strove to maintain was a sense of generality from the perspective of quantum metrology. However, an arbitrary parameter encoding map $\Lambda_\theta$ is quite vague and the equations pertaining to parameter estimation are highly non-linear, making it difficult to draw conclusions from the most general situation. Instead, we often used the frequentist approach to phase estimation as a baseline example. This example, is canonical with quantum metrology and has several applications \cite{holland1993, paris2009, giovannetti2011}. Nonetheless, many of the mathematical tools and derivations can be adapted to specific $\Lambda_\theta$. In particular with respect to \textbf{Chapter~4}, if $\Lambda_\theta =e^{-i\theta G}$, then the QFI can be defined as a relationship between the stabilizer group of the initialized quantum state and the expansion of $G$ and $G^2$. As hypothesized in \textbf{Chapter~5}, similar results for the limitations of error correction are likely obtained regardless of $\Lambda_\theta$, note that it is necessary to implement an error correction protocol that does not interfere with $\Lambda_\theta$.
Similarly, most of the mathematical tools and results can be adapted to the multiparameter quantum metrology. The main difficulty, incompatibility of simultaneous measurements \cite{ragy2016}, is a standard across the multiparameter framework and not inherent to any of the settings we explored. Although not explicitly proven, if there does exists a set of compatible measurements, then the integrity of the estimate for each parameter in a cryptographic framework will be of the form Eq.~\eqref{eq:biasbound} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:MSEintegrity}. The reason being that an equivalent derivation would follow from a secondary (compatible) measurement (and all subsequent measurements) because of the definition of the trace distance. A future perspective is to formally address this question.
Aside from the brief summary of Bayesian statistical interference in \textbf{Chapter~3}, this thesis is void of the Bayesian approach to quantum metrology \cite{holevo1982, jarzyna2015, rubio2018}. Because the work of \textbf{Chapter~4} is heavily influenced by the QFI, which is not used in the Bayesian approach, it is unclear if the shape of a graph can be related to the practicality of the corresponding graph state for phase estimation using a Bayesian approach. With respect to \textbf{Chapter~6}, it is impossible to gauge the integrity of a Bayesian quantum metrology problem within a cryptographic framework without first specifying a cost function, Eq.~\eqref{eq:costfunction}, and estimation strategy.
\section{Summary of Results and Future Perspectives}
\subsection{Chapter 4}
In \textbf{Chapter 4}, we demonstrate that graph states - in conjunction with their existing versatility - are a useful resource for quantum metrology. This is done by constructing a class of graph states, named bundled graph states, which possess a large amount of internal symmetry, and in consequence can approximately saturate the Heisenberg limit. More so, graph states are robust against dephasing noise and a small number of erasures, and the QFI can be approximately saturated with a simple measurement scheme. The robustness against a small number of erasures is compelling as the standard resource for phase estimation, GHZ states, lose all functionality after a single erasure \cite{toth2014}.
By construction, bundled graph states are a natural resource for multiparameter metrology, specifically in the context of quantum sensing networks \cite{komar2014, eldredge2018, proctor2018, rubio2020a}. Each bundle can be subjected to independent parameter encoding schemes. The robustness derivations can be generalized for noise models which are bundle dependent, and a compatible measurement scheme arises from the fact that not all parameters are encoded into each qubit.
\subsection{Chapter 5}
The limitations of error correction enhanced quantum metrology is outlined in \textbf{Chapter~5}. In contrast to previous results, which state that the Heisenberg limit can be permanently achieved if the signal and noise are orthogonal \cite{demkowicz2017, zhou2018}, we show that when hardware limitations are accounted for, the Heisenberg limit is eventually lost. As expected, if the frequency of error correction is high enough, the Heisenberg limit is achieved for a serviceable duration of time. Even though the focus is a single error correction protocol, we conjecture that the results translate to any error correction protocol or noise mitigation strategy, as small deviations of the phase caused by noise cannot be perfectly corrected. Eventually these small deviations accumulate enough such that the quantum state is useless for quantum metrology.
\subsection{Chapter 6}
In the presence of a (potential) malicious adversary, many notions of estimation theory have to be altered in some capacity. This is simply because there is no guarantee of having access to the ideal resource, leading to ambiguity in the construction of an estimator. In \textbf{Chapter~6}, we formalize the consequences of quantum metrology within a cryptographic framework. The idea is to use the same estimation strategy as if there was no malicious adversary, and if an appropriate protocol is used to detect any malicious alterations, then the soundness of said protocol can be linked to the integrity of the quantum metrology problem. Integrity is a concept used in quantum cryptography, which quantifies the ability to retain the functionality of the underlying process, in this case the underlying process is quantum metrology, and so we decided that the integrity will encapsulate any added bias and the difference in precision.
Additionally, in \textbf{Chapter 6}, we constructed several cryptographic protocols for cryptographic quantum metrology. The cryptographic protocols are each motivated by the absence of the necessary quantum hardware to fully execute the quantum metrology task, forcing interactions with a third party. For example, protocols to transmit quantum information across an unsecured quantum channel, and protocols to guarantee security when a task, either quantum state verification or quantum measurements, are performed by an untrusted party. It goes without saying that it is impossible to delegate the task of parameter encoding to an untrusted party, as this defeats the purpose of quantum metrology.
The immersion of quantum cryptography into quantum metrology is a novel area of research, and as such there are several future perspectives. Just as the first generations of quantum technologies will be limited in abilities, so too will be the abilities of a malicious adversary. In our work, in order to fulfill a notion of computational security, no assumptions about the malicious adversaries are made. By limiting the possible attacks a malicious adversary can perform (as one expects), an improved notion of cryptographic soundness is achieved. One concern of the quantum cryptography protocols presented in \textbf{Chapter~6} is the dependence on noiseless quantum operations, this restriction can be loosened by tweaking acceptance parameters \cite{unnikrishnan2020}. Lastly, a possible future research direction is to consider continuous variable resources, because it is not obvious if the analogous protocols will satisfy the same soundness inequalities.
\section{Secure Sensing Networks}
An ongoing project of mine is to adopt quantum sensing networks \cite{komar2014, eldredge2018, ge2018, proctor2018, zhuang2018, rubio2020a, guo2020} into the realm of quantum metrology in a cryptographic framework. This is a logical next step in the direction of cryptography and quantum metrology, as there exists a plethora of secure multipartite protocols across quantum networks \cite{pappa2012, huang2019b} and the foundation introduced in \textbf{Chapter~6} is easily adapted to the network setting. Additionally, the authors of \cite{komar2014}, who proposed a clock synchronization scheme across a quantum network, are the first to consider the security aspect of a quantum metrology problem.
The idea is straightforward: there is a central node who has the ability to prepare highly entangled quantum states, qubits are then distributed throughout the network for a multiparameter quantum metrology problem. We introduce two types of malicious adversaries: the first are eavesdroppers who can interact with the quantum channels, and the second are some of the exterior nodes of the network who may behave maliciously. By adapting the protocols introduced in \cite{SMK21,SM21} to the network setting, we establish the concept of a secure quantum sensing network.
In addition to the cryptographic notions of soundness, privacy and integrity, the notion of anonymity is introduced to quantum sensing networks \cite{unnikrishnan2019}. We define anonymity within quantum sensing networks to mean that the local parameters cannot be estimated from the measurement results, only a global parameter, for example, an average of the parameters. For example, the total power consumption of all appliances may be transmitted to a power supplier, but not the consumption of individual appliances. In some sense, anonymity is a form of privacy.
\clearpage
\thispagestyle{plain}
\vspace*{\fill}
\begin{quote}
\textit{Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.}
\begin{flushright}-Carl Sagan\end{flushright}
\end{quote}
\vspace*{\fill}
\end{document}
|
\section{Motivation}
\label{sec:mot}
Clustering, or community detection,
is a fundamental tool for
extracting
high-level information
from a network \cite{EK15}.
However, it is now widely acknowledged that
quantifying and discovering
other forms of meso-scale structure may also reveal
useful insights.
In this work we look at the issue of identifying core–periphery structure; we seek a set of nodes that are highly connected
both internally and with the rest of the network, forming the core, and a set of peripheral nodes that are well connected to the core but have only sparse internal connections.
This type of core-periphery
structure has been observed to arise naturally
in a number of settings, including
protein interaction, cell signalling, gene regulation,
ecology, social interaction and global trade; see, for example,
\cite{csermely2013structure} for a review.
Further, as pointed out in
\cite{BK18}, the structure may arise
as a consequence of the data collection process.
For example,
a phone service provider may only have access to calls in which at least one of the participants is a customer; so there will be no record of
calls between pairs of non-customers, who thus inhabit the periphery.
We are concerned in this work with the ``inverse problem'' where a
set of nodes and (undirected, unweighted) edges are supplied, and the task is to partition the nodes into a core and periphery; this may provide useful information about the roles of individual nodes and may
also lead to more instructive visualizations
\cite{borgatti2000models,csermely2013structure,ZTM15}.
A second motivation for this work is the
recent development in quantum annealing, which
has the potential to
outperform classical methodologies on certain
classes of discrete optimization problem
\cite{CL21}.
In particular, the company
D-Wave
(\texttt{dwavesys.com})
offers direct commercial access to a quantum annealer.
The main contributions of this work are
\begin{itemize}
\item to develop a kernel-based objective function
that quantifies success in the problem of
discovering a core-periphery node partition,
\item to exploit the fact that this leads naturally to a quadratic unconstrained
binary optimization (QUBO) problem, and to study
how a state-of-the-art quantum annealer performs in this context,
\item to use the objective function to compare existing heuristic algorithms
\item for problem dimensions
small enough to allow the quantum annealer to be used,
to compare the output from
heuristic algorithms with the
quantum annealed ``global'' optimum,
\item for larger problem dimensions associated with sparse networks, to show that a nearby sparse QUBO problem can give good results.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:rel}
The concept of a network core-periphery structure was formalized
and studied by Borgatti and Everett \cite{borgatti2000models}.
As mentioned in this work, and also noted by many
subsequent authors \cite{csermely2013structure,cucuringu2016detection,GYW21}, there are several different types of
core-periphery structure, and hence
detection algorithm, that can be defined.
First, we may distinguish between
\emph{partitions}
\cite{brusco11,FR20,ZTM15}
that
map nodes
into two sets, the core and the periphery, and
\emph{orderings}
\cite{cucuringu2016detection,kitsak2010identification,rombach2017core,tudisco2021nonlinear} that assign a nonnegative ``coreness'' score to each node.
The latter
are closely associated with node centrality measures \cite{holme2005core}, and, of course,
a continuous score can be used for subsequent ranking and partitioning.
Second, while there is general consistency around the principle
that core nodes should be well-connected and peripheral nodes
should be poorly connected, there is a choice to be made about whether edges that
join a core node and a peripheral node should occur with
high/intermediate frequency \cite{cucuringu2016detection,P21,tudisco2019core,ZTM15} or low frequency \cite{GYW21}, or whether such edges are irrelevant
\cite{brusco11,FR20,holme2005core}.
In this work, we
focus on the partitioning task and we
take the view that
core-periphery connections should
occur with high or intermediate frequency.
The adjacency matrix plots in Figure~\ref{fig:rhos}
illustrate this type of ``L-shaped'' two-by-two block structure.
In common with
\cite{borgatti2000models,cucuringu2016detection,rombach2017core,tudisco2019core}
we define an objective function that
measures the extent to which a partition reveals
a core-periphery structure, and we consider the resulting
discrete optimization problem.
Our focus is on designing a well-motivated and simple objective
function that
is parameter-free and does not require the core and periphery
size to be predefined. We also show that our optimization problem has QUBO form and hence
is amenable to quantum annealing, giving us the opportunity
to compare
results from existing partitioning algorithms
with the ``global'' optimum (modulo imperfections in the
physical annealing process).
\section{Optimization Formulation}
\label{sec:opt}
\subsection{Notation}
\label{subsec:notation}
For our given undirected, unweighted network of $N$ nodes with no self-loops, we let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ denote the adjacency matrix; so
$a_{ij} = 1$ if nodes $i$ and $j$ share an edge and
$a_{ij} = 0$ otherwise.
We also let $D \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ be the diagonal degree matrix with
$d_{ii} = \mathrm{deg}_i = \sum_{j=1}^{N} a_{ij}$.
We use
$\mathbf{1} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ to denote the vector with all elements
equal to one,
$I \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ to denote the identity matrix,
and $E = \mathbf{1} \mathbf{1}^T - I \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N} $
to denote the adjacency matrix for the complete graph.
\subsection{Objective Function}
\label{subsec:objective}
We will use
$x \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$
as the indicator vector for a core-periphery partition, with the convention that
$x_i =1$ assigns node $i$ to the core and
$x_i =0$ assigns node $i$ to the periphery.
A useful starting point, adopted
by several authors, see for example,
\cite[equation~(1)]{borgatti2000models} and
\cite[subsection~4.2.1]{rombach2017core},
is to consider maximizing
over all choices of $x_i \in \{0,1\}$ the objective function
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} a_{ij} \max\{x_i,x_j\}.
\label{eq:maxobj}
\end{equation}
A motivation for
(\ref{eq:maxobj}) is that we get one added to the sum every time
we have an edge $a_{ij} =1$ involving at least one core node.
However, directly
maximizing (\ref{eq:maxobj})
is not practical, since
the obvious solution is to assign every node to the core.
Hence, we must add constraints or alter the objective function.
One criticism of
(\ref{eq:maxobj}) is that it
does not take account of the missing
edges, which should arise between periphery-periphery pairs.
This motivates the maximization of
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N}
a_{ij}
\max\{x_i,x_j\} + (1-a_{ij}) ( 1 - \max\{x_i,x_j\}).
\label{eq:obj1}
\end{equation}
In this objective function
we get one added to the sum every time
we have an edge involving at least one core node \textbf{and}
every time
we have a missing edge involving no core nodes.
However, (\ref{eq:obj1}) suffers from a drawback when the
network is sparse. Here, the objective function
(\ref{eq:obj1})
encourages the placement of all nodes into the
periphery---in this way all missing edges
contribute positively to the sum since they involve
periphery-periphery pairs.
Similarly, for a dense network, (\ref{eq:obj1})
encourages the placement of all nodes into the core.
For this reason, it makes sense to scale the two terms
in (\ref{eq:obj1}) in relation to the numbers of edges that are present and missing. We therefore consider
maximizing
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N}
a_{ij}
\max\{x_i,x_j\}
\frac{1}{N_1}
+ (1-a_{ij}) ( 1 - \max\{x_i,x_j\}) \frac{1}{N_2},
\label{eq:obj1b}
\end{equation}
where $N_1$ and $N_2$ denote the number of present and missing edges, respectively; so $N_1 + N_2 = N (N-1)/2$.
Intuitively, up to a constant factor $N_1 + N_2$, we can interpret
(\ref{eq:obj1b}) as
dividing the count for ``good edges'' by $N_1/(N_1+N_2)$ (which is the probability that we see an edge if we choose a
pair of nodes at random)
and also
dividing the count for ``good missing edges'' by $N_2/(N_1+N_2)$ (which is the probability that we see a missing
edge if we choose a
pair of nodes at random).
Hence, we take a weighted combination of the
number of correct edges and correct missing
edges arising from the partition $x$, accounting for
the relative probabilities of seeing each type.
We note that in contrast to previously defined objective functions,
there are no user-defined parameters
in (\ref{eq:obj1b}) and there is no requirement to
specify the core size ahead of time.
Figure~\ref{fig:rhos} illustrates
the difference between
(\ref{eq:obj1}) and
(\ref{eq:obj1b}).
Here the networks are samples of a stochastic block model
\cite{cucuringu2016detection,GYW21,rombach2017core,tudisco2019core,ZTM15}.
We will let $\mathrm{SBM}(N,M,p_1,p_2,p_3)$ denote the
stochastic block model with $N$ nodes, a core of size $M$ and
core-core, core-periphery and
periphery-periphery probabilities of
$p_1$, $p_2$ and $p_3$, respectively.
Here, the first $M$ nodes form the core so that
the edge connecting nodes $i$ and $j$, with $i < j$,
exists with
independent probability given by
\begin{description}
\item[core-core:] $p_1$, if $1 \le j \le M$,
\item[core-periphery:] $p_2$, if $1 \le i \le M$ and $M < j$,
\item[periphery-periphery:] $p_3$ if $M < i$.
\end{description}
In the two upper plots of Figure~\ref{fig:rhos} we sampled from
$\mathrm{SBM}(100,25,0.2,0.2,0.01)$.
We let
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{N_1}{N_2}
\label{eq:rhodef}
\end{equation}
denote the ratio between the number of edges, $N_1$, and the number of missing edges, $N_2$.
The upper left plot in Figure~\ref{fig:rhos} shows the
adjacency matrix, with a dot indicating the presence of an edge; here
$\rho \approx 0.1$.
In the upper right plot, a value of $k$ on the
horizontal axis represents the partition where, based on the ``correct'' ordering for the SBM, the
first $k$ nodes are assigned to the core and the
remaining $N-k$ nodes are assigned to the periphery;
so $x_i = 1$ for $i \le k$ and
$x_i = 0$ for $k+1 \le i$.
For each such partition,
red asterisks
and blue diamonds show the value of the
unnormalized objective function
(\ref{eq:obj1}) and the normalized version
(\ref{eq:obj1b}).
Each curve is scaled to have maximum value equal to one.
In this case, because the overall
network is sparse,
the unnormalized measure
(\ref{eq:obj1})
degrades montonically as we add nodes to the
core---the scarcity of edges makes it beneficial to
predict as many missing edges as possible with periphery-periphery
pairs.
So a core of size zero is considered optimal.
The
normalized measure
(\ref{eq:obj1b})
does not suffer from this drawback---here the initial
addition of nodes into the core gives an increase until
all 25 ``correct'' nodes are included, after which
the value decreases.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1a.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1b.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1c.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1d.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1e.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1f.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1g.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1h.png}}
\caption{Left: Adjacency matrices with $M = 25$ planted core nodes.
Right: behaviour of the objective function
(\ref{eq:obj1}) (red stars) and
(\ref{eq:obj1b}) (blue diamonds) as nodes are added into the core, using the original ordering. Each curve is scaled to have maximum value equal to one.
The value of $\rho$ in (\ref{eq:rhodef}) changes from $ \approx 0.1$,
to $0.4$,
$1.2$ and $1.8$ as we move down the rows.
The normalized objective function (\ref{eq:obj1b}) peaks at the correct core size of 25 in each case.
}
\label{fig:rhos}
\end{figure}
We now alter the probability parameters.
In the second level of Figure~\ref{fig:rhos} the ratio of existing to missing edges is slightly more balanced; we have a sample from
$\mathrm{SBM}(100,25,0.6,0.5,0.1)$, for which
$\rho \approx 0.4$.
We see that both measures now give a peak at core size 25, but the normalized version (\ref{eq:obj1b})
gives a more pronounced result.
The third level uses
a sample
from
$\mathrm{SBM}(100,25,0.8,0.8,0.35)$. Here,
$\rho \approx 1.2$, so the ratio is well balanced.
Both measures are seen to perform effectively.
At the opposite extreme to the first level,
in the fourth level of Figure~\ref{fig:rhos} we have the case of a dense network; here
we sampled from
$\mathrm{SBM}(100,25,0.7,0.7,0.6)$, with
$\rho \approx 1.8$.
We see that the unnormalized measure
(\ref{eq:obj1}) favours the assignment of all nodes to the core, so that edges are predicted for every pair of nodes.
The normalized version
(\ref{eq:obj1b})
continues to
highlight the ``correct'' assignment of the first 25 nodes to the core, even though the
structure is barely perceptible in the adjacency matrix plot.
In summary, we see that the normalization in
(\ref{eq:obj1b}) produces a measure that is insensitive to the edge density. This property is
highly desirable in practice, since networks are typically sparse.
Hence, we will focus on this objective function.
\subsection{Quadratic Form}
\label{subsec:qubo}
Because summing over $1$ and summing over $a_{ij}$
in
(\ref{eq:obj1b}) is not affected by the choice of $x$, maximizing \eqref{eq:obj1b} is equivalent to maximize
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N}
\left(
a_{ij}
(\frac{1}{N_1} + \frac{1}{N_2} )
-
\frac{1}{N_2}
\right)
\max\{x_i,x_j\}.
\]
Rescaling by $N_1$ and using
(\ref{eq:rhodef}), we arrive at
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N}
\left(
a_{ij}
(1 + \rho )
-
\rho
\right)
\max\{x_i,x_j\}.
\label{eq:obj1c}
\end{equation}
This expression has a direct interpretation:
for every connected pair of nodes
$i$ and $j$, where $a_{ij} = 1$,
we gain by $+1$ if the partition correctly predicts
an edge
($\max\{x_i,x_j\} = 1$) and by zero otherwise.
Similarly,
for every disconnected pair of nodes
$i$ and $j$, where
$a_{ij} = 0$,
we lose out by $-\rho$ if the partition incorrectly predicts an edge
($\max\{x_i,x_j\} = 1$) and by zero otherwise.
Since $x$ has binary components,
we have
$
\max\{x_i,x_j\} = x_i + x_j - x_i x_j = x_i^2 + x_j^2 - x_i x_j
$,
and hence
may write the objective function in (\ref{eq:obj1c}) as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N}
\left(
a_{ij}
(1 + \rho )
-
\rho
\right)
(
x_i^2 + x_j^2 - x_i x_j).
\label{eq:newform}
\end{equation}
To find an appropriate QUBO formulation,
we may expand (\ref{eq:newform})
as
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{N}
x_i^2
\sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N}
\left(
a_{ij}
(1 + \rho )
-
\rho
\right)
+
\sum_{j=1}^{N}
x_j^2
\sum_{i=1, j \neq i}^{N}
\left(
a_{ij}
(1 + \rho )
-
\rho
\right)
-
\sum_{i=1}^{N}
\sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N}
\left(
a_{ij}
(1 + \rho )
-
\rho
\right)
x_i x_j.
\]
Because $A$ is symmetric,
the first two terms are equal, and we may rewrite the expression as
\[
2
\sum_{i=1}^{N}
x_i^2
\left(
\mathrm{deg}_i
(1 + \rho )
- (N-1) \rho \right)
-
\sum_{i=1}^{N}
\sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N}
\left(
a_{ij}
(1 + \rho )
-
\rho
\right)
x_i x_j.
\]
It follows that the maximization of (\ref{eq:newform})
may be written in QUBO form:
\begin{equation}
\max_{x_i \in \{0,1\}}
x^T Q x,
\quad \text{~where~~~}
Q = 2(1+\rho)D - 2(N-1) \rho I
-A(1+\rho) + \rho E.
\quad
\label{eq:quboform}
\end{equation}
We note in passing that the coefficient matrix defining a QUBO is not uniquely
determined; for example, in any QUBO we can force $Q$ to be symmetric,
upper triangular or lower triangular
\cite{GKY19}.
\subsection{Modified QUBO Form}
The D-Wave quantum annealer mentioned in section~\ref{sec:dwave}
can handle larger problem dimensions $N$ in
(\ref{eq:quboform}) if the matrix $Q$ is sparse.
We will assume now that the underlying network represented
by the adjacency matrix $A$ is sparse, which also implies that
the ratio $\rho$ in (\ref{eq:rhodef}) is small.
In this case the first three terms in the definition of $Q$ in
(\ref{eq:quboform}) are sparse, and indeed on
removing the final term, $\rho E$, the resulting matrix
\begin{equation}
\widehat{Q} = 2(1+\rho)D - 2(N-1) \rho I
-A(1+\rho),
\label{eq:Qhatdef}
\end{equation}
has the same sparsity as $A$.
Letting $x_{\mathrm{sum}} := \sum_{i=1}^{N} x_i$,
for any binary-valued $x$ we have
\[
x^T E x = x^T \left( \mathbf{1} \mathbf{1}^T - I \right) x =
(x^T \mathbf{1} )^2 - x^T x
= x_{\mathrm{sum}}^2 - x_{\mathrm{sum}}.
\]
Hence, we have
\begin{equation}
x^T Q x - x^T \widehat{Q} x = \rho \, x_{\mathrm{sum}} ( x_{\mathrm{sum}} -1).
\label{eq:Qdiff}
\end{equation}
At an optimal value of $x$; that is, a binary vector
maximizing (\ref{eq:quboform}), the quantity
$x_{\mathrm{sum}}$
represents the number of nodes assigned to the core.
For a sparse network we expect the core size to be
small compared with $N$.
Hence, the difference in (\ref{eq:Qdiff}) should be
small relative to $x^T Q x$. So the
original QUBO
(\ref{eq:quboform}), which has a full matrix $Q$, should
be well approximated by the sparse QUBO
\begin{equation}
\max_{x_i \in \{0,1\}}
x^T \widehat{Q} x.
\label{eq:quboform2}
\end{equation}
Based on this motivation,
for large sparse networks
where the original
QUBO
(\ref{eq:quboform})
cannot be treated by D-Wave, we will use the
nearby sparse QUBO
(\ref{eq:quboform2}).
However, for consistency we will judge the quality of the solution
in terms of the original quadratic form $x^T Q x$ as in (\ref{eq:quboform}).
\section{Quantum Annealing}
\label{sec:dwave}
Quantum annealers may only be applied to problems in
QUBO form (or an equivalent Ising form).
Although this restricts their practical usage, we note that
many tasks arising in graph theory, scheduling and
theoretical computer science
may be expressed as QUBOs; see
\cite{CTV21,CDHR19} for recent examples and
\cite{GKY19,Lucas14} for comprehensive reviews.
The essence of quantum annealing is to move
adiabatically from a ``simple'' Hamiltonian
to a Hamiltonian that encodes the problem of interest.
This annealing process makes use of quantum phenomena, including superposition and tunneling, to explore the solution landscape.
As discussed in \cite{McG20},
because quantum annealing takes place in a physical system
it is subject to ambient noise and liable to suffer further imprecision resulting from the analog controls.
For these reasons it is difficult to make general
statements about either the theoretical computational complexity
or the practical performance of a quantum annealer.
However, there are indications \cite{CL21} that quantum annealing,
and quantum computing in general \cite{A19},
have the potential to make a larger range of
problems computationally feasible.
Our approach in this work is to focus
on the quality
of solution
provided
by the quantum annealer
and to compare this with the results obtained by existing heuristic
approaches on a classical machine.
Our quantum annealing experiments are conducted on the
Advantage 4.1 system from
D-Wave
\cite{MF21}, which is commercially available via remote access.
The output is probabilistic, and hence it is common to
request multiple samples for comparison.
In our computations, we found that 100 samples
was sufficient to provide consistent results.
By default we will report on the best sample obtained.
For illustration,
on the left in Figure~\ref{fig:journal} we show the adjacency matrix for a network
used in \cite[Table~4]{borgatti2000models}
concerning co-citations among social work journals.
Here, the horizontal and vertical lines
illustrate the partition proposed
in \cite{borgatti2000models} using a genetic algorithm to maximize the correlation between the data and an
ideal pattern matrix. We see that five nodes have
been placed in the core.
In this case, the quantum annealer applied to the corresponding
QUBO (\ref{eq:quboform})
produced the same
core-periphery
partitioning, thereby supporting the empirical result in
\cite{borgatti2000models}.
For this partition, with $Q$ defined in (\ref{eq:quboform}),
the objective function has the value
$x^T Q x \approx 68.5$.
For information, on the right in
Figure~\ref{fig:journal}
we also report the
second-best
partition returned by the quantum annealer; here an extra node
(the original node $16$) has been placed in the core and the objective function value is
$x^T Q x \approx 67.5$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.4}{
\includegraphics{figajournal.png}}
\scalebox{0.4}{
\includegraphics{figbjournal.png}}
\caption{Left: Adjacency matrix with core-periphery partition from
\cite{borgatti2000models}.
Right: second best core-periphery partition from the quantum annealer added an extra node to the core.}
\label{fig:journal}
\end{figure}
As a further illustration,
in
Figure~\ref{fig:adjnoun} the nodes represent
the 60 most commonly occurring adjectives and the
60 most commonly occurring
nouns
in the novel ``David Copperfield'' by Charles Dickens,
and edges connect pairs of words that occur in adjacent positions in the text.
(Eight nodes are disconnected from the rest of the network, and hence are ignored.)
This network data, with 425 edges, comes from
\cite{Newman06}.
The picture on the left shows the
adjacency matrix in the original ordering, and on the
right we give the best core-periphery partition
found by the quantum annealer.
Further results for this network appear in Table~\ref{tab:Qreal}
of section~\ref{sec:comp}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.4}{
\includegraphics{figaadjnoun.png}}
\scalebox{0.4}{
\includegraphics{figbadjnoun.png}}
\caption{Left: Adjacency matrix from \cite{Newman06} with original node ordering.
Right: best core-periphery partition from the quantum annealer.}
\label{fig:adjnoun}
\end{figure}
\section{Method Comparison}
\label{sec:comp}
In this section we give quantitative results
based on the new
objective function
(\ref{eq:obj1c}), via the quadratic form in
(\ref{eq:quboform}),
as a means to compare various approaches to
core-periphery partitioning.
\subsection{Synthetic Data}
\label{subsec:synth}
We begin with two tests on stochastic block models
that have some level of planted core-periphery structure.
In Figure~\ref{fig:small} we show samples
from
$\mathrm{SBM}(100,25,p_1,p_2,p_3)$
with $p_1 = p_2 = p$ and $p_3 = 0.01$, for
$p = 0.1$, $p = 0.08$, $p = 0.06$ and $p = 0.04$.
Table~\ref{tab:Q1} records the results.
Here, each partitioning method produces a binary vector,
$x \in \mathbb{R}^{100}$, and we show the
corresponding
value of $x^T Q x$ for $Q$ in (\ref{eq:quboform}).
In parentheses we show the associated core size,
$x_{\mathrm{sum}}$.
For reach network, the two
largest values of $x^T Q x$ are highlighted, with
the largest value shown in bold.
The first row, marked ``Original'',
shows the value of $x^T Q x$ arising when $x$ is taken to be
the ``correct'' core set arising from the model; that is,
$x_i = 1$ for $1 \le i \le 25$ and $x_i = 0$ otherwise.
We emphasize that due to the stochasticity this partitioning
is not guaranteed to be optimal for a particular SBM sample; indeed,
we see from the table that better choices exist in each case.
The second and third rows, marked ``$Q$'' and
``$\widehat{Q}$'',
show results for the
D-Wave solution to the QUBO
(\ref{eq:quboform})
and
(\ref{eq:quboform2}), respectively. Rows
four to nine correspond to techniques originally designed to output a vector of nonnegative values to be regarded as a measure of coreness. From these vectors, we find a binary partitioning vector $x$ by optimally thresholding the coreness vector: we assign value $x_i=1$ to the top $k$ nodes in terms of coreness, and $x_i=0$ to the remaining nodes, and then select the binary $x$ which attains the largest value of $x^T Q x$ over $0 \le k \le N$. The corresponding $k$ is then taken to be the predicted core size.
The fourth row, ``Degree,'' uses the degree vector
$\mathrm{deg}_i$ as a measure of coreness.
Similarly, the fifth, sixth and seventh rows,
``EigA,''
``EigQ''
and ``NonlinPM''
use optimal partitions
based on the coreness
measures given by the Perron-Frobenius
eigenvector of $A$,
the dominant
eigenvector of $Q$,
and the corresponding nonlinear eigenvector from
\cite{tudisco2019core} (with parameter values $\alpha = 10$ and
$p = 2\alpha$
taken from that work).
We note that the use of the degree vector and
the Perron-Frobenius vector of $A$
was suggested in \cite{borgatti2000models}
and has subsequently been studied by several authors; see for example,
\cite{rombach2017core,tudisco2019core,ZTM15}.
The ``EigQ'' method is motivated by the idea of using
an eigenvector that solves a relaxed
version of the QUBO (\ref{eq:quboform}), where
$x \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$ is constrained to have $\| x \|_2 = 1$. The eighth row ``$h$-index'' uses the $k$-core decomposition coreness score \cite{kitsak2010identification}, computed as the limit of the $h$-index operator sequence \cite{lu2016h}, while the ninth row ``GenBE'' corresponds to the generalization of the original Borgatti and Everett core measure \cite{borgatti2000models} proposed in \cite{rombach2017core}, where the quadratic form $x^T A x$ is approximately maximimzed over a set of not-necessarily-binary core-periphery transition vectors $x$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.4}{
\includegraphics{figsmall1.png}}
\scalebox{0.4}{
\includegraphics{figsmall2.png}}
\scalebox{0.4}{
\includegraphics{figsmall3.png}}
\scalebox{0.4}{
\includegraphics{figsmall4.png}}
\caption{Small synthetic data: samples from
$\mathrm{SBM}(100,25,p,p,0.01)$
for
$p = 0.1$, $p = 0.08$, $p = 0.06$ and $p = 0.04$.
}
\label{fig:small}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
& $p = 0.1$ & $p = 0.08$ & $p = 0.06$ & $p = 0.04$
\\ \midrule
Original & 245.1 (25) & 165.8 (25) & 131.3 (25) & 83.4 (25) \\
$Q$ & \first{255.7} (23) & \first{174.5} (28) &
\first{183.4} (24) & \first{101.3} (28) \\
$\widehat{Q}$ & \second{252.1} (21) & \second{174.2} (24) & \second{183.1} (22) & 98.8 (22) \\
Degree & 241.0 (26) & 164.1 (28) & 136.3 (24) & 89.2 (24) \\
EigA & 177.6 (23) & 89.7 (20) & 88.6 (27) & 49.5 (27) \\
EigQ & 119.0 (21) & 86.6 (321) & 59.0 (25) & 70.0 (33) \\
NonlinPM & \first{255.7} (23) & 172.4 (28) & 136.8 (26) & \second{100.5} (30) \\
$h$-index & 235.2 (21) & 165.8 (25) & 118.6 (19) & 81.0 (24) \\
GenBE & 150.3 (31) & 91.4 (21) & 90.0 (25) & 56.0 (23) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Values of the objective function value $x^T Q x$
from (\ref{eq:quboform}) for the
$\mathrm{SBM}(100,25,p,p,0.01)$ samples
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:small}, with core size in parentheses.
Original: assigning the first $M = 25$ nodes to the core;
$Q$:
quantum annealing on
(\ref{eq:quboform});
$\widehat{Q}$:
quantum annealing on
(\ref{eq:quboform2});
Degree: the nodal degrees;
EigA: the eigenvector associated with
dominate eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix $A$;
EigQ: the eigenvector associated with
dominate eigenvalue of the QUBO matrix $Q$;
NonlinPM: the power method from
\cite{tudisco2019core} to compute a nonlinear eigenvector;
$h$-index: the $k$-core decomposition coreness score from \cite{kitsak2010identification};
GenBE: the method from \cite{rombach2017core}.
For reach network, the two
largest values of $x^T Q x$ are highlighted, with
the largest value shown in bold.
}
\label{tab:Q1}
\end{table}
We see in Table~\ref{tab:Q1} that, on these tests,
the largest or joint-largest value of $x^T Q x$ is achieved by
applying the quantum annealing algorithm directly to the
QUBO (\ref{eq:quboform}).
We also note that
$Q$, $\widehat{Q}$ and NonlinPM improve on
the $x^T Q x$ value provided by the planted ``ground truth''
from the original model.
The two standard eigenvalue approaches are consistently the poorest in this measure.
In Figure~\ref{fig:large} we show larger networks:
these are samples from
$\mathrm{SBM}(500,50,p,p,0.005)$
with
$p = 0.04$, $p = 0.03$, $p = 0.02$ and $p = 0.01$.
Here, the full
QUBO (\ref{eq:quboform}) was too large for the quantum annealer.
In Table~\ref{tab:Q2} we show results for the remaining
partioning methods.
We see that quantum annealing with $\widehat{Q}$
gives the best result on three of the four cases,
with NonlinPM also performing well.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.3}{
\includegraphics{figlarge1.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{
\includegraphics{figlarge2.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{
\includegraphics{figlarge3.png}}
\scalebox{0.3}{
\includegraphics{figlarge4.png}}
\caption{Larger synthetic data: samples from
$\mathrm{SBM}(500,50,p,p,0.005)$
for
$p = 0.04$, $p = 0.03$, $p = 0.02$ and $p = 0.01$.
}
\label{fig:large}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\toprule
& $p = 0.04$ & $p = 0.03$ & $p = 0.02$ & $p = 0.01$
\\ \midrule
Original & 1334.7 (50) & 939.6 (50) & 600.6 (50) & 155.5 (50) \\
$\widehat{Q}$ & \first{1365.5} (62) & \second{996.2} (72) & \first{730.0} (88) & \first{472.3} (120) \\
Degree & 1350.7 (56) & 970.4 (68) & 670.3 (102) & 368.7 (94) \\
EigA & 1213.3 (66) & 726.9 (87) & 431.2 (75) & 189.9 (84) \\
EigQ & 768.8 (111) & 428.9 (111) & 219.8 (196) & 362.3 (198) \\
NonlinPM & \second{1363.1} (72) & \first{1002.2} (90) & \second{729.2} (101) & \second{465.7} (157) \\
$h$-index & 1334.7 (50) & 920.4 (48) & 605.4 (51) & 206.0 (116)\\
GenBE & 1320.1 (57) & 915.4 (76) & 554.7 (99) & 290.0 (151) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{As in
Table~\ref{tab:Q1} for the $\mathrm{SBM}(500,50,p,p,0.005)$
samples shown in Figure~\ref{fig:large}.
Here the networks are too large for quantum annealing on the
full QUBO (\ref{eq:quboform}).
}
\label{tab:Q2}
\end{table}
\subsection{Real Data}
\label{subsec:real}
Table~\ref{tab:Qreal} shows results
for the following real networks:
\begin{description}
\item[USAir97] is from
\cite{DH11}, with weights binarized.
The $N= 332$ nodes represent airports in USA. The 2126 undirected edges
indicate whether at least one
scheduled USAir flight took place between the two airports in 1997.
\item[Celegans] has 277 nodes and 2105 edges that represent
neurons and synapses in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans.
The data is from \verb5https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~arb/data/5 based on
\cite{GD03}.
\item[Jazz] from \cite{CMK04} is a network of 198 jazz bands (nodes) that performed between 1912 and 1940, and
2742 corresponding edges (musicians).
\item[Adjnoun] was described in section~\ref{sec:dwave}.
\item[Football] from \cite{girvan2002community}, is a network of American football games between 115 Division IA colleges during the
fall 2000 regular season. Here, nodes represent teams and the 613 edges
represent fixtures.
\item[Journals] from \cite{pajek_data},
has 5972 edges representing shared interests among 124 magazines and journals, which form the nodes, based on a sample of $\sim 100,000$ residents of Ljubljana (Slovenia) in survey conducted in 1999 and 2000.
\end{description}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\toprule
& USAir97 & Celegans & Jazz & Adjnoun & Football & Journals
\\ \midrule
$Q$ & x & x & x & \first{352.5} (20) & \first{93.8} (51) & \first{7360.5} (54) \\
$\widehat{Q}$ & \first{2703.7} (38) & \first{1620.3} (42) & 1743.1 (39) & \second{351.8} (18) & 33.6 (12)
& 4091.6 (23) \\
Degree & 2677.1 (35) & 1601.7 (49) & \second{1772.6} (51) & 345.1 (23) & 27.9 (38) & \first{7360.5} (54) \\
EigA & 2598.3 (37) & 1243.8 (21) & 1400.6 (37) & 314.5 (19) & 6.4 (4)
& 7355.2 (52)\\
EigQ & 310.7 (5) & 1414.2 (40) & 541.6 (16) & 158.2 (13) & 77.5 (54)
& 3741.1 (23)\\
NonlinPM & 2699.5 (38) & 501.4 (28) & \first{1792.4} (47) & 345.3 (22) & \second{76.4} (38) & \second{7358.8} (53) \\
$h$-index & 2534.9 (42) & 258.8 (18) & 884.4 (60) & 242.7 (32) & 14.1 (89) & 4156.1 (39) \\
GenBE & 2626.1 (34) & 815.8 (35) & 1364.3 (30) & 298.4 (21) & 3.9 (2) & 7349.6 (53) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{As in
Table~\ref{tab:Q1} for the
real networks described in the text.
The symbol ``x'' denotes that the problem (\ref{eq:quboform})
was too large for the quantum annealer.}
\label{tab:Qreal}
\end{table}
We see that on the three smaller networks in
Table~\ref{tab:Qreal},
quantum annealing with $Q$ produced the best or joint-best
results.
The x symbol indicates that the first three problems
produced a QUBO (\ref{eq:quboform}) that was too large for
the quantum annealer.
Two of the top results on the three larger networks are produced by
quantum annealing with $\widehat{Q}$ and the nonlinear power method
is best on the third.
So, overall, a quantum annealing approach is
best or joint-best on
five out of the six
networks.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:disc}
We have shown that
the new objective function
(\ref{eq:obj1b})
gives a straightforward, parameter-free, method
for (a) judging a core-periphery partition and also (b) determining a partition
from a real-valued vector of scores.
Moreover, when written in QUBO form the
resulting discrete maximization
problem
is amenable to quantum annealing.
We found that the D-Wave quantum annealer
could handle QUBOs of this form for networks with
$\approx 100$ nodes.
In principle a quantum annealer
is able to find a globally optimum solution.
In practice, of course, as with any physical system
various sources of noise can affect the performance.
However, we observed that direct application of
the quantum annealer always produced the best
or joint-best result
in comparison with
current heuristic
core-periphery detection algorithms.
Moreover, a sparsified version of the
QUBO
allowed the quantum annealer to be applied
on networks of size $N = 500$
and also gave good results.
Given the likely future performance advancements and increased take-up
of this technology, our work suggests that
a QUBO/quantum annealing approach has great promise in this
application area.
We also emphasize that the quantum annealer
typically delivers multiple
``samples'' that correspond to
approximate solutions of the QUBO.
We focused here on the quality of the best sample out of
100; that is, the binary
sample $x$ for which the quadratic form
in (\ref{eq:quboform}) was maximum.
However, we observed
that the full set of samples typically included
many different almost-optimal alternatives.
Hence the quantum annealer could also be used to
produce coreness scores or rankings across the nodes by, for example,
counting the frequency with which each node was assigned to the core.
We saw in our experiments that the classical (linear)
eigenvector methods
did not perform well
in terms of providing approximate
solutions to the QUBO
(\ref{eq:quboform}).
Intuitively, these types of spectral approaches
are closely tied with smooth, least-squares type kernels
\cite{spec_hkk,spectralClusteringTutorial}, and hence
the relaxed optimization problems that they
solve
are significantly different from
(\ref{eq:maxobj}).
The GenBE method from \cite{rombach2017core} aims at maximizing the same type of quadratic spectral kernel, but constrained to a smaller set of indicator-type vectors. While doing better than the purely-quadratic methods, it still did not perform well in our context.
The $h$-index method from
\cite{kitsak2010identification}
also performed poorly in these tests---the $k$-core construction
is likely to be more useful when the core-periphery interactions
are less plentiful.
The nonlinear power method
from \cite{tudisco2019core}
was more successful.
This method directly
approximates the maximum in
(\ref{eq:maxobj}) before relaxing to a real-valued
problem
and adding a constraint.
More precisely,
for
$y,z \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\alpha > 1$, consider the softmax function
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\alpha}(y,z) = \left( |y|^\alpha + |z|^\alpha \right)^{1/\alpha}.
\label{eq:mudef}
\end{equation}
Also define the $p$-sphere
${\cal S}_p = \{ x \in \mathbb{R}^N : \| x \|_p = 1 \}$
and let
$ {\cal S}_p^{+} = {\cal S}_p \cap \mathbb{R}^N_{+}$.
Then the method in \cite{tudisco2019core} gives a globally convergent
iteration for the unique solution of
\[
\max_{x \in {\cal S}_p^{+}}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} a_{ij} \mu_{\alpha}(x_i,x_j).
\]
Note that for large $\alpha$ the function
$\mu_{\alpha}(y,z)$ in (\ref{eq:mudef}) is a good approximation to $\max\{y,z\}$.
Based on
our results, it would therefore be of interest to
design and analyse
a similar
nonlinear power method
that applies to the
new objective function
(\ref{eq:obj1b})
rather than the
original version (\ref{eq:maxobj}).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The work of CFH
was supported by the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
UK Quantum Technology Programme under grant EP/M01326X/1.
The work of DJH was supported by
the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
under grants EP/P020720/1 and EP/V015605/1. The work of FT was supported by the GSSI-SNS Pro3 grant ``STANDS''. We thank Mason A.\ Porter for supplying code that implements the GenBE algorithm.
|
\section{Introduction}
Non-Hermitian skin effect is an intriguing phenomena in open systems under which eigen wavefunctions exponentially localize near boundaries~\cite{WZ1}.
It has profound impact on a wide range of properties of an open system: while the non-Hermitian skin effect directly modifies the topology, spectral symmetry, and bulk dynamics in systems described by non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonians~\cite{WZ1,WZ2,murakami,ThomalePRB,Budich,mcdonald,alvarez,fangchenskin,kawabataskin,yzsgbz,stefano,tianshu,lli}, it also manifests in the long-time density-matrix dynamics driven by the master equation~\cite{wzopen,stefanoopen}.
Over the past three years, non-Hermitian skin effect and its many consequences have been experimentally confirmed in classical or photonic systems~\cite{teskin,photonskin,XDW+21,metaskin,teskin2d,scienceskin}, but not in a quantum many-body environment.
In recent studies, it is pointed out that non-Hermitian skin effect can be induced by a non-Hermitian spin-orbit coupling in cold atoms~\cite{cuisoc,yangsoc}. Therein, two hyperfine ground states of an atom are coupled by a two-photon Raman process under which a spin flip is accompanied by the change of the atomic center-of-mass momentum. Such a coupling between the atomic spin and external orbital degrees of freedom has been the subject of intense study over the past decade~\cite{SOC_1d_1,SOC_1d_2,SOC_1d_3,SOC_1d_4,SOC_2d_1,SOC_2d_3}, for its highly non-trivial influence on the system band topology~\cite{socreview6}, as well as its ability of inducing exotic few- and many-body states~\cite{socreview1,socreview2,socreview3,socreview4,socreview5}. In a very recent experiment, the Raman-induced spin-orbit coupling is further dressed by a laser-induced atom loss~\cite{joexp}. For that purpose, an additional laser selectively couples one of the hyperfine spin states to an electronically excited state, which is subsequently lost under spontaneous emission~\cite{luoexp}. For atoms that remain, their dynamics is driven by a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian featuring a non-Hermitian spin-orbit coupling and spectral singularity. While the experiment focuses on the chiral parametric transport close to the spectral singularity known as the exceptional point, theoretical studies have revealed the hidden non-Hermitian skin effect under the same configuration~\cite{cuisoc,yangsoc}. However, questions remain on amenable detection schemes, as well as the impact of interaction and trapping potentials that are present under typical experimental conditions.
In this work, we address these questions by studying a Bose-Einstein condensate of cold atoms under the experimental setup. We first confirm the results in Refs.~\cite{cuisoc,yangsoc}, demonstrating the spectral winding and the accumulation of eigen wavefunctions at boundaries by solving a single-body problem. In particular, under a periodic boundary condition (PBC), the single-body eigenspectrum of a finite-size system features closed loops on the complex plane; whereas under the open boundary condition (OBC), the eigenspectrum reduces to open arcs within the loops. Such is the topological origin of the non-Hermitian skin effect~\cite{fangchenskin,kawabataskin}. We then demonstrate a directional dynamics for wave packets in a homogeneous condensate with interactions turned off, i.e. the wavefunction propagates along the direction of the non-Hermitian spin-orbit coupling. This unidirectional propagation is the direct consequence of a persistent bulk current that is the driving force behind the namesake phenomenon of the non-Hermitian skin effect---the accumulation of wavefunctions at boundaries. Note that in our system, the bulk current, or the non-Hermitian skin effect, is due to the interplay of spin-orbit coupling and the atom loss, which can be related to a non-reciprocal inter-spin coupling via a spin rotation.
The unidirectional bulk dynamics offers a convenient signal for the detection of non-Hermitian skin effect, both for a homogeneous condensate and, more importantly, for a trapped one. We illustrate this by calculating the growth rate of the condensate~\cite{stefano,lyaexp}, which, in a homogeneous setup, corresponds to the Lyapunov exponent in the long-time limit. In particular, the peak location of the growth rate (in the so-called shift velocity) characterizes the propagation of the condensate wavefunction. Crucially, we show that in the presence of a trapping potential, a condensate initialized in the ground state at the trap center would flow along the direction of the non-Hermitian spin-orbit coupling, either in the same direction or opposite to that of the momentum transfer. The condensate wavefunction gets squeezed and eventually localized off-center, balanced by the higher potential energy there.
We further consider the impact of mean-field interactions on the unidirectional flow, and demonstrate that a repulsive (attractive) interaction enhances (suppresses) the average velocity of the flow, suggesting a stronger (weaker) non-Hermitian skin effect for a repulsively (attractively) interacting condensate. Our results illustrate bulk dynamics and the growth rate as viable signals for the experimental detection of non-Hermitian skin effect in cold atoms. Based on the flexible controls therein, it would be exciting to further explore the impact of non-Hermitian skin effect in the quantum many-body system of cold gases.
Our work is organized as follows. In Sec.~II, we present the model and characterize its single-body properties. We study the bulk dynamics of the condensate, both without and with trapping potentials in Sec.~III, by evolving the Gross-Pitaevskii equations. In Sec.~IV, we investigate the impact of interactions on the non-Hermitian skin effect. We summarize in Sec.~V.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig1}
\caption{(a) Single-particle eigenspectra of Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hsingle}) on the complex plane. Green: eigenspectrum of in the momentum space (an infinite system under PBC). Blue: eigenspectrum of a finite system with $z\in[-30,30]$. Red: eigenspectrum under OBC. Inset: enlarged eigenspectra. We fix $\Omega=0.5E_r$ and $\Gamma_z=2E_r$. For calculations of finite systems, the spatial coordinates along $z$ are discretized into $480$ segments.
(b) Spatial distribution of the $100$ eigenstates with the smallest real components (indicated by the color bar).
}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig2}
\caption{(a) Propagation of the condensate wavefunction in the bulk, with $\Omega=0.5E_r$ and $\Gamma_z=2E_r$.
(b) Growth rate as a function of the shift velocity under the parameters of (a). (c) Growth rate with $\Omega=0$ and $\Gamma_z=2E_r$. (d) Growth rate with $\Omega=0.5E_r$ and $\Gamma_z=0$.
}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig3}
\caption{(a)(d) Spatial distribution of eigen wavefunction along the $z$ direction in a homogeneous harmonic trap, with $\Omega=0.5E_r$ and $\Gamma_z=5E_r$.
For the numerical calculations here, we take a cylindrical coordinate, discretizing $z\in[-30,30]$ into $480$ segments, and the radial coordinate $\rho\in[0,4]$ into $8$ segments. We plot the radial-integrated spatial distribution of the $800$ eigenstates with the smallest real components, colored according to $\text{Re}(E)$ (see color bar).
Specifically, $\tilde{\psi}_1(z)=2\pi \int \rho d\rho \psi_1(\rho,z)$.
(b)(e) Propagation of the condensate wavefunction in the bulk.
(c)(f) Growth rate as a function of the shift velocity. The peak shift velocity $v_m\approx 16.04$ in (c) and $v_m\approx 13.33$ in (f).
The trapping potential is $\omega=\omega_0$ in (a)(b)(c), and $\omega=2\omega_0$ in (d)(e)(f).
}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure*}
\section{Model}
We consider the recently implemented non-Hermitian spin-orbit coupling in cold atoms~\cite{joexp}, where the single-body Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{align}
H&=H_0+\frac{i}{2}(\sigma_z-1)\Gamma_z\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2m}\left(-i\hbar\nabla +\hbar k_r \bm{e}_z\sigma_z \right)^2+\Omega \sigma_x+\frac{i}{2}(\sigma_z-1)\Gamma_z.
\label{eq:Hsingle}
\end{align}
Here $\Omega$ and $2\hbar k_r$ are respectively the effective Rabi frequency and momentum transfer of the Raman process, $\sigma_{x,y,z}$ are the Pauli operators for the two hyperfine spin species, $m$ is the atomic mass, and $\Gamma_z$ is the laser-induced loss rate for the spin-down atoms.
The non-Hermitian Hamiltonian derives from the conditional dynamics of the Lindblad equation $d\rho/dt=-\frac{i}{\hbar} H_0\rho+\frac{i}{\hbar} \rho H_0^\dag+\Gamma_z S\rho S^\dag$, where $\rho$ is the atomic density matrix and $S$ is the quantum jump operator describing the laser-induced, spin-selective loss. Specifically, the dynamics of the system is driven by the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $H$, when the quantum jump terms are dropped~\cite{QJ}. Experimentally, such a conditional dynamics is implemented by probing only atoms that remain in the system. The description is exact in the absence of interactions, and when the spontaneous emission back into the two hyperfine spin states can be neglected.
For our numerical simulations below, we use parameters that are of similar magnitude compared to those in spin-orbit coupled $^{87}$Rb atoms~\cite{SOC_1d_2}. For instance, we take $E_0=\hbar\omega_0$ as the unit of energy, with $\omega_0=100$Hz. Correspondingly, the unit of time is $1/\omega_0\approx 10$ms, and the unit of length $x_0=\sqrt{\hbar/m\omega_0}$. For the spin-orbit-coupling parameters, we take the recoil energy $E_r\approx 2\pi \times 2.2$kHz, which corresponds to $E_r/E_0=44\pi$ and $k_rx_0=16.62$.
While the experiment focuses on the parity-time symmetry and spectral singularity (the exceptional point) of the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hsingle}), the system also has non-Hermitian skin effect, despite being a continuous model. To confirm this point, we calculate the single-particle eigenspectra of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsingle}) under both PBC and OBC, for a one-dimensional gas along the $z$ direction---the direction of the spin-orbit coupling.
For a one-dimension gas, the single-particle eigenspectrum in the momentum space is given by
\begin{align}
E_\pm(k)=&E_k+E_r-i\frac{\Gamma_z}{2}\nonumber\\
&\pm\sqrt{4E_kE_r+2i\sqrt{E_kE_r}\Gamma_z-\frac{\Gamma_z^2}{4}+\Omega^2},
\end{align}
where $E_k=\hbar^2 k^2/2m$, $k$ is the momentum along the $z$ direction.
The eigenspectrum corresponds to the green curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}, where the two branches $E_\pm(k)$ are self-connected at infinite $|\text{Re}E|$, forming closed loops on the complex energy plane. For a finite system but still under PBC, the loop structures are easier to see (blue curves).
This is consistent with the spectral winding, the topological origin of the non-Hermitian skin effect. By contrast, under an OBC, the eigenspectra collapse into open arcs (red curves) within the spectral loop under the PBC. Correspondingly, the spatial distribution of the eigen wavefunctions accumulate at the open boundary, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}(b). Here the position of the localization (the left or right boundary) is tunable through parameters of the spin-selective loss or the spin-orbit coupling.
Note that we denote the wavefunctions for the two spin species as $\varphi_{1,2}(z)$, which are normalized according to $\int [|\varphi_1(z)|^2+|\varphi_2(z)|^2] dz=1$.
\section{Dynamic signal of the non-Hermitian skin effect}
In cold atomic gases, a sharp open boundary is typically difficult to engineer, and eigenspectrum is not easy to probe, unlike classical or photonic simulators. Therefore, the most ostensible signatures of the non-Hermitian skin effect, as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}, can be experimentally elusive. However, systems with non-Hermitian skin effect also possess unique signatures in the bulk dynamics, which, as we reveal in this section, serve as convenient dynamic signals of the non-Hermitian skin effect.
We first consider the non-interacting case, where the post-selection principle underlying the non-Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian is valid, and atoms that remain in the system evolve according to (\ref{eq:Hsingle}). In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}(a), we show the numerically simulated propagation of the condensate wavefunction. The initial state is a Guassian wave packet $\psi_{1,2}(x,y,z;t=0)\propto \exp[-(x^2+y^2+z^2)/w^2]$, with $w=3$ and normalized to unity. We evolve the wavefunction in real space using the Schr\"odinger's equation
\begin{align}
i\hbar \frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{1}\\
\psi_{2}
\end{array}\right)=H\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{1}\\
\psi_{2}
\end{array}\right),
\end{align}
where $\psi_{1,2}$ are the wavefunctions for the two spin species. For numerical calculations, we discrete the spatial coordinate along $z$ into $480$ segments in the range $z\in[-30,30]$, and those along $x$ and $y$ each into $32$ segments in the range $x,y\in [-12,12]$.
The spatial derivatives in the Hamiltonian are then translated into finite differences.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}(a), we show the evolution of the wavefunction along the $z$ axis, with $(x=0,y=0)$.
The directional propagation of the wavefunction suggests a persistent bulk current that lies at the origin of the non-Hermitian skin effect. In previously studied lattice models, the non-Hermitian skin effect is often associated with a non-reciprocal hopping~\cite{WZ1}.
It is important to note that the non-Hermitian spin-orbit coupling with a manifestly spin-selective loss here $\Omega\sigma_x+i\frac{\Gamma_z}{2}\sigma_z$, is related to a non-reciprocal model through a spin rotation $U=e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}\sigma_x}$.
To provide a quantitative measure of the unidirectional propagation, we define a wavefunction growth rate
\begin{align}
\lambda(v,t)=\frac{\ln |\psi_1(0,0,z=vt;t)|}{t},
\end{align}
where $v$ is the shift velocity. In the long-time limit $t\rightarrow\infty$, the growth rate converges to the Lyapunov exponent of a homogeneous system~\cite{stefano}.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}(b), the peak of $\lambda(v,t)$ lies at a finite shift velocity $v_m\approx 19.1$, which is essentially the propagation velocity of the wave-packet peak in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}(a). By contrast, with a vanishing spin-orbit coupling ($\Omega=0$), or a vanishing atomi loss ($\Gamma_z=0$), the growth rate peaks at $v_m=0$ [see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}(c)(d)], indicating the absence of the bulk current and the non-Hermitian skin effect. Note that without a trapping potential, the peak location of $\lambda(v,t)$ already converges to a finite $v_m$ for our numerical simulations of a finite time evolution.
Experimentally, condensates are typically subject to a harmonic trapping potential, which provides a natural boundary condition, though not as sharp as an ideal OBC.
For a condensate initialized at the ground state, i.e., near the center of the trap, we expect the directional flow to persist in systems with non-Hermitian skin effect. However, when the condensate moves off-center, the soft boundary that is the harmonic trap would impact the wavefunction propagation and eventually stop it near the edge of the trap.
Such an intuitive picture is indeed confirmed in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}, where the dynamics is governed by
\begin{align}
i\hbar \frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{1}\\
\psi_{2}
\end{array}\right)=[H+V(r)]\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{1}\\
\psi_{2}
\end{array}\right),
\end{align}
where $V(r)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega^2 r^2$ with the trapping frequency $\omega$.
First, in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}(a)(d), we show typical spatial distribution (along the $z$ axis) of eigenstate wavefunctions for $H+V(r)$, with trapping frequencies $\omega=\omega_0$ and $\omega=2\omega_0$, respectively. The off-center distribution is a direct manifestation of the non-Hermitian skin effect in a harmonic trap.
We then numerically evolve the ground state, where a directional propagation of the wavefunction is observed [see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}(b)(e)], consistent with dynamics in the homogeneous case of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}. However, in a trapping potential, the directional propagation would slow down and eventually be stopped by the trap edge, which is apparent by comparing dynamics under different trapping frequencies Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}(b)(e). What we observe here is essentially the dynamic accumulation of wavefunctions at boundaries, driven by the non-Hermitian skin effect.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}(c)(f), we show the growth rates under different trapping frequencies. At short times, the growth rate is peaked at a finite $v_m$, consistent with the presence of non-Hermitian skin effect.
After a sufficiently long time, another peak emerges in $\lambda(v,t)$ [see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}(f)], indicating the backflow of condensate atoms as they are reflected from the boundary (the boundary to the right in this case).
While such an effect is more apparent for deeper traps [compare Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}(c)(f)], in the long-time limit, the peak velocity $v_m$ of the growth rate uniformly drops to zero, as the propagation is stopped by the boundary.
As such, a trapped condensate offers an intriguing scenario for the dynamic detection the non-Hermitian skin effect, where the short-time dynamics is dominated by the directional bulk current, while the long-time dynamics is dominated by the accumulation of atoms toward the boundary.
\section{Interaction effect}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig4}
\caption{Effect of condensate interaction on the non-Hermitian skin effect in a trapped gas. See main text for the definition of the average propagation speed $\bar{v}$ in (a), and the integrated propagation speed $\bar{v}_{\text{int}}$ in (b). Other parameters are the same as those in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}(a)(b).
}
\label{fig:fig4}
\end{figure}
We now consider the impact of interaction, particularly on the dynamic signal of the wavefunction propagation. While the non-Hermitian description based on post-selection can be questionable when interatomic interactions are considered, we assume that the condensate is always in a coherent state, which is an eigenstate of the jump operator and hence a stead state of the dynamics. We may then write down the Gross-Pitaevskii equation
\begin{align}
i\hbar \frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{1}\\
\psi_{2}
\end{array}\right)=[H+V(r)+H_{\text{int}}]\left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{1}\\
\psi_{2}
\end{array}\right),
\end{align}
with the mean-field interaction term given by
\begin{align}
H_{\text{int}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
g|\psi_1|^2&0\\
0&g|\psi_2|^2
\end{array}\right).
\end{align}
Here $g$ is the interaction rate, and we have neglected inter-species interactions.
For numerical simulations, the unit of interaction rate is taken as $g_0=4\pi\hbar^2 a_s/m$, where $a_s=100 a_0$ ($a_0$ is the Bohr radius).
We initialize a condensate of $N=5\times 10^5$ atoms, in the absence of atom loss and spin-orbit coupling. This is achieved using the imaginary time evolution.
During the time evolution, the atomic number continuously decreases due to loss. The interaction effect therefore also becomes diminishingly small with the passage of time.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}(a), we show the numerically simulated average velocity of the wavefunction propagation along the $z$ axis with $(x=0,y=0)$, which is defined as
\begin{align}
\bar{v}=\frac{\int z|\psi_1(0,0,z;t)|^2 dz}{t\int |\psi_1(0,0,z;t)|^2 dz},
\end{align}
where we fix $\omega_0 t=1.2$ for the time evolution.
When the trapping frequency vanishes, the average velocity converges, regardless of the interaction strength $g$. This is consistent with the convergence of $v_m$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}(a)(b). By contrast, for sufficiently large trapping frequency (or sufficiently long evolution time), $\bar{v}$ vanishes, indicating the accumulation of wavefunction at the trap edge, consistent with the results in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}.
But in general, a repulsive (attractive) interaction would facilitate (suppress) the wavefunction propagation, as indicated by Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}(a).
This is a direct evidence of the interplay of interaction and non-Hermitian skin effect.
While $\bar{v}$ is directly related to the growth rate in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}, it is typically difficult to measure experimentally. Instead, in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}(b), we calculate the integrated propagation speed $\bar{v}_{\text{int}}$, defined as
\begin{align}
\bar{v}_{\text{int}}=\frac{\int z|\psi_1(x,y,z;t)|^2 dx dy dz}{t\int |\psi_1(x,y,z;t)|^2 dx dy dz}.
\end{align}
The results are qualitatively consistent with those in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}(b), whereas $\bar{v}_{\text{int}}$ can be experimentally detected by measuring the overall propagation of the condensate along the direction of the spin-orbit coupling.
\section{Conclusion}
We show that non-Hermitian skin effect emerges in a condensate of cold atoms under synthetic spin-orbit coupling and laser-induced atom loss. The non-Hermitian skin effect can be dynamically detected through the directional propagation of wavefunctions in the bulk, as well as the dynamic accumulation of atoms near the edge of the harmonic trapping potential. We also demonstrate that the mean-field interaction can have a detectable impact on the directional propagation, offering an experimentally relevant example wherein the interplay of interaction and non-Hermiticity can be directly probed. For future studies, it is interesting to examine the manifestation of non-Hermitian skin effect in a Fermi gas, where the effect of Fermi-Dirac statistics on the non-Hermitian skin effect can be systematically studied.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work has been supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFA0307600, 2017YFA0304100), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11974331,No.12074419), and the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDB33000000).
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Estimation and tracking of formant frequencies is an important research topic in several areas of speech science and technology \cite{Assmann1995, Welling1998, Smit2012, Yoo2015, Rita2016,kathania2020study}.
During the past few decades, many techniques have been proposed for formant tracking \cite{praat2001,wavesurfer2000,lideng2007,Mehta2012}.
These algorithms typically consist of two parts, the estimation stage and the tracking stage. In the former, initial estimates of the vocal tract resonances (VTRs) are computed in short frames (e.g., 25 ms) using spectral estimation methods such as linear prediction (LP). In the latter, the formants estimated from individual frames are expressed using contours which cover a longer unit (e.g., word or sentence) \cite{praat2001,wavesurfer2000}.
In addition, estimation and tracking can be done simultaneously using an initial representation of the vocal tract system \cite{lideng2007,Mehta2012}.
In both approaches, accurate estimation of VTRs is an important and necessary computational block.
LP is the most widely used technique to estimate VTRs from speech \cite{makhoul1975} and therefore
many variants of LP have been proposed (e.g. \cite{GiacobelloASLP2012, magi2009}).
In formant estimation and tracking, the most popular variants are the autocorrelation and covariance methods \cite{praat2001,wavesurfer2000}.
The closed phase (CP) analysis is known to improve VTR estimates by avoiding the contribution of the speech samples in the open phase of the glottal cycle thereby decoupling the effect of the trachea more effectively \cite{Yegna1998}.
CP analysis, however, works better for low-pitched voices which typically have a larger number of samples in the closed phase of the glottal cycle compared to high-pitched voices which might have just a few samples in the closed phase. To reduce problems caused by having a small number of closed phase samples, LP can be computed over multiple neighboring cycles \cite{Yegna1998}.
Weighted linear prediction (WLP) is an all-pole modeling method based on temporally weighting the prediction error \cite{magi2009,Mizoguchi1982,ChinHui1988,ma1993,PaavoJASA2013,Manu2014,gowda2020time}.
Temporal weighting of the prediction error has been shown to be beneficial in computing vocal tract models which are robust with respect to noise and the selection of analysis window as well as the biasing effect of high fundamental frequency.
Formant estimation of high-pitched vowels was studied using WLP in \cite{PaavoJASA2013} by developing a simple weighting function, called the attenuated main excitation (AME) function, to downgrade the strong effect of the glottal source in the computation of the vocal tract model.
Based on \cite{PaavoJASA2013}, the quasi-closed phase (QCP) method was proposed for glottal inverse filtering (GIF) in \cite{Manu2014}. In QCP, a more generalized AME-type of weighting function
is used.
Recently, a new formant estimation method based on QCP, called quasi-closed phase forward-backward (QCP-FB) LP analysis, was proposed in \cite{QCPFB_JASA}. QCP-FB combines two approaches: (1) QCP analysis in which the residual is temporally weighted, and (2) forward-backward (FB) analysis in which the number of samples is increased in LP by using two prediction directions simultaneously. In addition, WLP methods have been proposed recently based on using stochastic approaches in the computation of the weighting function \cite{Achuth2019}.
In this article, formant tracking is studied by investigating different all-pole modeling methods in formant estimation. The all-pole formant estimation methods are used with two formant tracking approaches, a dynamic programming (DP) -based approach and a deep neural net (DNN) -based approach. As the first part of the study, six different LP-based and WLP-based formant estimation methods are compared in formant tracking using a DP-based tracker. The novelty of this part is in studying how the potential new method, QCP-FB, which was investigated solely in formant $estimation$ in \cite{QCPFB_JASA}, works in formant $tracking$. In the second part of the study, two most potential all-pole modeling methods from the first part are used with a modern DNN-based tracker by proposing a novel formant tracking approach, which combines benefits of the data-driven deep learning approach and benefits of the model-driven all-pole modeling approach. In this novel tracking approach, the formants, which are predicted by the DNN from a given speech frame, are refined using the spectral peaks, which are indicated by the spectrum, which is computed from the same frame with a model-based parametric all-pole spectral estimation method. Altogether five known formant trackers (Wavesurfer ~\cite{wavesurfer2000}, PRAAT \cite{praat2001}, MUST \cite{Mustafa2006}, KARMA \cite{Mehta2012}, and Deep Formants \cite{Dissen2019}) are used as reference methods in this study.
{
The contributions of the study are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item The potential new formant estimation method, QCP-FB, is evaluated in formant $tracking$ and its performance is compared with existing LP-based and WLP-based formant estimation methods using a DP-based tracker.
\item A novel formant tracking technique is proposed by combining the data-driven DNN-based approach and the model-driven all-pole approach. In this technique, the formants predicted from a speech frame by a DNN are refined using the spectral peaks that are extracted from an all-pole model, which is computed from the same frame.
\item A systematic investigation is carried out by comparing the novel formant tracking method described above with five reference formant trackers (Wavesurfer ~\cite{wavesurfer2000}, PRAAT \cite{praat2001}, MUST \cite{Mustafa2006}, KARMA \cite{Mehta2012}, and Deep Formants \cite{Dissen2019}).
\end{itemize}}
The paper is organised as follows. The QCP-FB method, which was introduced as a new formant estimation method recently in \cite{QCPFB_JASA}, is first described in section II. The other formant estimation methods and the formant trackers used in the study are described in section III. The results of the formant tracking experiments are reported in section IV. Finally, conclusions are drawn in section V.
\section{Quasi-closed phase forward-backward analysis}
\label{sec:fblp}
The traditional formulation of LP is based on forward prediction in which the current speech sample is predicted from the past $p$ samples.
It is, however, also possible to use
backward prediction in which the current sample is predicted from the future $p$ samples.
The filter coefficients computed using forward and backward predictions are inter-convertible, and therefore they do not carry any additional information when computed separately. However, by simultaneously using both backward and forward prediction, a prediction model different from that of traditional LP is obtained by using forward-backward (FB) analysis, where the current sample is predicted based on past and future samples using a common set of $p$ coefficients.
The combined error to be minimized is given by
\begin{gather}
{\cal E}={\cal E}^f+{\cal E}^b,
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
\text{where}\quad{\cal E}^f=\sum_{n}{\left(x_n + \sum_{k=1}^{p}{a_k x_{n-k}}\right)^2}
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
\text{and}\quad{\cal E}^b=\sum_{n}{\left(x_n + \sum_{k=1}^{p}{a_k x_{n+k}}\right)^2}
\end{gather}
denote the forward and backward errors, respectively, $x_n$ denotes the current speech sample, and $a_k$ denotes the prediction coefficients.
The prediction coefficients can be computed by minimizing the combined error ($\partial{\cal E}/\partial{a_i}=0,\enskip 1\le i\le p$) which results in the following normal equations
\begin{gather}
\sum_{k=1}^{p}c_{i,k}a_k=-c_{i,0}, \quad 1\le i\le p
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
\text{where} \enskip c_{i,k}=\sum_{n}x_{n-i}x_{n-k} + \sum_{n}x_{n+i}x_{n+k}.
\end{gather}
Previous studies have shown that FB analysis reduces the dependency of spectral estimates on the initial sinusoidal phase,
shifting of frequency estimates due to additive noise and the so called line-splitting problem
(see \cite{QCPFB_JASA} for a review).
The line-splitting problem refers to obtaining spectral models which show a single sinusoidal component incorrectly as two distinct peaks. By taking advantage of FB analysis, two benefits are achieved: (1) the estimated spectral peak locations are less sensitive to the window position, and (2) the combination of the two prediction directions gives more samples to compute correlations for the given frame.
Quasi-closed phase forward-backward (QCP-FB) analysis involves the use of FB analysis within the framework of QCP in order to combine the benefits of both techniques. The resulting method imposes the temporal QCP weighting function $w_n$, defined by \cite{Manu2014}, on the forward and backward errors individually. The combined error to be minimized is given by
\begin{gather}
{\cal F}={\cal F}^f+{\cal F}^b,
\label{eqn:cerror}
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
\text{where}\quad{\cal F}^f=\sum_{n}{w_n\left(x_n + \sum_{k=1}^{p}{a_k x_{n-k}}\right)^2}
\label{eqn:wtfn1}
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
\text{and}\quad{\cal F}^b=\sum_{n}{w_n\left(x_n + \sum_{k=1}^{p}{a_k x_{n+k}}\right)^2}
\label{eqn:wtfn2}
\end{gather}
are the weighted forward and backward errors, respectively.
The resulting normal equations are given by
\begin{gather}
\sum_{k=1}^{p}d_{i,k}a_k=-d_{i,0}, \quad 1\le i\le p
\label{eqn:norm}
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
\text{where} \enskip d_{i,k}=\sum_{n}w_nx_{n-i}x_{n-k} + \sum_{n}w_nx_{n+i}x_{n+k}.
\label{eqn:norm1}
\end{gather}
{Appropriate choice of range for the variable $n$ results in the autocorrelation or covariance methods for QCP-FB.
QCP-FB is used in formant tracking in the current study and it is expected to show improved performance compared to existing formant tracking methods due to the following two main reasons. First, FB analysis helps to improve the formant estimation by providing more samples for prediction, and by reducing the problems of window positioning and line splitting. Second, QCP analysis exploits the WLP framework of sample selective prediction by designing a temporal weighting function that gives more emphasis on closed phase regions and deemphasizes the open phase as well as the region immediately after the main excitation. This results in more accurate closed phase estimates of the vocal tract system with a reduced influence from the glottal source.}
\section{Formant trackers}
Several formant tracking algorithms have been proposed in the literature \cite{praat2001,wavesurfer2000,lideng2007,Mehta2012,Dissen2019}. It is worth emphasising that a formant tracking algorithm will most likely show varying performance when combined with different formant estimation methods and this makes it difficult to compare different tracking algorithms. In principle, most of the tracking algorithms can be combined with any formant estimation method. Therefore, formant tracking is studied in this paper using trackers which are based on both DP and DNN.
\subsection{DP-based formant trackers}
Using the DP-based tracking algorithm proposed in \cite{wavesurfer2000}, formant tracking performance was investigated by comparing six different formant estimation methods that all use all-pole modeling. These methods, listed in Table~\ref{tab:ftrack1},
are as follows: (1) conventional LP based on the autocorrelation method (LP-ACOR), (2) conventional LP based on the covariance method (LP-COV), (3) LP based on forward-backward prediction and the covariance method (LP-FBCOV), (4) QCP analysis based on the autocorrelation method (QCP-ACOR), (5) QCP analysis based on the covariance method (QCP-COV) and (6) QCP analysis based on forward-backward prediction and the covariance method (QCP-FBCOV). All these methods were computed using a frame length of 25 ms, a frame shift of 10 ms and an all-pole model order $p$=12. Speech signals, sampled using 8 kHz, were pre-emphasised using an FIR filter ($P(z)=1-0.5z^{-1}$). In the autocorrelation methods, the Hamming window was used. In the covariance methods, the rectangular window was used. The peaks in the spectrum were detected by convolving the spectrum using a Gaussian derivative window with a width of 100 Hz and picking the negative zero-crossings. Five most energetic peaks of the spectrum were selected as the formant candidates. A verbatim MATLAB implementation of the tracking algorithm \cite{wavesurfer2000} was used to track the best four contours from the underlying formant candidates estimated by the all-pole methods.
\subsection{DNN-based formant trackers}
In order to study the possible limitations of the DP-based tracker, a deep neural network (DNN) -based formant tracker was developed as an alternative. A simple four-layer feed-forward DNN was used to capture the nonlinear mapping between the spectrum and the formant frequencies.
The DNN had 300 units with tangent-hyperbolic activation in each of the three hidden layers~\cite{Goodfellow2016}.
The input dimension of 143 units corresponded to 13 RASTA-PLP \cite{Hynek1990} cepstral coefficients with an 11-frame neighborhood, and the three linear output units corresponded to the first ($F_1$), second ($F_2$) and third ($F_3$) formant to be predicted.
A common input feature was deliberately used to have a common baseline performance, and to study the incremental improvement provided by different spectrum estimation methods when used for refinement.
300 utterances from the train subset of the VTR-TIMIT database ~\cite{lideng2006} were used to train the models.
Mean square error between the estimated and actual formant values was used as the objective function.
All parameters of the network were initialized randomly.
The stochastic gradient descent algorithm with standard backpropagation of error was used to learn the network parameters.
The dropout regularization method was used to prevent overfitting the network.
Input values were normalized to the range of [0.1, 0.9] and output values were normalized to have zero mean and unit variance. The DNN -based tracker was used in three modes: (1) by predicting the lowest three formants directly, (2) by refining the formants predicted by the DNN by replacing them with the frequencies of the corresponding nearest peaks in the LP-FBCOV spectrum, (3) by refining the formants predicted by the DNN by replacing them with the frequencies of corresponding nearest peaks in the QCP-FBCOV spectrum. (Note that with the model order $p$=12, the LP-FBCOV spectrum and the QCP-FBCOV spectrum can show maximally six peaks). These three trackers will be referred to as DNN, DNN-LP-FBCOV and DNN-QCP-FBCOV, respectively. It is worth emphasizing that the latter two modes combine a data-driven approach and a model-driven approach in formant tracking in a novel way: formants $F_1$--$F_3$ are first predicted using a data-driven $deep$ $learning$ $approach$ from a given frame with the DNN after which the predicted formants are refined using a model-driven $signal$ $processing$ $approach$ using the all-pole spectrum extracted from the frame.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:ftrack1} Formant tracking performance of the DP-based tracker using six all-pole modeling methods in formant estimation and performance of six reference trackers. The numbers in parentheses denote the potential performance of the underlying formant estimation method if any of the five formant candidates is found within the allowed deviation from the ground truth. The results are reported by averaging over of all the 192 utterances of the VTR test database.}
\resizebox{15cm}{4.4cm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c||}{FDR (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{FEE (Hz)} \\\cline{2-7}
Method ~&~ $F_1$ ~&~ $F_2$ ~&~ $F_3$ ~&~ $\delta F_1$ ~&~ $\delta F_2$ ~&~ $\delta F_3$ ~\\\hline\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{All-pole modeling methods} \\\hline
LP-ACOR & 84.3 (92.2) & 72.3 (90.9) & 69.0 (87.4) & 92 (66) & 296 (135) & 325 (178)\\\hline
LP-COV & 86.0 (92.3) & 75.4 (91.5) & 71.3 (87.9) & 89 (64) & 292 (131)& 319 (174)\\\hline
LP-FBCOV & 86.0 (92.4) & 75.4 (91.9) & 71.3 (88.2) & 89 (64) & 292 (129) & 319 (172)\\\hline
QCP-ACOR & 86.8 (91.6)& 75.5 (91.4)& 71.6 (88.5)& 87 (69)& 292 (132)& 317 (167)\\\hline
QCP-COV & 89.7 (91.6)& 86.1 (91.6)& 79.6 (89.0)& { 73} (69)& 187 (130)& { 228} (165)\\\hline
QCP-FBCOV & { 90.0} (93.4) & 82.1 (93.9)& 77.0 (92.1)& { 73} (63)& 233 (114)& 258 (130)\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{Reference trackers} \\\hline
PRAAT & 86.0 & 70.0 & 63.1 & 88 & 268 & 340 \\\hline
MUST & 81.1 & { 86.3} & 76.9 & 91 & { 152} & 230 \\\hline
WSURF-0 & 84.1 & 78.2 & 77.3 & 93 & 239 & 245 \\\hline
WSURF-1 & 86.6 & 82.7 & {80.8} & 87 & 223 & {228} \\\hline
KARMA &91.5 &89.4 &74.7 & {62} & 146 & 250 \\\hline
Deep Formants & 91.7 & 92.3 & {89.7} & 85 & 120 & {143} \\\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Reference formant trackers}
The DP-based and the DNN-based formant tracking algorithms were compared to known formant trackers. These reference trackers include algorithms used in two popular speech analysis tools (Wavesurfer~\cite{wavesurfer2000} and PRAAT~\cite{praat2001}), the adaptive filter bank (AFB) -based formant tracking algorithm (denoted as MUST)~\cite{Mustafa2006}, KARMA (based on Kalman filtering) \cite{Mehta2012}, and Deep Formants (based on DNNs) \cite{Dissen2016,Dissen2019}. Both Wavesurfer and PRAAT use LP analysis followed by DP-based tracking. Wavesurfer was used in two forms corresponding to autocorrelation LP and stabilized covariance LP which are referred to as WSURF-0 and WSURF-1, respectively~\cite{wavesurfer2000}.
The PRAAT algorithm uses the BURG method in LP analysis ~\cite{praat2001}.
All the algorithms tracked four formants from the top five formant candidates derived from the underlying spectrum at a frame rate of 100 Hz.
\section{Experiments and results}
\subsection{Database and performance metrics}
The formant tracking performance was evaluated using the VTR database, which is one of the most widely used speech databases in the areas of formant estimation and tracking~\cite{lideng2006}. The test data of the database was used for the evaluation. This data consists of 192 utterances (produced by 8 female and 16 male speakers, each pronouncing 8 utterances). The duration of each utterance varies between 2 and 5 s. The ground truth (i.e., formant frequencies) have been derived using a semi-supervised LP--based method \cite{lideng2004}. The values of $F_1$--$F_3$ have been corrected manually using spectrograms. The ground truth values for formants are provided for every 10 ms interval.
The formant tracking performance was evaluated using two known metrics: the formant detection rate (FDR) and the formant estimation error (FEE) as defined in \cite{QCPFB_JASA}.
During the performance evaluation, the reference ground truth for each of the lowest three formants was associated with the nearest formant candidate lying within a specified relative ($\tau_p$) and absolute ($\tau_a$) deviations.
The FDR is computed in terms of the percentage of frames for which a hypothesized formant occurs within a specified deviation from the ground truth formant.
The FDR for the $i^{th}$ formant over $M$ analysis frames is computed as
\begin{align}
D_{i} &= \frac{1}{M}\sum_{n=1}^{M}{I(\Delta F_{i,n})} ,\\
I(\Delta F_{i,n}) &= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 &\quad\text{if} \left({\Delta F_{i,n}}/{F_{i,n}} < \tau_r \quad \& \quad \Delta F_{i,n} < \tau_a\right) \\ 0 &\quad \text{otherwise, }\end{array}\right. \label{eq:fdr}
\end{align}
where $I(.)$ denotes a binary formant detector function. $\Delta{F_{i,n}}=|F_{i,n}-\hat{F}_{i,n}|$ is the absolute deviation of the hypothesized formant frequency ($\hat{F}_{i,n}$) from the reference ground truth ($F_{i,n}$) at the $n^{th}$ frame for the $i^{th}$ formant.
The FEE is computed in terms of the average absolute deviation of the hypothesized formant from the ground truth formant. The FEE for the $i^{th}$ formant over $M$ analysis frames is computed as
\begin{equation}
R_i=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{n=1}^{M}{\Delta F_{i,n}}.
\end{equation}
The FEE values in conjunction with FDR values give a better sense of the performance of a formant tracker.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:ftrack3} Performance of the DNN-based formant trackers and performance of three reference trackers. The results are reported by averaging over of all the 192 utterances of the VTR test database.}
\resizebox{12cm}{3.3cm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c||}{FDR (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{FEE (Hz)} \\\cline{2-7}
Method ~&~ $F_1$ ~&~ $F_2$ ~&~ $F_3$ ~&~ $\delta F_1$ ~&~ $\delta F_2$ ~&~ $\delta F_3$ ~\\\hline\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{DNN-based formant trackers} \\\hline
DNN & 90.5 & 91.6 & 82.1 & 74 & 128 & 184 \\\hline
DNN-LP-FBCOV &92.3 & 91.9 & 87.0 & 64 & 127 & 182 \\\hline
DNN-QCP-FBCOV & {\bf 93.3} & {\bf 93.5} & {\bf 89.9} & {\bf 62} & {\bf 113} & {\bf 142} \\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{Reference trackers} \\\hline
WSURF-1 & 86.6 & 82.7 & 80.8 & 87 & 223 & 228 \\\hline
KARMA &91.5 &89.4 &74.7 & {\bf 62} & 146 & 250 \\\hline
Deep Formants & 91.7 & 92.3 & { 89.7} & 85 & 120 & { 143} \\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\subsection{DP-based formant tracking}
The FDRs (within $\tau_p=$~30\% and $\tau_a=$~300 Hz deviation) and FEEs for the different formant estimation methods are given in Table~\ref{tab:ftrack1}.
In this table, the two metrics are computed
by associating the three hypothesized formant tracks with the lowest three reference tracks.
The scores in the parentheses, however, denote the best scores which were obtained by identifying each formant as the spectral peak (among the detected five candidates) that was closest to the corresponding reference formant. The scores in the parentheses describe the performance of the underlying formant estimation method when used with an ideal formant tracker.
It can be seen from the results that the DP-based tracker gave scores inferior to the detection potential of the underlying spectral estimates
It can be seen from Table~\ref{tab:ftrack1} that the QCP-based methods performed consistently better than all of their LP-based counterparts.
The covariance method performed better than the autocorrelation method for both LP and QCP. However, LP-FBCOV showed no improvement over LP-COV, and QCP-FBCOV seems to be inferior to QCP-COV, despite the detection potential being highest (the scores in parentheses) for QCP-FBCOV.
This behavior can be attributed to the inherent limitations of the DP-based tracker with a possibility of tracking a spurious candidate instead of the best candidate (which is otherwise not known without the ground truth).
\subsection{DNN-based formant tracking}
A comparison of the performance of the DNN-based formant tracker using LP-FBCOV and QCP-FBCOV for refinement is given in Table~\ref{tab:ftrack3} along with the performance of the DNN predictor.
Three reference trackers (Wavesurfer (WSURF-1), KARMA, and Deep Formants) were chosen for comparison based on their performance shown in Table~\ref{tab:ftrack1}.
It can be seen that the DNN-QCP-FBCOV tracker performed best, almost realizing the full potential of the QCP-FBCOV method (the scores in parentheses in Table~\ref{tab:ftrack1}). The improvement given by DNN-QCP-FBCOV compared particularly to the popular Wavesurfer tracker is large
showing a reduction of 29\%, 48\% and 35\% in the estimation error for the lowest three formants, respectively. These results demonstrate that the QCP-FBCOV method can be a good replacement for the popularly used LP-COV analysis in formant estimation and tracking tools and applications.
{
A detailed comparison in the formant tracking performance of KARMA, Deep Formants, DNN and DNN-QCP-FBCOV is given in Table~\ref{tab:ftrack1sound} for different phonetic categories (vowels, dipthongs and semovowels).
It can be seen that the proposed DNN-QCP-FBCOV method performed clearly better for all the phonetic categories in both FDR and FEE.
Formant tracking performance of different methods analyzed separately for male and female speakers is given in Table~\ref{tab:gendercompare}. From the table it can be observed that the performance of Deep Formants is better for male speakers (except in $\delta F_1$, where the DNN-QCP-FBCOV method is better) but for female speakers the DNN-QCP-FBCOV method is better.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:ftrack1sound} The formant tracking performance of KARMA, Deep Formants, DNN and DNN-QCP-FBCOV in terms of FDR and FEE for different phonetic categories.
The results are reported by averaging over of all the 192 utterances of the VTR test database.}
\resizebox{13cm}{8cm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c||}{FDR (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{FEE (Hz)} \\\cline{2-7}
Phonetic category~ & ~$F_1$~ & ~$F_2$~ & ~$F_3$~ & ~$\delta F_1$~ & ~$\delta F_2$~ & ~$\delta F_3$\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf KARMA}} \\\cline{2-7} \hline
Vowels (V) & { 92.6} & 89.0 & 74.5 & {\bf 57.1} & 149.5 & 251.1 \\\hline
Diphthongs (D) & { 92.5} & 92.3 & 76.5 & {62.8} & 128.7 & 239.8 \\\hline
Semivowels (S) & { 86.9} & 86.9 & 73.6 & {\bf 76.1} & 154.8 & 258.3 \\\hline \hline
V+D+S & { 91.5} & 89.4 & 74.7 & { 61.9} & 145.8 & 250.3 \\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf Deep Formants}} \\\cline{2-7} \hline
Vowels (V) & {92.7} & 93.7 & {\bf91.0} & 81.5 & 112.9 & {\bf135.4} \\\hline
Diphthongs (D) & {93.2} & 93.8 & 90.6 & 84.8 & 112.2 & 132.9 \\\hline
Semivowels (S) & {87.0} & 86.1 & 84.4 & 96.1 & 148.4 & {\bf176.2} \\\hline \hline
V+D+S & {91.7} & 92.3 & 89.7 & 85.1 & 119.6 & 142.8 \\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf DNN}} \\\cline{2-7} \hline
Vowels (V) &91.6 & 93.3 & 82.9 & 70.0 & 121.5 & 176.5 \\\hline
Diphthongs (D) &92.9 & 92.6 & 84.6 & 71.5 & 120.9 & 175.2 \\\hline
Semivowels (S) &84.5 & 85.2 & 76.6 & 89.2 & 155.9 & 214.5 \\\hline \hline
V+D+S &90.5 & 91.6 & 82.1 & 73.9 & 127.9 & 183.6 \\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf DNN-QCP-FBCOV}} \\\cline{2-7} \hline
Vowels (V) & {\bf94.2} & {\bf94.2} & 90.6 & {\bf57.1} & {\bf105.2} & 136.2 \\\hline
Diphthongs (D) & {\bf94.5} & {\bf95.2} & {\bf93.0} & {\bf61.9} & {\bf109.4} & {\bf119.5} \\\hline
Semivowels (S) & {\bf88.8} & {\bf89.2} & {\bf84.6} & 76.6 & {\bf143.1} & 183.8 \\\hline \hline
V+D+S & {\bf93.3} & {\bf93.5} & {\bf89.9} & {\bf61.7} & {\bf113.3} & {\bf141.8} \\\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:gendercompare} Formant tracking performance of different methods for male and female speakers separately. The results are reported by averaging over all the utterances of the male and female speakers of the VTR test database.}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{3.8cm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{FDR (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{FEE (Hz)} \\\cline{2-7}
Method & $F_1$ & $F_2$ & $F_3$ & $\delta F_1$ & $\delta F_2$ & $\delta F_3$\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf Male}} \\\hline
Deep Formants &93.1 & 96.1 & 93.9 & 76 & 97 & 115 \\\hline
DNN &89.4 & 91.8 & 83.3 & 75 & 126 & 177 \\\hline
DNN-QCP-FBCOV & 92.6 & 94.3 & 90.5 & 60 & 109 & 137 \\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf Female}} \\\hline
Deep Formants &94.0 & 94.1 & 87.0 & 93 & 110 & 163 \\\hline
DNN &92.7 & 91.0 & 79.6 & 72 & 133 & 196 \\\hline
DNN-QCP-FBCOV & 94.5 & 91.9 & 88.8 & 65 & 123 & 151 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
Formant tracking performance for different methods using speech degraded with white and babble noise at signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels of 10 dB and 5 dB are given in Table~\ref{tab:noisecompare}. From the table it can be observed that the proposed DNN-QCP-FBCOV method performed better in the case of speech degraded with white noise. In the case of speech degraded with babble noise, Deep Formants and DNN methods seems to perform better.
An illustration of formant tracking by KARMA and DNN-QCP-FBCOV for an utterance produced by a male speaker is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tvqcpvskarma}. It can be seen from the figure that the formants tracked by the DNN-QCP-FBCOV method match closely the ground truth in voiced segments. Furthermore, it can be clearly seen that DNN-QCP-FBCOV is better than KARMA in tracking all the formants.
\begin{figure*
\label{fig:tvqcpvskarma}
\includegraphics[width=17cm,height=12cm]{Figure1.pdf}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{Formant tracking by KARMA and DNN-QCP-FBCOV for an utterance produced by a male speaker: (a) the time-domain speech signal, (b) the narrowband spectrogram with reference ground truth formant contours, (c) the formant track estimates of KARMA along with the voiced-unvoiced regions shown by a dotted rectangular-wave plot, and (d) the formant track estimates of DNN-QCP-FBCOV.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:noisecompare} Formant tracking performance for different methods using speech degraded with white and babble noise at SNR levels of 10 dB and 5 dB. The results are reported by averaging over of all the 192 utterances of the VTR test database.}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{7.5cm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{FDR (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{FEE (Hz)} \\\cline{2-7}
Method & $F_1$ & $F_2$ & $F_3$ & $\delta F_1$ & $\delta F_2$ & $\delta F_3$\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf White at 10 dB}} \\\hline
KARMA &86.2 & 80.1 & 68.8 & 75.5 & 191.3 & 256.5 \\\hline
Deep Formants &89.8 & 80.8 & {71.6} & 99.2 & 184.3 & {\bf238.7} \\\hline
DNN &84.6 & 79.6 & 69.5 & 88.5 & 193.4 & 245.6 \\\hline
DNN-QCP-FBCOV &{\bf91.1} & {\bf86.1} & {\bf71.8} & {\bf69.0} & {\bf162.2} & 251.8 \\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf White at 5 dB}} \\\hline
KARMA &80.1 & 72.5 & 64.0 & {91.6} & 232.5 & 279.2\\\hline
Deep Formants &{\bf89.2} & 71.7 & {64.5} & 101.1 & 238.7 & {274.3} \\\hline
DNN &84.8 & 79.6 & {\bf69.1} & 88.1 & {\bf193.3} & {\bf247.4} \\\hline
DNN-QCP-FBCOV & 87.8 & {\bf80.6} & {65.3} & {\bf83.7} & {\bf196.9} & 282.8 \\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf Babble at 10 dB}} \\\hline
KARMA &90.3 & 83.8 & 71.8 & {\bf65.1} & 176.1 & 246.0 \\\hline
Deep Formants &{\bf91.1} & 86.6 & {\bf81.7} & 88.4 & {145.9} & {\bf182.7} \\\hline
DNN & 88.8 & {\bf89.1} & 78.8 & 77.7 & {\bf141.7} & 198.7 \\\hline
DNN-QCP-FBCOV &90.7 & {87.1} & 81.1 & {66.0} & 153.9 & 203.8 \\\hline
\multicolumn{7}{|c|}{{\bf Babble at 5 dB}} \\\hline
KARMA &88.2 & 78.9 & 68.7 & {\bf70.9} & 200.9 & 260.3 \\\hline
Deep Formants &{\bf89.8} & 81.4 & {76.1} & 89.9 & {177.3} & {\bf209.1} \\\hline
DNN &87.5 & {\bf86.5} & {\bf76.2} & 80.5 & {\bf155.1} & 211.0 \\\hline
DNN-QCP-FBCOV &87.7 & {81.7} & 74.9 & 72.4 & 187.9 & 239.7 \\\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:summary}
Formant tracking was studied in this paper based on the widely used two-stage approach consisting of the estimation stage and the tracking stage. In the former, six different all-pole modeling methods were first compared with a DP-based tracker. In addition, five known formant trackers were used as references.
Two most potential all-pole modeling methods (LP-FBCOV and QCP-FBCOV) were then used with a modern DNN-based tracker by proposing a novel formant tracking technique which combines benefits of data-driven and model-driven approaches: the formants predicted with the data-driven DNN were refined using the frequencies of the peaks in the all-pole spectra computed by the model-driven LP-FBCOV and QCP-FBCOV methods.
The DNN-based formant trackers using the LP-FBCOV and QCP-FBCOV refinement were further compared to two conventional formant trackers (Wavesurfer and KARMA) and to one recently published DNN-based tracker (Deep Formants). With the QCP-FBCOV refinement, the DNN-based tracker outperformed the conventional reference formant trackers in all metrics. Compared to Deep Formants, the proposed DNN-tracker gave better performance in all other metrics except for FDR and FEE in $F_3$ where Deep Formants was just slightly better. In addition to these encouraging objective results, it is worth emphasising that the proposed QCP-FBCOV refinement technique can be used in principle to improve the performance of any existing DNN-based formant tracker which has been trained to map a speech signal frame into formants, that is, there is no need to re-train the DNN-based tracker used. However, it should be noted that the performance of the proposed method might depend on the accuracy of the estimated glottal closure instants, which are needed to generate the QCP weighting function \cite{Manu2014}. { Therefore, the robustness of the proposed method in various noisy conditions needs to be studied further. {One way of improving the performance under degradations could be by training the DNN models for all noisy conditions of interest.}
Nevertheless, under clean conditions, the current study shows that the QCP-FBCOV method is a potential all-pole modeling technique to be used in formant tracking instead of the widely used conventional LP methods. }
{It is worth noting that the DNN-based formant tracking methods studied in this investigation (i.e. Deep Formants, DNN, DNN-LP-FBCOV, and DNN-QCP-FBCOV) are based on supervised learning and their computational complexity is relatively high compared to traditional model-based approaches. It is known that DNNs are resource hungry due to their need for training data and the architecture of the neural network adds more computational complexity when the trained network is used in formant tracking. }
{The LSTM-based Deep Formants architecture has approximately 4M parameters, while the FFNN DNN architecture we propose has around 0.3M parameters.
It is worth emphasizing, however, that the main contribution of this study, the QCP-FBCOV based refinement of formants, can be plugged into any existing pre-trained DNN-based tracker, which results only in a marginal increase in complexity.
Compared to the conventional autocorrelation based LP, which has a computational complexity of $O{(n^2)}$, our proposed QCP-FBCOV-based tracker has $O{(n^3)}$ complexity, where $n$ denotes the size of the covariance matrix (which is equal to the LP order, which was $p=12$ in the experiments of the current study).
However, the order of LP analysis being small, our proposed DNN-QCP-FBCOV-based formant tracking results only in a negligible increase in the overall computational complexity.
There is an added computation complexity due to the computation of the temporal weighting function ($w_n$ in Eqs.~\ref{eqn:wtfn1}~and~~\ref{eqn:wtfn2}), which calls for estimating glottal closure instants, which also requires LP inverse filtering and is proportional to $O{(n^3)}$ computations.}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Spin qubits based on quantum dots (QD) are promising candidates for realization of large-scale quantum computation. In semiconductor double-quantum-dot (DQD) devices, previous works have mostly focused on singlet-triplet qubits defined by two-electron spin states \cite{Petta.05,Shulman.12,Levy.02,Wu.14,Maune.12,Barthel.10,Shi.11,Takeda.20,Cerfontaine.20,Eng.15,Noiri.18,Harvey.17}, or three-electron spin states in the large detuning regime, so called ``hybrid-qubit'' \cite{Koh.12,Shi.14,Shi.12,Thorgrimsson.17,Koh.13}. Although high fidelity single-qubit gates with long coherence time have been achieved in these systems, two-qubit gate is still a key obstacle toward realization of quantum algorithms since the effect of charge noises prevents high-fidelity quantum control \cite{Cao.13,Shinkai.09,Hayashi.03,Petersson.10,Dovzhenko.11,Gorman.05,Shi.13}.
Two-qubit gates between singlet-triplet qubits can be generally divided into two classes: capacitive gates and exchange gates. Capacitive gates are achieved by introducing charge-dipole to the logical states, usually by modifying the DQD detuning, while suppressing the electron tunneling between DQDs such that the interaction between qubits is solely mediated by the capacitive Coulomb interaction \cite{Shulman.12,Nichol.17,Taylor.05,Nielsen.12,Hiltunen.14,Buterakos.19,Ramon.11,Calderon.15,Wolfe.17,Stepanenko.07,Yang.11,Srinivasa.15,Setser.19,Frees.19,Buterakos.18.2}. Exchange gates, on the other hand, are mediated by the exchange coupling between two neighboring spins between DQDs, which can be manipulated by inter-DQD exchange interaction \cite{Li.12,Klinovaja.12,Mehl.14,Wardrop.14,Buterakos.18,Cerfontaine.20.2,Yang.20}.
Practically, capacitive gates are easier to implement \cite{Shulman.12,Nichol.17} as their realization allows for a reasonable inter-DQD distance, which is relatively easy to faricate while the capacitive crosstalk can be suppressed \cite{Buterakos.18.2}. Moreover, leakage into energetically accessible non-logical $S_z=0$ states is forbidden due to the absence of inter-DQD electron tunneling. In contrast, exchange gates require a much more complicated experimental setup, including a non-uniform magnetic field across four dots in a double-DQD device (DDQD) to suppress leakage and pulse design \cite{Buterakos.18,Cerfontaine.20,Wardrop.14,Li.12} to reduce the crosstalk effect by both exchange and capacitive interaction. In this work, we focus on capacitively coupled singlet-triplet qubits.
Although being free from leakage by inter-DQD tunneling, capacitive gates suffer from charge noises that arise from the coupling between the charge dipoles introduced during manipulation of the DDQD device and nearby charged impurities. Researchers therefore have been actively searching for a sweet spot, where the control fidelity is first-order insensitive to charge noises, to operate capacitive gates \cite{Yang.11,Wolfe.17,Abadillo.19,Abadillo.21}. In some of these works, a simplified version of Configuration Interaction (CI) method is employed to study possible existence of sweet spots for two-qubit capacitive gates between a pair of singlet-triplet qubits. As an example, Ref.~\onlinecite{Yang.11} has shown that the effective exchange energy of a qubit is insensitive to the corresponding DQD detuning. As another example, Ref.~\onlinecite{Wolfe.17}, by balancing the local exchange energies and capacitive shift by inter-DQD Coulomb interaction, has shown that the effective exchange energies of two qubits can be made simultaneously insensitive to both DQD detunings. However, a more rigorous calculation based on full Configuration Interaction (full CI) shows the sweet spots are absent under the same dot parameters \cite{Chan.21}.
Other works attempt to establish a sweet spot for single-qubit operation in presence of charge dipoles. Ref.~\onlinecite{Abadillo.19} has proposed that, under a relatively large external magnetic field gradient, sweet spots for a singlet-triplet qubit can be found in \red{the} detuning regime where \red{the} doubly-occupied singlet is energetically accessible to introduce a charge dipole.
Ref.~\onlinecite{Abadillo.21} has shown that the ``hybrid qubit'' can similarly be operated in the detuning regime where logical states and leakage states are highly mixed, forming charge dipoles. It is however challenging to ramp the system into and out of the proposed sweet spots adiabatically, which may lead to leakage.
Departing from two- or three-electron systems, some works have shown that single-triplet qubits hosted in multielectron systems offer a higher degree of protection against charge noises due to the screening effect \cite{Barnes.11,Leon.21,Mehl.13}. However, in the regime where charge dipoles are present, sweet spots are not found. Therefore, capacitive gates performed in those multielectron systems are still expected to be sensitive to charge noises.
Recent experimental and theoretical works show that by populating more electrons into QDs, the exchange energy may change non-monotonically due to additional magnetic correlations among the electron spins \cite{Deng.18,Malinowski.18,Martins.17}, suggesting existence of sweet spots. Inspired by these works, we would like to study the effect of multiple electrons on the exchange interaction under multi-qubit situation. In this paper, we show, by projecting full CI results of a few-electron singlet-triplet qubit onto the capacitive Coulomb integrals, effective single-qubit exchange energy sweet spots appear in the coupled singlet-triplet qubits system. Furthermore, these sweet spots lie very closely to the sweet spots for capacitive gates, enabling high fidelity manipulations. We demonstrate that operating at the sweet spots yields entangling gates with high fidelities ($>99.9\%$), even under realistic noise environments. Our results should facilitate realization of high-fidelity two-qubit gates in singlet-triplet qubit systems.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Sec.~\ref{sec:Model} presents the model of the capacitively coupled few-electron singlet-triplet qubits, including the effective Hamiltonian of the two-qubit system (Sec.~\ref{subsec:2QH}), the CI method to obtain the eigenvalues of the logical states as function of control parameters (Sec.~\ref{subsec:CI}), and the analytical interpretation of the qubit parameters based on the extended Hubbard Model (Sec.~\ref{subsec:HubbardModel}). Sec.~\ref{sec:result} shows the results, including exchange energies sweet spots and the corresponding capacitive coupling (Sec.~\ref{subsec:ExSS}), phonon-mediated decoherence effect (Sec.~\ref{subsec:phonon}), and the simulated two-qubit gate fidelities under noisy environment (Sec.~\ref{subsec:Fid}). In the end, we summarize our results in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Model}\label{sec:Model}
\subsection{Two-qubit Hamiltonian}\label{subsec:2QH}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig1}
\caption{Schematic illustration of the DDQD device, where $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ DQD denote left and right DQD respectively, with $x=0$ being the boundary between them. The potential function of each DQD is shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq:V}. The label, $\Phi_j$, denotes the orthonormalized F-D states.}
\label{fig:DDQDV}
\end{figure}
We consider a pair of capacitively coupled singlet-triplet qubits realized in a DDQD device, with each DQD hosting a \emph{four-electron} singlet-triplet qubit, as shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:DDQDV}. The two-qubit Hilbert space is spanned by the products of single-qubit logical states: the spin-singlet $|S\rangle$, and the unpolarized spin-triplet state $|T\rangle$ ($S_z = 0$). Hence, the two-qubit logical states are $|SS\rangle$, $|ST\rangle$, $|TS\rangle$ and $|TT\rangle$. Under this set of bases, the system Hamiltonian is written as \cite{Calderon.15,Stepanenko.07,Wolfe.17}
\begin{align}\label{eq:Hint}
\begin{split}
&H (\varepsilon_\mathbb{L}, \varepsilon_\mathbb{R},h_\mathbb{L},h_\mathbb{R})
\\
&= \sum_{j\in\left\{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{R}\right\}} \Bigg[\left(\frac{J_j(\varepsilon_j)}{2}-\beta_j (\varepsilon_\mathbb{L},\varepsilon_\mathbb{R})\right)\sigma_z^{(j)}
+\frac{h_j}{2}\sigma_x^{(j)}
\\
&\quad+\alpha\left(\varepsilon_\mathbb{L},\varepsilon_\mathbb{R}\right) \sigma_z^{(\mathbb{L})}\sigma_z^{(\mathbb{R})}\Bigg]
\\
&=\sum_{j\in\left\{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{R}\right\}} J_j^\text{eff}\left(\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}},\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}\right)\sigma_z^{(j)}+\frac{h_j}{2}\sigma_x^{(j)}
\\
&\quad +\alpha\left(\varepsilon_\mathbb{L},\varepsilon_\mathbb{R}\right) \sigma_z^{(\mathbb{L})}\sigma_z^{(\mathbb{R})},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the index $j$ denotes left $(\mathbb{L})$ and right $(\mathbb{R})$ DQD (denoted by DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ and DQD-$\mathbb{R}$ respectively). In Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hint}, $\vec{\sigma}^{(j)}$ are the Pauli operators of a singlet-triplet qubit in the DQD labeled by $j$ (DQD-$j$), $J_j$ and $h_j$ are the local exchange energy and magnetic field gradient for the same DQD respectively. The inter-DQD Coulomb interaction does two things: it introduces a shift $\beta_j$ in the local exchange energy, and at the same time gives rise to inter-qubit capacitive coupling, $\alpha$, resulting in the effective single-qubit exchange energy, $J_j^\text{eff}$, where $J_j^\text{eff} = J_j/2-\beta_j$.
\subsection{Configuration Interaction, exchange energies and inter-qubit interaction}\label{subsec:CI}
We consider an $n$-electron system $H=h_0 + h_C = \sum h_j + \sum{e^2}/4\pi \kappa \left|\mathbf{r}_j-\mathbf{r}_k\right|$
with the single-particle Hamiltonian $h_0 = \sum h_j = \sum {(-i\hbar \nabla_j+e \mathbf{A})^2}/{2m^*}+V(\mathbf{r})+g^*\mu_B \mathbf{B}\cdot \mathbf{S}$.
The confinement potential of the left $(\mathbb{L})$ and right $(\mathbb{R})$ double-quantum-dot device (DQD) can be modeled as (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:DDQDV}) \cite{Barrier}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:V}
\begin{split}
V_\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{r})&=
\begin{cases}
V\left(\mathbf{r}\left|\right.-\mathbf{R}_\text{out},\omega_\text{out}\right) & x < x'_\mathbb{L},\\
V\left(\mathbf{r}\left|\right.-\mathbf{R}_\text{in},\omega_\text{in}\right) & x'_\mathbb{L}<x<0,
\end{cases},
\\
V_\mathbb{R}(\mathbf{r})&=
\begin{cases}
V\left(\mathbf{r}\left|\right.\mathbf{R}_\text{in},\omega_\text{in}\right) & x'_\mathbb{R} > x > 0,\\
V\left(\mathbf{r}\left|\right.\mathbf{R}_\text{out},\omega_\text{out}\right) & x>x'_\mathbb{R},
\end{cases},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
V\left(\mathbf{r}\left|\right.\widetilde{\mathbf{R}},\widetilde{\omega}\right) = \frac{1}{2}m^* \widetilde{\omega}^2\left(\mathbf{r}-\widetilde{\mathbf{R}}\right)^2,
\end{equation}
$\mathbf{r} = \left(x,y\right)$ is the vector in $x-y$ plane, $\mathbf{R}_\text{out} = \left(R_0+2x_0,0\right)$ and $\mathbf{R}_\text{in} = \left(R_0,0\right)$
are the minima of the parabolic wells, $m^*$ the effective mass, and $\widetilde{\omega}$ the confinement strength. The potential cut, $x'_\mathbb{L}$ $(x'_\mathbb{R})$, is determined by locating the value of $x$ at which the potential values of left and right dot in DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ $(\mathbb{R})$ are equal at $y=0$. The parameters used in this work are: $m^*= 0.067m_e$ ($m_e$: electron mass) and $\kappa = 13\varepsilon_0$ ($\varepsilon_0$: vacuum permittivity) in GaAs, $\varepsilon_\mathbb{L}>0$, $\varepsilon_\mathbb{R}>0$, $\hbar \omega_\text{in} = 7.5$ meV, $\hbar \omega_\text{out} = $ 4 meV, $h_j = 0.124$ $\mu$eV $= 2\pi \times 30$ MHz \cite{Shulman.12}, $x_0 = 40$ nm. The qubit parameters in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hint} are obtained based on the results extracted from CI calculation, for which the details are outlined in the following sections (Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:SQJ} and Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:interQInt}).
\subsubsection{Single qubit exchange energy}\label{subsubsec:SQJ}
We consider a singlet-triplet qubit formed by \emph{four} electrons occupying a DQD with one electron occupying the smaller quantum-dot (QD), $\hbar \omega_\text{in}$, while three electrons occupying the larger QD, $\hbar \omega_\text{out}$ \cite{ChanGX.22}. The single qubit exchange energy, $J_j$, of four-electron states in a DQD is obtained using full CI method by taking \cite{Barnes.11}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:J1Q}
J_j = E_{|T\rangle}-E_{|S\rangle},
\end{equation}
where $E_{|S\rangle}$ and $E_{|T\rangle}$ are the eigenvalues of the lowest singlet and unpolarized triplet states respectively. We retain 6 Fock-Darwin (F-D) states for the QD with a single electron, and 10 F-D states for the QD with three electrons, and our experience with full-CI calculations indicate that this is sufficient for convergence \cite{ChanGX.22}.
The eigenvalues of the system are obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian written in the bases of all possible four-electron Slater determinants for a given number of F-D states.
The eigenstates of the lowest $|S\rangle$ and $|T\rangle$, written in the linear combination of four-electron Slater determinants formed by orthonormalized F-D states, are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ST1Q}
\begin{split}
|S\rangle &= \sum_{j,m} C_{S_{j,m}}|S(\uparrow_j \downarrow_j)\rangle_m \\
&\quad+ \sum_{j,k,m} C_{S_{j,k,m}}|S(\uparrow_j \downarrow_k)\rangle_m + \cdots,\\
|T\rangle &= \sum_{j,k,m} C_{T_{j,k,m}}|T(\uparrow_j \downarrow_k)\rangle_m+ \cdots,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
respectively, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:STExplicit}
\begin{split}
|S(\uparrow_j \downarrow_j)\rangle_m &= |\uparrow_j \downarrow_j \uparrow_m \downarrow_m\rangle,\\
|S(\uparrow_j \downarrow_k)\rangle_m &= |\uparrow_j \downarrow_k \uparrow_m \downarrow_m \rangle+|\uparrow_k \downarrow_j \uparrow_m \downarrow_m\rangle,\\
|T(\uparrow_j \downarrow_k)\rangle_m &= |\uparrow_j \downarrow_k \uparrow_m \downarrow_m \rangle-|\uparrow_k \downarrow_j \uparrow_m \downarrow_m\rangle,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
while the normalization conditions hold ($j,k,m$ are different integers):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Slater}
\begin{split}
\sum_{S_{j,m}} \left| C_{S_{j,m}}\right|^2+\sum_{S_{j,k,m}} \left|C_{S_{j,k,m}}\right|^2 + \sum \left|\cdots\right|^2 &= 1,\\
\sum_{T_{j,k,m}} \left|C_{T_{j,k,m}}\right|^2+\sum \left|\cdots\right|^2 & = 1.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:STExplicit}, $|\uparrow_k \downarrow_l \uparrow_m \downarrow_n \rangle$ is a four-electron Slater determinant with two spin-up electrons occupying the $k$ and $m$ orthonormalized F-D states, denoted as $\Phi_k$ and $\Phi_m$ respectively, while another two spin-down electrons occupying $\Phi_l$ and $\Phi_n$ states, cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:DDQDV}.
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:ST1Q}, $\left(\cdots\right)$ indicates other possible singlet and triplet configurations which contribute less than those explicitly shown.
The components of $|S\rangle$ and $|T\rangle$ can be further divided as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:STDivide}
\begin{split}
|S\rangle &= C_{S(1,3)}|S(1,3)\rangle + C_{S(0,4)}|S(0,4)\rangle + \cdots,\\
|T\rangle &= C_{T(1,3)}|T(1,3)\rangle + C_{T(0,4)} |T(0,4)\rangle + \cdots.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:STDivide},
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:STDivideExplicit}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
|S(1,3)\rangle = \sum_{\substack{j\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{L}1,\mathbb{R}\text{L}2, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{L}6\},\\k\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{R}2,\mathbb{R}\text{R}3, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{R}10\},\\m\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{R}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}2, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{R}9\},\\m\neq k}}
&\frac{C_{S_{j,k,m}}}{\left|C_{S(1,3)}\right|} |S(\uparrow_j \downarrow_k) \rangle_m
\\ &+\cdots,
\end{split}
\\
\begin{split}
|T(1,3)\rangle = \sum_{\substack{j\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{L}1,\mathbb{R}\text{L}2, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{L}6\},\\k\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{R}2,\mathbb{R}\text{R}3, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{R}10\},\\m\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{R}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}2, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{R}9\},\\m\neq k}}
&\frac{C_{T_{j,k,m}}}{\left|C_{T(1,3)}\right|} |T(\uparrow_j \downarrow_k) \rangle_m
\\& + \cdots,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
|S(0,4)\rangle = \sum_{\substack{\{j,k\}\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{R}2,\mathbb{R}\text{R}3, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{R}10\},\\m\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{R}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}2, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{R}9\},\\j = k \text{ or } j \neq k, m\neq j, m\neq k}}
&\frac{C_{S_{j,k,m}}}{\left|C_{S(0,4)}\right|} |S(\uparrow_j \downarrow_k) \rangle_m \\
&\quad+\cdots,
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
|T(0,4)\rangle = \sum_{\substack{\{j,k\}\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{R}2,\mathbb{R}\text{R}3, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{R}10\},\\m\in\{\mathbb{R}\text{R}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}2, \cdots,\mathbb{R}\text{R}9\},\\j\neq k \neq m}}
&\frac{C_{T_{j,k,m}}}{\left|C_{T(0,4)}\right|} |T(\uparrow_j \downarrow_k) \rangle_m \\
&\quad+\cdots,
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $(n_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}},n_{\mathbb{R}\text{R}})$ indicates the electron occupation of left (L) and right (R) QD in DQD-$\mathbb{R}$ respectively. Physically, $|S(1,3)\rangle$ and $|S(0,4)\rangle$ ($|T(1,3)\rangle$ and $|T(0,4)\rangle$) are singlets (triplets) with dot occupation of $(n_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}},n_{\mathbb{R}\text{R}})=(1,3)$ and $(0,4)$ respectively.
Eqs.~\eqref{eq:STDivide} and \eqref{eq:STDivideExplicit} are obtained for DQD-$\mathbb{R}$; similar expressions can be obtained for DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ by making the following replacements: $S(0,4) \rightarrow S(4,0)$, $T(0,4)\rightarrow T(4,0)$, $S(1,3)\rightarrow S(3,1)$, $T(1,3)\rightarrow T(3,1)$, $\mathbb{R}\text{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{L}\text{L}, \mathbb{R}\text{L} \rightarrow \mathbb{L}\text{R}$, $n_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}}\rightarrow n_{\mathbb{L}\text{R}}$ and $n_{\mathbb{R}\text{R}}\rightarrow n_{\mathbb{L}\text{L}}$.
\subsubsection{Inter-qubit interaction and capacitive shift}\label{subsubsec:interQInt}
The inter-qubit parameters, $\beta_j$ and $\alpha$, are obtained by projecting the two-qubit logical states onto the inter-DQD Coulomb interaction \cite{Stepanenko.07,Calderon.15,Wolfe.17}, giving
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:betaAlphaDef}
\begin{align}
\beta_\mathbb{L} &= \frac{1}{4}\left(-V_{|SS\rangle}-V_{|ST\rangle}+V_{|TS\rangle}+V_{|TT\rangle}\right),\\
\beta_\mathbb{R} &= \frac{1}{4}\left(-V_{|SS\rangle}+V_{|ST\rangle}-V_{|TS\rangle}+V_{|TT\rangle}\right),\\
\alpha &= \frac{1}{4}\left(V_{|SS\rangle}-V_{|ST\rangle}-V_{|TS\rangle}+V_{|TT\rangle}\right),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:VExp}
V_{|jk\rangle} = \langle jk | H_C | jk \rangle,
\end{equation}
and $\{j,k\}\in\{S,T\}$. Note that for a \emph{traditional} singlet-triplet qubit formed by two singly-occupied QDs in a DQD, only the singlet states hybridize with each other while the triplet states are typically well-separated in energy and do not hybridize. However, in this case, both $|S\rangle$ and $|T\rangle$ involve hybridization between states of $(n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}})=(1,3)$ $\left[(n_{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{R}})=(3,1)\right]$ type and the states of $(0,4)$ $\left[(4,0)\right]$ type.
\subsection{Extended Hubbard Model and inter-qubit interaction}\label{subsec:HubbardModel}
It is helpful to obtain the physical descriptions of the qubit parameters in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hint} based on the extended Hubbard model. We confirm the accuracy of the model by comparing results derived from it to full CI calculations (cf. Sec.~VI in the Supplemental Material for details \cite{sm}). The explicit form of the effective Hamiltonian given by the extended Hubbard model is presented in Sec.~IV~D in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm}. Here for clarity, we show the effective Hamiltonian with truncated number of bases that is sufficient to understand the qualitative behavior of qubit parameters. Written in the bases of $|S(1,3)\rangle$, $|S(0,4)\rangle$, $|T(1,3)\rangle$, $|T(0,4)\rangle$ (cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:STDivideExplicit}), with a global energy shift of $E_\text{shift} = U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2}+\varepsilon_\mathbb{R}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Heff}
\begin{split}
\widetilde{H}=
\left(
\begin{array} {cccc}
0 & \sqrt{2} t_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}2} & 0 & 0 \\
\sqrt{2} t_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}2} & E_S & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -t_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}3} \\
0 & 0 & -t_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}3} & E_T
\end{array}
\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $t_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2}$ and $t_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}3}$ are the tunneling energies, $E_S = U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2} - (U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2}+\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}})$ and $E_T = U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2,\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}3}+\Delta E-\xi - (U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}3}+\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}})$ are the globally shifted eigenvalues of $|S(0,4)\rangle$ and $|T(0,4)\rangle$ respectively. $\Delta E=\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}3}-\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2}$ is the orbital splitting of two valence orbitals in DQD-$\mathbb{R}$, $\xi$ is the ferromagnetic exchange term \cite{Deng.18,Malinowski.18} (cf.~Sec.~IV B in the Supplemental Material for details \cite{sm}) while $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$ is the detuning between potential minima in a DQD. The eigenstates of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Heff} are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:STEigenbasesMain}
\begin{split}
|S'(1,3)\rangle &= -\cos \frac{\theta^\mathbb{R}_S}{2}|S(1,3)\rangle + \sin \frac{\theta^\mathbb{R}_S}{2}|S(0,4)\rangle, \\
|S'(0,4)\rangle &= \sin \frac{\theta^\mathbb{R}_S}{2}|S(1,3)\rangle + \cos \frac{\theta^\mathbb{R}_S}{2}|S(0,4)\rangle, \\
|T'(1,3)\rangle &= \cos \frac{\theta^\mathbb{R}_T}{2}|T(1,3)\rangle + \sin \frac{\theta^\mathbb{R}_T}{2}|T(0,4)\rangle, \\
|T'(0,4)\rangle &= -\sin \frac{\theta^\mathbb{R}_T}{2}|T(1,3)\rangle + \cos \frac{\theta^\mathbb{R}_T}{2}|T(0,4)\rangle, \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\theta^\mathbb{R}_S=\arctan \left(2 \sqrt{2} t_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}2}/E_S\right)$ and $\theta^\mathbb{R}_T=\arctan \left(2 t_{\mathbb{R}\text{L}1,\mathbb{R}\text{R}3}/E_T\right)$ are the admixture angles of $|S\rangle$ and $|T\rangle$ respectively (for more details, see Sec.~V~F in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm}). The logical subspace is defined in the $(n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}})\approx(1,3)$ regime, i.e. $\left|\sin (\theta^\mathbb{R}_S/2)\right|^2 \ll 1$ and $\left|\sin(\theta^\mathbb{R}_T/2)\right|^2 \ll 1$, such that $|S'(1,3)\rangle$ and $|T'(1,3)\rangle$ are the logical states. Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Heff} and \eqref{eq:STEigenbasesMain} refer to the case for DQD-$\mathbb{R}$, while the case for DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ can be derived using the replacement rules described at the end of Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:SQJ}. The admixtures can be alternatively perceived as introduced dipoles in the logical eigenstates, $\vert S(1,3)\rangle'$ and $\vert T(1,3)\rangle'$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dipole}
d^j_m=\sin^2\left(\frac{\theta^j_m}{2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $d^j_m$ is the dipole of the $m$ logical eigenstate in DQD-$j$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig2}
\caption{(a, g) The probabilities of various states $\mathcal{P}(|S(0,4)\rangle)=\left|\langle S |S(0,4)\rangle\right|^2$, $\mathcal{P}(|S(1,3)\rangle)=\left|\langle S |S(1,3)\rangle\right|^2$, $\mathcal{P}(|T(0,4)\rangle)=\left|\langle T |T(0,4)\rangle\right|^2$, $\mathcal{P}(|T(1,3)\rangle)=\left|\langle T |T(1,3)\rangle\right|^2$. (b, h) The inter-DQD Coulomb integral, $V_{|jk\rangle}$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:VExp}). $R_0=40$ nm. (c, i) The local exchange energy, $J=J_\mathbb{L} (\varepsilon)=J_\mathbb{R}(\varepsilon)$. (d, j) The capacitive shift, $\beta=\beta_\mathbb{L} (\varepsilon,\varepsilon)=\beta_\mathbb{R}(\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$. (e, k) Effective exchange energy, $J^\text{eff} = J^\text{eff}_\mathbb{L} = J^\text{eff}_\mathbb{R}$. (f, l) Capacitive coupling, $\alpha(\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$. All the subfigures are plotted as function of the detuning, $\varepsilon$. The green star symbols, green line and the label $\varepsilon^*$ mark the detuning values at which the sweet spots of $J^\text{eff}$ occur. Top panel: (a-f) Results for $B=0.174$ T. Bottom panel: (g-l) Results for $B = 0.319$ T.}
\label{fig:resultTwoB}
\end{figure*}
Considering the case in which DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ and DQD-$\mathbb{R}$ are symmetric, i.e. $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}=\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:DDQDV}, the qubit parameters are
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{eq:betaApproxAna}
\beta_\mathbb{L} (\varepsilon,\varepsilon) &= \beta_\mathbb{R} (\varepsilon,\varepsilon) \\
&\approx \frac{1}{2}\left[\sin^2\left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2\left(\theta_T/2\right)\right]
U_{\mathrm{int}}\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{d^\mathbb{L}_S d^\mathbb{R}_S}-\sqrt{d^\mathbb{L}_T d^\mathbb{R}_T}\right)
U_{\mathrm{int}}
,
\end{split}
\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:alphaApproxAna}
\alpha (\varepsilon,\varepsilon)
&\approx
\frac{1}{4}\left[\sin ^2\left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin ^2\left(\theta_T/2\right)\right]^2
U_{\mathrm{int}}
\\
&=\frac{1}{4}\left(\sqrt{d^\mathbb{L}_S d^\mathbb{R}_S}-\sqrt{d^\mathbb{L}_T d^\mathbb{R}_T}\right)^2
U_{\mathrm{int}}
,
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the inter-qubit Coulomb interaction is $U_{\mathrm{int}}=
U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2,\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}2}
+4U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}1}
+U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}2}
+U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{L}\mathrm{R}1}$. $U_\text{int}$ consists of the inter-dot Coulomb integral between two inner dots ($U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{L}\mathrm{R}1}$), the Coulomb integral between a left dot in DQD-$\mathbb{R}$ and a left dot in DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ ($U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}1,\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}j}$), and the Coulomb integral between two outer dots ($U_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2,\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}2}$). In the third line of Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaApproxAna} and the second line of Eq.~\eqref{eq:alphaApproxAna}, we have written the expressions of $\beta_j$ and $\alpha$ in terms of the dipoles, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:dipole}. In Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna}, due to the symmetric dots and detunings, $\theta_S^\mathbb{L}=\theta_S^\mathbb{R}=\theta_S$ and $\theta_T^\mathbb{L}=\theta_T^\mathbb{R}=\theta_T$. Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna} indicates that the main qualitative behavior of $\beta_j$ and $\alpha$ is given by the difference of the hybridization in the singlet states, $\sin(\theta_S/2)$, and the hybridization in the triplet states, $\sin(\theta_T/2)$, i.e.,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:diffST}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\beta_j \left(\varepsilon,\varepsilon\right)&\propto\sin ^2\left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin ^2\left(\theta_T/2\right)
\end{split},
\\
\begin{split}
\alpha \left(\varepsilon,\varepsilon\right)&\propto \left[\sin ^2\left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin ^2\left(\theta_T/2\right)\right]^2.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna} will be used later to interpret the results (for details of derivation, see Sec.~VII B in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm}). In Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna}, two independent parameters in the parentheses are the detunings in DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ and DQD-$\mathbb{R}$, i.e., $\left(\varepsilon_\mathbb{L},\varepsilon_\mathbb{R}\right)$.
\section{Results}\label{sec:result}
\subsection{Exchange energy sweet spot and capacitive coupling}\label{subsec:ExSS}
Figure~\ref{fig:resultTwoB} shows the key results of this paper, showing the composition of the logical states, Coulomb integrals, local exchange energies, capacitive shifts, and most importantly, the effective exchange energies and the capacitive coupling, along with the corresponding sweet spots. The inter-DQD distance, $2R_0$, is determined at the values where the inter-DQD tunneling is absent, see Sec.~II in the Supplemental Material for details \cite{sm}. The left column shows results for the magnetic field $B=0.174$ T while the right column $B=0.319$ T. For simplicity, all results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB} are obtained with symmetric detuning, i.e. $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}} = \varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}} = \varepsilon$. In this case, the local exchange energies, $J_j$, and capacitive shift, $\beta_j$, are also symmetric for DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ and DQD-$\mathbb{R}$, i.e. $J_\mathbb{L} = J_\mathbb{R} = J$, $\beta_\mathbb{L} = \beta_\mathbb{R} = \beta$. The same also applies to the composition of the logical states in DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ and DQD-$\mathbb{R}$, therefore only results for DQD-$\mathbb{R}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(a) and (g). The results are obtained for an \textit{eight}-electron system in a DDQD device with each DQD hosting a \textit{four}-electron singlet-triplet qubit, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:DDQDV}. The logical eigenstates of a \textit{four}-electron singlet-triplet qubit are obtained using full CI calculations by retaining 10 F-D states in the few-electron dot (the left and right dot in DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ and DQD-$\mathbb{R}$ respectively) and 6 F-D states in the singly-occupied dot (the right and left dot in DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ and DQD-$\mathbb{R}$ respectively), see Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:SQJ} for details. The two-qubit parameters, i.e., $J^\text{eff}_j$, $\beta_j$ and $\alpha$, are then obtained by projecting the logical eigenstates of two single qubits hosted by two $\textit{four}$-electron systems onto the inter-DQD Coulomb interaction, see Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:interQInt} for details.
We first focus on the case for $B = 0.319$ T (the right column of Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}). Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(i) shows half the local exchange energy, $J/2$, which increases with the detuning when the detuning is small, reaching a maximum value at $\varepsilon = 8.40$ meV, and sharply drops down beyond that point. The point at $\varepsilon = 8.40$ meV is therefore the single-qubit sweet spot. Similar behavior of $J/2$ has been observed in experiments for $(n_\mathbb{RL},n_\mathbb{RR}) = (1,N)$, where $N$ ranges between 50 and 100 \cite{Martins.17,Malinowski.18}. Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(j) shows the capacitive shift, $\beta$, also yielding a turning point at $\varepsilon\approx 8.30$meV, for three different values of $R_0$ as indicated. Furthermore, since $V_{|ST\rangle}=V_{|TS\rangle}$ in the symmetric case, $\beta$ is essentially $V_{|TT\rangle}-V_{|SS\rangle}$ (cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaDef}). One may readily verify that the $\beta$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(j) reflects the values of $V_{|TT\rangle}-V_{|SS\rangle}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(h) for $R_0=40$ nm.
The behavior of $\beta$ can be understood by looking into the detailed composition of the logical states (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(g) and Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaApproxAna}). Since $\mathcal{P}(\vert S(0,4)\rangle)=\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)$ and $\mathcal{P}(\vert T(0,4)\rangle)=\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)$, as suggested by Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:diffST}, $J^\mathrm{eff}$ and $\alpha$ are proportional to the difference between the hybridization in the singlet states and the hybridization in the triplet states, $\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)$ (cf.~red dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(g)) \cite{SSConditions}.
At small $\varepsilon$ ($\varepsilon < 8.30$meV), $\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)$ yields an increasing positive value, resulting in $\beta$ increasing with $\varepsilon$, as suggested by Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaApproxAna}.
At 8.30meV $<\varepsilon<$ 8.40meV, $\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)$ decreases with $\varepsilon$ but is still positive, giving positive $\beta$ with reduced magnitude when $\varepsilon$ increases. At $\varepsilon>8.40$meV, $\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)<0$, hence $\beta$ switches to negative value. This non-monotonic behavior of $J$ and $\beta$ in combination leads to the emergence of a sweet spot for the effective exchange energy $J^\text{eff} = J/2-\beta$, as indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(k). In addition, the concurrence between the locations of the sweet spots $\varepsilon^*$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(k, l)) and the turning point of $\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)$ (red dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(g)) suggests that the competition between those two hybridizations is the main physical mechanism leading to the existence of the sweet spot, conforming with Eq.~\eqref{eq:diffST}. Since the hybridizations can be alternatively interpreted as the dipoles of the logical eigenstates (Eq.~\eqref{eq:dipole}), the existence of the sweet spots can be attributed to the non-monotonic behavior of the difference of dipoles in the logical singlet and triplet eigenstates, i.e. $\sqrt{d^\mathbb{L}_S d^\mathbb{R}_S}-\sqrt{d^\mathbb{L}_T d^\mathbb{R}_T}$, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna}. This also explains the absence of these sweet spots in conventional capacitively coupled two-electron singlet-triplet qubits \cite{Shulman.12,Nichol.17}. In two-electron singlet-triplet qubits, due to the absence of hybridizations between triplet states \cite{Dial.13,Petta.05}, dipole only exists in the logical singlet state, i.e.~$d^j_S>0$ while $d^j_T=0$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:dipole}). This results in $\beta_j \propto \sqrt{d^\mathbb{L}_S d^\mathbb{R}_S}$ and $\alpha \propto d^\mathbb{L}_S d^\mathbb{R}_S$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna}), conforming with experimental results of capacitively coupled two-electron singlet-triplet qubits, which state that the effective exchange energies, $J^\text{eff}_j=J_j/2-\beta_j$, and capacitive coupling $\alpha$ exhibit monotonic behaviors with respect to the detuning values and $\alpha\propto d^\mathbb{L}_S d^\mathbb{R}_S$ \cite{Shulman.12,Nichol.17}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(l) shows the results for $\alpha$ v.s.~$\varepsilon$ for $B=0.319$ T at three different $R_0$ values as indicated. Similar to the above discussions, the behavior of $\alpha$ can be interpreted from Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(g) and Eq.~\eqref{eq:alphaApproxAna}. At $\varepsilon<8.40$meV, the qualitative behavior of $\alpha$ is similar to $\beta$, in conformity with Eq.~\eqref{eq:alphaApproxAna}. However, when $\varepsilon>8.40$ meV, as $\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)$ switches from a positive to a negative value, $\alpha$ increases and maintains a positive value due to the $\left[\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)\right]^2$ term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:alphaApproxAna}. In addition, due to the higher exponent of $\sin \theta_{S/T}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:alphaApproxAna} as compared to Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaApproxAna}, $\alpha \ll \beta_j$ and is at the scale of neV. The magnitude of $\beta$ and $\alpha$ both show larger values for smaller $R_0$ (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(j) and (l)), which is evident from Eq.~\eqref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna}, as smaller $R_0$ yields larger inter-DQD Coulomb integrals.
We proceed to discuss the results for relatively weaker magnetic field, shown in the left column of Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}. As can be seen by comparing the left and right columns, the results obtained at $B=0.174$ T are qualitatively similar to those at $B=0.319$ T, so most of the arguments above apply.
The comparison also shows that $\alpha$ is stronger by more than two orders of magnitude under $B=0.319$ T as compared to $B=0.174$ T. This is due to the fact that the admixture to the states of (0,4) type, making major contribution to $\alpha$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:alphaApproxAna}), is larger for $B=0.319$ T (compare Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB}(a) and (g)). While this may seemingly suggest that an even larger $\alpha$ could be achieved by further increasing $B$, the situation is unfavorable as sweet spots will enter a regime where $|S(1,3)\rangle$ and $|S(0,4)\rangle$ or $|T(1,3)\rangle$ and $|T(0,4)\rangle$ are highly mixed, and a careful design of adiabatic pulse is required to suppress leakage while ensuring a fast pulse to minimize the charge noise dephasing effect, which is challenging.
As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the existence of the sweet spots for $J^\text{eff}$ and $\alpha$ can be attributed to the competition between the hybridizations in the singlet states and the triplet states, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:diffST}. Since the hybridizations can be equivalently perceived as dipoles in the system (Eq.~\eqref{eq:dipole}), the existence of those sweet spots can be alternatively attributed to the non-monotonic behavior of the difference between the dipoles in the logical singlet and triplet eigenstates, cf.~Eq.~\ref{eq:betaAlphaApproxAna}. The competition is possible only when the energy of $\vert S(0,4)\rangle$ and $\vert T(0,4)\rangle$ are comparable. In addition, the turning point of $\sin^2 \left(\theta_S/2\right)-\sin^2 \left(\theta_T/2\right)$ only exists when the local exchange energy $J_\mathbb{L}$ $\left[J_\mathbb{R}\right]$ is negative in the large detuning regime in which $\left(n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}}\right)=\left(0,4\right)$ $\left[\left(n_{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{R}}\right)=\left(4,0\right)\right]$ \cite{ChanGX.22}. Such non-monotonic behaviors of $J_\mathbb{L}$ and $J_\mathbb{R}$ have been demonstrated in experiments \cite{Malinowski.18,Martins.17}. Based on the experimentally measured Hubbard parameters \cite{Malinowski.18}, we confirm that results similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB} (lower panel) can be achieved in a multielectron DDQD device in the detuning regime where $\left(n_{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{R}},n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}}\right)=\left(2N+1,1,1,2N+1\right)$ for $N= 28$, see Sec.~VII A in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm} for details. Moreover, as described above, negative local exchange energies in the fully occupied detuning regimes are part of the key elements to achieve non-monotonic behaviors of $J_\mathbb{L}$ and $J_\mathbb{R}$ \cite{SSConditions}. It has been theoretically demonstrated that negative local exchange energies are also achievable in a QD occupied by 8 and 14 electrons \cite{Deng.18}. Therefore, it is presumed that sweet spots of $J^\text{eff}_j$ and $\alpha$ might also exist in a DDQD device in which the capacitively coupled few-electron singlet-triplet qubits are operated in the detuning regime where $\left(n_{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{R}},n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}}\right)=\left(N+1,1,1,N+1\right)$ for $N\in\{7,13\}$. However, confirming those predictions are out of the scope of our work since eight- and fourteen-electron singlet-triplet qubits have not been experimentally demonstrated for the extraction of Hubbard parameters while the computational resources required to numerically simulate them are beyond our capabilities.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Fig3}
\caption{(a) $J_\mathbb{L}^\text{eff}$, (b) $J_\mathbb{R}^\text{eff}$ and (c) $\alpha$ as function of the detuning in DQD-$\mathbb{L}$ ($\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}$) and detuning in DQD-$\mathbb{R}$ ($\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$). The green stars mark the $J^{\text{eff}}_j$ sweet spot detunings, $\varepsilon^*$,. The blue star marks the $\alpha$ sweet spot with respect to $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$, i.e. $\partial \alpha /\partial \varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}} = \partial \alpha /\partial \varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}=0$. (d) Two-qubit insensitivity, $\mathcal{I}$, as function of the detuning, $\varepsilon = \varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}} = \varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$. The parameters are: $B=0.319$ T, $2R_0 = 80$nm.}
\label{fig:J12AlphaI}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:J12AlphaI}(a), (b) and (c) show the effective exchange energies, $J^\text{eff}_\mathbb{L}$ and $J^\text{eff}_\mathbb{R}$, and the capacitive coupling, $\alpha$, as functions of the individual detunings of both DQDs, $\varepsilon_\mathbb{L}$ and $\varepsilon_\mathbb{R}$, for inter-DQD distance $2R_0 = 80$ nm at $B=0.319$ T. Fig.~\ref{fig:J12AlphaI}(a) indicates that at $\varepsilon_\mathbb{L} = \varepsilon_\mathbb{R} =\varepsilon^* = 8.30$ meV, $J^\text{eff}_\mathbb{L}$ yields a turning point with respect to $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}$, and has a relatively flat dispersion with respect to $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$. On the other hand, Fig.~\ref{fig:J12AlphaI}(b) shows that at $\varepsilon_\mathbb{L} = \varepsilon_\mathbb{R} =\varepsilon^* = 8.30$ meV, $J^\text{eff}_\mathbb{R}$ yields a turning point with respect to $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$, and has a relatively flat dispersion with respect to $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}$. Hence, it can be expected that $J^{\text{eff}}_j$ is insensitive to the uncorrelated $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$ noise (the charge noise environment observed in experiments \cite{Boter.20}), featuring a simultaneous sweet spot with respect to both $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:J12AlphaI}(c) shows that there exists a sweet spot for $\alpha$, denoted as a blue star, with respect to both $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$, i.e. $\partial \alpha /\partial \varepsilon_\mathbb{L} =\partial \alpha /\partial \varepsilon_\mathbb{R} = 0$. The $\alpha$ sweet spot locates at $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}=\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}} \approx 8.31$meV, which is very close to the $J^\text{eff}_j$ sweet spot at $\varepsilon^* = 8.30$meV.
The effect of charge noise can be roughly captured by evaluating the two-qubit insensitivity, $\mathcal{I}$ \cite{Wolfe.17}, which is defined in analogy to the definition for the single-qubit case \cite{Reed.16} as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I} \left(\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}},\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}\right) = \frac{\alpha \left(\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}},\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}\right)}{\| \vec{\nabla} H \left(\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}},\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}\right) \|},
\end{equation}
where the Frobenius norm, $\| \vec{\nabla} H \|$, is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FrobNorm}
\| \vec{\nabla} H \left(\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}},\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}\right) \| \simeq \sqrt{\sum_{\substack{\{j,k\}\\ \in \{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{R}\}}}\left(\frac{\partial J^\text{eff}_k}{\partial \varepsilon_j}\right)^2+\sum_{j\in \{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{R}\}}\left(\frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial \varepsilon_j}\right)^2},
\end{equation}
where we have included the derivatives of $\alpha$ for completeness. To ensure that the two-qubit system is robust against the uncorrelated charge noises in both detunings, $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$, the derivatives in Eq.~\eqref{eq:FrobNorm} include the off-diagonal elements of the gradient tensor. For example, $\partial J^\text{eff}_\mathbb{L}/\partial \varepsilon_\mathbb{R}$ for $k=\mathbb{L}$ and $j=\mathbb{R}$ indicates the variation of effective exchange energy in DQD-$\mathbb{L}$, $J^\text{eff}_\mathbb{L}$, induced by charge noises in DQD-$\mathbb{R}$, $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:J12AlphaI}(d) shows $\mathcal{I}$ as a function of symmetric detunings, $\varepsilon = \varepsilon_{\mathbb{L}} = \varepsilon_{\mathbb{R}}$. $\mathcal{I}$ sharply peaks near the $J^\text{eff}_j$ sweet spot at $\varepsilon = \varepsilon^*$, suggesting an optimal operating point for two-qubit gate operation.
\subsection{Phonon-mediated decoherence effect}\label{subsec:phonon}
The emergence of an effective exchange sweet spot, $\varepsilon^*$, can be attributed to the competition between the admixtures with $|S(0,4)\rangle$ and $|T(0,4)\rangle$, as discussed in details in Sec.~\ref{subsec:ExSS}. In the context of two-electron singlet-triplet qubit formed by singly-occupied dots in a DQD, the admixture with doubly-occupied singlet was found to be the origin of strong phonon-induced pure-dephasing $\Gamma_\varphi=1/T_\varphi$ \cite{Kornich.14}. In addition, the hyperfine coupling (local magnetic field gradient) and spin-orbit interaction (SOI) are also found to be the sources of phonon-induced relaxation $\Gamma_1=1/T_1$ \cite{Kornich.14}. Hence, the phonon-mediated decoherence effect has to be taken into account to provide a more comprehensive picture on the robustness of two-qubit gate proposed here. However, we have found that the decoherence effect by phonons is largely reduced due to the following factors: (1) Phonon-induced pure dephasing $\Gamma_\varphi$ is suppressed as $\varepsilon^*$ is comparatively far from the transition point to quadruple electron occupation, e.g.~between $|T(1,3)\rangle$ and $|T(0,4)\rangle$, resulting in smaller admixture with states of $(n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{L}},n_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}}) = (0,4)$ type. The suppression can also be partially attributed to the smaller inter-dot distance, $2x_0$, adopted in this work. Details on $T_\varphi$ are provided in Sec.~V~F in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm}.
(2) Because the magnetic field gradient $h$ is much smaller than the local exchange energies at $\varepsilon^*$, resulting in smaller admixture between $|S(1,3)\rangle$ and $|T(1,3)\rangle$, which consequently gives a smaller relaxation rate $\Gamma_1$. (See Sec.~V~G~1 in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm} for details). (3) For a two-electron singlet-triplet qubit,
$\Gamma_1$ by SOI arises due to the second order coupling between the logical singlet and triplet by SOI integral involving the ground orbital ($\Phi_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}1}$) and first excited orbital ($\Phi_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2}$) in the same dot. In contrast, for the four-electron singlet-triplet qubit in this work, the ground and first excited valence orbitals are the first ($\Phi_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}2}$) and second ($\Phi_{\mathbb{R}\mathrm{R}3}$) excited orbital respectively, which yields a negligible SOI integral \cite{SOINote}. (See Sec.~V~G~2 in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm} for details). The overall decoherence time are shown in Fig.~S4 in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm}, which is found to be negligible in our system for the dot parameters, gate time and temperature of interest.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig4}
\caption{CPHASE gate infidelities ($1-F$) and gate time ($t_{2\pi} = 2\pi \hbar /\alpha$, red circles) as a function of half inter-DQD distance $R_0$. $1-F$ shows the average of 5000 iterations. Blue circles show $1-F$ under charge noises and hyperfine noises while black circles show results with an additional inclusion of magnetic field noises on $J^\text{eff}_j$ and $\alpha$, denoted as $\delta J_j^\mathrm{eff}(\delta B)$ and $\delta \alpha(\delta B)$ respectively. The magnetic field is $B=0.319$ T, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB} (lower panel).}
\label{fig:Fidelity}
\end{figure}
\subsection{CPHASE Gate fidelity}\label{subsec:Fid}
The inter-qubit coupling, $\sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z$, gives rise to a controlled-phase (CPHASE) gate \cite{Nielsen.12}. In the simulations of the CPHASE gate, two noise sources are taken into account, i.e.~magnetic field gradient fluctuations, $\delta h_j$, and charge noise fluctuations, $\delta \varepsilon_j (t)$. $\delta h_j$ can be considered as quasistatic during the gate operation as it is contributed by mostly low-frequency noise with power spectrum $S(\omega) \propto 1/\omega^{2.6}$ \cite{Medford.12,Rudner.11}. We model the hyperfine noise with standard deviation of $\delta h_j = 10$neV, which corresponds to $0.413$ mT (as suggested by the measured hyperfine-noise-limited coherence time, $T_2^*=\hbar \sqrt{2}/\delta h_j=90$ns \cite{Dial.13}). $\delta \varepsilon_j (t)$ consists of both a quasistatic component ($\delta \varepsilon_j^{\text{QS}}$) and a high-frequency part in a $1/f$ form ($\delta \varepsilon_j^{1/f} (t)$). In our simulation, $\delta \varepsilon_j^\text{QS}$ is taken to yield a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation of $8\mu\text{V}\times 1\text{eV}/9.4\text{V}$ \cite{Dial.13}, where $9.4\text{V}/1\text{eV}$ is the lever arm \cite{Dial.13}. $\delta h_j$ and $\delta \varepsilon_j (t)$ are assumed to be independent from each other \cite{Boter.20}. Based on the experimental results, $\delta \varepsilon_j^{1/f} (t)$ yields a power spectrum of $S_\varepsilon(f) = 8\times 10^{-16}\frac{\text{V}^2}{\text{Hz}}(\frac{1 \text{Hz}}{f})^{0.7}$ \cite{Dial.13}. $\delta \varepsilon_j^{1/f} (t)$ is generated using the Fourier transform of a discrete Gaussian white noise sequence, which is then scaled according to $S_\varepsilon(f)$ \cite{Yang.19}, see Sec.~I in the Supplemental Material for details \cite{sm}. To suppress quasistatic noise, we use an echo pulse to perform CPHASE gate \cite{Shulman.12,Nichol.17}. The echo pulse is employed by adding a $\pi$-pulse about the $x$-axis of both qubits, $\exp\left[- i h t_\text{echo}\left(\sigma_x^{(\mathbb{L})} + \sigma_x^{(\mathbb{R})}\right) \right]$, at time $t = t_{2\pi}/2$ for $h \times t_\text{echo} = \pi/2$ and $h_\mathbb{L}=h_\mathbb{R} = h$. We assume that the single qubit gates are errorless in the simulations since experiments have demonstrated fidelities as high as 99\% \cite{Nichol.17}. We note that although the noises in $J^\mathrm{eff}$ can be largely cancelled using the echo pulses, the quasistatic fluctuations on $\alpha$, denoted as $\delta \alpha^\text{QS}$, remains. (see Sec.~IX in the Supplemental Material \cite{sm} for details). However, since the $\alpha$ sweet spot is very close to $\varepsilon^*$, the effect of $\delta \alpha^\text{QS}$ is suppressed as well.
The simulation of the noisy evolution is performed by adding the noisy terms into the control parameters, i.e. $\varepsilon_j(t) \rightarrow \varepsilon_j (t)+\delta \varepsilon_j^\text{QS}+ \delta \varepsilon_j^{1/f}(t)$ and $h_j \rightarrow h_j +\delta h_j$. For each iteration, $\varepsilon_\mathbb{L}^\text{QS}$, $\varepsilon_\mathbb{R}^\text{QS}$, $\delta h_\mathbb{L}$ and $\delta h_\mathbb{R}$ are randomly extracted from a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation as explained before, while $\delta \varepsilon_\mathbb{L}^{1/f}(t)$ and $\delta \varepsilon_\mathbb{R}^{1/f}(t)$ are randomly chosen from a sample of generated sequences of size 5000.
Figure~\ref{fig:Fidelity} shows, for $B=0.319$ T, the CPHASE gate infidelity $1-F$ \cite{FidelityNote} as a function of half inter-DQD distance, $R_0$. We first focus on $1-F$ under the effect of charge noises and hyperfine noises on the qubit parameters, cf.~blue circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fidelity}. It can be observed that the gate fidelity is enhanced for smaller $R_0$ due to shorter gate time, $t_{2\pi}$. The shorter gate time is due to the increase of $\alpha$ for a decreasing $R_0$, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:ExSS}. Since the echo pulses effectively cancel quasistatic noises, $\delta \varepsilon_j^\text{QS}$ and $\delta h_j$, gate infidelity essentially can be attributed to the degree of exposure to the $1/f$ charge noises. When the gate time, $t_{2\pi}$, is longer, the accumulated $1/f$ charge noise dephasing effect is more pronounced, resulting in a lower gate fidelity. Next, we take into account of the magnetic field noises $\delta B$ (hyperfine noises, $\delta h_j$) on $J^\text{eff}$ and $\alpha$. Different values of $J^\text{eff}$ and $\alpha$ for different magnetic field strengths $B$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:resultTwoB} suggests that the variations of $J_j^\text{eff}$ and $\alpha$ induced by $\delta B$, denoted as $\delta J_j^\text{eff}(\delta B)$ and $\delta \alpha(\delta B)$, will contribute to the increase of $1-F$. Fig.~\ref{fig:Fidelity} (black circles) shows the inclusion of $\delta J_j^\text{eff}(\delta B)$ and $\delta \alpha(\delta B)$ results in around an order of increase for the gate infidelities $1-F$. Nevertheless, $1-F$ remains lower than $10^{-2}$. It can be observed that $1-F$ slightly decreases as a function of $R_0$ for smaller $R_0$ ($R_0<100$ nm). This can be attributed to the decrease of $\delta J_j^\text{eff}(\delta B)$ and $\delta \alpha(\delta B)$, for a fixed $\delta B$, as a function of $R_0$ (see Fig.~S8(a, b) in Sec.~X in the Supplemental Material for details \cite{sm}. On the other hand, as a result of longer gate time (longer exposure to environmental noises), $1-F$ slightly increases as a function of $R_0$ for larger $R_0$ ($R_0>100$ nm). The gate fidelities can be further improved by operating the CPHASE gate at a smaller applied magnetic field, e.g. $B=0.290$ T, which results in $1-F\sim10^{-3}$ under the effect of $\delta \varepsilon^\text{QS}_j$, $\delta \varepsilon^{1/f}_j$, $\delta h_j$, $\delta J_j^\text{eff} (\delta B)$, and $\delta \alpha (\delta B)$, see Fig.~S9 in Sec.~X in the Supplemental Material for details \cite{sm}.
\section{Sweet spots of $J^\mathrm{eff}$ and $\alpha$ in other systems}
In the previous sections, we have presented the results showing, in a GaAs DDQD device, that sweet spots can be found for a pair of capacitively coupled four-electron singlet-triplet qubits and robust CPHASE gates can be performed at those sweet spots. We have also found out that similar results, including the existence of sweet spots of $J^\mathrm{eff}$ and $\alpha$ and largely enhanced $\alpha$ at the sweet spots, can be achieved for silicon and germanium quantum dots. In particular, we have shown that those features can be found in a pair of capacitively coupled four-electron (four-hole) singlet-triplet qubits in a silicon (germanium) DDQD device, see Sec.~XI in the Supplemental Material for details \cite{sm}.
\section{Conclusion and discussion} \label{sec:conclusion}
We have shown, based on full CI calculations of a few-electron singlet-triplet qubit and projection of the logical eigenstates to inter-DQD Coulomb interaction, that effective exchange energy sweet spots appear in the coupled few-electron singlet-triplet qubit systems. The sweet spots at the same time are also very close to the capacitive coupling sweet spot. We further show that the sweet spots of the effective exchange energies and capacitive coupling arise due to the competition between the hybridization in the singlet states and the hybridization in the triplet states. The competition is only made possible by a negative local exchange energy in the single-qubit case when all the electrons occupy a QD in a DQD device. These results are in contrast to the two-electron case, in which the local exchange energy is positive in a fully occupied dot \cite{Dial.13,Shulman.12,Nichol.17,Cerfontaine.20}. Therefore, these sweet spots are not found for a pair of capacitively coupled two-electron singlet-triplet qubits \cite{Shulman.12,Nichol.17}.
By operating CPHASE gates at the effective exchange energy sweet spots, we have demonstrated that gate fidelities above 99\% can be achieved in the presence of charge noises and hyperfine noises. Our results therefore should facilitate realization of high-fidelity two-qubit gates in coupled singlet-triplet qubit systems.
\section*{Acknowledgements} We acknowledge support from the Key-Area Research and Development Program of GuangDong Province (Grant No.~2018B030326001), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.~11874312), the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (Grant Nos.~11303617, 11304018, 11304920), and the Guangdong Innovative and Entrepreneurial Research Team Program (Grant No.~2016ZT06D348). The calculations involved in this work are mostly performed on the Tianhe-2 supercomputer at the National Supercomputer Center in Guangzhou, China.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Mean-Field Equations for the $(1+1)D$ QCA in the main text}
In this section we give details on our mean-field analysis for the QCA model discussed in the main text. We directly present results for the asynchronous gate, since the synchronous discrete-time evolution can be obtained by setting the asynchronicity parameter to zero.
In our mean-field analysis, we assume that the reduced state of single rows of the lattice is a product state at any time. This amounts to neglecting correlations within single rows. We furthermore assume that this reduced state is homogeneous, i.e. local single-site properties are equal for all sites belonging to a same row. Because of this assumption, we can drop the index $k$ in the notation of this section. In particular, single-site properties of the reduced state of the QCA at time $t$ are described by the density matrix
$$
\rho_t=\begin{pmatrix}
\langle n\rangle_t & \frac{x_t-iy_t}{2} \\
\frac{x_t+iy_t}{2} & \langle \bar{n}\rangle_t
\end{pmatrix}\, ,
$$
where $x_t=\langle \sigma_x\rangle_t$ and $y_t=\langle \sigma_y\rangle_t$.
The task is then to find a discrete-time equation for updating such a single-site density matrix. Here, we define the update by considering how a single gate application modifies the target site. Due to our assumptions, control sites are in a product state with same single-site density matrix, while the target site before the update is in the empty state. We thus write the state of the three control sites and of the target one, before the update, as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\rho}_t=\rho_{t}\otimes \rho_{t}\otimes \rho_{t}\otimes \bar{n} .
\label{SM:row-t}
\end{equation}
For later convenience, in the above expression the first two entries of the tensor product represent the two controls on the side of the target site, while the third entry represents the central control which is exactly above the target site [see also Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(a) in the main text]. The last entry, here consisting of a projector on the empty state, is instead the state of the target site. Exploiting the state $\tilde{\rho}_t$ and considering a single gate application, we can define, within our mean-field analysis, the single-site state of the row at time $t+1$ as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{t+1}=\Tr_{123}\left(G \tilde{\rho}_t G^\dagger \right)\, .
\label{update-mf}
\end{equation}
In the above equation, $\Tr_{123}$ denotes the trace over the first three entries of the tensor product in Eq.~\eqref{SM:row-t}. The gate $G$ is the four-body gate implementing the local update rules considered in the main text. Here, we rewrite it as
$$
G=\Pi\otimes A + \bar{\Pi}\otimes D\, , \qquad \mbox{ where }\qquad D=\sqrt{1-\lambda} B+\sqrt{\lambda}C
$$
and
\begin{equation}
A=n\otimes U_{\circ\bullet\circ}+\bar{n} \otimes \mathds{1}\, ,\qquad B=n\otimes U_{\bullet} +\bar{n}\otimes U_{\circ}\, , \qquad C=\sigma_+ \otimes U_\bullet U_+ -\sigma_-\otimes U_{\circ}U_+^\dagger \, .
\end{equation}
The unitary operators appearing in the above equations are the same reported in the main text. Moreover, we recall here that, in the notation of this section, $\Pi=\bar{n}\otimes \bar{n}$ acts only on the external control sites, and $\bar{n}=\ket{\circ}\!\bra{\circ}$. The other projector is instead $\bar{\Pi}=\mathds{1}\otimes \mathds{1} -\Pi$ and also acts solely on the above mentioned control sites.
With the form of the gate and of the state $\tilde{\rho}_t$, we can proceed to evaluate the trace operation in Eq.~\eqref{update-mf}. We do this in two steps. First, we take the trace with respect to the external control sites, which are described by the first two entries of the tensor products. Defining $\rho^{12}_t=\rho_{t}\otimes \rho_{t}$ and $\rho^{34}_t=\rho_{t}\otimes \bar{n}$, so that $\tilde{\rho}_t=\rho^{12}\otimes \rho^{34} $, we find
\begin{equation}
\Tr_{12}\left(G\tilde{\rho}_t G^\dagger\right)=\langle \Pi\rangle^{12}_t A\rho^{34}_tA^\dagger +\langle \bar{\Pi}\rangle^{12}_t D\rho^{34}_tD^\dagger\, ,
\label{first-trace}
\end{equation}
where $\langle \cdot \rangle^{12}$ denotes expectation value with respect to the state $\rho^{12}$.
Then, we can take the trace with respect to the central control site, which was represented by the third entry of the tensor product in Eq.~\eqref{SM:row-t}. We do this considering the two different terms of the above equation separately. We start with
$$
\Tr_3\left(A\rho^{34}_tA^\dagger\right)=\langle n\rangle^3_t U_{\circ\bullet\circ}\bar{n}U_{\circ\bullet\circ}^\dagger + \langle \bar{n} \rangle^3_t \bar{n}\, ,
$$
where $\langle \cdot \rangle^{3}_t$ denotes expectation value with respect to the state of the central control site, which is --- as for the other control sites --- $\rho_t$. The second term on the right-hand-side of Eq.~\eqref{first-trace} is slightly more involved since $D$ is made of two terms. Indeed, we have
$$
\Tr_{3}\left(D\rho^{34}_tD^\dagger\right)=(1-\lambda)\Tr_{3}\left(B\rho^{34}_tB^\dagger\right)+\lambda \Tr_{3}\left(C\rho^{34}_tC^\dagger\right)+\sqrt{\lambda}\sqrt{1-\lambda}\left[\Tr_{3}\left(B\rho^{34}_tC^\dagger\right)+\Tr_{3}\left(C\rho^{34}_tB^\dagger\right)\right]\, .
$$
A straightforward calculation gives
\begin{equation*}
\Tr_{3}\left(B\rho^{34}_tB^\dagger\right)=\langle n\rangle^3_t U_\bullet \bar{n}U_\bullet^\dagger +\langle \bar{n}\rangle^3_t U_{\circ}\bar{n}U_{\circ}^\dagger \, ,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\Tr_{3}\left(C\rho^{34}_tC^\dagger\right)=\langle n\rangle^3_t U_{\circ}U_+^\dagger\bar{n}U_+ U_{\circ}^\dagger +\langle \bar{n}\rangle^3_t U_{\bullet}U_+\bar{n}U_+^\dagger U_{\bullet}^\dagger \, ,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\Tr_{3}\left(B\rho^{34}_tC^\dagger\right)=\langle \sigma_-\rangle^3_t U_\bullet \bar{n}U_+^\dagger U_\bullet^\dagger -\langle \sigma_+\rangle^3_t U_{\circ}\bar{n}U_+U_{\circ}^\dagger
\end{equation*}
as well as $\Tr_{3}\left(C\rho^{34}_tB^\dagger\right)=\Tr_{3}\left(B\rho^{34}_tC^\dagger\right)^\dagger$. Putting everything together, we arrive at
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho_{t+1}=&\langle \Pi\rangle_t \left(\langle n\rangle_t U_{\circ\bullet\circ}\bar{n}U_{\circ\bullet\circ}^\dagger +\langle \bar{n}\rangle_t \bar{n} \right)+\\
&+(1-\lambda)\langle \Pi\rangle_t \left(\langle n\rangle_t U_{\bullet}\bar{n}U_{\bullet}^\dagger+\langle \bar{n}\rangle_t U_{\circ}\bar{n}U_{\circ }^\dagger\right)+\\
&+\lambda \langle \Pi\rangle_t \left(\langle n\rangle_t U_{\circ} U_+^\dagger \bar{n} U_+ U_{\circ}^\dagger + \langle \bar{n}\rangle_t U_{\bullet} U_+ \bar{n} U_+^\dagger U_{\bullet}^\dagger\right)+\\
&+\sqrt{\lambda}\sqrt{1-\lambda} \langle \Pi \rangle_t \left(\langle \sigma_-\rangle_t U_\bullet\bar{n}U_+^\dagger U_\bullet^\dagger -\langle \sigma_+\rangle_t U_{\circ}\bar{n}U_+ U_{\circ}^\dagger + \mathrm{h.c.}\right)\, .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This iterative equation allows one to study the dynamics of the QCA as well as its stationary state properties within a mean-field investigation. For instance, to obtain the stationary phase diagram of our QCA reported in the main text, we have numerically simulated the above equation over a sufficiently large number of discrete time-steps.
Additionally, with this expression, we can also compute iterative equations for the dynamics of expectation values. For instance, for the projector $n$ we find
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\langle n\rangle_{t+1}=\Tr\left(\rho_{t+1}n\right)=&\langle \Pi\rangle_t \langle n\rangle_t q_{\circ\bullet\circ}+\langle \bar{\Pi}\rangle_t \langle n\rangle_t \left[(1-\lambda)p_\bullet+\lambda \left(\sqrt{p_{\circ}}\sqrt{q}+\sqrt{p}\sqrt{q_{\circ}}\right)^{2} \right]+\\
&+\langle \bar{\Pi}\rangle_t \langle \bar{n}\rangle_t \left[(1-\lambda) p_{\circ}+\lambda (\sqrt{p_\bullet}\sqrt{q}-\sqrt{p}\sqrt{q_\bullet})^{2}\right]+\\
&+\sqrt{\lambda}\sqrt{1-\lambda}\langle \bar{\Pi}\rangle_t \langle \sigma^y\rangle_t\left[\sqrt{q}\left(p_\bullet+p_{\circ}\right)+\sqrt{p}\left(\sqrt{p_\circ}\sqrt{q_\circ}-\sqrt{p_\bullet}\sqrt{q_\bullet}\right)\right]\, .
\end{split}
\label{eqn:full_qca_mfe_sm}
\end{equation}
The coefficients in the above equation are reported in the main text. We also note that for the synchronous case $\lambda=0$, one recovers the equation
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\langle n\rangle_{t+1}=\langle \Pi\rangle_t \langle n\rangle_t q_{\circ\bullet\circ}+\langle \bar{\Pi}\rangle_t \langle n\rangle_t p_\bullet + \langle \bar{\Pi}\rangle_t \langle \bar{n}\rangle_t p_{\circ}\, ,
\end{split}
\label{eqn:ccp_qca_mfe}
\end{equation}
which is also reported in the main text.
\section{Mean-Field Equations for continuous-time Quantum and Classical Contact Process}
In this section, we briefly introduce a quantum contact process model, which, as discussed in the main text, is connected to the physics displayed by our $(1+1)$D QCA.
The quantum contact process that we consider here consists of a one-dimensional spin-$1/2$ system which undergoes a continuous-time Markovian dynamics. In particular, the dynamics of any operator $X$ of the system obeys the so-called Heisenberg equation \cite{Marcuzzi2016}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dot{X}_t= &i[H,X_t]+\gamma \sum_{k} \left(\sigma_k^+ X_t \sigma_k^--\frac{1}{2}\left\{n_k,X_t\right\}\right)+\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}\sum_{k} \left(\bar{\Pi}_k\sigma_k^+ X_t \sigma_k^-\bar{\Pi}_k-\frac{1}{2}\left\{n_k\bar{\Pi}_k,X_t\right\}\right)+\\
&+\kappa_{\mathrm{b}}\sum_{k} \left(\bar{\Pi}_k\sigma_k^- X_t \sigma_k^+\bar{\Pi}_k-\frac{1}{2}\left\{\bar{n}_k\bar{\Pi}_k,X_t\right\}\right)\, .
\end{split}
\label{SM:QCP-gen}
\end{equation}
In the above equation, the first term accounts for the coherent dynamical contribution associated with the system Hamiltonian. On the other hand, the remaining terms describe incoherent probabilistic processes, which are in fact exactly those of the (classical) contact process. Indeed, the term proportional to $\gamma$ implements the decay process $\bullet \rightsquigarrow\circ$, the term proportional to $\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}$ is instead the coagulation process ($\bullet \bullet \rightsquigarrow \bullet \circ$), while the one proportional to $\kappa_{\mathrm{b}}$ is the branching process ($\circ \bullet \rightsquigarrow \bullet \bullet$). Note that, due to the presence of the projector $\bar{\Pi}_k$ these two latter processes can occur at site $k$ only if at least an occupation is present in the neighboring sites of $k$.
The Hamiltonian of the quantum contact process is the following
$$
H=\Omega \sum_k\bar{\Pi}_k \sigma_k^x ~.
$$
This Hamiltonian implements both a branching and a coagulation process at the same coherent rate, $\Omega$, via constrained Rabi oscillations at site $k$ that can only occur if the neighbors of $k$ are not simultaneously in the empty state.
We now want to obtain mean-field dynamical equations of motion for the above system. To this end, we consider single-site operators, compute their time derivative according to the action of the generator in Eq.~\eqref{SM:QCP-gen}, and make the assumption of uncorrelated state for the system. Following closely the calculations reported in Ref.~\cite{Buchhold2017}, the mean-field equations of motion for the number operator $n$ (also assuming a homogeneous state) for the quantum contact process is given by
\begin{align}
\partial_{t} \braket{n}_t &= - \gamma \braket{n}_t+ \Omega\braket{\bar{\Pi}}_t \braket{\sigma^{y}}_t +\braket{\bar{\Pi}}_t \left[\kappa_{\mathrm{b}} -(\kappa_{\mathrm{b}}+\kappa_{\mathrm{c}})\braket{n}_t \right] ~.
\label{SM:QCP-ct}
\end{align}
We note that the projector used in our model here is slightly different from the one considered Ref.~\cite{Buchhold2017}, where $\bar{\Pi}_k = n_{k-1} + n_{k+1}$. This minor difference is not expected to modify the nonequilibrium behavior of the model.
Discretising the above differential equation, and using that $\mathds{1} = \Pi + \bar{\Pi}$ and $\mathds{1} = n + \overline{n}$, we find the equation
\begin{align}
\braket{n}_{t+1}&= (1 - \gamma \Delta t) \braket{\Pi}_{t} \braket{n}_{t} + \left(1-\gamma \Delta t-\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}\Delta t\right)\braket{\bar{\Pi}}_t\braket{n}_t+\kappa_{\mathrm{b}}\Delta t \braket{\bar{\Pi}}_t\braket{\bar{n}}_t
+ \Omega \Delta t\braket{\bar{\Pi}}_t \braket{\sigma^{y}}_{t} \, .
\label{SM:QCP-dt}
\end{align}
We note that by taking $\Omega\Delta t\to0$ in Eq.~\eqref{SM:QCP-ct} and in Eq.~\eqref{SM:QCP-dt}, one recovers the mean-field equations for the classical contact process in continuous-time and in a discrete-time approximation, respectively. In particular, we note that the discrete-time approximation of the dynamical equation of the classical contact process reads
$$
\braket{n}_{t+1}= (1 - \gamma \Delta t) \braket{\Pi}_{t} \braket{n}_{t} + \left(1-\gamma \Delta t-\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}\Delta t\right)\braket{\bar{\Pi}}_t\braket{n}_t+\kappa_{\mathrm{b}}\Delta t \braket{\bar{\Pi}}_t\braket{\bar{n}}_t\, .
$$
Comparing this equation with Eq.~\eqref{eqn:full_qca_ccp_mfe} in the main text, we find how the rates of the continuous-time contact process can be obtained from the probabilities of our synchronous gate. We indeed find the coagulation rate $\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}=(q_{\circ\bullet\circ}-p_\bullet)/\Delta t$, the branching rate $\kappa_{\mathrm{b}}=p_{\circ}/\Delta t$ and decay rate $\gamma=p_{\circ\bullet\circ}/\Delta t$.
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction}
In machine learning, the typical learning approaches are to divide dataset into training set, cross validation set and test set. When the model completes the training process on the training set and we determines the hyper-parameters of the model on the cross validation set, then we would directly use them to evaluate the prediction performance on the test set. This approach is based on the fact that the probabilistic distribution data obey would not change. However, in practice, the input data is processed in the form of stream. When the sequentially arrived samples deviate from the original probability distribution followed by the previous samples, or when the model cannot get enough training sets, the model tends to misclassify these samples. In order to address this issue, online incremental learning, also known as continuous learning or lifelong learning \cite{1elwell2011incremental,2brzezinski2014combining,3ristin2015incremental,4krawczyk2018online,5ren2017life} has emerged. Online incremental learning, as an alternative learning paradigm, is a more natural and humanized learning paradigm. Its aim is to overcome some of the limitations above.
The goal of such algorithms is to constantly update model parameters according to incoming stream data and constantly learn new knowledge. As is known to all, data streams are usually divided into stationary and non-stationary data streams. When dealing with non-stationary data streams, it means that samples may come from different probability distributions, i.e., concept drift problems occur. Specifically, there may be variations in the probability distribution, i.e., at two consecutive moments $t$ and $t-1$,$P(X_t,Y_t) \neq P(X_{t-1},Y_{t-1})$.
There are two main methods to deal with concept drift, one is active attack, and the other is passive update\cite {6lobo2020spiking}. The former method needs to detect whether there is concept drift in streaming data, once the concept drift is detected, then trigger update mechanism. The other is passive update, that is, when each instance comes, it needs to update model parameters continually. Because it is easy to implement, and it does not need to consider when to update, the most of the online incremental learning approaches adopt the second approach, which also called blind approaches. For the first method, there are also some state-of-art learning methods, such as Adwin algorithm, which was introduced by Albert Bifet \cite{7bifet2007learning}.It presents a sliding window with variable size to calculate the size of the window online according to the rate of change observed from the data of the window itself. This method could automatically increase the size of window when there is no obvious change, and reduce the size of window when the data constantly occurring changes.
To make progress in this direction, this paper presents a novel approach to detect the concept drift, which calculates the total loss directly. Obviously, if the probability distribution of the data changes and the model was not updated in time, the prediction loss of the algorithm would increase. Checking for concept drift by examining changes in predicted losses is commonly used by many algorithms \cite{8fowler2011anomaly}. Apparently, this is retrospective wisdom, which cannot adjust the model in time. However, the key idea of our proposed approach is how to deal with the problem after concept drift is found. In this paper, we add the reconstruction loss to the original prediction loss, and hope to learn a model being capable of detecting and updating the model in time when the concept drift occurs. Thus, we build an auto-encoder to detect whether the concept drift has occurred according to the reconstruction error. When the probability distribution of the input data is different from the reconstructed one by auto-encoder we trained before, the reconstruction loss would be greatly increased. According to this point, the occurrence of concept drift is detected. However, if the incoming streaming data existing concept drift shares common compositional patterns with the previous training data or the decoder is ‘too strong’, which can decode the data existing concept drift well. The encoder seems to have lost the ability to detect concept drift. Hence, we adapt the auto-encoder with memory module to overcome this problem \cite{9gong2019memorizing}.
Given streaming data, we want to learn them one by one to accumulate new knowledge from the new one, but sometimes we may forget what we have learned before. This is another problem we encounter in online learning called catastrophic forgetting. We need to make a trade-off between the plasticity and predictive accuracy \cite{10kirkpatrick2017overcoming}.Another classic saying is making a good compromise between exploration and exploitation \cite{11deckert2013incremental},where exploration means aggressively searching new knowledge, exploitation means making full use of experience to help current learning. The most classical algorithm for catastrophic forgetting was introduced by Kirkpatrick, who proposed an approach called elastic weight combination (EWC)\cite{12wang2017feature}. All these types of algorithms start from the output layer, that is, focus on control the whole network through the objective function, and let the model weigh and consider the balance between these two factors, rather than directly take measures to deal with the problem of catastrophic forgetting. However, these types of methods disregard the underlying correlations between different features and ignore the latent representation learning. In this regard, therefore, this reminds us of the importance of strengthening these two aspects.
In the online incremental learning arena, the existing network structure cannot utilize well the information extracting from different latent layers of the deep network. To promote prediction performance, it is very important to learn a good latent representation from different abstract level. In fact, the auto-encoder and its variants show promising results in extracting effective features. As we have introduced the auto-encoder in the concept drift detection part, we only need to take the hidden layers of the encoder to extract the input information effectively.
After realizing the learning of the hidden layer, what we need to do is to reduce the occurrence of catastrophic forgetting. The reason for this problem is that the model only focuses on learning new knowledge and forgets what it has learned in the past. Hence, in this paper, we try to get information extracting from different latent layers of auto-encoder by jointly exploring the both properties of common and private features on streaming data. The specific implementation is to divide the hidden layer of auto-encoder into common features and private features artificially. The common features are used to learn the shared features on streaming data, and the private features are used to learn the proprietary properties of new instances on streaming data. In addition, to take full advantage of the feature set of these different attributes, a self-attention mechanism is designed to effectively fuse these features to get better final feature vectors.
Another issue we think needs to be considered is the robustness of the algorithm. Streaming data would more or less contain noise, but there are few specific measures to deal with this problem in the current researches. Therefore, when there is a large amount of additional meaningless noise in the data, we incorporate the de-noising auto-encoder to improve the robustness of the algorithm.
The contributions of this paper are as follows:
1) Constructing an auto-encoder with a memory module in an online incremental learning scenario can immediately detect concept drift and trigger the model update mechanism.
2) The hidden representations for different abstract level are considered and the self-attention mechanism is used to extract and fuse these hidden representations effectively so as to obtain a compact and comprehensive hidden representation.
3) In terms of feature level, our method effectively extracts the shared and private features on the streaming data and learns new knowledge without forgetting what have learned in the past.
4) To handle the noisy streaming data, de-noising auto-encoder is considered in our algorithm. In addition, the effectiveness of the algorithm is verified on different datasets.
Our paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce some related works on online learning. In section 3, we described the adaptive online incremental learning for evolving data streams. In section 4, the specific implementation of proposed AOIL algorithm is proposed, and we summarize the results of previous discussions. In section 5, the performance is evaluated and compared to the state of the art models in the environment of streaming data. In section 6, we will make conclusion for this paper.
\section{Related work}
\subsection{Online incremental learning}
In the traditional offline learning, all the training data must be available for the algorithm before learning, however, in practice, we often can't get all the training sets. The data is in the form of streaming data, and the model must have the ability of real time processing. As a result, the concept of online incremental learning has emerged, which optimizes the model parameters on the data stream in order to improve the performance of the algorithm. And it has achieved a lot of success both in application and theory research \cite{13cesa2021online,14bae2017confidence,15de2015evolutionary,16precup2020evolving}.However, the previous online incremental models are based on linear function or kernel function for nonlinear problem, but choosing the appropriate kernel function is also a problem to be solved. With the development of deep learning, the role of machine learning algorithms becomes more prominent. However, when online incremental learning is applied directly to the deep learning with online back propagation, there are some shortcomings such as difficulty in training (gradient vanishing and feature reuse decreasing). Zhou et al. propose an algorithm can effectively identify the change of probability distribution in streaming data based on de-noising auto-encoders \cite{17zhou2012online}.Lee et al. propose a dual memory architecture, which can not only deal with the slow changing global pattern, but also track the sudden and rapid changes locally \cite{18lee2016dual}.These are some algorithms for fixed model and some variable structure model, such as Sahoo et al. propose an online incremental learning framework from shallow to deep \cite{19sahoo2017online};Ashfahani et al introduce a different-depth structure to handle data streaming \cite{20ashfahani2019autonomous}. However, they all ignore the problem of catastrophic forgetting, or they cannot deal with it very well. It is impossible to get good results by adjusting the model structure without fully analyzing the characteristics of samples.
\subsection{Data stream learning}
Generally, data types in streaming data are divided into stationary and non-stationary data stream. Non-stationary data stream refers to the phenomenon that probability distribution in streaming data would change with the incremental arrival of the streaming data, e.g., the problem of concept drift. At present, there are two types of strategies to deal with concept drift as just mentioned. One is to update the model as long as the new data comes, no matter whether there is concept drift or not. Another is to take measures to detect if there is a concept drift, and if there is, trigger an update mechanism to accommodate the new probability distribution. Most of the existing models use the first strategy \cite{21gama2004learning}. As a result of constantly updating their model, it makes it evolve in a very regular way regardless of the concept drift.
Among online incremental learning algorithms with the first strategy, the following can be mentioned: Approximate Maximal Margin Classification algorithm (ALMA) \cite{22gentile2001new}; the Relaxed Online Maximum Margin Algorithm and its aggressive version aROMMA, ROMMA, and aROMMA \cite{23li2002relaxed}; the Adaptive Regularization of Weight Vectors(aROW) \cite{24crammer2009adaptive}; the Confidence-Weighted (CW) learning algorithm, \cite{25crammer2008exact}; new variant of Adaptive Regularization(NAROW) \cite{26orabona2010new}; the Normal Herding method via Gaussian Herding (NHERD) \cite{27crammer2010learning}; the Online Gradient Descent (OGD) algorithms \cite{28zinkevich2003online}; the recently proposed Soft Confidence Weighted algorithms (SCW) \cite{29wang2012exact}; second-order perception (SOP) \cite{30cesa2005second}.
In addition, there are some learning methods based on the detection of data probability distribution changes, including: A concept drift method, using adaptive online sliding windows according to the rate of change observed from the data(Adwin) \cite{7bifet2007learning}, which can be classified as windows based methods; PageHinkley \cite{31gama2013evaluating}, which could be see as a sequential analysis based methods \cite{32gama2014survey}. When the algorithm detects that the new sample deviates from its average value, it is judged as a concept drift, and a drift alarm is given when the difference exceeds the preassigned threshold value.
\section{Adaptive Online Incremental Learning for Evolving Data Streams}
In this section, we would embark on a discussion of the proposed Adaptive Online Incremental Learning for evolving data streams (AOIL). Firstly, we would recall online learning scenario briefly, and then proposes our framework. AOIL algorithm would introduced in five parts: latent representation learning, auto-encoder with memory module, the self-attention mechanism for feature fusion of hidden layer, the proposed objective function and adaptive dynamic update for drifted parameters of network.
In the latent representation learning, we reconstruct the input using auto-encoder and acquire the latent feature representation. In order to better detect the concept drift, we hope that when the concept drift occurs, the auto-encoder’s reconstruction loss on streaming data is quite different from the previously one. However, the normal auto-encoder cannot distinguish the concept drift very well, or the reconstruction loss of the normal auto-encoder for the two streaming data following different probability distributions is not much different. Therefore, the auto-encoder with memory module is suitable for simultaneously implementing feature coding and concept drift detection. After obtaining the latent representation, we present the feature fusion strategies by self-attention mechanism and consider the reconstruction loss and prediction loss, deriving the whole optimization objective function. Finally, in the section of adaptive dynamic update for drifted parameters of network, we would specifically introduce the detection of concept drift and relieve the catastrophic forgetting problem.
\subsection{Learning Setup}
In an online incremental learning scenario, learning on evolving data streams means learning the unknown distribution of streaming data. More specifically, the main goal of constructing a classification on data streams is to build an incremental model to predict the label of input data according to the available information, which requires less memory space. Learning setup on data streams can be defined as follows:
Let $S$ be data streams, which are composed of sequences $(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),...,(x_t,y_t)$.At each time instant $t$ the agent acquires the example $x_t = (x_{t,1},x_{t,2},...,x_{t,D_x})^T \in R^{D_x}$,which is derived from the current probability distribution $D_t$.However, the current distribution $D_t$ may different from previous probability distribution of $D_{t-1}$.. The agent does not know when this change would happen and was required to predict its output $y_t \in R^{D_\gamma}$ through learning a mapping $f(\cdot)$ according to information of the previous input-output sequence $(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),...,(x_{t-1},y_{t-1})$.Due to the limitation of storage capacity and high throughput arrival streaming data, storing previous training data is forbidden. After obtaining the prediction value $\hat{y}_t \in R^{D_\gamma}$ from the network, the agent would receive the real output value $y_t \in R^{D_\gamma}$ from the environments. By calculating the loss between the prediction and the ground-truth value, the current model of agent suffers the prediction loss. Then the loss information would feed back to the learning algorithm of agent to guide the updating process of the model parameters.
\subsection{Latent Representation Learning}
The success of machine learning algorithms generally depends on how to learn a good latent representation on data, and we guess that this is because different representations can entangle more or less the different explanatory factors of variation on data, and may help infer the hidden underlying knowledge of the data \cite{33bengio2013representation}. Therefore, it is important to learn latent representations of the input that make it easier to extract useful information when building classifiers or other predictors. However, there is little research in the field of online incremental learning on how to use a deep network to learn the latent representation and realize feature selection, and then adopt the hidden representation to predict class labels of examples. Hence, we utilize auto-encoder to extract abstract hierarchical features from example, yield input example’s hidden representation. When the parameters of the auto-encoder are effectively trained, the auto-encoder can become a powerful generation model and an effective representation learning tool for future prediction.
The architecture flowchart of the auto-encoder is depicted in Fig. 1. The left panel in Fig. 1 is encoder and the right panel in Fig. 1 is decoder. The encoder receives the input sequentially and builds a fixed-length latent vector representation (denoted as $h_5 \in \mathbb{R}^{D_h}$ in Fig.1). Conditioned on the encoded latent representation, the decoder generates the reconstructed input (denoted as $\hat{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{D_x}$ in Fig.1).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{1.pdf}
\caption{The architecture of the encoder of auto-encoder with ResNet network}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
In order to extract more information from input examples, and make significant improvements for prediction accuracy, we increase the depth of the hidden layer up to 6 layers. However, if we simply increase the depth, there may occur degradation problems that seriously affect the predictive performance. Hence, we introduce the architecture of the ResNet network \cite{34he2016deep}, a solution to address this problem, allowing us to efficiently learn much deeper networks. This is accomplished by using a shortcut connection, in our case, we chose to skip one hidden layer. Shortcut connections $[h_0,h_2,h_4,\hat{h_0},\hat{h_2},\hat{h_4}]$ are those skipped one.
Hence, the transformation can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{ {h_0 = f_\theta (x) = s_f(b_0+W_0x) } ,} \\
{ {h_1 = s_f(b_1+W_1h_0+W_mx) } ,} \\
{ {h_2 = s_f(b_2+W_2h_1) } ,} \\
{ {h_3 = s_f(b_3+W_2h_1) } ,} \\
{ {h_4 = s_f(b_4+W_4h_3) } ,} \\
{ {h_5 = s_f(b_5+W_5h_4+h_3) } .} \\
\end{array}} \right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{ {\hat{h_4} = s_f(\hat{b_5}+\hat{W_5}\hat{h_5}) } ,} \\
{ {\hat{h_3} = s_f(\hat{b_4}+\hat{W_4}\hat{h_4}+\hat{h_5}) } ,} \\
{ {\hat{h_2} = s_f(\hat{b_3}+\hat{W_3}\hat{h_3}) } ,} \\
{ {\hat{h_1} = s_f(\hat{b_2}+\hat{W_2}\hat{h_2}+\hat{h+3}) } ,} \\
{ {\hat{h_0} = s_f(\hat{b_1}+\hat{W_1}\hat{h_1}) } ,} \\
{ {\hat{x} = s_f(\hat{b_0}+\hat{W_0}\hat{h_0}+\hat{W_m}\hat{h_1}) } .} \\
\end{array}} \right.
\end{equation}
Where $s_f(\cdot)$ is Relu activation function of the encoder and decoder, the set of parameters for such an auto-encoder is generally defined as ${\theta}_l = \left\{ W_l,b_l,\hat{W_l},\hat{b_l} \right\},l=0,1,...,5$.Here $W_l$,$b_l$ and $\hat{W_l}$,$\hat{b_l}$ are the weight matrices and bias vectors of encoder and decoder respectively. Where $W_m \in \mathbb{R}^{D_h \times D_x}$ and $W_m^{\prime} \in \mathbb{R}^{D_x \times D_h}$ are matrices introduced to match dimensions between different layers.
In addition, the deviation between the input and reconstructed one was described by mean square error, which is specifically defined as $L_{re}(x,\hat{x})=\Vert x\Vert _2^2$.
\subsection{Auto-encoder with Memory Module}
Auto-encoders are capable of taking a high dimensional vector of the instance space as inputs and map them into the latent space of reducing dimensionality that captures the critical hidden information of the inputs. When the network parameters are trained with the streaming data, the difference between the input and reconstructed one becomes large when the current input data is significantly different from the previously trained pattern. So Auto-encoders are extensively used for unsupervised anomaly detection \cite{35nolle2018analyzing,36ellefsen2020online}. In our case, we tend to use encoder as our means to detect concept drift. However, if the incoming streaming data exists concept drift which shares common compositional patterns with the previous training data or the decoder is ‘too strong’, which can decode the existing concept drift in data well, the encoder seems to lose the function of detecting concept drift.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{2.pdf}
\caption{Autoencoder with Memory Module}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
In order to circumvent this issue, we incorporate an encoder with memory module \cite{9gong2019memorizing}, the specific structure are illustrated in the Fig.2. The memory module is designed as a memory matrix $M \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times D_h}$,recording the prototypical stationary patterns in data streams, it represents $N$ memory units $m_i,i=1,...,N$,with fixed size $D_h$,dimension of each memory unit is same as the hidden layer in encoder.
Specifically, we obtain the decoder layer $\hat{h}\in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times D_h}$ by a non-negative soft addressing vector $w\in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times N}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq3}
\hat{h_5}=\hat{w}M=\sum{_{i=1}^N}\hat{w_i}m_i
\end{equation}
To ensure that the elements in $\hat{w}$ are not-negative, we use $w \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times N}$ as input of the ReLu function to build the elements of $\hat{w}$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4}
\hat{w_i}=\frac{max(w_i,0)\cdot w_i}{\mid{w_i}\mid+\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
Where the components of $w$ are derived from outputs of a softmax function with memory units $m_i$ and the activation of last layer of encoder $h_5\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times D_h}$ as inputs:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq5}
w_i=\frac{exp(d(h_5,m_i))}{\sum{_{j=1}^N}exp(d(h_5,m_j))}
\end{equation}
Where $d(\cdot ,\cdot)$ denotes the metric for cosine similarity:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq6}
d(h_5,m_i)=\frac{h_5m_i^T}{\Vert h_5\Vert\Vert m_i\Vert}
\end{equation}
The use of memory modules can be explained as follows: in the stationary streaming data, due to the restricted memory size and the sparse memory addressing operation in Eq.(4), It enables the network to make full use of memory units, records the most representative features of the stationary data. The memory unit can remember the previous data pattern. When the concept drift occurs, although the pattern of input data has changed, the memory unit still keeps the state that the probability distribution of data has not changed. Therefore, the reconstruction loss of the auto-encoder would be great, which is convenient for us to find this change and adjust the parameters in time.
In order to promote the sparsity of $\hat{w}\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times N}$ and give full play to the role of the memory module, a new loss function of the au-encoder is constructed by applying a regularization term to the memory module.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq7}
L_{re}=L(x,\hat{x})+\lambda L(\hat{w})
\end{equation}
Where $L(\hat{w})=\sum{_{i=1}^N}-\hat{w_i}log(\hat{w_i})$ is the regularized item which is related to memory module, and $\lambda$ is the trade-off hyper-parameter.
Accordingly, we regard the loss $L_{re}$ as an important part of the total loss, to judge whether there is concept drift in the streaming data.
\subsection{The Self-Attention Mechanism for Feature Fusion of Hidden Layer}
After extracting features from the hidden layer of the encoder, we notice that not all features contribute the same to the classifier. Therefore, it is not conducive to deal with the continuous evolution relationship between feature selection by evenly distributing the weights of the hidden layer or defining the weights as constants in advance.
In order to handle the relationships between feature and label with evolving complicated distribution, the self-attention mechanism \cite{37lin2017structured} is used to provide a set of summative weight vectors for the hidden layer of the encoder, assign those more important features by giving them a higher weight to increase their importance.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{3.pdf}
\caption{The left panel is the Self-Attention Mechanism for feature fusion of hidden layer, the right panel is the process of getting alignment weight vector A.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
From the Fig.3 we can see the feature fusion process of AOIL. Instead of directly constructing the classifiers from the outputs of the hidden layers, we first fusion the outputs of the hidden layers to form context latent representation. At each time, we first concatenate them to form a latent representation matrix $H=(h_0,h_1,...h_L)$, where $H$ is a $(L+1)\times D_h$ matrix, as illustrated by Fig.3. The self-attention mechnisim use $H$ as input and obtain the alignment weight vector $A=[a_0,a_1,...a_L]$ through a softmax layer:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq8}
A=softmax(w_{s2}tanh(W_{s1}H^T))
\end{equation}
Where $W_{s1}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_a\times D_h}$ is a weight matrix, and $w_{s2}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_a}$, the dimension $d_a$ is predefined hyperparameter.$A\in\mathbb{L+1}$ is a alignment weight vector, which represent the contributions of the columns $h_i$ of $H$.Due to the role of softmax, it ensures that the sum of components in vector $A$ equals to 1.
Meanwhile, the result of feature fusion, i.e., the context vector $C$ can be obtained by multiplying the alignment weight vector and the latent representation matrix $H$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq9}
C=AH
\end{equation}
Finally, the results of feature fusion are fed into the output layer of classifier:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq10}
\hat{y_t}=softmax(C\cdot W_f+b_f)
\end{equation}
In this way, we get our prediction label $\hat{y_t}$. Moreover, the cross-entropy metric is adopted to get the prediction loss $L_{pre}(y_t,\hat{y_t})=-\sum y_tlog(\hat{y_t})$.
\subsection{The Proposed Objective Function}
We now have obtained the prediction output according to the feature fusion strategy and the autoencoder with memory module. The reconstruction loss of the auto-encoder with memory moudle is defined as $L_{re}=L(x,\hat{x})+\lambda L(\hat{w})$.In addition, the prediction loss is defined as cross-entropy loss $L_{pre}(y_t,\hat{y_t})=-\sum y_tlog(\hat{y_t})$, which represents the distance between the actual probability and the prediction probability of label. Combining these two losses, we can formulate our total objective function of the online learning system as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq11}
L_{total}=L_{pre}(y,\hat{y})+L(x,\hat{x})+\lambda L(\hat{w})
\end{equation}
Apparently, the motivation for this loss is to explicitly balance the reconstruction loss and prediction loss and optimize them jointly.
In addition, different from previous traditional method, here, for updating the parameters of the autoencoder $\theta_l=\left\{ W_l,b_l,\hat{W_l},\hat{b_l}\right\},l=0,1,...,5$, the loss of back-propagation is composed of two parts, reconstruction loss $L(x,\hat{x})+\lambda L(\hat{w})$ and prediction loss $L_{pre}(y,\hat{y})$.
However, the back propagation for prediction loss is more involved. For learning each parameter of the encoder’s hidden layer, we use the sum of the gradient of the prediction loss on current hidden layer and its subsequent hidden layers, i.e.,$\sum{_{j=l}^L}\nabla_{\theta_l^{t-1}}L_{pre}(y_{t-1},\hat{y_{t-1}})$.
Meanwhile, in order to further play the role of self-attention mechanism, we add the attention alignment weight to $\sum{_{j=l}^L}\nabla_{\theta_l^{t-1}}L_{pre}(y_{t-1},\hat{y_{t-1}})$,thus the final gradient related to prediction loss has form $\sum{_{j=l}^L}\alpha_j\nabla_{\theta_l^{t-1}}L_{pre}(y_{t-1},\hat{y_{t-1}})$, plus the back propagation of reconstruction loss, the whole update formula for the parameters of the autoencoder is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq12}
\theta_l^t\leftarrow \theta_l^{t-1}-\delta(\sum{_{j=l}^L}\alpha_j\nabla_{\theta_l^{t-1}}L_{pre}(y_{t-1},\hat{y_{t-1}})+\nabla_{\theta_l^{t-1}}L(x_{t-1},\hat{x_{t-1}})+\lambda \nabla_{\theta_l^{t-1}}L(\hat{w_{t-1}}))
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ represents the learning rate. $\sum{_{j=l}^L}\alpha_j\nabla_{\theta_l^{t-1}}L_{pre}(y_{t-1},\hat{y_{t-1}})$ is computed via derivatives of backpropagation error of $\hat{y_{t-1}}$.Note that where the index of summation starts at $j=l$ end with $j=L$ and because the backpropagation error of shallower layer depend on all the deeper layers. In fact, we derive the final gradient with respect to the backpropagation derivatives of a predictor at every hidden layer ,weighted by alignment weight $\alpha_j$ of self-attention mechanism.
\subsection{Adaptive Dynamic Update Network }
In this subsection, we would describe how to detect concept drift and how to dynamically update parameters to prevent catastrophic forgetting. When concept drift occurs, it is obvious that the network structure needs to be adjusted to accommodate concept drift on the data streams. However, existing online continuous learning methods often do this by increasing or decreasing the depth and width of the network \cite{38pratama2019atl,39ashfahani2020devdan,40pratama2019incremental,41yoon2017lifelong}. This approach usually increases the complexity of the network, and we know that when the network depth reaches a certain level, increasing the depth of the network would not improve the effectiveness of the algorithm. In addition, one neglected fact about streaming data is that, although there is concept drift in the streaming data, there is still some association between the current examples and previous examples, that is, the current examples in the streaming data has not only private features, but also shared features with previous examples. Although the private features achieve a more compact representation for a single current example, the shared features for the whole set are able to provide more efficient and robust representations when the final model is trained to fit the whole streaming data. Based on this idea, as examples in streaming data tend to have many shared properties, the effective latent representation learning approach should capture those commonalities. Therefore, based on feature extraction, we present a learning procedure to reduce computational complexity by finding common features that can be shared across streams of data. Clearly, unlike existing traditional approaches, we do not fix the parameters of the hidden layer of the encoder. The idea is to use the first three layers of the auto-encoder to preserve the shared features of the data stream, while the last three layers are used to extract the private features.
\subsubsection{The Detection of Concept Drift}
Recall that we can judge the occurrence of concept drift by value of loss. When the new examples are more difficult to learn than previous ones or contain different properties or input modes from previous ones, it means the concept drift occurs and the loss of the new samples will substantially increase. At the same time, the model must update its knowledge and keep the maximum consistence with the knowledge learned before. When the loss is reduced, it indicates that the model can learn some meaningful features from the existing data streams and reach a stable state. However, in the process of network updating parameters and gradually reaching stability, it is possible that the loss exceeds the threshold and lead the network to be wrongly judged as the reappearance of concept drift. Therefore, we should not always judge whether the loss exceeds the threshold, but should estimate whether the concept drift occurs after the data reaches a stable state. As shown in Fig.4.
To detect concept drift, we use a sliding window to monitor the change of loss. When the mean value and variance of loss in sliding window are lower than a certain threshold value, we think that the model on the streaming data preserve a stationary state. At the same time, we record the mean and variance of the loss in the sliding window and the parameters of the network. However, one thing we need to remember is that, only after the stable state is reached, we can detect whether the concept drift appears. After the model reaches steady state, when the mean value and variance of loss in the sliding window are much higher than the ones of the stationary state, i.e.,$\mu(W)>\mu_L^{stable}+\sigma_L^{stable}$, we think that concept drift occurs in sliding window.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{4.pdf}
\caption{The x-axis represents input instances and y-axis represents the total loss. Arrows in the figure indicate that concept drift is detected. Only after the stable state is detected, can we detect whether the concept drift appears. Otherwise, it would lead to the miscalculation of the concept drift, that is, the adjustment state of the model would be judged as the concept drift. }
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Circumventing Catastrophic Forgetting}
Another problem called catastrophic forgetting describes the situation that the building model forgets the learned content on the previous data due to the retraining of the model on the new arriving streaming data. It requires the model on streaming data to make a trade-off between plasticity and stability. Usually, a natural solution to this problem is to incorporate a regularization term, such as L2 regularization term, in loss function to prevent the new learning model from deviating too much from the previous old one. However, the side effect of simply adding the L2 regularization term would prevent the model from learning the private features of the new approaching data, thus reducing the accuracy of the algorithm. In literature \cite{10kirkpatrick2017overcoming}, Kirkpatrick et al. proposed a method called elastic weight combination (EWC) to attack catastrophic forgetting. The reference object of this method is stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and L2 regularization with relative data parameters learned before. The core idea is to find out the importance of different parameters, which is represented by fisher information. The important parameters of data can be updated a little less, and the unimportant parameters can be updated a little more. This is relatively advanced for L2 regularities with the same constraints for all the parameters. However, if the network has a large number of parameters, it needs considerable systemic resources and induces a lot of computing work to record each parameter and evaluate its importance.
In this paper, we like killing two birds with one stone by dividing the features, which are built on outputs of the hidden layer, into shared features and private features. By doing this, we could benefit in two ways. On the one hand, we can extract better features. On the other hand, when the mode on streaming data is stable and invariant, we derive the shared features from outputs of the hidden layer, but when concept drift occurs, we utilize the previously memorized common features to prevent the network model from forgetting the previously useful information when learning the new streaming data. In addition, we also release the last three layers of the encoder for private feature learning, so that the model can improve the prediction accuracy of the algorithm and avoid catastrophic forgetting.
More specifically, when the data streams are stable, we save the parameters of the first three layers of the auto-encoder as the shared features. When concept drift occurs, we replace the first three layers of the auto-encoder with the previously saved shared features, and re-initialize the last three layers through the Xavier initialization method to extract the private features of the data stream.
\begin{algorithm}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
\caption{Adaptive dynamic update for network parameters.}
\label{alg1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Require:}streaming data, the thresholds of mean value and variance: $\delta_u$ and $\delta_\sigma$ , the set of network parameters: $\Omega$
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} set $\mu_L^{stable}=0$ , and $\sigma_L^{stable}=0,L^{sliding\_window}[]=\{\}$ , stable\_state=True.
\STATE \textbf{repeat}
\STATE calculate the losses at $t,...,t+L-1$ imes using equation (11) in subsection 3.5, form the $L^{sliding\_window}[t,...,t+L-1]$.
\STATE Calculate the mean $\mu_t(W)$ and variance $\sigma_t(W)$ of the losses at $t,...,t+L-1$ time.
\STATE Detect whether there is the stable state:
\textbf{if} stable\_state == True ,$\mu_t(W)<\delta_u$ and $\sigma_t(W)<\delta_\sigma$
then let $\mu_L^{stable}=\mu_t(W)$ and $\sigma_L^{stable}=\sigma_t(W)$
save the parameters of the first three auto-encoder layers to the set $\Omega$
let stable\_state == False
\textbf{end if}
\STATE Calculate the mean $\mu_{t+1}(W)$ and variance $\sigma_t(W)$ of the losses at $t+1,...,t+L$ time
\STATE Detect whether there is the concept drift:
\textbf{if} stable\_state == False and $\mu_{t+1}(W)>\mu_L^{stable}+\sigma_L^{stable}$ :
Replace the parameters of the first three auto-encoder layers with the previously saved one corresponding shared features layer in $\Omega$
Reinitialize the parameters of the last three auto-encoder layers through Xavier initialization method
stable\_state == True
\textbf{end if}
\STATE \textbf{until} all training samples have been trained
\ENSURE $\Omega$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In addition, the specific implementation procedure of adaptive dynamic update for network parameters is summarized in Algorithm I. In Algorithm I, we maintain an array. At current time $t$ ,array $L^{sliding\_window}[t,...,t+L-1]$ denotes the losses in current sliding window of size ,whose elements are calculated by equation (11) in subsection 3.5; at next time $t+1$ ,array $L^{sliding\_window}[t+1,...,t+L]$ denotes the losses in next sliding window of size $L$ . At two consecutive instant, arrays $L^{sliding\_window}[t,...,t+L-1]$ and $L^{sliding\_window}[t+1,...,t+L]$ have overlaping $L-1$ elments. Meanwhile, at each time $t$ , we choose $S$ samples with the highest loss as the hard buffer and feed them into AOIL to retrain and update our model.
\section{The Specific Implementation of Proposed AOIL Algorithm}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{5.pdf}
\caption{The illustration of the adaptive online continue learning for evolving data streams. We first get the latent representation of the input through the encoder, which is used to extract more useful information when building classifiers. To establish feature associations, we devise self-attention networks to enhance hidden layer correlations and fusion different hidden layer’s features. Then, by observing the change of the reconstruction loss of the auto-encoder, we could be aware of the change in the data distribution. Finally, according to our model adaptive algorithm, we dynamically adjust the network parameters.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
We are now at the position to summarize the results of previous discussions. As we can see in Fig.5, we propose a new adaptive online incremental learning structure, which introduces the concept of model adaptation. In light with the features derived from the hidden layers of encoder, the common features are shared by the data stream, while some private features are learned from a single data sample. In other words, features of the hidden layers are arranged in two kinds of attributes: shared attributes and private attributes. This mechanism enable AOIL effectively extract the characteristics of data, perform dynamic resource allocation which tracks the dynamic variation of data streams. Then, each hidden layer gets a fused feature through self-attention mechanism, connected to a softmax layer producing a global output.
Note that the AOIL is developed in the online setting, data needs to be processed in a streaming fashion under the prequential test-then-train protocol. In addition, through back propagation and gradient descent, only one epoch traning on the streaming data is used to test and update the model parameters.
The specific implementation procedures of AOIL are shown in Algorithm II.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Adaptive Online Incremental Learning for Evolving Data Streams.}
\label{alg2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input:}streaming data: $\{x_i,y_i\}_{i=1}^N$
\STATE \textbf{Repeat:} obtain the outputs $h_l,l=1,1,...,5$ of hidden layer according to the auto-encoder with short-cut connections\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad Eq.(1-2)
\STATE Add the memory module $M$ to the auto-encoder\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad Eq.(3-6)
\STATE Calculate the reconstruction loss with the memory module $L_{re}$\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad Eq.(7)
\STATE Concatenate the output of various hidden layer to form a latent representation matrix
$H=(h_0,h_1,...,h_L)$
\STATE Obtain the alignment weight vector $A=[a_0,a_1,...,a_L]$\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad Eq.(8)
\STATE Obtain the feature fusion context vector $C$ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad Eq.(9)
\STATE Get the results of prediction value $\hat{y_t}$\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad Eq.(10)
\STATE Calculate the total loss $L_{total}$\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad Eq.(11)
\STATE Dynamically update the network parameters via Algorithm I
\STATE \textbf{End}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experimental results}
A good adaptive online incremental learning algorithm on data streaming should meet the following requirements \cite{42pears2014detecting,43pesaranghader2016fast,44bifet2017classifier}: 1) Reduce misjudgment and false alarm in the case of the concept drift. High false positive rate requires more training data, which would consume more computing resources \cite{45vzliobaite2015towards}. Because the current estimated model does not reflect the changed distribution, the higher false negative rate reduces the classification accuracy. 2) It is necessary to detect concept drift quickly and reduce catastrophic forgetting and update its prediction model to maintain classification accuracy. 3) Robustness to noise – the algorithm must be able to distinguish concept drift from noise, and avoid confusing noise with concept drift and misjudgement, so as to achieve the desired detection effect.
It is worth mentioned that we have tried other approaches before reaching the current proposed one. In the initial design of the AOIL algorithm, we only adopt the auto-encoder and use the self attention mechanism to give different weights to each encoder layer to get the final output. Here, we call it as OIL-Base algorithm. In the following experiments, we also compare it with AOIL algorithm and find the performance of the OIL-Base algorithm is not ideal. Hence, we consequently consider adding adaptive dynamic update for network parameters (section 3.6). However, if the incoming streaming data exists concept drift which share common compositional patterns with the previous training streaming data or the decoder is ‘too strong’, which can decode the existing concept drift in data well, the encoder seems to have lost the function of detecting concept drift. In addition, through the experimental comparisons in subsection 5.6, we found that there is a significant difference the auto-encoder between with and without the memory unit. Motivated by this observation, we obtain the AOIL algorithm. Finally, we proposed AOIL-DAE algorithm to further improve the robustness of the AOIL algorithm.
In this section, we would carry out five experiments to validate the effectiveness of our algorithms. In the first experiment, we compared the advantages and disadvantages of different algorithms on seven datasets through five evaluation criteria. The five evaluation criteria are average accuracy, average precision, average recall, average F1, average AUC respectively. The comparative experimental results are obtained by running the open source code in the same computing environment. In order to make the experimental results more objective and fair, we have run each group of experiments ten times. In the second experiment, in order to verify that our algorithm effectively reduces the catastrophic forgetting problem, we divide the whole streaming data in five different stages :0-20\%,20-40\%,40-60\%,60-80\%, and 80-100\%. We investigate that as the number of learning samples increases,we compare the change of accuracy of different algorithms in last four stages. In the third experiment, to further illustrate the role of memory module in our proposed AOIL algorithm, we compared the accuracies of AOIL algorithm with or without memory module on different datasets under the same settings. In the fourth experiment, we discuss the convergence of our algorithm (AOIL). Finally, in the last experiment, we further improve the robustness of the algorithm by adding the denoising autoencoder to the original framework, and propose a new algorithm, named Adaptive Online Incremental Learning based on De-noising Auto-Encoder(AOIL-DAE).
\subsection{Conditional Intensity Function}
In our algorithm, AOIL starts the learning process by having the 6-layer network, and set the number of neural unit of each hidden layer to 30. We use fully-connected layers as the encoder and decoder, expect the last one and memory moudle, Relu is used as the activation function for each hidden layer. The entire network parameters are updated using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.01\cite{46kingma2014method}. In the feature fusion part, the parameter $d_a$ for self-attention mechanism is a user-defined parameter, in our experiments, we set it to 30 to get good results. And in the memory module, the number of memory units $N$ can set to 50 that would lead to desirable results in all our experiments. Moreover, we set the length $L$ of the sliding loss window to 10, and we set $S$ equal to 5.
Due to the different properties among different datasets, we adopt different set-up for the threshold of mean value $\delta_u$ and variance $\delta_\sigma$ in AOIL algorithm. Usually, we can set $\delta_u\in (0.15,0.25)$ , and $\delta_\sigma =0.01$ to get good results.
\subsection{Dataset Description}
The types of streaming data can be divided into stationary and non-stationary data, but most of them are non-stationary data in real environments, seven standard datasets with streaming data form are used in our experiment, we choose five groups of non-stationary data sets, two groups of stationary data sets for experimental comparison.
\textbf{Non-stationary datasets:}
(1) \emph{weather dataset}\cite{47ditzler2012incremental} : It is a dataset of weather forecast. The aim is to predict whether it will rain tomorrow, it belongs to the binary classification problem. The feature of the data are the temperature, pressure, visibility, wind speed, etc. This meteorological data set contains more than 50 years of weather change data. The concept drift for this data is due to seasonal and long-term climate change.
(2) \emph{sea dataset}\cite{48street2001streaming}: It is a dataset containing the abrupt and recurring drift. The initial data distribution of the first two features $f_1$ and $f_2$ are smaller than the threshold $Q$, e.g.,$f_1+f_2<Q$, threshold $Q$ changes in turn when the concept drift happens: $Q=4\rightarrow 7\rightarrow 4\rightarrow 7$.
(3) \emph{hyperplane dataset}\cite{7bifet2007learning}: Hyperplane is a synthetic streaming dataset generated by MOA software framework. It is a synthetic binary classification problem which has gradual drift, based on $d$ -dimensional random hyperplane $\sum_{j=1}^dw_jx_j>0$ . At first, data samples are extracted from some predefined probability distribution, and then gradually replaced by another probability distribution, so there is a transition period, the probability distribution obeyed by Hyperplane dataset exist the gradual drift.
(4) \emph{occupancy dataset}\cite{49candanedo2016accurate}: The occupancy dataset is about occupancy of rooms based on the environment of the room, this is a real-world dataset whose label is derived from time stamped pictures taken every minute, the dataset is also a non-stationary dataset. When the environment changes, the input distribution will change, which means there is covariate drift.
(5) \emph{kddcup dataset}\cite{50stolfo2000cost}: The data set is a binary classification problem to detect whether network connections encounter intrusion attacks. The non-stationary characteristics of the data set are due to the simulation of different types of network intrusion in the military network environment.
\textbf{Stationary datasets:}
(6) \emph{Hepmass dataset}\cite{51baldi2014searching}: This data set represents the physical experiments in Monte Carlo simulation to find the characteristics of strange particles with unknown mass. The classification task is to separate collision particles from the background source. A large number of data, about 10 million samples, have been generated in the study. Because they are stationary dataset, we select part of the data to do the experiment. In our experiment, only 200000 samples are used in our experiment and in doing so we envison that it does not affect on the experimental results.
(7) \emph{susy dataset} \cite{51baldi2014searching}: This data set represents the physical experiments in Monte Carlo simulation to distinguish between a signal process which produces supersymmetric particles and a background process which does not. The first eight features are kinematic property measured by particle detectors in accelerators. The last 10 features are the functions of the first 8 features; There are about 5 million samples in this data set, but because it is also a stationary data set, the probability distribution of the data will not change. To the experimental demonstration, we select 500000 samples for our experiment.
\subsection{Baseline Algorithms}
Considering that AOIL is an online incremental learning algorithm, several state-of-the-art methods are selected to compare, e.g., ALMA, aROMMA, aROW, CW, NAROW, NHERD, OGD, ROMMA, SCW,and SOP. In addition, some excellent methods focusing on the detection of concept drift are also in our comparative scope. e.g., Adwin, and PageHinkley. It should be noted that in our experiment, this two methods use Gaussian Bayesian approach as classifier. More specifically, the compared methods are: \textbf{ALMA}\cite{22gentile2001new}: Approximate Maximal Margin Classification Algorithm; \textbf{ROMMA} and \textbf{aROMMA}\cite{23li2002relaxed}: the Relaxed Online Maximum Margin Algorithm and its aggressive version; \textbf{aROW}\cite{24crammer2009adaptive}: the Adaptive Regularization of Weight Vectors; \textbf{CW}\cite{25crammer2008exact}: the Confidence-Weighted (CW) learning algorithm; \textbf{NAROW}\cite{26orabona2010new}: New variant of Adaptive Regularization; \textbf{NHERD} \cite{27crammer2010learning}: the Normal Herding method via Gaussian Herding; \textbf{OGD} \cite{28zinkevich2003online}: the Online Gradient Descent (OGD) algorithms; \textbf{SCW} \cite{29wang2012exact}: the recently proposed Soft Confidence Weighted algorithms; \textbf{SOP} \cite{30cesa2005second}: second-order perception; \textbf{Gaussian Bayesian}: the classifer in the Adwin, and PageHinkley algorithm; \textbf{Adwin} \cite{5ren2017life}: A concept drift detecting method, using adaptive online sliding windows according to the rate of change observed from the data; \textbf{PageHinkley} \cite{31gama2013evaluating}: Another concept drift detecting method, learning from time varying data with adaptive window; \textbf{OIL-Base}: a model trained as the AOIL but without the memeory moudle and the adaptive mechanism.
\subsection{Performance Evaluation Criteria on Different Datasets}
In this section, five criteria are taken to evaluate the performance of our algorithm. We take the average of these values for comparison, the comparision results are reported in Table 1. From the Table 1, it can be obviously found that our AOIL algorithm achieves better results on different datasets using different evaluation criteria. In addition, it should be noted that the Adwin and PageHinkley algorithm, use the Gaussian Bayesian (GaussianNB) as the classifer, can not play a full role when these two algorithms do not detect the concept drift effectively, or when dealing with stable datasets. Through the analysis of the experimental results, it reveals that the AOIL is a high-competitive approach to handle both the stationary data and non-stationary data.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\caption{The Comparative Results of Different Algorithms on Different Datasets.}
\label{tb1}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average Accuracy}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\\hline
AOIL &77.44\% &91.71\% &91.03\% &98.15\% &99.74\% &83.28\% &79.37\%\\
ALMA &76.33\% &76.73\% &66.60\% &96.98\% &99.49\% &83.16\% &79.18\%\\
aROMMA &74.89\% &33.79\% &43.99\% &96.65\% &99.43\% &81.99\% &76.20\%\\
aROW &73.96\% &76.81\% &66.42\% &96.94\% &99.43\% &82.70\% &77.57\%\\
CW &69.26\% &43.84\% &43.34\% &96.74\% &99.29\% &50.45\% &56.25\%\\
NAROW &54.32\% &68.62\% &64.88\% &89.24\% &99.42\% &79.98\% &68.34\%\\
NHERD &73.69\% &76.72\% &66.42\% &96.75\% &99.39\% &82.65\% &77.31\%\\
OGD &71.15\% &76.85\% &66.51\% &96.26\% &99.29\% &82.52\% &78.08\%\\
ROMMA &73.85\% &33.81\% &43.99\% &96.54\% &99.35\% &81.74\% &76.21\%\\
SCW &72.19\% &76.71\% &66.12\% &96.86\% &99.44\% &82.65\% &77.78\%\\
SOP &69.88\% &77.95\% &70.34\% &96.37\% &98.89\% &78.72\% &76.81\%\\
GassianNB &69.19\% &88.41\% &84.97\% &97.90\% &97.28\% &80.09\% &73.56\%\\
Adwin &70.58\% &91.35\% &89.76\% &92.56\% &97.28\% &80.09\% &73.56\%\\
PageHigkley &69.28\% &88.16\% &84.97\% &97.90\% &97.28\% &80.09\% &73.56\%\\
OIL-Base &71.83\% &87.11\% &88.07\% &82.93\% &99.01\% &82.00\% &78.56\%\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average Precision}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\\hline
AOIL &0.7992 &0.9001 &0.8750 &0.9901 &0.9980 &0.7800 &0.7464\\
ALMA &0.5158 &0.7909 &0.6700 &0.8479 &0.9968 &0.7760 &0.7170\\
aROMMA &0.5128 &0.7307 &0.6065 &0.8688 &0.9955 &0.7610 &0.6685\\
aROW &0.4801 &0.7873 &0.6672 &0.8774 &0.9968 &0.7691 &0.6990\\
CW &0.4389 &0.7152 &0.6014 &0.8717 &0.9946 &0.4993 &0.4843\\
NAROW &0.3986 &0.7099 &0.6373 &0.6311 &0.9966 &0.7371 &0.5948\\
NHERD &0.4810 &0.7825 &0.6671 &0.8701 &0.9969 &0.7683 &0.6984\\
OGD &0.4108 &0.7886 &0.6691 &0.8540 &0.9978 &0.7703 &0.7061\\
ROMMA &0.4990 &0.7309 &0.6065 &0.8648 &0.9947 &0.7580 &0.6685\\
SCW &0.4567 &0.7923 &0.6683 &0.8747 &0.9967 &0.7723 &0.6954\\
SOP &0.4448 &0.8278 &0.7105 &0.8577 &0.9921 &0.7247 &0.6768\\
GassianNB &0.4273 &0.8651 &0.7972 &0.9138 &0.9723 &0.7307 &0.6536\\
Adwin &0.4526 &0.8961 &0.8573 &0.7210 &0.9723 &0.7307 &0.6536\\
PageHigkley &0.4416 &0.8591 &0.7972 &0.9138 &0.9723 &0.7307 &0.6536\\
OIL-Base &0.7205 &0.7513 &0.8394 &0.8391 &0.9571 &0.7552 &0.7377\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average Recall}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\\hline
AOIL &0.8882 &0.9685 &0.9032 &0.9827 &0.9973 &0.8675 &0.8731\\
ALMA &0.5107 &0.9008 &0.7850 &0.9408 &0.9960 &0.8244 &0.6865\\
aROMMA &0.6362 &0.0820 &0.067 &0.9175 &0.9966 &0.8195 &0.7653\\
aROW &0.4779 &0.9117 &0.7933 &0.9453 &0.9951 &0.8270 &0.6531\\
CW &0.5272 &0.3555 &0.0607 &0.9175 &0.9956 &0.0129 &0.0859\\
NAROW &0.8614 &0.9493 &0.9216 &0.8282 &0.9951 &0.8063 &0.5154\\
NHERD &0.5085 &0.9221 &0.7942 &0.9510 &0.9942 &0.8262 &0.6346\\
OGD &0.1731 &0.9092 &0.7862 &0.9091 &0.9916 &0.8095 &0.6555\\
ROMMA &0.6217 &0.0825 &0.0676 &0.9072 &0.9965 &0.8176 &0.7645\\
SCW &0.4594 &0.8966 &0.7721 &0.9442 &0.9955 &0.8090 &0.6951\\
SOP &0.5290 &0.8508 &0.7447 &0.9101 &0.9926 &0.7865 &0.7500\\
GassianNB &0.5842 &0.9478 &0.8507 &0.9591 &0.9330 &0.8654 &0.5564\\
Adwin &0.7058 &0.9619 &0.8974 &0.6835 &0.9930 &0.8654 &0.5564\\
PageHigkley &0.6570 &0.9548 &0.8507 &0.9591 &0.9930 &0.8654 &0.5564\\
OIL-Base &0.7951 &0.7708 &0.8807 &0.9656 &0.9692 &0.8575 &0.8641\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average F1}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\\hline
AOIL &0.8477 &0.9395 &0.9031 &0.9882 &0.9972 &0.8384 &0.8305\\
ALMA &0.5881 &0.8470 &0.7354 &0.9284 &0.9968 &0.8298 &0.7529\\
aROMMA &0.6264 &0.1508 &0.1250 &0.9217 &0.9964 &0.8192 &0.7480\\
aROW &0.5484 &0.8490 &0.7364 &0.9303 &0.9964 &0.8264 &0.7290\\
CW &0.5315 &0.4751 &0.1125 &0.9240 &0.9956 &0.0254 &0.1536\\
NAROW &0.5551 &0.8122 &0.7563 &0.7687 &0.9963 &0.8004 &0.6006\\
NHERD &0.5612 &0.8499 &0.7366 &0.9268 &0.9961 &0.8259 &0.7210\\
OGD &0.2842 &0.8488 &0.7351 &0.9124 &0.9955 &0.8217 &0.7342\\
ROMMA &0.6113 &0.1513 &0.1250 &0.9190 &0.9959 &0.8168 &0.7480\\
SCW &0.5223 &0.8462 &0.7293 &0.9286 &0.9965 &0.8228 &0.7429\\
SOP &0.5375 &0.8450 &0.7481 &0.9155 &0.9931 &0.7864 &0.7492\\
GassianNB &0.5435 &0.9116 &0.8500 &0.9513 &0.9832 &0.8130 &0.6591\\
Adwin &0.6018 &0.9334 &0.8977 &0.7971 &0.9832 &0.8130 &0.6591\\
PageHigkley &0.5732 &0.9104 &0.8500 &0.9513 &0.9832 &0.8130 &0.6591\\
OIL-Base &0.8095 &0.8152 &0.8786 &0.8990 &0.9752 &0.8264 &0.8135\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average AUC}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\\hline
AOIL &0.7321 &0.8973 &0.9114 &0.9798 &0.9952 &0.8329 &0.7945\\
ALMA &0.6994 &0.6667 &0.6394 &0.9585 &0.9933 &0.8316 &0.7844\\
aROMMA &0.7204 &0.5306 &0.5230 &0.9465 &0.9907 &0.8199 &0.7622\\
aROW &0.6734 &0.6599 &0.6353 &0.9607 &0.9932 &0.8270 &0.7671\\
CW &0.6507 &0.5008 &0.5165 &0.9493 &0.9888 &0.5024 &0.5288\\
NAROW &0.6237 &0.4878 &0.5879 &0.8691 &0.9928 &0.8599 &0.6715\\
NHERD &0.6792 &0.6504 &0.6351 &0.9616 &0.9933 &0.8265 &0.7633\\
OGD &0.5754 &0.6625 &0.6380 &0.9403 &0.9948 &0.8251 &0.7719\\
ROMMA &0.7090 &0.5308 &0.5229 &0.9444 &0.9808 &0.8174 &0.7622\\
SCW &0.6555 &0.6695 &0.6365 &0.9598 &0.9929 &0.8264 &0.7719\\
SOP &0.6559 &0.7332 &0.6942 &0.9443 &0.9834 &0.7872 &0.7668\\
GassianNB & 0.6627 &0.8616 &0.8497 &0.9717 &0.9424 &0.8008 &0.7221\\
Adwin 0.7065 &0.8964 &0.8976 &0.8375 &0.9424 &0.8008 &0.7221\\
PageHigkley &0.6831 &0.8557 &0.8497 &0.9717 &0.9424 &0.8008 &0.7221\\
OIL-Base &0.5958 &0.8503 &0.8807 &0.6458 &0.9823 &0.8200 &0.7785\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{The Incremental Quantities of Accuracies at Different Learning Stages for entire streaming dataset}
In this subsection, we compare the incremental amounts of accuracies of different algorithms that perform on the whole streaming data of 20-40\%,40-60\%,60-80\% , and 80-100\%. As the example size increases, we plot the experimental results in heat maps, in which the x-axis represents the example size in percentage, and the y-axis represents different algorithms. The different color represents different incremental quantities of accuracies. As we can see in the Fig.6, on the whole, our algorithm is in a state of positive growth in all stages, while, for some dataets, such as weather data, the ROMMA algorithm has a negative incremental quantities of accuracies, which represents the data streams may appear concept drift, but the model does not deal with it well, thus lead to a negative increase in accuracies. However, our AOIL algorithm can effectively detect and adaptively adjust the network parameters, and ultimately achieve good results.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{6.pdf}
\caption{The heat-map of the incremental quantities of accuracies for four algorithms that perform on entire streaming datasets of 20-40\%, 40-60\%, 60-80\% and 80-100\%. The x-axis represents the sample size in percentage, and the y-axis represents different algorithms.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ The AOIL Algorithm With or Without Memory Module}
In this subsection, in order to show that it is necessary and effective to add the memory module to the auto-encoder in our algorithm (AOIL), we conduct experiments on different data sets, and compare the algorithm with memory module (AOIL) and the algorithm without memory module (AOIL\_NO\_MEMORY). From the comparison results in the Fig.7, we find that after adding memory module, the accuracies of AOIL algorithm is higher than the AOIL\_NO\_MEMORY algorithm. To a certain extent, it shows that when the data probability distribution changes, we can better detect the emergence of concept drift by using the reconstruction loss of autoencoder with memory moudule, so as to trigger the update mechanism and improve the predictive accuracies of the algorithm.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[weather]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{a.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[sea]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{b.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[hyperplane]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{c.pdf}
}
\subfigure[occupancy]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{d.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[kddcup]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{e.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[hepmass]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{f.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[susy]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{g.pdf}
}
\caption{Compare the accuracy of AOIL algorithm with or without memory module on different datasets. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Convergence analysis of the algorithm }
In this subsection we show the convergence of the AOIL algorithm. Due to the characteristics of online incremental learning, we only train one epoch for all datasets. As we can see in Fig.8, the loss curve $L_{total}$ may fluctuate due to the concept drift, but the trend of total loss would converge to a certain range.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{8.pdf}
\caption{The convergence of the AOIL algorithm on different datasets. }
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Robustness analysis of the algorithm}
In fact, in the real scenario, the inputs are often corrupted by noise, and the presence of the noise often requires the model to have certain robustness. To further illustrate the anti-noise ability of our algorithm, we conduct the following experiments. Random noise is added to 20\% of the raw data. More specifically, we inject masking noise with Gaussian distribution with a mean of 0 and a variance of 0.1 to the data. In order to improve the processing ability of noisy data, we propose a new algorithm, named Adaptive Online Incremental Learning based on De-noising Auto-Encoder(AOIL-DAE), adding the de-nosing auto-encoder to the original AOIL network structure. This is done by first corrupting the initial input $x$ into $\tilde{x}$ in the form of a stochastic mapping $\tilde{x}\sim q_D(\tilde{x}\mid x)$ . The collapsed input $\tilde{x}$ is then mapped, as the same process as auto-encoder does before, to a hidden representation. In addition, the following process of AOIL-DAE is the same as AOIL algorithm.
We compare the performance of the AOIL and AOIL-DAE on noisy data. The experimental results can be seen in Table.2 and Fig.8. From Table.2, we can see that our algorithm performs well compared to other state-of-art algorithms. Moreover, in order to make a more obvious comparison, we tend to show the predictive performance changes, i.e. the increase and decrease of each performance evaluation criteria after adding the noise, through the radar map, as shown in Fig.9.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[weather(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{9a.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[sea(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{9b.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[hyperplane(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{9c.pdf}
}
\subfigure[occupancy(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{9d.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[kddcup(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{9e.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[hepmass(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{9f.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[susy(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{9g.pdf}
}
\caption{Different algorithms’ performance on different evaluation indexes on the noisy data.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\caption{The comparative results of different algorithms on different noisy datasets.}
\label{tb2}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average Accuracy}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\
&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)\\\hline
AOIL-DAE &76.68\% &91.03\% &90.58\% &98.11\% &99.62\% &83.05\% &79.32\%\\
AOIL & 76.01\% &90.87\% &88.73\% &96.52\% &99.52\% &82.34\% &79.23\%\\
ALMA & 75.31\% &76.40\% &66.41\% &95.93\% &99.48\% &81.69\% &78.90\%\\
aROMMA &74.94\% &33.75\% &43.62\% &94.52\% &99.39\% &80.87\% &74.60\%\\
aROW &73.17\% &76.51\% &53.35\% &95.70\% &67.95\% &81.30\% &77.19\%\\
CW &65.33\% &32.88\% &41.58\% &95.37\% &68.19\% &63.70\% &51.90\%\\
NAROW &70.03\% &71.47\% &55.99\% &91.52\% &68.09\% &78.86\% &66.78\%\\
NHERD &73.09\% &76.54\% &53.27\% &95.29\% &67.84\% &81.24\% &76.97\%\\
OGD &70.63\% &76.54\% &66.41\% &95.07\% &99.28\% &81.49\% &77.76\%\\
ROMMA &74.85\% &33.77\% &43.67\% &94.51\% &99.34\% &80.90\% &74.60\%\\
SCW &72.95\% &76.31\% &53.04\% &95.80\% &68.06\% &81.08\% &77.47\%\\
SOP &55.84\% &78.17\% &70.80\% &94.21\% &67.96\% &77.30\% &76.33\%\\
GassianNB &66.64\% &87.84\% &84.46\% &96.51\% &98.75\% &79.55\% &73.50\%\\
Adwin &68.56\% &90.40\% &88.93\% &91.05\% &98.75\% &79.55\% &73.47\%\\
PageHigkley &66.64\% &87.53\% &84.46\% &96.51\% &98.75\% &79.55\% &73.50\%\\
OIL-Base &72.03\% &86.79\% &86.76\% &82.34\% &98.47\% &81.75\% &78.80\%\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average Precision}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\
&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)\\\hline
AOIL-DAE &0.7899 &0.8982 &0.8695 &0.9874 &0.9972 &0.7775 &0.7460\\
AOIL &0.7807 &0.8855 &0.8472 &0.9523 &0.9801 &0.7660 &0.7452\\
ALMA & 0.4965 &0.7881 &0.6684 &0.8471 &0.9969 &0.7578 &0.7150\\
aROMMA & 0.5124 &0.7302 &0.6039 &0.7991 &0.9949 &0.7456 &0.6530\\
aROW & 0.4617 &0.7859 &0.5909 &0.8387 &0.8010 &0.7525 &0.6958\\
CW & 0.3288 &0.7221 &0.5903 &0.8273 &0.8011 &0.5993 &0.4637\\
NAROW & 0.4257 &0.7146 &0.5917 &0.6979 &0.8009 &0.7236 &0.5833\\
NHERD & 0.4578 &0.7839 &0.5910 &0.8240 &0.8010 &0.7515 &0.6954\\
OGD & 0.3988 &0.7859 &0.6679 &0.8176 &0.9976 &0.7567 &0.7033\\
ROMMA & 0.5114 &0.7302 &0.6040 &0.7987 &0.9944 &0.7459 &0.6530\\
SCW & 0.4633 &0.7898 &0.5912 &0.8425 &0.8010 &0.7554 &0.6932\\
SOP & 0.3305 &0.8293 &0.7136 &0.7872 &0.8008 &0.7081 &0.6726\\
GassianNB & 0.4180 &0.8598 &0.7913 &0.8601 &0.9909 &0.7268 &0.6512\\
Adwin & 0.4333 &0.8863 &0.8465 &0.6433 &0.9909 &0.7268 &0.6510\\
PageHigkley &0.4180 &0.8531 &0.7913 &0.8601 &0.9909 &0.7268 &0.6512\\
OIL-Base & 0.7327 &0.7443 &0.8231 &0.8236 &0.9352 &0.7551 &0.7411\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average Recall}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\
&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)\\\hline
AOIL-DAE &0.8967 &0.9634 &0.8947 &0.9908 &0.9970 &0.8623 &0.8708\\
AOIL &0.8964 &0.9432 &0.8746 &0.9762 &0.9901 &0.8512 &0.8685\\
ALMA &0.4771 &0.8999 &0.7843 &0.9072 &0.9957 &0.8084 &0.6818\\
aROMMA &0.6372 &0.0808 &0.0606 &0.8365 &0.9968 &0.8152 &0.7411\\
aROW &0.4230 &0.9080 &0.6846 &0.9023 &0.7977 &0.8087 &0.6479\\
CW &0.039 &0.0780 &0.0420 &0.8891 &0.8013 &0.3920 &0.2518\\
NAROW &0.4126 &0.9999 &0.8222 &0.7866 &0.8001 &0.7941 &0.4459\\
NHERD &0.4001 &0.9140 &0.6790 &0.9089 &0.7957 &0.8093 &0.6316\\
OGD &0.1624 &0.9087 &0.7880 &0.8688 &0.9918 &0.8002 &0.6528\\
ROMMA &0.6380 &0.0810 &0.0607 &0.8359 &0.9967 &0.8158 &0.7411\\
SCW &0.4545 &0.8935 &0.6640 &0.9007 &0.7994 &0.7793 &0.6902\\
SOP &0.3342 &0.8420 &0.7501 &0.8694 &0.7982 &0.7714 &0.7455\\
GassianNB &0.6399 &0.9436 &0.8454 &0.9392 &0.9220 &0.8490 &0.5534\\
Adwin &0.6439 &0.9563 &0.8893 &0.6386 &0.9920 &0.8490 &0.5534\\
PageHigkley &0.6399 &0.9512 &0.8454 &0.9392 &0.9920 &0.8490 &0.5534\\
OIL-Base &0.8457 &0.7757 &0.8510 &0.9860 &0.9443 &0.8404 &0.8613\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average F1}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\
&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)\\\hline
AOIL-DAE &0.8502 &0.9317 &0.8976 &0.9879 &0.9967 &0.8262 &0.8295\\
AOIL &0.8368 &0.9071 &0.8746 &0.9721 &0.9833 &0.8242 &0.8279\\
ALMA &0.5605 &0.8449 &0.7340 &0.9090 &0.9967 &0.8141 &0.7494\\
aROMMA &0.6266 &0.1485 &0.1128 &0.8724 &0.9961 &0.8086 &0.7300\\
aROW &0.5099 &0.8467 &0.6343 &0.9038 &0.7994 &0.8110 &0.7247\\
CW &0.0690 &0.1439 &0.079 &0.8958 &0.8013 &0.5172 &0.3267\\
NAROW &0.4760 &0.8335 &0.6882 &0.8060 &0.8005 &0.7883 &0.5543\\
NHERD &0.4952 &0.8477 &0.6320 &0.8964 &0.7984 &0.8105 &0.7177\\
OGD &0.2673 &0.8470 &0.7349 &0.8876 &0.9955 &0.8109 &0.7312\\
ROMMA &0.6260 &0.1492 &0.1129 &0.8721 &0.9959 &0.8090 &0.7300\\
SCW &0.5257 &0.8435 &0.6256 &0.9056 &0.8003 &0.8033 &0.7395\\
SOP &0.3330 &0.8464 &0.7522 &0.8706 &0.7995 &0.7712 &0.7448\\
GassianNB &0.5463 &0.9072 &0.8449 &0.9202 &0.9922 &0.8060 &0.6566\\
Adwin & 0.5625 &0.9262 &0.8894 &0.7560 &0.9922 &0.8060 &0.6566\\
PageHigkley &0.5463 &0.9058 &0.8449 &0.9202 &0.9922 &0.8060 &0.6566\\
OIL-Base &0.8180 &0.8124 &0.8652 &0.8978 &0.9611 &0.8216 &0.8149\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{method}} &\multicolumn{7}{c}{Average AUC}\\
\cline{2-8}
&weather &sea &hyperplane &occupancy &kddcup &hepmass &susy\\
&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)&(noise)\\\hline
AOIL-DAE &0.7302 &0.8934 &0.8958 &0.9737 &0.9942 &0.8203 &0.7874\\
AOIL &0.7011 &0.8882 &0.8763 &0.9544 &0.9846 &0.8152 &0.7825\\
ALMA &0.6830 &0.6619 &0.6374 &0.9408 &0.9933 &0.8168 &0.7817\\
aROMMA &0.7209 &0.5303 &0.5197 &0.9065 &0.9895 &0.8087 &0.7457\\
aROW &0.6533 &0.6577 &0.5000 &0.9375 &0.5016 &0.8130 &0.7634\\
CW &0.4974 &0.5165 &0.4988 &0.9307 &0.5020 &0.6350 &0.5007\\
NAROW &0.6272 &0.5004 &0.5016 &0.8694 &0.5013 &0.7886 &0.6526\\
NHERD &0.6469 &0.6538 &0.5002 &0.9373 &0.5016 &0.8123 &0.7603\\
OGD &0.5682 &0.6578 &0.6366 &0.9216 &0.9943 &0.8148 &0.7691\\
ROMMA &0.7205 &0.5303 &0.5198 &0.9062 &0.9885 &0.8090 &0.7456\\
SCW &0.6597 &0.6652 &0.5007 &0.9376 &0.5016 &0.8105 &0.7689\\
SOP &0.5014 &0.7364 &0.6987 &0.9162 &0.5008 &0.7730 &0.7621\\
GassianNB &0.6592 &0.8553 &0.8446 &0.9557 &0.9809 &0.7955 &0.7209\\
Adwin &0.6743 &0.8855 &0.8893 &0.8165 &0.9809 &0.7955 &0.7206\\
PageHigkley &0.6592 &0.8485 &0.8446 &0.9557 &0.9809 &0.7955 &0.7209\\
OIL-Base &0.6057 &0.8487 &0.8676 &0.6046 &0.9695 &0.8175 &0.7813\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[Average Accuracy]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{10a.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[Average Precision]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{10b.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[ Average Recall]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{10c.pdf}
}
\subfigure[ Average F1]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{10d.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[Average AUC]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{10e.pdf}
}
\caption{These algorithms’ heat-map for each evaluation criteria after adding noise to streaming datasets. The horizontal axis represents different data sets, and the vertical axis represents different algorithms.}
\end{figure}
We plotted heat maps as shown in Fig.10 for illustrating the increase and decrease of each evaluation criteria after adding noise to these streaming datasets. The horizontal axis represents different data sets, and the vertical axis represents different algorithms. When adding noise to the data, of course, we hope that the performance change of the algorithm is small. In the heat maps, we use the different color to represent the changes in predictive performance. From the color in Fig.10, we can see that our algorithm AOIL is less affected by noise, which shows that the AOIL has better robustness.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[weather(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{11a.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[sea(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{11b.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[hyperplane(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{11c.pdf}
}
\subfigure[occupancy(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{11d.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[kddcup(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{11e.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[hepmass(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{11f.pdf}
}
\quad
\subfigure[susy(noise)]{
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{11g.pdf}
}
\caption{The accuracies of AOIL and AOIL-DAE algorithm on different noisy datasets.}
\end{figure}
In order to make the comparison more obvious, we tend to compare the two algorithms, the AOIL-DAE and AOIL separately, as we can see in Fig.11, obviously, we can see that after adding noise, AOIL-DAE performs better than AOIL. In general, after adding noise, AOIL-DAE and AOIL have not changed much for each evaluation criteria, and the AOIL-DAE algorithm has better robustness than AOIL. So when there is a lot of noise in the data, we recommend AOIL-DAE algorithm.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this paper, we propose an adaptive online incremental learning algorithm based on an auto-encoder with the memory module. As we mentioned before, online incremental learning mainly faces three problems. The first problem is catastrophic forgetting. Some algorithms blindly pursue to learn new knowledge and ignore the learned knowledge of the algorithm, which is against the idea of lifelong learning. The second is the problem of concept drift in data streaming. Because the data distribution in the data stream would change at any time, it is necessary to detect the concept drift in time and trigger the update mechanism to improve the predictive accuracies of the algorithm. The last problem is also an issue that is easy to be ignored in the online learning field, that is, latent representation learning. Because the knowledge we learn is through the hidden layer features, it is particularly important to lay a good foundation, that is, to learn a good implicit representation and extract useful hidden layer information. Here, our goal is to meet these three demands in a unified framework. Along this route, we develop an adaptive online incremental learning model (AOIL), which can effectively extract the input information, accurately detect the existence of concept drift, and trigger the update mechanism. At the same time, in the feature extraction layer, different hidden layers play different roles. It can extract the common and private features of the input data at the same time, effectively reducing the problem of catastrophic forgetting. Then, the final fusion features are obtained using self-attention mechanism for different features.
Moreover, to validate the effectiveness of our algorithm, we carry out experiments on both stational datasets and non-stational datasets. In the experiments, we use five different evaluation indexes to compare our algorithm with other baseline algorithms. The numerical results demonstrate the advantage of our algorithm. In addition, as we can see from the accuracies in different learning stages, we can see that the AOIL algorithm could effectively reduce the catastrophic forgetting problem. Finally, we propose the AOIL-DAE algorithm to further improve the robustness of the AOIL algorithm.
Nevertheless, it is admitted that AOIL and AOIL-DAE only suitable for processing a single task for data stream at present. We did not take the transfer learning problem across several streaming processes problem into account.
In future work, we would consider the online incremental learning problem for multiple related data streams. Because there is widespread multiple data streaming in many practical scenarios, it can be regarded as multi-task data streams. In building data streams modeling on a single task, it would be more effective to consider the correlation between multi-task data streams instead of dealing with them separately.
|
\section{Introduction}
The goal of the present article is to re-derive the classification of topological phases of quantum matter proposed by Kitaev in his ``periodic table''~\cite{kitaev2009periodic} by means of basic tools from the topology (in particular homotopy theory) of classical groups, and standard factorization results in linear algebra. Kitaev's table classifies ground states of free-fermion systems according to their symmetries and the dimension of the configuration space. We reformulate the classification scheme in terms of homotopy theory, and proceed to investigate the latter issue in dimension $d \in \{0,1\}$. We restrict ourselves to low dimensions in order to illustrate our approach, and to provide constructive proofs for all the classes, using explicit factorization of the matrices that appear. Our intent is thus similar to previous works by Zirnbauer and collaborators \cite{Zirnbauer05,KennedyZirnbauer,KennedyGuggenheim}, which however formulate the notion of free-fermion ground state in a different way, amenable to the investigation of many-body systems.
The Kitaev classification can be obtained in various ways, using different mathematical tools. Let us mention for instance derivations coming from index theory~\cite{Gro_mann_2015}, K-theory~\cite{Thiang_2015, ProdanSchulzBaldes} and KK-theory~\cite{Bourne_2016}. In addition to this (non-exhaustive) list, one should add the numerous works focusing on one particular case of the table. Our goal here is to provide a short and synthetic derivation of this table, using simple linear algebra.
\subsection{Setting}
Let ${\mathcal H}$ be a complex Hilbert space of finite dimension ${\rm dim } \, {\mathcal H} \, = N$. For $0 \le n \le N$, $n$-dimensional subspaces of ${\mathcal H}$ are in one-to-one correspondence with elements of the \emph{Grassmannian}
\[
{\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H}) := \left\{ P \in {\mathcal B}({\mathcal H}) : \: P^2 = P = P^*, \: {\rm Tr}(P) = n \right\}
\]
which is comprised of rank-$n$ orthogonal projections in the algebra ${\mathcal B}({\mathcal H})$ of linear operators on ${\mathcal H}$. In this paper we are interested in orthogonal-projection-valued continuous functions $P : {\mathbb T}^d \to {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$ which satisfy certain symmetry conditions (to be listed below), and in classifying homotopy classes of such maps. Here ${\mathbb T}^d = {\mathbb R}^d / {\mathbb Z}^d$ is a $d$-dimensional torus, which we often identify with $[-\tfrac12,\tfrac12]^d$ with periodic boundary conditions. We write $k \ni {\mathbb T}^d \mapsto P(k) \in {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$ for such maps, or $\{ P(k) \}_{k \in {\mathbb T}^d}$.
It is well known \cite{Kuchment} that such families of projections arise from the Bloch-Floquet representation of periodic quantum systems on a lattice, in the one-body approximation. In this case, ${\mathcal H}$ is the Hilbert space accounting for local degrees of freedom in the unit cell associated to the lattice of translations, ${\mathbb T}^d$ plays the role of the Brillouin torus in (quasi-)momentum space, $k$ is the Bloch (quasi-)momentum, and $P(k)$ is the spectral subspace onto occupied energy levels of some $H(k)$, the Bloch fibers of a periodic lattice Hamiltonian $H$. Two Hamiltonians $H_0$ and $H_1$ are commonly referred to as being in the same topological insulating class if they share the same discrete symmetries (see below) and if they can be continuously deformed one into the other while preserving the symmetries and without closing the spectral gap. This implies that their associated spectral projections $P_0$ and $P_1$ below the spectral gap are homotopic. We thus investigate this homotopy classification directly in terms of projections in momentum space.
The discrete symmetries that one may want to impose on a family of projections come from those of the underlying quantum-mechanical system. We set the following definitions. Recall that a map $T : {\mathcal H} \to {\mathcal H}$ is anti-unitary if it is anti-linear ($T(\lambda x) = \overline{\lambda} T(x)$) and
\[
\forall x,y \in {\mathcal H}, \quad \langle T x, T y \rangle_{\mathcal H} = \langle y, x \rangle_{{\mathcal H}} \qquad ( = \overline{ \langle x, y \rangle_{\mathcal H} }).
\]
\begin{definition}[Time-reversal symmetry] \label{def:TRS}
Let $T : {\mathcal H} \to {\mathcal H}$ be an anti-unitary operator such that $T^2 = \varepsilon_T {\mathbb I}_{{\mathcal H}}$ with $\varepsilon_T \in \{-1, 1\}$. We say that a continuous map $P : {\mathbb T}^d \to {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$ satisfies {\bf time-reversal symmetry}, or in short {\bf $T$-symmetry}, if
\[
\boxed{ T^{-1} P(k) T = P(-k), \qquad \text{($T$-symmetry)}.}
\]
If $\varepsilon_T = 1$, this $T$-symmetry is said to {\bf even}, and if $\varepsilon_T = -1$ it is {\bf odd}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Charge-conjugation/particle-hole symmetry] \label{def:CCS}
Let $C : {\mathcal H} \to {\mathcal H}$ be an anti-unitary operator such that $C^2 = \varepsilon_C {\mathbb I}_{{\mathcal H}}$ with $\varepsilon_C \in \{-1, 1\}$.
We say that a continuous map $P : {\mathbb T}^d \to {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$ satisfies {\bf charge-conjugation symmetry} (also called {\bf particle-hole symmetry}), or in short {\bf $C$-symmetry}, if
\[
\boxed{ C^{-1} P(k) C = {\mathbb I}_{{\mathcal H}} - P(-k), \quad \text{($C$-symmetry)}.}
\]
If $\varepsilon_C = 1$, this $C$-symmetry is said to {\bf even}, and if $\varepsilon_C = -1$ it is {\bf odd}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Chiral symmetry] \label{def:chiral}
Let $S : {\mathcal H} \to {\mathcal H}$ be a unitary operator such that $S^2 = {\mathbb I}_{{\mathcal H}}$.
We say that $P : {\mathbb T}^d \to {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$ satisfies {\bf chiral} or {\bf sublattice symmetry}, or in short {\bf $S$-symmetry}, if
\[
\boxed{S^{-1} P(k) S = {\mathbb I}_{{\mathcal H}} - P(k), \quad \text{($S$-symmetry)}.}
\]
\end{definition}
The simultaneous presence of two symmetries implies the presence of the third. In fact, the following assumption is often postulated \cite{Ryu_2010}:
\begin{assumption} \label{S=TC}
Whenever $T-$ and $C-$ symmetries are both present, we assume that their product $S:=TC$ is an $S$-symmetry, that is, $S$ is unitary and $S^2 = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$.
\end{assumption}
We are not aware of a model in which this assumption is not satisfied, {\em i.e.} in which the $S$ symmetry is unrelated to the $T-$ and $C-$ ones.
\begin{remark} \label{rmk:TC=sigmaCT}
This assumption is tantamount to require that the operators $T$ and $C$ commute or anti-commute among each other, depending on their even/odd nature. Indeed, the product of two anti-unitary operators is unitary, and the requirement that $S := TC$ satisfies $S^2 = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$ reads
\[
TC TC = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H} \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad TC = C^{-1}T^{-1} = \varepsilon_T \varepsilon_C CT.
\]
The same sign determines whether $S$ commutes or anti-commutes with $T$ and $C$. Indeed, we have
\[
SC = T C^2 = \varepsilon_C T, \quad C S = CTC = T^{-1} C^{-1} C = \varepsilon_T T \quad \text{so} \quad SC = \varepsilon_T \varepsilon_C CS,
\]
and similarly $ST = \varepsilon_T \varepsilon_C TS$.
\end{remark}
Taking into account all possible types of symmetries leads to 10 symmetry classes for maps $P \colon {\mathbb T}^d \to {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$, the famous {\em tenfold way of topological insulators}~\cite{Ryu_2010}. The names of these classes are given in Table~\ref{table:us}, and are taken from the original works of E.~Cartan~\cite{cartan1,cartan2} for the classification of symmetric spaces, which were originally mutuated in \cite{AZ,Zirnbauer05} in the context of random-matrix-valued $\sigma$-models. For a dimension $d \in {\mathbb N} \cup \{ 0 \}$ and a rank $n \in {\mathbb N}$, and for a Cartan label ${\rm X}$ of one of these 10 symmetry classes, we denote by ${\rm X}(d,n,N)$ the set of continuous maps $P \colon {\mathbb T}^d \to {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$, with ${\rm dim }({\mathcal H}) = N$, and respecting the symmetry requirements of class ${\rm X}$.
Given two continuous maps $P_0, P_1 \in {\rm X}(d, n ,N)$, we ask the following questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Can we find explicit ${\rm Index} \equiv {\rm Index}_d^{\rm X}$ maps, which are numerical functions (integer- or integer-mod-2-valued) so that ${\rm Index}(P_0) = {\rm Index}(P_1)$ iff $P_0$ and $P_1$ are path-connected in ${\rm X}(d, n,N)$?
\item If so, how to compute this Index?
\item In the case where ${\rm Index}(P_0) = {\rm Index}(P_1)$, how to construct explicitly a path $P_s$, $s \in [0,1]$ connecting $P_0$ and $P_1$ in ${\rm X}(d, n, N)$?
\end{itemize}
In this paper, we answer these questions for all the 10 symmetry classes, and for $d \in \{0, 1\}$. We analyze the classes one by one, often choosing a basis for ${\mathcal H}$ in which the different symmetry operators $T$, $C$ and $S$ have a specific normal form. In doing so, we recover Cartan's symmetric spaces as ${\rm X}(d=0,n,N)$ -- see the boxed equations in the body of the paper. The topological indices that we find%
\footnote{We make no claim on the group-homomorphism nature of the Index maps we provide.} %
are summarized in Table~\ref{table:us}. Our findings agree with the previously mentioned ``periodic tables'' from the physics literature \cite{kitaev2009periodic,Ryu_2010} if one also takes into account the weak ${\mathbb Z}_2$ invariants (see Remark~\ref{rmk:weak}). We note that the $d = 0$ column is not part of the original table. It is related (but not equal) to the $d = 8$ column by Bott periodicity~\cite{Bott_1956}. For our purpose, it is useful to have it explicitly in order to derive the $d = 1$ column.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
$\begin{array}{| c|ccc|cc|cc |}
\hline \hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\text{Symmetry}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\text{Constraints}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\text{Indices}} \\
\hline
\text{Cartan label} & T & C & S & n & N & d=0 & d=1 \\ \hline
\hyperref[ssec:A]{{\rm A}} & 0 & 0 & 0 & & & 0 & 0 \\
\hyperref[ssec:AIII]{{\rm AIII}} & 0 & 0 & 1 & & N=2n & 0 & {\mathbb Z} \\ \hline
\hyperref[ssec:AI]{{\rm AI}} & 1 & 0 & 0 & & & 0 & 0 \\
\hyperref[ssec:BDI]{{\rm BDI}} & 1 & 1 & 1 & & N=2n & {\mathbb Z}_2 & {{\mathbb Z}_2\times{\mathbb Z}} \\
\hyperref[ssec:D]{{\rm D}} & 0 & 1 & 0 & & N=2n & {\mathbb Z}_2 & {{\mathbb Z}_2\times{\mathbb Z}_2} \\
\hyperref[ssec:DIII]{{\rm DIII}} & -1 & 1 & 1 & n=2m \in 2{\mathbb N} & N=2n=4m & 0 & {\mathbb Z}_2 \\
\hyperref[ssec:AII]{{\rm AII}} & -1 & 0 & 0 & n=2m \in 2{\mathbb N} & N=2M \in 2{\mathbb N} & 0 & 0 \\
\hyperref[ssec:CII]{{\rm CII}} & -1 & -1 & 1 & n=2m \in 2{\mathbb N} & N=2n=4m & 0 & {\mathbb Z} \\
\hyperref[ssec:C]{{\rm C}} & 0 & -1 & 0 & & N=2n & 0 & 0 \\
\hyperref[ssec:CI]{{\rm CI}} & 1 & -1 & 1 & & N=2n & 0 & 0 \\
\hline\hline
\end{array}$
\medskip
\caption{A summary of our main results on the topological ``Indices'' of the various symmetry classes of Fermi projections. In the ``Symmetry'' column, we list the sign characterizing the symmetry as even or odd; an entry ``$0$'' means that the symmetry is absent. Some ``Constraints'' may be needed for the symmetry class ${\rm X}(d,n,N)$ to be non-empty.
}
\label{table:us}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\subsection{Notation}
For ${\mathbb K} \in \{ {\mathbb R}, {\mathbb C}\}$, we denote by ${\mathcal M}_N({\mathbb K})$ the set of $N \times N$ {\em ${\mathbb K}$-valued} matrices. We denote by $K \equiv K_N : {\mathbb C}^N \to {\mathbb C}^N$ the usual complex conjugation operator. For a complex matrix $A \in {\mathcal M}_N({\mathbb C})$, we set $\overline{A} := K A K$ and $A^T := \overline{A^*}$, where $A^*$ is the adjoint matrix of $A$ for the standard scalar product on ${\mathbb C}^N$.
We then denote by ${\mathcal S}_N({\mathbb K})$ the set of hermitian matrices ($A = A^*$), and by ${\mathcal A}_N({\mathbb K})$ the one of skew-hermitian matrices ($A = - A^*$). When ${\mathbb K} = {\mathbb C}$, we sometimes drop the notation ${\mathbb C}$. Also, we denote by ${\mathcal S}_N^{\mathbb R}({\mathbb C})$ and ${\mathcal A}_N^{{\mathbb R}}({\mathbb C})$ the set of symmetric ($A^T = A$) and antisymmetric matrices ($A^T = -A$). We denote by ${\rm U}(N)$ the subset of unitary matrices, by ${\rm SU}(N)$ the set of unitaries with determinant $1$, by ${\rm O}(N)$ the subset of orthogonal matrices, and by ${\rm SO}(N)$ the subset of orthogonal matrices with determinant $1$.
We denote by ${\mathbb I}\equiv {\mathbb I}_N$ the identity matrix of ${\mathbb C}^N$. When $N = 2M$ is even, we also introduce the symplectic matrix
\[
J \equiv J_{2M} := \begin{pmatrix} 0 & {\mathbb I}_M \\ - {\mathbb I}_M & 0 \end{pmatrix}.
\]
The symplectic group ${\rm Sp}(2M; {\mathbb K})$ is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Sp}
{\rm Sp}(2M;{\mathbb K}):= \set{A \in {\mathcal M}_{2M}({\mathbb K}) : A^T J_{2M} A = J_{2M}}.
\end{equation}
The {\em compact} symplectic group ${\rm Sp}(M)$ is
\[
{\rm Sp}(M) := {\rm Sp}(2M;{\mathbb C}) \cap {\rm U}(2M) = \set{U \in {\rm U}(2M) : U^T J_{2M} U = J_{2M}}.
\]
\subsection{Structure of the paper}
We study the classes one by one. We begin with the {\em complex classes} A and AIII in Section~\ref{sec:complexClasses}, where no anti-unitary operator is present. We then study non-chiral {\em real} classes (without $S$-symmetry) in Section~\ref{sec:nonchiral}, and chiral classes in Section~\ref{sec:chiral}. In Appendix~\ref{sec:LA}, we review some factorizations of matrices, which allow us to prove our results.
\section{Complex classes: ${\rm A}$ and ${\rm AIII}$}
\label{sec:complexClasses}
The symmetry classes ${\rm A}$ and ${\rm AIII}$ are often dubbed as \emph{complex}, since they do not involve any antiunitary symmetry operator, and thus any ``real structure'' induced by the complex conjugation. By contrast, the other 8 symmetry classes are called \emph{real}. Complex classes where studied, for example, in~\cite{ProdanSchulzBaldes,denittis2018chiral}.
\subsection{Class ${\rm A}$}
\label{ssec:A}
In class ${\rm A}$, no discrete symmetry is imposed. We have in this case
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm A}$] \label{thm:A}
The sets ${\rm A}(0, n, N)$ and ${\rm A}(1, n, N)$ are path-connected.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since no symmetry is imposed and ${\mathbb T}^0 = \{0\}$ consists of a single point, we have ${\rm A}(0,n,N) = {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$. It is known~\cite[Ch.~8, Thm.~2.2]{husemoller} that the complex Grassmannian is connected, hence so is ${\rm A}(0,n,N)$. This property follows from the fact that the map ${\rm U}(N) \to {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$ which to any $N \times N$ unitary matrix associates the linear span of its first $n$ columns (say in the canonical basis for ${\mathcal H} \simeq {\mathbb C}^N$), viewed as orthonormal vectors in ${\mathcal H}$, induces a bijection
\begin{equation} \label{eq:U/UxU=G}
\boxed{ {\rm A}(0,n,N) \simeq {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H}) \simeq {\rm U}(N) / {\rm U}(n) \times {\rm U}(N-n).}
\end{equation}
Since $U(N)$ is connected, so is ${\rm A}(0, n, N)$.
\medskip
To realize this explicitly, we fix a basis of ${\mathcal H} \simeq {\mathbb C}^N$. Let $P_0, P_1 \in {\rm A}(0, n, N)$. For $j \in \{ 0, 1\}$, we choose a unitary $U_j \in {\rm U}(N)$ such that its $n$ first column vectors span the range of $P_j$. We then choose a self-adjoint matrix $A_j \in {\mathcal S}_N$ so that $U_j = \re^{ \ri A_j}$. We now set, for $s \in (0, 1)$,
\[
U_s := \re^{ \ri A_s}, \quad A_s := (1 - s) A_0 + s A_1.
\]
The map $s \mapsto U_s$ is continuous, takes values in ${\rm U}(n)$, and connects $U_0$ and $U_1$. The projection $P_s$ on the first $n$ column vectors of $U_s$ then connects $P_0$ and $P_1$, as wanted.
\medskip
We now prove our statement concerning ${\rm A}(1, n, N)$. Let $P_0, P_1 \colon {\mathbb T}^1 \to {\mathcal G}_n({\mathcal H})$ be two periodic families of projections. Recall that we identify ${\mathbb T}^1 \simeq [-1/2, 1/2]$. Consider the two projections $P_0(-\tfrac12) = P_0(\tfrac12)$ and $P_1(-\tfrac12) = P_1(\tfrac12)$, and connect them by some continuous path $P_s(-\frac12) = P_s(\frac12)$ as previously. The families $P_0(k)$ and $P_1(k)$, together with the maps $P_s(-\tfrac12)$ and $P_s(\tfrac12)$, define a continuous family of projectors on the boundary $\partial \Omega$ of the square
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Omega}
\Omega := [-\tfrac12, \tfrac12] \times [0,1] \ni (k,s).
\end{equation}
It is a standard result (see for instance~\cite[Lemma 3.2]{Gontier2019numerical} for a constructive proof) that such families can be extended continuously to the whole set $\Omega$. This gives an homotopy $P_s(k) = P(k,s)$ between $P_0$ and $P_1$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class ${\rm AIII}$}
\label{ssec:AIII}
In class ${\rm AIII}$, only the $S$-symmetry is present. It is convenient to choose a basis in which $S$ is diagonal. This is possible thanks to the following Lemma, which we will use several times in classes where the $S$-symmetry is present.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:formS}
Assume ${\rm AIII}(d=0, n, N)$ is non-empty. Then $N = 2n$, and there is a basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which $S$ has the block-matrix form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:formS}
S = \begin{pmatrix} {\mathbb I}_n & 0 \\ 0 & - {\mathbb I}_n \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
In this basis, a projection $P$ satisfies $S^{-1} P S = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H} - P$ iff it has the matrix form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:special_form_P}
P = \frac12 \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbb I}_n & Q \\ Q^* & {\mathbb I}_n
\end{pmatrix} \quad \text{with} \quad Q \in {\rm U}(n).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $P_0 \in {\rm AIII}(0, n, N)$. Since $S^{-1} P_0 S = {\mathbb I}_{{\mathcal H}} - P_0$, $P_0$ is unitarily equivalent to ${\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H} - P_0$, hence ${\mathcal H} = {\rm Ran} \ P_0 \oplus {\rm Ran} \ ({\mathbb I}_{{\mathcal H}} - P_0)$ is of dimension $N= 2n$. \\
Let $(\psi_1, \psi_2, \cdots, \psi_n)$ be an orthonormal basis for ${\rm Ran } \, P_0$. We set
\[
\forall i \in \{ 1, \cdots, n\}, \quad \phi_i := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi_i + S \psi_i), \quad \phi_{n+i} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi_i - S \psi_i).
\]
The family $(\phi_1, \cdots, \phi_{2n})$ is an orthonormal basis of ${\mathcal H}$, and in this basis, $S$ has the matrix form~\eqref{eq:formS}.
\medskip
For the second point, let $P \in {\rm AIII}(0,n,2n)$, and decompose $P$ in blocks:
\[ P = \frac12 \begin{pmatrix}
P_{11} & P_{12} \\
P_{12}^* & P_{22}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
The equation $S^{-1} P S= {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H} - P$ implies that $P_{11} = P_{22} = {\mathbb I}_n$. Then, the equation $P^2 = P$ shows that $P_{12} =: Q$ is unitary, and~\eqref{eq:special_form_P} follows.
\end{proof}
The previous Lemma establishes a bijection $P \longleftrightarrow Q$, that is
\[
\boxed{ {\rm AIII}(0,n,2n) \simeq {\rm U}(n).}
\]
For $P \in {\rm AIII}(d, n, 2n)$, we denote by $Q : {\mathbb T}^d \to {\rm U}(n)$ the corresponding periodic family of unitaries.
For a curve ${\mathcal C}$ homeomorphic to ${\mathbb S}^1$, and for $Q : {\mathcal C} \to {\rm U}(n)$, we denote by ${\rm Winding}({\mathcal C}, Q)$ the usual winding number of the determinant of $Q$ along ${\mathcal C}$.
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm AIII}$]
The set ${\rm AIII}(d, n, N)$ is non-empty iff $N=2n$.
\begin{itemize}
\item The set ${\rm AIII}(0,n,2n)$ is path-connected.
\item Define the index map ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm AIII}} : {\rm AIII}(1, n, 2n) \to {\mathbb Z}$ by
\[
\forall P \in {\rm AIII}(1, n, 2n), \quad {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm AIII}} (P) := {\rm Winding}({\mathbb T}^1, Q).
\]
Then $P_0$ is homotopic to $P_1$ in ${\rm AIII}(1,n,2n)$ iff ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm AIII}}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm AIII}}(P_1)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We already proved that $N = 2n$. Since ${\rm U}(n)$ is connected, so is ${\rm AIII}(0, n, 2n)$. A constructive path can be constructed as in the previous section using exponential maps.
We now focus on ${\rm AIII}(d = 1, n, 2n)$. Analogously, the question of whether two maps in ${\rm AIII}(1,n,2n)$ are continuously connected by a path can be translated in whether two unitary-valued maps $Q_0, Q_1 \colon {\mathbb T}^1 \to {\rm U}(n)$ are homotopic to each other. As in the previous proof, consider the unitaries $Q_0(-\tfrac12) = Q_0(\tfrac12) \in {\rm U}(n)$ and $Q_1(-\tfrac12) = Q_1(\tfrac12) \in {\rm U}(n)$. Connect them by some $Q_s(-\frac12) = Q_s(\frac12)$ in ${\rm U}(n)$. This defines a ${\rm U}(n)$-valued map on $\partial \Omega$, where the square $\Omega$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:Omega}.
It is well known that one can extend such a family of unitaries to the whole $\Omega$ iff ${\rm Winding}(\partial \Omega,Q) = 0$ (see~\cite[Section IV.B]{Gontier2019numerical} for a proof, together with a constructive proof of the extension in the case where the winding vanishes). In our case, due to the orientation of the boundary of $\Omega$ and of the periodicity of $Q_0(k), Q_1(k)$, we have
\[ {\rm Winding}(\partial \Omega, Q) = {\rm Winding}({\mathbb T}^1,\ Q_1) - {\rm Winding}({\mathbb T}^1, Q_0), \]
which is independent of the previously constructed path $Q_s(\frac12)$. The conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Real non-chiral classes: ${\rm AI}$, ${\rm AII}$, ${\rm C}$ and ${\rm D}$}
\label{sec:nonchiral}
Next we consider those symmetry classes which are characterized by the presence of a \emph{single} anti-unitary symmetry: a $T$-symmetry (which even in class ${\rm AI}$ and odd in class ${\rm AII}$) or a $C$-symmetry (whih is even in class ${\rm D}$ and odd in class ${\rm C}$). In particular, these classes involve anti-unitarily intertwining $P(k)$ and $P(-k)$. For these symmetry classes, the analysis of their path-connected components in dimension $d=1$ is reduced to that of dimension $d=0$, thanks to the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Real non-chiral classes in $d=1$] \label{lem:NonCh1d}
Let ${\rm X} \in \set{{\rm AI}, {\rm AII}, {\rm C}, {\rm D}}$. Then $P_0$ and $P_1$ are in the same connected component of ${\rm X}(1,n,N)$ iff
\begin{itemize}
\item $P_0(0)$ and $P_1(0)$ are in the same connected component in ${\rm X}(0,n,N)$, and
\item $P_0(\tfrac12)$ and $P_1(\tfrac12)$ are in the same connected component in ${\rm X}(0,n,N)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We give the argument for the class ${\rm X} = {\rm D}$, but the proof is similar for the other classes. First, we note that if $P_s(k)$ connects $P_0$ and $P_1$ in ${\rm D}(1, n, N)$, then for $k_0 \in \{ 0, \tfrac12\}$ one must have $C^{-1} P_s(k_0) C = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H} - P_s(k_0)$, so $P_s(k_0)$ connects $P_0(k_0)$ and $P_1(k_0)$ in ${\rm D}(d = 0, n, N)$.
Let us prove the converse. Assume that $P_0$ and $P_1$ are two projection-valued maps in ${\rm D}(1, n, N)$ so that there exist paths $P_s(k_0)$ connecting $P_0(k_0)$ and $P_1(k_0)$ in ${\rm D}(0,n,N)$, for the high symmetry points $k_0 \in \{ 0, \tfrac12\}$. Denote by $\Omega_0$ the half-square
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Omega0}
\Omega_0 := [0, \tfrac12] \times [0, 1] \quad \ni (k,s),
\end{equation}
(compare with~\eqref{eq:Omega}). The families
\[
\set{P_0(k)}_{k \in [0,1/2]}, \quad \set{P_1(k)}_{k\in[0,1/2]}, \quad \set{P_s(0)}_{s\in[0,1]}
\quad \text{and} \quad \set{P_s(\tfrac12)}_{s\in[0,1]},
\]
together define a continuous family of projectors on the boundary $\partial \Omega_0$. As was already mentioned in Section~\ref{ssec:A}, this family can be extended continuously on the whole set $\Omega_0$.
This gives a continuous family $\set{P_s(k)}_{k\in[0,1/2],\,s\in[0,1]}$ which connects continuously the restrictions of $P_0$ and $P_1$ to the half-torus $k \in [0, \tfrac12]$. We can then extend the family of projections to $k \in [-\tfrac12, 0]$ by setting
\[
\forall k \in [- \tfrac12, 0], \ \forall s \in [0, 1], \quad P_s(k) := C \big[ {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H} - P_s (-k) \big] C^{-1}.
\]
By construction, for all $s \in [0, 1]$, the map $P_s$ is in ${\rm D}(1,n,N)$. In addition, since at $k_0 \in \{0 ,\tfrac12\}$ we have $P_s(k_0) \in {\rm D}(0, n, N)$, the above extension is indeed continuous as a function of $k$ on the whole torus ${\mathbb T}^1$. This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class ${\rm AI}$} \label{ssec:AI}
In class ${\rm AI}$, the relevant symmetry is an anti-unitary operator $T$ with $T^2 = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$. This case was studied for instance in~\cite{panati2007triviality,denittis2014real,FiorenzaMonacoPanatiAI}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:formTeven}
If $T$ is an anti-unitary operator on ${\mathcal H}$ such that $T^2 = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$, then there is a basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which $T$ has the matrix form $T = K_N$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We construct the basis by induction. Let $\psi_1 \in {\mathcal H}$ be a normalized vector. if $T \psi_1 = \psi_1$, we set $\phi_1 = \psi_1$, otherwise we set
\[
\phi_1 := \ri \dfrac{ \psi_1 - T \psi_1 }{\| \psi_1 - T \psi_1 \|}.
\]
In both cases, we have $T \phi_1 = \phi_1$ and $\| \phi_1 \| = 1$, which gives our first vector of the basis. Now take $\psi_2$ orthogonal to $\phi_1$. We define $\phi_2$ as before. If $\phi_2 = \psi_2$, then $\phi_2$ is automatically orthogonal to $\phi_1$. This also holds in the second case, since
\[
\langle \psi_2 - T \psi_2, \phi_1 \rangle
= - \langle T \psi_2, \phi_1 \rangle
= - \langle T \phi_1, T^2 \psi_2 \rangle
= - \langle \phi_1, \psi_2 \rangle = 0,
\]
where we used twice that $\langle \psi_2, \phi_1 \rangle = 0$. We go on, and construct the vectors $\phi_k$ inductively for $1 \le k \le N$. This gives an orthonormal basis in which $T = K$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm AI}$] \label{thm:AI}
The sets ${\rm AI}(0, n, N)$ and ${\rm AI}(1, n, N)$ are path-connected.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In a basis in which $T = K_N$, we have the identification
\[ {\rm AI}(0, n, N) = \left\{ P \in {\mathcal G}_n({\mathbb C}^N) : \overline{P} = P \right\}. \]
In other words, ${\rm AI}(0, n, N)$ consists of \emph{real} subspaces of ${\mathcal H}$, {\em i.e.} those that are fixed by the complex conjugation $T=K$. One can therefore span such subspaces (as well as their orthogonal complement) by orthonormal \emph{real} vectors. This realizes a bijection similar to~\eqref{eq:U/UxU=G}, but where unitary matrices are replaced by orthogonal ones: more precisely
\[
\boxed{ {\rm AI}(0, n, N) \simeq {\rm O}(N) / {\rm O}(n) \times {\rm O}(N-n).}
\]
We adapt the argument in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:A} to show that the latter space is path-connected. Let $P_0, P_1 \in {\rm AI}(0, n, N)$. We choose two {\em real} bases of ${\mathcal H}$, which we identify with columns of orthogonal matrices $U_0,U_1 \in {\rm O}(N)$, so that the first $n$ vectors of $U_j$ span the range of $P_j$, for $j \in \set{0,1}$. In addition, by flipping the first vector, we may assume $U_0, U_1 \in {\rm SO}(N)$. Then there is $A_0, A_1 \in {\mathcal A}_N({\mathbb R})$ so that $U_j = \re^{ A_j}$ for $j \in \{ 0, 1 \}$. We then set $U_s := \re^{A_s}$ with $A_s = (1 - s) A_0 + sA_1$. The projection $P_s$ on the first $n$ column vectors of $U_s$ then interpolates between $P_0$ and $P_1$, as required. In view of Lemma~\ref{lem:NonCh1d}, the path-connectedness of ${\rm AI}(0,n,N)$ implies the one of ${\rm AI}(1,n,N)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class ${\rm AII}$}
\label{ssec:AII}
In class ${\rm AII}$ we have $T^2 = -{\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$. This case was studied for instance in~\cite{graf2013bulk, denittis2015quaternionic, FiorenzaMonacoPanatiAII, cornean2017wannier, monaco2017gauge}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:formTodd}
There is an anti-unitary map $T : {\mathcal H} \to {\mathcal H}$ with $T^2 = - {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$ iff ${\rm dim } \, {\mathcal H} = N = 2M$ is even. In this case, there is a basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which $T$ has the matrix form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:oddT}
T = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & K_M \\ - K_M & 0
\end{pmatrix} = J_{2M} \, K_{2M}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we note that $T \psi$ is always orthogonal to $\psi$. Indeed, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:psiTpsi}
\langle \psi, T \psi \rangle = \langle T^2 \psi, T \psi \rangle = - \langle \psi, T \psi \rangle, \quad \text{hence} \quad
\langle \psi, T \psi \rangle = 0.
\end{equation}
We follow the strategy employed {\em e.g.}~in~\cite{graf2013bulk} and~\cite[Chapter 4.1]{cornean2017wannier}, and construct the basis by induction. Let $\psi_1 \in {\mathcal H}$ be any normalized vector, and set $\psi_2 := T \psi_1$. The family $\{\psi_1, \psi_2\}$ is orthonormal by~\eqref{eq:psiTpsi}. If ${\mathcal H} \neq {\rm Span } \{ \psi_1, \psi_2\}$, then there is $\psi_3 \in {\mathcal H}$ orthonormal to this family. We then set $\psi_4 = T \psi_3$, and claim that $\psi_4$ is orthonormal to the family $\{ \psi_1, \psi_2, \psi_3\}$. First, by~\eqref{eq:psiTpsi}, we have $\langle \psi_3, \psi_4 \rangle = 0$. In addition, we have
\[
\langle \psi_4, \psi_1 \rangle = \langle T \psi_3, \psi_1 \rangle = \langle T \psi_1, T^2 \psi_3 \rangle = - \langle \psi_2, \psi_3 \rangle = 0,
\]
and, similarly,
\[
\langle \psi_4, \psi_2 \rangle = \langle T \psi_3, T \psi_1 \rangle = \langle T^2 \psi_1, T^2 \psi_3 \rangle = \langle \psi_1, \psi_3 \rangle = 0.
\]
We proceed by induction. We first obtain that the dimension of ${\mathcal H}$ is even, $N = 2M$, and we construct an explicit basis $\{\psi_1, \cdots, \psi_{2M}\}$ for ${\mathcal H}$. In the orthonormal basis $\{\psi_1, \psi_3, \psi_5, \cdots, \psi_{2M-1}, \psi_2, \psi_4, \cdots \psi_{2M}\}$, the operator $T$ has the matrix form~\eqref{eq:oddT}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm AII}$] \label{thm:AII}
The sets ${\rm AII}(0, n, N)$ and ${\rm AII}(1, n, N)$ are non-empty iff $n = 2m \in 2{\mathbb N}$ and $N = 2M \in 2{\mathbb N}$. Both are path-connected.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the same lines as that of Theorems~\ref{thm:A} and~\ref{thm:AI}. The condition $T^{-1} P T = P$ for $P \in {\rm AII}(0, n, N)$ means that the range of the projection $P$ is stable under the action of $T$. This time, the operator $T$ endows the Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$ with a \emph{quaternionic} structure, namely the matrices $\set{\ri {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}, T, \ri T}$ satisfy the same algebraic relations as the basic quaternions $\set{\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j},\mathbf{k}}$: they square to $-{\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$, they pairwise anticommute and the product of two successive ones cyclically gives the third. This allows to realize the class ${\rm AII}(0,2m,2M)$ as
\[
\boxed{ {\rm AII}(0, 2m, 2M) \simeq {\rm Sp}(M) / {\rm Sp}(m) \times {\rm Sp}(M-m). }
\]
Matrices in ${\rm Sp}(M)$ are exponentials of Hamiltonian matrices, that is, matrices $A$ such that $J_{2M} A$ is symmetric \cite[Prop.~3.5 and Coroll.~11.10]{hall2015lie}. Such matrices form a (Lie) algebra, and therefore the same argument as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:AI} applies, yielding path-connectedness of ${\rm AII}(0,2m,2M)$. This in turn implies, in combination with Lemma~\ref{lem:NonCh1d}, that ${\rm AII}(1,2m,2M)$ is path-connected as well.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class ${\rm D}$}
\label{ssec:D}
We now come to classes where the $C$-symmetry is present. We first focus on the even case, $C^2 = + {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$, characterizing class ${\rm D}$. One of the most famous models in this class is the 1-dimensional Kitaev chain~\cite{KitaevChain}. We choose to work in the basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which $C$ has the form%
\footnote{This is \emph{different} from the ``energy basis'', of common use in the physics literature, in which $C$ is block-off-diagonal, mapping ``particles'' to ``holes'' and vice-versa. We find this other basis more convenient for our purpose.} $C = K_N$ (see Lemma~\ref{lem:formTeven}).
\begin{lemma}
The set ${\rm D}(0, n, N)$ is non-empty iff $N = 2n$. In this case, and in a basis where $C = K_N$, a projection $P$ is in ${\rm D}(0, n,2n)$ iff it has the matrix form
\[
P = \frac12 ({\mathbb I}_N + \ri A ), \quad \text{with} \quad A \in {\rm O}(2n) \cap {\mathcal A}_{2n}({\mathbb R}).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A computation shows that
\[
\begin{cases}
P^* = P \\
P^2 = P \\
C^{-1} P C = {\mathbb I} - P
\end{cases}
\Longleftrightarrow \quad
\begin{cases}
A^* = -A \\
A^2 = - {\mathbb I}_N \\
\overline{A} = A
\end{cases}
\Longleftrightarrow \quad
\begin{cases}
A^* A = {\mathbb I}_N \\
A= \overline{A} = - A^T.
\end{cases}
\]
This proves that $P \in {\rm D}(0, n, N)$ iff $A \in {\rm O}(N) \cap {\mathcal A}_{N}({\mathbb R})$. In particular, we have ${\rm det}(A) = (-1)^N {\rm det}(-A) = (-1)^N {\rm det}(A^T) = (-1)^N {\rm det}(A)$, so $N = 2m$ is even. Finally, since the diagonal of $A$ is null, we have $n = {\rm Tr}(P) = \frac12 {\rm Tr}({\mathbb I}_N) = m$.
\end{proof}
%
In Corollary~\ref{cor:O(d)capA(d)} below, we prove that a matrix $A$ is in ${\rm O}(2n) \cap {\mathcal A}_{2n}({\mathbb R})$ iff it is of the form
\[ A = W^T J_{2n} W, \quad \text{with} \quad W \in {\rm O}(2n). \]
In addition, we have $W_0^T J_{2n} W_0 = W_1^T J_{2n} W_1$ with $W_0, W_1 \in {\rm O}(2n)$ iff $W_0 W_1^* \in {\rm Sp}(n) \cap {\rm O}(2n)$. Finally, in Proposition~\ref{prop:SpO=U}, we show that ${\rm Sp}(n) \cap {\rm O}(2n) \simeq {\rm U}(n)$. Altogether, this shows that
\[
\boxed{ {\rm D}(0, n, 2n) \simeq {\rm O}(2n) \cap {\mathcal A}_{2n}({\mathbb R}) \simeq {\rm O}(2n)/{\rm U}(n) .}
\]
To identify the connected components of this class, recall that for an anti-symmetric matrix $A \in {\mathcal A}_{2n}^{\mathbb R}({\mathbb C})$, we can define its \emph{Pfaffian}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def:Pfaffian}
{\rm Pf}(A) := \dfrac{1}{2^n n!} \sum_{\sigma} {\rm sgn}(\sigma) \prod_{i=1}^n a_{\sigma(2i-1), \sigma(2i)},
\end{equation}
where the above sum runs over all permutations over $2n$ labels and ${\rm sgn}(\sigma)$ is the sign of the permutation $\sigma$. The Pfaffian satisfies
\[ {\rm Pf}(A)^2 = {\rm det}(A). \]
On the other hand, if $A \in {\rm O}(2n)$, then ${\rm det}(A) \in \{ \pm 1\}$, so if $A \in {\rm O}(2n) \cap {\mathcal A}_{2n}({\mathbb R})$, we must have ${\rm det}(A) = 1$ and ${\rm Pf}(A) \in \{ \pm 1\}$.
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm D}$]
The set ${\rm D}(d, n, N)$ is non-empty iff $N=2n$.
\begin{itemize}
\item The set ${\rm D}(0, n, 2n)$ has two connected components. Define the index map ${\rm Index}_0^{{\rm D}} \colon {\rm D}(0,n,2n) \to {\mathbb Z}_2 \simeq \{ \pm 1\}$ by
\[
\forall P \in {\rm D}(0, n, 2n), \quad {\rm Index}_0^{\rm D} (P) := {\rm Pf}(A).
\]
Then $P_0$ is homotopic to $P_1$ in ${\rm D}(0,n,2n)$ iff $ {\rm Index}_0^{{\rm D}}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_0^{{\rm D}}(P_1)$.
\item The set ${\rm D}(1, n, 2n)$ has four connected components. Define the index map ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm D}} \colon {\rm D}(1,n,2n) \to {\mathbb Z}_2 \times {\mathbb Z}_2$ by
\[
\forall P \in {\rm D}(1, n, 2n), \quad {\rm Index}_1^{\rm D} (P) := \left( {\rm Pf}(A(0)), {\rm Pf}(A(\tfrac12))\right).
\]
Then $P_0$ is homotopic to $P_1$ in ${\rm D}(1,n,2n)$ iff $ {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm D}}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm D}}(P_1)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We start with ${\rm D}(0, n, N=2n)$. Let $P_0, P_1 \in {\rm D}(0, n, 2n)$. It is clear that if ${\rm Pf}(A_0) \neq {\rm Pf}(A_1)$, then $P_0$ and $P_1$ are in two different connected components (recall that ${\rm Pf}(\cdot)$ is a continuous map, with values in $\{ \pm 1\}$ in our case).
It remains to construct an explicit homotopy in the case where ${\rm Pf}(A_0) = {\rm Pf}(A_1)$. In Corollary~\ref{cor:O(d)capA(d)} below, we recall that a matrix $A$ is in ${\rm O}(2n) \cap {\mathcal A}_{2n}({\mathbb R})$ iff there is $V \in {\rm SO}(2n)$ so that
\[
A = V^T D V, \quad \text{with} \quad D = (1, 1, \cdots, 1, {\rm Pf}(A)) \otimes \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\ - 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
So, if $A_0, A_1 \in {\rm O}(2n) \cap {\mathcal A}_{2n}({\mathbb R})$ have the same Pfaffian, it is enough to connect the corresponding $V_0$ and $V_1$ in ${\rm SO}(2n)$. The proof follows since ${\rm SO}(2n)$ is path-connected (compare with the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:AI}).
The case for ${\rm D}(d = 1, n, 2n)$ is now a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:NonCh1d}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rmk:weak}
For 1-dimensional translation-invariant systems, one can distinguish between a \emph{weak} ({\em i.e.}, lower-dimensional, depending solely on $P(k)$ at $k = 0$) index
\[ {\rm Index}_0^{\rm D}(P(0)) = {\rm Pf}(A(0)) \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \]
and a \emph{strong} (i.e., ``truly'' 1-dimensional) index
\[ \widetilde{ {\rm Index}_0^{\rm D} } (P) := {\rm Pf}(A(0)) \cdot {\rm Pf}(A(\tfrac12)) \in {\mathbb Z}_2. \]
Only the latter ${\mathbb Z}_2$-index appears in the periodic tables for free ground states \cite{kitaev2009periodic}. Our proposed index
\[ {\rm Index}_1^{\rm D} (P) = \left( {\rm Pf}(A(0)), {\rm Pf}(A(\tfrac12))\right) \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \times {\mathbb Z}_2 \]
clearly contains the same topological information of both the weak and strong indices.
A similar situation will appear in class ${\rm BDI}$ (see Section~\ref{ssec:BDI}).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Class ${\rm C}$}
\label{ssec:C}
We now focus on the odd $C$-symmetry class, where $C^2 = - {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$. Thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem:formTodd}, $N = 2M$ is even, and we can choose a basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which $C$ has the matrix form
\[
C = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & K_M \\ - K_M & 0
\end{pmatrix} = J_{2M}\, K_{2M}.
\]
Recall that ${\rm Sp}(n) := {\rm Sp}(2n; {\mathbb C}) \cap {\rm U}(2n)$.
\begin{lemma}
The set ${\rm C}(0, n, N)$ is non-empty iff $N = 2n$ (hence $n = M$). A projection $P$ is in ${\rm C}(0, n, 2n)$ iff it has the matrix form
\[
P = \frac12 \left( {\mathbb I}_{2n} + \ri J_{2n}A \right), \quad \text{with} \quad A \in {\rm Sp}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}^{\mathbb R}_{2n}({\mathbb C}).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
With this change of variable, we obtain that
\[
\begin{cases}
P = P^* \\
P^2 = P \\
C^{-1} P C = {\mathbb I}_{2n} - P
\end{cases}
\Longleftrightarrow \quad
\begin{cases}
A^* J_{2n} = J_{2n} A\\
J_{2n} A J_{2n} A = - {\mathbb I}_{2n} \\
\overline{A} J_{2n} = J_{2n} A.
\end{cases}
\]
With the two first equations, we obtain $A A^* = {\mathbb I}_{2n}$, so $A \in {\rm U}(2n)$. With the first and third equations, we get $A^T = A$, so $A \in {\mathcal S}_{2n}^{\mathbb R}({\mathbb C})$, and with the two last equations, $A^T J_{2n} A = J_{2n}$, so $A \in {\rm Sp}(2n; {\mathbb C})$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
In Corollary~\ref{cor:AutonneTagaki} below, we prove that a matrix $A$ is in ${\rm Sp}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}_{2n}^{\mathbb R}({\mathbb C})$ iff it is of the form
\[
A = V^T V, \quad \text{for some} \quad V \in {\rm Sp}(n).
\]
In addition, $A = V_0^T V_0 = V_1^T V_1$ with $V_0, V_1 \in {\rm Sp}(n)$ iff $V_1 V_0^* \in {\rm Sp}(n) \cap {\rm O}(2n) \simeq {\rm U}(n)$ (see the already mentioned Proposition~\ref{prop:SpO=U} for the last bijection). This proves that
\[
\boxed{ {\rm C}(0, n, N) \simeq {\rm Sp}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}^{\mathbb R}_{2n}({\mathbb C}) \simeq {\rm Sp}(n) / {\rm U}(n). }
\]
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm C}$]
The sets ${\rm C}(0, n, N)$ and ${\rm C}(1, n, N)$ are non-empty iff $N = 2n$. Both are path-connected.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For ${\rm C}(d=0, n, 2N)$, it is enough to prove that ${\rm Sp}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}_{2n}^{\mathbb R}({\mathbb C})$ is path-connected.
To connect $A_0$ and $A_1$ in ${\rm Sp}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}_{2n}({\mathbb C})$ it suffices to connect the corresponding $V_0$ and $V_1$ in ${\rm Sp}(2n)$. This can be done as we already saw in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:AII}. Invoking Lemma~\ref{lem:NonCh1d} allows to conclude that ${\rm C}(1,n,2n)$ is path-connected as well.
\end{proof}
\section{Real chiral classes: ${\rm BDI}$, ${\rm DIII}$, ${\rm CII}$ and ${\rm CI}$}
\label{sec:chiral}
We now focus on the chiral real classes; by Assumption~\ref{S=TC}, the chiral symmetry operator $S$ will come from the combination of a $T$-symmetry with a $C$-symmetry. In what follows, we will always find a basis for ${\mathcal H}$ in which $S:=TC$ has the form~\eqref{eq:formS}. In particular, Lemma~\ref{lem:formS} applies, and any $P \in {\rm X}(d,n,2n)$ for ${\rm X} \in \set{{\rm BDI}, {\rm DIII}, {\rm CII},{\rm CI}}$ will be of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Q}
P(k) = \frac12 \begin{pmatrix} {\mathbb I}_n & Q(k) \\ Q(k)^* & {\mathbb I}_n \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{with} \quad Q(k) \in {\rm U}(n).
\end{equation}
The $T$-symmetry (or equivalently the $C$-symmetry) of $P(k)$ translates into a condition for $Q(k)$, of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FTQ}
F_T(Q(k)) = Q(-k).
\end{equation}
%
With these remarks, we are able to formulate the analogue of Lemma~\ref{lem:NonCh1d} for real chiral classes.
\begin{lemma}[Real chiral classes in $d=1$] \label{lem:Ch1d}
Let ${\rm X} \in \set{{\rm BDI}, {\rm DIII}, {\rm CII},{\rm CI}}$. Then $P_0$ and $P_1$ are in the same connected component in ${\rm X}(1,n,2n)$ iff
\begin{itemize}
\item $P_0(0)$ and $P_1(0)$ are in the same connected component in ${\rm X}(0,n,2n)$,
\item $P_0(\tfrac12)$ and $P_1(\tfrac12)$ are in the same connected component in ${\rm X}(0,n,2n)$, and
\item there exists a choice of the above interpolations $P_s(0)$, $P_s(\tfrac12)$, $s \in [0,1]$, and therefore of the corresponding unitaries $Q_s(0)$, $Q_s(\tfrac12)$ as in~\eqref{eq:Q}, such that
\[ {\rm Winding} (\partial\Omega_0, Q)=0, \]
where $\Omega_0$ is the half-square defined in~\eqref{eq:Omega0}, and where $Q$ is the continuous family of unitaries defined on $\partial \Omega_0$ via the families
\[
\left\{ Q_0(k)\right\}_{k\in [0, 1/2]}, \quad
\left\{ Q_1(k)\right\}_{k\in [0, 1/2]}, \quad
\left\{ Q_s(0)\right\}_{s\in [0, 1]}, \quad \text{and} \quad
\left\{ Q_s(\tfrac12)\right\}_{s\in [0, 1]}.
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As was already mentioned, the vanishing of the winding in the statement is equivalent to the existence of a continuous extension of the map $Q(k,s) \equiv Q_s(k)$ to $(k,s) \in \Omega_0$. For $k \in [-\tfrac12,0]$ and $s \in [0,1]$, we define
\[ Q_s(k) := F_T(Q_s(-k)), \]
where $F_T$ is the functional relation in~\eqref{eq:FTQ}. Using~\eqref{eq:Q}, we can infer the existence of a family of projections $\set{P_s(k)}_{k \in {\mathbb T}^1}$ which depends continuously on $s \in [0,1]$, is in ${\rm X}(1,n,2n)$ for all $s \in [0,1]$, and restricts to $P_0$ and $P_1$ at $s=0$ and $s=1$, respectively. This family thus provides the required homotopy.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class ${\rm BDI}$}
\label{ssec:BDI}
We start from class ${\rm BDI}$, characterized by even $T$- and $C$-symmetries.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:normalForm_BDI}
Assume ${\rm BDI}(0, n, N)$ is non empty. Then $N = 2n$, and there is a basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which
\begin{equation*}
T = \begin{pmatrix}
K_n & 0 \\ 0 & K_n
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
C = \begin{pmatrix}
K_n & 0 \\ 0 & -K_n
\end{pmatrix},
\quad \text{so that} \quad
S = TC = \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbb I}_n & 0 \\ 0 & -{\mathbb I}_n
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $P_0 \in {\rm BDI}(0, n, 2n)$, and let $\{\phi_1, \cdots, \phi_n\}$ be an orthonormal basis for ${\rm Ran} \, P_0$ such that $T \phi_j = \phi_j$ for all $1 \le j \le n$ (see Lemma~\ref{lem:formTeven}). We set
\[
\forall 1 \le j \le n, \quad \phi_{n+j} = C \phi_j.
\]
Since $C$ is anti-unitary, and maps ${\rm Ran} \, P_0$ into ${\rm Ran} \, ({\mathbb I}-P_0)$, the family $\{ \phi_1, \cdots, \phi_{2n}\}$ is an orthonormal basis for ${\mathcal H}$. Since $T$ and $C$ commute, we have for all $1 \le j \le n$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:BDI_TC}
T \phi_{n+j} = T C \phi_j = C T \phi_j = C \phi_j = \phi_{n+j}, \quad \text{and} \quad
C \phi_{n+j} = C^2 \phi_j = \phi_j.
\end{equation}
Therefore in this basis the operators $T$ and $C$ take the form
\[
T = \begin{pmatrix}
K_n & 0 \\ 0 & K_n
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
C = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & K_n \\ K_n & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\quad \text{and} \quad
S = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & {\mathbb I}_n \\ {\mathbb I}_n & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
We now change basis via the matrix $U := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbb I}_n & {\mathbb I}_n \\ {\mathbb I}_n & - {\mathbb I}_n
\end{pmatrix}$ to obtain the result.
\end{proof}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:normalForm_BDI}, one can describe a projection $P(k)$ with its corresponding unitary $Q(k)$. The condition $T^{-1} P(k) T = P(-k)$ reads
\[
\overline{Q}(-k) = Q(k).
\]
So a projection $P$ is in ${\rm BDI}(0, n , 2n)$ iff the corresponding matrix $Q \in {\rm U}(n)$ satisfies $\overline{Q} = Q$, that is $Q \in {\rm O}(n)$. This proves that
\[
\boxed{ {\rm BDI}(0, n, 2n) \simeq {\rm O}(n). }
\]
Recall that ${\rm O}(n)$ has two connected components, namely ${\rm det}^{-1} \{ \pm 1\}$.
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm BDI}$] \label{th:BDI}
The set ${\rm BDI}(d, n, N)$ is non-empty iff $N=2n$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Let ${\rm Index}_0^{{\rm BDI}} \colon {\rm BDI}(0,n,2n) \to {\mathbb Z}_2$ be the index map defined by
\[
\forall P \in {\rm BDI}(0,n, 2n), \quad {\rm Index}_0^{{\rm BDI}} (P) = {\rm det}(Q).
\]
Then $P_0$ is homotopic to $P_1$ in ${\rm BDI}(0,n,2n)$ iff ${\rm Index}_0^{{\rm BDI}}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_0^{{\rm BDI}}(P_1)$.
\item There is an index map ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm BDI}} \colon {\rm BDI}(1,n,2n) \to {\mathbb Z}_2 \times {\mathbb Z}$ such that $P_0$ is homotopic to $P_1 $ in ${\rm BDI}(1,n,2n)$ iff ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm BDI}}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm BDI}}(P_1)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that ${\rm SO}(n)$ is path-connected, see the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:AI}. The complement ${\rm O}(n) \setminus {\rm SO}(n)$ is in bijection with ${\rm SO}(n)$, by multiplying each orthogonal matrix with determinant $-1$ by the matrix ${\rm diag}(1,1,\ldots,1,-1)$. This proves the first part.
\medskip
We now focus on dimension $d = 1$. Let $P(k)$ be in ${\rm BDI}(1, n, 2n)$, and let $Q(k)$ be the corresponding unitary. Let $\alpha(k) : [0, \tfrac12] \to {\mathbb R}$ be a continuous map so that
\[
\forall k \in [0, \tfrac12], \quad {\rm det} \, Q(k) = \re^{ \ri \alpha(k)}.
\]
Since $Q(0)$ and $Q(\tfrac12)$ are in ${\rm O}(n)$, we have ${\rm det} \, Q(0) \in \{ \pm 1\}$ and ${\rm det} \, Q(\tfrac12) \in \{ \pm 1\}$. We define
\[
{\mathcal W}^{1/2} (P) := {\mathcal W}^{1/2} (Q) := \dfrac{1}{\pi} \left( \alpha(\tfrac12) - \alpha(0) \right) \quad \in {\mathbb Z}.
\]
The number ${\mathcal W}^{1/2} (Q) \in {\mathbb Z}$ counts the number of {\em half turns} that the determinant is winding as $k$ goes from $0$ to $\tfrac12$. We call this map the {\em semi-winding}. We finally define the index map ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm BDI}} \colon {\rm BDI}(1,n,2n) \to {\mathbb Z}_2 \times {\mathbb Z}$ by
\[
\forall P \in {\rm BDI}(1, n, 2n), \quad {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm BDI}}(P) := \left( {\rm det} \, Q(0), \ {\mathcal W}^{1/2}(P) \right) \quad \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \times {\mathbb Z}.
\]
Let $P_0, P_1$ be in ${\rm BDI}(1, n, 2n)$ such that ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm BDI}}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm BDI}}(P_1)$, and let us construct an homotopy between $P_0$ and $P_1$. First, we have ${\rm det} \, Q_0(0) = {\rm det} \, Q_1(0)$, and, since ${\mathcal W}^{1/2}(P_0) = {\mathcal W}^{1/2}(P_1)$, we also have ${\rm det} \, Q_0(\tfrac12) = {\rm det} \, Q_1(\tfrac12)$.
Let $Q_s(0)$ be a path in ${\rm O}(n)$ connecting $Q_0(0)$ and $Q_1(0)$, and let $Q_s(\tfrac12)$ be a path connecting $Q_0(\tfrac12)$ and $Q_1(\tfrac12)$. This defines a continuous family of unitaries on the boundary of the half-square $\Omega_0 := [0, \tfrac12] \times [0,1]$.
Since $Q_s(0)$ and $Q_s(\tfrac12)$ are in ${\rm O}(n)$ for all $s$, their determinants are constant, equal to $\{ \pm 1\}$, and they do not contribute to the winding of the determinant of this unitary-valued map. So the winding along the boundary equals
\[
{\rm Winding}(\partial \Omega_0, Q) = {\mathcal W}^{1/2}(P_0) - {\mathcal W}^{1/2}(P_1) = 0.
\]
Lemma~\ref{lem:Ch1d} allows then to conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class ${\rm CI}$}
\label{ssec:CI}
In class ${\rm CI}$, the $T$-symmetry is even ($T^2 = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$) while the $C$-symmetry is odd ($C^2 = - {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$).
\begin{lemma}
Assume ${\rm CI}(0, n, N)$ is non empty. Then $N=2n$, and there is a basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which
\begin{equation} \label{eq:form_CI}
T = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & K_n \\ K_n & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
C = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -K_n \\ K_n & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\quad \text{so that} \quad
S = TC = \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbb I}_n & 0 \\ 0 & - {\mathbb I}_n
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to the one of Lemma~\ref{lem:normalForm_BDI}. This time, since $C^2 = - {\mathbb I}$ and $TC = - CT$, we have, instead of~\eqref{eq:BDI_TC},
\[
T \phi_{n+j}= T C \phi_{j} = - CT \phi_{j} = - C \phi_j = - \phi_{n+j}, \quad \text{and} \quad
C \phi_{n+j} = C^2 \phi_{j} = - \phi_j. \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
Using again Lemma~\ref{lem:normalForm_BDI}, we describe a projection $P(k)$ with its corresponding unitary $Q(k)$. The condition $T^{-1} P(k) T = P(-k)$ gives
\[
Q(-k)^T = Q(k).
\]
In particular, if $P \in {\rm CI}(0, n, 2n)$, the corresponding $Q$ satisfies $Q^T = Q$. In Corollary~\ref{cor:AutonneTagaki} below, we prove that a matrix $Q$ is in ${\rm U}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}_n^{{\mathbb R}}({\mathbb C})$ iff it is of the form
\[
Q = V^T V, \quad \text{for some} \quad V \in {\rm U}(n).
\]
In addition, we have $Q = V_0^T V_0 = V_1^T V_1$ with $V_0, V_1 \in {\rm U}(n)$ iff $V_0 V_1^* \in {\rm O}(n)$. This proves that
\[
\boxed{ {\rm CI}(0, n, 2n) \simeq {\rm U}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}_n^{{\mathbb R}}({\mathbb C}) \simeq {\rm U}(n) / {\rm O}(n).}
\]
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm CI}$]
The set ${\rm CI}(d, n, N)$ is non-empty iff $N=2n$. It is path-connected both for $d=0$ and for $d=1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Given two matrices $Q_0$, $Q_1$ in ${\rm U}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}_n^{{\mathbb R}}({\mathbb C})$, we can connect them in ${\rm U}(n) \cap {\mathcal S}_n^{{\mathbb R}}({\mathbb C})$ by connecting the corresponding $V_0$ and $V_1$ in ${\rm U}(n)$. This proves that ${\rm CI}(0, n, 2n)$ is connected.
\medskip
We now focus on the case $d = 1$. Let $P_0(k)$ and $P_1(k)$ be two families in ${\rm CI}(1,n)$, with corresponding unitaries $Q_0$ and $Q_1$. Let $V_0(0), V_1(0) \in {\rm U}(n)$ so that
\[
Q_0(0) = V_0(0)^T V_0(0), \quad \text{and} \quad Q_1(0) = V_1(0)^T V_1(0).
\]
Let $V_s(0)$ be a homotopy between $V_0(0)$ and $V_1(0)$ in ${\rm U}(n)$, and set
\[
Q_s(0) := V_s(0)^T V_s(0).
\]
Then, $Q_s(0)$ is a homotopy between $Q_0(0)$ and $Q_1(0)$ in ${\rm CI}(0,n, 2n)$. We construct similarly an homotopy between $Q_0(\tfrac12)$ and $Q_1(\tfrac12)$ in ${\rm CI}(0,n, 2n)$.
This gives a path of unitaries on the boundary of the half-square $\Omega_0$. We can extend this family inside $\Omega_0$ iff the winding of the determinant along the boundary loop vanishes.
\medskip
Let $W \in {\mathbb Z}$ be this winding. There is no reason {\em a priori} to have $W = 0$. However, if $W \neq 0$, we claim that we can cure the winding by modifying the path $V_s(0)$ connecting $V_0(0)$ and $V_1(0)$. Indeed, setting
\[
\widetilde{V}_s(0) = {\rm diag} (\re^{ \ri W\pi s/2}, 1, 1, \cdots, 1) V_s(0), \quad \text{and} \quad \widetilde{Q}_s(0) := \widetilde{V}_s(0)^T \widetilde{V}_s(0),
\]
we can check that the family $\widetilde{Q}_s(0)$ also connects $Q_0(0)$ and $Q_1(0)$ in ${\rm CI}(0,n ,2n)$, and satisfies
\[
{\rm det} \ \widetilde{Q}_s(0) = \re^{ \ri W \pi s} \, {\rm det} \ Q_s(0).
\]
This cures the winding, and Lemma~\ref{lem:Ch1d} allows to conclude that the class ${\rm CI}(1, n, 2n)$ is path-connected.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class ${\rm DIII}$}
\label{ssec:DIII}
The class ${\rm DIII}$ mirrors ${\rm CI}$, since here the $T$-symmetry is odd ($T^2 = -{\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$) while the $C$-symmetry is even ($C^2 = {\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$). This class has been studied {\em e.g.} in~\cite{deNittis2021cohomology}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:normalForm_DIII}
Assume ${\rm DIII}(0, n, N)$ is non empty. Then $n = 2m$ is even, and $N = 2n = 4m$ is a multiple of $4$. There is a basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which
\[
T = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & K_n J_n \\ K_n J_n & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\quad
C = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & K_n J_n \\ - K_n J_n & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \quad \text{and} \quad
S = \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbb I}_{n} & 0 \\ 0 & -{\mathbb I}_{n}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $P_0 \in {\rm DIII}(0, n, 2n)$. Since $T$ is anti-unitary, leaves ${\rm Ran} \, P_0$ invariant, and satisfies $T^2 = - {\mathbb I}_{{\rm Ran} \, P_0}$ there, one can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:formTodd} to the restriction of $T$ on ${\rm Ran} \, P_0$. We first deduce that $n = 2m$ is even, and that there is a basis for ${\rm Ran } \, P_0$ of the form $\set{\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_{2m}}$, with $\psi_{m+j} = T \psi_j$. Once again we set $\psi_{2m+j} := C \psi_j$. This time, we have $TC = - CT$, so, in the basis $\set{\psi_1, \ldots, \psi_{4m}}$, we have
\[
T = \begin{pmatrix} K J_n & 0 \\ 0 & -K J_n \end{pmatrix}, \quad
C= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & K \\ K & 0 \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{hence} \quad
S=TC = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & J_n \\ -J_n & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \]
A computation reveals that
\[
U^* \begin{pmatrix} 0 & J_n \\ -J_n & 0 \end{pmatrix} U = \begin{pmatrix} {\mathbb I}_n & 0 \\ 0 & - {\mathbb I}_n \end{pmatrix}, \quad \text{with} \quad U := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} {\mathbb I}_m & 0 & -{\mathbb I}_m & 0 \\ 0 & - {\mathbb I}_m & 0 & {\mathbb I}_m \\ 0 & {\mathbb I}_m & 0 & {\mathbb I}_m \\ {\mathbb I}_m & 0 & {\mathbb I}_m & 0 \end{pmatrix},
\]
and that $U$ is unitary. With this change of basis, we obtain the result.
\end{proof}
In this basis, we have that $T^{-1} P(k) T = P(-k)$ iff the corresponding $Q$ satisfies
\[
J_n Q^T(-k) J_n = - Q(k).
\]
In dimension $d=0$, the condition becomes $J_n Q^T J_n = - Q$, which can be equivalently rewritten as
\[
A^T = - A, \quad \text{with} \quad A := Q J_n.
\]
The matrix $A$ is unitary and skew-symmetric, $A \in {\rm U}(n) \cap {\mathcal A}_{n}^{\mathbb R}({\mathbb C})$. In particular, the Pfaffian of $A$ is well-defined. In Corollary~\ref{cor:O(d)capA(d)} below, we recall that a matrix $A$ is in ${\rm U}(n) \cap {\mathcal A}_n^{\mathbb R}({\mathbb C})$ iff it is of the form
\[
A = V^T J_n V, \quad \text{with} \quad V \in {\rm U}(n).
\]
In addition, we have $A = V_0^T J_n V_0 = V_1^T J_n V_1$ with $V_0, V_1 \in {\rm U}(n)$ iff $V_0 V_1^* \in {\rm Sp}(m)$. Therefore
\[
\boxed{ {\rm DIII}(0, 2m, 4m) \simeq {\rm U}(2m) \cap {\mathcal A}_{2m}^{\mathbb R}({\mathbb C}) \simeq {\rm U}(2m) / {\rm Sp}(m). }
\]
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm DIII}$]
The set ${\rm DIII}(d, n, N)$ is non-empty iff $n=2m \in 2{\mathbb N}$ and $N=2n=4m$.
\begin{itemize}
\item The set ${\rm DIII}(0,2m,4m)$ is path-connected.
\item There is a map ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm DIII}} \colon {\rm DIII}(1,2m,4m) \to {\mathbb Z}_2$ such that $P_0$ is homotopic to $P_1$ in ${\rm DIII}(1,2m,4m)$ iff ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm DIII}}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm DIII}}(P_1)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
The index ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm DIII}}$ is defined below in~\eqref{eq:def:Index_DIII_1}. It matches the usual Teo-Kene formula in~\cite[Eqn. (4.27)]{Teo_2010}.
\begin{proof}
For the first part, it is enough to connect the corresponding matrices $V$'s in ${\rm U}(n)$, which is path-connected.
Let us focus on the case $d = 1$. Let $P(k) \in {\rm DIII}(1, 2m, 4m)$ with corresponding matrices $Q(k) \in {\rm U}(2m)$ and $A(k) := J_{2m}^T Q(k) \in {\rm U}(2m) \cap \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb R}_{2m}({\mathbb C})$. Let $\alpha(k) : [0, 1/2] \to {\mathbb R}$ be a continuous phase so that
\[
\forall k \in [0, \tfrac12], \quad {\rm det} \ A(k) = \re^{ \ri \alpha(k)}.
\]
For $k_0 \in \{ 0, 1/2 \}$, $A(k_0)$ is anti-symmetric, so we can define its Pfaffian, which satisfies ${\rm Pf}( A(k_0))^2 = {\rm det} \ A(k_0) = \re^{ \ri \alpha(k_0)}$. Taking square roots shows that there are signs $\sigma_0, \sigma_{1/2} \in \{ \pm 1 \}$ so that
\[
{\rm Pf} \ A(0) = \sigma_0 \re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \alpha(0)}, \quad \text{and} \quad
{\rm Pf} \ A(\tfrac12) = \sigma_{1/2} \re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \alpha(\tfrac12)}.
\]
We define the Index as the product of the two signs $\sigma_0 \cdot \sigma_{1/2}$. Explicitly,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def:Index_DIII_1}
{\rm Index}_1^{\rm DIII}(P) := \dfrac{\re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \alpha(0)}} {{\rm Pf} \, A (0)} \cdot \dfrac{\re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \alpha(\frac12)}} {{\rm Pf} \, A (\frac12)} \quad \in \{ \pm 1\}.
\end{equation}
Note that this index is independent of the choice of the lifting $\alpha(k)$. Actually, this index is $1$ if, by following the continuous map $\re^{\ri \tfrac12 \alpha(k)}$, that is a continuous representation of $\sqrt{{\rm det}(A(k))}$, one goes from ${\rm Pf} \, A(0)$ to ${\rm Pf} \, A(\tfrac12)$, and is $-1$ if one goes from ${\rm Pf} \, A(0)$ to $-{\rm Pf} \, A(\tfrac12)$.
Let us prove that if $P_0, P_1 \in {\rm DIII}(1, 2m, 4m)$, then ${\rm Index}_1^{\rm DIII}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_1^{\rm DIII}(P_1)$ iff there is an homotopy between the two maps. Let $V_0(0), V_1(0) \in {\rm U}(n)$ be so that
\[
A_0(0) = V_0(0)^T J_n V_0(0), \quad \text{and} \quad A_1(0) = V_1(0)^T J_n V_1(0).
\]
Let $V_s(0)$ be a homotopy between $V_0(0)$ and $V_1(0)$ in ${\rm U}(n)$, and set
\[
A_s(0) := V_s(0)^T J_n V_s(0).
\]
This gives a homotopy between $A_0(0)$ and $A_1(0)$ in ${\rm DIII}(0, n, 2n)$. We construct similarly a path $A_s(\tfrac12)$ connecting $A_0(\tfrac12)$ and $A_1(\tfrac12)$ in ${\rm DIII}(0, n, 2n)$.
Define continuous phase maps $\alpha_0(k)$, $\widetilde{\alpha_s}(\tfrac12)$, $\alpha_1(k)$ and $\widetilde{\alpha_s}(0)$ so that
\[
\forall k \in [0, \tfrac12], \quad {\rm det} \ A_0(k) = \re^{ \ri \alpha_0(k)} \quad \text{and} \quad
{\rm det} \ A_1(k) = \re^{ \ri \alpha_1(k)},
\]
while
\[
\forall s \in [0, 1], \quad {\rm det} \ A_s(0) = \re^{ \ri \widetilde{\alpha_s}(0)} \quad \text{and} \quad
{\rm det} \ A_s(\tfrac12) = \re^{ \ri \widetilde{\alpha_s}(\tfrac12)},
\]
together with the continuity conditions
\[
\alpha_0(k=\tfrac12) = \widetilde{\alpha_{s = 0}}(\tfrac12), \quad
\widetilde{\alpha_{s=1}}(\tfrac12) = \alpha_1(k = \tfrac12), \quad \text{and} \quad
\alpha_1(k=0) = \widetilde{\alpha_{s = 1}}(0).
\]
With such a choice, the winding of ${\rm det}(A)$ along the loop $\partial \Omega_0$ is
\[
W := \dfrac{1}{2 \pi} \left[ \widetilde{\alpha_0}(0) - \alpha_0(0) \right] \in {\mathbb Z}.
\]
We claim that $W \in 2 {\mathbb Z}$ is even iff ${\rm Index}_1^{\rm DIII}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_1^{\rm DIII}(P_1)$. The idea is to follow a continuation of the phase of $\sqrt{ {\rm det} \, A}$ along the boundary. For $j \in \{ 0, 1\}$, we denote by $\varepsilon_j := {\rm Index}_1^{\rm DIII}(P_j)$ the index for the sake of clarity.
By definition of the Index, we have
\[
\dfrac{ \re^{ \ri \frac12 \alpha_0(\tfrac12)} } { {\rm Pf} \, A_0(\tfrac12)} = \dfrac{ \re^{ \ri \frac12 \alpha_0(0)} } { {\rm Pf} \, A_0(0) } \, \varepsilon_0, \quad \text{and, similarly, } \quad
\dfrac{ \re^{ \ri \frac12 \alpha_1(\tfrac12)} } { {\rm Pf} \, A_1(\tfrac12)} = \dfrac{ \re^{ \ri \frac12 \alpha_1(0)} } { {\rm Pf} \, A_1(0) } \, \varepsilon_1
\]
On the segment $(k,s) = \{ \tfrac12 \} \times [0, 1]$, the map $s \mapsto {\rm Pf} \, A_s(\tfrac12)$ is continuous, and is a continuous representation of the square root of the determinant. So
\[
\dfrac{\re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \widetilde{\alpha_0}(\tfrac12)} }{{\rm Pf} \, A_0(\tfrac12)} =
\dfrac{\re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \widetilde{\alpha_1}(\tfrac12)} }{{\rm Pf} \, A_1(\tfrac12)} ,
\quad \text{and similarly,} \quad
\dfrac{\re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \widetilde{\alpha_0}(0)} }{{\rm Pf} \, A_0(0)} =
\dfrac{\re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \widetilde{\alpha_1}(0)} }{{\rm Pf} \, A_1(0)}.
\]
Gathering all expressions, and recalling the continuity conditions, we obtain
\[
\dfrac{ \re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \widetilde{\alpha_0}(0)} } { {\rm Pf} \, A_0(0) } = \varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_1 \dfrac{ \re^{ \ri \tfrac12 \alpha_0(0)} } { {\rm Pf} \, A_0(0) }, \quad \text{so} \quad \re^{ \ri \pi W} = \varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_1.
\]
This proves our claim.
If the indices differ, then we have $\varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_1 = - 1$, hence $W$ is odd. In particular, $W \neq 0$, and one cannot find an homotopy in this case. Assume now that that two indices are equal, so that $\varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_1 = 1$ and $W \in 2 {\mathbb Z}$ is even. There is no reason {\em a priori} to have $W = 0$, but we can cure the winding. Indeed, we set
\[
\widetilde{A}_s(0) := \widetilde{V}_s(0)^T J_n \widetilde{V}_s(0), \quad \text{with} \quad
\widetilde{V}_s(0) := {\rm diag} ( \re^{ \ri \pi W s}, 1, \cdots, 1) V_s(0).
\]
The family $A_s(0)$ is a continuous family connecting $A_0(0)$ and $A_1(0)$ in ${\rm DIII}(0, n, 2n)$. In addition, we have ${\rm det} \, \widetilde{A}_s(0) = \re^{ 2 \ri \pi W s } {\rm det} \, A_s(0)$, so this new interpolation cures the winding. Invoking Lemma~\ref{lem:Ch1d} concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class ${\rm CII}$}
\label{ssec:CII}
Finally, it remains to study the class ${\rm CII}$, in which we have both $T^2 = -{\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$ and $C^2 = -{\mathbb I}_{\mathcal H}$.
\begin{lemma}
Assume ${\rm CII}(0, n, N)$ is non empty. Then $n = 2m$ is even, and $N = 2n = 4m$ is a multiple of $4$. There is a basis of ${\mathcal H}$ in which
\[
T = \begin{pmatrix}
-K_n J_n & 0 \\ 0 & - K_n J_n
\end{pmatrix},
\quad
C = \begin{pmatrix}
K_n J_n & 0 \\ 0 & - K_n J_n
\end{pmatrix}, \quad \text{and} \quad
S = \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbb I}_{n} & 0 \\ 0 & -{\mathbb I}_{n}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to the one of Lemma~\ref{lem:normalForm_DIII}. Details are left to the reader.
\end{proof}
In this basis, the condition $T^{-1} P(k) T = P(-k)$ reads, in terms of $Q$,
\[
J_n \overline{Q}(k) J_n = - Q(-k), \quad \text{or equivalently} \quad Q(k)^T J_n Q(-k) = J_n.
\]
In particular, in dimension $d = 0$, we have $Q \in {\rm U}(2m) \cap {\rm Sp}(2m; C) = {\rm Sp}(m)$. So
\[
\boxed{ {\rm CII}(0, 2m, 4m) \simeq {\rm Sp}(m).}
\]
\begin{theorem}[Class ${\rm CII}$]
The set ${\rm CII}(d, n, N)$ is non-empty iff $n=2m \in 2{\mathbb N}$ and $N=2n=4m$.
\begin{itemize}
\item The set ${\rm CII}(0,2m,4m)$ is path-connected.
\item Define the map ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm CII}} \colon {\rm CII}(1,2m,4m) \to {\mathbb Z}$ by
\[
\forall P \in {\rm CII}(1, 2m, 4m), \quad {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm CII}}(P) := {\rm Winding}({\mathbb T}^1, Q).
\]
Then $P_0$ is homotopic to $P_1$ in ${\rm CII}(1,2m,4m)$ iff ${\rm Index}_1^{{\rm CII}}(P_0) = {\rm Index}_1^{{\rm CII}}(P_1)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We already proved in Theorem~\ref{thm:AII} that ${\rm Sp}(m)$ is connected, which yields the first part.
For the $d = 1$ case, we first note that if $Q \in {\rm Sp}(m)$, we have $Q^T J_n Q = J_n$. Taking Pfaffians, we get ${\rm det}(Q) = 1$. As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:BDI}, we deduce that any path $Q_s(0)$ connecting $Q_0(0)$ and $Q_1(0)$ in ${\rm Sp}(m)$ has a determinant constant equal to $1$, hence does not contribute to the winding. The proof is then similar to the one of Theorem~\ref{th:BDI}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{lawinaspp_1118_13.pdf} \vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Difference between LawinASPP and ASPP. In ASPP, atrous convolution with different dilation rates captures representations at multple scalees. In contrast, LawinASPP replaces atrous convolution with our proposed \textit{large window attention}. The red window represents the query area. The yellow, orange and purple windows represent the context area with different spatial sizes.}
\label{fig:LawinASPP}
\end{figure}
Semantic segmentation is one of the most significant dense prediction tasks in computer vision. With the prosperity of deep convolutional neural network (CNN) in this field, the CNN-based semantic segmentation pipeline gains more and more popularity in a wide range of practical applications such as self-driving cars, medical imaging analysis and remote sensing imagery interpretation~\cite{ronneberger2015u, mnih2010learning, siam2017deep}. Having scrutinized the famed semantic segmentation CNN, we note that a series of work largely focus on exploiting multi-scale representations~\cite{he2019adaptive, he2019dynamic, chen2017rethinking, zhao2017pyramid, chen2018encoder, yuan2018ocnet}, which plays a vital role of understanding the context prior at multiple scales. To incorporate the rich contextual information, most of these works apply filters or pooling operations, such as atrous convolution~\cite{yu2015multi} and adaptive pooling, to the spatial pyramid pooling (SPP) module~\cite{grauman2005pyramid, lazebnik2006beyond}.
Since the impressive performance of Vision Transformer (ViT) on image classification~\cite{touvron2021training, DBLP:conf/iclr/DosovitskiyB0WZ21}, there are some efforts to resolve semantic segmentation with pure transformer models, still outperforming the previous semantic segmentation CNN by a large margin~\cite{liu2021swin, strudel2021segmenter, zheng2021rethinking, xiao2018unified}. However, it takes a very high computation cost to implement these semantic segmentation ViTs, especially when the input image is large. In order to tackle this issue, the method purely based on the hierarchical vision transformer (HVT) has emerged with saving much computational budget. Swin Transformer is one of the most representative HVTs achieving state-of-the-art results on many vision tasks~\cite{liu2021swin}, whilst it employs a heavy decoder~\cite{xiao2018unified} to classify pixels. SegFormer refines the design of both encoder and decoder, resulting a very efficient semantic segmentation ViT~\cite{xie2021segformer}. But it is problematic that SegFormer solely relies on increasing the model capacity of encoder to progressively improve performance, which has a potentially lower efficiency ceiling.
Through the above analysis, we think one major problem for current semantic segmentation ViT is lack of multi-scale contextual information, thus impairing the performance and efficiency. To overcome the limitation, we present a novel window attention mechanism named \textit{large window attention}. In large window attention, the uniformly split patch queries the context patch covering a much larger region as illustrated in Fig~\ref{fig:LawinASPP}, whereas the patch in \textit{local window attention} merely queries itself. On the other hand, considering that the attention would become computationally prohibitive with the enlargement of context patch, we devise a simple yet effective strategy to alleviate the \textit{dilemma of large context}. Specifically, we first pool the large context patch to spatial dimension of the corresponding query patch in order to preserve the original computational complexity. Then we enable the multi-head mechanism in large window attention and set the number of head strictly equal to the square of the downsampling ratio $R$ while pooling the context, mainly for recovering the discarded dependencies between query and context. Finally, inspired by token-mixing MLP in MLP-Mixer~\cite{tolstikhin2021mlp}, we apply $R^2$ \textit{position-mixing} operations on the $R^2$ subspaces of head respectively, strengthening the spatially representational power of multi-head attention. Therefore, the patch in our proposed large window attention can capture contextual information at any scales, merely yielding a little computational overhead caused by \textit{position-mixing} operations. Coupled with large window attention with different ratios $R$, a SPP module evolves into a \textit{large window attention spatial pyramid pooling} (LawinASPP), which one can employ like ASPP (Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling)~\cite{chen2017rethinking} and PPM (Pyramid Pooling Module)~\cite{zhao2017pyramid} to exploit multi-scale representations for semantic segmentation.
We extend the efficient HVT to Lawin Transformer by placing the LawinASPP at the top of HVT, which introduces the multi-scale representations into the semantic segmentation ViT. The performance and efficiency of Lawin Transformer is evaluated on Cityscapes~\cite{cordts2016cityscapes}, ADE20K~\cite{zhou2017scene} and COCO-Stuff~\cite{caesar2018coco} datasets. We conduct extensive experiments to compare Lawin Transformer with existing HVT-based semantic segmentation method~\cite{liu2021swin, xie2021segformer, cheng2021maskformer}. An improved efficiency of Lawin Transformer is proved by that Lawin Transformer spends less computational resource in attaining the better performance. Besides, our experiments show that Lawin Transformer outperforms other state-of-the-art methods consistently on these benchmarks.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{lawin_attention_1118_4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{A large window attention. The red patch $\textbf{Q}$ is the query patch and the purple patch $\textbf{C}$ is the context patch. The context is reshaped and fed into token-mixing MLPs. The output context $\textbf{C}^\textbf{P}$ is named \textit{position-mixed context}. Best viewed in color. } \vspace{-0.2cm}
\label{fig:lawin attention}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:2}
\subsection{Semantic Segmentation}
Semantic segmentation models based on fully convolutional neural network (FCN)~\cite{long2015fully} are the most promising ways to accomplish the pixel-level classification. Towards precise scene understanding, consecutive improvements have been developed for semantic segmentation CNN in many aspects. \cite{amirul2017gated, lin2017refinenet, badrinarayanan2017segnet, ronneberger2015u} mitigates the boundary information shortage of high-level feature. \cite{chen2017deeplab, peng2017large, chen2014semantic, yu2015multi} are proposed to enlarge the receptive field of model. The spatial pyramid pooling (SPP) module has proved to be effective in exploiting multi-scale representations, which gathers scene clues from local context to global context~\cite{chen2018encoder, zhao2017pyramid, he2019adaptive, he2019dynamic}. An alternative line of work utilizes the variants of self-attention mechanism to model dependencies among representations~\cite{cao2019gcnet, huang2019ccnet, wang2018non, li2018pyramid, zhao2018psanet, yu2020context, fu2019dual, yin2020disentangled}.
\subsection{Vision Transformer}
Transformer has revolutionized neural language processing and proven extremely successful in computer vision. ViT~\cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/DosovitskiyB0WZ21} is the first end-to-end Vision Transformer for image classification by projecting the input image into a token sequence and attach it to a class token. DeiT~\cite{touvron2021training} improves the data efficiency of training ViT with a token distillation pipeline. Apart from the sequence-to-sequence structure, the efficiency of PVT~\cite{wang2021pyramid} and Swin Transformer~\cite{liu2021swin} sparks much interests in exploring the Hierarchical Vision Transformer (HVT)~\cite{graham2021levit, wu2021cvt, chu2021twins, yan2021contnet}. ViT is also extended to solve the low-level tasks and dense prediction problems~\cite{carion2020end, arnab2021vivit, esser2021taming}. Specially, concurrent semantic segmentation methods driven by ViT presents impressive performance. SETR~\cite{zheng2021rethinking} deploys the ViT as an encoder and upsamples the output patch embedding to classify pixels. Swin Transformer extends itself to a semantic segmentation ViT by connecting a UperNet~\cite{xiao2018unified}. Segmenter~\cite{strudel2021segmenter} depends on the ViT/DeiT as backbone and propose a mask Transformer decoder. Segformer~\cite{xie2021segformer} shows a simple, efficient yet powerful design of encoder and decoder for semantic segmentation. MaskFormer~\cite{cheng2021maskformer} reformulates the semantic segmentation as a mask classification problem, having much fewer FLOPs and parameters compared to Swin-UperNet. In this paper, we take a new step towards a more efficient design of semantic segmentation ViT, by introducing multi-scale representations into the HVT.
\subsection{MLP-Mixer}
MLP-Mixer~\cite{tolstikhin2021mlp} is a novel neural network much simpler than ViT. Similar to ViT, MLP-Mixer first adopts a linear projection to obtain a token sequence like ViT. The sharp dinstinction is that MLP-Mixer is entirely based on multi-layer perceptrons (MLP), because it replaces the self-attention in transformer layer with the token-mixing MLP. Token-Mixing MLP acts along the channel dimension, mixing the token (position) to learn spatial representations. In our proposed large window attention, token-mixing MLP is applied to the pooled context patch, which we call \textit{position-mixing} to boost the spatial representations of multi-head attention.
\section{Method}
In this part, we first briefly introduce multi-head attention and token-mixing MLP. Then we elaborate large window attention and describe the architecture of LawinASPP. Finally, the overall structure of Lawin Transformer is presented.
\subsection{Background}
\label{sec:3.1}
Multi-head attention is the core of Transformer layer. In the Hierarchical Vision Transformer (HVT), the operation of multi-head attention is limited to local uniformly split window, which is called local window attention. Assuming the input is a 2D feature map denoted as $ \mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}} \in \mathbb{R} ^ \mathit{C \times H \times W}$, we can formulate the action of window attention as:
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{\hat{x}_{\rm{2d}}} = \rm{Reshape}\left(\mathit{h},\mathit{\frac{HW}{P^2}} , \mathit{\frac{C}{h}}, \mathit{P}, \mathit{P} \right)\left( \mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}}\right), \label{eq:rel1} \\
& \mathbf{\mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}}} = \rm{Reshape}\left( \mathit{C}, \mathit{H}, \mathit{W} \right)\left( \rm{MHA}\left(\mathbf{\hat{x}_{\rm{2d}}}\right)\right)+x_{\rm{2d}}, \label{eq:rel2}
\end{align}
where $h$ is the head number and $P$ is the spatial size of windows, and $\rm{MHA} \left( \space \right)$ is the Multi-Head Attention (MHA) mechanism. The basic operation of MHA can be described as:
\begin{align}
& \mathit{A}=\rm{softmax} \left( \frac{ {(\mathbf{W_{\rm{q}}}\mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}})}{(\mathbf{W_{\rm{k}}}{\mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}})}^{\rm{T}}}}{ \sqrt{\mathit{D_{h}}}} \right) \left(\mathbf{W_{\rm{v}}}\mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}}\right),
\label{eq:rel3} \\
& \rm{MHA}=\rm{concat}\left[\mathit{A_{1}};\mathit{A_{2}};...;\mathit{A_{h}}\right] {\mathbf{W_{\rm{mha}}}}, \label{eq:rel4}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{W_{\rm{q}}}$, $\mathbf{W_{\rm{k}}} $ and $\mathbf{W_{\rm{v}}} \in \mathbb{R} ^ \mathit{C\times D_h}$ are the learned linear transformations and $\mathbf{W_{\rm{mhsa}}} \in \mathbb{R} ^ \mathit{D\times C}$ is the learned weights that aggregates multiple attention values. $D_h$ is typically set to $D \slash h$ and $D$ is the embedding dimension.
Token-mixing MLP is the core of MLP-Mixer which can aggregate spatial information, by allowing the spatial position to communicate each other. Given the input 2D feature map $ \mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}} \in \mathbb{R} ^ \mathit{C \times H \times W }$, the operation of token-mixing MLP can be formulated as:
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{\hat{x}_{\rm{2d}}} = \rm{Reshape}\left(\mathit{C}, \mathit{HW} \right)\left( \mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}}\right), \label{eq:rel5} \\
& \mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}} = \rm{Reshape}\left(\mathit{C}, \mathit{H}, \mathit{W} \right)\left( MLP\left(\mathbf{\hat{x}_{\rm{2d}}}\right)\right)+\mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}}, \label{eq:rel6}\\
& \rm{MLP} \left(\mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}} \right) =\mathbf{W_{\rm{2}}} \sigma \left( \mathbf{W_{\rm{1}}} \mathbf{x_{\rm{2d}}} \right), \label{eq:rel7}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{W_{\rm{1}}} \in \mathbb{R} ^ \mathit{HW\times D_{mlp}}$ and $\mathbf{W_{\rm{2}}} \in \mathbb{R} ^ \mathit{ D_{mlp} \times HW}$ are both learned linear transformations, and $\sigma$ is the activation function providing non-linearity.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{lawin_transformer_1119_2.pdf} \vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{The overall structure of Lawin Transformer. The image is fed into the encoder part,which is a MiT. Then the features from the last three stages are aggregated and fed into the decoder part, which is a LawinASPP. Finally the resulted feature is enhanced with low-level information by the first-stage feature of encoder. "MLP" denotes the multi-layer perceptron. "CAT" denotes concatnating the features. "Lawin" denotes large window attention. "R" denotes the ratio of the size of context patch to query patch.}
\label{fig:lawin transformer}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Large Window Attention}
Similar with window attention mentioned in section \ref{sec:3.1}, large window attention splits the entire feature map uniformly into several patches. Conversely, when large window attention sliding over the image, the current patch is allowed to query a larger area. For simplicity, we denote the query patch as $\mathbf{Q} \in \mathbb{R} ^ \mathit{P^2 \times C}$ and the queried large context patch as $ \mathbf{C} \in \mathbb{R} ^ \mathit{R^2\times P^2 \times C}$, where $R$ is the ratio of the context patch size to the query patch size, and $P^2$ is the area of patch. Because the computational complexity of attention is $O\left( P^2\right)$, when the spatial size of $ \mathbf{C}$ is increased by $R$ times, the computational complexity increases to $O\left( R^2 P^2\right)$. Under this circumstance, the computation of attention is not limited to the $P\times P$ local patch, and even unaffordable if ratio $R$ or input resolution is very large. To preserve the original computational complexity, we pool $\mathbf{C}$ to an abstract tensor with a downsampling ratio of $R$, reducing the spatial size of context patch back to $\left( P, P\right)$. However, there are certain drawbacks associated with such an easy process. The downsampling of context patch inevitably discards the abundant dependencies between $\mathbf{Q}$ and $\mathbf{C}$ especially as $R$ is large. To mitigate the inattention, we naturally adopt the multi-head mechanism and let the number of head strictly equal to $R^2$, thereby formulating the attention matrix from $\left(P^2, P^2\right)$ to $\left(R^2, P^2, P^2\right)$. It is notable that the number of head has no impact on the computational complexity.
There has been researches revealing that, with certain techniques regularizing the head subspace, multi-head attention can learn desired diverse representations~\cite{child2019generating, cordonnier2019relationship, d2021convit}. Considering that the spatial information becomes abstract after downsampling, we intend to strengthen the spatially representational power of multi-head attention. Motivated by that in MLP-Mixer the token-mixing MLP is complementary to channel-mixing MLP for gathering spatial knowledge, we define a set of head-specific \textit{position-mixing} $\rm{MLP}=\left\{\rm{MLP_{1}}, \rm{MLP_{2}},...,\rm{MLP_{h}} \right\}$. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:lawin attention}, every head of the pooled context patch is pushed into its corresponding token(position)-mixing MLP, and spatial positions within the same head communicate each other in an identical behavior. We term the resulting context as \textit{position-mixed} context patch and denote it as $\mathbf{C^{\rm{P}}}$, which is calculated by:
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{\hat{C}} = \rm{Reshape}\left(\mathit{h}, \mathit{{C} \slash {h}}, \mathit{P^2} \right)\left( \varphi \left(\mathbf{C} \right) \right), \label{eq:rel8} \\
& \mathbf{C}_{\rm{h}} = \rm{MLP_{h}} \left(\mathbf{\hat{C}}_{h} \right)+\mathbf{\hat{C}}_{h}, \label{eq:rel9} \\
& \mathbf{C}^{\rm{P}} = \rm{Reshape}\left(\textit{C}, \textit{P}^2 \right)\left( \rm{concat}\left[\mathbf{C}_{1};\mathbf{C}_{2};...;\mathbf{C}_{\rm{h}}\right] \right),\label{eq:rel10}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{\hat{C}_{\rm{h}}}$ denotes the $h$-th head of $\mathbf{\hat{C}}$ and $\rm{{MLP}_{h}} \in \mathbb{R} ^ {\mathit{P^2 \times P^2 }} $ is the ${h}$-th transformation strengthening the spatial representations for the ${h}$-th head, and $\varphi$ denotes the average pooling operation. With the \textit{position-mixed} context $\mathbf{C}^{\rm{P}}$, we can reformulate the Eq. (\ref{eq:rel3}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:rel4}) as follows:
\begin{align}
& \mathit{A}=\rm{softmax} \left( \frac{ {\left({\mathbf{W_{\rm{q}}}}{\mathbf{Q}_{h}}\right)}{\left({\mathbf{W_{\rm{k}}}}{\mathbf{C}}^{P}_{h}\right)^{\rm{T}}}}{ \sqrt{\mathit{D_{h}}}} \right)\left(\mathbf{W_{\rm{v}}}\mathbf{C}^{P}_{h}\right), \label{eq:rel11} \\
& \rm{MHA}=\rm{concat}\left[\mathit{A_{1}};\mathit{A_{2}};...;\mathit{A_{h}} \right] {\mathbf{W_{\rm{mha}}}}. \label{eq:rel12}
\end{align}
One primary concern is on the overhead of $\rm{MLP}$, so we list the computational complexity of \textit{local window attention} and \textit{large window attention}:
\begin{align}
& \rm{\Omega}\left(Lowin \right)= 4\mathit{\left(HW\right)}\mathit{C^2}+2\mathit{{\left(HW\right)}P^2}\mathit{C}, \label{eq:rel13} \\
& \rm{\Omega}\left(Lawin \right)=4\mathit{\left(HW\right)}\mathit{C^2}+3\mathit{{\left(HW\right)}P^2}\mathit{C},
\label{eq:rel14}
\end{align}
where $H$ and $W$ are the height and width of entire image respectively, and $P$ is the size of local window. Since $P^2$, usually set to 7 or 8, is much smaller than $C$ in high-level features, the extra expense induced by $\rm{MLP}$ is reasonably neglectable. It is admirable that the computational complexity of large window attention is independent of the ratio $R$.
\subsection{LawinASPP}
To capture multi-scale representations, we adopt the architecture of spatial pyramid pooling (SPP) to collaborate with large window attention and get the novel SPP module called LawinASPP. LawinASPP consists of 5 parallel branches including one shortcut connection, three large window attentions with $R=(2,4,8)$ and an image pooling branch. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lawin transformer}, branches of large window attention provide three hierarchies of receptive fields for the local window. Following the previous literature on window attention mechanism~\cite{liu2021swin}, we set the patch size of local window to $8$, thus the provided receptive fields are of $\left(16, 32, 64 \right)$. The image pooling branch uses a global pooling layer to obtain the globally contextual information and push it into a linear transformation followed by a bilinearly upsampling opeartion to match the feature dimension. The short path copies the input feature and paste it when all contextual information is output. All resulting features are first concatenated, and a learned linear transformation performs dimensionality reduction for generating the final segmentation map.
\subsection{Lawin Transformer}
Having investigated the advanced HVTs, we select the MiT and Swin-Transformer as the encoder of Lawin Transformer. MiT is designed for serving as encoder of SegFormer~\cite{xie2021segformer} which is a simple, efficient yet powerful semantic segmentation ViT. Swin-Transformer~\cite{liu2021swin} is an extremely successful HVT built upon local window attention. Prior to applying LawinASPP, we concatenate the multi-level features with $output$ $stride=\left(8,16,32 \right)$ by resizing them to the size of feature with $output$ $stride=8$ and use a linear layer to transform the concatenation. The resulting transformed feature with $output$ $stride=8$ is fed into the LawinASPP and then we obtain the feature with multi-scale contextual information. In the state-of-the-art ViT for semantic segmentation, the feature for final prediction of segmentation logits is always derived from 4-level features of encoder. We hence employ the first-level feature with $output$ $stride=4$ to compensate low-level information. The output of LawinASPP is upsampled to the size of a quarter of input image, then fused with the first-level feature by a linear layer. Finally, the segmentation logits are predicted on the low-level-enhanced feature. More details are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:lawin transformer}
\section{Expriments}
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Datasets:}
We conduct experiments on three public datasets including Cityscapes~\cite{cordts2016cityscapes}, ADE20K~\cite{zhou2017scene} and COCO-Stuff~\cite{caesar2018coco}. Cityscapes is an urban scene parsing dataset containing 5,000 fine-annotated images captured from 50 cities with 19 semantic classes. There are 2,975 images divided into training set, 500 images divided into validation set and 1,525 images divided into testing set. ADE20K is one of the most challenging datasets in semantic segmentation. It consists of a training set of 20,210 images with 150 categories, a testing set of 3,352 images and a validation set of 2,000 images. COCO-Stuff is also a very challenging benchmark consists of 164k images with 172 semantic classes. The training set contains 118k images, and the test-dev dataset contains 20k images and the validation set contains of 5k images
\medskip\\
\textbf{Implementation Details:}
Our experiment protocols are exactly the same as those of~\cite{xie2021segformer}. Specially, we use the publicly available ImageNet1K-pretrained MiT~\cite{xie2021segformer} as the encoder of Lawin Transformer. All experiments in this section are implemented based on MMSegmentation~\cite{mmseg2020} codebase on a server with 8 Tesla V100. When doing the ablation study, we choose MiT-B3 as encoder and train all models for 80k iterations. Unless specified, all results are achieved by single-scale inference. Note that all results of other methods are obtained by ours training the official code.
\begin{table*}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.15}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|cc|cc|cc} \hline
\hline
\small{Dataset} & & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ADE20K}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cityscapes}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{COCO-Stuff} \\
\hline
\small{Method} & Params(M)$\downarrow$ & FLOPs(G)$\downarrow$ & mIoU(SS/MS)$\uparrow$ & FLOPs(G)$\downarrow$ & mIoU(SS/MS)$\uparrow$ & FLOPs(G)$\downarrow$ & mIoU(SS)$\uparrow$ \\
\hline
SegFormer-B0 & 3.8 & 8.4 & 38.1 / 38.6 & 125.5 & 76.5 / 78.2 & 8.4 & 35.7 \\
Lawin-B0 & 4.1 & 5.3 & \textbf{38.9} / \textbf{39.6}\textbf{} & 99.3 & \textbf{77.2} / \textbf{78.7} & 5.3 & \textbf{36.2} \\
\hline
SegFormer-B1 & 13.7 & 15.9 & 41.7 / 42.8 & 243.7 & 78.5 / 80.0 & 15.9 & 40.2 \\
Lawin-B1 & 14.1 & 12.7 & \textbf{42.1} / \textbf{43.1} & 217.5 & \textbf{79.0} / \textbf{80.4} & 12.7 & \textbf{40.5} \\
\hline
SegFormer-B2 & 27.5 & 62.4 & 46.5 / 47.5 & 717.1 & 81.0 / 82.2 & 62.4 & 44.5\\
Lawin-B2 & 29.7 & 45.0& \textbf{47.8} / \textbf{48.8} & 562.8 & \textbf{81.7} / \textbf{82.7} & 45.0 & \textbf{45.2}\\
\hline
SegFormer-B3 & 47.3 & 79.0 & 48.7 / 49.2 & 962.9 &81.7 / 83.3 & 79.0 & 45.4\\
Lawin-B3 & 49.5 & 61.7 & \textbf{50.3} / \textbf{51.1}& 808.6 &\textbf{82.5} / \textbf{83.7} & 61.7 & \textbf{46.6} \\
\hline
SegFormer-B4 & 64.1 & 95.7 & 49.6 / 50.4 & 1240.6 &82.2 / 83.6 & 95.7 & 46.4\\
Lawin-B4 & 66.3 & 78.2 & \textbf{50.7} / \textbf{51.4} &1086.2 &\textbf{82.7} / \textbf{83.8}&78.2 & \textbf{47.3} \\
\hline
SegFormer-B5 & 84.7 & 183.3 & 50.7 / 51.2 & 1460.4 &82.3 / 83.7 & 111.6 & 46.7 \\
Lawin-B5 & 86.9 & 159.1 & \textbf{52.3} / \textbf{53.0} & 1306.4 & \textbf{82.8} / \textbf{83.9} & 94.2& \textbf{47.5} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of SegFormer with Lawin Transformer.}
\label{tab:seg}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline
\hline
Method & FLOPs(G)$\downarrow$ & Params(M)$\downarrow$ & mIoU(SS/MS)$\uparrow$\\
\hline
Uper-T & 236.1 & 59.9 & 44.5 / 45.8 \\
Mask-T & 59.0 & 41.8 & \textbf{46.7 / 48.8} \\
Lawin-T & \textbf{48.9} & \textbf{34.5} & 45.3 / 46.9 \\
\hline
Uper-S & 259.3 & 81.3 & 47.7 / 49.6 \\
Mask-S & 79.0 & 63.1 & \textbf{49.8} / \textbf{51.0} \\
Lawin-S & \textbf{72.0} & \textbf{55.9} & 48.7 / 50.4 \\
\hline
$\text{Uper}^{\dagger}\text{-}\text{B}^\star$ & 470.4 & 121.4 & 51.6 / 53.0 \\
$\text{Mask}^{\dagger}\text{-}\text{B}^\star$ & 195.0 & 101.9 & 52.7 / 53.9 \\
$\text{Lawin}^{\dagger}\text{-}\text{B}^\star$ & \textbf{172.9} & \textbf{94.5} & \textbf{53.0 / 54.3} \\
\hline
$\text{Uper}^{\dagger}\text{-}\text{L}^\star$ & 646.4 & 233.4 & 52.7 / 54.1\\
$\text{Mask}^{\dagger}\text{-}\text{L}^\star$ & 375.0 & 212.0 & 54.1 / 55.6 \\
$\text{Lawin}^{\dagger}\text{-}\text{L}^\star$ & \textbf{350.6} & \textbf{201.2} & \textbf{54.7 / 56.2} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}\vspace{-0.1cm}
\caption{Comparison of Swin-Lawin Transformer with MaskFormer and Swin-UperNet on ADE20K. The method marked with $\dagger$ takes cropped input of $640\times640$. The method marked with $\star$ indicates that its encoder is pretrained on ImageNet22k.}
\label{tab:swin}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.15}
\begin{tabular}{lcc|ccc} \hline
\hline
\small{Method} & FLOPs(G) & Params(M) & mIoU \\
\hline
PSP~\cite{zhao2017pyramid} & 48.2 & 49.8 & 47.8 \\
ASPP~\cite{chen2017rethinking} & 82.9 & 57.0 & 48.5 \\
SEP-ASPP~\cite{chen2018encoder} & 57.2 & 50.7 & 48.2 \\
LawinASPP & 61.7 & 49.5 & \textbf{49.9} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of different SPP modules when coupled with MiT-B3 on ADE20K.}
\label{tb:spp}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison with SegFormer}
To demonstrate the improved efficiency of Lawin Transformer, we compare it with SegFormer~\cite{xie2021segformer}. Both of them is built upon window attention and takes MiT as encoder. To enable fairness, we reimplement SegFormer in our environment. Table~\ref{tab:seg} shows the comparison on parameters, FLOPs and mIoU. Apparently, across all variants of MiT (B0$\to$B5), Lawin Transformer trumps SegFormer on mIoU and FLOPs at a little extra parameters. When the light-weight MiT-B0 and MiT-B1 serve as encoder, Lawin Transformer can improve the performance with an adorable saving of computation cost. For example, Lawin-B0 uses much less FLOPs (by $3.1$) to obtain a gain of $0.5\%$ mIoU on COCO-Stuff dataset, and a gain of $0.8\%$ on ADE20K dataset. Moreover, we observe that in some cases, Lawin Transformer can bridge the performance gap caused by the model capacity of encoder. For instance, SegFormer-B3 performs worse than SegFormer-B4 on all three datasets. But if replacing the original decoder with LawinASPP, the resulted Lawin-B3 outperforms SegFormer-B4 by $0.6\%$ mIoU and yields a computation saving of $34$G FLOPs on ADE20K, even using much less parameters. Also, on Cityscapes, Lawin-B4 improves over SegFormer-B5 by $0.4\%$ with nearly a third less computation cost, Lawin-B3 improves over SegFormer-B5 by $0.2\%$ with nearly a half less computation cost and parameters. These empirical results suggest that semantic segmentation ViT could encounter a performance bottleneck as the capacity of encoder continues to increase. In contrast with simply enlarging the encoder, LawinASPP presents a promising and efficient way to overcome the bottleneck by capturing the rich contextual information.
\subsection{Comparison with UperNet and MaskFormer}
To further show the efficiency, we replace MiT with Swin-Transformer~\cite{liu2021swin} and compare the Swin-Lawin Transformer with Swin-UperNet and MaskFormer on ADE20K as shown in table~\ref{tab:swin}. From table~\ref{tab:swin}, we have following observations. Firstly, compared with Swin-UperNet, Swin-Lawin improves the performance largely and saves a great deal of computation cost. In particular, Lawin Transformer with Swin-B can outperform UperNet with Swin-L at nearly a quarter of its computation cost. Secondly, compared with Swin-MaskFormer, Swin-Lawin consistently uses less FLOPs and parameters across all variants of Swin-Transformer. Finally, through a closer look at performance, we find that Swin-Lawin performs worse than MaskFormer when the capacity of encoder is small (Swin-T$\to$S). However, as the capacity of encoder increases (Swin-B$\to$L), Swin-Lawin outperforms MaskFormer. It can be seen that with the increase of capacity, the performance gain created by Swin-Lawin compared with Swin-Uper also become larger. We infer that the short path branch and the low-level information in Lawin Transformer have very important roles in the final prediction (Sec~\ref{sec:4.3.3} discusses the contribution of different hierarchies in Lawin Transformer), which both arise from the multi-level feature of backbone directly. So the more powerful the encoder part, the greater the performance gain from Lawin Transformer.
\subsection{Ablation Study}
\subsubsection{Spatial Pyramid Pooling}
Thanks to the spatial pyramid pooling (SPP)~\cite{lazebnik2006beyond, grauman2005pyramid} architecture in LawinASPP, Lawin Transformer captures multi-scale representations with large window attention in an efficient manner. To study the impact of large window attention and SPP architecture on performance, we choose some representative methods relying on SPP including PPM (Pyramid Pooling Module)~\cite{zhao2017pyramid}, ASPP (Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling)~\cite{chen2017rethinking} and SEP-ASPP (Depthwise Separable Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling)~\cite{chen2018encoder}. The sharp distinction between LawinASPP with these alternatives is the basic pooling operator. PPM uses pyramid adaptive pooling to capture contextual information at different scales. ASPP uses the atrous convolution to extract multi-scale features. SEP-ASPP uses the depthwise separable atrous convolution~\cite{chollet2017xception} in the place of atrous convolution for the sake of efficiency. Table~\ref{tb:spp} shows parameters, FLOPs and mIoU when MiT-B3 combined with different SPP-based module, which are tested on ADE20K. PPM and SEP-ASPP
are impressively computational economical, even using less FLOPs than LawinASPP. However there is a considerable performance gap between them and LawinASPP ($2.1\%$ for PPM, $1.7\%$ for SEP-ASPP). ASPP achieves a slightly higher performance than SEP-ASPP, but spends the most computational resources. Through these competitions, LawinASPP proves to be the preferred module to introduce mutli-scale representations into the semantic segmentation ViT, which is mainly attributed to \textit{large window attention}.
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.25}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline
\hline
Ratio & Head & C-Mixing & P-Mixing & mIoU \\
\hline
(1,1,1) & (1,1,1) & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & 48.6 \\
(2,4,8) & (1,1,1) & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & 47.3\\
(2,4,8) & (4,16,64) & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & 47.9\\
\hline
(2,4,8) & (4,16,64) & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & 49.1\\
(2,4,8) & (4,16,64) & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textbf{49.9} \\
(2,4,8) & (4,16,64) & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & 49.4 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of Lawin-B3 with a variety settings of the ratio, head and MLP type on ADE20K.}
\label{tab:key}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tweak_1119_2.pdf} \vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{center}
\caption{A simple implementation of LawinASPP. The area of both query patch and context patch is set to (64,32,16) }
\label{fig:tweak}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{cccc|c} \hline
\hline
Pooling Ratio & Head & Size & FLOPs(G) & mIoU\\
\hline
\hline
(1,2,4) & (1,4,16) & 16 & 74.6 & \textbf{49.9} \\
(2,4,8) & (4,16,64) & 8 & 61.7 & \textbf{49.9} \\
(4,8,16) & (16,64,256) & 4 & \textbf{58.0} & 49.1 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Results of Lawin-B3 on ADE20k with context patch of different spatial sizes. "Size" means the spatial size of pooled context.}
\label{tab:context}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.25}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc|c} \hline
\hline
$OS$=4 & Short Path & $R$=2 & $R$=4 & $R$=8 & GAP & mIoU\\
\hline
\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} &\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark}& \textbf{49.9} \\
\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} &\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & 49.5\\
\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} &\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & 49.4\\
\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} &\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & 49.4\\
\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & {\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} &\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & 48.9\\
\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} &{\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & 49.3\\
{\color{red}\XSolidBrush} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} &\textcolor[rgb]{0,0.8,0.3}{\Checkmark} & 49.1 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of Lawin-B3 on ADE20k when different branches are absent.}
\label{tab:branch}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Key Component in Large Window Attention}
\textbf{Pooling and Multi-Head:} Pooling the large context patch with a downsampling ratio $R$ and increasing the head number of MHA to $R^2$ purpose to reducing the computational complexity and recovering the discarded dependencies respectively. To verify the strategy, we implement the first group experiments shown in table~\ref{tab:key}. We first test the performance when the large context patch keeps the spatial size without any downsampling. However, the required memory of this setting is unaffordable so we do a little tweak as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:tweak}, setting the size of query patch equal to context patch. The performance of this simple implementation is lower than the standard implementation by $1.3\%$. If the context patch is pooled to the same size of query patch, the performance degrades severely, only achieving a $47.3\%$ mIoU, owing to the sparsity of attention. Enabling multi-head mechanism can bring an improvement of $0.6\%$, but falling behind the standard and even the simple implementation. This group comparison shows that large window attention with the pooled context patch actually suffers inadequate dependencies, and the multi-head mechanism can alleviate it marginally.
\medskip\\
\noindent
\textbf{Position-Mixing and Channel-Mixing:} In large window attention, we innovatively employ the \textit{position-mixing} operation to strengthen the spatially representational power of multi-head attention. In MLP-Mixer~\cite{tolstikhin2021mlp}, the channel-mixing MLP is applied to learn knowledge of feature channels. That MLP-Mixer uses both kinds of MLPs prompts our investigation of \textit{channel-mixing}. We enhance the communication along feature channels within each head by replacing the token-mixing MLP with channel-mixing MLP. The context patch is downsampled and the multi-head mechansim is enabled. The second group of results listed in table~\ref{tab:key} shows that the channel-mixing MLP boosts the representation of multi-head attention and provides an appreciable performance improvement of $1.2\%$, but not powerful as token-mixing MLP ($2\%$). Furthermore, we make a combination of token-mixing MLP with channel-mixing MLP, like a block in MLP-Mixer, to transform each head subspace along two dimensions, which attains a competitive result of $49.4\%$ mIoU but worse than isolated \textit{position-mixing} ($49.9\%$). With these observations, we argue that the \textit{position-mixing} operation is more useful than \textit{channel-mixing} for recovering the dependencies of spatial downsampling operation.
\medskip\\
\noindent
\textbf{Spatial Size of Context:} That large window attention pools the context patch to the same spatial size of query patch keeps the balance between efficiency and performance. We are interested in the consequence of disturbing the balance. To be specific, we evaluate the performance in following situations that the context patch is pooled to the spatial size of two times query patch and the context patch is pooled to the half size of query patch. The former sacrifices the computational economy and might be advantageous to performance, and the latter saves more computation cost and might be harmful to performance. It can be found in table~\ref{tab:context} that no apparent performance is obtained in the former case. When the context patch is pooled to a smaller size, the mIoU drops $0.8\%$ and only saves a little computation cost of $3.7$G. Pooling the context patch to the size of query patch is a sensible choice keeping the balance well.
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.15}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline
\hline
\small{Method} & Backbone & FLOPs(G)$\downarrow$ & MS(\%)$\uparrow$ \\
\hline
PSPNet~\cite{zhao2017pyramid} & ResNet101 & 2049 & 80.0 \\
GCNet~\cite{cao2019gcnet} & ResNet101 & 2203 & 80.7 \\
PSANet~\cite{zhao2018psanet} & ResNet101 & 2178 & 80.9 \\
NonLocal~\cite{wang2018non} & ResNet101 & 2224 & 80.9 \\
DeeplabV3~\cite{chen2017rethinking} & ResNet101 & 2781 & 80.8 \\
CCNet~\cite{huang2019ccnet} & ResNet101 & 2225 & 80.7 \\
DANet~\cite{fu2019dual} & ResNet101 & 2221 & 82.0 \\
DNL~\cite{yin2020disentangled} & ResNet101 & 2224 & 80.7 \\
OCNet~\cite{yuan2018ocnet} & ResNet101 & 1820 & 81.6 \\
DeeplabV3+~\cite{chen2018encoder} & ResNet101 & 2032 & 82.2 \\
\hline
SETR-PUP~\cite{zheng2021rethinking} & $\text{ViT-L}^{\star}$ & --- & 82.2 \\
Segmenter~\cite{strudel2021segmenter} & $\text{VIT-L}^{\star}$ & --- & 81.3 \\
SegFormer~\cite{xie2021segformer} & MiT-B5 & 1460 & 83.5 \\
$\text{SegFormer}^{\dagger}$ & MiT-B5 & 1460 & 83.7 \\
Lawin & MiT-B5 & 1306 & 83.7 \\
$\text{Lawin}^{\dagger}$ & MiT-B5 & 1306 & 83.9 \\
Lawin & $\text{Swin-L}^{\star}$ & 1797 & 84.2\\
$\text{Lawin}^{\dagger}$ & $\text{Swin-L}^{\star}$ & 1797 & \textbf{84.4}\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance Comparison on Cityscapes. The backbone marked with $\star$ indicates that it is pretrained on ImageNet22K. The method marked with $\dagger$ takes cropped input of $1024\times1024$. }
\label{tb:city}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.15}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline
\hline
\small{Method} & Backbone & FLOPs(G)$\downarrow$ & MS(\%)$\uparrow$ \\
\hline
PSPNet~\cite{zhao2017pyramid} & ResNet101 & 256 & 45.4\\
GCNet~\cite{cao2019gcnet} & ResNet101 & 276 & 45.2 \\
PSANet~\cite{zhao2018psanet} & ResNet101 & 272 & 45.4 \\
NonLocal~\cite{wang2018non} & ResNet101 & 278 & 45.8 \\
DeeplabV3~\cite{chen2017rethinking} &ResNet101 & 348 & 46.7 \\
CCNet~\cite{huang2019ccnet} & ResNet101 & 278 & 45.0 \\
DANet~\cite{fu2019dual} & ResNet101 & 278 & 45.0 \\
DNL~\cite{yin2020disentangled} & ResNet101 & 278 & 45.8 \\
OCNet~\cite{yuan2018ocnet} & ResNet101 & 227 & 45.4 \\
DeeplabV3+~\cite{chen2018encoder} & ResNet101 & 255 &46.4 \\
OCRNet~\cite{yuan2020object} & HRNetW48 & 165& 44.9\\
\hline
$\text{SETR-MLA}^{\dagger}$\text{~\cite{zheng2021rethinking}} &$\text{ViT-L}^\star$ & --- & 50.3 \\
$\text{Segmenter}^{\dagger}$\text{~\cite{strudel2021segmenter}} & $\text{ViT-L}^\star$ & --- & 53.6\\
$\text{SegFormer}^{\dagger}$\text{~\cite{xie2021segformer}} & MiT-B5 & 183 & 51.2\\
$\text{Lawin}^{\dagger}$ & MiT-B5 & \textbf{159} & 53.0 \\
$\text{Swin-Uper}^{\dagger}$\text{~\cite{liu2021swin}} & $\text{Swin-L}^{\star}$ & 646 & 54.1 \\
$\text{MaskFormer}^{\dagger}$\text{~\cite{cheng2021maskformer}} & $\text{Swin-L}^{\star}$ & 375 & 55.6 \\
$\text{Lawin}^{\dagger}$ & $\text{Swin-L}^{\star}$ & 351 & \textbf{56.2}\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance Comparison on ADE20K. The backbone marked with $\star$ indicates that it is pretrained on ImageNet22K. The method marked with $\dagger$ takes cropped input of $640\times640$.}
\label{tab:ade20k}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Branch in LawinASPP}
\label{sec:4.3.3}
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:lawin transformer}, LawinASPP aggregates features derived from five branches to gather rich contextual information at multiple scales. Following the aggregation, the first-level feature comes to enhance it with low-level information via an auxiliary branch. We here study the efficacy of the six branches in LawinASPP. In table~\ref{tab:branch}, we report the results when different branches are absent. For the branches of large window attention, the performance drops $0.4\%$, $0.5\%$ and $0.5\%$ for removing the branch with $R=2$, $R=4$ and $R=8$ respectively. The image pooling branch yields an improvement of $0.6\%$ so the global contextual information is an essential hierarchy of LawinASPP. The short path is also indispensable to LawinASPP in that the biggest performance gain of ($1.0\%$) is from this branch. We surprisingly observe that adding the auxiliary branch leads to an improvement of $0.8\%$, which manifests the importance of low-level information.
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.15}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline
\hline
\small{Method} & Backbone & FLOPs(G)$\downarrow$ & mIoU($\%$)$\uparrow$ \\
\hline
NonLocal~\cite{wang2018non} & ResNet101 & 278 & 37.9\\
DeeplabV3+~\cite{chen2018encoder} & ResNet101 & 255 & 38.4 \\
OCRNet~\cite{yuan2020object} & HRNetW48 & 165 & 42.3 \\
\hline
SETR-MLA~\cite{zheng2021rethinking} & $\text{ViT-L}^\star$ & --- & 45.8 \\
SegFormer~\cite{xie2021segformer} & MiT-B5 & 112 & 46.7\\
Lawin & MiT-B5 & \textbf{94} & \textbf{47.5}\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance Comparion on COCO-Stuff. The backbone with superscript $\star$ indicates that it is pretrained on ImageNet22K.}
\label{tab:coco}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comprasion with State-of-the-Art}
Finally, we compare our results with existing approaches on the ADE20K, Cityscapes and COCO-Stuff datasets.
Table \ref{tb:city} shows the results of state-of-the-art methods on Cityscapes dataset. The first group contains the CNN-based semantic segmentation method and the second group contains the ViT-based semantic segmentation method. If not specified, the crop size of input image is $768/769\times768/769$. To boost the performance of Lawin Transformer, we use MiT-B5 and Swin-L as the encoder. Lawin Transformer with Swin-L achieves the best performance on Cityscapes.
Table \ref{tab:ade20k} reports the performance of state-of-the-art methods on ADE20K dataset. The results are still grouped into two parts consists of CNN-based methods and ViT-based methods. If not specified, the crop size of input image is $512\times512$. Lawin Transformer with Swin-L outperforms all other methods. Lawin Transformer with MiT-B5 uses the least FLOPs ($159$ GFLOPs) and achieves an excellent performance ($53.0\%$ mIoU).
Table \ref{tab:coco} lists some results of state-of-the-art methods on COCO-stuff. Since there are few paper reporting the performance on COCO-Stuff, we just list the result of representative CNN-based methods. Lawin-B5 obtains the best mIoU of $47.5\%$ and also uses the least FLOPs of $94$G.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we develop an efficient semantic segmentation transformer called Lawin Transformer. The decoder part of Lawin Transformer is capable of capturing rich contextual information at multiple scales, which is established on our proposed \textit{large window attention}. Compared to the existing efficient semantic segmentation Transformer, Lawin Transformer can achieve higher performance with less computational expense. Finally, we conduct experiments on Cityscapes, ADE20K and COCO-Stuff dataset, yielding state-of-the-art results on these benchmarks. We hope Lawin Transformer will inspire the creativity of semantic segmentation ViT in the future.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction and background}
\label{sec:introduction}
Constant Force Mechanisms (CFMs) are traditionally the ones that deliver constant \emph{output} forces while undergoing finite deformations \cite{Tolman-et-al-2016, Liu-et-al-2020}. Electrical connectors \cite{Weight-et-al-2007, Meaders-Mattson-2010}, automotive clutches \cite{Porter-1953, Li-jun-et-al-2008}, exercise equipment \cite{Wilson-1980, Howell-Magleby-2006}, robotic automation involving end-effectors/grippers \cite{Boyle-et-al-2003, Lan-et-al-2010, Chen-Lan-2012b, Wang-Lan-2014, Zhang-Xu-2019}, snap fits \cite{Chen-Lan-2012a}, MEMS \cite{Aten-et-al-2011, Wang-et-al-2011}, force regulation/overload protection \cite{Pham-Wang-2011} and precision positioning \cite{Wang-Xu-2017} are some applications they may find use in. As a CFM offers nearly constant output force (thus will be referred to as \emph{CoFM} henceforth), need for force feedback gets reduced/eliminated which makes it cost effective and easy to use, without the requirement of sensors and control systems. Some conventional (rigid-link with springs) and compliant CFMs are described in \cite{Wahl-1963, Nathan-1985, Jenuwine-Midha-1994} and \cite{Chen-et-al-2016, Zhou-Prakashah-2015, Harne-Wang-2016, Yang-Lan-2015, Wu-Lan-2015, Berselli-et-al-2009} respectively. Wang and Xu \cite{Wang-Xu-2018} provide a detailed survey, highlighting advantages and pitfalls of five types of conventional and compliant CFMs each.
Compliant mechanisms are preferred over rigid-link ones due to inherent advantages of no friction, no backlash or need for lubrication, ease of assembly and miniaturization. Thus, compliant CFMs are desired over conventional ones. Two design approaches can be employed for monolithic CFMs, just as for generic compliant mechanisms --- for instance, those in \cite{Tolman-et-al-2016} and \cite{Boyle-et-al-2003} are designed using the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model (PRBM) approach whereas Topology Optimization (TO) is adopted in \cite{Liu-et-al-2020}.
Compliant constant input force mechanisms (\emph{CiFMs}), e.g., \cite{Zhang_and_Xu_2019} can also find a variety of applications, especially if the actuation force required is \emph{ideally} zero over a range of input displacement. Design methods for, and realization of the latter class of CiFMs, termed \emph{statically balanced compliant mechanisms} (or \emph{SBCMs}), have gained significant attention in recent years \cite{Herder-1998, Tolu-et-al-2010, Hoetmer-et-al-2010, Leishman-et-al-2010, Kim-Ebenstein-2012, Stapel-Herder-2004, Cheng-et-al-2015, Lamers-et-al-2015, Merriam-Howell-2015, Deepak-et-al-2016}. Static balancing is achieved by ensuring that the (potential) energy stored within the deforming continuum is constant \cite{Hoetmer-et-al-2010} so that both, the actuation force\footnote{first derivative of potential energy w.r.t the input dof} and stiffness\footnote{first derivative of the input force w.r.t the input dof} are zero over a range of input displacement \cite{Juan-2013}. Synthesis approaches for SBCMs employ the Pseudo-Rigid-Body approach, e.g., \cite{Tolman-et-al-2016}, stiffness compensation using building blocks, e.g., \cite{Hoetmer-et-al-2010} and topology optimization, e.g, \cite{Juan-2013}. A compliant constant output force mechanism (CoFM) need not always be a constant input force mechanism (CiFM) unless no region of the mechanism is fixed so that constant forces at the two ends balance out (e.g., Fig. 2 in \cite{Tolman-et-al-2016}). Two such CiFMs, as building blocks, can be pre-loaded, mirrored and fastened at their actuation ends resulting in an SBCM with virtually no opposition to motion at the combined input, as demonstrated in \cite{Tolman-et-al-2016}. Literature, so far, has not formally distinguished between compliant constant input and output force mechanisms. In this paper, such a distinction is maintained and CFMs are specifically referred to as either CoFMs or CiFMs. CoFMs and CiFMs can be referenced with respect to either input or output displacements. We employ input displacement as reference (see Fig. \ref{fig:objective_main}) as output displacements would usually vary with the type and material properties of the workpiece.
Few methods to synthesize CoFMs and CiFMs based on continuum optimization exist \cite{Pedersen_Fleck_and_Suresh_2006, Juan-2013, Liu-et-al-2020,Liu_Chung_Ho_2021}. Pedersen et al. \cite{Pedersen_Fleck_and_Suresh_2006} perform topology optimization using 2D continuum parameterization and size optimization on frame element abstraction of the corresponding solution, to design CoFM for given linearly decreasing force vs displacement characteristic. In \cite{Juan-2013}, topology optimization is performed with frame elements using stochastic search, with two different optimization formulations, namely, (a) neutral stability (using the buckling modes) and (b) continuous equilibrium (using large deformation analysis). Further, three different concepts are used to demonstrate a statically balanced compliant suspension (SBCS). A combination of two or more constant force mechanisms is pre-stressed to achieve the SBCS. In \cite{Liu-et-al-2020} and \cite{Liu_Chung_Ho_2021} that synthesize CoFMs, geometric and material nonlinearities are considered with rectangular cells/finite elements. To resolve mesh distortion and non-convergence related problems pertaining to low stiffness cells in large deformation finite element analysis, hyperelastic elements are added. Topology optimization is performed within the Matlab and ANSYS environments using gradient search followed by geometry optimization. In \cite{Liu-et-al-2020} and \cite{Liu_Chung_Ho_2021}, the output force is simulated via a virtual, linear, output spring.
\section{Aim, novelty, scope and organization}
\label{sec:aim_sb_cf_cms}
We aim at designing constant output force (CoFM) and input force (CiFM) mechanisms using topology optimization such that obtained solutions are directly manufacturable \emph{as is}. Using the procedure delineated in \cite{Reddy-saxena-2020} with initially curved frame elements and zero order search, we intend to capture all geometrically nonlinear deformation modes related to (a) member buckling, (b) interaction between members (self contact), (c) interaction between members and external surfaces of specific shapes (mutual contact), (d) interaction of the continuum with workpiece, all of which will contribute, non-intuitively, towards the manner in which energy is stored within the deforming monolithic continuum. Such features, implemented herein, are not pre-specified and are determined systematically by the developed algorithm such that energy storage within the continuum can be manipulated via contact. The aforementioned has not been captured yet in topology design of large displacement compliant, constant input/output force mechanisms. We ensure force transfer by modeling contact forces accurately between the continuum and workpiece (assumed flexible having nonlinear material properties) rather than simulating those by means of a virtual output spring (e.g., \cite{Liu-et-al-2020}, \cite{Liu_Chung_Ho_2021}). We propose and employ novel \emph{function generation} based objectives to synthesize CoFMs and CiFMs providing individual control on different design features, namely, maximized input displacement range over which the output or input forces are constants, and intended magnitudes of such forces.
\section{Problem Formulation}
\label{sec:prob_form}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.6 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{objective_a.eps}
\caption{A candidate CiFM or CoFM continuum interacting with workpiece WP} \label{fig:objective_a}
\end{subfigure} \hfill \\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45 \textwidth}
\centering \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{objective_c.eps}
\caption{${F_{out}} -{\delta_{in}}$ function behavior of a candidate CoFM continuum. $ {\Delta } $: $ \Delta_{in} $, the input displacement for which the output displacement is $ \Delta_{out} $. For $\delta_{in} < \Delta_{in}$, the output force is zero. }
\label{fig:objective_b}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45 \textwidth}
\centering \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{objective_b.eps}
\caption{${F_{in}} -{\delta_{in}}$ function behavior of a candidate CiFM continuum. $ { \Delta } $: $ \Delta_{in} $, i.e., the displacement of input port for which the output displacement is $ \Delta_{out} $.}
\label{fig:objective_c}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(\subref{fig:objective_a}) The undeformed and deformed configurations of both continuum and workpiece. $ F_{in} $ and $ F_{out} $ represent the actuation and output forces at the input and output ports respectively. $\Delta_{in}$ represents the initial deformation observed at the input port, at the start of interaction between the continuum and workpiece. (\subref{fig:objective_b}-\subref{fig:objective_c}) Piece-wise segmentation of ${F} -{\delta_{in}}$ curve. $F^0$ is the respective desired constant value within the displacement range $R$.}
\label{fig:objective_main}
\end{figure*}
\noindent Consider a compliant continuum in Fig. \ref{fig:objective_a}, in both, deformed and original configurations. Upon the application of load $ F_{in} $, the continuum deforms and comes in contact with the workpiece placed at a distance (minimum) $ \Delta_{out} $ from the output port transferring force $F_{out}$. This force, in general, is nonlinear and depends primarily on the interaction between the continuum and the workpiece, given their material properties. The input port traverses a distance $\Delta_{in}$ just before the aforementioned contact occurs. One considers the discrete piece-wise form of the ${F} -{\delta_{in}}$ (${\delta_{in}}$ is the input displacement) curve over a displacement range $ R $ and computes the slope $ \theta_i, i=0,1,2, ..., N $ of each segment.
\subsection{Constant output Force Mechanism (CoFM)}
\label{sec:CoFM_pf}
Consider discretized form of the function response $ F_{out} - \delta_{in} $ of a candidate CoFM (Fig. \ref{fig:objective_b}). For $\delta_{in} < \Delta_{in}, F_{out} = 0$, and as $\delta_{in}$ increases, the reaction force registers a non-zero value. For $\delta_{in} > \lambda_{in}\Delta_{in}$, where $\lambda_{in} > 1$ is some (prespecified) factor, the CoFM is required to maintain a constant, desired output (contact) force $F^{0}$ and hene near zero slope, $\sum\theta_i^2$, over a range $R$ of the input displacement. As $\Delta_{in}$ is the input displacement for an intermediate continuum for its output port to be displaced by $\Delta_{out}$, it will not be the same for all intermediate solutions. The range $R$ may be computed as the sum of lengths of piece-wise segments, i.e., $\sum{\Delta l_i}$. This range may be desired to be as large as possible. One could therefore seek an optimal topology of the compliant CoFM via minimizing the following objective:
\begin{align}
\label{ratio_CoFM_obj}
O_{1R}: \displaystyle\text{min}\;\; & \sqrt{ \left[ (F_{out}-F^0)^2 \right]_{\delta_{in} = \delta_{in}^{*} } } \times \nonumber \\
& \left\{\frac{ \sqrt{ {\left[\sum\theta_i^2\right]} } }{\sum{\Delta l_i}}\right\}_{\delta_{in}>\lambda_{in}\Delta_{in}}
\end{align}
\noindent One notes that $F_{out}$ in Eq. \ref{ratio_CoFM_obj} is the reaction force obtained from the $F_{out}-\delta_{in}$ response, at a point $\delta_{in}^{*} $ just after $\delta_{in}$ becomes larger than $\lambda_{in}\Delta_{in}$. Suitable changes could be made if certain sub-objectives are to be revised or dropped. For instance, if $F_{out}$ is to be maximised, $[F_{out}-F^0]$ in $O_{1R}$ may be replaced by $\frac{1}{F_{out}}$. If having a large range is not deemed necessary, ${\sum{\Delta l_i}}$ may be dropped. Such individual control is also possible with the linear combination objective type:
\begin{align}
\label{lc_CoFM_obj}
O_{1L}: \displaystyle\text{min } \;\;\; & \left[ C_1 \sqrt{ \sum \theta_i^2 } + C_2 \frac{1}{\sum{\Delta l_i}}\right]_{\delta_{in}>\lambda_{in}\Delta_{in}} + \nonumber \\
& C_3 \sqrt{ \left(F_{out}-F^0\right)^2_{\delta_{in}= \delta_{in}^{*}}}
\end{align}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{DesignDomain.eps}
\caption{Processes involved in preparation of a candidate design for large deformation analysis.}
\label{fig:DesignDomain}
\end{figure*}
\noindent where $ C_1, C_2, \text{and } C_3 $ are suitably chosen positive weights corresponding to the error in slopes of all segments, range ($R$) and deviation in the output force from that desired. In objective $O_{1R}$, weight specification is not required. However, $O_{1R}$ can assume a low value very quickly (irrespective of the values of $\sum \theta_i^2$ and $\frac{1}{\sum{\Delta l_i}}$) in the optimization process if $F_{out}$ gets close to $F^0$, at $\delta_{in} = \delta_{in}^{*}$, a single point on the $F_{out} - \delta_{in}$ curve. Both objective types are expected to have non-convex design spaces and can yield multiple (topological) solutions.
We prefer to employ $O_{1L}$ over $O_{1R}$, and the objective proposed in \cite{Liu-et-al-2020,Liu_Chung_Ho_2021}. Therein, the workpiece is modeled with constant stiffness and $F_{out}$ computed at a single node. We model the workpiece with known geometry and hyper-elastic (nonlinear and hence non-constant output spring) material properties. In addition, we model the contact force over a surface, consider the initial gap ($\Delta_{out}$) between the output port and the workpiece, and also maximize the range of input displacement over which the output force is constant. These nonlinearities are not considered in \cite{Liu-et-al-2020,Liu_Chung_Ho_2021}.
\subsection{Constant input Force Mechanism (CiFM)}
\label{sec:CiFM_pf}
Considering the $ F_{in} - \delta_{in} $ function curve (Fig. \ref{fig:objective_c}), the base intent behind the monolithic constant input force mechanism (CiFM) is similar to that for the CoFM. That is, slope of the $F_{in}-\delta_{in}$ curve should be close to zero in some range ($\delta_{in} > \Delta_{in}$) of the input displacement, and also that range, $R = \sum \Delta l_i$, should be as large as possible. In addition, if a CiFM is sought to possess characteristics similar to a statically balanced compliant mechanism or one of its building units, one may intend to minimize the total magnitude of input force $F_{in}$ beyond $\delta_{in} > \Delta_{in}$ ($\lambda_{in} = 1$) so that the latter is close to the horizontal axis over a range of input displacement. One may also consider maximizing the force transfer, that is, maximizing the final interactive force at the output port. In that regard, the ratio and linear combination type objectives can be formulated respectively as
\begin{align}
\label{ratio_CiFM_obj}
O_{2R}: & \;\;\; \displaystyle\text{min } \;\;\; \sqrt{\left[ \frac{F_{in}^2}{F_{out}^2} \right]_{F_{out} > 0}} \left\{\frac{{\sqrt{\sum\theta_i^2}}}{\sum{\Delta l_i}}\right\}_{\delta_{in}>\Delta_{in}} \\
\text{and} & \nonumber \\
\label{lc_CiFM_obj}
O_{2L}: & \;\;\; \displaystyle\text{min } \;\;\; \left[ C_1 \sqrt{ \sum \theta_i^2} + C_2 \frac{1}{\sum{\Delta l_i}}\right]_{\delta_{in}>\Delta_{in}} + \nonumber \\
& C_3 \sqrt{F_{in}^{2}} + C_4 \left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{F_{out}^2}}\right)_{F_{out} > 0}
\end{align}
\section{Topology Optimization}
\label{sec:to_cifm_cofm}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.35 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CoFM_example1_a.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example1_a}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.3 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CoFM_example1_b.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example1_b}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.3 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CoFM_example1_c.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example1_c}
\end{subfigure} \\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{CoFM_example1_g.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example1_g}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{CoFM_example1_h.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example1_h}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(\subref{fig:CoFM_example1_a}) Design domain for CoFM-I with workpiece (W). $ I: $ input port; $ O: $ output port. (\subref{fig:CoFM_example1_b}) optimized solution after 17407 function evaluations (see Fig. \ref{fig:Convergance_history}) with dangling members encircled with dashed lines. (\subref{fig:CoFM_example1_c}) Final design without dangling members. $\Delta_{\textmd{out}} = $ 4.8mm. (\subref{fig:CoFM_example1_g}) Final deformed configuration of designed CoFM (gray represents undeformed). (\subref{fig:CoFM_example1_h}) ${F_{out}} -{\delta_{in}}$ behavior of CoFM-I along with desired force.}
\label{fig:CoFM_example1}
\end{figure*}
We summarise the methodology to create candidate solutions to prepare them for the finite element analysis. We start with a grid like structure formed by combining different blocks of straight lines (Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}a). Each block comprises of \textit{eight} members ($ m_j $) and \textit{five} vertices ($ p_i $). Each member is modeled as a Hermite cubic curve for which the end slopes ($ v^{T_1}_{m_j} $ and $ v^{T_2}_{m_j}$) and, in-plane width ($ v^w_{m_j} $) are continuous design variables that vary within the user specified limits. Each vertex $ p_i $ is permitted to translate within the specified limits by modeling its horizontal and vertical coordinates as continuous design variables. The out-of-plane thickness $ v^{th} $ of the entire continuum and magnitude of the applied input force $ v^F_I $ also form part of the continuous design variables.
A discrete topology choice variable $ v^c_{m_j} $ that can take values of either 0 or 1, decides the presence of a member in the candidate design. A candidate design shown in Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}b is generated with the aforementioned design variables. It may happen that two or more members, e.g., $ m_{32} $ and $ m_{34} $ in the figure, intersect. All such intersecting members are identified and deleted by assigning 0 to the respective topology choice variables. A candidate design (Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}c) after deletion of intersecting members, is meshed with quadrilateral elements. When doing so, elements overlap at the junctions. For instance, at junction $ ju_1 $, members $ m_1, m_2, m_3, \text{and } m_4 $ are not properly connected (Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}d). To maintain connectivity between members at the junctions, the latter are modeled as circles of suitable radii. Further, each circular junction is meshed with quadrilateral elements as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}e. Elements at the end of members sharing the junction are connected to the circular junction. However, modeling of junctions as circles makes the junctions unnecessarily \emph{bulgy}. For better appearance, all junctions are compressed by repositioning the nodes, as detailed in \cite{Reddy-saxena-2020}. E.g., junction $ ju_1 $ after repositioning of nodes is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}f. Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}g shows well connected members of the candidate design meshed with quadrilateral elements and reshaped junctions. After meshing the continuum with quadrilateral elements, we represent it as a combination of a set of inner (numbered 2 to 10) and outer (numbered 1) loops as per the procedure laid down in \cite{Reddy-saxena-2020}. Once the continuum (Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}g) is ready for analysis, we specify contact interactions as self-contact between internal and external loops individually. In addition, contact interactions are also specified between the outer loop and the workpiece to compute the output force for CoFMs and CiFMs. We use stochastic Random Mutation Hill Climber search, detailed in \cite{Reddy-saxena-2020}, for reasons mentioned in section \ref{sec:dis_cofm_cifm}.
\section{Examples}
\label{sec:to_eg_cofm}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Convergance_history.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Convergance_history}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{CoFM_Symmetric_example1_b.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example1_b}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.75]{CoFM_Symmetric_example1_c.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example1_c}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(\subref{fig:Convergance_history}) Convergence history of optimization process for CoFM-I. (\subref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example1_b}) Initial state (gray) of the complete design obtained after replicating and scaling the symmetric half and final (red) deformed configuration. (\subref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example1_c}) Force-deflection relation for CoFM-I.}
\label{fig:Symmetric_example1}
\end{figure*}
We demonstrate proposed synthesis with two examples each, of the Constant output force (CoFM-I and CoFM-II) and Constant input force (CiFM-I and CiFM-II) mechanisms. In all cases, we seek singlepiece continua permitting contact between only members (i.e., self contact) and that between compliant mechanisms and the respective flexible workpieces. For the four continua, additional external surfaces (to facilitate mutual contact) as in \cite{Reddy-saxena-2020} are not generated for now (see section \ref{sec:to_eg_cofm_cifm_ext_surf}). Workpieces are considered rectangular in shape and flexible with their Neo-Hookean hyper elastic material constants C10 and D1 \cite[pp. 21.5.1–5]{ABAQUS-2011} taken as 0.376 and 1.020 respectively. This corresponds to the Young's modulus of 0.02 Nmm$^{-2}$ and Poisson's ratio of 0.33. We show that the output force behavior of the synthesized continua is specific to the shape and material property of the workpieces they interact with (see section \ref{sec:f_vs_d_wp_chg}). Topology optimization is performed using the Random Mutation Hill climber (RMHC) detailed in \cite{Reddy-saxena-2020} with the optimization parameters, objective weights, member material properties and other scalars given in Table \ref{Table:Opti_parameters}. We do ensure force transfer in that we consider candidate designs where the contact between the workpiece and continuum remains active throughout the force deformation history of the continuum\footnote{The proposed method is capable of synthesizing continua with non-differentiable force deflection characteristics.}. All other designs are penalized.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Optimization parameters --- Mutation probability: 0.08, Young's modulus (Nmm$^{-2}$): 20, Poisson's ratio: 0.33, Elements along member width ($n_{ew}$): 4, Elements along member length ($n_{el}$): 20 }
\label{Table:Opti_parameters}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline
Parameter & CoFM-I & CoFM-II & CiFM-I & CiFM-II\\ \hline
Weight, slopes ($ C_1 $) & $ 10^6 $ & $10^6$ & $10^6$ & $10^8$ \\
Weight, range ($ C_2 $) & $10^2$ & $10^2$ & $10^3$&$10^3$ \\
Weight, force\footnote{desired output force for CoFM, and input force for CiFM} ($ C_3 $) & $ 10^6 $ & $10^6$ & $10^2$&$10^2$ \\
Weight, o/p force\footnote{only for CiFM} ($ C_4 $) & -- & -- & -- & $10^2$\\
$ \lambda_{in} $ & 1.2 & 1.2 & 1 & 1 \\
Desired o/p force ($ F^0 $) & 0.02 N & 0.06 N & -- & -- \\
thickness & 3mm & 3mm & 5 mm & 3 mm\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
\subsection{Constant output force mechanism CoFM-I}
\label{sec:CoFM_eg1}
We consider a domain of size 100 mm $ \times $ 100 mm to model the upper symmetric half of the mechanism along with the workpiece, W (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_a}). The design domain is represented with 12 blocks, 4 along the length and 3 along the width. The output port is reinforced with three additional members shown in Fig. \ref{fig:DesignDomain}a so that contact area between the workpiece and output port is increased for improved distribution of the output force. Design parameters for these additional members do not vary during optimization. Lower and upper bounds of all design variables of continuum members are given in Table \ref{Table:Range_members}. Young's Modulus and Poisson's ratio of members of the continuum are provided in Table \ref{Table:Opti_parameters}.
A candidate design is generated and mutated as per the procedure briefed in Sec. \ref{sec:to_cifm_cofm} over the optimization parameters specified in Table \ref{Table:Opti_parameters} with an input force that varies between 0 and 5 N. The desired CoFM-I evolved in 17407 iterations is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_b}. Further, dangling members that offer no contribution to the mechanism, encircled within dashed regions, are removed to get the final design shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_c}. Final deformed configuration is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_g}. Variation of output force ($ F_{out} $) with respect to the input displacement ($ \delta_{in} $) is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_h}. One observes that the output force remains zero till the continuum comes into contact with the workpiece ($\Delta_{out} = 3.4$mm) and then starts increasing. After the continuum deforms further ($\delta_{in} \approx 7.5\text{ mm}$), the overall contact force between the vertical output member of the mechanism and the workpiece remains constant, despite continuing actuation (increase in input force), and is very close to the desired output force of $0.02$ N. Evolution history of the optimization process is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:Convergance_history}. Change in objective function value is significantly more in the initial iterations than later.
The evolved design without dangling members is exported to an IGES file, which is further processed using a CAD Software to form the complete design after replicating and scaling the symmetric half as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example1_b}. A scale factor of 1.4 is used for ease in manufacturing. The entire mechanism is further analyzed using ABAQUS (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example1_b}) and deformation history (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example1_c}) is extracted. One notices that the output force is more or less constant for $\delta_{in} \geq 12$ mm, and is slightly more than twice the desired value used for the continuum in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_b}. This is expected as height of the workpiece is more than twice of that used in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_b}, and that also, the full and scaled mechanism interacts with it.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Range of design variables for members of CoFM-I}
\label{Table:Range_members}
\begin{tabular}{P{0.5\textwidth} c c c}
\toprule
Design variable & LB & UB & Units\\
\toprule
End-slopes $ (v_{m_j}^{T_1}, v_{m_j}^{T_2}) $ & $ - $0.5 & 0.5 & rad \\
In-plane width $(v_{m_j}^w)$& 1.4 & 2 & mm \\
Out of plane thickness $(v^{th})$& 2 & 5 & mm \\
$ x $ and $ y $ coordinates of the bounding box $(v_{p_i}^x, v_{p_i}^y)$ & $ - $5 & 5 & mm \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Constant output force mechanism CoFM-II}
\label{sec:CoFM_eg2}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CoFM_example2_a.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example2_a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CoFM_example2_b.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example2_b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CoFM_example2_c.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example2_c}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CoFM_example2_d.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example2_d}
\end{subfigure} \\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{CoFM_example2_h.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example2_h}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{CoFM_example2_i_new.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_example2_i}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(\subref{fig:CoFM_example2_a}) Design specifications for CoFM-II. (\subref{fig:CoFM_example2_b}) Design domain represented with frame members. (\subref{fig:CoFM_example2_c}) Initial guess for optimization as two symmetric halves of the inverter mechanism placed in series. (\subref{fig:CoFM_example2_d}) optimized design. (\subref{fig:CoFM_example2_h}) Final design after removing dangling members and final deformed configuration (red) of the symmetric half of CoFM-II. $\Delta_{\textmd{out}}:$ 4.5mm. (\subref{fig:CoFM_example2_i}) ${F_{out}} -{\delta_{in}}$ behavior of CoFM-II.}
\label{fig:CoFM_example2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Range of design variables for members of CoFM-2}
\label{Table:Range_members_CoFM_eg_2}
\begin{tabular}{P{0.5\textwidth} c c c}
\toprule
Design variable & LB & UB & Units\\
\toprule
End-slopes $ (v_{m_j}^{T_1}, v_{m_j}^{T_2}) $ & $ - $0.5 & 0.5 & rad \\
In-plane width $(v_{m_j}^w)$& 2 & 3 & mm \\
Out of plane thickness $(v^{th})$& 1 & 3 & mm \\
$ x $ coordinates of the bounding box $(v_{p_i}^x)$ & $ - $5 & 5 & mm \\
$ y $ coordinates of the bounding box $(v_{p_i}^y)$ & $ - $2.5 & 2.5 & mm \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We design CoFM-II (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2}) inspired by the inverter mechanism, wherein, the input force is applied along the negative $ x- $ direction and output is sought along the positive $ y- $ direction (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_a}). The design being symmetric about both horizontal and vertical axes, for synthesis, we choose one quarter of the design region of size 200 $ \times $ 200 mm, along with the workpiece ($ W $). $ I \text{ and } O $ represent the input and output ports respectively. We represent the design region with \textit{eight} blocks, \textit{two} along the length and \textit{four} along the width (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_b}). The mesh comprises of 48 candidate frame members and 23 vertices. Additionally, four members are added to the output port as reinforcement for improved force transfer, similar to the CoFM-I example in Sec. \ref{sec:CoFM_eg1}. Material properties of the continuum and the workpiece are respectively identical to those in the previous example.
We commence optimization with the initial guess shown in \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_c} which is constituted of the symmetric halves of two inverters arranged in series. Intermediate candidate designs are mutated over the parameters given in Table \ref{Table:Opti_parameters} and allowable limits of all continuum design variables are mentioned in Table \ref{Table:Range_members_CoFM_eg_2}. With the same input force range as that for CoFM-I, an acceptable design shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_d} is achieved. The final design (undeformed configuration in grey) obtained by removing the dangling members that do not store any energy at any stage in the deformation history is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_h}. Comparing the initial guess and this solution, there are few additional members in the latter. Final deformed configuration of the symmetric half of CoFM-II is shown in red. ${F_{out}} -{\delta_{in}}$ behavior is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_i}. One observes that constant output force is exerted by the continuum over a range starting from a stage with $\delta_{in} \approx 20\text{ mm}$. One also observes that this is despite the input force/displacement increasing consistently.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{CoFM_Symmetric_example2_b.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.39 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{CoFM_Symmetric_example2_c_new.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_c}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{CoFM_Symmetric_example2_e.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_e}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.39 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{CoFM_Symmetric_example2_f_new.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_f}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(\subref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_b}) Initial (gray) and final (red) deformed configuration of CoFM-II. (\subref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_c}) Force-deflection behavior. $\delta_{in}$ corresponds to the horizontal displacement of point P. (\subref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_e}) Compact CoFM-II (gray), after removing members within the dashed regions in Fig. (\ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_b}) and its deformed (red) configuration. (\subref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_f}) ${F_{out}} -{\delta_{in}}$ behavior of the modified CoFM-II. $\delta_{in}$ corresponds to the downward vertical deflection of the bottommost (new input) node in (\subref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_e}).}
\label{fig:Symmetric_example2_1}
\end{figure*}
To simulate the behavior of upper symmetric half of CoFM-II, we consider replica of the evolved quarter design about the vertical axis and generate the CAD drawing, which is further analyzed in ABAQUS and the nodal displacements are extracted. Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_b} depict the undeformed and deformed configurations of CoFM-II respectively. The overall deflection characteristics are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_c}. Members within the dashed region in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_b} deform significantly and stress values are as high as 22.29 Nmm$^{-2}$. We note further that a similar force behavior at the output is possible if dashed members are removed and the remnant continuum is actuated vertically downward at point Q as shown. A more concised CoFM-II and its deformed profile is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_e}, and the corresponding force-deflection behavior in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_f}.
\section{Constant input force mechanisms}
\label{sec:to_eg_cifm}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{CiFM_example1_a.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example1_a}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{CiFM_example1_i.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example1_b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{CiFM_example1_c.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example1_c}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{CiFM_example1_d.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example1_d}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{CiFM_example1_f.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example1_f}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{CiFM_example1_g.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example1_g}
\end{subfigure}\\
\caption{(\subref{fig:CiFM_example1_a}) Constant input Force Mechanism (CiFM-I) synthesized using the design specifications in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_a}. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example1_b}) Synthesis takes about 12000 evaluations. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example1_c}) Upper symmetric half of CiFM-I with dangling elements (e.g., encircled portions in (\subref{fig:CiFM_example1_a}) removed. $\Delta_{\textmd{out}}:$ 4.6mm. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example1_d}) Force-deflection history-- input force is constant as expected. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example1_f}) Extensions of 5 mm used between the symmetric halves of the full continuum. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example1_g}) Corresponding force-deflection history. The input force is almost doubled, and the output force is increased significantly due to a larger workpiece used. }
\label{fig:CiFM_example1}
\end{figure*}
We perform continuum optimization for Constant input Force Mechanisms (CiFMs- I and II) with identical design specifications as for CoFM-I (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_a}) and slightly revised specifications as for CoFM-II (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_a}) respectively. The focus in these examples is to have the input force, as opposed to the output force, unvarying over a range of input displacements. Objective in Eq. \ref{lc_CiFM_obj} is minimized with the weights given in Table. \ref{Table:Opti_parameters}. $C_4$ is set to zero in that the output force (Eq. \ref{lc_CiFM_obj}) is not maximized.
Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_a} shows the solution for the upper symmetric half of CiFM-I obtained in about 12500 function evaluations (Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_b}). The cleaned-up solution, after removal of dangling sub-regions, and its deformed profile are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_c}. The corresponding forces vs. input displacement curves are depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_d}. As intended, the input force is almost constant, and close to $1$ N, over the input displacement range between $15-22$ mm. Within the same range, the output force increases till $0.07$ N ensuring force transfer throughout the mechanism actuation. The solutions in Figs. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_c} and \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_c}, although synthesized using the same specifications but with different design intent, are different, and so are their respective functional responses in Figs. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_h} and \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_d}. This reinforces that constant input force mechanisms need not be constant output force mechanisms, and vice versa. Evidently, they are two different categories of constant force mechanisms.
Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_f} shows full mechanism wherein the upper symmetric half is replicated about the horizontal axis. The gap between the two halves is set to $5$ mm. Self contact is modeled for the three central loops $L_1, L_2$ and $L_3$ shown in the Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_f}. During synthesis, such contact was not modeled between involved members and the horizontal axis. Extensions\footnote{These additions are expected to influence the overall stiffness and hence the deformation characteristics} are introduced via thick regions at locations where the nodes (green triangles in Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_c}) are set on rollar support. Force deflection relation is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_g}. Slope of the input force vs. the input displacement curve is almost flat especially for $\delta_{in} >17$ mm and not quite close to zero.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{CiFM_example2_a.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example2_a}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CiFM_example2_d.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example2_d}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CiFM_example2_e.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example2_e}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CiFM_example2_f.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example2_f}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CiFM_example2_symmetric_a.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example2_symmetric_a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{CiFM_example2_symmetric_b.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM_example2_symmetric_b}
\end{subfigure}
\label{fig:CiFM_example2}
\caption{Constant input force mechanism, CiFM-II. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example2_a}) Design specifications altered slightly compared to those in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_a}. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example2_d}) Synthesized left symmetric half and (\subref{fig:CiFM_example2_e}) the same without members storing no internal energy. $\Delta_{\textmd{out}}:$ 1.9mm. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example2_f}) Force deflection history. (\subref{fig:CiFM_example2_symmetric_a}) full upper half of CiFM-II, which by itself is fine, if the bottom two nodes are on rollar support (\subref{fig:CiFM_example2_symmetric_b}) force deflection characteristics for (\subref{fig:CiFM_example2_symmetric_a}). }
\end{figure*}
Refering to the design specifications for CoFM-II (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_a}), the obtained processed design and its final deformed configuration (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_h}), we note that portion of the continuum undergoes significant deformation (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_b}). Alternatively, certain revisions can be made to the location and direction of the input force (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_e}) to get a more compact design without loss in functionality. The corresponding changes in the location and direction of the input force are made (compare Figs. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_a} and \ref{fig:CiFM_example2_a}), and CiFM-II is synthesized with the intent of keeping the input force constant over a range of input displacement while maximizing force transfer at the output. The domain and initial guess are taken the same as in Figs. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_b} and \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_c} respectively. Design obtained after around 25000 evaluations is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example2_d} and the processed continuum, one after removing all dangling elements is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example2_e} in its final configuration. The input force (Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example2_f}) is observed to be constant and close to $7.5 \times 10^{-3}$ N is magnitude. Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example2_symmetric_a} shows the full mechanism with its force deflection characteristic in Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM_example2_symmetric_b}. Magnitude of the constant input force is almost doubled in comparison to the symmetric counterpart, as expected. Further, this magnitude is quite less suggesting the continuum could potentially be employed as (the building block of) a statically balanced mechanism (see Ref. \cite{Tolman-et-al-2016}).
\section{Constant output and Constant input force mechanisms with external surfaces}
\label{sec:to_eg_cofm_cifm_ext_surf}
To determine whether permitting presence of external surfaces has any impact on the design process, we synthesize the Constant input and Constant output force mechanisms again, this time, permitting mutual contact as well. A maximum of 11 external contact surfaces of various shapes, e.g., rectangular, circular and elliptical are permitted. Symmetric halves of CoFM-II-E (i.e. CoFM-II with external surfaces) synthesized using the specifications in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_example2_a}, CiFM-I-E, and CiFM-II-E, designed respectively using specifications in Figs. \ref{fig:CoFM_example1_a} and \ref{fig:CiFM_example2_a}, are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CFMs_External_surfaces}. In case of CoFM-II-E (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM-IIe}) and CiFM-I-E (Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM-Ie}), the respective continua throughout their deformation history do not come into contact with any external surface present in their vicinity. An instance of self contact is observed in CoFM-II-E. In case of CiFM-II-E (Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM-IIe}), the continuum interacts with a small circular surface at location $C$ which is when the direction of motion of the output port changes from downward to upward. Permitting mutual contact, may not necessarily yield better, or faster solutions. In our experience, these solutions were obtained after many design evaluations. Many intermediate solutions may have been penalized due to external surfaces overlapping with the parent continuum. However, interesting alternate solutions, e.g., CiFM-II-E, may be possible if contact with external surfaces is permitted in topology synthesis.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{CoFM_2E_symmetric.eps}
\caption{CoFM-II-E}
\label{fig:CoFM-IIe}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.36\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{CiFMe_1E_symmetric.eps}
\caption{CiFM-I-E}
\label{fig:CiFM-Ie}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.77]{CiFMe_2E_symmetric.eps}
\caption{CiFM-II-E}
\label{fig:CiFM-IIe}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(top) Symmetric halves of the CoFMs and CiFMs designed with self (continuum members interacting with themselves) and mutual (continuum members interacting with external, black regions) contact. 'E' represents external surfaces. (bottom) respective force deflection curves. Self contact occurs in CiFM-II-E, and mutual contact in CiFM-II-E.}
\label{fig:CFMs_External_surfaces}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:dis_cofm_cifm}
Modeling contact in synthesis of compliant mechanisms renders the latter special deformation characteristics, e.g., traversing of non-smooth paths (\cite{Nilesh_Suresh_2007, kumar2016synthesis, kumar2019computational, Reddy-saxena-2020}) and stress relief (\cite{mehta2009stress}). In this paper, we incorporate contact in synthesis to achieve constant input and output force characteristics. Besides exploring interesting design possibilities, contact analysis is specifically necessitated to truly capture interactive forces between the continua and the respective hyper flexible workpieces. With the two synthesized CoFMs (Figs. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example1_b} and \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_e}) and CiFMs (Figs. \ref{fig:CiFM_example1_f} and \ref{fig:CiFM_example2_symmetric_a}), herein, we determine on how they perform when the properties and shape of the workpiece are altered. Thereafter, we comment on the nature of search, time taken and the need for why such a search algorithm is chosen. We finally fabricate our designs using a material different from what was used to synthesize them, and test whether constant force characteristics can still be retained.
\subsection{Effect on the force-deflection curves with change in shape/properties of the workpiece}
\label{sec:f_vs_d_wp_chg}
In general, force-deflection characterstics of Constant output and Constant input force mechanisms can both change with the properties and shapes of the workpiece. Figure \ref{fig:CFMs_f_d_curves_rectangular_wp_props} depicts force-deflection response of the four continua when Young's modulus of the workpiece is changed. The workpiece is still rectangular in shape. For CoFM-I and CoFM-II, as the workpiece becomes stiffer, the output force required is large (Figs \ref{fig:CoFM1_wps_rectangular_various_Es} and \ref{fig:CoFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es}). Further, CoFM-I tends to loose the constant output force characteristics. One observes that portion of contact region between CoFM-I and the continuum is lost --- a gap gets created between the two, and only regions near the left top and bottom corners of the workpiece are in contact. In case of CoFM-II (Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es}), the overall constant output force characteristic is maintained, and the magnitude gets slightly increased with workpiece stiffness. Nature of the input force in case of CiFM-I (Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM1_wps_rectangular_various_Es}) does get affected adversely. For CiFM-II (Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es}), however, nature and magnitude of the input force remain, desirably, unaltered. With elliptical (change in shape and properties of the) workpieces, CoFM-I and CoFM-II almost maintain constant output force characteristics (Figs. \ref{fig:CoFM1_wps_elliptical_various_Es} and \ref{fig:CoFM2_wps_elliptical_various_Es} respectively), but with changed force magnitudes. Constant input force characteristics for CiFM-I (Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM1_wps_elliptical_various_Es}) get thoroughly disturbed while those for CiFM-II (Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM2_wps_elliptical_various_Es}) are still maintained.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{CoFM1_wps_rectangular_various_Es.eps}
\caption{CoFM-I}
\label{fig:CoFM1_wps_rectangular_various_Es}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{CoFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es.eps}
\caption{CoFM-II}
\label{fig:CoFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{CiFM1_wps_rectangular_various_Es.eps}
\caption{CiFM-I}
\label{fig:CiFM1_wps_rectangular_various_Es}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{CiFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es.eps}
\caption{CiFM-II}
\label{fig:CiFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Force-deflection characteristics for (\subref{fig:CoFM1_wps_rectangular_various_Es}) CoFM-I, (\subref{fig:CoFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es}) CoFM-II, (\subref{fig:CiFM1_wps_rectangular_various_Es}) CiFM-I and
(\subref{fig:CiFM2_wps_rectangular_various_Es}) CiFM-II when the elastic modulus of the workpiece is changed. Shape of the workpiece remains rectangular, and size remains the same. }
\label{fig:CFMs_f_d_curves_rectangular_wp_props}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{CoFM1_wps_elliptical_various_Es.eps}
\caption{CoFM-I}
\label{fig:CoFM1_wps_elliptical_various_Es}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{CoFM2_wps_elliptical_various_Es.eps}
\caption{CoFM-II}
\label{fig:CoFM2_wps_elliptical_various_Es}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{CiFM1_wps_elliptical_various_Es.eps}
\caption{CiFM-I}
\label{fig:CiFM1_wps_elliptical_various_Es}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.23 \textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{CiFM2_wps_elliptical_various_Es.eps}
\caption{CiFM-II}
\label{fig:CiFM2_wps_elliptical_various_Es}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Force-deflection characteristics for (\subref{fig:CoFM1_wps_elliptical_various_Es}) CoFM-I, (\subref{fig:CoFM2_wps_elliptical_various_Es}) CoFM-II, (\subref{fig:CiFM1_wps_elliptical_various_Es}) CiFM-I and
(\subref{fig:CiFM2_wps_elliptical_various_Es}) CiFM-II when the elastic modulus of the workpiece is changed. Workpiece is elliptical in shape, and major and minor axes dimensions are the same as the respective sides of the rectangular workpiece in Fig. \ref{fig:CFMs_f_d_curves_rectangular_wp_props}. }
\label{fig:CFMs_f_d_curves_elliptical_wp_props}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Choice for the search algorithm}
\label{sec:srch_algo_choice}
Some of the previous methods \cite{Liu-et-al-2020,Liu_Chung_Ho_2021} employ gradient based search to synthesize CoFMs. They employ additive hyperelasticity techniques by adding hyperelastic elements so that the finite element analysis is numerically stable. They further use filtering and projection so that solutions are free from checkerboards and that grey regions are minimized. Notwithstanding the time taken for synthesis, which is quite the case for all examples presented herein, we use stochastic Random Mutation Hill Climber search, detailed in \cite{Reddy-saxena-2020}, for multiple reasons. Primarily, we model \emph{contact} in our finite element analyses to cater to all possible scenarios during synthesis --- buckling of member(s), members interacting with themselves (self contact), and/or with external surfaces of specific shapes (mutual contact), and importantly, interaction of the continuum with workpiece to compute contact force (transfer). Computation of the interactive (output) force between the continuum and workpiece is a specific case of mutual contact. Per se, these contact interactions are binary/discontinuous in nature (they either exist or not) and can introduce non-differentiability due to which sensitivity computations can become very difficult and/or cumbursome. Further, we aim to synthesize solutions that are manufacturable \emph{as is}, one reason why we decouple topology and shape/size optimization variables (they are coupled in gradient search), model the former as discrete and the latter as continuous variables. Limits on continuous design variables permit us to impose length scale constraints. Solutions that are non-convergent, those for which there is no force transfer, and other such are penalized. We avoid solutions with very thin members that by themselves can undergo significant deformation, and their presence or absence may cause alterations in the overall deformation characteristic. In essence, we avoid situations wherein optimized solutions need to be interpreted subjectively, e.g., removal of very thin regions, filleting around point connections, interpretation of gray cells, etc. We however remove dangling regions that we know do not store any strain energy during the entire deformation history.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CoFM1_experimental_setup.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM1_exp_setup}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CoFM1_experimental.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM1_exp_plot}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CoFM2_experimental_setup.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM2_exp_setup}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CoFM2_experimental.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM2_exp_plot}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CiFM1_experimental_setup.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM1_exp_setup}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CiFM1_experimental.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM1_exp_plot}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CiFM2_experimental_setup.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CiFM2_exp_setup}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CiFM2_experimental.eps}
\caption{}
\label{fig:CoFM2_exp_plot}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(\textit{top row}) Experimental setup for CoFM-I/II and CiFM-I/II. Dimensions and distances between output port and the workpiece ($\Delta_{\textmd{out}}$) for each mechanism are taken from synthesis ($\Delta_{\textmd{out}}:$ 4.8mm, 4.5mm, 4.6mm and 1.9mm for CoFM-1 and II, CiFM-I and II respectively). Force is applied at the input port by manually pushing/pulling the input gauge with constant speed. Mechanisms are actuated multiple times to test repeatability, and mean values are used. A camera is mounted on the top to record the force-displacement data. (\textit{bottom row}) Experimental force-displacement response of the respective mechanisms. Curves use mean values and standard deviations (error bars). In CoFM-I, the output force is near constant for input displacement range of 15-20 mm. CoFM-II, for different gaps ($\Delta_{\textmd{out}}$), shows limited displacement before it gets locked, after which any further input force does not cause output displacement. However, all three curves in CoFM-II, show 'flatter' trends for the output force towards the end. CiFM-I shows near constant input force for displacement value crossing 18 mm. CiFM-II assumes nearly constant input force for displacement range of 19-26 mm.}
\label{fig:experimental_setup_plots}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Fabrication and testing}
\label{sec:fab_and_test}
To validate the constant input/output force characteristics of the synthesized CoFMs and CiFMs, we fabricated and tested them. All four mechanisms were fabricated with Polypropylene sheets using water jet cutting. To facilitate fabrication of designed mechanisms, we chose to scale CoFM1 and CiFM2 by 1.4 times their actual sizes. The respective experimental setups are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:experimental_setup_plots} (top row). The setup includes a base plate, two calibrated push-pull type force gauges, one each for input and output port, a Vinyl eraser as workpiece, workpiece holder and two rulers parallel to the input port to measure the input displacement. Fine grained talcum powder is used to minimize friction between the mechanisms and the base plate. CiFM-I and CoFM-I exhibit little out of plane motion during actuation to arrest which, a transparent plate is mounted on top of these mechanisms, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM1_exp_setup} and Fig. \ref{fig:CiFM1_exp_setup}. The output force measuring gauge is fixed at a specified distance using firm screws. For all mechanisms, the push/pull type force is applied manually and as gradually (quasistatically) as possible. Force and displacement data is recorded using top mounted cameras. Experiments are repeated a number of times for each of the mechanisms.
The mean force-displacement plots for the mechanisms are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:experimental_setup_plots} (bottom row). The error bars represent standard deviation in repeated experiments. High errors could be attributed to plastic deformation due to repeated actuation, friction, and manual recording of displacement data. The mean force-displacement curves for all four mechanisms show near constant input/output forces over a range of input port displacement exhibiting good agreement in behavior with the synthesized mechanisms (in Sec. \ref{sec:to_eg_cofm} and Sec. \ref{sec:to_eg_cifm}). Difference in magnitudes of constant forces and displacement ranges could be attributed to different material properties of the mechanisms and workpieces used in synthesis and experiments. CoFM-I generates almost constant force for input displacement range of 15 mm to 20 mm. CoFM-II is able to deform till about 7mm to 9mm of input displacement. Thereafter, it locks in a configuration similar to that in Fig. \ref{fig:CoFM_Symmetric_example2_e}, and any further input displacement is barely possible. To investigate further, we tried three different gaps between the workpiece and the output port --- $\Delta_{\textmd{out}} = 0.5, 1.5, \text{ and } 3 $ mm. The trend remained similar with the output force almost attaining a constant value for the three cases. Applying very high input force after the locked position resulted in rupture of the mechanism. In CiFM-I, one observes a near constant input force of 18N for the input displacement range of 18-21 mm. CiFM-II assumes nearly constant input force for displacement range of 19-26 mm.
\label{sec:close_cofm_cifm}
A methodology to design constant input and output force mechanisms is presented. Contact modeling is employed not only to accurately model interactive forces with flexible workpieces, but also, to capture a variety of deformative and interative modes members of a compliant mechanism can undergo, thus generating many design possibilities. Novel objectives that decouple force magnitudes, near zero slope requirement and displacement range over which mechanisms exhibit constant force characteristics, are proposed and employed. Two examples each of constant input and output force mechanisms are presented. It is observed that presence of external contact surfaces (other than the workpiece) may not be mandatory to observe constant force characteristics. However, external surfaces can contribute to interesting solutions. Effect of change in shape and material properties of workpiece on force-displacement characteristics of CFMs is studied, and one finds that such characteristics do get altered.
Further, the synthesized CoFMs and CiFMs are validated via their respective prototypes. It is found that despite different material constitution, and associated plastic deformation, the mechanisms, by and large, possess the desired characteristics. Incorporating plastic deformation/ yield strength like criteria in the proposed design methodology is a possibility in future when considering the design of say, statically balanced compliant mechanisms.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{I}{n} many communication or storage systems, errors tend to occur in close proximity to each other, rather than occurring independently of each other. If the errors are confined to an interval of positions of length $b$, they are referred to as a \emph{burst of length $b$}. Note that not all the positions in the interval are necessarily erroneous. A code that can correct any single burst of
length $b$ is called a \emph{$b$-burst-correcting code}.
The design of burst-correcting codes has been researched in the error models of substitutions, deletions and insertions. Concerning the substitutions, Abdel-Ghaffar et al. \cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86,Abd88} showed the existence of optimum cyclic $b$-burst-correcting codes for any fixed $b$, and Etzion \cite{Etz01b} gave a construction for perfect binary $2$-burst-correcting codes. As for deletions and insertions, it has been shown in \cite{SchWacGabYaa2017} that correcting a single burst of deletions is equivalent to correcting a single burst of insertions. Codes correcting a burst of exactly $b$ consecutive deletions, or a burst of up to $b$ consecutive deletions, were presented in \cite{SchWacGabYaa2017,LenPol2020}, with the redundancy being of optimal asymptotic order. The $b$-burst-correcting codes pertaining to deletions were treated in \cite{BitHanPolVor2021}, called codes correcting localized deletions therein, and a class of such codes of asymptotically optimal redundancy was proposed. Similarly, permutation codes correcting a single burst of $b$ consecutive deletions were studied in \cite{CheLinNguVuWeiZha2020}.
This paper focuses on the model of \emph{limited-magnitude errors}, which could be found in several applications, including high-density magnetic recording channels \cite{KuzVin93,LevVin93}, flash memories \cite{CasSchBohBru10}, and some DNA-based storage systems \cite{JaiFarSchBru20,WeiWanSch21}. In all of these applications, information is encoded as a vector of integers $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{Z}^n$. A $(k_+,k_-)$-limited-magnitude error affects a position by increasing it by as much as $k_+$ or decreasing it by as much as $k_-$. The design of codes combating random limited-magnitude errors has been extensively researched, see e.g., \cite{Ste84,HamSte84,HicSte86,Ste90,SteSza94,KloLuoNayYar11,YarKloBos13,Sch14,ZhaGe16,ZhaZhaGe17,ZhaGe18,YeZhaZhaGe20,BuzEtz12,WeiWanSch21}. However, the applications which exhibit limited-magnitude errors are prone to errors occurring in a burst. The coding schemes for magnetic recording channels~\cite{KuzVin93,LevVin93}, and the DNA-based storage system of~\cite{JaiFarSchBru20}, all employ a constrained code as part of the system. Decoders for constrained codes are usually finite state machines, and an error in their decoding process causes a burst of errors in their output (e.g., see~\cite[Section~5.5]{LinMar85}). Similarly, flash memories suffer from inter-cell interference~\cite{EitRoy99}, leading again to bursts of errors. To the extent of our knowledge, there is no research in the literature on codes correcting a single burst of limited-magnitude errors. We therefore focus in this paper on such codes, and in particular, perfect codes.
Following the research on bursts of substitutions, e.g., \cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86,Abd88,Etz01b},
we distinguish between \emph{cyclic bursts} and \emph{non-cyclic bursts}, of limited-magnitude errors. In the examples mentioned here, \cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86,Abd88} study cyclic bursts, whereas~\cite{Etz01b} studies non-cyclic bursts. We follow suit, and study both types of bursts. If a word $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{Z}^n$ suffers a cyclic burst of length $b$, then we can write the corrupted vector as $\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{e}$ for some $\mathbf{e}$ in the error ball
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defcyclicburst}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,b,k_+,k_-)\triangleq \{(e_0,e_1,\ldots,e_{n-1}) \in [-k_-,k_+]^n ~|~ & \textup{ there is an $i\in \mathbb{Z}_n$ such that } e_\ell= 0 \\
& \textup{ for all } \ell \in \mathbb{Z}_n \setminus \set{i,i+1,\ldots,i+b-1} \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If $\mathbf{x}$ suffers a non-cyclic burst of length $b$, then
the corrupted vector is $\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{e}$ for some $\mathbf{e}$ in the error ball
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defburst}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{E}(n,b,k_+,k_-)\triangleq \{\mathbf{e}=(e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_{n}) \in [-k_-,k_+]^n ~|~ &\textup{ there is an $i\in [1,n]$ such that } e_\ell= 0 \\
& \textup{ for all } \ell \in [1,n] \setminus [i,\min\set{n,i+b-1}] \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that in the cyclic case we use $\mathbb{Z}_n$ to label the coordinates and the addition is done in $\mathbb{Z}_n$ (i.e., modulo $n$), while in the non-cyclic case we use the set $[1,n]$ to label the coordinates and the addition is operated in $\mathbb{Z}$.
The subject of interest for this paper is perfect codes correcting a single burst of limited-magnitude errors. Our main contributions are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For each $n\geq 2$, we construct a perfect code of length $n$ which can correct a non-cyclic $2$-burst of $(1,0)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\item
For each $n\equiv 1,4\pmod{6}$, we construct a perfect code of length $n$ which can correct a cyclic $2$-burst of $(1,0)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\item
We present a generic construction based on finite fields for cyclic codes correcting a cyclic $b$-burst of $(k_+,k_-)$-limited-magnitude errors. This construction requires a primitive element satisfying some conditions as the input. Combining this construction and the approach in \cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86}, we show the existence of a class of perfect cyclic $b$-burst-correcting codes for each $(b,k_+,k_-)\in\set{(2,1,0),(2,1,1),(3,1,0),(3,1,1)}$.
\end{enumerate}
The parameters of the code constructions are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:summary}. We note that all the codes presented in this paper are lattice codes.
The paper is organized as follows. We begin, in Section~\ref{sec:prelim}, by providing notation and basic known results used throughout the paper. Section~\ref{sec:explcon} is devoted to the constructions of perfect codes correcting a $2$-burst of $(1,0)$-limited-magnitude errors. Both non-cyclic bursts and cyclic bursts are considered. Section~\ref{sec:confield} presents the generic construction for codes correcting a single cyclic $b$-burst, and uses it to treat the cases of $(b,k_+,k_-)\in\set{(2,1,0),(2,1,1),(3,1,0),(3,1,1)}$. In
Section~\ref{sec:comments} we summarize the results, and comment on extensions and open questions.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}
For integers $a\leq b$ we define $[a,b]\triangleq\set*{a,a+1,\dots,b}$. For a sequence $\mathbf{s}$, we use $\mathbf{s}[i,j]$ to denote the subsequence of $\mathbf{s}$ which starts at the position $i$ and ends at the position $j$. We use $\mathbb{Z}_m$ to denote the
cyclic group of integers with addition modulo $m$, and $\mathbb{F}_q$ to
denote the finite field of size $q$.
We say $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathbb{Z}^n$ \emph{packs} $\mathbb{Z}^n$ by $T\subseteq\mathbb{Z}^n$, if
the translates of $\mathcal{B}$ by elements from $T$ do not intersect,
namely, for all $\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v}'\in T$, $\mathbf{v}\neq\mathbf{v}'$,
\[ (\mathbf{v}+\mathcal{B})\cap(\mathbf{v}'+\mathcal{B})=\varnothing.\]
We say $\mathcal{B}$ \emph{covers} $\mathbb{Z}^n$ by $T$ if
\[ \bigcup_{\mathbf{v}\in T} (\mathbf{v}+\mathcal{B}) = \mathbb{Z}^n.\]
If $\mathcal{B}$ both packs and covers $\mathbb{Z}^n$ by $T$, then we say that $\mathcal{B}$
\emph{tiles} $\mathbb{Z}^n$ by $T$.
It now follows that a perfect code capable of correcting a cyclic burst in our setting is equivalent to a tiling of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ by $\mathcal{E}^\circ(n,b,k_+,k_-)$ defined in \eqref{eq:defcyclicburst}, and a perfect code capable of correcting a non-cyclic burst in our setting is equivalent to a tiling of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ by $\mathcal{E}(n,b,k_+,k_-)$ defined in \eqref{eq:defburst}.
A code $\Lambda\subseteq\mathbb{Z}^n$ is called a \emph{lattice code} if it is an additive subgroup of
$\mathbb{Z}^n$. Similarly, we have the notion of lattice tilings.
Throughout the paper, we shall only consider lattice codes, since these are easier to
analyze, construct, and encode, than non-lattice codes.
\subsection{Group Splitting}
Perfect lattice codes that correct a single $(k_+,k_-)$-limited-magnitude error are equivalent to lattice tilings of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ with $\mathcal{E}(n,1,k_+,k_-)$. If we treat each point of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ as a unit cube centered at it, then the shape $\mathcal{E}(n,1,k_+,k_-)$ is called a \emph{cross} when $k_+=k_-$, a \emph{semi-cross} when $k_-=0$, and a \emph{quasi-cross} when $k_+\geqk_-\geq 0$. The study of lattice tilings with these shapes can be traced back to 1960's (e.g., see
\cite{Ste67}), and is usually connected with group splitting (e.g.,
\cite{Ste84,HamSte84,HicSte86,Sch12,Sch14}). For an excellent
treatment and history, the reader is referred to~\cite{SteSza94} and
the many references therein.
More recent results may be found
in~\cite{YeZhaZhaGe20} and the references therein.
To construct codes that correct multiple errors, the notion of group splitting was generalized in \cite{BuzEtz12}. Lattice tilings of chairs, or equivalently perfect lattice
codes that correct $n-1$ random $(k_+,0)$-limited-magnitude errors, were constructed there. Additionally, several non-existence results for perfect codes that correct multiple random errors can be found in \cite{BuzEtz12,WeiSchwartz}.
In this paper, we shall study lattice codes that correct a single burst of limited-magnitude errors by using the concept of (generalized) group splitting.
Let $G$ be a finite Abelian group, where $+$ denotes the group
operation. For $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $g\in G$, let $mg$ denote $g+g+\dots+g$
(with $m$ copies of $g$) when $m>0$, which is extended in the
natural way to $m\leq 0$. For a sequence $\mathbf{m}=(m_1,m_2,\ldots,m_n)\in \mathbb{Z}^n$ and a sequence $\mathbf{s}=(s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_n)\in G^n$, we denote
\[\mathbf{m} \cdot \mathbf{s} \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^m m_i s_i . \]
\begin{definition}
\label{def:generalsplit}
A set $\mathcal{A} \subset \mathbb{Z}^n$ \emph{splits} an Abelian group $G$ with a \emph{splitting sequence} $\mathbf{s}=(s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_n) \in G^n$ if the set $\set{\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{s}; \mathbf{a}\in \mathcal{A}}$ contains $\abs{\mathcal{A}}$ distinct elements of $G$. This operation is called a \emph{(generalized) splitting}.
\end{definition}
In our context of $b$-burst-correcting codes with respect to $(k_+,k_-)$-limited-magnitude errors, we need to take $\mathcal{A}={\mathcal E}(n,b,\kp,\km)$ or $\mathcal{A}={\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km)$. The following theorems show the equivalence of lattice tiling of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ and splitting.
\begin{theorem}[Lemma 4 and Corollary 1 in \cite{BuzEtz12}]
\label{th:lattotile}
Let $\mathcal{S}\subset\mathbb{Z}^n$ be a finite subset, and $G$ be an Abelian group of order $\abs{\mathcal{S}}$. Assume that $\mathcal{S}$ splits $G$ with a splitting sequence $\mathbf{s}$. Define $\phi:\mathbb{Z}^n\to G$ as
$\phi(\mathbf{x})\triangleq\mathbf{x}\cdot(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ and let
$\Lambda\triangleq\ker\phi$. Then $\Lambda$ is a lattice tiling of
$\mathbb{Z}^n$ with $\mathcal{S}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Lemma 3 and Corollary 1 in \cite{BuzEtz12}]
\label{th:tiletolat}
Let $\Lambda\subseteq\mathbb{Z}^n$ be a lattice tiling of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ with $\mathcal{S}\subset\mathbb{Z}^n$, and assume both $\mathcal{S}$ and $G$ are finite. Define $G\triangleq \mathbb{Z}^n / \Lambda$. Let $\phi:\mathbb{Z}^n\to G$ be the natural homomorphism, namely
the one that maps any $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{Z}^n$ to the coset of $\Lambda$ in
which it resides. Set $\mathbf{s}\triangleq (\phi(\mathbf{e}_1), \phi(\mathbf{e}_2), \ldots, \phi(\mathbf{e}_n) )$, where $\mathbf{e}_i$ is
the $i$-th unit vector in $\mathbb{Z}^n$. Then $\mathcal{S}$ splits $G$ with the splitting sequence $\mathbf{s}$.
\end{theorem}
Splittings with $\mathcal{E}(n,b,k_+,k_-)$ can also be used to characterize codes that correct a single burst of substitutions. Let $p$ be a prime and let $k_+$ and $k_-$ be non-negative integers such that $k_++k_-+1=p$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be an $[n,n-r]_p$-linear code with parity-check matrix
$H$. We treat the columns of $H$ as elements of $\mathbb{F}_p^r$ and denote them as $h_1,h_2,\ldots,h_n$. Then $\mathcal{C}$ is a perfect $b$-burst-correcting code with respect to substitutions if and only if $p^r=\abs{\mathcal{E}(n,b,k_+,k_-)}$ and the additive group $\mathbb{F}_p^r$ can be split by $\mathcal{E}(n,b,k_+,k_-)$ with the sequence $\mathbf{h}=(h_1,h_2,\ldots,h_n)$.
Binary perfect $2$-burst-correcting codes pertaining to substitutions were studied in \cite{Etz01b} and a construction for their parity-check matrices was presented. The existence result of such codes could be stated as follows in the language of splittings.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Etz01b}]
For each $r\geq 5$, there exists a splitting of $\mathbb{F}_2^r$ by $\mathcal{E}(2^{r-1},2,1,0)$.
\end{theorem}
In the following two sections we are going to present some other constructions of splittings by ${\mathcal E}(n,b,\kp,\km)$ or ${\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km)$. These tilings are equivalent to perfect $b$-burst-correcting codes with respect to limited-magnitude errors, by taking the kernel of the map $\phi(x)$ defined in Theorem~\ref{th:lattotile}.
\section{Perfect $2$-Burst-Correcting Codes for $(1,0)$-Limited-Magnitude Errors}
\label{sec:explcon}
In this section, we present a class of constructions for $2$-burst-correcting codes with $(1,0)$-limited-magnitude errors, both for cyclic bursts as well as for non-cyclic bursts. Our constructions are based on splitting the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}_g$. Using these constructions, together with Theorem~\ref{th:lattotile}, we show that $\mathbb{Z}^n$ can be lattice tiled by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,0)$ for all $n \geq 2$, and that $\mathbb{Z}^n$ can be lattice tiled by $\mathcal{E}^\circ(n,t,1,0)$ for all $n \equiv 1,4 \pmod{6}$.
The basic idea behind these constructions comes from design theory: we start with a short sequence $(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_s)$ that satisfies a certain property, and develop it by adding a series of numbers $(0,b,2b,\ldots,tb)$ to each element $a_i$. In this way, we obtain a long sequence
\[(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_s, a_1+b,a_2+b, \ldots,a_s+b, \ldots,a_1+tb,a_2+tb,\ldots, a_{i_0}+tb)\]
for some $1\leq i_0\leq s$, which is usually the desired splitting sequence. We note that $\set{0,b,2b,\ldots,tb}$ need not form a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}_g$.
Since the operation described above repeats throughout our construction, we introduce the following succinct notation. Let $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n)\in\mathbb{Z}_g^n$ and $\mathbf{b}=(b_1,b_2,\dots,b_m)\in\mathbb{Z}_g^m$ be two vectors, not necessarily of the same length. We define
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{a}\boxplus \mathbf{b} & \triangleq {\mathbf{1}}_m\otimes \mathbf{a} + \mathbf{b}\otimes{\mathbf{1}}_n \\
& = (a_1+b_1,a_2+b_1,\dots,a_n+b_1,a_2+b_1,a_2+b_2,\dots,a_n+b_2, \dots, a_1+b_m, a_2+b_m,\dots, a_n+b_m),
\end{align*}
where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product, and ${\mathbf{1}}_\ell$ denotes a row vector of all ones with length $\ell$. If we wish to keep only the first $\ell$ entries of $\mathbf{a}\boxplus\mathbf{b}$ we shall use the notation we have already defined, $(\mathbf{a}\boxplus\mathbf{b})[1,\ell]$.
We first give our constructions in the case of non-cyclic bursts. In this case, we have $\abs{\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,0)}=2n$, and we are going to the split the group $\mathbb{Z}_{2n}$ by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,0)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-nc}
Let $n\geq 2$. Then $\mathbb{Z}^n$ can be lattice tiled by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,0)$. Namely, there exists a perfect lattice code in $\mathbb{Z}^n$ which can correct a single non-cyclic $2$-burst of $(1,0)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof proceeds by considering four cases, depending on the residue of $n$ modulo $4$.
\textbf{Case 1:} Assume $n=2m+1$ where $m\geq 1$ is even. Working in the group $G=\mathbb{Z}_{4m+2}$, let us define
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{s}&\triangleq \parenv*{(m+1,3m+3)\boxplus (0,2,4,\ldots,2m)}[1,n] \\
&=(m+1,3m+3, m+3, 3m+5, \ldots, \\
&\quad\ \ m+1+2(m-1)=3m-1, 3m+3+2(m-1)=m-1, m+1+2m=3m+1 ).
\end{align*}
Note that
\[\set*{\mathbf{s}[i]; 1\leq i\leq n}=\set*{m+1,m+3,\ldots,3m-1, 3m+1,3m+3,3m+5,\ldots,m-1}=\set*{1,3,5,\ldots,4m+1}\]
and
\[ \set*{\mathbf{s}[i]+\mathbf{s}[i+1]; 1\leq i \leq n-1 } = \set*{2,4,6,\ldots,4m}.\]
Thus, $G$ is split by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,0)$ with $\mathbf{s}$.
\textbf{Case 2:} Assume $n=2m+1$ where $m\geq 1$ is odd. Once again we work in $G=\mathbb{Z}_{4m+2}$, but now we define
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{s}&\triangleq\parenv*{(3m+2,m+2)\boxplus (0,2,4,\ldots,2m)}[1,n]\\
&=(3m+2 ,m+2, 3m+4, m+4, \ldots, \\
&\quad\ \ 3m+2+2(m-1)=m-2, m+2+2(m-1)=3m, 3m+2+2m=m ).
\end{align*}
Then
\[\set*{\mathbf{s}[i]; 1\leq i\leq n}=\set*{3m+2,3m+4,\ldots,m-2,m, m+2,m+4,\ldots, 3m}=\set*{1,3,5,\ldots,4m+1}\]
and
\[ \set*{\mathbf{s}[i]+\mathbf{s}[i+1]; 1\leq i \leq n-1 } = \set*{2,4,6,\ldots,4m}.\]
Hence, $G$ is split by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,0)$ with $\mathbf{s}$.
\textbf{Case 3:} Assume $n=2m$ where $m\geq 1$ is even. This time we work in $G=\mathbb{Z}_{4m}$, and we define
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{s} &\triangleq (m+1,3m+1) \boxplus (0,2,4,\ldots,2(m-1)) \\
&=(m+1,3m+1, m+3, 3m+3, \ldots, m+1+2(m-1)=3m-1, 3m+1+2(m-1)=m-1).
\end{align*}
Then
\[\set*{\mathbf{s}[i]; 1\leq i\leq n}=\set*{m+1,m+3,\ldots,3m-1,3m+1,3m+3,\ldots,m-1}=\set*{1,3,5,\ldots,4m-1}\]
and
\[ \set*{\mathbf{s}[i]+\mathbf{s}[i+1]; 1\leq i \leq n-1 } = \set*{2,4,6,\ldots,4m-2}.\]
It follows that $G$ is split by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,0)$ with $\mathbf{s}$.
\textbf{Case 4:} Assume $n=2m$ where $m\geq 1$ is odd. We again work in $G=\mathbb{Z}_{4m}$, but this time the splitting is more involved. For $m=1$, it is easily seen that $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ is split by $\mathcal{E}(2,2,1,0)$ with the splitting sequence $(1,2)$.
For $m\geq 3$, consider the following sequences
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{s}_1 & \triangleq (1,3,5,\ldots,2m-3),\\
\mathbf{s}_2 & \triangleq (2m+1, 2m+5,2m+9,\ldots,4m-1),\\
\mathbf{s}_3 & \triangleq (4m-3, 4m-7,4m-11, \ldots, 2m-1).
\end{align*}
Denote
\[\mathbf{s}\triangleq \mathbf{s}_1\mathbf{s}_2\mathbf{s}_3.\]
Then $\mathbf{s}$ has length $n=2m$ and
\[\set*{\mathbf{s}[i]; 1\leq i \leq 2m}= \set*{1,3,5,\ldots,4m-1}.\]
We have that
\begin{align*}
\set*{\mathbf{s}_1[i]+\mathbf{s}_1[i+1]; 1\leq i \leq m-2} &= \set{4,8,12,\ldots,4m-8}, \\
\set*{\mathbf{s}_2[i]+\mathbf{s}_2[i+1]; 1\leq i \leq \frac{m-1}{2}} &= \set{6,14,22,\ldots,4m-6}, \\
\set*{\mathbf{s}_3[i]+\mathbf{s}_3[i+1]; 1\leq i \leq \frac{m-1}{2}} &= \set{2,10,18,\ldots,4m-10}.
\end{align*}
Additionally,
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{s}_1[m-1]+\mathbf{s}_2[1]&=2m-3+2m+1=4m-2 \\
\mathbf{s}_2\sparenv*{\frac{m+1}{2}}+\mathbf{s}_3[1]&=4m-1+4m-3=4m-4.
\end{align*}
It follows that
\[\set*{\mathbf{s}[i]+\mathbf{s}[i+1]; 1\leq i \leq 2m-1}=\set{2,4,\ldots,4m-2}.\]
Thus, $G$ is split by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,0)$ with $\mathbf{s}$.
\end{IEEEproof}
We now move to the case of cyclic bursts. In this case, we have $\abs{\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,0)}=2n+1$, and so we consider the group $\mathbb{Z}_{2n+1}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-c2}
Let $n\geq 4$ be a positive integer such that $n\equiv 1,4\pmod{6}$. Then $\mathbb{Z}^n$ can be lattice tiled by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,0)$. Namely, there exists a perfect lattice code in $\mathbb{Z}^n$ which can correct a single cyclic $2$-burst of $(1,0)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
We divide our proof depending on the residue $n$ leaves modulo $6$.
\textbf{Case 1:} Assume that $n=6m+1$, $m\geq 1$. We work in the group $G=\mathbb{Z}_{12m+3}$ and show that it can be split by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,0)$. Let
\[a=3m+1,b=3m+2,c=6m+2,d=6m+4,e=2,f=9m+5,\]
and define
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{s}&\triangleq ((a,b,c,d,e,f)\boxplus(0,3,6,\ldots,3m))[1,n] \\
&=(a,b,\ldots ,f,a+3,b+3,\ldots,f+3, \ldots,a+3(m-1),b+3(m-1),\ldots,f+3(m-1), a+3m).
\end{align*}
We now observe that
\begin{align*}
\set*{a+3i ; 0\leq i \leq m } \cup \parenv*{\bigcup_{i=0}^{m-1} \set*{d+3i,b+c+6i,e+f+6i}}&=\set*{1,4,7,\ldots,12m+1}, \\
\parenv*{\bigcup_{i=0}^{m-1} \set*{b+3i,c+3i,e+3i,f+3i}}\cup\set*{2a+3m}&=\set{2,5,8,\ldots,12m+2},\\
\bigcup_{i=0}^{m-1} \set*{a+b+6i,c+d+6i,d+e+6i,f+a+3+6i}&=\set*{3,6,9,\ldots,12m}. \end{align*}
Hence, $G$ is split by $\mathcal{E}^\circ(n,2,1,0)$ with $\mathbf{s}$.
\textbf{Case 2:} Assume that $n=6m+4$. We now work in the group $G=\mathbb{Z}_{12m+9}$ and show that it can be split by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,0)$. For $m=0$, it is easily seen that $\mathbb{Z}_{9}$ is split by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(4,2,1,0)$ with the splitting sequence $(1,3,2,6)$. For $m\geq 1$, let \[a=1,b=9m+10,c=3m+2,d=3m+7,e=6m+7,f=6m+8,\]
and define
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{s}_1&\triangleq (a,b,c,d,e,f)\boxplus (0,3,6,\ldots,3(m-1))\\
&=(a,b,\ldots ,f,a+3,b+3,\ldots,f+3, \ldots,a+3(m-1),b+3(m-1),\ldots,f+3(m-1)), \\
\mathbf{s}_2&\triangleq (6m+5,12m+6,6m+6,9m+7).
\end{align*}
Define $\mathbf{s}$ to be the concatenation of $\mathbf{s}_1$ and $\mathbf{s}_2$, i.e.,
\[\mathbf{s}\triangleq\mathbf{s}_1\mathbf{s}_2.\]
Note that
\begin{align*}
\bigcup_{i=0}^{m-1} \set*{a+3i,b+3i,d+3i,e+3i}&=\set*{1,4,7,\ldots,12m+7} \setminus \set*{3m+1,3m+4,9m+7}, \\
\bigcup_{i=0}^{m-1} \set*{c+3i,f+3i,a+b+6i,d+e+6i}&=\set{2,5,8,\ldots,12m+8} \setminus \set*{6m+2,6m+5,9m+8},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
& \ \parenv*{\bigcup_{i=0}^{m-1} \set*{b+c+6i,c+d+6i,e+f+6i}} \cup \set*{f+a+3+6i; 0\leq i\leq m-2} \\ = & \ \set{3,6,9,\ldots,12m+3} \setminus\set*{6m+3,6m+6}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, we have
\[\set*{\mathbf{s}_2[i];1\leq i\leq 4}=\set*{6m+5,12m+6,6m+6,9m+7}\]
and
\begin{align*}
& \ \set*{f+3(m-1)+\mathbf{s}_2[1],\mathbf{s}_2[1]+\mathbf{s}_2[2],\mathbf{s}_2[2]+\mathbf{s}_2[3], \mathbf{s}_2[3]+\mathbf{s}_2[4],\mathbf{s}_2[4]+a}\\
= & \ \set*{3m+1,6m+2,6m+3,3m+4,9m+8}.
\end{align*}
Hence, $G$ is split by $\mathcal{E}^\circ(n,2,1,0)$ with $\mathbf{s}$.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Perfect $\leq 3$-Cyclic-Burst-Correcting Codes for $(1,1)$ and $(1,0)$-Limited-Magnitude Errors}
\label{sec:confield}
In this section, we present a construction for the splitting of the additive group of $\mathbb{F}_q$ by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,t,k_+,k_-)$. Thus, throughout this section, we let $G$ be the additive group of $\mathbb{F}_q$. This is in contrast with the previous section, where we split only cyclic groups. Denote
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defe}
e\triangleq(k_++k_-)(k_++k_-+1)^{b-1}.
\end{equation}
Let $q$ be a prime power such that $e|q-1$, and denote
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defn}
n\triangleq (q-1)/e.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cycball}
\abs{{\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km)}=en+1=q.
\end{equation}
Let $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ be a primitive element. For any $z\in\mathbb{F}^*_q$, we use $\log_\alpha(z)$ to denote the unique integer $a\in [0,q-2]$ such that $z=\alpha^{a}$.
The splitting sequence we shall use most of this section is
defined as
\[\mathbf{s}_\alpha\triangleq (\alpha^{0}, \alpha^{e}, \alpha^{2e}, \ldots, \alpha^{(n-1)e}).\]
We also define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:deff}
\mathcal{F}_b^{k_+,k_-} \triangleq \set*{ (1,x^{e},x^{2e}, \ldots,x^{(b-1)e}) \cdot \mathbf{c} ; \mathbf{c} = (c_0,c_1,\ldots,c_{b-1}) \in [-k_-,k_+]^b \textup{ and } c_0\not=0 }.
\end{equation}
Hence, $\mathcal{F}_b^{k_+,k_-}$ is a set of $e$ polynomials. The following result shows that by carefully choosing $\alpha$, the group $G$ can be split by ${\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km)$ with $\mathbf{s}_\alpha$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:fieldcon}
Assume the setting above, and $n\geq 2b-1$. Let $\alpha$ be a primitive element of $\mathbb{F}_q^*$, and assume $f(\alpha)\neq 0$ for all $f(x)\in\mathcal{F}_b^{k_+,k_-}$. If
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition1}
\set*{\log_\alpha(f(\alpha)) \ppmod{e} ; f(x) \in \mathcal{F}_b^{k_+,k_-} } = \set*{0,1,2,\ldots,e-1},
\end{equation}
then ${\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km)$ splits $G$ (the additive group of $\mathbb{F}_q$) with the splitting sequence $\mathbf{s}_\alpha$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{IEEEproof}
For each vector $\mathbf{c}=(c_0,c_1,\ldots,c_{b-1})\in [-k_-,k_+]^b$, let
\[\mathcal{E}_\mathbf{c} \triangleq \set*{\mathbf{e}=(e_0,e_1,\ldots,e_{n-1}) \in {\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km); \textup{ there is an integer $i$ such that } \mathbf{e}[i,i+b-1]=\mathbf{c} },\]
where the indices of $\mathbf{e}$ are taken cyclically, i.e., modulo $n$. Since $n\geq 2b-1$, it follows that ${\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km)\setminus \set{{\bf 0}}$ can be partitioned into $\mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{c}}$'s, where $\mathbf{c}=(c_0,c_1,\ldots,c_{b-1}) \in [-k_-,k_+]^{b}$ and $c_0\neq0$.
Note that
\begin{align*}
\set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{s}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in \mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{c}} } & = \set*{ \alpha^{e\ell}(c_0+c_1\alpha^{e}+c_2\alpha^{2e}+\cdots+c_{b-1}\alpha^{(b-1)e}) ; \ell \in [0,n-1]}\\
& =\set*{ \alpha^{e\ell+a}; \ell \in [0,n-1] },
\end{align*}
where $a = \log_\alpha(c_0+c_1\alpha^{e}+c_2\alpha^{2e}+\cdots+c_{b-1}\alpha^{(b-1)e})$.
Since \eqref{eq:condition1} holds, the collection of sets of the form $\set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{s}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in \mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{c}} }$, where $\mathbf{c} \in [-k_-,k_+]^{b}$ with $c_0\neq0$, are exactly the $e$ cosets of the multiplicative subgroup $\langle \alpha^e \rangle$ in $\mathbb{F}_q^*$. It then follows that
\[\set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{s}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in {\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km) } = \set{0} \cup \parenv*{ \bigcup_{\substack{\mathbf{c} \in [-k_-,k_+]^{b}\\ c_0\neq 0}} \set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{s}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in \mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{c}} } }=\mathbb{F}_q.\]
Hence, in conjunction with~\eqref{eq:cycball}, ${\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km)$ splits $G$ with $\mathbf{s}_\alpha$.
\end{IEEEproof}
According to Theorem~\ref{th:lattotile}, the splitting in Proposition~\ref{prop:fieldcon} yields a lattice tiling of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ by ${\mathcal E}^{\circ}(n,b,\kp,\km)$, or equivalently, a perfect lattice code which can correct a cyclic $b$-burst of $(k_+,k_-)$-limited-magnitude errors. Furthermore, noting that $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})\cdot \mathbf{s}_\alpha=0$ implies that $(x_{n-1},x_0,\ldots,x_{n-2})\cdot \mathbf{s}_\alpha= \alpha^e \cdot((x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})\cdot \mathbf{s}_\alpha) =0$, the code itself is cyclic.
Let us start examining specific values of the code parameters. When $b=2$ and $(k_+,k_-)=(1,0)$, we have $e=2$ and $q$ is odd. As we shall soon observe and use, the sufficient condition~\eqref{eq:condition1} is reduced to that of $1+\alpha^2$ being a quadratic non-residue. Since any primitive element of $\mathbb{F}_q$, $q\geq 3$, is always a quadratic non-residue, the following result can be used for our construction.
\begin{lemma}[{{\cite[Theorem~1]{Bookeretal2019}}}]
\label{lm:1nasquare}
Let $q$ be an odd prime power which does not belong to the following set:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defE}
E\triangleq \set{3, 5, 9, 7, 11, 13, 19, 23, 25, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 49, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 121, 127, 151, 211}.
\end{equation}
Then there is a primitive element $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q$ such that $1+\alpha^2$ is also a primitive element of $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-c1}
Let $q\geq 7$ be an odd prime power, and let $n=(q-1)/2$. Then there is a perfect lattice code of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ which can correct a single cyclic $2$-burst of $(1,0)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
For $q=7$, let $G=\mathbb{Z}_7$ and $\mathbf{s}=(1,2,4)$. Then $\abs{G}=\abs{\mathcal{E}^\circ(3,2,1,0)}$ and $G$ is split by $\mathcal{E}^\circ(3,2,1,0)$ with $\mathbf{s}$. According to Theorem~\ref{th:lattotile}, there is a lattice tiling of $\mathbb{Z}^3$ by $\mathcal{E}^\circ(3,2,1,0)$. This specific case is in fact a standard $2$-error-correcting code, and since $n=3$, it is a perfect tiling with a chair~\cite{BuzEtz12}.
For $q \geq 9$, let $G$ be the additive group of $\mathbb{F}_q$. With the parameters of this theorem, we have
\[ \mathcal{F}_{2}^{1,0}=\set*{1,1+x^2}.\]
We would like to use Proposition~\ref{prop:fieldcon} to construct the splitting. Since $\log_{\alpha}(1)=0$, we need $\log(1+\alpha^2)\equiv 1 \pmod{2}$, namely, that $1+\alpha^2$ is a quadratic non-residue. If $q \not \in E$ of~\eqref{eq:defE}, then Lemma~\ref{lm:1nasquare}
shows that there is a primitive $\alpha$ such that $1+\alpha^2$ is also primitive, and hence, $1+\alpha^2$ is a quadratic non-residue. If $q \in E$ and $q\geq 9$, a computer search shows that there is a primitive element $\alpha\in \mathbb{F}_q$ with $1+\alpha^2$ being a quadratic non-residue. According to Proposition~\ref{prop:fieldcon}, $\mathcal{E}^\circ(n,2,1,0)$ splits $G$ with $\mathbf{s}_\alpha$. The conclusion then follows from Theorem~\ref{th:lattotile} and the fact that $\abs{G}=\abs{\mathcal{E}^\circ(n,2,1,0)}$.
\end{IEEEproof}
We note that both Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-c2} and Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-c1} concern the tiling of the ball $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,0)$, but in different regimes. In Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-c1} the size $\abs{\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,0)}$ is $q$, a prime power, while in Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-c2} the size $\abs{\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,0)}$ is divisible by $3$.
For the other cases, we adapt the approach in \cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86} to show the existence of $\alpha$ which satisfies condition \eqref{eq:condition1}. Recall that a \emph{multiplicative character} of $\mathbb{F}^*_q$ is a group homomorphism $\chi:\mathbb{F}_q^*\to\mathbb{C}$, such that for all $\beta,\gamma\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ we have $\chi(\beta\gamma)=\chi(\beta)\chi(\gamma)$. We use $\chi^i(\beta)=(\chi(\beta))^i$ to avoid awkward parentheses, hence the superscript $i$ denotes taking the $i$th power of $\chi(\beta)$ and not function composition. We say that $\chi$ has order $i$ if $i$ is the minimal positive integer such that $\chi^i(\beta)=1$ for all $\beta\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$. Thus, the order of $\chi$ divides $q-1$. Let $\chi_i$ denote an arbitrary multiplicative character of order $i$. In particular, $\chi_1$ is the function sending all the elements of $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ to $1$. It is convenient to extend the definition by letting $\chi(0)=0$ for all characters. We also recall the definition of the M\"obius function, $\mu:\mathbb{N}\to\set{-1,0,1}$. If $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is a natural number, $n=\prod_{i=1}^{s}p_i^{m_i}$, where $m_i\in\mathbb{N}$ and the $p_i$ are distinct primes, then
\[ \mu(n) = \begin{cases}
0 & \text{$m_i\geq 2$ for some $i$,}\\
(-1)^s & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
The following sequence of lemmas will help us establish the existence of perfect codes.
\begin{lemma}[{{\cite[Lemma~4]{Carlitz1952}}}]
\label{lm:primitive}
For all $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}^*_q$ we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defpsi}
\psi(\alpha)\triangleq \sum_{k \mid q-1} \frac{\mu(k)}{k} \sum_{\chi^k=\chi_1 }\chi(\alpha),
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the M\"obius function. Then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\psi(\alpha) = & \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $\alpha$ is primitive,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
In the following we also use the convention that $0^0=0$ to simplify derivations.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:theta}
Assume the setting above. Furthermore, let $\mathcal{F}=\set{f_1,f_2,\ldots, f_{M}}\subseteq \mathbb{F}_q[x]$ be a collection of polynomials over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and let $h$ be an integer such that $h|q-1$. For any $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}^*_q$ we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deftheta}
\Theta(\alpha)\triangleq \psi(\alpha) \prod_{i=1}^{M} \sum_{j=0}^{h-1} \chi_h^j (\alpha^{-\ell_i} f_i(\alpha)),
\end{equation}
where $\ell_i\in\mathbb{Z}$ for all $i$. Then
\[
\Theta(\alpha) = \begin{cases}
h^{M} & \text{if $\alpha$ is primitive and for all $1\leq i \leq M$, $f_i(\alpha)\neq 0$, $\log_\alpha(f_i(\alpha))\equiv \ell_i \ppmod{h}$} \\
0 & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
If $\alpha$ is not primitive, then by Lemma~\ref{lm:primitive}, $\psi(\alpha)=0$, and therefore also $\Theta(\alpha)=0$. If $f_i(\alpha)=0$ for some $i$, then again, $\Theta(\alpha)=0$. We are therefore left with the case that $\alpha$ is primitive, and $f_i(\alpha)\neq 0$ for all $i$. Let $\gamma\in\mathbb{F}^*_q$, and assume $\log_\alpha(\gamma)=m$. Then
\[ \chi_h(\gamma)=\chi_h(\alpha^m)=\chi_h^m(\alpha).\]
Thus, $\chi_h(\gamma)=1$ if and only if $m=\log_{\alpha}(\gamma)\equiv 0\pmod{h}$. If indeed $\chi_h(\gamma)=1$, then
\[ \sum_{j=0}^{h-1} \chi_h^j(\gamma) = \sum_{j=0}^{h-1} 1 = h.\]
Otherwise, $\chi_h(\gamma)\neq 1$ and we have
\[ \sum_{j=0}^{h-1} \chi_h^j(\gamma) = \frac{\chi_h^h(\gamma) -1}{\chi_h(\gamma)-1} = 0.\]
Using this observation we note that
\[
\sum_{j=0}^{h-1} \chi_h^j (\alpha^{-\ell_i} f_i(\alpha)) = \begin{cases}
h & \text{if $\log_\alpha(f_i(\alpha))\equiv \ell_i \ppmod{h}$,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
The conclusion now easily follows.
\end{IEEEproof}
Since we are working with characters, we shall also need a bound on character sums over $\mathbb{F}_q^*$, which can be derived from the Weil bound (see \cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86}).
\begin{lemma}[\cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86}]
\label{lm:weilsum-m}
Let $\chi$ be a multiplicative character of order $m>1$, and let $f\in \mathbb{F}_q[x]$ be a polynomial that cannot be written as $c\cdot (h(x))^m$ for any $c\in\mathbb{F}_q$ and $h(x) \in \mathbb{F}_q[x]$. Let $d$ be the number of distinct roots of $f$ in its splitting field. Then for every $a\in \mathbb{F}_q$ we have
\[ \abs*{ \sum_{x\in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \chi(af(x) )} \leq d\sqrt{q}.\]
\end{lemma}
For the next lemma we recall the definitions of Euler's function $\phi(n)$ and the divisor function $d(n)$, for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$,
\begin{align*}
\phi(n) & \triangleq \abs*{\set*{1\leq i\leq n ; \gcd(i,n)=1}}, \\
d(n) &\triangleq \sum_{i|n} 1.
\end{align*}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:existence}
Consider the setting of Lemma~\ref{lem:theta}. Suppose that for any $(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{M}) \in [0,h-1]^{M} \setminus \set{(0,0,\ldots,0)}$, the polynomial $\prod_{t=1}^{M} (f_t(x))^{(q-1)i_t/h}$ cannot be written in the form $c\cdot (h(x))^{q-1}$, where $c\in\mathbb{F}_q$ and $h(x) \in \mathbb{F}_q[x]$. Then
\[\abs*{ \sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \Theta(\alpha) -\phi(q-1) } \leq A\cdot d(q-1)\cdot \sqrt{q},\]
where $\phi$ is the Euler function, $d$ is the divisor function, and $A$ is independent of $q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
From \eqref{eq:deftheta}, if $f_t(\alpha)\neq 0$ for all $1\leq t\leq M$, then let us write $\Theta(\alpha)=\psi(\alpha)+R(\alpha)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defR}
R(\alpha) = \psi(\alpha) \sum_{\substack{(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{M}) \in [0,h-1]^{M} \\ (i_1,i_2,\dots,i_M)\neq (0,0,\ldots,0)}} \chi_h^{i_1}(\alpha^{-\ell_1}f_1(\alpha)) \cdots \chi_h^{i_M}(\alpha^{-\ell_M}f_M(\alpha)).
\end{equation}
Otherwise, if $f_t(\alpha)=0$ for some $1\leq t\leq M$, then $\Theta(\alpha)=0=R(\alpha)$. By Lemma~\ref{lm:primitive},
\[ \sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb{F}^*_q}\psi(\alpha) = \phi(q-1).\]
Thus, summing over all $\alpha\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:thetabelowabove}
\phi(q-1)-\sum_{t=1}^{M}{\deg(f_t)}+\sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*}R(\alpha) \leq \sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \Theta(\alpha) \leq \phi(q-1)+\sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*}R(\alpha).
\end{equation}
Note that $\sum_{t=1}^{M}{\deg(f_t)}$ is independent of $q$.
In the following, we shall give an upper bound on $\abs*{ \sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*}R(\alpha)}$.
Let us observe a typical term in the sum on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:defR}. From \eqref{eq:defpsi}, we have
\[\psi(\alpha) \chi_h^{i_1}(\alpha^{-\ell_1}f_1(\alpha)) \cdots \chi_h^{i_M}(\alpha^{-\ell_M}f_M(\alpha)) = \sum_{k \mid q-1} \frac{\mu(k)}{k} \sum_{\chi^k=\chi_1 }\chi(\alpha)\chi_h^{i_1}(\alpha^{-\ell_1}f_1(\alpha)) \cdots \chi_h^{i_M}(\alpha^{-\ell_M}f_M(\alpha)).\]
In the inner sum, $\chi=\chi_j$ for some $j|k$. Hence
\[\chi_j(\alpha)\chi_h^{i_1}(\alpha^{-\ell_1}f_1(\alpha)) \cdots \chi_h^{i_M}(\alpha^{-\ell_M}f_M(\alpha))=\chi_{q-1}(\alpha^L w(\alpha))\]
where
\[L=(q-1)\parenv*{\frac{1}{j} -\frac{1}{h}(i_1\ell_1+\cdots+i_M\ell_M) }\]
and
\[w(x)=\prod_{t=1}^M (f_t(x))^{(q-1)i_t/h}.\]
We notice that $w(x)$ has at most $\sum_{t=1}^M \deg f_t$ distinct roots in its splitting field. Due to the assumption, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lm:weilsum-m} to get
\[\abs*{\sum_{\alpha\in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \chi_j(\alpha)\chi_h^{i_1}(\alpha^{-\ell_1}f_1(\alpha)) \cdots \chi_h^{i_M}(\alpha^{-\ell_M}f_M(\alpha))} \leq \sum_{t=1}^M (\deg f_t) \sqrt{q}. \]
Next, we observe that there are exactly $k$ characters $\chi$ such that $\chi^k=\chi_1$. Hence,
\[\abs*{\sum_{\alpha\in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \psi(\alpha)\chi_h^{i_1}(\alpha^{-\ell_1}f_1(\alpha)) \cdots \chi_h^{i_M}(\alpha^{-\ell_M}f_M(\alpha))} \leq \sum_{t=1}^M (\deg f_t) d(q-1) \sqrt{q}. \]
It follows that
\[ \abs*{\sum_{\alpha\in \mathbb{F}_q^*} R(\alpha)} \leq \sum_{t=1}^M (h^M-1) (\deg f_t) d(q-1) \sqrt{q}. \]
Finally, using~\eqref{eq:thetabelowabove}, we have
\begin{align*}
\abs*{ \sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \Theta(\alpha) -\phi(q-1) } & \leq \abs*{\sum_{\alpha\in \mathbb{F}_q^*} R(\alpha)} + \sum_{t=1}^M \deg f_t \leq \sum_{t=1}^M h^M (\deg f_t) d(q-1) \sqrt{q}.
\end{align*}
\end{IEEEproof}
Now, we study the cases $(b,k_-,k_-)\in \set{(2,1,1),(3,1,0),(3,1,1)}$, and use Lemma~\ref{lm:existence} to show the existence of $\alpha$ which satisfies \eqref{eq:condition1}. It is worth noting that when we apply Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}, the collection of polynomials under consideration is not necessarily the set $\mathcal{F}_b^{k_+.k_-}$. We first look at the case of $b=2$ and $(k_+,k_-)=(1,1)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:b=2-kp=1-km=1}
For all sufficiently large prime powers $q$ such that $q\equiv 7\pmod{12}$, there is a perfect lattice code of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ with $n=(q-1)/6$, which can correct a single cyclic $2$-burst of $(1,1)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Recalling~\eqref{eq:defe}, \eqref{eq:defn}, and~\eqref{eq:deff}, in this case we have $e=6$, $q\equiv 1\pmod{6}$, and
\[\mathcal{F}_2^{1,1}=\set*{1, 1+x^6, 1-x^6, -1, -1+x^6, -1-x^6}. \]
We label the polynomials in $\mathcal{F}_2^{1,1}$ as $f_0,f_1,\ldots, f_5$, and then \eqref{eq:condition1} becomes
\[ \set{ \log_\alpha(f_i(\alpha)) \ppmod{6} ; 0\leq i\leq 5 } = \set{0,1,\ldots,5}. \]
Since $q\equiv 1 \pmod{6}$, for any primitive $\alpha$ we have
\[\log_\alpha(-1) = (q-1)/2 \equiv 0 \pmod{3}.\]
Note that
\begin{align*}
\log_{\alpha}(1)&=0, \\
\log_{\alpha}(-1+\alpha^6)&\equiv
\log_{\alpha}(-1)+\log_\alpha(1-\alpha^6) \pmod{6},\\
\log_\alpha(-1-\alpha^6)&\equiv \log_{\alpha}(-1)+\log_\alpha(1+\alpha^6)\pmod{6}.
\end{align*}
Hence, in order to ensure \eqref{eq:condition1}, it suffices to require that $q\equiv 7\pmod{12}$, i.e., $\log_{\alpha}(-1)\equiv 3 \pmod{6}$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition2}
\set{ \log_\alpha(1+\alpha^6) \ppmod{3}, \ \log_\alpha(1-\alpha^6) \ppmod{3} } = \set{1,2}.
\end{equation}
We shall use Lemma~\ref{lm:existence} to show the existence of $\alpha$ which satisfies \eqref{eq:condition2}. Then according to the discussion above and Proposition~\ref{prop:fieldcon}, the additive group of $\mathbb{F}_q$ can be split by $\mathcal{E}^\circ(n,2,1,1)$ with $\mathbf{s}_\alpha$, and so, the perfect $2$-burst-correcting code exists.
Consider the collection of polynomials $\mathcal{F}=\set*{1+x^6, 1-x^6}$. Let $\ell_1=1,\ell_2=2$, and $h=3$. Let $\Theta$ be defined as in \eqref{eq:deftheta} for $\mathcal{F}$.
For each $(i_1,i_2) \in \set*{0,1,2}^2 \setminus \set*{(0,0)}$, let
\[f_{i_1,i_2}(x) \triangleq (1+x^6)^{\frac{(q-1)i_1}{3}} (1-x^6)^{\frac{(q-1)i_2}{3}}.\]
It can be checked that the polynomials $f_{i_1,i_2}(x)$ satisfy the condition in Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $i_2\not=0$, then $1-x$ is a factor of $f_{i_1,i_2}(x)$. Since $q\equiv 7 \pmod{12}$, we have that $1-x \nmid 1+x^6$, and $\gcd(1-x^6,-6x^5)=1$. Thus, in the canonical factorization of $f_{i_1,i_2}(x)$, the power of $1-x$ is $\frac{(q-1)i_2}{3}$, which is not a multiple of $q-1$. It follows that $f_{i_1,i_2}(x)$ cannot be written in the form $c (h(x))^{q-1}$.
\item If $i_2=0$, then $i_1\neq 0$. Since $\gcd(1+x^6,6x^5)=1$, in the factorization of $1+x^6$, every irreducible factor has power $1$. Thus, $f_{i_1,0}(x)$ cannot be written in the form $c (h(x))^{q-1}$.
\end{enumerate}
Applying Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}, we get
\[\abs*{ \sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \Theta(\alpha) -\phi(q-1) } \leq A d(q-1)\sqrt{q},\]
which implies that
\[ \sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \Theta(\alpha) \geq \phi(q-1) - A d(q-1)\sqrt{q}.\]
Note that $A$ is independent of $q$, and for any given small $\varepsilon >0$ we have $\phi(q-1)>q^{1-\varepsilon}$ and $d(q-1)<q^{\varepsilon}$ for all sufficiently large $q$ (see \cite[Theorem 315 and Theorem 327]{HarWri08}). Hence,
$\sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*} \Theta(\alpha) >0,$
and so, there is an $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ such that $\Theta(\alpha) >0$.
According to the definition of $\Theta$, this $\alpha$ is the desired element to satisfy~\eqref{eq:condition2}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Now, we turn to the case of $b=3$ and $(k_+,k_-)=(1,0)$. This time, using~\eqref{eq:defe}, \eqref{eq:defn}, and~\eqref{eq:deff}, we have $e=4$, $q\equiv 1\pmod{4}$, and
\[\mathcal{F}_3^{1,0}=\set*{1,1+x^4,1+x^8,1+x^4+x^8}. \]
The idea is the same as before. We use Lemma~\ref{lm:existence} to find a primitive $\alpha$ such that the logarithm of the evaluations of the polynomials in $\mathcal{F}_3^{1,0}$ at $\alpha$, are different modulo $4$. However, here we need to consider two different collections of polynomials when applying Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}, depending on whether $q$ is divisible by $3$ or not.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:b=3-kp=1-km=0-c}
For all sufficiently large prime powers $q$ such that $q\equiv 1\pmod{4}$, there is a perfect lattice code of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ with $n=(q-1)/4$, which can correct a single cyclic $3$-burst of $(1,0)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
If $q$ is not divisible by $3$, consider the collection of polynomials
\[\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}_3^{1,0}\setminus \set*{1}=\set*{1+x^4,1+x^8,1+x^4+x^8},\]
as $\log_{\alpha}(1)=0$ for all primitive $\alpha$. Let $h=e=4$, $\ell_1=1$, $\ell_2=2$, $\ell_3=3$, and let $\Theta$ be defined as in \eqref{eq:deftheta}. Consider
\[f_{i_1,i_2,i_3}(x)\triangleq (1+x^4)^{\frac{(q-1)i_1}{4}} (1+x^8)^{\frac{(q-1)i_2}{4}}(1+x^4+x^8)^{\frac{(q-1)i_3}{4}}, \]
where $(i_1,i_2,i_3) \in \set{0,1,2,3}^3 \setminus \set{(0,0,0)}$.
We verify that $f_{i_1,i_2,i_3}(x)$ cannot be written as $c\cdot (h(x))^{q-1}$ for any $c\in \mathbb{F}_q$ and $h(x)\in \mathbb{F}_q[x]$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $i_1\neq0$, let $p(x)$ be an irreducible factor of $1+x^4$ and $a$ be a root of $p(x)$ in its splitting field. Since $\gcd(1+x^4,4x^3)=1$, the power of $p(x)$ in the factorization of $1+x^4$ is $1$. Moreover, $p(x)$ does not divide $(1+x^8)(1+x^4+x^8)$ as $(1+a^8)(1+a^4+a^8)=2 \neq 0$. Hence, in the factorization of $f_{i_1,i_2,i_3}(x)$, the power of $p(x)$ is $\frac{(q-1)i_1}{4}$, which is not a multiple of $q-1$.
\item If $i_1=0$ and $i_2\neq0$, let $p(x)$ be an irreducible factor of $1+x^8$. Using the same argument as above, we can show that in the factorization of $f_{0,i_2,i_3}(x)$, the power of $p(x)$ is $\frac{(q-1)i_2}{4}$, which is not a multiple of $q-1$.
\item If $i_1=i_2=0$ and $i_3\neq 0$, $f_{0,0,i_3}(x)= (1+x^4+x^8)^{\frac{(q-1)i_3}{4}}$. Note that $2(1+x^4+x^8)=(1+2x^4)(x^4-1)+3(1+x^4)$. Since $q$ is not divisible by $3$ and $\gcd(1+x^4,1+2x^4)=1$, we have $\gcd(1+x^4+x^8,1+2x^4)=1$, and so, $\gcd(1+x^4+x^8, 4x^3+8x^7)=1$. Hence, in the factorization of $f_{0,0,i_3}(x)$ every irreducible factor has power $\frac{(q-1)i_3}{4}$, which is not a multiple of $q-1$.
\end{enumerate}
Then according to Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}, when $q$ is sufficiently large, there is a primitive element $\alpha$ such that the logarithm of the evaluations of the polynomials in $\mathcal{F}_3^{1,0}$ at $\alpha$, are distinct modulo $4$. The conclusion then follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:fieldcon} and Theorem~\ref{th:lattotile}.
If $q$ is divisible by 3, we have $(1+x^4+x^8)=(1-x^4)^2$. Then it suffices to find a primitive element $\alpha$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition3}
\log_\alpha(1+\alpha^4) \equiv 1 \ppmod{4}, \quad \log_\alpha(1+\alpha^8) \equiv 3 \ppmod{4}, \quad \log_\alpha(1-\alpha^4) \equiv 1 \ppmod{4}.
\end{equation}
Let
\[g_{i_1,i_2,i_3}(x)\triangleq (1+x^4)^{\frac{(q-1)i_1}{4}} (1+x^8)^{\frac{(q-1)i_2}{4}} (1-x^4)^{\frac{(q-1)i_3}{4}},\]
where $(i_1,i_2,i_3) \in \set{0,1,2,3}^3 \setminus \set{(0,0,0)}$. If $i_3=0$, then $g_{i_1,i_2,0}(x)=f_{i_1,i_2,0}(x)$, and so, it cannot be written as $c\cdot (h(x))^{q-1}$. If $i_3\neq 0$, since $1-x \nmid (1+x^4)(1+x^8)$ and $1-x^4=(1-x)(1+x+x^2+x^3)$, in the factorization of $g_{i_1,i_2,i_3}(x)$ the factor $1-x$ has power $\frac{(q-1)i_3}{4}$, which is not a multiple of $q-1$. Hence, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lm:existence} with $\mathcal{F}=\set{1+x^4,1+x^8,1-x^4}$ to show the existence of $\alpha$ such that \eqref{eq:condition3} holds, when $q$ is sufficiently large, which completes our proof.
\end{IEEEproof}
For the case of $b=3$ and $k_+=k_-=1$, we have $e=18$ and $q\equiv 1 \pmod{18}$. Since $\log_\alpha(-1)={(q-1)/2}$ for any primitive element $\alpha$, we shall assume $q\equiv 19\ppmod{36}$ such that $\log_\alpha(-1) \not\equiv \log_\alpha(1) \pmod{18}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:b=3-kp=1-km=1-c}
For all sufficiently large prime powers $q$ such that $q\equiv 19\pmod{36}$, there is a perfect lattice code of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ with $n=(q-1)/18$, which can correct a single cyclic $3$-burst of $(1,1)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof repeats the same steps taken in the previous two proofs. We therefore briefly sketch its outline. We have $e=18$ and let
\begin{align*}
f_1(x)&=1+x^e, & f_2(x)&=1-x^e, & f_3(x)&=1+x^{2e}, & f_4(x)&=1-x^{2e}, \\
f_5(x)&=1+x^e+x^{2e}, & f_6(x)&=1-x^e+x^{2e},& f_7(x)&=1+x^e-x^{2e}, & f_8(x)&=1-x^e-x^{2e}.
\end{align*}
Since $\log_\alpha(-1)\equiv 9 \pmod{18}$ and $f_4(x)=1-x^{2e}=f_1(x)f_2(x)$, if we can find a primitive $\alpha$ such that
\begin{align*}
\log_\alpha(f_1(\alpha)) &\equiv 1 \pmod{9}, & \log_\alpha(f_2(\alpha)) &\equiv 2 \pmod{9}, \\
\log_\alpha(f_3(\alpha)) &\equiv 6 \pmod{9}, & \log_\alpha(f_5(\alpha)) &\equiv 5 \pmod{9}, \\
\log_\alpha(f_6(\alpha)) &\equiv 7 \pmod{9}, & \log_\alpha(f_7(\alpha)) &\equiv 4 \pmod{9}, \\
\log_\alpha(f_8(\alpha)) &\equiv 8 \pmod{9},
\end{align*}
then \eqref{eq:condition1} holds.
We set $h=9$. If $q$ is not divisible by $5$, it is verifiable that the set of polynomials $\set{f_i ; 1\leq i\leq 8, i\neq 4}$ satisfies the condition of Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}. Thus, when $q$ is large enough, such an $\alpha$ exists.
If $q$ is divisible by $5$, then
\begin{align*}
f_3(x)&=1+x^{2e}=(x^e+2)(x^e-2),\\
f_7(x)&=1+x^e-x^{2e}=-(x^e+2)^2,\\
f_8(x)&=1-x^e+x^2e=-(x^e-2)^2. \end{align*}
Let $f_9(x)=x^e+2$ and $f_{10}(x)=x^e-2$.
Then the set of polynomials $\set{f_1, f_2, f_5, f_6, f_9, f_{10}}$ satisfies the condition of Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}. Therefore, when $q$ is large enough, there is a primitive element $\alpha$ such that
\begin{align*}
\log_\alpha(f_1(\alpha)) &\equiv 1 \pmod{9}, &
\log_\alpha(f_2(\alpha)) &\equiv 2 \pmod{9}, \\
\log_\alpha(f_5(\alpha)) &\equiv 5 \pmod{9}, &
\log_\alpha(f_6(\alpha)) &\equiv 7 \pmod{9}, \\
\log_\alpha(f_9(\alpha)) &\equiv 2 \pmod{9}, &
\log_\alpha(f_{10}(\alpha)) &\equiv 4 \pmod{9}.
\end{align*}
It then follows that
\begin{align*}
\log_\alpha(f_3(\alpha)) &\equiv 6 \pmod{9}, &
\log_\alpha(f_4(\alpha)) &\equiv 3 \pmod{9}, \\
\log_\alpha(f_7(\alpha)) &\equiv 4 \pmod{9}, &
\log_\alpha(f_8(\alpha)) &\equiv 8 \pmod{9}.
\end{align*}
Hence, $\alpha$ is the desired primitive element.
\end{IEEEproof}
\subsection{Modification of the Constructions}
Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2-kp=1-km=1} shows the existence of lattice tilings of $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,1)$ when $q\equiv 7\pmod{12}$, whereas the necessary condition on $q$ is only $q \equiv 1\pmod{6}$. Thus, the existence of such tilings when $q\equiv 1 \pmod{12}$ remains undecided. In the following, we solve half of the remaining cases. We assume that $q=12m+1$ with $m$ odd, and show that a different splitting sequence provides a tiling. The following proposition is the equivalent of Proposition~\ref{prop:fieldcon}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:fieldcon-m}
Assume $n\geq 3$, $q=12m+1$, $m$ odd, and define
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{r}_{\alpha} &\triangleq (1, \alpha^3, \alpha^{12}, \alpha^{15}, \ldots, \alpha^{12(m-1)}, \alpha^{12(m-1)+3}), \\
\mathcal{F} &\triangleq \set{\pm1,\pm x^3,\pm( 1+x^3), \pm(1-x^3), \pm(x^3+x^{12}), \pm(x^3-x^{12}) }.
\end{align*}
Let $\alpha$ be a primitive element of $\mathbb{F}_q^*$, and assume $f(\alpha)\neq 0$ for all $f(x)\in\mathcal{F}$. If
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition-m}
\set*{\log_\alpha(f(\alpha)) \ppmod{12} ; f(x) \in \mathcal{F} } = \set*{0,1,2,\ldots,11},
\end{equation}
then $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,1)$ splits $G$ (the additive group of $\mathbb{F}_q$) with the splitting sequence $\mathbf{r}_\alpha$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{IEEEproof}
For each pair $\mathbf{c}=(c_0,c_1)\in [-1,1]^2$ with $c_0\neq 0$, let
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}_\mathbf{c} & \triangleq \set*{\mathbf{e}=(e_0,e_1,\ldots,e_{n-1}) \in \mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,1); \textup{ there is an \emph{even} integer $i$ such that } \mathbf{e}[i,i+1]=\mathbf{c} }, \\
\mathcal{B}_\mathbf{c} &\triangleq \set*{\mathbf{e}=(e_0,e_1,\ldots,e_{n-1}) \in \mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,1); \textup{ there is an \emph{odd} integer $i$ such that } \mathbf{e}[i,i+1]=\mathbf{c} },
\end{align*}
where in both cases, $i+1$ is taken modulo $n$.
Then
\begin{align*}
\set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{r}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in \mathcal{A}_{\mathbf{c}} } &= \set*{ \alpha^{12\ell} (c_0+c_1 \alpha^3); \ell \in [0,m-1]},\\
\set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{r}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in \mathcal{B}_{\mathbf{c}} } &= \set*{ \alpha^{12\ell} (c_0\alpha^3+c_1 \alpha^{12}); \ell \in [0,m-1]}.
\end{align*}
Since \eqref{eq:condition-m} holds, we have that
\[\set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{r}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in \mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,1)} = \set{0} \cup \parenv*{ \bigcup_{\substack{\mathbf{c} \in [-1,1]^{2} \\ c_0\neq 0}}\parenv*{ \set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{r}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in \mathcal{A}_{\mathbf{c}} } \cup \set*{\mathbf{e} \cdot \mathbf{r}_\alpha ; \mathbf{e} \in \mathcal{B}_{\mathbf{c}} } } }=\mathbb{F}_q.\]
Hence $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,1)$ splits $G$ with $\mathbf{r}_\alpha$.
\end{IEEEproof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:b=2-kp=1-km=1-2}
For all sufficiently large prime powers $q$ such that $q\equiv 13\pmod{24}$, there is a perfect lattice code of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ with $n=(q-1)/6$, which can correct a single cyclic $2$-burst of $(1,1)$-limited-magnitude errors.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Since $q\equiv 13 \pmod{24}$, $\log_{\alpha}(-1)=(q-1)/2 \equiv 6 \pmod{12}$. Thus if the logarithms of $1,\alpha^3, 1+\alpha^3, 1-\alpha^3, \alpha^3+\alpha^{12}, \alpha^3-\alpha^{12}$ are distinct modulo $6$, then~\eqref{eq:condition-m} holds. To find such a primitive $\alpha$, we let $h=6$ and consider the following set of polynomials
\[\mathcal{F}'\triangleq \set*{1+x^3, 1-x^3, 1+x^3+x^6, 1-x^3+x^6}.\]
It is verifiable that these polynomials satisfy the condition in Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}. Hence, if $q$ is large enough, there is a primitive $\alpha$ such that
\begin{align*}
\log_{\alpha}(1+\alpha^3)&\equiv 1 \ppmod{6}, &\log_{\alpha}(1-\alpha^3)&\equiv 2 \ppmod{6}, \\
\log_{\alpha}(1-\alpha^3+\alpha^6) &\equiv 0 \ppmod{6}, & \log_{\alpha}(1+\alpha^3+\alpha^6)&\equiv 0 \ppmod{6}.
\end{align*}
Then it follows that
\begin{align*}
\log_{\alpha}(\alpha^3+\alpha^{12}) & \equiv 3+\log_{\alpha}(1+\alpha^3)+\log_{\alpha}(1-\alpha^3+\alpha^6)\equiv 4 \ppmod{6},\\
\log_{\alpha}(\alpha^3-\alpha^{12}) &\equiv 3+\log_{\alpha}(1-\alpha^3)+\log_{\alpha}(1+\alpha^3+\alpha^6)\equiv 5 \ppmod{6}.
\end{align*}
Noting that $\log_{\alpha}(1)=0$ and $\log_{\alpha}(\alpha^3)=3$, we have completed our proof.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:comments}
In this paper we constructed perfect lattice codes that are capable of correcting a single burst of limited-magnitude errors. Our constructions span both the case of cyclic burst errors, as well as non-cyclic bursts. The parameters of the various constructions are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:summary}. We note that the first row in this table is obtained by a standard argument that converts a code over $\mathbb{F}_p$, $p$ a prime, to a lattice code.
\begin{table*}
\center
\caption{Summary of perfect-code constructions ($q$ is a prime power)}
\label{tab:summary}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{cccccll}
\hline\hline
$b$ & $k_+$ & $k_-$ & $n$ & Cyclic & Source & Comments \\
\hline
$2$ & $1$ & $0$ & $n=2^{r}$ & N & \cite{Etz01b} & $r\geq 4$\\
$2$ & $1$ & $0$ & $n \geq 2$ & N & Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-nc} & \\
$2$ & $1$ & $0$ & $4\leq n\equiv 1,4 \ppmod{6}$ & Y & Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-c2} & \\
$2$ & $1$ & $0$ & $n=\frac{q-1}{2}$ & Y & Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2kp=1km=0-c1} & $q\geq 7$ odd \\
$2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $n=\frac{q-1}{6}$ & Y & Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2-kp=1-km=1} & $q\equiv 7 \ppmod{12}$ sufficiently large\\
$2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $n=\frac{q-1}{6}$ & Y & Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2-kp=1-km=1-2} & $q\equiv 13 \ppmod{24}$ sufficiently large\\
$3$ & $1$ & $0$ & $n=\frac{q-1}{4}$ & Y & Theorem~\ref{thm:b=3-kp=1-km=0-c} & $q\equiv 1 \ppmod{4}$ sufficiently large\\
$3$ & $1$ & $1$ & $n=\frac{q-1}{18}$ & Y & Theorem~\ref{thm:b=3-kp=1-km=1-c} & $q\equiv 19 \ppmod{36}$ sufficiently large\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
The approach in Section~\ref{sec:confield} was inspired by~\cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86}. This is in particular interesting, since~\cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86} did not study perfect codes. Similar to~\cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86}, our constructions in Section~\ref{sec:confield} call for finding a primitive element of $\mathbb{F}_q$ with certain properties. We note that a simple brute-force search can easily find such an element (if it exists) in time polynomial in $q$, which is also polynomial in $n$ as $n=\Theta(q)$ in all of our constructions. The number-theoretic conditions required by our constructions seem to make it difficult to give an existence guarantee stronger than ``sufficiently large $q$''. We ran a computer search, whose results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:compsearch}. The table count the number of good prime powers (i.e., those that admit a primitive $\alpha$ with the required properties), the number of bad prime powers, and the list of bad prime powers.
\begin{table*}
\center
\caption{Values of $q$, from $e(2b-1)+1$ up to $1000$, that do not admit the required primitive element}
\label{tab:compsearch}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
\hline\hline
& \#Good & \#Bad & Bad Prime Powers \\
\hline
Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2-kp=1-km=1} & 41 & 3 &
$19, 43, 127$ \\
Theorem~\ref{thm:b=2-kp=1-km=1-2} & 6 & 15 &
$37, 61, 109, 157, 181, 229, 277, 349, 373, 397, 421, 613, 661, 733, 829$ \\
Theorem~\ref{thm:b=3-kp=1-km=0-c} & 76 & 14 &
$25, 37, 49, 61, 97, 101, 121, 157, 169, 289, 361, 449, 601, 729$ \\
Theorem~\ref{thm:b=3-kp=1-km=1-c} & 2 & 13 &
$199, 271, 307, 343, 379, 487, 523, 631, 739, 811, 883, 919, 991$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
We would also like to comment on the prospect of extending our constructions, both for longer bursts, as well as for errors of larger magnitude.
\subsection{Longer Bursts}
In Section~\ref{sec:confield} we presented a construction based on finite fields and used it to prove a few existence results for lattice tiling of $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,t,k_+,k_-)$ with $b\leq 3$ and $(k_+,k_-)\in \set{(1,0),(1,1)}$. This approach may also work for the cases $b>3$. However, it would involve choosing a large number of factors of the polynomials in $\mathcal{F}_{b}^{k_-,k_-}$, checking whether they satisfy the condition in Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}, and assigning each of them an integer such that \eqref{eq:condition1} holds. Thus, a closed-form solution to all the cases $b>3$ still remains unsolved. We note that a similar problem was considered in~\cite{AbdMcEOdlTil86} for polynomials that satisfy the AES conditions, and it was solved by showing that it suffices to consider only irreducible polynomials and assign all of them the same integer zero~\cite[Theorem 3]{AbdMcEOdlTil86}. Whether a similar solution exists here is still unknown.
\subsection{Larger Error Magnitudes}
In this paper, we studied only the case $k_+=1$. For $k_+\geq 2$, finding a lattice tiling becomes more difficult. If one wants to use the construction in Section~\ref{sec:confield} to handle the case of $b=2$ and $(k_+,k_-)=(2,0)$, a primitive element $\alpha$ satisfying the following condition is required:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:condition4}
\set{ \log_\alpha(f_i(\alpha)) \ppmod{6} ; 1\leq i\leq 5 } = \set{1,2,3,4,5},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
f_1(x)&=1+x^6, & f_2(x)&=1+2x^6, & f_3(x)&=2,\\
f_4(x)&=2+x^6, & f_5(x)&=2+2x^6.
\end{align*}
Note that unlike $\log_{\alpha}(1)=0$ and $\log_{\alpha}(-1)=\frac{q-1}{2}$, the value of $\log_{\alpha}(2)$ modulo $6$ depends on the choice of $\alpha$. To complicate things further, $f_3(x)=2$ does not satisfy the condition in Lemma~\ref{lm:existence}. Thus, we cannot use it, as is, to find the desired $\alpha$. A computer search up to $1000$ shows that the following field sizes, $q$,
\begin{align*}
& 19, 79, 103, 163, 181, 199, 229, 349, 373, 397, 421, 487, 499, 541, 613, 619, 631, 643, 691, 709, 733, 739, 751, 769, \\ & 787, 823, 853, 859, 907, 967, 997
\end{align*}
admit a primitive $\alpha$ that satisfies~\eqref{eq:condition4}.
We also ran a computer search for splittings by $\mathcal{E}^\circ(n,2,2,0)$ and $\mathcal{E}(n,2,2,0)$. For $n\in \set{3,4}$, existence results are listed in Table~\ref{tab:b=2-kp=2-km=0}. Interestingly, for each $5\leq n \leq 11$, every Abelian group $G$ of order $6n+1$ cannot be split by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,2,0)$, and every Abelian group of order $6n-3$ cannot be split by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,2,0)$. In contrast, for the case of $b=2$ and $(k_+,k_-)=(1,1)$, Table~\ref{tab:b=2-kp=1-km=1-c} shows that $\mathbb{Z}_{6n+1}$ can be split by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,1)$ for each $n \in [4,14] \setminus \set{7}$, and Table~\ref{tab:b=2-kp=1-km=1-nc} shows that $\mathbb{Z}_{6n-3}$ can be split by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,1)$ for each $n \in [3, 14]$. Thus, it would be interesting to derive some constraints on the values of $n$ for the existence of lattice tilings of $\mathcal{E}(n,2,2,0)$ and $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,2,0)$.
\begin{table*}
\center
\caption{Splitting of $G$ by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,2,0)$ or $\mathcal{E}(n,2,2,0)$ }
\label{tab:b=2-kp=2-km=0}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
\hline\hline
$n$ & $G$ & The shape & Splitting sequence \\
\hline
$3$ & $\mathbb{Z}_{19}$ & $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,2,0)$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1,7,11)$ \\
$4$ & $\mathbb{Z}_{25}$ & $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,2,0)$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1,5,4,20)$ \\
\hline
$3$ & $\mathbb{Z}_{15}$ & $\mathcal{E}(n,2,2,0)$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1,5,4)$ \\
$4$ & $\mathbb{Z}_{21}$ & $\mathcal{E}(n,2,2,0)$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1,5,20,18)$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\center
\caption{Splitting of $\mathbb{Z}_{6n+1}$ by $\mathcal{E}^{\circ}(n,2,1,1)$}
\label{tab:b=2-kp=1-km=1-c}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{cl}
\hline\hline
$n$ & Splitting sequence \\
\hline
$4$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 5, 2, 10)$\\
$5$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 4, 15, 2, 8)$\\
$6$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 8, 10, 6, 11, 14)$\\
$8$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 4, 21, 9, 2, 18, 8, 14)$\\
$9$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 12, 25, 6, 20, 27, 17, 22)$\\
$10$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 11, 24, 9, 25, 30, 12, 29, 22)$\\
$11$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 9, 27, 14, 25, 8, 24, 5, 15, 22)$ \\
$12$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 8, 27, 33, 12, 30, 20, 29, 7, 32, 15)$ \\
$13$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 8, 14, 37, 17, 10, 26, 38, 9, 39, 21, 34)$\\
$14$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 8, 14, 31, 7, 41, 9, 21, 39, 10, 23, 42, 27)$\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\center
\caption{Splitting of $\mathbb{Z}_{6n-3}$ by $\mathcal{E}(n,2,1,1)$}
\label{tab:b=2-kp=1-km=1-nc}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{cl}
\hline\hline
$n$ & Splitting sequence \\
\hline
$3$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1,5,2)$\\
$4$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 4, 10, 2)$\\
$5$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 4, 10, 2, 9)$\\
$6$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 14, 10, 2, 5, 11)$ \\
$7$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 12, 19, 6, 16, 5)$\\
$8$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 12, 20, 14, 21, 5, 22)$\\
$9$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 9, 16, 5, 24, 10, 23, 8)$\\
$10$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 8, 25, 13, 28, 6, 20, 27, 9)$\\
$11$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 8, 29, 7, 25, 15, 28, 16, 30, 24)$\\
$12$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 8, 17, 32, 13, 29, 7, 28, 18, 12, 26)$\\
$13$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 8, 14, 32, 19, 31, 16, 26, 9, 30, 7, 27)$\\
$14$ & $\mathbf{s}=(1, 3, 8, 14, 30, 13, 40, 21, 12, 35, 10, 39, 24, 31)$\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtrans}
|
\section*{Abstract}
{\bf
We study the effects of strong inter-particle interaction on diffraction of a Bose-Einstein condensate of $^6Li_2$ molecules from a periodic potential created by pulses of a far detuned optical standing wave. For short pulses we observe the standard Kapitza-Dirac diffraction, with the contrast of the diffraction pattern strongly reduced for very large interactions due to interaction dependent loss processes. For longer pulses diffraction shows the characteristic for matter waves impinging on an array of tubes and coherent channeling transport. We observe a slowing down of the time evolution governing the population of the momentum modes caused by the strong atom interaction. A simple physical explanation of that slowing down is the phase shift caused by the self-interaction of the forming matter wave patterns inside the standing light wave. Simple 1D mean field simulations qualitatively capture the phenomenon, however to quantitatively reproduce the experimental results the molecular scattering length has to be multiplied by factor of 4.2. In addition, two contributions to interaction-dependent degradation of the coherent diffraction patterns were identified: (i) in-trap loss of molecules during the lattice pulse, which involves dissociation of Feshbach molecules into free atoms, as confirmed by radio-frequency spectroscopy and (ii) collisions between different momentum modes during separation. This was confirmed by interferometrically recombining the diffracted momenta into the zero-momentum peak, which consequently removed the scattering background.
}
\vspace{10pt}
\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{1pt}
\tableofcontents\thispagestyle{fancy}
\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{1pt}
\vspace{10pt}
\input{Sec1_Introduction}
\input{Sec2_Experiment.tex}
\input{Sec3_Result}
\input{Sec4_Conclusion.tex}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research was supported by
the DFG-SFB 1225 `ISOQUANT’, with the Vienna participation financed by the by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF)(grant number I3010-N27),
and the Wiener Wissenschafts- und Technologiefonds (WWTF) project No MA16-066 (SEQUEX).
S.E. aknowledges an ESQ (Erwin Schr\"{o}dinger Center for Quantum
Science and Technology) fellowship funded through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 801110. This project reflects only the author's view, the EU Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. ESQ has received funding from the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF).
\begin{appendix}
\input{SecN_Appendix}
\end{appendix}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Matter-wave diffracting from a standing wave of light demonstrates the fundamental concept of wave-particle duality. As first predicted by Kaptiza and Dirac \cite{kapitza_dirac_1933}, when particles move through a standing wave of light, they undergo two-photon scattering processes and gain discrete momenta in units of the vector sum of the two photons' recoil. On the other side one can see the diffraction as coming from the phase imprinted on the matter wave by the dipole potential of the standing wave. For a detailed discussion see: \cite{RevModPhys.81.1051}. The first experimental observation of this phenomenon was made with thermal atom beams \cite{Moskowitz_1983_atom_beam_diffraction,KD_Atom,Bragg_Atom}
and later with electron beams \cite{KD_Electron,Bragg_Electron} and Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) \cite{Bragg_BEC,PhysRevLett.79.784,Diffraction_BEC,KD_AtomInterferometry}. Moreover diffraction from a standing wave and the associated two photon transitions are an essential building block of atom interferometry and have enabled numerous fundamental tests, precision measurement and opened up many practical applications like inertial sensors \cite{AtomInterferometer_Gyroscope,AtomInterferometer_Gyroscope2}, gravimeters \cite{Peters_1999_g_acceleration,Gravimetry_BEC,Gravimetry_Bragg}, measuring the gravitational constant \cite{Fixler_2007_G_constant_Stanford, Rosi_2014_G_constant_LENS}, and were proposed to be used for detecting gravitational waves \cite{AtomInterferometer_GravitationalWave2013,AtomInterferometer_GravitationalWave2016}.
The effect of inter-particle interaction during the diffraction process was in most cases neglected, mainly for its minor significance during the short time of the diffraction process and to obtain mathematical simple results. However such simplification may no longer guarantee accurate results for strong interaction or long timescales \cite{Grond_2010,Hofferberth2008,PhaseDiffusionBEC}. In this paper, we report an experimental study on diffraction of a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate (mBEC) of $^6Li_2$ from a standing light wave in the presence of strong inter-particle interaction. Due to the fermionic nature of $^6$Li atoms, inelastic processes are strongly suppressed in a $^6$Li$_2$ molecular BEC~\cite{PhysRevLett.93.090404, PhysRevA.71.012708}, allowing for the preparation of initial equilibrium many-body states with strong interaction for the experiments. By tuning the $s$-wave scattering length with a magnetic Feshbach resonance, we are able to study the influence of interaction on the diffraction process over a wide range. Numerical simulations were performed to provide comparisons with experimental observations, and to assist in testing and understanding the physical processes.
\section{Experimental procedures}
\label{sec:exp}
The experiments are performed with BECs of $^6$Li Feshbach molecules. Our experimental setup and procedure are detailed in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix:experiment}. In brief, in each experimental cycle we prepare a two-state mixture of lithium atoms in the lowest hyperfine states $\ket{ F = 1/2,m_F = 1/2 }$ (state $\ket{1}$), $\ket{ F = 1/2,m_F = -1/2 }$ (state $\ket{2}$). Then by evaporative cooling in a single beam dipole trap on the BEC side (780~G) of the 832~G Feshbach resonance \cite{PhysRevLett.94.103201} the atoms form weakly bound Feshbach molecules each consisting of two atoms in different hyperfine states. With further evaporation, the molecules subsequently form a mBEC.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_Setup3.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of the experimental setup with images taken before and after focusing.
}
\label{fig_setup}
\end{figure}
The procedure prepares mBECs of $\sim$3000 $^6Li_2$ Feshbach molecules~\cite{Jochim_2003_mBEC}. The $s$-wave scattering length between molecules is tuned by setting the magnetic field \cite{PhysRevLett.110.135301}. For weakly bound molecules close to the Feshbach resonance, the dimer-dimer $s$-wave scattering length is given by $a_{dd} = 0.6a_{12}$\cite{PhysRevLett.93.090404}, where $a_{12}$ is the scattering length between atoms in states $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$.
Figure~\ref{fig_setup} shows a qualitative sketch of the setup. The mBEC is confined in a trapping potential formed by a focused laser beam (the capture beam) and the magnetic field curvature produced by the electric coils. The combined potential provides trap frequencies $(f_x,f_y,f_z) = (16,74,68)\,\mathrm{Hz}$, where $x$ denotes the axial direction along the trapping beam, $y$ the other horizontal direction, and $z$ the vertical direction. The field curvature is confining horizontally and therefore enhances trapping along the axial direction. Over the range of magnetic fields used, the trap frequencies are only very weakly affected by changing the field level. The axial trap frequency is varied by 7\%, for magnetic field offset from 650 G to 750 G. The radial directions are dominated by the optical dipole trap.
To perform diffraction, a lattice potential $U(x) = U_0 \cos^2\left( \pi x/D \right)$ is formed with two crossing laser beams, where $U_0$ is the lattice potential depth, $D = \lambda/2\sin(\theta/2)$ the spatial period with wavelength $\lambda=1064\,\mathrm{nm}$ and the laser beam crossing angle $\theta = 15^{\circ}$, resulting in a lattice period $D=4\,\mathrm{\mu m}$. The lattice laser beams are focused to beam waists of $w_{horizontal}=600\,\mathrm{\mu} m$ and $w_{vertical}=140\,\mathrm{\mu} m$. The beams are large compared to the size of the mBEC, and hence the lattice potential depth is approximately uniform across the cloud. The two lattice laser beams are derived from the same laser source, intensity controlled by an acousto-optic modulator (AOM), and subsequently split by a 50:50 beam splitter. The recoil energy of single photon transition is $E_r=\hbar^2 k^2/2m \approx 250\,\mathrm{Hz}$, where $k = \pi/D$ and $m$ is the mass of a lithium molecule ($^6Li_2$).
The lattice potential is pulsed on for a variable time $t$ while the mBEC is held in the trap, such that a well-defined geometry and interaction energy is maintained during the scattering process. Immediately afterwards the cloud is released and allowed to expand. The cloud expands rapidly along the radial directions, hence quickly reducing interaction, while the magnetic coils are kept on such that the field curvature provides a focusing potential in the horizontal directions during the time-of-flight to measure the momentum distribution \cite{PhysRevA.90.043611}. After a quarter of the oscillation period set by the horizontal trapping frequency of $16\,\mathrm{Hz}$, the initial position distribution has collapsed, and the spatial pattern corresponds to the momentum distribution in the $x$ and $y$ directions before trap release. Detection is then performed by absorption imaging.
\section{Experimental observations}
\subsection{Within Raman-Nath regime}
For a pulse time $t$ much shorter than the oscillation period of a molecule in the lattice site, or equivalently $t\sqrt{E_rU_0}/ \hbar < 1$, the particles remain approximately stationary during the lattice pulse. This regime is referred to as thin grating approach, also known as the Raman-Nath approximation\cite{raman_Nath_1935}. The lattice potential could be viewed as a spatially periodic phase imprinting on the condensate wavefunction, resulting in the interference pattern in the far field, with bright fringes corresponding to momentum modes with a spacing of $2\hbar k$. The probability of finding atoms in the $n^{th}$ diffracted state is given by the Fourier transform of the imprinted phase shift. The occupation of the momentum modes ($\pm 2n\hbar k$) is hence given by Bessel functions of the first kind: $P_{\pm n}=J^2_n(tU_0/2\hbar)$ \cite{GUPTA2001479}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_KD_Fitting.pdf}
\caption{\textit{(top)} Images taken with pulse $U_0=500E_r$ and $t=5\mu s$ at different interaction strength and \textit{(bottom)} the corresponding fitting result. Circles show the experiment data. Red and yellow solid lines shows the fitting result of the momentum peaks and background respectively.}
\label{fig_KD_Fitting}
\end{figure}
The lattice is pulsed with $U_0=500E_r$ and a duration of $t=0\sim 20\,\mathrm{\mu s}$. Within this time range, the condition for Raman-Nath regime is satisfied, $t_{max}\sqrt{E_rU_0}/ \hbar\sim0.7$. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig_KD_Fitting}, distinct momentum modes can be recognized from the absorption images, while a strong background appears for high interaction strengths. The enhanced presence of the broad background with increased interaction suggests an interaction dependent loss of molecules from the condensate.
In order to determine the populations in each momentum mode, we integrate the images over the $y$ direction and fit a dual-component function
\begin{equation}
\sum_i A_i^c e^{\left(\frac{x-\mu +i d_{sep}}{\sigma^{c}}\right)^2}+\sum_j A_j^g e^{\left(\frac{x-\mu +2j d_{sep}}{\sigma^{g}}\right)^2} \quad.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Here $A$ and $\sigma$ denote the amplitude and width of the corresponding peak, where the superscript $c$ denotes the molecular condensate and $g$ the incoherent background. $d_{sep}$ is the spatial separation corresponding to the momentum $2\hbar k$ which can be accurately determined. Thus we can determine the population of condensate peaks and thermal atoms separately. The integrated profiles showing the momentum mode occupations are plotted in a time carpet over the pulse time to provide an overview of the diffraction process in momentum space (Figure~\ref{fig_KD}(left)). For further analysis, we remove the background from the dual-component fitting, time carpets can then be presented clearly with the momentum mode populations normalized to the total condensed population (Figure~\ref{fig_KD}(middle)).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_KD5.pdf}
\caption{\textit{(left)} Time carpets measured with $U_0=500E_r$ at different interaction strengths. \textit{(middle)} the normalized momentum modes with background removed. \textit{(right)} Normalized populations of the first three momentum modes (open symbols) for different dimer-dimer scattering lengths $a_{dd}$ are plotted, together with the corresponding Bessel functions calculated with the calibrated lattice intensity with no free parameters} (solid lines). For the carpet plots we adjusted the color bar range to optimize the visual contrast. The carpet plot value corresponds to the optical density, in arbitrary unit.
\label{fig_KD}
\end{figure}
The time evolution of the $0\hbar k$, $\pm2\hbar k$, and $\pm4\hbar k$ populations are shown together with the theoretical results given by the Bessel functions (Figure~\ref{fig_KD}(right)).
For stronger interactions, despite significant losses, the normalized populations are found to still agree quite well with theory.
\subsection{Beyond Raman-Nath regime}
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_Carpet7.pdf}
\caption{\textit{(a)} Time carpets measured with $U_0=50E_r$ for different interaction strengths. \textit{(b)} The momentum modes with background removed and normalized to the total condensate number at each time. The vertical dash lines mark the zoom in range for \textit{(c)}.} \textit{(d)} The corresponding normalized populations of the 0 $\hbar k$ momentum mode (circle), shown in each case with the 1D GPE simulation result (solid line). The error bars for the population show the standard deviation of the fit results from 10 measurements. The simulation curves were produced with mean field interaction, including a phenomenological scaling factor $\eta = 4.2$ common to all case to take into account the additional interaction energy, as explained in the text. The vertical dashed lines in \textit{(c)} and \textit{(d)} indicate the time point at which the coherent population is restored to the $0\hbar k$ mode (recurrence of the mBEC). The shift of the peak clearly shows the slowing down of the scattering process under stronger interactions. Interaction-dependent loss leads to degradation of contrast of the scattering patterns, and also results in deviations of population ratios from theoretical results (see text in Section \ref{section_collision_loss}). For $a_{dd} = 2526a_0$ at long pulse times ($t > \sim 600\mu s$), the images acquired have poor signal-to-noise ratio and population determination by fitting gives rather unclear results.
\label{fig_carpet}
\end{figure}
For longer pulse durations, the displacement of particles during the lattice pulse becomes non-negligible, thus the stationary approximation is no longer valid. Beyond the Raman-Nath regime, if the lattice depth satisfies the condition $U_0\gg E_r$, the situation is referred to as the channeling regime\cite{keller_adiabatic_1999}. The particles oscillate within each lattice site, creating a periodic pattern in momentum space. An analytical solution is obtained for the weak-pulse limit \cite{Gadway:09:KD_beyond_RamanNath}, but in general the population evolution during the scattering process needs to be calculated numerically.
Figure~\ref{fig_carpet} shows the results measured with $U_0=50E_r$, and $t=0\sim 1000\,\mathrm{\mu s}$. The weaker lattice restricts the particles within the first five momentum modes to achieve a decent imaging contrast and drives the evolution at a rate such that the effect of interaction, which becomes apparent at longer times, is clearly demonstrated. Similar to what is observed in the Raman-Nath regime, we find loss from the condensed component into the background which becomes more prominent for increased interaction strength. It can be seen that for $a_{dd}>2500a_0$, the scattering pattern becomes barely recognizable from the image. We apply the same procedure as in the previous section to extract the momentum evolution. Due to loss by collisions between different momentum modes, the ratios between the populations are changed. As a result, the normalized populations at high interaction show deviations from numerical simulations of the scattering processes. We look into the interaction dependent loss in Section \ref{section_collision_loss}.
The time carpets in Figure~\ref{fig_carpet} show a periodic time evolution of scattering patterns in momentum space, as expected for the channeling regime. Comparing the population evolution curves for different interaction strengths reveals a slowing down phenomenon of the diffraction process. It can be seen that the time point where the coherent population is restored to the $0\hbar k$ mode (recurrence of the mBEC) occurs at increasingly later time points, showing that the evolution becomes slower in the presence of stronger interaction.
\section{Effects of interaction}
\subsection{Interaction induced slowing of scattering processes}\label{section_slowing}
To assist in understanding the effect of interaction on the population evolution, we performed Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) simulations, which include mean field $s$-wave scattering between molecules (see details in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix:GPE}). As can be seen from Figure~\ref{fig_carpet} showing the data for $U_0=50E_r$, the population evolution obtained by simulation is in good agreement with the experimental observations.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_QuenchInteraction2.pdf}
\caption{The simulated population evolution of $0\hbar k$ momentum modes with quenching interaction and $U_0=500E_r$. Solid lines show the simulation results and dots plot the Bessel function prediction. The two vertical dashed line marks the time of lattice switch-off and interaction switch-on, \textit{(left)} $t=3\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ and $t=5\,\mathrm{\mu s}$, \textit{(right)} $t=8\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ and $t=10\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ respectively. The subplot shows the formation of density grating in the condensate wavefunction.}
\label{fig_quenchinteractionl}
\end{figure}
The slowing down of the scattering process at early times can be qualitatively understood to be associated with the formation of density grating across the condensate, which arises in the presence of the lattice potential. Initially, the lattice potential generates a phase modulation in the condensate, which leads to an emerging density grating. The $0\hbar k$ mode decreases while the higher momentum modes grow. The density profiles generated by the simulation demonstrating this process are shown in the inset of Figure~\ref{fig_quenchinteractionl}. For convenient visualization, the simulation here is carried out with a lattice depth of $U_0=500E_r$ to obtain a rapid population evolution. An obvious density grating has already formed at approximately $2\,\mathrm{\mu s}$. The effect of repulsive mean-field interaction, contrary to the optical lattice, tends to smooth out the density grating. The interaction counters the effect of the lattice, and hence slows down the population evolution during the scattering process.
Since the formation of density grating in the condensate is associated with the emergence and evolution of populations diffracted to higher momentum modes, one can also expect the effect of interaction would reverse the population evolution when the lattice pulse is turned off, and this is demonstrable with simulation. Figure~\ref{fig_quenchinteractionl}(left) shows the population evolution of the $0\hbar k$ mode population obtained from the numerical simulation, in which a lattice potential with $500E_r$ of depth is pulsed onto a BEC under zero interaction. The lattice is then switched off at $3\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ and later at $5\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ interaction is turned on. It can be seen that with null interaction, the mode populations maintain the values from the moment the lattice is switched off. On the other hand, when the interaction is switched on, we observe the reversal of the population evolution due to scattering, consistent with what is predicted based on the physical picture. It is also evident from comparison that stronger interaction results in a faster reversal of the evolution.
At later times the density grating soon becomes complicated in structure (see Appendix \ref{sec:appendix:GPE}). It is then not obvious to draw a simple interpretation for the effect due to interaction, for instance at a time when the $0\hbar k$ mode population grows and the higher modes diminish. However, the 1D mean-field simulation demonstrates similarly, that the effect of interaction reverses the population evolution due to scattering (Figure~\ref{fig_quenchinteractionl}(right)), again leading to faster reversal for stronger interactions.
In light of the physical picture and the tests with simulations, we expect the slowing of scattering processes to be dependent on interaction strength, and in addition, that the phenomenon can be captured by a 1D model~\cite{Yue2013}. Note from Figure~\ref{fig_carpet} that the overall trend of the evolution, the features such as peaks and troughs of the curve, are maintained to a good degree, especially prior to the first recurrence of the 0$\hbar k$ condensate. This allows us to further examine the phenomenon quantitatively with respect to the interaction strength, by identifying the peak locations to characterize the evolution.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_Delay5_5.pdf}
\caption{\textit{(a)} 1D GPE calculation illustrating the slowing of the time evolution of the zeroth order diffraction peak with interaction strength. The curves can be aligned by re-scaling in time to match the first condensate recurrence points to the null interaction case ($t \to t/(1+r)$). \textit{(b)} The delay parameter $r$ inferred from experimental measurements (circles) in Figure~\ref{fig_carpet} versus the dimer-dimer scattering length $a_{dd}$. Error bars generate with 10 repeated measurements. Solid line and dash line are produced by GPE simulation with $U_0=50E_r$ for $\eta=4.2$ and $\eta=1$, where $\eta$ is the phenomenological factor we included to account for additional contribution to interaction, $g=\eta g_{1D}$ (section \ref{sec:appendix:GPE}).}
\label{fig_delay}
\end{figure}
In a simplified picture, the slowing effect results in a linear scaling of the population evolution in time by a factor $(1+r)$. That is, assuming the slowing effect is uniform over time. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig_delay}(a), we choose the first condensate recurrence point of the $0\hbar k$ condensate population in our measurement as the reference. We then use it to determine the time scaling factor $(1+r(a))$ for a given $s$-wave scattering length $a$. The slowing phenomenon due to interaction countering the lattice potential can also be qualitatively seen as an effective reduction of the lattice depth by the factor $1/(1+r(a))$, such as observed for a quasi-periodic lattice, where the onset of localization is shifted by repulsive interaction to deeper lattice potentials \cite{PhysRevLett.125.200604}. Figure~\ref{fig_delay}(b) plots the values of $r(a)$ determined for the experimental data with 50$E_r$ presented in Figure \ref{fig_carpet}.
Mean-field 1D simulations indeed reproduce the slowing effect (see Appendix \ref{sec:appendix:GPE} for details). However, simulations performed with experimental conditions and the scattering lengths at respective magnetic fields generate evolution with much weaker slowing down than that observed experimentally. This indicates the presence of additional interaction energy contributing to the effect. Due to limited experimental knowledge of the in-trap loss mechanisms and the absence of accurate theoretical models, we consider here a phenomenological approach. Based on the above discussion, we therefore include a simple factor $\eta>1$ in the mean-field simulation to account for the additional interaction via $a_{dd} \, \to \, \eta \, a_{dd}$. Using 3000 molecules for all cases in the simulation, in accordance with the initial condition of the experiments, we find that for a single value $\eta = 4.2$ the simulation generates results closely fitting the experimental observations, as shown in Figures \ref{fig_carpet} and \ref{fig_delay}. The value varies slightly when determining $\eta$ for each interaction strength independently, but does not show a clear trend with $a_{dd}$.
The additional interaction energy could partly be accounted for by dissociation of molecules into atoms during the lattice pulse. The molecule to atom $s$-wave scattering length is given by 1.2$a_{12}$ \cite{osti_4322571}, which is double the value for dimer-dimer scattering. In addition, the dissociation of molecules leads to an increase in particle number, hence increasing the interaction strength.
We confirm the presence of free atoms following a 60 $\mu s$ lattice pulse by driving the $\ket{2}\xrightarrow{}\ket{3}$ transition with a radio frequency (RF) pulse \cite{CChin_RF}. For sufficiently large binding energy and sufficiently long RF pulses we are able to distinguish between the transition from molecules and the transition from free atoms. For the corresponding RF frequency, a reduction of state $\ket{2}$ atoms detected by absorption confirms the presence of free atoms. Limited by the current low Rabi frequency, the RF pulse has to be performed in trap for several $ms$, leading to significant 3-body loss \cite{Lompe_3bodyloss}. The method is hence at this point insufficient to provide a quantitative measurement. Also, due to the constraint on pulse length imposed by the requirement to resolve the bound-free and free-free transitions, we expect accurate characterization will be increasingly challenging close to the Feshbach resonance, where the molecule binding energy is small \cite{CChin_FB}.
\subsection{Condensate loss due to incoherent collisions} \label{section_collision_loss}
Both in the Raman-Nath regime and beyond, it is observed that the particle numbers in the condensed momentum peaks decrease with the increase of interaction strength, while the presence of background particles becomes enhanced.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\center
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_MultipulseT602.pdf}
\caption{\textit{(a)} Schematic of the pulse sequence and the corresponding absorption images at different interactions. $[t_0,t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4]=[60,78,26,36,36]\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ for $U_0=50E_r$. \textit{(b)} Calculated loss plot against scattering length at different stage. The error level is calculated from the BEC images (1). Difference between line (3) and error level is the loss during the lattice pulse. Difference between line (2) and (3) is the collision loss during TOF.}
\label{fig_collision}
\end{figure}
In order to investigate at which stages and by what processes the loss occurs, we make use of a technique implementing a particular lattice pulse sequence~\cite{Li2020}. By applying a designed lattice pulse sequence to a known initial distribution, the populations of the higher momentum modes can be `returned' to the $0\hbar k$ mode as long as coherence is maintained. Here we choose the initial lattice pulse to be $t_0=60\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ and $U_0=50E_r$. Figure~\ref{fig_collision}(a) shows a qualitative sketch of the pulse sequence designed for this test, and the absorption images after the time-of-flight and focusing, at which point the different momentum modes are already well separated. We compare the cases where the cloud was released when (1) no pulse is applied, (2) the initial pulse is applied and only a very low population remains in the zero momentum mode, (3) the zero momentum mode is restored by the pulse sequence.
We can identify two distinct stages of loss. With the initial pulse (after $t_0$), most molecules will populate the $\pm2\hbar k$ and $\pm4\hbar k$ modes, while the background emerges with stronger interaction. The spherical structure and its `$2\hbar k$ radius' suggest that one of the major sources of the background is the collisions between the $\pm2\hbar k$ modes \cite{Gibble_1995_s-wave ,Chikkatur_2000_impurity_scattering_BEC}. After being released from the dipole trap, it takes $\sim 6\,\mathrm{ms}$ for different momentum modes to separate in space. The recoil momentum $2\hbar k$ is significantly larger than the superfluid critical velocity \cite{PhysRevLett.114.095301.CriticalVelocity}. Collisions resulting from relative movements lead to decoherence and redistribution of momenta, which are enhanced under higher interaction. With the additional pulse sequence applied (after $t_4$), the coherent population is returned to the zero momentum mode, and the contribution of collisional loss during mode separation is suppressed. Although the BEC can be mostly restored with the pulse sequence, an interaction dependent loss can still be observed. We attribute this to in-trap loss which occurs during the lattice pulse. The presence of unbound atoms confirmed by RF spectroscopy is also consistent with loss occurring during the pulse.
For case (3) there may be extra loss due to the additional pulses. However, this would shift the line of (3) upwards and decrease the difference between cases (2) and (3), leading to an underestimate of the collisional loss. Therefore the difference between the cases (2) and (3) unambiguously demonstrates collisional loss between the momentum modes during the course of separation.
Figure~\ref{fig_collision}(b) shows the total loss at different stages and interactions. When determining the population of condensate peaks and background using the fitting algorithm, the calculation always gives a non-zero background number even for a pure BEC. This error is influenced by the imaging noise, since the fitting always includes part of the noise as the fitted distribution. So we used the result obtained with the BEC as a reference for the error level. We can identify the difference between measurements ``after $t_0$'' and ``after $t_4$'' as the contribution of collision loss after release from the dipole trap, and the difference between ``after $t_4$'' and the error level as the contribution of molecule disassociation after the initial $60\mu s$ lattice pulse.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_CollisionSim.pdf}
\caption{The population evolution of $0\hbar k$, $\pm2\hbar k$, $\pm4\hbar k$ modes at different interaction strengths (open symbols) with collision simulation results (solid line) for $U_0=50E_r$. The initial condition of the simulation is a product of the GPE calculation multiply by the loss factor calculated from $t=60\mu s$ (Figure~\ref{fig_collision}). Different from Figure~\ref{fig_carpet}(right), here we normalize to the initial condensate number.}
\label{fig_collisionSim}
\end{figure}
We simulated the collision loss during the course of separation by calculating the collision events between each two momentum groups with a simple model (for details see Appendix \ref{sec:appendix:collision}). The calculation for each scattering length and pulse time is initiated with the mode occupations obtained from the corresponding GPE simulation, subsequently corrected for the (early stage) in-trap loss within the first 60 $\mu s$ as has been experimentally characterized (shown in Figure \ref{fig_collision}). The later loss during the lattice pulse (in-trap) is difficult to model and is not included in this calculation. Expansion following trap release is then calculated by the model, giving quantitative estimates of collision loss during the separation between the momentum modes (Figure~\ref{fig_collisionSim} and \ref{fig_condensateFraction}). From the simulation we obtain the estimated total remaining condensed population in the momentum modes, as well as the remaining population in the individual modes. The results show reasonable agreement with the experimentally observed $0\hbar k$ mode for short pulse times, and larger deviation for long pulse time, indicating the increasing contribution from in-trap loss over time. Additionally, the losses from higher modes ($\pm2\hbar k$,$\pm4\hbar k$) are increasingly underestimated (Figure \ref{fig_collisionSim}), which we attribute to the approximations taken by the scattering model. In particular secondary collisions or corrections to the scattering cross-section beyond $s$-wave scattering are not taken into account. Quantifying secondary collisions is difficult given our experimental scenario. Due to the axial length of the condensate in our experiment, the momentum modes mutually separate over the course of several milliseconds. If the collisions occur in a small and well-defined range of space and time, one can expect to observe clean $s$-wave collision halos, and deviations from the expected profile would then indicate additional processes such as secondary collisions \cite{Thomas_2016_multi_scattering}. This is not the case for our experiment. Our situation is further complicated by the presence of loss caused by the lattice pulse.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_CollisionCondensateFration.pdf}
\caption{The condensate fraction at different interaction strengths (open symbols) with collision simulation results (solid line) for $U_0=50E_r$. The increasing discrepancies between calculated results and experimental data indicate the continuing in-trap loss over time.}
\label{fig_condensateFraction}
\end{figure}
The deviations of the normalized populations observed experimentally (Figures \ref{fig_KD} and \ref{fig_carpet}) from the GPE simulation results can be understood with the collision process during the separation of momentum modes. Consider the molecules belonging to two velocity groups moving relative to each other and colliding. Assuming the colliding molecules are immediately removed from the coherent condensates and hence secondary collisions can be neglected, it follows that the two groups incur the same number of particle losses to each other. When the initial populations are not equal, the group with higher population will have an increased portion of the remaining coherent particles after collisions have taken place. Hence the more highly populated modes tend to increase in ratio. From Figure \ref{fig_KD} (2109$a_0$) and Figure \ref{fig_carpet} such features can be seen. Under strong interactions, when the 0$\hbar k$ mode population is high (peaks), the normalized population observed experimentally ends up occupying a higher portion of the total remaining condensed molecules than the simulation result. The features become more prominent for stronger interactions and hence stronger losses.
\section{Conclusions and outlook}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Diffraction of strongly interacting matter waves closely follows the well studied non-interacting single particle case. The main modifications of the observed diffraction come either from (i) incoherent processes like dissociation of the Feshbach molecules or final state interactions leading to a broad scattering background, and (ii) a coherent process initiated by the self interaction of the evolving matter wave interference patterns inside the standing light wave. Investigations for the possible physical processes leading to strengthened interaction are currently underway.
We verified the dominance of coherent processes during the diffraction dynamics in the standing wave grating by applying additional pulses which allowed to recombine the diffracted orders back into the zero momentum mode by constructive interference.
Going beyond the present work it would be interesting to study
(i) the regime where the emerging diffraction orders are all safely below the critical super-fluid velocity;
(ii) the influence of the switching on and switching off of the standing wave;
(iii) Bragg diffraction and the modification of its intricate wave fields inside the light crystal \cite{PhysRevLett.77.4980,PhysRevA.60.456} by the strong interactions and
(iv) in addition strong interactions should also lead to squeezing and entanglement between the diffracted beams.
We expect the latter to be relevant for interferometry, where the squeezing and entangled created by strong interaction may be desired for meteorological advantage
\cite{Gross_2012_metrology_BEC,Grond_2010}.
Further, demonstrating the influence of interactions on the performance of a full multi-mode interferometer sequence \cite{masi2021multimode} with lithium Feshbach molecules is an interesting avenue for further investigations.
\section{Appendix}
\label{sec:appendix}
\subsection{Experimental apparatus}
\label{sec:appendix:experiment}
The layout of the experimental apparatus is shown in Figure \ref{fig_experiment}. Lithium atoms from an oven going through a Zeeman slower are laser cooled and collected in a magneto-optical trap (MOT) at the metal chamber using the $D_2$ optical transition ($2S_{1/2} \,\to\, 2P_{3/2}$). The MOT consists of the cooling and repump light which excite atoms from the $F = 3/2$ and the $F = 1/2$ states, respectively, and typically collects $2\times10^8$ atoms at $\sim 1\,\mathrm{mK}$. Following compression by ramping the laser frequency close to resonance and decreasing optical intensity, the temperature is reduced to $330\,\mathrm{\mu K}$, while keeping $1\times10^8$ atoms.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_Experiment.pdf}
\caption{Experimental apparatus. }
\label{fig_experiment}
\end{figure}
The atoms are subsequently transferred to an optical dipole trap (ODT) formed by 1070 nm laser from a high power Ytterbium fiber laser (IPG YLR-200-LP-WC). By extinguishing the repump light $100\mu s$ earlier than the cooling light, the atoms are pumped to the $F = 1/2$ states, which are the lowest two magnetic sublevels $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$.
After transferring to the optical dipole trap, the quadrupole magnetic field of the MOT is switched off and a uniform offset magnetic field provided by the Feshbach coil pair is switched on. In the presence of a magnetic field of 540 G, radio frequency (RF) sweeps mix the two states to ensure balanced populations for efficient evaporative cooling.
Evaporative cooling is then carried out by decreasing the optical power of the dipole trap, the first evaporative cooling stage performed at the MOT chamber is done under a magnetic field offset of 780G, giving strong interaction between the spin states and hence rapid thermalization.
Evaporation at the MOT chamber is performed without reaching quantum degeneracy. The atoms are then transferred to the transport beam shaped by a two-lens setup including a tunable lens (Optotune EL-16-40-TC-NIR-20). The beam focus position of the transport trap varies with the focal length of the tunable lens. The cloud moves with the trap focus to the science cell and is then transferred to the capture beam at the cell. Final evaporation is carried out in the capture beam to prepare the sample for the experiment, producing a degenerate Fermi gas or mBEC.
The lattice setup is based on an equal-path interferometer design that minimizes the path length difference to provide high passive phase stability. An optical lattice formed by two coherent laser beams of wavelength $\lambda=1064\,\mathrm{nm}$ crossing with an angle $\theta=15^{\circ}$ gives lattice spacing $ D=\lambda/[2\sin(\theta/2)]\approx4\,\mathrm{\mu m}$. The lattice depth was determined for the $500\,E_r$ case where the population evolution is fast, and therefore the other effects are insignificant. By fitting the measured zero momentum population evolution with the Bessel function and determining the time of the first minimum, the lattice depth is inferred.
\subsection{Pulse sequence design}
\label{sec:appendix:multi-pulse}
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig_collision}(a), the momentum mode populations are accurately controlled with lattice pulses. A single lattice pulse transfers a BEC initially in the zero momentum mode into high momentum modes. Subsequently, another two lattice pulses can bring most particles back to the $0^{\mathrm{th}}$ mode prior to TOF. To characterize the collisional loss effect in different experimental stages, we compare two cases, (i) the cloud is released from the capture beam with multiple momentum modes, which separate and penetrate through each other during TOF, (ii) the cloud is released with high momentum modes being eliminated, hence strongly suppressing the collisions during expansion.
The pulse sequence is designed with particular pulse durations and intervals for a given lattice depth $U_0$, aiming at maximizing the overlap between the final wavefunction and the BEC wavefunction in the $0^{\mathrm{th}}$ mode~\cite{Li2020}.
Supposing that $\psi_0$ is the state of a BEC, we calculate the Bloch state after applying a pulse sequence $[t_0,\,t_1,\,t_2,\,t_3,\,t_4]$ (see Figure~\ref{fig_collision}a),
\begin{equation}
\lvert\psi_{final}\rangle=\prod_{j=4}^0\hat{\mathcal{U}}_j\lvert\psi_0\rangle\,,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathcal{U}}_j=e^{-i[\hat{p}_x^2/(2m)+U_j\cos^2(kx)]t_j/\hbar} $ is the evolution operator in the $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ step. The interaction term is neglected because the pulse durations are smaller than the timescale of which the slowing effect appears significantly. The duration of the initial pulse $t_0$ is fixed at $60\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ so that it covers the strong loss region observed in Figure~\ref{fig_condensateFraction}. The potential depth $U_j$ is set to $U_0$ and 0 during the pulses and the time intervals, respectively. $U_0$ keeps constant for all three pulses.
The time sequence is determined by maximizing $\lvert \langle \psi_0\lvert \psi_{final}\rangle\lvert ^2$. For the parameters we choose, $[t_0,t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4]=[60,78,26,36,36]\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ and $U_0=50E_r$, leading to $\lvert \langle \psi_0\lvert \psi_{final}\rangle\lvert ^2 = 0.94$.
\subsection{GPE simulation}
\label{sec:appendix:GPE}
We performed mean-field simulations based on the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE),
\begin{equation}
i\hbar\partial_t\Psi = \left[ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \partial_x^2 + \frac{1}{2}m \omega_x^2 x^2 + U(x) + g_{1D}|\Psi|^2 \right] \Psi \quad,
\end{equation}
to investigate the slowing down effect due to interaction. Here $m$ is the mass of a molecule, $g_{1D} \sim a_s$ the effective 1D interaction constant (see below), $\omega_x$ is the harmonic trapping frequency of the capture beam. The lattice potential $U(x) = U_0 \cos^2\left( \pi x/D \right)$ has a lattice period $D = 4\mathrm{\mu m}$, setting the recoil energy $E_r=\hbar^2 k^2/2m \approx 250\,\mathrm{Hz}$ with $k = \pi/D$. We implemented (i) a homogeneous 1D simulation, and (ii) a 1D simulation with settings corresponding to the experimental conditions.
To demonstrate the phenomenon and to test the physical picture (see section \ref{section_slowing}), we simulated a homogeneous 1D system, for which the interaction strength is fully characterized by the chemical potential $\mu = g_{1D}n_{1D}$, where $n_{1D}$ is the particle density and $g_{1D}$ the 1D interaction parameter. The simulations were performed for 25 lattice periods with 50 spatial points per lattice period (80 nm resolution) and 100 ns time steps. The 1D simulation clearly demonstrates the slowing effect, as plotted in Figure \ref{fig_GPE_homo}. For each interaction strength the slowing parameter $r$ is determined by comparing the condensate recurrence time to the null interaction case. The phenomenon is found to be stronger with increasing chemical potential.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_GPE_Homogeneous.pdf}
\caption{1D GPE simulation demonstrates the slowing down effect due to interaction. The simulation is performed with a lattice potential depth of 50 $E_r$. The slowing parameter $r$ is found to monotonically increase with in interaction strength and is approximately proportional to the chemical potential for weak interaction.}
\label{fig_GPE_homo}
\end{figure}
In order to perform the simulations that correspond to the experiment, we measured the trap frequencies and the in situ size of the mBEC for each interaction strength. Figure \ref{fig_ThomasFermiR} shows an example absorption image of our mBEC, and the comparison of the fitted condensate sizes to the theoretical Thomas-Fermi radii without free parameters. The experimental conditions determined are used for the GPE simulation.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{Figure/Figure_ThomasFermiR.pdf}
\caption{\textit{(a)}In situ profiles of the mBECs at 700G and \textit{(b)} the measurement of Thomas-Fermi radius (open symbols) with calculated result (solid line). Trap frequencies $(f_x,f_y,f_z) = (16,74,68)\,\mathrm{Hz}$ and molecule number 3000 are used for the calculation. The results agree well with theoretical prediction based on the measured molecule number and trap frequencies.}
\label{fig_ThomasFermiR}
\end{figure}
To set up a 1D simulation corresponding to the experimental conditions, we integrate out the radial directions of the 3D Thomas-Fermi profile of the mBEC to obtain the effective 1D interaction parameter,
$g_{1D} = 16\hbar^2a_{dd}/(3 m R_{TF_r}^2)$. The simulations were carried out with 10 nm spatial resolution and 100 ns time steps. The spatial resolution is determined by the requirement of Fourier space width in the case of Raman-Nath regime, involving higher momenta. The 1D simulation has been checked against a full 3D simulation, confirming that radial excitations have minor influence on the evolution within the timescales considered in this work. The 1D simulation is then used to perform the calculation shown in Figure \ref{fig_quenchinteractionl} to check our proposed physical picture for the slowing phenomenon. For comparison with experimental data, we include a fudge factor $\eta > 1$ to account for additional contribution to interaction. This may include, but is not limited to, the effect of unbound atoms from dissociation of Feshbach molecules (see main text in section \ref{section_slowing}).
\subsection{Collision simulation}
\label{sec:appendix:collision}
We simulate the incoherent collision loss by calculating the expected number of collision events during the separation of the momentum modes during time-of-flight.
The simulation was carried out in a simple setting, taking the molecules of each momentum mode to be uniformly distributed within a cylinder, with the half-length and radius given by the axial and radial Thomas-Fermi radii of the mBEC. The expected collision events encountered by one particle over a distance of travel is given by the number of particles in the other momentum group contained in the cylinder defined by the displacement of the particle and its scattering cross-section.
Due to symmetry of this setting, the numerical calculation can be done in 1D, where the line density of each momentum group in an array is evolved. In each step the groups with momentum difference $2\hbar k$ shift in relative position by the distance of one cell. For two cells that move across each other, the estimated number of collisions is given by $N = (n_1 \pi R^2 dx)n_2 A dx = n_1n_2\pi R^2 A dx^2$, where $n_i$ are the (3D) particle density of the cells, $R$ the Thomas-Fermi radius of the mBEC, $A = 8\pi a_s^2$ the collision cross-section, and $dx$ the width of the cell, which is also the distance of relative travel between the two cells. The line density of a cell is $n_i \pi R^2$, and decreases by $N/dx$ in this calculation step. We take $dx$ to be sufficiently small so that the collision event encountered by each molecule in one calculation step is less than unity. The procedure obtains the expectation value of the number of collision events, and therefore the decrease in particle number from both cells.
The numerical calculation takes into account the $0\hbar k$, $\pm2\hbar k$, and $\pm4\hbar k$ momentum modes, which have significant occupations during the scattering process. The molecules to which collisions occur are considered to be lost from the coherent condensate. Hence in the next step of the calculation the density is decreased accordingly. The lost molecules are taken to be immediately removed from the cloud. Secondary or further collisions are supposed to be rare and not taken into account.
|
\section{Introduction}
Dense passage retrieval (DPR) models brought substantial effectiveness gains to information retrieval (IR) tasks in the web domain \cite{Gao2020,karpukhin-etal-2020-dense,xiong2021approximate}. The promise of DPR models is to boost the recall of first stage retrieval by leveraging the semantic information for retrieval as opposed to traditional retrieval models \cite{bm25}, which rely on lexical matching.
The web domain is a setting with query-to-passage or query-to-document retrieval tasks and a large amount of training data\suzan{, while training data is much more limited in other domains}. Furthermore we see recent advances in neural retrieval remain neglected for document-to-document retrieval despite the task's importance in several, mainly professional, domains \cite{Locke2017automatic,florinapatent,colieesummary,risch2020patentmatch}.
\suzan{In this paper} we investigate \suzan{the effectiveness of dense retrieval models for} document-to-document tasks\suzan{, in particular} legal case retrieval. We focus on first stage retrieval with dense models and therefore aim for a high recall.
The first challenge for DPR models in document-to-document retrieval tasks is the input length of the query documents and of the documents in the corpus. In legal case retrieval the cases tend to be long documents \cite{legalrelevance} with an average length of $1269$ words in the COLIEE case law corpus \cite{colieesummary}. However the input length of DPR models is limited to $512$ tokens \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} and theoretically bound of how much information of a long text can be compressed into a single vector \cite{luan2020sparse}.
Furthermore we reason in accordance with the literature \cite{passagelevelfordocretrieval,bertpli,passagelevelfordoc,passagelevelinfluence} that relevance between two documents is not only determined by the complete text of the documents, but that a candidate document can be relevant to a query document based on one paragraph that is relevant to one paragraph of the query document.
In the web domain DPR models are trained on up to $500k$ training samples \cite{msmarco16}, whereas in most domain-specific \suzan{collections}
only a limited amount of hundreds of labelled samples is available \cite{fireaila2,treclegal,colieesummary}.
In this paper we address these challenges by proposing a \textbf{paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM)} for dense document-to-document retrieval.
PARM liberates dense passage retrieval models from their limited input length without increasing the computational cost. Furthermore PARM gives insight on which paragraphs the document-level relevance is based, which is beneficial for understanding and explaining the retrieved results.
With PARM the documents are retrieved on the paragraph-level: the query document and the documents in the corpus are split up into their paragraphs and for each query paragraph a ranked list of relevant documents based on their paragraphs is retrieved. The ranked lists of documents per query paragraph need to be aggregated into one ranked list for the whole query document. As PARM provides the dense vectors of each paragraph, we propose \textbf{vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF)} for PARM. VRRF combines the merits of rank-based aggregation \cite{rrf,garciasecodeherrera2014comparing} with semantic aggregation with dense embeddings. We investigate:
\textbf{RQ1} \emph{How does VRRF compare to other aggregation strategies within PARM?}
We find that our proposed aggregation strategy of VRRF for PARM leads to the highest retrieval effectiveness in terms of recall compared to rank-based \cite{rrf,Shaw94combinationof} and vector-based aggregation baselines \cite{li2020parade}.
Furthermore we investigate:
\textbf{RQ2} \emph{How effective is PARM with VRRF for document-to-document retrieval?}
We compare PARM with VRRF to document-level retrieval for lexical and dense retrieval methods on two different test collections for the document-to-document task of legal case retrieval.
We demonstrate that PARM consistently improves the first stage retrieval recall for dense document-to-document retrieval.
Furthermore, dense document-to-document retrieval with PARM and VRRF aggregation outperforms lexical retrieval methods in terms of recall at higher cut-off values.
The success of DPR relies on the size of labelled training data. As we have a limited amount of labelled data as well as paragraph and document-level labels we investigate:
\textbf{RQ3} \emph{How can we train dense passage retrieval models for PARM for document-to-document retrieval most effectively?}
For training DPR for PARM we compare training with relevance labels on the paragraph or document-level. We find that despite the larger size of document-level labelled datasets, the additional training data is not always beneficial compared to training DPR on smaller, but more accurate paragraph-level samples.
Our contributions are:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a \textbf{paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM)} for dense document-to-document retrieval and demonstrate higher retrieval effectiveness for dense retrieval with PARM compared to retrieval without PARM and to lexical retrieval with PARM.
\item We propose \textbf{vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF)} for dense retrieval with PARM and find that VRRF leads to the highest recall for PARM compared to other aggregation strategies.
\item We investigate training DPR for PARM and compare the impact of fewer, more accurate paragraph-level labels to more, potentially noisy document-level labels.
\item We publish the code at \url{https://github.com/sophiaalthammer/parm}
\end{itemize}
\section{Related work}
\emph{Dense passage retrieval.} Improving the first stage retrieval with DPR models is a rapidly growing area in neural \suzan{IR}, mostly focusing on \suzan{the web domain}.
Karpukhin et al. \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} propose dense passage retrieval for open-domain QA using BERT models as bi-encoder for the query and the passage. With ANCE, \suzan{Xiong et al.} \cite{xiong2021approximate} train a DPR model for open-domain QA with sampling negatives from the continuously updated index. Efficiently training DPR models with distillation \cite{hofstatter2021improving} and balanced topic aware sampling \cite{hofstatter2021efficientlytas} has demonstrated to improve the retrieval effectiveness.
As opposed to this prior work, we move from dense passage to dense document-to-document retrieval and propose PARM to use dense retrieval for document-to-document tasks.
\emph{Document retrieval.}
The passage level influence for retrieval of documents has been analyzed in multiple works \cite{passagelevelfordocretrieval,passageretrieavllm,passagelevelfordoc,passagelevelinfluence} and shown to be beneficial, but in these works the focus lies on passage-to-document retrieval. Cohan et al. \cite{cohan-etal-2020-specter} present document-level representation learning strategies for ranking, however the input length remains bounded by $512$ tokens and only title and abstract of the document are considered. Abolghasemi et al. \cite{aminecir2022coliee} present multi-task learning for document-to-document retrieval. Liu et al. \cite{smith} propose similar document matching for documents up to a length of $2048$ however here the input length is still bounded and the computational cost of training and using the model is increased.
Different to this prior work, the input length of PARM is not bounded without increasing the computational complexity of the retrieval.
\emph{Aggregation strategies.} Aggregating results from different ranked lists has a long history in IR. Shaw et al. \cite{combmnz,Shaw94combinationof} investigate the combination of multiple result lists by summing the scores. Different rank aggregation strategies like Condorcet \cite{condorcet} or Borda count \cite{borda} are proposed, however it is demonstrated \cite{rrf,comparingscoreaggregation} that reciprocal rank fusion outperforms them.
Ai et al. \cite{neuralpassagemodel} propose a neural passage model for scoring passages for a passage-to-document retrieval task.
Multiple works \cite{akkalyoncu-yilmaz-etal-2019-applying,akkalyoncu-yilmaz-etal-2019-crossdomain,daicallmsmarcodoc,Zhang2021ComparingSA} propose score aggregation for re-ranking with BERT on a passage-to-document task ranging from taking the first passage of a document to the passage of the document with the highest score.
Different to rank/score-based aggregation approaches, Li et al. \cite{li2020parade} propose vector-based aggregation for re-ranking for a passage-to-document task. Different to our approach they concatenate query and passage and learn a representation for binary classification of the relevance score.
The focus of score/rank aggregation is mainly on federated search or passage-to-document tasks, however we focus on document-to-document retrieval. We have not seen a generalization of aggregation strategies for the query and candidate paragraphs for document-to-document retrieval yet. Different to previous work, we propose to combine rank and vector-based aggregation methods for aggregating the representation of query and candidate documents independently.
\section{Paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM)}
\label{chap:methodparagraphlevelret}
In this section we propose PARM as well as the aggregation strategy VRRF for PARM for dense document-to-document retrieval and training strategies.
\subsection{Workflow}
\begin{figure*}[b]
\centering
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-20pt}
\includegraphics[width=124mm,scale=1.0]{pictures/aggregation_more_simple8.pdf}
\caption{PARM workflow for query document $q$ and retrieved documents $d_1,..,d_7$}
\label{fig:paragraphlevelretrieval}
\end{figure*}
We use the DPR model \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} based on BERT \cite{bert} bi-encoders, \suzan{of which} one encodes the query passage $q$, the other one the candidate passage $p$.
After storing the encoded candidate passages $\hat{p}$ in the index, the relevance score between a query $q$ and a candidate passage $p$ is computed by the dot-product between the encoded query passage $\hat{q}$ and $\hat{p}$.
As the input length of BERT \cite{bert} is limited to $512$ tokens, the input length for the query and the candidate passage for DPR \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} is also limited by that. The length of query and candidate documents for document-to-document tasks exceeds this input length. For example the average length of a document is $1296$ words for the legal case retrieval collection COLIEE \cite{colieesummary}. We reason that for document-to-document tasks a single paragraph or multiple paragraphs can be decisive for the relevance of a document to another one \cite{passagelevelfordocretrieval,passageretrieavllm,passagelevelfordoc,passagelevelinfluence} and that different paragraphs contain different topics of a document. Therefore we propose a \textbf{paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM)}, in order to use DPR models for dense document-to-document retrieval. PARM retrieves relevant documents based on the paragraph-level relevance.
The workflow of PARM is visualized in Fig. \ref{fig:paragraphlevelretrieval}. For the documents in the corpus we
split each document $d$ into paragraphs $p_1, .., p_{m_d}$ with $m_d$ the number of paragraphs of document $d$. We take the paragraphs of the document as passages for DPR. We index each paragraph $p_j$, $j \in 1, .., m_d$ of each document $d$ in the corpus and attain a paragraph-level index containing the encoded paragraphs $\hat{p}_j$ for all documents $d$ in the corpus. At query time, the query document $q$ is also split up into paragraphs $q_1, ..., q_{n_q}$, where $n_q$ is the number of paragraphs of $q$. For each query paragraph $q_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ the top $N$ most relevant paragraphs are retrieved from the paragraph-level corpus.
The result is a ranked list $r_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ per query paragraph $q_i$ with $N$ relevant paragraphs. The \suzan{paragraphs} in the ranked lists $r_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ are replaced by the documents that contain the paragraphs.
Therefore it is possible that one document occurs multiple times in the list. In order to attain one ranked list for the whole query document $q$, the ranked \suzan{paragraph} lists of retrieved documents $r_1, ..., r_{n_q}$ of each query paragraph $q_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ need to be aggregated to one ranked list.
\subsection{Vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF)}
\label{chap:methodaggregation}
Multiple works have demonstrated the benefit of reciprocal rank fusion \cite{rrf,garciasecodeherrera2014comparing,comparerrf} for rank-based aggregation of multiple ranked retrieved lists. Using dense retrieval with PARM we have more information than the ranks and scores of the retrieved paragraphs: we have dense embeddings, which encode the semantic meaning of the paragraphs, for each query paragraph and the retrieved paragraphs. In order to make use of this additional information for aggregation, we propose \textbf{vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF)}, which extends reciprocal rank fusion for neural retrieval. VRRF combines the advantages of reciprocal rank fusion with relevance signals of semantic aggregation using the dense vector embeddings.
In \textbf{VRRF} we aggregate documents using the dense embeddings $\hat{p_i}$ of the passages $p_i$, which are from the same document $d$ and which are in the retrieved list $r_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$, with a weighted sum, taking the reciprocal rank fusion score \cite{rrf} as weight. The dense embeddings $\hat{q_i}$ of each query paragraph $q_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ are aggregated by adding the embeddings without a weighting:
\begin{align*}
\hat{q} = \sum_{i=1}^{n_q} \hat{q_i} && \hat{d} = \sum_{i=1}^{n_q} \sum_{p \in d, d \in r_i} rrf(q_i, p_i) \ \hat{p_i}
\end{align*}
We compute the relevance score between query and candidate document with the dot-product between the aggregated embedding of query $\hat{q}$ and candidate document $\hat{d}$.
To confirm the viability of VRFF aggregation, we propose simple baselines: \textbf{VRanks} and \textbf{VScores}, where the paragraph embeddings $\hat{p_i}$ of $d$ are aggregated with the rank or the score of the passage $p_i$ as weight.
\subsection{Training strategies}
\label{chap:methodparalevelvsdoc}
As we have a limited amount of labelled target data, we examine how to effectively train a DPR model for PARM with the training collections at hand. We assume that we have test collections consisting of documents with clearly identifiable paragraphs, with relevance assessments on either the paragraph or the document-level.\newline
\emph{Paragraph-level training.}
For the paragraph-level labelled training we take the relevant paragraphs in the training set as positives and sample random negatives from the paragraphs in the corpus. Here we sample as many negatives as we have positive samples for each query paragraph, thereby balancing the training data.\newline
\emph{Document-level training.}
For the document-level labelled training the collection contains query documents and a corpus of documents with relevance assessments for each query document. We sample negative documents randomly from the corpus.
In order to use the document-level labelled collection for training the DPR model, we split up the query document as well as the positive documents into its paragraphs and consider each paragraph of the query document relevant to each paragraph of each positive document. Equivalently we consider each paragraph of a negative document irrelevant to each query paragraph.
As on average each document in the COLIEE dataset \cite{colieesummary} contains $42.44$ paragraphs, one relevant document leads to $42 \cdot 20=840$ paragraph-level labels containing one positive and one negative sample to a query paragraph. Therefore this method greatly increases the number of paragraph-level annotations, however this comes with the risk of potentially noisy labels \suzan{\cite{akkalyoncu2019}}.
\section{Experiment Design}
\subsection{Training and test collections}
\label{sec:data}
We focus on the document-to-document task of legal case retrieval because of the importance for the legal domain \cite{Locke2018caselaw,Locke2017automatic,thuircoliee,bertpli} which facilitates the availability of training collections with relevance annotations on the paragraph and the document-level \cite{colieesummary}. For training the DPR models, we introduce paragraph and document-level labelled collections. For the evaluation we use the document-level collections.\newline
\emph{Paragraph-level labelled collections.} COLIEE \cite{colieesummary} is a competition for legal information extraction and retrieval which provides datasets for legal case retrieval and case entailment.
\suzan{Task 2 of} COLIEE 2020 \cite{colieesummary} \suzan{provides} a training and test collection for legal case entailment. It contains relevance labels on the legal case paragraph level, given a query claim, a set of
\suzan{candidate claims} to the query claim as well as relevance labels for the candidate claims. We denote these sets with \emph{COLIEEPara train/test}.\newline
\emph{Document-level labelled collections.} \suzan{In Task 1 of} COLIEE 2021 \cite{colieesummary}, the legal case retrieval task, query cases with their relevance judgements on the document-level are provided together with a corpus of candidate documents.
We divide the training set of COLIEEDoc into a training and validation set. The validation set contains the last $100$ queries of the training set from query case $550$ to $650$. We will denote the training, validation and test collection with \emph{COLIEEDoc train/val/test}.
For a broader evaluation, we evaluate our models additionally on the CaseLaw collection \cite{Locke2017automatic}. It contains a corpus of legal cases, query cases and their relevance judgements for legal case retrieval.
~\\
\emph{Data pre-processing.} For COLIEEDoc, we remove the French versions of the cases, we divide the cases into an introductory part, a summary, if it contains one, and its claims, which are indicated by their numbering. As indicated in Table \ref{tab:datasetstat}, the paragraphs have an average length of $84$ words and $96.2\%$ of the paragraphs are not longer than $512$ words.
The CaseLaw dataset is split along the line breaks of the text and merged to paragraphs by concatenating sentences until the paragraphs exceed the length of $200$ words.
\subsection{Baselines}
As baseline we use the lexical retrieval model BM25 \cite{bm25}.
For BM25 we use ElasticSearch\footnote{\url{https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch}} with parameters $k=1.3$ and $b=0.8$, which we optimized on COLIEEDocval.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Statistics of paragraph- and document-level labelled collections.}
\label{tab:datasetstat}
\setlength\tabcolsep{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{lllcccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Labels}} &
\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Train/}}
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Statistics}}\\
&&\textbf{Test}& \small{\# queries} & \small{$\varnothing$ \# docs} & \small{$\varnothing$ \# rel} & \small{$\varnothing$ para} &\% para $<$& \small{$\varnothing$ \# para} \\
&&&&& \small{docs} &\small{length} &$512$ words& \\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multirow{2}{*}{Para} &
\multirow{1}{*}{COLIEEPara} & Train&325&32.12&1.12 &102&95.5\%&-\\
&\multirow{1}{*}{COLIEEPara}& Test&100&32.19&1.02&117&95.2\%&-\\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\multirow{3}{*}{Doc} &
\multirow{1}{*}{COLIEEDoc} & Train&650&4415&5.17&84&96.2\%&44.6 \\
&\multirow{1}{*}{COLIEEDoc}& Test&250&4415&3.60&92&97.8\%&47.5\\
&\multirow{1}{*}{CaseLaw} & Test &100&63431&7.2&219&91.3\%&7.5 \\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
\emph{VRRF aggregation for PARM (RQ1).}
In order to investigate the retrieval effectiveness of our proposed aggregation strategy VRFF for PARM, we compare VRRF to the commonly used score-based aggregation strategy CombSum \cite{Shaw94combinationof} and rank-based aggregation strategy of reciprocal rank fusion (RRF) \cite{rrf} for PARM.
As baselines for vector-based aggregation, we investigate VSum, VMin, VMax, VAvg, which are originally proposed by Li et al. \cite{li2020parade} for re-ranking on a passage-to-document retrieval task.
In order to use VSum, VMin, VMax, VAvg in the context of PARM, we aggregate independently the embeddings of both, the query and the candidate document. In contrast to Li et al. \cite{li2020parade} we aggregate the query and paragraph embeddings independently and score the relevance between aggregated query and aggregated candidate embedding after aggregation. The learned aggregation methods of CNN and Transformer proposed by Liu et al. \cite{li2020parade} are therefore not applicable to PARM, as they learn a classification on the embedding of the concatenated query and paragraph.\newline
\emph{PARM VRRF for dense document-to-document retrieval (RQ2).}
In order to investigate the retrieval effectiveness of PARM with VRRF for dense document-to-document retrieval, we compare PARM to document-level retrieval on two document-level collections (COLIEEDoc and CaseLaw). Because of the limited input length, the document-level retrieval either reduces to retrieval based on the First Passage (FirstP) or the passage of the document with the maximum score (MaxP) \cite{akkalyoncu-yilmaz-etal-2019-applying,Zhang2021ComparingSA}. In order to separate the impact of PARM for lexical and dense retrieval methods, we also use PARM with BM25 as baseline. For PARM with BM25 we also investigate which aggregation strategy leads to the highest retrieval effectiveness in order to have a strong baseline. As BM25 does not provide dense embeddings only rank-based aggregation strategies are applicable.\newline
\emph{Paragraph and document-level labelled training (RQ3).}
We train a DPR model on a paragraph- and another document-level labelled collection and compare the retrieval performance of PARM for document-to-document retrieval. As bi-encoders for DPR we choose BERT \cite{bert} and LegalBERT \cite{chalkidis-etal-2020-legalbert}.
We train DPR on the paragraph-level labelled collection COLIEEPara train and additionally on the document-level labelled collection COLIEEDoc train as described in Section \ref{chap:methodparalevelvsdoc}. We use the public code\footnote{\url{https://github.com/facebookresearch/DPR}} and train DPR according to Karpukhin et al. \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense}.
We sample the negative paragraphs randomly from randomly sampled negative documents and take the $20$ paragraphs of a positive document as positive samples, which have the highest BM25 score to the query paragraph. This training procedure lead to the highest recall compared to training with all positive paragraphs or with BM25 sampled negative paragraphs.
We also experimented with the DPR model pre-trained on open-domain QA as well as TAS-balanced DPR model \cite{hofstatter2021efficientlytas}, but initial experiments did not show a performance improvement.
We train each DPR model for $40$ epochs and take the best checkpoint according to COLIEEPara test/COLIEEDoc val. We use batch size of $22$ and a learning rate of $2*10^{-5}$, after comparing three commonly used learning rates ($2*10^{-5}$, $1*10^{-5}$, $5*10^{-6}$) for \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense}.
\section{Results and Analysis}
\label{chap:resultsandanalysis}
We evaluate the first stage retrieval performance with nDCG@10, recall@100, recall@500 and recall@1k using pytrec\textunderscore eval.
We focus our evaluation on recall
because the recall performance of the first stage retrieval bounds the ranking performance after re-ranking the results \suzan{in the second stage} for a higher precision. We do not compare our results to \suzan{the reported state-of-the-art results} as they rely on re-ranked results and do not \suzan{report} evaluation results after the first stage retrieval.
\subsection{RQ1: VRRF aggregation for PARM}
\label{sec:resultsaggregation}
As we propose vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF) for PARM, we first investigate:\newline (\textbf{RQ1}) \emph{How does VRRF compare to other aggregation strategies within PARM?}
~\\
We compare VRRF, which combines dense-vector-based aggregation with rank-based weighting, to score/rank-based and vector-based aggregation methods for PARM. The results in Table \ref{tab:aggregation} show that VRRF outperforms all rank and vector-based aggregation approaches for the dense retrieval results of DPR PARM with BERT and LegalBERT. For the lexical retrieval BM25 with PARM, only rank-based aggregation approaches are feasible, here RRF shows the best performance, which will be our baseline for RQ2.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{table*}
\small
\centering
\caption{Aggregation comparison for PARM on COLIEEval, VRRF shows best results for dense retrieval, stat. sig. difference to RRF w/ paired t-test (p$<$0.05) denoted with $\dagger$, Bonferroni correction with n$=$7. For BM25 only rank-based methods applicable.}
\label{tab:aggregation}
\begin{tabular}{l!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}ccc!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}ccc!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}ccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Aggregation}} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{BM25}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{DPR BERT}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{DPR LegalBERT}}\\
& \small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} & \small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} & \small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\textbf{Rank-based}} \\
CombSum \cite{Shaw94combinationof} &.5236&.7854&.8695 &.4460&.7642&.8594 & .5176& .7975& .8882\\
RRF \cite{rrf} &\textbf{.5796}&\textbf{.8234}& \textbf{.8963}&.5011&.8029&.8804& \textbf{.5830}&.8373&.9049 \\
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\midrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\textbf{Vector-based}} \\
VAvg \cite{li2020parade}&-&-&-&$.1908^{\dagger}$&$.4668^{\dagger}$&$.6419^{\dagger}$&$.2864^{\dagger}$&$.4009^{\dagger}$&$.7466^{\dagger}$ \\
VMax \cite{li2020parade}&-&-&-&$.3675^{\dagger}$&$.6992^{\dagger}$&$.8273^{\dagger}$&$.4071^{\dagger}$&$.6587^{\dagger}$&$.8418^{\dagger}$ \\
VMin \cite{li2020parade}&-&-&-&$.3868^{\dagger}$&$.6869^{\dagger}$&$.8295^{\dagger}$&$.4154^{\dagger}$&$.6423^{\dagger}$&$.8465^{\dagger}$ \\
VSum \cite{li2020parade}&-&-&-&.4807&$.7496^{\dagger}$&.8742&$.5182^{\dagger}$&$.8069$&$.8882$ \\
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\midrule
\multicolumn{10}{l}{\textbf{Vector-based with rank-based weights (Ours)}} \\
VScores &-&-&-&.4841&$.7616^{\dagger}$&.8709&$.5195^{\dagger}$&$.8075^{\dagger}$&$.8882^{\dagger}$ \\
VRanks &-&-&-&.4826&$.7700^{\dagger}$&$.8804$&$.5691^{\dagger}$&$.8212$&$.8980$ \\
VRRF &-&-&-&\textbf{.5035}&$\textbf{.8062}^{\dagger}$&$\textbf{.8806}$&$\textbf{.5830}^{\dagger}$&$\textbf{.8386}^{\dagger}$&$\textbf{.9091}^{\dagger}$ \\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Doc-to-doc retrieval results for PARM and Document-level retrieval. No comparison to \suzan{results reported in prior work} as those rely on re-ranking, \suzan{while we evaluate} only first stage retrieval evaluation. \textit{nDCG cutoff at 10, stat. sig. difference to BM25 Doc w/ paired t-test (p $<$ 0.05) denoted with $\dagger$ and Bonferroni correction with n$=$12, effect size $>$0.2 denoted with $\ddagger$.}}
\label{tab:rq23}
\begin{tabular}{ll!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}llll!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}llll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Model}}
& \textbf{Retrieval}&
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{COLIEEDoc test}} &\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{CaseLaw}}\\
&& \small{nDCG} & \small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} & \small{nDCG}&\small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{BM25}} \\
\multirow{2}{*}{BM25} & Doc & \textbf{.2435} &.6231&.7815&.8426
&\textbf{.2653} &.4218&.5058&.5438\\
& PARM RRF& $.1641^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.6497}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8409^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8944^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0588^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3362^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5716^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6378^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multicolumn{9}{l}{\textbf{DPR}} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{BERT para} & Doc FirstP & $.0427^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3000^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5371^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6598^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.0287^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0871^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1658^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2300^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& Doc MaxP& $.0134^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1246^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5134^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6201^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0000^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0050^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4813^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4832^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM RRF &$.0934^{\dagger\ddagger}$& $.5765^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8153^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8897^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0046^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1720^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5019^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5563^{\dagger}$\\
& PARM VRRF &$.0952^{\dagger\ddagger}$& $.5786^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8132^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8909^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1754^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3855^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5328^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5742^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multirow{4}{*}{LegalBERT para} & Doc FirstP &$.0553^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2447^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4598^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5657^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0397^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0870^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1844^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2248^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& Doc MaxP &$.0073^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0737^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3970^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5670^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0000^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0050^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4846^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4858^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM RRF &$.1280^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6370$&$.8308^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8997^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0177^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2595^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5446^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6040^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM VRRF &$.1280^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6396$&$.8310^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.9023^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0113^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.4986}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5736^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6340^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multirow{4}{*}{LegalBERT doc} & Doc FirstP &$.0682^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3881^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6187^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.7361^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0061^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0050^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4833^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4866^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& Doc MaxP &$.0008^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0302^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2069^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2534^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0022^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0050^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4800^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4833^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM RRF &$.1248^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6086^{\dagger}$&$.8394^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.9114^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0117^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2277^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5637^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6265^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM VRRF &$.1256^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6127^{\dagger}$&$\textbf{.8426}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.9128}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2284^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4620^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.5847}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.6402}^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\newpage
\subsection{RQ2: PARM VRRF vs Document-level retrieval}
As we propose PARM VRRF for document-to-document retrieval, we investigate:\newline
(\textbf{RQ2}) \emph{How effective is PARM with VRRF for document-to-document retrieval?}
~\\
We evaluate and compare PARM and document-level retrieval for lexical and dense retrieval methods on the two test collections (COLIEEDoc and CaseLaw) for document-to-document retrieval in Table \ref{tab:rq23}.
For BM25 we find that PARM-based retrieval outperforms document-level retrieval at each recall stage, except for R@100 on CaseLaw.
For dense retrieval we evaluate DPR models with BERT trained solely on the paragraph-level labels and with LegalBERT trained on the paragraph-level labels (denoted with LegalBERT para) and with additional training on the document-level labels (denoted with LegalBERT doc). For dense document-to-document retrieval PARM consistently outperforms document-level retrieval for all performance metrics for both test collections. Furthermore PARM aggregation with VRRF outperforms PARM RRF in nearly all cases. Overall we find that LegalBERTdoc-based dense retrieval with PARM VRRF achieves the highest recall at high ranks.
When comparing the nDCG@10 evaluation we find that PARM lowers the nDCG@10 score for BM25 as well as for dense retrieval. Therefore we suggest that PARM is beneficial for first stage retrieval, so that in the re-ranking stage the overall ranking can be improved.
In Figure \ref{fig:evalparmretrieval} we \suzan{show} the recall at different cut-off values for PARM-VRRF with DPR (based on LegalBERTdoc) and PARM-RRRF with BM25 compared to document-level retrieval (Doc FirstP) of BM25/DPR. When comparing PARM to document-retrieval, we can see a clear gap between the performance of document-level retrieval and PARM for BM25 and for DPR. Furthermore we see that dense retrieval (PARM-VRRF DPR) outperforms lexical retrieval (PARM-RRF BM25) at cut-off values above $500$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{0.52\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{pictures/dpr_bm25_test_dpr_parm_all16.png}
\caption{Recall at different cut-off values for PARM-VRRF (DPR) and PARM-RRF (BM25) and Document-level retrieval with BM25 and DPR for COLIEEDoc test.}
\label{fig:evalparmretrieval}
\end{minipage
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.46\textwidth}
\centering
\label{tab:howmanyrel}
\begin{tabular}{l!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}cc!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}cc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{COLIEEDoc}}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{CaseLaw}}\\
& \small{BM25} & \small{DPR} & \small{BM25} & \small{DPR} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Total}} \\
relevant & 900 &900&720&720\\
PARM & 892 &896&578&545\\
Doc & 751 &662&419&199\\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Sets}} \\
PARM $\cap$ Doc & 750 &661&417&196\\
PARM\textbackslash Doc &142&235&161&349\\
Doc\textbackslash PARM &1&1&2&3\\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of relevant documents retrieved in comparison between PARM and Doc-level retrieval for COLIEEDoc and CaseLaw with BM25 or LegalBERT\textunderscore doc-based DPR.}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In order to analyze the differences \suzan{between} PARM and document-level retrieval further, we analyze in Figure
, how many relevant documents are retrieved with PARM or with document-level retrieval with lexical (BM25) or dense methods (DPR). Furthermore we investigate how many relevant documents are retrieved by both PARM and document-level retrieval (PARM $\cap$ Doc), and how many relevant documents are retrieved only with PARM and not with document-level retrieval (PARM\textbackslash Doc) and vice versa (Doc\textbackslash PARM).
When comparing the performance of PARM and document-level retrieval, we find that PARM retrieves more relevant documents in total for both test collections.
PARM retrieves $142-380$ of the relevant documents that did not get retrieved with document-level retrieval (PARM\textbackslash Doc), which are $15-52\%$ of the total number of relevant documents. This analysis demonstrates that PARM \suzan{largely} retrieves many of relevant documents that are not retrieved with document-level retrieval.
We conclude that PARM is not only beneficial for dense but also for lexical retrieval.
\subsection{RQ3: Paragraph-level vs Document-level Labelled Training}
\label{sec:resultsrq1}
As labelled in-domain data for document-to-document retrieval tasks is limited, we ask: (\textbf{RQ3}) \emph{How can we train dense passage retrieval models for PARM for document-to-document retrieval most effectively?} We compare the retrieval performance for BERT-based and LegalBERT-based dense retrieval models in Table \ref{tab:rq1}, which are either trained solely on the paragraph-level labelled collection or additionally trained on the document-level labelled collection. The \suzan{upper part of the table shows} that for BERT the additional training data on document-level improves the retrieval performance for document-level retrieval, but harms the performance for PARM RRF and PARM VRRF. For LegalBERT the additional document-level training data highly improves the performance of document-retrieval. For PARM the recall is improved at higher cut-off values ($@500$, $@1000$) for a cut-off.
Therefore we consider the training on document-level labelled data beneficial for dense retrieval based on LegalBERT.
This reveals that it is not always better to have more, potentially noisy data, for BERT-based dense retrieval the training with fewer, but accurate paragraph-level labels is more beneficial for overall document-to-document retrieval with PARM.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Paragraph- and document-level labelled training of DPR. Document-level labelled training improves performance at high ranks for LegalBERT.}
\label{tab:rq1}
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ll!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}l!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}rrrrr}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Model}}
&
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Retrieval}} &
\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Train}} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{COLIEEDoc val}}\\
&&\textbf{Labels} & \small{R@100} & \small{R@200} & \small{R@300} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} \\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{DPR Retrieval}} \\
\multirow{6}{*}{BERT} & Doc FirstP& para& .3000& .4018&.4566&.5371&.6598 \\
& Doc FirstP& + doc & .3800&.4641&.5160 &.6054 &.7211\\
& PARM RRF& para & .5765&.6879&.7455&.8153&.8897\\
& PARM RRF& + doc&.5208&.6502 &.7100 &.7726 &.8660 \\
& PARM VRRF& para&.5786&.6868&.7505&.8132&.8909 \\
& PARM VRRF& + doc&.5581&.6696&.7298&.7970&.8768\\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{LegalBERT} & Doc FirstP& para& .2447&.3286&.3853 &.4598 &.5657 \\
& Doc FirstP& + doc& .3881&.4665&.5373&.6187&.7361 \\
& PARM RRF& para&.6350&.7323&.7834&.8308&.8997\\
& PARM RRF& + doc&.6086&.7164&.7561&.8394&.9114 \\
& PARM VRRF& para&\textbf{.6396}&\textbf{.7325}&\textbf{.7864}&.8310&.9023 \\
& PARM VRRF& + doc&.6098&.7152&.7520&\textbf{.8396}&\textbf{.9128}\\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Analysis of paragraph relations}
With our proposed paragraph aggregation retrieval model for dense document-to-document retrieval we can analyze on which paragraphs the document-level relevance is based.
To gain more insight in what the dense retrieval model learned to retrieve on the paragraph-level with PARM, we analyze which query paragraph retrieves which paragraphs from relevant documents with dense retrieval with PARM and compare it to lexical retrieval with PARM. In Figure \ref{fig:heatmapdpr}, a heatmap visualizes which query paragraph how often retrieves which paragraph from a relevant document with PARM BM25 or PARM DPR on the COLIEEDoc test set.
As introduced in Section \ref{sec:data}, the legal cases in COLIEEDoc contain an introduction, a summary and claims as paragraphs. For the introduction (I) and the summary (S) we see the paragraph relation for lexical and dense retrieval that both methods retrieve also more introductions and summaries from the relevant documents. We reason this is due to the special structure of the introduction and the summary which is distinct to the claims. For the query paragraphs 1.-10. we see that PARM DPR seems to focus on to the diagonal different to PARM BM25. This means for example that the first paragraph retrieves more first paragraphs from relevant documents than they retrieve other paragraphs. As the claim numbers are removed in the data pre-processing, this focus relies on the textual content of the claims. This paragraph relation suggests that there is a topical or hierarchical structure in the claims of legal cases, which is learned by DPR and exhibited with PARM. This structural component can not be exhibited with document-level retrieval.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{pictures/heatmap_sep_para_5.png}
\end{minipage
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{pictures/heatmap_sep_para_final.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Heatmap for PARM retrieval with BM25 or DPR visualizing which query paragraph how often retrieves which paragraph from a relevant document. I denotes the introduction, S the summary, 1.-10. denote the claims 1.-10. of COLIEEDoc test.}
\label{fig:heatmapdpr}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we address the challenges of using dense passage retrieval (DPR) in first stage retrieval for document-to-document tasks with limited labelled data.
We propose the paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM), which liberates dense passage retrieval models from their limited input length and which takes the paragraph-level relevance for document retrieval into account. We demonstrate on two test collections higher first stage recall for dense document-to-document retrieval with PARM \suzan{than with document-level retrieval}. We also show that dense retrieval with PARM outperforms lexical retrieval \suzan{with BM25} in terms of recall at higher cut-off values. As part of PARM we propose the novel vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRFF), which combines the advantages of rank-based aggregation with RRF \cite{rrf} and topical aggregation with dense embeddings. We demonstrate the highest retrieval effectiveness for PARM with VRRF aggregation compared to rank and vector-based aggregation baselines.
Furthermore we investigate how to train dense retrieval models for dense document-to-document retrieval with PARM.
We find the interesting result that training DPR models on more, but noisy document-level data does not always lead to overall higher retrieval performance compared to training on less, but more accurate paragraph-level labelled data.
Finally, we analyze how PARM retrieves relevant paragraphs and find that the dense retrieval model learns a structural paragraph relation which it exhibits with PARM and therefore benefits the retrieval effectiveness.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by EU Horizon 2020 ITN/ETN on Domain Specific Systems for Information Extraction and Retrieval(ID:860721).
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
\section{Introduction}
Dense passage retrieval (DPR) models brought substantial effectiveness gains to information retrieval (IR) tasks in the web domain \cite{Gao2020,karpukhin-etal-2020-dense,xiong2021approximate}. The promise of DPR models is to boost the recall of first stage retrieval by leveraging the semantic information for retrieval as opposed to traditional retrieval models \cite{bm25}, which rely on lexical matching.
The web domain is a setting with query-to-passage or query-to-document retrieval tasks and a large amount of training data\suzan{, while training data is much more limited in other domains}. Furthermore we see recent advances in neural retrieval remain neglected for document-to-document retrieval despite the task's importance in several, mainly professional, domains \cite{Locke2017automatic,florinapatent,colieesummary,risch2020patentmatch}.
\suzan{In this paper} we investigate \suzan{the effectiveness of dense retrieval models for} document-to-document tasks\suzan{, in particular} legal case retrieval. We focus on first stage retrieval with dense models and therefore aim for a high recall.
The first challenge for DPR models in document-to-document retrieval tasks is the input length of the query documents and of the documents in the corpus. In legal case retrieval the cases tend to be long documents \cite{legalrelevance} with an average length of $1269$ words in the COLIEE case law corpus \cite{colieesummary}. However the input length of DPR models is limited to $512$ tokens \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} and theoretically bound of how much information of a long text can be compressed into a single vector \cite{luan2020sparse}.
Furthermore we reason in accordance with the literature \cite{passagelevelfordocretrieval,bertpli,passagelevelfordoc,passagelevelinfluence} that relevance between two documents is not only determined by the complete text of the documents, but that a candidate document can be relevant to a query document based on one paragraph that is relevant to one paragraph of the query document.
In the web domain DPR models are trained on up to $500k$ training samples \cite{msmarco16}, whereas in most domain-specific \suzan{collections}
only a limited amount of hundreds of labelled samples is available \cite{fireaila2,treclegal,colieesummary}.
In this paper we address these challenges by proposing a \textbf{paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM)} for dense document-to-document retrieval.
PARM liberates dense passage retrieval models from their limited input length without increasing the computational cost. Furthermore PARM gives insight on which paragraphs the document-level relevance is based, which is beneficial for understanding and explaining the retrieved results.
With PARM the documents are retrieved on the paragraph-level: the query document and the documents in the corpus are split up into their paragraphs and for each query paragraph a ranked list of relevant documents based on their paragraphs is retrieved. The ranked lists of documents per query paragraph need to be aggregated into one ranked list for the whole query document. As PARM provides the dense vectors of each paragraph, we propose \textbf{vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF)} for PARM. VRRF combines the merits of rank-based aggregation \cite{rrf,garciasecodeherrera2014comparing} with semantic aggregation with dense embeddings. We investigate:
\textbf{RQ1} \emph{How does VRRF compare to other aggregation strategies within PARM?}
We find that our proposed aggregation strategy of VRRF for PARM leads to the highest retrieval effectiveness in terms of recall compared to rank-based \cite{rrf,Shaw94combinationof} and vector-based aggregation baselines \cite{li2020parade}.
Furthermore we investigate:
\textbf{RQ2} \emph{How effective is PARM with VRRF for document-to-document retrieval?}
We compare PARM with VRRF to document-level retrieval for lexical and dense retrieval methods on two different test collections for the document-to-document task of legal case retrieval.
We demonstrate that PARM consistently improves the first stage retrieval recall for dense document-to-document retrieval.
Furthermore, dense document-to-document retrieval with PARM and VRRF aggregation outperforms lexical retrieval methods in terms of recall at higher cut-off values.
The success of DPR relies on the size of labelled training data. As we have a limited amount of labelled data as well as paragraph and document-level labels we investigate:
\textbf{RQ3} \emph{How can we train dense passage retrieval models for PARM for document-to-document retrieval most effectively?}
For training DPR for PARM we compare training with relevance labels on the paragraph or document-level. We find that despite the larger size of document-level labelled datasets, the additional training data is not always beneficial compared to training DPR on smaller, but more accurate paragraph-level samples.
Our contributions are:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a \textbf{paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM)} for dense document-to-document retrieval and demonstrate higher retrieval effectiveness for dense retrieval with PARM compared to retrieval without PARM and to lexical retrieval with PARM.
\item We propose \textbf{vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF)} for dense retrieval with PARM and find that VRRF leads to the highest recall for PARM compared to other aggregation strategies.
\item We investigate training DPR for PARM and compare the impact of fewer, more accurate paragraph-level labels to more, potentially noisy document-level labels.
\item We publish the code at \url{https://github.com/sophiaalthammer/parm}
\end{itemize}
\section{Related work}
\emph{Dense passage retrieval.} Improving the first stage retrieval with DPR models is a rapidly growing area in neural \suzan{IR}, mostly focusing on \suzan{the web domain}.
Karpukhin et al. \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} propose dense passage retrieval for open-domain QA using BERT models as bi-encoder for the query and the passage. With ANCE, \suzan{Xiong et al.} \cite{xiong2021approximate} train a DPR model for open-domain QA with sampling negatives from the continuously updated index. Efficiently training DPR models with distillation \cite{hofstatter2021improving} and balanced topic aware sampling \cite{hofstatter2021efficientlytas} has demonstrated to improve the retrieval effectiveness.
As opposed to this prior work, we move from dense passage to dense document-to-document retrieval and propose PARM to use dense retrieval for document-to-document tasks.
\emph{Document retrieval.}
The passage level influence for retrieval of documents has been analyzed in multiple works \cite{passagelevelfordocretrieval,passageretrieavllm,passagelevelfordoc,passagelevelinfluence} and shown to be beneficial, but in these works the focus lies on passage-to-document retrieval. Cohan et al. \cite{cohan-etal-2020-specter} present document-level representation learning strategies for ranking, however the input length remains bounded by $512$ tokens and only title and abstract of the document are considered. Abolghasemi et al. \cite{aminecir2022coliee} present multi-task learning for document-to-document retrieval. Liu et al. \cite{smith} propose similar document matching for documents up to a length of $2048$ however here the input length is still bounded and the computational cost of training and using the model is increased.
Different to this prior work, the input length of PARM is not bounded without increasing the computational complexity of the retrieval.
\emph{Aggregation strategies.} Aggregating results from different ranked lists has a long history in IR. Shaw et al. \cite{combmnz,Shaw94combinationof} investigate the combination of multiple result lists by summing the scores. Different rank aggregation strategies like Condorcet \cite{condorcet} or Borda count \cite{borda} are proposed, however it is demonstrated \cite{rrf,comparingscoreaggregation} that reciprocal rank fusion outperforms them.
Ai et al. \cite{neuralpassagemodel} propose a neural passage model for scoring passages for a passage-to-document retrieval task.
Multiple works \cite{akkalyoncu-yilmaz-etal-2019-applying,akkalyoncu-yilmaz-etal-2019-crossdomain,daicallmsmarcodoc,Zhang2021ComparingSA} propose score aggregation for re-ranking with BERT on a passage-to-document task ranging from taking the first passage of a document to the passage of the document with the highest score.
Different to rank/score-based aggregation approaches, Li et al. \cite{li2020parade} propose vector-based aggregation for re-ranking for a passage-to-document task. Different to our approach they concatenate query and passage and learn a representation for binary classification of the relevance score.
The focus of score/rank aggregation is mainly on federated search or passage-to-document tasks, however we focus on document-to-document retrieval. We have not seen a generalization of aggregation strategies for the query and candidate paragraphs for document-to-document retrieval yet. Different to previous work, we propose to combine rank and vector-based aggregation methods for aggregating the representation of query and candidate documents independently.
\section{Paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM)}
\label{chap:methodparagraphlevelret}
In this section we propose PARM as well as the aggregation strategy VRRF for PARM for dense document-to-document retrieval and training strategies.
\subsection{Workflow}
\begin{figure*}[b]
\centering
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-20pt}
\includegraphics[width=124mm,scale=1.0]{pictures/aggregation_more_simple8.pdf}
\caption{PARM workflow for query document $q$ and retrieved documents $d_1,..,d_7$}
\label{fig:paragraphlevelretrieval}
\end{figure*}
We use the DPR model \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} based on BERT \cite{bert} bi-encoders, \suzan{of which} one encodes the query passage $q$, the other one the candidate passage $p$.
After storing the encoded candidate passages $\hat{p}$ in the index, the relevance score between a query $q$ and a candidate passage $p$ is computed by the dot-product between the encoded query passage $\hat{q}$ and $\hat{p}$.
As the input length of BERT \cite{bert} is limited to $512$ tokens, the input length for the query and the candidate passage for DPR \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} is also limited by that. The length of query and candidate documents for document-to-document tasks exceeds this input length. For example the average length of a document is $1296$ words for the legal case retrieval collection COLIEE \cite{colieesummary}. We reason that for document-to-document tasks a single paragraph or multiple paragraphs can be decisive for the relevance of a document to another one \cite{passagelevelfordocretrieval,passageretrieavllm,passagelevelfordoc,passagelevelinfluence} and that different paragraphs contain different topics of a document. Therefore we propose a \textbf{paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM)}, in order to use DPR models for dense document-to-document retrieval. PARM retrieves relevant documents based on the paragraph-level relevance.
The workflow of PARM is visualized in Fig. \ref{fig:paragraphlevelretrieval}. For the documents in the corpus we
split each document $d$ into paragraphs $p_1, .., p_{m_d}$ with $m_d$ the number of paragraphs of document $d$. We take the paragraphs of the document as passages for DPR. We index each paragraph $p_j$, $j \in 1, .., m_d$ of each document $d$ in the corpus and attain a paragraph-level index containing the encoded paragraphs $\hat{p}_j$ for all documents $d$ in the corpus. At query time, the query document $q$ is also split up into paragraphs $q_1, ..., q_{n_q}$, where $n_q$ is the number of paragraphs of $q$. For each query paragraph $q_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ the top $N$ most relevant paragraphs are retrieved from the paragraph-level corpus.
The result is a ranked list $r_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ per query paragraph $q_i$ with $N$ relevant paragraphs. The \suzan{paragraphs} in the ranked lists $r_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ are replaced by the documents that contain the paragraphs.
Therefore it is possible that one document occurs multiple times in the list. In order to attain one ranked list for the whole query document $q$, the ranked \suzan{paragraph} lists of retrieved documents $r_1, ..., r_{n_q}$ of each query paragraph $q_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ need to be aggregated to one ranked list.
\subsection{Vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF)}
\label{chap:methodaggregation}
Multiple works have demonstrated the benefit of reciprocal rank fusion \cite{rrf,garciasecodeherrera2014comparing,comparerrf} for rank-based aggregation of multiple ranked retrieved lists. Using dense retrieval with PARM we have more information than the ranks and scores of the retrieved paragraphs: we have dense embeddings, which encode the semantic meaning of the paragraphs, for each query paragraph and the retrieved paragraphs. In order to make use of this additional information for aggregation, we propose \textbf{vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF)}, which extends reciprocal rank fusion for neural retrieval. VRRF combines the advantages of reciprocal rank fusion with relevance signals of semantic aggregation using the dense vector embeddings.
In \textbf{VRRF} we aggregate documents using the dense embeddings $\hat{p_i}$ of the passages $p_i$, which are from the same document $d$ and which are in the retrieved list $r_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$, with a weighted sum, taking the reciprocal rank fusion score \cite{rrf} as weight. The dense embeddings $\hat{q_i}$ of each query paragraph $q_i$ with $i \in 1, .., n_q$ are aggregated by adding the embeddings without a weighting:
\begin{align*}
\hat{q} = \sum_{i=1}^{n_q} \hat{q_i} && \hat{d} = \sum_{i=1}^{n_q} \sum_{p \in d, d \in r_i} rrf(q_i, p_i) \ \hat{p_i}
\end{align*}
We compute the relevance score between query and candidate document with the dot-product between the aggregated embedding of query $\hat{q}$ and candidate document $\hat{d}$.
To confirm the viability of VRFF aggregation, we propose simple baselines: \textbf{VRanks} and \textbf{VScores}, where the paragraph embeddings $\hat{p_i}$ of $d$ are aggregated with the rank or the score of the passage $p_i$ as weight.
\subsection{Training strategies}
\label{chap:methodparalevelvsdoc}
As we have a limited amount of labelled target data, we examine how to effectively train a DPR model for PARM with the training collections at hand. We assume that we have test collections consisting of documents with clearly identifiable paragraphs, with relevance assessments on either the paragraph or the document-level.\newline
\emph{Paragraph-level training.}
For the paragraph-level labelled training we take the relevant paragraphs in the training set as positives and sample random negatives from the paragraphs in the corpus. Here we sample as many negatives as we have positive samples for each query paragraph, thereby balancing the training data.\newline
\emph{Document-level training.}
For the document-level labelled training the collection contains query documents and a corpus of documents with relevance assessments for each query document. We sample negative documents randomly from the corpus.
In order to use the document-level labelled collection for training the DPR model, we split up the query document as well as the positive documents into its paragraphs and consider each paragraph of the query document relevant to each paragraph of each positive document. Equivalently we consider each paragraph of a negative document irrelevant to each query paragraph.
As on average each document in the COLIEE dataset \cite{colieesummary} contains $42.44$ paragraphs, one relevant document leads to $42 \cdot 20=840$ paragraph-level labels containing one positive and one negative sample to a query paragraph. Therefore this method greatly increases the number of paragraph-level annotations, however this comes with the risk of potentially noisy labels \suzan{\cite{akkalyoncu2019}}.
\section{Experiment Design}
\subsection{Training and test collections}
\label{sec:data}
We focus on the document-to-document task of legal case retrieval because of the importance for the legal domain \cite{Locke2018caselaw,Locke2017automatic,thuircoliee,bertpli} which facilitates the availability of training collections with relevance annotations on the paragraph and the document-level \cite{colieesummary}. For training the DPR models, we introduce paragraph and document-level labelled collections. For the evaluation we use the document-level collections.\newline
\emph{Paragraph-level labelled collections.} COLIEE \cite{colieesummary} is a competition for legal information extraction and retrieval which provides datasets for legal case retrieval and case entailment.
\suzan{Task 2 of} COLIEE 2020 \cite{colieesummary} \suzan{provides} a training and test collection for legal case entailment. It contains relevance labels on the legal case paragraph level, given a query claim, a set of
\suzan{candidate claims} to the query claim as well as relevance labels for the candidate claims. We denote these sets with \emph{COLIEEPara train/test}.\newline
\emph{Document-level labelled collections.} \suzan{In Task 1 of} COLIEE 2021 \cite{colieesummary}, the legal case retrieval task, query cases with their relevance judgements on the document-level are provided together with a corpus of candidate documents.
We divide the training set of COLIEEDoc into a training and validation set. The validation set contains the last $100$ queries of the training set from query case $550$ to $650$. We will denote the training, validation and test collection with \emph{COLIEEDoc train/val/test}.
For a broader evaluation, we evaluate our models additionally on the CaseLaw collection \cite{Locke2017automatic}. It contains a corpus of legal cases, query cases and their relevance judgements for legal case retrieval.
~\\
\emph{Data pre-processing.} For COLIEEDoc, we remove the French versions of the cases, we divide the cases into an introductory part, a summary, if it contains one, and its claims, which are indicated by their numbering. As indicated in Table \ref{tab:datasetstat}, the paragraphs have an average length of $84$ words and $96.2\%$ of the paragraphs are not longer than $512$ words.
The CaseLaw dataset is split along the line breaks of the text and merged to paragraphs by concatenating sentences until the paragraphs exceed the length of $200$ words.
\subsection{Baselines}
As baseline we use the lexical retrieval model BM25 \cite{bm25}.
For BM25 we use ElasticSearch\footnote{\url{https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch}} with parameters $k=1.3$ and $b=0.8$, which we optimized on COLIEEDocval.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Statistics of paragraph- and document-level labelled collections.}
\label{tab:datasetstat}
\setlength\tabcolsep{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{lllcccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Labels}} &
\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Train/}}
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Statistics}}\\
&&\textbf{Test}& \small{\# queries} & \small{$\varnothing$ \# docs} & \small{$\varnothing$ \# rel} & \small{$\varnothing$ para} &\% para $<$& \small{$\varnothing$ \# para} \\
&&&&& \small{docs} &\small{length} &$512$ words& \\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multirow{2}{*}{Para} &
\multirow{1}{*}{COLIEEPara} & Train&325&32.12&1.12 &102&95.5\%&-\\
&\multirow{1}{*}{COLIEEPara}& Test&100&32.19&1.02&117&95.2\%&-\\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\multirow{3}{*}{Doc} &
\multirow{1}{*}{COLIEEDoc} & Train&650&4415&5.17&84&96.2\%&44.6 \\
&\multirow{1}{*}{COLIEEDoc}& Test&250&4415&3.60&92&97.8\%&47.5\\
&\multirow{1}{*}{CaseLaw} & Test &100&63431&7.2&219&91.3\%&7.5 \\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
\emph{VRRF aggregation for PARM (RQ1).}
In order to investigate the retrieval effectiveness of our proposed aggregation strategy VRFF for PARM, we compare VRRF to the commonly used score-based aggregation strategy CombSum \cite{Shaw94combinationof} and rank-based aggregation strategy of reciprocal rank fusion (RRF) \cite{rrf} for PARM.
As baselines for vector-based aggregation, we investigate VSum, VMin, VMax, VAvg, which are originally proposed by Li et al. \cite{li2020parade} for re-ranking on a passage-to-document retrieval task.
In order to use VSum, VMin, VMax, VAvg in the context of PARM, we aggregate independently the embeddings of both, the query and the candidate document. In contrast to Li et al. \cite{li2020parade} we aggregate the query and paragraph embeddings independently and score the relevance between aggregated query and aggregated candidate embedding after aggregation. The learned aggregation methods of CNN and Transformer proposed by Liu et al. \cite{li2020parade} are therefore not applicable to PARM, as they learn a classification on the embedding of the concatenated query and paragraph.\newline
\emph{PARM VRRF for dense document-to-document retrieval (RQ2).}
In order to investigate the retrieval effectiveness of PARM with VRRF for dense document-to-document retrieval, we compare PARM to document-level retrieval on two document-level collections (COLIEEDoc and CaseLaw). Because of the limited input length, the document-level retrieval either reduces to retrieval based on the First Passage (FirstP) or the passage of the document with the maximum score (MaxP) \cite{akkalyoncu-yilmaz-etal-2019-applying,Zhang2021ComparingSA}. In order to separate the impact of PARM for lexical and dense retrieval methods, we also use PARM with BM25 as baseline. For PARM with BM25 we also investigate which aggregation strategy leads to the highest retrieval effectiveness in order to have a strong baseline. As BM25 does not provide dense embeddings only rank-based aggregation strategies are applicable.\newline
\emph{Paragraph and document-level labelled training (RQ3).}
We train a DPR model on a paragraph- and another document-level labelled collection and compare the retrieval performance of PARM for document-to-document retrieval. As bi-encoders for DPR we choose BERT \cite{bert} and LegalBERT \cite{chalkidis-etal-2020-legalbert}.
We train DPR on the paragraph-level labelled collection COLIEEPara train and additionally on the document-level labelled collection COLIEEDoc train as described in Section \ref{chap:methodparalevelvsdoc}. We use the public code\footnote{\url{https://github.com/facebookresearch/DPR}} and train DPR according to Karpukhin et al. \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense}.
We sample the negative paragraphs randomly from randomly sampled negative documents and take the $20$ paragraphs of a positive document as positive samples, which have the highest BM25 score to the query paragraph. This training procedure lead to the highest recall compared to training with all positive paragraphs or with BM25 sampled negative paragraphs.
We also experimented with the DPR model pre-trained on open-domain QA as well as TAS-balanced DPR model \cite{hofstatter2021efficientlytas}, but initial experiments did not show a performance improvement.
We train each DPR model for $40$ epochs and take the best checkpoint according to COLIEEPara test/COLIEEDoc val. We use batch size of $22$ and a learning rate of $2*10^{-5}$, after comparing three commonly used learning rates ($2*10^{-5}$, $1*10^{-5}$, $5*10^{-6}$) for \cite{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense}.
\section{Results and Analysis}
\label{chap:resultsandanalysis}
We evaluate the first stage retrieval performance with nDCG@10, recall@100, recall@500 and recall@1k using pytrec\textunderscore eval.
We focus our evaluation on recall
because the recall performance of the first stage retrieval bounds the ranking performance after re-ranking the results \suzan{in the second stage} for a higher precision. We do not compare our results to \suzan{the reported state-of-the-art results} as they rely on re-ranked results and do not \suzan{report} evaluation results after the first stage retrieval.
\subsection{RQ1: VRRF aggregation for PARM}
\label{sec:resultsaggregation}
As we propose vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRRF) for PARM, we first investigate:\newline (\textbf{RQ1}) \emph{How does VRRF compare to other aggregation strategies within PARM?}
~\\
We compare VRRF, which combines dense-vector-based aggregation with rank-based weighting, to score/rank-based and vector-based aggregation methods for PARM. The results in Table \ref{tab:aggregation} show that VRRF outperforms all rank and vector-based aggregation approaches for the dense retrieval results of DPR PARM with BERT and LegalBERT. For the lexical retrieval BM25 with PARM, only rank-based aggregation approaches are feasible, here RRF shows the best performance, which will be our baseline for RQ2.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{table*}
\small
\centering
\caption{Aggregation comparison for PARM on COLIEEval, VRRF shows best results for dense retrieval, stat. sig. difference to RRF w/ paired t-test (p$<$0.05) denoted with $\dagger$, Bonferroni correction with n$=$7. For BM25 only rank-based methods applicable.}
\label{tab:aggregation}
\begin{tabular}{l!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}ccc!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}ccc!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}ccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Aggregation}} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{BM25}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{DPR BERT}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{DPR LegalBERT}}\\
& \small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} & \small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} & \small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\textbf{Rank-based}} \\
CombSum \cite{Shaw94combinationof} &.5236&.7854&.8695 &.4460&.7642&.8594 & .5176& .7975& .8882\\
RRF \cite{rrf} &\textbf{.5796}&\textbf{.8234}& \textbf{.8963}&.5011&.8029&.8804& \textbf{.5830}&.8373&.9049 \\
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\midrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\textbf{Vector-based}} \\
VAvg \cite{li2020parade}&-&-&-&$.1908^{\dagger}$&$.4668^{\dagger}$&$.6419^{\dagger}$&$.2864^{\dagger}$&$.4009^{\dagger}$&$.7466^{\dagger}$ \\
VMax \cite{li2020parade}&-&-&-&$.3675^{\dagger}$&$.6992^{\dagger}$&$.8273^{\dagger}$&$.4071^{\dagger}$&$.6587^{\dagger}$&$.8418^{\dagger}$ \\
VMin \cite{li2020parade}&-&-&-&$.3868^{\dagger}$&$.6869^{\dagger}$&$.8295^{\dagger}$&$.4154^{\dagger}$&$.6423^{\dagger}$&$.8465^{\dagger}$ \\
VSum \cite{li2020parade}&-&-&-&.4807&$.7496^{\dagger}$&.8742&$.5182^{\dagger}$&$.8069$&$.8882$ \\
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\midrule
\multicolumn{10}{l}{\textbf{Vector-based with rank-based weights (Ours)}} \\
VScores &-&-&-&.4841&$.7616^{\dagger}$&.8709&$.5195^{\dagger}$&$.8075^{\dagger}$&$.8882^{\dagger}$ \\
VRanks &-&-&-&.4826&$.7700^{\dagger}$&$.8804$&$.5691^{\dagger}$&$.8212$&$.8980$ \\
VRRF &-&-&-&\textbf{.5035}&$\textbf{.8062}^{\dagger}$&$\textbf{.8806}$&$\textbf{.5830}^{\dagger}$&$\textbf{.8386}^{\dagger}$&$\textbf{.9091}^{\dagger}$ \\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Doc-to-doc retrieval results for PARM and Document-level retrieval. No comparison to \suzan{results reported in prior work} as those rely on re-ranking, \suzan{while we evaluate} only first stage retrieval evaluation. \textit{nDCG cutoff at 10, stat. sig. difference to BM25 Doc w/ paired t-test (p $<$ 0.05) denoted with $\dagger$ and Bonferroni correction with n$=$12, effect size $>$0.2 denoted with $\ddagger$.}}
\label{tab:rq23}
\begin{tabular}{ll!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}llll!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}llll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Model}}
& \textbf{Retrieval}&
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{COLIEEDoc test}} &\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{CaseLaw}}\\
&& \small{nDCG} & \small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} & \small{nDCG}&\small{R@100} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{BM25}} \\
\multirow{2}{*}{BM25} & Doc & \textbf{.2435} &.6231&.7815&.8426
&\textbf{.2653} &.4218&.5058&.5438\\
& PARM RRF& $.1641^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.6497}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8409^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8944^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0588^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3362^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5716^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6378^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multicolumn{9}{l}{\textbf{DPR}} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{BERT para} & Doc FirstP & $.0427^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3000^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5371^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6598^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.0287^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0871^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1658^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2300^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& Doc MaxP& $.0134^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1246^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5134^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6201^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0000^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0050^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4813^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4832^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM RRF &$.0934^{\dagger\ddagger}$& $.5765^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8153^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8897^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0046^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1720^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5019^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5563^{\dagger}$\\
& PARM VRRF &$.0952^{\dagger\ddagger}$& $.5786^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8132^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8909^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1754^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3855^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5328^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5742^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multirow{4}{*}{LegalBERT para} & Doc FirstP &$.0553^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2447^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4598^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5657^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0397^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0870^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.1844^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2248^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& Doc MaxP &$.0073^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0737^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3970^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5670^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0000^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0050^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4846^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4858^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM RRF &$.1280^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6370$&$.8308^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.8997^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0177^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2595^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5446^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6040^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM VRRF &$.1280^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6396$&$.8310^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.9023^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0113^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.4986}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5736^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6340^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multirow{4}{*}{LegalBERT doc} & Doc FirstP &$.0682^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.3881^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6187^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.7361^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0061^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0050^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4833^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4866^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& Doc MaxP &$.0008^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0302^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2069^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2534^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0022^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0050^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4800^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4833^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM RRF &$.1248^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6086^{\dagger}$&$.8394^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.9114^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.0117^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2277^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.5637^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.6265^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
& PARM VRRF &$.1256^{\dagger\ddagger}$ &$.6127^{\dagger}$&$\textbf{.8426}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.9128}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.2284^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$.4620^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.5847}^{\dagger\ddagger}$&$\textbf{.6402}^{\dagger\ddagger}$\\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\newpage
\subsection{RQ2: PARM VRRF vs Document-level retrieval}
As we propose PARM VRRF for document-to-document retrieval, we investigate:\newline
(\textbf{RQ2}) \emph{How effective is PARM with VRRF for document-to-document retrieval?}
~\\
We evaluate and compare PARM and document-level retrieval for lexical and dense retrieval methods on the two test collections (COLIEEDoc and CaseLaw) for document-to-document retrieval in Table \ref{tab:rq23}.
For BM25 we find that PARM-based retrieval outperforms document-level retrieval at each recall stage, except for R@100 on CaseLaw.
For dense retrieval we evaluate DPR models with BERT trained solely on the paragraph-level labels and with LegalBERT trained on the paragraph-level labels (denoted with LegalBERT para) and with additional training on the document-level labels (denoted with LegalBERT doc). For dense document-to-document retrieval PARM consistently outperforms document-level retrieval for all performance metrics for both test collections. Furthermore PARM aggregation with VRRF outperforms PARM RRF in nearly all cases. Overall we find that LegalBERTdoc-based dense retrieval with PARM VRRF achieves the highest recall at high ranks.
When comparing the nDCG@10 evaluation we find that PARM lowers the nDCG@10 score for BM25 as well as for dense retrieval. Therefore we suggest that PARM is beneficial for first stage retrieval, so that in the re-ranking stage the overall ranking can be improved.
In Figure \ref{fig:evalparmretrieval} we \suzan{show} the recall at different cut-off values for PARM-VRRF with DPR (based on LegalBERTdoc) and PARM-RRRF with BM25 compared to document-level retrieval (Doc FirstP) of BM25/DPR. When comparing PARM to document-retrieval, we can see a clear gap between the performance of document-level retrieval and PARM for BM25 and for DPR. Furthermore we see that dense retrieval (PARM-VRRF DPR) outperforms lexical retrieval (PARM-RRF BM25) at cut-off values above $500$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{0.52\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{pictures/dpr_bm25_test_dpr_parm_all16.png}
\caption{Recall at different cut-off values for PARM-VRRF (DPR) and PARM-RRF (BM25) and Document-level retrieval with BM25 and DPR for COLIEEDoc test.}
\label{fig:evalparmretrieval}
\end{minipage
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.46\textwidth}
\centering
\label{tab:howmanyrel}
\begin{tabular}{l!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}cc!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}cc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{COLIEEDoc}}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{CaseLaw}}\\
& \small{BM25} & \small{DPR} & \small{BM25} & \small{DPR} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Total}} \\
relevant & 900 &900&720&720\\
PARM & 892 &896&578&545\\
Doc & 751 &662&419&199\\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Sets}} \\
PARM $\cap$ Doc & 750 &661&417&196\\
PARM\textbackslash Doc &142&235&161&349\\
Doc\textbackslash PARM &1&1&2&3\\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of relevant documents retrieved in comparison between PARM and Doc-level retrieval for COLIEEDoc and CaseLaw with BM25 or LegalBERT\textunderscore doc-based DPR.}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In order to analyze the differences \suzan{between} PARM and document-level retrieval further, we analyze in Figure
, how many relevant documents are retrieved with PARM or with document-level retrieval with lexical (BM25) or dense methods (DPR). Furthermore we investigate how many relevant documents are retrieved by both PARM and document-level retrieval (PARM $\cap$ Doc), and how many relevant documents are retrieved only with PARM and not with document-level retrieval (PARM\textbackslash Doc) and vice versa (Doc\textbackslash PARM).
When comparing the performance of PARM and document-level retrieval, we find that PARM retrieves more relevant documents in total for both test collections.
PARM retrieves $142-380$ of the relevant documents that did not get retrieved with document-level retrieval (PARM\textbackslash Doc), which are $15-52\%$ of the total number of relevant documents. This analysis demonstrates that PARM \suzan{largely} retrieves many of relevant documents that are not retrieved with document-level retrieval.
We conclude that PARM is not only beneficial for dense but also for lexical retrieval.
\subsection{RQ3: Paragraph-level vs Document-level Labelled Training}
\label{sec:resultsrq1}
As labelled in-domain data for document-to-document retrieval tasks is limited, we ask: (\textbf{RQ3}) \emph{How can we train dense passage retrieval models for PARM for document-to-document retrieval most effectively?} We compare the retrieval performance for BERT-based and LegalBERT-based dense retrieval models in Table \ref{tab:rq1}, which are either trained solely on the paragraph-level labelled collection or additionally trained on the document-level labelled collection. The \suzan{upper part of the table shows} that for BERT the additional training data on document-level improves the retrieval performance for document-level retrieval, but harms the performance for PARM RRF and PARM VRRF. For LegalBERT the additional document-level training data highly improves the performance of document-retrieval. For PARM the recall is improved at higher cut-off values ($@500$, $@1000$) for a cut-off.
Therefore we consider the training on document-level labelled data beneficial for dense retrieval based on LegalBERT.
This reveals that it is not always better to have more, potentially noisy data, for BERT-based dense retrieval the training with fewer, but accurate paragraph-level labels is more beneficial for overall document-to-document retrieval with PARM.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Paragraph- and document-level labelled training of DPR. Document-level labelled training improves performance at high ranks for LegalBERT.}
\label{tab:rq1}
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ll!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}l!{\color{lightgray}\vrule}rrrrr}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Model}}
&
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Retrieval}} &
\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Train}} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{COLIEEDoc val}}\\
&&\textbf{Labels} & \small{R@100} & \small{R@200} & \small{R@300} & \small{R@500} & \small{R@1K} \\
\midrule
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{DPR Retrieval}} \\
\multirow{6}{*}{BERT} & Doc FirstP& para& .3000& .4018&.4566&.5371&.6598 \\
& Doc FirstP& + doc & .3800&.4641&.5160 &.6054 &.7211\\
& PARM RRF& para & .5765&.6879&.7455&.8153&.8897\\
& PARM RRF& + doc&.5208&.6502 &.7100 &.7726 &.8660 \\
& PARM VRRF& para&.5786&.6868&.7505&.8132&.8909 \\
& PARM VRRF& + doc&.5581&.6696&.7298&.7970&.8768\\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{LegalBERT} & Doc FirstP& para& .2447&.3286&.3853 &.4598 &.5657 \\
& Doc FirstP& + doc& .3881&.4665&.5373&.6187&.7361 \\
& PARM RRF& para&.6350&.7323&.7834&.8308&.8997\\
& PARM RRF& + doc&.6086&.7164&.7561&.8394&.9114 \\
& PARM VRRF& para&\textbf{.6396}&\textbf{.7325}&\textbf{.7864}&.8310&.9023 \\
& PARM VRRF& + doc&.6098&.7152&.7520&\textbf{.8396}&\textbf{.9128}\\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Analysis of paragraph relations}
With our proposed paragraph aggregation retrieval model for dense document-to-document retrieval we can analyze on which paragraphs the document-level relevance is based.
To gain more insight in what the dense retrieval model learned to retrieve on the paragraph-level with PARM, we analyze which query paragraph retrieves which paragraphs from relevant documents with dense retrieval with PARM and compare it to lexical retrieval with PARM. In Figure \ref{fig:heatmapdpr}, a heatmap visualizes which query paragraph how often retrieves which paragraph from a relevant document with PARM BM25 or PARM DPR on the COLIEEDoc test set.
As introduced in Section \ref{sec:data}, the legal cases in COLIEEDoc contain an introduction, a summary and claims as paragraphs. For the introduction (I) and the summary (S) we see the paragraph relation for lexical and dense retrieval that both methods retrieve also more introductions and summaries from the relevant documents. We reason this is due to the special structure of the introduction and the summary which is distinct to the claims. For the query paragraphs 1.-10. we see that PARM DPR seems to focus on to the diagonal different to PARM BM25. This means for example that the first paragraph retrieves more first paragraphs from relevant documents than they retrieve other paragraphs. As the claim numbers are removed in the data pre-processing, this focus relies on the textual content of the claims. This paragraph relation suggests that there is a topical or hierarchical structure in the claims of legal cases, which is learned by DPR and exhibited with PARM. This structural component can not be exhibited with document-level retrieval.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{pictures/heatmap_sep_para_5.png}
\end{minipage
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{pictures/heatmap_sep_para_final.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Heatmap for PARM retrieval with BM25 or DPR visualizing which query paragraph how often retrieves which paragraph from a relevant document. I denotes the introduction, S the summary, 1.-10. denote the claims 1.-10. of COLIEEDoc test.}
\label{fig:heatmapdpr}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we address the challenges of using dense passage retrieval (DPR) in first stage retrieval for document-to-document tasks with limited labelled data.
We propose the paragraph aggregation retrieval model (PARM), which liberates dense passage retrieval models from their limited input length and which takes the paragraph-level relevance for document retrieval into account. We demonstrate on two test collections higher first stage recall for dense document-to-document retrieval with PARM \suzan{than with document-level retrieval}. We also show that dense retrieval with PARM outperforms lexical retrieval \suzan{with BM25} in terms of recall at higher cut-off values. As part of PARM we propose the novel vector-based aggregation with reciprocal rank fusion weighting (VRFF), which combines the advantages of rank-based aggregation with RRF \cite{rrf} and topical aggregation with dense embeddings. We demonstrate the highest retrieval effectiveness for PARM with VRRF aggregation compared to rank and vector-based aggregation baselines.
Furthermore we investigate how to train dense retrieval models for dense document-to-document retrieval with PARM.
We find the interesting result that training DPR models on more, but noisy document-level data does not always lead to overall higher retrieval performance compared to training on less, but more accurate paragraph-level labelled data.
Finally, we analyze how PARM retrieves relevant paragraphs and find that the dense retrieval model learns a structural paragraph relation which it exhibits with PARM and therefore benefits the retrieval effectiveness.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by EU Horizon 2020 ITN/ETN on Domain Specific Systems for Information Extraction and Retrieval(ID:860721).
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
|
\section{Introduction}
Coulomb-actuated microbeams play a crucial role in many \gls{MEMS} applications \cite{Senturia.2002, Leondes.2006, Hsu.2008}. They enable actuation using electrostatic forces and capacitive sensing, give rise to pioneering applications in medicine\cite{Saliterman.2006}, communications\cite{Lucyszyn.2004, Li.2018}, sensing\cite{Leondes.2006, Coppa.2007}, and consumer products\cite{S.Finkbeiner.2013, Zou.2014, Verdot.2016, Shahosseini.2013, Kaiser.}.
To meet the needs of recent developments, such as 5G Internet of Things (5G-IoT) \cite{Li.2018}, augmented reality \cite{Kim.2009}, and Green ICT (information and communications technology) \cite{Bianzino.2010, Worthington.2017}, a system level consideration of a high number of electro-mechanical components is necessary. This is only possible, if accurate and highly efficient lumped parameter models of the components are available.
\begin{comment}
\textcolor{gray}{
Coulomb-actuated microbeams are beams of microscopic dimensions deformed by the application of electrostatic forces.
Besides membranes they are among the most important components used for capacitive actuation and sensing in \gls{MEMS} \cite{Senturia.2002, Leondes.2006, Hsu.2008}.
Recent advances in \gls{MEMS} modelling and design enabled pioneering devices for
medical applications (Bio-\gls{MEMS}) \cite{Saliterman.2006},
communication systems (Radio-Frequency-MEMS, RFMEMS) \cite{Lucyszyn.2004},
environmental sensing \cite{Leondes.2006},
and consumer products \cite{S.Finkbeiner.2013}. Prominent examples are micro-resonators \cite{Tilmans.1994, Shao.2008, J.L.Lopez.2008}, micro-pumps \cite{Uhlig.2018, Nguyen.2002},
accelerometers \cite{Wu.2004, Zou.2014},
gyroscopes \cite{Xie.2003, Alper.2007},
\gls{CMUT} \cite{Ergun.2005, Coppa.2007},
microphones \cite{Verdot.2016, Czarny.2015} and micro-loudspeakers \cite{Shahosseini.2013, Kaiser.}.
Global trends such as the 5G Internet of Things (5G-IoT) \cite{Li.2018}, augmented reality \cite{Kim.2009}, and Green ICT (information and communications technology) \cite{Bianzino.2010, Worthington.2017} drive a system complexity, that can only be handeled by introducing lumped-parameter modelling at the \gls{MEMS} level; an ab-inito approach seems not practical. This requires a deep understanding of the electromechanics of the \gls{MEMS} components involved.
}
\end{comment}
In this paper we systematically derive a single degree of freedom lumped-parameter model (LPM), describing the physics of prismatic clamped-clamped Coulomb actuated micro-beams with high precision as compared to FEM simulations and in line with experimental findings.
In a previous publication, Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021} demonstrated that the stable and unstable states of prismatic Coulomb actuated Euler-Bernoulli micro-beams, clamped at both ends, can be successfully simulated combining FEM with arc-length solvers. The resulting model predictions were experimentally scrutinised by combining direct optical observations with a modal analysis regarding Euler-Bernoulli eigenmodes. Both approaches revealed convincing evidence for an almost perfect congruence of the respective bending profile and the shape of the lowest Euler-Bernoulli eigenmode (the zero-mode).
It was shown that this is true for the entire applicable voltage range within very small error margins. The observation suggests the possibility to model the physics of such a micro-beam by means of a lumped parameter model involving only a single degree of freedom, amenable to direct physical interpretation.
Studies analytically deriving lumped parameter models, e. g. Nayfeh, Younis, and Rahman
\cite{Younis.2002, EihabMAbdelRahman.2002, M.I.Younis.2003, M.I.Younis.2003b, Nayfeh.2005, Nayfeh.2007, Younis.2011}
typically begin with the non-linear Euler-Bernoulli beam equation for the bending profile $w(\xi,\tau)$. In its dimensionless form used by Nayfeh \textit{et al.} \cite{Nayfeh.2007} this equation reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:full_beam1}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial \tau^2} + c \frac{\partial w}{\partial \tau} + \frac{\partial^4 w}{\partial \xi^4}
=\\
&= ( \gamma[w] + N) \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial \xi^2} + \alpha_2 \frac{v(\tau)^2}{(1-w)^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here $\xi$ and $\tau$ are the dimensionless beam coordinate and the dimensionless time. The dynamic damping coefficient is denoted by $c$. The geometry dependent parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:LPM} below. $N$ is an dimensionless axial stress and $v(\tau)$ is the dimensionless drive voltage. The beam is assumed to be clamped at $\xi=-\frac{1}{2}$ and at $\xi=+\frac{1}{2}$, where the usual clamped-clamped boundary conditions Supplementary Eq.~(S7) apply. The non-local functional $\gamma[w]$ models the stress stiffening of the clamped-clamped beam,
\begin{equation}
\gamma[w] = \alpha_1 \int_{- \frac{1}{2}}^{+ \frac{1}{2}} \left( \frac{\partial w}{\partial \xi} \right)^2 \mathrm{d}\xi \ .
\end{equation}
Nayfeh \textit{et al.} expand the bending profile with respect to a complete ortho-normal Hilbert space base $\psi_{n}(\xi)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eigenmode_expansion}
w(\xi,\tau) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\ \hat{w}_{n}(\tau) \ \psi_{n}(\xi) \ .
\end{equation}
Upon insertion into Eq.~\eqref{eq:full_beam1}, the partial differential equation Eq.~\eqref{eq:full_beam1} is converted into an infinite set of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations of the form \cite{Younis.2002, EihabMAbdelRahman.2002, M.I.Younis.2003, M.I.Younis.2003b, Nayfeh.2005, Nayfeh.2007, Younis.2011}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:modal_ODEs}
\frac{\partial^2 \hat{w}_{n}}{\partial \tau^2} + c \frac{\partial \hat{w}_{n}}{\partial \tau} + \sum_{m=0}^{m=\infty} k_{n,m}[w] \ \hat{w}_{m}
= \alpha_2 v^2 F_n[\tau,w].
\end{equation}
Unlike Nayfeh \textit{et al.}, we select ${\{ \lambda_n, \psi_n(\xi)}\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ to be the Euler-Bernoulli eigen system and can therefore be a little more specific,
\begin{equation}
k_{n,m}[w] = \lambda_n \delta_{n,m} + (\gamma [w] + N )\, \chi_{n,m} \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\chi_{n,m} = \int_{- \frac{1}{2}}^{+ \frac{1}{2}}
\frac{\partial\psi_{n}}{\partial\xi}
\frac{\partial\psi_{m}}{\partial\xi}
\mathrm{d}\xi\ .
\end{equation}
The challenge with this approach however is that the resulting stiffness matrix $k_{n,m}[w]$ and the force components $F_{n}[\tau,w]$ are rather intricate, non-linear, singular and time dependent functionals of the entire infinite set of the coefficient functions $ \lbrace \hat{w}_{n}(\tau) \rbrace_{n\in \mathbb{N}} $ :
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
k_{n,m}[w] &= k_{n,m}[ \hat{w}_{0}(\tau), ..., \hat{w}_{n}(\tau), ...], \\
\\
F_n[\tau,w] &= F_n[\tau, \hat{w}_{0}(\tau), ..., \hat{w}_{n}(\tau), ...].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This circumstance makes it in general very challenging to obtain any elucidating results from Eq.~\eqref{eq:modal_ODEs}.
As can be see from literature, the complexity of the functionals $k_{n,m}[w]$ and $F_n[\tau,w]$ leads to a tedious computational task, even after introducing well considered simplifications, e.g. see Younis \textit{et al.} \cite{M.I.Younis.2003b}.
The resulting computations seem neither more attractive than direct numerical methods, nor is the need for the number of degrees of freedom, required to obtain satisfactory accuracy, amenable to direct physical interpretation. In fact the number of modes required in Nayfeh's \textit{et al.} approach turns out to be an artefact, essentially reflecting their comparatively straight forward attempt to technically cope with the singular nature of the Coulomb force, as we will see.
The picture substantially changes however with the observation of Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021} that the lowest Euler-Bernoulli eigenmode $\psi_0(\xi)$ is by far dominating the physics of Coulomb actuated prismatic clamped-clamped micro-beams in practical applications.
This observation implies that the use of higher modes in a LPM for a prismatic Euler-Bernoulli beam is hardly justified, unless higher kinetic energies are involved. Due to the large spectral distance, typically a multiple of the elastic energy corresponding to the considered deflection of the zero-mode is required for significant effects involving higher modes.
The observation of Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021} essentially allows to reduce the Eq.~\eqref{eq:eigenmode_expansion} to the single term
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zero_mode_ansatz}
\begin{aligned}
w(\xi,\tau) &\approx z(\tau) \ \frac{\psi_{0}(\xi)}{\psi_{0}(0)}, \quad 0 \le z(\tau) \le 1 \ , \\
\psi_0(\xi) &=
\frac{\cosh(\beta_0 \xi)}{\cosh(\beta_0/2)}
-\frac{\cos(\beta_0 \xi)}{\cos(\beta_0/2)} \ .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here $\beta_0$ is the smallest solution to the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beta_definition}
0 = \tanh (\beta/2) + \tan(\beta /2) \ .
\end{equation}
In zero-mode approximation Eq.~\eqref{eq:modal_ODEs} simplifies to the quite handy form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:basic_LPM}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau^2} z + c \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} z
+ k_0 \, z + \kappa \, z^3 \,
= u^2 f_0(z) \ , \\
\end{equation}
The parameters $\kappa$, $k_0$ and u are defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\kappa &= \alpha_1 \left( \frac{\chi_0}{\psi_0(0)} \right)^2 , \\
k_0 &=\lambda_0 + N \chi_0 \quad , \quad
u = \psi_0(0) \sqrt{\alpha_2} \, v \, , \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chi0}
\chi_0 = \int_{- \frac{1}{2}}^{+ \frac{1}{2}}
\left(\frac{\partial\psi_{0}}{\partial\xi}\right)^2
\mathrm{d}\xi
\end{equation}
and the force term is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Coulomb_f0_def}
f_0(z) = \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{+ \frac{1}{2}}
\frac
{\frac{\psi_0(\xi)}{\psi_0(0)}}
{\left( 1 - z \, \frac{\psi_0(\xi)}{\psi_0(0)} \right) ^2
} \, \mathrm{d}\xi \ .\\
\end{equation}
The remaining key challenge, and the prime topic of this paper, is of course evaluating the Coulomb integral $f_0(z)$. This requires a non-pertubative treatment of the Coulomb singularity. The ad-hoc approach of Younis \textit{et al.} \cite{M.I.Younis.2003b} essentially creates an artificial need for higher modes and therefore enforces dealing with a coupled system of non-linear ordinary differential equations (ODE). This is far from satisfactory.
It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate, in contrast, that the physics of a Coulomb actuated prismatic Euler-Bernoulli is contained in the single ODE Eq.~\eqref{eq:basic_LPM} to an extend sufficient for most practical purposes in MEMS technology. To this end we devise a non-pertubative strategy of dealing with the Coulomb integral, based on a Chebyshev-Edgeworth type expansion\cite{Tchebycheff.1890, Edgeworth.1905}. As a result we arrive at a highly accurate analytical expression for $f_0(z)$. Finally, the application of our zero-mode LPM Eq.~\eqref{eq:LPM} to the simulation results and experimental findings of Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021}, reveal a very good agreement
\section{Results}
\subsection{Chebyshev's argument}
Our evaluation the of integral $f_0[z]$ begins with the series representation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f0_In_series}
f_0(z) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} n \, I_n \, z^{n-1} \ ,
\end{equation}
where the integrals $I_n$ are defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:In_integral_1}
\begin{aligned}
I_n = \int_{- \frac{1}{2}}^{+ \frac{1}{2}} \left( \frac{\psi_{0}(\xi)}{\psi_{0}(0)} \right)^n \, \mathrm{d}\xi \ .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that because $\lvert I_n \rvert < 1$ we can infer by means of the Cauchy-Hadamard theorem that the series Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_In_series} is absolutely convergent in the open disc $\lvert z \rvert < 1$, as required for our purposes. The integrals $I_n$ can be cast into the form,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:In_integral_2}
I_n = \frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}}{\sigma \sqrt{n}} \int_{-\frac{1}{2}\sigma \sqrt{n}}^{+\frac{1}{2}\sigma \sqrt{n}} \Phi_n(\xi) \, \mathrm{d}\xi \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_n(\xi)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phi_n}
\begin{aligned}
\Phi_n(\xi) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
\left(
\frac{1}{\psi_0(0)}\psi_0
\left( \frac{\xi}{\sigma \sqrt{n}} \right)
\right)^n\ ,\\
\sigma^2 &= -\frac{\psi_0^{(2)}(0)}{\psi_0(0)} \, .\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Our strategy now is to evaluate the limiting function
$\Phi_\infty(\xi)$
of the sequence
$\{ \Phi_n(\xi) \}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} $
and subsequently to expand
$\Phi_n(\xi)$
around
$\mathit{n}=\infty$
with respect to
$\mathit{n}^{-1}$.
This allows us to explicitly perform the integration
Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_integral_2}.
As a result we can perform the summation
Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_In_series}.
This way we arrive at the targeted formula for
$f_0(z)$.
The crucial observation regarding the limiting function
$\Phi_\infty(\xi)$
is that the sequence
$\{\Phi_n(\xi)\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} $
uniformly converges to the shape of the Gauss bell curve,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normal_distribution}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \Phi_n(\xi) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp \left( -\frac{\xi^2}{2}\right) \, .
\end{equation}
This important fact is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:normal_distribution}. To motivate how this comes about, we remind the reader of Euler's elementary definition of the exponential function, presented here in a form suitable for our purposes,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \left( 1-\frac{\xi^2}{2 n} \right)^n =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp \left( -\frac{\xi^2}{2}\right).
\label{eq:elementary_exp}
\end{equation}
The quite perplexing idea that Eq.~\eqref{eq:elementary_exp} holds for a much broader class of functions, inserted into its left hand side, dates back to the ground breaking contributions of P.L.~Chebyshev to the field of analytical probability theory.\cite{Tchebycheff.1890} In fact Eq.~\eqref{eq:normal_distribution} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:elementary_exp} essentially are special case of the celebrated central limit theorem (CLT). The reader acquainted with the CLT is reminded, that the operations of multiplication and convolution in function space interchange their roles when subjected to a Fourier transformation. There is however no need to discuss the details of the proof of the CLT here: Luckily, our mechanical setting allows for a pedestrians approach to verify Eq.~\eqref{eq:normal_distribution}. \\
The proof starts with the observation that the normalized bending profile of a fully concentrated load (only the right hand side of the symmetric profile is given),
\begin{equation}
g(\xi) = (1-2\xi)^2 (1+4\xi) \quad , \quad 0 \le \xi \le \frac{1}{2}
\end{equation}
and the normalized bending profile of the fully distributed, i.e. constant load,
\begin{equation}
h(\xi) = \left( 1 - 4 \xi^2 \right)^2
\end{equation}
provide an upper and a lower bound for $\phi_n(\xi)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phi_bounds}
G_n(\xi) \ge \phi_n(\xi) \ge H_n(\xi) \ .
\end{equation}
Here $G_n(\xi)$ and $H_n(\xi)$ are defined analogously to Eq.~\eqref{eq:phi_n}, i.e. by replacing $g(\xi)$ and $h(\xi)$ respectively for $\psi_0(\xi)$ in that equation (also the respective $\sigma$ needs to be calculated),
%
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
G_n(\xi) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\left( 1-\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{6 n }} \right)^{2 n} \left( 1+\frac{2 \xi}{\sqrt{6 n }} \right)^n , \\
H_n(\xi) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\left( 1 - \frac{\xi ^2}{4 n}\right)^{2 n} .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The relation
Eq.~\eqref{eq:phi_bounds}
is easily verified by establishing the assertion for
$\mathit{n}=1$
first, and then using the positivity of the functions involved when raising to the
$\mathit{n}$-th
power. Note that the relation
Eq.~\eqref{eq:phi_bounds}
also is invariant under the scaling of the
$\xi$-axis,
required when progressing from
$\mathit{n}$ to $\mathit{n}+1$.
Computing the limiting function of the sequence
$\{\mathit{H}_\mathit{n}(\xi)\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} $
is a simple application of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:elementary_exp},
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} H_n(\xi)
&=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\left( 1- \frac{\xi^2}{4 n}\right)^{2n} \\
&=\lim_{m\to\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\left( 1- \frac{\xi^2}{2m}\right)^{m} \\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp \left( -\frac{\xi^2}{2}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Computing the limiting function of the sequence
$\{\mathit{G}_{\mathit{n}}(\xi)\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} $
is little more challenging,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} G_n(\xi) &=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\left( 1- \frac{\xi^2}{2n} + \frac{\xi^3}{3 \sqrt{6 n^3} } \right)^n \\
&=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \left( 1- \frac{\xi^2}{2n} \right)^n \left( 1 +O\left(\frac{1}{n} \right)^\frac{1}{2} \right)\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp \left( -\frac{\xi^2}{2}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Dini's theorem\cite{Forster.2017} asserts the uniformity of the convergence in both cases. Now since both, the upper and the lower bound of $\Phi_n(\xi)$ uniformly converge to the Gaussian, the same holds true for the sequence
$\{\Phi_n(\xi)\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} $
itself, establishing
Eq.~\eqref{eq:normal_distribution}. \\
Before ending this section, we would like to highlight that Chebyshev's general argument works in the domain of elasto-mechanics far beyond the simple case presented here and does not require any kind of symmetry. That is because Chebyshev essentially exploits the fact that Hermite polynomials form a complete base of the Hilbert space of functions over the reals, that are square integrable with respect to the measure defined by the Gauss bell curve.
\subsection{The Edgeworth expansion}
For the evaluation of the Coulomb integral $f_0(z)$ we need to know how exactly $\Phi_n(\xi)$ approaches Gauss' bell curve as n grows larger. The answer is provided by the famous Edgeworth expansion: Following the ideas of F.Y. Edgeworth, Eq.~\eqref{eq:normal_distribution} warrants the existence of an asymptotic expansion of the form\cite{Edgeworth.1905, Wallace.1958}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:edgeworth_expansion}
\Phi_n(\xi) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp\left( -\frac{\xi^2}{2}\right) \times
\left(
1
- \frac{c_1(\xi)}{n}
+ \frac{c_2(\xi)}{n^2}
+O\left(\frac{1}{n} \right)^3
\right).
\end{equation}
The explicit version of this asymptotic expansion, is obtained by expanding $\Phi_{\mathit{n}}(\xi)$ in a Taylor series at $\mathit{n}=\infty$ in powers of $\mathit{n}^{-1}$. The computation of the respective Taylor coefficients is enabled by the use of Eq.~\eqref{eq:normal_distribution} and of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Edgeworth_1st_power}
\sqrt{2\pi} \, \Phi_1(\xi)=
1
-\frac{\xi^2}{2}
+ \frac{\mu_4 \, \xi^4}{24}
- \frac{\mu_6 \, \xi^6}{720}
+ O(\xi)^8 \, .
\\
\end{equation}
Here we have introduced the following abbreviations related to the derivatives of order 2k,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:even_moments}
\mu_{2k} =
\frac{(-1)^k}{\sigma^{2k}} \frac{\psi_0^{(2k)}(0)}{\psi_0 (0)} \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:moments}
\mu_{4k}
= \mu_{4k+2}
= \left(
\frac
{\cosh(\beta_0 / 2)- \cos(\beta_0 / 2)}
{\cosh(\beta_0 / 2)+ \cos(\beta_0 / 2)}
\right)^{2k}\ .
\end{equation}
The sequence of integers appearing in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Edgeworth_1st_power} is the sequence of the non prime factorials; this jointly with Eq.~\eqref{eq:moments} implies that the expansion Eq.~\eqref{eq:Edgeworth_1st_power} is absolutely convergent within an infinite radius of convergence. Merten's theorem regarding Cauchy products\cite{Konigsberger.2001} therefore ensures that any integer power of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Edgeworth_1st_power}, required for the evaluation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:phi_n} exists, also possessing an infinite radius of convergence.
The first two coefficients of the Edgeworth expansion obtained following the route outlined here are,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:edgeworth_coefficients}
\begin{aligned}
c_1(\xi)&=\frac{-3 +\mu_4}{24} \, \xi^4 \, ,\\
c_2(\xi)&=\frac{(-3 +\mu_4)^2}{1152} \, \xi^8 \,
+\frac{-30 + 15\mu_4 - \mu_6}{720} \, \xi^6 .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Finally we would like to add that in the setting of analytical probability theory, the
$\Phi_1(\xi)$
plays the role of the characteristic function of a probability density and the
$\{\mu_\mathit{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$
are its respective moments. In our case, the Fourier transform of
$\Phi_1(\xi)$ ,
which should be a probability density, can adopt negative values. It only is asymptotically a non negative function. So the notions of analytical probability theory, strictly speaking, do not apply. However the line of arguments of Chebyshev and Edgeworth still hold under our somewhat weaker conditions, as we have explicitly shown above.
\subsection{Evaluating the Coulomb integral}
In this section we evaluate
Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_integral_2}
and perform the summation
Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_In_series}.
The last subtlety to cope with, are the finite boundaries of the integral
Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_integral_2}.
While it is perfectly possible to analytically perform the integration within these finite boundaries and expand the results in terms of
$\mathit{n}^{-1}$,
little is gained by this tedious exercise. Truncating the integrand at order
$\mathit{O}\left(\mathit{n} \right)^{-3}$
according to
Eq.~\eqref{eq:edgeworth_expansion}
and extending the integration boundaries of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_integral_2} to infinity generates an overall error, which is negligible for all practical purposes, as we will show in Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_error} below. Therefore we evaluate
Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_integral_2}
in the form,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:In_integral_3}
I_n = \frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}}{\sigma \sqrt{n}}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi_n(\xi) \, \mathrm{d}\xi \,
\pm \bar{\Delta}_n \ .
\end{equation}
Inserting
Eq.~\eqref{eq:edgeworth_expansion}
and
Eq.~\eqref{eq:edgeworth_coefficients}
into
Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_integral_3} yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Cby_In}
I_n = \frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}}{\sigma} \times \\
\left(
\frac{1}{n^\frac{1}{2}}
+ \frac{\mu_4 - 3}{8 \, n^{\frac{3}{2}}}
+ \frac{75 - 90\mu_4 + 35 \mu_4^2 - 8\mu_6 }{384 \, n^{\frac{5}{2}}} \right)\\
+ \Delta_n ,
\end{equation}
where the remainder
$\Delta_{\mathit{n}}$
in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Cby_In}
accounts for both simplifications mentioned above. An upper bound for $\Delta_{\mathit{n}}$ can easily be found upon noticing that the maximum remainder occurs for $\mathit{n}=2$.
Taylor's remainder theorem then asserts that according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:edgeworth_expansion}
and
Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_integral_3}
the remainder decays at least with the power
$\mathit{n}^{\frac{5}{2}}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:In_error}
0 < \Delta_n
\leq \Delta_2 \left( \frac{2}{n} \right)^{\frac{5}{2}}
< \frac{1}{1956 \; n^{\frac{5}{2}}}\, .
\end{equation}
The excellent accuracy of the expansion
Eq.~\eqref{eq:Cby_In}
for
$I_{\mathit{n}}$
is apparent from
Fig.~\ref{fig:Chebyshev_Edgeworth}a.
To compute the Coulomb integral $f_0(z)$, we need, last not least, to perform the summation according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_In_series}. The result is given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li}, which we will call the Chebyshev-Edgeworth projection of the Coulomb force,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
f_0(z) = \frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}}{\sigma} \frac{1}{z} \,
\left(
\mathrm{Li}_{-\frac{1}{2}}(z)
+ \frac{\mu_4 - 3}{8} \mathrm{Li}_{\frac{1}{2}}(z)
+ \frac{75 - 90\mu_4 + 35 \mu_4^2 - 8\mu_6 }{384} \mathrm{Li}_{\frac{3}{2}}(z)
\right)
+ \Delta_{f_0}(z) \, .
\label{eq:f0_Li}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li} the function $\mathrm{Li}_s(z)$ denotes Jonquière's poly-logarithm\cite{Jonquiere.1889}, defined for all $\left| z \right| < 1$ and for all $s\in \mathbb{C}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Li_definition}
\mathrm{Li}_s(z) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{z^n}{n^s} \, .
\end{equation}
Note the relation with Riemann's zeta function \cite{Riemann.1859} $\zeta(z)$ relevant to us,
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Li}_s (1) = \zeta(s)\, .
\end{equation}
Based on Eq.~\eqref{eq:In_error} and on Eq.~\eqref{eq:Li_definition} we can evaluate an upper bound for the remainder $\Delta_{f_0}(z)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f0_remainder}
\begin{aligned}
0 < \Delta_{f_0}(z)
&< \frac{1}{1956 \, z} \mathrm{Li}_{\frac{3}{2}}(z) \, \\
\frac{1}{1956 \, z} \mathrm{Li}_{\frac{3}{2}}(z)
&\leq \frac{1}{1956} \mathrm{Li}_{\frac{3}{2}}(1)
< \frac{1}{1236} . \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Fig.~\ref{fig:Chebyshev_Edgeworth}b shows that the Chebyshev-Edgeworth projection produces excellent results for the Coulomb integral Eq.~\eqref{eq:Coulomb_f0_def}. The underlying reason is that the Chebyshev-Edgeworth expansion maintains the exact singularity structure of the Coulomb integral. This does not hold true for the approach of Younis et al. \cite{M.I.Younis.2003b}.
\subsection{The singular structure of the Coulomb Integral}
The Chebyshev-Edgeworth projection formula Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li} may actually appear a bit awkward, from a practitioners point of view. In the sequel we will seek to improve this. The key information contained in Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li} is how exactly to deal with the Coulomb force: The zero-mode approximation is a projection of the beam equation Eq.~\eqref{eq:full_beam1} from the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space of all Euler-Bernoulli eigenmodes onto the one-dimensional subspace, spanned by the zero-mode $\psi_0(z)$ only. A priori, it is far from obvious what this means for the Coulomb force. Note that this kind of question arises in any type of Galerkin procedure applied to Eq.~\eqref{eq:full_beam1}. Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li} allows us to give the answer in case of the zero-mode approximation, leading to a more practical version of our projection formula.
The contact singularity of the Coulomb force obviously causes a singularity of the Coulomb integral $f_0(z)$ at $\mathit{z}=1$. The information about this singularity is entirely contained in the poly-logarithms $\mathrm{Li}_{-\frac{1}{2}}(z)$ and $\mathrm{Li}_{+\frac{1}{2}}(z)$; all poly-logarithms of larger index are regular,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Li_asymptotics}
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Li}_{-\frac{1}{2}}(z) \,\,
&=
\mathrm{Li}_{-\frac{1}{2}}(1)
+ \frac{ \sqrt{\pi}}{ 2 (1-z)^{\frac{3}{2}}}
- \frac{\sqrt{3\pi}}{8 (1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
+ O(1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}} \ , \\
\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{1}{2}}(z)\quad \,
& =
\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{1}{2}}(1)
+ \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{(1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
+ O(1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}} \ , \\
\mathrm{Li}_{n + \frac{1}{2}}(z)
&=
\mathrm{Li}_{n + \frac{1}{2}}(1)
+ O(1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}} \quad ,\quad 0 < n \in \mathbb{N} \,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This local analysis reveals that $f_0(z)$ as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Coulomb_f0_def} has the singular structure,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f0_singularity}
\begin{aligned}
f_0(z) &= \hat{f}_0(z) + O(1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}} \ , \\
\hat{f}_0(z) &= \mathit{a}
+ \frac{\mathit{b}}{(1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
+ \frac{\mathit{c}}{(1-z)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\ .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We now wish to find an algebraic approximation of the form $\hat{f}_0(z)$ to Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li} that is as accurate as possible over the entire range $0 \leq z \leq 1$. This means we give up a little bit of the achieved accuracy at the singularity, in exchange for a global approximation, that pointwise has a relative error small enough for all practical purposes. To this end we demand that $\mathit{a}$, $\mathit{b}$ and $\mathit{c}$ minimize the distance between $f_0(z)$ and its algebraic approximation $\hat{f}_0(z)$ with respect to a suitable norm in function space. The challenge here is the isolated singularity at $\mathit{z} = 1$. The associated lack of integrability can however be mended by introducing an apt non negative weight function $\mathit{r}(z)$. The weight function should be selected such that it has a zero of sufficiently high degree compensating the singularity. Having said this, we choose the coefficients $\mathit{a}$, $\mathit{b}$ and $\mathit{c}$ to minimize the functional
\begin{equation}\label{eq:S_functional}
\mathcal {S}_r (\mathit{a}, \mathit{b}, \mathit{c}) =
\int_0^1 \mathit{r}(z) \left (f_0(z) - \hat{f}_0(z) \right)^2 dz \, .
\end{equation}
A suitable $\mathit{r}(z)$ ensures the existence of this functional and of its Hessian as a positive definite matrix. Conceptually, an optimal weight function simultaneously minimizes the relative error. In practice, our simplistic choice, justified in arrears by Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_hat_error}, is
\begin{equation}
\mathit{r}(z) = (1-z)^3 .
\end{equation}
With this weight function the Hessian is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}\mathit{e}\mathit{s}\mathit{s} (\mathcal{S}_r) =
\left (
\begin {array} {ccc}
1/4 & 2/7 & 2/5 \\
2/7 & 1/3 & 1/2 \\
2/5 & 1/2 & 1
\\\end{array}
\right) \, .
\end{equation}
Accordingly, there is a uniquely defined minimum which is found solving for
\begin{equation}\label{eq:algebr_linear_system}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\mathit{a}}\mathcal{S}_r(\mathit{a},\mathit{b},\mathit{c}) = 0 \,
&\Leftrightarrow \,
H_a = \frac{\mathit{a}}{4} + \frac{2\mathit{b}}{7} + \frac{2\mathit{c}}{5} \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial\mathit{b}}\mathcal{S}_r(\mathit{a},\mathit{b},\mathit{c}) = 0 \,
&\Leftrightarrow \,
H_b= \frac{\mathit{2 a}}{7} + \frac{\mathit{b}}{3} + \frac{\mathit{c}}{2} \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial\mathit{c}}\mathcal{S}_r(\mathit{a},\mathit{b},\mathit{c}) = 0 \,
&\Leftrightarrow \,
H_c= \frac{\mathit{2 a}}{5} + \frac{\mathit{b}}{2} + \mathit{c}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The constants $H_a$, $H_b$ and $H_c$ are the integrals
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
H_a &= \int_0^1 (1-z)^3 f_0(z) dz \, ,\\
H_b &= \int_0^1 (1-z)^{\frac{5}{2}} f_0(z) dz \, ,\\
H_c &= \int_0^1 (1-z)^{\frac{3}{2}} f_0(z) dz \, .\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using suitable integer fractions we find the targeted algebraic expansion for $\hat{f}_0(z)$ to be,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f0_hat}
\hat{f}_0(z) = \frac{1}{77}
- \frac{1}{38 (1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
+ \frac{15}{28(1-z)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \, .
\end{equation}
The upper bound for the maximum relative error regarding this greatly simplified version of the Coulomb integral is easily computed analytically to be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f0_hat_error}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{0\leq z\leq 1} \left( 1 - \frac{\hat{f}_0(z)}{f_0(z)} \right)
&\leq \lim_{z\to 1} \left( 1 - \frac{\hat{f}_0(z)}{f_0(z)} \right) \, , \\
&= 1-\frac{15\sigma}{14 \sqrt{2}\pi}
< \frac{1}{494} \, .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This is excellent for all practical purposes.
In summary we have shown that the Coulomb singularity of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:full_beam1}
transforms into the quite different singularity given by the asymptotic expansion of Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li},
or for all practical purposes, by the global approximation
Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_hat},
when projected onto the one dimensional Hilbert subspace spanned by the Euler-Bernoulli zero-mode. To the best of our knowledge this is a completely new result of substantial practical relevance.
\subsection{Synopsis of the zero-mode LPM}\label{sec:synopsis}
The zero-mode approximation
\begin{equation*}
w(\xi,\tau) \approx z(\tau) \ \frac{\psi_{0}(\xi)}{\psi_{0}(0)} \, ,
\end{equation*}
developed in the previous section, leads upon careful treatment of the Coulomb singularity to the lumped parameter model,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau^2} z
+ c \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} z
+ k_0 \ z
+ \kappa \ z^3
= u^2 \hat{f}_0(z) \, , \\
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LPM}
\hat{f}_0(z) = \frac{1}{77}
- \frac{1}{38 (1-z)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
+ \frac{15}{28(1-z)^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
\kappa = \alpha_1 \left( \frac{\chi_0}{\psi_0(0)} \right)^2 , \
k_0 =\lambda_0 + N \chi_0 , \
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
u = \psi_0(0) \sqrt{\alpha_2} \, v \, ,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_1 = 6 \left( \frac{g}{t} \right) ^2 \, , \,
\alpha_2 = \frac{6 \epsilon l^4}{E t^3 g^3} \, .
\end{equation*}
Here $l$, $t$, and $E$ denote length, thickness and Young's modulus of the beam. $g$ is the electrode gap. The definitions of $\psi_0(0)$ and $\chi_0$ can be found in Eq.~\eqref{eq:zero_mode_ansatz}, Eq.~\eqref{eq:beta_definition} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:chi0}.
For higher precision, Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li} or any refinement thereof, can be used instead of Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_hat}.
The bifurcation diagram, showing the static deflection of the beam center as a function of the drive voltage, is obtained as the set of all points in the $(u,z)$ plane, solving the purely algebraic equation
\begin{equation}
\kappa \, z^3 + k_0 \, z = u^2 \hat{f}_0(z) \, .
\label{eq:bifurcation_diagram}
\end{equation}
Eq.~\eqref{eq:bifurcation_diagram} is best used by looking upon the voltage $u$ as a function of the deflection, i.e. $u=u(z)$. The static pull-in deflection $z_{PI}$ is reached at the critical point where
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial z}(z_{PI}) = 0 \, .
\label{eq:pull_in_condition}
\end{equation}
This condition is conveniently exploited by taking the inverse of the logarithmic derivative of Eq.~\eqref{eq:bifurcation_diagram}. As shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq:DLogf0Inv_error_bound} below, within very small error margins, the inverse of the logarithmic derivative of the Coulomb integral is a linear function of the deflection amplitude z,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DLogf0Inv}
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \log (f_0(z))\right) ^{-1}
= \frac{64}{97} - \frac{44}{67}z - \Delta_{LOG}(z) \, . \\
\end{equation}
The approximation Eq.~\eqref{eq:DLogf0Inv} is obtained upon inserting Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_In_series} into the left hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq:DLogf0Inv} and performing a Taylor expansion. The maximum error occurs at $z=1$ where the left hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq:DLogf0Inv} vanishes, due to the nature of its singularity as exhibited in Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_singularity}. This puts a tight absolute bound on the remainder $\Delta_{LOG}(z)$,
\begin{equation}
0 \, \le \, \Delta_{LOG}(z) < \frac{1}{325}\, .
\label{eq:DLogf0Inv_error_bound}
\end{equation}
It should be emphasised, that the derivation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:DLogf0Inv} does not require using Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_hat} or any other approximation discussed in this paper. The absolute upper bound of the remainder $\Delta_{LOG}(z)$ is therefore not affected by any choice or error estimate made elsewhere.
The highly effective approximation Eq.~\eqref{eq:DLogf0Inv} leads to a simple algebraic equation for the practical evaluation of the pull-in deflection $z_{PI}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:z_Pull_In}
\frac{\kappa \, z_{PI}^3 + k_0 \, z_{PI}}{3 \kappa \, z_{PI}^2 + k_0}
\approx \frac{64}{97} - \frac{44}{67}z_{PI} \, .
\end{equation}
A first easy conclusion that can be drawn from Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_Pull_In} is that the pull-in deflection of a Coulomb actuated clamped-clamped Euler Bernoulli beam varies within the limits
\begin{equation}\label{eq:z_PI_bounds}
0.3982 \leq z_{PI} \leq 0.6664 \, .
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{
The lower bound of Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_PI_bounds} is obtained as the limiting case of Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_Pull_In}, where the stress stiffening (Duffing) coefficient $\kappa$ vanishes. Likewise, the upper bound of Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_PI_bounds} results from Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_Pull_In} in case of an infinitely large $\kappa$.}
Within the realm of Euler-Bernoulli theory, these boundaries are independent of the shape of the beam cross section.
\textcolor{black}{
While this fact certainly is known from numerical studies\cite{Melnikov.2021}, it is derived here based on an analytical model, probably for the first time.}
Once we know $z_{PI}$, we can find the respective pull-in voltage $u_{PI}$ using Eq.~\eqref{eq:bifurcation_diagram}. The simple recipe presented in this section, requires little more than a spreadsheet or a pocket calculator to compute the pull-in data and the entire bifurcation diagram, with the astonishing numerical accuracy exhibited in Fig.~\ref{fig:Gilbert}, Fig.~\ref{fig:pull-in data} and Fig.~\ref{fig:onions}.
\subsection{LPM analysis of the beam used by Gilbert \textit{et al.}}\label{sec:gilbert}
As a first application of our single degree of freedom LPM, we use the zero-mode approximation to compute the equilibria of the Coulomb actuated prismatic Euler-Bernoulli beam studied by Gilbert \textit{et al.} \cite{Gilbert.1996}. For this exercise we apply the formulae compiled in Section~\ref{sec:synopsis}. Gilbert used the geometrical dimensions:
beam length $l = \unit[80]{\mu m}$,
beam width $w = \unit[10]{\mu m}$,
beam thickness $t = \unit[0.5]{\mu m}$,
electrostatic gap $g = \unit[0.7]{\mu m}$, and
stop layer $s = \unit[0.1]{\mu m}$.
For silicon, Gilbert used an isotropic stiffness with a Young's modulus of $E = \unit[169]{GPa}$ and a Poisson ratio of $\nu = 0.25$.
The zero-mode results are compared to the results of Gilbert \textit{et al.} \cite{Gilbert.1996} and to the 3D ANSYS simulation by Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021} in Fig.~\ref{fig:Gilbert}.
Obviously there is a very good agreement between our zero-mode approximation based on the Chebyshev-Edgeworth expansion and the results of Gilbert \textit{et al.}\cite{Gilbert.1996} and Melnikov \textit{et al.}\cite{Melnikov.2021} The deflection profile, the pull-in voltage, and the pull-out voltage can be reliably determined using our method.
\subsection{Comparison with the numerical and experimental results of Melnikov \textit{et al.}}\label{sec:melnikov}
Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021} used a continuation method to extend the reach of FEM simulations to the entire bifurcation diagram of Coulomb actuated prismatic clamped-clamped Euler-Bernoulli beams, including all stable and unstable equilibria. They calculated the respective bifurcation diagrams and pull-in voltages for micro-beams with a length of $l = \unit[80]{\mu m}$, a thickness range between $t = \unit[0.12]{\mu m}$ and $t = \unit[2]{\mu m}$ and an electrode gap of $g = \unit[0.7]{\mu m}$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:pull-in data} shows the pull-in deflection and the pull-in voltage, respectively. These graphs demonstrate the excellent match of the zero-mode approximation and the FEM results.
Additionally, Fig.~\ref{fig:onions} reveals an almost perfect agreement between FEM results and the zero-mode approximation, regarding the entire deflection profiles, including their unstable branches. We note that the solution close to the contact singularity at $z=1$ is correctly reproduced using a single mode.
Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021} scrutinized their findings by runing a \gls{MEMS} experiment. The basic experimental set-up is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:onions}b. A clamped-clamped \gls{MEMS} micro-beam of length $l = \unit[1000]{\mu m}$, width $w = \unit[75]{\mu m}$ and with a measured thickness of $t = \unit[2.47]{\mu m}$ was manufactured on a Bonded Silicon on Insulator (BSOI) wafer, to perform in-plane movements. The beam is Coulomb actuated by a planar electrode positioned in front of the beam at a distance of $g = \unit[10.15]{\mu m}$ (fitted electrode gap). The beam movement was enabled by removing the oxide layer underneath the beam by etching with hydrofloric acid.
The details of the experiment can be found in Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021}.
Furthermore, a small compression stress of \unit[2.6]{MPa} was used for the zero-mode approximation.
The experimental findings are well reproduced by the simple LPM developed in this paper, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:onions}c.
In summary we find that the zero-mode approximation gives rise to a simple LPM with a single degree of freedom, well suited to quantitatively describe all stable and unstable equilibria of clamped-clamped Coulomb actuated prismatic Euler-Bernoulli beams.
\section{Discussion}
Spitz \textit{et al.} \cite{Spitz.2019} observed that the performance of a fairly complex MEMS µSpeaker can be successfully modelled by a heuristic single degree of freedom lumped parameter model.
Motivated by this research Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021} revisited the analysis of the bending profile of a Coulomb-activated prismatic micro beam, clamped at both ends: The study clearly confirms that the bending profile stays almost identical to the shape of the Euler-Bernoulli zero mode, independent of the load. This is true for the entire applicable voltage range within a very small error margin. The observations of Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021} allowed us here to develop the single degree of freedom lumped parameter model Eq.~\eqref{eq:LPM}, capable of accurately describing all stable and unstable equilibria of this highly non-linear electro-mechanical system.
To the best of our knowledge, the existence of an accurate single degree of freedom LPM is not reported in the literature. In fact literature claims the need for higher modes.\cite{M.I.Younis.2003}
The zero-mode approximation requires a method correctly projecting the Coulomb force onto the one dimensional Hilbert subspace, spanned by the Euler-Bernoulli zero-mode Eq.~\eqref{eq:zero_mode_ansatz}. Such projection is a global task in function space, that can not be performed using local techniques, such as a plain Taylor expansion. The ideas of Chebyshev and Edgeworth, underlying the original proof of the celebrated central limit theorem, furnish us here with the required means. As a result we obtain the analytical projection formula Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_Li} for the Coulomb force. This formula allows us to extract the exact form of the contact singularity of the projected Coulomb force. Based on this knowledge, a global analysis of the Coulomb integral can be performed, leading to the handy algebraic expression Eq.~\eqref{eq:f0_hat}. This completes the derivation of our highly accurate and simple to use lumped parameter model. To the best of our knowledge this is the first time, that Chebyshev-Edgeworth methods have been successfully used to solve a non-linear differential equation.
The results presented above now allow to efficiently compute the detailed frequency response and harmonic distortion of electromechanic MEMS transducers, with little computational effort. For practical applications, such dynamic computations are enabled by the large spectral distance of the Euler-Bernoulli zero-mode from higher Euler-Bernoulli modes, see Melnikov \textit{et al.} \cite{Melnikov.2021}.
\textcolor{black}{We note that the approach is applicable not only to clamped-clamped microbeams, but also to other conditions such as pinned-pinned or clamped-free.
In such a case, Eq.~\eqref{eq:zero_mode_ansatz} can stay the same while Eq.~\eqref{eq:beta_definition} changes, resulting in a new beta and new coefficient in Eq.~\eqref{eq:zero_mode_ansatz}.}
Certainly, time dependent FEM simulations will always allow to handle substantially more complex MEMS actuator geometries.
However the process of basic actuator design, as well as the circuit simulation of complex systems embracing MEMS actuators, see Monsalve \textit{et al.} \cite{Monsalve.2021},
greatly benefit from the availability of powerful LPM models.
We have presented the use of the Chebyshev-Edgeworth methods in this publications to model a very particular situation. While our focus on a simple case may help to understand the basic principle, it probably is misleading at the same time. Chebyshev-Edgeworth methods apply to far more general situations and allow for a broad range of applications. These include different boundary conditions, non-prismatic beams, the modelling of squeeze film damping, the computation of electric fringe field corrections and of contact forces to name a few. For the sake of clarity, we defer sharing the details of such generalizations to forthcoming publications.
\section{Conclusion}
All stable and unstable equilibrium states of Coulomb actuated prismatic clamped-clamped Euler-Bernoulli beams can be accurately computed by the simple to use lumped parameter model Eq.~\eqref{eq:LPM}. This LPM features only one degree of freedom, i.e., the amplitude of the Euler-Bernoulli zero-mode.
The contradiction of our results with previous findings of other groups are easily understood in terms of the advanced methods outlined above to adequately treat the Coulomb singularity.
\textcolor{black}{
The idea of the Chebyshev-Edgeworth expansion for the solution of nonlinear partial differential equations, which originates from probability theory, is not limited to beam mechanics.
We believe that our approach enables new insights into the derivation of highly effective lumped parameter models in a wide range of applications beyond elasticity theory.}
|
\section{Introduction}
Modelling soil carbon sequestration plays a crucial role in estimating and forecasting the amount of sequestered carbon in soil and carbon emission from the soil into the atmosphere. This modelling is significant in particular in building decision support systems for land managers selling carbon credits. Selling national carbon credits is in line with the purposes of some international bodies and agreements such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and the Paris and Kyoto Protocol agreements to mitigate global warming. Computer-simulation models such as RothC \citep{jenkinson1987}, FullCAM \citep{skjemstad2004calibration}, and Century \citep{parton1988} have been developed to help make inferences about trends in carbon stocks using time series of measurements collected over many years. The core of these models is made from soil carbon components known as pools. For example, these pools in the RothC model are decomposable plant material (DPM), resistant plant matter
(RPM), humified organic matter (HUM), microbial biomass (BIO), and inert organic matter (IOM).
Several studies attempt to quantify uncertainty in soil carbon model outputs through statistical models and sensitivity analysis (running models for different sets of parameter values) \citep{juston, paul, stamati, yeluripati2009bayesian}. Statistical SOC models have some advantages over deterministic SOC models such as RothC, and the main benefit is introducing uncertainties in an SOC model. The uncertainties could be around the parameters, model inputs, dynamics, and subsequently model predictions. Modellers attempt to improve the accuracy of soil carbon models through quantifying uncertainty in model inputs, dynamics, and uncertainties in model parameters within a framework known as Bayesian hierarchical modeling (BHM) \citep{clifford}. Complex models can lead to over-fitting when they are applied to sparse datasets to make inferences about soil carbon stocks. \citet{clifford} address the over-fitting issue by simplifying their model, neglecting some soil organic carbon (SOC) components. \citet{davoudabadi2021advanced} apply some advanced Bayesian approaches such as correlated pseudo-marginal (CPM) method and Rao-Blackwellised particle filters (RBPF) to improve the speed of computation, the accuracy, and the prediction of the model in \citet{clifford}.
Microbial biomass carbon (MBC), a crucial soil labile carbon fraction, is the most active component of the SOC that regulates bio-geochemical processes in terrestrial ecosystems \citep{paul1996soil}. MBC plays a fundamental role in the SOC dynamics and serves as a helpful indicator of changes in soil carbon stabilization and nutrient dynamics following soil management practices \citep{fierer2009global,grandy2008molecular,liang2011effects}. However, microbial processing of soil organic matter releases $CO_2$ through respiration which contributes to atmospheric $CO_2$ and thus global climate change. Some microbially-explicit SOC models are introduced in recent years by considering the effect of the MBC in SOC models \citep{luo2016toward,blagodatsky2010model, frey2013temperature, moorhead2006theoretical, riley2014long,liu2020modeling,la2019biochemical}. Also, several studies consider the complexity of the SOC model and the bio-geochemical realism of models to predict soil carbon stocks \citep{davoudabadi2021modelling, woolf2019microbial}. In particular, \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} compared several SOC models by developing a Bayesian model selection method (leave-future-out cross-validation (LFO-CV)) that can identify the soil carbon model with the best predictive performance in light of the available data. Two biologically realistic features are not considered in \citep{davoudabadi2021modelling}: (i) decomposition rates that are dependent on the size of the biological (microbe) carbon pool (i.e. more microbes equates to faster
rates of decomposition); and (ii) a physical ceiling on the size of the biological
(microbial) carbon pool (akin to a carrying capacity in population biology).
Some authors have considered the use of reverse Michaelis-Menten reaction kinetics in modelling soil carbon decomposition as a function of the microbial biomass in the soil \citep{woolf2019microbial, xie2020bayesian, wieder2018carbon}. Indeed, reverse Michaelis-Menten reaction kinetics is used to control the microbial decomposition of metabolic and structural litter and available soil organic matter (SOM) pools. Reverse Michaelis-Menten reaction kinetics assumes that the rate of carbon decomposition by the microbe pool, via the action of enzymes, saturates to a maximum rate as the microbial pool grows, see \citet{wieder2018carbon} for more details. This is a natural way to model the variation in the decomposition rate, with microbe populations consuming the material that they are attached to, but with each particle of substrate only supporting a limited population of microbes, the carrying capacity, and the rate of decomposition, therefore, is limited by this.
In this study, we develop two new SOC models, three and five-pool models. We modify the early version of these models, introduced by \citep{davoudabadi2021modelling} by considering a carrying capacity or upper limit on the size of the microbial pool and also allowing the size of the microbial pool to moderate the decay rates of the other pools. We call our models BIO-K models. A physical limitation in the size of the microbial biomass pool is intended to reflect that in reality, the microbial biomass pool in soil carbon models is a small proportion. However, the equations that typically govern soil carbon dynamics (e.g., RothC) do not enforce this to be the case.
The framework of our SOC models is the BHM framework used by \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} which is a natural way to account for epistemic uncertainty (uncertainty in the bio-geochemical process dynamics) in a statistically defensible
manner. Our focus is on using these models with both the temporally sparse and large datasets. The temporally sparse datasets are two datasets from Tarlee in South Australia and Brigalow in Queensland, Australia \citep{clifford,skjemstad2004calibration}, and the large dataset is from the Rothamsted experimental station in Hertfordshire, UK \citep{rothamsted1978details}. These three sites are in different climatic regions. It shows we can apply our approaches to a variety of datasets of any climatic region, and our approaches can be successfully applied to both long-historical and also shorter, sparser datasets. We evaluate our models by two Bayesian model selection methods, leave-future-out cross-validation (LFO-CV) \citep{burkner2020approximate}, and widely applicable information criterion (WAIC) \citep{watanabe2010asymptotic}. LFO-CV is used for small and temporally sparse SOC datasets, while WAIC is more applicable for large datasets. This study is motivated by the question of whether one can gain any benefit in terms of predictive accuracy from considering biologically mediated decay rates in an SOC model. To this end, we compare the predictive accuracy of our BIO-K models with the regular three and five-pool models introduced by \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling}.
The structure of the paper is as follows. The background and description of datasets are provided in Section \ref{DataBackground}. Section \ref{Methods} is devoted to describing the model framework and methods used in this study. We present the structure of our models in Section \ref{ModelStructure}. Sections \ref{results} and \ref{SectionConclusion} present our results and a discussion of this study.
\section{Background and Description of Datasets}\label{DataBackground}
Our model selection method is motivated by three datasets that are collected from three locations in Australia and the UK. The details of these sites are presented in the following.
\subsection{Tarlee Dataset}
Tarlee, situated $80$ km north of Adelaide, South Australia, was an agricultural research experiment site established in $1977$ to examine the impact of management practices on agricultural productivity as a long term field experiment \citep{datasetCSIRO}. The classification of the soil of the site is a hard-setting red-brown earth with sandy loam texture. Also, the site is dominated by winter rainfall with an average of $355$ mm from April to October and has a Mediterranean climate \citep{clifford, luo, skjemstad2004calibration}. Over a 20-year period, the soil properties of the Tarlee site were monitored in three fields under different management practices. Table \ref{ManagementTreatments} in Section \ref{datasets} of the supplementary material presents the time period of management treatments that were implemented in three trial fields in Tarlee.
\subsection{Brigalow Dataset}
Brigalow, a research station in Queensland, Australia is situated in a semi-arid, and subtropical climate, and consists of three forested catchments of 12-17 ha \citep{skjemstad2004calibration}. Within each of the catchments, three monitoring sites were established in recognition of three soil types (a duplex soil and two clays). Wheat and occasional sorghum were planted in one catchment and the other catchment was planted to buffel pasture and the last one was left under native Brigalow forest. At this site, on one catchment, continuous wheat with some sorghum was established over a 18-year period after clearing land under Brigalow (\textit{Acacia harpophylla}) in $1982$. Table \ref{BrigalowDataTable} in Section \ref{datasets} of the supplementary material shows the duration of management practices in Brigalow.
\subsection{Rothamsted Dataset}
The Broadbalk continuous wheat experiment is one of the oldest continuous agronomic experiments in the world and was conducted at Rothamsted Research, one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world. The Broadbalk study commenced in 1843 and wheat is grown every year on all or part of the experiment. The experiment in section 1 was divided into different plots (labelled 2 - 20) receiving different fertilizer and manure treatments each year. Some treatment plots were established by 1852. Other plots such as 2.1 (2a), 20, and 19 established or became their current size later. Table \ref{BroadbalkDataTable} in Section \ref{datasets} of the supplementary material shows the treatments and plots in Broadbalk used in this study.
\section{Model Framework and Methods}\label{Methods}
\subsection{Soil Carbon Model Framework}\label{SoilCarbonModel}
Three sources of uncertainty in a dynamical SOC model that we consider in this study are errors in the observations, randomness or uncertainty inherent in the underlying physical processes, and uncertainties in model parameters \citep{clifford}. We model these uncertainties through the observation model, the process model, and the prior which are denoted $p(\mathbf{Y} | \mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta})$, $p(\mathbf{X}| \boldsymbol{\theta})$, and $p(\boldsymbol{\theta})$, respectively. Here $\mathbf{Y}$, $\mathbf{X}$, $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, $p(.)$, and $p(.|E)$ denote observations, unobserved state process, unknown parameters, the probability density function of the enclosed random variable, and the conditional probability density function given the event $E$, respectively. The observation and process models create a model framework known as the state-space model. The state-space model describes a system using indirectly observable variables known as state (or latent) variables and observable measurement variables. Although the state variables cannot be measured directly, one can estimate unobservable state variables based on observable measurement variables that depend on the state variables \citep{andrieu2010particle, fearnhead}. These two hierarchical models typically depend on an unknown parameter vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Unknown parameters are treated as random variables in the Bayesian setting and modelled through a parameter model. The model framework created by observation, process, and parameter models is known as Bayesian Hierarchical Model (BHM) that can be represented mathematically as
\begin{align}\label{BHM hierarcy}
p(\mathbf{Y}, \mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta}) = p(\mathbf{Y}, \mathbf{X} | \boldsymbol{\theta}) p(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = p(\mathbf{Y} | \mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta}) p(\mathbf{X} | \boldsymbol{\theta}) p(\boldsymbol{\theta});
\end{align}
\noindent where the joint distribution $p(\mathbf{Y}, \mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta})$ captures all the uncertainty in the model \citep{cressie2015statistics,berliner1996hierarchical}. Through the posterior distribution $p(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta}|\mathbf{Y})$ we can make inferences about soil carbon dynamics, parameters, and functions of them. This distribution can be written based on (\ref{BHM hierarcy}) as follows
\begin{align}\label{Bayes formula}
p(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta}|\mathbf{Y}) = \frac{p(\mathbf{Y} | \mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta}) p(\mathbf{X} | \boldsymbol{\theta}) p(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{p(\mathbf{Y})};
\end{align}
where $p(\mathbf{Y})$ depends only on data. Evaluating the posterior may be difficult when $p(\mathbf{Y})$ is analytically intractable. Fortunately, one can make inferences through analytically intractable posterior by drawing samples from it. See \citep{allenby2006hierarchical,berliner1996hierarchical,cressie2015statistics,davoudabadi2021advanced} for more details about the state-space model and BHM.
As we apply a Bayesian approach for model fitting to quantify the uncertainty in parameters and predictions, we place a prior distribution on the unknown parameter vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ which is shown by $p(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ in (\ref{Bayes formula}). The prior information encompasses three categories; uninformative, weakly informative, and informative. In the case of having a small dataset or sparse dataset over time, the prior distribution becomes more influential, and informative priors can become more useful. We gain prior knowledge in this study from previous studies \citep{clifford,davoudabadi2021modelling, skjemstad2004calibration} and expert opinion. Tables \ref{TabelPrior_LogModel}, \ref{BrigalowTablePrior_LogModel}, and \ref{RothTablePrior_LogModel} (Section \ref{PriorAndProposalDists}) of the supplementary material include the model parameters and their prior probability density functions.
\subsection{Posterior Distribution Inference}\label{Methodology}
We sample from the posterior distribution $p(X_{TOC}, \boldsymbol{\theta} | \mathbf{Y})$, where $X_{TOC}$ is the mass of total SOC to estimate the changes in SOC over time and to estimate the parameters driving the sequestration of carbon.
To do so, as the posterior distribution $p(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta}|\mathbf{Y})$ in (\ref{Bayes formula}) can be decomposed into two components $p(\mathbf{X}|\boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{Y})p(\boldsymbol{\theta} | \mathbf{Y})$, we draw samples from that posterior distribution and preserve the components related to the SOC process $X_{TOC}$ and its parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.
As the posterior distribution and the resulting likelihood are not tractable, we apply the correlated pseudo-marginal (CPM) method, one of several particle Markov chain Monte Carlo (PMCMC) methods to the model to draw samples from $p(\boldsymbol{\theta} | \mathbf{Y})$. This method improves computational efficiency with respect to other state-of-the-art PMCMC methods by correlating the estimators of the intractable likelihoods in the acceptance ratio of its algorithm. Section \ref{subsecCPM} of the supplementary material, Algorithm \ref{CPMalgorithm} provides the CPM algorithm. Estimators of the intractable likelihoods are correlated by correlating the auxiliary random numbers used to obtain these estimators, see \citet{deligiannidis2018correlated, davoudabadi2021advanced, davoudabadi2021modelling} for more details. In this algorithm, we generate candidate parameters from appropriate proposal distributions that are presented in the supplementary material Section \ref{PriorAndProposalDists}. More precisely, proposal distributions are arbitrarily user-specified distributions. If the Markov chain is run for enough iterations, it will converge to the desired posterior distribution. A proper proposal distribution can have a significant influence on the finite-time efficiency of the Markov chain. The ideal case occurs when the proposal distribution is the desired posterior distribution which is typically unknown.
Since the SOC model is a combination of linear and non-linear sub-models, we apply the Rao-Blackwellised particle filters (RBPF) to draw samples from $p(\mathbf{X}|\boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{Y})$ and estimate the marginal likelihood of the state variables. The RBPF algorithm estimates the marginal likelihood of the linear and non-linear sub-models through the Kalman Filter (KF) and bootstrap particle filter (BPF), respectively, see Algorithms \ref{euclidKF1} and \ref{euclidBF1} in Sections \ref{Sub.KF} and \ref{Sub.BPF} of the supplementary material \citep{kalman1960new, gordon1993novel, doucet2000rao, davoudabadi2021advanced}. One of the advantages of the RBPF algorithm that makes it an attractive algorithm is that it computes the exact likelihood of the linear sub-model that reduces the computational cost of the estimated likelihood dramatically.
Quantifying uncertainty of our estimate can be done in many ways, for instance, by a $95\%$ credible interval or the estimated expected value of any functions of interest. We can achieve the inference about the mass of SOC added over a period of time by the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) samples of the posterior distribution. Through MCMC samples $\lbrace (X^m,\boldsymbol{\theta} ^m) : m = 1,...,M^* \rbrace$ we represent the posterior distribution $p(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{\theta} \vert \boldsymbol{Y})$ and estimate the posterior expectation of any function $g^*(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta})$.
\begin{align}\label{MCMCestimate}
\mathbf{E}(g^*(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta}) \vert \boldsymbol{Y}) \approx \frac{1}{M^*} \sum_{m=1}^{M^*} g^*(X^m,\boldsymbol{\theta} ^m).
\end{align}
The accuracy of such estimates has a negligible error in the case of having a sufficiently large sample size $M^*$. In this study, $g^*(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta})$ is the change in SOC of the first year of measuring it and following year $t$. For instance, in the Tarlee dataset, it is the change in SOC to field $i$ between 1978 and the following year $t$
\begin{equation*}
g^*(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{\theta}) = X_{TOC(t)}^i - X_{TOC(1978)}^i;
\end{equation*}
which can be estimated through MCMC samples as shown by equation (\ref{MCMCestimate}). $X_{TOC(t)}^i$ is the summation of estimated state variables of carbon in all pools at time $t$ and field $i$.
The Gelman and Rubin's convergence diagnostic statistic, $\hat{R}$, is a diagnostic check for assessing the quality of the MCMC samples \citep{gelman1992inference}. We check the convergence of MCMC samples to the target distribution from multiple PMCMC chains to see whether the output from each chain is indistinguishable, and this occurs when the scale reduction factor is less than 1.2 \citep{brooks1998general}.
The validity of a SOC model to establish its suitability for estimating changes in soil carbon stocks is vital, in particular, to overcome over-fitting and under-fitting problems when we estimate model parameters and conduct inference with a model. We introduce two methods for model evaluation to select between competing soil carbon models in the next section.
\subsection{Model Evaluation}\label{ModelSelectionSection}
Measuring predictive accuracy is a way to validate or compare models \citep{gelman2014understanding}. In this study, we use two approaches, leave-future-out cross-validation (LFO-CV) \citep{burkner2020approximate} and widely applicable information criterion (WAIC) \citep{watanabe2010asymptotic}, which are fully Bayesian metrics in the sense that they use the entire posterior distribution. \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} use the LFO-CV to compare the model’s predictive accuracy for four SOC models to understand whether more complex multi-pool models offer the best predictive tool when the datasets available for inference are relatively sparse. We use the same approach for sparse datasets in this paper. To this end, we use the expected log pointwise predictive density (ELPD) as a global measure of predictive accuracy, which is
\begin{align}\label{ELPD}
\mbox{ELPD}= \log \prod _{t=L}^{T-1} \mathbf{E}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}|Y_{1:t}}(p(\Tilde{Y}_{t+1}|Y_{1:t},\boldsymbol{\theta})) = \sum _{t=L}^{T-1} \log \int p(\Tilde{Y}_{t+1}|Y_{1:t},\boldsymbol{\theta})p(\boldsymbol{\theta}|Y_{1:t})~d\boldsymbol{\theta};
\end{align}
where $Y_{1:T} = \{Y_1, ..., Y_T\}$ is a time series of observations, $L$ is the minimum number of observations from the series that we will require before making predictions for future data \citep{burkner2020approximate}. The parameter space of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ in (\ref{ELPD}) includes state variables as our model is a state-space model, and we should estimate unknown state variables, see Section \ref{Pred-Density} of the supplementary material for more details. Typically, the integral in (\ref{ELPD}) is not analytically tractable, however we can estimate it through Monte-Carlo methods. This can be done by sampling $(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{1:t}^1,..., \boldsymbol{\theta}_{1:t}^S)$ from the posterior distribution $p(\boldsymbol{\theta}|Y_{1:t})$ for $t \in \{1,...,\gamma\}$ where $\gamma \in \{L,...,T-1\}$ using the particle PMCMC method described in Section \ref{Methodology} and estimate the predictive density for $\Tilde{Y}_{L+1:T}$ as follows
\begin{align}\label{PridictDensity}
p(\Tilde{Y}_{t+1}|Y_{1:t}) \approx \frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S p(\Tilde{Y}_{t+1}|Y_{1:t}, \boldsymbol{\theta}_{1:t}^s).
\end{align}
\noindent Although the LFO-CV computes the exact ELPD (hence, exact LFO-CV), it is computationally expensive when used with a larger dataset since it requires re-running the PMCMC to process each data point in time.
The WAIC method is faster than the LFO-CV method as it requires to run the PMCMC once for all data to get the posterior distribution which makes the WAIC be suitable for larger datasets. We use the WAIC method to explore the predictive accuracy of the soil carbon dynamics models and compare the applied models to a large dataset. The WAIC value by itself is not interpretable. It could be higher than a million, close to zero, or even negative value. When comparing models fitted to the same dataset, the model with the smallest WAIC value is considered to provide the best fit to the data among the candidate models. \citet{gelman2014understanding} suggest two different ways to measure the effective number of parameters in the WAIC formula which has a general format as follows
\begin{align}\label{WAIC-Formula}
WAIC = -2 \sum_{t = 1}^T \log \int p(Y_{t}|\boldsymbol{\theta})p(\boldsymbol{\theta}|\boldsymbol{Y})d\boldsymbol{\theta} + 2 \rho_{WAIC}.
\end{align}
The first component of (\ref{WAIC-Formula}) is the
computed log pointwise posterior predictive density, a measure of fit, and the second component is a correction for the effective number of parameters to adjust for over-fitting. As the first component of (\ref{WAIC-Formula}) is intractable, one can estimate it using $S$ samples from the posterior
\begin{align}
\sum_{t = 1}^T \log \int p(Y_{t}|\boldsymbol{\theta})p(\boldsymbol{\theta}|\boldsymbol{Y})d\boldsymbol{\theta} \approx \sum _{t=1}^T \log \left(\frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S p({Y}_{t}| \boldsymbol{\theta}^s)\right).
\end{align}
\citet{gelman2014understanding} recommend using $\sum _{t=1}^T Var_{post}(\log p(Y_t|\boldsymbol{\theta}))$, the posterior variance of the log predictive density, to estimate the effective number of parameters as it gives results closer to the leave-one-out cross validation (LOO-CV). The WAIC method is asymptotically equivalence with the LOO-CV as the first three terms of the Taylor expansion of WAIC match the Taylor expansion of LOO-CV and \citet{watanabe2010asymptotic} argue that, asymptotically, the latter terms have negligible contribution. We can estimate the posterior variance of the log predictive density in practice by $\sum _{t=1}^T (\frac{1}{S-1}\sum_{s=1}^S (\log p({Y}_{t}| \boldsymbol{\theta}^s) - \overline{\log p({Y}_{t}| \boldsymbol{\theta}^*)})^2)$, where $\overline{\log p({Y}_{t}| \boldsymbol{\theta}^*)}$ is the mean log probability of data point $Y_t$ across all $S$ parameter samples. WAIC implicitly assumes
that the observations are independent of each other which can be problematic with our state-space model structure as there is usually temporal dependencies in the data. A solution to overcome this is to write $\log p({Y}_{t}| \boldsymbol{\theta}^s)$ in terms of conditional distributions $\log p({Y}_{1}| \boldsymbol{\theta}^s) + \sum _{t=2}^T \log p({Y}_{t}| {Y}_{1:t-1}, \boldsymbol{\theta}^s)$ \citep{auger2020introduction}.
As mentioned earlier, we would like to compare the performance of two SOC models in terms of gaining the best predictive tool based on aforementioned methods. The structure of the models are introduced in the next section.
\section{Model Structure}\label{ModelStructure}
In this study, we introduce two new SOC models that are the modified version of the three-pool and five-pool (RothC-like) models in \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling}. We investigate how the SOC components and complexity of the SOC models affect the SOC prediction in the presence of large and small time-series datasets. The modified three-pool model consists of three conceptual pools IOM, BIO, and the main pool of decomposable carbon (an amalgamation of DPM, RPM, and HUM pools). Soil carbon decomposes from the decomposable carbon pool, and fractions are either lost to the atmosphere as $CO_2$ or transferred to the BIO pool. Carbon present in the BIO pool that decomposes is either transferred to the main soil carbon pool, lost to the atmosphere as $CO_2$, or re-assimilated as biological mass. The IOM fraction is constant since it is not subject to biological transformation. As such, the IOM process model at time t is an unknown fixed value and should be estimated. The general carbon emission in the three-pool model can also be represented graphically as depicted in Figure \ref{figThreePool}a. The process and observation models of the three-pool model are presented in detail in Sections \ref{Three_pool_process} and \ref{Three_pool_Obs} of the supplementary material, respectively.
The general structure of the five-pool model in this study is similar to the RothC-like model introduced in \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling}. The difference is that we distribute the extra amount of carbon in the BIO pool among other pools in our model. \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} discard the surplus amount of carbon in the BIO pool in their model. Indeed, decomposition of carbon from RPM and DPM pools either leaves the system as $CO_2$ into the atmosphere or is transformed to carbon in the HUM and BIO pools. Carbon from the HUM and BIO pools that decomposes can either be transformed to carbon in the HUM or BIO pools or lost to the atmosphere as $CO_2$. Figure \ref{figThreePool}b shows the diagram of the carbon emission in the five-pool model. The mathematical representations of the process and observation models of the five-pool model are shown in detail in Sections \ref{Five_pool_process} and \ref{Five_pool_observation} of the supplementary material, respectively.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{FlowchartModels.pdf}
\vspace*{-15mm}
\caption{Graphical representation of the carbon emission in the a) three-pool BIO-K model and b) five-pool BIO-K model. The DPM, HUM and RPM pools are amalgamated and treated as a single homogeneous pool in the three-pool model.}
\label{figThreePool}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Biologically Mediated Decay Rates}
\citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} consider a constraint in their SOC pools whereby the BIO pool can be at most $5\%$ of the total SOC. This constraint prevents too much carbon from entering the microbial pool and where excess, the extra amount is rejected by rejecting BIO state trajectories in the MCMC algorithm. In reality, we might expect that the decomposition rate should be related to the population of microbes in the soil. In other words, we might expect the rates of carbon decomposition to have a positive relationship with the size of the BIO pool. In this study, we include the BIO-pool mediated decay rate in our SOC models using a logistic function with a carrying capacity, and we call our new models, in general, BIO-K models. We impose the dependency of the decomposition rate of carbon pool $p$ by
\begin{align*}
D_{p(t-1)} = K_p \dfrac{X_{B(t-1)}}{X_{TOC(t-1)}\kappa_{BIO}}.
\end{align*}
Where $D_{p(t-1)}$ is the decomposition rate of pool $p$ at time $t-1$, $K_p$ is the decay rate of pool $p$, $X_{B(t-1)}$ is the stock of the BIO pool at time $t-1$, $X_{TOC(t-1)}$ is the total decomposable soil carbon stock at time $t-1$, and $\kappa_{BIO} = 0.05$ is the microbial carrying capacity as a percentage of the total decomposable soil carbon. In the three-pool BIO-K model, $p$ is shown by $C$ and $B$ in the amalgamate pool (first pool) and the BIO pool, respectively, and $K_p$ is shown by $K_C$ and $K_B$ as the decay rates of the first and BIO pools, respectively. Also, in the five-pool BIO-K model, $p$ is denoted by $R$, $H$, and $B$ in pools RPM, HUM, and BIO, respectively and the associated decay rates of these pools are shown by $K_R$, $K_H$, and $K_B$, respectively.
In the three-pool BIO-K model, the extra amount of carbon in the microbial pool moves to the first pool, while in the five-pool BIO-K model this extra amount is distributed among other pools. We considered the extra amount in our models based on $U_{(t-1)}^i - \min(U_{(t-1)}^i, \kappa_{BIO}X_{Total(t-1)}^i-X_{B(t-1)}^i)$, where $U_{(t-1)}^i$ is defined for the three and five-pool BIO-K models separately in Sections \ref{Three_pool_process} and \ref{Five_pool_process} of the supplementary material, respectively.
\section{Results}\label{results}
\subsection{Comparing Models}\label{ComparingModels}
We fit the three and five pool BIO-K models to the Brigalow and Tarlee datasets, evaluating them through the LFO-CV method as these datasets are small and temporally sparse. To do so, we worked with three PMCMC chains in the CPM method for estimating the predictive density (\ref{PridictDensity}). In both the three and five pool BIO-K models, we initialised each chain with a randomly sampled parameter vector and ran them for $200,000$ iterations discarding the first $100,000$ as burn-in in the Tarlee dataset and $400,000$ iterations discarding the first $200,000$ as burn-in in the Brigalow dataset. Since we thinned these chains, choosing every $20^{th}$ sample of the MCMC samples to estimate (\ref{PridictDensity}), $S$ in equation (\ref{PridictDensity}) for the Tarlee and Brigalow datasets are $5,000$ and $10,000$, respectively. The minimum numbers of observations, L, used for making predictions for future data were 12 and 13 in the Tarlee and Brigalow datasets, respectively. Table \ref{ELPDTandB} shows the estimated ELPD of the three and five-pool BIO-K models applied to the Tarlee and Brigalow datasets.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|c|}
\hline
\rowcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}
\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Three-pool BIO-K model} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Five-pool BIO-K model} \\ \cline{2-5}
\rowcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}
\multirow{-2}{*}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Dataset} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Mean (ELPD)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}SD} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Mean (ELPD)} &
SD \\ \hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Tarlee & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{-35.7016}} & 1.4229 & -39.0255 & 1.8519 \\ \hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Brigalow & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{-40.1425}} & 1.2804 & -45.9984 & 5.2612 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the three chains of the ELPD of the three and five-pool BIO-K models applied to the Tarlee and Brigalow datasets.}
\label{ELPDTandB}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|c|}
\hline
\rowcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}
\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Three-pool model} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Five-pool model} \\ \cline{2-5}
\rowcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}
\multirow{-2}{*}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Dataset} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Mean (ELPD)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}SD} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Mean (ELPD)} &
SD \\ \hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Tarlee & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{-34.6796}} & 1.9754 & -37.2585 & 1.4591 \\ \hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Brigalow & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{-36.2252}} & 1.7778 & -51.1718 & 4.6777 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the three chains of the ELPD of the three and five-pool regular models applied to the Tarlee and Brigalow datasets.}
\label{ELPDTandB_LastPaper}
\end{table}
Based on these results provided in Table \ref{ELPDTandB}, the three-pool BIO-K model outperformed the five-pool BIO-K model in the sense of gaining the best LFO predictive ability for both the Brigalow and Tarlee datasets. Table \ref{ELPDTandB_LastPaper} shows the estimated ELPD of the regular (i.e. without the additional dynamics from the BIO-K model) three and five-pool models in \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} applied on the Tarlee and Brigalow datasets. The models in \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} have better predictive accuracy, except the five-pool model of the Brigalow dataset, than the BIO-K models in the presence of temporally sparse datasets. In addition to that, Tables \ref{ELPDTandB} and \ref{ELPDTandB_LastPaper} support the notion that the three-pool model has the better predictive accuracy over the five-pool model that has been frequently used for modeling soil carbon sequestration.
Figures \ref{BrigalowTrajectories} and \ref{TarleeTrajectories} show the performance of the three and five-pool BIO-K models (columns a and b, respectively) in estimating the trajectories of the SOC dynamics of Brigalow and Tarlee datasets, respectively. As shown in Figures \ref{BrigalowTrajectories}b and \ref{TarleeTrajectories}b, the five-pool BIO-K model increased uncertainty in the soil carbon dynamics of both datasets, especially during the sparse periods which is typified by wide $95\%$ credible intervals.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Comparing_3_and_5PoolBrigalow2_Trajectories.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{Soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics of the Brigalow dataset based on a) the three-pool BIO-K model and b) the five-pool BIO-K model. The gray shaded part is the area between the $2.5^{th}$ and the $97.5^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process gained by the three and five-pool BIO-K models. The $25^{th}$ and the $75^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process are indicated by the dashed lines. The $50^{th}$ percentile is shown by the solid line and the measured SOC values are indicated by filled dots.}
\label{BrigalowTrajectories}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Comparing_3_and_5PoolTarlee2_Trajectories.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{Soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics of the Tarlee dataset based on a) the three-pool BIO-K model and b) the five-pool BIO-K model. The gray shaded part is the area between the $2.5^{th}$ and the $97.5^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process gained by the three and five-pool BIO-K models. The $25^{th}$ and the $75^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process are indicated by the dashed lines. The $50^{th}$ percentile is shown by the solid line and the measured SOC values are indicated by filled dots.}
\label{TarleeTrajectories}
\end{figure}
We compared the three and five-pool BIO-K models applied on the Broadbalk dataset based on the WAIC since the dataset is large. Although the SOC measurements in the Broadbalk site is sparse over time, to compare the performance of the models on large datasets, we chose plots $2b, 3, 5, 7, 10$, and $14$ as they have the most SOC measurements among other plots in the Broadbalk dataset. To compute the WAIC criterion, we worked with three PMCMC chains, each initialised with a randomly sampled parameter vector, for estimating (\ref{WAIC-Formula}). We ran each chain for 100,000 and 150,000 iterations discarding the first 20,000 and 75,000 as burn-in in the three and five-pool BIO-K models, respectively. We ran each chain for 100,000 and 200,000 iterations discarding the first 20,000 and 75,000 as burn-in for the three and five-pool regular models. Tables \ref{WAICRoth1} and \ref{WAICRoth2} show the estimated WAIC of the three and five-pool BIO-K models and regular models, respectively, applied to the Broadbalk dataset.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|
>{\columncolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}}c |c|l|c|l|}
\hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}{\color[HTML]{333333} } &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Three-pool BIO-K model} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Five-pool BIO-K model} \\ \cline{2-5}
\multirow{-2}{*}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}{\color[HTML]{333333} MCMC Chain}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}WAIC} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}WAIC} \\ \hline
Chain 1 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{{\color[HTML]{FE0000} \textbf{173$\times 10^3$}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{261$\times 10^3$} \\ \hline
Chain 2 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{{\color[HTML]{FE0000} \textbf{175$\times 10^3$}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{252$\times 10^3$} \\ \hline
Chain 3 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{{\color[HTML]{FE0000} \textbf{176$\times 10^3$}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{245$\times 10^3$} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The WAIC of the three MCMC chains of the three and five-pool BIO-K models applied on the Broadbalk dataset.}
\label{WAICRoth1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|
>{\columncolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}}c |c|l|c|l|}
\hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}{\color[HTML]{333333} } &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Three-pool regular model} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}Five-pool regular model} \\ \cline{2-5}
\multirow{-2}{*}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}{\color[HTML]{333333} MCMC Chain}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}WAIC} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{C0C0C0}WAIC} \\ \hline
Chain 1 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{{\color[HTML]{FE0000} \textbf{733$\times 10^3$}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1448$\times 10^3$} \\ \hline
Chain 2 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{{\color[HTML]{FE0000} \textbf{732$\times 10^3$}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1533$\times 10^3$} \\ \hline
Chain 3 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{{\color[HTML]{FE0000} \textbf{736$\times 10^3$}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1466$\times 10^3$} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The WAIC of the three MCMC chains of the three and five-pool regular models applied on the Broadbalk dataset.}
\label{WAICRoth2}
\end{table}
Based on the results shown in Tables \ref{WAICRoth1} and \ref{WAICRoth2}, the three-pool BIO-K model outperforms the five-pool BIO-K and the three-pool regular models in the sense of having lower WAIC value.
Figures \ref{Roth_3P_Log_Trajectories} and \ref{Roth_5P_Log_Trajectories} show the performance of the three and five-pool BIO-K models in estimating the trajectories of the SOC dynamics of the Broadbalk dataset, respectively. The performance of the three and five-pool regular models in estimating the trajectories of the SOC dynamics of the Broadbalk dataset are shown in Figures \ref{Roth_3P_NonLog_Trajectories} and \ref{Roth_5P_NonLog_Trajectories}, respectively. Note that the $95\%$ credible intervals are related to the trajectories of the process model while the filled dots are the observations of the latent process that have been corrupted by measurement noise.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Roth_Log_3-Pool_New_1.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{The trajectories of the process model of the soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics of the Broadbalk dataset based on the three-pool BIO-K model. The gray shaded part is the area between the $2.5^{th}$ and the $97.5^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process gained by the three-pool BIO-K model. The $25^{th}$ and the $75^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process are indicated by the dashed lines. The $50^{th}$ percentile is shown by the solid line and the measured SOC values are indicated by filled dots.}
\label{Roth_3P_Log_Trajectories}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Roth_Log_5-pool_New_1.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{The trajectories of the process model of the soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics of the Broadbalk dataset based on the five-pool BIO-K model. The gray shaded part is the area between the $2.5^{th}$ and the $97.5^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process gained by the five-pool BIO-K model. The $25^{th}$ and the $75^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process are indicated by the dashed lines. The $50^{th}$ percentile is shown by the solid line and the measured SOC values are indicated by filled dots.}
\label{Roth_5P_Log_Trajectories}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Roth_NonLog_3-Pool_New_1.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{The trajectories of the process model of the soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics of the Broadbalk dataset based on the three-pool regular model. The gray shaded part is the area between the $2.5^{th}$ and the $97.5^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process gained by the three-pool regular model. The $25^{th}$ and the $75^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process are indicated by the dashed lines. The $50^{th}$ percentile is shown by the solid line and the measured SOC values are indicated by filled dots.}
\label{Roth_3P_NonLog_Trajectories}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Roth_NonLog_5-Pool.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{The trajectories of the process model of the soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics of the Broadbalk dataset based on the five-pool regular model. The gray shaded part is the area between the $2.5^{th}$ and the $97.5^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process gained by the five-pool regular model. The $25^{th}$ and the $75^{th}$ percentiles for the SOC process are indicated by the dashed lines. The $50^{th}$ percentile is shown by the solid line and the measured SOC values are indicated by filled dots.}
\label{Roth_5P_NonLog_Trajectories}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Uncertainty quantification} \label{inference}
Based on the three-pool BIO-K model, the average of the change in equation (\ref{MCMCestimate}) between years $1978$ and $1997$ in fields $\{1, 2, 3\}$ in Tarlee are $1.86$, $2.63$, and $14.72$, respectively. The change of SOC in the Brigalow trial between $1981$ and $2000$ base on the three-pool BIO-K model are $-0.45$, $2.93$, and $-2.70$, respectively. The average of the change of SOC in plots $\{2b,3,5,7,10,14\}$ of the Broadbalk between years $1852$ and $2015$ are $76.24$, $15.63$, $16.68$, $19.35$, $17.89$, and $18.37$, respectively.
As mentioned earlier in Section \ref{SoilCarbonModel}, prior knowledge of unknown parameters plays a significant role in the presence of small and sparse datasets in a Bayesian setting. We compared a histogram of the samples drawn from the posteriors with the prior distributions of some main model parameters of the three and five-pool BIO-K models to highlight what we have learned about those parameters. Figures \ref{Pri_Post_BIO-K_Tar_Brig}a and \ref{Pri_Post_BIO-K_Tar_Brig}b show the difference between the posterior and prior of the decomposition rate of the SOC and BIO pools of the three-pool BIO-K model in Tarlee and Brigalow, respectively. The difference between the posterior and prior of these parameters of the three-pool BIO-K and regular models of the Broadbalk dataset are shown in Figures \ref{Pri_Post_3P_Roth}a and \ref{Pri_Post_3P_Roth}b, respectively. We presented the difference between the posterior and prior of the decomposition rates in the five-pool BIO-K model of Tarlee and Brigalow in Figures \ref{Pri_Post_5P_BIO-K_Tar_Brig}a and \ref{Pri_Post_5P_BIO-K_Tar_Brig}b, respectively.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Prior_Posterior_3Pool_BIO_K_Tarlee_Brigalow1.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{The marginal posterior distributions (histogram) of the SOC and BIO decomposition rates, $K_C$ and $K_B$, respectively, in a) Tarlee and b) Brigalow. The histograms correspond to the three-pool BIO-K model in both Brigalow and Tarlee. The blue densities are the prior distributions of the SOC and BIO decomposition rates.}
\label{Pri_Post_BIO-K_Tar_Brig}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Prior_Posterior_3Pool_Norm_BIO_K_Roth1.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{The marginal posterior distributions (histogram) of the SOC and BIO decomposition rates, $K_C$ and $K_B$, respectively, in Broadbalk dataset. The histograms correspond to the three-pool a) BIO-K and b) regular models in Broadbalk. The blue densities are the prior distributions of the SOC and BIO decomposition rates.}
\label{Pri_Post_3P_Roth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, height=10.2cm]{Prior_Posterior_5Pool_BIO_K_Tarlee_Brigalow1.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{The marginal posterior distributions (histogram) of the decomposition rates of the five-pool BIO-K model in a) Tarlee and b) Brigalow. The blue densities are the prior distributions of the decomposition rates in the five-pool BIO-K model.}
\label{Pri_Post_5P_BIO-K_Tar_Brig}
\end{figure}
We computed the Gelman and Rubin's convergence diagnostics, $\hat{R}$ for the model parameters of the three-pool BIO-K model of the Tarlee, Brigalow, and Broadbalk datasets which are presented in Tables \ref{diag}, \ref{diagBrigalow}, and \ref{diagRoth1}, respectively, in Section \ref{GelmanAndRubin} of the supplementary material. The Gelman and Rubin's convergence diagnostics, $\hat{R}$ for the model parameters of the three-pool Regular model of the Broadbalk dataset are presented in Table \ref{diagRoth2} in Section \ref{GelmanAndRubin} of the supplementary material.
\section{Discussion}\label{SectionConclusion}
In this study, we have developed two SOC models to explore the impact of microbial population growth on estimating the amount of sequestered carbon in farmlands. We have also compared the predictive ability of the three-pool model with the more complex and frequently used five-pool (RothC-like) model. We have implemented these models on three datasets, two of them are small and sparse over time, and the other one is large, to show they are broadly applicable.
Microbial population growth has a positive relationship with carbon decomposition rate and has a dynamic process. The motivating question behind this study is whether considering the decay rates of soil carbon pools as being mediated by the size of the microbial pool in SOC models can improve the accuracy of the SOC models for making inferences on soil carbon dynamics. We fitted the three and five-pool BIO-K models on three datasets, and we found that a three-pool BIO-K model (in all datasets) to have a better predictive ability than the five-pool BIO-K model. Also, we compared the predictive abilities of the three and five-pool BIO-K models with the regular three and five-pool models in \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} through fitting them on the Tarlee, Brigalow, and Broadbalk datasets. Based on their LFO-CV and WAIC values, the three-pool model introduced by \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} outperforms the three-pool BIO-K model in both Tarlee and Brigalow but the three-pool BIO-K model has a better predictive ability than the regular three-pool model in the presence of a large dataset, the Broadbalk dataset. Although considering the microbial population growth did not improve the accuracy of the SOC models when making inferences on soil carbon dynamics of small datasets, we showed that the three-pool model outperforms the five-pool model in both regular and BIO-K models. It supports the idea that some concessions in physical realism can lead to better predictive accuracy that can be helpful for national carbon accounting.
We have successfully shown that a frequently used multi-pool model, the RothC model, might not be as fit-for-purpose compared to the three-pool model when used with both temporally sparse and large datasets. \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} show that a farmer or a land manager can gain more accuracy in making inferences about soil carbon sequestration when the three-pool model is applied to small datasets. Our study suggests that a three-pool model may not only be suitable for modelling short, short sparse datasets (see \cite{davoudabadi2021modelling}) but also for much longer historical datasets.
One of the advantages of our models and the models introduced in \citet{davoudabadi2021modelling} is that the SOC dynamics are modelled on a yearly time step that makes these models easier to fit and analyse (statistically) compared to models that consider the SOC changes on a monthly time step. Our main argument for embracing the yearly time-step arises from the fact that crop yields are often reported on an annual basis. For models that operate on a monthly time-step, annual yield data must then be dis-aggregated using some sort of model to try and determine how much carbon entered the soil for each month. Not only is this dis-aggregation a difficult undertaking, but it is a major source of uncertainty in the modelling since these soil carbon inputs are a major driver of the soil carbon dynamics.
Many long-term datasets are available that our models and methods have not been tested over those datasets to estimate the global $CO_2$ emission from soil. We will consider this in the future study.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank CSIRO for providing the Tarlee and Brigalow datasets used in this study. MJD was supported by QUT-CSIRO Digital Agriculture Scholarship and a CSIRO Digital Agriculture Top-Up Scholarship. CD was supported by the Australian Research Council. We
gratefully acknowledge the computational resources provided by QUT's High Performance
Computing (HPC) and Research Support Group. We thank the Lawes Agricultural Trust and Rothamsted Research for data from the e-RA database. The Rothamsted Long-term Experiments National Capability (LTE-NC) is supported by the UK BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, BBS/E/C/000J0300) and the Lawes Agricultural Trust.
\newpage
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}
Owing to the discovery of more than 4300 exoplanets, the booming field of exoplanetology has seen tremendous success and encountered rapid development. Today, the attention of the field is not only focused on the detection of distant worlds but also on the characterisation of exoplanetary populations \citep{Udry2007,Udry2010,Winn2015}, revelation of their formation and orbital history \citep{Mulders2018,Jontof2019}, and the detailed study of their atmospheric signatures \citep{Seager2010,Kaltenegger2017,Fujii2018}.
The detection and study of planets around giant stars is particularly interesting, providing information about the architecture and evolution of systems orbiting around stars more evolved than our Sun. The advantage of observing more massive stars at later stages of evolution, in this case along the red giant branch (RGB), is that they have a decreased surface temperature and slower surface rotation rate compared to what is observed during the pre-main sequence (PMS) and main-sequence (MS) phases. This has the effect of increasing the number of absorption lines and their sharpness (because of rotational broadening) in the spectra, thus enabling the measurement of precise stellar radial velocities (RV) suitable for exoplanet searches. The trend in searching for planets around evolved intermediate-mass stars began with the announcement of a planet orbiting the K2 III giant $\iota$ Draconis \citep{Frink2002}, and led to the discovery of more than 100 systems. However, the correct analysis and interpretation of the radial-velocity variations remains challenging because of the significant and potentially periodic intrinsic variability of red giants, which can mimic planetary signals \citep[see][for more detailed discussion on the different potential origins of this variability]{Walker1989, Hatzes1993, Hatzes1994, Hatzes1999, Frandsen2002, DeRidder2006, Hekker2006a}. In this context, the CORALIE radial-velocity search for companions around evolved stars (Ottoni 2021 submitted, CASCADES) started monitoring a sample of more than 600 G- and K-type giant stars in the southern hemisphere in 2006 (see \autoref{subsubsec:cascades}).
Probing more massive stars is also useful for discussions of the main competing planet formation scenarios. Indeed, stellar mass has a significant impact on the evolution of the protostellar disc \citep{Ribas2015}, and thus its lifetime and ability to form giant planets: a more massive star with a shorter disc lifetime would favour the disc instability scenario, which can form massive planets on very short timescales of a few thousand years \citep[e.g.][]{Helled2014,Raymond2014}.
While the field of exoplanetology was undergoing its rapid evolution, another area of research started acquiring importance, asteroseismology. Rapidly, synergies between exoplanetary studies and the seismic characterisation of stars became a standard example of successful multidisciplinary studies \citep[e.g.][]{JCDKOI2010,Batalha2011,Huber2013,Huber2013Science,Huber2018,Campante2018}. Indeed, the precise characterisation of distant worlds required access to reliable and precise stellar parameters, such as mass, radius, and age. With the development of sophisticated seismic modelling techniques, such achievements become feasible, especially owing to the space-based photometry missions such as CoRoT, \textit{Kepler}, TESS, and, in the future, PLATO. Adding the recent publication of \textit{Gaia} DR2 \citep{Evans2018, Gaia2018}, the achievable precision and accuracy of such detailed studies has reached unprecedented levels for a large number of stars.
We start in \autoref{sec:obs_stellprop} with a brief description of the CASCADES survey and the method used for determining stellar parameters. We also present the acquisition and analysis of the spectroscopic measurements, and a study of the intrinsic variability of the star HD\,29399 using both spectroscopic and photometric data. In \autoref{sec:kep_analysis} we present the orbital solution of our new planetary companion. \Autoref{SecAstero} details the asteroseismic analysis, from the peak-bagging procedure to obtain individual oscillation frequencies for the host star to the thorough modelling that we carry out, combining forward modelling and local and global minimisation techniques with seismic inversions. Finally, in \autoref{SecOrbital}, we investigate both the role of dynamical tides during the PMS and the role of equilibrium tides on the MS and the RGB using the stellar parameters determined in Section 4.
\section{Observations, stellar properties, and intrinsic variability}\label{sec:obs_stellprop}
\subsection{Observations and stellar parameters}
\subsubsection{The CASCADES survey}\label{subsubsec:cascades}
The CORALIE radial-velocity Search for Companions ArounD Evolved Stars (CASCADES) is a 14-year survey of a volume-limited sample of evolved stars of intermediate mass. The main motivation for this survey was to better understand the formation of planetary systems and their evolution around stars more massive than the Sun by completing existing studies of giant host stars and their companions. Observations began at the end of 2006, and have been conducted since then with the CORALIE spectrograph on the 1.2-m Leonard Euler Swiss telescope located at La Silla Observatory (Chile).
For a detailed description of the definition of the sample and first results of the survey, see Ottoni et al. (2021, submitted), hereafter Paper I. Complete information on instrumental aspects is given for instance in \citet{Queloz2000}, \citet{Segransan2010}, and Ségransan et al. (2020, submitted).
We collected 28 radial-velocity measurements for HD\,29399 with the CORALIE spectrograph over a time-span of more than 13 years. The obtained spectra have an average signal-to-noise ratio of 85 (at 5'500\,\AA) for typical exposure times of $\sim$180\,s. \autoref{tab:timeseries_hd29399} gives the list of these radial-velocity measurements and uncertainties.
\subsubsection{Additional measurements}
An additional set of measurements was used for the analysis: four unpublished data points from the HARPS spectrograph \citep{Mayor2003} (mounted on the 3.6 m ESO telescope at La Silla Observatory, Chile), and 22 radial-velocity points published by \citet{Wittenmyer2017a} from the UCLES spectrograph \citep{Diego1990} on the AAT and the CHIRON spectrograph \citep{Tokovinin2013} on the 1.5 m telescope at CTIO.
\subsubsection{Spectroscopic parameters}
The spectroscopic parameters of the stars in the CASCADES sample are provided in Paper I. Following the method described in \citet{Alves2015}, we derived the effective temperature $T_{\rm{eff}}$, surface gravity $\rm{log\,g,}$ and metallicity $\rm{[Fe/H]}$ using the CORALIE high-resolution spectra. The values obtained were in agreement with those found for the subsample of stars in common with \citet{Alves2015}, and with the values from the \textit{Gaia}-DR2 \citep{Brown2018}. The spectroscopic parameters derived for HD\,29399, along with other stellar parameters obtained from the literature, are presented in \autoref{tab:stellar_params}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Observed and inferred stellar parameters.}
\begin{tabular}{lllc}
\hline
\hline
& & ref. & HD\,29399\\
& & TIC & 38828538\\
& & GAIA DR2 & {\tiny 4675576135153914368}\\
\hline
Sp. Type & & [1] & K1III \\
$V$ & [mag] & [2] & 5.79 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$B-V$ & [mag] & [2] & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$BC$ & & [3] & -0.317 $\pm$ 0.019 \\
$\pi$ & [mas] & [4] & 22.62~$\pm$~0.05 \\
$d$ & [pc] & [5] & 44.2 $\substack{+0.1 \\ -0.1}$ \\
$M_{V}$ & [mag] & [2,4,5] & 2.56 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$Bp-Rp$ & [mag] & [4] & 1.170 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
$G$ & [mag] & [4] & 2.26 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$T_{eff}$ & [K] & [4] & 4803 $\substack{+66 \\ -64}$ \\
& & [6] & 4845 $\pm$ 52 \\
$log\,g$ & [cm\,s$^{-2}$] & [6] & 3.25 $\pm$ 0.13 \\
$[Fe/H]$ & [dex] & [6] & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
$M_{*}$ & [M$_{\odot}$] & [7] & 1.17 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
$L_{*}$ & [L$_{\odot}$] & [2,3,4] & 10.04 $\pm$ 0.20 \\
$R_{*}$ & [R$_{\odot}$] & [2,3,4,6] & 4.50 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
\hline
Mass$_{opt}$ & [M$_{\odot}$] & [8] & 1.15 $\pm$ 0.04\\
Radius$_{opt}$ & [R$_{\odot}$] & [8] & 4.47 $\pm$ 0.02\\
X$_0$ & & [8] & 0.681 $\pm$ 0.01\\
Z$_0$ & & [8] & 0.0170 $\pm$ 0.001\\
$\alpha_{\rm{MLT}}$ & [H$_{P}$] & [8] & 2.00 $\pm$ 0.05\\
Age & [Gy] & [8] & 6.20 $\pm$ 0.5\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small
\item {[1]} - HIPPARCOS catalogue \citep{ESA1997}, [2] - TYCHO-2 catalogue \citep{Hog2000}, [3] - \citet{Alonso1999}, [4] - Gaia DR2 \citep{Brown2018}, [5] - \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}, [6] - this paper (see \autoref{sec:obs_stellprop}), [7] - model-independent mass from seismic inversion (see \autoref{SecAstero}), [8] parameter of the optimal stellar model (see \autoref{SecAstero}).
\end{tablenotes}
\label{tab:stellar_params}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{HD29399_spectro_periodograms_nogrid.pdf}
\caption{Periodogram of the radial-velocity data (first panel), of the residuals of the radial velocities after subtraction of the fitted periodic signal (second panel), of the contrast (third panel), of the FWHM (fourth panel), of the bisector inverse span (fifth panel), and of the equivalent width of H$\alpha$ activity (sixth panel). The red vertical line represents the fitted period in the radial-velocity at 892.7 days. Horizontal lines, from bottom to top, are the FAP levels at 10\%, 1\%, and 0.1\% respectively.}
\label{fig:spec_perio}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stellar analysis of HD~29399}\label{subsec:hd29399_obs}
We first analysed the radial-velocity time series using the radial-velocity module of the DACE web platform, which provides open access to a wide range of observational and theoretical exoplanet data with the corresponding data visualisation and analysis tools\footnote{\href{https://dace.unige.ch/radialVelocities/?}{https://dace.unige.ch/radialVelocities/?}.
The formalism of the radial-velocity data analysis implemented in DACE is described in Ségransan et al. (2021, submitted) and is mainly based on algorithms presented in \citet{Diaz2014} and \citet{Delisle2016, Delisle2018}}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 {0.025\height}},clip]{corr_rv_clean_drift_haindex_res_nogrid.pdf}
\caption{Correlation plot of the radial velocities and H$\alpha$ activity index time-series for HD\,29399. A non-significant correlation is observed, with a weighted Pearson coefficient value of $R_{P}=0.078\pm0.103$ and a weighted Spearman's rank of $R_S=0.017\pm0.106$.}
\label{fig:corr_rv_ha_index_hd29399}
\end{figure}
Our standard approach to search for periodic signals in radial-velocity time-series is to follow an iterative process consisting in looking for successive significant dominant peaks in the periodogram of the corresponding radial-velocity residuals. At each step of the iteration, the radial-velocity residuals are computed by readjusting the full model composed of the N independent Keplerians, potential linear, quadratic, or cubic drift terms to fit long-term trends, the different instrumental offsets, and additional white noise terms\footnote{We fit a combination of white-noise terms corresponding to individual instrumental precision and intrinsic stellar jitter. The instrumental precision is well known for each version of CORALIE: $\sigma_{COR98}=5.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{COR07}=8.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{COR14}=3.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$}. We proceeded with the periodicity search by computing the periodogram of the data in the range 10$-$10\,000\,days using the algorithm implemented on DACE \citep[see][]{Delisle2020a,Delisle2020b}, and using the false alarm probability (FAP) to assess the significance of the signal following the formalism of \citet{Baluev2008}.
A periodic signal at 896 days clearly stands out in the periodogram of the radial velocities of HD\,29399 (\autoref{fig:spec_perio}), but the signal could have various origins. Radial-velocity variations can be linked to several, potentially periodic effects that can mimic planetary signals. Giant stars exhibit short-period solar-like radial pulsations \citep{Walker1989,Hatzes1993,Hatzes1994,Frandsen2002,DeRidder2006,Hekker2006a}, as well as non-radial oscillations \citep{Hekker2006c,DeRidder2009,Hekker2010b} with lifetimes of hundreds of days \citep{Dupret2009}. They can also produce longer period variations from a combination of magnetic cycles \citep{Santos2010,Dumusque2011a}, beating of modes, or rotational modulations of features on the stellar surface (starspots, granulation, etc.). To test those possible sources of radial-velocity periodic signal, we also thoroughly checked for variations of the line profile of the cross correlation function (CCF), and of the classical spectroscopic chromospheric indicator (in this case the H$\alpha$ index), as well as the long-term photometric variation of the star. This is described in the following sections.
\subsubsection{Spectroscopic indicator variations}\label{subsub:spectro_indic}
Intrinsic stellar variability can be tracked through changes in the shape of the spectral lines, and consequently of the CCF (the product of convolution of the spectrum with a template, used for the estimate of the radial velocities). The profile of the CCF can be monitored by computing its first moments \citep{Aerts2000}. Here, as proxies, we use the contrast, the full width at half-maximum (FWHM), and the bisector inverse span (BIS) measured on the CCF. In the case of HD\,29399, none of these show any significant periodicity in their respective periodogram (\autoref{fig:spec_perio}). We also checked for potential correlations between these parameters and radial velocities by computing the corresponding weighted Pearson coefficient. No significant correlation was found.
On the other hand, we have to mention that \citet{Wittenmyer2017a} reported a $765$-day variation signal with a 50\,m\,s$^{-1}$ semi-amplitude in the radial-velocity data obtained with the UCLES and CHIRON spectrographs, which they associated with an intrinsic stellar variation. After checking for several potential `intrinsic' origins for the variation, inconclusively\footnote{Spots were rejected because of the large surface coverage required for HD\,29399. Such coverage is needed because of the slow rotation and large radius that lead to a lower estimate of the period of rotation of $\sim$169\,days. The presence of a debris disc, as first hypothesised by \citet{Wittenmyer2017a}, was also excluded because to explain the radial-velocity variation it would have required the debris disc to be heated to 1500\,K, which is too close to the star to produce such a long periodicity}, the authors observed correlations between the radial velocities and photometric data, and the equivalent width of H$\alpha$ activity (see their Fig.\,6), which led them to the conclusion that the radial-velocity signal was intrinsic to the star, and the `planet' labelled a false positive.
To check this affirmation, we monitored the impact of magnetic activity on the chromosphere by computing the H$\alpha$ chromospheric index from our CORALIE spectra, produced the same figure as in \citet{Wittenmyer2017a}, and computed the weighted Pearson correlation coefficient R$_P$ and the Spearman's rank R$_S$ using a bootstrap randomisation technique. These estimates lead to non-significant correlation values: R$_P=0.078\pm0.103$ and R$_S=0.017\pm0.106$ (see \autoref{fig:corr_rv_ha_index_hd29399}). We therefore do not confirm the result reported in \citet{Wittenmyer2017a}.
\subsubsection{Photometric variability analysis}\label{subsub:photo_var}
\citet{Wittenmyer2017a} also checked the All-Sky Automated Survey V-band photometric data \citep[ASAS-3,][] {Pojmanski2002} for variability due to intrinsic stellar processes, and a $\sim$765-day periodicity was also found in the data \citep[see][Fig.\,1]{Wittenmyer2017a}. This highly significant signal and the large photometric variability of the star further supported the interpretation of the radial-velocity signal as being intrinsic to the star.
Following \citet{Wittenmyer2017a} we also checked the ASAS-3 data \footnote{Courtesy of Grzegorz Pojmanski, who sent us the complete photometric dataset, along with technical information on the survey and precautions to take when using the data.} for variability due to intrinsic stellar processes or surface rotational modulation. We only considered the data flagged as \textit{GRADE A} quality. It is important to point out that the ASAS-3 photometry has a saturation level at $\sim$6\,mag, depending on the observing conditions and epoch, which clearly impacts the consistency and quality of the data acquisition for our star. The focus of the camera was not stable over time because of many instrumental issues, the observing scheme and data handling pipeline have evolved over the years although the data have never been reduced again, and there are obvious consequences of varying weather conditions such as extinction due to tiny clouds, increased seeing due to wind, fog, and tracking problems.
From 1850 to 2400 [HJD-2\,450\,000], there was no treatment of saturation, causing important discontinuities observed in the data, and exposures were 180\,s in length. The induced patterns can generate non-negligible signals in the periodogram of the data. Later, some saturation corrections were included. After 2950 [HJD-2\,450\,000] (Nov, 2003), instead of taking one 180\,s exposure, the standard observation consisted of three 60\,s exposures, which reduced the saturation level by over 1\,mag. From that point until the end of 2010, the system was considered as more or less stable. Despite the fact that the saturation correction procedure improved the data, for bright stars (V\,<\,$\sim~$6.5-7) saturation is still present and is a clear concern for HD\,29399. We also observe in several targets of our sample that the photometric data between 2950 and 3300 [HJD-2\,450\,000] presents a very low dispersion clump that does not match the data acquired later. This `step' creates the equivalent of a long period trend that completely disappears when removing this portion of the data.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{asas_figs_nogrid.pdf}
\caption{Light curve (top) and periodogram (bottom) of HD\,29399 from the ASAS-3 data (\citet{Pojmanski2002}). (Top) Data acquired after 3300 [HJD-2\,450\,000], the ASAS-3300 dataset (see text). (Bottom) Periodogram of the ASAS-3300 dataset. The red vertical line corresponds to the 897.2-day period found in the radial velocities, and the dashed-vertical line to the 765-day period found by \citet{Wittenmyer2017a}. Horizontal lines, from bottom to top, are the FAP levels at 10\%, 1\%, and 0.1\% respectively.}
\label{fig:asas_hd29399}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Radial-velocity observation statistics, best-fit solutions of the model with instrumental offsets, nuisance parameters, Keplerian orbital parameters, and inferred planetary parameters.}
\begin{tabular}{llc}
\hline
\hline
& & HD\,29399b \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Observations}\\
\hline
$N_{obs}$ & & 61 \\
$T_{span}$ & $[days]$ & 4811 \\
$rms_{tot}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 24.71 \\
$rms_{res}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 11.18 \\
$\chi^2_{red}$ & & 1.46 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Offsets $^{(1)}$}\\
\hline
$\gamma_{COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 31659.7~$\pm$~3.0 \\
$\Delta\,RV_{COR14-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 12.2~$\pm$~3.7 \\
$\Delta\,RV_{CHIRON-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & -31641.5~$\pm$~6.9 \\
$\Delta\,RV_{UCLES-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & -31663.0~$\pm$~3.8 \\
$\Delta\,RV_{HARPS03-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 20.6~$\pm$~6.8 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Instrumental Noises}\\
\hline
$\sigma_{COR98}$ & $[m/s]$ & 5.3~$\pm$~1.0 \\
$\sigma_{COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 7.8~$\pm$~1.4 \\
$\sigma_{COR14}$ & $[m/s]$ & 3.0~$\pm$~0.5 \\
$\sigma_{CHIRON}$ & $[m/s]$ & 7.6~$\pm$~7.1 \\
$\sigma_{UCLES}$ & $[m/s]$ & 4.7~$\pm$~3.3 \\
$\sigma_{HARPS03}$ & $[m/s]$ & 3.4~$\pm$~2.6 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Stellar Jitter}\\
\hline
$\sigma_{jit}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 8.9~$\pm$~1.5 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Drifts}\\
\hline
Lin. & $[m/s/yr]$ & 1.9~$\pm$~0.6 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Keplerians}\\
\hline
$P$ & $[days]$ & 892.7~$\pm$~5.9 \\
$K$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 29.9~$\pm$~2.2 \\
$e$ & & 0.05~$\pm$~0.05 \\
$\omega$ & $[deg]$ & -13.1~$\pm$~85.1 \\
$\lambda_0$ $^{(2)}$ & $[deg]$ & 151.9~$\pm$~5.0 \\
$T_p$ $^{(2)}$ & $[rjd]$ & 5965.0~$\pm$~210.0 \\
\hline
$a$ & $[au]$ & 1.913~$\pm$~0.008 \\
$m_2\,sin\,i$ $^{(3)}$ & $[M_J]$ & 1.57~$\pm$~0.11 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small
\item {$^1$} The reference instrument is COR07.
\item {$^2$} The mean longitude is given at $BJD=2\,450\,000$ [d] while $2\,450\,000$ has been subtracted from the date of passage through periastron (T$_P$).
\item {$^3$} Using the model-independent mass from seismic inversions (see Sect. \ref{SecModelling})
\end{tablenotes}
\label{tab:orbit_params}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[btp]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={{.03\width} {.3767\height} 0 0},clip]{HD29399_mcmc_figs_nogrid.pdf}
\caption{First panel: Radial velocities of HD\,29399 from CORALIE (COR98 in blue, COR07 in orange and COR14 in green), HARPS (in red), UCLES (in pink), and CHIRON (in grey). Overplotted are the fitted Keplerian orbit (purple curve) and the linear trend (dark line). Second panel: Residual radial velocities after subtracting the Keplerian fit. Third panel: Radial velocities phased to the fitted period at 890.9 days. We note that the uncertainties of the HARPS point have been increased to take into account the calibration of the offset and the intrinsic variability of the star (see text).}
\label{fig:timeseries_hd29399}
\end{figure}
For these reasons and to be on the safe side, we decided to only use for our analysis the data acquired after 3300 [HJD-2\,450\,000] (which we refer to as \textit{`ASAS-3300'}) and periodograms, as shown in \autoref{fig:asas_hd29399}. The \textit{ASAS-3300} dataset contains 466 epochs spanning 4.9 years with a mean value of 6.12\,$\pm$\,0.05\,mag and 0.35\,mag rms. The dataset has a span of twice the periodicity found in our CORALIE radial-velocity time-series, and is thus still completely adequate to check for stellar photometric variability. For the analysis, we also systematically removed outliers from this subset following a sigma-clipping process. We observe that those outliers were usually fainter, which reinforces our intuition that they are linked to bad weather conditions.
The periodogram of the complete photometric time-series shown in Fig.1 of \citet{Wittenmyer2017a} clearly exhibits signals around 200\,days (contribution of data acquired between 1850 and 2400 [HJD-2\,450\,000]) and 765\,days (contribution of data acquired between 2400 and 3300 [HJD-2\,450\,000]) that completely disappear in the periodogram of the more reliable \textit{ASAS-3300} data (see \autoref{fig:asas_hd29399}). We can therefore conclude that the photometric analysis from \citet{Wittenmyer2017a} suffered from the non-optimal quality of the early ASAS data. The conclusion of a false-positive planetary signal in the radial velocities caused by features on the surface of the star is therefore not robust.
\section{Keplerian analysis of the radial velocities}\label{sec:kep_analysis}
In the absence of any significant periodic signal and correlations in the activity-related products from the high-resolution spectra, we assumed that the periodic variation observed in the radial-velocity time-series of HD\,29399 is due to a substellar companion orbiting the star. Following the procedure described in \autoref{subsec:hd29399_obs}, we detected a dominant peak in the periodogram at a period of $\sim$890.91\,days corresponding to a variation with a semi-amplitude of $\sim$30\,ms$^{-1}$. To fit the parameters of the model, we used the MCMC algorithm implemented in DACE, developed by \citet{Diaz2014,Diaz2016}, to probe the complete parameter space, with $1.6$ million iterations. We used the following parameters for the Keplerian model: We used the natural logarithm of the period (log\,P) and of the semi-amplitude (log\,K) to better explore ranges of several orders of magnitude with a uniform prior; $\sqrt{e \cos{\omega}}$ and $\sqrt{e \sin{\omega}}$ (with $e$ the eccentricity of the orbit and $\omega$ the argument of the periastron) to obtain a uniform prior for the eccentricity; and finally the mean longitude at epoch of reference (i.e., $BJD=2\,455\,500$ [d]) ($\lambda_0$), with a uniform prior. We used a uniform prior for the COR07 offset of reference, and Gaussian priors for the relative offsets between COR07 and COR98/14: $\Delta\,RV_{COR98-COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(0,4)$ m\,s$^{-1}$, $\Delta\,RV_{COR14-COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(14,4)$ m\,s$^{-1}$. We also used Gaussian priors for the instrumental noise: $\sigma_{COR98}$: $\mathcal{N}(5,1)$ m\,s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(8,1.5)$ m\,s$^{-1}$ and $\sigma_{COR14}$: $\mathcal{N}(3,0.5)$ m\,s$^{-1}$. Finally, we used a uniform prior for the stellar jitter parameter. We present in \autoref{apdx:corner} the corner plot of the posterior distributions of the fitted parameters. Adopting the model-independent stellar mass of 1.17\,M$_{\odot}$ (see \autoref{SecModelling}), the single-planet model yields a minimum mass for the companion of 1.57\,M$_{J}$, on a 892.7-day period orbit with a semi-major axis of 1.91\,au.
In addition, HD\,29399 exhibits a clear long-term radial-velocity trend, probably explained by the presence of an additional companion. The observed slope could correspond to a substellar object of a couple of Jupiter masses, with a minimum period of $\sim$8000\,days, considering a circular orbit. A longer time-span is necessary to better constrain this trend. It can be adequately fitted by a linear drift term, however part of the effect could be related to the effect of the offset between the disjointed CORALIE instruments. The use of the four HARPS points\footnote{The last HARPS point was obtained after a major intervention on the instrument, changing the instrument zero point. An offset was then applied (based on \citet{LoCurto2015}). We also increased the uncertainties of the HARPS points to take into account the effect of the calibration and the minimum intrinsic variability of the star.} broadly spread in time, as well as the inclusion of the CHIRON and UCLES data sets overlapping with the CORALIE measurements, help to consolidate the estimate of the offsets between the instruments. In this context, we tried three types of models: a single planet, a planet $+$ a linear drift, and a planet $+$ a quadratic drift. A Bayesian model comparison using the Bayesian information criterion clearly indicates a preference for the model with one planet $+$ linear drift (change in the BIC of 10 and 2, adding a linear drift, and then a quadratic term, respectively).
The resulting best model overplotted on the radial velocities, as well as the residuals around the best solution are shown in \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd29399}. Table~\ref{tab:orbit_params} presents the statistics of the distributions (i.e., the median and standard deviation) of the most common set of Keplerian parameters P, K, e, $\omega$, and the date of passage through periastron (T$_P$), as well as the distributions of the semi-major axis and minimum masses derived from the MCMC chains of the fitted parameters. \Autoref{apdx:corner} shows the corner plot of the posterior distributions of the fitted parameters. The weighted rms of the residuals around the solution is comparable to the radial-velocity dispersion of giant stars with similar $B-V$ (see Fig.3 from \citealt{Hekker2006b}).
In light of the presented results, we are fairly confident that the 892.7-day periodic variation in the radial-velocity data of HD\,29399 is not due to chromospheric stellar activity as there are no significant correlations between the radial velocities and the classical chromospheric indicators. Rotational modulation of surface features such as spots can also be excluded, as they would require a very large percentage of the stellar surface to be covered, and we do not observe any long-term photometric variability. Finally, we found no trace of long-period non-radial oscillation modes (either matching periodicities or corresponding to harmonics in the line profile moments). An orbiting planet therefore remains a valid hypothesis to explain the radial-velocity periodic signal detected.
Finally, it is worth noting that long-period planets orbiting giant stars are good candidates for transit search. Indeed, the decrease in transit probability due to the long period is compensated by the large radius of the star. The only downside to using such targets is the small depth of the transit scaling with the square of the star-to-planet ratio. However, this remains detectable from space with missions such as TESS \citep{Ricker2015}, CHEOPS \citep{Benz2020}, and PLATO \citep{Rauer2014}. For the planet orbiting HD\,29399, the transit probability is of the order of 1\,\% and an expected depth of $\sim500$\,ppm for a Jupiter-size planet.
\section{Asteroseismic analysis}\label{SecAstero}
\subsection{Peakbagging and frequency determinations}\label{AsteroObs}
We studied the acoustic oscillation mode frequencies of HD 29399 (also known as TIC 38828538) using photometric measurements from TESS. Our method comprises constructing a power spectrum from the observed flux and measuring the locations of radial $(\ell=0)$ and quadrupolar $(\ell=2)$ oscillation modes using the automated peakbagging package \texttt{PBjam}\footnote{See \url{https://github.com/grd349/PBjam}} \citep{Nielsen2020}.
To construct the power spectrum, we used the \texttt{lightkurve} package \citep{lightkurvecollaborationLightkurveKeplerTESS-2018} which makes use of the \texttt{astropy} \citep{AstropyCollaboration.Robitaille.ea2013,AstropyCollaboration.Price-Whelan.ea2018} and \texttt{astroquery} packages \citep{Ginsburg.Sipocz.ea2019}. We downloaded TESS light curves from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST) for all sectors from 1 to 12, except sector 3. Subsequently, we stitched the Pre-search Data Conditioning Simple Aperture Photometry \citep[PDCSAP,][]{Stumpe.Smith.ea2012,Smith.Stumpe.ea2012} flux for each sector, removing both low-frequency trends, using a Savitzky–Golay filter, and $5$-$\sigma$ outliers. We obtained the power spectrum using the Lomb-Scargle method \citep{Lomb1976,Scargle1982}. To determine the signal-to-noise ratio, we divided the power spectrum by an estimate of the background obtained by smoothing with a moving median in steps of $\frac{1}{2}\log(0.01\,\mu\mathrm{Hz})$.
We used the \texttt{PBjam} package to determine the observed radial, $\nu_{n,0}$, and quadrupolar, $\nu_{n,2}$, oscillation modes of the star. Initial mode identification was based on the methods of \citet{daviesAsteroseismologyRedGiants-2016} and a prior probability distribution constructed from thousands of stars already analysed using \texttt{PBjam}. The means, $\mu$, and uncertainties, $\sigma$, on the input parameters used to select stars from the prior are given in \autoref{tab:seismo_input}. The input large frequency separation, $\Delta\nu$, and frequency at maximum power, $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$, were obtained using the methods described in \citet{hekkerSolarlikeOscillationsRed-2012}. We adopted the input effective temperature, $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, and colour, $G_{\mathrm{BP}} - G_{\mathrm{RP}}$, from \textit{Gaia} DR2 \citep{GaiaCollaboration.Prusti.ea2016,GaiacollaborationGaiaDataRelease-2018}. The inputs primarily determined the window in which we selected stars from the prior for subsequent mode identification; they had no influence on the final peakbagging step.
We performed initial mode identification by fitting the asymptotic relation \citep{2013A&A...550A.126M} and used the \texttt{emcee} package \citep{foreman-mackeyEmceeMCMCHammer-2013} to build the final posterior distributions of the modes and provide their identification. This resulted in values for the large frequency separation, $\Delta\nu = 14.93 \pm 0.02\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$, and the frequency at maximum power, $\nu_{\mathrm{max}} = 196.5 \pm 2.5\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$, both within $1$- and $2$-$\sigma$ of their input values, respectively.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Global stellar property estimates for TIC 38828538 used as inputs for the \texttt{PBjam} peakbagging pipeline.}
\label{tab:seismo_input}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline \hline
Input & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ \\
\hline
$\Delta\nu\,(\mu\mathrm{Hz})$ & 14.88 & 0.05 \\
$\nu_{\mathrm{max}}\,(\mu\mathrm{Hz})$ & 193.34 & 1.47 \\
$T_{\mathrm{eff}}\,(\mathrm{K})$ & 4803 & 70 \\
$G_{\mathrm{BP}} - G_{\mathrm{RP}}\,(\mathrm{dex})$ & 1.17 & 0.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Individual observed asteroseismic frequencies for TIC 38828538. The radial and quadrupolar oscillation modes, with their statistical uncertainties, are given in the left and right columns respectively.}
\label{tab:seismo_output}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline \hline
$\nu_{n,0}\,(\mu\mathrm{Hz})$ & $\nu_{n,2}\,(\mu\mathrm{Hz})$ \\
\hline
$139.619\pm0.070$ & $137.717\pm0.257$ \\
$154.063\pm0.051$ & $152.152\pm0.061$ \\
$168.590\pm0.027$ & $166.727\pm0.043$ \\
$183.575\pm0.024$ & $181.751\pm0.043$ \\
$198.352\pm0.017$ & $196.522\pm0.035$ \\
$213.258\pm0.040$ & $211.439\pm0.031$ \\
$228.564\pm0.039$ & $226.817\pm0.032$ \\
$244.017\pm0.224$ & $241.788\pm0.240$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
After the mode identification, we fit a Lorentzian profile to each mode by sampling its posterior distribution using the Bayesian package \texttt{PyMC3} \citep{Salvatier.Wiecki.ea2016}. Each mode location, $\nu_{n,l}^{\,\prime}$, from the previous step was used as the mean of a prior normal distribution, $\mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma)$, on the Lorentzian centre given by,
\begin{equation}
\nu_{n,l} \sim \mathcal{N}\left(\nu_{n,l}^{\,\prime}, 0.03\Delta\nu\right),
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are the mean and standard deviation, respectively. All other parameters from the previous steps were relaxed.
The oscillation mode locations are given in \autoref{tab:seismo_output}, and plotted on the periodogram in \autoref{fig:seismo_model} together with their $68\%$ credible regions. These are the observed frequencies, uncorrected for any shifts due to the radial-velocity of the star. The echelle diagram in \autoref{fig:seismo_echelle} shows the locations of the radial and quadrupolar oscillation modes phase-folded by the large frequency separation determined above. We give the uncertainties as the standard deviation of the posterior samples for each mode location.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{spectrum.png}
\caption{Asteroseimic signal-to-noise ratio power spectrum for HD\,29399 (TIC 38828538) in light grey and the smoothed spectrum in black. The locations of the radial, $l=0,$ and quadrupolar, $l=2,$ oscillation modes are shown with dashed lines, and their 68\% credible regions are shaded in blue and orange, respectively.}
\label{fig:seismo_model}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{echelle.png}
\caption{Echelle diagram for HD\,29399 (TIC 38828538). The signal-to-noise ratio in frequency, $\nu,$ modulo the large frequency separation, $\Delta\nu = 14.93\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$. The locations of radial, $l=0$ (blue), and quadrupolar, $l=2$ (orange), oscillation modes are shown with error bars given by their 68\% credible regions.}
\label{fig:seismo_echelle}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Seismic modelling}\label{SecModelling}
In this section, we carry out a detailed modelling of HD\,29399, combining seismic and classical constraints from both ground-based spectroscopic surveys and \textit{Gaia} parallax values. We use the Liège stellar evolution code \citep{ScuflaireCles} combined with the Liège stellar oscillation code \citep{ScuflaireOsc} to compute adiabatic oscillations. The available constraints are summarised in \autoref{tab:stellar_params} with their corresponding references. Following \citet{Buldgen2019Kepler}, the modelling is divided into three steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Forward modelling with the Asteroseismic Inference on a Massive Scale \citep[AIMS,][]{Rendle2019,Montalban2020} software using radial oscillations and classical constraints.
\item Inversion of the stellar mean density to determine a model-independent mass range.
\item Forward modelling combining the inversion results, classical constraints, and frequency separations of the radial and quadrupolar modes.
\end{enumerate}
The first step uses a global minimisation technique to determine first estimates of the global stellar properties and carry out a thorough exploration of the parameter space. This approach ensures a reliable and accurate inversion procedure in step 2, which is used to determine the model-independent mass interval from which the planetary properties are deduced. Using these results, we carry out a third step using a local minimisation technique to find a solution in better agreement with the observations, delivering a robust age estimate for the system better accounting for seismic and non-seismic constraints.
In the first step, we used two different grids of stellar evolutionary models described in \citet{Rendle2019} and used in \citet{Buldgen2019} to study a sample of \textit{Kepler} eclipsing binaries. This grid uses the GN93 solar abundances \citep{GrevNoels} and the corresponding metallicity scale. We also recomputed a second grid using the AGSS09 revision of the solar abundances \citep{AGSS09} to explore their impact on the determined stellar parameters. Both grids are evolved up to a cut-off lower $\nu_{\rm{Max}}$ value determined in \autoref{AsteroObs}. Moreover, \citet{Rendle2019} and \citet{Buldgen2019} used an Eddington atmosphere for the outer boundary layers, which is unsuitable for fitting classical parameters on the RGB with a solar-calibrated mixing-length parameter value. Therefore, in the second grid we used a $T(\tau)$ relation from Model C of \citet{Vernazza}, which is more suitable for our needs \citep{Sonoi2019}. None of the grids include microscopic diffusion. The observed frequencies have been corrected from the line-of-sight Doppler velocity shifts following the recommendations of \citet{Davies2014}. Both grids assume a solar calibrated mixing-length parameter, use the FreeEOS equation of state \citep{Irwin}, and OPAL opacity tables \citep{OPAL}. We summarise the properties of the AGSS09 grid in \autoref{tabGridProp} and refer the reader to \citet{Rendle2019} for the properties of the GN93 grid.
\begin{table}
\caption{Properties of the AIMS stellar evolution model grids.}
\label{tabGridProp}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|r | c | c}
\hline \hline
Parameters& AGSS09 grid values \\ \hline
Mass $\left( M_{\odot} \right)$&$1.00-1.70 $ $(0.02\; \rm{step})$\\
$X_{0}$ &$\left[0.68, 0.72 \right]$ $(0.01\; \rm{step})$\\
$Z_{0}$&$\left[ 0.010, 0.050 \right]$ $(0.001\; \rm{step})$\\
$\alpha_{\rm{MLT}}$ $\left(H_{P}\right)$&$2.03$\\
$\nu_{\rm{Max}}$ cutoff $\left( \mu \rm{Hz}\right)$&$40$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The results are illustrated for the AGSS09 grid in \autoref{FigDistrib}. As we can see, the individual radial frequencies are relatively well fitted by AIMS. A similar conclusion is reached for the final $\left[ \rm{Fe}/\rm{H} \right]$ of the model, which is $0.095 ~\rm{dex,}$ and the effective temperature of $4880~K$. However, the radius of the model slightly disagrees with the value determined from \textit{Gaia} and the spectroscopic constraints reported in \autoref{tab:stellar_params}. This small discrepancy is also seen in the luminosity of the model, found around $10.78~L_{\odot}$ and results from the higher weight of the individual frequencies compared to the classical constraints. Nevertheless, these discrepancies remain very small and within $1\sigma$ of the observations. The age of the star is found to be around $\rm 6.33 ~Gyr$. The results for the GN93 grid are similar, with good agreement found in frequencies, but, unsurprisingly given the atmosphere used, significant mismatches are found for the classical parameters. Nevertheless, given that they fit the individual frequencies (as shown in \autoref{FigEchAIMS}) for the AGSS09 model, both models are suitable for seismic inversion.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth, trim={95 32 60 93}, clip]{histogram_Mass-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\adjincludegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth, trim={95 32 60 93}, clip]{histogram_Radius-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Probability distribution functions for the mass (left) and radius (right) for HD\,29399 (TIC38828538) obtained using AIMS. The vertical lines indicate the position of the best model obtained from a simple scan of the grid.}
\label{FigDistrib}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 {0.021\height}},clip]{EchelleAIMS-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Echelle diagram illustrating the agreement between theoretical and observed radial $(\ell=0)$ frequencies for the AIMS AGSS09 solution.}
\label{FigEchAIMS}
\end{figure}
Following \citet{ReeseDens} and \citet{Buldgen2019}, we carried out an inversion of the mean density using only radial modes to avoid non-linear behaviours. The inversion procedure is based on the integral relations linking relative frequency differences to corrections of thermodynamic variables of the stellar structure \citep{Dziemboswki90}. From these relations, we can determine the coefficients, $c_{i}$, such that the mean density of the reference model is computed in a model-independent way from a recombination of the individual frequencies:
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta \bar{\rho}}{\bar{\rho}}=\sum_{i}c_{i}\frac{\delta \nu_{i}}{\nu_{i}}.
\end{align}
We used the SOLA inversion technique \citep{Pijpers}, following the guidelines of \citet{ReeseDens} and \citet{Buldgen2019}, applying different surface effect corrections \citep[namely those of][]{Kjeldsen,Sonoi,Ball1,Ball2} as well as different reference models. The final inverted value is $0.01815\,\pm\,1 \times 10^{-4}$\,g\,cm$^{-3}$. Combining it with the radius determined from spectroscopic and astrometric data, we determine a model-independent mass interval of $1.17\,\pm\,0.11$\,M$_{\odot}$ for HD\,29399\footnote{While this mass interval is determined independently from any stellar model, it is however dependent on the accuracy of the radii values, hence on the accuracy of bolometric corrections, extinction laws, and so on.}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=.9\textwidth, trim={0 0 0 0}, clip]{TrackFit2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Left panel: HR diagram showing the CLES evolutionary track and the position of the optimal seismic solution. Right panel: Agreement of the $d_{0,2}$ for the optimal solution with the values determined from TESS data.}
\label{FigTrackFit}
\end{figure*}
The final modelling step is carried out using a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm \citep[used e.g. in][]{BuldgenCygA, Farnir2019,Buldgen2019Kepler} with the following set of constraints: $\bar{\rho}_{\rm{Inv}}$, the inverted mean density, $L$, $T_{\rm{eff}}$, $\left[ \rm{Fe}/\rm{H}\right]$, and the individual small frequency separations, denoted $d_{0,2}=\nu_{n,0}-\nu_{n-1,2}$, using the mass, $M$, the age, $t$, the mixing-length parameter, $\alpha_{\rm{MLT}}$ , and the initial hydrogen, $X_{0}$, and metal content, $Z_{0}$, as free parameters. The stellar evolutionary models and their oscillation spectra are computed on the fly to avoid any interpolation issues in between and alongside the tracks. Departing from a solar-calibrated $\alpha_{\rm{MLT}}$ value implies additional degeneracies in the modelling. However, as we already have a good grasp on the expected mass of the star, we can ascertain that there will be a gain in accuracy, as departures from a solar-calibrated value are expected from the analysis of averaged $3D$ hydrodynamical simulations \citep{Trampedach2014, Magic, Sonoi2019}.
Using the small separations is justified as they allow mitigation of the surface effects, providing more robust estimates than those determined from individual frequency fitting. Moreover, the small separations have been shown by \citet{Montalban2010} to be very sensitive to the mass of the star as a function of its mean density, which serves our purpose of refining the stellar mass determination.
We illustrate the agreement of our final model with the constraints used in \autoref{FigTrackFit}, where we present on the left panel its evolutionary track showing its position on the lower RGB and on the right panel the agreement with the observed values of the individual $d_{0,2}$. The final parameters for the star are given in the second part of \autoref{tab:stellar_params}, where the reported uncertainties are determined from the analysis using the Levenberg-Marquardt minimisation. The precision of the stellar parameters is quite good, as the respective precisions of $d_{0,2}$, and the mean density are very high. However, it would be unrealistic to assume that this is the true precision of the determined stellar parameters. Varying the physical ingredients of the stellar evolution model may well lead to variations at a level comparable to the precision reported here. However, we note that this solution is well within the model-independent mass interval given by our inversion procedure. Therefore, below, we use the mass value from the second part of \autoref{tab:stellar_params} but consider the $1~\sigma$ uncertainty to be given by the combination of the inverted mean density and radius values from \textit{Gaia} parallaxes and spectroscopic parameters when determining the planetary parameters.
\section{Orbital history}\label{SecOrbital}
In this section, we describe our study of the orbital evolution of the system. In addition to the non-rotating models of HD\,29399 computed with the CLES stellar evolution code, detailed models that include a comprehensive treatment of rotational effects and magnetic fields are computed with the Geneva stellar evolution code \citep{Eggenberger2008} from the PMS to the RGB phase.
The stellar parameters determined through the seismic modelling described in the second part of \autoref{tab:stellar_params} are used as a starting point to compute these models. The assumption of shellular rotation \citep{zah92} is used and the internal transport of angular momentum (AM) is then solved simultaneously to the evolution of the star by accounting for meridional currents, transport by the shear instability, and transport by magnetic fields in the framework of the Tayler-Spruit dynamo \citep{spr02}. Consequently, the following equation for internal AM transport is solved:
\begin{equation}
\rho \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t} \left( r^{2}\Omega \right)_{M_r}
= \frac{1}{5r^{2}}\frac{\partial }{\partial r} \left(\rho r^{4}\Omega
U(r)\right)
+ \frac{1}{r^{2}}\frac{\partial }{\partial r}\left(\rho (D_{\rm shear}+\nu_{\rm TS}) r^{4}
\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial r} \right) \, ,
\label{transmom}
\end{equation}
\noindent with $r$, $\rho(r)$, and $\Omega(r)$ being the radius, the mean density, and the mean angular velocity on an isobar, respectively. The radial dependence of the meridional circulation velocity in the radial direction is denoted $U(r)$, while $D_{\rm shear}$ corresponds to the diffusion coefficient for AM transport by the shear instability \citep[see][for more details]{egg10_rg}. The transport of AM by magnetic fields is taken into account through the viscosity $\nu_{\rm TS}$; this magnetic process is able to operate only when the shear parameter $q= -\frac{\partial \ln \Omega}{\partial \ln r}$ is larger than a minimum threshold given by $q_{\min}$ \citep[see][for mode details]{Eggenberger2019}. These models that account for rotational and magnetic effects are able to correctly reproduce the internal rotation of the Sun together with the observations of surface velocities of stars in open clusters \citep{Eggenberger2005,Eggenberger2019}. However, we note that the same models do not provide sufficient coupling to correctly reproduce the asteroseismic core rotation rates of red giants \citep{can14,den19}, which indicates that an unknown efficient additional AM transport process is needed for subgiant \citep{egg19} and red giant stars \citep{egg12_rg,egg17}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 {.07\height}},clip]{HD29399b_new2_Orbits.png}
\caption{Evolution of the orbital distance after the MS (to the RGB branch). The solid red line represents the orbit of the planet. The solid black line shows the value for the orbital distance below which the planet will be engulfed. The magenta area represents the stellar convective envelope, while the cyan area shows the extension of the radiative interior.}
\label{orbevo}
\end{figure}
To follow the evolution of a planetary system, these stellar models are coupled to our orbital evolution code by taking into account the exchange of angular momentum between the star and the orbit \citep{Privitera2016AII,Privitera2016III,Rao2018}. This enables us to test whether an eventual impact due to dynamical tides (mainly during the PMS) and/or equilibrium tides (at later evolutionary stages) could have significantly changed the orbit of the planet, leading to the current architecture of the system, or whether the system has retained the same architecture since its formation.
The physics included in the orbital evolution code is described in \cite{Rao2018}. We account for the planetary atmospheric evaporation occurring in Jeans escape or hydrodynamic escape regime conditions, depending on the properties of the system considered. For the computation of the emitted stellar X-ray luminosity, following the work by \citet{Tu2015}, we use the formula of \citet{Wright2011}, while for the EUV luminosity we refer to the work of \citet{SanzForcada2011}.\\
We started our study considering the planet at its current orbital distance from the host star at the beginning of the evolution, namely $\rm a_{in} = 1.910$ au, with a minimum mass $\rm M_{pl} = 1.59$ $\rm{M_J}$. The rotational history of the host star HD\,29399 being unknown, we considered three different initial surface angular velocities ($\rm 3.2$, $\rm 5$ and $\rm 18 \, \Omega_{\odot}$), covering the range for slow, medium, and fast rotators as deduced from surface rotation rates of solar-type stars observed in open clusters at different ages \citep{Eggenberger2019}. A disc lifetime of 6\,Myr is used for $\rm \Omega_{in} = 3.2, 5.0 ~ \Omega_{\odot}$ and 2\,Myr for $\rm \Omega_{in} = 18 ~ \Omega_{\odot}$. During the disc-locking phase, the surface angular velocity of the star is simply assumed to remain constant. After remaining constant during the disc-locking phase, the surface velocity rapidly increases due to the PMS contraction and reaches a peak at an age of about 25 Myr. Then the surface rotation rate exhibits a decrease along the evolution during the MS, indicating the braking of the stellar surface by magnetised winds. After the end of the MS, the surface rotation decreases rapidly due to the expansion of the envelope during the subgiant and the red giant phases.
Using the initial setup described above, we did not find any appreciable change in the orbit of the planet along the evolution. Given the mass of the planet and that of the star, the planet is found to be at too great an initial distance for its motion to be significantly affected by tides. Even during the RGB phase, the limited increase in the stellar radius (a value of only about $\rm 12.9 \, R_{\odot}$ is found for HD\,29399, corresponding to $\rm 0.0586 $ au) does not give rise to efficient equilibrium tides. These results are in perfect agreement with previous results reported in \cite{Privitera2016a}.
For the sake of completeness, we computed the orbital evolution of the planet when the host star climbs the RGB, exploring a range of lower initial orbital distances to determine the maximal value below which the planet would be engulfed, denoted here $\rm{a_{Max}}$. As shown in \autoref{orbevo}, we find a value of $\rm{a_{Max}} \approx$\,0.12\,au. In the case of HD\,29399, this is more than 15 times lower than the observed orbital distance.
\section{Conclusion}\label{SecConc}
In this paper, we illustrate the advantages of synergy between both exoplanetary studies and seismic characterisation of stars with the detailed characterisation of a long-period giant planet orbiting the evolved star HD\,29399 detected within the 14-year CASCADES survey (Ottoni et al. 2021, submitted), and observed by TESS during 11 continuous sectors of 27 days. The detailed analysis allows us to provide very precise stellar parameters, far beyond what is achievable from stellar evolutionary tracks alone, paving the way for an analysis of the orbital evolution of the planetary system.
The newly discovered giant planet is a 1.57\,M$_J$ companion at an orbital distance of 1.913\,au, with a period of 892.7\,days. The radial-velocity time-series also present a long-term linear trend that may reveal a substellar companion. We consulted the corresponding ASAS-3 photometry time-series \citep{Pojmanski2002} to address the announcement of a false-positive by \citet{Wittenmyer2017a} and demonstrate that the photometric time-series must be considered carefully, and cannot not rule out the planet hypothesis. We also checked for any correlation with chromospheric activity and spectroscopic line-profile variations, and find no significant signals.
In addition to the exquisite coverage of radial velocities, HD\,29399 has also been followed for almost a year by TESS, allowing for the precise determination of its pulsational properties. This allowed us to determine individual radial and quadrupolar oscillation modes with high precision and use them for a detailed modelling of the host star. This allowed us to determine the mass of HD\,29399 to be $1.17\pm0.10$\,M$_{\odot}$, the radius to be $4.47\pm 0.02\, \rm{R}_{\odot}$, and the age of the system to be around $6.2 \pm 0.5 \,\rm{Gyr}$.
The determination of these detailed properties enabled us to study the orbital evolution of the system using non-standard stellar evolution models computed with the Geneva stellar evolution code. Our study shows that neither dynamical nor equilibrium tides have been able to affect the orbital evolution of the planet, whatever the initial rotational velocity considered for the host star. Our results are in agreement with those of \citet{Privitera2016AII}, showing that a Jupiter-mass planet orbiting at such long periods should remain unaffected. We carried out our computations up to the tip of the RGB and predict no engulfment in the future evolution of the system.
Overall, our study demonstrates a perfect example of a multidisciplinary, multi-instrument approach, where a long-duration ground-based survey combined with high-cadence space-based observations has led to the discovery of a long-period planet and precise asteroseismic characterisation of its host star. We combined precise stellar and planetary characterisations in our study of the orbital evolution of the system. Such multidisciplinary approaches are crucial to understanding the statistical properties of planetary systems, their formation history, and the evolution of their properties as a result of interactions with their host star.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank the referee for the useful comments that helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. This work has been carried out within the framework of the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The authors acknowledge the financial support of the SNSF. \newline
This publication makes use of the The Data \& Analysis Center for Exoplanets (DACE), which is a facility based at the University of Geneva (CH) dedicated to extrasolar planet data visualisation, exchange and analysis. DACE is a platform of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) PlanetS, federating the Swiss expertise in Exoplanet research. The DACE platform is available at https://dace.unige.ch. \newline
We thank all observers at La Silla Observatory from the past fourteen years for their quality work. We acknowledge financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). This work has, in part, been carried out within the framework of the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS supported by SNSF.\\
C.P. acknowledges funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (project Interacting Stars, number 200020-172505). G.B. acknowledges funding from the SNF AMBIZIONE grant No 185805 (Seismic inversions and modelling of transport processes in stars). P.E. has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 833925, project STAREX). This article used an adapted version of InversionKit, a software developed within the HELAS and SPACEINN networks, funded by the European Commission's Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes. AM acknowledges support from the ERC Consolidator Grant funding scheme (project ASTEROCHRONOMETRY, https://www.asterochronometry.eu, G.A. n. 772293).
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent One barrier to precise lattice results is the signal-to-noise problem. It occurs when the two-point correlator decays exponentially with increasing separation while the statistical error due to random fluctuations remains constant. Multilevel techniques (\cite{Parisi:1983hm}, \cite{Luscher:2001up}) involve dividing the lattice into sub-regions separated by boundaries and simulating these sub-regions independently. They have proven effective at overcoming the signal-to-noise problem, especially in lattice gauge theory. There is a great deal of interest in studying theories at criticality. Of particular interest to the authors are holographic models of the early universe \cite{McFadden:2009fg}. To simulate these theories one must tune a bare mass parameter such that the theory is at a nonperturbative massless (critical) point \cite{Cossu:2020yeg}. In this study numerical results from the Ising model are used to study the performance of multilevel in the approach to criticality. Additionally, a theoretical model to understand this performance is proposed and tested against this numerical data.
\section{The multilevel algorithm}
\noindent In this article we will focus on a two-level setup, splitting the lattice $\Lambda$ into two sub-regions $\{\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2\}$ which are separated by boundaries $\partial B$. The action is local so with boundaries one lattice site thick there are no contributions that mix $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$. The path integral can then be decomposed as
\begin{align}
\int_{x \in \Lambda} \mathcal{D}\phi(x) e^{-S[\Lambda]} = \textcolor{red}{\int_{x \in \partial B} \mathcal{D}\phi(x) e^{-S[\partial B]}} \prod_{r = 1}^2 \int_{x \in \Lambda_r} \mathcal{D}\phi(x) e^{-S[\Lambda_r; \textcolor{red}{\partial B}]}. \label{eq: factorization of path integral}
\end{align}
In performing a multilevel simulation we first produce $N$ configurations of the whole lattice. These configurations are used to fix the boundary sites $\partial B_i$ where $i \in \{1, 2, ..., N\}$. We produce sub-lattice ensembles, with $M$ configurations for each boundary configuration, labelled by the index $j_r \in \{1, 2, ..., M \}$ for sub-region $\Lambda_r$. In the following calculations we assume that the Monte-Carlo time between successive boundary configurations and between successive sub-lattice configurations is sufficiently large that the effects of autocorrelation can be ignored. Consider fields insertions $\phi(x)$ and $\phi(y)$, where $x$ is in sub-lattice $\Lambda_1$ and $y$ is in $\Lambda_2$. For a given boundary configuration $\partial B_i$ the field values $\phi(x)_{ij_1}$ and $\phi(y)_{ij_2}$ are sampled from distributions with means $\mu_x(\partial B_i)$ and $\mu_y(\partial B_i)$ and variances $\sigma^2_x(\partial B_i)$ and $\sigma^2_y(\partial B_i)$ respectively. Defining
\begin{align}
X_i = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{j_1} \phi(x)_{ij_1},\qquad Y_i = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{j_2} \phi(y)_{ij_2},
\end{align}
we use the central limit theorem to give us
\begin{align}
X_i \sim N\left(\mu_x(\partial B_i), \frac{\sigma^2_x(\partial B_i)}{M}\right), \qquad Y_i \sim N\left(\mu_y(\partial B_i), \frac{\sigma^2_y(\partial B_i)}{M}\right).
\end{align}
The two-point correlator is given by $Z = (1/N)\sum_i \tilde{Z}_i / N$, where $\tilde{Z}_i = X_i Y_i$. The two-point correlation between $\phi(x)$ and $\phi(y)$ is accounted for through the means of their distributions ($\mu_x(\partial B_i)$ and $\mu_y(\partial B_i)$), which are both conditionally dependent on the boundary. There is no residual statistical correlation between $X_i$ and $Y_i$. We therefore have that
\begin{align}
\langle \tilde{Z}_i \rangle &= \langle X_i Y_i \rangle =\langle X_i \rangle \langle Y_i \rangle = \mu_{X_i} \mu_{Y_i},
\end{align}
where $\mu_{X_i} = \mu_x(\partial B_i)$ and $\mu_{Y_i} = \mu_y(\partial B_i)$. One can show that the variance of $\tilde{Z}_i$ is given by
\begin{align}
\sigma^2_{\tilde{Z}_i} = \sigma^2_{X_i} \sigma^2_{Y_i} + \mu_{X_i}^2 \sigma^2_{Y_i} + \mu_{Y_i}^2 \sigma^2_{X_i},
\end{align}
where $\sigma^2_{X_i} = \sigma^2_x(\partial B_i)/M$ and $\sigma^2_{Y_i} = \sigma^2_y(\partial B_i)/M$. Using $E$ and $Var$ to represent the expectation value and variance of $\tilde{Z}$ as we vary the boundary configuration, the law of total variance tells us that
\begin{align}
Var(\tilde{Z}) &= Var(\mu_{\tilde{Z}}) + E(\sigma^2_{\tilde{Z}}), \\
&= Var(\mu_X \mu_Y) + E(\mu^2_X \sigma^2_Y + \mu^2_Y \sigma^2_X + \sigma^2_X \sigma^2_Y), \nonumber
\end{align}
giving us overall that (see also \cite{GarciaVera:2017xif}))
\begin{align}
Var(Z) &= \frac{1}{N}\left( Var(\mu_x \mu_y) + \frac{1}{M}E(\mu^2_x \sigma^2_y + \mu^2_y \sigma^2_x) + \frac{1}{M^2}E(\sigma^2_x \sigma^2_y)\right). \label{eq: Variance General}
\end{align}
The relative contribution of the terms in this formula will determine if a multilevel algorithm outperforms a single level one. The computational cost of a multilevel simulation is equivalent to a single level simulation with $N \times M$ configurations, which has a variance scaling like $1 / NM$. If the two-point function is largely boundary dominated, then $Var(\mu_x \mu_y) / N$ will be the leading scaling, and a multilevel algorithm will give correlator estimates with a variance $M$ larger than an equivalent single level algorithm. By contrast, if the boundary has little impact on $\phi(x)$ and $\phi(y)$, and these field insertions have zero mean, we achieve a $1/NM^2$ scaling of the variance, which is an improvement over single level variance scaling by a factor of $M$.\\
Multilevel techniques are now used widely in the simulation of lattice gauge theories, however their application in other areas of lattice physics is an area of active study. Research has been done to implement multilevel in QCD with fermions where the quark propagators are non-local and thicker boundaries must be used \cite{Ce:2016ajy}. Multilevel algorithms has also been studied as a potential technique to overcome critical slowing down \cite{Jansen:2020qrz}. Some authors have investigated the use of symmetries to improve the efficiency of multilevel \cite{DellaMorte:2010yp}. Recently multilevel methods have been used in calculations of the muon magnetic moment \cite{DallaBrida:2020cik}. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{multilevel_diagram.pdf}
\caption{A multilevel set up with two sub-lattices.}
\label{fig: multilevel diagram}
\end{figure}
In this paper the two-dimensional Ising model has been used as a test system to investigate the performance of multilevel in the approach to criticality. Fields $\phi((x, y))$ populate a two-dimensional square lattice of size $L$, and have values in the set $\{-1, +1\}$. The discretized path integral is
\begin{align}
Z = \int \mathcal{D}\phi \, exp\left( -\beta \left( J \sum_{(i, j) n.n.}\phi_i \phi_j + B \sum_i \phi_i\right)\right), \label{eq: Ising path integral}
\end{align}
where the first term involves a sum over nearest neighbours (n.n.) and the second term is the energy due to an external magnetic field, $B$. We take $J = 1$, $B = 0$ from here on. In this instance the system has a known second-order phase transition, with a critical temperature $T_c = \left(\frac{1}{2}\log(1 + \sqrt{2})\right)^{-1}$ \cite{Onsager:1943jn}. The theory was simulated using a Metropolis-Hastings \cite{Metropolis:1953am, Hastings:1970aa} algorithm implemented in Python. The performance of the simulation could be improved by the use of a compiled language, parallelization and clustering techniques \cite{Wolff:1988uh}. However, the Ising model is being used here only as a test system to investigate multilevel and hence the precision of the results isn't intended to be competitive. For simplicity we use slice-coordinate fields from now on, $\Phi(x) = \frac{1}{L}\sum_y \phi((x, y))$. We split the lattice along the x-axis so that a given slice-coordinate field only contains contributions from $\partial B$, $\Lambda_1$ or $\Lambda_2$.
\section{Evaluating multilevel performance}
\noindent To evaluate the performance of our multilevel simulations we compare them to a computationally equivalent single level simulation with $N_{\rm{single}} = N \times M$ configurations. In this system the two-point correlator of slice coordinates at $x$ and $x + \delta$ is given by
\begin{align}
C^s(\delta; x) &= \frac{1}{N_{\rm{single}}} \sum_{i = 1}^{N_{\rm{single}}} \Phi_i(x) \Phi_i(x + \delta).
\end{align}
If $x + \delta \geq L$ we apply periodic boundary conditions: $\Phi_i(x + \delta) = \Phi_i(x + \delta - L)$. The multilevel two-point function between a slice-coordinate field at $x \in \Lambda_r$ and $x + \delta \in \Lambda_s$ is given by
\begin{align}
C^m(\delta; x) &= \frac{1}{NM^2} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j_r = 1}^M \sum_{j_s = 1}^M \Phi_{ij_r}(x) \Phi_{ij_s}(x+ \delta),
\end{align}
where $i$ indexes the boundary configuration and $j_k$ indexes the sub-lattice configuration in region $\Lambda_k$. Note that because the multilevel decomposition of the path integral is exact, $E(C^m(\delta; x)) = E(C^s(\delta; x)) := C_2(\delta)$. After performing an average over the boundary configurations, we can apply the central limit theorem,
\begin{align}
C_2^s(\delta; x) \sim N\left(C_2(\delta), \sigma_s^2(x)\right), \qquad C_2^m(\delta; x) \sim N\left(C_2(\delta), \sigma^2_m(x)\right),
\end{align}
where $\sigma^2_m(x)$, in the case of $\Lambda_r \neq \Lambda_s$, is given by equation (\ref{eq: Variance General}) and in other cases by similar expressions. Analogous expressions hold for the single level variance $\sigma^2_s(x)$.
\subsection{Optimum Weighting}
\noindent To obtain the overall estimate for the two-point correlator we take a weighted average across all values of $x$,
\begin{align}
C^s_2(\delta) &= \sum_x W^s_x C^s_2(\delta; x),\\
C^m_2(\delta) &= \sum_x W^m_x C^m_2(\delta; x), \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\sum_x W^s_x = \sum_x W^m_x =1$. Defining $\textbf{W}^m = (W^m_1, W^m_2, ..., W^m_L)$ and $\textbf{W}^s = (W^s_1, W^s_2, ..., W^s_L)$, the overall distribution of our correlator estimator is given by
\begin{align}
C_2^s(\delta) &\sim \left(C_2(\delta), \textbf{W}^s \cdot Cov^s(\delta) \cdot \textbf{W}^s\right),\\
C_2^m(\delta) &\sim \left(C_2(\delta), \textbf{W}^m \cdot Cov^m(\delta) \cdot \textbf{W}^m\right),
\end{align}
where $Cov^m(\delta)$ is the $L \times L$ covariance matrix between multilevel correlators of separation $\delta$ with their first insertion at different positions on the lattice: $Cov^m(\delta)_{x_1x_2} = \langle C_2^m(\delta; x_1) C_2^m(\delta; x_2) \rangle - \langle C_2^m(\delta; x_1) \rangle \langle C_2^m(\delta; x_2) \rangle $, while $Cov^s(\delta)$ is defined similarly. We choose the values of $W^m_x$ that minimize the quadratic form $\textbf{W}^m \cdot Cov^m(\delta) \cdot \textbf{W}^m$ subject to $\sum_x W^m_x = 1$. For a single level algorithm the optimal choice of $\mathbf{W}^s$ is $W^s_x = 1/L \: \forall \: x$. In this piece of work, the covariance matrix has been determined in two different ways. The first is to use the simulation data to calculate an empirical covariance matrix, which is used to weight the correlators and numerically evaluate multilevel. To avoid introducing a bias, the data used to find optimal weights was separated from the data weighted by those weights. We therefore split the data into sets, and use the data in all but one of the sets to determine the weighting for the data in the remaining set. We repeat this for each set in turn to get weighted contributions from all sets. The second part of this work is to provide a model for predicting the covariance matrix, and therefore multilevel performance.
\subsection{Observed Performance Gain}
\noindent An $L=32$, $N=500$, $M=500$ multilevel simulation and a computational-cost-equivalent single level setup were both executed using Python. The ratio $\sigma_{s}/\sigma_{m}$ against the correlation length $\xi$ is shown for both short ($\delta = 4$) and long ($\delta = 16$) correlators in figure (\ref{fig: Multilevel performance diff delta}). For the single level system a uniform weighting was used, while for the multilevel system one of three possible weighting schemes was used:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Optimum Weights} Weights that minimize the quadratic form $\textbf{W}^m \cdot Cov^m(\delta) \cdot \textbf{W}^m$ subject to $\sum_x W_x^m = 1$.
\item \textbf{Even Weights} $W^m_x = 1/L, \: \forall \: x$.
\item \textbf{Basic Weighting} Correlators between two boundaries have a weight of $1$, while correlators between a boundary and a non-boundary site, or between two sites in the same sub-lattice, have a weight of $M$. Correlators between two different sub-lattices have a weight of $M^2$. These weights are then normalized by $\sum_x W^m_x = 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{multi_panel_plot.pdf}
\caption{The ratio of the standard deviation of a single level simulation and a multilevel simulation of equivalent computational time is shown against the correlation length. Here $N = 500$ boundary configurations and $M = 500$ sub-lattice configurations were used on a $32 \times 32$ lattice. The black-dashed lines represent the theoretical best and worst performance scenarios for multilevel.}
\label{fig: Multilevel performance diff delta}
\end{figure}
When the correlation length is small compared to the lattice size a multilevel algorithm performs better than an equivalent single level one, while for larger correlation lengths it performs more poorly. When the correlation length is large, the sub-lattice field values are almost entirely determined by the boundary meaning the $1 / N$ scaling term in eq. (\ref{eq: Variance General}) dominates, causing the standard deviation of correlators to be $\sqrt{M}$ larger compared to the single level algorithm. With a small correlation length, the sub-lattice sites are largely independent of the boundary. Since we have $N \times M^2$ such contributions to the multilevel average, compared to the $N \times M$ for the single level algorithm, the gives up to a $\sqrt{M}$ reduction to the standard deviation. This theoretical upper bound in performance is approached by the $\delta = 16$ correlator, but not by the $\delta = 4$ correlator, as the shorter correlator involves multilevel interactions between field insertions closer to the boundary, and fewer contributions in general. In the limit $\xi \xrightarrow[]{} 0$ the second effect is dominant, and multilevel performance is $\sqrt{2(\delta - 1) /L}$ poorer than expected. This behavior is acceptable as the longest correlators suffer most from the signal-to-noise problem.\\
We hypothesize that multilevel performance depends only on the ratios $r_1 = \xi / L$, and $r_2 = \delta / L$, or alternatively other pairs of unitless ratios formed by $\xi$, $\delta$ and $L$. This hypothesis was tested by comparing the multilevel performance gain for two different lattice sizes, where the ratio $r_2$ is kept constant, iterating over different $r_1$ values (fig. (\ref{fig: scaling multilevel})). Here, $L=16$ and $L=32$ systems are compared, with $r_2 = 0.5$. As expected the curves sit on top of eachother. In the regime where the size of the lattice $L$ is significantly larger than the correlation length, then the most relevant ratio is $\delta / \xi$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=120mm]{scaling.pdf}
\caption{Variation of the performance of a two-level multilevel algorithm for $L = 16$ and $L = 32$ lattices with $r_1 = \xi / L$. Using a $\delta = L / 2$ correlator with $N = 500$ boundary configurations and $M = 500$ sub-lattice configurations.}
\label{fig: scaling multilevel}
\end{figure}
\section{A theoretical model of multilevel performance}
\noindent To calculate theoretically the standard deviation of two-point correlators in our simulations, we must predict the covariance matrices $Cov^s(\delta)$ and $Cov^m(\delta)$. For example, in a single level setup, we consider four slice-coordinate field insertions at $x = S$, $x = S'$, $x = T$ and $x = T'$, labelling them by $\phi^R_i = \phi_i(x = R)$ where $i$ indexes the boundary configuration and $R \in \{1, 2, 3, ..., L\}$. We are interested in two-point correlators so we take $S' = S + \delta$ and $T' = T + \delta$ giving,
\begin{align}
C^{SS'}_2 = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i = 1}^{N_{single}} \phi_i^S \phi_i^{S'}, \qquad
C^{TT'}_2 = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i = 1}^{N_{single}} \phi_i^T \phi_i^{T'}.
\end{align}
The covariance between these two-point correlators is given by
\begin{align}
Cov(C^{SS'}_2, C^{TT'}_2) &= \langle C^{SS'}_2 C^{TT'}_2 \rangle - \langle C^{SS'}_2 \rangle \langle C^{TT'}_2 \rangle = \frac{1}{N}\langle \phi^S \phi^{S'} \phi^T \phi^{T'} \rangle - C_2(\delta)^2.
\end{align}
In what follows it will be convenient to normalize the fields, $\varphi^R = \phi^R / \sigma_\phi$ so that $\sigma_\varphi = 1$. This normalization will however cancel when we take the ratio $\sigma_{single} / \sigma_{multi}$. We use the equation for the two-point correlator in the symmetric phase,
\begin{align}
\alpha := \exp{\left(-\frac{|P - Q|}{\xi}\right)} = C_2(|P - Q|).
\end{align}
We then enforce $\varphi^Q = \alpha \varphi^P + f(\alpha) \epsilon$, where $\epsilon \sim N(0, 1)$, so that $\langle \varphi^P\varphi^Q\rangle = C_2(|P - Q|)$. Taking $\varphi^P\sim N(0, 1)$ and $\varphi^Q\sim N(0, 1)$ we can show that $f(\alpha) = \sqrt{1 - \alpha^2}$. We perform this decomposition for $\varphi^S$ and $\varphi^T$ then repeat it when we add additional fields. For multilevel correlators it's necessary to add boundary fields into the system first, and correlate the fields in the sub-lattices to them. Further details of this model will be published in a later publication. This model performs extremely well in predicting the numerically observed multilevel performance (see figure (\ref{fig: Theoretical Performance})). As the correlation length is increased the slice-coordinate fields become less normally distributed and the assumptions of the model no longer hold.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{theoretical_vs_observed.pdf}
\caption{Performance gain of a two-level multilevel algorithm against correlation length as obtained by numerical observations, and as predicted by the theoretical model of performance. In the numerical simulation a lattice of size $32$ was used with a correlator separation of $16$, $500$ boundary configurations and $500$ sub-lattice configurations.}
\label{fig: Theoretical Performance}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
\noindent In this work the performance of the multilevel algorithm in calculating two-point functions has been investigated in the two-dimensional Ising model. As expected we observe that the performance of the algorithm is highly dependent on the correlation length, with a $\sqrt{M}$ improvement of statistics compared to a computationally-equivalent single level algorithm in the limit $\xi / L \xrightarrow[]{} 0$. As correlation length is increased this performance improvement is decreased, until there is a crossover regime around $\xi / L = 0.1$, above which multilevel performs more poorly than single level. A theoretical model of this algorithmic performance has been outlined, and provides an excellent description of the observed performance. This model doesn't directly use the action of the Ising model, but instead makes use of the functional form of the two-point function. This work could be extended by applying this model of multilevel performance to other systems with more complex spectra, for example in Lattice QCD, where the development of multilevel techniques is being actively researched.
\section{Acknowledgements}
\noindent A. J. acknowledges funding from STFC consolidated grants ST/ P000711/1 and ST/T000775/1. B. K. M. was supported by
the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Next Generation Computational Modelling Grant No.
EP/L015382/1.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The concept of \textit{Metaverse} first appeared in the science fiction novel \textit{Snow Crash} written by Neal Stephenson in 1992. More than twenty years later, the Metaverse has re-emerged as a buzzword. In short, the Metaverse is commonly described as an embodied version of the Internet. Just as how we navigate today's Internet with a mouse cursor, users will explore the Metaverse with the aid of virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) technologies. Moreover, powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI), blockchain technology, and 5G and Beyond (B5G), the Metaverse is envisioned to facilitate peer-to-peer interactions and support novel, decentralized ecosystems of service provisions that will blur the lines between the physical and virtual worlds.
To date, tech giants have invested heavily towards realizing the Metaverse as ``the successor to the mobile Internet". Among others, Facebook was even rebranded as ``Meta" to reinforce its commitment towards the development of the Metaverse. There are two fundamental driving forces behind the excitement surrounding the Metaverse. First, the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a paradigm shift in how social interactions are conducted today, thereby positioning the Metaverse as a \textit{necessity} in the near future. Second, emerging technological enablers have made the Metaverse a growing \textit{possibility}. For example, advances in VR/AR and haptic technologies enable users to be visually and physically immersed in a virtual world. To date, there exist ``lite" versions of the Metaverse that have evolved mainly from Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) games. Among others, Roblox\footnote{https://www.roblox.com/} and Fornite\footnote{https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/home} started as online gaming platforms. Yet, just recently, the virtual concerts held on Roblox and Fornite attracted millions of views.
However, we are still far from realizing the Metaverse. For one, the aforementioned ``lite" versions are distinct platforms operated by separate entities. In other words, one's Fortnite avatar and virtual items mean nothing in the Roblox world. In contrast, the Metaverse is envisioned to be a seamless integration of virtual worlds. Next, while MMO games can host more than a hundred players at once, albeit with high-specification system requirements, an open-world \textit{VRMMO} application is still a relatively nascent concept even in the gaming industry. Similarly, it will be a challenge to develop a ``shardless" Metaverse that is persistent, rather than one that separates players into different sessions. This is exacerbated by the expectation that large parts of the Metaverse have to integrate the physical and virtual worlds, e.g., through digital twins. The stringent sensing, communication, and computation requirements impede the real-time, scalable, and ubiquitous implementation of the Metaverse. Finally, the birth of the Metaverse comes amid increasingly stringent privacy regulations.
In this article, we begin by motivating a definition and introduction to the architecture of the Metaverse. To realize the Metaverse amid its unique challenges, we mainly focus on the \textit{edge intelligence} driven infrastructure layer, which is a core feature in B5G wireless networks. In short, edge intelligence is the convergence between edge computing and AI. We adopt the two commonly-quoted divisions of edge intelligence, i.e., i) \textit{Edge for AI}: which refers to the end-to-end framework of bringing sensing, communication, AI model training, and inference closer to where data is produced, and ii) \textit{AI for Edge}: which refers to the use of AI algorithms to improve the orchestration of the aforementioned framework. Then, as a case study, we present a framework for the collaborative edge-driven virtual city development in the Metaverse. Finally, we discuss the open research issues.
Our contributions are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We present a general architecture of the Metaverse and its major components, thereby providing a holistic view of the Metaverse ecosystems. We outline the key technologies that enable the edge-driven Metaverse, emphasizing their roles to support virtual services.
\item We discuss potential applications and services that can be delivered in the Metaverse, and through a case study on virtual city development, demonstrate the convergence between edge intelligence and the Metaverse engine.
\item We present research perspectives and highlight the interdisciplinary open issues and research opportunities.
\end{enumerate}
\section{The Metaverse: Architecture, Technologies, and Applications}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, height= 11cm]{sysmod-updated.pdf}\par
\caption{The Metaverse architecture features the immersive and real-time physical-virtual world interaction supported by the Metaverse engine. The supporting infrastructure ensures that the Metaverse is scalable, shardless, enables ubiquitous access, and is trustworthy for users.}
\label{fig:archi}
\end{figure*}
The Metaverse is an \textit{embodied} version of the Internet that comprises a \textit{seamless} integration of \textit{interoperable, immersive, and shardless virtual ecosystems} navigable by user-controlled avatars. In this section, we present the layers of the Metaverse architecture (Fig. \ref{fig:archi}).
\subsection{Physical-virtual world and the Metaverse engine}
\label{pvw}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Physical-virtual world interaction}: Each non-mutually-exclusive stakeholder in the physical world controls components that influence the virtual world. The consequences in the virtual world in turn feedbacks to the physical world. The key stakeholders are:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Users} can experience the virtual world through Head Mounted Displays (HMDs) or AR goggles. The users can in turn execute actions to interact with other users or virtual objects.
\item \textit{IoT and sensor networks} deployed in the physical world collect data from the environment. The insights derived are used to update the virtual environment, e.g, through feeding information to update a digital twin. The sensor network may be independently owned by sensing service providers (SSPs) that contribute live data feeds to virtual service providers (VSPs) to generate and maintain the virtual environment.
\item \textit{Virtual service providers (VSPs)} develop and maintain the virtual worlds of the Metaverse. Similar to user-created videos today (e.g., YouTube), the Metaverse is envisioned to be enriched with user-generated content (UGC) that includes virtual art, games, and social applications. These UGC can be traded in the Metaverse.
\item \textit{Physical service providers} operate the physical infrastructure that supports the Metaverse engine and respond to transaction requests that originate from the Metaverse. This includes the operations of communication and computation resources at the edge of the network, or logistics services for the delivery of physical goods transacted in the Metaverse.
\end{itemize}
\item The \textit{Metaverse engine} obtains inputs such as data from stakeholder-controlled components. The virtual world is generated, maintained, and enhanced with these inputs.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, height= 7cm]{edge-figure.pdf}\par
\caption{Applications of Edge Intelligence for the Metaverse.}
\label{fig:ei}
\end{figure*}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{VR/AR} enables users to experience the Metaverse visually, whereas \textit{haptics} enable users to experience the Metaverse through the additional dimension of touch, e.g., using haptic gloves. This enhances user interactions, e.g., through transmitting a handshake across the world, and opens up the possibilities of providing physical services in the Metaverse, e.g., remote surgery. These technologies are developed by standards that facilitate interoperability, e.g., Virtual Reality Modelling Language (VRML)\footnote{\url{https://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/14772/V2.0/part1/javascript.html}}, that govern the properties, physics, animation, and rendering of virtual assets, so that users can traverse the Metaverse smoothly.
\item \textit{Digital twins} enable some virtual worlds within the Metaverse to be modeled after the physical world in real-time. This is accomplished through modeling and data fusion. Digital twins add to the realism of the Metaverse and facilitates new dimensions of services and social interaction. For example, Microsoft Mesh allows users working from multiple sites to collaborate with each other in real-time digital copies of their office.
\item \textit{Artificial Intelligence} can be leveraged to incorporate intelligence into the Metaverse for improved user experience, e.g., for efficient object rendering, intelligent chatbots, and UGC. For example, the MetaHuman project\footnote{\url{https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/digital-humans}} by EpicGames utilizes AI to generate life-like digital characters quickly. The generated characters may be deployed by VSPs as conversational virtual assistants to populate the Metaverse.
\item \textit{Blockchain} technology will be key to preserving the value and universality of virtual goods, as well as establishing the economic ecosystem within the Metaverse. It is difficult for current virtual goods to be of value outside the platforms on which they are traded or created. Blockchain technology will play an essential role in reducing the reliance on such centralization. For example, a Non-fungible token (NFT) serves as a mark of a virtual good's uniqueness and authenticates one's ownership of the good. This protects the value of virtual goods and facilitates the peer-to-peer trading in a decentralized environment. As virtual worlds in the Metaverse are developed by different parties, the user data may also be managed separately. To enable seamless traversal across virtual worlds, multiple parties will need to access and operate on such user data. Due to value isolation among blockchains, cross-chain is a crucial technology to enable secure data interoperability.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Edge intelligence-empowered infrastructure}
The general functions of the infrastructure layer are:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Communication and Networking:} To prevent breaks in presences (BIP), i.e., disruptions that cause a user to be aware of the real world setting, VR requires a data rate of $250$ Mbit/s and packet error rate on the order of $10^{-1} \sim 10^{-3}$. Haptic traffic requires a lower data rate of $1$ Mbit/s and packet error rate on the order of $10^{-4} \sim 10^{-5}$ \cite{park2018urllc}. This may be enabled through enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) and ultra-reliable and low latency communication (URLLC) links, which are the main techonlogy pillars in B5G. Due to the expected explosive growth of data traffic, ultra-dense networks deployed in B5G networks to alleviate the constrained system capacity.
\item \textit{Computation and Storage:} Today, MMO games can host more than a hundred players in a single game session and hence require high-specification GPU requirements. VRMMO games, which are the rudiment of the Metaverse system, are still scarce in the industry and may require the devices such as HMDs to be connected to powerful computers to render both the immersive virtual worlds and the interactions with hundreds of other players. To enable ubiquitous access to the Metaverse, a promising solution is the cloud-edge-end computation paradigm. Specifically, local computations can be performed on end devices for the least resource consuming task, e.g., computations required by the physics engine to determine the movement and positioning of an avatar. To reduce the burden on the cloud for scalability, and further reduce end-to-end latency, edge servers can be leveraged to perform costly foreground rendering, which requires less graphical details but lower latency \cite{guo2020adaptive}. The more computation intensive but less delay sensitive tasks, e.g., background rendering, can in turn be executed on cloud servers. Moreover, popular contents can be cached at the edge of the network for efficient retrieval and reduction in computation overheads.
\end{itemize}
The infrastructure layer leverages edge intelligence (Fig. \ref{fig:ei}) to (i) support AI for the intelligent Metaverse (i.e., Edge for AI), and (ii) utilize AI to realize the resource-efficient collaborative edge paradigm (i.e., AI for Edge).
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Edge for AI}
\textit{Edge offloading:} Apart from offloading rendering computations to the edge or cloud, costly computation tasks required for data processing and AI model training, e.g., matrix multiplication, can also be decomposed into subtasks to be offloaded to edge servers (i.e., workers). The completed subtasks are aggregated at a master node to recover the computation result. However, a major drawback of computation offloading is the existence of stragglers, which are the processing nodes that run slower than expected or nodes that may be disconnected from the network due to several factors such as imbalanced work allocation and network congestion. As a result, the overall time needed to execute the task is determined by the slowest processing node. One way to mitigate the straggler effect is to utilize worker selection schemes to eliminate straggling workers. Another way is to leverage coded redundancy to reduce the recovery threshold, i.e., the number of workers that need to submit their results for the master to reconstruct the final result. For example, polynomial codes \cite{yu2017polynomial} can be used to generate redundant intermediate computations. The total computation is not determined by the slowest straggler but by the time taken for the master node to receive computed results from some decodable set of workers. For polynomial codes, the recovery threshold does not scale with the number of workers involved, thereby ensuring the scalability of the edge-empowered Metaverse.
\textit{Caching:} Edge caching is instrumental to reduce computation and communication redundancy, which refers to the wastage of network resources as a result of repetitive user access of popular content or computations. For the former, the probabilistic model for the popularity distribution of files, e.g., field of views (FOV) in the Metaverse, can be learned \cite{sun2019communications}. Then, the popular FOVs can be stored at edge servers close to users that demand it more to reduce rendering computation cost and latency. For the latter, the computation results from AI models can be cached at edge servers to respond to computation requests that are of a similar nature. Moreover, pre-trained models can be cached at the edge to perform costly inference tasks for faster response to users.
\textit{Local machine learning model training:} As with the Internet, the Quality of Experience (QoE) that users derive from the Metaverse will improve with more insights gathered from usage data. However, following the introduction of increasingly stringent privacy laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Metaverse will have to be developed while preserving user privacy. Moreover, the risk of data leaks increases in tandem with the increase in attack surfaces as more users are connected to the Metaverse. One solution is the privacy-preserving machine learning paradigm known as Federated Learning (FL) \cite{mcmahan2017communication}. In FL, users of the Metaverse can carry out AI model training on their local device before transmitting the model parameters or gradient updates, instead of the raw data, to the model owner for aggregation. This enables privacy-preserving collaborative machine learning while leveraging the computation capabilities of these users, e.g., during idle device usage periods. As model parameters are smaller in size than raw data, FL also alleviates the burden on backbone communication networks. Recently, the edge-assisted Hierarchical FL framework have also been proposed \cite{abad2020hierarchical} in which intermediate model aggregations are performed at edge servers before global cloud aggregation, so as to reduce link distances and instances of costly global communication with the cloud.
\item \textit{AI for Edge}
\textit{Semantic communication:} The advent of the Metaverse will inevitably contribute to a growing demand for bandwidth amid the explosive data traffic volume required to support the Metaverse engine. This necessitates a paradigm shift from Shannon's conventional focus in how accurately the communication symbols can be transmitted to how precisely the transmitted symbols can convey the \textit{meaning} of the message. In particular, the human-to-machine (H2M) semantic communication can be a key technology to optimize VR/AR implementation for the ubiquitous Metaverse \cite{lan2021semantic}. As an illustration, we reference the AR architecture proposed in \cite{ren2019edge} that is divided into the user, edge, and cloud tiers (Fig. \ref{fig:ei}). The user tier senses the environment and transmits the raw video stream and other user controls to the edge tier. At the edge tier, image frames from the video stream are utilized to find a match with the cached images, for the retrieval of relevant information such as image annotations. If the image frame is not found from the cache, the frame is offloaded to the cloud for further matching. If a match is not found, computation is executed at the cloud and the edge cache is updated. Clearly, the image frames of the raw video streams are of heterogeneous importance. With AI-enabled semantic extraction and pre-processing of the video stream, the redundant transmission of repetitive or unimportant frames to the edge or cloud can be greatly reduced to alleviate the burden on backbone networks. Beyond semantic encoding for text, audio, or images, semantic communication has also emerged as a key enabler of efficient communications in distributed machine learning, e.g., gradient quantization schemes can significantly reduce the communication overhead of distributed AI model training.
\textit{Edge resource optimization:} In a heterogeneous user network, it is of utmost importance that resources at the edge, e.g., for storage and computation, are well allocated to maximize the user QoE. AI-enabled solutions are increasingly utilized to solve the allocation problem given the dense distribution and mobility of users. The study of \cite{guo2020adaptive} discusses that the rendering strategies of VR/AR users can be calibrated among local rendering, edge-assisted rendering, and edge-cloud rendering (i.e., local rendering of foreground interactions and edge rendering of background environment). The user QoE can be formulated as a function of latency and energy consumption, based on the user device and the required functions. Then, an effective rendering scheme can be formulated based on deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithm trained offline, subjected to the queue states at the edge servers and service requirements of the user. Moreover, the algorithm can be further refined using mechanism design when implemented online to account for the ad-hoc transitions in user usage requirements that may affect other users' QoE or rendering strategies.
\textit{Incentive mechanisms:} The stakeholders of the Metaverse, e.g., users, blockchain miners, and edge servers, each own valuable resources such as data and computation resources that can be leveraged for the enhancement of the Metaverse. To incentivize their participation, one may naturally consider a one-size-fits-all reward in which a homogeneous reward is allocated to all stakeholders. However, the result is that desirable stakeholders that can contribute more to the process, e.g., in terms of providing more resources for edge rendering, will lack the incentive to do so. As such, it is essential for the service requesters (e.g., VSP) to design incentive mechanisms to motivate the participation of these stakeholders. In light of the interactions among stakeholders and complex system states in the dynamic networks, AI approaches have increasingly been proposed to design learning-based incentive mechanisms.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
The edge intelligence empowered infrastructure layer connects all users in the Metaverse and supports its scalable, shardless, ubiquitous, and trustworthy realization.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, height= 6cm, width= \linewidth]{allworks.pdf}\par
\caption{We propose a framework for virtual city development in the Metaverse. In the first study, we propose collaborative sensing for the physical-virtual world synchronization. In the second study, we propose a pricing and allocation mechanism for edge rendering services among resource-constrained users. In the third study, we propose a resource allocation scheme that accounts for the unknown user demand to derive optimal resource reservation ex-ante.}
\label{fig:seoul}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Applications}
We identify some important emerging applications and services in Metaverse as follows.
\subsubsection{Entertainment and social activities} Currently, entertainment and social activities are held on platforms that support audio and video transmission. Nevertheless, user interactions are limited to rigid 2D grids of users, and are still somewhat off what is experienced in the physical world. With the aid of VR and haptic technology, social interactions will be more immersive.
\subsubsection{Pilot testing} Before products are being released in the market, they are usually tested by a small group of users in a controlled environment due to the cost of large-scale deployment or for safety reasons. The Metaverse will be a channel to pilot test products before they are released to the physical world at a low cost with fewer safety considerations.
Moreover, users can have virtual twins of physical products delivered to their inventories directly in the Metaverse for marketing purposes. As an example, Hyundai has begun experimenting with providing virtual test drives for users albeit in the lower resolution Roblox world\footnote{https://www.roblox.com/games/7280776979/Hyundai-Mobility-Adventure}. In the Metaverse, test drive environments can be modeled exactly after highways with realistic traffic conditions.
\subsubsection{Virtual education} The pandemic has necessitated the online delivery of education. However, a drawback of virtual education is the lack of personalization and difficulty of delivering ``hands-on" lessons. With more users in the Metaverse, the wealth of data can be used to further refine AI tutors for personalized lessons. Hands-on lessons that involve dealing with machines or tools can be delivered more effectively with haptics technology.
\subsubsection{Gig economy and creative industries} The Metaverse will mitigate the adverse effects of piracy on the gig economy and creative industry. The Metaverse will provide a platform for gig workers to create UGC and trade it actively as NFTs that uniquely identify the originality of the product, e.g., game object creation in GameFi\footnote{https://gamefi.org/}. When the product is transferred among buyers, a portion of the sales proceeds can be programmed to go to the creators automatically.
\section{Case Study: A Framework for Collaborative Edge-Driven Virtual City Development in the Metaverse}
In this section, we present a case study of developing a virtual city in the Metaverse. For example, the development of ``Metaverse Seoul" has recently been proposed\footnote{https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/11/10/seoul-to-become-the-first-city-to-enter-the-metaverse-what-will-it-look-like} to cater to both tourists and local users, e.g., to access civil services online using HMDs. We motivate the collaborative edge-driven development of a virtual city in which the sensing, computation, communication, and storage resources at the network edge are leveraged to achieve the desirable qualities and features of the Metaverse (Fig. \ref{fig:seoul}).
\subsection{Collaborative sensing for real-time physical-virtual world synchronization}
With continuous data synchronization, the virtual city is able to reflect the physical city in real-time. An enabling technology is collaborative sensing, in which IoT and wireless sensor networks are deployed to feed digital twins within the Metaverse with fresh data streams.
In \cite{han2021dynamic}, we formulate a resource allocation problem in which SSPs (e.g., Drones-as-a-Service) are employed to collect data to maintain a regular sync between the physical and virtual worlds. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) fleets are owned by distinct SSPs, whereas the virtual city is maintained by distinct VSPs, each of which develops different areas of the virtual city that correspond to the real world. To employ the services of the SSPs, the VSP posts a reward pool (based on its budget) to be divided among SSPs that service the area. As more SSPs service the area, the data is uploaded at a higher frequency. However, each SSP receives a smaller proportion of the rewards and may churn to service other VSPs. To model the dynamic strategy adaptation of non-cooperative SSPs across the network, we utilize an evolutionary game based framework in which the SSPs are clustered into populations based on their sensing capabilities, starting location, and energy cost. Using our evolutionary game based framework, we are able to model how the calibration of rewards by VSPs affect the composition of SSPs servicing it, and thereby simulate how the synchronization frequency for each virtual region vary with the rewards provided.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, height= 6cm, width= \linewidth]{bitrate.pdf}\par
\caption{In \cite{xu2021wireless}, we compare the DRL based DDA against the vanilla DDA and state-of-the-art method that adjusts the auction clock stepsize using the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process \cite{friedman2018double}. The DRL based DDA can achieve comparable social welfare (based on user QoE and edge server utility) at a much lower auction information exchange cost under various bitrates.}
\label{fig:auction}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, height= 6cm, width= \linewidth]{EVF.pdf}\par
\caption{In \cite{ng2021unified}, we compare the SIP with expected-value formulation (EVF) and the random scheme that models the user demand as the average historical value. The SIP can always achieve the best solution among the three to reduce the on-demand cost.}
\label{fig:sip}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Edge-assisted efficient rendering of the immersive virtual world}
In light of battery limitations of user devices, non-panoramic VR rendering has been proposed such that only the images to cover the viewport of each eye are rendered, thereby demanding less data traffic and computation workload \cite{kelkkanen2020bitrate}. In \cite{xu2021wireless}, we study the provision of non-panoramic VR rendering services provided by edge servers and propose an incentive mechanism based on Double Dutch Auction (DDA) for edge server-user association, as well as to price the services of edge rendering. The objective is to allow VR rendering service providers to serve VR users in which their benefits (i.e., valuations of the services) are maximized.
To derive the \textit{user valuation} of VR rendering services, we propose to formulate the user QoE as a function of Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF) and Structural SIMilarity (SSIM) values. The former reflects the user’s perception of streaming quality, whereas the latter measures VR image quality. The VMAF and SSIM values for a user in the Metaverse are in turn affected by the user's head rotation speeds (depending on VR functions) and expected bit rates of VR streaming from the edge. The \textit{edge server valuation} is formulated based on energy cost and the available computation and storage resources. To derive the edge server-user association, the users adjust their bids upwards, whereas the edge servers adjust their sell price downwards till a match in valuation is derived. The evaluation results show that the proposed incentive mechanism can motivate the providers and the users to participate rationally in the auction with desirable properties such as truthfulness. Moreover, we design a DRL-based auctioneer to accelerate this auction process by adjusting the stepsize of the auction clocks dynamically (Fig. \ref{fig:auction}).
\subsection{Resource allocation in the physical-virtual world ecosystem}
To support the Metaverse engine, VSPs have to leverage both virtual and physical resources that are often owned by separate entities. For example, VSPs can utilize logistic services for physical goods delivery or edge services for computation offloading.
Similar to other shared services (e.g., cloud services), such resources are usually priced based on two subscription plans i.e., reservation and on-demand plan. Generally, the reservation plan is cheaper than the on-demand plan, which is used on an ad-hoc basis when demand spikes. However, the VSP will need to decide on the resources to be allocated via the reservation plan before the \textit{actual} user demand is known (i.e., ex-ante). Therefore, a resource over-provisioning problem can occur if the VSP subscribes too many resources on the reservation plan. In contrast, a resource under-provisioning problem can happen if the VSP subscribes too little resources, i.e., the VSP has to use the more expensive on-demand plan. Taking into account the demand uncertainty of the users, we propose a two-stage stochastic integer programming (SIP) formulation for the VSPs in Metaverse to minimize its operation cost by allocating the resources across the two plans most strategically \cite{ng2021unified}. Using historical data on user demand, our resource allocation scheme achieves a much lower cost than other schemes that do not consider the probability distribution of user demand (Fig. \ref{fig:sip}).
\section{Open Challenges and Future Research Directions}
\subsection{Redefining user QoE}
The Internet has been optimized based on gradually evolving QoE metrics. Similarly, there exists a need to redefine the user QoE for the Metaverse. This requires interdisciplinary efforts, e.g., to draw relations among network requirements and user visual perceptions. For example, the human eye is unable to perceive images shown for less than 13 ms \cite{popovski2021internet}, thereby setting an upper-bound on the network timing requirements. Moreover, VR applications in the Metaverse will place less emphasis on the traditional focus of video resolution. Instead, foveated rendering studies eye tracking to render important scenes and reduce the image quality of scenes in the peripheral vision \cite{patney2016towards}.
\subsection{B5G and the Metaverse}
B5G communication systems will deviate from conventional metrics such as data transmission rate to Value of Information (VoI) \cite{popovski2021internet}, that accounts for both contents and age of the packet to be transmitted. As the Metaverse will feature novel and differentiated service provision, the supporting communication and networking infrastructure must be semantic-aware and goal-oriented.
\subsection{Interoperability standards}
While tech companies race to compete for the upper-hand in the development of the Metaverse, the need to develop interoperability standards have arisen so that the vision for a seamless Metaverse can be realized. This is crucial to encourage the proliferation of UGC in the Metaverse. Moreover, a unified model to standardize the communication protocols of the Metaverse will eventually be necessary to enable access from diverse communication systems in different virtual worlds.
\subsection{Security and Privacy}
The Metaverse will be built on blockchain-empowered economic ecosystems. As more transactions are conducted on the blockchain, the attack surface increases and security concerns arise. For example, cyberattacks can utilize malicious smart contracts\footnote{\url{https://consensys.github.io/smart-contract-best-practices/known_attacks/}} to gain access to the user's main crypto wallet. Moreover, new forms of hardware used to access the Metaverse bring about security challenges, e.g., the finger tracking of VR users can be used to infer the password.
In contrast to click-through rates for the Internet, new dimensions of user data (e.g., eye tracking) can be collected and leveraged for more personalized advertising directly delivered to the FOV of users. This presents novel challenges to user data privacy.
\subsection{Economics of the edge-driven Metaverse}
The Metaverse will open up novel possibilities of \textit{physical and virtual} service and resource trading among users and service providers. The contention for resources now extends from the physical to virtual world, in which rational users and service providers will have to optimize the resource usage efficiently in consideration of newly defined QoE.
\section{Conclusion }
In this article, we have discussed an architecture of the Metaverse and motivated the edge intelligence driven supporting infrastructure. Then, we present a case study of smart city development in the Metaverse, followed up with the future research directions. Our work serves as an initial attempt to motivate the confluence of edge intelligence and the Metaverse.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The question of asymptotic behavior of hadronic scattering amplitude at high energy has been actively studied over many decades. It is well understood by now that at high enough energy the fast growth of the scattering amplitude slows down and that the physical phenomenon that is responsible for it, is the saturation of partons in hadronic wave function. The quantitative description of this saturation however is a difficult question. We believe that the appropriate framework is the so called Reggeon Field Theory (RFT) where the effective degrees of freedom are scattering amplitude and the evolution parameter is the logarithm of energy (rapidity) \cite{BFKL,LI,glr,MUPA,MUDI,LIREV,LipatovFT,bartels,BKP,mv,MUSA,Salam,KOLE,BRN,braun,
BK}.
Currently we know how to construct the evolution of the amplitudes and the hadronic wave function appropriate for the situation when one of the colliding hadrons may be dense, but the other one remains dilute at the energy of interest.
Once the energy grows even further so that both hadrons have to be considered dense nontrivial modification of the current theory is necessary. This also pertains to collision of heavy ions at lower energies, where the partonic density is large already at get go. Much thought has gone into attempting to extend the current theory to this regime \cite{AKLL,KOLU1,KOLUD,SMITH,KLW,MShoshi,IAN,MUSH,LELU,KLP,LMP,LEPP}, but a consistent description of the dense regime is still wanting.
Although a proper QCD derivation of the high energy RFT is not available, there are several constraints on the eventual form of this theory that follow from fundamental unitarity requirements. In particular, the effective theory should be $s$-channel unitary and $t$-channel unitary.
The $t$-channel unitarity condition can be formulated in different ways. One way of putting it is the requirement that the scattering amplitude does not depend on the frame in which the scattering is described. Mathematically this is equivalent to the property of self-duality of the RFT \cite{Kovner:2005en}. This property is built in the BFKL evolution \cite{BFKL,LI} which is appropriate for the scattering of two dilute objects. It is however lacking in the BK or JIMWLK equations \cite{BK,JIMWLK}, which describe the scattering of a dilute object on a dense one. Recently we have proposed a generalization of JIMWLK evolution which does preserve the $t$-channel unitarity \cite{KLLL1,KLLL2}.
The $s$-channel unitarity has only been discussed recently in this context. It does not have a simple mathematical formulation, but physically is equivalent to the requirement that RFT is derivable from a fundamental unitary quantum field theory. The $s$-channel unitarity turns out to be a difficult constraint to satisfy. Neither BFKL nor JIMWLK evolution satisfy it fully, and it has not been established so far in any of the putative generalizations \cite{KLLL1}.
An interesting question to ask is whether imposing the two unitarity conditions is restrictive enough to determine the RFT completely. Or perhaps better to say, what additional guidance about RFT
one can obtain from physical considerations beyond unitarity.
While the quantitative theory of course should be derived directly from QCD, over the years we have found simple toy models to be quite illuminating. Thus much work in early days was done on models with zero transverse dimensions in an attempt to understand general features of Pomeron interactions \cite{ACJ,AAJ,JEN,ABMC,CLR,CIAF,MUDI,RS,KLremark2,SHXI,KOLEV,BIT,nestor,LEPRI}. Later similar zero dimensional models have been studied as a good playground to explore general features which must be present in the effective high energy theory of QCD. These universal features include $t$-channel unitarity and $s$-channel unitarity. Recently we have suggested a simple zero dimensional model which satisfies both unitarity conditions \cite{utm}.
In this paper we further study zero dimensional case. In Section 2 we discuss the relation of the model of \cite{utm}
with a $t$-channel unitary model introduced in \cite{MUSA} and later in \cite{kl} and studied in detail in \cite{BIT}.
We show that the two models lead to identical evolution equations for the dipole probabilities, and are therefore equivalent. Below we will refer to this model UTM - unitary toy model.
We also show that the generating function frequently introduced in the framework of dipole evolution, in the RFT formulation of the same theory plays the role of the Schroedinger wave function.
In Section 3 we point out that the RFT formulation is rather flexible and allows to generalize the model in question in a way that preserves the correct unitarity properties. The new physical ingredient that enters this generalization is the observation that in one step of the evolution the emission does not have to be limited to just one gluon. In fact we argue that in the high energy dense regime one should expect emission of any number of gluons with appropriate probabilities. While in the dilute limit the emission of the additional gluons is suppressed by powers of the coupling constant, thus corresponding to NLO corrections to the emission kernel, this is not the case in the asymptotic dense regime. We construct explicitly an RFT Hamiltonian (below referred to as UTMM), which implements such an evolution and study some of its properties. In particular we observe that it leads to a much wider distribution of dipoles in the wave function at high energy compared to the original toy model. In both sections 2 and 3 we study the saturation effects in the parton cascades which are not included in the JIMWLK(BK) approach. The effect of saturation are physically the same as summation of the BFKL Pomeron loops, albeit the language we use in this paper is different. This problem has not been solved in QCD, hence the experience with the exact solvable simplified models could be useful.
Sections 2 and 3 focus on dipole evolution of a single dipole taken as initial condition.
In Section 4 we explore the effect of initial conditions on the probability distribution. In particular we solve for the probability distributions in UTM and UTMM
but for $m$ dipoles in the wave function
as initial condition. We show that, as expected, increasing $m$ shifts the asymptotic regime
to lower rapidities. In particular if the initial number of dipoles is very large $m\sim 1/\gamma$, where $\gamma$ it the dipole-dipole scattering amplitude, the BK regime is absent in the evolution and the saturation regime dominates from the get go.
Finally Section 5 is devoted to discussion of several qualitative features of the models we consider.
\section{The unitary toy model (UTM)}
\subsection{The RFT formulation}
In \cite{utm} we have discussed the zero dimensional toy model defined as an RFT.
Mathematically the setup is the following.
The projectile and target states of RFT are defined by the action of (projectile and target) dipole operators $d$ and $\bar d$ on the left and right vacua respectively.
The general RFT "wave function" of the target at rapidity $Y^T$ has the form
\begin{equation}\label{psi}
|\Psi_T\rangle_{Y^T}=\sum_nP_n^T(Y^T)\bar d^n|0\rangle
\end{equation}
where $P_n^T(Y^T)$ are probabilities to have $n$ dipoles in the target state, $P_n^T\ge 0$, $\sum_nP_n^T=1$.
Similarly for the projectile the most general state is
\begin{equation}
\langle \Psi_P|=\sum_mP_m^P(Y^P)\langle 0|d^m
\end{equation}
Note that although we refer to the above objects as "wave functions", those are not wave functions of any quantum theory, but rather "wave functions" of RFT. As such their physical meaning is different from the usual Schroedinger wave functions. In particular the coefficients in their expansion in the dipole basis are themselves physical probabilities, rather than amplitudes whose squares yield probabilities in the standard quantum mechanical setting.
In terms of these objects the scattering amplitude is calculated as
\begin{equation}
s=\langle \Psi_P(d)|\Psi_T(\bar d)\rangle
\end{equation}
To calculate the overlap we use the algebra of the dipole operators
\begin{equation} \label{alg}
d\bar d=e^{-\gamma}\bar d d;
\end{equation}
and the properties of the right and left "vacua"
\begin{equation}
d|0\rangle =0; \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \langle 0|\bar d=0
\end{equation}
The constant $e^{-\gamma}$ has the meaning of a dipole-dipole scattering matrix. In the following we assume the scattering to be weak, so that in the natural counting in powers of the coupling constant $\gamma\sim \alpha_s^2$. This is consistent with the scattering amplitude of two dipoles in QCD. With the assumption that $\gamma$ is small, and will freely use $e^{-\gamma}\approx 1-\gamma$ whenever convenient.
Note that the algebra of $d$ and $\bar d$ can be represented explicitly on functions of $\bar d$
by \footnote{we have used the symbol of partial derivative in order to avoid confusion between the differential $d$ and the dipole operator $d$.}
\begin{equation} \label{repr} d=\exp\{-\gamma \bar d\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar d}\}
\end{equation}
As a consequence
\begin{equation}
\langle 0|d^m\bar d^n|0\rangle=e^{-\gamma mn}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{S}
s(Y)=\sum_{m,n}e^{-\gamma mn}P_m^P(Y_0)P_n^T(Y-Y_0)\,\,\equiv \,\,\sum_{m,n}\,\sigma^{m n}P_m^P(Y_0)P_n^T(Y-Y_0)\end{equation}
with $\sigma = e^{- \gamma}$.
In this expression the total rapidity (logarithm of energy) of the scattering process is $Y$, while $Y_0$ defines the frame in which the calculation (observation) is performed.
The physical amplitude of course should be independent of $Y_0$ and depend on $Y$ only.
The energy evolution of the scattering amplitude is given by the evolution equation generated by an RFT Hamiltonian according to
\begin{equation}
s(Y)\,=\,\langle \Psi_P(d)|e^{-HY}|\Psi_T(\bar d)\rangle
\end{equation}
where $H$ is an operator function of $d$ and $\bar d$.
The unitarized toy model (UTM) of \cite{utm} is defined by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation} \label{UTM}
H_{UTM}=-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \bar P P
\end{equation}
where the Pomeron operators are related to dipoles as
\begin{equation} P=1-d;\ \ \ \ \ \bar P=1-\bar d.
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian generates the evolution of the RFT wave function. For a $n$ dipole target state evolved by an infinitesimal rapidity $\delta Y$
\begin{equation} \label{evolut}
e^{-H_{UTM}\delta Y}|n)\rangle\approx \left(1-\delta Y\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\left[1-e^{-\gamma n}\right]\right)|n\rangle+\delta Y\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\left[1-e^{-\gamma n}\right]|n+1\rangle
\end{equation}
The constant $\Delta$ which determines the probability to emit a dipole in one step of the evolution is a model parameter. In terms of the counting of powers of the coupling constant we will set it to be of order $\Delta\sim \alpha_s$, which is consistent with QCD. Thus our two model parameters are both small, and $\gamma\sim \Delta^2$.
The evolution \eq{evolut} has several important properties. First, it is $s$-channel unitary. This is obvious since a step in the evolution generates a new dipole state with positive probability. It is also $t$-channel unitary, as can be seen by explicit derivation of the evolution of a target state, which turns out to be identical to eq.(\ref{evolut}), \cite{utm}. The $t$-channel unitarity is assured by the self duality of the Hamiltonian. i.e. invariance under the transformation $d\rightarrow \bar d$ accompanied by the exchange of order of the factors $d$ and $\bar d$, which we will refer to as transposition.
Explicitly, the duality transformation is
\begin{equation}
H(d,\bar d)\rightarrow H^T(\bar d, d)
\end{equation}
Finally, another important point is that the probability of emission of an extra dipole for large $n$ does not depend on $n$, since $1-e^{-\gamma n}\rightarrow 1$ for $n\gg 1/\gamma$. Thus although for small $n$ (small rapidity) the number of dipoles grows exponentially, at large $n$ the growth is much slower. This feature of saturation is what we expect from the saturation in QCD as well. At large rapidity the cross section is dominated by configurations with large $n$. Thus the probability to emit an extra dipole is constant and the evolution becomes similar to a random walk in the dipole number space. In this sense the evolution saturates at high energy. We will observe this property explicitly below.
The quantum evolution can be cast in the form of the Schroedinger equation of the RFT. Let us define the target RFT wave function in the $\bar d$ representation(an identical discussion holds for the projectile), i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{z}
|\Psi\rangle=Z(\bar d)|0\rangle
\end{equation}
The proper normalization of the RFT wave function is not given by the usual integral condition as for a Schroedinger wave function, but rather by
\begin{equation} \label{norm} Z(1)=1 \, \end{equation}
The Schroedinger equation for $Z$ is derived by acting with the Hamiltonian eq.(\ref{UTM}) while utilizing the algebra
eq.(\ref{alg}) and eq.(\ref{repr}):
\begin{equation}\label{sch}
\frac{\partial}{\partial Y}Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_Y(u)=-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-u)\left(1-e^{-\gamma u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}}\right)Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_Y(u)=\,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}( u - 1) \Bigg( Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_Y(u) - \,Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_Y\left( e^{-\gamma}\, u\right)\Bigg)
\end{equation}
Note that $Z$ is precisely the probability generating function as it is frequently defined in the framework of similar reaction-diffusion models.
The standard definition of the generating function is
\begin{equation} \label{Zi}
Z_Y(u)\equiv \sum_nP_n(Y)u^n
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation} P_n(Y)=\frac{1}{n!}\frac{\partial^n}{\partial u^n}Z(Y)|_{u=0}
\end{equation}
Comparing this definition with eq.(\ref{z}) and using eq.(\ref{psi}) we see that the two functions are indeed identical.
We note that sometimes rather than calculating probabilities $P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n$ it is more useful to calculate factorial moments of the probability distribution defined as
\begin{equation}
M_k\equiv \langle n(n-1)...(n-k+1)\rangle\equiv\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}n(n-1)...(n-k+1)P_n\,=\,\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{n!\over (n-k)!}\,P_n\end{equation}
These moments can be calculated from the generating function $Z$ as
\begin{equation}
M_k=\frac{\partial^k}{\partial u^k}Z(u)|_{u=1}
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to the representation
\begin{equation}
Z_Y(u)=1+\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{1}{k!}M_k(Y)(u-1)^k
\end{equation}
\subsection{The frame invariant formulation}
An alternative approach to defining dipole models of this type was discussed a while ago in \cite{MUSA}, and later in \cite{kl} and \cite{BIT}. The starting point of these works is explicit invariance of the evolution equation for probabilities $P_n$ under the change of Lorentz frame.
One starts with the eq.(\ref{S}) and requires that the evolution of the probabilities is such that the expression for the s-matrix does not depend on the frame in which it is calculated, i.e. on the value of $Y_0$. If in addition one assumes that only one dipole is emitted in one step of the evolution, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dY}P_n(Y)=f_nP_n(Y)+g_nP_{n-1}(Y)
\end{equation}
one finds that the only solution compatible with the dilute limit is
\begin{equation} \label{1}
\frac{d P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y)}{ d Y}\,=\,- \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( 1\,-\,e^{- \gamma n}\right) P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y) \,\,+\,\,
\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( 1\,-\,e^{- \gamma(n - 1) }\right)\,P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n-1}(Y)
\end{equation}
Both models, \eq{UTM} and \eq{1} describe the evolution of the same system - an ensemble of dipoles (colorless "partons"). In fact, although it was not realized in \cite{utm}, the two are equivalent. To see this we should recast the evolution of the RFT wave function in terms of the evolution of probabilities. Starting with eq.(\ref{evolut}) and reinterpreting it as evolution of probabilities we indeed immediately obtain eq.(\ref{1}).
Another way to see this equivalence is to start with the probability evolution eq.(\ref{1}) and derive the evolution of the generating function defined as eq.(\ref{Zi}). This equation is identical with eq.(\ref{sch}) which again demonstrates that the two models are identical.
It is interesting to understand the main properties of the probability distribution as it evolves from lower to higher rapidities. We will do that in the rest of this section. We note that some of these results have already appeared before, e.g. in \cite{BIT}. We present them here for completeness, as well as to set up the stage for generalizing the model in the next section.
\subsection{The BFKL-BK limit}
When one of the colliding objects is dilute, the model above reduces to the zero dimensional BK model. For dilute target, for example the scattering amplitude of each projectile dipole is small, and one can formally expand $d$ in power series in $\gamma$
\begin{equation}
d\approx 1-\gamma \bar d\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar d}
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian then becomes
\begin{equation}
H_{BK}=\Delta\left[\bar d^2-\bar d\right]\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar d}
\end{equation}
which is precisely the BK Hamiltonian.
Analysis of this limit is quite straightforward if we restrict ourselves to the properties of the dilute object. As was explained in \cite{utm}, the BK Hamiltonian violates $s$-channel unitarity if applied to the wave function of the dense projectile, and we are not going to consider this case. On the other hand when evolving the state of the dilute target the BK evolution of the wave function is equivalent to the BFKL cascade. With this in mind we will allow ourselves to refer to the resulting probability distribution interchangeably as either BK or BFKL.
First off, it is easy to see that the Schoedinger equation becomes
\begin{equation}\label{ZBK}
\frac{\partial}{\partial Y}Z^{BK}_Y(u)\,\,=\,\,- \Delta\, u\,(1-u)\, \frac{\partial}{\partial\, u} Z^{BK}_Y(u)
\end{equation}
This is easily solved noting that it can be rewritten in a simple way as
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial Y}-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right]Z^{BK}=0
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
t=\frac{1}{\Delta}\ln\frac{1-u}{u}
\end{equation}
Thus for any initial condition $Z^{BK}_0(u)$ the solution is
\begin{equation}\label{zsol}
Z^{BK}_Y(u)=Z^{BK}_0\left(\frac{u}{u(1-e^{\Delta Y})+e^{\Delta Y}}\right)
\end{equation}
The most common case considered in the literature is when at initial energy the target contains one single dipole, $Z^{BK}_0=u$. In this and the next section we will concentrate on solutions that correspond to this initial condition. We will consider the case of multiple dipoles at initial rapidity in Section 4.
For a single dipole initial condition the solution at rapidity $Y$ is
\begin{equation}
Z^{BK}_Y(u;1)=\frac{u}{u(1-e^{\Delta Y})+e^{\Delta Y}}
\end{equation}
Using this generating function it is easy to see that (here the index $_{(1)}$ indicates the number of dipoles at initial rapidity)
\begin{equation}\label{m1}
M^{BK}_{1(1)}(Y)\equiv N(Y)=e^{\Delta Y}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{PNBK}
P_{n(1)}^{BK}(Y)=\frac{1}{N(Y)-1}\left(1-\frac{1}{N(Y)}\right)^{n}
\end{equation}
The higher factorial moments for this distribution have a simple structure:
\begin{equation} \label{MKBK}
M^{BK}_{k(1)}\left( Y\right)\,\,\,=\,\,k! \,N(Y) \left( N(Y)\,\, - \,\,1\right)^{k-1}
\end{equation}
At high energy where $e^{\Delta Y}\gg 1$ these become
\begin{equation}\label{PNBK1}
P_{n(1)}^{BK}(Y)\rightarrow \frac{1}{N(Y)}e^{-\frac{n}{N(Y)}};
\ \ \ \ \ \ M^{BK}_{k(1)}(Y)\rightarrow k!N^k(Y)
\end{equation}
\subsection{The UTM probability distribution}
We now turn to the probability distribution in UTM beyond the BFKL-BK limit.
Various properties of UTM were studied in depth in \cite{BIT}. We mention that the equation for probabilities can be explicitly solved. In particular for the initial condition of a single dipole $P_1(0)=1; \ \ P_{n\ne 1}(0)=0$ the solution is
\begin{equation}\label{PN}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_1(Y)=e^{-\omega_1Y}; \ \ \ \ \ \ P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n>1}(Y)= \oint \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi i}\,e^{\omega\,Y}\,\, \frac{1}{\omega_n} \prod^n_{k=1} \frac{\omega_k}{\omega\,+\,\omega_k}\,\,=\,\,
\prod_{j=1}^{n-1}\omega_j\sum_{i=1}^{n}\prod_{k\ne i, k=1}^{n}{\frac{1}{\omega_k-\omega_i}e^{-\omega_iY}}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{OMN}
\omega_n= \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}[1-e^{-\gamma n}]
\end{equation}
Although these formulae are explicit, they do not give one directly an understanding of the properties of the distribution. To get a better idea about the importance of the saturation corrections we first consider the limit of very large energy.
\subsubsection{The asymptotic distribution at $Y\rightarrow\infty$}
To find the behavior of the probabilities at high energy we note that
for large $Y$ we expect $Z_Y\left( e^{-\gamma} u\right) \,\ll\,Z_Y\left( u\right)$, since on average the number of dipoles is expected to be large, which means that high powers of $u$ are most important in the generating function. Thus to find the large $Y$ asymptotics we can drop the second term in the Schroedinger equation eq.(\ref{sch}). The resulting equation is simple
\begin{equation}\label{schsat}
\frac{\partial}{\partial Y}Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_Y(u)=\,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}( u - 1) Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_Y(u) \end{equation}
and yields the asymptotic solution
\begin{equation} \label{SOL0}
Z_Y^{asymp}\left( u\right)\,\,=\,\,e^{ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}( u - 1) \,(Y-Y_0)}Z_{Y_0}(u)
\end{equation}
Here $Y_0$ is the rapidity starting from which we can use the asymptotic equation, and
the function $Z_{Y_0}(u)$ is determined by the initial condition and the evolution up to the rapidity $Y_0$. For very large rapidity $Y\gg Y_0$ the exact value of $Y_0$ does not matter. Likewise the initial condition should not significantly affect the properties of the distribution. Formally we assume that the function $Z_{Y_0}(u)$ describes states with relatively small number of particles. It therefore is dominated by small powers of $u$ and is a relatively smooth function which can be approximated by a constant. The normalization \eq{norm} then sets this constant to unity. Thus the asymptotic generating function can be approximated by
\begin{equation} \label{SOL11}
Z_Y^{asymp\,\mbox{\tiny UTM}}\left( u\right)\,\,\approx\,\,e^{ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}( u - 1) \,Y}
\end{equation}
Calculating the probabilities we find the Poisson distribution :
\begin{equation} \label{PD}
P^{asymp\,\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n\,=\,P^{PD}_n\left( N\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{N^n(Y)}{n!}e^{-N(Y)}
\end{equation}
with the average multiplicity
\begin{equation} N(Y) = \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\,Y
\end{equation}
This distribution can also be directly obtained from the general solution of \eq{PN} replacing $\omega_n \,\rightarrow\,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}$ which is appropriate for $n$ large such that $n\gamma\gg 1$.
The factorial moments for the Poisson distribution are
\begin{equation}
M^{PD}_k(Y)=N^k(Y)
\end{equation}
We note that the properties of this probability distribution are significantly different from that in the BFKL cascade.
The average number of dipole grows only linearly with rapidity rather than exponentially. This is a direct consequence of saturation of the emission amplitudes in eq.(\ref{evolut}) at large $n$. As noted above, the probability for emission of an extra dipole at large rapidity is a constant and does not depend on the number of dipoles already present in the wave function. As a result the evolution is similar to random walk and the average number of dipoles grows only linearly in rapidity. For BK evolution, where the emission probability is proportional to the number of dipoles present, the growth is exponential as reflected in eq.(\ref{m1}).
Another important difference is that
the distribution \eq{PD} unlike \eq{PNBK1} does not obey KNO scaling \cite{KNO,KNO1,KNO2} and decreases much faster at large values of
$n>N(Y)$ compared to $P^{BK}$.
\subsubsection{The UTM parton cascade at "intermediate" $n$. }
The Poisson distribution derived above is valid at asymptotically large energy. What about the intermediate region, where the number of particles is large enough so that the BK limit is not valid, but the energy is still not asymptotically large? We probe this regime assuming that $P_n^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}$ is a smooth function of $n$, i.e. we replace
$P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}} _{n-1}(Y) $ in \eq{1} by
\begin{equation} \label{PL1}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n-1}(Y) \,\,=\,\,P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y) \,-\,\frac{ \partial P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y)}{\partial n}
\end{equation}
which assumes $\frac{ \partial^2 P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y)}{\partial n^2} \,\,\ll\,\,\frac{ \partial P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y)}{\partial n} $.
This assumption will have to be checked {\it a posteriori} given the solution.
In this approximation \eq{1} takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{PL2}
\frac{\partial P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y)}{\partial Y}\,\,=\,\,-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\left( \left( 1 - e^{- \gamma}\right)\,e^{ - (n - 1) \gamma} \,P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y)
\,\,+\,\,\left( 1 - e^{- (n - 1) \gamma}\right) \, \frac{ \partial P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n(Y)}{\partial n}\right)
\end{equation}
We write the solution in the form $P^{\rm UTM}_n\left( Y\right) \,\,=\,\,\hat{P}_n\,\widetilde{P}_n\left( Y\right) $, where $\hat{P}_n$
is a particular solution of the equation:
\begin{equation} \label{PL3}
\left( 1 - e^{- \gamma}\right)\,e^{ - (n - 1) \gamma} \,\hat{P}_n
\,\,+\,\,\left( 1 - e^{- (n - 1) \gamma}\right) \, \frac{ \partial\hat{ P}_n}{\partial n} \,\,=\,\,0.
\end{equation}
This is solved by\footnote{We approximate $\exp\{-\gamma\}\approx 1-\gamma$.
\begin{equation} \label{PL4}
\hat{P}_n\,\,=\,\, \exp\left(- \frac{1 - \exp\left( - \gamma\right)}{\gamma} \ln \left( 1 - e^{- (n - 1) \gamma}\right)\Rb \, \,\,\approx\,\,\frac{1}{\left( 1 - e^{- (n - 1) \gamma}\right)}.\end{equation}
The equation for $\widetilde{P}_n(Y)$ then becomes:
\begin{equation} \label{PL5}
\frac{\partial \widetilde{P}_n(Y)}{\partial Y}\,\,=\,\,-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\,\left( 1 - e^{- (n - 1) \gamma}\right) \, \frac{ \partial \widetilde{P}_n(Y)}{\partial n}.
\end{equation}
The general solution of \eq{PL5} is an arbitrary function of $\left( \Delta Y \,+ \,f(n)\right)$ with $f(n)$ satisfying:
\begin{equation} \label{PL6}
\frac{d \,f(n)}{d n} \,\,=\,\,-\,\frac{
\gamma}{ 1 - e^{-(n - 1)\,\gamma}}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation} \label{PL7}
f(n) \,\,=\,\, -\,\ln\left( e^{(n - 1)\,\gamma} \,\,-\,\,1\right)
\end{equation}
Hence
\begin{equation} \label{PL8}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_n\left( Y\right)\,\,=\,\, \frac{1}{ \left( 1 - e^{- (n - 1) \gamma}\right)} F\Bigg( \zeta(Y,n)\Bigg)
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\begin{equation}
\zeta(Y,n)\,\,=\,\,- \Delta\,Y \,+\,\ln\Bigg( \frac{ e^{(n - 1) \gamma}\,\,-\,\,1}{\gamma} \Bigg).\label{PL101}
\end{equation}
To find the function $F$ that corresponds to a particular initial condition we need to match it to the solution of BK equation at small $n\gamma$ calculated with the same initial condition. For the evolved single dipole
matching with the solution of \eq{PNBK1} we obtain
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n(1)}\left( Y\right)\,\,&=&\,\,\frac{\gamma}{\left( 1 - e^{- (n - 1) \gamma}\right)}\,\exp\Bigg( - e^{\zeta(Y,n)} \,\,+\,\,\zeta(Y,n)\Bigg) \label{PL100a}\\
\,\,&\xrightarrow{n\gamma<1}&\,\,e^{-\Delta Y}e^{-ne^{-\Delta Y}}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
In \fig{comp} we compare $P_n$ of the BFKL cascade (\eq{PNBK}) and of the UTM cascade with saturation given by \eq{PL100a}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\leavevmode
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{CompPn.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{CompPnTU.pdf}\\
\fig{comp}-a &\fig{comp}-b\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fig{comp}-a: The KNO function $\Psi\left( z = \frac{n}{N}\right)\,\,=\,\,N P_n$ for
the BFKL cascade (\eq{PNBK}) and the UTM cascade (\eq{PL100a}). Here $N$ is the average multiplicity for the corresponding distribution, which is taken as N=6 in the figure. \fig{comp}-b shows that the KNO scaling for UTM is only approximate and the actual multiplicity distributions has more complex dependence on the mean multiplicity. }
\label{comp}
\end{figure}
To determine the range of validity of this calculation we consider
\begin{equation}\label{p2p}
\frac{\partial P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n(1)}}{\partial n}=\left[\gamma-e^{-\Delta Y+(n-1)\gamma}\right]P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n(1)}; \ \ \frac{\partial^2P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n(1)}}{\partial n^2}=\left[-\gamma e^{-\Delta Y+(n-1)\gamma}+\left[\gamma-e^{-\Delta Y+(n-1)\gamma}\right]^2\right]P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n(1)}
\end{equation}
First, we note that that at high enough rapidity, $Y>\frac{1}{\Delta}\ln \frac{1}{\gamma}$ the probability distribution has a maximum at
\begin{equation}\label{nmax1}
n_{max}-1=\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}Y-\frac{1}{\gamma}\ln\frac{1}{\gamma}
\end{equation}
Second, we see that for any fixed $n$ at large enough $Y$ we have $\frac{d^2P_n}{dn^2}\ll \frac{dP_n}{dn}$ and therefore our approximation is valid. Moreover in the vicinity of the maximum $n\sim n_{max}$ the calculation is valid at any rapidity. As is clear from eq.(\ref{p2p}), parametrically the range of validity of the present approximation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{limit} n-1<\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}Y
\end{equation}
One can write down an approximate expression for the average multiplicity in the distribution $P_{n(1)}^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}$. Approximating the sum over $n$ by the integral while calculating $N(Y)$ we find
\begin{equation} \label{PL11}
N(Y)\equiv M_1(Y)\,\,\approx\,\,\frac{1}{\gamma} e^{\frac{1}{\gamma}e^{-\Delta Y}} \Gamma\left( 0, \frac{1}{\gamma}e^{-\Delta Y}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma(x,z)$ is an (upper) incomplete $\Gamma$-function\cite{RY}.
From \eq{PL11} one can see that $N(Y)$ reduces to the BFKL cascade value $N(Y)\,\to\,\exp\left( \Delta \,Y\right)$ for small $Y$. On the other hand for large $Y$ such that $e^{-\Delta Y}\ll \gamma$ \eq{PL11} yields $N(Y)\,\,\to\,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \,Y-\frac{1}{\gamma}\ln\frac{1}{\gamma}$ consistent with the value of $n_{max}$ found in eq.(\ref{nmax1}). Interestingly this result for the average multiplicity is also consistent with the asymptotic limit of \eq{PD}, even though for very large $Y$ our formal discussion above indicates that the range of validity of the approximation eq.(\ref{PL1}) is limited by eq.(\ref{limit}).
In \fig{utmmult} we plot the dependence of the mean multiplicity $N$ on rapidity for a single dipole initial condition, which demonstrates the above features.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{MultUTM.pdf}
\caption{The mean multiplicity $N(Y)$ (see \eq{PL11}) versus $Y$ (solid curve).
The mean multiplicity of the BFKL cascade is equal to $ \exp\left( \Delta\,Y\right)$, the asymptotic multiplicity for the UTM cascade (see \eq{PD}) is taken as $N^{asymp}(Y) = \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \,Y$. $\Delta = 0.2$ and $\gamma = 0.01$. }
\label{utmmult}
\end{figure}
In \fig{compy} we plot the "history" of the distribution corresponding to the single dipole initial condition, starting with the BK evolution through the intermediate regime and into asymptotic rapidities.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\leavevmode
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{UTMcomp.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{UTMComplog.pdf}\\
\fig{compy}-a & \fig{compy}-b\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{$P_n(Y)$ versus $n$ at different $Y$ with the single dipole initial condition. $\Delta =0.2, \gamma=0.01$ }
\label{compy}
\end{figure}
\section{Generalizing UTM}
The UTM satisfies the physical requirements of $s$- and $t$-channel unitarity, and also provides for saturation of emission probability at very high energies. Nevertheless it is quite clear that it is incomplete as far as the description of scattering of dense objects is concerned. The main culprit here is the fact, that only a single dipole is emitted in this model in one step of the evolution. This is obvious from the Mueller-Salam derivation as well as from the evolution equation for the RFT states (\eq{evolut}).
When the system is dense there is no reason why the number of dipoles emitted in one step of the evolution should be limited to one. Recall that the probability per unit rapidity for emission of a single dipole is of order $\Delta n$ as long as $n\le 1/\gamma$. Thus if the number of dipoles is large enough, i.e. $n\ge1/\Delta$ we expect that there is a sizable probability to emit extra dipoles, since the dipole emissions are in the first approximation independent in this range of $n$. Note that parametrically $\Delta\sim \alpha_s$ while $\gamma\sim \alpha_s^2$ thus we expect multiple dipole emissions to become important parametrically earlier than the saturation corrections. For $n$ in the saturation regime, i.e. $n\ge 1/\gamma$ the probability density (per unit rapidity) of emission of a single dipole is actually very large $\sim 1/\alpha_s$ and multiple emissions in the wave function should be ubiquitous.
We note that in QCD at higher orders in perturbation theory the BFKL evolution indeed allows emission of more than one gluon, e.g. at NLO two gluons can be emitted. We will now discuss how multiple dipole emissions can be included in the toy model.
\subsection{Emission of two gluons per one step of evolution}
Our goal now is to include multiple dipole emissions without violating the $s$- and $t$-channel unitarity properties of the toy model. The Hamiltonian RFT formalism turns out to be a very convenient tool for this purpose. First, we already know that the $t$-channel unitarity is equivalent to the symmetry of the Hamiltonian under the transformation $H(P,\bar P)\rightarrow H^T(\bar P,P)$. The $t$-channel unitarity is therefore very easy to implement. The $s$-channel unitarity is slightly less transparent, but with a little trial and error we can find many $s$-channel unitary evolutions. This becomes particularly simple if we consider adding to $H_{UTM}$ operators which are only (normal ordered) powers of $\bar PP$.
Consider the following simple perturbation on the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation} \label{DELTAH}
\delta H_\lambda \,\,=\,\,\lambda\left(\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\right)^2 :(\bar PP)^2:\equiv \lambda\left(\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\right)^2\bar P^2P^2
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a number of order unity. The counting of the powers of $\alpha_s$ here is such that for small $n$ we recover the NLO BFKL order of magnitude of the two gluon emission. The column here denotes the normal ordered operator, meaning that all factors of $P$ have to be placed to the right of the factors of $\bar P$. The $t$-channel unitarity is clearly preserved by $\delta H_\lambda$.
With this additional term in the Hamiltonian, the evolution equation for $P_n$ takes the form:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{DELTAH1}
&&\frac{\partial \,P^\lambda_n(Y)}{\partial\,Y}\,\, =\,\,
\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\Bigg[-\Bigg( \left( 1 - e^{- \gamma n}\right) \,-\, \lambda\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( 1 - e^{- \gamma n}\right)^2\Bigg) P^\lambda_n(Y) \\
&& \,\,+\,\,\Bigg( \left( 1 - e^{ - \gamma (n-1)}\right)\, -\, \lambda\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( 1 - e^{ - \gamma(n - 1)}\right)^2\Bigg) \,P^\lambda_{n-1}(Y) \,\,+\,\,\lambda\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( 1 - e^{ - \gamma(n - 2)}\right)^2\,\,P^\lambda_{n - 2}(Y)\Bigg]\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For $\lambda\sim O(1)>0$ the probabilities of emission of one and two dipoles are obviously positive, and the total probability is conserved, thus this evolution is $s$-channel unitary.
The RFT Schroedinger equation for the generating function now becomes
\begin{equation} \label{DELTAH2}
\frac{\partial \,Z^\lambda_Y(u)}{\partial\,Y} \,\,=\,\, \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\Bigg[ \left( u - 1\right) \Bigg( Z^\lambda \,\,-\,\,e^{ - \,\gamma\,u\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,u}} \,Z^\lambda\Bigg) \,\,+\,\,\lambda\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} (1 - u)^2\,\Bigg( Z^\lambda \,\,-\,2e^{ - \,\gamma\,u\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,u}}\,Z^\lambda +\,e^{ - 2\,\gamma\,u\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,u}} \,Z^\lambda\Bigg)\Bigg]
\end{equation}
Just like for UTM, we can study the high energy asymptotics of the solution. Formally for $\gamma u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}\gg 1$ we obtain the equation for the
asymptotic generating function as:
\begin{equation} \label{DELTAH3}
\frac{\partial \,Z^{\lambda\, asymp}_Y ( u)}{\partial\,Y} \,\,=\,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \, \Bigg((u\,-\,1) \,\,+\,\,\lambda \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\,(1\,-\,u)^2\Bigg)\,Z^{\lambda\, asymp}_Y ( u)
\end{equation}
with the solution (here, as in the previous section we take the large $Y$ limit and approximate the initial wave function at $Y_0$ by a constant):
\begin{equation} \label{DELTAH4}
Z^{\lambda\, asymp} _Y(u)\,\,=\,\,\exp\left( \,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \, \Bigg((u\,-\,1) \,\,+\,\,\lambda \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\,(1\,-\,u)^2\Bigg) \,Y\right)
\end{equation}
From this equation we can derive $P^\lambda_n$,
\begin{equation}\label{DELTAH5}
P^\lambda_n\,=\,\,\oint \frac{ e^{ \,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \, \Bigg((u\,-\,1) \,\,+\,\,\lambda \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \,(1\,-\,u)^2\Bigg) \,Y}}{ u^{n+1} }\,d u \,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{n!} \left[\frac{d^n}{d\, u^n} e^{ \,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \, \Bigg((u\,-\,1) \,\,+\,\,\lambda \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\,(1\,-\,u)^2\Bigg) \,Y} \right]_{u=0} \end{equation}
The contour of integration in \eq{DELTAH5} is the circle around $ u =0$. Now $P_n$ does not follow the Poisson distribution anymore. Instead the distribution of dipoles has two independent factorial moments: $M_1=\langle n\rangle$ and $M_2=\langle n(n-1)\rangle$:
\begin{equation}
M^\lambda_1=\frac{\partial}{\partial u}Z^\lambda(u)|_{u=1}=\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}Y;\ \ \ M^\lambda_2 =\frac{\partial^2}{\partial u^2}Z^\lambda(u)|_{u=1}=\left(\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\right)^2[Y^2+2\lambda Y]
\end{equation}
Clearly the additional term in the Hamiltonian modifies the asymptotic particle distribution. At first sight it may seem that at asymptotically large rapidities these corrections are small. Recall that the asymptotic solution is expected to be valid at such rapidities at which $
\langle n\rangle\gg 1/\gamma$, which gives $Y\gg 1/\Delta$. At these rapidities, although the magnitude of the correction to the second moment is large: $\delta M_2\sim \Delta/\gamma^2\sim1/\alpha^3$, the relative correction is small $\delta M_2 /M_2\sim \alpha_s$. However factorial moments are not a very convenient measure of the shape of the distribution. If we want to get a better idea about the width of the distribution, for example we should not compare the second factorial moments but rather the variances $\sigma^2=<n^2>-<n>^2$. Here we find
\begin{equation} \sigma^2_{UTM}\xrightarrow{Y\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}Y;\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \sigma^2_\lambda\xrightarrow{Y\rightarrow\infty}\left[2\lambda\frac{\Delta^2}{\gamma^2}+\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\right]Y;
\end{equation}
It is now obvious that for non-vanishing positive $\lambda$, allowing emission of the second gluon renders the asymptotic distribution much wider $\sigma^2_\lambda/\sigma^2_{UTM}\sim 1/\alpha_s$. Negative values of $\lambda$ are not physical since they lead to negative probabilities and thereby $s$-channel unitarity violation, as is obvious from \eqref{DELTAH1}.
\subsection{Emission of infinite number of gluons in one step of evolution}
At high density it is not realistic to think that in one step of evolution a system of partons emits only one or two dipoles. Rather one expects that any number of gluons can be emitted with probabilities that scale as $p_n\sim \Delta^n$ (modulo the saturation corrections). The exact values of these probabilities of course have to be determined by the underlying quantum field theory. Unfortunately in the toy world we do not have an underlying QFT, and the appropriate toy RFT cannot be strictly derived. Nevertheless one can make a simple reasonable assumption that leads to a definite form of RFT. Let us assume that the dipoles in one step of evolution are emitted independently of each other. This is certainly what one expects if the dipole density in the wave function is large enough but the saturation corrections are still unimportant. In the language of RFT Hamiltonian a single dipole emission is represented by the operator $-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}P\bar P$. Given that the dipoles are indistinguishable bosons, the independent emission of $n$ dipoles is represented by the operator $\frac{1}{n!}(-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}P\bar P)^n$. Since any number of emissions $n\ge 1$ is allowed, we are lead to consider the RFT Hamiltonian
\begin{equation} \label{NH1}
H_{UTMM}\,\,\,=\,\,\,:\Bigg( e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\, P\,\bar P} \,\,-\,\,1\Bigg):
\end{equation}
where the additional M in the subscript stands for "Multiple Emissions".
This Hamiltonian is also normal ordered so that all operators $P$ appear to the right of all the operators $\bar P$ in every order in the Taylor expansion of the exponential.
$H_{UTMM}$ reproduces UTM in the limit when $\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \bar P P$ is small, and contains eq.(\ref{DELTAH}) with $\lambda=1/2$ as the first correction to UTM. It is obviously $t$-channel unitary.
When acting on an $m$-dipole state it yields:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{HEM}
H_{UTMM}|m\rangle&=&\left[e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-e^{-\gamma m})(1-d)}-1\right]|m\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\left[e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-e^{-\gamma m})}-1\right]|m\rangle+e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-e^{-\gamma m})}\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}\left[\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-e^{-\gamma m})\right]^k|m+k\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
This evolution of an $m$ dipole state is clearly $s$-channel unitary as well.
Eq.(\ref{HEM}) is equivalent to the equations for probabilities
\begin{equation} \label{PN1}
\frac{dP^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n}{dY}=\left[e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-e^{-\gamma n})}-1\right]P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!}e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-e^{-\gamma (n-k)})}\left[\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-e^{-\gamma (n-k)})\right]^kP^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{n-k}
\end{equation}
The Schroedinger equation for this model is
\begin{equation}\frac{dZ^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_Y(u)}{dY}=:\left[e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(1-u)(1-e^{-\gamma u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}})}-1\right]:Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_Y(u)
\end{equation}
where the normal ordering now refers to ordering of factors $(1-u)$ and $u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}$.
The evolution eq.(\ref{HEM}) has three distinct regimes. If the initial state contains a small number of dipoles, $m\ll 1/\Delta$, multiple emissions initially are unimportant and the cascade reduces to the BFKL-BK cascade. At higher rapidities where the typical dipole numbers are large but not "extremely large", $1/\Delta<m<1/\gamma$ one can still neglect the saturation corrections, as $1-e^{-\gamma n}\approx \gamma n$, but multiple emissions have to be taken into account. And finally for asymptotically large rapidities where the properties of the wave function are dominated by very large dipole number configurations $n>1/\gamma$ one has to include both multiple emissions and the saturation corrections. If one starts the evolution with a single dipole state, these regimes will successively appear as the rapidity is increased. On the other hand if initially the number of dipoles is already very large (the "large nucleus" case), the system enters the saturated regime right away. We will discuss this situation in the next section. In this section we study the probability distribution which arises in the multiple emission regime without and with saturation corrections.
\begin{boldmath}
\subsubsection{Multiple emissions without saturation ($ \frac{1}{\Delta} \,<\,n\,<\,\frac{1}{\gamma}$)}
\end{boldmath}
Let us first consider the regime where the rapidity is large enough so that multiple emissions are important, but is still too small for the saturation corrections to kick in. In terms of the dipole number $n$ this is the regime where the bulk properties of the wave function are determined by $ \frac{1}{\Delta} \,<\,n\,<\,\frac{1}{\gamma}$. The corresponding rapidity range will be given at the end of this section. In this regime we expect UTMM to differ significantly from UTM. On the other hand at these rapidities the properties of the UTM distribution are the same as those of BFKL cascade, as discussed in the previous section. In this section we will thus compare the properties of UTMM cascade with those of BFKL, which equivalently can be thought of as a comparison between the UTMM and UTM cascades.
For small $\gamma n$ using $1-e^{-\gamma n}\approx n\gamma$ the evolution equation for probabilities becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{smalln}
\frac{dP^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n}{dY}&=&\left[ e^{-\Delta n}-1\right]P_n^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!}e^{-\Delta(n-k)}\left[\Delta(n-k)\right]^kP^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{n-k}\,\nonumber\\\,&=&\,\,-P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n\,+\,\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!}e^{-\Delta(n-k)}\left[\Delta(n-k)\right]^kP^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{n-k}\end{eqnarray}
We note that this equation is consistent with normalization of probability, as summing \eq{smalln} over $n$ we find that $\frac{d}{dY}\sum_{n} P_n^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}=0$.
The Schroedinger equation in this limit becomes
\begin{equation} \label{SE1}
\frac{dZ^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_Y(u)}{dY}=:\left[e^{-\Delta(1-u) u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}}-1\right]:Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_Y(u)
\end{equation}
Just like in the BK limit, the no-saturation limit of UTMM is not sensitive to the value of $\gamma$ - the only constant that enters here is the emission probability $\Delta$.
To study the properties of the resulting probability distribution, we rewrite \eq{smalln} as evolution equation for the factorial moments.
Let us start with the mean multiplicity $M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$. \eq{smalln} takes the form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{M1}
\frac{d M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}}{dY}&=& - M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+\,\sum_{k=0, n=1}^{\infty}\Big( n - k + k\Big) \frac{1}{k!}e^{-\Delta(n-k)}\left[\Delta(n-k)\right]^kP^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{n-k}\nonumber \\
&=&\,- M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+ \Delta M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} \,\,+\,\,M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} =\,\Delta\,M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}
\end{eqnarray}
We consider the initial conditions corresponding to a single dipole initial state $M_k^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}(Y=0)=\delta_{k1}$.
With this initial condition the solution is
\begin{equation} \label{M11}
M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\left( Y\right)\,\,=\,\,e^{\Delta\,Y}
\end{equation}
Interestingly the mean multiplicity turns out to be the same as for BK distribution (see \eq{PNBK}).
For $M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{M2}
\frac{d M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}}{dY} &=& - M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+\,\sum_{k=0, l=1}^{\infty}\Big( (k + l)^2 - (k+l) \Big) \frac{1}{k!}e^{-\Delta(l)}\left[\Delta(l)\right]^kP^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{l}\\
&=&- M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+ \,M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+\, \left( 2\,\Delta\,+\,\Delta^2\right)\left( M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\right)\,=\,\left( 2\, \Delta\,+\Delta^2\right) \left( M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+\,M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\right) \nonumber\end{eqnarray}
For a single dipole initial condition the solution for $M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$:
\begin{equation} \label{M21}
M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\left( Y\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{ (2 + \Delta)}{ (\Delta + 1)}\Bigg( e^{( 2 + \Delta)\Delta\,Y} \,\,-\,\,e^{\Delta\,Y}\Bigg)
\end{equation}
For $M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$ the equation is:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{M3}
\frac{d M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}}{dY} &=& - M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+\,\sum_{k=0, l=1}^{\infty}\Big( (k + l)^3 - 3(k+l)^2 + 2(k +l) \Big) \frac{1}{k!}e^{-\Delta(l)}\left[\Delta(l)\right]^kP^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{l}\,\nonumber\\
&=&\,\,- M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+ \,M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,\,+\,\, \left( ( 1\,+\, \Delta)^3 - 1)\right)\left( M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} \,+\,3\,M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} \,+M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\right)\nonumber \\
&-&\,3 \,\Delta\left( M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,+\,M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\right)\,\nonumber\\
&=& \left( ( 1\,+\, \Delta)^3 - 1)\right) \,M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} \,\,+\,\,3\,\Delta (1 + \Delta)\,(2 \,+\,\Delta)\,M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,\,+\,\,\Delta^2\,(3 + \Delta)\,M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}
\end{eqnarray}
with the solution
\begin{equation} \label{M31}
M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} =\frac{e^{\Delta Y} \left((\Delta +1) (\Delta (2 \Delta +9)+12)-3 (\Delta +2)^3 e^{\Delta (\Delta +1) Y}+(\Delta +4) (\Delta (\Delta +3)+3) e^{\Delta (\Delta +1) (\Delta +2) Y}\right)}{(\Delta +1)^2 (\Delta +2)}
\end{equation}
Considering $\Delta\,\ll\,1$ we can simplify \eq{M21} and \eq{M31} (we do not neglect corrections due to nonvanishing $\Delta$ in the exponent, but only in the prefactors):
\begin{equation} \label{M32}
M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\left( Y\right)\,\,=\,\,2!\Bigg( e^{((1+ \Delta)^2-1)\,Y} \,\,-\,\,e^{\Delta\,Y}\Bigg) ; \ \ \ \ \ \ \
M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\left( Y\right)\,\,=\,\,3!\Bigg( e^{((1+ \Delta)^3-1)\,Y} \,\,-\,\,2 \,e^{((1+ \Delta)^2-1)\,Y}\,\,+\,\,e^{ \Delta\,Y}\Bigg)
\end{equation}
For $\Delta^2 Y \,\ll\,1$
we see that $M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} \,\approx\, 2 M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}
\Big( (M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}})^{1+\Delta}\,-\,1\Big)$ and the second moment of UTMM is very close to that of the BK multiplicity distributions of \eq{PNBK}. The same holds for the third moment (neglecting $\Delta$ in the exponent) $M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} \approx 3!\,M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,\left( M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,-\,1\right)^2 $. At much larger rapidities $\Delta^2 Y \,>\,1$ the difference between the moments in UTMM and BK is significant, and the above expressions for both
$M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$ and $M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$ are much larger than in the BK limit.
However we should keep in mind that the above expressions for $M_{k}^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$ are representative of the UTMM only for $M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}<1/\gamma$, which translates into $Y<\frac{1}{\Delta}\ln \frac{1}{\gamma}$. For rapidities $Y\gg 1/\Delta^2\sim 1/\gamma$ the saturation corrections take over and the actual distribution is not described faithfully by the solution to eq.(\ref{smalln}). Thus rapidities $Y\sim \frac{1}{\Delta^2}$ are strictly speaking outside the range of validity of our present approximation.
Thus for rapidities that we may consider, the expressions in eqs.\eqref{M21},\eqref{M32} are (up to perturbative corrections) the same as in the BFKL -BK regime. This at the first glance looks strange, since the UTM allows emissions of multiple dipoles in one step of the evolution. The reason we do not get on average more dipoles in the wave function, as well as nearly identical second and third moments of the distribution, is because the exponential form of the Hamiltonian includes a kind of "unitarization corrections", i.e. since many dipoles are allowed to be emitted, the probability of emission of a single dipole is smaller than in the BK model (at the same value of parameter $\Delta$). Nevertheless even in the allowed region we expect the distribution to differ significantly from BK. Indeed, examining higher moments we see that this is the case. Let us consider only the leading term in the $k$-th moment, i.e. the term with the fastest growth in rapidity. For this term it is easy to write the general expression ( see Appendix A)
\begin{equation}
M_k^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}(Y)\propto e^{((1+\Delta)^k-1)Y}
\end{equation}
Consider high moments, so that $k=\frac{K}{\Delta}$. For very small $\Delta$ we have $(1+\Delta)^{\frac{1}{\Delta}}\approx e$, and thus
\begin{equation}
M_k^{UTMM}(Y)\propto e^{(e^K-1)Y}
\end{equation}
while for the same $k$ the leading behavior in the BK model is
\begin{equation}
M_k^{BK}\propto e^{KY}
\end{equation}
Thus for large $k$ the moments differ already in the leading order term with
\begin{equation}
M_k^{UTMM}\gg M_k^{BK}
\end{equation}
We conclude that, just like expected the probability distribution is significantly wider in the "multiple emission" regime of UTMM compared to BFKL-BK cascade.
In \fig{mmd} we plot the third and sixth moments for illustration and indeed see that while $M_3$ in both cascades is very similar at intermediate rapidities, $M_6$ is significantly larger in UTMM.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{MvsN.pdf}
\caption{ $M_k$ versus $Y$. The green curves describe the exact solution to \eq{M31} for the UTMM cascade and \eq{MGF4}, while the red ones correspond to the BFKL multiplicity distributions of \eq{MKBK}. $\Delta = 0.2$.}
\label{mmd}
\end{figure}
In principle, once the factorial moments are given, one can reconstruct the probability distribution. In the present case this turns out to be tricky since the moments grow very fast at large $k$ and one is faced with a necessity to sum an asymptotic series. In Appendix A we discuss a way to resolve this issue and give a derivation of the (approximate) probability distribution. The result is
\begin{equation} \label{MGFPN1}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n\left( Y\right) =\,\,e^{-Y}\sum^{\infty}_{j=0} \frac{Y^j}{j!} \,P^j_n~~~~~\mbox{with}~~~
P^j_n\,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{N_j} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{N_j}\right)^{-n }\
\end{equation}
where $N_j\,\,=\,\,\Lb1\,+\,\Delta\right)^j$.
In \fig{pnn} we show the values of $P^{UTMM}_n $ from \eq{MGFPN1} versus $n$ at different values of $Y$.
\fig{pnn}-a shows that in the region of small $n$ the UTMM multiplicity distribution is close to BFKL cascade but at large $n$ the deviation is rather large. This is consistent with our discussion of high factorial moments. \fig{pnn}-b shows that although UTMM cascade strictly speaking violates KNO scaling, these violations are not large in practice.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\leavevmode
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{PNvsNFixY.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=8.4cm]{KNOvsN.pdf} \\
\fig{pnn}-a & \fig{pnn}-b\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fig{pnn}-a: $P_n(Y)$ versus $n$ at fixed values of Y from \eq{MGFPN1}. \fig{pnn}-b: the KNO function $\Psi\left( z\right)\,\,=N P_{z\,N} $ where $N$ is the mean multiplicity. $\Delta = 0.2$. BFKL cascade denotes the distribution of \eq{PNBK}.
}
\label{pnn}
\end{figure}
Finally we note that we can estimate the range of rapidities in which the evolution is dominated by multiple emissions, but saturation is still not important. The relevant condition in terms of the average mulitplicity is $1/\Delta< M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}<1/\gamma$, which given \eq{M11} in terms of rapidity translates into $\frac{1}{\Delta}\ln\frac{1}{\Delta}<Y<\frac{1}{\Delta}\ln \frac{1}{\gamma}$.
\subsubsection{The S-matrix for single and multiple gluon emissions}
Although our main focus in this paper is in the probability distributions, it is interesting to see how allowing multiple emission affects more directly measurable physical quantities.
The S-matrix can be calculated using \eqref{S} \cite{MUSA}. For UTM in the kinematic regime under consideration we can use the probabilities given in \eq{PNBK1}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{SMS1}
S(Y) \,\,&=&\,\,\sum^\infty_{n,m=0} e^{ - m \,n\,\gamma} \,P^{\mbox{\tiny BFKL}}_n( Y_0)\,P^{\mbox{\tiny BFKL}}_m( Y - Y_0)\\
& =&\,\,\int_0^\infty \frac{d n}{n} \,d\,u\, e^{-\gamma\,u}\frac{1}{ N(Y_0) \,N(Y - Y_0)} \,\exp\left( - \frac{n}{N(Y_0)} \,-\,
\frac{u}{ n\,N(Y \,-\,Y_0)} \right)\,\,
=\,-\frac{e^{\frac{1}{\gamma N(Y)}} \text{Ei}\left(-\frac{1}{N(Y) \gamma }\right)}{\gamma N(Y)}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $Ei(z)$ is the exponential integral: $ Ei(z) = - E_1(z)=\int\limits^z_{-\infty}\frac{e^\xi}{\xi} d \xi$.
For the total cross section we have\footnote{ This is a slight abuse of language, as in the toy model there is no transverse dimension, and thus no cross section. The quantities we calculate in this subsection are dimensionless, and are simply proportional to the appropriate probabilities. We will nevertheless refer to them as cross sections using the higher dimensional analogy.}
\begin{equation} \label{COM10}
\sigma_{tot}\,\,=\,\,2 \,A(Y)= 2\left( 1\,-\,S(Y)\right)
\end{equation}
We can also estimate the inelastic cross section, using the approach of \cite{MUSA}
\begin{equation} \label{COM2}
\sigma_{in}\,=\,1\,\,-\,\,\,\,\sum_{n,m} e^{ -2\, m \,n\,\gamma} \,P_n( Y_0)\,P_m( Y - Y_0) \end{equation}
In general the inelastic cross section defined in \eq{COM2} is not independent of frame, i.e. depends on $Y_0$ \cite{MUSA}. However for the probability distribution \eq{PNBK1} we find an $Y_0$-independent result
\begin{equation} \label{COM3}
\sigma_{in}\,\,=\,\,A\left( Y,\gamma \to 2 \gamma\right)\,\,=\,\,1\,\,+\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2\,\gamma N(Y)}} \text{Ei}\left(-\frac{1}{2\,\gamma\,N(Y) }\right)}{2\,\gamma N(Y)}\end{equation}
With $\sigma_{tot} $ and $\sigma_{in}$ we can estimate the cross section for diffraction production ( $\sigma_{diff}$):
\begin{equation} \label{COM4}
\sigma_{diff}\,\,=\,\,\sigma_{tot}\,\,-\,\,\sigma_{in}
\end{equation}
With this definition $\sigma_{diff}$ includes the elastic cross section.
The cross section for diffractive dissociation is obtained by subtracting for $\sigma_{diff}$ the elastic cross section
\begin{equation}\label{COM5}
\sigma_{dd}=\sigma_{diff}-(A(Y))^2
\end{equation}
For UTMM, replacing $P_n$ in \eq{SMS1} by \eq{MGFPN1} we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{SMS2}
S^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} (Y) \,\,&=&\,\,\sum_{n,m} e^{ - m \,n\,\gamma} \,P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n( Y_0)\,P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_m( Y - Y_0)\\
& =&\,\,e^{-Y}\sum_{j_1} \sum_{j_2}\frac{Y_0^{j_1} \,\left( Y - Y_0\right)^{j_2}}{j_1!\,j_2!} \int_0^\infty \frac{d n}{n} \,d\,u\, e^{-\gamma\,u}\frac{1}{ N_{j_1}N_{j_2}} \,\exp\left( - \frac{n}{N_{j_1}} \,-\,
\frac{u}{ n\,N_{j_2}} \right)\,\,
\nonumber \\
&=&\,\,-\,e^{-Y} \sum_{j} \frac{Y^{j}}{(j)!} \frac{e^{\frac{1}{\gamma N_{j}}} \text{Ei}\left(-\frac{1}{\gamma\,N_{j} }\right)}{\gamma \,N_{j}}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Using \eq{SMS2} in \eq{COM10}-\eq{COM5} we obtain the physical observables in the UTMM.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{UTMUTMMXS.pdf}
\caption{ The inclusive observable in UTM and UTMM versus Y. $\Delta=0.2$ and $\gamma = 0.01$.
}
\label{comxs1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{DIV.pdf}
\caption{ The cross section of diffraction dissociation $\sigma_{dd} = \sigma_{diff} - \sigma_{el}$ from \eq{COM4}, for UTM and UTMM versus Y. $\Delta=0.2$ and $\gamma = 0.01$.
}
\label{div1}
\end{figure}
In \fig{comxs1} and \fig{div1} we plot the various cross sections for the two models (UTM and UTMM). The kinematic region where saturation corrections are not important extends only up to rapidity $Y_{\rm max}= \frac{1}{\Delta}\ln \frac{1}{\gamma}$. denoted by the vertical line on the graphs. We nevertheless plot the curves up to higher rapidities to illustrate an interesting point that indeed around $Y_{max}$ the various quantities exhibit qualitative change of behavior. The differences between the two models follow the expected trend. The total cross section in UTMM is higher than in UTM, since it has larger probability to have higher number of dipoles. The cross section for diffractive dissociation on the other hand is lower in UTMM, consistent with the fact that it involves subtraction of the square of elastic amplitude, which is sensitive to the fluctuation in the dipole number.
In fact one can see from the graphs that among the quantities we calculated, $\sigma_{dd}$ is the best discriminator betweem UTM and UTMM.
\begin{boldmath}
\subsubsection{Multiple emissions with saturation - large $Y$ asymptotics ($ \,n\,\gg\,\frac{1}{\gamma}$)}
\end{boldmath}
For very large $n$ the term $\exp(-\,\gamma n)\,\,\ll\,1$ can be neglected and equations for $P_n$ take the form:
\begin{equation} \label{NMN1}
\frac{d \,P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n(Y)}{ d\,Y} \,\,=\,\, \left( e^{ - \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}} \,-\,1\right) P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n(Y) \,+\, e^{ - \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}} \,\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!}\left( \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\right)^k\,P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{n - k}(Y)
\end{equation}
and the asymptotic form of the RFT Schroedinger equation is:
\begin{equation} \label{NH4}
\frac{d\,Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{asymp}\left( Y\right)}{ d\, y}\,\,=\,\, \Bigg( e^{ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\left( u -1\right)} \,\,-\,\,1\Bigg)\,Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{asymp}\left( Y\right) \end{equation}
This has an obvious solution:
\begin{equation} \label{NH5}
Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{asymp}\,\,=\,\,\exp \left(\Bigg( e^{ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( u -1\right)} \,\,-\,\,1\Bigg)\,\,Y\right)
\end{equation}
where, as before we have neglected a possible slow varying prefactor $Z_{Y_0}(u)$ arising from initial condition.
These equations describe the asymptotics of the distribution in UTMM at very large $Y$.
The factorial moments are obtained using \eq{DELTAH5} and the asymptotic solution of \eq{NH5}.
For the first three factorial moments we then obtain
\begin{equation} \label{NH7}
M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} = \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} Y;~~~~~ M_2^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}= \frac{\Delta^2}{\gamma^2} Y^2 + \frac{\Delta^2}{\gamma^2} Y;~~~~
M_3^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}= \frac{\Delta^3}{\gamma^3} Y^3\,+3\,\frac{\Delta^3}{\gamma^3} Y^2 \,+\, \frac{\Delta^3}{\gamma^3} \,Y\,
\end{equation}
One can write the moments in the following explicit form
\begin{equation} \label{NH8}
M_k^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,\,=\,\, \left( \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}
t\frac{d}{d\,t}\right)^k e^{(t - 1)\,Y}|_{t=1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
t\equiv \exp\left( \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}(u-1) \right)
\end{equation}
Similar representation for the probabilities is
\begin{equation} \label{NH9}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n\left( Y\right)\,\,=\frac{1}{n!}\, \left( \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}
t\frac{d}{d\,t}\right)^n e^{(t - 1)\,Y}|_{t=e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}}}\end{equation}
Another representation can be obtained expanding the exponent $e^{t\,Y }$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{NH10}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n\left( Y\right)\,\,&=&\frac{1}{n!}\, \left( \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}
t\frac{d}{d\,t}\right)^n e^{(t - 1)\,Y}|_{t=e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}}}
=\,\,\frac{1}{n!}\, e^{-Y}\left( \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}
t\frac{d}{d\,t}\right)^n \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\left( Y\,t\right)^k}{k!} |_{t=e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}}} \nonumber\\
&=&\, \,\frac{1}{n!}\, e^{-Y} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}\left(\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}k\right)^n\left(Ye^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}}\right)^k
\end{eqnarray}
An interesting question is what is the range of $k$ that contributes to the sum in \eq{NH10}. For large rapidity we expect that the most important values of $n$ are large, and $k$ for these $n$ is also large. For large $k$ we can estimate the range
by replacing the sum with the integral over $k$ and finding the maximum of the integrand. The equation for the saddle point, $k_{SP}$ has the form:
\begin{equation} \label{NH11}
\frac{d \Psi}{d k}|_{k=k_{SP}} = 0~~~\mbox{with}~~\Psi = n\left( \ln\left( \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\right) + \ln \left( k\right)\Rb\,-\,k\,\left( \ln\left( \frac{k}{\cal Y}\right) - 1\right);
~~~~~~ \frac{n}{k_{SP}} \,-\,\ln\frac{ k_{SP}}{\cal Y}=0;
\end{equation}
where ${\cal Y} = Y\exp\left( - \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\right)$. The approximate solution for $k_{SP}$ is
\begin{equation} \label{KSP}
k_{SP}\,\,=\,\,\frac{n}{\ln\left( \frac{n}{\cal Y}\right)}
\end{equation}
Note that $e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}}$ is an exponentially small number, thus for reasonable values of $Y$ we have ${\cal Y}\ll 1$. Hence $k_{SP}\ll n$ and the ratio between the two decreases for large $n$.
It is tempting to estimate the sum in \eq{NH10} by the method of steepest descent, however
it turns out that the maximum in $k$ is very broad and the steepest descent method is not applicable. Nevertheless \eq{NH11} gives a good estimate of the important range of $k$. Limiting summation over $k$ in \eq{NH10} by $k_{max}$, we find that $k_{max} = 2 k_{SP}$ gives a very good agreement with the exact sum (see \fig{md}).
We plot the distribution given by \eq{NH10} in \fig{md} and compare it to the Poisson distribution \eq{PD} with the same mean value. This latter distribution as discussed previously, is the asymtotic distribution in UTM. Clearly the distribution of \eq{NH10} is much broader. On the other hand \fig{md}-c illustrates that \eq{NH10} is well approximated by the normal distribution (ND) with the mean value $<n>=\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}Y$ and variance $\sigma^2\,=\,\left( \frac{\Delta^2}{\gamma^2}\,\,+\,\,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\right)\,Y$ as suggested by \eq{NH7},
\begin{equation}
P^{ND}_n \,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\, \pi\,\sigma^2}}\, \exp\left( - \frac{ \left( n \,-\,<n>\right)^2}{ 2\,\sigma^2}\right)\end{equation}
\fig{md}-d demonstrates that an equally good approximation is provided by the negative binomial distribution
\begin{equation} \label{NBD}
P^{NBD}_n \,=\,\frac{\left(\frac{r}{N+r}\right)^r \left(\frac{N}{N+r}\right)^n \Gamma (n+r)}{n! \Gamma (r)}
\end{equation}
with the mean value $N =M_1^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$ and parameter $r = \frac{M^2_1}{M_2 - M^2_1}\,\,=\,\,Y$. In fact $P^{NBD}$ reproduces the first and the second terms in all $M_k^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}} $ of \eq{NH7}., viz: $M_k^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}\,=\,N^k \left( 1 + \frac{k (k-1)}{2} \frac{1}{Y}\,\,+\,\,O\left( \frac{1}{Y^2}\right) \right)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\leavevmode \begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{PAvsn10.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=8cm]{PAvsn15.pdf} \\
\fig{md}-a & \fig{md}-b\\
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{PNND20.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=8cm]{PNNBD20.pdf} \\
\fig{md}-c & \fig{md}-d\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Multiplicity distributions for two values of $Y$. The exact $P_n$ denote the distribution of \eq{NH10}, the approximate $P_n$ are the multiplicity distributions in which we sum over $k$ from $k=0$ up to $k_{max}=2 k_{SP}$. \
PD is the Poisson distribution of \eq{PD}. ND and NBD (see text) denote the normal and negative binomial distributions. $ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} $ is taken to be equal to 20. $\delta y$ denotes the amount of evolution from the initial rapidity $Y_0$ to $Y$, see \eq{SOL0}.}
\label{md}
\end{figure}
As expected therefore, allowing multiple dipole emissions results in a qualitatively different, and much broader distribution. This is true both at intermediate rapidities, where the saturation is unimportant, and also at asymptotically large energies where the saturation effects play crucial role. Interestingly, in both regimes the average number of dipoles at a given rapidity is the same in UTM and UTMM, and it is the shape of the distribution that discriminates decisively between the two models.
\section{"Nuclei" and evolution: the $m$-dipole initial condition}
In this paper our primary interest is in the regime where multiple emissions in the evolution are important. For an initial condition of a single dipole this regime is achieved only at large rapidities. It is interesting to consider how the situation changes if our initial condition itself contains multiple dipoles. Such an initial condition is a proxy to a "nucleus" in the toy world. We expect naturally, that in this case the asymptotic regime in the evolution will be achieved at much lower rapidities. In this section we repeat the analysis of the evolution for the initial condition of exactly $m$ dipoles at initial rapidity. In terms of the initial probability distribution this means
\begin{equation}
P_{n(m)}(Y=0)=\delta_{nm}
\end{equation}
while in terms of factorial moments:
\begin{equation}
M_{k(m)}(Y=0)=\frac{m!}{(m-k)!}; \ \ \ k\le m; \ \ \ \ \ M_{k(m)}(Y=0)=0;\ \ k>m
\end{equation}
or in terms of the wave function
\begin{equation}\label{zin}
Z_0(u)=u^m
\end{equation}
\subsection{Many dipoles evolved with BK}
For the BK evolution the solution for the $m$-dipole initial condition is easy to find. Using \eq{zsol} and \eq{zin} we find
\begin{equation}
Z^{BK}_Y(u;m)=\left[\frac{u}{u(1-e^{\Delta Y})+e^{\Delta Y}}\right]^{m}.
\end{equation}
With this generating function the probabilities are found to be
\begin{equation} \label{PNM}
P_{n(m)}^{BK}(Y)=C^{n-1}_{m-1}e^{-m\Delta Y}\left[1-e^{-\Delta Y}\right]^{n-m}.
\end{equation}
The binomial coefficient $C^{n-1}_{m-1}$ here is simply the number of ways to put $n$ identical objects into $m$ boxes without leaving a single box empty.
The first moment is also easily calculated
\begin{equation}\label{MBM1}
M^{BK}_{1(m)}\equiv N_{(m)}(Y)=me^{\Delta Y}
\end{equation}
while for the $k$-th moment we get
\begin{equation}
M^{BK}_{k(m)}=k!e^{k\Delta Y}\sum_{l=1}^{m}C_l^mC_{l-1}^{k-1}\left[1-e^{-\Delta Y}\right]^{k-l}\,\,=\,\,k!\,\, e^{ \Delta\,k\,Y}\,\,m \,T^{k-1} \, _2F_1\left(1-k,1-m;2;\frac{1}{T}\right)
\end{equation}
where $T\,\,=\,\,1\,\,-\,\,\exp\left( - \Delta\,Y\right)\,\,=\,\,1\,-\,\frac{m}{N_{(m)}}$.
For large rapidities
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{largeY}
P_{n(m)}^{BK}(Y)&\xrightarrow{\Delta\,Y\,\gg\,1}&\frac{(n-1)!}{(n - m)!\,(m-1)!}\left(\frac{m}{N_{(m)}(Y)}\right)^m \,\,\exp\left[-\frac{m(n-m)}{N_{(m)}(Y)}\right]\nonumber\\
&\xrightarrow{n\gg m; \ e^{\Delta Y}\gg m}&\frac{m}{(m-1)!}\frac{1}{N_{(m)}(Y)}\,
\left(\frac{mn}{N_{(m)}(Y)}\right)^{m-1}\exp\left[-\frac{mn}{N_{(m)}(Y)}\right]\label{PKBKM}\\
M^{BK}_{k(m)}&\!\!\!\xrightarrow{ e^{\Delta \,Y} \gg m}& \,\,\left(\frac{N_{(m)}(Y)}{m}\right)^k\,\frac{ (m+k-1)! }{(m-1)! \label{MKBKM}}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
We note that for $m=1$ the probability distribution at high energy satisfies the KNO scaling. For $m>1$ this is strictly speaking not true, however at high enough energy where $\exp\{\Delta Y\}\gg m$ and only large values of $n\gg m$ matter for the bulk properties of the distribution the KNO scaling is restored as is clear from eq.(\ref{largeY}). Nevertheless even at high energies the initial number of dipoles $m$ appears as a parameter in the KNO function. In particular the KNO function drops faster at large values of the argument for large $m$.
\subsection{$m$-dipoles in UTM at intermediate rapidities}
The initial condition determines matching of the solution of UTM with the BK regime.
Matching \eq{PL8} with eq.(\ref{PKBKM}) at small $Y$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n(m)}\left( Y\right)\,\,&=&\,\,\frac{1}{(m-1)!}\frac{\gamma}{\left( 1 - e^{- (n - 1) \gamma}\right)}\,\exp\Bigg( - e^{\zeta(Y,n)} \,\,+\,\,m\zeta(Y,n)\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{1}{(m-1)!} e^{ -\,\Delta\,Y\,\,+ \gamma (n -1)} \exp\Bigg( - e^{\zeta(Y,n)} \,\,+\,\,(m\,-\,1)\zeta(Y,n)\Bigg) ; \label{PL1001}
\end{eqnarray}
This qualitatively is rather similar to the solution for $m=1$. In fact the sensitivity to the value of $m$ is weaker in this regime than for the BFKL cascade.
The value of $n$ at which the probability \eq{PL1001} is maximal is determined with good accuracy from the relation
\begin{equation} \label{NMAX}
\zeta(Y,n) \,\,=\,\,\ln(m)
\end{equation}
or from vanishing of the derivative
\begin{eqnarray}\label{p2pm}
\frac{\partial P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n(m)}}{\partial n}&=&\left[\gamma\left[1+\frac{m-1}{1-e^{-(n-1)\gamma}}\right]-e^{-\Delta Y+(n-1)\gamma}\right]P^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{n(m)};
\end{eqnarray}
Taking $m$ as a number which is parametrically not large $m\ll 1/\gamma$, we find that at large
rapidity the maximum of the probability distribution is at
\begin{equation}\label{nmmax}
n^{(m)}_{max}-1\approx\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}Y-\frac{1}{\gamma}\ln\frac{1}{m\gamma}
\end{equation}
This relation clearly exhibits effects of saturation: the value of $n^{(m)}_{max}$ grows only logarithmically with $m$, whereas if we were to continue the BFKL cascade to these values of rapidity, the position of the maximum would be linear in $m$.
For the mean multiplicity we find
\begin{eqnarray} \label{PL12}
&&N_{(m)}(Y)\equiv M^{\mbox{\tiny UTM}}_{1(m)}(Y)\approx\\\
&&\frac{1}{(m-1)!}\left( - \frac{d\,}{d\,\alpha}\right)^{m - 1}\left[\frac{e^{\frac{\alpha}{\gamma} e^{-\Delta Y}}}{\alpha\,\gamma}\Bigg( \Gamma\left( 0, \frac{\alpha}{\gamma}e^{-\Delta Y}\right) + (m-1)\,\gamma\,e^{ - \frac{\alpha}{\gamma}e^{\Delta\,Y}\exp\left(( m-1)\,\gamma\right)}\Bigg)
\right]\Bigg{|}_{\alpha=1}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
At small $Y$, the multiplicity $N_{(m)}(Y)$ from \eq{PL12} tends to the BFKL cascade value $ m \,e^{\Delta\,Y} $. At large $Y$ \eq{PL12} asymptotically gives $N_{(m)}(Y)\,\,\to\,\,\frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \,Y\,\,-\,\, \frac{1}{\gamma}\ln\frac{1}{\gamma} $. To reproduce the weak logarithmic dependence on $m$ of Eq.({\ref{nmmax} ) one would need to keep sub asymptotic terms in the expansion of the incomplete gamma function. At very large $Y$ these corrections are unimportant and we recover the same $m$-independent asymptotics as given by $Z_Y^{asymp}\left( u\right)$ Eq.(\ref{SOL0}).
\subsection{UTM at asymptotically large rapidities}
If $m$ is not large parametrically, the exact value of $m$ is not very important for the probability distribution in the saturation regime. The onset of the saturation regime is a little earlier than for $m=1$, as follows from \eq{nmmax}, but the distribution itself is practically the same. However if $m$ is very large, i.e. $m\sim1/\gamma$ the saturation corrections in the evolution kick in right away. In this case there is no BK or intermediate regime in the evolution and already at low rapidity one can approximate the evolution by \eq{schsat}. The solution at arbitrary rapidity then has the form
\begin{equation} \label{SOL1}
Z_{Y(m)}^{UTM}\left( u\right)\,\,=\,\,e^{ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}( u - 1) \,Y}u^m
\end{equation}
The ensuing dipole distribution is Poisson shifted by the initial number of dipoles
\begin{equation} \label{PDm}
P^{(m)}_n\left( Y\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{(\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}Y)^{(n-m)}}{(n-m)!}e^{-\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}Y}
\end{equation}
The mean multiplicity in this cascade
\begin{equation} N_{(m)} = \frac{\Delta}{\gamma}\,Y+m\end{equation}
The influence of the initial number of dipoles $m$ is illustrated by \fig{nmax} where we plot the value of $N_{(m)}$.
In this figure the two limiting cases are also shown: the value of $N_{(m)}$ for the BFKL cascade $N_{(m)}=m\exp\left( \Delta\,Y\right)$, and \eq{nmmax}, which
gives the maximum probability in the saturation region. It is clear from this figure that the transitional region of $Y$ between the BFKL cascade and the asymptotic multiplicity distribution in the saturation region for the UTM cascade shrinks for large $m$. The values of $m$ that are shown in \fig{nmax} , were chosen having in mind $m=3$ for the "proton", and $m =3A^{1/3}$ for a "nucleus" of atomic number $A$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{NmaxvsYM.pdf}
\caption{ The value of $N_{(m)}$ from \protect\eq{PL12} versus $Y$. In red it is shown the value for the BFKL cascade (see \eq{MBM1})
while in blue the values of $n_{max}$ from \eq{nmmax} are indicated. }
\label{nmax}
\end{figure}
\subsection{UTMM - multiple emissions without saturation}
We can now repeat the analysis for UTMM. \eq{MGF4} and \eq{MGFPN} give the factorial moments and $P_n$ for single dipole initial condition.
For the $m$-dipole case, \eq{smalln} gives $P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{n<m}=0$ . $P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{m} $ and $M^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_1$
are easily determined from this equation, and from \eq{M1}:
\begin{equation} \label{MGF10}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{n \,<\,m}\left( Y \right) \,\,=\,\,0;~~~~~~ P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{n \,=\,m}\left( Y \right) \,\,=\,\,
e^{-\,\Delta\,Y};~~~~~M^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{1\,(m)}\left( Y\right)\,\,\,=\,\,m\,\,e^{\,\Delta\,Y}.
\end{equation}
The next two moments are determined from \eq{M2} and \eq{M3} as:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{MGF11}
M^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{2\,(m)}\left( Y\right)\,\,&=&\,\,m \frac{ (2 + \Delta)}{ (\Delta + 1)}\Bigg( e^{( 2 + \Delta)\Delta\,Y} \,\,-\,\,e^{\Delta\,Y}\Bigg)\,\,+\,\,m \,\left( m - 1\right) \, e^{( 2 + \Delta)\Delta\,Y}\nonumber\\
&\xrightarrow{\Delta \,\ll\,1}& 2\,m \left( e^{\Delta_2\,Y}\,\,-\,\,e^{\Delta_1\,Y} \right)\,\,+\,\,m \,(m \,-\,1)\,e^{\Delta_2\,Y}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{MGF12}
M^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{3\,(m)}\left( Y\right)\,\,&=&\,6\,e^{ \Delta_3\,Y} \int^Y_0 d Y' \,e^{- \,\Delta_3\,Y'}\, M_2\left( Y'\right)\,\,\,+\,\,m\,(m \,- \,1)\,(m\,-\,2 )\,e^{ \Delta_3\,Y} \nonumber\\
& = &3!\,m \Bigg( e^{\Delta_3\,Y} \,\,-\,\,2 \,e^{\Delta_2\,Y}\,\,+\,\,e^{ \Delta\,Y}\Bigg)\,\,+\,3!\,m \,(m \,-\,1)\,\Bigg(e^{\Delta_3\,Y} \,-\, e^{\Delta_2\,Y}\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&\,\,+&\,\,m\,(m \,- \,1)\,(m\,-\,2 )\,e^{ \Delta_3\,Y}
\end{eqnarray}
where, as before $\Delta_k \,\,=\,\,(1\,+\,\Delta)^k \,\,-\,\,1$.
For $M_{4\,(m)}^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}$ we get:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{MGF13}
M^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{4\,(m)}\left( Y\right)\,\,&=&\,12\,e^{ \Delta_4\,Y} \int^Y_0 d Y' \,e^{- \,\Delta_4\,Y'}\, M_3\left( Y'\right)\,\,\,+\,\,m\,(m \,- \,1)\,(m\,-\,2 )\,(m - 3)\,e^{ \Delta_4\,Y} \nonumber\\
& = &4!\,m \Bigg( e^{\Delta_4\,Y} \,-\,3 \,e^{\Delta_3\,Y}\,+\,3\,e^{ \Delta_2,Y}\,-\,e^{\Delta_1\,Y}\Bigg)\,+\,m \,(m \,-\,1) \,4! \frac{3}{2}\,\Bigg(e^{\Delta_4\,Y} \,-\, 2\,e^{\Delta_3\,Y}\,+\,e^{\Delta_2\,Y}\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&\,\,+&\,\, 4!\, \frac{1}{2} \, m\,(m \,- \,1)\,(m\,-\,2 )\,\Bigg(e^{ \Delta_4\,Y} \,-\, e^{ \Delta_3\,Y}\Bigg)\,\,+\,\,
m\,(m \,- \,1)\,(m\,-\,2 )\,(m - 3)\,e^{ \Delta_4\,Y} \end{eqnarray}
These expressions look rather complicated. However at large rapidities the coefficient of the leading exponent in the $k$-th moment is easy to determine.
We note that at small $Y$ the solution should reduce to that of the BFKL cascade, since multiple emissions are unimportant for small $Y$. Since the structure of the moments in both regimes is a linear combination of exponentials, when setting $\Delta_k \,=\, k \,\Delta$, the moments for UTMM without saturation should reduce to the BFKL moments. This allows us to calculate the combinatorial factor in $M^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{k(m)}$ by using the result of the BFKL cascade \eq{MKBKM}:
\begin{equation}
M^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{k(m)}\approx \frac{(m\,+\,k\,-\,1)!}{(m\,-\,1)!}e^{\Delta_kY}.
\end{equation}
One can check directly that this reproduces the coefficient of the highest exponent in \eq{MGF11}, \eq{MGF12} and \eq{MGF13}.
Using this expression for the moments we can write the generating function as
\begin{equation} \label{MGF16}
Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_Y\left( u;m \right)\,\,=\,\,1\,\,+\,\,\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(m\,+\,k\,-\,1)!}{(m\,-\,1)!\,k!}\,(u-1)^k \,e^{\Delta_k\,Y}.
\end{equation}
We now expand this equation with respect to $(1 + \Delta)^k\,Y$:
\begin{equation} \label{MGF17}
Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_Y(u;m) \,=\,e^{-Y} \,\sum^{\infty}_{j=0} \sum^{\infty}_{k=0}\,\frac{(m+k-1)!}{(m-1)!\,k!}\, \frac{(1+\Delta)^{k\,j}\,Y^j }{j!}\,(u-1)^k\,=\,e^{-Y} \sum^{\infty}_{j=0} \frac{Y^j }{j!}\,\Bigg(\frac{1}{ 1 - \left( 1+\Delta\right)^j \,(u-1)}\Bigg)^{m}
\end{equation}
Reexpanding this in powers of $u^n$, we obtain
the following representation for the probability distribution $P_n^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}(Y)$:
\begin{equation} \label{MGF18}
P^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_n\left( Y\right) =\,\,e^{-Y}\sum^{\infty}_{j=0} \frac{Y^j}{j!} \,P^j_n~~~~~\mbox{with}~~~
P^j_n\,\,=\,\ \frac{(m\,+\,n\,-\,1)!}{(m\,-\,1)!\,n!}\Bigg(\frac{1}{\left( N_j+1\right)^{m} } \left( 1 + \frac{1}{N_j}\right)^{-n }\Bigg) \end{equation}
where $N_j\,\,=\,\,\Lb1\,+\,\Delta\right)^j$.
The multiplicity distribution for \eq{MGF18} is plotted in \fig{pnn0} at different values of $m$ for $Y =10$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\leavevmode
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=8.1cm]{PnvsNMM.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=8cm]{PnvsNM.pdf}\\
\fig{pnn0}-a & \fig{pnn0}-b\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\fig{pnn0}-a: $P_n$ from \eq{MGF18} (UTMM cascade) versus $n$ at different values of $m$. \fig{pnn0}-b: $P_n$ for the UTM cascade. $\Delta = 0.2,\,\,
\gamma = 0.01$.}
\label{pnn0}
\end{figure}
\subsection{UTMM with saturation}
Finally, when $m$ is large the large $Y$ of UTMM is modified similarly to UTM. In particular the generating function of \eq{NH5} is modified as
\begin{equation}
Z^{\mbox{\tiny UTMM}}_{asymp}\,\,=\,\,\exp \left(\Bigg( e^{ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( u -1\right)} \,\,-\,\,1\Bigg)\,\,Y\right) u^m
\end{equation}
and the probability distribution is shifted by $m$
\begin{equation}
P^{UTMM}_{n(m)}(Y)=P^{UTMM}_{n-m(1)}
(Y).
\end{equation}
\section{Discussion}
This paper has one central point. For large number of partons in hadronic wave function, rapidity evolution should not be limited by emission of a single parton in one step. Instead many partons can be independently emitted. Here in the framework of a toy model in zero transverse dimensions we have implemented this idea by constructing an evolution which describes independent emission of multiple partons (dipoles). This evolution by construction preserves $t$-channel and $s$-channel unitarity. It incorporates saturation dynamics, and reduces to the known simpler models whenever multiple emissions are unimportant.
The model has two parameters: the dipole emission probability $\Delta$, and dipole-dipole elastic scattering amplitude $\gamma$. Within the model itself these parameters are independent, but when projected on QCD we expect $\Delta\sim \alpha_s$ and $\gamma\sim \alpha_s^2$.
In this sense this is an appropriate evolution to be applied for scattering of dense objects, unlike the models of similar type considered so far.
We have studied various aspects of probability distributions generated by this evolution from two type of initial conditions: a single dipole and multiple dipoles. An interesting feature of the model worth noting is that the regime where multiple scatterings are important precedes the onset of saturation corrections. Parametrically, as long as the average number of dipole is small $N<1/\Delta\sim 1/\alpha_s$, the single dipole emission dominates the evolution and the probability distribution is that of the BFKL cascade. For intermediate values of $N$ such that $1/\Delta<N<1/\gamma$ saturation effects are still unimportant, but multiple dipole emissions are dominant. Finally at very large rapidities where $N>1/\gamma$ both, multiple emissions and saturation corrections determine the asymptotic dipole distribution.
There are significant differences between the asymptotic behavior of multiplicity distributions in the model that allows only emission of a single dipole (UTM) and that with multiple dipole emission (UTMM). The main qualitative difference as illustrated on \fig{md}, is that the distribution in UTMM is significantly wider, and is well approximated by the normal distribution whereas in UTM the asymptotic distribution is of the Poisson type.
One can understand this feature directly from the asymptotic form of the generating function $Z$. Interestingly, in both models the asymptotic distribution can be written in the form
\begin{equation}\label{scale}
Z_Y(u)=(z(u))^Y
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{fundc}
z_{UTM}(u)=e^{ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( u -1\right) }\,\, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ z_{UTMM}(u)=e^{\left[e^{ \frac{\Delta}{\gamma} \left( u -1\right)} \,\,-\,\,
1\right]}=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}(z_{UTM}-1)^k
\end{equation}
Our discussion in the previous section makes it clear that taking a power $m$ of a distribution function is equivalent to considering a state that evolves into $m$ independent cascades, so that the final probability distribution is that of $m$ cascades. From this point of view the rapidity $Y$ in \eq{scale} plays the role of the number of independent cascades in the asymptotic distribution.
It is therefore natural to interpret the asymptotic probability distribution in the following way. At pre asymptotic rapidities $Y<Y_{asymp}$ an initial state evolves into some fundamental distribution, or cascade $z$. Starting from $Y_{asymp}$ the asymptotic evolution takes over, which amounts simply to multiplication of the number
of these independent fundamental cascades at a constant rate. At any rapidity $Y\gg Y_{asymp}$ the number of such fundamental cascades is $m\approx Y$. Different evolution dynamics correspond to different properties of the fundamental cascade $z$ \eq{fundc}. In UTM $z_{UTM}$ is a Poisson distribution with average dipole number $\langle n\rangle =\frac{\Delta}{\gamma}$. A composition of $Y$ independent Poisson distributions gives again a Poisson distribution with the additive mean value $N(Y)=\langle n\rangle Y$, which is precisely what we have seen in Section 2. On the other hand in UTMM, since the pre asymptotic evolution is dominated by multiple dipole emission, the fundamental distribution $z_{UTMM}$ is not a Poisson, but rather a weighted sum of Poisson distributions with averages which are multiples of $\langle n\rangle$. A large number of such cascades is not a Poisson distribution anymore. On the other hand we expect that a composition of a large number of identical distributions must lead to a normal distribution, which explains why the distribution on \fig{md}
is so close to a normal distribution.
In general we saw that including the saturation effects changes the shape of the distribution significantly. In particular while the BK distribution at large $Y$ satisfies KNO scaling, the asymptotic UTM distribution does not. The KNO property is interesting in relation to the recent discussions of parton entropy pioneered in
Ref.\cite{KHLE} . It was noted in \cite{KHLE} that at large average multiplicities $N$ the entropy of the BFKL cascade
behaves as
\begin{equation} \label{C1}
S=\ln N.
\end{equation}
Such behavior can be interpreted in terms of a large number of partonic micro-states having equal probabilities. The proton then is thought of as composed of an exponentially large (in rapidity) number $N$ of micro-states that occur with equal and small probabilities $1/N$. More generally one can see that any probability distribution that follows KNO scaling $P_n = \frac{1}{N}\Psi\left( \frac{n}{N}\right)$, yields logarithmic entropy
\begin{equation}\label{ent}
S=-\sum_nP_n\ln P_n\approx -\int \frac{dn}{N}\Psi(\frac{n}{N})\left[-\ln N+\ln \Psi(\frac{n}{N})\right]=\ln (aN)
\end{equation}
where $a$ is a rapidity independent constant. Strictly speaking, of course not any KNO-type distribution corresponds to equally populated micro states, but physically the situation is not too different. As $N$ grows, KNO scaling means that more and more states (wider range of $n$'s) get populated, if not exactly equally at least according to some fixed probability ratio determined by the KNO function $\Psi$.
This is the origin of the logarithmic term in the entropy.
In this paper we demonstrated that both the cascade with saturation, and a possibility to emit many partons lead to violations of KNO scaling. It would be interesting to see to what extent this also leads to violation of \eq{C1}. We can answer this question for asymptotic rapidities. Both in UTM and UTMM at very large rapidities the distribution is well approximated by normal distribution with $\sigma^2\propto N$. Estimate similar to \eq{ent} then gives
\begin{equation}
S=\ln a\sigma=\frac{1}{2}\ln N+const
\end{equation}
This differs from \eq{C1} by a factor of two, which reflects the difference scaling property of the distribution with $N$.
The second point we want to stress is that at intermediate rapidities the distribution with saturation is poorly described by the negative binomial distribution of \eq{NBD}, see \fig{comp2}. Within the CGC approach the multiplicity distribution was calculated in the MV model, the so called
"glittering glasma"\cite{GLPL}. This leads to NBD in which the average number of partons and parameter $r$ are determined by the first and the second factorial moments. Both UTM and UTMM are far from NBD at intermediate rapidities, although interestingly in the asymptotic regime the UTMM cascade is quantitatively not very different from NBD \fig{md}-d.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\leavevmode
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=8.1cm]{UTMNBD.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=8cm]{UTMMNBD.pdf}\\
\fig{comp2}-a & \fig{comp2}-b\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison between multiplicity distributions in UTM and UTMM cascade with the negative binomial distributions which have the same $M_1$ and $M_2$ as the cascades. At the plots, $P_n$ are multiplied by 5 for Y=20, to fit the scale. $\Delta =0.2,\gamma = 0.01$. }
\label{comp2}
\end{figure}
We believe the main point of this paper is valid beyond the toy model and generalizes to high energy scattering in QCD as well. The BK regime in QCD should not transition directly into the saturation regime as far as the evolution of the wave function is concerned. Rather the saturation should be preceded by the rapidity range where multiple gluon emissions in the evolution play prominent role. The study of this new regime is an interesting problem which should start by the derivation of the generalization of the BK Hamiltonian.
|
\section{Introduction}
Sign Language is the dominant form of communication language used in deaf society. Most of the people in the hearing and deaf communities are not familiar with sign language. To touch on the necessity of this language for both hearing and deaf people, let imagine you are in a grocery store. What will happen if a deaf person asks you to help him/her? (See Figure \ref{Fig 00}). This is a challenging situation. If you do not know sign language, it would be useful to be able to use an application to translate a spoken language into sign language and vise versa. This example is just one situation among many others in which being familiar with sign language is useful. Actually, developing efficient bidirectional sign language translation systems requires expertise in a wide range of fields, including Computer Vision (CV), Computer Graphics (CG), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Linguistics, and Deaf culture. While the vast majority of communication technologies have been developed for spoken/written language, sing languages have been excluded in most of these technologies. Furthermore, most hearing people do not know sign language. The results will be the existence of many communication barriers for deaf people in society. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) report in 2020, there are more than 466 million deaf people in the world \cite{who1} using different forms of sign languages, such as American Sign Language (ASL) \cite{asl}, Argentine Sign Language, \cite{argentina}, Polish Sign Language \cite{poland}, German Sign Language \cite{Germany}, Greek Sign Language \cite{Greek}, Spanish Sign Language \cite{spain}, Chinese Sign Language \cite{china}, Korean Sign Language \cite{Korean}, Persian Sign Language \cite{Iran}, just to mention a few. This report shows the necessity of study, research, and technology development in this area.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Grocery-deaf-3.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{A scenario where a deaf person asks for help \cite{grocery}.}
\label{fig:long}
\label{Fig 00}
\end{figure}
In general terms, the translation task is an important component in recent technologies developed by multinational institutions to aid in internal and external communications \cite{Bragg}. In more detail, there are two specific translation tasks in a bidirectional sign language translation system: Sign Language Recognition (SLR) and Sign Language Production (SLP). The former is defined as a translation task from the sign language into the spoken language. However, this task can be configured as a vision-based recognition task. The latter translates the spoken language into sign language. Both SLR and SLP tasks are fundamental to make a bidirectional translation system applicable in real-life applications. Compared to other languages, the translation task is more challenging in sign language. Some factors that contribute to such complexity are unfamiliarity of people with sign language, complex patterns in different signs, lack of a specific standard for sign languages, and the challenges corresponding to the vision-based tasks. Furthermore, the visual variability of signs is challenging, as it is affected by hand-shape, palm orientation, movement, location, facial expressions, and other non-hand signals. These differences in sign appearance produce a large intra-class variability and low inter-class variability. This makes it hard to provide a robust and universal system capable of recognizing different sign types. Another challenge is developing a photo-realistic SLP system to generate the corresponding sign digit/word/sentence from a text/voice in spoken language in a real-world situation. The challenge corresponding to the grammatical rules and linguistic structures of sign language needs to be considered. Translation between spoken and sign language is a complex problem. This is not a simple mapping problem from text/voice to signs word-by-word. This challenge comes from the differences between the tokenization and ordering of words in the spoken and sign languages. Another complex condition is related to the application area. Most of the applications in sign language focus on sign language recognition in different areas, such as robotics \cite{Dawes}, human–computer interaction \cite{Bachmann}, education \cite{Darabkh}, computer games \cite{Roccetti}, recognition of children with autism \cite{cai}, automatic sign-language interpretation \cite{yang}, decision support for medical diagnosis of motor skills disorders \cite{Butt}, home-based rehabilitation \cite{Cohen} \cite{Morando}, and virtual reality \cite{Vaitkev}. This is due to the misunderstanding of hearing people. Most of them think that deaf people are much more comfortable with reading spoken language; therefore, it is not necessary to translate the reading spoken language into sign language. This is not true since there is no guarantee that a deaf person is familiar with the reading and writing forms of a spoken language. Generally, these two forms of language are completely different from each other. Most of the sign languages, do not have a standard written form.
Nevertheless, despite the aforementioned challenges, some methods have been proposed with different degrees of success in both SLR and SLP \cite{RastgooSurvey}\cite{RastgooSLP}. While SLR has rapidly advanced in recent years \cite{Rastgoo-rbm}\cite{Rastgoo-multiview}\cite{Rastgoo-video}\cite{Rastgoo-pose-aware}\cite{Rastgoo-svd}\cite{RastgooSurvey}, SLP is still a very challenging problem, involving an interpretation between visual and linguistic information \cite{stoll2020}. Proposed systems in SLR generally map signs into the spoken language in the form of text transcription or speech \cite{RastgooSurvey}. However, SLP systems perform the reverse procedure. There are some accurate and well-detailed surveys in the SLR \cite{Ghanem}\cite{RastgooSurvey} but only one detailed discussion has been presented in SLP \cite{RastgooSLP}. Here, we extend our previous survey \cite{RastgooSLP}, and review recent advances in SLP and related areas using deep learning. To have more realistic perspectives to sign language, we present an introduction to the Deaf culture, Deaf centers, psychological perspective of sign language, the main differences between spoken language and sign language. Furthermore, we present the fundamental components of a bi-directional sign language translation system, discussing the main challenges in this area. Also, the backbone architectures and methods in SLP are briefly introduced and the proposed taxonomy on SLP is presented. Finally, a general framework for SLP and performance evaluation, and also a discussion on the recent developments, advantages, and limitations in SLP, commenting on possible lines for future research are presented.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. To have more realistic perspectives to sign language, we present an introduction to the Deaf culture in section 2. Some of the most familiar Deaf centers are presented in section 3. After that, we briefly discuss the psychological perspective of sign language in section 4. The main differences between spoken language and sign language are reviewed in section 5. section 6 presents the fundamental components of a bi-directional sign language translation system. In section 7, we dive into the SLP problem, discussing the main challenges in this area. The backbone architectures and methods in SLP are briefly introduced in section 8. Our taxonomy on SLP is presented in section 9. A general framework for SLP and performance evaluation, and also a discussion on the recent
developments, advantages, and limitations in SLP, commenting on possible lines for future research are presented in section 10, 11, and 12, respectively.
\section{Deaf culture}
Deaf Culture is the heart of the Deaf community. Language and culture are intertwined and inseparable passed down through generations of Deaf people. The Deaf community is not based on geographic vicinity. Generally, it contains two groups: the culturally Deaf people and the other individuals who use sign language. Actually, the Deaf community brings together these two groups. Furthermore, the intuition behind the Deaf culture is that it helps the Deaf people who are educated at residential Deaf schools to develop their own Deaf network once they graduate and keep in touch with everyone. Most of these Deaf people take on leadership positions in the Deaf community, organize Deaf sports, community events, etc, and become the core of the Deaf community. A key point is that this community needs to be sure that their language and heritage are passed to other peers and the next generation. They also form connections with parents and siblings of Deaf children to extend the community circle for Deaf children.
Suppression of sign language communication is a sample of cruelty against the Deaf community. One example is dated back to 1889 where an international congress of largely hearing educators of deaf students announced that sign language should be substituted with spoken language \cite{Lane}. Afterward, oralism, as a teaching system for Deaf people to communicate using speech and lip-reading instead of sign language, was extensively enforced. Since then, Deaf communities have struggled to use sign languages in schools, work, and public life \cite{Geers}. Furthermore, linguistic advancements have assisted sign languages so that they can be used as natural languages \cite{Stokoe}. Also, the role of the legislation can not be ignored in helping to establish legal support for sign language education and usage \cite{UN}. Considering this historical struggle can help the researchers to have a sense of the necessity of the translation and recognition systems for sign languages applicable in the real-life of the Deaf community \cite{Bragg}.
\section{Deafness centers}
Since we maybe refer to the reports of the deafness centers in this survey, here, we present some most-used deafness centers to access data of Deaf community, just mentioned a few:
\begin{itemize}
\item World Health Organization (WHO) \cite{WHO},
\item National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) \cite{NIDCD},
\item Centers of Disease Control and Prevention \cite{CDC},
\item National Deaf Center (NDC) \cite{NDC},
\item Hearing, Speech and Deaf Center (HSDC) \cite{HSDC},
\item Center for Hearing and Deaf Services (HDS) \cite{HDS},
\item Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program \cite{DHHP},
\item Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness (ManCAD) \cite{Manchester},
\item Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons \cite{Virginia},
\item National Center on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB) \cite{National}.
\end{itemize}
These centers aim to provide the educational, clinical, and research services to the Deaf community.
\section{Psychological perspective of sign language}
As we stated before, developing an efficient bidirectional sign language translation system requires the study in a wide range of fields, including CV, CG, NLP, HCI, Linguistics, and Deaf culture. To this end, we present a brief discussion of the findings from developmental psychology, psycho-linguistics, cognitive psychology, and neuropsychological studies. Recent studies of attention and perception show that usage of sign language from an early age can boost some aspects of non-language visual perception, such as motion perception. Furthermore, neuropsychological and functional imaging studies indicate that left hemisphere regions are important in both sign and spoken language processing. The aphasia can be occurred in signers due to left hemisphere damage. Also, the existence of different modalities for language expression, such as oral–aural and manual–visual, makes room to explore different characteristics of human languages.
From a pathological perspective, Deaf people have different degrees of hearing deviations from the standard/norm hearing level defined for hearing people. Generally, four levels of deafness are defined: mild, moderate Hearing, severe, and profound hearing loss. This perspective is traditionally acceptable by a majority of non-deaf professionals who interact with the Deaf Community only on a professional basis. So, this issue can be considered for hardware implementations of the proposed systems in SLR and SLP. Developing such a system can make a room for the Deaf community to overcome the communication barriers and help them to keep motivated.
\section{Sign languages vs. spoken languages}
Generally, there are two main types of languages used in the community: spoken and sign. While these two language types are different from each other, both of them should be viewed as natural languages. The main difference between them refers to the way that they convey information. The spoken language is understood as an auditory/vocal language. It can also be considered as an oral language. The various sound patterns are used to convey a message. There are many linguistic elements in the spoken language, such as vowels, consonants, and tones. Making changes in these elements can lead to different meanings for the same set of words in the spoken language. In contrast to spoken languages, gestures and facial expressions play key roles to convey information in sign languages instead of vocal tracts. There are different sign languages in the world. Some of them are better-known, such as American Sign Language (ASL). In every country, there are one or more sign languages used by the Deaf community. While people think that sign languages have derived from spoken languages, they are independent of natural languages that have evolved over time. Sign language is a complex language that has specific linguistic properties. SLR is affected by the structural properties of sign language and occurs faster than spoken language recognition. While signs are articulated slower than spoken words, the proposition rate for sign and speech is identical. It should be noted that both languages can be used to convey all sorts of information, such as news, conversations about daily activities, stories, narrations, etc.
\section{Bi-directional sign language translation system}
As already discussed, to make a bi-directional sign language translation system, we need a system capable of translation from sign language into a spoken language (SLR) and vice versa (SLP) (See Fig. \ref{Fig 0}). While SLR has rapidly advanced in recent years, SLP is still a challenging problem. Since the details of SLR have been presented in some accurate and well-detailed surveys \cite{Ghanem} \cite{RastgooSurvey}, in this survey, we focus on SLP details of this bi-directional system and present more details of recent works in the SLP.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{Two-way.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{ A bi-directional sign language translation system.}
\label{fig:long}
\label{Fig 0}
\end{figure}
\section{SLP}
SLP is one of the main components of a bidirectional sign language translation system. This system can be used to facilitate easy and clear communication between the hearing and the Deaf communities. Furthermore, the necessity of such systems can also be considered as a psychological perspective for the Deaf community. In this section, we present more details on SLP.
\subsection{Problem definition}
The task of SLP can be defined as a video generation process from an input text. In more details, given a spoken language sentence, ${S}^{N} = \{{w}_{1},{w}_{2},...,{w}_{N}\}$, it is expected that the model generates a video with M frames, ${V}^{M} = \{{F}_{1},{F}_{2},...,{F}_{M}\}$, including a sign language video corresponding to the input sentence. Generally, there are some intermediate steps for the SLP task. During these steps, the input sentence from the spoken language is encoded into some representations to generate more accurate videos. We will review the proposed models and also the intermediate steps in SLP in this survey.
\subsection{Challenges}
Here, we discuss the most important challenges in SLR.
\textbf{Interpretation between visual and linguistic information:}
SLP is still a very challenging problem involving an interpretation between visual and linguistic information \cite{stoll2020}. Proposed systems in SLR generally map signs into the spoken language in the form of text transcription \cite{RastgooSurvey}. However, SLP systems perform the reverse procedure. The challenges regarding mapping from the lingual domain into the visual domain still remain.
\textbf{Visual variability of signs:}
The visual variability of signs is one of the challenges in SLP, which is affected by hand-shape, palm orientation, movement, location, facial expressions, and other non-hand signals. These differences in sign appearance produce a large intra-class variability and low inter-class variability. This makes it hard to provide a robust and universal system.
\textbf{Photo-realistic SLP system:}
Another challenge is generating a photo-realistic sign video from a text or voice in spoken language in a real-world situation. This is important because it helps the generated videos to be truly understandable and accepted by Deaf communities. Thanks to the previous models based on graphical avatars and also recent neural SLP works that produce skeleton pose sequences, we need the systems that are understandable and acceptable to Deaf viewers \cite{Saunders-arxiv}.
\textbf{The grammatical rules and linguistic structures of the sign language:}
The challenge corresponding to the grammatical rules and linguistic structures of the sign language is another critical challenge in this area. Translation between spoken and sign language is a complex task. This is not a simple mapping problem from text/voice to sign word-by-word. Another issue worth mentioning here is the parallel nature of sign languages, how hands and face can operate simultaneously to convey lexical and grammatical information.
\textbf{Bilingual education:}
The brain has no preference for any type of languages. The only preference of the brain is that it expects to receive input from a complete and natural language. In this way, both spoken and sign languages can be used as inputs for the brain. Being bilingual, as a positive and desirable quality, the Deaf community can follow similar developmental paths as do monolinguals. This dual exposure can
lead to mental flexibility, creative thinking, and communication advantages \cite{Hamers}. Historically, a sign language has not been incorporated in the education of Deaf children \cite{Humphries} \cite{Grosjean} \cite{Swanwick}. Some earlier sign languages were not natural sign languages. They just used signing to deliver the content for the Deaf individuals who failed within an oral-only approach. The dissatisfaction with the educational outcomes of the Deaf community led to a bilingual design that placed sign language at the same level as the spoken/written language. To develop functional bilingual systems, the full development of two languages is crucial. In such systems, the social and academic functions of both languages are considered and their consistent and strategic use is promoted in the environment. The final goal is to deliver content instruction in both languages making it a viable design for Deaf children \cite{Garate}.
\textbf{Application area:}
Millions of Deaf and hearing-impaired people live across the world. The predominant part of them lives in low-income and developing countries with low access to suitable ear and hearing care services. While hearing loss makes many difficulties in the corresponding community, many mainsprings of it can be prevented through public health measures. Rehabilitation, education, empowerment, and communication technology usage are some of the main solutions to solve the communication barriers for the hearing-impaired community and use the full potential of the Deaf and hearing-impaired people. To this end, we present compact information regarding the community affected by hearing loss to make a promising insight and humanitarian motivation in a research community. Considering the scope of this survey, this information can help to develop communication technologies compatible with the needs of the hearing-impaired community.\\
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) report, 1.5 billion people live with some degrees of hearing loss. It is predicted that by 2050 approximately 2.5 billion people will have some degree of hearing loss \cite{report}. Some critical points need to be considered for application development in this area:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Geography:} 80 \%\ of people with hearing loss live in low-income countries. These people cannot easily access assistive technologies to improve their communication quality.
\item \textbf{Age:} Another challenge is the hearing loss outbreak with age. Age is an important predictor of hearing loss among adults aged 20-69, with the maximum amount of hearing loss in the 60 to 69 age group. Nearly 25 \%\ of people older than 60 years are affected by hearing loss. This challenge can be considered for adopting the assistive technologies with the special physical and mental situations of people older than 60 years. Nearly 15 \%\ of American adults (37.5 million) aged 18 faces hearing loss. Furthermore, about 2 to 3 out of every 1000 American children are affected by hearing loss. Considering the difference of hearing loss definition in different ages, the age factor needs to be considered for application development. Generally, a hearing loss greater than 40 (dB) and 30 dB is defined for adults and children, respectively. Due to this difference and the other communication requirements corresponding to different age groups, the age factor is an important factor for application development in the field.
\item \textbf{Gender:} According to the reports of WHO, men are approximately twice as likely as women to have hearing loss among adults aged 20-69. This is due to this fact that men are usually work in louder environments.
\item \textbf{Sign language:} As we discussed in the previous sections, most Deaf people are not familiar with sign language. This makes it hard to develop communication tools for sign language translation.
\end{enumerate}
Considering all of these critical points, developing effective applications is challenging. Although different applications have been developed in recent years \cite{Zhao}\cite{Smith}\cite{Zij}\cite{Huenerfauth}\cite{Huenerfauth2004}\cite{Kanis}\cite{Hanke} \cite{Bangham}\cite{Veale}\cite{Karpouzis}\cite{Dangsaart}\cite{Jemni}\cite{SignSynth}, more endeavor is necessary to develop real-time applications for bi-directional translation from sign language to spoken language and vise versa. Furthermore, most of the applications in sign language focus on the recognition task, such as robotics \cite{Dawes}, human–computer interaction \cite{Bachmann}, education \cite{Darabkh}, computer games \cite{Roccetti}, recognition of children with autism \cite{cai}, automatic sign-language interpretation \cite{yang}, decision support for medical diagnosis of motor skills disorders \cite{Butt}, home-based rehabilitation \cite{Cohen} \cite{Morando}, and virtual reality \cite{Vaitkev}. This is due to a common misunderstanding by hearing people that the Deaf people are much more comfortable with reading spoken language; therefore, it is not necessary to translate the reading spoken language into sign language. This is not true since there is no guarantee that a deaf person is familiar with the reading/writing forms of a spoken language. In some languages, these two forms are completely different from each other.
\textbf{Real-time communication:}
For now, accessibility in SL is mainly achieved by pre-recorded videos. This cannot enable real-time interaction for the content provider. To have an automatic sign recognition system applicable in a mutual interaction between a hearing-impaired/Deaf user and a hearing user or a digital assistant in real-time, we need low-complex and fast models. Using such models, the Deaf community can simply communicate with other people in different locations, such as schools, banks, hospitals, trains, University, just to mention a few. A translation system could be vision-based or sensor-based, depending on the type of input it receives. To date, most of the current commercial systems for sign language translation are sensor-based, which are expensive and not user-friendly. Vision-based sign translation systems are necessary but should overcome many challenges to build a system applicable in real-time communication.
\textbf{Sign anonymization:}
The purpose of sign anonymization is to ensure that no personal information of the signers is shared with the community. Furthermore, providing realistic, human-like, and anonymized animations would ensure higher acceptability and comprehensibility than actual signing avatars. In sign language, complete anonymization of the video data is not possible because both the face and hands of the signers must be fully visible so that the content can be understandable. Since most Deaf people have challenges in communication through written content, the need for producing messages anonymously is an important demand of them. As a result, video is the main communication modality used by native signers. The development of virtual signers is thus expanding, in order to make written material on the internet more available to deaf users.
\section{Backbone architectures and methods}
In this section, we review the most-used architectures and methods in SLP: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), generative models, motion capture, and signing avatars.
\subsection{CNNs}
One of the basic deep learning-based building blocks designed for visual reasoning is convolutional layers. Using these layers, CNNs effectively model the spatial structure of images \cite{Lecun}. In SLP, CNNs are the foundation of the proposed models. However, the CNNs performance faces some challenges. One challenge in CNNs is corresponding to the limited receptive field, introduced as a kernel size. As some solutions to this challenge, we can take into account: stacking more convolutional layers \cite{Jain}, increasing the kernel size, linearly fusing multiple scales \cite{Mathieu}\cite{Denton}, using dilated convolutions to include long-range spatial dependencies \cite{Yu}, extending the receptive fields \cite{Chen}\cite{Luo}, sub-sampling, or using residual connections \cite{He}\cite{Villegas}. Another challenge in CNNs is the lack of temporal learning corresponding to the image sequences. To properly address this challenge, 3D convolutions are used as a promising alternative to recurrent modeling. Several models have been proposed to sign language using 3D convolutions \cite{Sharma}\cite{hammadi}\cite{Sripairojthikoon}\cite{Rastgoo-multiview}. However, the 3DCNN models are not generally as powerful as the sequence learning models such as RNN, LSTM, and GRU.
\subsection{Transformer}
The main intuition behind recurrent models is modeling the temporal representation of sequential data, such as image sequences. Deep recurrent networks demonstrated great success in different sequence learning tasks, such as machine translation \cite{Siddique}, speech recognition \cite{Graves}, video captioning \cite{Pei}, video prediction \cite{Villegas}, SLR \cite{Rastgoo-multiview}, and SLP \cite{RastgooSLP}. However, there are some limitations in these networks, such as vanishing and exploding gradient. To mitigate these challenges, the classical RNNs were extended to more sophisticated recurrent models, such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) \cite{LSTM} and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) \cite{Cho}. Different works have explored different modifications of the extended recurrent models, such as applying the LSTM-based models to the image space \cite{Shi}, using multidimensional LSTM (MD-LSTM) \cite{Graves2007}, using the stacked recurrent layers to include abstract spatio-temporal correlations \cite{Finn}\cite{Lotter}, and addressing the duplicated recurrent representations \cite{Zhan}. In addition, the Transformer models have recently gained results due to using the self-attention mechanism and parallel computing. In most of the models for SLP, a recurrent model is used for the temporal representation of sequential data.
\subsection{Generative models}
Generative modeling is an unsupervised learning task in machine learning. It involves automatically discovering and learning the regularities or patterns in input data. Such a model can generate or output plausible examples. Generally, there are two main categories for model learning: discriminative and generative. While a discriminative model learns the decision boundaries between the classes, a generative model learns the real distribution of each class. In other words, a generative model learns the joint probability distribution p(x,y) to predict the conditional probability using the Bayes Theorem. From the other side, a discriminative model learns the conditional probability distribution p(y|x). Both of these models generally fall into the supervised learning problems. The goal of generative models is to generate new samples from the same distribution, given some training data. In the learning procedure, the distribution of the real and generated data gets closer to each other. This is done by explicitly, e.g VAEs, or implicitly, e.g. GANs, estimating a density function from the real data. In SLP, generative models are used to generate more realistic and plausible videos, considering sign language challenges.
\subsection{Motion capture and signing avatars}
Motion capture, mocap for short, is defined as the process of recording the movement of objects/people. Different application areas use mocap for their requirements fulfilment, such as sports \cite{sport}, entertainment \cite{entertainment}, gaming industry \cite{animation}, robotics \cite{robotics}, automotive \cite{automotive}, and construction \cite{reconstruction}. In movie production and video game development, mocap refers to recording actions of human actors and utilizing that information to animate digital character models in a 2D/3D computer animation. During the mocap sessions, the movements of one or more actors are sampled many times per second. The mocap aims to record only the movements of the actors, not their visual appearance. Finally, the animation data is mapped to a 3D model in a way that the model performs the same actions as the actor.\\
The mocap process has several advantages over traditional computer animation of a 3D model, such as lower latency for data recording, the ability to produce a large amount of data within a given time, the ability to create complex movement and realistic physical interactions. However, there are some challenges in mocap usage. The need for special and expensive hardware/software to obtain and process the data, the need for specific requirements for the space that the mocap process is operated in, and the need for re-recording data instead of manipulating it in facing with problems are some of these challenges. \\
Signing avatars are an animated 3D model of the mocap data obtained using signers. Animating can be manually defined, captured from a human signer, or parametrically described. The signing avatars aim to assist the research community in making different applications more accessible to the Deaf community. Furthermore, they will also help address the lack of human interpreters. The goal is not to replace the human interpreters but rather to increase the amount of signed content available to the Deaf users. As another application of signing avatars, they can be used as assistive technologies for deaf students in school. Using these technologies, the interaction among Deaf and hearing students will be much more easier.\\
Recently, mocap data is used to edit and generate sign language samples. To this end, some motion edition operations, such as concatenation and mixing, are applied to mocap data to compose new utterances. This helps to facilitate the enrichment of the original mocap data, enhancing the natural look of the animation, and promoting the avatar’s acceptability. However, manipulating existing movements does not guarantee the semantic consistency of the reconstructed signs. Employing an expert user for constructing new utterances from linguistic patterns can be a primary solution to this challenge.
\section{SLP taxonomy}
In this section, we present a taxonomy that summarizes the main concepts related to deep learning in SLP. We categorize recent works in SLP providing separate discussions in each category. In the rest of this section, we explain different input modalities, datasets, applications, and proposed models. Figure \ref{Fig 1} shows the proposed taxonomy described in this section.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11cm,height=7cm,keepaspectratio]{Taxonomy3.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{The proposed taxonomy of the reviewed works in SLP.}
\label{fig:long}
\label{Fig 1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Input modalities}
Generally, vision and language are two input modalities in SLP. While the visual modality includes the captured image/video data, the linguistic modality for the spoken language contains the text/audio input from the natural language. Computer vision and natural language processing techniques are necessary to process these input modalities. While the visual modality is used in the training, the lingual modality is applicable in both the training and testing of the proposed models.
\textbf{Visual modality:} RGB and skeleton are two common types of input data used in SLP models. While RGB images/videos contain high-resolution content, skeleton inputs decrease the input dimension necessary to feed to the model and assist in making a low-complex and fast model. The spatial features corresponding to the input image can be extracted using computer vision-based techniques, especially deep learning-based models. In recent years, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) achieved outstanding performance for spatial feature extraction from an input image \cite{Rastgoo-cnn}. Furthermore, generative models, such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN), can use CNN as an encoder or decoder block to generate a sign image/video. Due to the temporal dimension of RGB video inputs, the processing of this input modality is more complicated than the RGB image input. Most of the proposed models in SLP use the RGB video as input \cite{Camgoz,SaundersBMVC,Saunders,stoll2020}. An RGB sign video can correspond to one sign word or some concatenated sign words, in the form of a sign sentence. GAN and LSTM are the most used deep learning-based models in SLP for static and temporal learning in the visual input modalities. While successful results have been achieved using these models, more effort is necessary to generate more lifelike sign images/videos in order to improve the communication interface with the Deaf community.
\textbf{Lingual modality:} Text input is the most common form of linguistic modality. To process the input text, different models are used \cite{See,Sutskever}.
Among the deep learning-based models, the Neural Machine Translation (NMT) model is the most used model for input text processing. The Seq2Seq models \cite{Sutskever}, such as Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)-based models, proved their effectiveness in many tasks. While successful results were achieved using these models, more effort is necessary to overcome the existing challenges in the translation task. One challenge in translation task is related to domain adaptation due to different words styles, translations, and meanings in different languages. Thus, a critical requirement of developing machine translation systems is to target a specific domain. Transfer learning, training the translation system in a general domain followed by fine-tuning on in-domain data for a few epochs is a common approach in coping with this challenge. Another challenge is regarding the amount of training data. Since the main property of deep learning-based models is the mutual relation between the amount of data and model performance, a large amount of data is necessary to provide a good generalization capability in the model. Another challenge is the poor performance of machine translation systems on uncommon and unseen words. To cope with these words, byte-pair encoding, such as stemming or compound-splitting, can be used for rare words translation. As another challenge, the machine translation systems are not properly able to translate long sentences. However, the attention model \cite{Vaswani} partially deals with this challenge for short sentences. Furthermore, the challenge regarding the word alignment is more critical in the reverse translation, that is translating back from the target language to the source language.
\subsection{Datasets}
While there are some large-scale and annotated datasets available for sign language recognition \cite{RastgooSurvey}, there are only a few publicly available large-scale datasets for SLP. Two public datasets, RWTH-Phoenix-2014T \cite{Necati2018} and How2Sign \cite{Duarte} are the most used datasets in sign language translation. The former includes German sign language sentences that can be used for text-to-sign language translation. This dataset is an extended version of the continuous sign language recognition dataset, PHOENIX-2014 \cite{Forster}. RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather 2014T includes a total of 8257 sequences performed by 9 signers. There are 1066 sign glosses and 2887 spoken language vocabularies in this dataset. Furthermore, the gloss annotations corresponding to the spoken language sentences have been included in the dataset. The later dataset, How2Sing, is a recently released multi-modal dataset used for speech-to-sign language translation. This dataset contains a total of 38611 sequences and 4k vocabularies performed by 10 signers. Like the former dataset, the annotation for sign glosses has been included in this dataset.
Though RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather 2014T and How2Sign provided SLP evaluation benchmarks, they are not enough for the generalization of SLP models. Furthermore, these datasets just include German and American sentences. In line with the aim of providing an easy-to use application for mutual communication between the Deaf and hearing communities, new large-scale datasets with enough variety and diversity in different sign languages are required. The point is that the signs are generally dexterous and the signing procedure involves different channels, including arms, hands, body, gaze, and facial expressions simultaneously. Capturing such gestures requires a trade-off between capture cost, measurement (space and time) accuracy, and production spontaneity. Furthermore, different equipment is used for data recordings, such as wired Cybergloves, Polhemus magnetic sensors, headset equipped with an infrared camera, emitting diodes and reflectors. Synchronization between different channels captured by the aforementioned devices is key in data collection and annotation. Another challenge is related to the capturing complexity of the hand movement using some capturing devices, such as Cybergloves. Hard calibration and deviation during data recording are some difficulties of these acquisition devices. The synchronization of external devices, hand modeling accuracy, data loss, the noisy capturing process, facial expression processing, gaze direction, and data annotation are additional challenges. Given these challenges, providing a large and diverse dataset for SLP, including spoken language and sign language annotations, is difficult. Figure \ref{Fig 2} and Figure \ref{Fig 3} show some samples and also the timeline of existing datasets for SLP.
To make a sense of the existence spoken and sign language datasets, we review some datasets in machine translation for spoken to spoken language translation. Analyzing these datasets shows that there are more spoken datasets with more variety in the sample and language numbers, compared to sign language datasets. For example, the MUSE dataset includes bilingual dictionaries for 110 language pairs. For each language pair, the training and testing seed dictionaries include approximately 5000 and 1500 word pairs, respectively. Another dataset, namely OpenSubtitles, is a collection of multilingual parallel corpora obtained from a large database of movie and TV subtitles. OpenSubtitles contains a total of 1689 bitexts spanning 2.6 billion sentences across 60 languages. Multi30K is a multi-modal dataset obtained from the Flickr30k dataset. This dataset includes 31,014 images and the corresponding five English descriptions. The Flicker dataset includes 145,000 training, 5,070 validation, and 5,000 test descriptions. The Multi30K dataset aims to translate the Flicker30 descriptions to the German sentences. ASPEC dataset contains a Japanese-English paper abstract corpus of 3M parallel sentences (ASPEC-JE) and a Japanese-Chinese paper corpus of 680K parallel sentences. MLQA is a cross-lingual dataset containing over 5K Question Answering (QA) samples (12K in English) in SQuAD format in seven languages: English, Arabic, German, Spanish, Hindi, Vietnamese and Chinese. The MTNT dataset is a Machine Translation dataset that contains the noisy comments on Reddit and professionally sourced translation. The translation is between French, Japanese and French, with between 7k and 37k sentences per language pair. Table \ref{Table 1} summarizes the most-used datasets for SLP and also the datasets for spoken to spoken language translation.
\begin{table*}[h!]
\thispagestyle{empty}
\caption{\label{Table 1} SLP datasets in time.}
\begin{center}
{\small
\noindent\begin{tabular}{p{1cm}p{3.7cm}p{2.5cm}p{1cm}p{4cm}p{1cm}p{1.3cm}}
\hline
\textbf{Type} & \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Nationality} & \textbf{Level} & \textbf{Content type} & \textbf{Public} & \textbf{Year} \\
\hline\hline
& ASLLVD \cite{Athitsos} & English (US) & Word & Video, Gloss, Trans.& Y & 2008\\
& ATIS Corpus \cite{Bungeroth} & Multilingual & Sentence & Video, Gloss, Trans.& Y & 2008\\
& Dicta-Sign \cite{Matthes} & English (US) & Word & Video, Gloss, Trans.& Y & 2012\\
Sign & ASL-LEX \cite{Caselli} & English (US) & word & Video, Gloss, Trans.& Y & 2016\\
& RWTH-Phoenix-2014T \cite{Necati2018} & German & Sentence & Video, Gloss, Trans.& Y & 2018\\
& KETI \cite{Ko} & Korean & Sentence & Video, Gloss, Trans.& N & 2019\\
& How2Sign \cite{Duarte} & English (US) & Sentence & Video, Gloss, Trans, Speech. & Y & 2021\\
\hline\hline
& OpenSubtitles \cite{OpenSubtitles} & Multilingual (60) & Sentence & Video, Trans. & Y & 2016\\
& Multi30K \cite{Multi30K} & English, German & Sentence & Image, Trans. & Y & 2016\\
Spoken & ASPEC \cite{ASPEC} & Japanese, English & Sentence & Text & Y & 2016\\
& MUSE \cite{MUSE1,MUSE2} & Multilingual (110) & Word & Text & Y & 2017\\
& MTNT \cite{MTNT} & Japanese, French & Sentence & Text & Y & 2018 \\
& MLQA \cite{MLQA} & Multilingual (7) & Sentence & Text & Y & 2019\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11cm,height=7cm,keepaspectratio]{Datasets2.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Samples of some most-used datasets: (a) How2Sign, (b) RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather 2014T, (c) ASLVID, (d) ATIS Corpus.}
\label{fig:long}
\label{Fig 2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4cm,keepaspectratio]{Datasetstime.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{SLP datasets in time. The number of samples for each dataset is shown in brackets}
\label{fig:long}
\label{Fig 3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Applications and technologies}
\subsubsection{Applications}
With the advent of potent methodologies and techniques in recent years, machine translation applications have become more efficient and trustworthy. One of the early efforts on machine translation is dated back to the sixties, where a model was proposed to translate from Russian to English. This model defined the machine translation task as a phase of encryption and decryption. Nowadays, the standard machine translation models fall into three main categories: rule-based grammatical models, statistical models, and example-based models. Deep learning-based models, such as Seq2Seq and NMT models, fall into the third category, and showed promising results in SLP.
To translate from a source language to a target language, a corpus is needed to perform some preprocessing steps, such as boundary detection, word tokenization, and chunking. While there are different corpora for most spoken languages, sign language lacks from such a large and diverse corpus. Since Deaf people may not be able to read or write in spoken language, they need some tools for communication with other people in society. Furthermore, many interesting and useful applications on the Internet are not accessible for the Deaf community. However, we are still far from having applications accessible for Deaf people with large vocabularies or sentences from real-world scenarios. One of the main challenges for these applications is a license right for usage. Only some of these applications are freely available. Another challenge is the lack of generalization of current applications, which are developed for the requirements of very specific application scenarios.
Here, we present some of the most used projects in sign language translation.
\textbf{Translation from English to ASL by Machine (TEAM) project:} An English translation system uses the grammar rules to create an American Sign Language (ASL) syntactic structure. Using the signing avatar, this project achieved successful performance for generating aspectual and adverbial information in ASL \cite{Zhao}.
\textbf{Machine Translation of Weather reports from English to ASL project:} Using the freely available Perl modules, some packages are designed to employ ASL grammar rules and generate the fluent ASL words \cite{Smith}.
\textbf{South African Sign Language Machine Translation (SASL-MT) project:} Like the TEAM Project \cite{Zhao}, SASL-MT uses the rule-based transfer mechanism from English to ASL. The SASL-MT is freely available for the Deaf community in specific domains, such as clinics, hospitals, and police stations. While this project is still under development, no evaluation results have been reported \cite{Zij}.
\textbf{Multi-path architecture for Sign Language Machine Translation (SLMT): } Using the virtual reality scene, a multi-channel architecture is proposed to include supplementary information of ASL. This project aims to generate spatially complex ASL words \cite{Huenerfauth}\cite{Huenerfauth2004}.
\textbf{Czech Sign Language Machine Translation: } Using the computer animation techniques, hand articulations are generated using an automatic process. Translation from spoken Czech to Signed Czech is a primary goal of this project. More than 3000 simple or linked sign vocabularies of Czech sign language are included in the dictionary of this project, which is a successful improvement in Czech sign language translation \cite{Kanis}\cite{Hanke}.
\textbf{Virtual signing, capture, animation, storage and transmission (ViSiCAST) Translator: } This project is proposed to translate from English text to British Sign Language (BSL). Using the grammar rules and symbolic representation, natural movements in the sing words are modeled. This project has successfully developed an avatar-based signing system for BSL \cite{Bangham}.
\textbf{ZARDOZ System: } This system is an English translation system using artificial intelligence knowledge representation, metaphorical reasoning, and blackboard system architecture. The main advantage of this system is the efficient performance for processing semantic information. The contributors of this project aim to improve this system using intelligent linguistic technologies \cite{Veale}.
\textbf{Environment for Greek Sign Language Synthesis: } This system includes an educational platform for deaf children. Virtual character animation techniques are used for sign sequence synthesis and lexicon-grammatical processing of Greek sign language sequences \cite{Karpouzis}.
\textbf{Thai-Thai Sign Machine Translation (TTSMT): } This model is a multi-phase approach to translate the Thai text into Thai Sign language. This system has been developed using the spatial grammatical order of the sign words and evaluated on the frequently used sign words in daily communication \cite{Dangsaart}.
\textbf{Web-Based Interpreter of Sign Language (WebSign): } WebSign is a project to develop a web-based tool for information processing. It includes a Plug-in to play the ASL sign. WebSign, as an avatar-based technology, generates a real-time and online interpretation in sign language that decreases the communication barriers between Deaf and hearing people \cite{Jemni}.
\textbf{Sign Language Synthesis Application (SignSynth): } SignSynth is a Deep Learning-based project for video generation from the human pose sequences using a generative model. One of the main advantages of this project is the capability of producing natural-looking sign videos using a fully automatic approach \cite{SignSynth}. Fig. \ref{Fig 4} shows a summary view of some of these projects.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Applications}
\end{center}
\caption{A glance at some projects in SLP: (a) SignSynth \cite{SignSynth}, (b) TEAM Project \cite{Zhao}, (c) WebSign \cite{Jemni}.}
\label{Fig 4}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Assistive technologies for SLP}
In this section, we review the exiting assistive technologies for Deaf and hearing-impaired people to get an insight into the researchers in SLP and also make a bridge between them and the corresponding technology requirements. Considering the pros and cons corresponding to the exiting assistive technologies, researchers in SLP can develop much more real-world technologies for Deaf people. These technologies fall into three device categories: hearing technology, alerting devices, and communication support technology. Here, we present a quick recap on each category and discuss the promises and challenges.
\textbf{Hearing technology: }
Hearing technology contains devices employed to enhance the sound level available to a listener. So, it is not suitable for deaf people with a complete loss of their hearing ability. Main devices used in this technology include Hearing Aids (HAS) devices, assistive listening devices, Personal Sound Amplification Products (PSAPs), and cochlear implants \cite{Marion2003}. Here, we present a quick definition of each device. Furthermore, Fig \ref{Fig 4} shows some graphical views of these devices.
\textbf{HAs devices:} HAs devices are sound-amplifying devices employed to enhance the hearing quality for impaired-hearing people \cite{EHIMA}.
\textbf{Assistive listening devices (ALD):} Like HAS, ALD are used to amplify the sounds, especially in noisy backgrounds \cite{NAD}.
\textbf{PSAPs:} PSAPs are devices that increase the sound levels and reduce the background noise.
\textbf{Cochlear Implant (CI):} CI, considered as an artificial cochlea, is a surgically-implanted sensor for sound to electrical waves conversion.
\textbf{Alerting devices: }
Since hearing ability is not obligatory in the alerting or alarm systems, these systems can be used in the Deaf community. Alert systems usually use light, vibrations, or a combination of them to make an alert notification for users. There are various types of alerting devices, including clocks and wake-up alarm systems, household device alerts, doorbell and telephone alerts, and baby monitoring devices. These devices employ the remote receivers placed around the house \cite{Lucker}.
\textbf{Communication support technology: }
Communication support technologies aim to facilitate communication between different communities. They generally fall into two main categories: telecommunication services and person-to-person interactions. The former category contains a variety of standard technologies, such as physical and virtual keyboards, touch screens, video calling, captioning for phone calls, voice to sign language translation, recognition text messaging, and text-based technology (such as WhatsApp \cite{whatsapp}, FB Messenger \cite{Facebook}, and Snapchat \cite{Snapchat}). The latter category covers person-to-person interactions using picture boards, keyboards, touch screens, display panels, and speech-generating devices. Table \ref{Table 2 } shows a statistical report on the existing technology products based on the EASTIN database \cite{EASTIN}.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{Table 2} Statistical report on the existing technology products based on the EASTIN database \cite{EASTIN}.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{5cm}p{2cm}}
\hline
\textbf{Device type} & \textbf{Product Number}\\
\hline\hline
Hearing technology & 300\\
Alerting devices & 173\\
Communication support technology & 223\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\textbf{Promises and challenges: }
Actually, research on Deaf and hearing-impaired technologies coincides with research on mainstream technology. While Deaf and hearing-impaired people contribute to mainstream technology \cite{WFD}, most of the communication technologies only support spoken or written languages, excluding sign language. They are among the first adopters of recent technologies such as Skype \cite{skype}, Google Hangout \cite{Google-Hangout}, FaceTime \cite{FaceTime}, Instant Messaging (IM) \cite{WFD}, text-to-speech and speech recognition software \cite{siri}\cite{Cortana}, WhatsApp \cite{whatsapp}, and Imo \cite{Imo}. While these tools have become an important part of our life, Deaf and hearing-impaired people have many problems with using these technologies. Recent developments in sign language recognition and production aim to facilitate bidirectional communication between Deaf and hearing people. The sensory substitution across sensory systems, such as vibratory and visual-auditory substitutions, is an active research area aiming to make a real-life perceptual experience of hearing for Deaf and hearing-impaired people. For example, one can imagine a technology that assists a Deaf person go through a musical experience translated into another sensory modality. The recent advances in computer vision algorithms, especially deep learning models, made room to develop some applications in sign language. As we presented in the previous sections, the recent advances in SLP are promising. However, more endeavor is indispensable to provide a fast processing model in an uncontrolled environment considering rapid hand motions. It is clear that technology standardization and full interoperability among devices and platforms are prerequisites to having real-life communication between two communities.
\subsection{Proposed models}
In this section, we review recent works in SLP. These works are presented and discussed in five categories: Avatar approaches, NMT approaches, Motion Graph (MG) approaches, Conditional image/video Generation approaches, and other approaches. Table \ref{Table 3} and Table \ref{Table 4} present a summary of the main characteristics and details of the reviewed models.
\subsubsection{Avatar Approaches}
In order to reduce the communication barriers between hearing and hearing-impaired people, sign language interpreters are used as an effective yet costly solution. To inform deaf people quickly in cases where there is no interpreter on hand, researchers are working on novel approaches to providing the content. One of these approaches is sign avatars. Avatar is a technique to display the signed conversation in the absence of the videos corresponding to a human signer. To this end, 3D animated models are employed, which can be stored more efficiently compared to videos. The movements of the fingers, hands, facial gestures, and body can be generated using the avatar. This technique can be programmed to be used in different sign languages. With the advent of computer graphics in recent years, computers and smartphones can generate high-quality animations with smooth transitions between the signs. To capture the motion data of deaf people, some special cameras and sensors are used. Furthermore, a computing method is used to transfer the body movements into the sign avatar \cite{Kipp-Avatar}.
Two ways to derive the sign avatars include the motion capture data and parametrized glosses. In recent years, some works have been developed exploring avatars animated from the parametrized glosses. VisiCast \cite{Bangham}, Tessa \cite{Cox}, eSign \cite{Zwitserlood}, dicta-sign \cite{Efthimiou}, JASigning \cite{VHG}, and WebSign \cite{Jemni} are some of them. These works need the sign video annotated via the transcription language, such as HamNoSys\cite{Prillwitz} or SigML \cite{Kennaway}. However, under-articulated, unnatural movements, and missing non-manuals information, such as eye gaze and facial expressions, are some challenges of the avatar approaches. These challenges lead to misunderstanding the final sign language sequences. Furthermore, due to the uncanny valley, the users do not feel comfortable \cite{Mori} with the robotic motion of the avatars. To tackle these problems, recent works focus on the annotation of non-manual information such as face, body, and facial expression \cite{Ebling-2015,EblingJohn-2013}. For instance, Kipp et al. \cite{Kipp-Avatar} proposed two techniques, the torso and the noise methods, to aid manual animation and supplement procedural generated avatar movements systems such as \cite{Hanke}\cite{Delorme}. The first technique is an extension to any limb system and helps to automatically rotate the torso and spine of an avatar. This rotation supports the specified arm motions from the linguistic model. The second technique generates the motion in the held joints. Evaluation results show the effectiveness of these techniques. Though, the accurate alignment and articulation of this information are challenging \cite{McDonald}\cite{Kipp-Avatar}. More concretely, three steps have been included in the proposed model by \cite{McDonald}: movement of the spine, spreading the effect over the spine, and shoulder movement. To this end, the following parameters are included in the model:
\begin{equation}
V_{R} = A_{R} - S_{R},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{L} = A_{L} - S_{L},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{reach} = \frac{V_{R} + V_{L}}{2},
\end{equation}
where $V_{R}, V_{L}, and V_{reach}$ are the displacement vectors from the right and left shoulders and also the average of these two vectors, respectively. To compute both the bend angle and direction, the torso must be rotated in the direction of $V_{reach}$. The user tests indicated that including such movements in the system would be highly beneficial. \\
Using the data collected from motion capture, avatars can be more usable and acceptable for reviewers (such as the Sign3D project by MocapLab \cite{Gibet}). Highly realistic results are achieved by avatars, but the results are restricted to a small set of phrases. This comes from the cost of the data collection and annotation. Furthermore, avatar data is not a scalable solution and needs expert knowledge to perform a sanity check on the generated data. To cope with these problems and improve performance, deep learning-based models, as the latest machine translation developments, are used. Generative models along with some graphical techniques, such as Motion Graph, are being recently employed \cite{stoll2020}.
\subsubsection{NMT approaches}
Machine translators are a practical methodology for translation from one language to another. The first translator comes back to the sixties where the Russian language was translated into English \cite{Hutchins}. The translation task requires preprocessing of the source language, including sentence boundary detection, word tokenization, and chunking. These preprocessing tasks are challenging, especially in sign language. Sign Language Translation (SLT) aims to produce/generate spoken language translations from sign language considering different word orders and grammar. The ordering and the number of glosses do not necessarily match the words of the spoken language sentences.
Nowadays, there are different types of machine translators, mainly based on grammatical rules, statistics, and examples \cite{Othman}. For instance, Othman and Jemni \cite{Othman} proposed a machine translation, namely IBM 1, by defining the translation probability for an English sentence $f = (f_{1}, f_{2}, ..., f_{N})$ of length $N$ to ans ASL sentence $e = (e_{1}, e_{2}, ..., e_{M})$ of length $M$ with an alignment of each ASL word $e_{j}$ to an English word $f_{i}$, considering the alignment function $a: j \to i$ as follows:\\
$p(e,a|f) = \frac{\epsilon}{(N+1)^{M}} \prod_{j=1}^{M}t(e_{j}|f_{a(j)})$, (4)\\
where t is a conditional probability function. The alignment function $a$ maps each ASL output word $j$ to an English input position $a(j)$. The alignment probability distribution is also applied in this reverse direction. The combination of these two steps make the IBM 2 model, as follows:\\
$p(e,a|f) = {\epsilon} \prod_{j=1}^{M}t(e_{j}|f_{a(j)})a(a(j|j,N,M))$. (5)\\
As an example-based methodology, some research works have been developed by focusing on translation from text into sign language using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), namely NMT \cite{Bahdanau}. NMT uses ANNs to predict the likelihood of a word sequence, typically modeling entire sentences in a single integrated model. Seq2seq model \cite{Sutskever}\cite{Cho2014}, as one of the most interesting breakthroughs in neural machine translations, consists of two Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs). These RNNs form an encoder-decoder architecture to translate from a source sequence to a target sequence. This model aims to overcome the challenges in problems whose input and output sequences have different lengths with complicated and non-monotonic relationships. Considering the capabilities of the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network \cite{LSTM-org} in learning the long-range temporal dependencies, the seq2seq model improved the translation performance of the model. More concretely, the LSTM aims to estimate the conditional probability $p(y_{1},...,y_{T'}|x_{1},...,x_{T})$, where $(x_{1},...,x_{T})$ and $(y_{1},...,y_{T'})$ are the input and output sequences, respectively. The length of input and output sequences may differ from each other. The LSTM network computes the conditional probability by first obtaining the fixed dimensional representation $v$ of the input sequence given by the last hidden state of the LSTM, and then computing the probability of the output sequence with a standard LSTM formulation. The initial hidden state is set to the representation $v$ of $x_{1},...,x_{T}$:
$p(y_{1},...,y_{T'}|x_{1},...,x_{T}) = \prod_{t=1}^{T^{'}}p(y_{t}|v,y_{1},...,y_{t-1})$. (6)\\
where each $p(y_{t}|v,y_{1},...,y_{t-1})$ distribution is represented with a Softmax over all the words in the vocabulary. As a requirement, a special End-Of-Sentence symbol “<EOS>” is necessary to enable the model to define a distribution over sequences of all possible lengths. In addition to the LSTM Network, the Gated Recurrent Units (GRU) model \cite{Chung} can be used as an RNN cell. The seq2seq models proved their effectiveness in many sequence generation tasks by obtaining nearly human-level performance. However, there are some drawbacks to these models. One of them is corresponding to the fixed-size vector representation of the input sequences with different lengths. Vanishing gradient related to the long-term dependencies is another drawback of this model \cite{Ko}. To enhance the translation performance of long sequences, Bahdanau et al. \cite{Bahdanau} presented an effective attention mechanism. This mechanism was later improved by Luong et al. \cite{Luong}.
Regarding the sign language, Camgoz et al. proposed a combination of a seq2seq model with a CNN model to translate sign videos to spoken language sentences \cite{Camgoz-2018}. They used an attention-based Encoder-Decoder network with the attention weights defined as follows:
\[ \gamma_{n}^{u} = \frac{exp(score(h_{u},o_{n}))}{\sum_{n^{'} = 1}^{N}exp(score(h_{u},o_{n^{'}}))} (7)
\]
where $h_{u},o_{n}, N$, are the hidden state, output, and sequence length, respectively. While results on the first continuous sign language translation dataset, PHOENIX14T, showed promising results, it would be interesting to extend the attention mechanisms to the spatial domain to align building blocks of signs with their spoken language translations. In another work, Guo et al. \cite{Guo-2018} designed a hybrid model including the combination of a 3D Convolutional Neural Network (3DCNN) and an LSTM-based \cite{LSTM,LSTM-org} encoder-decoder to translate from sign videos to text outputs (See Figure \ref{Fig 5}). Results on their own dataset showed a 0.071 \%\ improvement margin of the precision metric compared to state-of-the-art models. However, the unseen sentence translation is still a challenging problem with limited sentence data. Dilated convolutions and Transformer are two approaches that are also used for sign language translation \cite{Kalchbrenner,Vaswani}. Stoll et al. \cite{stoll2020} proposed a hybrid model to automatic SLP using NMT, GANs, and motion generation. The proposed model generates sign videos from spoken language sentences with a minimal level of data annotation for training. This model first translates spoken language sentences into sign pose sequences. Then, a generative model is used to generate the plausible sign language videos. Results on the PHOENIX14T Sign Language Translation dataset show comparable results compared to state-of-the-art alternatives (See Figure \ref{Fig 6}).
While NMT-based methods achieved successful results in translation tasks, some major challenges need to be solved. Domain adaptation is the first challenge in this area. Since the translation between different domains is affected by different rules, domain adaptation is a crucial requirement in developing machine translation systems targeted to a specific use case. The second challenge is regarding the amount of training data. Especially in deep learning-based models, increasing the amount of data can lead to better results. Another difficulty is dealing with uncommon words. The translation models perform poorly on these words. Words alignment and adjusting the beam search parameters are the other challenges for NMT-based models. The promising results of current deep learning-based models set an underpin for future research in this area.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm,height=5cm,keepaspectratio]{Guo.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{An overview of the model proposed by Guo et al. \cite{Guo-2018}: A hybrid model including the combination of a 3D Convolutional Neural Network (3DCNN) and a LSTM-based \cite{LSTM,LSTM-org} encoder-decoder to translate from sign videos to text outputs.}
\label{Fig 5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{SLP-1.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{An overview of the model proposed by Stoll et al. \cite{stoll2020}: A hybrid model to automatic SLP using NMT, GANs, and motion generation.}
\label{Fig 6}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Motion Graph approaches}
Motion Graph (MG), as a computer graphic method for dynamically animating characters, is defined as a directed graph constructed from motion capture data. MG can generate new sequences to satisfy specific goals. In SLP, MG can be combined with an NMT-based network to make a continuous-text-to-pose translation. One of the early efforts on MG is dated back to 2002, where a general framework was proposed by Kovar et al. \cite{Kovar} for extracting particular graph walks that satisfy the user’s specifications. Distance between two frames was defined as a distance between two point clouds (See Figure \ref{Fig 7}). To make the transitions, alignment and interpolation of the motions and positions were used between the joints. The total error, $f (w)$ of a path in the model is defined as follows:
\[ f(w) = f([e_{1},...,e_{n}]) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}{g([e_{1},...e_{i-1}],e_{i})} (8) \],
where $g$ is a scalar function that evaluates the additional error accrued by appending an edge $e$ to the existing path $w$, which may be the empty path. Finally, the branch and bound search algorithm was applied to the graph.
In another work, Arikan and Forsyth \cite{Arikan} used the joint positions, velocities, and accelerations parameters to define the distance between two consecutive frames. Given
a sequence of edges $e_{1},...,e_{n}$, a score is assigned to each path using the following function:
\[ S(e_{1},...,e_{n}) = w_{c} * \sum_{i=1}^{n}{cost(e_{i})} +\]
\[{w_{f}*F + w_{b}*B + w_{j}*J} (9) \]
where $w_{c}, w_{f}, w_{b}, w_{j}$ are weights for the quality (continuity) of the motion, how well the length of the motion is satisfied, how well the body constraints are satisfied and how well the joints constraints are defined. $F$ is the squared difference between the actual and the required number of frames. $B$ is the squared distance between the actual and the required position and orientation of the constraint. $J$ is the squared distance between the actual and the required position of the constraint. In addition, the discontinuity between two clips was calculated using a smoothing function. After summarizing the graph, the random search was applied to the graph.
A two-layer representation of motion data in another approach was proposed by Lee et al. \cite{Lee}. In the first layer, data was modeled as a first-order Markov process and the transition probabilities were calculated using the distances of weighted joint angles and velocities. A cluster analysis was performed on the second layer, namely cluster forest, to generalize the motions. The proposed hierarchical motion representation approach adapts the existing motion of a human-like character to have desired features included by a set of constraints. Results confirm the relative improvement by employing a curve fitting technique that minimizes a local approximation error.
A continuous SLP model has been proposed by Stoll et al. \cite{stoll2020} using pose data. The sign glosses were embedded to an MG with the transition probabilities provided by an NMT decoder at each time step (See Figure \ref{Fig 8}).
Although MG can generate plausible and controllable motion through a database of motion capture, it faces some challenges. The first challenge is regarding access to data. To show the model potential with a truly diverse set of actions, a large set of data is necessary. The scalability and computational complexity of the graph to select the best transitions are the other challenges in MG. Furthermore, since the number of edges leaving a node increases with the size of the graph, the branching factor in the search algorithm will increase as well.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Motion_Grapg.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{An overview of the model proposed by Kovar et al. \cite{Kovar}: A general framework for extracting particular graph walks that satisfy the users specifications.}
\label{Fig 7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{SLP-4.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{An overview of the graph nodes in a model proposed by Stoll et al. \cite{stoll2020} for SLP. Each node contains one or more motion primitives and a prior distribution. The transition probability between two nodes is defined
as the probability of motion primitive.}
\label{Fig 8}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Conditional image/video generation}
The field of automatic image/video generation has experienced a remarkable evolution in recent years. However, the task of video generation is challenging since the content between consecutive frames has to be consistent, showing a plausible motion. These challenges are more difficult in SLP due to the need for human video generation. The complexity and variety of actions and appearances in these videos are high and challenging. Controlling the content of the generated videos is crucial yet difficult.
With the recent advances in deep learning, the field of automatic image/video generation has seen different approaches employing neural network-based architectures, such as CNNs \cite{Chen,Oord}, RNNs \cite{Gregor,Oord-pixelRNN}, Variational Auto-Encoders (VAEs) \cite{VAE}, conditional VAEs \cite{CVAE}, and GAN \cite{GAN}. VAEs and GANs are generally combined to benefit from the VAE’s stability and the GAN’s discriminative nature. Most relevant to SLP, a hybrid model, including a VAE and GAN combination, has been proposed to image generation of people \cite{Ma-2017,Siarohin} and video generation of people performing sign language \cite{Stoll-sign,Vasani}. Furthermore, there are some models for image/video generation that can be used in SLP. For example, Chen and Koltun \cite{Chen-20188} proposed a CNN-based model to generate photographic images given semantic label maps. Van den Oord et al. \cite{Oord} proposed a deep learning-based model, namely PixelRNNs, to sequentially generate the image pixels along the two spatial dimensions. Gregor et al. \cite{Gregor} developed an RNN-based architecture, including an encoder and a decoder network to compress the real images presented during training and refine images after receiving codes. Karras et al. \cite{Karras} designed a deep generative model, entitled StyleGAN, to adjust the image style at each convolution layer. Kataoka et al. \cite{Kataoka} proposed a model using the combination of GAN and attention mechanism. Benefiting from the attention mechanism, this model can generate images containing high detailed content.
While deep learning-based generative models have recently achieved remarkable results, there exist major challenges in their training. Mode collapse, non-convergence and instability, suitable objective function, and optimization algorithm are some of these challenges. However, several strategies have been recently proposed to address a better design and optimization of them. Appropriate design of network architecture, proper objective functions, and optimization algorithms are some of the proposed techniques to improve the performance of deep learning-based models.
\subsubsection{Other models}
In addition to the previous categories, some models have been proposed to SLP using different deep learning models. For example, Saunders et al. \cite{SaundersBMVC} proposed a Progressive Transformers, as a deep learning-based model, to generate continuous sign sequences from spoken language sentences (See Figure \ref{Fig 9}). They formalized the model training process as an adversarial training scheme using a minimax game. To this end, the generator, $G$, aims to minimize the following equation, whilst D maximizes it:
\[\min_{G} \max_{D} \mathcal{L}_{GAN}(G,D) = \]
\[ [log D(Y^{*}|X)] + E[log(1-D(G(X)|X))] (10) \]
where $Y^{*}$ and $G(X)$ are the ground truth and the produced sign pose sequences, respectively. Results on the PHOENIX14T dataset show the effectiveness of the proposed approach. However, the model needs to further increase the realism of sign production by generating photo-realistic human signers, Furthermore, user studies in collaboration with the Deaf are required to evaluate the reception of the produced sign pose sequences.
In another work, Zelinka and Kanis \cite{Zelinka} designed a sign language synthesis system focusing on skeletal data production. A feed-forward transformer and a recurrent transformer, as deep learning-based models, along with the attention mechanism were used to enhance the model performance (See Figure \ref{Fig 10}). The loss of the proposed model for a sequence $a = (a_{1}, ..., a_{n_{a}})$ and a sequence $b = (b_{a}, ..., b_{n_{b}})$ is defined as follows:
\[ \varepsilon = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n_{a}} \sum_{j=1}^{n_{b}} w_{i,j} \|a_{i} - b_{j} \|_{D}^{2}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n_{a}} \sum_{j=1}^{n_{b}} w_{i,j}} (11) \]
where $w(a,b) = [{w_{i,j}}]_{j = 1, ..., n_{b}}^{i = 1, ..., n_{a}}$ is an attention matrix and
${\|.\|}_{D}^{2}$ is a chosen metric.
Saunders et al. \cite{Saunders-arxiv} proposed a generative-based model to generate photo-realistic continuous sign videos from text inputs. They combined a transformer with a Mixture Density Network (MDN) to manage the translation from text to skeletal pose. The adversarial loss of the proposed model is defined as follows:
\[ \mathcal{L}_{Total} = \min_{G}(( \max_{D_{i}} \sum_{i=1}^{k} \mathcal{L}_{GAN}(G,D_{i})) + \] \[ \lambda_{FM} \sum_{i=1}^{k} \mathcal{L}_{FM}(G,D_{i}) + \lambda_{VGG} \] \[ \mathcal{L}_{VGG}(G(y_{t},I^{S})) + \lambda_{KEY} \mathcal{L}_{KEY} (G,D_{H}) + \lambda_{T} \mathcal{L}_{T}(G)) (12) \]
Tornay et al. \cite{Tornay} designed an SLP assessment approach using multi-channel information (hand shape, hand movement, mouthing, facial expression). In this approach, two linguistic aspects are considered: the generated lexeme and the generated forms. Two loss functions corresponding to these linguistic aspects are calculated as follows:
\[
\mathcal{S}_{lex} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \frac{\sum_{t=t_{n}^{b}}^{t_{n}^{e}}l(y_{n},z_{t})}{{t_{n}^{e}}-{t_{n}^{b}}+1} (13)
\]
\[
\mathcal{S}_{form}^{f} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \frac{\sum_{t=t_{n}^{b}}^{t_{n}^{e}} SKL(y_{n,f}z_{t,f})}{{t_{n}^{e}}-{t_{n}^{b}}+1} (14)
\]
where $\mathcal{S}_{form}^{f}$ is the state duration normalized form-level score for each channel $f$, $\mathcal{S}_{lex}$ is the state duration normalized lexeme-level score, $l(y_{n},z_{t})$ is the local score defined by symmetric KL-divergence (SKL) between the probability distributions. $z$ and $y$ are the test sign production and the sequence of stacked categorical distributions corresponding to the KL-HMM representing the target reference lexeme. While results on the SMILE DSGS dataset show a promising lexeme and form levels assessment, they need to focus on assessment of a case that lexeme is correct but the form is incorrect.
Using the capabilities of different methods in this category has led to successful results in SLP. However, the challenge of the model complexity still remains an open issue. Making a trade-off between accuracy vs. task complexity is a key element.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{SLP-2.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{An overview of the model proposed by Saunders et al.\cite{SaundersBMVC}. In this model, a Conditional Adversarial Discriminator measuring the realism of Sign Pose Sequences produced by an SLP Generator.}
\label{Fig 9}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11cm,height=6.5cm,keepaspectratio]{SLP-3.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic diagram of a model proposed by Zelinka and Kanis \cite{Zelinka}, including three blocks: (a) the feed-forward model for a text-to-signs translation for word-level features, (b) the feed-forward model for a text-to-signs translation for character-level features, and (c) model for a sign-to-skeleton transformation.}
\label{Fig 10}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{Table 3} A summary of the main characteristics of the reviewed models.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{3cm}p{6cm}p{3cm}}
\hline
\textbf{Query} & \textbf{Available choices} & \textbf{Most used}\\
\hline\hline
Methods & Avatar, NMT, Motion Graph, Image/video generation & Image/video generation\\
Input modalities & Image (RGB), Skeleton, Video, Text, Speech & Text\\
Datasets & PHOENIX14T, Czech news, Own datasets & PHOENIX14T\\
Production modalities & Isolated, Continuous & Continuous\\
Architectures & Static: GAN, AE, VAE & Static: GAN\\
& Dynamic: LSTM, GRU & Dynamic: LSTM\\
Generative models & AE, VAE, GAN & GAN\\
Evaluation metrics & Accuracy, Word Error Rate, BLEU, ROUGE & BLEU\\
Features & Face, Hand, Body, Fused features & Fused features\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[h!]
\thispagestyle{empty}
\caption{\label{Table 4} Summary of deep SLP models.}
\begin{center}
{\small
\noindent\begin{tabular}{p{0.8cm}p{0.7cm}p{1.5cm}p{2.2cm}p{1.8cm}p{8cm}}
\hline \hline
\textbf{Year} & \textbf{Ref} & \textbf{Feature} & \textbf{Input modality} & \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Description}\\
\hline \hline
2011 & \cite{Kipp-Avatar} & Avatar & RGB video & ViSiCAST & \textbf{Pros.} Proposing a gloss-based tool focusing on the animation content evaluating using a new metric for comparing avatars with human signers.
\textbf{Cons.} Need to include non-manual features of human signers.\\
2016 & \cite{McDonald} & Avatar & RGB video & Own dataset & \textbf{Pros.} Automatically adding realism to the generated images, low computational complexity.
\textbf{Cons.} Need to place the position of the shoulder and torso extension on the position of the avatar’s elbow, rather than the IK end-effector.\\
2016 & \cite{Gibet} & Avatar & RGB video & Own dataset & \textbf{Pros.} Easy to understand with high viewer acceptance of the sign avatars.
\textbf{Cons.} Limited to the small set of sign phrases.\\
2018 & \cite{Camgoz-2018} & NMT & RGB video & PHOENIX-Weather 2014T & \textbf{Pros.} Robust to jointly align, recognize, and translate sign videos.
\textbf{Cons.} Need to align the signs in the spatial domain.\\
2018 & \cite{Guo-2018} & NMT & RGB video & Own dataset & \textbf{Pros.} Robust to align the word order corresponding to visual content in sentences.
\textbf{Cons.} Need to generalize to additional datasets.\\
2020 & \cite{stoll2020} & NMT, MG & Text & PHOENIX14T & \textbf{Pros.} Robust to minimal gloss and skeletal level annotations for model training.
\textbf{Cons.} Model complexity is high.\\
2020 & \cite{Saunders} & Others & Text & PHOENIX14 & \textbf{Pros.} Robust to the dynamic length of output sign sequence.
\textbf{Cons.} Model performance can be improved including non-manual information.\\
2020 & \cite{Zelinka} & Others & Text & Czech news & \textbf{Pros.} Robust to the missing skeletons parts.
\textbf{Cons.} Model performance can be improved including information of facial expressions.\\
2020 & \cite{Saunders-arxiv} & Others & Text & PHOENIX14T & \textbf{Pros.} Robust to non-manual feature production.
\textbf{Cons.} Need to increase the realism of the generated signs.\\
2020 & \cite{Camgoz} & Others & Text & PHOENIX14T & \textbf{Pros.} No need to the gloss information.
\textbf{Cons.} Model complexity is high.\\
2020 & \cite{Saunders-BMVC} & Others & Text & PHOENIX14T & \textbf{Pros.} Robust to manual feature production.
\textbf{Cons.} Need to increase the realism of the generated signs.\\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{General framework for SLP}
SLP can be decomposed into some intermediate steps or addressed as an end-to-end translation task. As we reviewed in the previous sections, there are different translation models applicable in sign language. In this section, we present the common intermediate steps used in SLP (See Figure \ref{Fig 11}).
\textbf{Text/Speech to gloss translation: } Gloss is defined as written information of a sign word translated from the spoken language. It contains the facial and body grammar presented during the signing. For instance, let translate an English sentence, “I am Anna”, into sign language. To this end, we need to translate “I am” and “Anna” separately but finger-spelling for a letter-by-letter translation corresponding to “Anna” is needed. Finally, we have this: “EM FS-ANNA”, where “FS” denotes the start of a finger-spelling sequence. While the gloss is not a correct translation, it can provide suitable spoken language morphemes containing some conceptual information of the signs. The process of the spoken to gloss translation can be seen as a sequence-to-sequence task. In this task, various models from speech recognition and NMT, especially Deep Learning-based models, can be employed.
\textbf{Gloss to skeleton prediction: } This step aims to generate the human pose information corresponding to the sign gloss sequences. To this end, different parts of the human pose, including accurate finger locations, arm and torso position, and facial expressions, are considered. Like the previous step, this step can benefit from recent developments in Deep Learning. Attention-based models are one of the effective techniques employed for mapping from the textual input to the skeleton sequences.
\textbf{Skeleton to image/video synthesis: } Two general approaches are used in this step: animating an avatar and generating video frames. In the first approach, the skeleton keypoints are used to animate an avatar. Motion smoothing and interpolation are two techniques used before final rendering. While the video generation from the skeleton keypoints is hard, recent improvements in the Deep Learning-based skeleton-to-video translation are promising.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{framework}
\end{center}
\caption{ A general framework for SLP.}
\label{Fig 11}
\end{figure*}
\section{Performance evaluation}
In this section, the results of the previously analyzed SLP models on the most popular datasets are presented.
\subsection{Evaluation metrics and protocols}
Generally, the evaluation metrics measure the output quality by comparing the system output against the ground truth output corresponding to the source data. In SLP, the visual/lingual evaluation metrics are used to evaluate the correctness of the generated visual/lingual outputs:
\textbf{Visual evaluation metrics:} To evaluate the quality of the generated sign image/video, the Structural Similarity Index Measurement (SSIM) \cite{Wang2018b}, Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), and Mean Squared Error (MSE), as three well-known metrics for assessing image quality, are used in the proposed models for SLP. SSIM actually measures the perceptual difference between two images. In SLP, this metric is used to compare the generated synthetic image to its ground truth image. PSNR and MSE are metrics used to assess the quality of compressed images compared to their original. In SLP, the MSE is used to calculate the average squared error between a synthetic image and its ground truth image. In contrast, PSNR measures the peak error in dB, using the MSE metric.
\textbf{Lingual evaluation metrics:} Some of the most familiar machine translation metrics like BLEU@N \cite{Bleu}, METEOR \cite{Meteor}, ROUGE \cite{Rouge}, CIDEr \cite{Cider} are used to evaluate the translation performance of the proposed models in SLP. These metrics have acceptable relevancy with human judgment. In the BLEU@N metric, the matched N-grams between the machine-generated and the ground truth answer are utilized to compute the precision score. BLEU@N metric is calculated for N = 1 to 4, where shorter N-grams are used to fulfill the adequacy and longer N-gram matching accounts for fluency. ROUGE-L is another machine translation metric that scores a machine-generated sentence using a recall-based criterion. CIDEr is a metric for evaluating machine-generated sentences using human consensus.
\subsection{Results}
In this section, we report the quantitative results of the most relevant methods reviewed in the previous sections. We limited the quantitative results to the most common metrics and datasets. The results are compacted in one table, given that there are only a few works in SLP. ROUGE and BELU are the most used metrics for reporting the results of the model evaluation. As Table \ref{Table 5} shows, most of the proposed models for SLP are evaluated on the PHOENIX14T dataset. This dataset contains 8257 sequences being performed by 9 signers, which are annotated with both the sign glosses and spoken language translations. However, due to the limited number of signers in the dataset, it is necessary to use one or more large-scale datasets to train the generation network. Using multiple datasets is motivated by the fact that there is no single dataset that provides text-to-sign translations, a broad range of signers of different appearances, and high definition signing content. Using datasets from different subject domains and languages demonstrates the robustness and flexibility of the proposed methods, as it allows us to transfer knowledge between specialized datasets. This makes the approach suitable for translating between different spoken and signed languages, as well as other problems, such as text-conditioned image and video generation.\\
Currently, the proposed SLP systems cannot compete with existing avatar approaches. A large amount of high-resolution training data is necessary to obtain results comparable with motion capture and avatar-based approaches. However, the avatar-based approaches need detailed annotations using task-specific transcription languages, which can only be provided by expert linguists. Animating the avatar itself often involves a remarkable amount of hand-engineering. Motion capture-based approaches require high-fidelity data, which needs to be captured, cleaned, and stored at remarkable cost, decreasing the amount of data available, therefore, making this approach un-scalable. Given that recent approaches use automatic feature extraction methods, We think that in time these approaches will enable highly realistic, and cost-effective translation of spoken languages to sign languages, improving equal access for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Generating the high resolution and signer independent videos with signers of arbitrary appearance makes room to provide the highly realistic, expressive, and end-to-end SLP systems applicable in real-world communications. Additionally, developing stronger data-processing strategies to pay attention to the intricate features of sign language data, such as the size of motion and speed, can be effective.
\begin{table*}[h!]
\thispagestyle{empty}
\caption{\label{Table 5} Results of SLP models.}
\begin{center}
{\small
\noindent\begin{tabular}{p{2cm}p{0.6cm}p{0.8cm}p{1cm}p{1cm}p{1cm}p{1cm}p{1cm}p{1cm}p{1cm}p{0.7cm}p{0.7cm}p{0.7cm}}
\hline \hline
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Acc} & \textbf{CIDEr} & \textbf{ROUGE} & \textbf{METEOR} & \textbf{ WER} & \textbf{BLEU-1} & \textbf{BLEU-2} & \textbf{BLEU-3} & \textbf{BLEU-4} & \textbf{MSE} & \textbf{SSIM} & \textbf{FID} \\
\hline \hline
S2G2T \cite{S2G2T} &-&-& 43.80 &-&-& 43.29 & 30.39 & 22.82 & 18.13 &-&-&\\
HLSTM-attn \cite{Guo-2018} & 0.506 & 0.605 &-& 0.205 & 0.641 & 0.508 & 0.330 & 0.207 &-&-&-&-\\
Text2Gloss \cite{stoll2020} &-&-& 48.10 &-& 4.53 & 50.67 & 32.25 & 21.54 & 15.26 &-& 0.727 & 64.01\\
Symbolic Transformer \cite{Saunders} &-&-& 54.55 &-&-& 55.18 & 37.10 & 26.24 & 19.10 &-&-&- \\
Progressive Transformer \cite{Saunders} &-&-& 32.02 &-&-& 31.80 & 19.19 & 13.51 & 10.43 &-&-&- \\
NSLS \cite{Zelinka} &-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-& 11.94 &-&- \\
SIGNGAN \cite{Saunders} &-&-& 29.05 &-&-& 27.63 & 19.26 & 14.84 & 12.18 &-& 0.759 & 27.75 \\
EDN \cite{EDN} &-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-& 0.737 & 41.54 \\
vid2vid \cite{vid2vid} &-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-& 0.750 & 56.17 \\
Pix2PixHD \cite{Pix2PixHD} &-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-& 0.737 & 42.57 \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{Discussion}
In this survey, we presented a detailed review of the recent advancements in SLP. We presented a taxonomy that summarized the main concepts related to SLP. We categorized recent works in SLP providing separate discussions in each category. The proposed taxonomy covered different input modalities, datasets, applications, and proposed models. Here, we summarize the main findings:
\textbf{Input modalities:} Generally, vision and language modalities are two input modalities in SLP. While the visual modality includes the captured image/video data used in the training, the linguistic modality contains the text input from natural language, which is applicable in both the training and testing of the proposed models. Both categories benefit from deep learning approaches to improve model performance. RGB and skeleton are two common types of visual input data used in SLP models. While RGB images/videos contain high-resolution content, skeleton inputs decrease the parameter complexity of the model and assist in making a low-complex and fast model. GAN and LSTM are the two most used deep learning-based models in SLP for visual inputs. While successful results were achieved using these models, more effort is necessary to generate more lifelike and high-resolution sign images/videos acceptable by the Deaf community. Among the deep learning-based models for lingual modality, the NMT model is the most used model for input text processing. Other Seq2Seq models, such as RNN-based models, proved their effectiveness in many tasks. While accurate results were achieved using these models, more effort is necessary to overcome the existing challenges in the translation task, such as domain adaptation, uncommon words, words alignment, and word tokenization.
\textbf{Datasets:} The lack of a large annotated dataset is one of the major challenges in SLP. The collection and annotation of sign language data is an expensive task that needs the collaboration of linguistic experts and native speakers. While there are some publicly available datasets for SLP \cite{Athitsos,Bungeroth,Necati2018,Caselli,Duarte,Ko,Matthes}, they suffer from weakly annotated data for sign language. Furthermore, most of the available datasets in SLP contain a restricted domain of vocabularies/sentences. To make a real-world communication between the Deaf and hearing communities, access to a large-scale continuous sign language dataset, segmented on the sentence level, is necessary. In such a dataset, a paired form of the continuous sign language sentence and the corresponding spoken language sentence needs to be included. Just a few datasets meet these criteria \cite{Camgoz-2018,Duarte,Ko,Zelinka}. The point is that most of the aforementioned datasets cannot be used for end-to-end translation \cite{Camgoz-2018,Ko,Zelinka}. Two public datasets, RWTH-Phoenix-2014T and How2Sign, are the most used datasets in SLP. The former includes German sign language sentences that can be used for text-to-sign language translation. The latter is a recently proposed multi-modal dataset used for speech-to-sign language translation. Though RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather 2014T \cite{Camgoz-2018} and How2Sign \cite{Duarte-dataset} provided the appropriate SLP evaluation benchmarks, they are not enough for the generalization of the SLP models. Furthermore, these datasets only include German and American sentences. Translating from the spoken language to a large diversity of sign languages is a major challenge for the Deaf community.
\textbf{Applications:} American Sign Language (ASL) is the most-used sign language in developed applications for SLP. Since it may be hard for Deaf people to read or write the spoken language, they need some tools for communication with other people in society. Furthermore, many interesting and useful applications on the Internet are not accessible for the Deaf community. To tackle these challenges, some projects have been proposed aiming to develop such tools. While these applications successfully made a bridge between Deaf and hearing communities, we are still far from having applications involving large vocabularies/sentences from complex real-world scenarios. One of the main challenges for these applications is a license right for usage. Another challenge is regarding the application domain. Most of these applications have been developed for very specific domains such as clinics, hospitals, and police stations. Improving the amount of available data and its quality can benefit the creation of these needed applications. Furthermore, understanding the Deaf culture is helpful to create systems that align with user needs and desires.
\textbf{Proposed models:} The proposed works in SLP can be categorized into five categories: Avatar approaches, NMT approaches, MG approaches, Conditional image/video generation approaches, and other approaches. Table \ref{Table 2 } shows a summary of state-of-the-art deep SLP models. Some samples of the generated videos and gloss annotations are shown in Figure \ref{Fig 12}, \ref{Fig 13}, and \ref{Fig 14}. Using the data collected from motion capture, avatars can be more usable and acceptable for reviewers. Avatars achieve highly realistic results but the results are restricted to a small set of phrases. This comes from the cost of the data collection and annotation. Furthermore, avatar data is not a scalable solution and needs expert knowledge to be inspected and polished. To cope with these problems and improve performance, deep learning-based models are used.
While NMT-based methods achieved significant results in translation tasks, some major challenges needs to be solved. Domain adaptation is the first challenge in this area. Since the translation in different domains need different styles and requirements, it is a crucial requirement in developing machine translation systems targeted at a specific use case. The second challenge is regarding the amount of available training data. Especially in deep learning-based models, increasing the amount of data can lead to better results. Another challenge is regarding to the uncommon words. The translation models perform poorly on these words. Words alignment and adjusting the beam search parameters are other challenges in NMT-based models.\\
Although MG can generate plausible and controllable motion through a database of motion capture, it faces some challenges. The first challenge is regarding limited access to data. To show the model potential with a truly diverse set of actions, a large set of data is necessary. The scalability and computational complexity of the graph to select the best transitions are other challenges in MG. Furthermore, since the number of edges leaving a node increases with the graph size, the branching factor in the search algorithm will increase as well. To automatically adjust the graph configuration and rely on the training data, instead of user interference, Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) could be used along with some refining algorithms to adopt the graph structure monotonically.
While GANs have recently achieved remarkable results for image/video generation, there exist major challenges in the training of GANs. Mode collapse, non-convergence and instability, suitable objective function, and optimization algorithm are some of these challenges. However, several suggestions have been recently proposed to address the better design and optimization of GANs. Appropriate design of network architecture, proper objective functions, and optimization algorithms are some of the proposed techniques to improve the performance of GAN-based models. Finally, the challenge of the model complexity still remains for hybrid models.
\textbf{Limitations:} In this survey, we presented recent advances in SLP and related areas using deep learning. While successful results have been achieved in SLP by recent deep learning-based models, there are some limitations that need to be addressed. The main challenge is regarding the Multi-Signer (MS) generation that is necessary for providing real-world communication in the Deaf community. To this end, we need to produce multiple signers of different appearances and configurations. Another limitation is the possibility of high-resolution and photo-realistic continuous sign language videos. Most of the proposed models in SLP can only generate low-resolution sign samples. Conditioning on human keypoints extracted from training data can decrease the parameter complexity of the model and assist to produce a high-resolution video sign. However, avatar-based models can successfully generate high-resolution video samples, though they are complex and expensive. In addition, the pruning algorithms of MG need to be improved by including additional features of sign language, such as duration and speed of motion.
\textbf{Future directions:} While recent models in SLP presented promising results relying on deep learning capabilities, there is still much room for improvement. Considering the discriminative power of self-attention, learning to fuse multiple input modalities to benefit from multi-channel information, learning structured spatio-temporal patterns (such as Graph Neural Networks models), and employing domain-specific prior knowledge on sign language are some possible future directions in this area. Furthermore, there are some exciting assistive technologies for Deaf and hearing-impaired people. A brief introduction to these technologies can get an insight to the researchers in SLP and also make a bridge between them and the corresponding technology requirements. These technologies fall into three device categories: hearing technology, alerting devices, and communication support technology. For example, let imagine a technology that assists a Deaf person go through a musical experience translated into another sensory modality. While the recent advances in SLP are promising, more endeavor is indispensable to provide a fast processing model in an uncontrolled environment considering rapid hand motions. It is clear that technology standardization and full interoperability among devices and platforms are prerequisites to having real-life communication between the hearing and hearing-impaired communities. Finally, since providing the data annotation is also challenging, recently some efforts have been done by Rastgoo et al. \cite{ZSL1}\cite{ZSL2} to overcome the annotation bottleneck. To this end, Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) is employed for SLR. Using this approach, we hope to get closer to the real and accurate systems for bidirectional communication between Deaf and hearing people in society.\\
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Results}
\end{center}
\caption{Translation results from \cite{stoll2020}: (a) “Guten Abend liebe Zuschauer”. (Good evening dear viewers), (b) “Im Norden maessiger Wind an den Kuesten weht er teilweise frisch”. (Mild winds in the north, at the coast it blows fresh in parts). Top row: Ground truth gloss and video, Bottom row: Generated gloss and video. This model combines an NMT network and GAN for SLP.}
\label{Fig 12}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Text2pose}
\end{center}
\caption{Translation results from \cite{stoll2020}: Text from spoken language is translated to human pose sequences.}
\label{Fig 13}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Avatar1}
\end{center}
\caption{Translation results from \cite{Kipp-Avatar}: A signing avatar is created using a character animation system. Top row: signing avatar, Bottom row: original video.}
\label{Fig 14}
\end{figure}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work has been partially supported by the HIS Company and Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM) in Iran, Spanish project PID2019-105093GB-I00 (MINECO/FEDER, UE), and CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya, and ICREA under the ICREA Academia programme.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{M-sec1}
Learned Static Indexes, introduced by Kraska et al. \cite{kraska18case} (but see also \cite{Ao11}), with follow-up in \cite{kraska18case,amato2021learned, amato2021lncs, Ferragina:2020pgm,Ferragina:2020book,FERRAGINA21, MaltryVLDB, Kipf20}, are a novel approach to search in a sorted table, quite effective with respect to existing Procedures and Data Structures, e.g., B-trees \cite{comer1979ubiquitous}, used in important application domains such as Data Bases \cite{rao1999cache} and Search Engines \cite{Morin17}.
With reference to Figure \ref{M-fig:Par}, a generic paradigm for Learned Searching in sorted sets consists of a model, trained over the data in a sorted table.
As described in Section \ref{M-sec:PS}, such a model may be as simple as a straight line or more complex, with a tree-like structure, as the ones mentioned in Section \ref{M-sec:models}. It is used to make a prediction regarding where a query element may be in the sorted table. Then, the search is limited to the interval so identified and performed via Standard Binary Search. The use of this latter routine is more of a natural choice rather than a requirement. In fact, the {\bf lower\_bound} routine from the standard C++ library is almost exclusively used.
In order to place our contributions on the proper ground, it is useful to recall that two major studies \cite{Morin17,Schulz18} have recently investigated which Binary Search routines or variants are better suited to take advantage of modern computer architectures. Those experimental findings hold in the \emph{stand alone} scenario, i.e. when no prediction to reduce the search interval is performed, and they provide useful indications on which routine to use in which circumstances. However, to what extent the recommendations coming out of those studies actually hold also for Learned Indexes has not been investigated. As a matter of fact, which version of Binary Search to use, and when, is unresolved for Learned Indexes, relying on the natural choice mentioned earlier.
With the use of the {\bf SOSD} \cite{Kipf19} benchmarking software platform, we address such a question by experimenting with various Binary Search routines on both synthetic and real datasets, with executions on two different architectures, i.e., Intel I7/9 and Apple M1. On the one hand, our results further validate and extend the ones provided in \cite{Morin17,Schulz18} for the \emph{stand alone} scenario and, on the other, they provide novel indications on when to use {\bf SOSD} for Learned Indexing executions and with which Binary Search routine. Our findings are a significant advance with respect to the research performed on Learned indexes outlined above. For completeness, we mention that our results hold for the static case of Learned Indexes, i.e., when no insertions or deletions are allowed. For the dynamic case, Learned Indexing solutions exist \cite{Ferragina:2020pgm, Ding20}. However, how to phrase a research analogous to ours in that setting is open, to the best of our knowledge.
In order to make our experiments replicable, the software we developed or modified is available at \cite{gitbvb, gitbvbStand}, while the datasets are available at \cite{gitanonym}.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{general.pdf}
\caption{{\bf A General Paradigm of Learned Searching in a Sorted Set}\cite{Marcus20}. The model is trained on the data in the table. Then, given a query element, it is used to predict the interval in the table where to search (included in brackets in the figure).}
\label{M-fig:Par}
\end{figure}
\section{A Simple View of Learned Searching in Sorted Sets }\label{M-sec:PS}
Consider a sorted table $A$ of $n$ keys, taken from a universe $U$. It is well known that Sorted Table Search can be phrased as the Predecessor Search Problem: for a given query element $x$, return the $A[j]$ such that $A[j] \leq x < A[j+1]$. Kraska et al. \cite{kraska18case} have proposed an approach that transforms such a problem into a learning-prediction one. With reference to Figure \ref{M-fig:Par}, the model learned from the data is used as a predictor of where a query element may be in the table. To fix ideas, Binary Search is then performed only on the interval returned by the model.
We now outline the basic technique that one can use to build a model for $A$. It relies on Linear Regression, with Mean Square Error Minimization \cite{FreedmanStat}. Consider the mapping of elements in the table to their relative position within the table. Since such a function is reminiscent of the Cumulative Distribution Function over the universe $U$ of elements from which the ones in the table are drawn, as pointed out by Marcus et al. \cite{Marcus20} in their benchmarking study on Learned Indexes, we refer to it as CDF.
With reference to the example in Figure \ref{M-fig:CDF}, and assuming that one wants a linear model, i.e., $F(x)=ax+b$, Kraska et al. \cite{kraska18case} note that they can fit a straight line to the CDF and then use it to predict where a point $x$ may fall in terms of rank and accounting also for approximation errors. More in general, in order to perform a query, the model is consulted and an interval in which to search is returned. Then, to fix ideas, Binary Search on that interval is performed.
Different models may use different schemes to determine the required range, as outlined in Section \ref{M-sec:models}.
The reader interested in a rigorous presentation of those ideas can consult Marcus et al \cite{Marcus20}.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
(a)
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{CDF.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
(b)
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{linear_example.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
(c)
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{linear_epsilon_3.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{{\bf The Process of Learning a Simple Model via Linear Regression.} Let $A$ be $[47, 105, 140, 289, 316, 358, 386, 398, 819, 939]$. (a) The CDF of A. In the diagram, the abscissa indicates the value of an element in the table, while the ordinate is its rank. (b) The straight line $F(x)=ax+b$ is obtained by determining $a$ and $b$ via Linear Regression, with Mean Square Error Minimization. (c) The maximum error $\epsilon$ one can incur in using $F$ is also important. In this case, it is $\epsilon=3$, i.e., accounting for rounding, it is the maximum distance between the rank of a point in the table and its rank as predicted by $F$. In this case, the interval to search into, for a given query element $x$, is given by $[F(x)-\epsilon, F(x)+\epsilon]$. }
\label{M-fig:CDF}
\end{figure}
For this research, it is important to know how much of the table is discarded once the model makes a prediction on a query element. For instance, Binary Search, after the first test, discards $50\%$ of the table. Because of the diversity across models to determine the search interval, and in order to place all models on a par, we estimate the reduction factor of a model, i.e., the percentage of the table that is no longer considered for searching after a prediction, empirically. That is, with the use of the model and over a batch of queries, we determine the length of the interval to search into for each query. Based on it, it is immediate to compute the reduction factor for that query. Then, we take the average of those reduction factors over the entire set of queries as the reduction factor of the model for the given table.
\section{Experimental Methodology}
Our experimental set-up follows closely the one outlined in the already mentioned benchmarking study by Marcus et al. \cite{Marcus20} regarding Learned Indexes, with some variations.
In particular, here we concentrate on the study of how different kinds of Binary and k-ary Searches can affect the performance of Learned Indexes.
Moreover, following Amato et al \cite{amato2021learned, amato2021lncs}, we use datasets of varying sizes in order to understand how the data structures perform on the different levels of the internal memory hierarchy. In addition to that, we also use datasets generated as in \cite{Morin17}, in order to establish that the Binary Search routines we use behave consistently with the findings in the mentioned paper. Details of the entire methodology are provided next.
\subsection{Computer Architectures and Compilers}\label{M-sec:arch}
All the experiments have been performed on two different architectures, i.e, x86 and ARM, using three different CPUs: Intel i7-8700, Intel I9-10850, and Apple M1. In the following, the specifications of the three systems used are reported.
\begin{itemize}
\item The i7-8700 works with a 3.2GHz clock and uses 64kb of L1 cache per core, 256kb of L2 cache per core, and 12Mb of shared L3 cache. The amount of system memory is 32 Gbyte of DDR4. The OS is Ubuntu LTS 20.04.
\item The I9-10850 works with a 3.6 GHz clock and uses 64kb of L1 cache per core, 256kb of L2 cache per core, and 20Mb of shared L3 cache. The amount of system memory is 32 Gbyte of DDR4. The OS is Ubuntu LTS 20.04.
\item The Apple M1 works with a 3.2Ghz clock and uses two levels of cache (L1 and L2). The amount of L1 memory cache depends on the cores, which are of two kinds. Namely, high-performance and high-efficiency cores. Moreover, in the Apple M1 architecture, the L1 memory cache is divided into a part for instructions and one for data. In our study, only one core is used, which is of the high-performance kind. As consequence, the L1 cache size is 192KB for instruction and 128 KB for data. The L2 cache is 12 Mb. The amount of system memory is 8 Gbyte DDR4. The OS is macOS Monterey 12.3.1.
\end{itemize}
The adopted compiler is the same for all the operating systems we have used, i.e. GCC compiler with optimization flag -O3. In order to better explain the results obtained, we use a hardware profiler on the Intel architecture, i.e. \emph{Intel Vtune}, which makes possible the extraction of several performance parameters of interest. They are detailed in Section \ref{S-sec:profiler} of the Appendix. The profiler is provided free of charge by Intel. Somewhat unfortunately, as far as the M1 architecture is concerned, we are not aware that an analogous profiler is available. More in general, for the ARM architectures such as Neon, there is a profiler that may give useful information (\emph{Arm Forge Ultimate}), but it is not free of charge. Profilers such as \emph{gperf-tool-profiler} do not give useful information. Based on such a State of the Art, for this research, no profiling for the Apple M1 architecture is performed.
In what follows, we report results on the Intel I7 and Apple M1 architectures, while, for conciseness, results on the Intel I9 are omitted when analogous to the I7.
\subsection{Algorithms, Code and Software Platforms}
\subsubsection{Binary Search and Its Variants}\label{M-sec:methods}
We use the standard, i.e., textbook, Binary Search routine \cite{KnuthS,Cormer2009}, reported in Algorithm \ref{M-AL:S-BS} and referred to as {\bf S-BS}. We also use another version of the Binary Search strategy, presented in \cite{KnuthS} (see also \cite{Morin17, Schulz18}) under the name Uniform. The corresponding code is provided
in Algorithm \ref{M-AL:U-BS} and it is referred to as {\bf U-BS}. We point out that in all the algorithms we present unless otherwise stated, we include prefetching instructions since their use may be of advantage in terms of execution time \cite{Morin17}. However, whether or not to use them in our research is a fact that needs evaluation. The {\bf U-BS} routine differentiates itself from the Standard one because there is no test for exit within the main loop. Moreover, depending on the compiler and the architecture, instruction 8 of Algorithm \ref{M-AL:U-BS} may be translated into a predicated instruction, which is not a branching instruction. Indeed, the main loop of the resulting assembly code reported in {\bf Code \ref{M-unif-i7}} has no branches. This should be contrasted with the assembly code generated on the I7 for Algorithm \ref{M-AL:S-BS}, which is reported in {\bf Code \ref{S-CD:stand-i7}} of the Appendix. Such a branch-freeness, as discussed in \cite{Morin17}, results in better use of the processor instruction pipeline.
We include in this study also the {\bf lower\_bound} routine from the standard C++ library, which is equivalent to {\bf U-BS} in terms of source code (see Algorithm \ref{S-AL:U-LB} in the Appendix), since, in the {\bf SOSD} software platform, this routine is referred to as branchy Binary Search. More precisely, it is Uniform and Branchy.
We also take into consideration k-ary Search \cite{Schlegel09} routines, indicated as {\bf S-KS} and {\bf U-KS} (Algorithms \ref{S-AL:S-KS} and \ref{S-AL:U-KS} in the Appendix) in their standard and uniform versions respectively, using $k=3$ as recommended in the work by \cite{Schulz18}. The reason is that k-ary Search is superior to {\bf U-BS} and { \bf lower\_bound} on modern computer architectures, according to results in \cite{Schulz18}.
Finally, we include also the Eytzinger Layout Binary Search routine ({\bf U-EL} for short, see Algorithm \ref{S-AL:U-EL} in the Appendix) because, although not directly usable within the Leaned Indexing framework, it is a useful baseline to compare against: it is superior to {\bf U-BS} and {\bf S-BS} \cite{Morin17}. In addition to that, it has not been included by Schulz et al. \cite{Schulz18} in their benchmarking experiments.
\begin{algorithm}
{
\caption{{\bf C++ Implementation of Standard Binary Search with Prefetching.} The version without prefetching is obtained by deleting lines 4-5.}
\label{M-AL:S-BS}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State\hskip-\ALG@thistlm int StandardBinarySearch(int *A, int x, int left, int right)\{
\State \ \ \ \ \ while (left $<$ right) \{
\State \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ int m = (left + right) / 2
\State \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \_\_builtin\_prefetch(\&(data[lo + m / 2]), 0, 0);
\State \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \_\_builtin\_prefetch(\&(data[m + m / 2]), 0, 0);
\State \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if(x $<$ A[m]) rigth = m;
\State \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ else if( x $>$ A[m]) left = m+1;
\State \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ else return m;
\State \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \}
\State \ \ \ \ \ \ \ return right;
\State\hskip-\ALG@thistlm \}
\end{algorithmic}
}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}
{
\caption{{\bf C++ Implementation of Uniform Binary Search with Prefetching}. The code is as in \cite{Morin17} (see also \cite{KnuthS,Schulz18}). The version without prefetching is obtained by deleteing lines 6-7.}
\label{M-AL:U-BS}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State\hskip-\ALG@thistlm int prefetchUniformBinarySearch(int *A, int x, int left, int right)\{
\State \ \ \ const int *base = A;
\State \ \ \ int n = right;
\State \ \ \ while (n $>$ 1) \{
\State \ \ \ \ \ const int half = n / 2;
\State \ \ \ \ \ \_\_builtin\_prefetch(base + half/2, 0, 0);
\State \ \ \ \ \ \_\_builtin\_prefetch(base + half + half/2, 0, 0);
\State \ \ \ \ \ base = (base[half] $<$ x) ? \&base[half] : base;
\State \ \ \ \ \ n -= half;
\State \ \ \ \}
\State \ \ \ return (*base $<$ x) + base - A;
\State\hskip-\ALG@thistlm \}
\end{algorithmic}
}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Index Model Classes in SOSD}\label{M-sec:models}
From the many models available in {\bf SOSD}, we choose the ones that have been the most successful among the ones benchmarked in \cite{Marcus20}. That is, the Recursive Model Index ({\bf RMI}, for short) \cite{kraska18case}, the Radix Spline ({\bf RS}, for short) \cite{Kipf20} and the Piecewise Geometric Model ({\bf PGM}, for short) \cite{Ferragina:2020pgm,FERRAGINA21}. For the convenience of the reader, a brief outline of each of those indexes is provided in Section \ref{S-sec:LI} of the Appendix. We point out that we have modified the {\bf SOSD} library so that an implementation of a Learned Index can use one of {\bf U-BS}, {\bf S-BS}, {\bf U-KS} or {\bf S-KS}, for the final search stage.
It is to be noted that each of those models can err in making a prediction. However, each of them has a mechanism to correct for such a mistake in order to return a valid interval in which to search into. The interested reader is referred to the original papers for a description of those mechanisms, which are somewhat more complex than the one we have considered in Figure \ref{M-fig:CDF}. It is also worth recalling that those Models can only use Binary Search procedures with a sorted table layout, i.e., {\bf U-EL} cannot be used with those Models.
\subsection{Computer Architecture and Compilers: The Production of Branch-Free Code}\label{M-banchy}
Given the Binary Search routines and their variants described in Section \ref{M-sec:methods}, it is not clear that branch-free assembly code is actually produced by the compiler. Therefore, we have inspected the assembly code generated by the compiler in each of the used architectures. The results are summarized in Table \ref{M-branchfreeCode}. For conciseness, we report only the branch-free assembly code in Section \ref{S-sec:assembly} of the Appendix, in addition to {\bf Code \ref{S-CD:stand-i7}}. The remaining code regarding Branchy Binary Search, rather lengthy, is available upon request. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the table does not report the case for the k-ary Searches, because the program to extract the assembly code (Linux obj-dump) does not provide specific details capable to determine the presence of predicated instructions.
Interestingly, the {\bf lower\_bound} routine is translated into branchy code on the Intel architectures and in branch-free code on the Apple M1. Such a difference may be explained as follows. Although {\bf lower\_bound} is a Uniform routine, its inner loop makes explicit use of if-then-else (lines 7-11 of Algorithm \ref{S-AL:U-LB} in the Appendix) rather than a conditional operator (line 8 in Algorithm \ref{M-AL:U-BS}). This accounts for the difference between the two assembly codes on the Intel architectures. As for the Apple M1, being an ARM architecture, it has an extensive set of predicated instructions \cite{Morin17}, which apparently the compiler is able to use even in the presence of simple if-then-else constructs in the high-level code.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{{\bf Branchy and Branch-free Assembly Code Production.} The first row indicates the computer architecture, while the first column the routines. For each entry, we report the kind of code produced by the compiler, i.e., Branchy or Branch-free code.}
\label{M-branchfreeCode}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& Intel I7 & Intel I9 & M1 \\ \hline
S-BS & Branchy & Branchy & Branchy \\ \hline
U-BS & Branch-free & Branch-free & Branch-free \\ \hline
lower\_bound & Branchy & Branchy & Branch-free \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\setcounter{algorithm}{0}
\begin{algorithm}
\floatname{algorithm}{Code}
\caption{{\bf Assembly Code of Uniform Binary Search on the Intel I7 (Only Main Loop)}. The predicated instruction is line 1485 (in bold). No prefetching is used.}
\label{M-unif-i7}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State\hskip-\ALG@thistlm 0000000000001460 $<$\_Z21Uniform\_Binary\_SearchPmmmm$>$:
\State \ \ .
\State \ \ .
\State \ \ 1473: 76 1d jbe 1492 $<$\_Z21Uniform\_Binary\_SearchPmmmm+0x32$>$
\State \ \ 1475: 0f 1f 00 nopl (\%rax)
\State \ \ 1478: 48 89 ca mov \%rcx,\%rdx
\State \ \ 147b: 48 d1 ea shr \%rdx
\State \ \ 147e: 4c 8d 04 d0 lea (\%rax,\%rdx,8),\%r8
\State \ \ 1482: 49 3b 30 cmp (\%r8),\%rsi
\State \ \ {\bf 1485: 49 0f 43 c0 cmovae \%r8,\%rax}
\State \ \ 1489: 48 29 d1 sub \%rdx,\%rcx
\State \ \ 148c: 48 83 f9 01 cmp \$0x1,\%rcx
\State \ \ 1490: 77 e6 ja 1478 $<$\_Z21Uniform\_Binary\_SearchPmmmm+0x18$>$
\State \ \ .
\State \ \ .
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Datasets and Index Model Training }\label{M-sec:Datasets}
We have used two kinds of datasets. The first kind was generated as described in \cite{Morin17}, i.e. we generated 24 synthetic datasets with an increasing number $n$ of elements from $2^4$ to $2^{28}$, containing only odd 64-bit integers in $[1,2n+1]$. For each of these, we generated a two million query file consisting of 1 million-odd element present in the dataset of reference and 1 million even elements.
The second kind of datasets have origin from the carefully chosen ones in \cite{Marcus20} (and therein referred to as {\bf amzn32}, {\bf amzn64}, {\bf face}, {\bf osm}, {\bf wiki}). They have been derived from them in \cite{amato2021learned, amato2021lncs}, in order to fit well each level of the main memory hierarchy with respect to the Intel I7 architecture. The essential point of the derivation is that, for each of the generated datasets, the CDF of the corresponding original dataset is well approximated.
The details are as follows, where $n$ is the number of elements in a table.
\begin{enumerate}
\item [$\bullet$] {\bf Fitting in L1 cache: cache size 64Kb.} Therefore, we choose $n=3.7K $. For each dataset, the table corresponding to this type is denoted with the suffix {\bf L1}, e.g., {\bf amzn32-L1}, when needed.
\item [$\bullet$] {\bf Fitting in L2 cache: cache size 256Kb.} Therefore, we choose $n= 31.5K$. For each dataset, the table corresponding to this type is denoted with the suffix {\bf L2}, when needed.
\item [$\bullet$] {\bf Fitting in L3 cache: cache size 8Mb.} Therefore, we choose $n=750K$. For each dataset, the table corresponding to this type is denoted with the suffix {\bf L3}, when needed.
\item [$\bullet$] {\bf Fitting in PC Main Memory: memory size 32Gb.} Therefore, we choose $n=200M$, i.e., the entire dataset. For each dataset, the table corresponding to this type is denoted with the suffix {\bf L4}.
\end{enumerate}
As for query dataset generation, for each of the tables built as described above, we extract uniformly and at random (with replacement) from the Universe $U$ a total of two million elements, 50\% of which are present and 50\% absent, in each table.
For the case of the Apple M1 architecture, we take into consideration only datasets fitting at most into the L3 cache of the Intel I7, because our system is equipped with 8 Gbyte of main memory. Indeed, when the code used in this research is executed on the Apple M1 using as input each of the full datasets, the performance degrades due to substantial swapping.
As for model training, {\bf SOSD} has ten predefined Models each for the {\bf PGM} and {\bf RS}. For the {\bf RMI} Model family, following the Literature, we use {\bf CDFShop} \cite{Marcus20}, which returns up to ten versions of an {\bf RMI} for a given table. The selection process is heuristic and tries to choose good models in terms of query time that use little space. The interested reader can find details in \cite{Marcus20}
All the experiments involving the mentioned datasets are reported in full in the Appendix and in part here. The query time that we report is an average taken on a batch of two million queries executed by a search routine or a Learned Index. This is essential for Learned Indexes: a measure of a single query performance would be unreliable \cite{kipfEmail}, while the method we choose is compliant with the Literature \cite{Marcus20}. Such a limitation makes it unreliable to measure some relevant performance parameters of a Learned Index, as for instance, for each query, the amount of time spent for prediction and the amount of time spent for searching. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, none of the papers reporting on Learned Indexing provides such a breakdown. Rather they concentrate on the accuracy of a prediction. For completeness, and in terms of theoretic worst-case analysis, the prediction for the {\bf RMI}s used here takes $O(1)$ time and $O(log n)$ time for the {\bf PGM} and the {\bf RS}.
{
\section{Experiments: Searching in Constant Additional Space, With or Without SOSD}\label{M-Exp:Morin}
The aim of this Section is to shed light on the consistency of our experimental setting with the current Literature, i.e., Khough and Morin \cite{Morin17} and Schultz et al. \cite{Schulz18}. However, the results reported here provide also useful indications regarding the use of {\bf SOSD} with Binary Search routines only. This scenario is meaningful since those routines require only constant additional space
with respect to the table to be searched into, while the Learned Indexes may require additional space that depends on the parameters of the model. It may be a small percentage or a really large one. The interested reader can find a study in \cite{amato2021learned, amato2021lncs}. The scenario we consider is the one in which one can only use constant additional space with respect to the input table. To the best of our knowledge, it is not clear whether {\bf SOSD} is worth using and with which routine. As a further result, we get also indications on how to set up the search routines in {\bf SOSD}, when Learned Indexing is to be used.
\subsection{Replication of The Experiments by Khough and Morin}\label{M-sec:morin}
According to a study by Khough and Morin \cite{Morin17}, modern processor architectures are best used with branch-free Binary Search code. In order to assess to what extent those findings hold also in our experimental set-up, we have experimented with all the routines mentioned in Section \ref{M-sec:methods}, that have been executed as \emph{stand-alone} C++ code ( as in \cite{Morin17}) and as code included into the highly engineered {\bf SOSD} platform. We have considered all the architectures mentioned in Section \ref{M-sec:arch}, the synthetic datasets described in Section \ref{M-sec:Datasets}, with the inclusion also of the {\bf osm} dataset for completeness.
No prefetching is used here since the advantage of its use is discussed separately within this Section.
In regard to the {\bf lower\_bound} routine, which is the standard within {\bf SOSD} and the associated benchmarking of Learned Indexes, we have compared it with all the other routines, finding that it is inferior to all of them. The full set of experiments is available upon request and, for brevity, we only report some interesting observations regarding this important routine as compared with {\bf S-BS} and {\bf U-BS}. On the Intel processors, despite being a Uniform Binary Search, its assembly code is branchy (code omitted for brevity and available upon request). The experiments reported in Figure \ref{S-fig:I7lowerboundSOSD} of the Appendix point to the fact that, on those architectures, there is very little difference with {\bf S-BS}. On the Apple M1 architecture, its assembly code is branch-free (Code \ref{S-AL:M1-LB} in the Appendix) but, as shown in Figure \ref{S-fig:M1lowerboundSOSD} of that File, both {\bf S-BS} and {\bf U-BS} are better. For those reasons, we no longer consider {\bf lower\_bound} in this study.
For the remaining routines, the results are reported in Figure \ref{M-fig:Morin} on synthetic datasets and in Figure \ref{S-fig:I7M1osm} of the Appendix for the {\bf osm} dataset. We also anticipate that, from the experiments reported and discussed in this Section, there is no substantial difference in performance between {\bf S-KS} and {\bf U-KS}. For this reason, {\bf U-KS} is not considered in the following Sections.
\paragraph{\emph{Stand-alone}}
In this setting, on both the Intel and the ARM architectures, the results in \cite{Morin17} are confirmed (see Figures \ref{M-fig:Morin}(b) and (d) for synthetic datasets and Figures \ref{S-fig:I7M1osm}(b) and (d) of the Appendix for the {\bf osm} datasets). That is, Uniform branch-free is better than Standard branchy for datasets fitting in the cache memory. It is useful to recall that, for the ARM architecture, we use only datasets that fit in the cache memory. Moreover, there is also confirmation of the findings in \cite{Schulz18}, stating that k-ary Search is better than both of those routines for datasets fitting in main memory. A new finding, overlooked both in \cite{Morin17} and in \cite{Schulz18}, is that {\bf U-EL} is always better than k-ary Search, on both architectures we have considered.
\paragraph{SOSD}
We discuss first the Intel architectures. In this setting, we find the same results as in the \emph{stand-alone} case, with some notable differences: (a) for tables fitting in the cache memory, e.g., of size in the interval $[1,2^{22}]$, the gap between the performance of {\bf U-BS} and {\bf S-BS} is reduced and virtually unnoticeable for small tables, as shown by the two curves in Figure \ref{M-fig:Morin}(a) and (b); (b) {\bf S-KS} and {\bf U-KS} are always better than {\bf S-BS} and {\bf U-BS}. In regard to the {\bf osm} datasets, the same results are confirmed (see Figure \ref{S-fig:I7M1osm}(a) and (c) of the Appendix).
Concerning the Apple M1 architecture, and in reference to Figure \ref{M-fig:Morin}(c), we find that {\bf S-BS}, {\bf U-BS} and {\bf U-EL} perform analogously, while {\bf S-KS} and {\bf U-KS} are always better.
\paragraph{\emph{Stand-alone} Vs SOSD}
It is also of interest to assess whether there are differences in terms of query execution time between the \emph{stand-alone} and the {\bf SOSD} case. With reference to Figure \ref{S-fig:I7sosdnososd} of the Appendix for the Intel I7, it is to be noted that the {\bf S-BS} and {\bf U-BS} routines perform better in their \emph{stand-alone} version with datasets fitting the memory cache. Moreover, in regard to {\bf U-EL}, the \emph{stand-alone} version is always better than the {\bf SOSD} counterpart. Finally, the {\bf S-KS} and {\bf U-KS} perform always better in the {\bf SOSD} case.
\paragraph{Profiler Analysis}
In order to gain insights into the differences outlined above, we make use of the \emph{Intel Vtune} profiler on two synthetic datasets, i.e. a small table (size $2^{10}$ elements) and a large one (size $2^{24}$ elements). The results are reported in Tables \ref{S-T:ProfilingMorin10} and \ref{S-T:ProfilingMorin24} in the Appendix. Although the profiling does not give a definite indication regarding the superiority of one setting over the other, there are a few facts that are worth noting.
Concerning the {\bf U-EL}, all the profiler parameters get worse within {\bf SOSD}, except for the Front-end one. In particular, the Bad Speculation parameter (which indicates "wrong prediction" such as in the case of branches), gets much worse in going from \emph{stand-alone} to {\bf SOSD}. Interestingly, the same thing happens with {\bf U-BS}. On the other hand, such a parameter decreases for {\bf S-BS}. Although no definitive conclusion can be drawn, those facts indicate that the optimizations within {\bf SOSD} seem to be oriented towards branchy code.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
(a)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sosd_no_prefetch_I7_morinExp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
(b)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{nososd_no_prefetch_I7_morinExp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\\
(c)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sosd_no_prefetch_M1_morinExp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
(d)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{nososd_no_prefetch_M1_morinExp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{{\bf Mean Query Times of Search Methods on Synthetic Data.} Figure (a) and (c) report results using {\bf SOSD} on the Intel I7 and the Apple M1, respectively. Figures (b) and (d) reports \emph{Stand-Alone} implementation for the same architectures. The abscissa reports number of elements in the input Table, while the ordinate the mean query time in seconds. The vertical lines indicate the size of each cache memory level.}\label{M-fig:Morin}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pros and Cons of Prefetching}\label{M-sec:pref}
As pointed out in \cite{Morin17}, explicit prefetching can improve performance by loading blocks of data into the cache memory before they are accessed, avoiding processor stalls. However, this operation is expensive. Therefore, the advantage of using it must be carefully evaluated.
To this end, using the same set-up of Section \ref{M-sec:morin}, we have studied whether explicit prefetching can improve the performance of the search routines included in this research.
The results are summarized in Figure \ref{M-fig:I7Prefetch} for the Intel I7 architecture and Figure \ref{M-fig:M1BBSPrefetch} for the Apple M1. We report only results for the execution within {\bf SOSD} because in the \emph{stand-alone} case they are analogous.
The findings of \cite{Morin17} for the use of explicit prefetching are confirmed on the Intel I7 architectures, i.e. it is never useful for {\bf S-BS} (Figure \ref{M-fig:I7Prefetch}a), it is useful for {\bf U-BF} only for the on big-sized datasets (Figure \ref{M-fig:I7Prefetch}b), and it is always useful for {\bf U-EL} (Figure \ref{M-fig:I7Prefetch}c). In regard to the Apple M1 architecture, prefetching is not useful across any search method. Possibly, this is due to the fact that we only use datasets fitting the cache memory.
As for the Intel architecture, in order to get insights into those findings, we have again profiled the code, as in the previous Section. The results are reported in Section \ref{S-sec:prefetch} of the Appendix. With reference to them, it is to be noted that the profiler parameters confirm, for datasets larger than the cache memory, that the number of stalls due to data cache misses decreases with the use of explicit prefetching.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
(a)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sosd_bbs_I7_morinExp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
(b)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sosd_bfs_I7_morinExp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\\(c)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sosd_bfe_I7_morinExp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{{\bf Comparison between routines with and without explicit prefetching on SOSD using the Intel I7}. The Figures show the comparison between routines with ad without explicit prefetching. In particular, we report {\bf S-BS} in Figure (a), {\bf U-BS} in Figure (b) and {\bf U-EL} in Figure (c). On the abscissa, we report the number of elements in the table and, on the ordinates, the mean query time in seconds. The vertical lines indicate the size of each cache memory level.}
\label{M-fig:I7Prefetch}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\caption{{\bf Worst-case Average Predicted Search Intervals Length for L4 datasets.} For each of the largest of the benchmark datasets and each model class, we have considered the ten model instances used in {\bf SOSD}. For each, we have computed the average predicted interval length and its standard deviation over a query dataset obtained as described in Section \ref{M-sec:Datasets}. Then, we have taken the maximum average, which we report in the table for each dataset and model class, together with its standard deviation.}\label{M-T:SearchRange}
\begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{{\bf RMI}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{{\bf PGM}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{{\bf RS}}\\
\hline
amzn32 & 3.44e5 $\pm$ 1.18e6 & 4.10e3 $\pm$ 2.37e3 & 2.71e2 $\pm$ 1.58e2 \\
\hline
amzn64 & 6.19e4 $\pm$ 5.88e5 & 2.05e3 $\pm$ 2.37e3 & 1.35e2 $\pm$ 1.57e2 \\
\hline
face & 8.59e4 $\pm$ 4.19e5 & 4.10e3 $\pm$ 2.37e3 & 5.31e2 $\pm$ 3.08e2 \\
\hline
osm & 5.26e6 $\pm$ 2.73e6 & 2.05e3 $\pm$ 2.37e3 & 3.65e2 $\pm$ 4.23e2 \\
\hline
wiki & 4.25e5 $\pm$ 2.61e6 & 2.05e3 $\pm$ 2.37e3 & 2.50e2 $\pm$ 2.90e2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{sosd_bbs_M1_morinExp.pdf}
\caption{{\bf Comparison between S-BS with and without explicit prefetching on SOSD using the Apple M1}. The Figure shows the comparison between {\bf S-BS} with ad without explicit prefetching. The results for {\bf U-BS} and {\bf U-EL} are the same. On the abscissa, we report the number of elements in the table and, on the ordinates, the mean query time in seconds. The vertical lines indicate the size of each cache memory level.}\label{M-fig:M1BBSPrefetch}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A Summary of Useful Indications}\label{M-sec:indication}
Based on the experiments reported so far, we get some useful indications regarding the use of Binary Search routines that account also for the {\bf SOSD} platform.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf No Learned Indexing}. This scenario indicated the constraint of constant additional space with respect to the table to be searched into. The indication is to use {\bf U-EL} as a \emph{stand alone} routine, with prefetching on the Intel architectures and without it on the M1 architecture. For this latter, the table must fit in the cache memory, to avoid swapping.
\item {\bf Learned Indexing}. With the exclusion of {\bf U-EL} that cannot be used by the current models, the experiments conducted so far provide the indication that prefetching is not really needed for routines that complete the search of a Learned Index. As far as the Apple M1 architecture is concerned, the fact that prefetching is of no advantage is evident, since we use only dataset fitting in the cache memory. As for the Intel architectures, the scenario is more complex. Indeed, {\bf S-BS} never takes advantage of explicit prefetching, while {\bf U-BS} achieves a substantial improvement with its use for datasets larger than the cache memory, i.e. datasets with a number of elements greater than about $4.19e6$ ( see Figure \ref{M-fig:I7Prefetch}(b) again). That is, the predicted interval of a model must be of length of at least $4.19e6$, in order to consider prefetching in the final search routine of that model. Now, it is worth recalling that, for models that are effective, large reduction factors are expected that, in turn, correspond to small tables to be searched into. Unless the original table is really large or the model particularly bad, the case of predicted interval lengths where prefetching can be useful with {\bf U-BS} seems unlikely, as the experiment reported in Table \ref{M-T:SearchRange} seems to indicate. As evident from that table, only in the case of the worst {\bf RMI} on the {\bf osm-L4} dataset,
there may be some marginal benefit in using prefetching with {\bf U-BS}. Therefore, in what follows, explicit prefetching is not used.
\end{itemize}
\section{Experiments: Searching using Learned Indexes, With or Without SOSD}\label{M-Exp:Learned_Index}
In order to better describe the experimental work presented in this Section, it is useful to recall that {\bf SOSD} has been designed to provide an environment in which to evaluate the relative merits of existing and possibly future, Learned Index Models.
Given a dataset, how models are trained is briefly described in Section \ref{M-sec:Datasets}. Although originally designed for benchmarking, {\bf SOSD} can also be used to identify among the models it has available for a given dataset, the best performing one. The list of those Models is reported in Table \ref{S-T:BestModels} of the Appendix. Here we focus on average query time, although space may be of importance also \cite{amato2021learned, amato2021lncs}.
For a given dataset, this amounts to up to thirty different Models to choose from. The routine used for the final search stage is, by default, the {\bf lower\_bound} routine. Here we consider three search routines for the final stage, i.e., {\bf U-BS, S-BS} and {\bf S-KS}. As mentioned earlier, the {\bf lower\_bound} routine has been excluded since it is redundant with respect to the other ones. In summary, for a given dataset, one has up to ninety possible Model configurations to choose from. Once such a Model configuration has been identified, and in view of the results reported in Section \ref{M-sec:morin}, it is not clear whether the actual deployment of the selected Model in an Application Domain, e.g., Data Bases \cite{rao1999cache} or Search Engines \cite{Morin17}, it should be executed within the {\bf SOSD} platform or as a \emph{stand-alone} software program. As a matter of fact, such a point has not been addressed in the Literature. The main goal of this part of our experimental work is to investigate the mentioned aspects, which also provide useful indications on which search routine to use.
\paragraph{Selecting a Best Model and Associated Search Routine via SOSD}
For each dataset described in Section \ref{M-sec:Datasets}, we consider up to ninety possible Model configurations. Then, for each model class and search routine so obtained, the Model with the best mean query time is chosen, based on its execution within {\bf SOSD}.
The results are reported in Figures \ref{M-fig:osmI7I9M1}(a) and (c) only for the {\bf osm} dataset, while the remaining ones are reported in Figures \ref{S-fig:amzn32I7I9M1}-\ref{S-fig:wikiI7I9M1} of the Appendix. From those Figures, we can extract the following findings regarding the search routines, for which we also provide a justification.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf S-KS is the best}. It is self-evident from the results reported in the mentioned Figures. Quite remarkably, they are consistent across all datasets, memory levels and architectures we have considered. This is a novel finding in this area, since only the {\bf lower\_bound} or the {\bf S-BS} routine have been used for the terminal stage of searching in a Learned Index, as well documented in experimental studies prior to this one (see \cite{kraska18case} and \cite{Ferragina:2020pgm}). It is worth noting that the results reported here are coherent with the ones of the previous Section, in which we have evaluated {\bf S-KS} as a generic Binary Search routine rather than as a terminal to a Learned Index. In order to explain such a coherence, we need to point out that the models resulted to be the best with {\bf S-KS} provide a quite small predicted interval, on average: for instance on the {\bf osm\_L4} dataset and for the {\bf RMI} model, the average predicted interval length is 4.41e+2 with a standard deviation of 2.73e+3. The full data regarding this point is not shown and is available upon request. For small tables, as far as the Apple M1 architecture is concerned and when the search routines are performed within {\bf SOSD} without a prediction phase, Figure \ref{M-fig:Morin}(b) and Figure \ref{S-fig:I7M1osm}(b) of the Appendix report a wide margin in average query time between {\bf S-KS} and the other routines, which apparently turns out to be preserved also in the Learned Indexing framework executed within {\bf SOSD}. As for the Intel architectures, to better highlight the performance of such routines on small tables, we need to \vir{zoom-in} in Figure \ref{M-fig:Morin}(a) and Figure \ref{S-fig:I7M1osm}(a) of the Appendix. The corresponding Figures are \ref{S-fig:I7MorinOsmZoom}(a) and (b) in the Appendix. It is evident that also in this case {\bf S-KS} is always better than the other routines on small tables. It is worth noting that, compared to the results on the Apple M1, the margin in average query time between {\bf S-KS} and the other routines is smaller, which is reflected in a smaller margin also in the Learned Indexing framework, executed within {\bf SOSD}.
A more refined analysis regarding such a coherence behaviour within {\bf SOSD} would require individually measure prediction and search time for each query: as already mentioned in Section \ref{M-sec:Datasets}, this would yield unreliable results.
\item {\bf U-BS and S-BS}. In contrast to the case of {\bf S-KS}, the results for {\bf S-BS} and {\bf U-BS} indicate that there is no clear winner between those two procedures. Indeed, which procedures to pick seems to depend, for both architectures, on the memory level in which the input table fits, the input table itself and the Model we are using. Those latter results do not contradict the ones described in Section \ref{M-sec:morin}. In fact, as already mentioned in the discussion regarding {\bf S-KS}, the best Models have a quite small average predicted interval length and, for small tables, the performance of {\bf S-BS} and {\bf U-BS} within {\bf SOSD} is quite close.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
(a)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{I7_osm_kary_best_model.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
(b)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{M1_osm_kary_best_model.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{{\bf SOSD Mean Query Times of Best Learned Indexes on the osm Dataset}. Figure (a) and (b) report results using {\bf SOSD} on the Intel I7 and Apple M1, respectively. For each model class, we report the mean query time of the best Learned Indexes adopting in their last stage the routines described in Section \ref{M-sec:methods}. In particular, the blue bar is {\bf S-BS}, the orange bar is {\bf U-BS} and the green bar is {\bf S-KS}.}\label{M-fig:osmI7I9M1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Convenience of the Execution of the Best Model within SOSD or \emph{Stand-alone}}
For each experiment described above, we select the best performing Model. As anticipated, we execute each of those Models in a \emph{stand-alone} setting, with the routines {\bf S-BS}, {\bf U-BS} and {\bf S-KS} as terminal for the search stage. The results are reported in Figure \ref{M-fig:allI7M1best}. It is evident that the convenience of using {\bf SOSD} with the selected Model rather than in a \emph{stand-alone} setting is architecture-dependent. In particular, the experiments indicate that it is advisable to use {\bf SOSD}, with {\bf S-KS} as a terminal for the search stage, on the Apple M1 architecture. As for the Intel I7 architecture, we find that, for the largest datasets (level L4), it is advisable to use {\bf SOSD}, again with {\bf S-KS} as a terminal for the search stage. On the other memory levels, the performance is dataset-dependent. In particular, {\bf SOSD} is better than the \emph{stand-alone} settings for {\bf face} and {\bf wiki} datasets and worse for the remaining ones. As far as {\bf S-BS} and {\bf U-BS} is concerned, in \emph{stand-alone} setting {\bf U-BS} seems to be the method of choice. This is in agreement with the result reported in Section \ref{M-sec:morin} (\emph{Stand-alone} setting).
All of the above provides factual indications regarding the use of {\bf SOSD}. As for their justification, a profiler analysis would be required for the Apple M1 architecture. Unfortunately, as already stated, this is not possible at this time with free software. As for the Intel architecture, the fact that {\bf SOSD} is to be used on large datasets, may be attributed to the design and use of {\bf SOSD}: the vast majority of the experiments conducted with {\bf SOSD} are on large datasets. Moreover, as pointed out in Section \ref{M-sec:morin}(Profiler Analysis), it seems to favour branchy code.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
(a)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{I7_nososd_vs_sosd_best_of_best_memgroup.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
(b)
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{M1_nososd_vs_sosd_best_of_best_memgroup.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{{\bf Comparison Between the Best Model Indicated by SOSD and its \emph{Stand-alone} counterpart}. Figures (a) and (b) report results for the Intel I7 and the Apple M1, respectively. Each group bar is relative to a dataset, while on the ordinate we report the mean query times in nanoseconds. In each group, the blue bar indicates the best Model selected by {\bf SOSD} (also named {\bf SOSD} Best),while the next bars are the same Model when used in \emph{stand-alone} configuration (indicated as {\bf SOSD} Best in SA) together with {\bf S-BS} (orange bar), {\bf U-BS} (green bar) and {\bf S-KS} (red bar) as terminal stage routines.}\label{M-fig:allI7M1best}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and Future Directions}
The main question we have addressed in this research is to provide indications on how the findings of Khough and Morin \cite{Morin17} and Schulz et al. \cite{Schulz18}, regarding the choice of which Binary Search routines or variants are to be used on modern computer architectures, can also be extended to the novel field of Learned Indexing, considering those routines for the final search stage. So far, for that stage, only the {\bf lower\_bound} routine has been considered. A summary of our results that can be useful both to designers and users of Learned Indexes is the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item When no additional space with respect to the input table can be afforded, {\bf U-EL} is the best choice both in {\bf SOSD} and \emph{stand-alone} settings. This result confirms the findings by Khough and Morin \cite{Morin17} and extends them since we consider also k-ary Search.
\item When Learned Indexing is to be used, for each model class considered in this research, {\bf SOSD} returns the best models with {\bf S-KS} as the terminal search stage. This fact holds for both the hardware architectures we have considered.
\item When the choice between {\bf SOSD} and \emph{stand-alone} settings needs to be made to allow deployment in an Application Domain, such as Databases \cite{rao1999cache} or Search Engines \cite{Morin17},
several factors need to be considered.
\begin{itemize}
\item On the Apple M1 architecture, {\bf SOSD} with {\bf S-KS} as the final search stage is to be preferred.
\item On the Intel I7 architecture, the choice depends on datasets and memory levels. Indeed, for datasets larger than cache memory, {\bf SOSD} with again as final search stage {\bf S-KS} is to be preferred, while, for the ones fitting the cache memory, such a choice is input data-dependent. In any case, for Learned Indexes to be executed in a \emph{stand-alone} setting, {\bf U-BS} as the final search stage seems to be the more convenient choice.
\end{itemize}
Among the many open problems that the new area of Learned Indexing poses, we mention two that are relevant to the research we have conducted.
Although the Eyzinger Layout Binary Search is superior to the other routines we have considered, it cannot be used by the Index Models known so far. So, it would be very interesting to devise new models that can use such an excellent layout in the final search stage. The second problem is in relation to the extension of our study to Dynamic Learned Indexes, i.e., the {\bf PGM} and {\bf Alex} \cite{Ding20}. Although an extension to the {\bf PGM} may be simple (such a Model uses a Binary Search routine as the final search stage, even in the Dynamic setting), it is not clear how to intervene in {\bf Alex}, given the high level of engineering that has been deployed for the realization of that Model.
\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Navier-Stokes equations (NSEs) are very important in the physics of fluid mechanics. The existence and smoothness of solutions is not yet guaranteed, although these equations are still of interest to engineers and scientists in many technical fields. One of the main reason that makes the solution of NSEs not unique is the chaotically appearing turbulences due to a naturally existing instabilities. In fact, these turbulences cannot be computed or predicted either, that is why we need to seek for stabilization techniques. The stabilization of incompressible flow problems described by Navier-Stokes equations is at the heart of a wide range of engineering applications, since they require a stable and controlled velocity field, which is considered to be the basis for ongoing reaction or production processes. A bench of work based on the theoretical setting has been established by several authors for the stabilization of two and three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations using a feedback control; see M. Badra \cite{Badra1,Badra2}, V. Barbu et al.,\cite{Barbu1,Barbu2}, A.V. Fursikov \cite{Furs} and J. P. Raymond et al., \cite{Ray1,Ray2,Ray3}. Other works have been performed for the stabilization of two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations based on a numerical setting by solving large-scale Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) problem using a Riccati-feedback approach; see \cite{benner15,Bansch}. In \cite{benner15} Bansch et al., proposed a generalized low-rank Cholesky factor Newton method to stabilize a flow around a cylinder. The LQR approach that interests us is based on a finite dimensional matrix derived from the discretization of the linearized Navier-Stokes equations around a steady state. After the discretization stage we get a descriptor index-2 system of differential algebraic equations (DAEs) of a high dimension. Another way to deal with this stabilization problem is to choose an appropriate method that allows us to construct a reduced system to the one described by a set of DAEs and then we stabilize the reduced system instead of the original one. This approach is convenient since it is based on the treatment of lower dimensional systems that makes the computation feasible. In \cite{Uddin} the authors use a balanced truncation method to construct an efficient reduced system and they solve the obtained LQR problem associated the reduced system based on a Riccati feedback approach.
Two main parts will be covered in this paper. The first one focuses on describing an efficient method to reduce a large-scale descriptor index-2 system of differential algebraic equations, depicted from a spatial discretization of the linearized Navier-Stokes equations around a steady state. This method is based on a projection technique onto an extended block Krylov subspace, and it allows us to construct a reduced system that has nearly the same response characteristics. A bench of work has been done to build an effective reduced model, such as projection techniques onto suitable Krylov-based subspaces as the rational or extended-rational block Krylov subspaces, see \cite{houda1,frangos,Grim,hamadi,heyouni,jbilou,Druskin-on-optimal}. Another class of methods described in \cite{Antoulas3,stykel,moore} contains balanced truncation methods. Numerous model reduction methods have been explored for Navier-Stokes equations using balanced truncation and proper orthogonal decomposition \cite{bennerNstokes,Uddin}. A balanced truncation model reduction method for the Ossen equations has been investigated in \cite{bt}. For large problems, Krylov subspace methods are more efficient in term of cpu-time and memory requirements which is not the case for the methods based on balanced truncation since they require solving two large Lyapunov matrix equations at each iteration of the process and also the computation of singular value decompositions. All these methods that we mentioned here work properly for a class of descriptor dynamical systems represented by a set of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Unfortunately, this is not our case since the dynamical system that we are dealing with is represented by a set of DAEs and therefore these methods are not directly applicable. Hence, one needs a process that ensures a transformation of DAEs into ODEs in an appropriate manner. This will result in a dense projector called the Leray projection and to overcome this problem, we give a simplification on how to avoid this dense projection matrix while performing our process to get a reduced system. The second part of the paper is devoted to solving a derived Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) problem using a Riccati feedback approach. The major issue that we have to deal with is to solve a large-scale algebraic Riccati equation \cite{benricca,heyouni0,simon}, which is the key to design a controller represented by a feedback matrix. Our aim is to stabilize the unstable system by using the constructed feedback matrix. We propose an extended block Arnoldi algorithm with appropriate computational requirements. The LQR problem used here is associated to the ODE system that relies on Leray projections appearing after the transformation to a set of an ODEs. We will explain how to avoid an explicit use of the Leray projection while solving the obtained LQR problem.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{sec2}, we describe the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with the linearization around a steady state, and its descriptor index-2 system of differential algebraic equations that arise after a mixed finite element method. The derivation of the obtained ODE system is also explained. Section \ref{sec3} deals with the extended block Krylov subspace method that allows us to construct an appropriate reduced model to the ODE system by avoiding the dense projection matrix that appears after the transformation to ODEs. In Section \ref{sec4}, a Riccati feedback approach is explained and we show how to solve the LQR problem associated with the ODE system. This approach is based on solving a large-scale algebraic Riccati equation using an extended block Krylov subspace method. In the last section, we provide some numerical experiments to show the effectiveness of the proposed approaches.
\section{Navier-Stokes equations (NSEs) : Linearization and Discretization}
\label{sec2}
Navier-Stokes equations for a viscous, incompressible Newtonian fluid in a bounded domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ with boundary $\partial \Omega$ are given by
\begin{align}
\label{NSequa}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\dfrac{\partial z}{\partial t}- \dfrac{1}{\text{Re}} \Delta z+(z \cdot \nabla )z + \nabla p &=& f,\\
\nabla \cdot z &=& 0,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
where for $t \in [0,\infty)$ and $x=[x_1 \quad x_2]^T \in \Omega \subset \mathbb R^2$, the vector $z(t,x)=[z_1(t,x),z_2(t,x)] \in \mathbb R^2$ refers to the velocity field, $p(t,x)\in \mathbb R$ is the pressure field, $f$ is known as the forcing term and $\text{Re} \in \mathbb R^{+}$ is the Reynolds number. The operators $\Delta$, $\nabla$ and $\nabla\cdot$ are defined as the Laplacien, the Gradient and Divergence operators, respectively. The convective term in our model is a non-linear operator defined as
\begin{align*}
(z \cdot \nabla)z = \begin{bmatrix}
z_1 \dfrac{\partial z_1}{\partial x_1} + z_2 \dfrac{\partial z_1}{\partial x_2} \\
z_1 \dfrac{\partial z_2}{\partial x_1} + z_2 \dfrac{\partial z_2}{\partial x_2}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
The boundary $\Gamma = \partial \Omega$ can be partitioned as follows
$$\Gamma = \Gamma_{in} \cup \Gamma_{out} \cup \Gamma_{wall} \cup \Gamma_{feed}.$$
We therefore impose the following boundary conditions on the respective parts of the boundary
$$
z = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\phi_{feed} & on & \Gamma_{feed}, \\
\phi_{in} & on & \Gamma_{in}, \\
0 & on & \Gamma_{wall}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
The condition given below called, the \textit{do-nothing} condition
$$-\dfrac{1}{\text{Re}} \nabla z \, n + p n = 0 \quad \text{on} \quad \Gamma_{out},$$ where $n$ denotes the unit outer normal vector to $\Gamma_{out}$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{domain.png}
\caption{Domain $\Omega$ represented by a cylinder wake.}
\end{figure}
\noindent Navier-Stokes equations (NSEs) were derived independently by G.G. Stokes and C.L. Navier in the early 1800's. These equations describe the relationship between the velocity and the pressure of a moving fluid. NSEs represent the conservation of momentum. The fact that the convection term $(z \cdot \nabla) z$ is non-linear is what makes the NSEs complex. For incompressible flows, the second equation of the system (\ref{NSequa}) is called the continuity equation. In what follows, we present a linearization approach as it is described in \cite{benner15}.
\subsection{Linearization}
We consider a stationary motion of an incompressible fluid described by the velocity and pressure couple ($w_s(t,x),p_s(t,x)$) that fulfills the stationary Navier-Stokes equations
\begin{eqnarray}
-\dfrac{1}{\text{Re}} \Delta w_s +(w_s \cdot \nabla )w_s +\nabla p_s &=& f,\\ \nonumber
\nabla \cdot w_s &=& 0.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the same boundary and initial conditions of the first equations are considered. The pair ($w_s,p_s$) depicts the desired stationary but possibly unstable solution of system (\ref{NSequa}). \\
We define the following differences
\begin{eqnarray*}
v(t,x) &=& z(t,x)- w_s(x), \\
\chi(t,x) &=& p(t,x)-p_s(t,x).
\end{eqnarray*}
Replacing in (\ref{NSequa}) and dropping the non-linear term, we obtain the following linearized Navies-Stokes equations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{\partial v}{\partial t}-\dfrac{1}{\text{Re}} \Delta v +(w_s \cdot \nabla )v +(v \cdot \nabla )w_s +\nabla \chi &= 0,\\
\nabla \cdot v &= 0,
\end{align}
defined for $t\in [0,\infty)$ and $x \in \Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ with Drichlet boundary conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
v &=& 0 \quad \text{on} \quad \Gamma_{in} \cup \Gamma_{wall}, \\
v &=& \phi_{feed} \quad \text{on} \quad \Gamma_{feed},
\end{eqnarray}
a do-nothing condition is described as
$$-\dfrac{1}{\text{Re}} \nabla v \, n + \chi \, n = 0 \quad \text{on} \quad \Gamma_{out},$$
and the initial condition
$$v(0,\cdot) = 0 \quad \text{in} \, \, \Omega.$$
\end{subequations}
$v$ is defined as perturbation of our flow field $z$ from the desired stationary flow field $w_s$. A \textit{zero output} for $t \to \infty$ implies that $v$ approximates $w_s$ for $t \to \infty$. As a consequence our flow field achieves the properties of the desired stationary flow field.
\subsection{The discrete equations}
The choice of an appropriate discretization technique depends on the specific governing equations used, for example (compressible or incompressible flow (our case), mesh type (structured, unstructured). The classical discretization techniques are finite difference, finite element and finite volume. One of the known methods used to discretize instationary problems, is the method of lines which is based on the replacement of the spatial derivatives in the PDE with algebraic approximations leading to a system of ODEs that approximates the original PDE. In this subsection, we briefly present the main properties of the discrete equations already established in \cite{benner15}. After using a mixed finite element method, we obtain a system of differential algebraic equations of the form
\begin{subequations}
\label{DAE1}
\begin{align}
M \, \dfrac{d}{dt}\textbf{v}(t) &= A\textbf{v}(t)+G\textbf{p}(t)+\textbf{f}(t), \label{eq1} \\
0 &= G^T\textbf{v}(t), \label{cond1}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{enumerate}
\item [] $\textbf{v}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_v}$ : the nodal vector of the discretized velocity. \\
\item[] $\textbf{p}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_p}$ : the discretized pressure. \\
\item[] $\textbf{f}(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_v}$ : the forcing term that contains the control.
\end{enumerate}
\medskip
\noindent In what follows, we assume that the forcing term $f(t)$ is given by
$$\textbf{f}(t) = B {\bf u}(t).$$
Moreover, the matrices $M=M^T \, \succ 0 \, \in \mathbb{R}^{n_v \times n_v}$ and $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n_v \times n_v}$ are supposed to be large and sparse. They represent the mass matrix and system matrix, respectively. $G \in \mathbb{R}^{n_v \times n_p}$ is a full rank matrix represents the discretized gradient and $B \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_b}$ is the input matrix. The system matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n_v \times n_v}$ can be decomposed as follows $$A=-\dfrac{1}{\text{Re}}L-K-R.$$
\noindent More precisely, $-L\textbf{v}$ represents the discrete Laplacien $\Delta \, \textbf{v} $, $-K\textbf{v}$ is the discrete convection resulting from $(w \cdot \nabla) \textbf{v}$ and $-R \textbf{v}$ refers to the discrete reaction process of $(\textbf{v} \cdot \nabla) w$. In the Stokes system, $A$ is symmetric negative definite matrix since there is no role to the matrices $K$ and $R$. A computational methods based on Krylov projection techniques and interpolatory projection to built a reduced system to a Stokes system have been established respectively in \cite{Ham,Guger}. We add to the system (\ref{DAE1}) an output function given by
$$y(t)= C {\bf v}(t),$$
where $y(t)$ is the output vector and $C^T\in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_c}$ is the output matrix that measures velocity behaviour using information from internal nodes \cite{benner15}. The system (\ref{DAE1}) can be rewritten in a \textit{compact} form
\begin{equation}
\label{syscompact}
\left\{\begin{array}{cclll}
\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
M & 0\\
0 & 0\\
\end{array}\right]}_{\bf M}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\dot{{\bf v}}(t)\\
\dot{\textbf{p}}(t)\\
\end{array}\right] & = &\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
A & G\\
G^T & 0\\
\end{array}\right]}_{\bf A}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf v}(t)\\
\textbf{p}(t)\\
\end{array}\right] +\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
B\\
0\\
\end{array}\right]{\bf u}(t),\\[0.3cm]
\textbf{y}(t) & = & \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
C & 0\\
\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf v}(t)\\
{\bf p}(t)\\
\end{array}\right], \end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
and we call it a descriptor system since the matrix $\bf M$ is singular. It uses the following matrix-pencil
\begin{equation}
\label{pencil}
\left(\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
A & G\\
G^T & 0\\
\end{array}\right], \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
M & 0\\
0 & 0\\
\end{array}\right]\right).
\end{equation}
This matrix pencil has $n_v-n_p$ finite eigenvalues $\lambda_i \in \mathbb C \setminus {0}$ and $2n_p$ infinite eigenvalues $\lambda_{\infty} = \infty$, see \text{Theorem 2.1} in \cite{eigenvalues}. The system (\ref{syscompact}) is known as an index-2 descriptor dynamical system, for more details about the index of differential algebraic equation, see \cite{index}. For a Reynolds number ($Re \ge 300$), some eigenvalues of the matrix pencil ($\bf A, \bf M$) lie in $\mathbb C^+$, see \cite{benner15}.\\
Next, we present a whole process that allows us to reduce such systems. We describe a model reduction technique via a Krylov subspace-based
method in order to construct an efficient reduced order system to (\ref{syscompact}) that has nearly the same response characteristics. To guarantee a well processing
of our suggested method, we need to establish a transformation of the system
(\ref{syscompact}) into an ordinary differential equations (ODEs).
\subsection{Deriving the ODE system}
\label{trans-ode}
We first eliminate the discrete pressure \textbf{p} from (\ref{eq1}) using the following projection operator
$$ \Pi = I_n - G\,(G^T M^{-1} G)^{-1} \, G^T M^{-1} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_v\times n_v}.$$
It is easy to check that
$$(\Pi^T)^2 = \Pi^T, \quad \Pi^2 = \Pi,\quad \Pi \, G = 0, \quad \Pi \, M = M \, \Pi^T \, {\rm and}\, M^{-1} \, \Pi = \Pi^{T} M^{-1}. $$
The projection $\Pi^T$ is an $M$-orthogonal projection where
for $x,\, y\in \mathbb R^{n_v}$ and $M\in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_v}$, the $M$-inner product is defined by
\begin{equation*}
<x,y>_M = (x,My) = y^T Mx \quad (M \,\text{is a symmetric positive definite matrix}).
\end{equation*}
Notice that
$$\text{null}(\Pi^T)=\text{range}(M^{-1} G) \quad and \quad \text{range}(\Pi^T)=\text{null}(G^T).$$
By using all these properties we can show that
\begin{equation}
\label{prop1}
0= G^T \textbf{v}(t) \qquad \text{if and only if } \qquad \textbf{v}(t)=\Pi^T \textbf{v}(t).
\end{equation}
\noindent Multiplying (\ref{eq1}) by $G^T\,M^{-1}$ and using (\ref{cond1}), the term ${\bf p}$ can be expressed as follows
$${\bf p}(t) = -(G^T\, M^{-1} \, G)^{-1}G^T\, M^{-1}\,A{\bf v}(t)-(G^T\, M^{-1} \, G)^{-1} G^T\,M^{-1}\,B \textbf{u}(t).$$
Replacing $\textbf{p}$ in (\ref{eq1}) and multiplying by $\Pi$ yields to the following projected system
\begin{subequations}
\label{pisys}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M} \, \dfrac{d}{dt}{\bf v}(t) &= {\cal A} {\bf v}(t)+{\cal B}\textbf{u}(t),\\
\textbf{y}(t) &= {\cal C} {\bf v}(t).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\noindent Where ${\cal A}= \Pi\, A\,\Pi^T, \, \mathcal{M}=\Pi\, M\,\Pi^T, \, {\cal B}=\Pi\, B$ and ${\cal C}=C\,\Pi^T$.
Since the matrix-pencil given by (\ref{pencil}) has $n_v-n_p$ finite eigenvalues \cite{eigenvalues}, a decomposition of $\Pi$ can be made by employing the thin singular value decomposition which leads to the following decomposition
$$\Pi =\Theta_l \Theta_r^T,$$
where $\Theta_l, \, \Theta_r \in \mathbb R^{n_v\times (n_v-n_p)}$, are full rank matrices satisfying
$$\Theta_l^T \Theta_r = \text{I}_{(n_v-n_p)}.$$
By inserting this decomposition into (\ref{pisys}) and considering a new variable $\tilde{{\bf v}}(t)= \Theta_l^T {\bf v}(t)$ with $\Theta_r\tilde{{\bf v}}(t)= \Theta_r\Theta_l^T {\bf v}(t)=\Pi^T {\bf v}(t)={\bf v}(t)$,
we get the following ODE system
\begin{subequations}
\label{thetarsys}
\begin{align}
\label{mthetasys}
M_{\Theta} \, \dfrac{d}{dt}\tilde{{\bf v}}(t) &= A_{\Theta} \tilde{{\bf v}}(t)+ B_{\Theta}\textbf{u}(t),\\
y(t) &= C_{\Theta}\tilde{{\bf v}}(t),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $M_{\Theta}= \Theta_r^T M \Theta_r, \,A_{\Theta}= \Theta_r^T A \Theta_r \in \mathbb R^{(n_v-n_p) \times (n_v-n_p)}, \, B_{\Theta}= \Theta_r^T B \in \mathbb R^{(n_v-n_p) \times n_b},$ $C_{\Theta}= C \Theta_r \in \mathbb R^{n_c \times (n_v-n_p)}$. The matrix $M_{\Theta}$ is non-singular due to the fact that $M$ is symmetric and positive definite. Notice that the three systems (\ref{DAE1}), (\ref{pisys}) and (\ref{thetarsys}) are equivalent in the sense that their finite spectrum is the same \cite{spectrum} and also they realize the same transfer function. Before proving this result we give the definition of a transfer function associated to the dynamical system (\ref{thetarsys}), to this end, we apply the Laplace transform given by
$$L(f)(s) :=\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-st}f(t)dt,$$
to the system (\ref{thetarsys}), then we get the new system in the frequency domain
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} sM_{\Theta}\, \widetilde{\bf V}(s) &=& A_{\Theta}\,\widetilde{\bf V}(s)+B_{\Theta}\,U(s), \\ Y(s) &=& C_{\Theta}\,\widetilde{\bf V}(s). \end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
Where $\widetilde{\bf V}(s), \, {\bf U}(s)$ and ${\bf Y}(s)$ are the Laplace transform of $\tilde{{\bf v}}(t), \, {\bf u}(t)$ and $y(t)$ respectively. By eliminating $\widetilde{\bf V}(s)$ from the two equations, we obtain
$${\bf Y}(s)=F_{\Theta}(s)\,{\bf U}(s),$$
where
\begin{equation}
F_{\Theta}(s)= C_{\Theta} (sM_{\Theta}- A_{\Theta})^{-1} B_{\Theta},
\end{equation}
is the transfer function associated to the system (\ref{thetarsys}).
\begin{remark}
Let $F_m$ be the transfer function associated to the reduced system. In order to measure the accuracy of the resulting reduced system, we have to compute the error $\|F_{\Theta}-F_m\|$ with respect to a specific norm. This error can also be used to know how the response of the reduced system is close to that of the original one since $\Vert {\bf Y}(s)-{\bf Y}_m(s) \Vert \le \Vert F_{\Theta}(s)-F_m(s) \Vert \, \Vert {\bf U}(s) \Vert$.
\end{remark}
Denote by $X=\Theta_r (sM_{\Theta}- A_{\Theta})^{-1} B_{\Theta}$, then $F_{\Theta}= C X$. In addition, $X$ satisfies
$$B_{\Theta} = (sM_{\Theta}- A_{\Theta}) \Theta_l^T X, $$ or equivalently,
$$\Pi B = \Pi (sM-A) \Pi^T X.$$
Due to the facts that $range(\Pi^T)= null(G^T)$ and $G$ is of full rank, we can verify that
\begin{align*}
\begin{bmatrix}
s M-A & -G \\
-G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
X \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix}. \\
\end{align*}
In fact, the relation $range(\Pi^T)= null(G^T)$ guarantees
$$G^TX=0,$$
and the full rank $G$ leads to
$$\star = (G^TG)^{-1} G^T [(s M-A)X-B],$$
thus, the desired result
\begin{align}
\label{tf}
F_{\Theta}(s) = C \, X &=\begin{bmatrix}
C & 0
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
X\\
\star
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
C & 0
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
s M-A & -G \\
-G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix}^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix} = F(s),
\end{align}
where $F(s)$ is the transfer function associated to the original system (\ref{DAE1}). The technique used here allows us to solve a saddle point problem instead of solving a linear system depending on the dense matrix $\Pi$ and its $\Theta$-decomposition as established earlier in \cite{bt}.
\begin{remark}
We notice that instead of reducing the original system (\ref{syscompact}), we can reduce the ODE system (\ref{thetarsys}) since it has the same transfer functions as it is shown in (\ref{tf}).
\end{remark
The matrices involved in (\ref{thetarsys}) are dense due to the projector $\Pi$ and its decomposition and that is why we need a strategy to avoid using direct computations with these matrices. In the next subsection, we show how to construct a reduced order system to (\ref{thetarsys}) by using the structure of the original system (\ref{syscompact}) without requiring any explicit computation of the dense matrices ($M_{\Theta}, A_{\Theta}, B_{\Theta}, C_{\Theta}$), and this leads to a considerable saving of cost and storage. Our calculations involve the implicit use of the system (\ref{thetarsys}) and this implies solving saddle point problems. Details are given in the next section.
\section{A model reduction method to a descriptor index-2 dynamical system}\label{sec3}
Our goal is to find a reduced system to (\ref{thetarsys}) since it realizes the same transfer function of (\ref{syscompact}) as we mentioned before. This new system can be constructed using a projection technique onto an extended block Krylov subspace that is defined in the following subsection.
\subsection{The extended block Arnoldi algorithm}
Multiplying from the left of the first equation of the system (\ref{thetarsys}) by the inverse of $M_{\Theta}$ gives the following system which will be called the {\it $\Theta$-system}
\begin{subequations}
\label{thetasys}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d}{dt}\tilde{{\bf v}}(t) &= M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \tilde{{\bf v}}(t)+ M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}\textbf{u}(t),\\
y(t) &= C_{\Theta}\tilde{{\bf v}}(t).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The extended block Krylov subspace associated to the pair $(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})$ is defined as follows
\begin{align*}
\mathbb {K}^{ext}_m(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})&={\tt Range}([ (M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{-m}(M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}),\ldots,(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{-1}(M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})\\ & (M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}),(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta}) (M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}), \ldots, (M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{m-1} (M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})]).
\end{align*}
The extended block Arnoldi algorithm for the pair $(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})$ is summarized in the following algorithm.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{The extended block Arnoldi algorithm associated to the {\it $\Theta$ system}}\label{ext1}
\begin{itemize}
\item Inputs: $ M_{\Theta} \in \mathbb R^{(n_v-n_p) \times (n_v-n_p)}, \, \,A_{\Theta} \in \mathbb R^{(n_v-n_p) \times (n_v-n_p)}$, $ B_{\Theta} \in \mathbb R^{(n_v-n_p) \times n_b}$ and $m$.
\item Compute $[{\cal V}_1^b, \Lambda]= {\tt qr}([ M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}, (M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{-1}\, M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}])$.
\item For $j=1,\ldots,m $
\begin{enumerate}
\item Set ${\cal V}_j^{(1)}$: first $n_b$ columns of ${\cal V}_j^b$; ${\cal V}_j^{(2)}$: second $n_b$ columns of ${\cal V}_j^b$.
\item $\widetilde {\cal V}_{j+1} = [(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})\,{\cal V}_j^{(1)}, (M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{-1}\,{\cal V}_j^{(2)}]$.
\item Orthogonalize $\widetilde {\cal V}_{j+1}$ with respect to ${\cal V}_1^b,\ldots,{\cal V}_j^b$ to get ${\cal V}_{j+1}^b$, i.e.,\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} for $ i=1,2,\ldots,j $ \\
\hspace*{1cm} $ H_{i,j} = ({\cal V}_i^b)^{T} \,\widetilde {\cal V}_{j+1} $.\\
\hspace*{1cm} $ \widetilde {\cal V}_{j+1} = \widetilde {\cal V}_{j+1} - {\cal V}_i^b\,H_{i,j} $.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} end for
\item $ [{\cal V}_{j+1}^b, \; H_{j+1,j}] = QR(\widetilde {\cal V}_{j+1})$.
\item ${\cal V}_{j+1} = [{\cal V}_j, \; {\cal V}_{j+1}^b]$.
\end{enumerate}
End For.
\end{itemize}${}$
\label{thetaalgo}
\end{algorithm}
The extended block Arnoldi algorithm allows us to construct an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb {K}^{ext}_m(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})$ formed by the columns of $\{{\cal V}_1^b,\ldots,{\cal V}_m^b\}$, where ${\cal V}^b_j$ for ($j=1, \ldots, m$) are $(n_v-n_p) \times 2n_b$ matrices. We also have some classical algebraic properties given in the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
Let ${\cal V}_m =[{\cal V}_1^b,\ldots, {\cal V}_m^b] \in \mathbb R^{2mn_b \times 2mn_b}$ be the matrix generated using the extended block Arnoldi Algorithm \ref{thetaalgo} to the pairs $(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})$, $\mathbb {T}_m= {\cal V}_m^T \, M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m$. Then we have the following results
\begin{align}
\label{eq3.1}
M_{\Theta}^{-1} A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m &= {\cal V}_{m+1} \, \overline \mathbb {T}_m \\
&= {\cal V}_m \, \mathbb {T}_m + {\cal V}_{m+1}^b \, T_{m+1,m} E_m^T,
\end{align}
where $T_{m+1,m}$ is the last $2n_b \times 2n_b$ block of $\overline{\mathbb {T}}_m \in \mathbb R^{2(m+1)n_b\times 2mn_b}$ and $E_m^T$ is the last $2n_b$ columns of the identity matrix $I_{2mn_b}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Using the fact that
$$M_{\Theta}^{-1} A_{\Theta} \mathbb {K}^{ext}_m(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}) \subset \mathbb {K}^{ext}_{m+1}(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}), $$
and the orthogonality of ${\cal V}_m$, there exists a matrix $L$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eqalgtheta}
M_{\Theta}^{-1} A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m = {\cal V}_{m+1} \, L.
\end{align}
It has been shown that $\mathbb {T}_m$ is an upper block Hessenberg matrix in \cite{heyouni,simoncini} and also that $\mathbb {T}_m$ can be computed directly from the columns of the upper block Hessenberg matrix $\mathbb {H}_m$ generated by Algorithm \ref{newextd}. Since ${\cal V}_{m+1}=[{\cal V}_m, {\cal V}_{m+1}^b],$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb {T}_{m+1} &=& {\cal V}_{m+1}^T \, M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_{m+1} \\
&=& \begin{bmatrix}
{\cal V}_m^T \, M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m & {\cal V}_m^TM_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_{m+1}^b \\
({\cal V}_{m+1}^b)^T \, M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m & ({\cal V}_{m+1}^b)^T M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta}{\cal V}_{m+1}^b
\end{bmatrix} \\
&=& \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb {T}_m & {\cal V}_m^TM_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_{m+1}^b \\
({\cal V}_{m+1}^b)^T \, M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m & ({\cal V}_{m+1}^b)^T M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta}{\cal V}_{m+1}^b
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We know that $\mathbb {T}_{m+1}$ is also un upper block Hessenberg matrix, then $$T_{m+1,m}\, E_m^T = ({\cal V}_{m+1}^b)^T \, M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m,$$ and
$$\overline \mathbb {T}_m = {\cal V}_{m+1}^T M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} {\cal V}_m =\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb {T}_m\\
T_{m+1,m} E_m^T
\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb R^{2(m+1)n_b \times 2mn_b}.$$
Multiplying by ${\cal V}_{m+1}^T$ from the left of (\ref{eqalgtheta}), we obtain $\overline \mathbb {T}_{m} = L$. As a consequence we get the desired result
\begin{align*}
M_{\Theta}^{-1} A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m &= {\cal V}_{m+1} \, \overline \mathbb {T}_m \label{eq11} \\
&=[{\cal V}_m, {\cal V}_{m+1}^b]\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb {T}_m\\
T_{m+1,m} E_m^T
\end{bmatrix} \\
&= {\cal V}_m \, \mathbb {T}_m + {\cal V}_{m+1}^b \, T_{m+1,m} E_m^T.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
After constructing the matrix ${\cal V}_m$ corresponding to the basis of the extended block Krylov subspace $\mathbb {K}^{ext}_m(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}) $,
we can now built the reduced system by considering the approximation $\tilde{{\bf v}}(t) \approx {\cal V}_m {\bf v}_m(t)$ and by replacing in (\ref{thetarsys}), and then imposing the Petrov-Galerking condition, we obtain the following projected reduced order dynamical system
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \mathcal{M}_m\dot{{\bf v}}_m(t) &=& {\cal A}_m\,{\bf v}_m(t)+{\cal B}_m\,{\bf u}(t), \\ y_m(t) &=& {\cal C}_m\,{\bf v}_m(t), \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
with the associated transfer function $F_m(s)={\cal C}_m(s\mathcal{M}_m-{\cal A}_m)^{-1}{\cal B}_m$, where $\mathcal{M}_m={\cal V}_m^T \mathcal{M} {\cal V}_m, \, \, {\cal A}_m={\cal V}_m^T {\cal A} {\cal V}_m \in \mathbb R^{2mn_b \times 2mn_b}$ and ${\cal B}_m={\cal V}_m^T {\cal B} \in \mathbb R^{2mn_b \times n_b}, \,\, {\cal C}_m= C {\cal V}_m \in \mathbb R^{n_c \times 2mn_b }$. \\
As we mentioned before, the explicit computation of ${\cal V}_m$ is prohibitive in our approach since the $j$-th block ${\cal V}_j^b$ of ${\cal V}_m$ relies on $\Theta_r$, which will make our calculations infeasible due to the density of the $\Theta$-decomposition of the projection $\Pi$. In what follows, we describe an appropriate process to get a reduced system to (\ref{thetasys}) by avoiding an explicit computation of ${\cal V}_m$.\\
The main computational issue when we apply the extended block Arnoldi Algorithm \ref{thetaalgo} to the pair $(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})$ is to compute blocks of the form
\begin{align}
\label{block1}
\widetilde{{\cal V}}_1 &= [M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}, (M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{-1} M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}]\\
&=[\widetilde{{\cal V}}_1^{(1)},\widetilde{{\cal V}}_1^{(2)}],
\end{align}
and for $j=1,\ldots,m$,
\begin{align}
\label{block2}
\widetilde{{\cal V}}_{j+1} &= [(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})\,{\cal V}_j^{(1)}, (M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{-1}\,{\cal V}_j^{(2)}]\\
&=[\widetilde{{\cal V}}_{j+1}^{(1)},\widetilde{{\cal V}}_{j+1}^{(2)}],
\end{align}
where ${\cal V}_j^{(1)}$ and ${\cal V}_j^{(2)}$ are the first and second $n_b$ columns of ${\cal V}_j^b$, respectively. Our strategy consists in reformulating those blocks onto new ones without an explicit calculation of $\Theta_r$. We set $\widetilde{\mathbb{V}}_m = \Theta_r \widetilde{{\cal V}}_m \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2mn_b}$ where $\widetilde{{\cal V}}_m =[\widetilde{{\cal V}}_1,\ldots, \widetilde{{\cal V}}_m] \in \mathbb R^{(n_v-n_p) \times 2mn_b}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbb{V}}_m =[\widetilde{V}_1,\ldots, \widetilde{V}_m] \in \mathbb R^{n_v\times 2mn_b}$ satisfying
\begin{align}
\label{Pitvm_old}
\Pi^T \widetilde{\mathbb{V}}_m= \Theta_r \Theta_l^T \widetilde{\mathbb{V}}_m=\Theta_r \widetilde{{\cal V}}_m = \widetilde{\mathbb{V}}_m,
\end{align}
We set again $\mathbb{V}_m = \Theta_r {\cal V}_m \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2mn_b}$. All the $j$-th block $V_j \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2n_b}$ of $\mathbb{V}_m$ are computed in an appropriate way, which means that we do not include the matrix $\Theta_r$ in our computation and also not the block ${\cal V}_j^b$. Details are given in Algorithm \ref{newextd}.
\begin{align}
\label{Pitvm}
\Pi^T \mathbb{V}_m= \Theta_r \Theta_l^T \mathbb{V}_m=\Theta_r {\cal V}_m = \mathbb{V}_m,
\end{align}
The result (\ref{Pitvm_old}) confirms that $G^T \widetilde{\mathbb{V}}_m=0$ as it is shown in (\ref{prop1}), and consequently we obtain the following relations
\begin{itemize}
\item $M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta} = \widetilde{{\cal V}}_1^{(1)}$,
\item $M_{\Theta} \widetilde{{\cal V}}_1^{(1)}=B_{\Theta}$,
\item $\Theta_r^T M \Theta_r \widetilde{{\cal V}}_1^{(1)} =\Theta_r B$,
\item $\Pi M \Pi^T \widetilde{V}_1^{(1)} =\Pi B$,
\item $\Pi (M \widetilde{V}_1^{(1)}-B) =0$,
\item $(M \widetilde{V}_1^{(1)}-B) \in null(\Pi)=range(G)$.
\end{itemize}
Then, the first $n_b$ block-column $\widetilde{V}_{1}^{(1)}$ of $\widetilde{V}_{1} \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2n_b}$ can be computed by solving the following saddle point problem
$$\begin{bmatrix}
M & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{V}_1^{(1)} \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix}.$$
The same process can be used to get $\widetilde{V}_1^{(2)}$ by starting from the following linear system $$(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{-1}\, M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta} =\widetilde{{\cal V}}_1^{(2)}.$$ After that, one can use the {\tt qr} function (in MATLAB) to find the block $V_1=[V_1^{(1)}, V_1^{(2)}] \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2n_b}$ as described in Algorithm \ref{newextd}.
To get the first $n_b$ block-column $\widetilde{V}_{j+1}^{(1)}$ of $\widetilde{V}_{j+1}$, we use the following steps
\begin{itemize}
\item $(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta}){\cal V}_{j}^{(1)} = \widetilde{{\cal V}}_{j+1}^{(1)},$
\item $M_{\Theta} \widetilde{{\cal V}}_{j+1}^{(1)}=A_{\Theta}{\cal V}_{j}^{(1)},$
\item $\Theta_r^T M \Theta_r \widetilde{{\cal V}}_{j+1}^{(1)} =\Theta_r^T A \Theta_r {\cal V}_{j}^{(1)},$
\item $\Pi M \Pi^T \widetilde{V}_{j+1}^{(1)} =\Pi A V_j^{(1)},$
\item $\Pi (M \widetilde{V}_{j+1}^{(1)}-A V_j^{(1)}) =0,$
\item $(M \widetilde{V}_{j+1}^{(1)}-A V_j^{(1)}) \in null(\Pi)=range(G).$
\end{itemize}
\noindent Then we have to solve the following saddle point problem
$$\begin{bmatrix}
M & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{V}_{j+1}^{(1)} \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
A V_j^{(1)} \\
0
\end{bmatrix}.$$
In the same manner, we can compute the last $n_b$ column $\widetilde{V}_{j+1}^{(2)}$ of $\widetilde{V}_{j+1}$ by starting from this linear system $(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta})^{-1}\,{\cal V}_j^{(2)} =\widetilde{{\cal V}}_{j+1}^{(2)} $ and following the same previous process.\\
After showing how to compute the block vectors (\ref{block1}) and (\ref{block2}) without computing neither the matrix ${\cal V}_m$ corresponding to the orthonormal basis of $\mathbb {K}^{ext}_m(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})$ nor $\Theta$-decomposition of $\Pi$, we can now present the new extended block Arnoldi algorithm based only on the sparse system matrices of the index-2 system. Here, we have to mention that this algorithm is based on a Gram-Shmidt orthogonalization process, which reconstructs the blocks $\{V_1,\ldots, V_m\}$, such that their columns form an orthonormal matrix $\mathbb{V}_m$ as described in Algorithm \ref{newextd} step 3.c. This matrix will be used in order to get an efficient reduced system to the index-2 original one (\ref{DAE1}). Details are given in the next subsections. We summarize all these steps in the following algorithm.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{The extended block Arnoldi algorithm associated to the index-2 system}
\begin{itemize}
\item[] Inputs: $ M\in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_v}, \,A\in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_v}, \, G\in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_p},\,B\in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_b}$ and $m$.
\item[1.] solving the first saddle point problems
$$\begin{bmatrix}
M & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{V}_1^{(1)} \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}
A & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{V}_1^{(2)} \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix},$$
\item[2.] Compute $[V_1, \Lambda]= {\tt qr}\left( [\widetilde{V}_1^{(1)},\widetilde{V}_1^{(2)}]\right)$, $ \mathbb{V}_1 = [V_1].$
\item [3.] For $j=1,\ldots,m $
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a.] Set $V_j^{(1)}$: first $n_b$ columns of $V_j$; $V_j^{(2)}$: second $n_b$ columns of $V_j$.
\item[b.] $\widehat V_{j+1} = \left(\begin{bmatrix}
M & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{V}_{j+1}^{(1)} \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
A\,V_j^{(1)} \\
0
\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}
A & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\widetilde{V}_{j+1}^{(2)} \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
M\,V_j^{(2)} \\
0
\end{bmatrix}\right)$.
\item[c.] Orthogonalize $\widehat V_{j+1}$ with respect to $V_1,\ldots,V_j$ to get $V_{j+1}$, i.e.,\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} for $ i=1,2,\ldots,j $ \\
\hspace*{1cm} $ H_{i,j} = (V_i)^{T} \,\widehat V_{j+1} $; \\
\hspace*{1cm} $ \widehat V_{j+1} = \widehat V_{j+1} - V_i\,H_{i,j} $; \\
\hspace*{0.5cm} end for
\item[d.] $ [V_{j+1}, \; H_{j+1,j}] = QR(\widehat V_{j+1})$.
\item[e.] $\mathbb{V}_{j+1} = [\mathbb{V}_j, \; V_{j+1}]$.
\end{enumerate}
End For.
\end{itemize}${}$
\label{newextd}
\end{algorithm}
\noindent As we noticed, the main steps of Algorithm \ref{newextd} is the solution of a saddle-point problems of $n_v+n_p$ dimension in Step 1 and in Step 3.b, and we are interesting only in the first $n_v$ rows. At each iteration, a direct solver $"\backslash", \, \text{ a built-in function on MATLAB}$, is used to solve these saddle point problems. The new vector $V_{j+1}$ of the matrix $\mathbb{V}_m$ can be computed via the Gram-Shmidt process as we explain in the Step 3.c. The $"\star"$ refers to an $n_p \times n_b$ block that is not taken into account.
After $m$ steps of Algorithm \ref{newextd}, we get an orthonormal matrix $\mathbb{V}_m = \left [V_1,V_2,\ldots,V_m \right ] \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2mn_b}$ with $V_i \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2n_b}$. This algorithm built also an upper block Hessenberg matrix $\mathbb {H}_m \in \mathbb R^{2mn_b \times 2mn_b}$ whose non zero blocks are the $H_{i,j}$. Notice that each submatrix $H_{i,j}$ ($1 \le i \le j \le m $) is of order $2n_b \times 2n_b$.
A similar algebraic relations to the one given by (\ref{eq3.1}) can be derived using only the sparse matrices $M,A$ and also the matrix $\mathbb{V}_m$ generated by Algorithm \ref{newextd}. We present this result in the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{Tm}
Let $\mathbb{V}_m \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2mn_b}$ and $\overline \mathbb {T}_m \in \mathbb R^{2(m+1)n_b \times 2mn_b}$ be the orthonormal matrix and the upper block Hessenberg matrix generated by Algorithm\ref{newextd}, respectively. Then we have
\begin{align*}
M^{-1} \Pi\, A \mathbb{V}_m &=\mathbb{V}_{m+1} \, \overline \mathbb {T}_m \\
&= \mathbb{V}_m \mathbb {T}_m + V_{m+1} T_{m+1,m} E_m^T,
\end{align*}
where $\Pi$ is the projection matrix defined earlier.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Multiplying from the left the relation (\ref{eq3.1}) by $\Theta_r$, and using the fact that $\mathbb{V}_m = \Theta_r {\cal V}_m$, we get
\begin{align}
\Theta_r M_{\Theta}^{-1} \Theta_r^T A\Theta_r \, {\cal V}_m &= \Theta_r{\cal V}_{m+1} \, \overline \mathbb {T}_m, \\
\label{eq12}\Theta_r M_{\Theta}^{-1}\Theta_r^T A\mathbb{V}_m &=\mathbb{V}_{m+1} \, \overline \mathbb {T}_m.
\end{align}
On the other hand, we know that $\Pi M= M \Pi^T$ by definition of $\Pi$, and by using the fact that $\Pi M \Theta_r= M\Theta_r$ by the $\Theta$-decomposition, we obtain the following relations
\begin{align*}
\Pi M \Theta_r&= M\Theta_r,\\
\Theta_l \Theta_r^T M \Theta_r &= M \Theta_r, \\
\Theta_l M_{\Theta} &= M \Theta_r,\\
M^{-1} \Theta_l &= \Theta_r M_{\Theta}^{-1}, \\
\Theta_r M_{\Theta}^{-1}\Theta_r^T &= M^{-1} \Pi.
\end{align*}
\noindent Replacing the last relation in the formula (\ref{eq12}), we get the desired result.
\end{proof}
\noindent Notice that from Step 1 of Algorithm \ref{newextd}, we have
\begin{align}
\label{step1algo}
[V_1, \Lambda]= {\tt qr}\left([v,w]\right),
\end{align}
where $\Lambda \in \mathbb R^{2n_b \times 2n_b}$ is an upper triangular matrix defined by
$$\Lambda = \begin{bmatrix}
\Lambda^{(1,1)} & \Lambda^{(1,2)} \\
0 & \Lambda^{(2,2)}
\end{bmatrix},
$$
and $v,\, w$ are the solutions of the following saddle point problems
$$\begin{bmatrix}
M & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
v \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix} \; and \;
\begin{bmatrix}
A & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
w \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix}.$$
We notice that $$\begin{bmatrix}
M & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
v \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix} \Leftrightarrow \Pi M \Pi^T v = \Pi B, \, \, (\text{with}\; \Pi^T v=v),$$ and from (\ref{step1algo}) we get $$ [v,w]=[V_1^{(1)},V_1^{(2)} ] \, \begin{bmatrix}
\Lambda^{(1,1)} & \Lambda^{(1,2)} \\
0 & \Lambda^{(2,2)}
\end{bmatrix},$$
thus
$$v=V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}, $$
and then
\begin{align}
\label{b}
\mathbb{V}_m^T \, M^{-1} \, \Pi B = \mathbb{V}_m^T V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)} = \begin{bmatrix} I_{n_b} \\ 0_{n_b} \\ \vdots \\ 0_{n_b} \end{bmatrix} \Lambda^{(1,1)}.
\end{align}
We have mentioned before that in order to reduce the original system (\ref{syscompact}), we can construct a reduced system from the $\Theta$ system (\ref{thetarsys}) since they realize the same transfer function as it is shown in (\ref{tf}). At the iteration $m$, we approximate $\tilde{{\bf v}}(t)$ by ${\cal V}_m \hat{\bf v}_m(t)$ where ${\cal V}_m$ is the matrix corresponding to the orthonormal basis of $\mathbb {K}^{ext}_m(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})$. By injecting the approximation of $\tilde{{\bf v}}(t)$ in the system (\ref{thetarsys}) and enforcing the Petrov-Galerkin condition, we get the following reduced system
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \dot{\hat{{\bf v}}}_m(t) &=& {\cal V}_m^T \, M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m\,\hat{\bf v}_m(t)+{\cal V}_m^T M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}{\bf u}(t), \\ y_m(t) &=& C_{\Theta}{\cal V}_m\,\hat{{\bf v}}_m(t). \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
We know that $\mathbb {T}_m= {\cal V}_m^T \, M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m $ which can be computed only from the upper block Hessenberg matrix $\mathbb {H}_m$ generated by Algorithm \ref{newextd} as we mentioned before, also $C_{\Theta}{\cal V}_m = C \Theta_r {\cal V}_m= C \mathbb{V}_m$, and by using the fact that $M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta} \in \mathbb {K}^{ext}_m(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta},M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta})$ which confirms that ${\cal V}_m{\cal V}_m^T M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}=M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta}$, then we can prove
$${\cal V}_m^T M_{\Theta}^{-1}B_{\Theta} =\mathbb{V}_m^T \, M^{-1} \, \Pi B.$$
Finally, we get the following reduced order LTI dynamical system
\begin{equation}
\label{sysredu1}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \dot{\hat{\bf v}}_m(t) &=& \mathbb {T}_{m}\,\hat{\bf v}_m(t)+\mathbb {B}_m{\bf u}(t), \\ y_m(t) &=& \mathbb {C}_m\,\hat{\bf v}_m(t), \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb {B}_m= \begin{bmatrix} I_{n_b}, \, 0_{n_b},\ldots,0_{n_b} \end{bmatrix}^T \Lambda^{(1,1)} \in \mathbb R^{2mn_b \times n_b}$ as it is mentioned in (\ref{b}), and $\mathbb {C}_m= C\mathbb{V}_m \in \mathbb R^{n_c \times 2mn_b}$.\\
The reduced transfer function is given by
$$F_m(s) = \mathbb {C}_m(sI_{2mn_b}-\mathbb {T}_m)^{-1} \mathbb {B}_m.$$
Another way to construct a reduced system is by considering the system (\ref{thetarsys}) without inverting the matrix $M_{\Theta}$. We again approximate $\tilde{{\bf v}}(t)$ by ${\cal V}_m \hat{{\bf v}}_m(t)$ where ${\cal V}_m$ is a matrix described in the previous sections, then we get the following system
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} {\cal V}_m^T \, M_{\Theta}{\cal V}_m\dot{\hat{\bf v}}_m(t) &=& {\cal V}_m^T \, A_{\Theta} \, {\cal V}_m\,\hat{\bf v}_m(t)+{\cal V}_m^T B_{\Theta}{\bf u}(t), \\ y_m(t) &=& C_{\Theta}{\cal V}_m\,\hat{{\bf v}}_m(t), \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
using the fact that $\mathbb{V}_m= \Theta_r {\cal V}_m$, we get the following reduced system
\begin{equation}
\label{sysredu2}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \mathbb {M}_m\dot{\hat{\bf v}}_m(t) &=& \mathbb {A}_m\,\hat{{\bf v}}_m(t)+\mathbb {B}_m{\bf u}(t), \\ y_m(t) &=& \mathbb {C}_m\,\hat{{\bf v}}_m(t), \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
with the associated reduced transfer function $$F_m(s) = \mathbb {C}_m(s\mathbb {M}_m-\mathbb {A}_m)^{-1} \mathbb {B}_m,$$
where $\mathbb {M}_m= \mathbb{V}_m^T M \mathbb{V}_m,\, \mathbb {A}_m= \mathbb{V}_m^T A\mathbb{V}_m, \, \mathbb {B}_m= \mathbb{V}_m^TB$ and $\mathbb {C}_m=C\mathbb{V}_m.$\\ In Algorithm \ref{newextd} we gave a description of the process to get the matrix $\mathbb{V}_m$ without any explicit computation of ${\cal V}_m$ or $\Theta_r$. \\
\begin{remark}
The two reduced dynamical systems (\ref{sysredu1}) and (\ref{sysredu2}) are considered efficient reduced systems compared to the original one represented by the index-2 system (\ref{syscompact}), but numerically the first reduced system is more economical since its system matrices ($\mathbb {T}_{m}\, \mathbb {B}_m,\, \mathbb {C}_m$) could be computed appropriately and without requiring matrix-vector products with $A$ and $M$ which is the case for the second reduced system represented by the system matrices ($\mathbb {M}_m,\mathbb {A}_m,\mathbb {B}_m, \, \mathbb {C}_m$).
\end{remark}
\section{Solving the LQR problem based on a Riccati feedback approach}
\label{sec4}
The linear quadratic regulator is a well-known classical method for constructing controlled feedback gains. This feedback allows the design of stable and efficient closed-loop systems. We used the transformation explained in Subsection \ref{trans-ode} that allows us to deal with an LQR problem governed by an ODE instead of an LQR problem governed by an DAE. Following that, a classical LQR theory can be applied to solve the new problem based on a Riccati feedback approach. The main issue with this approach is the solution of a generalized algebraic Riccati equation (GARe). We mentioned earlier that all calculations are performed using the structure of the original DAE system and not that of the ODE one due to the density of projection $\Pi$ and its $\Theta$-decomposition which can make our calculations infeasible.
\subsection{The LQR problem associated to the ODE system}
The LQR problem consists in minimizing the following cost functional
\begin{align} \label{cost}
{\cal J}(\tilde{{\bf v}},\textbf{u}(t)) :=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty} (\tilde{{\bf v}}^TC_{\theta}^TC_{\theta}\tilde{{\bf v}} + \textbf{u}(t)^T\textbf{u}(t)) \, \, \text{dt},
\end{align}
subject to the ODE system (\ref{thetarsys}) constraints defined earlier in Section \ref{sec2}. According to the LQR approach, the optimal control that minimizes the functional coast (\ref{cost}) subject to the dynamical constraints (\ref{thetarsys}) is given by
\begin{align}
\textbf{u}_{\star}(t) = -\underbrace{B_{\theta}^TX_{\theta} M_{\theta}}_{:=K_{\Theta}}\tilde{{\bf v}},
\end{align}
where $X_{\theta} \in \mathbb R^{(n_v-n_p) \times (n_v-n_p)}$ is the unique symmetric semi-definite positive stabilizing solution of the following generalized algebraic Riccati equation (GARe)
\begin{align}\label{riccati}
\mathcal{R}(X_{\Theta}) :=A_{\Theta}^TX_{\Theta}\,M_{\Theta} + M_{\Theta}\,X_{\Theta}\,A_{\Theta} -M_{\Theta}\,X_{\Theta}\,B_{\Theta}B_{\Theta}^TX_{\Theta}\,M_{\Theta}+ C_{\Theta}^TC_{\Theta} = 0.
\end{align}
The unique solution $X_{\Theta}$ can be computed using an extended block Krylov subspace method. This solution is the main ingredient to construct the feedback matrix $K_{\Theta} \in \mathbb R^{n_b \times (n_v-n_p)}$ that asymptotically stabilizes the ODE system (\ref{thetarsys}). However, solving the GARe (\ref{riccati}) is not recommended in our process due to the presence of $\Theta$-decomposition of the projection $\Pi$. In the next subsections, we describe how to solve such an algebraic equation (\ref{riccati}) without using the $\Theta$-decomposition in our computations.
\subsection{Solving the generalized algebraic Riccati equation}
Our goal is to solve the GARe (\ref{riccati}) without any explicit computation of the dense matrices ($M_{\Theta}, A_{\Theta}, B_{\Theta}, C_{\Theta}$). This statement intended to the fact that those matrices rely on $\Theta_r$, and a direct use of them can make our calculations impractical due to the density of $\Theta$-decomposition of the projection $\Pi$.
A multiplication from the left and right of (\ref{riccati}) by $\Theta_l$ and $\Theta_l^T$, respectively, gives the following result
\begin{align*}
\Pi A^T \Theta_rX_{\Theta}\Theta_r^TM \Pi^T+ \Pi M \Theta_rX_{\Theta}\Theta_r^T A \Pi^T -\Pi M \Theta_rX_{\Theta}\Theta_r^TB B^T\theta_rX_{\theta}\theta_r^T &M\Pi^T\\
&+ \Pi C^TC \Pi^T = 0.
\end{align*}
Setting $X=\Theta_rX_{\Theta}\Theta_r^T$, and using the fact that $\Pi M=M \Pi^T$, we get
$$\Pi A^T X \Pi M + M \Pi^TX A \Pi^T - M\Pi^T XB B^TX \Pi M + \Pi C^TC \Pi^T = 0.$$
Since $X \Pi = \Theta_r X_{\Theta}\Theta_r^T \Theta_l \Theta_r^T= \Theta_rX_{\Theta}\Theta_r^T =X$, same to $\Pi^T X=X$, then we obtain the following final result
\begin{align}\label{riccatinew}
\Pi A^T X M + M X A \Pi^T - M XB B^TX M + \Pi C^TC \Pi^T = 0.
\end{align}
If we set $K=B^T X M$ the feedback matrix associated to (\ref{riccatinew}), then the relation between $K_{\Theta}$ and $K$ is given as $$K_{\Theta} = B^T\Theta_rX_{\Theta}\Theta_r^T M \Theta_r =B^T X M \Theta_r = K \Theta_r.$$
In what follows, we describe an appropriate process to compute the unique solution $X=X^T \succeq 0$, by avoiding an explicit computation of $\Theta_r$ or the solution $X_{\Theta}$. Multiplying GARe (\ref{riccati}) from the left and the right by the inverse of $M_{\Theta}$, we get
$$M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta}^TX_{\Theta} + X_{\Theta}\,A_{\Theta} M_{\Theta}^{-1} -X_{\Theta}\,B_{\Theta}B_{\Theta}^TX_{\Theta}+ M_{\Theta}^{-1}C_{\Theta}^TC_{\Theta}M_{\Theta}^{-1} = 0.$$
Then we apply the extended block Arnoldi Algorithm \ref{thetaalgo} to the pair $(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta}^T,M_{\Theta}^{-1}C_{\Theta}^T).$
The same process described in Section \ref{sec3} is followed here. We set again $\mathbb{V}_m = \Theta_r {\cal V}_m \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2mn_c}$ satisfying
\begin{align}
\label{Pitvm2}
\Pi^T \mathbb{V}_m= \Theta_r \Theta_l^T \mathbb{V}_m=\Theta_r {\cal V}_m = \mathbb{V}_m.
\end{align}
As we mentioned before, the orthonormal matrix $\mathbb{V}_m$ can be constructed using the Algorithm \ref{newextd} without any explicit computation of ${\cal V}_m$ or $\Theta_r$. After $m$ iterations of the process, we can use Proposition \ref{Tm} to prove that
\begin{subequations}
\label{equaalgTm}
\begin{align}
M^{-1} \Pi\, A^T \mathbb{V}_m &=\mathbb{V}_{m+1} \, \overline \mathbb {T}_m \\
&= \mathbb{V}_m \mathbb {T}_m + V_{m+1} T_{m+1,m} E_m^T.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We seek for a low rank approximate solution to the GARe (\ref{riccatinew})
under the following form
\begin{equation}
\label{Xm}
X_m=\mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T,
\end{equation}
where $Y_m \in \mathbb R^{2mn_c \times 2mn_c}$ is the unique solution of a low-dimensional Riccati equation defined below. Replacing the approximation (\ref{Xm}) in the equation (\ref{riccatinew}) and multiplying from the left and right by the inverse of $M$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
M^{-1}\Pi A^T \mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T + \mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T A \Pi^T M^{-1} - \mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T&B B^T\mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T \\
&+ M^{-1}\Pi C^TC \Pi^TM^{-1} = 0,
\end{align*}
which gives
$$\mathbb {T}_{m} Y_m + Y_m \mathbb {T}_{m}^T - Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^TB B^T\mathbb{V}_m Y_m + \mathbb{V}_m^TM^{-1}\Pi C^TC \Pi^TM^{-1}\mathbb{V}_m = 0.$$
When we apply the extended block Arnoldi Algorithm \ref{thetaalgo} to the pair $(M_{\Theta}^{-1}A_{\Theta}^T,M_{\Theta}^{-1}C_{\Theta}^T)$, we can notice that $M_{\Theta}^{-1} C_{\Theta}^T={\cal V}_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}$ resulting from the use of {\tt qr} function in Step 2 and then
\begin{align*}
\Theta_r M_{\Theta}^{-1} C_{\Theta}^T&= \Theta_r {\cal V}_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}, \\
\Theta_r M_{\Theta}^{-1} \Theta_r^T C^T&= V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}.
\end{align*}
We already proved that $\Theta_r M_{\Theta}^{-1} \Theta_r^T= M^{-1} \Pi$, which gives
\begin{align}
M^{-1} \Pi\, C^T&= V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}, \label{piC}\\
\mathbb{V}_m^T M^{-1} \Pi\, C^T&=\mathbb{V}_m^T V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}= \begin{bmatrix} I_{n_c} \\ 0_{n_c} \\ \vdots \\ 0_{n_c} \end{bmatrix} \Lambda^{(1,1)}.
\end{align}
Finally, we obtain the following low-dimensional Riccati equation
\begin{align}\label{lowdimricca}
\mathbb {T}_{m} Y_m + Y_m \mathbb {T}_{m}^T - Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^TB B^T\mathbb{V}_m Y_m + \mathbb{V}_m^T V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}C^T (\mathbb{V}_m^T V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}C)^T=0,
\end{align}
which is solved by a direct method such as {\tt care} in MATLAB. \\
Let $R(X_m)$ be the residual corresponding to the approximation $X_m$ given by
\begin{subequations}
\label{residual}
\begin{eqnarray}
R(X_m) &=& M^{-1}\Pi A^T X_m + X_m A \Pi^T M^{-1}\\
&-&X_mB B^TX_m + M^{-1}\Pi C^TC \Pi^TM^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\noindent In order to stop the iterations, we need to compute the residual $R(X_m)$ given by (\ref{residual}) without involving $X_m$, since it becomes expensive as $m$ increases. The next result shows how to compute the residual norm of $R(X_m)$ without involving the approximate solution, which is given only in a factored form at the end of the process.
\begin{theorem1}
Let $\mathbb{V}_m \in \mathbb R^{2mn_c \times 2mn_c}$ be an orthonormal matrix generated by Algorithm\ref{newextd}. Let $X_m=\mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T$ be the approximate solution of the GARe (\ref{riccatinew}), then the residual norm is given by
\begin{equation}
\|R(X_m)\|=\|T_{m+1,m} E_m^T Y_m\|,
\end{equation}
where $E_m = [0_{2n_c \times 2(m-1)n_c},I_{2n_c}]^T$ and $\|\|$ is the abbreviation of $\|\|_2.$
\end{theorem1}
\begin{proof}
According to (\ref{equaalgTm}) and (\ref{residual}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
R(X_m)&=& M^{-1}\Pi A^T X_m + X_m A \Pi^T M^{-1}-X_mB B^TX_m +M^{-1}\Pi C^TC \Pi^TM^{-1} \\
&=& M^{-1}\Pi A^T \mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T + \mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T A \Pi^T M^{-1} - \mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^TB B^T\mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T + M^{-1}\Pi C^TC \Pi^TM^{-1} \\
&=& (\mathbb{V}_m \mathbb {T}_m +V_{m+1} T_{m+1,m} E_m^T)Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T + \mathbb{V}_m Y_m (\mathbb {T}_m^T \mathbb{V}_m^T + E_m T^T_{m+1,m} V_{m+1}^T) \\
&-& \mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^TB B^T\mathbb{V}_m Y_m \mathbb{V}_m^T
+M^{-1}\Pi C^TC \Pi^TM^{-1}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the fact that $ M^{-1} \Pi\, C= V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)}$ as it is described in (\ref{piC}), we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
R(X_m)&=& [\mathbb{V}_m, V_{m+1}] \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb {T}_m Y_m + Y_m \mathbb {T}_m^T + \, E_1 \Lambda^{(1,1)} (E_1 \Lambda^{(1,1)})^T & (T_{m+1,m} E_m^T Y_m)^T \\
T_{m+1,m} E_m^T Y_m & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb{V}_m\\
V_{m+1}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $Y_m$ is the symmetric solution of the low-dimensional Riccati equation, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
R(X_m)&=& \mathbb{V}_{m+1} \begin{bmatrix}
0 & (T_{m+1,m} E_m^T Y_m)^T \\
T_{m+1,m} E_m^T Y_m & 0
\end{bmatrix} \mathbb{V}_{m+1}^T,
\end{eqnarray*}
and finally we get the desired result
\begin{align}
\label{reresi}
\|R(X_m)\| = \|T_{m+1,m} E_m^T Y_m\|.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
We can check weather we get the desired convergence by verifying the test $\|R(X_m)\|< \epsilon$. Fortunately, the residual $\|R(X_m)\|$ can be computed in a suitable way as described in the theorem above, without computing the approximate solution $X_m$. We take the advantage of $X_m$ as a symmetric positive semi-definite, so it can be decomposed into a product of two matrices of low-rank as $X_m=Z Z^T$, where $Z$ is a matrix of rank less than or equal to $2m$. The benefit from this decomposition is that we just need to store $Z$ in order to compute the approximate solution $X_m$. Let $Y_m= U \Sigma V$, the SVD decomposition of $Y_m$ where $\Sigma$ is the matrix of the singular values of $Y_m$ sorted in decreasing order. Let {\tt dtol} some tolerance and define $U_r$, $ V_r$ as the first $r$ columns respectively of $U$ and $V$ corresponding to the $r$ singular values of magnitude greater than {\tt dtol}. In the numerical experiments, we set dtol=$10^{-12}$. Setting $\displaystyle{\Sigma_r}=[\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_r]$, we get $Y_m \approx U_r \Sigma_r V_r^T$, and it follows that
\begin{align}
\label{ZZT}
X_m \approx Z_m Z_m^T,
\end{align}
with $Z_m= \mathbb{V}_m U_r (\Sigma_r)^{1/2}.$
\noindent The iterations were stopped when the relative residual norm was less than {\it tol}$\, =10^{-8}$
\begin{equation}
\label{ter}
\frac{\|R(X_m)\|}{\|M^{-1}\Pi C^T C\Pi^TM^{-1}\|} < 10^{-8}.
\end{equation}
We mentioned before that all our results are obtained without any explicit computation of $\Pi$, so to compute $M^{-1}\Pi C^T$ in an appropriate manner we use the formula (\ref{piC}), and then
\begin{align}
\label{MPic}
M^{-1}\Pi C^T C \Pi^T M^{-1} = V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)} (V_1^{(1)} \Lambda^{(1,1)})^T,
\end{align}
where $ V_1^{(1)}$ is the first $n_c$ block-column of $V_1 \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times 2n_c}$ and $\Lambda^{(1,1)} \in \mathbb R^{n_c \times n_c}$ is the block $(1,1)$ of the upper triangular matrix $\Lambda \in \mathbb R^{2n_c \times 2n_c}$ previously described in (\ref{step1algo}).
The following algorithm summarizes all the results explained above.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{ Extended block Arnoldi Riccati algorithm (EBARA)}
\label{ERBALA}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] Inputs: ~$M,\, A\in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_v}$, $G \in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_p}$, $B\in \mathbb R^{n_v \times n_b}$, $C \in \mathbb R^{n_c \times n_v}$, tolerance $\epsilon$, dtol, number of iteration $m_{max}$.
\item[$\bullet$] Outputs: the approximate solution $X_m \approx Z_m Z_m^T$.
\item[$\bullet$] For $m=1, \cdots, m_{max}$
\item[$\bullet$] Use Algorithm \ref{newextd} to compute $\mathbb{V}_m$ an orthonormal matrix and compute $\mathbb {T}_m$ the block Hessenberg matrix.
\item[$\bullet$] Solve the low-dimensional Riccati equation (\ref{lowdimricca}) using the MATLAB function {\tt care}.
\item[$\bullet$] Compute the relative residual norm (\ref{ter}) using (\ref{reresi}) and (\ref{MPic}), and if it is less than $\epsilon$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute the SVD of $Y_m= U \Sigma V$ where $\Sigma= diag [\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_{2m}].$
\item Determine $r$ such that $\sigma_{r+1} < \text{dtol} \leq \sigma_r$, set $\Sigma_r =diag[\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_r]$ and compute $Z_m= \mathbb{V}_m U_r (\Sigma_r)^{1/2}$.
\end{enumerate}
end if.
\item[$\bullet$] End For
\end{itemize}
\label{ebaraalgo}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Numerical experiments}
In this section, we present some numerical results to confirm the performance of the proposed approaches. All the experiments were carried out using MATLAB R2018a on a computer with Intel $^\text{\textregistered}$ core i7 at 2.3GHz and 8Gb of RAM. The MATLAB programs representing the two algorithms (Algorithm \ref{newextd}, Algorithm \ref{ERBALA}) are available in \url{https://lmpa.univ-littoral.fr/index.php?page_id=8}. Our method is applied to a discretized Navier-Stokes equations as described in Section \ref{sec2}. We first show how our method allows us to build an efficient reduced model by presenting the transfer functions of the original and reduced systems with the associated error. Then we investigate the numerical solution of the GARe (\ref{riccatinew}) using Algorithm \ref{ebaraalgo} and as we mentioned earlier this numerical solution is actually the key to construct the matrix feedback used to stabilize the unstable system. All the data was provided from \cite{benner15}. Some information on this data are depicted in Table \ref{tabnvnp}. The state dimension $n_v$ refers to the dimension of the discretized velocity field, and $n_p$ is the dimension of the discretized pressure field, also sparsity of each matrix $A$ and $M$ is given, i.e., the ratio of the number of non-zero elements to the total number of elements in the matrix.
We used different dimensions of $n_v$ and $n_p$ corresponding to three levels.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{The matrix dimensions for different levels}
\label{tabnvnp}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
Level & $n_v$ & $n_p$ & full model ($n_v+n_p$) & sparsity of $A \, \& \, M$ \\%& sparsity of $M$ \\
\hline
1 & 4796 & 672 & 5468 & $4.6\cdot 10^{-3} \, \mid \, 2.3 \cdot 10^{-3} $ \\% & 2.3 \cdot 10^{-3} \\
2 & 12292 & 1650 & 13942 &$1.8 \cdot 10^{-3}\, \mid \, 9.05\cdot10^{-4}$ \\%& 9.0531\cdot10^{-4}\\
3 & 28914 & 3784 & 32698 & 7.79$\cdot10^{-4}\, \mid \,3.89\cdot10^{-4}$\\%&3.8972\cdot10^{-4}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Note that the norm used here is the ${\cal H}_{\infty}$ norm and it expressed as $\| F- F_m\|_{\infty}= \displaystyle\sup_{\omega \in \mathbb R}\|F(j\omega)-F_m(j\omega)\|_2$. To compute this norm we use the following functions from \texttt{lyapack} \cite{laypack}
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\tt lp$\_$lgfrq} : Generates a set of logarithmically distributed frequency sampling points $\omega \in [10^{-5},10^5]$.
\item {\tt lp$\_$gnorm} : Computes a vector which contains the 2-norm $$\| F-F_m\|= \sigma_{max}(F(i\omega)-F_m(i\omega)),$$ for each sampling points $\omega\in [10^{-5},10^5]$ and $i=\sqrt{-1}$.
\end{enumerate}
{\bf Example 1} For this example, we show the frequency response of the original and reduced systems. We considered the three models from Table \ref{tabnvnp} where we associate level 1 with Reynolds number $\text{Re}=300$, level 2 with $\text{Re}=400$ and level 3 with $\text{Re}=500$. For the three models we used $m=120$ and then the dimension of the reduced system is $2\times m\times n_b=480$. For a Reynolds number $\text{Re}<100$, Navier-Stokes flow starts to behave like a Stokes flow, and this comes from the fact that the convection term $(z \cdot \nabla )z$ in (\ref{NSequa}) doesn't have an important impact. Figures \ref{fig1}, \ref{fig2} and \ref{fig3} illustrate the obtained results comparing the original transfer function and its approximation for the three levels. We also plotted the error-norm between the two transfer functions. The computed error norm $\| F- F_m\|_{\infty}$ was $1.37 \cdot 10^{-5}$ for level 1, $\| F- F_m\|_{\infty}=9.82 \cdot 10^{-5}$ for level 2 and $\| F- F_m\|_{\infty}= 6.5 \cdot 10^{-4}$ for level 3.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerin
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{TF_lvl2_Re300_newV1-eps-converted-to}
\centering
\caption{Level 1 with Re= 300: Bode plot (left) and the error norms versus frequencies (right).}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm,height=6.5cm]{TF_lvl3_Re400_newV-eps-converted-to}
\caption{Level 2 with Re= 400: Bode plot (left) and the error norms versus frequencies (right). }
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{TF_lvl4_Re500_newV-eps-converted-to}
\caption{Level 3 with Re= 500: Bode plot (left) and the error norms versus frequencies (right).}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
{\bf Example 2} To investigate the efficiency of Algorithm \ref{newextd}, we compare our method to a common and deployed model order reduction method knows as the Balanced Truncation (BT). The main challenge in the BT is to solve larges-scale Lyapunov equations in order to obtain the system Gramians that will be used to generate a reduced model. The BT algorithm is available at the M-M.E.S.S. toolbox, see \cite{SaaKmess}. The authors used a different data from those presented in Table \ref{tabnvnp}. We chose from their data two level of discretization and we summarize in Table \ref{tabnvnp1} some information.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\caption{The matrix dimensions for different levels}
\label{tabnvnp1}
\vskip0.2cm
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
Level & $n_v$ & $n_p$ & full model ($n_v+n_p$) \\
\hline
1 & 3142 & 453 & 3595\\
2 & 8268 & 1123 & 9391 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
For the level 1 we used $m=70$ and $m=75$ for level 2. The tolerance truncation is set to $10^{-5}$. In Figure \ref{compfig1}, we plotted the norms $\Vert F(j\omega)\Vert_2$ and its approximation $\Vert F_m(j\omega)\Vert_2$ for different values of the frequency $\omega \in [10^{-5}, 10^5]$ of the two methods (our method and BT). As can be seen, we have obtained a perfect match between the original transfer function and its approximation for both methods. We show the obtained error-norms $\|F(j\omega)-F_m(j\omega)\|_2 = \sigma_{max}(F(j\omega)-F_m(j\omega))$ for different values of the frequency $\omega$ with the Reynold number \text{Re}=300 in Figure \ref{comp1} and with \text{Re}=400 in Figure \ref{comp2}. Here, you can notice that the error of our Algorithm increases rapidly when $\omega \in (1,10^3)$, we tried to alleviate this problem by increasing the number of iterations "m", but this choice increased the computing time and also increased the error when $\omega \in (10^{-5},1)$ from $10^{-10}$ to $10^{-4}$, and this also applies when $\omega \in (10^{3},10^5).$ This is why we stick with the first choice and do not increase the number of iterations 'm'. We present in Table \ref{cputime} the execution time of our algorithm and that based on BT described in \cite{SaaKmess}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerin
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{TF_re_300lvl2_3meth-eps-converted-to}
\centering
\caption{Level 2 with Re= 300: Bode plot}
\label{compfig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{ourmethod_vs_bt_lvl_1_re300-eps-converted-to}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{ourmethod_vs_bt_lvl_1_re400-eps-converted-to}
\caption{The error-norms versus frequencies using level 1 with \text{Re}=300 (left) and with Re=400 (right).}
\label{comp1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{ourmethod_vs_bt_lvl_2_re300-eps-converted-to}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{ourmethod_vs_bt_lvl_2_re400-eps-converted-to}
\caption{The error-norms versus frequencies using level 2 with \text{Re}=300 (left) and with Re=400 (right).}
\label{comp2}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\caption{The CPU-time (in seconds) required for both methods}
\label{cputime}
\vskip0.2cm
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
Reynolds number & Re=300 & Re=400 \\
& Algorithm \ref{newextd} \; \; BT & Algorithm \ref{newextd} \; \; BT \\
\hline
Level 1 & 4.55 \qquad \;\;\; 13.92 & 4.17 \qquad \;\;\; 15.47\\
Level 2 & 19.71 \qquad \;\;\; 51.09& 17.78 \qquad \;\;\; 56.34 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
{\bf Example 3} In this example, we investigate the extended block Arnoldi Riccati algorithm (EBARA, Algorithm \ref{ERBALA}) for solving generalized algebraic Riccati equations (GARe) (\ref{riccatinew}) which is needed to compute the matrix feedback of our initial problem. We use matrices corresponding to the level 1 of discretization in Table \ref{tabnvnp} with different Reynolds numbers $\text{Re}=300,400$ and $500$. We have established a comparison between our Algorithm \ref{ERBALA} and Algorithm 2 (a generalized low-rank Cholesky factor Newton method) described in \cite{benner15}. We have summarized in Table \ref{riccacomp} the number of iterations, ADI and Newton iterations as well as the cpu-time needed to reach the convergence of both methods
\begin{table}[h]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.3}
\caption{The obtained results of both methods}
\label{riccacomp}
\vskip0.2cm
\begin{tabular}{l | *{5}{>{\centering}p{1.5cm}|}c}
\hline
Methods
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Algorithm \ref{ERBALA}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Algorithm 2 in \cite{benner15}} \\
\hline
&$ \#$ of iter. & cpu-time(sec) & Rel. res. & Newton \& ADI iter. &CPU-time(sec) & Rel. res. \\
\hline
\text{Re}=300 & 77 & 136.77& $8.43e^{-08}$ & 8 \& 245 & 323.48& $9.10e^{-09}$\\
\hline
\text{Re}=400 &94 & 378.82 & $8.36e^{-08}$ & 20 \& 301 & 1124.43& $2.27e^{-07}$ \\
\hline
\text{Re}=500 & 109& 524.27 & $8.14e^{-08}$ & - & $>$1800 & - \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Stabilizing the unstable system}
We recall here the matrix feedback $K$ required to stabilize our original system (\ref{syscompact}). The control vector is given by
$$\textbf{u}(t)=-K{\bf v}(t) \quad \text{where} \quad K=B^T X_m M.$$
The matrix $X_m$ is the approximate solution to GARe (\ref{riccatinew}). We use the relation (\ref{ZZT}) that allows us to store $X_m$ in a efficient way, then the feedback matrix has the following form
$$K=B^T Z_m \, Z_m^T M.$$
The Reynolds number chosen here $\text{Re}=400$ and $500$ makes our original system (\ref{DAE1}) unstable as we mentioned earlier. We plug in the input ${\bf u}(t)$ in the unstable original system (\ref{DAE1}) to get the stabilized system described as follows
\begin{subequations}
\label{stabsys}
\begin{align}
M \, \dfrac{d}{dt}\textbf{v}(t) &= (A-BK)\textbf{v}(t)+G\textbf{p}(t), \\
0 &= G^T\textbf{v}(t), \\
y&=C\, \textbf{v}(t).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To show the effectiveness of the constructed feedback matrix $K$, we establish a time domain response simulation. In all examples (before and after stabilization) we use the same constant unit as input actuation. We use matrices corresponding to level 1 of discretization in Table \ref{tabnvnp} and we set $m=120$. For each $\text{Re}=400$ and $500$, we first present the time domain response of the original and reduced systems and then we plot the time domain response associated with the stabilized system (\ref{stabsys}) and its reduced one. It is important to notice that while we perform the reduction process to the stabilized system (\ref{stabsys}), using the extended block Krylov subspace method described in Section \ref{sec3}, we have to solve at each iteration the following saddle point problem
\begin{align}
\label{SDP}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
A-BK & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix}}_{\bf \widehat{A}} \begin{bmatrix}
w \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
z \\
0
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
Notice that the product $B K$ is dense and this in fact what makes the block $(1,1)$ of $ \bf \widehat{A}$ dense too. To avoid this problem of density that can make our computation infeasible, we rewrite the saddle point problem (\ref{SDP}) in a low-rank form
$$\left(\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
A & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix}}_{\bf A} -\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
B \\
0
\end{bmatrix}}_{\bf B} \underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
K & 0
\end{bmatrix}}_{\bf K}\right) \begin{bmatrix}
w \\
\star
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
z \\
0
\end{bmatrix},$$
and then we use the {\it Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula} \cite{golub}
$$({\bf A-BK})^{-1}= \bf A^{-1} + A^{-1}B(I-KA^{-1}B)^{-1} K\,A^{-1}.$$
Besides solving the small dense matrix $\bf (I_{n_b}-KA^{-1}B)$ with right hand side $\bf K$ we need to solve $\bf A^{-1} B$ and $\bf A$ with the right hand side $[z,\, 0]^T$, and this can be done easily by adding the $n_b$ columns $\bf B$ to the matrix $[z,\, 0]^T$, and then instead of solving the problem (\ref{SDP}) with $\bf \widehat{A}$ one can solve the following saddle point problem
$$\begin{bmatrix}
A & G \\
G^T & 0
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
w \\
\star
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
z & B\\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},$$
using $"\backslash"$, a built-in MATLAB function.\\
In Figures \ref{bfstab400} and \ref{bfstab500}, we can see that for both cases $\text{Re}=400$ and $500$, the time domain simulation of the original and reduced systems show stability and a good accuracy of the reduced output compared to the original one. However, after $t=30s$ some oscillations appear due to the instability of our original system. We can also see from the right parts of Figure \ref{bfstab400} and Figure \ref{bfstab500} that the error-norm $\|y-y_m\|$ increases as the time increases and this is due to the fact that our reduced system loses its accuracy caused by the instability that characterizes the original system. The performance of the matrix feedback allows us to stabilize the unstable system. This is shown in Figures \ref{afstab400_1}, \ref{afstab400_2}, \ref{afstab500_1} and \ref{afstab500_2} using two different Reynolds number $\text{Re}=400$ and $\text{Re}=500$. In the left side of these figures we display the time domain responses of the original and reduced stabilized systems of 1st input to 1st output in Figures \ref{afstab400_1} and \ref{afstab500_1} with $\text{Re}=400$ and $\text{Re}=500$ respectively, and also of 2nd input to 2nd output in Figures \ref{afstab400_2} and \ref{afstab500_2} with $\text{Re}=400$ and $\text{Re}=500$ respectively. One can notice that the figures illustrate a good accuracy of the reduced output compared to the original one. Moreover, it can be seen that after few oscillations that end in $t=5s$, the output of the stabilized system stabilize at constant values. On the right hand side of Figures \ref{afstab400_1}, \ref{afstab400_2}, \ref{afstab500_1} and \ref{afstab500_2}, we show the error in the outputs for the same inputs and we notice that after the stabilization, the error $\|y-y_m\|$ does not increase as the time increases which was not the case before stabilization. This proves the accuracy of our method of constructing a feedback matrix for stabilization using the EBARA Algorithm \ref{ERBALA}.
\begin{figure}[h!
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=5cm]{y_ym_Re400bfStab-eps-converted-to}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=5cm]{error400bStab-eps-converted-to}
\caption{Left: time domain response simulation of the unstable system with Re=400. Right: the error norm $\|y-y_m\|.$}
\label{bfstab400}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=6.6cm]{y_ym_Re400afStabin1ou1_2-eps-converted-to}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=6.9cm]{errorin1out1afstab-eps-converted-to}
\caption{Left: time domain response for the stabilized system (input 1 to output 1) original and reduced systems. Right: the error norm $\|y-y_m\|.$}
\label{afstab400_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=6.6cm]{y_ym_Re400afStabin2ou2_2-eps-converted-to}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=6.8cm]{errorin2out2afstab-eps-converted-to}
\caption{Left: time domain response for the stabilized system (input 2 to output 2) original and reduced systems. Right: the error norm $\|y-y_m\|.$}
\label{afstab400_2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=5cm]{y_ym_Re500bStab-eps-converted-to}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=5cm]{error500bStab-eps-converted-to}
\caption{Left: time domain simulation for the unstable system with Re=500. Right: the error norm $\|y-y_m\|.$}
\label{bfstab500}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=4.9cm]{y_ym_Re500aftStabin1out1_2-eps-converted-to}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{error500aftStab-eps-converted-to}
\caption{Left: time domain response for the stabilized system (input 1 to output 1) of original and reduced systems. Right: the error norm $\|y-y_m\|.$}
\label{afstab500_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=5.1cm]{y_ym_Re500aftStab_in2_out2_2-eps-converted-to}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,height=5.1cm]{error500aftStab_in2out2-eps-converted-to}
\caption{Left: time domain response for the stabilized system (input 2 to output 2) of original and reduced systems. Right: the error norm $\|y-y_m\|.$}
\label{afstab500_2}
\end{figure}
\section*{Conclusion}
Navier-stokes equations (NSEs) are considered as the pillars of fluid mechanics. A spatial discretization of the linearized NSEs around a steady state leads to a high dimension descriptor system of index-2 presented by a set of differential algebraic equations (DAEs). In this paper, we proposed a projection Krylov-based method to reduce this large dimension system. Our proposed method is based essentially on an extended block Arnoldi algorithm that allows us to build an efficient reduced system with a reasonable cost of computations. The system of NSEs lost its stability when Reynolds numbers are large and then we need stabilization techniques. One of the methods for stabilization that we used here is by solving an LQR problem based on a Riccati feedback approach. We suggested an extended Krylov-based method to solve the obtained large-scale algebraic Riccati equation and the obtained numerical solution is the key to design a controller described by a feedback matrix.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\IEEEPARstart{G}{enerally} speaking, the problem of graph matching aims to find the optimal vertex correspondences between given graphs under structure constraints of keeping the edge consistency. It has been widely used in many applications such as object tracking~\cite{GM_visualTrack,Gracker}, person re-identification~\cite{reid}, point correspondence\cite{GMSP}, \textit{etc}.
Graph matching is in general NP-hard due to its combinatorial nature, and it is thus hard to search a global optimal solution for graphs with large sizes. Therefore, many approximate approaches~\cite{RWGM,BGM,PBGM,Graduated_Assignment,Spec_Tech,GNCCP,ABPF,PFGM,graph_hypergraph,Fact_GM} have been devoted to seeking acceptable suboptimal solutions by relaxing the quadratic assignment problem to a simpler form.
Aiming to improve the matching accuracy in real-world matching tasks, some early efforts~\cite{Learning_GM,LG2M} have been devoted to learning reasonable affinity measures or adaptive graph representations using the machine learning strategies. However, the improvements are limited because of the shallow parameter settings, and thus still insufficient to handle various challenges.
Recently, approaches~\cite{DGM,PCA,LGM,qcDGM,GLUE,BBGM,DGM_consensus,Hungarian_Attention} based on deep neural networks have attracted much research attention due to the ability to learn representative embeddings of nodes and/or edges. It is common for these approaches to embed a differentiable solver for the combinatorial optimization problem into an end-to-end learning framework. Different from the well-designed combinatorial solvers in previous learning-free graph matching methods, these learning-based methods usually acquire node correspondences in a more straightforward way by relaxing one or more of the quadratic constraints, discrete constraints and one-to-one matching constraints. Examples include~\cite{DGM_consensus,GLUE,PCA} that relax the quadratic assignment problem to a node-wise assignment problem and adopt the Sinkhorn algorithm~\cite{Sinkhorn_network} for the optimization of linear assignment, \cite{DGM} that works directly on the learned pairwise affinities using a spectral matching algorithm~\cite{Spec_Tech} but drops both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints, and~\cite{BBGM} that relaxes the graph matching problem based on Lagrangian decomposition and employs dual block coordinate ascent implementations for optimization. Despite remarkable performance gained, these relaxations of the original problem may cause potential limitations on matching performance.
To address the issues mentioned above, we propose a novel \emph{deep probabilistic graph matching} (DPGM) algorithm, which works directly on the learned pairwise affinities and imposes both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints on the matching solutions. Firstly, we design an \emph{affinity-assignment prediction network} (AA-predictor) to jointly learn the pairwise affinities and the node assignments. Specifically, the AA-predictor performs graph propagation using several delicately designed convolution operators on a constructed \emph{affinity-assignment graph} (AA-graph), in which each node corresponds to a candidate match and each edge relates to the pairwise affinity between two matches. Subsequently, the learned affinities and estimated assignments of the AA-predictor are passed as inputs to a \emph{differentiable probabilistic solver}, which refines the estimated assignments in an iterative manner and imposes both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints in a probabilistic way. Finally, the balanced entropy loss between the output matching solutions and ground-truth matches is employed as the supervision signal to guide the training of our framework.
For evaluating the proposed DPGM algorithm, we report its matching performance on three public benchmarks, namely Willow Objects~\cite{LG2M}, Pascal VOC Keypoints~\cite{VOC} and SPair-71k~\cite{SPair}, in comparison with several state-of-the-art graph matching approaches.
In experiments our method outperforms all compared methods on all three benchmarks, which illustrates the effectiveness and adaptability of the proposed method in different scenarios.
We will release our code publicly available once the paper is accepted.
In summary, with the proposed learning framework for graph matching, this paper makes contribution in three-fold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the proposed differentiable probabilistic solver works directly on the learned pairwise affinities in a probabilistic way, which is expected to be more effective by avoiding the compromise on the matching constraints;
\item unlike most previous graph matching methods that use a trivial guess of an initial assignment for the combinatorial solver, ours learns jointly the pairwise affinities and the initial assignment, which remarkably benefits the final solution (see Tables~\ref{table:ablation},~\ref{table:abl_spair},~\ref{table:abl_willow}); and
\item extensive experiments are conducted on three popular benchmarks, in comparison with many state-of-the-art methods, to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Related Works}
Graph matching has been investigated for decades and many algorithms have been proposed. In this section we review recent learning-based studies or those closely related to ours, and leave general graph matching research to three comprehensive surveys~\cite{Conte2004,Foggia2014,survey_yan}.
Aiming to cooperate with the data derived from real-world matching tasks, many learning-based graph matching algorithms, including unsupervised~\cite{unsup_GM}, semi-supervised~\cite{semisup_GM} and supervised ones~\cite{Learning_GM,smooth_optim}, have been proposed to learn the parameters of affinity measure to replace the handcrafted affinity metric. In addition, instead of learning the affinity measure, Cho \textit{et al.}~\cite{LG2M} propose a learnable framework to parameterize the graph model and generate reasonable structural attributes for visual object matching. However, these methods employ simple and shallow parametric models to control geometric affinities between pairs of matches, and the promotion to the matching accuracy is still limited.
With the growing interest in utilizing deep neural network for structured data~\cite{TIP1, TIP2}, learning graph matching with \emph{graph neural network} (GNN) has attracted much research attention. A classic way is to learn representative node and/or edge embeddings via graph neural networks and then relax the graph matching problem to the linear assignment problem.
Nowak~\textit{et al.}~\cite{NowakVBB18} introduce a Siamese GNN encoder to produce a normalized node embedding for each graph to be matched, and then predict a matching by minimizing the cosine distance between matching pairs of embeddings dictated by the target permutation.
Wang~\textit{et al.}~\cite{PCA} employ the \textit{graph convolutional network} (GCN) framework~\cite{KipfW17} to produce node embeddings by aggregating graph structure information, and adopt the Sinkhorn network~\cite{Sinkhorn_network} as the combinatorial solver for the relaxed linear assignment problem.
SuperGlue~\cite{GLUE} is designed for generating discriminative node representations using intra-graph and cross-graph attention, where spatial relationships and visual information are jointly taken into considerations during the node embedding process. In addition, to drop the outlier candidate matches that usually occur in real-world matching tasks, this framework augments each node set with a dustbin so that the unmatched nodes are explicitly assigned to it.
To further improve the robustness of learnable affinities, Yu~\textit{et al.}~\cite{Hungarian_Attention} propose a node and edge embedding strategy that simulates the multi-head strategy in attention models, enabling the information in each channel to be merged independently.
Fey~\textit{et al.}~\cite{DGM_consensus} propose to start from an initial ranking of soft correspondences between nodes, and iteratively refine the solution by synchronous message passing networks to reach neighborhood consensus between node pairs without any optimization inference.
Different from the above mentioned methods that focus mainly on the learning of node and/or edge embeddings and relax the quadratic matching constraints,
several recently proposed methods work directly on pairwise affinities and embed differentiable solvers for quadratic optimization.
Zanfir~\textit{et al.}~\cite{DGM} formulate graph matching as a quadratic assignment problem under both unary and pairwise affinities, and adopt a spectral matching algorithm~\cite{Spec_Tech} as the combinatorial solver that drops both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints in optimization.
Rol{\'{\i}}nek~\textit{et al.}~\cite{BBGM} relax the graph matching problem based on Lagrangian decomposition, which is solved by
embedding BlackBox implementations of a heavily optimized solver~\cite{SwobodaRAKS17} based on dual block coordinate ascent.
Reformulating graph matching as Koopmans-Beckmann's QAP~\cite{LoiolaANHQ07} to minimize the adjacency discrepancy of graphs to be matched, Gao \textit{et al.}~\cite{qcDGM} adopt the Frank-Wolf algorithm~\cite{Frank&Wolfe56} to obtain approximate solutions.
Besides, Wang~\textit{et al.}~\cite{LGM} integrate learning of affinities and solving for combinatorial optimization into a unified node labeling pipeline, where the quadratic assignment problem of graph matching has been transformed to the binary classification problem of finding the positive node in a constructed assignment graph.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=4.8cm, trim=0 100 30 0,clip]{figs/pipeline-2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The overview pipeline of the proposed DPGM framework. Taking the two graphs $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$ to be matched as input, the AA-predictor firstly generates an affinity-assignment graph (AA-graph) $\mathbb{G}^A$, where the candidate matches and pairwise affinities are modeled as nodes and edges respectively. Subsequently, the graph state is iteratively updated by the AA-updating module to form structured representations, and it is finally read out by the decoder that maps representations of nodes and edges to entries of the assignment matrix and the pairwise affinity matrix respectively. Finally, the differentiable probabilistic solver starts from the assignments estimated by the AA-predictor, and refines them alternatively by solving QAP in a probabilistic way to obtain better matching solutions. }
\label{pipeline}
\end{figure*}
\section{Graph Matching}
\subsection{Problem formulation}
In graph theory, an attributed graph of $n$ nodes can be represented by $\mathbb{G}=\{\mathbb{V},\mathbb{E},\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}\}$, where $\mathbb{V}=\{v_1,...,v_n\}$ and $\mathbb{E}\subseteq\mathbb{V}\times{\mathbb{V}}$ denote respectively the node set and edge set, and $\mathcal{V}=\{\textbf{v}_i|\textbf{v}_i\in \mathbb{R}^{d_V},i=1,2,...,n\}$ and $\mathcal{E}=\{\textbf{e}_i|\textbf{e}_i\in \mathbb{R}^{d_E},i=1,2,...,|\mathcal{E}|\}$ the node attribute set and edge attribute set, respectively. The node relations in the graph can be represented by a symmetric adjacency matrix $A\in \{0,1\}^{n\times{n}}$, where $A_{ij}=1$ if and only if there is an edge between nodes $v_i$ and $v_j$.
Given two graphs $\mathbb{G}^{(i)}=\{\mathbb{V}^{(i)},\mathbb{E}^{(i)},\mathcal{V}^{(i)},\mathcal{E}^{(i)}\}$ of size $n$, $i=1,2$, graph matching aims to find node correspondence $X\in \{0,1\}^{n\times{n}}$ between $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$ that maximizes the global consistency designed as
\begin{equation}
\label{global_consistency}
\mathcal{H}=\sum_{i,a}c_{ia}X_{ia}+\sum_{i,j,a,b}d_{ia,jb}X_{ia}X_{jb},
\end{equation}
where $c_{ia}$ measures the similarity between node $v_{i}^{(1)}$ in $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and node $v_{a}^{(2)}$ in $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$, while $d_{ia,jb}$ measures the agreement between edge $(v_{i}^{(1)},v_{j}^{(1)})$ in $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and edge $(v_{a}^{(2)},v_{b}^{(2)})$ in $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$. The correspondence matrix $X$ indicates the matching results, i.e., $X_{ia}=1$ if and only if $i^{th}$ node of $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ matches to $a^{th}$ node of $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$. In addition, the distribute of $X$ is restricted under the one-to-one matching constraints: $X\textbf{1}_n=\textbf{1}_n$ and $X^T\textbf{1}_n=\textbf{1}_n$, where $\textbf{1}_n$ denotes a $n-$demension one-value vector.
Seeking the optimal solution maximizing the Eq.~\ref{global_consistency} can be reformulated as a quadratic assignment problem:
\begin{equation}\label{graph_matching}
\textbf{x}^\ast=\arg\max_\textbf{x} \textbf{x}^TK\textbf{x},
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{x}$ is the vectorization of $X$, and $K$ the affinity matrix encoding the node similarity and edge agreement at diagonal elements and off-diagonal elements, respectively. In more detail, the affinity matrix $K$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{K_mat}
K_{ia,jb}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
c_{ia} & {\rm if~~} i=j {\rm ~~and~~} a=b,\\
d_{ia,jb} & {\rm else~if~~} A_{ia}^{(1)}A_{jb}^{(2)}>0,\\
0 & {\rm otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Note that, for simplicity we assume that the two given graphs to be matched have the same size $n$ in this work, yet this formulation of graph matching can be easily extended to general cases with different sizes by auxiliary strategies, such as adding dummy nodes.
Recently, many efforts have been devoted to improving graph matching accuracy with the combination of deep learning architecture and differentiable relaxation-based solvers. The graph matching problem has been relaxed to a linear assignment problem by learning the high-order node embeddings in~\cite{PCA,DGM_consensus,Hungarian_Attention}, and the Sinkhorn algorithm~\cite{sinkhorn} is applied as a combinatorial solver in these works. In~\cite{DGM}, the unary and pair-wise affinities are generated by learning deep node and edge representations, and the quadratic assignment problem is solved by a relaxation manner, \textit{i.e.}, spectral matching~\cite{Spec_Tech}. A more advanced method has been proposed by Rol{\'{\i}}nek~\textit{et al.}~\cite{BBGM} who propose using strong feature extraction with SplineCNN~\cite{splineCNN} and leverage the combinatorial solver based on dual block coordinate ascent for Lagrange decompositions~\cite{SwobodaRAKS17}. Despite the demonstrated power of deep networks in representation learning, the relaxation strategy applied to graph matching problem is a weakening of the quadratic assignment problem, which may hurt the performance of graph matching.
Unlike the deep graph matching methods discussed above, we treat the graph matching problem as a quadratic assignment problem faithfully without compromise on matching constraints, and solve the problem using a probabilistic optimization scheme that takes as input the estimated affinities and assignments, both of which are jointly learnt through a novel graph information propagation module, and refines the assignment solutions in an iterative manner.
\section{The Proposed Method}
Our model consists of two core parts: an \textit{affinity-assignment prediction network} (AA-predictor) and a \textit{differentiable probabilistic solver}. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{pipeline}, the AA-predictor first models the pairwise affinity and candidate matches into a unified \textit{affinity-assignment graph} (AA-graph), and then performs graph propagation to form the structural representations for nodes and edges, both of which are decoded as the initial assignments and affinities, respectively. Subsequently, the differentiable probabilistic solver takes the estimated assignments and affinities as input, and refines them in a probabilistic manner to obtain the optimal matching solutions.
\subsection{Affinity-assignment prediction network}
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{pipeline}, the AA-predictor takes two graphs to be matched as input, and learns pairwise affinities and candidate assignments through three components including the AA-graph construction, AA-updating module and AA-decoder.
\textbf{Affinity-assignment graph construction:}
Given two input graphs $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$, we model the candidate matches and the pairwise affinities into a so-called \textit{affinity-assignment graph} (AA-graph) $\mathbb{G}^A=\{\mathbb{V}^A,\mathbb{E}^A,\mathcal{V}^A,\mathcal{E}^A\}$, where the candidate match between $v_i^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ and $v_a^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ is denoted as a node $v_{ia}^A \in \mathbb{V}^A$, and the pair-wise affinity between a pair of candidate matches $v_{ia}^A, v_{jb}^A \in \mathbb{V}^A$ is represented by the edge $e_{(ia,jb)}^A \in \mathbb{E}^A$ if and only if there are two edges $(v_i^{(1)}, v_j^{(1)})\in \mathbb{E}^{(1)}$ and $(v_a^{(2)}, v_b^{(2)})\in \mathbb{E}^{(2)}$.
Fig.~\ref{subfig:AAgraph} illustrates an example of constructing the AA-graph where the candidate matches $X_{1a}$ and $X_{2b}$ are encoded as the nodes $v_{1a}^A$ and $v_{2b}^A$ in $\mathbb{V}^A$ respectively, and the affinity between them (i.e., $K_{1a,2b}$) is modeled into the edge $(v_{1a}^A,v_{2b}^A) \in \mathbb{E}^A$.
Different from the method proposed in~\cite{LGM} that utilizes only geometric cues to form the attributes of nodes and edges, we combine the visual features and geometric information to generate the initial attributes on AA-graph. Specifically, we take the visual features extracted from images by CNNs~\cite{CNN} as the raw node attributes, and concatenate the point coordinates of two nodes associated with the same edge to form the edge attributes as
\begin{equation}\label{raw_feature}
\begin{aligned}
\textbf{v}_{ia}^A & =[\textbf{f}_i^{(1)}; \textbf{f}_a^{(2)}]; \\
\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A & = [\textbf{p}_{i}^{(1)}; \textbf{p}_{j}^{(1)}; \textbf{p}_{a}^{(2)}; \textbf{p}_{b}^{(2)}],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{f}_i^{(1)}$ and $\textbf{p}_{i}^{(1)}$ denote the visual feature and coordinates of the $i^{th}$ keypoint in the $1^{st}$ image respectively, and $[\cdot;\ldots;\cdot]$ concatenates its input along the channel direction.
In this way, the affinity matrix and matches in Eq.~\ref{graph_matching} have been transformed into high-order representations in the unified AA-graph, and they are alternatively updated to form structured representations by the following AA-updating module.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.5cm,height=4cm, trim=0 100 0 50,clip]{figs/AA_Graph.pdf}
\caption{An example of the AA-graph construction.
}
\label{subfig:AAgraph}
\end{figure}
\textbf{AA-updating module:}
This module performs graph propagation by extending the graph network block~\cite{LGM} module to fit our framework.
Specifically, this module firstly transforms the original node attributes and edge attributes of the input AA-graph into two latent embedding spaces, and then iteratively updates the affinities (edge attributes) and the assignments (node attributes) by stacking multiple affinity updating layers and assignment updating layers.
For the original AA-graph, the AA-updating module employs the encoder to transform the AA-graph state into latent embedding space as
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{G}^A \leftarrow Encoder(\mathbb{G}^A) = \{\mathbb{V}^A, \mathbb{E}^A, \rho_v(\mathcal{V}^A), \rho_e(\mathcal{E}^A)\},
\end{equation}
where $\rho^v$ and $\rho^e$ are the learnable transformation functions that map the original attributes of nodes and edges into the latent spaces with dimensions of $d_V$ and $d_E$, respectively. Furthermore, both $\rho_v$ and $\rho_e$ are designed as two Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs), but with different parameters. After that, the AA-updating module performs graph propagation to form the structural representations for nodes and edges.
Since a pairwise affinity $\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A$ is directly related to its associated matches $\textbf{v}_{ia}^A$ and $\textbf{v}_{jb}^A$, we design the affinity updating layer as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{\textbf{e}}_{(ia,jb)}^A & = (M_1 \textbf{v}_{ia}^A)\odot(M_2 \textbf{v}_{jb}^A); \\
\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A & \leftarrow \tau([\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A; \bar{\textbf{e}}_{(ia,jb)}^A]),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $M_1,M_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{d_V\times{d_V}}$ are the learnable similarity coefficients, the operator $\odot$ denotes the element-wise multiplication of two vectors, and $\tau$ is the update function designed as a learnable MLP that maps the concatenated features to the dimension of $d_E$.
For a candidate assignment $v_{ia}^A$, we wish to determine its reliability based on its associated pairwise affinities.
Therefore, in the assignment updating layer we update the attribute of each node by aggregating the information of its associated edges as
\begin{equation}
\textbf{v}_{ia}^A \leftarrow \kappa\Big(\big[\sum_{\textbf{e} \in \mathcal{E}^A_{ia}} \textbf{e};\textbf{v}_{ia}^A \big] \Big),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}^A_{ia}$ denotes the attribute set of the edges adjacent to node $v_{ia}^A$, and $\kappa$ the parameterized function designed as an MLP that maps the aggregated features to the dimension of $d_V$.
\textbf{AA-Decoder:}
The decoder can be interpreted as an inverse procedure of AA-graph construction, and it maps the structured representations of edges and nodes to scalar values in affinity matrix $K$ and assignment matrix $X$.
In particular, node attributes are transformed to scalar values in $(0,1)$ that indicate the probabilities of the corresponding matches, and edge attributes to scalar values in $(0,1)$ that denote the affinities of the corresponding pairs of candidate matches.
The concrete transformation process in the decoder module can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{decoder}
\begin{aligned}
\textbf{X}_{ia} & = \mathrm{sigmoid}(\varphi_n(\textbf{v}_{ia}^A)); \\
K_{ia,jb} & = \mathrm{sigmoid}(\varphi_e(\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A)),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_n$ and $\varphi_e$ are two learnable MLP-based update functions that transform the high-order features to the scalar values in $(-\infty,+\infty)$, and $\mathrm{sigmoid}(z)$ is the activation function formulated as $\mathrm{sigmoid}(z)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-z}}$,
which maps its input into the values in $(0,1)$.
\subsection{Differentiable Probabilistic Solver}\label{prob_estimation}
Instead of taking the estimated assignments from AA-predictor as the final matching solution, we design a differentiable probabilistic solver to refine the estimated assignments by imposing both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints.
There are several studies~\cite{graph_hypergraph,PBGM,RWGM} dedicated to solving Eq.~\ref{graph_matching} from the probability perspective, which have exhibited state-of-the-art matching performance among the family of learning-free algorithms. In the probabilistic interpretation of graph matching, the assignment $X_{ia}$ is regarded as the probability that the node $v_{i}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ matches $v_{a}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$, and the affinity $K_{ia,jb}$ is considered as the empirical estimation of the pairwise assignment probability such that $v_{i}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ matches $v_{a}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ and $v_{j}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ matches $v_{b}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$.
Denoting $\mathcal{P}_X=\{P(X_{ia}):1\leq i,a\leq n\}$ in which $P(X_{ia})$ is the probability that the match between $v_{i}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ and $v_{a}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ is valid;
and $\mathcal{P}_{X,X}=\{P(X_{ia}|X_{jb}):1\leq i,a,j,b\leq n\}$ in which $P(X_{ia}|X_{jb})$ denotes the conditional assignment probability (\textit{i.e.}, the probability of the assignment $X_{ia}$ under the condition that the assignment $X_{jb}$ is valid). The graph matching problem of Eq.~\ref{graph_matching} that finding the optimal assignment results can be reformulated as
\begin{equation}\label{pro_GM}
\begin{split}
&[\mathcal{P}^{\ast}_{X},\mathcal{P}^{\ast}_{X,X}] =\\
& ~~~ \operatornamewithlimits{\arg \min}_{\mathcal{P}_{X}, \mathcal{P}_{X,X}} ~ \sum_{i,a}\Big( \sum_{j,b}{P(X_{ia}|X_{jb})P(X_{jb})} - P(X_{ia}) \Big)^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It is common~\cite{graph_hypergraph,PBGM,RWGM} to solve such a probabilistic optimization through iterating a two-step optimization process: (1)
estimating the assignment probability $P(X_{ia})$ according to the current affinity distribution; and (2) refining conditional assignment probability $P(X_{ia}|X_{jb})$ upon the computed individual probability.
Thus inspired, we design a differentiable probabilistic solver that is summarized in Algorithm~\ref{algo_solver}.
For estimating the assignment probabilities, we firstly vectorize the predicted assignment matrix (Line 3), in which each element can be regarded as the probability of corresponding candidate match, i.e., $P(X_{jb})$. For the predicted affinities matrix, we consider elements in each column $K_{\cdot,jb}$ as the joint probabilities under the corresponding match $X_{jb}$ is valid, that is, $P(X_{ia}|X_{jb}): 1\leq i,a \leq n$. Thus, under the probabilistic explanations, the probabilistic solver updates the assignment probabilities using the current conditional probabilities using $\textbf{x}_{t+1} \leftarrow K_t \textbf{x}_t$ (Line 4). The updating for each element in $\textbf{x}$ can be interpreted as the following probabilistic formulation
\begin{equation}\label{step1}
P_{t+1}(X_{ia})=\sum_{j,b}P_t(X_{ia}|X_{jb})P_t(X_{jb}).
\end{equation}
After that, the Sinkhorn algorithm~\cite{Sinkhorn_network} (Line 6) performs both row- and column-normalization on the assignment matrix, which guarantees the one-to-one matching constraints in a soft way.
In other words, the probabilities that each node $v_i^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ matches all nodes $v_a^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ should add up to 1, and vice versa.
During the refinement of the affinity matrix $K$ (Line 10, where $\oslash$ denotes element-wise division between two vectors), we adaptively increase the entries that correspond to valid assignments and weaken the ones that correspond to invalid assignments.
Specifically, if an updated assignment $\textbf{x}_{t+1}^{ia}$ between $v_i^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ and $v_a^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ is larger than the previous one $\textbf{x}_{t}^{ia}$, that is $\frac{\textbf{x}_{t+1}^{ia}}{\textbf{x}_{t}^{ia}}>1$, we think it is more likely to be a valid assignment. Otherwise, the assignment between $v_i^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ and $v_a^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ is more likely to be an invalid one. Thus, we multiply the incremental $\frac{\textbf{x}_{t+1}}{\textbf{x}_{t}}$ to augment or weaken the joint probabilities that it involves.
From the probabilistic perspective, this process actually equals to refining the conditional assignment probability $P(X_{ia}|X_{jb})$ according to the estimated $P(X_{ia})$ by
\begin{equation}\label{step2}
P_{t+1}(X_{ia}|X_{jb})=P_{t}(X_{ia}|X_{jb})\frac{P_{t+1}(X_{ia})}{P_t(X_{ia})},
\end{equation}
where $t$ and $t+1$ indicate iteration steps.
\begin{algorithm*}[t]
\caption{The differentiable probabilistic solver.}
\label{algo_solver}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
$X_1$: initial assignment solution;
$K_1$: initial affinity matrix;
$S$: maximum of iteration;
$\eta$: predefined threshold.
\Ensure
optimal assignment solution $X^{*}$.
\vspace{1mm}
\State initialization: $X_t \leftarrow X_1$, $K_t \leftarrow K_1$;
\For {$t=1$; $t\leq S$; $t++$ }
\State $\textbf{x}_t \leftarrow \textrm{vec}(X_t)$; \Comment{vectorizing $X_t$}
\State $\textbf{x}_{t+1} \leftarrow K_t \textbf{x}_t$ \Comment {estimate the assignment probabilities}
\State $X_{t+1} \leftarrow \textrm{reshape}(\textbf{x}_{t+1})$; \Comment {reshape the probabilities to matrix form}
\State $X_{t+1} \leftarrow \textrm{Sinkhorn}(X_{t+1})$; \Comment {normalize the probabilities by Sinkhorn}
\If {$\|\textbf{x}_{t+1} - \textbf{x}_t\|^2<\eta$}
\State break;
\EndIf
\State $K_{t+1} \leftarrow K_t ((\textbf{x}_{t+1} \oslash \textbf{x}_{t} ) \textbf{1}^T)$; \Comment {update the conditional probabilities}
\EndFor
\State $X^*\leftarrow X_{t+1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm*}
To validate the sparsity of the estimated assignment matrix, we record its binary score at each iteration on Willow Object dataset~\cite{LG2M}, which is computed according to its $\ell_{2,1}$ norm as
\begin{equation}
s=\frac{1}{2N}\big(\|X \|_{\ell_{2,1}} + \|X^\top \|_{\ell_{2,1}}\big),
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of nodes of the graphs to be matched.
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{subfig:sparse}, the binary scores $s$ of the estimated assignments are gradually improved with the iteration increasing.
It approaches $1$ after several iterations, meaning the assignment matrix is nearly discrete under the premise that the one-to-one matching constraints are guaranteed by the Sinkhorn algorithm.
That is to say, the proposed solver is able to impose not only the one-to-one constraints but also the discrete constraints,
which are usually considered only in the inferring step in most previous end-to-end learning frameworks~\cite{DGM,PCA,LGM}.
\subsection{Loss Function}
Similar to~\cite{LGM,PCA}, we also utilize the difference between the predicted assignments and groundtruth node-to-node correspondences as the supervision signal to guide the training process. Specifically, given the groundtruth correspondences $X^{gt}$ and estimated solutions $X$, we first reshape them to the vector form $\textbf{x}^{gt}$ and $\textbf{x}$ respectively, and measure the difference between them using the balanced cross entropy loss
\begin{equation}\label{loss}
\mathcal{L}= -\sum_{i=1}^{n^2} \Big[ w\ \textbf{x}_i^{gt} \log(\textbf{x}_i) \ + \ (1-w) (1-\textbf{x}_i^{gt}) \log(1-\textbf{x}_i) \Big],
\end{equation}
where $w$ is a hyper-parameter that balances the loss to avoid the dominance of the negative candidate matches during training.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:exp}
To validate the effectiveness of our framework, we evaluate it on three public visual keypoint matching benchmarks, named Willow Object dataset~\cite{LG2M}, Pascal VOC Keypoints~\cite{VOC} and SPair-71k~\cite{SPair}, in comparison with ten state-of-the-art learning-based graph matching approaches including GMN~\cite{DGM}, PCA~\cite{PCA}, IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI}, LGM~\cite{LGM}, qc-DGM~\cite{qcDGM}, DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus}, CIE~\cite{Hungarian_Attention}, BBGM~\cite{BBGM}, NGM~\cite{NGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM}. Among these baseline methods, IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI} is the upgraded version of PCA~\cite{PCA} by iterating the cross-graph updating for node attributes, and NGMv2~\cite{NGM} is the extension of NGM~\cite{NGM} with the refinement for initial graph features by SplineCNN networks~\cite{splineCNN}.
Although it has been demonstrated that adaptively adjusting graph structure can also achieve the state-of-the-art performance~\cite{DLGM}, in this paper we only focus on the works that estimate the matching solutions with the combination of deep learning framework and differentiable solvers under fixed graph topology. Therefore, the recently proposed method~\cite{DLGM} that adaptively generates latent graph topology for graph matching has been excluded from baseline methods.
\begin{figure}[!thb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,height=5cm]{figs/sparse.pdf}
\caption{The illustration for convergence of the proposed probabilistic solver.}
\label{subfig:sparse}
\end{figure}
In experiments, we follow~\cite{BBGM} to extract the visual features using the VGG16 backbone~\cite{VGG16} as the raw keypoint features. The encoder transforms both the initial node features and edge features on AA-graph to the 128-dimension latent space for the graph matching tasks on the Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} and SPair-71k~\cite{SPair} datasets. In other words, both $d_V$ and $d_E$ are set as 128. For the much easier Willow~\cite{LG2M} dataset, the encoder transforms the AA-graph features to 32-dimension latent space (i.e., $d_V=d_E=32$) to alleviate the over-fitting during training.
For gradient back propagation in model learning, the gradients of the solution would be very small when the solution is close to $\{0,1\}$ after many iterations of the probabilistic solver, making the model hard to be trained. Considering that, we adopt an early-stop strategy to avoid gradient vanishing, which is formulated at Lines 7 to 9 in Algorithm~\ref{algo_solver}. Specifically, if the increment of the updated assignments is below a predefined threshold $\eta$, the updating of assignments and affinities will be stopped.
Furthermore, we set the iteration of the convolution operation in the AA-prediction network as 5 to capture the structural representations from 5-order neighborhoods. In the probabilistic solver, we specify the stop threshold $\eta = 0.00001$ and the iteration maximum $S = 10$ throughout our experiments.
During training, the positive label weight $w$ in Eq.~\ref{loss} is fixed to 5 to balance the significance of positive labels and negative labels. Our model runs on a linux server with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 (2.10GHz) and a TITAN XP GPU (12G).
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the Willow Object dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:willow}
\normalsize
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{1.5mm}}l@{\hspace{1.mm}} | @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}
| @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}}
\hline
Algorithm & Car & Duck & Face & Motorb. & Wineb. & AVG\\
\hline
GMN~\cite{DGM} & 74.3 & 82.8 & 99.3 & 71.4 &76.7 & 80.9 \\
PCA~\cite{PCA} & 84.0 & 93.5 & \textbf{100} & 76.7 &96.9 & 90.2\\
IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI} & 90.2 & 84.9 & \textbf{100} & 77.7 &95.2 & 89.6\\
LGM~\cite{LGM} & 91.2 & 86.2 & \textbf{100} & 99.4 &97.9 & 94.9 \\
qc-DGM~\cite{qcDGM} & 98.0 & 92.8 & \textbf{100} & 98.8 &\textbf{99.0}&97.7\\
DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} & 98.3 & 90.2 & \textbf{100} & 98.5 & 98.1 & 97.0 \\
CIE~\cite{Hungarian_Attention}& 82.2 & 81.2 & \textbf{100} & 90.0 & 97.6 & 90.2 \\
BBGM~\cite{BBGM} & 96.9 & 89.0 & \textbf{100} & 99.2 & 98.8 & 96.8 \\
NGM~\cite{NGM} & 97.4 &93.4 & \textbf{100} & 98.6 & 98.3 & 97.5\\
NGMv2~\cite{NGM} & 97.4 &93.4 & \textbf{100} & 98.6 & 98.3 & 97.5\\
\hline
DPGM (ours) &\textbf{99.5} & \textbf{96.8} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{100} & 93.0 & \textbf{97.9} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the Pascal VOC dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results. }
\label{table:Pascal}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
| @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Algo. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bot. &bus & car &cat& cha.\ &cow & tab. &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &pla. &she. &sofa& tra. & tv& AVG\\
\hline
GMN~\cite{DGM} & 31.9 &47.2& 51.9& 40.8 &68.7 &72.2 &53.6 &52.8 &34.6 &48.6 &72.3 &47.7 &54.8 &51.0 &38.6 &75.1 &49.5 &45.0 &83.0 &86.3 &55.3 \\
PCA~\cite{PCA}& 51.2 &61.3& 61.6 &58.4 &78.8 &73.9 &68.5 &71.1 &40.1 &63.3 &45.1 &64.4 &66.4 &62.2 &45.1 &79.1 &68.4 &60.0 &80.3 &91.9 &64.6 \\
IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI} &51.0 &64.9 &68.4 &60.5 &80.2 &74.7 &71.0 &73.5 &42.2 &68.5 &48.9 &69.3 &67.6 &64.8 &48.6 &84.2 &69.8 &62.0 &79.3 &89.3 &66.9\\
LGM~\cite{LGM} & 46.9 &58.0& 63.6& 69.9& 87.8& 79.8& 71.8 &60.3 &44.8& 64.3 &79.4& 57.5& 64.4 &57.6 &52.4 &96.1& 62.9 &65.8 &94.4 &92.0& 68.5 \\
qc-DGM~\cite{qcDGM}& 49.6 &64.6 &67.1& 62.4 &82.1& 79.9& 74.8& 73.5& 43.0& 68.4 &66.5 &67.2 &71.4 &70.1& 48.6 &92.4 &69.2 &70.9 &90.9& 92.0 &70.3\\
DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} & 50.4 &67.6 &70.7 &70.5 &87.2& 85.2 &82.5 &74.3 &46.2 &69.4 &69.9 &73.9 &73.8& 65.4 &51.6 &98.0 &73.2& 69.6 &94.3 &89.6 &73.2 \\
CIE~\cite{Hungarian_Attention} & 51.2 &69.2 &70.1 &55.0 &82.8& 72.8& 69.0& 74.2& 39.6 &68.8 &71.8 &70.0 &71.8 &66.8 &44.8 &85.2 &69.9& 65.4 &85.2 &92.4 &68.9 \\
BBGM~\cite{BBGM} &61.5 &\textbf{75.0} & 78.1 & 80.0 & 87.4 & 93.0 & 89.1 & 80.2 &\textbf{58.1} &77.6 &76.5 &79.3 &78.6 &78.8 &66.7 &97.4 &76.4 &\textbf{77.5} &97.7 &\textbf{94.4} &80.1 \\
NGM~\cite{NGM} &50.1 &63.5 &57.9 &53.4 &79.8 &77.1 &73.6& 68.2& 41.1& 66.4 &40.8 &60.3 &61.9& 63.5& 45.6 &77.1 &69.3 &65.5 &79.2 &88.2 &64.1 \\
NGMv2~\cite{NGM}&61.8 &71.2 &77.6 &78.8 &87.3 &93.6 & 87.7 &79.8 &55.4 & 77.8 & 89.5 &78.8 & 80.1 &79.2 & 62.6 & 97.7 & 77.7 & 75.7 & 96.7 & 93.2 & 80.1\\
\hline
DPGM (ours) &\textbf{63.1} & 64.5 & \textbf{78.5} & \textbf{81.4} & \textbf{93.8} & 93.5 & \textbf{90.0} &\textbf{81.5} & 56.9 &\textbf{80.6} & \textbf{95.0} & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{80.3} & 72.5 &\textbf{68.0} &\textbf{98.5} & \textbf{79.3} &75.4 & \textbf{98.3} & 92.8 &\textbf{81.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the Pascal VOC dataset with filtered image pairs. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results. }
\label{table:filterVOC}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} | @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Algo. & aero & bike & bird & boat & car &cat& cha. &cow &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &she. &sofa& AVG\\
\hline
GMN~\cite{DGM} & 36.2 & 60.5 & 33.8 & 46.4 & 71.9 & 64.6 & 29.5 & 58.1 & 54.4 & 57.5 & 54.1 & 35.4 & 58.9 & \textbf{100.0} & 54.4 \\
IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI}& 51.2 & 67.2 & 40.6 & 42.1 & 71.9 & 72.4 & 34.0 & 63.6 & 63.3 & 65.8 & 68.2 & 47.6 & 65.2 & \textbf{100.0} & 60.9 \\
CIE~\cite{Hungarian_Attention} & 45.7 & 62.4 & 40.0 & 40.7 & 66.3 & 74.1 & 31.4 & 64.5 & 65.4 & 68.1 & 55.6 & 44.9 & 63.9 & 80.0 & 57.4\\
BBGM~\cite{BBGM} &\textbf{57.0} & 72.6 & 50.0 & \textbf{60.7} & 88.6 & 79.7 & 44.8 & 75.8 & \textbf{76.9} & 76.5 & 71.5 & 64.6 & 71.2 & \textbf{100.0} & 70.7 \\
NGMv2~\cite{NGM} &54.9 & \textbf{73.0} & 49.3 & 50.0 & 86.3 & 79.7 & \textbf{49.0} & \textbf{76.5} & 74.2 & 74.3 & \textbf{73.6} & 61.5 & 72.9 & \textbf{100.0} & 69.7 \\
\hline
DPGM (ours) &55.5 & 66.2 & \textbf{52.3} & 58.4 & \textbf{91.3} & \textbf{81.4} & 47.9 & 74.9 & 76.5 & \textbf{80.6} & 71.7 & \textbf{72.1} & \textbf{73.3} & \textbf{100.0} & \textbf{71.6} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the SPair-71k dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:SPair71K}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{3.mm}}l@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} | @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Algo. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bott. &bus & car &cat& chair &cow &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &plant &she. & train& tv& AVG\\
\hline
DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} & 54.8 &44.8 &80.3 &70.9 &65.5& 90.1 &78.5 &66.7 &66.4 &73.2 &66.2 &66.5 &65.7& 59.1 &98.7 &68.5 &84.9& 98.0 &72.2 \\
BBGM~\cite{BBGM} &66.9 &57.7 &85.8& \textbf{78.5} &66.9 &95.4 &\textbf{86.1} &74.6 &\textbf{68.3} &78.9& \textbf{73.0}& 67.5& 79.3& 73.0& \textbf{99.1} &74.8 &\textbf{95.0} &98.6 &78.9 \\
\hline
DPGM (ours) & \textbf{68.5} &\textbf{64.0} &\textbf{86.6} &76.9 &\textbf{72.4} &\textbf{96.4}& 81.9& \textbf{75.9}& 65.6& \textbf{81.1}& \textbf{73.0}& \textbf{73.1}& \textbf{82.2}& \textbf{76.2}& 98.7& \textbf{83.1}& 89.0& \textbf{99.9}& \textbf{80.3} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Willow Object dataset}\label{sec:willow}
The Willow Object dataset provided in~\cite{LG2M} contains 5 categories, each of which is represented by at least 40 images with different instances. Each image in this dataset is annotated with 10 distinctive landmarks on the target object, which means there is no outlier keypoint between two images from the same category. Following the dataset split setting in~\cite{PCA,LGM}, we select 20 images from each category for training and keep the rest for testing. Note that any two images from the same class of the training set can form a training sample, and we thus obtain a total of 2,000 training samples. In testing, we randomly choose 1,000 pairs of images from the testing set of each category respectively.
The graph matching performances of the compared approaches are shown in Table~\ref{table:willow}. This dataset is considered relatively easy due to the lack of variation in pose, scale and illumination, thus most of the compared methods achieve excellent matching results, especially on the \emph{Face} category. By jointly learning pairwise affinities and initial node assignments, our method solves the quadratic assignment problem without relaxation on the constraints in a deep probabilistic scheme. As a result, our method achieves the best matching accuracy in all categories expect \emph{Winebottle}, and surpasses all compared baselines in general.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\subfigure[GMN: 0/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/GMN_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[PCA: 0/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/PCA_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[IPCA: 2/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/IPCA_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[CIE: 2/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/CIE_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[DGMC: 3/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/DGMC_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[LGM: 0/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/LCS_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[NGM: 0/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/NGM_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[NGMv2: 2/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/NGMV2_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[BBGM: 2/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/BBGM_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[DPGM(ours): 8/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/ours.jpg}
}
\caption{The representative examples of matching results solved by all compared methods on category \emph{bottle}. The keypoints with same semantic annotations are marked in the same colors. The graph structures built in each image are represented as yellow lines. The incorrect and correct matches are represented as red lines and green lines across each pair of images, respectively.}
\label{fig:bottle}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[GMN: 1/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/GMN_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[PCA: 4/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/PCA_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[IPCA: 2/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/IPCA_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[CIE: 2/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/CIE_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[DGMC: 0/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/DGMC_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[LGM: 3/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/LCS_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[NGM: 2/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/NGM_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[NGMv2: 3/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/NGMV2_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[BBGM: 2/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/BBGM_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[DPGM(ours): 6/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/ours.jpg}
}
\caption{The representative examples of matching solutions solved by all compared methods on category \emph{car}. The keypoints with same semantic annotations are marked in the same colors. The graph structures built in each image are represented as yellow lines. The incorrect and correct matches are represented as red lines and green lines across each pair of images, respectively.}
\label{fig:car}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Pascal VOC}
Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} with Berkeley annotations of keypoints~\cite{berkeley} contains 20 classes of instances with labeled keypoint locations.
This dataset is considered more challenging than the Willow dataset for that instances may vary in its scale, pose, illumination and the number of inlier keypoints. Following previous arts~\cite{PCA,LGM}, we split the dataset into two groups, i.e., 7,020 annotated images for training and 1,682 images for testing. In particular, we randomly select 1,000 pairs of images from the testing set of each category for testing.
The comparison results on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} have been illustrated in Table~\ref{table:Pascal}.
Most of the previous methods~\cite{PCA,PCA-PAMI,LGM,qcDGM,DGM_consensus,Hungarian_Attention} that solve the graph matching problem in a relaxed form fail to provide satisfying matching results. After embedding a stronger combinatorial solver, BBGM~\cite{BBGM}, NGMv2~\cite{NGM} and our DPGM gain remarkable improvement in matching accuracy. In particular, our method achieves the best results on 14 categories and rises the average matching accuracy to $81.2\%$, surpassing the strongest competitors BBGM~\cite{BBGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM} by $1.1\%$. Some representative matching results of compared methods on categories~\emph{bottle} and~\emph{car} have been illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:bottle} and~\ref{fig:car}, respectively, both of which refer to the visual matching under heavy view changes. As illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:bottle} and~\ref{fig:car}, the previous deep learning methods, even those combined with combinatorial solvers, fail to obtain satisfied matching results. While with the proposed probabilistic solvers for searching the optimal solution from predicted assignments, our model DPGM achieves the best matching results where all the correct matches have been found.
Table~\ref{table:Pascal} illustrates the comparison of matching results on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} where each image pair may not contain the same keypoints, and all the compared methods only match an intersection of the two set of keypoints. However, this will lead to a problem that in many cases there may be only two 2 or 3 keypoints left. In such cases, what may contribute to the results is better visual feature, and the graph matching algorithm can not do much to improve the performance of the algorithm. Therefore, we perform an additional experiments on the Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} dataset with filtered image pairs that contain at least 10 keypoints, for better validation of the contribution of graph matching algorithms. The comparison is reported in Table~\ref{table:filterVOC}\footnote{The parameters of the pretrained models in Table~\ref{table:filterVOC} are provided at: https://github.com/Thinklab-SJTU/ThinkMatch.} where only 14 categories of image pairs with at least 10 keypoints are kept.
As illustrated in Table~\ref{table:filterVOC}, all algorithms achieve relatively lower matching accuracies in comparison with that in the original Pascal VOC dataset (Table 2). This demonstrates that finding optimal matching between relatively large graphs is more difficult than that on small ones. While consistent with the results in Table~\ref{table:Pascal}, BBGM~\cite{BBGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM}, which embed combinatorial solvers into deep graph matching framework, achieve relatively higher average matching accuracy than other baselines. This again demonstrates that the combination of combinatorial solvers and deep affinity learning framework is more suitable for graph matching tasks. Furthermore, with the proposed probabilistic solver, our algorithm achieves comparable or even best matching accuracy on most categories in comparison with previous state-of-the-art baselines, and rises the average matching accuracy to 71.6\%, surpassing the strong competitors BBGM~\cite{BBGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM} by 0.9\% and 1.9\%, respectively, which validates the effectiveness of the proposed deep probabilistic solver.
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of inferring time (ms) on Willow and Pascal VOC.}
\label{table:time}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.mm}}l@{\hspace{1.mm}} | @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}
@{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}@{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}
@{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}@{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}}
\hline
Dataset & GMN & LGM & NGM & NGMv2 & PCA & IPCA & DGMC & CIE & BBGM & DPGM (ours)\\
\hline
Willow~\cite{LG2M} & 28 & 42 & 14 & 15 & 29 & 35 & 3 & 28 & 13 & 10 \\
Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} & 27 & 33 & 12 & 13 & 26 & 30 & 4 & 26 & 11 & 30\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\subsection{SPair-71k}
The SPair-71k~\cite{SPair} is another large-scale benchmark dataset including a total of 70,958 pairs of images from PASCAL 3D+~\cite{3DPascal} and Pascal VOC 2012~\cite{VOC2012}, which is very well organized with rich annotations for learning. Compared with Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC}, the pair annotations in this dataset have larger variations in view-point, scale, truncation and occlusion, thus reflecting the more generalized visual correspondence problem in real-world scenarios. In addition, it removes the ambiguous and poorly annotated categories, i.e., \emph{sofa} and \emph{dining table}, from the Pascal VOC dataset~\cite{VOC}.
The matching accuracy on SPair-71k~\cite{SPair} are reported in Table~\ref{table:SPair71K}, where two state-of-the-art algorithms DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} and BBGM~\cite{BBGM} are taken as the baselines in comparison with our method. Compared with DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus}, the strongest competitor BBGM~\cite{BBGM} that employs a heavily optimized solver for graph matching achieves 6.7\% improvements on average matching accuracy, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the combination of deep framework for affinity learning and combinatorial solver. Furthermore, with the proposed probabilistic solver, our model DPGM achieves the best performance on most categories and reaches the best average matching accuracy of $80.3\%$, surpassing the DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} and BBGM~\cite{BBGM} by $8.1\%$ and $1.4\%$ respectively, which reveals that our method can be well generalized to more difficult graph matching problems in real-world scenarios.
\subsection{Running Time}
In addition to matching accuracy, computational efficiency is another important evaluation metric for graph matching methods. In this subsection, we report the inferring time of our algorithm in comparison with several deep-learning algorithms on the Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} and Willow~\cite{LG2M} datasets. The comparisons for inferring time have been illustrated in Table~\ref{table:time}. It is observed that, our algorithm achieves the efficiency that is similar to or higher than GMN~\cite{DGM}, LGM~\cite{LGM}, NGM~\cite{NGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM} that are also based on Lawler' QAP formulation. On the other hand, all of them are in general comparable in computational efficiency with PCA~\cite{PCA}, IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI} and CIE~\cite{PCA}, which have relaxed the quadratic constraints. As the latent dimensions of the proposed model on Willow~\cite{LG2M} is relatively lower than that on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC}, our model is more efficient for dealing with the visual matching tasks on Willow~\cite{LG2M} dataset. Specially, DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} is the most efficient one because the node features are complied in advance and the feature extraction module is removed from the code provided by the authors.
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Ablation studies on the Pascal VOC dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:ablation}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
| @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Abl. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bott. &bus & car &cat& chair &cow & tab. &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &plant &she. &sofa& train& tv& AVG\\
\hline
WPS &56.4 & 65.8&74.7&78.0&88.2&92.5&85.6&77.6&54.9&73.9&83.5&74.8&75.0&71.5&61.7&95.7&75.5&74.4&96.6&92.4&77.4\\
TIA &56.7 & \textbf{69.4} & 75.4 & 74.8 & 91.5 & 87.4 & 87.0 & 76.4 & 52.2 & 76.2 & 80.1 & 77.3 & 76.5 & 71.9 & 60.4 & 97.5 & 75.4 &67.4 &96.7 &87.7 &76.9\\
\hline
DPGM &\textbf{63.1} & 64.5 & \textbf{78.5} & \textbf{81.4} & \textbf{93.8} &\textbf{93.5} & \textbf{90.0} &\textbf{81.5} & \textbf{56.9} &\textbf{80.6} &\textbf{95.0} & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{72.5} &\textbf{68.0} &\textbf{98.5} & \textbf{79.3} &\textbf{75.4}&\textbf{98.3} & \textbf{92.8}&\textbf{81.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Ablation studies on the SPair-71k dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:abl_spair}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{3.mm}}l@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} | @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Abl. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bott. &bus & car &cat& chair &cow &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &plant &she. & train& tv& AVG\\
\hline
WPS & 65.3 & 56.1& 84.4 &75.0 &\textbf{72.7}& \textbf{96.9} &\textbf{85.6}& 74.0 &64.0 &\textbf{81.5}& 70.4& 68.7 &72.8 &72.7& \textbf{99.0}& 78.9 &\textbf{93.3}& 99.8 &78.4 \\
TIA & 68.2& 52.1& 84.3& 73.9&70.8&95.8&82.8&\textbf{76.2}&60.0&78.4&71.2&67.0&69.5&72.4&96.6&78.5&92.1&99.7&77.2 \\
\hline
DPGM & \textbf{68.5} &\textbf{64.0} &\textbf{86.6} &\textbf{76.9} &72.4 &96.4& 81.9& 75.9& \textbf{65.6}& 81.1& \textbf{73.0}& \textbf{73.1}& \textbf{82.2}& \textbf{76.2}& 98.7& \textbf{83.1}& 89.0& \textbf{99.9}& \textbf{80.3} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Ablation studies on the Willow Object dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:abl_willow}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.mm}}l@{\hspace{1.mm}} | @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}
| @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}}
\hline
Ablation & Car & Duck & Face & Motorb. & Wineb. & AVG\\
\hline
WPS & 91.8 & 85.4 & \textbf{100} & 98.3 & 97.1 & 95.4 \\
TIA & 96.7 &86.3 & \textbf{100} & 98.2 & \textbf{99.0} & 96.0\\
\hline
DPGM &\textbf{99.5} & \textbf{96.8} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{100} & 93.0 & \textbf{97.9} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Contributions of learnt assignments and affinities}
For illustration of the contributions of different modules in our framework, we provide various ablation studies and report results of two downgraded versions of our algorithm, named TIA and WPS, in Tables~\ref{table:ablation},~\ref{table:abl_spair},~\ref{table:abl_willow}.
\textbf{Trivial initialization of assignments (TIA):} we exclude the estimated assignments from the output of the AA-predictor, and initialize trivial assignments as the input of the probabilistic solver.
\textbf{Without probabilistic solver (WPS):} the differentiable probabilistic solver is removed from the network, and the output assignments of the AA-decoder are directly taken as the final solutions.
As shown in Tables~\ref{table:ablation}, \ref{table:abl_spair}, \ref{table:abl_willow}, both the downgraded versions of our model obtain
inferior performance to the full version on all the three benchmarks. Especially for Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC}, the full version of our model outperforms TIA and WPS by 4.3\% and 3.8\% on the average matching accuracy, respectively. These studies show that both the components make contributions to the excellent performance of the proposed DPGM algorithm.
Furthermore, we also explore the studies that combine the learnt affinities and other traditional learning-free solvers on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC}. Specifically, we take the affinities learnt by our AA-prediction network as input, and adopt several state-of-the-art traditional learning-free solvers, including RRWM~\cite{RWGM}, PSM~\cite{PBGM} and IPFP~\cite{IPFP}, to search the optimal solutions. The comparisons on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} are reported in Table~\ref{table:HL_K}, where RRWM-H and RRWM-L denote the results of using the handcrafted affinities and the learned ones, respectively. Same notations are used for PSM~\cite{PBGM} and IPFP~\cite{IPFP}. The results of using the handcrafted affinities are cited from LGM~\cite{LGM}. Obviously, replacing the handcrafted affinities with the learned ones can significantly improve the matching accuracies in most categories, and rise the average matching accuracies by 35.6\%, 37.3\% and 39.2\% for RRWM~\cite{RWGM}, PSM~\cite{PBGM} and IPFP~\cite{IPFP}, respectively. It clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of the learned affinities by our framework for graph matching. On the other hand, even though the learnt affinities are combined, these traditional solvers are still inferior to our framework by a certain gaps. It indicates that the learnt affinities are more suitable for end-to-end learnable framework than the transitional learning-free solvers.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\label{fig:AA}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figs/iter_AA.pdf}
}
\subfigure[]{
\label{fig:S}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figs/iter_S.pdf}
}
\caption{Results in the ablation experiments on the number of iterations for (a) the AA-updating module and (b) the probabilistic solver.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the Pascal VOC dataset under the combination of learnt affinities and traditional learning-free solvers. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results. }
\label{table:HL_K}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
| @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Algo. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bot. &bus & car &cat& cha.\ &cow & tab. &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &pla. &she. &sofa& tra. & tv& AVG\\
\hline
RRWM-H& 30.9 & 40.0 & 46.4 & 54.1 & 52.3 & 35.6 & 47.4 & 37.3 & 36.3 & 34.1 &28.8 & 35.0 & 39.1 & 36.2 & 39.5 &67.8 & 38.6 & 49.4 & 70.5& 41.3& 43.0 \\
RRWM-L & 61.5 & 61.0 & 76.8 & 79.8 & 93.1 & 91.4 & 88.5 & 78.2 & 54.2 & 76.8 & 98.2 & 75.5 & 76.0 & 69.5 & 65.5 & 98.1 & 75.8 & 68.9 & 88.6 & 93.6 & 78.6\\
PSM-H& 32.6 & 37.5 & 49.9 & 53.2 & 47.8 &34.6 & 50.1 & 35.5 & 37.2 & 36.3 &23.1 & 32.7 & 42.4 & 37.1 & 38.5 &62.3 & 41.7 & 54.3 & 72.6& 40.8 & 43.1 \\
PSM-L& 62.4 & 64.3 & 78.0 & 81.3 & 93.2 & 93.0 & 89.9 & 81.3 & 55.6 & 79.9 & \textbf{100.0} & 78.0 & 80.0 & 72.2 & 66.8 & 98.3 & 77.2 & 73.2 & 90.6 & \textbf{93.9} & 80.4\\
IPFP-H & 25.1 & 26.4 & 41.4 & 50.3 & 43.0 & 32.9 & 37.3 & 32.5 & 33.6 & 28.2 & 26.9 & 26.1 & 29.9 & 32.0 & 28.8 & 62.9 & 28.2 & 45.0 & 69.3 & 33.8 &36.6 \\
IPFP-L & 59.5 & 59.1 & 74.2 & 78.1 & 91.4 & 87.7 & 85.7 & 76.4 & 52.3 & 73.8 & 84.7 & 73.8 & 73.9 & 66.7 & 62.8 & 97.8 & 73.9 & 67.6 & 84.1 & 93.6 & 75.8\\
\hline
DPGM &\textbf{63.1} & \textbf{64.5} & \textbf{78.5} & \textbf{81.4} & \textbf{93.8} & \textbf{93.5} & \textbf{90.0} &\textbf{81.5} &\textbf{ 56.9} &\textbf{80.6} & 95.0 & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{72.5} &\textbf{68.0} &\textbf{98.5} & \textbf{79.3} &\textbf{75.4} & \textbf{98.3} & 92.8 &\textbf{81.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Iteration of AA-updating module}
In the AA-predictor, the iteration of AA-updating module determines the receptive field of aggregated information from neighbors, which has direct influence to the final matching performance. Here, we vary the AA-updating iteration from 1 to 8 to explore its influence to the average matching accuracy. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:AA}, the average matching accuracy is only 57.6\% when only single iteration of AA-updating is performed. While the performance of our model can be significantly improved by setting the iteration of AA-updating from 2 to 5. However, there is no evident improvement when the iteration of AA-updating module is set as a value greater than 5, which demonstrates only 5 iterations of AA-updating module is sufficient to capture the structural representations of AA-graph. This in turn explain why we set the convolution iteration in AA-predictor as 5.
\subsubsection{Iteration of probabilistic solver}
Given the predicted assignments and affinities by AA-predictor, the proposed probabilistic solver refines them iteratively to search the optimal solution. To explore the influence of iteration of probabilistic solver to the model performance, we vary the refinement iteration for assignments from 0 to 7. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:S}, without refinement for assignments, i.e., setting the refinement iteration as 0, the average matching accuracy is only 14.4\%. With a single iteration of refinement for assignments, our model rises the matching accuracy to 75.2\%, which surpasses most of the state-of-the-art baselines. When setting the iteration of probabilistic solver as a value greater than 4, the average matching accuracy is stable around 81.0\%. The illustration of results in Fig.~\ref{fig:S} and the convergence showed in Fig~\ref{subfig:sparse} reveal that our model needs not many refinement iteration to search the optimal solutions, which guarantees the efficiency of the proposed model.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a novel deep learning algorithm, named DPGM, for graph matching.
In DPGM, an affinity-assignment prediction network is developed to learn the pairwise affinities and at the same time estimate the initial node assignments, and a differentiable solver is embedded to better optimize the QAP in a probabilistic perspective without compromise on the matching constraints.
Experimental results reveal that DPGM achieves state-of-the-art matching performance on various real-world image datasets.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\noindent This work is supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Nos. 62076021, 62072027 and 61872032) and the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (Nos. 4202060, 4202057 and 4212041).
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\IEEEPARstart{G}{enerally} speaking, the problem of graph matching aims to find the optimal vertex correspondences between given graphs under structure constraints of keeping the edge consistency. It has been widely used in many applications such as object tracking~\cite{GM_visualTrack,Gracker}, person re-identification~\cite{reid}, point correspondence\cite{GMSP}, \textit{etc}.
Graph matching is in general NP-hard due to its combinatorial nature, and it is thus hard to search a global optimal solution for graphs with large sizes. Therefore, many approximate approaches~\cite{RWGM,BGM,PBGM,Graduated_Assignment,Spec_Tech,GNCCP,ABPF,PFGM,graph_hypergraph,Fact_GM} have been devoted to seeking acceptable suboptimal solutions by relaxing the quadratic assignment problem to a simpler form.
Aiming to improve the matching accuracy in real-world matching tasks, some early efforts~\cite{Learning_GM,LG2M} have been devoted to learning reasonable affinity measures or adaptive graph representations using the machine learning strategies. However, the improvements are limited because of the shallow parameter settings, and thus still insufficient to handle various challenges.
Recently, approaches~\cite{DGM,PCA,LGM,qcDGM,GLUE,BBGM,DGM_consensus,Hungarian_Attention} based on deep neural networks have attracted much research attention due to the ability to learn representative embeddings of nodes and/or edges. It is common for these approaches to embed a differentiable solver for the combinatorial optimization problem into an end-to-end learning framework. Different from the well-designed combinatorial solvers in previous learning-free graph matching methods, these learning-based methods usually acquire node correspondences in a more straightforward way by relaxing one or more of the quadratic constraints, discrete constraints and one-to-one matching constraints. Examples include~\cite{DGM_consensus,GLUE,PCA} that relax the quadratic assignment problem to a node-wise assignment problem and adopt the Sinkhorn algorithm~\cite{Sinkhorn_network} for the optimization of linear assignment, \cite{DGM} that works directly on the learned pairwise affinities using a spectral matching algorithm~\cite{Spec_Tech} but drops both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints, and~\cite{BBGM} that relaxes the graph matching problem based on Lagrangian decomposition and employs dual block coordinate ascent implementations for optimization. Despite remarkable performance gained, these relaxations of the original problem may cause potential limitations on matching performance.
To address the issues mentioned above, we propose a novel \emph{deep probabilistic graph matching} (DPGM) algorithm, which works directly on the learned pairwise affinities and imposes both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints on the matching solutions. Firstly, we design an \emph{affinity-assignment prediction network} (AA-predictor) to jointly learn the pairwise affinities and the node assignments. Specifically, the AA-predictor performs graph propagation using several delicately designed convolution operators on a constructed \emph{affinity-assignment graph} (AA-graph), in which each node corresponds to a candidate match and each edge relates to the pairwise affinity between two matches. Subsequently, the learned affinities and estimated assignments of the AA-predictor are passed as inputs to a \emph{differentiable probabilistic solver}, which refines the estimated assignments in an iterative manner and imposes both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints in a probabilistic way. Finally, the balanced entropy loss between the output matching solutions and ground-truth matches is employed as the supervision signal to guide the training of our framework.
For evaluating the proposed DPGM algorithm, we report its matching performance on three public benchmarks, namely Willow Objects~\cite{LG2M}, Pascal VOC Keypoints~\cite{VOC} and SPair-71k~\cite{SPair}, in comparison with several state-of-the-art graph matching approaches.
In experiments our method outperforms all compared methods on all three benchmarks, which illustrates the effectiveness and adaptability of the proposed method in different scenarios.
We will release our code publicly available once the paper is accepted.
In summary, with the proposed learning framework for graph matching, this paper makes contribution in three-fold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the proposed differentiable probabilistic solver works directly on the learned pairwise affinities in a probabilistic way, which is expected to be more effective by avoiding the compromise on the matching constraints;
\item unlike most previous graph matching methods that use a trivial guess of an initial assignment for the combinatorial solver, ours learns jointly the pairwise affinities and the initial assignment, which remarkably benefits the final solution (see Tables~\ref{table:ablation},~\ref{table:abl_spair},~\ref{table:abl_willow}); and
\item extensive experiments are conducted on three popular benchmarks, in comparison with many state-of-the-art methods, to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Related Works}
Graph matching has been investigated for decades and many algorithms have been proposed. In this section we review recent learning-based studies or those closely related to ours, and leave general graph matching research to three comprehensive surveys~\cite{Conte2004,Foggia2014,survey_yan}.
Aiming to cooperate with the data derived from real-world matching tasks, many learning-based graph matching algorithms, including unsupervised~\cite{unsup_GM}, semi-supervised~\cite{semisup_GM} and supervised ones~\cite{Learning_GM,smooth_optim}, have been proposed to learn the parameters of affinity measure to replace the handcrafted affinity metric. In addition, instead of learning the affinity measure, Cho \textit{et al.}~\cite{LG2M} propose a learnable framework to parameterize the graph model and generate reasonable structural attributes for visual object matching. However, these methods employ simple and shallow parametric models to control geometric affinities between pairs of matches, and the promotion to the matching accuracy is still limited.
With the growing interest in utilizing deep neural network for structured data~\cite{TIP1, TIP2}, learning graph matching with \emph{graph neural network} (GNN) has attracted much research attention. A classic way is to learn representative node and/or edge embeddings via graph neural networks and then relax the graph matching problem to the linear assignment problem.
Nowak~\textit{et al.}~\cite{NowakVBB18} introduce a Siamese GNN encoder to produce a normalized node embedding for each graph to be matched, and then predict a matching by minimizing the cosine distance between matching pairs of embeddings dictated by the target permutation.
Wang~\textit{et al.}~\cite{PCA} employ the \textit{graph convolutional network} (GCN) framework~\cite{KipfW17} to produce node embeddings by aggregating graph structure information, and adopt the Sinkhorn network~\cite{Sinkhorn_network} as the combinatorial solver for the relaxed linear assignment problem.
SuperGlue~\cite{GLUE} is designed for generating discriminative node representations using intra-graph and cross-graph attention, where spatial relationships and visual information are jointly taken into considerations during the node embedding process. In addition, to drop the outlier candidate matches that usually occur in real-world matching tasks, this framework augments each node set with a dustbin so that the unmatched nodes are explicitly assigned to it.
To further improve the robustness of learnable affinities, Yu~\textit{et al.}~\cite{Hungarian_Attention} propose a node and edge embedding strategy that simulates the multi-head strategy in attention models, enabling the information in each channel to be merged independently.
Fey~\textit{et al.}~\cite{DGM_consensus} propose to start from an initial ranking of soft correspondences between nodes, and iteratively refine the solution by synchronous message passing networks to reach neighborhood consensus between node pairs without any optimization inference.
Different from the above mentioned methods that focus mainly on the learning of node and/or edge embeddings and relax the quadratic matching constraints,
several recently proposed methods work directly on pairwise affinities and embed differentiable solvers for quadratic optimization.
Zanfir~\textit{et al.}~\cite{DGM} formulate graph matching as a quadratic assignment problem under both unary and pairwise affinities, and adopt a spectral matching algorithm~\cite{Spec_Tech} as the combinatorial solver that drops both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints in optimization.
Rol{\'{\i}}nek~\textit{et al.}~\cite{BBGM} relax the graph matching problem based on Lagrangian decomposition, which is solved by
embedding BlackBox implementations of a heavily optimized solver~\cite{SwobodaRAKS17} based on dual block coordinate ascent.
Reformulating graph matching as Koopmans-Beckmann's QAP~\cite{LoiolaANHQ07} to minimize the adjacency discrepancy of graphs to be matched, Gao \textit{et al.}~\cite{qcDGM} adopt the Frank-Wolf algorithm~\cite{Frank&Wolfe56} to obtain approximate solutions.
Besides, Wang~\textit{et al.}~\cite{LGM} integrate learning of affinities and solving for combinatorial optimization into a unified node labeling pipeline, where the quadratic assignment problem of graph matching has been transformed to the binary classification problem of finding the positive node in a constructed assignment graph.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=4.8cm, trim=0 100 30 0,clip]{figs/pipeline-2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The overview pipeline of the proposed DPGM framework. Taking the two graphs $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$ to be matched as input, the AA-predictor firstly generates an affinity-assignment graph (AA-graph) $\mathbb{G}^A$, where the candidate matches and pairwise affinities are modeled as nodes and edges respectively. Subsequently, the graph state is iteratively updated by the AA-updating module to form structured representations, and it is finally read out by the decoder that maps representations of nodes and edges to entries of the assignment matrix and the pairwise affinity matrix respectively. Finally, the differentiable probabilistic solver starts from the assignments estimated by the AA-predictor, and refines them alternatively by solving QAP in a probabilistic way to obtain better matching solutions. }
\label{pipeline}
\end{figure*}
\section{Graph Matching}
\subsection{Problem formulation}
In graph theory, an attributed graph of $n$ nodes can be represented by $\mathbb{G}=\{\mathbb{V},\mathbb{E},\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}\}$, where $\mathbb{V}=\{v_1,...,v_n\}$ and $\mathbb{E}\subseteq\mathbb{V}\times{\mathbb{V}}$ denote respectively the node set and edge set, and $\mathcal{V}=\{\textbf{v}_i|\textbf{v}_i\in \mathbb{R}^{d_V},i=1,2,...,n\}$ and $\mathcal{E}=\{\textbf{e}_i|\textbf{e}_i\in \mathbb{R}^{d_E},i=1,2,...,|\mathcal{E}|\}$ the node attribute set and edge attribute set, respectively. The node relations in the graph can be represented by a symmetric adjacency matrix $A\in \{0,1\}^{n\times{n}}$, where $A_{ij}=1$ if and only if there is an edge between nodes $v_i$ and $v_j$.
Given two graphs $\mathbb{G}^{(i)}=\{\mathbb{V}^{(i)},\mathbb{E}^{(i)},\mathcal{V}^{(i)},\mathcal{E}^{(i)}\}$ of size $n$, $i=1,2$, graph matching aims to find node correspondence $X\in \{0,1\}^{n\times{n}}$ between $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$ that maximizes the global consistency designed as
\begin{equation}
\label{global_consistency}
\mathcal{H}=\sum_{i,a}c_{ia}X_{ia}+\sum_{i,j,a,b}d_{ia,jb}X_{ia}X_{jb},
\end{equation}
where $c_{ia}$ measures the similarity between node $v_{i}^{(1)}$ in $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and node $v_{a}^{(2)}$ in $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$, while $d_{ia,jb}$ measures the agreement between edge $(v_{i}^{(1)},v_{j}^{(1)})$ in $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and edge $(v_{a}^{(2)},v_{b}^{(2)})$ in $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$. The correspondence matrix $X$ indicates the matching results, i.e., $X_{ia}=1$ if and only if $i^{th}$ node of $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ matches to $a^{th}$ node of $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$. In addition, the distribute of $X$ is restricted under the one-to-one matching constraints: $X\textbf{1}_n=\textbf{1}_n$ and $X^T\textbf{1}_n=\textbf{1}_n$, where $\textbf{1}_n$ denotes a $n-$demension one-value vector.
Seeking the optimal solution maximizing the Eq.~\ref{global_consistency} can be reformulated as a quadratic assignment problem:
\begin{equation}\label{graph_matching}
\textbf{x}^\ast=\arg\max_\textbf{x} \textbf{x}^TK\textbf{x},
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{x}$ is the vectorization of $X$, and $K$ the affinity matrix encoding the node similarity and edge agreement at diagonal elements and off-diagonal elements, respectively. In more detail, the affinity matrix $K$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{K_mat}
K_{ia,jb}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
c_{ia} & {\rm if~~} i=j {\rm ~~and~~} a=b,\\
d_{ia,jb} & {\rm else~if~~} A_{ia}^{(1)}A_{jb}^{(2)}>0,\\
0 & {\rm otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Note that, for simplicity we assume that the two given graphs to be matched have the same size $n$ in this work, yet this formulation of graph matching can be easily extended to general cases with different sizes by auxiliary strategies, such as adding dummy nodes.
Recently, many efforts have been devoted to improving graph matching accuracy with the combination of deep learning architecture and differentiable relaxation-based solvers. The graph matching problem has been relaxed to a linear assignment problem by learning the high-order node embeddings in~\cite{PCA,DGM_consensus,Hungarian_Attention}, and the Sinkhorn algorithm~\cite{sinkhorn} is applied as a combinatorial solver in these works. In~\cite{DGM}, the unary and pair-wise affinities are generated by learning deep node and edge representations, and the quadratic assignment problem is solved by a relaxation manner, \textit{i.e.}, spectral matching~\cite{Spec_Tech}. A more advanced method has been proposed by Rol{\'{\i}}nek~\textit{et al.}~\cite{BBGM} who propose using strong feature extraction with SplineCNN~\cite{splineCNN} and leverage the combinatorial solver based on dual block coordinate ascent for Lagrange decompositions~\cite{SwobodaRAKS17}. Despite the demonstrated power of deep networks in representation learning, the relaxation strategy applied to graph matching problem is a weakening of the quadratic assignment problem, which may hurt the performance of graph matching.
Unlike the deep graph matching methods discussed above, we treat the graph matching problem as a quadratic assignment problem faithfully without compromise on matching constraints, and solve the problem using a probabilistic optimization scheme that takes as input the estimated affinities and assignments, both of which are jointly learnt through a novel graph information propagation module, and refines the assignment solutions in an iterative manner.
\section{The Proposed Method}
Our model consists of two core parts: an \textit{affinity-assignment prediction network} (AA-predictor) and a \textit{differentiable probabilistic solver}. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{pipeline}, the AA-predictor first models the pairwise affinity and candidate matches into a unified \textit{affinity-assignment graph} (AA-graph), and then performs graph propagation to form the structural representations for nodes and edges, both of which are decoded as the initial assignments and affinities, respectively. Subsequently, the differentiable probabilistic solver takes the estimated assignments and affinities as input, and refines them in a probabilistic manner to obtain the optimal matching solutions.
\subsection{Affinity-assignment prediction network}
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{pipeline}, the AA-predictor takes two graphs to be matched as input, and learns pairwise affinities and candidate assignments through three components including the AA-graph construction, AA-updating module and AA-decoder.
\textbf{Affinity-assignment graph construction:}
Given two input graphs $\mathbb{G}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbb{G}^{(2)}$, we model the candidate matches and the pairwise affinities into a so-called \textit{affinity-assignment graph} (AA-graph) $\mathbb{G}^A=\{\mathbb{V}^A,\mathbb{E}^A,\mathcal{V}^A,\mathcal{E}^A\}$, where the candidate match between $v_i^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ and $v_a^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ is denoted as a node $v_{ia}^A \in \mathbb{V}^A$, and the pair-wise affinity between a pair of candidate matches $v_{ia}^A, v_{jb}^A \in \mathbb{V}^A$ is represented by the edge $e_{(ia,jb)}^A \in \mathbb{E}^A$ if and only if there are two edges $(v_i^{(1)}, v_j^{(1)})\in \mathbb{E}^{(1)}$ and $(v_a^{(2)}, v_b^{(2)})\in \mathbb{E}^{(2)}$.
Fig.~\ref{subfig:AAgraph} illustrates an example of constructing the AA-graph where the candidate matches $X_{1a}$ and $X_{2b}$ are encoded as the nodes $v_{1a}^A$ and $v_{2b}^A$ in $\mathbb{V}^A$ respectively, and the affinity between them (i.e., $K_{1a,2b}$) is modeled into the edge $(v_{1a}^A,v_{2b}^A) \in \mathbb{E}^A$.
Different from the method proposed in~\cite{LGM} that utilizes only geometric cues to form the attributes of nodes and edges, we combine the visual features and geometric information to generate the initial attributes on AA-graph. Specifically, we take the visual features extracted from images by CNNs~\cite{CNN} as the raw node attributes, and concatenate the point coordinates of two nodes associated with the same edge to form the edge attributes as
\begin{equation}\label{raw_feature}
\begin{aligned}
\textbf{v}_{ia}^A & =[\textbf{f}_i^{(1)}; \textbf{f}_a^{(2)}]; \\
\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A & = [\textbf{p}_{i}^{(1)}; \textbf{p}_{j}^{(1)}; \textbf{p}_{a}^{(2)}; \textbf{p}_{b}^{(2)}],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{f}_i^{(1)}$ and $\textbf{p}_{i}^{(1)}$ denote the visual feature and coordinates of the $i^{th}$ keypoint in the $1^{st}$ image respectively, and $[\cdot;\ldots;\cdot]$ concatenates its input along the channel direction.
In this way, the affinity matrix and matches in Eq.~\ref{graph_matching} have been transformed into high-order representations in the unified AA-graph, and they are alternatively updated to form structured representations by the following AA-updating module.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.5cm,height=4cm, trim=0 100 0 50,clip]{figs/AA_Graph.pdf}
\caption{An example of the AA-graph construction.
}
\label{subfig:AAgraph}
\end{figure}
\textbf{AA-updating module:}
This module performs graph propagation by extending the graph network block~\cite{LGM} module to fit our framework.
Specifically, this module firstly transforms the original node attributes and edge attributes of the input AA-graph into two latent embedding spaces, and then iteratively updates the affinities (edge attributes) and the assignments (node attributes) by stacking multiple affinity updating layers and assignment updating layers.
For the original AA-graph, the AA-updating module employs the encoder to transform the AA-graph state into latent embedding space as
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{G}^A \leftarrow Encoder(\mathbb{G}^A) = \{\mathbb{V}^A, \mathbb{E}^A, \rho_v(\mathcal{V}^A), \rho_e(\mathcal{E}^A)\},
\end{equation}
where $\rho^v$ and $\rho^e$ are the learnable transformation functions that map the original attributes of nodes and edges into the latent spaces with dimensions of $d_V$ and $d_E$, respectively. Furthermore, both $\rho_v$ and $\rho_e$ are designed as two Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs), but with different parameters. After that, the AA-updating module performs graph propagation to form the structural representations for nodes and edges.
Since a pairwise affinity $\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A$ is directly related to its associated matches $\textbf{v}_{ia}^A$ and $\textbf{v}_{jb}^A$, we design the affinity updating layer as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{\textbf{e}}_{(ia,jb)}^A & = (M_1 \textbf{v}_{ia}^A)\odot(M_2 \textbf{v}_{jb}^A); \\
\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A & \leftarrow \tau([\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A; \bar{\textbf{e}}_{(ia,jb)}^A]),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $M_1,M_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{d_V\times{d_V}}$ are the learnable similarity coefficients, the operator $\odot$ denotes the element-wise multiplication of two vectors, and $\tau$ is the update function designed as a learnable MLP that maps the concatenated features to the dimension of $d_E$.
For a candidate assignment $v_{ia}^A$, we wish to determine its reliability based on its associated pairwise affinities.
Therefore, in the assignment updating layer we update the attribute of each node by aggregating the information of its associated edges as
\begin{equation}
\textbf{v}_{ia}^A \leftarrow \kappa\Big(\big[\sum_{\textbf{e} \in \mathcal{E}^A_{ia}} \textbf{e};\textbf{v}_{ia}^A \big] \Big),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}^A_{ia}$ denotes the attribute set of the edges adjacent to node $v_{ia}^A$, and $\kappa$ the parameterized function designed as an MLP that maps the aggregated features to the dimension of $d_V$.
\textbf{AA-Decoder:}
The decoder can be interpreted as an inverse procedure of AA-graph construction, and it maps the structured representations of edges and nodes to scalar values in affinity matrix $K$ and assignment matrix $X$.
In particular, node attributes are transformed to scalar values in $(0,1)$ that indicate the probabilities of the corresponding matches, and edge attributes to scalar values in $(0,1)$ that denote the affinities of the corresponding pairs of candidate matches.
The concrete transformation process in the decoder module can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{decoder}
\begin{aligned}
\textbf{X}_{ia} & = \mathrm{sigmoid}(\varphi_n(\textbf{v}_{ia}^A)); \\
K_{ia,jb} & = \mathrm{sigmoid}(\varphi_e(\textbf{e}_{(ia,jb)}^A)),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_n$ and $\varphi_e$ are two learnable MLP-based update functions that transform the high-order features to the scalar values in $(-\infty,+\infty)$, and $\mathrm{sigmoid}(z)$ is the activation function formulated as $\mathrm{sigmoid}(z)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-z}}$,
which maps its input into the values in $(0,1)$.
\subsection{Differentiable Probabilistic Solver}\label{prob_estimation}
Instead of taking the estimated assignments from AA-predictor as the final matching solution, we design a differentiable probabilistic solver to refine the estimated assignments by imposing both discrete and one-to-one matching constraints.
There are several studies~\cite{graph_hypergraph,PBGM,RWGM} dedicated to solving Eq.~\ref{graph_matching} from the probability perspective, which have exhibited state-of-the-art matching performance among the family of learning-free algorithms. In the probabilistic interpretation of graph matching, the assignment $X_{ia}$ is regarded as the probability that the node $v_{i}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ matches $v_{a}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$, and the affinity $K_{ia,jb}$ is considered as the empirical estimation of the pairwise assignment probability such that $v_{i}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ matches $v_{a}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ and $v_{j}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ matches $v_{b}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$.
Denoting $\mathcal{P}_X=\{P(X_{ia}):1\leq i,a\leq n\}$ in which $P(X_{ia})$ is the probability that the match between $v_{i}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ and $v_{a}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ is valid;
and $\mathcal{P}_{X,X}=\{P(X_{ia}|X_{jb}):1\leq i,a,j,b\leq n\}$ in which $P(X_{ia}|X_{jb})$ denotes the conditional assignment probability (\textit{i.e.}, the probability of the assignment $X_{ia}$ under the condition that the assignment $X_{jb}$ is valid). The graph matching problem of Eq.~\ref{graph_matching} that finding the optimal assignment results can be reformulated as
\begin{equation}\label{pro_GM}
\begin{split}
&[\mathcal{P}^{\ast}_{X},\mathcal{P}^{\ast}_{X,X}] =\\
& ~~~ \operatornamewithlimits{\arg \min}_{\mathcal{P}_{X}, \mathcal{P}_{X,X}} ~ \sum_{i,a}\Big( \sum_{j,b}{P(X_{ia}|X_{jb})P(X_{jb})} - P(X_{ia}) \Big)^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It is common~\cite{graph_hypergraph,PBGM,RWGM} to solve such a probabilistic optimization through iterating a two-step optimization process: (1)
estimating the assignment probability $P(X_{ia})$ according to the current affinity distribution; and (2) refining conditional assignment probability $P(X_{ia}|X_{jb})$ upon the computed individual probability.
Thus inspired, we design a differentiable probabilistic solver that is summarized in Algorithm~\ref{algo_solver}.
For estimating the assignment probabilities, we firstly vectorize the predicted assignment matrix (Line 3), in which each element can be regarded as the probability of corresponding candidate match, i.e., $P(X_{jb})$. For the predicted affinities matrix, we consider elements in each column $K_{\cdot,jb}$ as the joint probabilities under the corresponding match $X_{jb}$ is valid, that is, $P(X_{ia}|X_{jb}): 1\leq i,a \leq n$. Thus, under the probabilistic explanations, the probabilistic solver updates the assignment probabilities using the current conditional probabilities using $\textbf{x}_{t+1} \leftarrow K_t \textbf{x}_t$ (Line 4). The updating for each element in $\textbf{x}$ can be interpreted as the following probabilistic formulation
\begin{equation}\label{step1}
P_{t+1}(X_{ia})=\sum_{j,b}P_t(X_{ia}|X_{jb})P_t(X_{jb}).
\end{equation}
After that, the Sinkhorn algorithm~\cite{Sinkhorn_network} (Line 6) performs both row- and column-normalization on the assignment matrix, which guarantees the one-to-one matching constraints in a soft way.
In other words, the probabilities that each node $v_i^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ matches all nodes $v_a^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ should add up to 1, and vice versa.
During the refinement of the affinity matrix $K$ (Line 10, where $\oslash$ denotes element-wise division between two vectors), we adaptively increase the entries that correspond to valid assignments and weaken the ones that correspond to invalid assignments.
Specifically, if an updated assignment $\textbf{x}_{t+1}^{ia}$ between $v_i^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ and $v_a^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ is larger than the previous one $\textbf{x}_{t}^{ia}$, that is $\frac{\textbf{x}_{t+1}^{ia}}{\textbf{x}_{t}^{ia}}>1$, we think it is more likely to be a valid assignment. Otherwise, the assignment between $v_i^{(1)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(1)}$ and $v_a^{(2)} \in \mathbb{V}^{(2)}$ is more likely to be an invalid one. Thus, we multiply the incremental $\frac{\textbf{x}_{t+1}}{\textbf{x}_{t}}$ to augment or weaken the joint probabilities that it involves.
From the probabilistic perspective, this process actually equals to refining the conditional assignment probability $P(X_{ia}|X_{jb})$ according to the estimated $P(X_{ia})$ by
\begin{equation}\label{step2}
P_{t+1}(X_{ia}|X_{jb})=P_{t}(X_{ia}|X_{jb})\frac{P_{t+1}(X_{ia})}{P_t(X_{ia})},
\end{equation}
where $t$ and $t+1$ indicate iteration steps.
\begin{algorithm*}[t]
\caption{The differentiable probabilistic solver.}
\label{algo_solver}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
$X_1$: initial assignment solution;
$K_1$: initial affinity matrix;
$S$: maximum of iteration;
$\eta$: predefined threshold.
\Ensure
optimal assignment solution $X^{*}$.
\vspace{1mm}
\State initialization: $X_t \leftarrow X_1$, $K_t \leftarrow K_1$;
\For {$t=1$; $t\leq S$; $t++$ }
\State $\textbf{x}_t \leftarrow \textrm{vec}(X_t)$; \Comment{vectorizing $X_t$}
\State $\textbf{x}_{t+1} \leftarrow K_t \textbf{x}_t$ \Comment {estimate the assignment probabilities}
\State $X_{t+1} \leftarrow \textrm{reshape}(\textbf{x}_{t+1})$; \Comment {reshape the probabilities to matrix form}
\State $X_{t+1} \leftarrow \textrm{Sinkhorn}(X_{t+1})$; \Comment {normalize the probabilities by Sinkhorn}
\If {$\|\textbf{x}_{t+1} - \textbf{x}_t\|^2<\eta$}
\State break;
\EndIf
\State $K_{t+1} \leftarrow K_t ((\textbf{x}_{t+1} \oslash \textbf{x}_{t} ) \textbf{1}^T)$; \Comment {update the conditional probabilities}
\EndFor
\State $X^*\leftarrow X_{t+1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm*}
To validate the sparsity of the estimated assignment matrix, we record its binary score at each iteration on Willow Object dataset~\cite{LG2M}, which is computed according to its $\ell_{2,1}$ norm as
\begin{equation}
s=\frac{1}{2N}\big(\|X \|_{\ell_{2,1}} + \|X^\top \|_{\ell_{2,1}}\big),
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of nodes of the graphs to be matched.
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{subfig:sparse}, the binary scores $s$ of the estimated assignments are gradually improved with the iteration increasing.
It approaches $1$ after several iterations, meaning the assignment matrix is nearly discrete under the premise that the one-to-one matching constraints are guaranteed by the Sinkhorn algorithm.
That is to say, the proposed solver is able to impose not only the one-to-one constraints but also the discrete constraints,
which are usually considered only in the inferring step in most previous end-to-end learning frameworks~\cite{DGM,PCA,LGM}.
\subsection{Loss Function}
Similar to~\cite{LGM,PCA}, we also utilize the difference between the predicted assignments and groundtruth node-to-node correspondences as the supervision signal to guide the training process. Specifically, given the groundtruth correspondences $X^{gt}$ and estimated solutions $X$, we first reshape them to the vector form $\textbf{x}^{gt}$ and $\textbf{x}$ respectively, and measure the difference between them using the balanced cross entropy loss
\begin{equation}\label{loss}
\mathcal{L}= -\sum_{i=1}^{n^2} \Big[ w\ \textbf{x}_i^{gt} \log(\textbf{x}_i) \ + \ (1-w) (1-\textbf{x}_i^{gt}) \log(1-\textbf{x}_i) \Big],
\end{equation}
where $w$ is a hyper-parameter that balances the loss to avoid the dominance of the negative candidate matches during training.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:exp}
To validate the effectiveness of our framework, we evaluate it on three public visual keypoint matching benchmarks, named Willow Object dataset~\cite{LG2M}, Pascal VOC Keypoints~\cite{VOC} and SPair-71k~\cite{SPair}, in comparison with ten state-of-the-art learning-based graph matching approaches including GMN~\cite{DGM}, PCA~\cite{PCA}, IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI}, LGM~\cite{LGM}, qc-DGM~\cite{qcDGM}, DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus}, CIE~\cite{Hungarian_Attention}, BBGM~\cite{BBGM}, NGM~\cite{NGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM}. Among these baseline methods, IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI} is the upgraded version of PCA~\cite{PCA} by iterating the cross-graph updating for node attributes, and NGMv2~\cite{NGM} is the extension of NGM~\cite{NGM} with the refinement for initial graph features by SplineCNN networks~\cite{splineCNN}.
Although it has been demonstrated that adaptively adjusting graph structure can also achieve the state-of-the-art performance~\cite{DLGM}, in this paper we only focus on the works that estimate the matching solutions with the combination of deep learning framework and differentiable solvers under fixed graph topology. Therefore, the recently proposed method~\cite{DLGM} that adaptively generates latent graph topology for graph matching has been excluded from baseline methods.
\begin{figure}[!thb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,height=5cm]{figs/sparse.pdf}
\caption{The illustration for convergence of the proposed probabilistic solver.}
\label{subfig:sparse}
\end{figure}
In experiments, we follow~\cite{BBGM} to extract the visual features using the VGG16 backbone~\cite{VGG16} as the raw keypoint features. The encoder transforms both the initial node features and edge features on AA-graph to the 128-dimension latent space for the graph matching tasks on the Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} and SPair-71k~\cite{SPair} datasets. In other words, both $d_V$ and $d_E$ are set as 128. For the much easier Willow~\cite{LG2M} dataset, the encoder transforms the AA-graph features to 32-dimension latent space (i.e., $d_V=d_E=32$) to alleviate the over-fitting during training.
For gradient back propagation in model learning, the gradients of the solution would be very small when the solution is close to $\{0,1\}$ after many iterations of the probabilistic solver, making the model hard to be trained. Considering that, we adopt an early-stop strategy to avoid gradient vanishing, which is formulated at Lines 7 to 9 in Algorithm~\ref{algo_solver}. Specifically, if the increment of the updated assignments is below a predefined threshold $\eta$, the updating of assignments and affinities will be stopped.
Furthermore, we set the iteration of the convolution operation in the AA-prediction network as 5 to capture the structural representations from 5-order neighborhoods. In the probabilistic solver, we specify the stop threshold $\eta = 0.00001$ and the iteration maximum $S = 10$ throughout our experiments.
During training, the positive label weight $w$ in Eq.~\ref{loss} is fixed to 5 to balance the significance of positive labels and negative labels. Our model runs on a linux server with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 (2.10GHz) and a TITAN XP GPU (12G).
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the Willow Object dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:willow}
\normalsize
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{1.5mm}}l@{\hspace{1.mm}} | @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}
| @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}}
\hline
Algorithm & Car & Duck & Face & Motorb. & Wineb. & AVG\\
\hline
GMN~\cite{DGM} & 74.3 & 82.8 & 99.3 & 71.4 &76.7 & 80.9 \\
PCA~\cite{PCA} & 84.0 & 93.5 & \textbf{100} & 76.7 &96.9 & 90.2\\
IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI} & 90.2 & 84.9 & \textbf{100} & 77.7 &95.2 & 89.6\\
LGM~\cite{LGM} & 91.2 & 86.2 & \textbf{100} & 99.4 &97.9 & 94.9 \\
qc-DGM~\cite{qcDGM} & 98.0 & 92.8 & \textbf{100} & 98.8 &\textbf{99.0}&97.7\\
DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} & 98.3 & 90.2 & \textbf{100} & 98.5 & 98.1 & 97.0 \\
CIE~\cite{Hungarian_Attention}& 82.2 & 81.2 & \textbf{100} & 90.0 & 97.6 & 90.2 \\
BBGM~\cite{BBGM} & 96.9 & 89.0 & \textbf{100} & 99.2 & 98.8 & 96.8 \\
NGM~\cite{NGM} & 97.4 &93.4 & \textbf{100} & 98.6 & 98.3 & 97.5\\
NGMv2~\cite{NGM} & 97.4 &93.4 & \textbf{100} & 98.6 & 98.3 & 97.5\\
\hline
DPGM (ours) &\textbf{99.5} & \textbf{96.8} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{100} & 93.0 & \textbf{97.9} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the Pascal VOC dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results. }
\label{table:Pascal}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
| @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Algo. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bot. &bus & car &cat& cha.\ &cow & tab. &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &pla. &she. &sofa& tra. & tv& AVG\\
\hline
GMN~\cite{DGM} & 31.9 &47.2& 51.9& 40.8 &68.7 &72.2 &53.6 &52.8 &34.6 &48.6 &72.3 &47.7 &54.8 &51.0 &38.6 &75.1 &49.5 &45.0 &83.0 &86.3 &55.3 \\
PCA~\cite{PCA}& 51.2 &61.3& 61.6 &58.4 &78.8 &73.9 &68.5 &71.1 &40.1 &63.3 &45.1 &64.4 &66.4 &62.2 &45.1 &79.1 &68.4 &60.0 &80.3 &91.9 &64.6 \\
IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI} &51.0 &64.9 &68.4 &60.5 &80.2 &74.7 &71.0 &73.5 &42.2 &68.5 &48.9 &69.3 &67.6 &64.8 &48.6 &84.2 &69.8 &62.0 &79.3 &89.3 &66.9\\
LGM~\cite{LGM} & 46.9 &58.0& 63.6& 69.9& 87.8& 79.8& 71.8 &60.3 &44.8& 64.3 &79.4& 57.5& 64.4 &57.6 &52.4 &96.1& 62.9 &65.8 &94.4 &92.0& 68.5 \\
qc-DGM~\cite{qcDGM}& 49.6 &64.6 &67.1& 62.4 &82.1& 79.9& 74.8& 73.5& 43.0& 68.4 &66.5 &67.2 &71.4 &70.1& 48.6 &92.4 &69.2 &70.9 &90.9& 92.0 &70.3\\
DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} & 50.4 &67.6 &70.7 &70.5 &87.2& 85.2 &82.5 &74.3 &46.2 &69.4 &69.9 &73.9 &73.8& 65.4 &51.6 &98.0 &73.2& 69.6 &94.3 &89.6 &73.2 \\
CIE~\cite{Hungarian_Attention} & 51.2 &69.2 &70.1 &55.0 &82.8& 72.8& 69.0& 74.2& 39.6 &68.8 &71.8 &70.0 &71.8 &66.8 &44.8 &85.2 &69.9& 65.4 &85.2 &92.4 &68.9 \\
BBGM~\cite{BBGM} &61.5 &\textbf{75.0} & 78.1 & 80.0 & 87.4 & 93.0 & 89.1 & 80.2 &\textbf{58.1} &77.6 &76.5 &79.3 &78.6 &78.8 &66.7 &97.4 &76.4 &\textbf{77.5} &97.7 &\textbf{94.4} &80.1 \\
NGM~\cite{NGM} &50.1 &63.5 &57.9 &53.4 &79.8 &77.1 &73.6& 68.2& 41.1& 66.4 &40.8 &60.3 &61.9& 63.5& 45.6 &77.1 &69.3 &65.5 &79.2 &88.2 &64.1 \\
NGMv2~\cite{NGM}&61.8 &71.2 &77.6 &78.8 &87.3 &93.6 & 87.7 &79.8 &55.4 & 77.8 & 89.5 &78.8 & 80.1 &79.2 & 62.6 & 97.7 & 77.7 & 75.7 & 96.7 & 93.2 & 80.1\\
\hline
DPGM (ours) &\textbf{63.1} & 64.5 & \textbf{78.5} & \textbf{81.4} & \textbf{93.8} & 93.5 & \textbf{90.0} &\textbf{81.5} & 56.9 &\textbf{80.6} & \textbf{95.0} & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{80.3} & 72.5 &\textbf{68.0} &\textbf{98.5} & \textbf{79.3} &75.4 & \textbf{98.3} & 92.8 &\textbf{81.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the Pascal VOC dataset with filtered image pairs. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results. }
\label{table:filterVOC}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} | @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Algo. & aero & bike & bird & boat & car &cat& cha. &cow &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &she. &sofa& AVG\\
\hline
GMN~\cite{DGM} & 36.2 & 60.5 & 33.8 & 46.4 & 71.9 & 64.6 & 29.5 & 58.1 & 54.4 & 57.5 & 54.1 & 35.4 & 58.9 & \textbf{100.0} & 54.4 \\
IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI}& 51.2 & 67.2 & 40.6 & 42.1 & 71.9 & 72.4 & 34.0 & 63.6 & 63.3 & 65.8 & 68.2 & 47.6 & 65.2 & \textbf{100.0} & 60.9 \\
CIE~\cite{Hungarian_Attention} & 45.7 & 62.4 & 40.0 & 40.7 & 66.3 & 74.1 & 31.4 & 64.5 & 65.4 & 68.1 & 55.6 & 44.9 & 63.9 & 80.0 & 57.4\\
BBGM~\cite{BBGM} &\textbf{57.0} & 72.6 & 50.0 & \textbf{60.7} & 88.6 & 79.7 & 44.8 & 75.8 & \textbf{76.9} & 76.5 & 71.5 & 64.6 & 71.2 & \textbf{100.0} & 70.7 \\
NGMv2~\cite{NGM} &54.9 & \textbf{73.0} & 49.3 & 50.0 & 86.3 & 79.7 & \textbf{49.0} & \textbf{76.5} & 74.2 & 74.3 & \textbf{73.6} & 61.5 & 72.9 & \textbf{100.0} & 69.7 \\
\hline
DPGM (ours) &55.5 & 66.2 & \textbf{52.3} & 58.4 & \textbf{91.3} & \textbf{81.4} & 47.9 & 74.9 & 76.5 & \textbf{80.6} & 71.7 & \textbf{72.1} & \textbf{73.3} & \textbf{100.0} & \textbf{71.6} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the SPair-71k dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:SPair71K}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{3.mm}}l@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} | @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Algo. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bott. &bus & car &cat& chair &cow &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &plant &she. & train& tv& AVG\\
\hline
DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} & 54.8 &44.8 &80.3 &70.9 &65.5& 90.1 &78.5 &66.7 &66.4 &73.2 &66.2 &66.5 &65.7& 59.1 &98.7 &68.5 &84.9& 98.0 &72.2 \\
BBGM~\cite{BBGM} &66.9 &57.7 &85.8& \textbf{78.5} &66.9 &95.4 &\textbf{86.1} &74.6 &\textbf{68.3} &78.9& \textbf{73.0}& 67.5& 79.3& 73.0& \textbf{99.1} &74.8 &\textbf{95.0} &98.6 &78.9 \\
\hline
DPGM (ours) & \textbf{68.5} &\textbf{64.0} &\textbf{86.6} &76.9 &\textbf{72.4} &\textbf{96.4}& 81.9& \textbf{75.9}& 65.6& \textbf{81.1}& \textbf{73.0}& \textbf{73.1}& \textbf{82.2}& \textbf{76.2}& 98.7& \textbf{83.1}& 89.0& \textbf{99.9}& \textbf{80.3} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Willow Object dataset}\label{sec:willow}
The Willow Object dataset provided in~\cite{LG2M} contains 5 categories, each of which is represented by at least 40 images with different instances. Each image in this dataset is annotated with 10 distinctive landmarks on the target object, which means there is no outlier keypoint between two images from the same category. Following the dataset split setting in~\cite{PCA,LGM}, we select 20 images from each category for training and keep the rest for testing. Note that any two images from the same class of the training set can form a training sample, and we thus obtain a total of 2,000 training samples. In testing, we randomly choose 1,000 pairs of images from the testing set of each category respectively.
The graph matching performances of the compared approaches are shown in Table~\ref{table:willow}. This dataset is considered relatively easy due to the lack of variation in pose, scale and illumination, thus most of the compared methods achieve excellent matching results, especially on the \emph{Face} category. By jointly learning pairwise affinities and initial node assignments, our method solves the quadratic assignment problem without relaxation on the constraints in a deep probabilistic scheme. As a result, our method achieves the best matching accuracy in all categories expect \emph{Winebottle}, and surpasses all compared baselines in general.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\subfigure[GMN: 0/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/GMN_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[PCA: 0/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/PCA_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[IPCA: 2/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/IPCA_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[CIE: 2/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/CIE_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[DGMC: 3/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/DGMC_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[LGM: 0/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/LCS_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[NGM: 0/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/NGM_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[NGMv2: 2/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/NGMV2_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[BBGM: 2/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/BBGM_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[DPGM(ours): 8/8]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/bottle/ours.jpg}
}
\caption{The representative examples of matching results solved by all compared methods on category \emph{bottle}. The keypoints with same semantic annotations are marked in the same colors. The graph structures built in each image are represented as yellow lines. The incorrect and correct matches are represented as red lines and green lines across each pair of images, respectively.}
\label{fig:bottle}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[GMN: 1/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/GMN_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[PCA: 4/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/PCA_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[IPCA: 2/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/IPCA_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[CIE: 2/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/CIE_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[DGMC: 0/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/DGMC_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[LGM: 3/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/LCS_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[NGM: 2/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/NGM_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[NGMv2: 3/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/NGMV2_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[BBGM: 2/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/BBGM_H.jpg}
}
\subfigure[DPGM(ours): 6/6]{
\includegraphics[width=2.85cm]{figs/pascal/car/ours.jpg}
}
\caption{The representative examples of matching solutions solved by all compared methods on category \emph{car}. The keypoints with same semantic annotations are marked in the same colors. The graph structures built in each image are represented as yellow lines. The incorrect and correct matches are represented as red lines and green lines across each pair of images, respectively.}
\label{fig:car}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Pascal VOC}
Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} with Berkeley annotations of keypoints~\cite{berkeley} contains 20 classes of instances with labeled keypoint locations.
This dataset is considered more challenging than the Willow dataset for that instances may vary in its scale, pose, illumination and the number of inlier keypoints. Following previous arts~\cite{PCA,LGM}, we split the dataset into two groups, i.e., 7,020 annotated images for training and 1,682 images for testing. In particular, we randomly select 1,000 pairs of images from the testing set of each category for testing.
The comparison results on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} have been illustrated in Table~\ref{table:Pascal}.
Most of the previous methods~\cite{PCA,PCA-PAMI,LGM,qcDGM,DGM_consensus,Hungarian_Attention} that solve the graph matching problem in a relaxed form fail to provide satisfying matching results. After embedding a stronger combinatorial solver, BBGM~\cite{BBGM}, NGMv2~\cite{NGM} and our DPGM gain remarkable improvement in matching accuracy. In particular, our method achieves the best results on 14 categories and rises the average matching accuracy to $81.2\%$, surpassing the strongest competitors BBGM~\cite{BBGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM} by $1.1\%$. Some representative matching results of compared methods on categories~\emph{bottle} and~\emph{car} have been illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:bottle} and~\ref{fig:car}, respectively, both of which refer to the visual matching under heavy view changes. As illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:bottle} and~\ref{fig:car}, the previous deep learning methods, even those combined with combinatorial solvers, fail to obtain satisfied matching results. While with the proposed probabilistic solvers for searching the optimal solution from predicted assignments, our model DPGM achieves the best matching results where all the correct matches have been found.
Table~\ref{table:Pascal} illustrates the comparison of matching results on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} where each image pair may not contain the same keypoints, and all the compared methods only match an intersection of the two set of keypoints. However, this will lead to a problem that in many cases there may be only two 2 or 3 keypoints left. In such cases, what may contribute to the results is better visual feature, and the graph matching algorithm can not do much to improve the performance of the algorithm. Therefore, we perform an additional experiments on the Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} dataset with filtered image pairs that contain at least 10 keypoints, for better validation of the contribution of graph matching algorithms. The comparison is reported in Table~\ref{table:filterVOC}\footnote{The parameters of the pretrained models in Table~\ref{table:filterVOC} are provided at: https://github.com/Thinklab-SJTU/ThinkMatch.} where only 14 categories of image pairs with at least 10 keypoints are kept.
As illustrated in Table~\ref{table:filterVOC}, all algorithms achieve relatively lower matching accuracies in comparison with that in the original Pascal VOC dataset (Table 2). This demonstrates that finding optimal matching between relatively large graphs is more difficult than that on small ones. While consistent with the results in Table~\ref{table:Pascal}, BBGM~\cite{BBGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM}, which embed combinatorial solvers into deep graph matching framework, achieve relatively higher average matching accuracy than other baselines. This again demonstrates that the combination of combinatorial solvers and deep affinity learning framework is more suitable for graph matching tasks. Furthermore, with the proposed probabilistic solver, our algorithm achieves comparable or even best matching accuracy on most categories in comparison with previous state-of-the-art baselines, and rises the average matching accuracy to 71.6\%, surpassing the strong competitors BBGM~\cite{BBGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM} by 0.9\% and 1.9\%, respectively, which validates the effectiveness of the proposed deep probabilistic solver.
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of inferring time (ms) on Willow and Pascal VOC.}
\label{table:time}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.mm}}l@{\hspace{1.mm}} | @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}
@{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}@{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}
@{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}@{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}}
\hline
Dataset & GMN & LGM & NGM & NGMv2 & PCA & IPCA & DGMC & CIE & BBGM & DPGM (ours)\\
\hline
Willow~\cite{LG2M} & 28 & 42 & 14 & 15 & 29 & 35 & 3 & 28 & 13 & 10 \\
Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} & 27 & 33 & 12 & 13 & 26 & 30 & 4 & 26 & 11 & 30\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\subsection{SPair-71k}
The SPair-71k~\cite{SPair} is another large-scale benchmark dataset including a total of 70,958 pairs of images from PASCAL 3D+~\cite{3DPascal} and Pascal VOC 2012~\cite{VOC2012}, which is very well organized with rich annotations for learning. Compared with Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC}, the pair annotations in this dataset have larger variations in view-point, scale, truncation and occlusion, thus reflecting the more generalized visual correspondence problem in real-world scenarios. In addition, it removes the ambiguous and poorly annotated categories, i.e., \emph{sofa} and \emph{dining table}, from the Pascal VOC dataset~\cite{VOC}.
The matching accuracy on SPair-71k~\cite{SPair} are reported in Table~\ref{table:SPair71K}, where two state-of-the-art algorithms DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} and BBGM~\cite{BBGM} are taken as the baselines in comparison with our method. Compared with DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus}, the strongest competitor BBGM~\cite{BBGM} that employs a heavily optimized solver for graph matching achieves 6.7\% improvements on average matching accuracy, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the combination of deep framework for affinity learning and combinatorial solver. Furthermore, with the proposed probabilistic solver, our model DPGM achieves the best performance on most categories and reaches the best average matching accuracy of $80.3\%$, surpassing the DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} and BBGM~\cite{BBGM} by $8.1\%$ and $1.4\%$ respectively, which reveals that our method can be well generalized to more difficult graph matching problems in real-world scenarios.
\subsection{Running Time}
In addition to matching accuracy, computational efficiency is another important evaluation metric for graph matching methods. In this subsection, we report the inferring time of our algorithm in comparison with several deep-learning algorithms on the Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} and Willow~\cite{LG2M} datasets. The comparisons for inferring time have been illustrated in Table~\ref{table:time}. It is observed that, our algorithm achieves the efficiency that is similar to or higher than GMN~\cite{DGM}, LGM~\cite{LGM}, NGM~\cite{NGM} and NGMv2~\cite{NGM} that are also based on Lawler' QAP formulation. On the other hand, all of them are in general comparable in computational efficiency with PCA~\cite{PCA}, IPCA~\cite{PCA-PAMI} and CIE~\cite{PCA}, which have relaxed the quadratic constraints. As the latent dimensions of the proposed model on Willow~\cite{LG2M} is relatively lower than that on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC}, our model is more efficient for dealing with the visual matching tasks on Willow~\cite{LG2M} dataset. Specially, DGMC~\cite{DGM_consensus} is the most efficient one because the node features are complied in advance and the feature extraction module is removed from the code provided by the authors.
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Ablation studies on the Pascal VOC dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:ablation}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
| @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Abl. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bott. &bus & car &cat& chair &cow & tab. &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &plant &she. &sofa& train& tv& AVG\\
\hline
WPS &56.4 & 65.8&74.7&78.0&88.2&92.5&85.6&77.6&54.9&73.9&83.5&74.8&75.0&71.5&61.7&95.7&75.5&74.4&96.6&92.4&77.4\\
TIA &56.7 & \textbf{69.4} & 75.4 & 74.8 & 91.5 & 87.4 & 87.0 & 76.4 & 52.2 & 76.2 & 80.1 & 77.3 & 76.5 & 71.9 & 60.4 & 97.5 & 75.4 &67.4 &96.7 &87.7 &76.9\\
\hline
DPGM &\textbf{63.1} & 64.5 & \textbf{78.5} & \textbf{81.4} & \textbf{93.8} &\textbf{93.5} & \textbf{90.0} &\textbf{81.5} & \textbf{56.9} &\textbf{80.6} &\textbf{95.0} & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{72.5} &\textbf{68.0} &\textbf{98.5} & \textbf{79.3} &\textbf{75.4}&\textbf{98.3} & \textbf{92.8}&\textbf{81.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Ablation studies on the SPair-71k dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:abl_spair}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{3.mm}}l@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} | @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Abl. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bott. &bus & car &cat& chair &cow &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &plant &she. & train& tv& AVG\\
\hline
WPS & 65.3 & 56.1& 84.4 &75.0 &\textbf{72.7}& \textbf{96.9} &\textbf{85.6}& 74.0 &64.0 &\textbf{81.5}& 70.4& 68.7 &72.8 &72.7& \textbf{99.0}& 78.9 &\textbf{93.3}& 99.8 &78.4 \\
TIA & 68.2& 52.1& 84.3& 73.9&70.8&95.8&82.8&\textbf{76.2}&60.0&78.4&71.2&67.0&69.5&72.4&96.6&78.5&92.1&99.7&77.2 \\
\hline
DPGM & \textbf{68.5} &\textbf{64.0} &\textbf{86.6} &\textbf{76.9} &72.4 &96.4& 81.9& 75.9& \textbf{65.6}& 81.1& \textbf{73.0}& \textbf{73.1}& \textbf{82.2}& \textbf{76.2}& 98.7& \textbf{83.1}& 89.0& \textbf{99.9}& \textbf{80.3} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Ablation studies on the Willow Object dataset. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results.}
\label{table:abl_willow}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.mm}}l@{\hspace{1.mm}} | @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}} @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}
| @{\hspace{1.mm}}c@{\hspace{1.mm}}}
\hline
Ablation & Car & Duck & Face & Motorb. & Wineb. & AVG\\
\hline
WPS & 91.8 & 85.4 & \textbf{100} & 98.3 & 97.1 & 95.4 \\
TIA & 96.7 &86.3 & \textbf{100} & 98.2 & \textbf{99.0} & 96.0\\
\hline
DPGM &\textbf{99.5} & \textbf{96.8} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{100} & 93.0 & \textbf{97.9} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Contributions of learnt assignments and affinities}
For illustration of the contributions of different modules in our framework, we provide various ablation studies and report results of two downgraded versions of our algorithm, named TIA and WPS, in Tables~\ref{table:ablation},~\ref{table:abl_spair},~\ref{table:abl_willow}.
\textbf{Trivial initialization of assignments (TIA):} we exclude the estimated assignments from the output of the AA-predictor, and initialize trivial assignments as the input of the probabilistic solver.
\textbf{Without probabilistic solver (WPS):} the differentiable probabilistic solver is removed from the network, and the output assignments of the AA-decoder are directly taken as the final solutions.
As shown in Tables~\ref{table:ablation}, \ref{table:abl_spair}, \ref{table:abl_willow}, both the downgraded versions of our model obtain
inferior performance to the full version on all the three benchmarks. Especially for Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC}, the full version of our model outperforms TIA and WPS by 4.3\% and 3.8\% on the average matching accuracy, respectively. These studies show that both the components make contributions to the excellent performance of the proposed DPGM algorithm.
Furthermore, we also explore the studies that combine the learnt affinities and other traditional learning-free solvers on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC}. Specifically, we take the affinities learnt by our AA-prediction network as input, and adopt several state-of-the-art traditional learning-free solvers, including RRWM~\cite{RWGM}, PSM~\cite{PBGM} and IPFP~\cite{IPFP}, to search the optimal solutions. The comparisons on Pascal VOC~\cite{VOC} are reported in Table~\ref{table:HL_K}, where RRWM-H and RRWM-L denote the results of using the handcrafted affinities and the learned ones, respectively. Same notations are used for PSM~\cite{PBGM} and IPFP~\cite{IPFP}. The results of using the handcrafted affinities are cited from LGM~\cite{LGM}. Obviously, replacing the handcrafted affinities with the learned ones can significantly improve the matching accuracies in most categories, and rise the average matching accuracies by 35.6\%, 37.3\% and 39.2\% for RRWM~\cite{RWGM}, PSM~\cite{PBGM} and IPFP~\cite{IPFP}, respectively. It clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of the learned affinities by our framework for graph matching. On the other hand, even though the learnt affinities are combined, these traditional solvers are still inferior to our framework by a certain gaps. It indicates that the learnt affinities are more suitable for end-to-end learnable framework than the transitional learning-free solvers.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\label{fig:AA}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figs/iter_AA.pdf}
}
\subfigure[]{
\label{fig:S}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figs/iter_S.pdf}
}
\caption{Results in the ablation experiments on the number of iterations for (a) the AA-updating module and (b) the probabilistic solver.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\normalsize
\centering
\caption{Comparison of matching accuracy (\%) on the Pascal VOC dataset under the combination of learnt affinities and traditional learning-free solvers. Bold \textbf{numbers} represent the best results. }
\label{table:HL_K}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}
{@{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}} | @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
@{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}} @{\hspace{.5mm}}c@{\hspace{.5mm}}
| @{\hspace{.3mm}}c@{\hspace{.3mm}}}
\hline
Algo. & aero & bike & bird & boat & bot. &bus & car &cat& cha.\ &cow & tab. &dog & hor.& mbi. & per. &pla. &she. &sofa& tra. & tv& AVG\\
\hline
RRWM-H& 30.9 & 40.0 & 46.4 & 54.1 & 52.3 & 35.6 & 47.4 & 37.3 & 36.3 & 34.1 &28.8 & 35.0 & 39.1 & 36.2 & 39.5 &67.8 & 38.6 & 49.4 & 70.5& 41.3& 43.0 \\
RRWM-L & 61.5 & 61.0 & 76.8 & 79.8 & 93.1 & 91.4 & 88.5 & 78.2 & 54.2 & 76.8 & 98.2 & 75.5 & 76.0 & 69.5 & 65.5 & 98.1 & 75.8 & 68.9 & 88.6 & 93.6 & 78.6\\
PSM-H& 32.6 & 37.5 & 49.9 & 53.2 & 47.8 &34.6 & 50.1 & 35.5 & 37.2 & 36.3 &23.1 & 32.7 & 42.4 & 37.1 & 38.5 &62.3 & 41.7 & 54.3 & 72.6& 40.8 & 43.1 \\
PSM-L& 62.4 & 64.3 & 78.0 & 81.3 & 93.2 & 93.0 & 89.9 & 81.3 & 55.6 & 79.9 & \textbf{100.0} & 78.0 & 80.0 & 72.2 & 66.8 & 98.3 & 77.2 & 73.2 & 90.6 & \textbf{93.9} & 80.4\\
IPFP-H & 25.1 & 26.4 & 41.4 & 50.3 & 43.0 & 32.9 & 37.3 & 32.5 & 33.6 & 28.2 & 26.9 & 26.1 & 29.9 & 32.0 & 28.8 & 62.9 & 28.2 & 45.0 & 69.3 & 33.8 &36.6 \\
IPFP-L & 59.5 & 59.1 & 74.2 & 78.1 & 91.4 & 87.7 & 85.7 & 76.4 & 52.3 & 73.8 & 84.7 & 73.8 & 73.9 & 66.7 & 62.8 & 97.8 & 73.9 & 67.6 & 84.1 & 93.6 & 75.8\\
\hline
DPGM &\textbf{63.1} & \textbf{64.5} & \textbf{78.5} & \textbf{81.4} & \textbf{93.8} & \textbf{93.5} & \textbf{90.0} &\textbf{81.5} &\textbf{ 56.9} &\textbf{80.6} & 95.0 & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{80.3} & \textbf{72.5} &\textbf{68.0} &\textbf{98.5} & \textbf{79.3} &\textbf{75.4} & \textbf{98.3} & 92.8 &\textbf{81.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Iteration of AA-updating module}
In the AA-predictor, the iteration of AA-updating module determines the receptive field of aggregated information from neighbors, which has direct influence to the final matching performance. Here, we vary the AA-updating iteration from 1 to 8 to explore its influence to the average matching accuracy. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:AA}, the average matching accuracy is only 57.6\% when only single iteration of AA-updating is performed. While the performance of our model can be significantly improved by setting the iteration of AA-updating from 2 to 5. However, there is no evident improvement when the iteration of AA-updating module is set as a value greater than 5, which demonstrates only 5 iterations of AA-updating module is sufficient to capture the structural representations of AA-graph. This in turn explain why we set the convolution iteration in AA-predictor as 5.
\subsubsection{Iteration of probabilistic solver}
Given the predicted assignments and affinities by AA-predictor, the proposed probabilistic solver refines them iteratively to search the optimal solution. To explore the influence of iteration of probabilistic solver to the model performance, we vary the refinement iteration for assignments from 0 to 7. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:S}, without refinement for assignments, i.e., setting the refinement iteration as 0, the average matching accuracy is only 14.4\%. With a single iteration of refinement for assignments, our model rises the matching accuracy to 75.2\%, which surpasses most of the state-of-the-art baselines. When setting the iteration of probabilistic solver as a value greater than 4, the average matching accuracy is stable around 81.0\%. The illustration of results in Fig.~\ref{fig:S} and the convergence showed in Fig~\ref{subfig:sparse} reveal that our model needs not many refinement iteration to search the optimal solutions, which guarantees the efficiency of the proposed model.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a novel deep learning algorithm, named DPGM, for graph matching.
In DPGM, an affinity-assignment prediction network is developed to learn the pairwise affinities and at the same time estimate the initial node assignments, and a differentiable solver is embedded to better optimize the QAP in a probabilistic perspective without compromise on the matching constraints.
Experimental results reveal that DPGM achieves state-of-the-art matching performance on various real-world image datasets.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\noindent This work is supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Nos. 62076021, 62072027 and 61872032) and the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (Nos. 4202060, 4202057 and 4212041).
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{he} 3GPP release 16 broadly categorizes the services offered by fifth-generation (5G) networks into three areas, i.e., enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC), and massive Machine Type Communication (mMTC) \cite{Viet2020}. Therefore, 5G networks are designed to serve such diverse applications efficiently, utilizing cloud-native concepts like leveraging operations within and across data centers, communicating in a micro-service environment, and simultaneously providing services and applications \cite{Tuyen2017}. A few of the enabling technologies like millimeter wave (mmWave) communication, multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO), beamforming and small cells are innovations credited to the realization of 5G. In addition, the cloud-native 5G architecture offers a ubiquitous, convenient, and on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.
Until fourth-generation (4G), the wireless cellular communication systems focused on increasing the data rates. However, to address the ever-growing need for video streaming, application usage, and massive IoT devices, the cellular network architecture needs to be updated to a more flexible and service-oriented design. Therefore, 5G wireless communications systems have a more distributed architecture than its preceding generations with the introduction of control and user plane separation (CUPS) of the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) \cite{Mamta2021}. For example, the deployment of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) swarms network can yield high capacities to meet the accuracy, stability, and effective service requirements for UAS swarm \cite{wang20205g,wang2021reinforcement,wang2021extensive}. From a mobile network operator (MNO) perspective, the primary motivations for 5G to have a distributed architecture are: to deliver high bandwidth and support a high density of users by utilizing small cells; data processing at the edge of the network, i.e., close to the source helps meet the latency requirements and increasing efficiency; and efficient energy utilization and enhanced data security.
The building block of edge computing-enabled 5G networks is infrastructure less network of wireless devices, in which, the devices act cooperatively to establish communication between a source and a destination \cite{Guangming2021}. These networks have applications in many real life scenarios such as military communication, rescue and emergency operations, conference rooms, and in the situation where infrastructure is not available or difficult to deploy \cite{ref1}. On the other hand, the distributed nature of these networks imposes multiple challenges such as data privacy, network security, and detection and mitigation of malicious devices\cite{wang2021counter,liu2020deep}. As there is no central management unit, the devices themselves manages network operations. Therefore, each node act as router/relay and forwards the data of other nodes in addition to its own data packet \cite{ref2}. The limitation on the available battery power at each node, requires that the designed algorithm is energy efficient to increase the network life time.
Interference is an important parameter that affects the energy consumption and efficiency of edge computing-enabled 5G networks \cite{Guangming2021}. For example, in networks with Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), a large bandwidth is used to transmit signals; as a result, the system becomes resilient to noise, jamming, unauthorized interception, and perception. These characteristics exhibit desirable properties, but the system's performance is compromised in the presence of uneven transmission power distribution, especially difficult to control in peer-to-peer networks. Due to independence in the decision-making, there is an inherent imbalance in adjusting power, which in turn results in the near-far-effect \cite{ref3}. To improve the signal to noise plus Interference Ratio (SINR), each node adjusts transmit power, disregarding the levels used by other nodes. As a result, the energy consumed by the network is directly influenced by the amount of interference \cite{kundaliya2020cl}.
There are many methods proposed in the literature to reduce interference among the nodes in various wireless networks \cite{khan2017energy, he2019interference, ahmed2018rp}. Although these schemes select routes with less interference, no mechanism exists that reduces the interference in the network. For example, in \cite{amiri2018interference}, the authors addressed this issue by proposing a solution to reduce interference by the secondary users to the primary user using game theory in cognitive radio networks. Similarly, the solution in \cite{khan2017energy} reduces interference during routing operation in underwater wireless sensor networks, which selects the next hop in the route having less number of neighbors to improve the SINR of the route. The authors in \cite{chai2020delay} propose a different approach, where the routing algorithm selects the paths with a minimum delay while the delay is computed based on the number of interfering nodes in the vicinity of the source node. Nevertheless, the existing solutions use a selfish approach where each node is concerned about its utility without considering the effects of its actions on the communication between the other nodes of the network. Therefore, in this work, we propose an algorithm to reduce interference in the network in a cooperative way. The route between the nodes is selected in the proposed method such that each node creates minimum interference for the other nodes while ensuring that its own SINR does not decrease below a threshold SINR level. The contributions of the paper are summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We developed a novel routing algorithm that considers the created interference by a node in the network as a parameter while making the routing decisions.
\item The proposed algorithm also considers the cooperation parameter in metric, models practical limitations where some nodes may not be willing to cooperate due to their bad channel conditions.
\item The algorithm enables only those nodes as a relay that creates low interference in the network. Thus, it reduces the energy consumption of the nodes by reducing interference in the network.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows; in Section \ref{literaturereview}, we present a review of energy-efficient routing algorithms. In Section \ref{iacr}, we explain the proposed Interference Aware Cooperative Routing (IACR) Algorithm in detail. In Section \ref{perevl}, the performance of the proposed scheme is discussed for various network parameters, followed by conclusions in Section \ref{conclusion}.
\section{Literature Review}
\label{literaturereview}
In the previous section, we discussed that a substantial portion of the energy resources is consumed during network management by mitigating the interference and packet forwarding operations. While the nodes have limited battery resources, avoiding interference and energy efficiency is an essential requirement to increase the operational time of the network. We can divide the methods to minimize interference in a distributed network into three broader categories: power control, channel scheduling, and routing-based methods. The power control methods aim to find the optimal transmission power range so that the network's interference is minimized. On the other hand, the channel scheduling methods divide the available bandwidth into various sub-bands and allocate the channels to the users such that the interference is reduced. Alternatively, routing-based methods establish the path between the source and destination such that overall interference in the network is minimized.
There are various power control techniques for minimizing network interference. For instance, in \cite{ji2020power}, the authors propose a power control algorithm for cognitive vehicular networks by obtaining the optimal power vector considering the minimum value of outage probability of the system. The proposed system performs better than other power allocation techniques. However, the reduced transmission power increases the number of hops in the route; as a result, the algorithm introduces transmission delays during communication. In \cite{rodrigues2019edge}, the authors apply Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) technique to reduce transmission delays by updating transmission powers for the nodes in each iteration. Although the proposed scheme reduces time delays, on the other hand, the assignment of different power levels to each node in the network may be counterproductive in terms of reduced network connectivity and variable interference in the network. In \cite{chincoli2016power}, the authors analyzed the performance of the distributed sensor network in the presence of variable interference. The study compares multiple power control methods and concludes that using homogeneous transmission powers for all the nodes in the network results in better network performance in the scenarios where interference is variable. However, finding the minimum transmission power to ensure connectivity is not straightforward, especially in the case of homogeneous power assignment. Moreover, the effect of step size on the performance of the algorithm needs to be evaluated.
Unlike the power control techniques, in \cite{hisham2020adjacent}, the authors formulate joint scheduling and power control problem as Mixed Boolean Linear Programming (MBLP) problem in order to mitigate the impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference on vehicle-to-vehicle communication. The results of \cite{hisham2020adjacent} show that the impact of channel interference can be reduced by scheduling and power control. However, the solution obtained is numerically sensitive, where a stable optimal solution can be obtained by applying sensitivity reduction techniques at the cost of increased computational complexity.
Consequently, in \cite{unlu2019ipbm}, the authors proposed a solution to handle interference during the communication of control packets, dividing one frame into three types of slots where data is sent on each slot by a fair scheduling algorithm. Thus, the rescheduling is performed based on the interference pattern at each time slot. The proposed algorithm in \cite{unlu2019ipbm} can be integrated with distributed routing protocols such as AODV and ALOHA with fixed frame lengths. However, the performance of the solution needs to be analyzed for variable frame structure and dynamic interference conditions.
The third type of algorithms reduce interference at network layer by reducing interference during routing operations. Recently, in \cite{wang2020beamforming}, the authors presented Optimized Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (OAODV) routing protocol, enhancing the routing and scheduling performance of Unmammded Aerial Systems (UAS). In \cite{wang2020beamforming}, beam-forming is used to send the data towards the desired destination with reduced interference. On the other hand, the authors in \cite{waqas2020interference} minimizes the interference during route discovery operation. In the proposed solution, only those node whose interference is less than a predefined threshold value actively participate during routing operations, reducing the energy consumption and achieving high network throughput. While the algorithm ensures that the SINR does not decrease the threshold SINR value, the resulting route may choose nodes at the network's edges, resulting in higher time delays. Similarly, in \cite{waqas2012energy}, the authors defined a routing metric that uses link interference in the network to select the path whose SINR is high to improve the performance of the network. The proposed solution faces a similar problem, i.e., high link length results in high time latency during the routing operation.
The solutions mentioned above select low interference paths while establishing routes between the nodes, they do not provide the solution to reduce interference provided by a node to other nodes during route establishment. Therefore, we propose a novel solution based on a new routing metric that considers created interference by a node in the network as a parameter during routing decisions. Moreover, we also use the cooperation parameter that models practical limitations of the network where some nodes may not be willing to cooperate due to bad channel conditions. Our proposed solution enables only those nodes as a relay that creates low interference in the network, further reducing the network's energy consumption. In the next section, we present the proposed interference aware cooperative routing (IACR) algorithm that establishes routes such that the interference provided by the source node to the other nodes in the network is minimized under the constraints that its own SINR does not decrease below the minimum SINR level that is required for successful reception of the data packets.
\section{Interference Aware Cooperative Routing}\label{iacr}
This section proposes the IACR algorithm that reduces interference and maximizes the network's overall performance. The IACR defines the route's cost as a function of created and received interference by a node in the network. The metric value is calculated as the weighted sum of received and created interference. The receive interference term in the proposed routing metric ensures that the data is routed through a low interference path, achieving high SINR at the route. On the other hand, the created interference term selects that path for data transmission that offers less interference in the network. As a result of this strategy, the quality of service (QoS) for all the users in the network improves. In the following, we present the system model and working principle of the proposed solution in detail.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{systemmodel}
\caption{System model}
\label{systemmodel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{System model}
We consider an edge computing-enabled 5G network setup with $N$ number of nodes deployed randomly as shown in Fig. \ref{systemmodel}. We assume omnidirectional coverage of the nodes to transmit the data in a circular region centered around the transmitting node. The radius of transmission circle $r_t$ depends on the transmission power $P_t$ of the node. The node transmits over the same frequency band. Initially, the nodes start transmission using maximum transmission power $P_{max}$ and update their transmission levels by the proposed method when the communication begins. Then, the received power can be calculated as \cite{ren2013interference, bastos2018assisted}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.1}
P_r=P_tL_{i,j}=\frac{P_t}{d^\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is the path-loss exponent and $d$ is the distance between transmitter and receiver.
Additionally, we assume that each node can act as a router for a distributed edge network to configure itself as a source and/or destination. If the destination node is not within the communication range of a source node, multihop routes are used to establish the communication path. Finally, we assume that all nodes are cooperative and do not drop other nodes' packets to save their energy resources.
Since all nodes are operating at the same frequency band, they create interference for each other. We can write the aggregate interference at node $j$ as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.2}
I_j=\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i,j}^{N}{\frac{P_k}{d_{j,k}^\alpha}}
\end{equation}
where $P_k$ is the transmission power of node $k$, $d_{j,k}$ is distance between node $j$ and node $k$, and $N$ is the total number of active nodes in the network. The resultant SINR at node $j$ when receiving data from node $i$ can be calculated as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.3}
SINR_{(i,j)}=\frac{P_{i,j}}{I_j+\sigma^2}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^2$ is the noise variance, $I_j$ is received interference at the destination node $j$, and $P_{i,j}$ is power received at node $j$ from the source node $i$. In general, noise power is very less as compared to signal power, therefore, the above equation is reduced as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.4}
SIR(i,j)=\frac{P_{i,j}}{I_j}
\end{equation}
A packet is successfully received at the destination node if SINR at each link is greater than a predefined threshold level $SINR_{th}$. In the next section, we discuss the proposed IACR algorithm in detail to establish routes between source and destination.
\subsection{Working Principle of IACR algorithm}
The IACR algorithm establishes routes in a distributed fashion similar to the standard ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing protocol. However, it uses a new metric field in which the route's cost depends on the interference at the nodes. When the source node desires to establish a communication link, it broadcasts a route request (RREQ) in the network. When each neighbor receives the RREQ packet, it updates the metric value in the header of the RREQ packet and forwards the packet to the next neighbors. The routing metric is updated as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.5}
M_k = M_{RREQ}+M_{k-1,k},
\end{equation}
where $M_k$ is the cost of the route up to $k$-th node, $M_{RREQ}$ is the metric value in the RREQ packet when node $k$ has received the RREQ packet, and $M_{k-1,k}$ is the cost of link $(k-1,k)$. When the packet reaches the destination node, it responds with a route reply (RREP) packet to establish a link with the source node. If the destination node receives multiple RREQ packets, it sends the RREP packet on the route with the minimum value of the routing metric. The routing metric used in the IACR algorithm depends on created and received interference by the node in the network. Each node can calculate the value of received interference using the received power information from the physical layer. However, it can not directly calculate the amount of interference created by itself to other nodes in the network. To get the information about created interference, it transmits an information collection packet towards its neighbors. The information collection phase is explained in detail in the next section. The metric value of a link is calculated as a weighted sum of received and created interference at the node that can be written as,
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq6.6}
M_{i,j}=\delta I_c^i+(1-\delta)I_j,
\end{equation}
where $I_j$ is the interference received at the destination node $j$ that is calculated using (\ref{Eq6.2}), and $\delta$ is the cooperation parameter of the node. The term $I_c^i$ in (\ref{Eq6.6}) represents the interference created by transmitter $i$ to other nodes that can be written as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.7}
I_c^i=\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i}^{N}{\frac{P_{i}}{d(i,k)^\alpha}}
\end{equation}
where $P_{i}$ is transmission power of node $i$ and $d(i,k)$ is the distance between node $k$ and node $i$. The expression in (\ref{Eq6.7}) shows that the interference created by a node depends on its transmission power and its geographical location in the network. The proposed solution works in two phases. In the first phase, it collects necessary information from other nodes to calculate the routing metric's value. The second phase establishes the route towards the destination by selecting those nodes as a relay with a minimum value of routing metric.
\subsubsection{Information Collection Phase}
\begin{table}
\caption{Information table of node $i$}
\centering
\begin{tabular} {|c |c |c |c|}
\hline\hline
Address of the neighbor & $I_c^j$ & $I_j$ & $I_{\text{aggr}}^{j}$\\
\hline
1 & $\frac{P_i}{d(i,1)^\alpha}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i}^{N}{\frac{P_k}{d(1,k)^\alpha}}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq 1}^{N}{I_c^k}$\\
\hline
2 & $\frac{P_i}{d(i,2)^\alpha}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i}^{N}{\frac{P_k}{d(2,k)^\alpha}}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq 2}^{N}{I_c^k}$\\
\hline
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\hline
j & $\frac{P_i}{d(i,j)^\alpha}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i}^{N}{\frac{P_k}{d(j,k)^\alpha}}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq j}^{N}{I_c^k}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table6.1}
\end{table}
As discussed above, the IACR protocol requires information about created and received interference by a node to establish the routes between the source and the destination. The amount of interference created by a node depends on its neighbors' transmission power and geographical position. While a node does not know the location of other nodes in the network, this information is collected by transmitting an information collection packet (ICP) in the network. Algorithm 1 explains the actions of the source and receiving nodes during the information collection phase. As described in Algorithm 1, during the information collection phase, each node $i$ transmits ICP towards its neighbors using maximum transmission power $P_{max}$. Each neighbor $j$ when receives this packet calculates the value of received power ($P_r$) from the node $i$. This value reflects the interference created at node $j$ from node $i$.
Additionally, the receiving node $j$ calculates the value of interference received from other nodes while receiving ICP from node $i$. The node $j$ extracts this information directly from the physical layer while receiving ICP from node $i$. This value reflects the amount of received interference at the link ($i,j$). After calculating $P_r$ and $I_r$, the node $j$ shares this information with node $i$ by sending an information reply packet. The node $i$ repeats this process for all neighbors and saves this information in an information table used in the route establishment phase to take optimal routing decisions.\par
The format of the information table of node $i$ is shown in Table \ref{table6.1}. The first column represents the neighbor's address, and the second column represents the amount of interference created at $j$-th neighbor from node $i$ ($I_c^j$ ). The third column shows the amount of interference experienced by node $j$ while receiving data from node $i$ ($I_j$). The last column represents the aggregate amount of interference created by the node $i$ at other nodes if it selects neighbor $j$ as a relay node in the route ($I_{\text{aggr}}^{j}$ ). This information is used during the route establishment phase to make optimal routing decisions. The transmission of ICP is limited to neighbors of a node only, this information is piggy bagged with “HELLO” and “ACK” packets and does not introduce overhead during routing operation.\par
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Information collection phase}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE N = total number of nodes in the network
\FOR {node = 1 to $N$}
\WHILE {acting as transmitter}
\STATE ICReq = information collection Request packet\;
\STATE i = number of neighbors of current node\;
\STATE neighAddr = address of neighbour $i$\;
\WHILE {$i$ $>$ 0}
\STATE Destination ID field of ICReq = ID of node $i$\;
\STATE Transmitter ID field of ICReq = ID of node $i$\;
\STATE Transmit power field of ICReq = Power of node $i$\;
\STATE forward ICREQ packet to neighbors\;
\STATE i = i - 1\;
\STATE save address of neighbour $i$\;
\ENDWHILE
\ENDWHILE
\WHILE{acting as receiver}
\IF{received ICreq packet}
\IF{Destination ID field of ICReq == ID of node}
\STATE set receive power field of IC reply packet as receive power $P_r$\;
\STATE set receive interference field of IC reply packet as interference $I_r$ from neighbors\;
\STATE set destination ID of IC reply packet as ID of node\;
\STATE transmit IC reply packet toward source node\;
\ELSE
\STATE set receive power field of IC reply packet as receive power $P_r$\;
\STATE set destination ID of IC reply packet as ID of node\;
\STATE transmit IC reply packet toward source node\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{IC reply packet received}
\IF{Transmitter ID field of IC reply packet == ID of node}
\IF{Destination ID field of IC reply packet contain the address of neighbour}
\STATE save signal strangth from the receive power filed of IC reply packet\;
\STATE save receive interference value in information table from IC reply packet\;
\ELSE
\STATE save created interference to neighbour in the information table from IC reply packet\;
\ENDIF
\ELSE
\STATE discard the packet\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Route Establishment Phase}
The IACR protocol establishes routes in a distributed fashion similar to the standard AODV routing protocol. However, in contrast to the AODV protocol, the proposed solution uses interference at the nodes as a routing metric to calculate the cost of a link. The cost of a route is the sum of the costs of individual links. To establish the route at minimum cost, the source node selects those neighbors as potential relays, which minimizes the cost function given in (\ref{Eq6.6}). When the neighboring node receives the RREQ packet during the link establishing phase, it searches its routing table for a route towards the destination node. If new routing information is found, it generates an RREP and sends it towards the source node on the reverse path. In case of unavailability of new routing information, the relay node updates the metric value using (\ref{Eq6.5}) and forwards the packet towards its neighbors. To keep track of the reverse path, the relay node saves the identity of the transmitting node in the routing table. When the RREQ packet reaches the destination node, it acknowledges with an RREP packet on the reverse path. If the destination receives the RREQ packet through multiple paths, it sends RREP on the path with the minimum value of the routing metric. When receiving the RREP packet, each relay node updates the routing table and forwards the packet to the node on the reverse path. When RREP reaches the source, a route is established between source and destination. Algorithm \ref{algo6.2} shows the pseudocode of the route establishment phase for the proposed IACR protocol.\par
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Establishment of Route}
\label{algo6.2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\IF{source node}
\FOR{all neighbors $k$ of source node $i$}
\STATE calculate metric value $M(k)$ by (\ref{Eq6.6})\;
\ENDFOR
\STATE save $\min(M)$ in RREQ\;
\STATE save ID of node $k$ in RREQ\;
\STATE save destination ID in RREQ\;
\STATE set RREQ transmitter ID as ID of node $k$\;
\STATE set next hop in RREQ as ID of node correspond to $min(M)$\;
\STATE forward RREQ to neighbors\;
\IF{rrep packet received}
\STATE update routing table entry with next hop field in RREP\;
\STATE start data transmission towards next hop\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{relay node}
\IF{RREQ packet received}
\FOR{all neighbors $k$ of relay node $j$}
\STATE determine value $M(k)$ by (\ref{Eq6.6})\;
\ENDFOR
\STATE set RREQ metric value as $\rightarrow$ Current metric+min(M)\;
\STATE save transmitter ID in reverse path routing table\;
\STATE set transmitter ID of route request as ID of node $k$\;
\STATE update next hop ID as $\rightarrow$ ID of node correspond to min(M)\;
\STATE forward RREQ to neighbors\;
\ENDIF
\IF{RREP packet received}
\STATE save transmitter ID in forward path routing table\;
\STATE set RREP transmitter ID as ID of node $k$\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{destination node}
\IF{RREQ packet received}
\STATE set source ID in RREP as $\rightarrow$ source ID in RREQ\;
\STATE set RREP transmitter ID as $\rightarrow$ ID of node $k$\;
\STATE set next hop in RREP as $\rightarrow$ transmitter ID in RREQ\;
\STATE set metric of RREP as $\rightarrow$ metric value n RREQ\;
\STATE forward packet towards source node\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Performance evaluation}\label{perevl}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed schemes regarding various network parameters. First, we discuss the simulation setup deployed to assess the performance of the proposed algorithm. Then, we compare the results of IACR with minimum hop count (MHC) and interference-aware energy efficient (IAEE) routing algorithms.
\subsection{Simulation Setup}
The network consists of $N$ wireless devices uniformly distributed in a square area of $A (m^2)$. The nodes work in an ad hoc fashion; therefore, they can also act as routers to forward the packets of their neighboring nodes. We consider that all nodes can transmit equally in all directions with a communication circle of radius $r_t$. The network establishment time is set to 3 seconds, in which a node discovers its neighbors by transmitting ``HELLO” packets in their communication circle. The nodes transmit ``HELLO” packet after every 0.2 seconds to keep an updated routing metric for their neighbors.
When a source node desires to establish a communication link, it initiates a route discovery algorithm and searches for a new route towards the destination before sending data packets. In the simulation setup, multiple nodes are allowed to transmit their data simultaneously. A source node can initiate a request for a link towards the destination at any time after the establishment of the network. When the route is established, the source node transmits a message packet of 512B after every 0.1s towards the destination. The SINR at the receiver is affected by the path-loss factor, and the packet is successfully received at the destination if SINR at the receiver is greater than a predefined threshold value of SINR, which depends on underlying modulation and coding technique. We use binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation in the simulation setup to highlight the effects of the routing on the network's performance.
\subsection{Results and Discussion}
This section discusses the performance of the proposed solution for various network parameters and compares it with a conventional minimum hop count and energy-efficient routing algorithms. In particular, we provide results for the throughput and outage probability of different schemes, which reflect the packet delivery rate of the route. The throughput on a route is defined as the ratio of number of packets successfully received at the destination to the number of packets transmitted by the source node, which can be written as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq_th}
\hat{\tau} = \frac{n_s}{T_p}
\end{equation}
where $n_s$ is the number of packets successfully received and $T_p$ is the total number of packets transmitted by source node. Then, the outage probability is defined as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq_out}
P_{out} = Pr[{\gamma \leq \gamma_{th}}]
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the SINR of the route and $\gamma_{th}$ is the threshold value of SINR required for correct reception of the data.
In Figure~\ref{Section6_3_2Figure_1_ThroughputVsNodeDensity}, we plot the normalized throughput $\hat{\tau}$ with respect to number of nodes in the network. The graph shows that the value of $\hat{\tau}$ decreases when more nodes initialize their communication. When new nodes take part in communication, the interference in the network increases, which results in decreased network throughput. The graph shows that establishing interference-aware routes between the source and destination improves the throughput of the network. The plot shows that IAEE routing provides higher throughput than the MHC routing algorithm by establishing interference-aware routes between the source and the destination. Still, the proposed solution performs better than IAEE by removing those nodes from the route that provide high interference to other nodes.\par
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{ThrouhgputVsNodeDensity.eps}
\caption{Throughput comparison of IACR, MHC, and IAEE algorithms}
\label{Section6_3_2Figure_1_ThroughputVsNodeDensity}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Section6_3_2Figure_3_outageComparisonNodeDensity} shows the outage probability of the network concerning the number of transmitting nodes in the network. The graph shows that the proposed solution establishes high SINR routes between the source and the destination and reduces the outage probability calculated from (\ref{eq_out}). The graph further illustrates that the outage probability of the route increases when new nodes join the network. When new nodes join the network, the interference in the network increase which consequently reduces the term $\gamma$ in (\ref{eq_out}), and increases in outage probability. The proposed solution adaptive reestablishes the routes when interference at node rises above a threshold value, providing less outage probability than MHCR and IAEE routing algorithms.\par
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Section6_3_2Figure_3_outageComparisonNodeDensity.eps}
\caption{Outage probability of IACR, MHC, and IAEE algorithms}
\label{Section6_3_2Figure_3_outageComparisonNodeDensity}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Section6_3_2Figure_4_outageComparisonThresholdSINR} shows the comparison of outage probability of different routing schemes. The results show that the outage probability increases concerning the SINR threshold. At a high SINR threshold, a comparatively high value of received power is required to decode the packet successfully, which results in an increased outage probability. The graph shows that the presented IACR approach performs better than previous schemes, but the performance of IACR is almost equal to the IAEE algorithm when the threshold SINR is high. The graph shows that the outage probability is independent of the choice of the algorithm when the threshold SINR increases to 10 dB. At high threshold values, the performance of the route is dominated by the path-loss factor; therefore, even the SINR at minimum interference routes can not exceed the threshold level; as a result, a high outage is observed. \par
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Section6_3_2Figure_4_outageComparisonThresholdSINR.eps}
\caption{Effects of SINR threshold on outage probability of IACR, IAEE, and MHC algorithms}
\label{Section6_3_2Figure_4_outageComparisonThresholdSINR}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{Section6_3_2Figure_5_EnergyComparisonNodeDensity} shows the energy consumption of IACR as compared to previously proposed techniques. The graph shows that the energy consumption of the network increases when the number of nodes increases. Nevertheless, the energy consumption of IACR is low compared to MHCR and IAEE routing protocols because, in IACR, the nodes cooperate and create low interference for each other, which reduces overall interference in the network. When the interference in the network decreases, the nodes can transmit at low transmission power, which saves their energy consumption.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{EnergyVsNodeDensity.eps}
\caption{Average energy consumption of network for IACR, IAEE, and MHC algorithms}
\label{Section6_3_2Figure_5_EnergyComparisonNodeDensity}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and Future Works}\label{conclusion}
In this paper, we present an interference-aware cooperative routing (IACR) algorithm to establish the routes between source and destination in edge computing-enabled 5G networks. In IACR, the nodes cooperate and select those routes for data transmission that minimizes the interference to other nodes. This cooperative behavior reduces overall interference in the network. As a result, the nodes located in dense network regions can achieve better SINR, which improves the network's performance. We show that the proposed IACR routing metric improves network throughput and provides less outage than MHC and IAEE routing algorithms. Furthermore, the performance of the proposed solution improves when the number of nodes in the network is high. Therefore, the proposed schemes can be an efficient interference-aware routing solution for dense edge computing-enabled 5G networks. In the future, we will apply and analyze the performance of the proposed IACR algorithm to large-scale networks. Furthermore, the performance of the proposed algorithm can be tested for various mobility models and dynamic channel conditions covering 5G and beyond networks.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{he} 3GPP release 16 broadly categorizes the services offered by fifth-generation (5G) networks into three areas, i.e., enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC), and massive Machine Type Communication (mMTC) \cite{Viet2020}. Therefore, 5G networks are designed to serve such diverse applications efficiently, utilizing cloud-native concepts like leveraging operations within and across data centers, communicating in a micro-service environment, and simultaneously providing services and applications \cite{Tuyen2017}. A few of the enabling technologies like millimeter wave (mmWave) communication, multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO), beamforming and small cells are innovations credited to the realization of 5G. In addition, the cloud-native 5G architecture offers a ubiquitous, convenient, and on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.
Until fourth-generation (4G), the wireless cellular communication systems focused on increasing the data rates. However, to address the ever-growing need for video streaming, application usage, and massive IoT devices, the cellular network architecture needs to be updated to a more flexible and service-oriented design. Therefore, 5G wireless communications systems have a more distributed architecture than its preceding generations with the introduction of control and user plane separation (CUPS) of the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) \cite{Mamta2021}. For example, the deployment of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) swarms network can yield high capacities to meet the accuracy, stability, and effective service requirements for UAS swarm \cite{wang20205g,wang2021reinforcement,wang2021extensive}. From a mobile network operator (MNO) perspective, the primary motivations for 5G to have a distributed architecture are: to deliver high bandwidth and support a high density of users by utilizing small cells; data processing at the edge of the network, i.e., close to the source helps meet the latency requirements and increasing efficiency; and efficient energy utilization and enhanced data security.
The building block of edge computing-enabled 5G networks is infrastructure less network of wireless devices, in which, the devices act cooperatively to establish communication between a source and a destination \cite{Guangming2021}. These networks have applications in many real life scenarios such as military communication, rescue and emergency operations, conference rooms, and in the situation where infrastructure is not available or difficult to deploy \cite{ref1}. On the other hand, the distributed nature of these networks imposes multiple challenges such as data privacy, network security, and detection and mitigation of malicious devices\cite{wang2021counter,liu2020deep}. As there is no central management unit, the devices themselves manages network operations. Therefore, each node act as router/relay and forwards the data of other nodes in addition to its own data packet \cite{ref2}. The limitation on the available battery power at each node, requires that the designed algorithm is energy efficient to increase the network life time.
Interference is an important parameter that affects the energy consumption and efficiency of edge computing-enabled 5G networks \cite{Guangming2021}. For example, in networks with Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), a large bandwidth is used to transmit signals; as a result, the system becomes resilient to noise, jamming, unauthorized interception, and perception. These characteristics exhibit desirable properties, but the system's performance is compromised in the presence of uneven transmission power distribution, especially difficult to control in peer-to-peer networks. Due to independence in the decision-making, there is an inherent imbalance in adjusting power, which in turn results in the near-far-effect \cite{ref3}. To improve the signal to noise plus Interference Ratio (SINR), each node adjusts transmit power, disregarding the levels used by other nodes. As a result, the energy consumed by the network is directly influenced by the amount of interference \cite{kundaliya2020cl}.
There are many methods proposed in the literature to reduce interference among the nodes in various wireless networks \cite{khan2017energy, he2019interference, ahmed2018rp}. Although these schemes select routes with less interference, no mechanism exists that reduces the interference in the network. For example, in \cite{amiri2018interference}, the authors addressed this issue by proposing a solution to reduce interference by the secondary users to the primary user using game theory in cognitive radio networks. Similarly, the solution in \cite{khan2017energy} reduces interference during routing operation in underwater wireless sensor networks, which selects the next hop in the route having less number of neighbors to improve the SINR of the route. The authors in \cite{chai2020delay} propose a different approach, where the routing algorithm selects the paths with a minimum delay while the delay is computed based on the number of interfering nodes in the vicinity of the source node. Nevertheless, the existing solutions use a selfish approach where each node is concerned about its utility without considering the effects of its actions on the communication between the other nodes of the network. Therefore, in this work, we propose an algorithm to reduce interference in the network in a cooperative way. The route between the nodes is selected in the proposed method such that each node creates minimum interference for the other nodes while ensuring that its own SINR does not decrease below a threshold SINR level. The contributions of the paper are summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We developed a novel routing algorithm that considers the created interference by a node in the network as a parameter while making the routing decisions.
\item The proposed algorithm also considers the cooperation parameter in metric, models practical limitations where some nodes may not be willing to cooperate due to their bad channel conditions.
\item The algorithm enables only those nodes as a relay that creates low interference in the network. Thus, it reduces the energy consumption of the nodes by reducing interference in the network.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows; in Section \ref{literaturereview}, we present a review of energy-efficient routing algorithms. In Section \ref{iacr}, we explain the proposed Interference Aware Cooperative Routing (IACR) Algorithm in detail. In Section \ref{perevl}, the performance of the proposed scheme is discussed for various network parameters, followed by conclusions in Section \ref{conclusion}.
\section{Literature Review}
\label{literaturereview}
In the previous section, we discussed that a substantial portion of the energy resources is consumed during network management by mitigating the interference and packet forwarding operations. While the nodes have limited battery resources, avoiding interference and energy efficiency is an essential requirement to increase the operational time of the network. We can divide the methods to minimize interference in a distributed network into three broader categories: power control, channel scheduling, and routing-based methods. The power control methods aim to find the optimal transmission power range so that the network's interference is minimized. On the other hand, the channel scheduling methods divide the available bandwidth into various sub-bands and allocate the channels to the users such that the interference is reduced. Alternatively, routing-based methods establish the path between the source and destination such that overall interference in the network is minimized.
There are various power control techniques for minimizing network interference. For instance, in \cite{ji2020power}, the authors propose a power control algorithm for cognitive vehicular networks by obtaining the optimal power vector considering the minimum value of outage probability of the system. The proposed system performs better than other power allocation techniques. However, the reduced transmission power increases the number of hops in the route; as a result, the algorithm introduces transmission delays during communication. In \cite{rodrigues2019edge}, the authors apply Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) technique to reduce transmission delays by updating transmission powers for the nodes in each iteration. Although the proposed scheme reduces time delays, on the other hand, the assignment of different power levels to each node in the network may be counterproductive in terms of reduced network connectivity and variable interference in the network. In \cite{chincoli2016power}, the authors analyzed the performance of the distributed sensor network in the presence of variable interference. The study compares multiple power control methods and concludes that using homogeneous transmission powers for all the nodes in the network results in better network performance in the scenarios where interference is variable. However, finding the minimum transmission power to ensure connectivity is not straightforward, especially in the case of homogeneous power assignment. Moreover, the effect of step size on the performance of the algorithm needs to be evaluated.
Unlike the power control techniques, in \cite{hisham2020adjacent}, the authors formulate joint scheduling and power control problem as Mixed Boolean Linear Programming (MBLP) problem in order to mitigate the impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference on vehicle-to-vehicle communication. The results of \cite{hisham2020adjacent} show that the impact of channel interference can be reduced by scheduling and power control. However, the solution obtained is numerically sensitive, where a stable optimal solution can be obtained by applying sensitivity reduction techniques at the cost of increased computational complexity.
Consequently, in \cite{unlu2019ipbm}, the authors proposed a solution to handle interference during the communication of control packets, dividing one frame into three types of slots where data is sent on each slot by a fair scheduling algorithm. Thus, the rescheduling is performed based on the interference pattern at each time slot. The proposed algorithm in \cite{unlu2019ipbm} can be integrated with distributed routing protocols such as AODV and ALOHA with fixed frame lengths. However, the performance of the solution needs to be analyzed for variable frame structure and dynamic interference conditions.
The third type of algorithms reduce interference at network layer by reducing interference during routing operations. Recently, in \cite{wang2020beamforming}, the authors presented Optimized Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (OAODV) routing protocol, enhancing the routing and scheduling performance of Unmammded Aerial Systems (UAS). In \cite{wang2020beamforming}, beam-forming is used to send the data towards the desired destination with reduced interference. On the other hand, the authors in \cite{waqas2020interference} minimizes the interference during route discovery operation. In the proposed solution, only those node whose interference is less than a predefined threshold value actively participate during routing operations, reducing the energy consumption and achieving high network throughput. While the algorithm ensures that the SINR does not decrease the threshold SINR value, the resulting route may choose nodes at the network's edges, resulting in higher time delays. Similarly, in \cite{waqas2012energy}, the authors defined a routing metric that uses link interference in the network to select the path whose SINR is high to improve the performance of the network. The proposed solution faces a similar problem, i.e., high link length results in high time latency during the routing operation.
The solutions mentioned above select low interference paths while establishing routes between the nodes, they do not provide the solution to reduce interference provided by a node to other nodes during route establishment. Therefore, we propose a novel solution based on a new routing metric that considers created interference by a node in the network as a parameter during routing decisions. Moreover, we also use the cooperation parameter that models practical limitations of the network where some nodes may not be willing to cooperate due to bad channel conditions. Our proposed solution enables only those nodes as a relay that creates low interference in the network, further reducing the network's energy consumption. In the next section, we present the proposed interference aware cooperative routing (IACR) algorithm that establishes routes such that the interference provided by the source node to the other nodes in the network is minimized under the constraints that its own SINR does not decrease below the minimum SINR level that is required for successful reception of the data packets.
\section{Interference Aware Cooperative Routing}\label{iacr}
This section proposes the IACR algorithm that reduces interference and maximizes the network's overall performance. The IACR defines the route's cost as a function of created and received interference by a node in the network. The metric value is calculated as the weighted sum of received and created interference. The receive interference term in the proposed routing metric ensures that the data is routed through a low interference path, achieving high SINR at the route. On the other hand, the created interference term selects that path for data transmission that offers less interference in the network. As a result of this strategy, the quality of service (QoS) for all the users in the network improves. In the following, we present the system model and working principle of the proposed solution in detail.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{systemmodel}
\caption{System model}
\label{systemmodel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{System model}
We consider an edge computing-enabled 5G network setup with $N$ number of nodes deployed randomly as shown in Fig. \ref{systemmodel}. We assume omnidirectional coverage of the nodes to transmit the data in a circular region centered around the transmitting node. The radius of transmission circle $r_t$ depends on the transmission power $P_t$ of the node. The node transmits over the same frequency band. Initially, the nodes start transmission using maximum transmission power $P_{max}$ and update their transmission levels by the proposed method when the communication begins. Then, the received power can be calculated as \cite{ren2013interference, bastos2018assisted}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.1}
P_r=P_tL_{i,j}=\frac{P_t}{d^\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is the path-loss exponent and $d$ is the distance between transmitter and receiver.
Additionally, we assume that each node can act as a router for a distributed edge network to configure itself as a source and/or destination. If the destination node is not within the communication range of a source node, multihop routes are used to establish the communication path. Finally, we assume that all nodes are cooperative and do not drop other nodes' packets to save their energy resources.
Since all nodes are operating at the same frequency band, they create interference for each other. We can write the aggregate interference at node $j$ as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.2}
I_j=\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i,j}^{N}{\frac{P_k}{d_{j,k}^\alpha}}
\end{equation}
where $P_k$ is the transmission power of node $k$, $d_{j,k}$ is distance between node $j$ and node $k$, and $N$ is the total number of active nodes in the network. The resultant SINR at node $j$ when receiving data from node $i$ can be calculated as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.3}
SINR_{(i,j)}=\frac{P_{i,j}}{I_j+\sigma^2}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^2$ is the noise variance, $I_j$ is received interference at the destination node $j$, and $P_{i,j}$ is power received at node $j$ from the source node $i$. In general, noise power is very less as compared to signal power, therefore, the above equation is reduced as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.4}
SIR(i,j)=\frac{P_{i,j}}{I_j}
\end{equation}
A packet is successfully received at the destination node if SINR at each link is greater than a predefined threshold level $SINR_{th}$. In the next section, we discuss the proposed IACR algorithm in detail to establish routes between source and destination.
\subsection{Working Principle of IACR algorithm}
The IACR algorithm establishes routes in a distributed fashion similar to the standard ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing protocol. However, it uses a new metric field in which the route's cost depends on the interference at the nodes. When the source node desires to establish a communication link, it broadcasts a route request (RREQ) in the network. When each neighbor receives the RREQ packet, it updates the metric value in the header of the RREQ packet and forwards the packet to the next neighbors. The routing metric is updated as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.5}
M_k = M_{RREQ}+M_{k-1,k},
\end{equation}
where $M_k$ is the cost of the route up to $k$-th node, $M_{RREQ}$ is the metric value in the RREQ packet when node $k$ has received the RREQ packet, and $M_{k-1,k}$ is the cost of link $(k-1,k)$. When the packet reaches the destination node, it responds with a route reply (RREP) packet to establish a link with the source node. If the destination node receives multiple RREQ packets, it sends the RREP packet on the route with the minimum value of the routing metric. The routing metric used in the IACR algorithm depends on created and received interference by the node in the network. Each node can calculate the value of received interference using the received power information from the physical layer. However, it can not directly calculate the amount of interference created by itself to other nodes in the network. To get the information about created interference, it transmits an information collection packet towards its neighbors. The information collection phase is explained in detail in the next section. The metric value of a link is calculated as a weighted sum of received and created interference at the node that can be written as,
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq6.6}
M_{i,j}=\delta I_c^i+(1-\delta)I_j,
\end{equation}
where $I_j$ is the interference received at the destination node $j$ that is calculated using (\ref{Eq6.2}), and $\delta$ is the cooperation parameter of the node. The term $I_c^i$ in (\ref{Eq6.6}) represents the interference created by transmitter $i$ to other nodes that can be written as,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6.7}
I_c^i=\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i}^{N}{\frac{P_{i}}{d(i,k)^\alpha}}
\end{equation}
where $P_{i}$ is transmission power of node $i$ and $d(i,k)$ is the distance between node $k$ and node $i$. The expression in (\ref{Eq6.7}) shows that the interference created by a node depends on its transmission power and its geographical location in the network. The proposed solution works in two phases. In the first phase, it collects necessary information from other nodes to calculate the routing metric's value. The second phase establishes the route towards the destination by selecting those nodes as a relay with a minimum value of routing metric.
\subsubsection{Information Collection Phase}
\begin{table}
\caption{Information table of node $i$}
\centering
\begin{tabular} {|c |c |c |c|}
\hline\hline
Address of the neighbor & $I_c^j$ & $I_j$ & $I_{\text{aggr}}^{j}$\\
\hline
1 & $\frac{P_i}{d(i,1)^\alpha}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i}^{N}{\frac{P_k}{d(1,k)^\alpha}}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq 1}^{N}{I_c^k}$\\
\hline
2 & $\frac{P_i}{d(i,2)^\alpha}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i}^{N}{\frac{P_k}{d(2,k)^\alpha}}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq 2}^{N}{I_c^k}$\\
\hline
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\hline
j & $\frac{P_i}{d(i,j)^\alpha}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq i}^{N}{\frac{P_k}{d(j,k)^\alpha}}$ & $\sum\limits_{k=1,k\neq j}^{N}{I_c^k}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table6.1}
\end{table}
As discussed above, the IACR protocol requires information about created and received interference by a node to establish the routes between the source and the destination. The amount of interference created by a node depends on its neighbors' transmission power and geographical position. While a node does not know the location of other nodes in the network, this information is collected by transmitting an information collection packet (ICP) in the network. Algorithm 1 explains the actions of the source and receiving nodes during the information collection phase. As described in Algorithm 1, during the information collection phase, each node $i$ transmits ICP towards its neighbors using maximum transmission power $P_{max}$. Each neighbor $j$ when receives this packet calculates the value of received power ($P_r$) from the node $i$. This value reflects the interference created at node $j$ from node $i$.
Additionally, the receiving node $j$ calculates the value of interference received from other nodes while receiving ICP from node $i$. The node $j$ extracts this information directly from the physical layer while receiving ICP from node $i$. This value reflects the amount of received interference at the link ($i,j$). After calculating $P_r$ and $I_r$, the node $j$ shares this information with node $i$ by sending an information reply packet. The node $i$ repeats this process for all neighbors and saves this information in an information table used in the route establishment phase to take optimal routing decisions.\par
The format of the information table of node $i$ is shown in Table \ref{table6.1}. The first column represents the neighbor's address, and the second column represents the amount of interference created at $j$-th neighbor from node $i$ ($I_c^j$ ). The third column shows the amount of interference experienced by node $j$ while receiving data from node $i$ ($I_j$). The last column represents the aggregate amount of interference created by the node $i$ at other nodes if it selects neighbor $j$ as a relay node in the route ($I_{\text{aggr}}^{j}$ ). This information is used during the route establishment phase to make optimal routing decisions. The transmission of ICP is limited to neighbors of a node only, this information is piggy bagged with “HELLO” and “ACK” packets and does not introduce overhead during routing operation.\par
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Information collection phase}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE N = total number of nodes in the network
\FOR {node = 1 to $N$}
\WHILE {acting as transmitter}
\STATE ICReq = information collection Request packet\;
\STATE i = number of neighbors of current node\;
\STATE neighAddr = address of neighbour $i$\;
\WHILE {$i$ $>$ 0}
\STATE Destination ID field of ICReq = ID of node $i$\;
\STATE Transmitter ID field of ICReq = ID of node $i$\;
\STATE Transmit power field of ICReq = Power of node $i$\;
\STATE forward ICREQ packet to neighbors\;
\STATE i = i - 1\;
\STATE save address of neighbour $i$\;
\ENDWHILE
\ENDWHILE
\WHILE{acting as receiver}
\IF{received ICreq packet}
\IF{Destination ID field of ICReq == ID of node}
\STATE set receive power field of IC reply packet as receive power $P_r$\;
\STATE set receive interference field of IC reply packet as interference $I_r$ from neighbors\;
\STATE set destination ID of IC reply packet as ID of node\;
\STATE transmit IC reply packet toward source node\;
\ELSE
\STATE set receive power field of IC reply packet as receive power $P_r$\;
\STATE set destination ID of IC reply packet as ID of node\;
\STATE transmit IC reply packet toward source node\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{IC reply packet received}
\IF{Transmitter ID field of IC reply packet == ID of node}
\IF{Destination ID field of IC reply packet contain the address of neighbour}
\STATE save signal strangth from the receive power filed of IC reply packet\;
\STATE save receive interference value in information table from IC reply packet\;
\ELSE
\STATE save created interference to neighbour in the information table from IC reply packet\;
\ENDIF
\ELSE
\STATE discard the packet\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Route Establishment Phase}
The IACR protocol establishes routes in a distributed fashion similar to the standard AODV routing protocol. However, in contrast to the AODV protocol, the proposed solution uses interference at the nodes as a routing metric to calculate the cost of a link. The cost of a route is the sum of the costs of individual links. To establish the route at minimum cost, the source node selects those neighbors as potential relays, which minimizes the cost function given in (\ref{Eq6.6}). When the neighboring node receives the RREQ packet during the link establishing phase, it searches its routing table for a route towards the destination node. If new routing information is found, it generates an RREP and sends it towards the source node on the reverse path. In case of unavailability of new routing information, the relay node updates the metric value using (\ref{Eq6.5}) and forwards the packet towards its neighbors. To keep track of the reverse path, the relay node saves the identity of the transmitting node in the routing table. When the RREQ packet reaches the destination node, it acknowledges with an RREP packet on the reverse path. If the destination receives the RREQ packet through multiple paths, it sends RREP on the path with the minimum value of the routing metric. When receiving the RREP packet, each relay node updates the routing table and forwards the packet to the node on the reverse path. When RREP reaches the source, a route is established between source and destination. Algorithm \ref{algo6.2} shows the pseudocode of the route establishment phase for the proposed IACR protocol.\par
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Establishment of Route}
\label{algo6.2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\IF{source node}
\FOR{all neighbors $k$ of source node $i$}
\STATE calculate metric value $M(k)$ by (\ref{Eq6.6})\;
\ENDFOR
\STATE save $\min(M)$ in RREQ\;
\STATE save ID of node $k$ in RREQ\;
\STATE save destination ID in RREQ\;
\STATE set RREQ transmitter ID as ID of node $k$\;
\STATE set next hop in RREQ as ID of node correspond to $min(M)$\;
\STATE forward RREQ to neighbors\;
\IF{rrep packet received}
\STATE update routing table entry with next hop field in RREP\;
\STATE start data transmission towards next hop\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{relay node}
\IF{RREQ packet received}
\FOR{all neighbors $k$ of relay node $j$}
\STATE determine value $M(k)$ by (\ref{Eq6.6})\;
\ENDFOR
\STATE set RREQ metric value as $\rightarrow$ Current metric+min(M)\;
\STATE save transmitter ID in reverse path routing table\;
\STATE set transmitter ID of route request as ID of node $k$\;
\STATE update next hop ID as $\rightarrow$ ID of node correspond to min(M)\;
\STATE forward RREQ to neighbors\;
\ENDIF
\IF{RREP packet received}
\STATE save transmitter ID in forward path routing table\;
\STATE set RREP transmitter ID as ID of node $k$\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{destination node}
\IF{RREQ packet received}
\STATE set source ID in RREP as $\rightarrow$ source ID in RREQ\;
\STATE set RREP transmitter ID as $\rightarrow$ ID of node $k$\;
\STATE set next hop in RREP as $\rightarrow$ transmitter ID in RREQ\;
\STATE set metric of RREP as $\rightarrow$ metric value n RREQ\;
\STATE forward packet towards source node\;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Performance evaluation}\label{perevl}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed schemes regarding various network parameters. First, we discuss the simulation setup deployed to assess the performance of the proposed algorithm. Then, we compare the results of IACR with minimum hop count (MHC) and interference-aware energy efficient (IAEE) routing algorithms.
\subsection{Simulation Setup}
The network consists of $N$ wireless devices uniformly distributed in a square area of $A (m^2)$. The nodes work in an ad hoc fashion; therefore, they can also act as routers to forward the packets of their neighboring nodes. We consider that all nodes can transmit equally in all directions with a communication circle of radius $r_t$. The network establishment time is set to 3 seconds, in which a node discovers its neighbors by transmitting ``HELLO” packets in their communication circle. The nodes transmit ``HELLO” packet after every 0.2 seconds to keep an updated routing metric for their neighbors.
When a source node desires to establish a communication link, it initiates a route discovery algorithm and searches for a new route towards the destination before sending data packets. In the simulation setup, multiple nodes are allowed to transmit their data simultaneously. A source node can initiate a request for a link towards the destination at any time after the establishment of the network. When the route is established, the source node transmits a message packet of 512B after every 0.1s towards the destination. The SINR at the receiver is affected by the path-loss factor, and the packet is successfully received at the destination if SINR at the receiver is greater than a predefined threshold value of SINR, which depends on underlying modulation and coding technique. We use binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation in the simulation setup to highlight the effects of the routing on the network's performance.
\subsection{Results and Discussion}
This section discusses the performance of the proposed solution for various network parameters and compares it with a conventional minimum hop count and energy-efficient routing algorithms. In particular, we provide results for the throughput and outage probability of different schemes, which reflect the packet delivery rate of the route. The throughput on a route is defined as the ratio of number of packets successfully received at the destination to the number of packets transmitted by the source node, which can be written as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq_th}
\hat{\tau} = \frac{n_s}{T_p}
\end{equation}
where $n_s$ is the number of packets successfully received and $T_p$ is the total number of packets transmitted by source node. Then, the outage probability is defined as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq_out}
P_{out} = Pr[{\gamma \leq \gamma_{th}}]
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the SINR of the route and $\gamma_{th}$ is the threshold value of SINR required for correct reception of the data.
In Figure~\ref{Section6_3_2Figure_1_ThroughputVsNodeDensity}, we plot the normalized throughput $\hat{\tau}$ with respect to number of nodes in the network. The graph shows that the value of $\hat{\tau}$ decreases when more nodes initialize their communication. When new nodes take part in communication, the interference in the network increases, which results in decreased network throughput. The graph shows that establishing interference-aware routes between the source and destination improves the throughput of the network. The plot shows that IAEE routing provides higher throughput than the MHC routing algorithm by establishing interference-aware routes between the source and the destination. Still, the proposed solution performs better than IAEE by removing those nodes from the route that provide high interference to other nodes.\par
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{ThrouhgputVsNodeDensity.eps}
\caption{Throughput comparison of IACR, MHC, and IAEE algorithms}
\label{Section6_3_2Figure_1_ThroughputVsNodeDensity}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Section6_3_2Figure_3_outageComparisonNodeDensity} shows the outage probability of the network concerning the number of transmitting nodes in the network. The graph shows that the proposed solution establishes high SINR routes between the source and the destination and reduces the outage probability calculated from (\ref{eq_out}). The graph further illustrates that the outage probability of the route increases when new nodes join the network. When new nodes join the network, the interference in the network increase which consequently reduces the term $\gamma$ in (\ref{eq_out}), and increases in outage probability. The proposed solution adaptive reestablishes the routes when interference at node rises above a threshold value, providing less outage probability than MHCR and IAEE routing algorithms.\par
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Section6_3_2Figure_3_outageComparisonNodeDensity.eps}
\caption{Outage probability of IACR, MHC, and IAEE algorithms}
\label{Section6_3_2Figure_3_outageComparisonNodeDensity}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Section6_3_2Figure_4_outageComparisonThresholdSINR} shows the comparison of outage probability of different routing schemes. The results show that the outage probability increases concerning the SINR threshold. At a high SINR threshold, a comparatively high value of received power is required to decode the packet successfully, which results in an increased outage probability. The graph shows that the presented IACR approach performs better than previous schemes, but the performance of IACR is almost equal to the IAEE algorithm when the threshold SINR is high. The graph shows that the outage probability is independent of the choice of the algorithm when the threshold SINR increases to 10 dB. At high threshold values, the performance of the route is dominated by the path-loss factor; therefore, even the SINR at minimum interference routes can not exceed the threshold level; as a result, a high outage is observed. \par
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Section6_3_2Figure_4_outageComparisonThresholdSINR.eps}
\caption{Effects of SINR threshold on outage probability of IACR, IAEE, and MHC algorithms}
\label{Section6_3_2Figure_4_outageComparisonThresholdSINR}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{Section6_3_2Figure_5_EnergyComparisonNodeDensity} shows the energy consumption of IACR as compared to previously proposed techniques. The graph shows that the energy consumption of the network increases when the number of nodes increases. Nevertheless, the energy consumption of IACR is low compared to MHCR and IAEE routing protocols because, in IACR, the nodes cooperate and create low interference for each other, which reduces overall interference in the network. When the interference in the network decreases, the nodes can transmit at low transmission power, which saves their energy consumption.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{EnergyVsNodeDensity.eps}
\caption{Average energy consumption of network for IACR, IAEE, and MHC algorithms}
\label{Section6_3_2Figure_5_EnergyComparisonNodeDensity}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and Future Works}\label{conclusion}
In this paper, we present an interference-aware cooperative routing (IACR) algorithm to establish the routes between source and destination in edge computing-enabled 5G networks. In IACR, the nodes cooperate and select those routes for data transmission that minimizes the interference to other nodes. This cooperative behavior reduces overall interference in the network. As a result, the nodes located in dense network regions can achieve better SINR, which improves the network's performance. We show that the proposed IACR routing metric improves network throughput and provides less outage than MHC and IAEE routing algorithms. Furthermore, the performance of the proposed solution improves when the number of nodes in the network is high. Therefore, the proposed schemes can be an efficient interference-aware routing solution for dense edge computing-enabled 5G networks. In the future, we will apply and analyze the performance of the proposed IACR algorithm to large-scale networks. Furthermore, the performance of the proposed algorithm can be tested for various mobility models and dynamic channel conditions covering 5G and beyond networks.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Learning cybersecurity requires extensive knowledge and skills, ranging from a wide area of theoretical concepts to practical skills with operating systems, command-line tools, and system vulnerabilities~\cite{mouheb2019cybersecurity}. As~a~result, it is difficult to conduct hands-on cybersecurity training that would match the skills of all participants in the training. This situation is further complicated since more and more students with different backgrounds are entering the field of cybersecurity~\cite{bashir2017profiling}.
Although the instructor can intervene to help students interactively, this is feasible only in relatively small classes, and not every student actively asks for help. The interactive help is especially complicated during online training (e.g., forced by restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic \cite{putri2020impact}).
To support our assumptions that students do not fully benefit from the training sessions, we analyze 12 hands-on training sessions on various cybersecurity topics we held in 2019 and 2020. We observed that only 47\% of students successfully completed the training~(for more information, see \Cref{sec:motivation}).
We see the opportunity to improve the students' experience and skills using an \gls{ITS}, which adapts the learning environment according to the student's abilities. Unfortunately, an ITS in the domain of hands-on cybersecurity training is rare, mostly because the interactive lab environment and its setup differ for particular sessions.
As a result, cybersecurity platforms offer static scenarios with limited or no adaptiveness \cite{braghin2020modeldriven}. We could create an ITS for a specific training session. This would bring great flexibility in defining the conditions for serving adaptive tasks to students. However, such ITS could not be reused for another training. Our main goal is to create a concept of generic cybersecurity training that will adapt to the current phase of individual student skills.
In this paper, we present a generic format for adaptive training and a tutor model. The model determines appropriate tasks based on students' theoretical knowledge and current performance. Using the proposed format and model, we conduct a case study involving cybersecurity hands-on training with 24 undergraduate students and graduates in computer science. We report teaching experience from the execution of adaptive hands-on training based on the proposed tutor model implemented in KYPO Cyber Range Platform (CRP)~\cite{2021-FIE-kypo-csc}. The results suggest that adaptive training increases the chances of successful completion of training and deepens the experience and knowledge gained from the training. In our study, 88\% of students completed the training without asking for a solution of any task. Further, most of the students reported that they did not get stuck at any point of the training and enjoyed it. Finally, we provide recommendations for instructors on using the proposed format and model and also depict future research directions.
This paper is organized into six sections. \Cref{sec:related_work} provides an overview of \gls{ITS}s in computer science education. \Cref{sec:previousTeachingExperience} describes our past experience and motivation. \Cref{sec:design} details the training format and the newly developed tutor model. \Cref{sec:case_study_setup} describes case study setup, including teaching context and participants. \Cref{sec:results} reports the results from three hands-on training sessions. Finally, \Cref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper and outlines future work.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
Adaptive learning techniques are a well-established research area~\cite{colchester2017survey} that accommodates the pedagogical content for the learners and their current state of knowledge. These techniques were introduced in the 1970s \cite{carbonell1970ai}, and the research area still receives considerable interest. Personalized learning achievable by adaptive techniques was identified by the US National Academy of Engineering as one of the Grand Challenges for Engineering~\cite{grand_challenges}.
We start with \gls{ITS} that conceptualize adaptive learning in a way that is commonly accepted in computer science. \gls{ITS} typically contain the following parts: (i) \textit{domain model}, (ii) \textit{student model}, (iii) \textit{tutor model}, and (iv) \textit{user interface model}~\cite{sottilare2016design}. The \textit{domain model} presents educational content and its relationships~\cite{sottilare2016design}. The \textit{student model} captures the students' knowledge to assess their performance~\cite{long2011students,hu2014content}. The \textit{tutor model} (\textit{instructional policy}) presents the suitable learning tasks to students~\cite{nkambou2010advances}. Finally, a \textit{user interface model} interacts with the user via a pre-defined interface \cite[chapter 9]{sottilare2016design}.
Although the \gls{ITS} research area is well established, to the best of our knowledge, there are no available \gls{ITS} models for comprehensive hands-on cybersecurity training in a networked lab environment. For that reason, we review the \gls{ITS} research from other domains, which improve or discuss student models to evaluate the participants' performance and tutor models to assign suitable tasks. Effenberger and Pelánek \cite{effenberger2019measuring} discuss several approaches to measure the student's performance during introductory programming tasks. They find that the widely used performance measure called binary success is not suitable for the evaluation of programming tasks since it contains too little information. The evaluation of programming tasks is harder than the evaluation of answering multiple-choice questions about any topic in computer science. Therefore, they propose multiple qualitative and quantitative methods, based on the four performance levels \textit{failed}, \textit{poor}, \textit{good}, and \textit{excellent}. Khosravi et. al \cite{khosravi2020development} provide lessons learned from using the Ripple system that recommends suitable learning activities for students of relational databases. The authors found that an important part of the learning system is based on gamification, such as awards and leaderboards to motivate students. Further, \cite{hatzivasilis2020modern} uses Bloom's taxonomy to dynamically adapt the training process. The authors define several layers with different difficulties that should be accomplished. The system evaluates the students' exercises and exams during the training. After reaching a good understanding, the student can proceed with a related advanced training scenario. Contrary to our approach, it seems that their adaptiveness is mostly based on exam scores and does not include more detailed metrics such as the commands used in an interactive learning environment. For more information on \gls{ITS}, we suggest \cite{sottilare2016design} that focuses on design recommendations and \cite{colchester2017survey,paladines2020systematic,alkhatlan2018intelligent} that review the recent research.
Next, the participants' perceptions of difficulty are subjective. Nebel~et.~al~\cite{nebel2020competitive} discussed that perceived difficulty within a competition might differ relative to each learner's performance. A participant winning effortlessly might indicate a low difficulty, whereas a losing participant may perceive a relatively high difficulty even if the context is identical. This argumentation appears evident but is important. The individual difficulty might play a crucial role in influencing the students' experience and how the learning process evolves. Xue~et~al.~\cite{xue2017dynamic} observed that perceiving the difficulty influences participant engagement and how often the training is played.
Finally, we searched for related works in the area of cybersecurity education. We found only a few relevant sources about adaptiveness in cybersecurity training. Hatzivasilis~et~al.~\cite{hatzivasilis2020modern} propose suitable assignments of cybersecurity tasks to students in exercises held in a cyber range. However, they do not propose the unified design of adaptive hands-on training. In the industry sector, the Circadence company provides adaptable cyber training and learning opportunities. However, their platform does not support adaptive task assignments based on the students' performance and mainly focuses on the adaptive pre-configuration of training sessions. This includes turning the hints and chatbot on or off during the training~\cite{circadance2021}.
Based on the available literature and eight years of our experience with hands-on cybersecurity training, we believe the reason for the absence of ITS in comprehensive hands-on cybersecurity education is the high complexity of systems (hardware, software, and domain knowledge requirements).
\section{Our Teaching Experience and Expectations from Adaptive Learning}\label{sec:previousTeachingExperience}
This section presents our previous experience with non-adaptive training sessions and our expectations from introducing adaptivity to hands-on training.
\subsection{Our Teaching Experience}\label{sec:motivation}
We have been designing and organizing cybersecurity training sessions since 2014 \cite{198087}. The participating high-school and undergraduate students, as well as professional learners, value the hands-on nature of these sessions and the opportunities to practice cyber attacks and defense. On the other hand, many participants were frustrated in various phases of the training, even though it contained on-demand hints. The participants lacked some prerequisite skills and knowledge or wanted to complete the training without help.
To validate our assumptions about the factors influencing students' learning experience, we analyzed interaction data from 12 training sessions held in 2019 and 2020. The data were collected automatically in the KYPO CRP~\cite{2021-FIE-kypo-csc}. A total of 95 students participated in one of 12 cybersecurity training sessions. Each training comprised three to six consecutive phases. In total, less than half of the participants (45 out of 95) completed their training sessions, i.e., completed all phases without displaying any solution. In two training sessions, all participants completed all phases. In the other ten sessions, the ratio of successful participants ranged from 0 to 83\% (median 55\%). The count of phases that participants completed in the same training session varied too.
These student difficulties can be mitigated by conducting training sessions that adapt to the proficiency and current progress of each student. However, conducting such adaptive training sessions is infeasible without a training tutor integrated into the platform. To support this argument, we counted the actions the students performed in the previous training sessions (see~\Cref{tab:summarizedResultsFromPastNonAdaptiveGames}). These actions include starting the training phase, submitting the correct or incorrect answer in a phase, and displaying a hint or solution. All these actions are automatically processed by the tutor without instructor intervention. In the analyzed training sessions, the average number of actions per participant ranged from 17 to 62 (median 29). This number is too high to conduct the training sessions manually (by the instructor) without the support of the software in the learning environment.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Statistics of the past non-adaptive training sessions.}
\label{tab:summarizedResultsFromPastNonAdaptiveGames}
\begin{tabular}{P{1.0cm}|P{2.1cm}|P{2.2cm}|P{1.85cm}}
\hline
\textbf{Training session} &
\textbf{Completed by participants [\%]} &
\textbf{Most participants ended in phase} &
\textbf{Avg actions per participant}\\ \hline
1 & 100 & 3 out of 3 & 28 \\
2 & 100 & 4 out of 4 & 21 \\
3 & 0 & 2 out of 4 & 29 \\
4 & 83 & 2 out of 5 & 29 \\
5 & 60 & 3 out of 5 & 25 \\
6 & 0 & 3 out of 5 & 40 \\
7 & 57 & 1 out of 5 & 17 \\
8 & 25 & 1 out of 5 & 45 \\
9 & 18 & 3 out of 6 & 62 \\
10 & 52 & 3 out of 6 & 29 \\
11 & 33 & 2 out of 5 & 35 \\
12 & 66 & 5 out of 5 & 30 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Adaptive Learning Expectations}
Our initial assumption for the integration of adaptivity to the training was that fewer students will fail the training. Further, we suppose they finish the training to the best of their capability and thus fully benefit from the training.
Since adaptive learning was not used in the previous cybersecurity hands-on training, we simulated how students would proceed in one of our previous training sessions, which we made adaptive to students' proficiency and performance.
We chose a training with six phases including (i) network reconnaissance using \texttt{nmap}, (ii) finding a vulnerability, (iii) exploiting the vulnerability using \texttt{Metasploit}, (iv) Linux operations, (v) cracking a SSH passphrase, and (vi) connecting via SSH using the cracked passphrase and displaying the content of the file.
In our simulation, the adaptivity of the training lies in modifying the difficulty of the tasks presented to each student in all six training phases. We created two new tasks for each phase that contains one or more hints in the assignment to simplify the phase. Next, we selected the metrics gathered in the KYPO CRP.
The metrics used for our simulation were: (i) \emph{pre-training assessment}, (ii) \emph{training completion time}, and (iii) \emph{actions in the learning environment including entered commands}. The pre-training assessment is a questionnaire before the training that maps the theoretical knowledge and self-assessment of skills of the participants relevant to the training. The training completion time captures how long the participant solved a training phase. The actions in the learning environment are commands entered in the learning environment during the training, submissions of the wrong answers, or displaying the solution of the task. In particular, we count a number of entered commands relevant to a particular phase. For instance, too many entered \texttt{ssh} commands may indicate that a participant lacks skills in using this particular command. We employed these metrics to find the most suitable task in each phase for the participant, as shown in~\Cref{tab:predicates}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Metrics used for determining the most suitable task \\(\faCheck\ = metric used, \faRemove\ = metric not used).}
\label{tab:predicates}
\begin{tabular}{P{2.2cm}|P{1.6cm}|P{1.6cm}|P{1.0cm}}
\hline
\textbf{Training phase} & \textbf{Pre-training assessment} & \textbf{Performance} & \textbf{Actions} \\ \hline
1 & \faCheck & \faRemove & \faRemove \\
2 & \faCheck & \faCheck & \faRemove \\
3 & \faCheck & \faCheck & \faCheck \\
4 & \faCheck & \faCheck & \faRemove \\
5 & \faCheck & \faCheck & \faRemove \\
6 & \faRemove & \faCheck & \faCheck \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We developed simulation software that processes the data from the non-adaptive training session to calculate the transitions of participants between variant tasks based on the described metrics.
The simulated transitions of 23 participants are shown in a Sankey chart in \Cref{fig:adaptiveLevelsFlow}. The original, non-adaptive training consisted of six tasks: P1T1, P2T1, P3T1, P4T1, P5T1, and P6T1. The newly added, alternative tasks are those denoted T2 or T3, i.e., P1T2, P1T3, P2T2, P2T3, etc.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, trim=2cm 12.40cm 8cm 1.74cm, width=0.5\textwidth]{figure/sankey-simulation.pdf}
\caption{Transitions of participants between particular tasks in training. P\emph{X}T\emph{Y} denotes task T\emph{Y} in the phase P\emph{X}. The number of participants who attempted to solve the task is in brackets.}
\label{fig:adaptiveLevelsFlow}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[
->,
>=stealth',
shorten >=1pt,
auto,
node distance=1.60cm,
thick,
scale=0.50,
every node/.style={scale=0.700},
font=\sffamily
]
\node[state,color=black] (I) {Intro};
\node[state,color=teal] (A) [right of=I] {A};
\node[state,color=blue] (UD1) [right of=A] {P$_\text{D}$};
\node[state] (U12) [right of=UD1] {T$2$};
\node[state] (U11) [above of=U12] {T$1$};
\node[state] (U13) [below of=U12] {T$3$};
\node[draw=none] (Unit1) [above of=U11,yshift=-0.60cm] {Phase 1};
\node[state,color=blue] (UD2) [right of=U12] {P$_\text{D}$};
\node[state] (U22) [right of=UD2] {T$2$};
\node[state] (U21) [above of=U22] {T$1$};
\node[state] (U23) [below of=U22] {T$3$};
\node[draw=none] (Unit2) [above of=U21,yshift=-0.60cm] {Phase 2};
\node[state, color=blue] (UD3) [right of=U22] {P$_\text{D}$};
\node[state] (U32) [right of=UD3] {T$2$};
\node[state] (U31) [above of=U32] {T$1$};
\node[state] (U33) [below of=U32] {T$3$};
\node[draw=none] (Unit3) [above of=U31,yshift=-0.60cm] {Phase 3};
\node[state, color=blue] (UD4) [right of=U32] {P$_\text{D}$};
\node[state] (U42) [right of=UD4] {T$2$};
\node[state] (U41) [above of=U42] {T$1$};
\node[state] (U43) [below of=U42] {T$3$};
\node[draw=none] (Unit4) [above of=U41,yshift=-0.60cm] {Phase 4};
\node[state, color=blue] (UD5) [right of=U42] {P$_\text{D}$};
\node[state] (U52) [right of=UD5] {T$2$};
\node[state] (U51) [above of=U52] {T$1$};
\node[state] (U53) [below of=U52] {T$3$};
\node[draw=none] (Unit5) [above of=U51,yshift=-0.60cm] {Phase 5};
\node[state,color=teal] (Q) [right of=U52] {Q};
\node[state,color=purple] (END) [right of=Q] {End};
\path (I) edge node {} (A)
(A) edge node {} (UD1)
(UD1) edge node {} (U11)
edge node {} (U12)
edge node {} (U13)
(U11) edge node {} (UD2)
(U12) edge node {} (UD2)
(U13) edge node {} (UD2)
(UD2) edge node {} (U21)
edge node {} (U22)
edge node {} (U23)
(U21) edge node {} (UD3)
(U22) edge node {} (UD3)
(U23) edge node {} (UD3)
(UD3) edge node {} (U31)
edge node {} (U32)
edge node {} (U33)
(U31) edge node {} (UD4)
(U32) edge node {} (UD4)
(U33) edge node {} (UD4)
(UD4) edge node {} (U41)
edge node {} (U42)
edge node {} (U43)
(U41) edge node {} (UD5)
(U42) edge node {} (UD5)
(U43) edge node {} (UD5)
(UD5) edge node {} (U51)
edge node {} (U52)
edge node {} (U53)
(U51) edge node {} (Q)
(U52) edge node {} (Q)
(U53) edge node {} (Q)
(Q) edge node {} (END)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Graph structure of adaptive cybersecurity training with pre-training assessment (A), decision component (P$_\text{D}$) applying the proposed model, and a~post-training questionnaire (Q). This exemplary training contains five phases. Each phase contains one base task (T1) and two variant tasks (T2, T3).}
\label{fig:adaptive-game-structure-example}
\end{figure*}
We see the participants would enter not only the original tasks (T1) but also new easier variant tasks (T2 or T3), which indicates the adaptive training would be beneficial for our diversely performing participants. In particular, 17 out of 23 participants would benefit from this adaptive training because they would get one or more variant tasks matching their skills better. These results strengthen our expectation that adaptive learning techniques may increase the students' experience and reduce the number of students that get stuck during the hands-on training.
\begin{align*}
x= & \text{ the phase a student is entering},\\
T_{x}= & \text{ the most suitable task of the phase $x$ for the student}, \\
n_x= & \text{ the number of variant tasks in the phase $x$}, \\
p_i= &
\begin{cases}
1, \: \text{if}\: \text{question group $i$ from A is correctly answered}\\
0, \: \text{otherwise},
\end{cases} \\
k_i= & \text{ commands corresponding to the phase $i$ were used}, \\
e_i= & \text{ expected time to complete of the phase $i$}, \\
o_i= & \text{ student’s completion time in the phase $i$}, \\
t_i= &
\begin{cases}
1, \: \text{if}\: o_i < e_i \text{ in phase $i$}\\
0, \: \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\\
s_i= &
\begin{cases}
1, \: \text{if}\: \text{ the solution of the phase $i$ is \textit{not} displayed}\\
0, \: \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\\
a_i= & \text{ answers corresponding to the phase $i$ were submitted}.
\end{align*}
Nevertheless, the software was specifically developed for one training and does not provide a generic solution for cybersecurity training with different topics in phases and different relations between its phases. We address this limitation in the next section.
\section{Design of Adaptive Cybersecurity Training} \label{sec:design}
In this section, we present a generic format of adaptive cybersecurity hands-on training based on a model that uses the students' knowledge and performance to assign suitable training tasks.
We evaluate the format using a case study presented in~\Cref{sec:case_study_setup}.
\subsection{Training Format}
We propose a generic structure for adaptive cybersecurity training. \Cref{fig:adaptive-game-structure-example} shows an example of such structure with five phases, each with three tasks of various difficulty. In general, the training can contain an arbitrary number of phases and tasks. The training consists of several components: the introduction (Intro), the pre-training assessment (A), training phases including variant tasks (T\emph{X}), decision components (P$_\text{D}$), and post-training questionnaire (Q).
First, the introduction familiarizes the student with the training and communicates all necessary information before the training start.
The pre-training assessment is the first component collecting data about students' knowledge and skills. The questions asked in the pre-training assessment are grouped into the \emph{question groups} by their relation to specific training phases. Each question can be assigned into several question groups since they can be relevant to more phases. For each training phase, we set the \textit{essential ratio} of knowledge to determine whether the student's theoretical knowledge or self-reported skills are sufficient or not. For example, the essential ratio can be set to 100\%, which would mean the students need to know the answer to all the questions or self-report a defined level of skills for a particular phase. In particular, pre-training assessment should mostly include knowledge quizzes, as students' self-assessment can be misleading \cite{vsvabensky2018challenges,mirkovic2014class}.
The training phases contain various difficulties, but all on the same topic. The decision component assigns exactly one task from the given phase. This assignment is based on the performance in previous phases and on the pre-training assessment. The performance is measured with time characteristics, used commands, submitted answers, and a solution taken in the phase. The tasks are denoted as T1, T2, \dots, T\emph{N}, where T1 represents the most difficult task in the phase and T\emph{N} the easiest. Further, the decision component processes the students' performance and knowledge to assign a~suitable task from the training phase.
Finally, the post-training questionnaire (Q) is an optional part of training, which enables instructors to collect immediate feedback from the participants.
\subsection{Model}
The decision component (P$_\text{D}$) is powered by a mathematical model, which assigns each student the most suitable task in each phase. The model uses binary vectors containing the performance metrics and a list of pre-configured weight matrices to set up the model. We use some of the performance metrics presented in the review of technical metrics for cybersecurity training~\cite{maennel2020learning}.
\subsubsection*{Model Formulation}
Let us denote the following variables:\\
$\boldsymbol{p}$, $\boldsymbol{k}$, $\boldsymbol{a}$, $\boldsymbol{t}$, and $\boldsymbol{s}$ are the binary vectors on the correctness or incorrectness of prerequisites for a particular training phase. Vector $\boldsymbol{p}$ is defined as follows:
$\boldsymbol{p} = \begin{pmatrix}p_1 & p_2 & \dots & p_m\end{pmatrix}$, where $m$ is the number of rows. The other vectors use the analogous notation.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\boldsymbol{p}$ represents the answers from the pre-training assessment,
\item $\boldsymbol{k}$ indicates if the student used the expected key commands in the command line in the given task,
\item $\boldsymbol{a}$ denotes whether the student used expected answers to the task,
\item $\boldsymbol{t}$ contains the information if the task was completed in a~predefined time, and
\item $\boldsymbol{s}$ contains the information whether the student asked to reveal the solution for the task,
\item $\boldsymbol{W}$ is the matrix with weights for the individual phases' metrics.
\end{itemize}
The model is defined by the \Crefrange{eq:weightMatrix}{eq:taskAssignment}.
By \Cref{eq:weightMatrix}, we get the \emph{weight matrix} that is specific for each training phase. The number of weight matrices is equal to the number of training phases. The weights represent the relationships between phases and their metrics. The value of the weight determines the importance of the metric to the phase. For instance, consider a training with six phases where the third phase deepens the topic exercised in the first phase. In this case, we set the weights in the third matrix so that the selected weights for the metrics from the first phase are non-zero. The other performance metrics with weights set to zero are ignored. The weights have to be manually set by the instructor since each training is unique. The symbols $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,\varepsilon$ denote the columns in the weight matrices and the $i=1,\dots, m$ are the rows in the weight matrices.
By \Cref{eq:achievedPerformance} we get the \emph{student's performance} based on the defined metrics and their weights for completed phases. The value of the performance is in the interval of $[0,1]$. In~\Cref{eq:achievedPerformance}, $s$ is multiplied by $a$, $k$, and $t$ to distinguish between students who satisfy $a$, $k$, and $t$ metrics without using a solution and solved the task on their own.
By \Cref{eq:taskAssignment} we get \emph{the number of the most suitable task} in phase $x$ for a particular student (1 is T1, 2 is T2, and so on).
\begin{align}\label{eq:weightMatrix}
\boldsymbol{W}^{(x)} = \left(w^{(x)}_{ij}\right), i=1,\dots,m,\:\:\: j=\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,\varepsilon
\end{align}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:achievedPerformance}
f(x)=\displaystyle\frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{x} \left[p_{i}w_{i\alpha}^{(x)} + s_{i} \left(k_{i}w_{i\beta}^{(x)} + a_{i}w_{i\gamma}^{(x)} + t_{i}w_{i\delta}^{(x)} + w_{i\varepsilon}^{(x)}\right)\right]}
{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{x} \left(w_{i\alpha}^{(x)} + w_{i\beta}^{(x)} + w_{i\gamma}^{(x)} + w_{i\delta}^{(x)} + w_{i\varepsilon}^{(x)}\right)}
\end{equation}
\begin{align}\label{eq:taskAssignment}
T_{x} =
\begin{cases}
n_x, \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \text{if } f(x) \text{ is equal to } 0\\
\text{trunc}(n_x [1-f(x)])+1, \:\:\:\:\:\:\qquad \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where:
\begin{align*}
x= & \text{ the phase a student is entering},\\
T_{x}= & \text{ the most suitable task of the phase $x$ for the student}, \\
n_x= & \text{ the number of variant tasks in the phase $x$}, \\
p_i= &
\begin{cases}
1, \: \text{if}\: \text{question group $i$ from A is correctly answered}\\
0, \: \text{otherwise},
\end{cases} \\
k_i= & \text{ commands corresponding to the phase $i$ were used}, \\
e_i= & \text{ expected time to complete of the phase $i$}, \\
o_i= & \text{ student's completion time in the phase $i$}, \\
t_i= &
\begin{cases}
1, \: \text{if}\: o_i < e_i \text{ in phase $i$}\\
0, \: \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\\
s_i= &
\begin{cases}
1, \: \text{if}\: \text{the solution of the phase $i$ is \emph{not} displayed}\\
0, \: \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\\
a_i= & \text{ answers corresponding to the phase $i$ were submitted}.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection*{Model Assumptions}
The proposed model requires several assumptions that must be met by any system that would use it for hands-on cybersecurity training.
\begin{itemize}
\item The learning environment has to collect the required data: commands typed by the students $k$, phase completion time $t$, the action of displaying the solution $s$, the submitted answers $a$, and the pre-training assessment answers $p$.
\item The model expects that some tasks are related; otherwise, it will heavily rely only on the pre-training assessment that may not be sufficient to capture student's proficiency.
\item The pre-training assessment question groups have to be mapped to the training phases to distinguish the level of knowledge and self-reported skills for a particular phase.
\item The model assumes that the tasks in the phases are sorted so that the T1 is the most difficult task, T2, \dots, T\emph{N-1} are easier tasks than T1, and T\emph{N} is the easiest task.
\end{itemize}
To ease the unified design and run of the training, we add the following constraints that simplify the model assumptions:
\begin{itemize}
\item The students' performance in a phase is evaluated in the same way in all tasks.
\item The observed metrics are binary. Other metrics of students' performance, such as similarity of the submitted answers to the correct ones, are either unavailable or ignored.
\end{itemize}
The model was developed with the aim to reinforce the cybersecurity training with respect to the commonly used performance metrics \cite{maennel2020learning}. Nevertheless, it can be applied in any domain collecting such data.
\section{Case Study Setup}\label{sec:case_study_setup}
We describe the methods of the case study that uses the proposed adaptive training format and model. The case study uses data collected from 24 participants. The goal is to evaluate whether the proposed format and model are useful for adaptive hands-on cybersecurity training. In particular, we investigate whether the participants' experience is improved and if they successfully finish the training in a timely manner.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{figure/adaptive-levels.pdf}
\caption{Phases of the adaptive training instance that follows the proposed generic format. Assignments of tasks contain assignments of base tasks and new or existing hints featured in base tasks.}
\label{fig:adaptive_game_phases}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Teaching Context and Participants}
The case study involved three training sessions held remotely in December 2020 and January 2021 at KYPO CRP~\cite{2021-FIE-kypo-csc}. 21 participants were undergraduate students of the Masaryk University, and three were graduates with one, two, and 12 years of professional experience in IT. All the participants provided informed consent to use the collected data for research purposes.
We designed a new adaptive training consisting of five interrelated phases. Each phase consists of tasks of various difficulty on the same topic. The phases and tasks were designed by one author and validated by the others. Then, the training was deployed to the KYPO CRP. At the time of the experiment, the learning environment did not provide the support for the proposed adaptive training format (presented in~\Cref{sec:design}). We implemented complementary software to process the data required by the model. The data were automatically collected and provided by the learning environment and manually entered into the complementary software by the authors after each phase.
At the beginning of the training session, students were asked to fill in the pre-training assessment and read the introduction of the training, including all necessary technical settings. Then, we assigned each student the most suitable task from the first training phase computed by the model. Once the student finished the training phase, they notified us, and we asked them to be patient while we entered the data into the complementary software. It calculated the suitable task in the next training phase (this corresponds to the P$_\text{D}$ nodes in~\Cref{fig:adaptive-game-structure-example}). Finally,~after finishing all the training phases, we asked the students to fill in the post-training questionnaire. After the training, all the data were anonymized so that they could not be attributed to a specific participant.
\subsection{Pre-training Assessment}
Given the limited time allocated to our training (one and half hours), we used a short pre-training self-assessment presented in~\Cref{tab:preGameAssessmentQuestions}. The self-assessment included the following question: \textit{What is your level of skill in the areas below?} and eight areas. The answer \textit{High} means you are able to complete the task very quickly and without much effort. \textit{Medium} means you are able to do it with standard effort. \textit{Low} means you have little experience with that. \textit{None} means you have no experience with that. We considered the students to have sufficient skills if they answered \textit{High} or \textit{Medium}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Wording of pre-training assessment questions and answers collected from 24 students. \faCheck~indicates a student sufficient skill and \faRemove~insufficient.}
\label{tab:preGameAssessmentQuestions}
\small
\begin{tabular}{P{0.4cm}|p{3.7cm}|P{0.8cm}|P{0.9cm}|P{0.7cm}}
\hline
\textbf{No.} & \textbf{Question} & \textbf{Phase} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Answers}}\\ \hline
& What is your level of skill in the areas below: & & & \\ \hline
Q1 & \texttt{msfconsole} interface & none & 2 \faCheck & 22 \faRemove \\
Q2 & WinSCP & none & 5 \faCheck & 19 \faRemove \\
Q3 & build Java projects using Maven & none & 12 \faCheck & 12 \faRemove \\
Q4 & zip and unzip files in CLI & 5 & 15 \faCheck & 9 \faRemove \\
Q5 & download and transfer files into the server & 4 & 14 \faCheck & 10 \faRemove \\
Q6 & connect to a server securely & 3 & 16 \faCheck & 8 \faRemove \\
Q7 & search open ports & 2 & 13 \faCheck & 11 \faRemove \\
Q8 & basic Linux commands & 1 & 21 \faCheck & 3 \faRemove \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Questions Q4--Q8 were related to topics featured in our training. To avoid the disclosure of the phase topics by the wording of questions in the questionnaire, we added three distractor questions (Q1, Q2, and Q3) about topics not included in the training. The order of the questions differed from the order of the related training phases.
\subsection{Adaptive Training Phases}
The training in this study consists of five phases depicted in~\Cref{fig:adaptive_game_phases}. Each training phase features one base task and two variant tasks. Further, each phase features a task presenting the step-by-step solution. This was a last-resort task for students who would not match any phase prerequisites. In the first training phase, basic Linux tools are practiced in three variant tasks (T1, T2, and T3). Task T2 contains the same assignment as T1 and provides Hint~1. The third task T3 contains the assignment from T1 with Hint~1 and the solution to that task. The subsequent training phases apply the same pattern that differs only in the content of the tasks, hints, and solution provided. The tasks were assigned to each student by the proposed model. The settings of P$_\text{D}$ for each training phase are designed using the presented model settings.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[
->,
>=stealth',
shorten >=1pt,
auto,
node distance=2.10cm,
thick,
scale=0.99,
every node/.style={scale=0.8},
font=\sffamily
]
\node[state,fill=green!15] (P1) {P1};
\node[state,fill=red!15] (P2) [right of=P1] {P2};
\node[state,fill=blue!15] (P3) [right of=P2] {P3};
\node[state,fill=anotherRed] (P4) [right of=P3] {P4};
\node[state,fill=phase5] (P5) [right of=P4] {P5};
\path
(P1) edge[dotted] node {} (P2)
(P2) edge[dotted] node {} (P3)
(P3) edge[dotted] node {} (P4)
(P4) edge[dotted] node {} (P5)
;
\path (P2) edge [bend left=30] node[xshift=0.3cm] {$w_{2\beta},w_{2\delta},w_{2\varepsilon}$} (P1);
\path (P3) edge [bend left=35] node[] {$w_{3\varepsilon}$} (P2);
\path (P3) edge [bend right] node[yshift=0.4cm,xshift=0.1cm] {$w_{3\beta},w_{3\delta},w_{3\varepsilon}$} (P1);
\path (P4) edge [bend right=35] node[yshift=0.4cm] {$w_{4\gamma},w_{4\delta},w_{4\varepsilon}$} (P3);
\path (P4) edge [bend left=55] node {$w_{4\delta},w_{4\varepsilon}$} (P2);
\path (P4) edge [bend left=70] node {$w_{4\delta},w_{4\varepsilon}$} (P1);
\path (P5) edge [bend left] node {$w_{5\varepsilon}$} (P4);
\path (P5) edge [bend left=65] node {$w_{5\varepsilon}$} (P3);
\path (P5) edge [bend right=35] node[yshift=0.4cm] {$w_{5\varepsilon}$} (P2);
\path (P5) edge [bend right=45] node[yshift=0.4cm] {$w_{5\beta},w_{5\gamma},w_{5\delta},w_{5\varepsilon}$} (P1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The relationships between all training phases. P\emph{X} is a phase $x$ and $w_{xy}$ is weight for phase $x$ and metric $y$.}
\label{fig:adaptive-game-relationships}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Model Settings}\label{sec:modelSettings}
To use the model, we must set the weights in the weight matrix $\boldsymbol{W}$ for each training phase, see \Cref{eq:weightMatrix}. These weights indicate the relationships between training phases. For simplicity, we set these weights to zero or one in our case study. One indicates the relationship and zero indicates that there is no relationship between the phases. Each training phase is related to a particular question group from the pre-training assessment. The relationships between training phases in our training are shown in~\Cref{fig:adaptive-game-relationships}.
\section{Results and Discussion}\label{sec:results}
In this section, we report the results of the study and summarize our experience with adaptive learning in cybersecurity hands-on training.
\subsection{Adaptive Training Results}\label{sec:adaptiveTrainingResults}
Using the ITS terminology, our case study examined \textit{student model} (the participants' performance), \textit{domain model} (the developed training and its phases with tasks), and the \textit{tutor model} (newly proposed model for assigning the most suitable tasks to each participant). \Cref{fig:adaptivephasesFlow} shows the transitions of 24 participants between tasks (P\emph{X}T\emph{Y}) in all training phases. We see that the participants went through different tasks in the training phases, which suggests that the participants' proficiency did not always match the base tasks. We believe this is natural, and the main reason why some participants failed to successfully complete the training in our previous hands-on training sessions.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure/sankey-case-study.pdf}
\caption{Transitions of 24 participants between particular tasks in training. P\emph{X}T\emph{Y} denotes task T\emph{Y} in the phase P\emph{X}. The number of participants solving the task is in brackets.}
\label{fig:adaptivephasesFlow}
\end{figure}
The selection of tasks in the first training phase was based on answers from the pre-training assessment because no other performance metrics had been available yet. The three participants claimed that they were not familiar with the Linux operating system, so they played the easiest task in the first phase (P1T3). In the second phase, not only the answers from the pre-training assessment but also the participants' performance from the previous phase were available. The diversity of assignments of tasks to participants increased; the easier tasks were solved by six participants in total. The six participants did not complete the first phase in the expected time ($e_i$), two used too many commands ($k_i$), one displayed the solution ($s_i$), and 11 did not have experience with the tool required for phase two ($p_{i}$). It is evident that the participants face different issues during and after the first phase. That confirms our assumption that it is difficult to design static hands-on training suitable for all participants.
In the rest of the training phases, the model assigned the variant tasks to some participants because they were unable to complete the previous phases on time, exceeded the number of expected key commands (set to 10), or scored low in the pre-training assessment. Overall, even in this relatively small sample of participants, their paths through the training differ substantially. The worst performing participant received mostly the easiest tasks (P1T3, P2T2, P3T2, P4T2, and P5T2) and finished the training in 89 minutes, while the best performing participant completed the most difficult (base) tasks in 13 minutes. Regarding the successful completion of the training, 88\% of participants successfully completed the training without any solution taken.
\subsection{Post-training Questionnaire}\label{sec:postTrainingQuestionnaire}
Immediately after the training session, we asked the participants for their feedback in the online survey. \Cref{tab:postGameAssessmentQuestions} lists the questions (Q1--Q6) and \Cref{fig:postGameAssessment} summarizes the answers.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Wording of the post-training questionnaire.}
\label{tab:postGameAssessmentQuestions}
\small
\begin{tabular}{p{0.3cm}|p{7.3cm}}
\hline
\textbf{No.} & \textbf{Question} \\ \hline
Q1 & Did you feel the tasks were designed so that you can complete the training in a timely manner? \\
Q2 & Did you feel you got stuck at some point during the training? \\
Q3 & How much did you enjoy the training? \\
Q4 & Did you feel the training should be more difficult for you? \\
Q5 & Did you feel you would like the training to be longer with additional tasks to solve? \\
Q6 & Would you like to play more cybersecurity training sessions like this one? \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\scalebox{0.80}{
\begin{tikzpicture
\begin{axis} [
xtick={1,2,3,4,5,6},
xticklabels={Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6},
ytick={1,2,3,4,5},
yticklabels={Not at all, Slightly, Moderately, Much, Very much},
]
\addplot [box plot median] table [opacity=0.5]{boxplotdata.dat};
\addplot [box plot box] table {boxplotdata.dat};
\addplot [box plot top whisker] table {boxplotdata.dat};
\addplot [box plot bottom whisker] table {boxplotdata.dat};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Answers gathered in post-training questionnaire (n = 24).}
\label{fig:postGameAssessment}
\end{figure}
In the first question (Q1), the participants reported that the tasks were appropriately designed so that they have successfully completed the training in time. This question has an additional option \textit{Did not receive any}, which was chosen by nine participants. The second question (Q2) was crucial. Five participants reported \textit{Not at all}, eight participants \textit{Slightly}, seven participants \textit{Moderately}, three participants \textit{Much}, and only one participant reported \textit{Very much}. This suggests the training session went relatively smoothly and the majority of participants did not experience anything that would lead them to frustration or premature training termination. In the fourth question (Q4), only one participant reported that the training should be more difficult. This suggests the need for designing more difficult tasks for the very experienced participants who may get bored if the base tasks are too easy for them. Answers to Q5 indicate that the participants engaged in the training and would like to continue if it would be possible. To conclude, the participants reported (Q3 and Q6) that they enjoyed the training and that they would like to join another adaptive hands-on training in cybersecurity.
\subsection{Limitations}\label{sec:expLessonsLearnedLimitations}
In contrast to other fields, cybersecurity hands-on trainings are usually held in a group of lower tens of participants. Therefore, we believe 24 is a sufficient number of participants to evaluate the created adaptive training format using the newly developed model.
Given the limited time allocated to our training (one and half hours), we used a short pre-training self-assessment. Nevertheless, for training sessions with a larger time allocation, we recommend adding questionnaire quizzes along with self-reported skills \cite{vsvabensky2018challenges,mirkovic2014class}.
Although the model is not limited to a specific design of variant tasks, we created the variant tasks by changing the text of the assignment (by uncovering particular steps or providing hints). Another option would be to modify the environment (i.e., network and hosts) for the variant tasks. That would give us more freedom in creating the variant tasks.
The model allows including an arbitrary number of tasks in each phase. In our study, we designed three tasks for each phase. Providing more tasks may increase the probability that the participant will get a more suitable task. However, designing more tasks increases instructors' effort to prepare the training.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Hands-on cybersecurity training sessions usually use static scenarios with limited or no adaptiveness. In this paper, we analyzed student performance and failures in the past training sessions. This led us to propose a new adaptive training format using a graph structure and a generic tutor model. The tutor model is used to assign the most suitable task to each student in each training phase.
Using this innovation, we try to assign the students the optimal path through the training so that they learn as much as possible and keep being motivated for further learning. For these purposes, we developed a new adaptive training format and held three training sessions with 24 participants in total. The results showed that adaptive learning can increase the students' ability to successfully complete the hands-on training, and thus increase the positive students' experience. Further, it showed that the proposed tutor model is useful and can be used for various training sessions with different topics. The students mostly reported that they did not get stuck in any phase of the training and that they enjoyed the training.
To ease the adoption of the proposed innovation, we publish data from the training sessions, together with the model, at~\cite{seda2021datasetreinforcing}.
Finally, we provide recommendations for instructors developing adaptive training and ideas for future work.
\subsection{Recommendations for Instructors}
To effectively run the adaptive training using the proposed training format and model, consider the following recommendations.
\paragraph{The pre-training assessment questionnaire should be simple and brief}{ Cybersecurity education sessions are usually held in a limited time frame. The questionnaire should not consume a large amount of that time, but must still follow best practices for educational assessment~\cite{astin2012assessment, petty2009}. For example, explain the importance of the questionnaire clearly and explicitly to students.}
\paragraph{Adjust the weights in the model carefully}{Setting weights in the weight matrices determines the relationships between individual phases and their metrics. Based on that, participant performance for the given phase is calculated. If weights are adjusted incorrectly, the student can get an inappropriate task and may get bored or stuck in the phase.}
\paragraph{Design at least three tasks for each phase}{Without enough tasks, the model cannot assign a suitable task for differently performing participants. The base task should be as difficult as possible to target the most experienced participants, and one of the variant tasks should be as easy as possible (step-by-step solution) to encourage less experienced participants.}
\paragraph{Allocate more time for students to complete the base phases than you expect}{Since assignments of the base tasks are intentionally vague to allow exploring the phase topic, students need enough time for some trial and error. However, our experience shows that the majority of instructors estimate too short time to complete.}
\subsection{Future Work}
We proposed a generic model and set its parameters for a particular training session. Therefore, future work should investigate more model metrics and advanced parameter settings.
The model decides to move up or down in difficulty for students. But, for example, a student knowing a topic may need a refresher; or a student not knowing a topic may need the challenge to awaken their interest. Further, in our case study, we designed three tasks for each phase and we did not study the effect of a different number of tasks. These issues will be addressed in our future work.
Finally, the decision component (P$_\text{D}$) was provided by the complementary software that required us to do some analytical tasks manually. In our future work, we will enhance this component to be fully automated and integrate it with the KYPO CRP to fully support the proposed adaptive training format.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This research was supported by the Security Research Programme of the Czech Republic 2015--2022 (BV III/1--VS) granted by the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic under No. VI20202022158 -- Research of New Technologies to Increase the Capabilities of Cybersecurity Experts.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
In these notes on nonlinear dynamics in particle accelerators, we shall discuss a number of topics:
\begin{itemize}
\item effects of nonlinear perturbations in single-pass and periodic systems,
including phase space distortions, resonances, tune shifts and dynamic aperture limitations;
\item mathematical tools for modelling nonlinear dynamics, including
power series maps and symplectic maps;
\item analysis methods such as normal form analysis and frequency map analysis.
\end{itemize}
Our goal is not to provide a rigorous or comprehensive review of nonlinear
dynamics in accelerators (which is a very large subject), but to provide a
short introduction to some of the key concepts and phenomena.
The topics that we discuss are covered in many publications: some suggestions
for further reading, where specific topics that may be of interest are covered in
greater depth, are given in section~\ref{summary}.
We shall frame our discussion in the context of two types of accelerator system:
first, a bunch compressor (a single-pass system), and later, a storage ring (a
multi-turn system). To begin with, however, we briefly review some of the
principles of linear dynamics in particle accelerators, that form an important
foundation for the development of ideas in nonlinear dynamics.
\section{Foundations from linear dynamics}
Particle motion through simple components such as drifts, dipoles and quadrupoles
can be represented by \emph{linear transfer maps}\footnote{Linear dynamics is covered
in many standard texts in accelerator physics, for example \cite{wiedemann2015,sylee2011,wolski2014}.}.
For example, in a drift space, the horizontal co-ordinate $x$ and momentum $p_x$
change from initial values $x_0$ and $p_{x0}$ at the entrance to the drift space, to
final values $x_1$ and $p_{x1}$ at the exit, given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_1 & = & x_0 + L p_{x0}, \label{driftmap1} \\
p_{x1} & = & p_{x0}, \label{driftmap2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $L$ is the length of the drift space.
Note that the horizontal (canonical) momentum is given by:
\begin{equation}
p_x = \frac{\gamma m v_x}{P_0},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the relativistic factor, $m$ is the rest mass of the particle,
$v_x$ is the horizontal velocity, and $P_0$ is the reference momentum.
The reference momentum is a fixed value (in the absence of acceleration)
that is used mainly for convenience, for scaling quantities such as the particle
momentum. In principle, the reference momentum can be chosen arbitrarily,
though it is usually best to choose a value equal to the ``design'' momentum
of the beam.
For small values of $p_x$ (i.e.~for $|p_x \ll 1|$), the horizontal momentum is
approximately equal to the angle of the trajectory with respect to the design
trajectory:
\begin{equation}
p_x \approx \frac{dx}{ds}.
\end{equation}
The reference trajectory is simply a line through space that acts as the origin
of the local cartesian co-ordinate system, with (transverse) axes $x$ horizontally
and $y$ vertically. The variable $s$ is the distance along the reference trajectory
from a fixed starting point.
Linear transfer maps can be written in terms of matrices.
For example, for a drift space of length $L$, the map given by equations
(\ref{driftmap1}) and (\ref{driftmap2}) can be written:
\begin{equation}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
x_1 \\ p_{x1}
\end{array} \right)
= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & L \\
0 & 1
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
x_0 \\ p_{x0}
\end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
In general, a linear transformation can be written:
\begin{equation}
\vec{x}_1 = R \, \vec{x}_0 + \vec{A}, \label{linearmapgeneral}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{x}_0$ and $\vec{x}_1$ are the initial and final
phase space vectors, with components $(x_0, p_{x0})$ and
$(x_1, p_{x1})$, respectively,
$R$ is a matrix (the \emph{transfer matrix}) and $\vec{A}$ is a vector.
The components of $R$ and $\vec{A}$ are constant, i.e.~they do not depend
on $\vec{x}_0$: it is this feature that makes the map (\ref{linearmapgeneral})
a \emph{linear} map.
In the case that $\vec{A} = 0$ for all elements in a beamline, the transfer matrix
for that beamline can be found simply by multiplying
the transfer matrices for the accelerator components within that beamline. For
example, if a beamline consists of a sequence of elements with transfer matrices
$R_1$, $R_2$, $R_3$ $\ldots$ $R_n$, with the beam passing through the elements
in that order, then after the first element, the phase space vector becomes:
\begin{equation}
\vec{x}_1 = R_1 \vec{x}_0.
\end{equation}
After the second element, it becomes:
\begin{equation}
\vec{x}_2 = R_2 \vec{x}_1 = R_2 R_1 \vec{x}_0.
\end{equation}
Eventually, after $n$ elements, the phase space vector is:
\begin{equation}
\vec{x}_n = R_\mathrm{total} \vec{x}_0 = R_n R_{n-1} \cdots R_2 R_1 \vec{x}_0.
\end{equation}
The transfer matrix $R_\mathrm{total}$ is constructed by multiplying the transfer
matrices for the individual elements, writing them in the multiplication in the reverse
order that they appear in the beamline.
For a periodic beamline (i.e.~a beamline constructed from a repeated unit)
the transfer matrix for a single period can be parameterised in terms of the Courant--Snyder
parameters $(\alpha_x, \beta_x, \gamma_x)$ and the phase advance, $\mu_x$:
\begin{equation}
R = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos(\mu_x)+\alpha_x \sin(\mu_x) & \beta_x \sin(\mu_x) \\
-\gamma_x \sin(\mu_x) & \cos(\mu_x) - \alpha_x \sin(\mu_x)
\end{array} \right). \label{transfermatrixperiodicbeamline}
\end{equation}
If the transfer matrix is found by multiplying together the transfer matrices for
the elements in a unit cell (in the appropriate order), then the values of
the Courant--Snyder parameters and the phase advance $\mu_x$ can be
found by equating the components of the matrix in terms of the beamline elements
with the components of the matrix given in the form (\ref{transfermatrixperiodicbeamline}).
Neglecting synchrotron radiation and various collective effects, the transfer matrices
will be \emph{symplectic}. For a $2\times 2$ matrix, this means that the matrix will
have unit determinant, which leads to the condition:
\begin{equation}
\beta_x \gamma_x - \alpha_x^2 = 1.
\end{equation}
If the beamline is stable, then the characteristics of the particle motion can
be represented by a \emph{phase space portrait} showing the co-ordinates and
momenta of a particle after an increasing number of passes through successive
periods of the beamline.
If the transfer map for each period is linear, then the phase space
portrait is an ellipse with area $\pi J_x$: examples (for horizontal and vertical
motion) are shown in Fig.~\ref{phasespaceellipses}. The quantity $J_x$ is called
the \emph{betatron action}, and characterises the amplitude of the betatron oscillations.
The shape of the ellipse is described by the Courant--Snyder parameters, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{courantsnyderellipse}. The rate at which particles move around the ellipse
corresponds to the phase advance in each periodic secton of the beamline, and (for
linear motion) is independent of the betatron action.
The betatron action $J_x$ and the phase (or angle) $\phi_x$ provide an alternative to the
regular cartesian variables $x$, $p_x$ for describing the motion of particles in an
accelerator beamline.
The cartesian variables can be expressed in terms of the action--angle variables:
\begin{eqnarray}
x & = & \sqrt{2\beta_x J_x} \cos(\phi_x), \label{xfromjphi} \\
p_x & = & - \sqrt{\frac{2J_x}{\beta_x}}(\sin(\phi_x) + \alpha_x \cos(\phi_x)). \label{pxfromjphi}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/Figure4-3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Horizontal and vertical phase space portraits for a particle
moving along a periodic beamline. Each point indicates the co-ordinate
and corresponding component of the momentum of the particle after
each full pass through a periodic section of the beamline. Since the
beamline is linear and stable, the points lie on ellipses with shapes
determined by the Courant--Snyder parameters for the beamline. The
area of the ellipse is determined by the betatron amplitude of the particle
in each plane. The angle around the ellipse that the particle moves in
each period corresponds to the phase advance.
\label{phasespaceellipses}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/Figure4-4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The Courant--Snyder parameters describe the shape of the ellipse
mapped out in phase space as a particle moves through successive periods
in a periodic beamline. The area of the ellipse, corresponding to the betatron
amplitude, is $\pi J_x$, where
$J_x$ is the betatron action.
\label{courantsnyderellipse}}
\end{figure}
\section{From linear to nonlinear maps}
Nonlinearities in the particle dynamics can come from a number of different sources,
including:
stray fields in drift spaces;
higher-order multipole components in dipoles and quadrupoles;
higher-order multipole magnets (sextupoles, octupoles etc.) used
to control various properties of the beam;
effects of fields generated by a bunch of particles on individual
particles within the bunch (space-charge forces, beam-beam effects, and many others).
The extent to which each of these (or other) sources contributes to nonlinear effects
in an accelerator depends very much on the specific case.
The effects of nonlinearities can be varied and quite dramatic, and can impact the
operation and overall performance of an accelerator in may different ways. It is important
to have some understanding of nonlinear dynamics for optimising the design
and operation of many accelerator systems. It is also important to have the appropriate
mathematical tools and techniques for the analysis of nonlinear dynamics, and a range
of powerful methods have been developed over the years. We shall mention a few of these
methods in a later section, but one of simplest approaches is to write the transfer map as a power
series in the dynamical variables: this is a natural extension of linear transfer maps,
given (for example) in a drift space in Eqs.~(\ref{driftmap1}) and (\ref{driftmap2}).
As an example of this approach, consider a particle moving through a sextupole magnet.
The vertical component of the field in a sextupole is given by:
\begin{equation}
\frac{B_y}{B\rho} = \frac{1}{2} k_2 x^2,
\end{equation}
where $B\rho = P_0/q$ is the beam rigidity, and $k_2$ is the normalised sextupole gradient.
In the ``thin lens'' approximation, the horizontal deflection of a particle on passing through the
sextupole is:
\begin{equation}
\Delta p_x = - \frac{1}{B\rho} \int B_y \, ds \approx - \frac{1}{2}k_2 L x^2,
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the length of the sextupole.
Hence, the transfer map for a sextupole in the thin lens approximation is:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_1 & = & x_0, \\
p_{x1} & = & p_{x0} - \frac{1}{2}k_2 L x_0^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Although we can write the effect of the sextupole as a transfer map in the same
way that we did for a drift space in Eqs.~(\ref{driftmap1}) and (\ref{driftmap2}),
in the case of the sextupole, the map is \emph{nonlinear}: it depends on higher-order
terms in the original values of the phase space variables. This means that the
transfer map cannot be written simply as a matrix. However, we can generalise
the matrix equation (\ref{linearmapgeneral}), to express a nonlinear transfer map
as a power series:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_1 & = & A_1 + R_{11} x_0 + R_{12} p_{x0} + T_{111}x_0^2 + T_{112} x_0 p_{x0} + T_{122} p_{x0}^2 + \ldots \\
p_{x1} & = & A_2 + R_{21} x_0 + R_{22} p_{x0} + T_{211}x_0^2 + T_{212} x_0 p_{x0} + T_{222} p_{x0}^2 + \ldots
\end{eqnarray}
The coefficients $R_{ij}$ correspond to components of the transfer matrix $R$.
The coefficients of higher-order (nonlinear) terms are conventionally represented
by $T_{ijk}$ (second order), $U_{ijk\ell}$ (third order) and so on.
The values of the indices correspond to the components of the phase space vector,
thus:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r|cccccc}
index value & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\
\hline
component & $x$ & $p_x$ & $y$ & $p_y$ & $z$ & $\delta$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Hence, $T_{212}$ is the coefficient for a second-order term (three indices),
referring specifically to the part of the map for $p_x$ (first index, $i = 2$),
depending on the product of $x$ (second index, $j = 1$) and $p_x$
(third index, $k = 2$). Because multiplication is commutative, there is no
distinction between (for example) $T_{212}$ and $T_{221}$.
The effects of nonlinearities depend very much on the type of accelerator system
being considered. It is often useful, in this context, to make a distinction between
periodic beamlines (e.g.~in a storage ring) and non-periodic, or single-pass systems.
In a periodic beamline, the effects of nonlinearities can include:
\begin{itemize}
\item distortion of the shape of the phase space ellipse;
\item dependence of the phase advance per period on the betatron amplitude;
\item instability of motion at large amplitudes;
\item the appearance of features such as ``phase space islands'' (closed loops around points
away from the origin) in the phase space portrait.
\end{itemize}
Before considering periodic beamlines, however, we shall consider in more
detail the effects of nonlinearities in a single-pass beamline. The discussion
(in the following section) will be based on the example of a bunch compressor.
\section{Nonlinear dynamics in a single-pass beamline: a bunch compressor\label{bunchcompressor}}
As an example of how nonlinear effects can impact the performance of an
accelerator, we shall consider a bunch compressor.
Bunch compressors reduce the length of a bunch by performing a
rotation in longitudinal phase space, and are used, for example,
in free electron lasers to increase the peak current.
We first outline the structure of the bunch compressor, and construct the
complete transfer map by combining the transfer maps for the different sections.
We then specify the parameters of the principal components based on consideration
of the linear dynamics and the compression ratio that the bunch compressor should
achieve. This provides the basis for an analysis of both
linear and nonlinear effects: based on the results of this analysis, the final
step is to adjust the parameters, to compensate (as far as possible) the
nonlinear effects that may adversely affect the performance of the system.
\subsection{Construction of the transfer map}
A schematic of the bunch compressor that we shall use in this example is shown
in Fig.~\ref{bunchcompressorschematic} (top), and consists of an RF cavity
followed by a chicane constructed from four dipoles.
The RF cavity is designed to ``chirp'' the bunch, i.e.~to provide a change in
energy deviation as a function of longitudinal position $z$ within the bunch
($z>0$ at the head of the bunch). The accelerating field in the cavity
varies with time. Suppose that a particle in the centre of the bunch arrives
at the cavity at a time such that the average accelerating field that it sees
in the cavity is zero: the energy of this particle will be unchanged. However,
particles ahead or behind this particle will see a non-zero field (on average)
and will then either gain or lose energy. The energy change $\Delta E$ of
a particular particle will depend on the distance by which it is either ahead or
behind the centre of the bunch, the RF voltage and frequency of the cavity:
\begin{equation}
\Delta E = - eV \sin(k z).
\label{cavitychirp1}
\end{equation}
Here, $V$ is the maximum voltage across the cavity (taking into account the
time of flight of a particle through the cavity), $k = \omega/c$ (where $\omega$
is the RF angular frequency and $c$ is the speed of light), and $z$ is the distance of
the particle from the centre of the bunch. Note that we use the convention that
$z$ is \emph{positive} for a particle that is \emph{ahead} of the centre of the bunch.
In that case, the minus sign in Eq.~(\ref{cavitychirp1}) means that for a bunch
of particles moving through the bunch compressor, the RF cavity reduces the
energy of particles at the head of the bunch, and increases the energy of particles
in the tail (see Fig.~\ref{bunchcompressorschematic}, bottom).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/BunchCompressorSchematic.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Top: schematic of a bunch compressor. A bunch of particles (moving
from left to right along the beamline) first passes through an RF cavity, and then
through a sequence of dipoles. Bottom: changes in the distribution of particles in
the bunch in longitudinal phase space, indicating the transformations that take place
as the bunch moves through the bunch compressor.
\label{bunchcompressorschematic}
}
\end{figure}
For convenience, we define the longitudinal phase space variables as $z$ (the
co-ordinate) and $\delta$, the energy deviation. The energy deviation $\delta$
of a particle with energy $E$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\delta = \frac{E - E_0}{E_0},
\label{energydeviationdefinition}
\end{equation}
where $E_0$ is the reference energy for the system (corresponding to the energy
of a particle with total momentum $P_0$, the reference momentum).
If the reference momentum is chosen so that it is close to the ``average'' momentum
of particles in the beam, then $\delta$ should be a small number (i.e.~$|\delta | \ll 1$)
for all particles: this has some advantages when expressing nonlinear transfer maps
in terms of power series of the dynamical variables.
In terms of the variables $z$ and $\delta$, the transfer map for the RF cavity in the
bunch compressor is:
\begin{eqnarray}
z_1 & = & z_0, \label{rfmap1} \\
\delta_1 & = & \delta_0 - \frac{eV}{E_0} \sin(kz_0). \label{rfmap2}
\end{eqnarray}
Now consider the dynamics in the sequence of four dipoles following the RF cavity:
in the example we are considering here, the dipoles form a chicane, so that for a
particle with the reference momentum, the trajectory after the exit of the chicane
is colinear with the trajectory at the entrance of the chicane. Neglecting synchrotron
radiation, the chicane does not change the energy of the particles. However, the
path length $L$ depends on the energy of the particle.
If we assume that the bending angle in each dipole is small, $\theta \ll 1$, then from
Fig.~\ref{chicanepathlength} we find that:
\begin{equation}
L = \frac{2L_1}{\cos (\theta)} + L_2.
\end{equation}
The bending angle is a function of the energy of the particle:
\begin{equation}
\theta(\delta) = \frac{\theta_0}{1 + \delta}. \label{theta}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/BunchCompressorPathLength.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Path of a particle moving through a chicane. Since the bending
angle $\theta$ depends on the energy of a particle, the path length also
depends on $\theta$: the higher the momentum of a particle, the smaller
the angle $\theta$, and the shorter the path of the particle through the
chicane.
\label{chicanepathlength}
}
\end{figure}
Assuming that the beam is ultrarelativistic (so that we can neglect differences in
the speed of particles arising from differences in energy) the change in the co-ordinate
$z$ of a particle after passing through the chicane is the difference between the nominal
path length, and the length of the path actually taken by the particle.
Hence, the transfer map for the chicane can be written:
\begin{eqnarray}
z_2 & = & z_1 + 2L_1 \left( \frac{1}{\cos(\theta_0)} - \frac{1}{\cos(\theta(\delta_1))} \right),
\label{chicanetransfermapdz} \\
\delta_2 & = & \delta_1,
\label{chicanetransfermapddelta}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_0$ is the nominal bending angle of each dipole in the chicane, and
$\theta(\delta)$ is given by (\ref{theta}).
We can now write down the complete transfer map for the bunch compressor by
substituting $z_1$ and $\delta_1$ from Eqs.~(\ref{rfmap1}) and (\ref{rfmap2})
into Eqs.~(\ref{chicanetransfermapdz}) and (\ref{chicanetransfermapddelta}).
Expanding the resulting expressions in terms of the dynamical variables provides
the transfer map in the form of a power series. Using the standard notation,
we write:
\begin{eqnarray}
z_2 & = & R_{55} z_0 + R_{56} \delta_0 + T_{555} z_0^2 + T_{556} z_0 \delta_0 + T_{566} \delta_0^2 + \ldots
\label{bcfullmapz} \\
\delta_2 & = & R_{65} z_0 + R_{66} \delta_0 + T_{655} z_0^2 + T_{656} z_0 \delta_0 + T_{666} \delta_0^2 + \ldots
\label{bcfullmapdelta}
\end{eqnarray}
The procedure that we have described provides expressions for the coefficients in
terms of the bunch compressor parameters. In particular, we find for the coefficients
of the linear terms:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{55} & = & 1 - \frac{eV}{E_0} k L_1 \frac{\theta_0 \sin(2\theta_0)}{\cos^3(\theta_0)}, \label{r55expression} \\
R_{56} & = & L_1 \frac{\theta_0 \sin(2\theta_0)}{\cos^3(\theta_0)}, \label{r56expression} \\
R_{65} & = & -\frac{eV}{E_0} k, \label{r65expression} \\
R_{66} & = & 1, \label{r66expression}
\end{eqnarray}
The coefficients of the second-order terms are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{555} & = & \left( \frac{eV}{E_0}k \right)^2 L_1 \frac{\theta_0 (\cos(\theta_0) - 3) -2\sin(2\theta_0)}{2\cos^3(\theta_0)}, \label{t555expression} \\
T_{556} & = & - \frac{eV}{E_0}k L_1 \frac{\theta_0 (\cos(\theta_0) - 3) -2\sin(2\theta_0)}{\cos^3(\theta_0)}, \label{t556expression} \\
T_{566} & = & L_1 \frac{\theta_0 (\cos(\theta_0) - 3) -2\sin(2\theta_0)}{2\cos^3(\theta_0)}, \label{t566expression} \\
T_{655} & = & T_{656} = T_{666} = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Linear analysis and initial choice of parameters}
Having constructed the transfer map, the next step is to determine appropriate
values for the parameters of the main components, based on consideration of the
linear dynamics. The first consideration is the compression factor that the bunch
compressor should achieve. This can be written in terms of the mean square values
of the initial and final longitudinal co-ordinates:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\langle z_2^2 \rangle}{\langle z_0^2 \rangle} = \frac{1}{b^2},
\end{equation}
where the brackets $\langle \cdot \rangle$ indicate an average over all particles in the
bunch, and $b$ is the required compression factor. If we assume that the beam at the entrance
to the bunch compressor has no initial chirp, so that $\langle z_0 \delta_0 \rangle = 0$,
then taking only the linear terms from Eq.~(\ref{bcfullmapz}) gives:
\begin{equation}
\langle z_2^2 \rangle = R_{55}^2 \langle z_0^2 \rangle + R_{56}^2 \langle \delta_0^2 \rangle = \frac{\langle z_0^2 \rangle}{b^2}.
\label{bcconstraint1}
\end{equation}
Generally, the beam exiting the bunch compressor should have no energy chirp, so that
$\langle z_2 \delta_2 \rangle = 0$. Using Eqs.~(\ref{bcfullmapz}) and (\ref{bcfullmapdelta})
and again keeping only linear terms gives:
\begin{equation}
\langle z_2 \delta_2 \rangle = R_{55}R_{65}\langle z_0^2 \rangle + R_{56} \langle \delta_0^2 \rangle = 0.
\label{bcconstraint2}
\end{equation}
Note that we have used the fact that $R_{66} = 1$. A third (and final) constraint comes
from the fact that the linear transfer map must be symplectic: this means that the transfer
matrix (with elements $R_{ij}$) must have unit determinant:
\begin{equation}
R_{55} - R_{56} R_{65} = 1.
\label{bcconstraint3}
\end{equation}
With given initial bunch length, energy spread, and specified compression factor,
Eqs.~(\ref{bcconstraint1}), (\ref{bcconstraint2}) and (\ref{bcconstraint3}) can be
solved to give values for $R_{55}$, $R_{56}$ and $R_{65}$. The result is:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{55} & = & \frac{1}{b^2}, \\
R_{56} & = & \pm \frac{\sqrt{b^2 - 1}}{b^2} \sqrt{\frac{\langle z_0^2 \rangle}{\langle \delta_0^2 \rangle}}, \\
R_{65} & = & \mp \sqrt{b^2 - 1} \sqrt{\frac{\langle \delta_0^2 \rangle}{\langle z_0^2 \rangle}}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{table}
\caption{Design specifications for the bunch compressor in the International Linear Collider.
\label{ilcbunchcompressorspecifications}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Initial rms bunch length & $\sqrt{\langle z_0^2 \rangle}$ & 6 mm \\
Initial rms energy spread & $\sqrt{\langle \delta_0^2 \rangle}$ & 0.15\% \\
Final rms bunch length & $\sqrt{\langle z_2^2 \rangle}$ & 0.3 mm \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
As an example, let us consider the parameters for the bunch compressors in the
International Linear Collider, given in Table~\ref{ilcbunchcompressorspecifications}.
With the given initial bunch length and energy spread, and the specified final bunch length
(and also since $R_{56}$ must be positive in this case), we find that:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{55} & = & 0.0025, \label{linearbcr55} \\
R_{56} & = & 0.19975\,\textrm{m}, \label{linearbcr56} \\
R_{65} & = & -4.9937\,\textrm{m}^{-1}. \label{linearbcr65}
\end{eqnarray}
Using these values, we can illustrate the effect of the linearised bunch
compressor map on phase space. For clarity and convenience, we use an
artificial ``window frame'' distribution: see
Fig.~\ref{bunchcompressorphasespacetransformationslinear}.
Particles are initially distributed along lines in phase space corresponding to
one standard deviation of the nominal distribution. We see that after passing
through the bunch compressor, and applying only the linear terms in the transfer
map, the rms bunch length is reduced by a factor of 20 as required. The rms
energy spread is \emph{increased} by the same factor, but this is unavoidable,
because the transfer map is symplectic; this means that phase space
areas are conserved under the transformation, i.e.~the longitudinal emittance
is conserved (as required by Liouville's theorem).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCLinear1.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCLinear2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCLinear3.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Effect of the linear part of the map for a bunch compressor on particles
in longitudinal phase space. Left: initial ``window frame'' distribution. Middle:
distribution after passing through the RF cavity, which imparts a chirp (correlation
between energy and longitudinal position) to the bunch. Right: final distribution
after exiting the chicane.
\label{bunchcompressorphasespacetransformationslinear}}
\end{figure}
Based on the values for the coefficients in the transfer map given in (\ref{linearbcr55}),
(\ref{linearbcr56}) and (\ref{linearbcr65}) we can select appropriate
values for the parameters of the main components in the bunch compressor. These will
also be determined by technical considerations and constraints from the overall design
of the facility. Such considerations are beyond the scope of this discussion; but it is
found that the parameters given in Table~\ref{ilcbunchcompressorparameters} are
suitable for the case of the International Linear Collider.
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameters of components in a bunch compressor designed (on the basis
of the linear part of the transfer map) to achieve the specifications given in
Table~\ref{ilcbunchcompressorspecifications}.
\label{ilcbunchcompressorparameters}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Beam energy & $E_0$ & 5.00 GeV \\
RF frequency & $f$ & 1.3 GHz \\
RF voltage & $V$ & 916 MV \\
Dipole spacing & $L_1$ & 36.3 m \\
Dipole bending angle & $\theta_0$ & 3.00$^\circ$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Nonlinear analysis and optimisation of parameters}
Using the values of the parameters given in Table~\ref{ilcbunchcompressorparameters},
we can move on to the next step in the design process,
which is to evaluate the impact of nonlinear effects. As before, we illustrate the effect
of the bunch compressor map on phase space using a ``window frame'' distribution;
this time, however, we can apply the full transfer map expressed in Eqs.~(\ref{rfmap1}),
(\ref{rfmap2}), (\ref{chicanetransfermapdz}) and (\ref{chicanetransfermapddelta}).
The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{bunchcompressorphasespacetransformationsnonlinear}.
Although the bunch length has been reduced, there is significant distortion of the distribution:
the rms bunch length will be significantly longer than the specification requires.
To reduce the distortion, we first need to understand where it comes from,
which means looking at the map more closely. Consider a particle entering the bunch
compressor with initial energy deviation $\delta_0 = 0$. From the shape of the final
phase space\footnote{Note that points along lines of constant energy deviation in the initial
phase space are coloured blue: because of the rotation of phase space, the $\delta$ axis
in the final phase space plot corresponds (approximately) to the $z$ axis in the initial
phase space plot.}, we see that the final co-ordinate $z_2$ varies \emph{quadratically} with
the initial $z_0$:
\begin{equation}
z_2 \propto z_0^2.
\end{equation}
This suggests that the distortion is dominated by the term in the transfer map with
coefficient $T_{555}$. To eliminate the distortion, we see from (\ref{t555expression})
that we would need to choose a bending angle $\theta_0$ in the chicane that satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\theta_0 (\cos(\theta_0) - 3) - 2 \sin(\theta_0) = 0.
\end{equation}
Unfortunately, the only solution to this equation is $\theta_0 = 0$, which would eliminate
the chicane altogether, and is incompatible with the linear part of the transfer map.
To address the problem of the phase space distortion caused by the nonlinearities,
we need to introduce an additional degree of freedom.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCNonLinear1.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCNonLinear2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCNonLinear3.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Effect of the full nonlinear map for a bunch compressor on particles
in longitudinal phase space. Left: initial ``window frame'' distribution. Middle:
distribution after passing through the RF cavity, which imparts a chirp (correlation
between energy and longitudinal position) to the bunch. Right: final distribution
after exiting the chicane.
\label{bunchcompressorphasespacetransformationsnonlinear}}
\end{figure}
Understanding the physical
origin of the damaging nonlinearity will help us to identify a possible solution. Since the
RF cavity has no effect on the longitudinal co-ordinate, the $T_{555}$ term in the
transfer map must come from the chicane: this is confirmed by our observation above,
that $T_{555} = 0$ if $\theta_0 = 0$, i.e.~if we eliminate the chicane altogether.
The physical cause of the nonlinear distortion is the second-order dependence of
the change in longitudinal co-ordinate on the energy deviation for a particle passing through
a dipole. Unfortunately, this effect is intrinsic to dipole magnets, and cannot be
corrected within the magnet itself. However, we can compensate for it if we introduce
a second-order dependence of the energy deviation on the longitudinal co-ordinate before
the bunch enters the chicane.
To see how this works, suppose that we write the transformation of the energy deviation
in the first part of the bunch compressor as follows:
\begin{equation}
\delta_1 = R_{65}^{(1)} z_0 + T_{655}^{(1)} z_0^2. \label{bcsimplified1}
\end{equation}
We use the superscript on $R_{ij}^{(1)}$ and $T_{ijk}^{(1)}$ to indicate that
the coefficient is for the map for
only the first part of the bunch compressor. Then, we write the transformation for the
longitudinal co-ordinate in the second part of the bunch compressor:
\begin{equation}
z_2 = R_{56}^{(2)} \delta_1 + T_{566}^{(2)} \delta_1^2. \label{bcsimplified2}
\end{equation}
Substituting $\delta_1$ from (\ref{bcsimplified1}) into (\ref{bcsimplified2}), and
keeping terms only up to second order, we find:
\begin{equation}
z_2 = R_{56}^{(2)} R_{65}^{(1)} z_0 + R_{56}^{(2)} T_{655}^{(1)} z_0^2 +
T_{566}^{(2)} \left(R_{65}^{(1)}\right)^2 z_0^2.
\end{equation}
In the transfer map we have used so far for the RF cavity in the bunch compressor,
$T_{655}^{(1)} = 0$: there is then a second-order dependence of $z_2$ on $z_0$,
with coefficient $T_{566}^{(2)}\left( R_{65}^{(1)}\right)^2$. To eliminate this
dependence, we need to modify the transformation in the RF cavity so that:
\begin{equation}
T_{555} = R_{56}^{(2)} T_{655}^{(1)} + T_{566}^{(2)} \left(R_{65}^{(1)}\right)^2 = 0.
\label{nonlineardistortioncorrection}
\end{equation}
To achieve this, we simply need to change the phase of the RF cavity, so that
a particle at the centre of the bunch sees a non-zero accelerating (or decelerating) field:
\begin{equation}
\delta_{1a} = \delta_0 - \frac{eV}{E_0} \sin(kz_0 + \phi_0).
\end{equation}
Although this will introduce the terms that we need in the map to correct the nonlinear
distortion, it also means that there is an overall change in the bunch energy. The overall
change in energy is inconvenient for the description of the dynamics in the chicane:
in order to maintain good accuracy in the power series representation of the transfer map,
it is desirable for particles in the bunch to be described by small values of the energy
deviation, with mean of zero. To ensure that this is the case, we change the reference
energy from $E_0$ to $E_0 - eV\sin(\phi_0)$. This change in reference energy will restore
the mean energy deviation of the bunch to zero; but we also need to take into account, from Eq.~(\ref{energydeviationdefinition}), that when we change the reference energy from
$E_0$ to a new value $E_0^\prime$, the energy deviation changes from $\delta$ to $\delta^\prime$:
\begin{equation}
\delta^\prime = \left( \delta - \frac{\Delta E_0}{E_0} \right) \frac{E_0}{E_0^\prime},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta E_0 = E_0^\prime - E_0$. This scaling of the momentum deviation,
with no associated change in the longitudinal co-ordinate, is a non-symplectic transformation,
and leads to a change in the longitudinal emittance. A similar effect occurs in the transverse
degrees of freedom: when associated with acceleration in a linac, it leads to a reduction
of the emittances in all three planes, and is known as \emph{adiabatic damping}.
In the present case of the bunch compressor, the result is that the full transformation in
the RF cavity is now:
\begin{eqnarray}
z_1 & = & z_0, \\
\delta_1 & = & \left( \delta_0 - \frac{eV}{E_0} ( \sin(kz_0 + \phi_0) - \sin(\phi_0) ) \right)
\left( 1 - \frac{eV}{E_0} \sin(\phi_0) \right)^{\!-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Expanding to second order in $z_0$, this gives:
\begin{equation}
\delta_1 = \left( 1 - \frac{eV}{E_0} \sin(\phi_0) \right)^{\!-1}
\left( \delta_0 - \frac{eV}{E_0} \cos(\phi_0) k z_0
+ \frac{eV}{2E_0} \sin(\phi_0) k^2 z_0^2 + \ldots \right)
\end{equation}
Hence:
\begin{equation}
T_{655}^{(1)} = \frac{eV}{2E_0} \sin(\phi_0) k^2.
\end{equation}
A non-zero value of $\phi_0$ leads to a non-zero value for $T_{655}^{(1)}$, and allows
us to satisfy the requirement expressed in Eq.~(\ref{nonlineardistortioncorrection}),
to correct the nonlinear distortion arising from $T_{566}^{(2)}$. The other constraints
that we need to satisfy are, as before, the specified reduction in bunch length,
Eq.~(\ref{bcconstraint1}):
\begin{equation}
R_{55}^2 + \frac{\langle \delta_0^2 \rangle}{\langle z_0^2 \rangle} R_{56}^2 = \frac{1}{b^2},
\label{bcconstraint1a}
\end{equation}
and the requirement for zero final energy chirp, Eq.~(\ref{bcconstraint2}):
\begin{equation}
R_{55}R_{65} + \frac{\langle \delta_0^2 \rangle}{\langle z_0^2 \rangle} R_{56}R_{66} = 0.
\label{bcconstraint2a}
\end{equation}
Note that the expressions for the coefficients $R_{ij}$ need to be re-calculated for the case
$\phi_0 \neq 0$: in particular $R_{66}$ is no longer equal to 1. Also, the constraint
expressed in Eq.~(\ref{bcconstraint2}) no longer applies, because of the (non-symplectic)
rescaling of the reference energy that we have applied following the RF cavity.
We therefore have three constraints, Eq.~(\ref{nonlineardistortioncorrection}),
(\ref{bcconstraint1a}) and (\ref{bcconstraint2a}). Assuming fixed RF frequency and
dipole spacing\footnote{The RF frequency and dipole spacing are fixed at time of
machine construction; the RF voltage, RF phase, and dipole bending angle are readily adjusted
during operation.}, we can satisfy the constraints by adjusting the values of the RF voltage
$V$, the RF phase $\phi_0$, and the dipole bending angle $\theta_0$. Given the complicated,
nonlinear nature of the constraint equations, the parameter optimisation is best done
numerically. Suitable values for the parameters are shown in
Table~\ref{ilcbunchcompressorparametersnonlinear}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameters of components in a bunch compressor designed to achieve the
specifications given in Table~\ref{ilcbunchcompressorspecifications}, and taking into
account the effects of nonlinear dynamics. The parameter values are to be compared
with those in Table~\ref{ilcbunchcompressorparameters}, which were determined on
the basis only of the linear dynamics.
\label{ilcbunchcompressorparametersnonlinear}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Initial beam energy & $E_0$ & 5.00 GeV \\
Final beam energy & $E_0^\prime$ & 4.43 GeV \\
RF frequency & $f$ & 1.3 GHz \\
RF voltage & $V$ & 1079 MV \\
RF phase & $\phi_0$ & 31.86$^\circ$ \\
Dipole spacing & $L_1$ & 36.3 m \\
Dipole bending angle & $\theta_0$ & 2.83$^\circ$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
As before, we illustrate the effect of the bunch compressor on phase space
using a ``window frame'' distribution. But now we use the parameters given
in Table~\ref{ilcbunchcompressorparametersnonlinear} to aim to compress
the bunch length by a factor 20 while minimising the second-order distortion: the
results are shown in Fig.~\ref{bunchcompressorphasespacetransformationsnonlinearcompensated}.
We see that the nonlinear distortion is greatly reduced: the remaining distortion
now appears to be dominated by third-order terms, and appears to be
small enough that it should not significantly affect the performance of the machine.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCNonLinearFixed1.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCNonLinearFixed2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/PlotBCNonLinearFixed3.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Effect of the full nonlinear map for a bunch compressor on particles
in longitudinal phase space, with parameters adjusted to compensate for the
nonlinear distortion seen in Fig.~\ref{bunchcompressorphasespacetransformationsnonlinear}.
Left: initial ``window frame'' distribution. Middle:
distribution after passing through the RF cavity, which imparts a chirp (correlation
between energy and longitudinal position) to the bunch. Right: final distribution
after exiting the chicane.
\label{bunchcompressorphasespacetransformationsnonlinearcompensated}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Summary: lessons from analysis of the bunch compressor}
The analysis of the bunch compressor presented in this section highlights some
important aspects of nonlinear dynamics in accelerators. First, we see that
nonlinear effects can limit the performance of an accelerator system. Sometimes
the effects are small enough that they can be ignored; however, in many cases, a system
designed without taking account of nonlinearities will not achieve the specified performance.
Secondly, a careful analysis can lead to an understanding of the nonlinear behaviour of
a system, including the origin of the nonlinearities. Based on this analysis, it may be
possible to find a means of compensating any adverse effects.
\section{Nonlinear dynamics in a storage ring}
In this section, we consider some of the phenomena associated with nonlinear dynamics
in periodic beamlines, using a storage ring as an example. We will explain the significance
of \emph{symplectic maps}, and describe some of the challenges in constructing and
applying symplectic maps. Finally, we will outline some of the analysis methods that can
be used to characterise nonlinear beam dynamics in periodic beamlines.
In the discussion of a bunch compressor in the previous section of these notes, we focused
on the longitudinal dynamics. For the case of a storage ring, we shall be concerned with
the transverse dynamics. Nonlinear effects can impact both longitudinal and transverse
motion, and in many cases it may be necessary to consider both. This is indeed the case in
many storage rings; but for simplicity, we shall restrict the discussion to the transverse
dynamics.
We shall make the following assumptions:
\begin{itemize}
\item the storage ring is constructed from some number of identical cells
consisting of dipoles, quadrupoles and sextupoles;
\item the phase advance per cell can be tuned from close to zero, up to about
0.5$\times 2\pi$.
\item there is a single sextupole per cell, located at a point where the
horizontal beta function is $1\,$m, and the alpha function is zero.
\end{itemize}
Usually, storage rings will contain (at least) two sextupoles per cell, to correct horizontal
and vertical chromaticity. Again for the sake of simplicity, we will use only one sextupole
per cell.
\subsection{Correction of chromaticity using sextupole magnets}
Sextupoles are needed in a storage ring to compensate for the fact that
quadrupoles have lower focusing strength for particles of higher energy
(see Fig.~\ref{figchromaticity}): this is characterised by the chromaticity, which is
defined as the change in particle tune in a storage ring with respect to energy deviation.
Chromaticity often has undesirable consequences. For example, if particles with
sufficiently large energy deviation (by virtue of the natural energy spread of the beam)
have betatron tunes close to integer or half-integer values, then
the motion of these particles can become unstable, leading to loss of the particles
from the storage ring.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/Chromaticity1.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Chromaticity in a quadrupole magnet. The beam rigidity increases
with energy, leading to an increase in the focal length of a quadrupole with
particle energy.
\label{figchromaticity}}
\end{figure}
A sextupole can be regarded as a quadrupole with focusing strength that
increases with horizontal (transverse) distance from the axis of the magnet.
If sextupoles are located where there is non-zero dispersion, they can be used
to control the chromaticity in a storage ring. The dispersion describes the change
in position of the closed orbit with respect to changes in energy deviation: particles
with higher energy deviation will then pass through the sextupole further from the
axis of the magnet (see Fig.~\ref{chromaticcorrection}), and hence receive
additional focusing or defocusing. By adjusting the strength of the sextupole (depending
on the size of the dispersion), it is possible to compensate the natural
chromaticity arising from the variation of the focal lengths of the quadrupoles with
particle energy.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figures/ChromaticCorrection.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Correction of chromaticity in a quadrupole magnet, using a sextupole at a
location with non-zero dispersion.
\label{chromaticcorrection}}
\end{figure}
The chromaticity of a storage ring, and hence the strengths of the sextupoles needed
to correct the chromaticity, will normally be a function of the phase advance per cell.
However, to investigate and illustrate the nonlinear effects of the sextupoles, we shall
assume that we keep the strength $k_2L$ of the sextupoles in our simple storage ring
fixed when we change the phase advance. Although this means that the chromaticity
will in general be non-zero, since we shall be looking only at the motion of particles with
zero energy deviation, the chromaticity will play no real role. The effects of the sextupoles
in this case are sometimes called the \emph{geometric} effects, to distinguish them from
the chromatic effects. The geometric effects of sextupoles can have significant adverse
impact on the stability of the motion of particles in a storage ring. Particularly for low-emittance
electron storage rings, for example in third-generation synchrotron light sources, it is an
important task at the design stage to optimize the chromatic effects of the sextupoles while
minimising the geometric effects, in order to achieve a good beam lifetime.
In our simple storage ring, we can assume that the map from one sextupole to the next
is linear, and corresponds to a rotation in phase space through an angle equal to the phase
advance:
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\
p_x
\end{array}
\right) \mapsto
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos (\mu_x) & \sin (\mu_x) \\
-\sin (\mu_x) & \cos (\mu_x) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\
p_x
\end{array}
\right). \label{linearmap1}
\end{equation}
Note that we use the symbol $\mapsto$ to mean ``transforms to'': this avoids the need
to use subscripts to indicate initial and final values of the phase space variables (as in,
for example, $x_0$ and $x_1$).
Again to keep things simple, we shall consider only horizontal motion, and
assume that the vertical co-ordinate $y=0$.
The change in the horizontal momentum of a particle moving through the sextupole
is found by integrating the Lorentz force over the length $L$ of the sextupole:
\begin{equation}
\Delta p_x = -\int_0^L \frac{B_y}{B\rho}\, ds.
\end{equation}
The sextupole strength $k_2$ is defined by:
\begin{equation}
k_2 = \frac{1}{B\rho} \frac{\partial^2 B_y}{\partial x^2},
\end{equation}
where $B\rho$ is the beam rigidity. For a pure sextupole field, in the case that
the vertical co-ordinate $y=0$, the vertical component of the magnetic field is given by:
\begin{equation}
\frac{B_y}{B\rho} = \frac{1}{2} k_2 x^2.
\end{equation}
If the sextupole is short (compared to the betatron wavelength), then we can neglect
the small change in the co-ordinate $x$ as the particle moves through the sextupole,
in which case:
\begin{equation}
\Delta p_x \approx -\frac{1}{2} k_2 L x^2.
\end{equation}
Hence, the transfer map for a particle moving through a short sextupole can be represented by a
``kick'' in the horizontal momentum:
\begin{eqnarray}
x & \mapsto & x, \label{sextupolekick1} \\
p_x & \mapsto & p_x - \frac{1}{2} k_2 L x^2. \label{sextupolekick2}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Effects of sextupoles in a storage ring: dependence on phase advance}
To illustrate the effect of the sextupole in our storage ring, let us choose a fixed
value $k_2L=-600\,\textrm{m}^{-2}$ for the strength of the sextupole, and look
at the effects of the maps for different phase advances. As mentioned above, we
shall only consider the case that the particles have zero energy deviation. For a
given value of the phase advance, we construct a \emph{phase space portrait} by
plotting the values of the dynamical variables after repeated application of the
transfer map (equation (\ref{linearmap1}), followed by (\ref{sextupolekick1})
and (\ref{sextupolekick2})) for a range of initial conditions. The phase space
portraits for the simple storage ring with a range of phase advances from
$0.2\times 2\pi$ to $0.5\times 2\pi$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{ps1}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
$\mu_x = 0.202\times 2\pi$ & $\mu_x = 0.252\times 2\pi$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plotSxtMu0202.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plotSxtMu0252.png} \\
$\mu_x = 0.330\times 2\pi$ & $\mu_x = 0.402\times 2\pi$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plotSxtMu0330.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plotSxtMu0402.png} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\mu_x = 0.490\times 2\pi$} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plotSxtMu0490.png} \label{ps5}} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Phase space portraits for a simple storage ring, tuned to various
different values of the phase advance per cell, and containing (in addition
to the quadrupoles) a single sextupole per cell.
\label{ps1}}
\end{figure}
There are some interesting features in these phase space portraits to which it is
worth drawing attention:
\begin{itemize}
\item For small amplitudes (small $x$ and $p_x$), particles trace out closed loops
around the origin: this is what we expect for a purely linear map.
\item As the amplitude is increased, ``islands'' appear in the phase space, with the
number of islands related to the phase advance:
the phase advance (for the linear map) is often close to $m/p$ where
$m$ is an integer and $p$ is the number of islands.
\item Sometimes, a larger number of islands appears at larger amplitude.
\item Usually, there is a closed curve that divides a region of stable motion
from a region of unstable motion. Outside that curve, the amplitude of
particles increases without limit as the map is repeatedly applied, i.e.~the motion
is unstable.
\item The area of the stable region depends strongly on the phase advance:
for a phase advance close to $2\pi /3$, it appears that the stable region
almost vanishes altogether.
\item As the phase advance is increased towards $\pi$, the
stable area becomes large, and distortions from the linear ellipse become
less evident.
\end{itemize}
An important observation is that the effect of the sextupole in the periodic cell depends
strongly on the phase advance across the cell.
We can start to understand the significance of the phase advance by considering two special cases:
first, the case when the phase advance is equal to an integer times $2\pi$;
and second, when the phase advance is equal to a half integer times $2\pi$.
In the first case, when the phase advance is an integer, the linear part of the map is just the identity:
\begin{eqnarray}
x & \mapsto & x, \\
p_x & \mapsto & p_x.
\end{eqnarray}
So the combined effect of the linear map and the sextupole kick is:
\begin{eqnarray}
x & \mapsto & x, \\
p_x & \mapsto & p_x - \frac{1}{2}k_2 L x^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, for $x \neq 0$, the horizontal momentum will increase without limit.
There are no stable regions of phase space, apart from the line $x=0$.
Now consider what happens in the second case, when the phase advance over one cell
is a half integer times $2\pi$, so the linear part of the map is just a rotation by $\pi$.
If a particle starts at the entrance of a sextupole with $x = x_0$ and $p_x = p_{x0}$,
then at the exit of that sextupole (using the subscript notation to indicate initial and final
values of the variables):
\begin{eqnarray}
x_1 & = & x_0, \\
p_{x1} & = & p_{x0} - \frac{1}{2}k_2 L x_0^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, after passing to the entrance of the next sextupole, the phase space variables will be:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_2 & = & -x_1 = -x_0, \\
p_{x2} & = & - p_{x1} = - p_{x0} + \frac{1}{2}k_2 L x_0^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, on passing through the second sextupole:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_3 & = & x_2 = -x_0, \\
p_{x3} & = & p_{x2} - \frac{1}{2}k_2 L x_2^2 = - p_{x0}.
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, the momentum kicks from the two sextupoles in successive cells
cancel each other exactly, and the resulting map is a purely linear phase space rotation by $\pi$.
In this situation, we expect the motion to be stable (and periodic), regardless of the amplitude.
\subsection{Resonances}
The important conclusion is that the effect of sextupole ``kicks'' depends on the phase
advance between the sextupoles. This is similar to the case of perturbations arising from
dipole and quadrupole errors in a storage ring. In the case of dipole errors, the kicks add
up if the phase advance is an integer, and cancel if the phase advance is a half integer, see
Fig.~\ref{resonancedriving}.
In the case of quadrupole errors, the kicks add up if the phase advance is
a half integer. In general, there are certain values of the phase advance, termed \emph{resonances},
at which small perturbations to the motion applied in each periodic section combine to
cause particle motion to be unstable. If we include vertical as well as horizontal motion,
then we find that resonances occur when the tunes satisfy:
\begin{equation}
m_x \nu_x + m_y \nu_y = \ell,
\label{resonancecondition}
\end{equation}
where $m_x$, $m_y$ and $\ell$ are integers. The \emph{order} of the resonance is
$|m_x| + |m_y|$: the case $|m_x| + |m_y| = 1$ is an integer resonance;
$|m_x| + |m_y| = 2$ is a 2$^\mathrm{nd}$ order resonance (or half-integer resonance if
$m_x = 0$ or $m_y = 0$), and so on. Resonances can be illustrated on a resonance
diagram, see Fig.~\ref{resonancediagram}. The effect of a resonance depends on the
order of the resonance, and the presence of components or perturbations that can
``drive'' the resonance. Although it is tempting to associate resonances of a particular
order with corresponding multipoles, in reality the situation is rather complicated: it
turns out that sextupoles (and other higher-order multipoles) can drive resonances of
many different orders depending on the exact situation.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/Resonances1.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/Resonances2.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Integer (top) and half-integer (bottom) resonances driven by dipole and
quadrupole perturbations (respectively) in a storage ring.
\label{resonancedriving}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/tunediagram_periodicity1_order1-2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/tunediagram_periodicity1_order1-3.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/tunediagram_periodicity1_order1-4.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Resonances in a storage ring illustrated in tune space. The horizontal
axis corresponds to the fractional part of the horizontal tune, and the vertical axis corresponds
to the fractional part of the vertical tune. The lines show where the values of the tunes
satisfy the resonance condition $m_x \nu_x + m_y \nu_y = \ell$, for integers $m_x$, $m_y$
and $\ell$. Resonances are shown up to $2^\textrm{nd}$ order (left), $3^\textrm{rd}$ order (middle)
and $4^\textrm{th}$ order (right). Solid lines indicate resonances associated with normal multipole
components and dashed lines indicate resonances
associated with skew multipole components of the magnetic field expansion
\cite{wiedemann2015}. \label{resonancediagram}}
\end{figure}
Resonances are associated with unstable motion for particles in storage rings. However,
the number of resonance lines in tune space is infinite: any point in tune space will be close
to a resonance of some order. This raises two questions: first, how do we know what the real
effect of any given resonance line will be? Second, how can we design a storage ring to minimise
the adverse effects of resonances?
From the discussion above, we have seen that for certain phase advances the kicks from sextupole
magnetic fields can be cancelled in successive passages of a particle through a periodic cell.
It turns out that certain resonances can be suppressed by constructing a lattice with some periodicity $P$,
i.e.~building a machine from $P$ identical cells. In that case, a resonance corresponding to
a particular value of $\ell$ in the resonance condition Eq.~(\ref{resonancecondition}) is suppressed by the lattice symmetry
(to first order) if $\ell/P$ is not an integer.
This means that the kicks from the
magnetic fields in consecutive cells cancel out over one turn, and the lattice
does not ``drive'' the resonance: the
resonance is called \emph{non-systematic}. Of course, this is (strictly speaking) only true if the lattice
is perfectly periodic, and any variation, for example from random errors in the strengths of the magnets,
can break the symmetry and drive nominally non-systematic resonances.
If $\ell/P$ (for a given resonance) is an integer, the resonance will be \emph{systematic}. In this case, the kicks from consecutive cells of the lattice add up
coherently. Figure~\ref{resonancediagram2} shows a comparison of the resonance diagram
for different lattice periodicities $P$.
If the
``ideal'' symmetry of a lattice is broken by random errors or other effects, then
the periodicity is effectively reduced to $P = 1$, so $\ell/P$ is an integer for
any integer $\ell$:
all resonances in that case are systematic.
One way to understand systematic resonances is to consider the ``tunes''
of individual cells in a periodic lattice (i.e.~the phase advances per cell,
divided by $2\pi$): if the periodicity is $P$, then
each periodic cell has tunes $\nu_x/P$ and $\nu_y/P$. It follows from the
resonance condition Eq.~(\ref{resonancecondition}) that:
\begin{equation}
m_x \frac{\nu_x}{P} + m_y \frac{\nu_y}{P} = \frac{\ell}{P},
\end{equation}
and hence if $\ell/P$ is an integer, the resonance condition is satisfied
for each individual cell, as well as for the full lattice.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/tunediagram_periodicity1_order1-4.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/tunediagram_periodicity2_order1-4.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{figures/tunediagram_periodicity3_order1-4.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Resonances up to $4^\textrm{th}$ order in a storage ring with periodicity $P=1$ (left), $P=2$ (middle)
and $P=3$ (right). Red lines indicate systematic resonances, while the blue lines show the non-systematic
resonances which (to first order) are suppressed by the lattice symmetry. Solid lines indicate
resonances associated with normal multipole components and dashed lines indicate resonances
associated with skew multipole components of the magnetic field expansion \cite{wiedemann2015}. \label{resonancediagram2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 20 0 0, clip, width=0.95\textwidth]{figures/ALS_measurements.png} \\
\end{center}
\caption{Horizontal tune scans before (thin, solid line) and after (thick, dashed line) optics correction. In the uncorrected optics, the $\beta$-beat is
of order 30\%; following correction, this is reduced to 1\%.
The vertical tune is kept constant at 8.15. The plot shows the count rate measured
in a gamma-ray detector (indicating losses of particles from the beam) divided by beam current \cite{robin2000}.
\label{latticeSymmetry}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.77\textwidth]{figures/ALSResonance.png} \\
\end{center}
\caption{The upper images are taken from a synchrotron radiation monitor in the Advanced Light Source
at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with the lattice tuned near the $3\nu_x$ resonance.
The image on the left was taken before correction of the optics to reduce $\beta$-beating;
the image on the right was taken after optics correction. (Note that the vertical
asymmetry is the result of some distortion in the light optics.)
The lower plots show, for comparison, corresponding horizontal phase space topologies
obtained from particle tracking in a machine model \cite{robin2000}.
\label{phasespaceislandsals}}
\end{figure}
A powerful technique to minimise the impact of resonances on the beam is therefore to design
storage rings and synchrotrons (or the arcs of colliders) with a high periodicity. A good example
illustrating the suppression of resonances through lattice periodicity was demonstrated at the Advanced
Light Source (ALS) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Figure \ref{latticeSymmetry} shows
the beam loss rate measured in the ALS for a range of different horizontal tunes in two machine configurations
\cite{robin2000}. In the first configuration, with uncorrected linear machine optics, the $\beta$-beating
reached approximately 30\%. In this configuration, strong losses were observed close to the
horizontal 3$^\mathrm{rd}$ order resonance $3\nu_x=43$ even though this is a non-systematic
resonance for the ideal ALS lattice, which has periodicity $P=12$ ($\ell/P = 43/12$ is not an integer).
In the second configuration,
following correction of the linear optics (as is done in routine machine operation), the
$\beta$-beating was significantly reduced, to below the 1\% level.
In this configuration, the beam showed only a very weak sensitivity to the resonance. Thus, by
restoring the machine periodicity $P=12$ of the ALS by correcting the $\beta$-beating, the
$3\nu_x=43$ resonance was almost completely suppressed. It is also interesting to take
a closer look at the loss rates observed close to the $5\nu_x = 72$ resonance, also
seen in Fig.~\ref{latticeSymmetry}. The
level of losses at this resonance is practically the same for both machine configurations,
i.e.~without optics correction and with optics correction. The similarity in
the losses in both configurations is explained
by the fact that $5\nu_x = 72$ is a systematic resonance ($\ell/P = 72/12 = 6$ is an integer)
and therefore there is no suppression of the resonance after restoring the lattice periodicity.
Another way of demonstrating the suppression of the 3$^\mathrm{rd}$ order resonance through the lattice
periodicity was also demonstrated at the ALS, during the same experiment \cite{robin2000}. Synchrotron radiation
images were recorded for a machine working point close to the 3$^\mathrm{rd}$ order resonance
$3\nu_x=43$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{phasespaceislandsals} (top). Before optics correction,
the image showed the beam ``split'' into several spots; after optics correction (restoring
the periodicity of the lattice) only a single beam spot is observed. This observation
can be understood from the phase space topology obtained from a machine model for
the two configurations, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{phasespaceislandsals} (bottom). For the uncorrected optics, the resonance distorts the
phase space and creates resonant ``islands'' in phase space. The islands are populated by electrons
in the beam, so that each island, in addition to the central part of the beam, acts as a source of
synchrotron radiation. The separation between the islands in phase space (projected onto the
co-ordinate axes) is visible on the synchrotron light monitor. This phase space structure does not exist
for the machine with restored periodicity, as the resonance is suppressed. The phase space looks
highly linear and only one beam spot is observed.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{figures/SPSlosses.png} \\
\end{center}
\caption{Measurement of the beam loss rate for two-dimensional tune scan at the CERN SPS. The
loss rate (in arbitrary units) is indicated by the color scale. The lines indicate resonances up to
$3^\textrm{rd}$ order, where systematic resonances are indicated in red and non-systematic
resonances in blue. Solid lines correspond to normal resonances, dashed lines to skew resonances.
The beam shows losses at all the non-systematic normal $3^\textrm{rd}$ order resonances, because
of linear optics distortions ($\beta$-beating).
\label{SPSlosses}}
\end{figure}
Another example of resonance excitation in operational conditions is provided by the Super
Proton Synchrotron (SPS) at CERN \cite{bartosik2011, papaphilippou2014}. Figure~\ref{SPSlosses} shows a measurement of the beam loss
rate for a two-dimensional tune scan. Even though the SPS has a design lattice periodicity of $P=6$,
which suppresses most of the $3^\textrm{rd}$ order resonances (i.e.~they are
non-systematic), residual beam
loss is observed on practically all $3^\textrm{rd}$ order normal resonances (solid lines). These
resonances are observed to be excited because of perturbations of the linear optics at the level
of typically around 10\% $\beta$-beating, which in the case of the SPS cannot be corrected
as it has no individually powered quadrupole magnets. This situation is not unusual for hadron
machines (such as the synchrotrons of the injector chain of the LHC, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN).
If necessary, resonances are compensated by dedicated multipole corrector magnets.
The optimisation of the nonlinear beam dynamics and thus the machine performance usually
requires use of a combination of tools, such as numerical integration of particle motion (tracking)
as well as analytical tools, as we will discuss in the remaining parts of these notes.
\subsection{Symplecticity}
For any detailed analysis of nonlinear dynamics in an accelerator, we need a convenient way
to represent nonlinear transfer maps. In our analysis of a bunch compressor in
section~\ref{bunchcompressor}, we represented the transfer maps for the RF cavity and the
chicane as power series in the dynamical variables. For example, the longitudinal transfer map
for a chicane can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
z_1 & = & z_0 + 2L_1 \left( \frac{1}{\cos (\theta_0)} - \frac{1}{\cos (\theta)} \right), \\
\delta_1 & = & \delta_0,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\theta = \frac{\theta_0}{1 + \delta_0}.
\end{equation}
Expanding the map for a chicane as a power series gives
\begin{eqnarray}
z_1 & = & z_0 + R_{56}\delta_0 + T_{566}\delta_0^2 + U_{5666}\delta_0^3 + \ldots \\
\delta_1 & = & \delta_0,
\end{eqnarray}
where the coefficients $R_{56}$, $T_{566}$, $U_{5666}$ etc. are all functions
of the chicane parameters $L_1$ and $\theta_0$. Power series provide a convenient way of
systematically representing transfer maps for beamline components, or sections of beamline.
However, the drawback is that in general, transfer maps can only be represented exactly
by series with an infinite number of terms. In practice, we have to truncate a power series
map at some order, and the consequence is that we can then lose certain desirable properties
of the map: in particular, a truncated map will not usually be \emph{symplectic}.
Mathematically, a transfer map is symplectic if it satisfies the condition:
\begin{equation}
J^\mathrm{T}SJ = S,
\end{equation}
where $J$ is the Jacobian of the map, and $S$ is the antisymmetric matrix with block diagonals:
\begin{equation}
S_2 = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
The Jacobian of the map is a matrix with elements $J_{mn}$ given by:
\begin{equation}
J_{mn} = \frac{\partial x_{m,f}}{\partial x_{n,i}},
\label{symplecticcondition}
\end{equation}
where $x_{n,i}$ is the $n^\mathrm{th}$ component of the initial phase space
vector $(x, p_x, y, p_y, z, \delta)$ and $x_{m,f}$ is the $m^\mathrm{th}$
component of the final phase space vector. For a linear map, the elements
of the Jacobian will be constants (i.e.~independent of the phase space variables).
For nonlinear maps, the elements of the Jacobian will depend on the phase space
variables, but if the map is symplectic, then it will still satisfy the condition
(\ref{symplecticcondition}). Physically, a symplectic transfer map conserves phase space volumes when
the map is applied. This is Liouville's theorem, illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figsymplectictransformation},
and is a property of charged particles moving in electromagnetic fields, in the absence of radiation
and certain collective effects.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.41\textwidth]{figures/PhaseSpaceRotation3.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Symplectic transformations conserve the area of elements of phase space.
\label{figsymplectictransformation}}
\end{figure}
The effect of losing symplecticity (for example, in the truncation of a power-series map
to finite order) becomes apparent if we compare phase space portraits constructed using
symplectic and non-symplectic transfer maps: an example is shown in
Fig.~\ref{symplecticvsnonsymplectic}. There are a number of clear differences between
the phase space portraits constructed using symplectic and non-symplectic maps. Significantly,
the closed loops visible in the ``islands'' in the symplectic case appear blurred when the
non-symplectic map is used. This is an indication that conserved quantities (constraining
particle motion in the physical system) are maintained by the symplectic map, but not by
the non-symplectic map. This can have some important consequences for the conclusions
drawn from an analysis of nonlinear effects. For example, particle trajectories that would be
stable in a real storage ring may appear to be unstable if the storage ring is modelled using
non-symplectic maps, and this can lead to an inaccurate estimate of the dynamic aperture
and the beam lifetime.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{figures/ImplicitMapOrder2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{figures/TaylorMapOrder2.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Phase space portraits for a simple storage ring containing a sextupole
magnet. The lattice is the same in both cases, but in the left-hand plot the phase space portrait is constructed using symplectic maps, while non-symplectic maps are used to construct the plot on the right.
\label{symplecticvsnonsymplectic}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Symplectic transfer maps}
Real accelerators are often sufficiently complex that it is necessary to construct concise
approximate representations of the transfer maps for the various components: fully
detailed and accurate transfer maps are usually too demanding in terms of computer
processing speed and memory capacity to be of practical use in computational models.
Expanding the transfer map as a power series in the dynamical variables provides a
convenient representation of a transfer map, in terms of a set of coefficients for the power
series. However, we have seen that the power series that result from an expansion of a
nonlinear transfer map often have an infinite number of terms. It may be possible in some
cases simply to truncate the power series at some point; however, we have seen that when
we do so, the resulting power series is often not symplectic. Symplecticity is an important
property of some accelerator systems, and the loss of symplecticity can lead to a model
producing misleading results.
To address this issue, a number of techniques have been developed for representing
symplectic maps in convenient, concise forms. For example, it is possible to construct
a power series map that is of finite order, symplectic, and approximates (to a specified
degree) a given symplectic power series map with an infinite number of terms. This
approach has the additional advantage that a power series representation is \emph{explicit}:
all that is required to apply the map is to substitute particular values of the dynamical
variables into the given expressions. However, finite-order symplectic power series are
not easy to construct, and may have limited accuracy unless extended to very high order,
and alternative techniques may be worth investigating. Examples include the use of
mixed-variable generating functions (see Appendix B) and Lie transformations (Appendix C):
both of these are powerful techniques, but provide \emph{implicit} representations of
transfer maps in the sense that an additional set of equations needs to be solved
(usually numerically) each time the map is applied. This can make these techniques
cumbersome to implement, computationally expensive, and may limit accuracy.
As an example of a technique for constructing a symplectic map in the form of a
power series, we shall discuss the ``kick'' approximation that is widely used for
modelling multipole magnets in accelerators. The technique can be applied to
multipoles of any order; but for simplicity, we shall consider just a sextupole magnet.
As usual, and again for simplicity, we consider only motion in one degree of freedom,
though the technique that we develop can readily be extended to include additional
degrees of freedom.
We start with the equations of motion for a particle moving through the sextupole:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dx}{ds} & = & p_x, \label{sextupoledxds} \\
\frac{dp_x}{ds} & = & -\frac{1}{2} k_2 x^2. \label{sextupoledpxds}
\end{eqnarray}
Since these equations of motion can be derived using Hamilton's equations, the
solution must be symplectic. Unfortunately, the equations do not have an exact solution
in terms of elementary functions.
However, in the approximation that $p_x$ is constant, we can solve Eq.~(\ref{sextupoledxds});
and in the approximation that $x$ is constant we can solve Eq.~(\ref{sextupoledpxds}).
We therefore split the integration into three steps, making the one or the other approximation at
each step. If the total length of the magnet is $L$, we take the first step over $0 \le s < L/2$,
making the approximation that $p_x$ is constant, so that the transfer map is:
\begin{equation}
x_1 = x_0 + \frac{L}{2} p_{x0}, \quad p_{x1} = p_{x0}. \label{driftkickdrift1}
\end{equation}
Then we make the approximation that $x$ is constant, taking $x = x_1$, and integrate
Eq.~(\ref{sextupoledpxds}) over the full length of the magnet:
\begin{equation}
x_2 = x_1, \quad p_{x2} = p_{x1} - \frac{1}{2} k_2Lx_1^2. \label{driftkickdrift2}
\end{equation}
Finally, we again make the approximation that $p_x$ is constant, and integrate
Eq.~(\ref{sextupoledxds}) over $L/2 < s \le L$:
\begin{equation}
x_3 = x_2 + \frac{L}{2} p_{x2}, \quad p_{x3} = p_{x2}. \label{driftkickdrift3}
\end{equation}
Because of the way that we have approximated the equations of motion, each of
the transfer maps expressed in Eqs.~(\ref{driftkickdrift1}), (\ref{driftkickdrift2})
and (\ref{driftkickdrift3}) is symplectic.
The (approximate) solution (\ref{driftkickdrift1})--(\ref{driftkickdrift2}) to the
equations of motion (\ref{sextupoledxds}) and (\ref{sextupoledpxds}) is an example of
a \emph{symplectic integrator}. For obvious reasons, this particular integrator
is known as a ``drift--kick--drift'' approximation: see Fig.~\ref{driftkickdrift}.
In this case, the approximation can work well if the length of the sextupole is short
(compared to the betatron wavelength). However, by splitting the integration into
smaller steps, it is possible to obtain better approximations. Using techniques from
classical mechanics, it can be shown that by splitting a multipole in particular ways,
that is with certain combinations of drifts of varying lengths and kicks of different
strengths, it is possible to minimise the error for a given number of integration steps:
simply dividing a multipole into steps of equal length and applying kicks of equal strength
is not usually the best solution.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/DriftKickDrift.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Drift--kick--drift approximation for constructing a symplectic transfer map
for a multipole magnet.
\label{driftkickdrift}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Analysis techniques for nonlinear dynamics}
Power series maps are useful for particle tracking, but do not give much insight
into the dynamics of a given nonlinear system. To develop a deeper understanding
(for example, to determine the impact of individual resonances in a storage ring) more
powerful techniques are needed. There are two approaches that are widely used in
accelerator physics: perturbation theory \cite{goldstein2013,ruth1986a,ruth1986b},
and normal form analysis \cite{dragtfinn1979,neridragt1988,forest1998}. In both these
techniques, the goal is to construct a quantity that is invariant under application of
the transfer map. Unfortunately, in both cases the mathematics is complicated and
fairly cumbersome, and we do not discuss the details here. However, by way of
illustration, consider the case of a simple storage ring containing a
single sextupole in each periodic cell. Normal form analysis provides an expression
for the betatron action $J_x$ of a particle in terms of the phase $\phi_x$ in this case
\cite{wolski2014a}:
\begin{equation}
J_x \approx I_0 - \frac{k_2L}{8}(2\beta_x I_0)^{3/2}
\frac{\left(\cos(3\mu_x/2+2\phi_x) + \cos(\mu_x/2)\right)}{\sin(3\mu_x/2)} + O(I_0^2),
\label{normalformjx}
\end{equation}
where $I_0$ is a constant (an invariant of the motion), $\phi_x$ is the
angle variable, and $\mu_x$ is the phase advance per cell.
Recall that the cartesian variables $x$, $p_x$ are related to the action--angle
variables $J_x$, $\phi_x$ through Eqs.~(\ref{xfromjphi}) and (\ref{pxfromjphi}).
Note that the second term in the expression (\ref{normalformjx}) for $J_x$ becomes very
large when $\mu_x/2\pi$ is close to a third integer: this is the indication of a resonance. For
linear motion, the action will be constant. The sextupoles in the lattice introduce some
nonlinearity, which leads to a variation of the action as a particle moves around the ring
(i.e.~as the phase $\phi_x$ increases). The variation in the action becomes very large
close to a third-order resonance. Although higher-order resonances may also be driven
by the sextupoles, these are not shown in the expression in Eq.~(\ref{normalformjx}),
which is based on normal form analysis carried out only up to a given order.
The phase space distortion (related to the variation in the betatron action as a function
of angle) is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{normalformanalysisillustrated}. Results from particle
tracking (using a symplectic integrator) are shown as point on the plot; the variation in
the action described by normal form analysis in Eq.~(\ref{normalformjx}) is shown as
a solid line. Although there is not exact agreement, the normal form analysis does give
a reasonable description of the dynamics, at least at low amplitude. Very large distortions
(resulting from motion close to a resonance, or from a strongly-driven resonance, or at
large amplitude) are difficult to describe analytically.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
phase advance $\mu_x = 0.28\times 2\pi$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{figures/NormalFormAnalysis1.png}\vspace*{0.1in} \\
phase advance $\mu_x = 0.30\times 2\pi$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{figures/NormalFormAnalysis2.png}\vspace*{0.1in} \\
phase advance $\mu_x = 0.315\times 2\pi$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{figures/NormalFormAnalysis3.png}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between phase space portraits constructed by particle
tracking, and by application of normal-form analysis. Each plot shows the horizontal
phase space for a particle moving through a lattice with a single sextupole in each
periodic cell, with phase advance per cell equal to $\mu_x$. The points are calculated
by particle tracking, using a symplectic integrator. The lines are constructed from
Eq.~(\ref{normalformjx}), based on normal form analysis.
\label{normalformanalysisillustrated}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Tune shift with amplitude}
Close inspection of the plots in Fig.~\ref{normalformanalysisillustrated} reveals another
effect, in addition to the obvious distortion of the phase space ellipses:
the phase advance per turn (i.e.~the tune) varies with increasing
betatron amplitude. This effect is known simply as \emph{tune shift with amplitude}.
Normal form analysis and perturbation theory can both be used to obtain
estimates for the size of the tune shift with amplitude, in terms of the coefficients
of a series expansion for the tune in terms of the action:
\begin{equation}
\nu_x = \nu_{x0} + \left. \frac{\partial \nu_x}{\partial J_x} \right|_{J_x = 0} J_x +
\frac{1}{2} \left. \frac{\partial^2 \nu_x}{\partial J_x^2} \right|_{J_x = 0} J_x^2 + \ldots
\label{tuneshiftexpansion}
\end{equation}
Note that in general, the tune in each plane (transverse horizontal and vertical) depends
not just on the action in the corresponding plane, but also on the action in the opposite plane.
One consequence of the fact that the motion (under appropriate conditions) is symplectic is
that the horizontal tune shift with vertical amplitude is equal, or at least very close to,
the vertical tune shift with horizontal amplitude.
Where the nonlinearity in a storage ring arises from a single sextupole in each periodic cell,
the lowest order term in the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{tuneshiftexpansion}) is second-order in the action.
An octupole, however, does have a first-order tune shift with amplitude, given by:
\begin{equation}
\nu_x = \nu_{x0} + \frac{k_3L\beta_x^2}{16\pi}J_x + O(J_x^2),
\end{equation}
where $k_3L$ is the integrated strength of the octupole, integrated over the length of the octupole:
\begin{equation}
k_3L = \frac{q}{P_0} \int_0^{L} \frac{\partial^3 B_y}{\partial x^3} \, ds.
\end{equation}
The tune shift with amplitude in a storage ring with a single octupole per cell becomes obvious
if we construct a phase space portrait by tracking particles through a small number of cells: an
example (for 30 cells) is shown in Fig.~\ref{tuneshiftphasespaceportrait}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
$\mu_x = 0.330\times 2\pi$ & $\mu_x = 0.336\times 2\pi$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/OctPerturbTune330Turns30.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/OctPerturbTune336Turns30.png}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Tune shift with amplitude: the phase space portraits are constructed by tracking
particles with different betatron amplitudes through 30 periodic cells, with a single nonlinear
element (an octupole) in each cell. The phase advance per cell varies depending on the
betatron amplitude, and on the phase advance per cell in the limit of zero amplitude (shown
above each plot).
\label{tuneshiftphasespaceportrait}}
\end{figure}
Tune shift with amplitude helps to explain the ``islands'' that we observed appearing in the
phase space portraits for a storage ring with a single sextupole per periodic cell, see
Fig.~\ref{ps1}. The islands (closed loops around points away from the origin in phase space)
are associated with resonances, and appear at amplitudes where the phase advance is $2\pi$
times a simple ratio of two integers, and where the transfer map contains an appropriate driving
term for a resonance at the corresponding phase advance. The number of islands is
determined by the denominator of the ratio of integers, and the width of the islands depends
on the size of the tune shift with amplitude, and on the strength of the driving term.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[trim=0 10 0 10,clip,width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/phase_space_ncells_1_Q0p244.png} &
\includegraphics[trim=0 10 0 10,clip,width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/Tunes_ncells_1_Q0p244.png}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Phase space portrait (left) and horizontal tunes as a function of the initial particle action (right) for a one-turn map consisting of an octupole magnet and a linear map tuned to a phase advance of $\mu_x=0.244\times 2\pi$.
\label{octupole4thorder}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[trim=0 10 0 10,clip,width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/phase_space_ncells_1_Q0p328.png} &
\includegraphics[trim=0 10 0 10,clip,width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/Tunes_ncells_1_Q0p328.png}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Phase space portrait (left) and horizontal tunes as a function of the initial particle action (right) for a one-turn map consisting of a sextupole magnet, an octupole magnet and a linear map tuned to a phase advance of $\mu_x=0.328\times 2\pi$.
\label{sextupoleoctupole3rdorder}}
\end{figure}
For example, if we consider a one-turn map with a single octupole magnet and a linear map
tuned for a phase advance close to a $4^\textrm{th}$ order resonance, we observe four stable islands
in the phase space as shown in Fig.~\ref{octupole4thorder} (left). The tune shift with amplitude is
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{octupole4thorder} (right), showing the tunes of the tracked particles as a
function of their initial action ($2J_x$). Particles with small amplitude have tunes below the resonance.
For large amplitudes, particles have tunes above the resonance and their tunes increase linearly
with action. Particles trapped in the resonances islands have (on average) a tune locked to the
resonance condition. As mentioned above, the width of the resonance islands depends on the
tune shift with amplitude and on the resonance strength. This is also demonstrated in another
case, where we consider a one-turn map consisting of a sextupole, an octupole and
a linear map tuned to a phase advance of $\mu_x=0.328\times 2\pi$
(i.e.~close to the $3^\textrm{rd}$ order resonance) as shown in Fig.~\ref{sextupoleoctupole3rdorder}.
Here the phase space exhibits three stable islands. Note that the octupole induces a
large tune shift with amplitude, which stabilises the particle motion at the
resonance as it moves the particle tune out of the resonance for increasing amplitudes.
For comparison, without the octupole and thus with a much smaller tune shift
with amplitude, particles get lost at the same resonance as we have seen in Fig.~\ref{ps1}.
\section{Dynamic aperture and Frequency Map Analysis}
The techniques we have mentioned for the analysis of nonlinear effects, perturbation theory
and normal form analysis, are based on the existence of constants of motion in the presence
of nonlinear perturbations. For linear motion in accelerators, there are constants of motion
given by the action variables; for example, in the horizontal plane:
\begin{equation}
2J_x = \gamma_x x^2 + 2\alpha_x x p_x + \beta_x p_x^2.
\end{equation}
In a periodic lattice, the Courant--Snyder parameters have the same periodicity as the lattice
itself, and the action $J_x$ remains constant as a particle moves along the beamline. When
nonlinear components are present (e.g.~sextupoles) then the betatron action can vary
with position; but normal form analysis may still identify constants of the motion. An example
is the quantity $I_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{normalformjx}).
It is not obvious, however, that constants of motion can exist in the presence of nonlinear
perturbations. The fact that they can is a consequence of the \emph{Kolmogorov--Arnold--Moser
(KAM) theorem} \cite{arnold1989}. The KAM theorem expresses the general conditions for the existence of
constants of motion in nonlinear Hamiltonian systems, and is of particular significance in
accelerator beam dynamics since it tells us that resonances do not invariably result in the
immediate loss of stability. Resonances will usually tend to drive the amplitudes of particles
with a particular tune to large amplitudes; however, if the tune shift with amplitude is
sufficiently large, then it is possible for there to be a region of stable motion in phase space
at amplitudes significantly larger than that at which resonance occurs. In simple terms,
the resonance occurs over a limited range of betatron amplitudes: at lower or larger amplitudes,
the tune shift with amplitude moves the particle motion away from the resonance, meaning
that the motion can again be stable. However, the overlapping of two resonances is associated
with a transition from regular to chaotic motion, which is certainly associated with instability.
The parameter range over which the particle motion becomes chaotic is described by the
\emph{Chirikov criterion} \cite{chirikov1979}.
We have so far focused on motion in one degree of freedom. In that case (for example, in
the phase space portraits shown in Fig.~\ref{ps1}) instability occurred when the oscillation
amplitude exceeded a certain value. In multiple degrees of freedom, a new phenomenon
occurs: \emph{Arnold diffusion} \cite{arnold1964}. This refers to the fact that there can be regions of phase space
where motion with large amplitude is stable (associated with the existence of constants of the
motion), while regions of chaotic motion exist at \emph{smaller} amplitudes. In storage rings,
for example, this means that particle trajectories with initially small amplitudes can be unstable,
even if trajectories with much larger amplitudes are stable.
One way of studying Arnold diffusion in dynamical systems is through the use of
\emph{frequency map analysis} (FMA) \cite{laskar1990, laskar1994}. This applies a technique
known as ``numerical analysis
of the Fourier frequencies'' to particle tracking data, either from a simulation or collected experimentally,
to determine with high precision the tunes associated with different particle trajectories.
The strengths of different resonances can be seen by plotting points in
tune space, with diffusion rates shown by different colours: an example for the Advanced Light Source
(ALS) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fma_als}. The FMA
reveals several properties of the nonlinear dynamics in a very visual way, such as
the detuning with amplitude, the onset of chaos in co-ordinate space and the corresponding
areas in tune space, resonances crossed by the tune footprint, areas of large diffusion, and so on.
The boundary of the stable region in co-ordinate space is known as the
\emph{dynamic aperture}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.69\textwidth]{figures/FMA_ALS.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Example of frequency map analysis for the Advanced Light Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, obtained from analysis of particle tracking data \cite{laskar2003}.
\label{fma_als}}
\end{figure}
A large dynamic aperture is needed both for good efficiency of injection of the beam
into a storage ring, and for good lifetime of the stored beam. Although the beam may be
much smaller than the dynamic aperture, scattering processes within the beam can result
in particles acquiring large amplitude betatron or synchrotron oscillation amplitudes, which
may take them outside the dynamic aperture. When that happens, the particles will be lost
from the machine. Achieving sufficiently large dynamic aperture is typically one of the biggest
challenges in the design of modern light sources, due to their inherent strong nonlinearities.
\begin{comment}
Usually, it is not the increase in betatron oscillation amplitude that leads
to the loss of stored particles, but the increase in energy deviation that is often the result of
a scattering event. Since the dynamic aperture shrinks with increasing energy deviation,
particles with large energy deviation can be lost from the machine even if their betatron
oscillation amplitudes are small. At sufficiently large energy deviation, the dynamic aperture
shrinks effectively to zero: this limit on the energy deviation is known as the \emph{dynamic
energy acceptance}, and is separate from other limits on the energy deviation from (for
example) the RF system.
In low-emittance electron storage rings, beam lifetime is often limited by the dynamic energy
acceptance. Since the dominant scattering process leading to the loss of particles from the beam
in such machines is Touschek scattering, the lifetime limitation is referred to as the Touschek
lifetime. The RF voltage is often set to provide an RF acceptance (maximum energy deviation for
particles performing regular synchrotron oscillations) of around 4\%, but it can be difficult to
achieve a dynamic energy acceptance as large as that, so the Touschek lifetime is usually
determined by the dynamic energy acceptance.
It is possible to measure the dynamic energy acceptance in a low-emittance electron storage
ring by observing the variation of beam lifetime with RF voltage: an example, for the case of
CesrTA, is shown in Fig.~\ref{energyacceptance} \cite{palmer2009}. At large voltages, such
that the RF acceptance is large compared to the dynamic energy acceptance, reducing the
RF voltage has no significant impact on the overall energy acceptance. However, the reduction
in voltage reduces the longitudinal focusing, resulting in an increase in bunch length, which
reduces the rate of Touschek scattering and leads to some \emph{increase} in beam lifetime.
At some point, however, the RF acceptance starts to fall below the dynamic energy acceptance,
and further reduction in the RF voltage leads to an increased rate of loss of particles from the
machine. The Touschek lifetime is therefore a maximum when the RF acceptance and dynamic
energy acceptance are equal. Since it is straightforward to calculate the RF acceptance, this
allows an experimental determination of the dynamic energy acceptance, which can be compared
with computer models.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figures/LifetimeVsRFVoltage.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Touschek lifetime as a function of RF voltage in CesrTA \cite{palmer2009}. The
maximum lifetime is achieved when the RF acceptance and the dynamic energy acceptance
are equal. The different curves in the plot are generated by a model for different values of
the dynamic energy acceptance and the vertical emittance: the experimental data points are
best fit by a value of 32\,pm for the vertical emittance, and 0.72\% for the dynamic energy
acceptance.
\label{energyacceptance}}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\section{Summary and further reading\label{summary}}
The effects of nonlinear dynamics impact a wide variety of accelerator systems, including
single-pass systems (such as bunch compressors) and multi-turn systems (such as storage
rings). It is possible to model nonlinear dynamics in a given component or section of
accelerator beamline by representing the transfer map as a power series. Power series
provide a convenient (explicit) representation of a transfer map for modelling nonlinear
effects and and for simple analysis of nonlinear dynamics in accelerators. However,
nonlinear transformations associated with particular accelerator components can usually
only be represented with complete accuracy by power series with an infinite number of
terms: in practice, it is necessary to truncate the power series, i.e.~to drop terms above
some order in the dynamical variables.
Conservation of phase space volumes, expressed in Liouville's theorem, is an important feature
of the beam dynamics in many systems; one example is the conservation of the beam emittances
(in the absence of synchrotron radiation and certain collective effects). To conserve phase
space volumes, transfer maps must be symplectic; but in general, truncated power series maps
are not symplectic. There are alternative representations that guarantee symplecticity, but
these representations are usually less convenient. For example, while power series maps are
explicit in that they require only the substitution of values into given expressions, symplectic
maps are often implicit, requiring the numerical solution of a set of equations each time they
are applied. Techniques do exist, however, that allow the construction of a symplectic transfer map in
an explicit form. An example is the ``drift--kick--drift'' approximation for a multipole magnet.
A map constructed using such a technique is known as an explicit symplectic integrator.
Common features of nonlinear dynamics in accelerators include phase space
distortion, tune shifts with amplitude, resonances, and instability of particle
trajectories at large amplitudes (limits on dynamic aperture and energy acceptance).
Analytical methods such as perturbation theory and normal form analysis
can be used to estimate the impact of nonlinear perturbations in terms
of quantities such as resonance strengths and tune shift with amplitude.
Analytical studies are often supported by tracking simulations and by numerical
techniques, such as frequency map analysis, that can provide powerful tools for
characterising effects of nonlinear dynamics in accelerators, including tune shifts
and resonance strengths. Understanding (and correcting, where necessary and possible)
nonlinear effects in accelerators is important for optimising their performance, for example
in achieving a good beam lifetime in a storage ring.
As we mentioned in the introduction, there are many publications that cover the material
discussed in these notes. Linear optics, and some of the general principles and techniques
of nonlinear dynamics, are covered in (for example) \cite{sylee2011, wolski2014, wiedemann2015}.
Many of the tools of nonlinear dynamics are based on standard techniques in classical
mechanics: this includes the use of mixed-variable generating functions for the representation
of symplectic maps, and canonical perturbation theory. Such methods are widely covered in
standard text on classical mechanics, for example \cite{goldstein2013, handfinch1999}.
Perturbation theory
applied to accelerator physics is discussed in \cite{ruth1986a, ruth1986b, peggstalman1986}.
Normal form analysis has proved a powerful tool in many situations, and is developed in
\cite{dragtfinn1979, neridragt1988, forest1998}. Symplectic integration is an important
topic in nonlinear dynamics in accelerators, and is discussed in
\cite{ruth1983, forest2006, forestruth1990, yoshida1990}; a more general text is
\cite{hairer2006}. Frequency map analysis is reviewed and discussed in
\cite{laskar1994, laskar1995, laskar2003, papaphilippou2014}.
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent push towards novel miniaturized applications (\emph{e.g.}, small scale sensors, actuators, printed circuit elements \emph{etc.}) has resulted in the pursuit of new technologies capable of manufacturing damage-free, device-grade microarchitectures. For example, a recent combination of laser exposure and chemical etching was used to produce glass microparts and two photon lithography was applied for polymer microprinting with nanoscale resolution \cite{Lenssen.2012, Meza.2015}. In case of metals, unfortunately, the typical additive manufacturing-based 3D printing methods such as selective laser sintering, direct/laser metal deposition and metal powder bed fusion lack the resolution to fabricate micron-to-meso scale complex metal samples \cite{SLM, Karunakaran.2012, BEAM, Beiker.2014}. A common problem with 3D printing in general is that due to the sequential printing of components each sample has potentially a different microstructure and distribution of manufacturing flaws. This requires usually a statistically significant number of samples to be analyzed to gain an in-depth understanding of the process. Furthermore, most micromechanical testing studies rely on samples prepared using laser, ion beam, reactive ion etching \emph{etc}. leading to a damaged surface layer that influences the deformation behavior \cite{Kiener.2007, Gigax.2019}. Recent reviews highlight the few techniques that are available for manufacturing small-scale metal samples, including traditional FIB milling, template-based electrodeposition and a few recent additive micromanufacturing techniques \cite{Daryadel.2019, Reiser.2020}.
The template assisted electrodeposition (TAE) fabrication method is a two-step process that involves fabricating a polymer/anodic aluminium oxide (AAO) negative mold with holes of the microarchitectures and subsequent electroplating into small-scale orifices and stripping of the mold. Recently, Schürch \emph{et al.} showed that this method could be successfully used on arrays of nanocrystalline micropillars and microsprings \cite{Schurch.2020}. Though it is a unique method of metal microarchitecture manufacturing, it is a multi-step process of high complexity that severely limits the design freedom \cite{Greer.2015}.
Additive micromanufacturing (\mcr AM) typically involves delivery of metals using a hollow microcantilever (lithography made silicon or stretched glass micropipette), with a shape similar to an atomic force microscopy (AFM) tip, with a nanoscale aperture. Further, there are two broad classifications in the techniques available for the out-of-plane growth of these metal microvoxels, namely the i) two-step colloidal ink direct writing method that involves a thermal annealing step after writing and ii) electrochemical methods that use electrochemical reduction of metal ions for direct metal writing. Electrochemical methods, such as meniscus confined electrodeposition, in-liquid electrodeposition and electrohydrodynamic redox printing, are preferred, as they provide dense and crystalline metal microarchitectures directly, without any post-print processing. There are a few recent studies on using these technologies to create simple, metal microarchitectures such as micropillars with sample dimensions ranging from $\sim$1 \mcr m to $\sim$10 \mcr m \cite{Gu.2012, Moestopo.2020}. Specifically, Daryadel \emph{et al.} have used a meniscus-confined pulsed electrodeposition method to create nanotwinned copper micropillars of $\sim$700 nm diameter \cite{Daryadel.2018, Daryadel.2020}. Similarly, Raiser \emph{et al.} have reported the fabrication of sub-micron scale ($\sim$400 nm diameter) multi-metal pillars using electrohydrodynamic redox printing \cite{Reiser.2019}. In addition, it should be noted that several of these studies report metal structures with rough sidewalls and non-flat tops, which are non-ideal for mechanical characterization.
A core reason to develop \mcr AM is the envisioned use of the fabricated microscale parts in real-life applications. In such applications, the microscale parts are expected to withstand a variety of stress-strains, including vibrations, drops, thermal expansions, external impacts, and penetrations. These requirements demand an extensive exploration of rate-dependent, micromechanical properties from quasi-static strain rates, up to $\sim$1000 s$^{-1}$ (to simulate impacts) on these small parts \cite{Jennings.2011, Raj.2019}. As such, mechanical properties of metals with different microstructures and defect structures such as ultrafine grain, coarse grain, nanotwinned and nanocrystalline have been of considerable interest over the last few decades \cite{Mieszala.2016}. Surely, in the macroscale mechanics community there is a plethora of information available on the quasi-static and high strain rate properties of microstructure-dependent mechanical properties of metals \cite{Jia.2001}. Meanwhile, the micromechanical properties of metals (characteristic dimension $<$10 \mcr m) that are typically ascertained using micropillar compression or microtensile tests have been limited to quasi-static strain rates \cite{Guillonneau.2018}. Therefore, the experimental quantification of the mechanical properties of metals at the microscale remain largely unexplored at strain rates above 0.1 s$^{-1}$ \cite{Jennings.2011, Raj.2016, Raj.2018, Li.2020}. Recently, the authors of this study reported the micromechanical properties of fused silica, bulk metallic glass and polymer micropillars at strain rates up to 1000 s$^{-1}$ using a piezo-based testing platform \cite{Raj.2019, Raj.2021}. There are also a small number of other recent key studies on epoxy\cite{Rueda.2020}, single crystal copper \cite{Breumier.2020} and magnesium micropillars \cite{Lin.2021} conducted at strain rates up to 100 s$^{-1}$ and nanoindentation of coarse-grained aluminium and nanocrystalline nickel performed at indentation strain rates up to 100 s$^{-1}$ \cite{Merle.2020}.
The mechanical properties of copper with a variety of microstructure (microcrystalline (MC), ultra-fine grained (UFG), nanocrystalline and nanotwinned) have been studied extensively in the literature \cite{Jennings.2011, Raj.2019} at both macro- and microscale \cite{Wimmer.2014, Kim.2011, Valiev.1994}. In this study, we specifically focus on the mechanical properties of UFG and MC copper. Several macroscale mechanical studies have reported both the quasi-static and dynamic properties of UFG and MC copper across several orders of strain rate magnitude from 0.0001 s$^{-1}$ to 3000 s$^{-1}$ \cite{Wimmer.2014}. In general, all these macroscopic studies report a low strain rate sensitivity upto a strain rate of ~1000 s$^{-1}$ and a sudden increase of strain rate sensitivity at even higher strain rates owing to dislocation drag in copper \cite{Jia.2001, Andrade.1994}. But a critical point to note in these studies is that the experiments are typically conducted only between strain rates of 0.001 s$^{-1}$ till 0.1 s$^{-1}$ (through the application of universal testing systems) and at strain rates of 1000 s$^{-1}$ and higher (using Kolsky bars and split-Hopkinson pressure bars). Meaning there is usually a gap in strain rates between 0.1 s$^{-1}$ and 1000s$^{-1}$ where no experimental data is available \cite{Jia.2001, Gray.1997}. This is owing to the lack of instrumentation available to explore these strain rates, though a few servo-hydraulic systems have been designed to address this issue \cite{Oosterkamp.2000, Huh.2009}. As such, the mechanical properties of UFG and MC copper have not been established conclusively in this intermediate strain rate regime. In addition, due to the lack of consistency in microstructure/density across large macroscale samples, sensitive transitions in strain rate sensitivity can be missed \cite{Raj.2021, Xiao.2021}. To this effect, we chose micropillar-based compression testing with consistent local microstructure to investigate the mechanical properties of UFG and MC copper across a wide range of strain rates.
We report here the additive micromanufacturing of copper micropillars and a thorough investigation of their microstructural and mechanical properties as a function of application-relevant strain rates. Samples were fabricated with a \mcr AM technique that uses localized electroplating and \emph{in situ} voxel completion detection \cite{Ercolano.2020}. The copper micropillars were fabricated with a cylindrical dogbone geometry with flat tops, making them ideal test beds for mechanical characterization \cite{Frenzel.2016}. Subsequently, using a recently developed piezo-based micromechanical testing platform (Alemnis AG), the rate- and microstructure- dependent compressive properties of these copper micropillars were identified across five orders of magnitude in strain rate from $\sim$0.001 s$^{-1}$ to $\sim$500 s$^{-1}$.
\section{Material and Methods}
\subsection{3D printing of copper micropillars}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig1.jpg}
\caption{a) \mcr AM of metal micropillars using the localized and force-controlled electroplating technique in three-electrode cell configuration. A copper voxel grows underneath a suspended tip that expels copper ions. Voxel completion leads to a tip-voxel interaction that is registered by an optical beam detection system. (Abbreviations: WE - working electrode; RE - reference electrode; CE - counter electrode). b) 3D sketch of the printing process. Inset shows the resulting micropillar.}
\label{fig:01}
\end{figure*}
Metal microarchitectures reported in this study were made by \mcr AM via a localized force-controlled electroplating technique using the CERES system (Exaddon AG, Switzerland). As shown by the schematics in Figure \ref{fig:01}, a hollow silicon nitride AFM tip is immersed in a standard three-cell electrochemical cell and the precursor copper ions are fed through the tip. The local ion supply confines the electrochemical reduction to the desired surface area of the working electrode. Initially, the tip is kept at a chosen distance (termed the voxel height) from the substrate, locally plating the metal. The metal deposition proceeds, until the metal deposit reaches the tip. The deposit interacts with the tip and slightly bends the cantilever up. An optical beam deflection system measures this deflection. As soon as a preset deflection threshold is reached (typically in the order of 1 nm), the voxel is considered complete, and the tip is moved to the next voxel coordinate. There is no post-processing done and the process is performed at room temperature. A detailed description of \mcr AM and its advantages over other techniques is given elsewhere \cite{Ercolano.2020b}. The air pressure that is used to expel the copper ion solution from the tip is variable and was used to control the lateral voxel size \cite{Frenzel.2016}. For the dogbone micropillars in this study, a tip with a 300-nm-diameter opening (Iontip, Exaddon AG, Switzerland) was used at a pressure range of 50 mbar to 200 mbar. Each dogbone is built up out of 104 voxels and the mean printing time of a pillar was $61 \pm 1$ s over the whole $10 \times 10$ array.
The copper micropillar array was fabricated with a spacing between the micropillars ideal for mechanical testing. In addition, the dogbone shape of the micropillars was chosen to avoid errors in the mechanical tests due to the rounding of the micropillars in the top, as shown in previous literature \cite{Reiser.2020}. The levelled top makes the pillars ideally suitable for compression testing with a diamond flat-punch \cite{Schurch.2020}. Supplementary Figure S1 clearly show the advantages of using \mcr AM, such as the well-defined shape and dimensions of the micropillars along with their reproducibility over a 100-pillar array. In addition, elemental analysis was conducted using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) mapping on a copper micropillar. The analysis confirms that the pillars have no additives/impurities and have no inhomogeneity in the distribution of chemical elements, like boundary segregation of elements (Supplementary Figure S2).
The chemical composition used for this study consists of two solutions. The first is the conductive liquid that is present in the three-electrode cell as shown in Figure \ref{fig:01}. The conductive liquid is a 54 mM solution of sulfuric acid with 0.5 mM hydrochloric acid. The bath volume is about 40 ml. The printing electrolyte is 0.5 M copper sulphate solution in a 51 mM sulfuric acid solution with 0.48 mM of hydrochloric acid. The printing electrolyte is inserted into a small reservoir present in the consumable holder of the tip. The total volume of electrolyte in the reservoir is 1 \mcr l. The flow of electrolyte through the tip during printing is estimated to be $2 - 20$ fl s$^{-1}$.
\subsection{Micromechanical testing}
The micropillar compression was conducted using an \emph{in situ} micromechanical testing system (Alemnis AG, Switzerland) inside a Zeiss DSM 962 SEM. The system uses a piezostack-based actuator that can be moved with a maximum speed of $\sim$ 8 mm$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. For the quasi-static studies (strain rate $\leq$ 0.1 s$^{-1}$), a typical strain gage-based load cell was used to capture the forces. At higher strain rates, a piezoelectric load cell with a much higher stiffness ($k_{\textrm{HSR}}\sim 2.5 \times 10^{7}$ N$\cdot$m$^{-1}$) was used instead of the strain gage-based load cell ($k_{\textrm{QS}}\sim 2 \times 10^{5}$ N$\cdot$m$^{-1}$) to avoid ringing artifacts during high-speed movements. High fidelity load and displacement signals were captured using a support hardware, capable of a sampling rate of 1 MHz. A more detailed description of the testing system is mentioned in Ref. \cite{Raj.2021}.
\subsection{EBSD-based microstructural analysis of copper micropillars}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig2.jpg}
\caption{EBSD results measured on undeformed pillars with a) MC and b) UFG grain sizes and the corresponding deformed cases at a strain rate of 0.1 s$^{-1}$ shown in d) and e) with similar microstructure. Grayscale plots present band contrast (BC) values highlighting the grain structure, while colored lines mark the detected grain boundaries (GB); red: $\Sigma$3 twin, blue: $\Sigma$9 twin, azure: HAGB ($>$ 10$^{\circ}$), yellow: LAGB (1$^{\circ}$ -- 10$^{\circ}$). Yellow rectangle surrounds the gage section used for statistical analysis. Inverse pole figure (IPF) color maps show the corresponding orientation, while the inset IPF triangles plot the orientation of the grains only in the gage section. c) and f) plot the relative frequencies (provided in terms of percentage of total grain number within a specified size interval) of detected grain diameters in the gage sections of the pillars. The minimum area was set to 10 pixels and the grain distinction threshold was defined as 10$^{\circ}$ misorientation. The histogram class width is 0.05 \mcr m. Secondary electron images (SEI) show topological features on the surface of the pillars. Scale bar corresponds to 2 \mcr m.}
\label{fig:02}
\end{figure*}
To investigate the initial microstructure prior to deformation, two samples were isolated from the Si substrate by the lift-out process (Figure \ref{fig:02} a, b). For the process, a Tescan Vela Ga$^+$ focused ion beam (FIB) SEM was used. The SEM was equipped with an Orsay Physics Pt gas injection system. The full process is shown in Supplementary Figure S14. First, a platinum cap was deposited on top of each pillar to reduce damage from consecutive FIB imaging. Then a trench around the pillar was milled, while the substrate material redeposited around the sample. This redeposition created a second protective layer that conserved well the inner structure for further measurements. After the needle of an Omniprobe nanomanipulator was attached to the sample, the final FIB cut was made, and the pillars were attached to the side of a TEM sample holder by Pt deposition.
Afterwards, the samples were measured in a Tescan Lyra3 FIB-SEM that was equipped with an Oxford Instruments Symmetry EBSD camera. In this system the vacuum chamber is specially designed to allow FIB milling and EBSD measurement without moving the sample \cite{Kalacska.2020}. This static setup allowed us to carefully monitor the progress of the FIB cross sectioning with a 30 kV, 0.6 nA rough beam and prepare multiple parallel FIB cuts to study several cross sections of the same sample. Before the final cut, the current was reduced to 65 pA and the subsequent EBSD measurement was performed with a 20 kV, 7 nA electron beam. The mapping step size was $30 - 40$ nm, while diffraction patterns were recorded with a $2 \times 2$ binning. Data analysis was performed with HKL Tango and Mambo (v.5.12).
HR-EBSD evaluation was conducted on the deformed samples to estimate stress localization along the pillars. HR-EBSD utilizes a cross-correlation-based image analysis on the collected diffraction patterns \cite{Britton.2011}. For $\sigma_{33}$ a traction-free boundary condition was assumed \cite{Wilkinson.2006}. This simplification is justified by the small information volume from which diffraction patterns originate. The depth of the surface from where the electrons scatter and reach the EBSD detector is in the order of 20 - 50 nm\cite{Chen.2011}, therefore the stress tensor components directed outwards of the surface plane must equal to zero. In each grain a reference pattern was chosen based on the lowest kernel average misorientation (KAM) value, which is associated with a lower stress level. Each pixel within the grains was related to these reference patterns, therefore the scales are relative. For the HR-EBSD analysis, BLG Vantage CrossCourt v4 was used. As this technique requires a high-quality reference diffraction pattern from each grain, areas with low image quality were removed from the evaluation. Because of this, only the sample with the biggest grains was studied this way. Note that if a reference pattern with the lowest KAM value is not related to the minimal stress state, all stress values in that grain will appear abnormally high (as demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:04} on one grain in the top left corner).
\subsection{EDS-based chemical analysis of copper micropillars}
EDS characterization was performed on Sample 1 (Figure \ref{fig:02}a) using an Oxford Instruments Ultim Max 65 detector with a 20 kV electron beam. The identified chemical maps are shown in Supplementary Figure S2. The micropillar itself has a homogeneous Cu distribution, only a slight curtaining effect from FIB milling is visible in the Cu K$\alpha$ map. Due to the lift-out procedure, Ga, Pt and Si from the substrate was deposited around the pure copper pillar. C is only present on the surface of the sample, which possibly originated from the precursor gas for Pt deposition prior to FIB milling, as its distribution is consistent with the Pt M$\alpha$ map. The presence of O was estimated to be less than 0.2 wt\% inside the pillar, which is close to the detection limit for this technique. The presence of Cl or S was not detected in the manufactured samples, that could have originated from the bath. It is noted that EDS at this scale is not suitable to address boundary segregation issues, and the technique was only applied to get a larger scale overview and to support the homogeneous nature of the samples.
\subsection{TKD and TEM-based microstructure characterization}
TKD and TEM measurements were taken on deformed micropillars, after typical lamella thinning was carried out using sequential FIB polishing starting from 30 kV 0.9 nA decreasing to the final 5 kV 70 pA milling. TKD analysis was performed using 30 kV 16 nA electron beam in a Tescan Lyra3 SEM. Higher resolution imaging was performed on a transmission electron microscope (JEM 2200fs, JEOL, Japan) at 200 kV operated in both projection (TEM) and scanning probe (STEM) modes.
\subsection{FEM-based analysis}
A FEM-based thermal analysis was conducted by COMSOL Multiphysics software 5.5 to understand the extent of adiabatic heating in the micropillars based on the power input during a high strain rate test. The modelling was set up on a circular Cu pillar on a Si substrate. The plastic dissipation was modelled as volumetric heat source in the pillar's gage section (257756.6 MJ$\cdot $m$^{-3}\cdot s^{-1}$)\cite{Kapoor.1998} with a duration of 1 ms (similar to the experiment). Boundaries in the half space below were modelled as constant temperature boundaries, where the radius was 5 times larger than the pillar's base radius. Free boundaries were modelled as insulating boundaries with no radiation. The top boundary (in contact with the indenter) was modelled as either insulating boundary (upper bound) or constant temperature boundary (lover bound). Further discussion on the simulation can be found in Supplementary Section SS6.
In order to see the effect of the dogbone shape on the elastic stress distribution and deformation behaviour of the micropillars, an axisymmetric simulation was prepared using the actual dimensions of the samples. The elastic moduli were set to $E_{Cu}=110$ GPa, $E_{Si}=170$ GPa, and Poisson's ratios of $\nu_{Cu}=0.35$ and $\nu_{Si}=0.28$ were selected from COMSOL's standard materials' library. The geometry was meshed with 11223 domain elements and 512 boundary elements. Boundaries were fixed at the bottom and on the side of the Si block, while a displacement of 50 nm was imposed at the top of the pillar. Other boundaries were defined as free boundaries. Filet radius was determined as 2.46 $\mu$m shown in Supplementary Figure 15.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Rate-dependent compressive properties of copper micropillar up to 500 s$^{-1}$}
An array of pristine copper micropillars was 3D printed using the \mcr AM technique (Figure \ref{fig:01}). The microstructural and chemical analyses on these copper micropillars were conducted using EBSD and EDS, respectively. For the EBSD (Figure \ref{fig:02}) and EDS experiments (Supplementary Figure S2), pillars were lifted out using focused ion beam (FIB)-based milling and placed on a TEM holder (Supplementary Figure S14). Longitudinal cross sections were then cut approximately along the middle of the pillars, and measurements were conducted to characterize the grain boundaries and sizes. Two distinct microstructures were identified in the gage section, namely the microcrystalline (MC, Sample 1, Figure \ref{fig:02}a) and the ultrafine grained (UFG, Sample 2, Figure \ref{fig:02}b) type. The MC pillar is dominated by twin boundaries, while the UFG case mainly has high angle grain boundaries (HAGBs) throughout the gage section (Supplementary Table ST1). Grain size histograms in Figure \ref{fig:02}c reveal that the UFG micropillar has a smaller average grain size ($\sim$170 nm) in the gage section than the MC pillar (with average grain size $\sim$410 nm in diameter). It should be noted that the difference in microstructure (MC and UFG) is due to statistical variations in the neighboring polycrystalline environment during the localized electrodeposition-based 3D printing of micropillars (Supplementary Section SS1: Microstructure variations).
The copper micropillars were then compressed inside an SEM at a wide variety of strain rates from $\sim$0.001 s$^{-1}$ to $\sim$500 s$^{-1}$. The EBSD-based microstructural analysis of the micropillars deformed at 0.1 s$^{-1}$ strain rate are shown in Figure \ref{fig:02}d, e and f. The MC and UFG deformed specimens (Figure \ref{fig:02}d and e), respectively) show similar grain boundary and size characteristics to their non-deformed equivalents. Furthermore, before and after deformation no preferential texture could be identified in the UFG samples (Supplementary Figure S3).
The representative stress-strain curves of the copper micropillars compressed at different strain rates are summarized in Figure \ref{fig:03}. As expected, the microstructure, MC or UFG, has a strong influence on the rate-dependent compressive properties of copper micropillars. (Figure \ref{fig:03}a and \ref{fig:03}b).
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3.jpg}
\caption{Representative stress-strain curves of copper micropillars with a) MC and b) UFG microstructure with insets of SEM images of copper micropillars before and after deformation (scale bars: 2 \mcr m). c) Extracted yield stress values of copper micropillars as a function of strain rate. The deformation mechanisms postulated for the MC and UFG cases at different strain rate regimes are schematically represented. Insets: Schematic of the hypothesized rate and grain-size dependent deformation mechanisms in copper micropillars.}
\label{fig:03}
\end{figure*}
The MC copper micropillars deform in a single shear-like manner, as seen from the SEM image of the deformed pillar in the inset of Figure \ref{fig:03}a: reminiscent of deformation in single-crystal metal micropillars (Supplementary Video V1 and V3 – MC pillars compressed at strain rates 0.1 s$^{-1}$ and 500 s$^{-1}$) \cite{Imrich.2014}. It is noted that typical micromechanical studies have been conducted on both electrodeposited and FIB-made metal micropillars, with a variety of microstructures including single crystalline \cite{Kiener.2011}, organized twins \cite{Jang.2012} and nanocrystalline \cite{Okamoto.2014}. However, pristine FIB-damage free MC metal micropillars with only a few grains across the diameter, according to our knowledge, have neither been previously fabricated nor mechanically characterized \cite{Kiener.2007, Kiener.2008}. In addition, by conducting rate-dependent micropillar compression tests up to a strain rate of $\sim$500 s$^{-1}$, we observed that the MC micropillars show a weak strain rate dependency (Figure \ref{fig:03}a). Furthermore, during plastic deformation the MC micropillar keeps slipping on the same plane until large surface steps appear and only part of the micropillar top remains attached to the bottom half. In the stress-strain curves shown in Figure \ref{fig:03}a and Supplementary Figure S6, this loss in contact area during plastic deformation manifests itself as softening at large strains above $\sim$20\%, which is especially prominent at lower strain rates.
On the other extreme, UFG copper micropillars deform in a coherent barreling manner, as representatively shown in the inset of Figure \ref{fig:03}b, at all strain rates (Supplementary Videos V2 and V4 – UFG pillars compressed at strain rates 0.1 s$^{-1}$ and 500 s$^{-1}$). The barreling deformation mode is typical of UFG and nanocrystalline metals and has been reported previously in literature \cite{Zhang.2013}. From the rate-dependent stress-strain signatures of UFG copper from $\sim$0.001 s$^{-1}$ to $\sim$500 s$^{-1}$ (Figure \ref{fig:02}b), we identified that this material shows strong rate-dependency at lower strain rates up to $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$ and gets progressively weaker at higher strain rates. In addition, the stress-strain curves exhibit a gradual transition from elastic-to-plastic regime, an indicative sign of inhomogeneous stress distribution in UFG metals due to the microstructural heterogeneity \cite{Rajagopalan.2010}. Similar, grain size dependent deformation behavior in micropillars have been previously identified in copper, tantalum and platinum \cite{Wimmer.2014, Yang.2021, Gu.2012}.
It should be noted that a few samples with intermediate grain size were also identified, resulting in a mixed mode of compressive behavior combining both the characteristics of shear-like and barreling deformation modes (Supplementary Section SS2: Figure S4 and S5, Supplementary Table ST2 and Supplementary Video V5). Due to such ambiguous nature of mixed mode deformation, the current study focuses on pillars that exhibit single-shear like and barreling deformation \emph{i.e.}, with pure MC and UFG microstructure. The differentiation between the three distinct cases of deformation, single-shear like, barreling and mixed mode, is based on the HRSEM inspection of the shape of the deformed pillars.
To confirm the trends of rate-sensitivity quantitatively, the strain rate sensitivity factor $m$ was calculated using the extracted yield strength ($\sigma$) at 2 \% offset strain at different strain rates ($\dot{\varepsilon}$) based on Equation \ref{eq_01} below:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_01}
m = \frac{\partial \ln \sigma}{\partial \ln \dot{\varepsilon}}
\end{equation}
The yield stress as a function of strain rate is shown in Figure \ref{fig:03}c (Table ST3: comprehensive extracted yield data set). The criterion of 2\% offset strain was chosen, instead of the classical 0.2\% offset strain, in order to systematically avoid errors in yield determination arising from microplasticity in polycrystals due to heterogeneous deformation \cite{Brandstetter.2006}. The MC copper pillars exhibit a relatively low $m$ value of $0.021 \pm 0.008$ and the rate sensitivity does not change across all studied strain rates. On the other hand, UFG copper micropillars show a higher $m$ value of $0.059 \pm 0.006$ compared to the MC copper micropillars, up to a strain rate of $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$. Similarly, a previous macroscopic study by Mao \emph{et al.}\cite{Mao.2018} showed that the strain rate sensitivity of copper increases with decreasing grain size (varied between 90 \mcr m to 500 nm) and this effect is more prominent at strain rates where the viscous drag is minimal (below $\sim$1000 s$^{-1}$. Previously reported strain rate sensitivities for UFG copper based on strain rates up to $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$ vary significantly depending on the grain size and the type of grain boundaries from 0.02 to 0.06 \cite{Chen.2006}. The $m$ value obtained in this study for the UFG copper micropillars up to $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$ strain rate indeed fall within this range. Traditional strain rate jump tests on the micropillars further confirmed these results (Supplementary Section SS3). At higher strain rates, the UFG copper micropillars exhibit a remarkable yield stress saturation and the strain rate sensitivity decreases by an order of magnitude to $0.0027 \pm 0.002$. Such rate-dependent yield stress saturation has not been observed before in UFG copper micropillars due to the limited range of strain rates ($<$0.1 s$^{-1}$) in previous studies \cite{Malyar.2018}.
\subsection{Atomistic mechanisms responsible for the rate-dependent mechanical properties}
To understand the deformation mechanisms responsible for the mechanical behavior of our copper micropillars, thorough microstructural analysis was carried out on the cross-sections of the deformed pillars (Figure \ref{fig:02}d-f). Regardless of the microstructural type (MC or UFG), there are no statistical differences in the size of grains before and after deformation at a strain rate of $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$ (Figure \ref{fig:02}f, Table \ref{table:01} and Supplementary Table ST3). For a larger statistical dataset and to study the same pillar at different cross-sections, multiple FIB slices were prepared $\sim$200 nm apart on a few deformed pillars (Supplementary Table ST4 and Dataset D1 contains the complete statistical summary of the EBSD analysis).
\begin{table*}[!hb]
\centering
\caption{Summary of microstructural parameters extracted from the EBSD analysis of the gage section in copper micropillars deformed at 0.1 s$^{-1}$ strain rate. Low angle grain boundaries (LAGB) are defined as: 1$^{\circ}$ -- 10$^{\circ}$, high angle grain boundaries (HAGB) are set as: $>$ 10$^{\circ}$.}\label{table:01}
\begin{tabular}[htbp]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\hline
Deformed & Number of & Min. grain & Max. grain & Special boundary & Relative & EBSD \\
sample type & grains & diameter & diameter & percentages & frequencies & mapping\\
(Name) & (area, [\mcr m$^2$]) & [\mcr m] & [\mcr m] & (top two type) & of GBs & step size [\mcr m]\\
\hline
MC & 46 & 0.14 & 1.08 & $\Sigma$3: 26.1\% & HAGB: 50.5\%& 0.04 \\
(Sample 3) & (6.5) & & & $\Sigma$9: 1.65\% & LAGB: 49.5\%& \\
\hline
UFG & 116 & 0.14 & 0.42 & $\Sigma$3: 13.2\% & HAGB: 89.9\%& 0.04 \\
(Sample 4) & (4.4) & & & $\Sigma$9: 2.31\% & LAGB: 10.1\%& \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
An important point to note regarding the copper micropillars is the external pillar dimension-to-average internal grain size ratio ($\eta$). For the MC micropillars, $\eta$ is approximately estimated to vary from 1 to 5 and for the UFG micropillars $\eta$ is $\sim 10-12$. It has been shown previously that $\eta$ can significantly affect the mechanical properties of micro and nanocrystalline materials.
\subsubsection{MC copper micropillars}
HR-EBSD analysis on the deformed MC copper pillar showed that the highest elastic stress concentration in both normal and shear $\sigma$ tensor components was in fact detected in the gage section, close to where the surface shear had occurred (Figure \ref{fig:04}). Hence, the single-shear like deformation was localized to a couple of grains where yielding occurred (also visible in the von Mises stress plot). For the HR-EBSD evaluation, the $\sigma_{33}$ component was assumed to be zero because of the presence of free surface. It is important to note that the stress values presented in Figure \ref{fig:04} are only relative due to the lack of stress-free reference patterns, therefore only relative stress-gradients can be identified using this method. To demonstrate the effect of inappropriate reference allocation, one grain in the upper left corner has been intentionally evaluated using a non-ideal reference, exhibiting high stress values specific to that grain.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig4.jpg}
\caption{Stress tensor elements by HR-EBSD analysis of the deformed MC copper micropillars, revealing high residual stresses in the sheared large grains.}
\label{fig:04}
\end{figure*}
From the EBSD data presented (Table \ref{table:01}), the relative frequencies of LAGB and HAGB in the gage section of the deformed pillar are significantly different compared to the undeformed case with similar microcrystalline grain size (Supplementary Table ST1). Increased LAGB presence in the deformed sample (almost 50 \%) is due to the shear-like deformation that created geometrically necessary dislocation (GND) pileups. These GNDs can be detected with the HR-EBSD technique that confirms their increased presence in the deformed pillar with microcrystalline grains (Supplementary Figure S8).
Apparent activation volume along with the strain rate sensitivity factor are considered as effective kinetic signatures of deformation mechanisms \cite{Krausz.1976}. Thus, we calculated the apparent activation volume ($\Omega$) using Equation \ref{eq:02} at the point of yield, where it is assumed that the microstructure of the MC copper micropillars is similar between tests conducted from strain rates of $\sim$0.001 s$^{-1}$ to $\sim$500 s$^{-1}$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:02}
\Omega = \sqrt{3} k_B T\frac{\partial \ln \dot{\varepsilon}}{\partial \sigma},
\end{equation}
where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature. Assuming that the Burgers vector $\mathbf{b}$ for a perfect dislocation in copper is 0.255 nm, we calculated an activation volume of $5.55 \pm 2.83$ $b^3$. Such small activation volumes in the range of $1 - 10$ $b^3$ in MC copper micropillars suggest that the deformation is controlled by dislocation nucleation. It is hypothesized that a heterogeneous dislocation nucleation event occurs at yield from the free surface of the copper micropillar, most probably at the coherent twin boundary (CTB) interface of a large grain, which behaves like a single crystal due to the relatively unconstrained boundaries. As mentioned before, given the low $\eta$ of the MC pillars have 1 to 5 grains across the diameter, making them susceptible for free-side surface-based deformation, as the fraction of grains at the surface increases with decreasing $\eta$ \cite{Gu.2012, Zhang.2014}. It has been shown previously via simulations that partial dislocations preferentially nucleate at the intersection of the twin boundary and the face centered cubic (FCC) nanowire surfaces \cite{Jennings.2011, Deng.2009}. Though other studies suggest that such dislocation nucleation can occur via free surfaces and has been identified FCC metal nanowire simulations \cite{Raj.2016, Weinberger.2008}. For example in penta-twinned, bicrystalline and single-crystalline FCC nanowires it has been shown that the deformation is initiated via a partial dislocation nucleation from the free surfaces or vertices of the nanowire \cite{Filleter.2012, Narayanan.2015, Cheng.2017, Cheng.2020}. Therefore, further micromechanical experiments with very high time and spatial resolution are necessary to experimentally confirm the origin of dislocation nucleation. Though the yield stresses obtained for MC copper micropillars are high ($\sim$0.4 GPa), homogeneous dislocation nucleation could be discounted as a possible deformation mechanism, as even higher stress levels of $4-18$ GPa depending on the crystal orientation are required for such a mechanism to operate in copper \cite{Tschopp.2007}.
In a recent study by Niu \emph{et al.}\cite{Niu.2022}, single crystalline copper nanopillars with 100-800 nm diameter were compressed at quasi-static strain rates of 0.001 s$^{-1}$. The study reported the flow stress at 3\% strain to be between 200-600 MPa, scaling inversely with the pillar diameter. In comparison, in the current study with 2 $\mu$m diameter MC copper micropillars, the yield stress of $\sim$400 MPa was obtained. The higher stress value is primarily due to the Hall-Petch effect, owing to the $\sim$410 nm diameter grains characterized in the current MC pillars. In addition, the FIB damage-free fabrication of the copper pillars presented in the current survey could also enhance the strength of the micropillars. It should also be noted that the reason no apparent stress drops were detected in the stress-strain curves (in Figure \ref{fig:03})) is mainly due to the true-displacement control (enabled due to the intrinsically high mechanical stiffness), offered by the \emph{in situ} micromechanical testing system employed in the present work.
\subsubsection{UFG copper micropillars}
UFG copper micropillars in the current study have an average grain size of $\sim$170 nm and have a high percentage ($\sim$72.5 \%) of HAGBs including $\sim$19.5\% texture-free CTBs. Such UFG micropillars show a high strain rate sensitivity of 0.059 up to a strain rate of $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$. Beyond $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$, due to the saturation in yield stress, the strain rate sensitivity drops an order of magnitude to 0.0027, signifying a change in deformation mechanism. To understand the rate-controlling mechanisms, the experimental data was fitted to extract the activation volumes in the low strain rate (LSR) regime from $\sim$0.001 s$^{-1}$ to $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$, and the high strain rate (HSR) regime from $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$ to $\sim$500 s$^{-1}$. The activation volume in the LSR regime was calculated as $7.99 \pm 0.83$ $b^3$, while it increases to $33 \pm 24.8$ $b^3$ at the HSR regime. In the LSR regime, the low activation volume in the range of $1 - 10$ $b^3$ again points to individual dislocation nucleation at yield. It has been shown in literature that the preferred pathway for deformation in low stacking fault energy metals such as UFG and nanocrystalline copper is typically a nucleation of a partial dislocation from triple points \cite{Asaro.2005}. Therefore, it is hypothesized that dislocations nucleate from the HAGBs and weakest triple points in the UFG copper micropillars during deformation. We expect negligible contributions from other deformation processes such grain boundary sliding/diffusive processes such as Coble creep during deformation, as these mechanisms are typically active only at strain rates less than $10^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$ and require a strain rate sensitivity of $\sim$1, which is much higher than what was identified for UFG copper in the current study \cite{Wei.2008a, Wei.2008b}. In addition, the activation volume corresponding to atomic diffusion in the boundary is of the order of $1$ $b^3$, which is still smaller than the measured activation volume for the present UFG copper \cite{Guduru.2007}. Thus, we hypothesize that dislocation-based plasticity is the controlling deformation mechanism for the UFG copper tested here. It is important to note that the FIB-less manufacture of UFG copper micropillars used in this study is critical to ascertain their mechanical behavior unambiguously, as previous studies have shown that both Ga$^+$ and Xe$^+$ ion-based milling of UFG metal micropillars can significantly influence their deformation behavior due to the formation of surface defects such as dislocation loops or surface amorphization \cite{Kiener.2007, Zhang.2014, Xiao.2017}.
In the HSR regime, the activation volume increases by $\sim$4 times compared to the LSR regime, which nominally means a larger number of atoms was involved in the deformation event at yield \cite{McPhie.2012}. In addition, taking into account the high stress levels of $\sim$1 GPa in the HSR regime, we hypothesize that the deformation process at yield possibly transitions to a simultaneous collective dislocation nucleation mechanism. The activation volume of $\sim$ $33.0 \pm 24.8$ $b^3$ calculated at the HSR regime falls in the range of $10 - 100$ $b^3$, which has been previously associated with collective dislocation dynamics process \cite{Jennings.2011}. Khantha \emph{et al.} \cite{Khantha.2001} postulated an alternative dislocation generation theory for crystal deformation, which states that instead of Frank-Read type source, a cooperative nucleation of dislocation can operate at finite temperatures, if the stress levels are high enough. Such a cooperative dislocation mechanism has been previously used to explain the large stress drops at yield during the tensile deformation of pristine microscale copper whiskers \cite{Brenner.1957}. This theory could be adapted to explain the saturation of yield stress at high strain rates ($>$0.1 s$^{-1}$) in our current study of UFG copper (see later in Figure \ref{fig:05}). At HSR regime when the stress-levels are high enough (above $\sim$0.95 GPa) the collective dislocation nucleation-based deformation mechanism could be favored over the individual dislocation nucleation-based deformation at LSR regime. When such a high stress is reached beyond a strain rate of $\sim$0.1 s$^{-1}$, we posit that multiple triple points within the grain become equally susceptible to dislocation nucleation. Also, in a previous experimental study on single-crystalline and bicrystalline silver nanowires the authors have experimentally shown that silver nanowires undergo a rate-dependent brittle-to-ductile transition at a strain rate of $\sim 0.1 - 273$ s$^{-1}$. This was attributed to a switch in deformation mechanism from a localized failure due to dislocation nucleation from weakest surface site, to a collective dislocation nucleation throughout the nanowire at high strain rates, which resulted in interactions between the dislocations and increased the plastic strain to tensile failure \cite{Raj.2016, Raj.2017}.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig6.jpg}
\caption{a) FEM-based thermal simulations showing negligible temperature increase in the copper pillars even at high strain rates of 500 s$^{-1}$. b) FEM-based axisymmetric simulations showing homogeneous von Mises stress distribution along the gage section of the specimen.}
\label{fig:06}
\end{figure*}
Furthermore, the collective nucleation mechanism explains the significant increase in hardening modulus from $\sim$1 GPa to $\sim$2.75 GPa at strain rate of $\sim$500 s$^{-1}$ (Supplementary Figure S9) as evident from the stress-strain signatures in Figure \ref{fig:03}b. Given that the dislocation density is expected to be higher in the HSR regime, the increase in hardening modulus is attributed to a combination of interactions among the simultaneously nucleated multiple dislocations within the relatively large grains of $\sim$170 nm in diameter, and between the dislocations and HAGB/CTBs. It has been previously established that CTBs are better suited for accumulating interfacial dislocations than GBs \cite{Jeon.2015}. In addition, several studies on nanocrystalline metals with a grain size of $\sim 20 - 40$ nm have shown that a smaller grain size prevents pile-up and dislocation tangles, and hence hampers the material to strain harden, even at high strain-rates \cite{Wang.2004}. Specifically, for copper it has been previously established that the threshold grain size for dislocation pile-ups and multiplications to occur within the grain is $\sim$70 nm \cite{Legros.2000}. Thus, the higher hardening modulus of UFG copper micropillars at high strain rates could be attributed to their grain size of $\sim$170 nm and high percentage of CTBs.
A FEM thermal analysis was conducted (Figure \ref{fig:06}a) to understand the extent of adiabatic heating in the micropillars based on the power input during a high strain rate test. Only a negligible temperature increase of $\sim0.01$ K was identified in the micropillar, even when assuming an ideal insulative boundary between the indenter tip and the pillar top. This allowed us to exclude dynamic recrystallization due to adiabatic heating in the UFG copper micropillars within the short testing times of the high strain rate test at $\sim500$ s$^{-1}$. In a similar study, Thevamaran et al. showed that impact testing of single crystal silver nanocubes at ultra-high strain rates of $\sim 10^6$ s$^{-1}$ result in the creation of nanocrystalline grains with high elastic strains \cite{Thevamaran.2016}, which further coarsen over time ($\sim$44 days) to microcrystalline grains due to continuous static recrystallization. In summary, the observations of static recrystallization in UFG copper compressed at high strain rates suggest a new microstructural evolution path from ultrafine grained towards microcrystalline due to the large number of dislocations generated and stored within the grains, and this can serve as a potential method to fabricate copper with gradient nanostructure (Supplementary Section SS5) \cite{Thevamaran.2016}. The validation to unambiguously confirm this phenomenon is out of the scope of this paper, as this requires a systematic microstructure characterization in several samples before and after high strain rate compression.
Figure \ref{fig:06}b plots the simulated von Mises stress distribution near the yield point for the ultrafine grained copper sample. From the modelling it can be concluded that the stress is the highest and homogeneously distributed throughout the gage section, while stress concentration at the rounded corners of the sample is negligible.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig5.jpg}
\caption{Comparison of rate-dependent results conducted on UFG copper micropillars. Red area highlights the strain rate regime where the current study provides unprecedented experimental results.}
\label{fig:05}
\end{figure*}
The results obtained in this study is summarized along with previous studies on polycrystalline copper with similar sub-micron sized grains, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:05}. In the case of previous microscale copper tests with UFG microstructure ($\sim$ 180 nm grain diameter), Jhang \emph{et al.} have conducted compression tests upto a strain rate 0.02 s$^{-1}$ on micropillars of varying sizes from 500 nm till 1500 nm. We emphasize here that the results from the currently study at lower strain rates, though with a larger pillar diameter (2000 nm, $\eta = 12$), agree with the results from the 500 nm ($\eta =3$) UFG copper pillars in a previous study, resulting in a high strain rate sensitivity. Previous results on UFG Cu micropillars with a diameter of 1500 nm ($\eta = 8$), show much lower strength. This can be attributed to the pristine nature of the copper micropillars tested in this study, compared to the FIB made micropillars tested by Jhang \emph{et al.} with defective rough walls; a result of the GBs’ weaker resistance to the ion beam compared to the bulk grain interior \cite{Han.2012}. From the comparison of the UFG Cu ($\eta = 12$) and MC Cu ($\eta = 2$) results from the current study it is deduced for micropillars that lower the $\eta$, the lower their strength. Furthermore, macroscale copper tests performed on samples with $\sim$ 200 nm diameter grains exhibit much lower strength at all strain rates. This can be attributed to the heterogeneity and defects in macroscale samples and several orders of magnitude higher $\eta$ ratio ($\eta = \infty$). As such, this also confirms a previously identified cross-over in strength, as the strength increases when the $\eta$ is increased from 2 to 12, while decreases again when the $\eta$ is increased to $\geq 40000$ in macroscale samples.
In Figure \ref{fig:05}, it is evident that in both microscale and macroscale tests on copper with sub-micron grain size, the strain rates between 0.1 s$^{-1}$ and 1000 s$^{-1}$ remains largely unexplored and the current study fills up this gap by exploring this strain rate regime. As such, the yield stress saturation identified at the strain rates between 0.1 s$^{-1}$ and 500 s$^{-1}$ in UFG Cu has not been ascertained in previous studies. The strength of copper in macroscale tests ($\eta = \infty$) increases significantly beyond a strain rate of $\sim 3000$ s$^{-1}$ due to dislocation drag, while microscale tests at these ultra-high strain rates are further required to confirm such a third deformation regime in samples with lower $\eta$ ratios.
\section{Conclusion}
The microstructure-property relationships of copper micropillars under high strain rates up to 500 s$^{-1}$ were successfully identified using pristine pillars fabricated using metal additive micromanufacturing technique. The stress-strain signatures of the copper micropillars, along with the extracted thermal activation parameters were used to identify the interplay between the grain-size and rate- dependencies on the deformation mechanisms. MC copper micropillars deform via heterogeneous dislocation nucleation from the surface, leading to a single-shear like plastic deformation. UFG copper micropillars deform via single dislocation nucleation, most probably from the HAGB or the triple points in the grain, up to a strain rate of 0.1 s$^{-1}$. At even higher strain rates, a unique rate-insensitivity to yield was identified in UFG copper micropillars. This phenomenon can be attributed to the high-stress and relatively large grain size ($\sim$170 nm) enabled transition to a collection dislocation nucleation-based deformation mechanism.
In the future, the same µAM technique can be used to fabricate scaled-up full-metal complex 3D microarchitectures including copper microlattices and microsprings. The fundamental dynamic characterization of copper micropillars in the current study will serve as constitutive models to interpret the deformation of such complex mic\-ro\-archi\-tec\-tures.
\section*{Contributions}
\textbf{R. Ramachandramoorthy:} Conceptualization, Me\-tho\-dology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, \textbf{S. Kalacska:} Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, \textbf{G. Poras:} Investigation, \textbf{J. Schwiedrzik:} Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, \textbf{T. Edwards:} Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, \textbf{X. Maeder:} Resources, Writing - Review \& Editing, \textbf{T. Merle:} Investigation, \textbf{G. Ercolano:} Investigation, \textbf{W. Koelmans:} Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, \textbf{J. Michler:} Supervision, Writing - Review \& Editing
\section*{Competing interests}
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
R.R., S.K. and T.E.J.E. were supported by the EMPA\-POST\-DOCS-II program, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement number 754364.
\section*{Supporting Information}
Supporting Information and all data are available in the Main Article and Methods, or from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
|
\section{Introduction}
As a basic problem of mathematical physics, the mean field equation has aroused the interests of many mathematicians for at least half a century. In addition to the prescribed Gaussian curvature problem \cite{Berger,Chang-Yang1,Chang-Yang2,Chen-Ding,KW}, it also arises in Onsager's vortex model for turbulent Euler flows \cite[Page 256]{M-P}, and in Chern-Simons-Higgs models \cite{C-Y,DJLW4,DJLW3,S-T,Tarantello,YY}.
Let $\Omega$ be a smooth bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$. It was proved by Ding-Jost-Li-Wang \cite{DJLW2} that if the complement of $\Omega$ contains a bounded region, and $h:\overline\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a positive function, then the mean field equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Dirichlet-domain}
\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2} u=\rho\frac{he^u}{\int_\Omega he^udx}&{\rm in}&\Omega\\[1.5ex]
u=0&{\rm on}&\partial\Omega
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
has a solution for all $\rho\in(8\pi,16\pi)$, where $\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}=\partial^2/\partial x_1^2+\partial^2/\partial x_2^2$ is the standard Laplacian operator in $\mathbb{R}^2$. The proof is based on a compactness result of Li-Shafrir \cite{Li-Shafrir}, the monotonicity technique used by Struwe \cite{Struwe} in dealing with harmonic maps, and a general min-max theorem \cite[Theorem 2.8]{Willem}.
It was pointed out by Li \cite{Li} that the Leray-Schauder degree for the mean field equation should depend only on
the topology of the domain and $k\in\mathbb{N}$ satisfying $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$. To illustrate this point, he calculated the simplest case $\rho<8\pi$. Later, by computing the topological degree, Chen-Lin \cite{Chen-Lin} improved Ding-Jost-Li-Wang's result to the following: If $\Omega$ is not simply connected, and $h$ is positive on $\overline\Omega$, then \eqref{Dirichlet-domain} has a solution for all $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$. Also they were able to compute the topological degree for the mean field equation on compact Riemann surface $(\Sigma,g)$ without boundary, namely
\begin{eqnarray}\label{surface}
\Delta_{g} u=\rho\le(\frac{he^u}{\int_\Sigma he^udv_g}-\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\right)\quad{\rm in}\quad\Sigma,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta_g$ denotes the Laplace-Beltrami operator, and $|\Sigma|$ stands for the area of $\Sigma$ with respect to the metric $g$. Precisely the degree-counting formula for \eqref{surface} is given by
$\binom{k-\chi(\Sigma)}{k}$ for $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$. As a consequence, if the Euler characteristic $\chi(\Sigma)\leq 0$, then \eqref{surface} has a solution.
Note that solutions of \eqref{surface} are critical points of the functional
$$J_\rho(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g-\rho\log\int_\Sigma he^udv_g+\frac{\rho}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma udv_g,\quad u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma).$$
A direct method of variation leads to that $J_\rho$ has critical points for $\rho<8\pi$. When $\rho=8\pi$, Ding-Jost-Li-Wang \cite{DJLW} find a critical point of $J_{8\pi}$ under certain conditions on $\Sigma$ and $h$. For the cases $\rho=8\pi$, $h\geq 0$ or $h$ changes sign, we refer the readers to \cite{Sun-Zhu2,Sun-Zhu,Yang-Zhu}.
In a celebrated paper, Djadli \cite{Djadli} were able to find
a solution of \eqref{surface} for all $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$ ($k\in\mathbb{N}^\ast$) and arbitrary genus of $\Sigma$, by adapting a min-max scheme introduced by Djadli-Malchiodi \cite{Djadli-Malchiodi}. In particular Chen-Lin's existence result for \eqref{surface} was improved by Djadli to arbitrary possible $\chi(\Sigma)$. Let us summarize the procedure in \cite{Djadli}. Denote the family of formal sums by
$$\Sigma_k=\le\{\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\delta_{x_i}: t_i\geq 0,\,\sum_{i=1}^kt_i=1,\,x_i\in \Sigma\right\},$$
endowed with the weak topology of distributions, say the topology of $(C^1(\Sigma))^\ast$. This is known in literature as the formal set of barycenters of $\Sigma$. The {\it first} and most important step is to construct two continuous map $\Psi$ and $\Phi_\lambda$ between $\Sigma_k$ and sub-levels of $J_\rho$, say
$$\Sigma_k\overset{\Phi_{\lambda}}{\rightarrow}J_{\rho}^{-\left(\rho-8k\pi\right)\ln\lambda}\overset{\Psi}{\rightarrow}\Sigma_k$$
for $\lambda\geq\lambda_L=e^{L/(\rho-8k\pi)}$ and large $L>0$; moreover $\lim_{\lambda\to+\infty}\Psi\circ\Phi_{\lambda}=\mathrm{Id}$, in particular, $\Psi\circ\Phi_{\lambda}$ is homotopic to the identity on $\Sigma_k$ provided $\lambda\geq\lambda_L$. Here $J_\rho^{a}$ stands for a set of all functions $u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ with $J_\rho(u)\leq a$ for any real number $a$. The {\it second} step is to set suitable min-max value for $J_\rho$, namely
$$\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}=\inf_{\gamma\in\Gamma_\lambda}\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\Sigma}_k} J_\rho(\gamma(\sigma,t)),$$
where $\widehat{\Sigma}_k=\Sigma_k\times[0,1]/(\Sigma_k\times\{0\})$ is a topological cone, and $\Gamma_\lambda$ is a set of paths
$$\Gamma_\lambda=\le\{\gamma\in C^0(\widehat{\Sigma}_k,W^{1,2}(\Sigma)): \gamma(\sigma,1)=\Phi_\lambda(\sigma),\,\forall\sigma\in\Sigma_k\right\}.$$
The hypothesis $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$ and the fact that $\Sigma_k$ is non-contractible lead to $\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}>-\infty$ for sufficiently large $\lambda$. The {\it third} step is to get critical points of $J_\rho$ for $\rho\in\Lambda$, where $\Lambda$ is a dense subset of $(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$, by using the monotonicity of $\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}/\rho$. The {\it final} step is to find critical points of $J_\rho$ for any $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$, by using a compactness result of Li-Shafrir \cite{Li-Shafrir} and an improved Trudinger-Moser inequality due to Chen-Li \cite{Chen-Li}.
Note that the last two steps are essentially done by Ding-Jost-Li-Wang \cite{DJLW2}.
This method was extensively used to deal with the problems of elliptic equations or systems involving exponential growth nonlinearities. For Toda systems, we refer the readers to \cite{Ao,BJMR,Malchiodi-Nd,Malchiodi-Ruiz} and the references therein. Recently Sun-Wang-Yang \cite{Sun} extended Djadli's result to the case of a generalized mean field equation. Marchis-Malchiodi-Martinazzi-Thizy \cite{MMMT} employed it to find critical points of a Trudinger-Moser functional.
\vspace{2ex}
In this paper, we concern the boundary value problems on the mean field equation. From now on, we let $(\Sigma,g)$ be a compact Riemann surface with smooth boundary $\partial\Sigma$. Our first aim is to generalize results of Ding-Jost-Li-Wang \cite{DJLW2} and Chen-Lin \cite{Chen-Lin}. Precisely we have the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Let $(\Sigma,g)$ be a compact Riemann surface with smooth boundary $\partial\Sigma$, $\Delta_g$ be the Laplace-Beltrami operator, and $h:\overline\Sigma\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a positive smooth function. If $\Sigma$ is not simply connected, then for any $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$ with $k$ a positive integer, the Dirichlet problem
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Dir}\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_gu=\rho\frac{he^u}{\int_\Sigma he^udv_g}&{\rm in}& \Sigma\\[1.5ex]
u=0&{\rm on}&\partial\Sigma
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
has a solution.
\end{theorem}
The proof of \autoref{thm1} is based on the min-max theorem \cite[Theorem 2.8]{Willem}, which was also used by Ding-Jost-Li-Wang \cite{DJLW2} and Djadli \cite{Djadli}, compactness analysis, and an improved Trudinger-Moser inequality. All of the three parts are quite different from those of \cite{DJLW2,Djadli}. On the choice of the metric space, we use $\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}$ (see \eqref{S-ek} below) instead of $\widehat{\overline\Sigma}_k$ or $\widehat{\Sigma}_k$; On compactness analysis, we use a reflection method different from that of Chen-Lin \cite{Chen-Lin} to show blow-up phenomenon can not occur on the boundary $\partial\Sigma$; Moreover, we need to prove an improved Trudinger-Moser inequality for functions with boundary value zero, nor is it the original one in \cite{Chen-Li}.
\vspace{2ex}
We also consider the Neumann boundary value problem on the mean field equation. In this regards, our second result is the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}
Let $(\Sigma,g)$ be a compact Riemann surface with a smooth boundary $\partial\Sigma$, $\mathbf{v}$ be the unit normal outward vector on $\partial\Sigma$, $\Delta_g$ be the Laplace-Beltrami operator, and $h:\overline\Sigma\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a positive smooth function. If
$\rho\in(4k\pi,4(k+1)\pi)$ with $k$ a positive integer, then the Neumann boundary value problem
\begin{eqnarray}\label{num}\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_gu=\rho\le(\frac{he^u}{\int_\Sigma he^udv_g}-\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\right)&{\rm in}& \Sigma\\[1.5ex]
{\partial u}/{\partial{\mathbf{v}}}=0&{\rm on}&\partial\Sigma
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
has a solution.
\end{theorem}
We remark that in \autoref{thm2}, $\Sigma$ need not to be non-contractible. For the proof of \autoref{thm2}, we choose a metric space $\widehat{\mathscr{S}}_k$ (see \eqref{subset} below), which is non-contractible, whether $\Sigma$ is non-contractible or not. Concerning the compactness of solutions to \eqref{num}, if it has a sequence of blow-up solutions, then we show that $\rho=4k\pi$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}^\ast$. Also we derive an improved Trudinger-Moser inequality for functions with integral mean zero, which is important in our analysis.
Before ending this introduction, we mention a recent result of Zhang-Zhou-Zhou \cite{Zhang-Zhou-Zhou}. Using the min-max scheme of
Djadli and Djadli-Malchiodi, they obtained the existence of solutions to the equation
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_{g} u=0
& {\rm in }& \Sigma \\[1.5ex]
{\partial u}/{\partial \mathbf{v}}=\rho \frac{h e^{u}}{\int_{\partial \Sigma} h e^{u} \mathrm{d}s_g}
&{\rm on }& \partial \Sigma
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
for any $\rho\in(2k\pi,2(k+1)\pi)$, $k \in \mathbb{N}^{*}$, and any positive smooth function $h$. This improved an early result of Guo-Liu \cite{Guo-Liu}.
\vspace{2ex}
In the remaining part of this paper, \autoref{thm1} and \autoref{thm2} are proved by the min-max method in \autoref{Dirichlet0} and \autoref{Neuma} respectively. Throughout this paper, Sequence and subsequence are not distinguished.
We often denote various constants by the same $C$ from line to line, even in the same line. Sometimes we write
$C_k$, $C_{k,\epsilon}$, $C(\epsilon),\dots$, to emphasize the dependence of these constants.
\section{The Dirichlet boundary value problem}\label{Dirichlet0}
In this section, \autoref{thm1} is proved. This will be divided into several subsections. In \autoref{2.1}, we analyze the compactness of solutions to the Dirichlet problem \eqref{Dir}; In \autoref{2.2}, we derive an improved Trudinger-Moser inequality for functions $u\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$; In \autoref{2.3}, we construct two continuous maps between sub-levels $J_\rho^{-L}$ with sufficiently large $L$ and the topological space $\Sigma_k$; In \autoref{2.4}, we construct min-max levels of $J_\rho$, and ensure these min-max levels are finite; In \autoref{2.5}, several uniform estimates on min-max levels of $J_\rho$ are obtained; In \autoref{2.6}, adapting the argument of \cite[Lemma 3.2]{DJLW2}, we prove that $J_\rho$ has a critical point for $\rho$ in a dense subset of $(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$; In \autoref{2.7}, using compactness of solutions to the Dirichlet problem \eqref{Dir}, we conclude that $J_\rho$ has a critical point for any $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$.
\subsection{Compactness analysis}\label{2.1}
Let $(\rho_n)$ be a sequence of numbers tending to $\rho$, $(h_n)$ be a function sequence converging to
$h$ in $C^1(\overline{\Sigma})$, and $(u_n)$ be a sequence of solutions to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Dirichlet}\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_g u_n=\rho_n\frac{h_ne^{u_n}}{\int_\Sigma h_ne^{u_n}dv_g}&{\rm in}&\Sigma\\[1.5ex]
u_n=0&{\rm on}&\partial\Sigma.
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
Denote $v_n=u_n-\log\int_\Sigma h_ne^{u_n}dv_g$. Then
$\Delta_{g}v_n=\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}$ and $\int_\Sigma h_ne^{v_n}dv_g=1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{compact}
Assume $\rho$ is a positive number and $h$ is a positive function. Up to a subsequence, there holds one of the following alternatives:\\
$(i)$ $(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^\infty(\overline\Sigma)$;\\
$(ii)$ $(v_n)$ converges to $-\infty$ uniformly in $\overline\Sigma$;\\
$(iii)$ there exists a finite singular set $\mathcal{S}=\{p_1,\cdots,p_m\}\subset {\Sigma}$ such that
for any $1\leq j\leq m$, there is a sequence of points $\{p_{j,n}\}\subset\Sigma$ satisfying
$p_{j,n}\rightarrow p_j$, $u_n(p_{j,n})\rightarrow+\infty$, and $v_n$ converges to $-\infty$ uniformly on any compact subset of
$\overline{\Sigma}\setminus\mathcal{S}$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Moreover,
$$\rho_n\int_\Sigma h_ne^{v_n}dv_g\rightarrow 8m\pi. $$
\end{lemma}
\proof Note that $\overline{\Sigma}=\Sigma\cup \partial\Sigma$, where $\Sigma$ is an open set including all inner points of
$\overline{\Sigma}$,
and $\partial\Sigma$ is its boundary. The compactness analysis on $(u_n)$ will be divided into two parts.\\
{\bf Part I. Analysis in the interior domain $\Sigma$}
According to an observation in \cite[Section 4.1]{Uniform} (compared with \cite[Theorem 4.17]{Aubin}), we have by the Green representation formula for functions with boundary value zero,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{W1q}\|u_n\|_{W_0^{1,q}(\Sigma)}\leq C_q,\quad\forall 1<q<2.\end{eqnarray}
We claim that there exists some constant $c_0>0$ such that for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lower-b}\int_\Sigma h_ne^{u_n}dv_g\geq c_0.\end{eqnarray}
Suppose not. By Jensen's inequality
$$e^{\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma u_ndv_g}\leq \frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma e^{u_n}dv_g\rightarrow 0.$$
Thus $\int_\Sigma u_ndv_g\rightarrow -\infty$, which contradicts \eqref{W1q}, and concludes our claim \eqref{lower-b}.
To proceed, we assume $\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}dv_g$ converges to some nonnegative measure $\mu$. If $\mu(x^\ast)<4\pi$ for some $x^\ast\in\Sigma$, then there exist two positive constants $\epsilon_0$ and $r_0$ such that
$$\int_{B_{x^\ast}(r_0)}\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}dv_g\leq 4\pi-\epsilon_0.$$
In view of \eqref{Dirichlet}, by Brezis-Merle's theorem \cite[Theorem 1]{B-M} and elliptic estimates, we have that $(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}(B_{x^\ast}(r_0/2))$. This leads to $\mu(x^\ast)=0$. Define a set $\mathcal{S}=\{x\in\Sigma: \mu(x)\geq 4\pi\}$.
If $\mathcal{S}\not=\varnothing$, then we shall show that for any compact set $A\subset\Sigma\setminus\mathcal{S}$, there holds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{local-uniform}v_n\rightarrow-\infty\,\,{\rm uniforlmy\,\,in}\,\, x\in A.\end{eqnarray}
It suffices to prove that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{infty}\int_\Sigma h_ne^{u_n}dv_g\rightarrow+\infty.\end{eqnarray}
Suppose \eqref{infty} does not hold. In view of \eqref{lower-b}, there is a constant $c_1$ such that up to a subsequence
$$0<c_0\leq\int_\Sigma h_ne^{u_n}dv_g\leq c_1.$$
Choose $x_0\in\mathcal{S}$ and $0<r_0<{\rm dist}(x_0,\partial\Sigma)$ satisfying
$B_{x_0}(r_0)\cap \mathcal{S}=\{x_0\}$. Note that $(u_n)$ is locally uniformly bounded in $\Sigma\setminus\mathcal{S}$. There exists a positive constant $c_2$ depending on $x_0$ and $r_0$ such that $|v_n(x)|\leq c_2$ for all $x\in \partial B_{x_0}(r_0)$.
Let $w_n$ be a solution to
$$\le\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_gw_n=\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}&{\rm in}& B_{x_0}(r_0)\\[1.5ex]
w_n=-c_2&{\rm on}& \partial B_{x_0}(r_0).
\end{array}
\right.$$
Then the maximum principle implies that $w_n\leq v_n$ in $B_{x_0}(r_0)$. By the Green formula, $w_n$ converges to $w$ weakly in $W^{1,q}(B_{x_0}(r_0))$ and a.e. in $B_{x_0}(r_0)$. Moreover, $w$ is a solution of
$$\le\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_gw=\mu&{\rm in}& B_{x_0}(r_0)\\[1.5ex]
w=-c_2&{\rm on}& \partial B_{x_0}(r_0).
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $G_{x_0}$ be a distributional solution of
$$\le\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_gG_{x_0}=4\pi \delta_{x_0}&{\rm in}& B_{x_0}(r_0)\\[1.5ex]
G_{x_0}=-c_2&{\rm on}& \partial B_{x_0}(r_0).
\end{array}
\right.$$
Clearly $G_{x_0}$ is represented by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Green}G_{x_0}(x)=-2\log{\rm dist}(x,x_0)+A_{x_0}+o(1),\end{eqnarray}
where $A_{x_0}$ is a constant, and $o(1)\rightarrow 0$ as $x\rightarrow x_0$. Since
$$\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_g(w-G_{x_0})\geq 0&{\rm in}& B_{x_0}(r_0)\\[1.5ex]
w-G_{x_0}=0&{\rm on}& \partial B_{x_0}(r_0).
\end{array}
\right.$$
It follows from the maximum principle that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{less}w(x)\geq G_{x_0}(x)\,\,{\rm for\,\,all}\,\, x\in B_{x_0}(r_0)\setminus \{x_0\}.\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eqref{Green}, \eqref{less} and the fact that $w_n\rightarrow w$ a.e. in $B_{x_0}(r_0)$, by the Fatou Lemma, we calculate
\begin{equation*}
+\infty=\int_{B_{x_0}(r_0)}e^{G_{x_0}}dv_g\leq\int_{B_{x_0}(r_0)}e^wdv_g\leq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{B_{x_0}(r_0)}e^{w_n}dv_g\leq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{B_{x_0}(r_0)}
e^{v_n}dv_g\leq 1.
\end{equation*}
This is impossible and excludes the possibility of \eqref{infty}. Hence we conclude \eqref{local-uniform}.
We may assume $\mathcal{S}=\{x_1,\cdots,x_m\}$. Then there would hold $\mu(x_i)=8\pi$ for all $1\leq i\leq m$.
With no loss of generality, it suffices to prove $\mu(x_1)=8\pi$. Choose an isothermal coordinate system
$\phi:U\rightarrow\mathbb{B}_1(0)$ near $x_1$. In such coordinates, the metric $g$ and the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_g$
are represented by $g=e^{\psi(y)}(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)$ and
$\Delta_g=-e^{-\psi(y)}\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ respectively, where $\psi$ is a smooth function with $\psi(0,0)=0$, and $\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}={\partial^2}/{\partial y_1^2}+{\partial^2}/{\partial y_2^2}$ denotes the standard Laplacian on $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Set $\widetilde{u}=u\circ \phi^{-1}$ for any function $u:U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. Since $(u_n)$ is a sequence of solutions to \eqref{Dirichlet},
$\widetilde{u}_n=u_n\circ \phi^{-1}$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{local}-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n(y)=e^{\psi(y)}\rho_n\widetilde{h}_n(y)e^{\widetilde{v}_n(y)},
\quad y\in\mathbb{B}_1.\end{eqnarray}
Multiplying both sides of \eqref{local} by $y\cdot\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n(y)$, we have by integration by parts
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Pohozaev}\nonumber\frac{r}{2}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}|\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n|^2d\sigma-r\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}
\langle\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n,\mathbf{\nu} \rangle^2d\sigma&=&r\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}
e^{\psi}\rho_n\widetilde{h}_ne^{\widetilde{v}_n}d\sigma-\int_{\mathbb{B}_r}e^{\widetilde{v}_n}
\rho_n\langle\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}(e^{\psi}\widetilde{h}_n),y \rangle dy\\&&-2\int_{\mathbb{B}_r}
e^{\psi}\rho_n\widetilde{h}_ne^{\widetilde{v}_n}dy,\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbb{B}_r=\{y\in\mathbb{R}^2:y_1^2+y_2^2<r\}$, $\partial\mathbb{B}_r=\{y\in\mathbb{R}^2:y_1^2+y_2^2=r\}$, and
$\nu$ denotes the unit outward vector on $\partial\mathbb{B}_r$. In view of \eqref{local-uniform}, $(u_n)$ converges to
a Green function $G(x,\cdot)$ weakly in $W_0^{1,q}(\Sigma)$, and in $C^2_{\rm loc}(\Sigma\setminus\mathcal{S})$. Locally
$G(x_1,\cdot)$ satisfies
$$\Delta_{g,z}G(x_1,z)=\mu(x_1)\delta_{x_1}(z),\quad\forall z\in \phi^{-1}(\mathbb{B}_{1}).$$
Clearly $\widetilde{G}(y)=G(x_1,\phi^{-1}(y))=-\frac{\mu(x_0)}{2\pi}\log|y|+\eta(y)$ for some $\eta\in C^2(\mathbb{B}_1)$.
Passing to the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$ first, and then $r\rightarrow 0$ in \eqref{Pohozaev}, we obtain
$$\mu(x_1)=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0}\le(\frac{r}{2}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}\langle\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{G},\nu\rangle^2d\sigma-\frac{r}{4}
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}|\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{G}|^2d\sigma\right)=\frac{(\mu(x_1))^2}{8\pi}.$$
This immediately leads to $\mu(x_1)=8\pi$.\\
{\bf Part II. Analysis on the boundary $\partial\Sigma$}
Let $x^\ast\in \Sigma$ be fixed. Note that $\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}dv_{g}$ converges to the nonnegative Radon measure $\mu$ on $\overline{\Sigma}$.
If $\mu(x^\ast)<2\pi$, there exist a neighborhood $V$ of $x^\ast$ and a number $\gamma_0>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2pi}\int_V\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}dv_g\leq 2\pi-\gamma_0.\end{eqnarray}
With no loss of generality, we take an isothermal coordinate system $(V,\phi,\{y_1,y_2\})$ such that
$\phi(x^\ast)=(0,0)$, and $\phi:V\rightarrow{\mathbb{B}_1^+}\cup\Gamma=\{(y_1,y_2):y_2\geq 0\}$, where
$\Gamma=\{(y_1,y_2): |y_1|<1, y_2=0\}$. Moreover, in this coordinate system, the metric $g=e^{\psi(y)}(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)$, and the Laplace-Beltrami
operator $\Delta_g=-e^{-\psi(y)}\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}$, where $\psi:\mathbb{B}_1^+\cup\Gamma\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function
with $\psi(0,0)=0$. For more details about isothermal coordinates on the boundary, we refer the readers to
\cite{Yang-Zhou}. Now the local version of \eqref{Dirichlet} reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{semi-equation}\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}(u_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)=e^{\psi(y)}\rho_n(h_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)e^{(v_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)}
&{\rm in}&\mathbb{B}_1^+\\[1.5ex]
u_n\circ\phi^{-1}(y)=0&{\rm on}& \Gamma.
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
For any function $u:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we define a function $\widetilde{u}: \mathbb{B}_1^+\cup\Gamma\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{u-tilde}\widetilde{u}(y_1,y_2)=\le\{
\begin{array}{lll}
u\circ\phi^{-1}(y_1,y_2)&{\rm if}& y_2\geq 0\\[1.5ex]
-u\circ\phi^{-1}(y_1,-y_2)&{\rm if}& y_2< 0.
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
One can easily check that $\widetilde{u}_n$ is a distributional solution of
\begin{eqnarray}\label{un}-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n(y)=\widetilde{f}_n(y),\quad y\in\mathbb{B}_1,\end{eqnarray}
where $\widetilde{f}_n$ is defined as in \eqref{u-tilde} and for $y\in \mathbb{B}_1^+\cup\Gamma$,
$$f_n\circ\phi^{-1}(y)=e^{\psi(y)}\rho_n(h_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)e^{(v_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)}.$$
In view of \eqref{2pi} and the fact that $\psi(0,0)=0$, there would exist a number $0<r_0<1$ such that
$$\int_{\mathbb{B}_{r_0}}|\widetilde{f}_n(y)|dy\leq 4\pi-{\gamma_0}.$$
Let $w_n$ be a solution of
$$\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}w_n=\widetilde{f}_n&{\rm in}&\mathbb{B}_{r_0}\\[1.5ex]
w_n=0&{\rm on}&\partial\mathbb{B}_{r_0}.
\end{array}\right.$$
By Brezis-Merle's theorem \cite[Theorem 1]{B-M}, there exists some constant $C$ depending only on $\gamma_0$ and $r_0$ such that
$$\int_{\mathbb{B}_{r_0}}\exp\le(\frac{(4\pi-\gamma_0/2)|w_n|}{\|\widetilde{f}_n\|_{L^1(\mathbb{B}_{r_0})}}\right)dy\leq C.$$
Hence there exists some $q_0>1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lq0}\|e^{|w_n|}\|_{L^{q_0}(\mathbb{B}_{r_0})}\leq C.\end{eqnarray}
Let
$\eta_n=\widetilde{u}_n-w_n$. Then $\eta_n$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{harmonic}\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}\eta_n=0&{\rm in}&\mathbb{B}_{r_0}\\[1.5ex]
\eta_n=\widetilde{u}_n&{\rm on}&\partial\mathbb{B}_{r_0}.
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
Noticing \eqref{W1q} and \eqref{Lq0}, we have by applying elliptic estimates to \eqref{harmonic} that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{etan}\|\eta_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{B}_{r_0/2})}\leq C.\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eqref{lower-b}, \eqref{Lq0} and \eqref{etan}, we conclude
$\|\widetilde{f}_n\|_{L^{q_0}(\mathbb{B}_{r_0/2})}\leq C$. Applying elliptic estimates to \eqref{un}, we obtain that
$\|\widetilde{u}_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{B}_{r_0/4})}\leq C$, which implies
$\|{u}_n\|_{L^\infty(\phi^{-1}(\mathbb{B}^+_{r_0/4}))}\leq C$. In conclusion, we have that if $\mu(x^\ast)<2\pi$, then
$(u_n)$ is uniformly bounded near $x^\ast$. This also leads to $\mu(x^\ast)=0$.
If $\mu(x^\ast)\geq 2\pi$, in the same coordinate system $(V,\phi,\{y_1,y_2\})$ as above, $\widetilde{f}_n(y)dy$ converges to a Radon measure $\widetilde{\mu}$ with
$\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)\geq 4\pi$. Obviously there exists some $r_1>0$ such that for any $x\in \mathbb{B}_{r_1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}$,
$\widetilde{\mu}(x)=0$. Using the same argument as the proof of \eqref{local-uniform}, we conclude that
for any compact set $A\subset \mathbb{B}_{r_1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}$, $\widetilde{v}_n$ converges to $-\infty$ uniformly in $A$. This leads to
$\widetilde{f}_n(y)dy$ converges to the Dirac measure $\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)\delta_{(0,0)}(y)$. Recalling \eqref{W1q}, we have
$\widetilde{u}_n$ converges to $\widetilde{G}_0$ weakly in $W^{1,q}(\mathbb{B}_{r_1})$ and a.e. in $\mathbb{B}_{r_1}$, where $\widetilde{G}_0$
satisfies
$$-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{G}_0(y)=\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)\delta_{(0,0)}(y),\quad y\in\mathbb{B}_{r_1}.$$
Clearly $\widetilde{G}_0$ is represented by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{G-rep}\widetilde{G}_0(y)=-\frac{\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)}{2\pi}\log|y|+A_0+O(|y|)\end{eqnarray}
as $y\rightarrow 0$, where $A_0$ is a constant. Noting that $\widetilde{v}_n$ converges to $-\infty$
locally uniformly in $\mathbb{B}_{r_1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}$, we have by applying elliptic estimates to \eqref{un} that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{C1}\widetilde{u}_n\rightarrow \widetilde{G}_0\quad {\rm in}\quad C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{B}_{r_1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}).\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{semi-equation}, $\widetilde{u}_n(y_1,0)=0$ for all $|y_1|<1$, which together with \eqref{C1} leads to
$\widetilde{G}_0(y_1,0)=0$ for all $0<|y_1|<r_1$. This contradicts \eqref{G-rep}. Therefore
$$\{x\in\partial\Sigma:\mu(x)\geq 2\pi\}=\varnothing.$$
Combining Parts I and II, we conclude the lemma. $\hfill\Box$
\subsection{An improved Trudinger-Moser inequality}\label{2.2}
In this subsection, we shall derive an improved Trudinger-Moser inequality, which is analog of that of
Chen-Li \cite{Chen-Li}. It is known (see for example Jiang \cite{Jiang}) that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T-M}\log\int_\Sigma e^udv_g\leq \frac{1}{16\pi}\int_\Sigma |\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+C,\quad\forall u\in
W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma).\end{eqnarray}
\begin{lemma}\label{improved}
Let $b_0>0$ and $\gamma_0>0$ be two constants, $\Omega_1,\cdots,\Omega_k$ be $k$ domains of $\overline\Sigma$ satisfying
${\rm dist}(\Omega_i,\Omega_j)\geq b_0$ for all $1\leq i<j\leq k$. Then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists some constant $C$
depending only on $b_0,\gamma_0,k,\epsilon$, such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{imp}\log\int_\Sigma e^udv_g\leq \frac{1}{16k\pi-\epsilon}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+C\end{eqnarray}
for all $u\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{comp}\int_{\Omega_i}e^{u}dv_g\geq\gamma_0\int_\Sigma e^udv_g,\,\, i=1,\cdots,k.\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\proof We modify an argument of Chen-Li \cite{Chen-Li}. Take smooth functions $\phi_1,\cdots,\phi_k$
defined on $\overline\Sigma$ satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}\label{phi-1}{\rm supp}\phi_i\cap {\rm supp}\phi_j=\varnothing,\quad\forall 1\leq i<j\leq k,\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{phi-2}\phi_i\equiv 1 \,\,{\rm on}\,\,\Omega_i; \,\,0\leq\phi_i\leq 1 \,\,{\rm on}\,\, \overline\Sigma,\,\,\forall 1\leq i\leq k, \end{eqnarray}
and for some positive constant $b_1$ depending only on $b_0$ and $g$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{phi-3}|\nabla_g\phi_i|\leq b_1,\quad\forall 1\leq i\leq k.\end{eqnarray}
For any $u\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ satisfying \eqref{comp}, we have $\phi_i u\in W_0^{1,2}(\Omega)$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$, and thus
\eqref{T-M} implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\Sigma e^udv_g&\leq&\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\int_{\Omega_i}e^{u}dv_g\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\int_{\Sigma}e^{\phi_iu}dv_g\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\exp\le(\frac{1}{16\pi}\|\nabla_g(\phi_iu)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+C\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Recall an elementary inequality: if $a\leq a_i$ for nonnegative numbers $a$ and $a_i$, $i=1,\cdots,k$, then
$a\leq (a_1\cdots a_k)^{1/k}$. In view of \eqref{phi-1}, \eqref{phi-2} and \eqref{phi-3}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\int_\Sigma e^udv_g&\leq&\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\le(\prod_{i=1}^k\exp\le(\frac{1}{16\pi}\|\nabla_g(\phi_iu)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+C\right)\right)^{1/k}\\
\nonumber&=&\frac{e^C}{\gamma_0}\exp\le(\frac{1}{16k\pi}\sum_{i=1}^k\|\nabla_g(\phi_iu)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2\right)\\\nonumber
&=&\frac{e^C}{\gamma_0}\exp\le(\frac{1}{16k\pi}\le\|\nabla_g\le(u\sum_{i=1}^k\phi_i\right)\right\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2\right)\\\label{uL2}
&\leq& C\exp\le(\frac{1}{16k\pi}(1+\epsilon_1)\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+C(\epsilon_1)\|u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $0<\lambda_1\leq \lambda_2\leq \cdots\leq \lambda_\ell\leq\lambda_{\ell+1}\leq\cdots$ be all eigenvalues of the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the Dirichlet boundary condition with $\lambda_i\rightarrow+\infty$ as $i\rightarrow\infty$, $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ be the corresponding unit normal eigenfunctions, i.e., $\Delta_g e_i=\lambda_ie_i$, $\int_\Sigma e_ie_jdv_g=\delta_{ij}$ for $i,j=1,2,\cdots$. It is known that $W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)=E_\ell\oplus E_\ell^\perp$, where $E_\ell={\rm span}\{e_1,\cdots,e_\ell\}$ and $E_\ell^\perp=\{e_{\ell+1},e_{\ell+2},
\cdots\}$.
Let $u\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ be as above. Write $u=v+w$ with $v\in E_\ell$ and $w\in E_\ell^\perp$. Thus the Poincar\'e inequality implies
$$\|v\|_{C^0(\overline\Sigma)}\leq \sum_{i=1}^\ell \|e_i\|_{C^0(\overline\Sigma)}\int_\Sigma |u||e_i|dv_g\leq C_\ell\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}.$$
While by the definition of the $(\ell+1)$-th eigenvalue,
$$\int_\Sigma w^2dv_g\leq \frac{1}{\lambda_{\ell+1}}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gw|^2dv_g.$$
Having the above two estimates and applying \eqref{uL2} to $w$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\Sigma e^udv_g&\leq& e^{C_\ell\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}}\int_\Sigma e^wdv_g\\
&\leq& Ce^{C_\ell\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}}\exp\le(\frac{1}{16k\pi}(1+\epsilon_1)\|\nabla_gw\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+
\frac{C(\epsilon_1)}{\lambda_{\ell+1}}\|\nabla_gw\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2\right)\\
&\leq&Ce^{C_\ell\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}}\exp\le(\frac{1}{16k\pi}\le(1+\epsilon_1\frac{C(\epsilon_1)}{\lambda_{\ell+1}}\right)
\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
This together with the Young inequality gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sec}\log\int_\Sigma e^udv_g\leq \frac{1}{16k\pi}\le(1+\epsilon_1\frac{C(\epsilon_1)}{\lambda_{\ell+1}}+\epsilon_1\right)
\int_\Sigma |\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+C_{\ell,k,\epsilon_1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\epsilon>0$ be any given number. Choosing $\epsilon_1=\epsilon/(32k\pi-2\epsilon)$, and then taking a sufficiently large $\ell$ such that ${C(\epsilon_1)}/{\lambda_{\ell+1}}\leq 1$ in \eqref{sec}, we immediately have
$$\log\int_\Sigma e^udv_g\leq \frac{1}{16k\pi-\epsilon}\int_\Sigma |\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+C,$$
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $b_0$, $\gamma_0$, $k$, and $\epsilon$. This is exactly \eqref{imp}. $\hfill\Box$\\
For any $\rho>0$, we define a functional $J_\rho: W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{functional-0}J_\rho(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g-\rho\log\int_\Sigma he^udv_g.\end{eqnarray}
Clearly $J_\rho\in C^2(W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma),\mathbb{R})$. To find solutions of the mean field equation \eqref{Dir}, it suffices to find critical points of $J_\rho$. For any $a\in \mathbb{R}$,
the sub-level of $J_\rho$ is written as $J_\rho^{a}=\{u\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma): J_\rho(u)\leq a\}$.
Let $\Sigma_k$ be the formal set of barycenters of $\Sigma$ (of order $k$), which reads as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Sig-k}\Sigma_k=\le\{\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\delta_{x_i}:t_i\geq 0,x_i\in\Sigma,\sum_{i=1}^kt_i=1\right\}.\end{eqnarray}
It is endowed with the weak topology of distributions. In computation, we use on $\Sigma_k$ the metric given by $(C^1(\overline\Sigma))^\ast$ inducing the same topology. Similarly we may define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{O-S-k}\overline{\Sigma}_k=\le\{\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\delta_{x_i}:t_i\geq 0,x_i\in\overline{\Sigma},\sum_{i=1}^kt_i=1\right\}.\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Continuous maps between sub-levels of \texorpdfstring{$J_{\rho}$}{the functional} and \texorpdfstring{$\Sigma_k$}{baycenter}}\label{2.3}
Let $J_\rho$, $\Sigma_k$ and $\overline\Sigma_k$ be defined as in \eqref{functional-0}, \eqref{Sig-k}
and \eqref{O-S-k} respectively. In this subsection, we shall construct continuous maps between sub-levels of $J_\rho$ and $\Sigma_k$ (or $\overline\Sigma_k$).
\begin{lemma}\label{noncontractible}
For any $k\geq 1$, both $\Sigma_k$ and $\overline{\Sigma}_k$ are non-contractible.
\end{lemma}
\proof Since $\Sigma_k$ is homotopic to $\overline{\Sigma}_k$, we only need to prove $\Sigma_k$ is non-contractible.
Let $\chi(\Sigma)$ be the Euler characteristic of $\Sigma$. By \cite[Corollary 1.4 (a)]{Kallel},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{characteristic}\chi(\Sigma_k)=1-\frac{1}{k!}(1-\chi(\Sigma))\cdots(k-\chi(\Sigma)).\end{eqnarray}
Denote the genus $\Sigma$ by $\mathfrak{g}$ and the connected components of $\partial\Sigma$ by $m$. Notice that $\Sigma$ is simply connected if and only if the Euler characteristic of $\Sigma$ equal to 1. By the assumption, it then follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{charac}\chi(\Sigma)=2-2\mathfrak{g}-m\leq 0.\end{eqnarray}
Inserting \eqref{charac} into \eqref{characteristic}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{char-1}\chi(\Sigma_k)\leq 0.\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, there holds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ch}\chi(\Sigma_k)=\sum_{j=0}^{3k-1}(-1)^j{\rm dim} H_j(\Sigma_k,\mathbb{Z}).\end{eqnarray}
Suppose $\Sigma_k$ is contractible. Then ${\rm dim} H_j(\Sigma_k,\mathbb{Z})=0$ for all $j\geq 1$. While
${\rm dim} H_0(\Sigma_k,\mathbb{Z})=1$, since $\Sigma_k$ is connected. Hence \eqref{ch} gives
$\chi(\Sigma_k)=1$, contradicting \eqref{char-1}. Hence $\Sigma_k$ is non-contractible. $\hfill\Box$
\begin{lemma}\label{Psi}
Let $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$. Then for any sufficiently large $L>0$, there exists a continuous retraction
$$\Psi:J_\rho^{-L}=\le\{u\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma): J_\rho(u)\leq -L\right\}\rightarrow \overline{\Sigma}_k.$$
Moreover, if $(u_n)\subset W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ satisfies
$\frac{e^{u_n}}{\int_\Sigma e^{u_n}dv_g}dv_g\rightarrow\sigma\in\overline\Sigma_k$, then $\Psi(u_n)\rightarrow \sigma\in\overline\Sigma_k$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
By \cite[Proposition 4.1]{Djadli}, for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $L_0>0$ such that for all $u\in J_\rho^{-L_0}$,
$$\frac{e^u}{\int_\Sigma e^udv_g}dv_g\in\le\{\sigma\in\mathcal{D}(\overline\Sigma):{\mathbf d}(\sigma,\overline\Sigma_k)<\epsilon\right\},$$
where $\mathcal{D}(\overline\Sigma)$ denotes the set of all distributions on $\overline\Sigma$.
If $\epsilon_0>0$ is sufficiently small, then there exists a continuous retraction
\begin{eqnarray}\label{proj}\psi_k:\le\{\sigma\in\mathcal{D}(\overline\Sigma): {\bf d}(\sigma,\overline{\Sigma}_k)<\epsilon_0\right\}\rightarrow \overline{\Sigma}_k.\end{eqnarray}
For sufficiently large $L>0$, we set
$$\Psi(u)=\psi_k\le(\frac{e^u}{\int_\Sigma e^udv_g}dv_g\right),\quad \forall u\in J_\rho^{-L}.$$
As a consequence, we have a continuous map $\Psi:J_\rho^{-L}\rightarrow\overline\Sigma_k$.
Moreover, if $(u_n)\subset W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ satisfies
$\frac{e^{u_n}}{\int_\Sigma e^{u_n}dv_g}dv_g\rightarrow\sigma\in\overline\Sigma_k$, then as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
$$\Psi(u_n)=\psi_k\le(\frac{e^{u_n}}{\int_\Sigma e^{u_n}dv_g}dv_g\right)\rightarrow \psi_k(\sigma)=\sigma,$$
as desired. $\hfill\Box$\\
Let $\sigma=\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\delta_{x_i}\in\Sigma_k$ be fixed. Take a smooth increasing function $\eta:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
satisfying $\eta(t)=t$ for $t\leq 1$, and $\eta(t)=2$ for $t\geq 2$. Set $\eta_r(t)=r\eta(t/r)$ for $r>0$.
For $\lambda>0$ and $x\in\overline\Sigma$, we define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ppp}\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)=\log\le(\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\frac{8\lambda^2}{(1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2
({\rm dist}(x,x_i)))^2}\right)\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{p-1}\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)=\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)-\log \frac{8 \lambda^2}{(1+4 \lambda^{2}r^{2} )^2 }.\end{eqnarray}
\begin{lemma}\label{P}
Let $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$ and $\epsilon>0$. If $\lambda>0$ is chosen sufficiently large, and $r>0$ is chosen sufficiently small, then for any $\sigma\in\Sigma_k$ with ${\rm dist}({\rm supp}\sigma,\partial\Sigma)\geq \epsilon$, there hold
\begin{eqnarray}\label{J-less}J_\rho(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\leq \le(8k\pi-\rho\right)\log\lambda\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{tend}\frac{e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}}{\int_\Sigma e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g}dv_g\rightarrow \sigma\quad{\rm as}\quad\lambda\rightarrow+\infty.\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\proof Given $\sigma\in \Sigma_k$. With no loss of generality, we assume ${\rm supp}\sigma=\{x_1,\cdots,x_k\}\subset\Sigma$. Let $\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}$ and $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ be defined as in \eqref{ppp}
and \eqref{p-1} respectively, where $\lambda>0$ and $0<r<\epsilon/4$.
Write $r_i=r_i(x)={\rm dist}(x,x_i)$ for $x\in\overline\Sigma$. A simple observation gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{wide}
\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda, \sigma}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
\log \frac{8 \lambda^2}{(1+4 \lambda^{2}r^{2} )^2 } &{\rm for}& x \in \Sigma\setminus \cup_{i=1}^{k} B_{2 r}(x_i)
\\[1.5ex]
\log \left(\frac{8 \lambda^2 t_{i}}{ \left(1+\lambda^{2} \eta_r^{2}\left(r_i\right) \right)^2 }+\frac{8 \lambda^2\left(1-t_{i}\right)}{ (1+4\lambda^{2} r^{2})^2}\right) &{\rm for}& x \in B_{2 r}(x_i).
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
As a consequence, $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$.
For $x\in B_{2r}(x_i)$, a straightforward calculation shows
$$\nabla_g\widetilde\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)=\frac{\frac{8\lambda^2t_i}{(1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i))^2}}
{\frac{8\lambda^2t_i}{(1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i))^2}+\frac{8\lambda^2(1-t_i)}{(1+4\lambda^2r^2)^2}}
\frac{4\lambda^2\eta_r(r_i)\eta_r^\prime(r_i)\nabla_gr_i}{1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i)},$$
and thus
$$|\nabla_g\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)|\leq \frac{4\lambda^2\eta_r(r_i)\eta_r^\prime(r_i)}{1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i)}.$$
In view of \eqref{wide}, there holds $\nabla_g\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)=0$ for $x\in \Sigma\setminus \cup_{i=1}^{k} B_{2 r}(x_i)$. Hence
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \int_\Sigma |\nabla_g\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}|^2dv_g&=&\int_{\cup_{i=1}^kB_{2r}(x_i)}|\nabla_g\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}|^2dv_g\\
\nonumber&\leq&\sum_{i=1}^k\int_{B_{2r(x_i)}}
\le(\frac{4\lambda^2\eta_r(r_i)\eta_r^\prime(r_i)}{1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i)}\right)^2dv_g\\
\nonumber&=&\sum_{i=1}^k16\pi(1+O(r^2))\le(\log(1+\lambda^2r^2)+\frac{1}{1+\lambda^2r^2}-1\right)+O(1)\\
&\leq& 16k\pi(1+O(r^2))\log \lambda^2+C\label{nabl}
\end{eqnarray}
for some constant $C$ independent of $r$ and $\lambda$. Moreover, for any $s$ with $0<s<\min\{r,\min_{1\leq i< j\leq k}{\rm dist}(x_i,x_j)\}$, there holds
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\cup_{i=1}^kB_{2r}(x_i)}e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g&=&\int_{\cup_{i=1}^kB_{s}(x_i)}e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g
+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right)\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^k\int_{B_{s}(x_i)}
\frac{8\lambda^2t_i}{(1+\lambda^2r_i^2)^2}dv_g+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right)\\
&=&8\pi(1+O(s^2))+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\Sigma\setminus\cup_{i=1}^kB_{2r}(x_i)}e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g=O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2r^4}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sense}\int_\Sigma e^{\widetilde\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g=8\pi(1+O(s^2))+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right)+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2r^4}\right).\end{eqnarray}
Passing to the limit $\lambda\rightarrow+\infty$ first, and then $s\rightarrow 0+$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{limit}\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow+\infty}\int_\Sigma e^{\widetilde\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g=8\pi.\end{eqnarray}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber\int_\Sigma e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g&=&\int_\Sigma e^{\widetilde\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g \frac{(1+4\lambda^2r^2)^2}{8\lambda^2}\\
&=&(8\pi+o_\lambda(1))\lambda^2r^4.\label{phiphi-1}\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eqref{nabl} and \eqref{phiphi-1}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
J_\rho(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_g\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}|^2dv_g-\rho\log\int_\Sigma he^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g\\
&\leq&(16k\pi-2\rho+O(r^2))\log\lambda+C_r.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\rho>8k\pi$, choosing $r>0$ sufficiently small and $\lambda>0$ sufficiently large, we conclude \eqref{J-less}.
Finally we prove \eqref{tend}. Let $\sigma=\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\delta_{x_i}\in\Sigma_k$ be as above. For any $\varphi\in C^1(\overline\Sigma)$, similar to \eqref{sense}, we calculate
$$
\int_\Sigma\varphi e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g
=8\pi\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\varphi(x_i)+O(s^2)+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right)+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2r^4}\right).
$$
Letting $\lambda\rightarrow+\infty$ first, and then $s\rightarrow 0+$, we get
$$\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow+\infty}\int_\Sigma\varphi e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g=8\pi\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\varphi(x_i).$$
This together with \eqref{limit} implies \eqref{tend}.
$\hfill\Box$
\begin{lemma}\label{PHI}
Let $\Psi$ and $L>0$ be as in Lemma \ref{Psi}. If $\lambda>0$ is chosen sufficiently large, then there exists a continuous map $\Phi_\lambda: \Sigma_{k}\rightarrow J_\rho^{-L}$ such that $\Psi\circ \Phi_\lambda$ is homotopic to the identity map ${\rm Id}:\Sigma_k\rightarrow\Sigma_k$.
\end{lemma}
\proof Let $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ be constructed as in Lemma \ref{P}. For any $\sigma\in\Sigma_k$, we define
$\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)=\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$. Clearly the map $\Phi_\lambda:\Sigma_k\rightarrow W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ is continuous.
By \eqref{J-less}, if $\lambda\geq e^{L/(\rho-8k\pi)}$, then $J_\rho(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\leq -L$. Thus $\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)\in J_\rho^{-L}$. By Lemma \ref{Psi} and \eqref{tend}, there holds
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Psi\circ\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)&=&\Psi(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\\
&=&\psi_k\le(\frac{e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}}{\int_\Sigma e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g}dv_g\right)\\
&\rightarrow&\sigma
\end{eqnarray*}
as $\lambda\rightarrow+\infty$. Hence $\Psi\circ \Phi_\lambda$ is homotopic to ${\rm Id}:\Sigma_k\rightarrow\Sigma_k$. $\hfill\Box$
\subsection{Min-max values}\label{2.4}
In this subsection, we shall construct suitable min-max value of $J_\rho$ for $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}^\ast$.
Recalling that $\Sigma$ is non-contractible, we can take a sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$ such that
$\Sigma_\epsilon=\{x\in \Sigma: {\rm dist}(x,\partial\Sigma)\geq \epsilon\}$ is non-contractible.
Let $\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}=\{\sigma\in\Sigma_k: {\rm dist}({\rm supp}\sigma,\partial\Sigma)\geq \epsilon\}$. According to Lemma \ref{noncontractible},
we see that $\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$ is also non-contractible. Let
\begin{eqnarray}\label{S-ek}\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}=\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\times [0,1]/(\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\times\{0\})\end{eqnarray}
be the topological cone over
$\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$. A path set associated to
the metric space
$\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{path}\Gamma_\lambda=\le\{\gamma\in C^0(\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k},W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)):\gamma|_{\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\times\{1\}}\in\Gamma_{\lambda,0}\right\},\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma_{\lambda,0}$ is given by
$$\Gamma_{\lambda,0}=\le\{\gamma\in C^0(\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\times\{1\},W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)):\gamma(\sigma,1)=\Phi_\lambda(\sigma),\forall \sigma\in\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\right\}.$$
If we write a path $\overline{\gamma}:\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ by $\overline{\gamma}(\sigma,t)=t\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$,
then $\overline{\gamma}\in \Gamma_\lambda$, and thus $\Gamma_\lambda\not=\varnothing$.
For any real numbers $\lambda$ and $\rho$, we set
\begin{eqnarray}\label{min-max}\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}=\inf_{\gamma\in\Gamma_\lambda}\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}}J_\rho(\gamma(\sigma,t))\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{betarho}\beta_{\lambda,\rho}=\sup_{\gamma\in\Gamma_{\lambda,0}}\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}\times\{1\}}
J_\rho(\gamma(\sigma,t)).\end{eqnarray}
\begin{lemma}\label{mini} Let $\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$, and $\epsilon>0$ be as above.
If $\lambda$ is chosen sufficiently large, and $r$ is chosen sufficiently small, then
$-\infty<\beta_{\lambda,\rho}<\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}<+\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\proof If $L>0$ is large enough, $\Psi: J_\rho^{-L}\rightarrow\overline\Sigma_k$ is well defined (see Lemma \ref{Psi} above). It follows from
Lemmas \ref{P} and \ref{PHI} that for sufficiently large $\lambda>0$ and sufficiently small $r>0$, there holds $\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)\in
J_\rho^{-4L}$ for all $\sigma\in\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$. This together with \eqref{betarho} implies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{beta}\beta_{\lambda,\rho}\leq -4L.\end{eqnarray}
Now we claim $\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}>-2L$. For otherwise, $\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}\leq-2L$. By definition of $\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}$, namely
\eqref{min-max},
there exists some $\gamma_1\in\Gamma_\lambda$ such that
$\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}}J_\rho(\gamma_1(\sigma,t))\leq-{3}L/2$. As a consequence
$$J_\rho(\gamma_1(\sigma,t))\leq -\frac{3}{2}L\quad{\rm for\,\,all}\quad (\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}.$$
Since $\Psi:J_\rho^{-L}\rightarrow\overline\Sigma_k$ is continuous, the map $\Psi\circ\gamma_1:\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow\overline\Sigma_{k}$ is also continuous.
Noting that $\gamma_1(\sigma,1)=\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)$ and $\gamma_1(\sigma,0)\equiv u_0\in J^{-L}_\rho$ for all $\sigma\in \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$, if we let $\pi:\overline\Sigma_k\rightarrow \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$ be a continuous projection, then
$\pi\circ\Psi\circ\Phi_\lambda: \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$ is homotopic to
a constant map $\pi\circ\Psi\circ\gamma_1(\cdot,0):\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$. Moreover, by Lemma \ref{PHI},
$\pi\circ\Psi\circ\Phi_\lambda$ is homotopic to ${\rm Id}:\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$. Hence
the identity map ${\rm Id}:\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$ is homotopic to the constant map
$\pi\circ\Psi\circ\gamma_1(\cdot,0):\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$, which contradicts the fact that $\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$
is non-contractible.
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}\label{alpha}\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}>-2L.\end{eqnarray}
Since $J_\rho\in C^2(W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma),\mathbb{R})$ and $\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}$ is a compact metric space, we immediately have that
$\beta_{\lambda,\rho}>-\infty$ and $\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}<+\infty$.
This together with \eqref{beta} and \eqref{alpha} concludes the lemma. $\hfill\Box$\\
To proceed, we need several uniform estimates for functionals $J_\rho$.
\subsection{Uniform estimates with respect to \texorpdfstring{$\rho$}{rho}}\label{2.5}
Let $[a,b]\subset(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$ be any closed interval. Let $L>0$ be sufficiently large such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{psi-b}\Psi: J_b^{-L}\rightarrow \overline\Sigma_k\end{eqnarray}
is a continuous map defined as in Lemma \ref{Psi}. Let $\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$ be given as in the previous section.
Choose a sufficiently large $\lambda>0$ such that for all $\sigma\in \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$, $\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)=\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Ja}J_a(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\leq -(a-8k\pi)\log\lambda\leq -4L,\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ is defined as in \eqref{p-1}. It should be remarked that the choice of $\lambda$ depends not only on $L$, $k$, $a$, but also on
$\epsilon$. Let $\Gamma_\lambda$ and $\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}$ be given as in \eqref{path} and \eqref{min-max} respectively.
\begin{lemma}\label{uniform-1}
Let $\rho\in[a,b]$. Then $\Psi:J_\rho^{-L}\rightarrow \overline\Sigma_k$ is well defined uniformly with respect to $\rho$. Moreover, for all
$\rho\in[a,b]$, there holds
$$J_\rho(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\leq -4L,\quad\forall \sigma\in \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}.$$
\end{lemma}
\proof Let $\rho\in [a,b]$. If $u\in J_\rho^{-L}$, then $J_\rho(u)\leq -L$. This implies
$$\log\int_\Sigma he^udv_g>0.$$
It follows that $J_b(u)\leq J_\rho(u)\leq -L$, and that $u\in J_b^{-L}$. As a consequence $J_\rho^{-L}\subset J_b^{-L}$, and thus
by \eqref{psi-b},
$\Psi:J_\rho^{-L}\rightarrow\overline\Sigma_k$ is well defined.
Let $\sigma\in\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$ and $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ satisfy \eqref{Ja}. Similarly as above, we have by \eqref{Ja},
\begin{eqnarray*}
J_\rho(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_g\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}|^2dv_g-\rho\int_\Sigma he^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_g\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}|^2dv_g-a\int_\Sigma he^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g\\
&=&J_a(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\leq -4L.
\end{eqnarray*}
This ends the proof of the lemma. $\hfill\Box$\\
For simplicity, we denote $\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}$ by $\alpha_\rho$. By Lemmas \ref{mini} and \ref{uniform-1},
$\alpha_\rho$ is a real number for any $\rho\in [a,b]$. Then
we have an analog of \cite[Lemma 2.4]{DJLW2}, namely
\begin{lemma}\label{monotonicity}
$\alpha_\rho/\rho$ is decreasing in $\rho\in [a,b]$.
\end{lemma}
\proof Let $a\leq \rho_1<\rho_2\leq b$. Then for any $(\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}$ and any $\gamma\in\Gamma_\lambda$,
there holds
$$
\frac{J_{\rho_1}(\gamma(\sigma,t))}{\rho_1}-\frac{J_{\rho_2}(\gamma(\sigma,t))}{\rho_2}=\le(\frac{1}{\rho_1}-\frac{1}{\rho_2}\right)\int_\Sigma
|\nabla_g\gamma(\sigma,t)|dv_g\geq 0.
$$
It then follows that $\alpha_{\rho_1}/\rho_1\geq \alpha_{\rho_2}/\rho_2$. $\hfill\Box$\\
By Lemma \ref{monotonicity}, $\alpha_\rho/\rho$ is differentiable almost everywhere in $[a,b]\subset(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$. Denote
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lambda}\Lambda_{a,b}=\le\{\rho\in(a,b): \frac{\alpha_\rho}{\rho}\,\,{\rm is\,\, differentiable\,\, at}\,\,\rho\right\}.\end{eqnarray}
Then $\Lambda_{a,b}$ is a dense subset of $[a,b]$.
\subsection{Existence for a dense set}\label{2.6}
In this subsection, we shall prove that $J_\rho$ has a critical point for any $\rho\in \Lambda_{a,b}$. The argument we shall use
is adapted from Ding-Jost-Li-Wang \cite{DJLW2}. For readers' convenience, we provide the details here.
\begin{lemma}\label{bdd}
If $\rho\in\Lambda_{a,b}$, then $\alpha_\rho$ is differentiable at $\rho$. In particular, if $\rho\in\Lambda_{a,b}$, then we have
$$\alpha_{\tilde{\rho}}=\alpha_\rho+O(\tilde{\rho}-\rho) \quad {\rm as}\,\,\, \tilde{\rho}\rightarrow \rho.$$
\end{lemma}
\proof In view of \eqref{lambda}, it suffices to notice that $\alpha_\rho=\rho(\alpha_\rho/\rho)$. $\hfill\Box$\\
As an analog of \cite[Lemma 3.2]{DJLW2}, we have the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{dense}
If $\rho\in\Lambda_{a,b}$, then $\alpha_\rho$ is a critical value of $J_\rho$.
\end{lemma}
\proof Let $(\rho_n)\subset [a,b]$ be an increasing sequence converging to $\rho\in\Lambda_{a,b}$. By the definition of $\alpha_{\rho_n}$,
there must be a path $\gamma_n\in\Gamma_\lambda$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rho-n}\sup_{u\in\gamma_n(\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k})}J_{\rho_n}(u)\leq \alpha_{\rho_n}+\rho-\rho_n.\end{eqnarray}
Also we use the definition of $\alpha_\rho$ to find some $u_n\in \gamma_n(\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k})\subset W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{J-geq}J_\rho(u_n)\geq \alpha_\rho-(\rho-\rho_n).\end{eqnarray}
For the above $u_n$, we have by Lemma \ref{bdd},
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu_n|^2dv_g&=&\frac{\frac{J_{\rho_n}(u_n)}{\rho_n}-\frac{J_{\rho}(u_n)}{\rho}}{\frac{1}{\rho_n}-\frac{1}{\rho}}\\
&\leq& \rho\frac{\alpha_{\rho_n}-\alpha_\rho}{\rho-\rho_n}+\le(\frac{1}{\rho_n}-\frac{1}{\rho}\right){\alpha_\rho}+\rho_n+\rho\nonumber\\
&\leq&c_0\label{bbb}
\end{eqnarray}
for some constant $c_0$ depending only on $\rho$, $\alpha_\rho$ and $(\alpha_\rho/\rho)^\prime$. Moreover,
by Lemmas \ref{monotonicity} and \ref{bdd}, and the estimate \eqref{rho-n}, one finds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ll}
J_\rho(u_n)\leq\frac{\rho}{\rho_n}J_{\rho_n}(u_n)
\leq\frac{\rho}{\rho_n}(\alpha_{\rho_n}+\rho-\rho_n)
\leq\alpha_\rho+C(\rho-\rho_n)
\end{eqnarray}
for some constant $C$ independent of $n$.
Suppose $\alpha_\rho$ is not a critical value of $J_\rho$. Since any bounded Palais-Smale sequence must converge
to a critical point of $J_\rho$ (see \cite[Lemma 3.1]{DJLW2}), there would exist $\delta>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{non-0}\|dJ_\rho(u)\|_{(W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma))^\ast}\geq 2\delta\end{eqnarray}
for all $u\in\mathscr{N}_\delta$, where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Ndelta}\mathscr{N}_\delta=\le\{u\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma):\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g\leq 2c_0,\,|J_\rho(u)-\alpha_\rho|<\delta\right\}.\end{eqnarray}
It follows from \eqref{J-geq}, \eqref{bbb} and \eqref{ll} that $\mathscr{N}_\delta\not=\varnothing$. Let $\mathbf{X}_\rho:
\mathscr{N}_\delta\rightarrow W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ be a pseudo-gradient vector field for $J_\rho$ in $\mathscr{N}_\delta$, namely a locally Lipschitz vector field satisfying $\|\mathbf{X}_\rho\|_{W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)}\leq 1$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{-delta}dJ_\rho(u)\le(\mathbf{X}_\rho(u)\right)\leq -\delta.\end{eqnarray}
Here we have used \eqref{non-0}. One can check that as $n\rightarrow\infty$, $dJ_{\rho_n}(u)$ converges to $dJ_\rho(u)$ in $(W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma))^\ast$
uniformly in $u$ with $\int_\Sigma |\nabla_gu|^2dv_g\leq c^\ast$. Thus $\mathbf{X}_\rho$ is also a pseudo-gradient vector
field for $J_{\rho_n}$ in $\mathscr{N}_\delta$. Moreover, there holds for all $u\in\mathscr{N}_\delta$ and sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{dj-n}dJ_{\rho_n}(u)\le(\mathbf{X}_\rho(u)\right)\leq -\delta/2.\end{eqnarray}
Take a Lipschitz continuous cut-off function $\eta$ such that $0\leq\eta\leq 1$, $\eta\equiv 1$ in $\mathscr{N}_{\delta/2}$,
and $\eta\equiv 0$ outside $\mathscr{N}_{\delta}$. Let $\psi:W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)\times [0,+\infty)$ be the flow generated by
$\eta\mathbf{X}_\rho$, which reads as
$$\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\psi(u,s)=\eta(\psi(u,s))\mathbf{X}_\rho(\psi(u,s))\\[1.5ex]
\psi(u,0)=u.
\end{array}\right.$$
This flow has long time existence because it always remains stationary outside $\mathscr{N}_\delta$. It follows from
\eqref{-delta} that for all $u\in\mathscr{N}_{\delta/2}$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{deriv-0}\le.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=0}J_\rho(\psi(u,s))=dJ_\rho(u)\le(\mathbf{X}_\rho(u)\right)\leq -\delta.\end{eqnarray}
In view of \eqref{alpha} and \eqref{Ndelta}, one easily sees $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}\not\in \mathscr{N}_\delta$ for all
$\sigma\in \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$. Since $J_\rho(\psi(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma},s))$ is decreasing in $s$, there holds
$J_\rho(\psi(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma},s))\leq -4L$ for all $s\in[0,+\infty)$. Hence $\psi(\gamma_n(\sigma,1),s)\not\in\mathscr{N}_\delta$,
and thus $\psi(\gamma_n(\sigma,1),s)\equiv \psi(\gamma_n(\sigma,1),0)=\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ for all $\sigma\in \Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$ and all $s\in[0,+\infty)$. As a consequence, if we write $\psi_s(\cdot)=\psi(\cdot,s)$, then we have $\psi_s\circ\gamma_n\in\Gamma_\lambda$.
By \eqref{ll} and the monotonicity of $J_\rho(\psi_s(u))$ in $s$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bound}
\alpha_\rho\leq\sup_{u\in\psi_s\circ\gamma_n(\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k})}J_\rho(u)\leq
\sup_{u\in\gamma_n(\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k})}J_\rho(u)\leq \alpha_\rho+C(\rho-\rho_n).
\end{eqnarray}
We now claim that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{usn}\sup_{u\in\psi_s\circ\gamma_n(\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k})}J_\rho(u)\,\, {\rm is\,\, achieved\,\, in}\,\, \mathscr{N}_{\delta/2}.\end{eqnarray}
In fact, since $\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}$ is a compact metric space, the continuous function
$J_\rho(\psi_s\circ\gamma_n(\cdot,\cdot))$ attains its supremum at some $(\sigma_{0},t_{0})\in\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}$.
As a result, the function $u_{s,n}=\psi_s\circ\gamma_n(\sigma_0,t_0)$ achieves
$\sup_{u\in\psi_s\circ\gamma_n(\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k})}J_\rho(u)$.
If $n$ is chosen sufficiently large, \eqref{bound} implies that
$\alpha_\rho\leq J_\rho(u_{s,n})\leq \alpha_\rho+\delta/2$. By \eqref{dj-n}, $J_{\rho_n}(\psi_s(u))$ is decreasing in $s$,
which together with \eqref{rho-n} gives $J_{\rho_n}(u_{s,n})\leq \alpha_{\rho_n}+\rho-\rho_n$. It then follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma |\nabla_gu_{s,n}|^2dv_g&=&\le(\frac{1}{\rho_n}-\frac{1}{\rho}\right)^{-1}\le(\frac{J_{\rho_n}(u_{s,n})}{\rho_n}-
\frac{J_{\rho}(u_{s,n})}{\rho}\right)\\
&\leq&\le(\frac{1}{\rho_n}-\frac{1}{\rho}\right)^{-1}\le(\frac{\alpha_{\rho_n}+\rho-\rho_n}{\rho_n}-\frac{\alpha_\rho}{\rho}\right)\\
&\leq&c_0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $c_0$ is the same constant as in \eqref{bbb}. Therefore $u_{s,n}\in\mathscr{N}_{\delta/2}$, and
our claim is confirmed.
Let $\bar{s}>0$ and $\overline{\gamma}_n=\psi_{\bar{s}}\circ\gamma_n$. Then we have by \eqref{deriv-0} and
\eqref{usn} that
\begin{eqnarray}
\le.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=\bar{s}}\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}}J_\rho(\psi_s\circ\gamma_n(\sigma,t))
&=&\le.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=\bar{s}}\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}}J_\rho(\psi_{s-\bar{s}}\circ\overline\gamma_n(\sigma,t))\nonumber\\
&=&\le.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=0}\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k}}J_\rho(\psi_{s}\circ\overline\gamma_n(\sigma,t))\nonumber\\
&\leq&\sup_{u\in\mathscr{N}_{\delta/2}}\le.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=0}J_\rho(\psi_s(u))\nonumber\\
&\leq&-\delta.\label{fin}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the Newton-Lebnitz formula, we conclude from \eqref{bound} and \eqref{fin} that
$$\sup_{u\in\psi_s\circ\gamma_n(\widehat{\Sigma}_{\epsilon,k})}J_\rho(u)<\alpha_\rho,$$
if $s>0$ is sufficiently large. This contradicts the definition of $\alpha_\rho$,
and ends the proof of the lemma. $\hfill\Box$
\subsection{Existence for all \texorpdfstring{$\rho\in(8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$}{non critical cases}}\label{2.7}
In this subsection, we use previous analysis to complete the proof of \autoref{thm1}. \\
\noindent{\it Proof of \autoref{thm1}.}
For any $\rho\in (8k\pi,8(k+1)\pi)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}^\ast$, there are two constants $a$ and $b$ with $8k\pi<a<\rho<b<8(k+1)\pi$. By Lemma \ref{dense}, we may take an increasing sequence of numbers
$(\rho_n)\subset\Lambda_{a,b}$ such that $\rho_n\rightarrow \rho$ and $\alpha_{\rho_n}$ is achieved by $u_n\in W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$. Moreover,
$u_n$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{n-equ}\Delta_gu_n=\rho_n\frac{he^{u_n}}{\int_\Sigma he^{u_n}dv_g}\quad{\rm in}\quad\Sigma.\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{monotonicity},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{alpha-n}\alpha_{\rho_n}\leq \frac{b}{a}\alpha_a.\end{eqnarray}
Denoting $v_n=u_n-\log\int_\Sigma he^{u_n}dv_g$, we have by \eqref{n-equ} that
$$\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_gv_n=\rho_nhe^{v_n}\\[1.5ex]
\int_\Sigma he^{v_n}dv_g=1.
\end{array}\right.$$
By Lemma \ref{compact}, $(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^\infty(\overline{\Sigma})$. Let $\Omega_1,\cdots,\Omega_{k+1}$ be disjoint sub-domains
of $\overline\Sigma$. By Lemma \ref{improved},
$$\log\int_\Sigma e^{u_n}dv_g\leq \frac{1}{16(k+1)\pi-\epsilon}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu_n|^2dv_g+C_\epsilon$$
for any $\epsilon>0$ and some constant $C_\epsilon>0$. This together with (\ref{alpha-n}) implies that for $0<\epsilon<16(k+1)\pi-2b$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu_n|^2dv_g&=&J_{\rho_n}(u_n)+\rho_n\log\int_\Sigma he^{u_n}dv_g\\
&\leq&\frac{b}{16(k+1)\pi-\epsilon}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu_n|^2dv_g+C.
\end{eqnarray*}
It then follows that $(u_n)$ is bounded in $W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$. With no loss of generality, we assume
$u_n$ converges to $u_\rho$ weakly in $W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)$, strongly in $L^p(\Sigma)$ for any $p>1$, and almost everywhere in $\Sigma$.
Moreover, $e^{u_n}$ converges to $e^{u_\rho}$ strongly in $L^p(\Sigma)$ for any $p>1$. By \eqref{n-equ}, $u_\rho$ is a distributional
solution of \eqref{Dir}.
Hence $u_\rho$ is a critical point of $J_\rho$. $\hfill\Box$
\section{The Neumann boundary value problem}\label{Neuma}
In this section, we shall prove \autoref{thm2} by the min-max method. Since part of the proof is analogous to that of \autoref{thm1}, we only give its outline but stress the difference. In \autoref{3.1}, we prove a compactness result for solutions of \eqref{num}; In \autoref{3.2}, we derive an improved Trudinger-Moser inequality for functions $u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ with $\int_\Sigma udv_g=0$; In \autoref{3.3}, we construct two continuous maps between sub-levels of $J_\rho$ and the topological space $\mathscr{S}_k$, where $J_\rho$ and $\mathscr{S}_k$ are defined as in \eqref{funct-2} and \eqref{subset} respectively; In \autoref{3.4}, we construct min-max levels of $J_\rho$; The remaining part of the proof of \autoref{thm2} is outlined in \autoref{3.5}.
\subsection{Compactness analysis}\label{3.1}
Let $(\rho_n)$ be a number sequence tending to $\rho\in\mathbb{R}$, $(h_n)$ be a function sequence converging to
$h$ in $C^1(\overline{\Sigma})$, and $(u_n)$ be a sequence of solutions to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Neumann}\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_g u_n=\rho_n\le(\frac{h_ne^{u_n}}{\int_\Sigma h_ne^{u_n}dv_g}-\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\right)&{\rm in}&\Sigma\\[1.5ex]
\partial u_n/\partial\mathbf{v}=0&{\rm on}&\partial\Sigma\\[1.5ex]
\int_\Sigma u_ndv_g=0.
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
Denote $v_n=u_n-\log\int_\Sigma h_ne^{u_n}dv_g$. Then
$\Delta_{g} v_n=\rho_n(h_ne^{v_n}-1/|\Sigma|)$ and $\int_\Sigma h_ne^{v_n}dv_g=1$. Concerning the compactness of $(u_n)$, we have an analog of
Lemma \ref{compact}, namely
\begin{lemma}\label{compact-2}
Assume $\rho$ is a positive number and $h$ is a positive function. Up to a subsequence, there holds one of the following alternatives:\\
$(i)$ $(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^\infty(\overline\Sigma)$;\\
$(ii)$ $(v_n)$ converges to $-\infty$ uniformly in $\overline\Sigma$;\\
$(iii)$ there exists a finite singular set $\mathcal{S}=\{p_1,\cdots,p_m\}\subset {\overline\Sigma}$ such that
for any $1\leq j\leq m$, there is a sequence of points $\{p_{j,n}\}\subset\overline\Sigma$ satisfying
$p_{j,n}\rightarrow p_j$, $u_n(p_{j,n})\rightarrow+\infty$, and $v_n$ converges to $-\infty$ uniformly on any compact subset of
$\overline{\Sigma}\setminus\mathcal{S}$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Moreover, if $\mathcal{S}$ has $\ell$ points in $\Sigma$
and $(m-\ell)$ points on $\partial\Sigma$, then
$$\rho_n\int_\Sigma h_ne^{v_n}dv_g\rightarrow 4(m+\ell)\pi. $$
\end{lemma}
\proof We modify arguments in the proof of Lemma \ref{compact}, and divide it into two parts.\\
{\bf Part I. Analysis in the interior domain $\Sigma$}
Let $(u_n)$ be a sequence of solutions to \eqref{Neumann}. By the Green representation formula (see \cite{Yang-Zhou}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{W1q-2}\|u_n\|_{W^{1,q}(\Sigma)}\leq C_q,\quad\forall 1<q<2.\end{eqnarray}
Since $(h_n)$ converges to $h>0$ in $C^1(\overline\Sigma)$, there exists some constant $C>0$ such that
for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lower-b-2}\int_\Sigma e^{v_n}dv_g\leq C.\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, Jensen's inequality implies
$$\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_\Sigma e^{u_n}dv_g\geq|\Sigma|.$$
We assume with no loss of generality, $\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}dv_g$ converges to some nonnegative measure $\mu$ on $\overline\Sigma$. If $\mu(x^\ast)<4\pi$ for some $x^\ast\in\Sigma$,
then there exist two positive constants $\epsilon_0$ and $r_0$ verifying
$$\int_{B_{x^\ast}(r_0)}\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}dv_g\leq 4\pi-\epsilon_0.$$
In view of \eqref{Neumann}, by a result of Brezis-Merle \cite[Theorem 1]{B-M} and elliptic estimates, we have that
$(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}(B_{x^\ast}(r_0/2))$. This leads to $\mu(x^\ast)=0$. Define a set
$\mathcal{S}=\{x\in\Sigma: \mu(x)\geq 4\pi\}$.
If $\mathcal{S}\not=\varnothing$, then by almost the same argument as the proof of \eqref{local-uniform}, we conclude
that for any compact set $A\subset\Sigma\setminus\mathcal{S}$, there
holds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{local-uniform-2}v_n\rightarrow-\infty\,\,{\rm uniforlmy\,\,in}\,\, x\in A.\end{eqnarray}
Assume $\mathcal{S}=\{x_1,\cdots,x_j\}$ for some positive integer $j$. We shall show that $\mu(x_i)=8\pi$ for all $1\leq i\leq j$.
With no loss of generality, it suffices to prove $\mu(x_1)=8\pi$. For this purpose, we choose an isothermal coordinate system
$\phi:U\rightarrow\mathbb{B}_1=\{(y_1,y_2)\in\mathbb{R}^2: y_1^2+y_2^2<1\}$ near $x_1$. In such coordinates, the metric $g$ and the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_g$
are represented by $g=e^{\psi(y)}(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)$ and
$\Delta_g=-e^{-\psi(y)}\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ respectively, where $\psi$ is a smooth function with $\psi(0,0)=0$, and $\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}={\partial^2}/{\partial y_1^2}+{\partial^2}/{\partial y_2^2}$ denotes the standard Laplacian on $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Set $\widetilde{u}=u\circ \phi^{-1}$ for any function $u:U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. Since $(u_n)$ satisfies \eqref{Neumann}, then
$\widetilde{u}_n=u_n\circ \phi^{-1}$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{local-2}-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n(y)=e^{\psi(y)}\rho_n(\widetilde{h}_n(y)e^{\widetilde{v}_n(y)}-|\Sigma|^{-1}),
\quad y\in\mathbb{B}_1.\end{eqnarray}
Multiplying both sides of \eqref{local-2} by $y\cdot\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n(y)$, we have by integration by parts
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Pohozaev-2}\nonumber\frac{r}{2}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}|\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n|^2d\sigma-r\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}
\langle\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n,\mathbf{\nu} \rangle^2d\sigma&=&r\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}
e^{\psi}\rho_n\widetilde{h}_ne^{\widetilde{v}_n}d\sigma-\int_{\mathbb{B}_r}e^{\widetilde{v}_n}
\rho_n\langle\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}(e^{\psi}\widetilde{h}_n),y \rangle dy\\&&-2\int_{\mathbb{B}_r}
e^{\psi}\rho_n\widetilde{h}_ne^{\widetilde{v}_n}dy+\frac{\rho_n}{|\Sigma|}\int_{\mathbb{B}_r}e^{\psi}y\cdot\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_ndy,\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbb{B}_r=\{y\in\mathbb{R}^2:y_1^2+y_2^2<r\}$, $\partial\mathbb{B}_r=\{y\in\mathbb{R}^2:y_1^2+y_2^2=r\}$, and
$\nu$ denotes the unit outward vector on $\partial\mathbb{B}_r$. In view of \eqref{local-uniform-2}, $(u_n)$ converges to
a Green function $G(x_1,\cdot)$ weakly in $W^{1,q}(\Sigma)$, and in $C^2_{\rm loc}(\Sigma\setminus\mathcal{S})$. Locally
$G(x_1,\cdot)$ satisfies
$$\Delta_{g,z}G(x_1,z)=\mu(x_1)\delta_{x_1}(z)-\rho|\Sigma|^{-1},\quad\forall z\in \phi^{-1}(\mathbb{B}_{1}).$$
Clearly $\widetilde{G}(y)=G(x_1,\phi^{-1}(y))=-\frac{\mu(x_1)}{2\pi}\log|y|+\eta(y)$ for some $\eta\in C^2(\mathbb{B}_1)$.
Passing to the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$ first, and then $r\rightarrow 0$ in \eqref{Pohozaev-2}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{mess-2}\mu(x_1)=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0}\le(\frac{r}{2}\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}\langle\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{G},\nu\rangle^2d\sigma-\frac{r}{4}
\int_{\partial\mathbb{B}_r}|\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{G}|^2d\sigma\right)=\frac{(\mu(x_1))^2}{8\pi}.\end{eqnarray}
This immediately leads to $\mu(x_1)=8\pi$. In conclusion, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{inner-2}\mu(x_i)=8\pi\,\,\,{\rm for\,\,all}\,\,\, 1\leq i\leq j.\end{eqnarray}
{\bf Part II. Analysis on the boundary $\partial\Sigma$}
Let $x^\ast\in \overline\Sigma$ be fixed. Note that $\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}dv_{g}$ converges to the nonnegative Radon measure $\mu$ on $\overline{\Sigma}$
as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
If $\mu(x^\ast)<2\pi$, there exist a neighborhood $V$ of $x^\ast$ and a number $\gamma_0>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2pi-2}\int_V\rho_nh_ne^{v_n}dv_g\leq 2\pi-\gamma_0.\end{eqnarray}
With no loss of generality, we take an isothermal coordinate system $(V,\phi,\{y_1,y_2\})$ such that
$\phi(x^\ast)=(0,0)$, and $\phi:V\rightarrow{\mathbb{B}_1^+}\cup\Gamma=\{(y_1,y_2):y_1^2+y_2^2< 1,\,y_2\geq 0\}$, where
$\Gamma=\{(y_1,y_2): |y_1|<1, y_2=0\}$. Moreover, in this coordinate system, the metric $g=e^{\psi(y)}(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)$, and the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_g=-e^{-\psi(y)}\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}$, where $\psi:\mathbb{B}_1^+\cup\Gamma\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function
with $\psi(0,0)=0$; moreover, $\partial/\partial\mathbf{v}=e^{-\psi(y)/2}\partial/\partial y_2$. For more details about isothermal coordinates on the boundary, we refer the readers to \cite[Section 2]{Yang-Zhou}. Now the local version of \eqref{Neumann} reads as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{semi-equation-2}\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}(u_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)=e^{\psi(y)}\rho_n\le((h_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)e^{(v_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)}-|\Sigma|^{-1}\right)
&{\rm in}&\mathbb{B}_1^+\\[1.5ex]
\frac{\partial}{\partial y_2}(u_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)=0&{\rm on}& \Gamma.
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
For any function $u:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we define a function $\widetilde{u}: \mathbb{B}_1\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{u-tilde-2}\widetilde{u}(y_1,y_2)=\le\{
\begin{array}{lll}
u\circ\phi^{-1}(y_1,y_2)&{\rm if}& y_2\geq 0\\[1.5ex]
u\circ\phi^{-1}(y_1,-y_2)&{\rm if}& y_2< 0.
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
One can easily derive from \eqref{semi-equation-2} that $\widetilde{u}_n$ is a distributional solution of
\begin{eqnarray}\label{un-2}-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n(y)=\widetilde{f}_n(y),\quad y\in\mathbb{B}_1,\end{eqnarray}
where $\widetilde{f}_n$ is defined as in \eqref{u-tilde-2} and for $y\in \mathbb{B}_1^+\cup\Gamma$,
$$f_n\circ\phi^{-1}(y)=e^{\psi(y)}\rho_n\le((h_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)e^{(v_n\circ\phi^{-1})(y)}-|\Sigma|^{-1}\right).$$
In view of \eqref{2pi-2} and the fact $\psi(0,0)=0$, there would exist a number $0<r_0<1$ such that
$$\int_{\mathbb{B}_{r_0}}|\widetilde{f}_n(y)|dy\leq 4\pi-\gamma_0.$$
Let $w_n$ be a solution of
$$\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}w_n=\widetilde{f}_n&{\rm in}&\mathbb{B}_{r_0}\\[1.5ex]
w_n=0&{\rm on}&\partial\mathbb{B}_{r_0}.
\end{array}\right.$$
By \cite[Theorem 1]{B-M}, there exists some constant $C$ depending only on $\epsilon_0$
and $r_0$ such that
$$\int_{\mathbb{B}_{r_0}}\exp\le(\frac{(4\pi-\gamma_0/2)|w_n|}{\|\widetilde{f}_n\|_{L^1(\mathbb{B}_{r_0})}}\right)dy\leq C.$$
Hence there exists some $q_0>1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Lq0-2}\|e^{|w_n|}\|_{L^{q_0}(\mathbb{B}_{r_0})}\leq C.\end{eqnarray}
Let
$\eta_n=\widetilde{u}_n-w_n$. Then $\eta_n$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{harmonic-2}\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}\eta_n=0&{\rm in}&\mathbb{B}_{r_0}\\[1.5ex]
\eta_n=\widetilde{u}_n&{\rm on}&\partial\mathbb{B}_{r_0}.
\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}
Noticing \eqref{W1q-2} and \eqref{Lq0-2}, we have by applying elliptic estimates to \eqref{harmonic-2} that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{etan-2}\|\eta_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{B}_{r_0/2})}\leq C.\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eqref{lower-b-2}, \eqref{Lq0-2} and \eqref{etan-2}, we conclude
$\|\widetilde{f}_n\|_{L^{q_0}(\mathbb{B}_{r_0/2})}\leq C$. Applying elliptic estimates to \eqref{un-2}, we obtain
$\|\widetilde{u}_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{B}_{r_0/4})}\leq C$, which implies
$\|{u}_n\|_{L^\infty(\phi^{-1}(\mathbb{B}^{+}_{r_0/4}))}\leq C$. In conclusion, we have that if $\mu(x^\ast)<2\pi$, then
$(u_n)$ is uniformly bounded near $x^\ast$. This also leads to $\mu(x^\ast)=0$.
If $\mu(x^\ast)\geq 2\pi$, in the same coordinate system $(V,\phi,\{y_1,y_2\})$ as above, $\widetilde{f}_n(y)dy$ converges to a Radon measure $\widetilde{\mu}$ with
$\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)=2\mu(x^\ast)\geq 4\pi$. Obviously there exists some $r_1>0$ such that for any $x\in \mathbb{B}_{r_1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}$,
$\widetilde{\mu}(x)=0$. Using the same argument as the proof of \eqref{local-uniform-2}, we conclude that
for any compact set $A\subset \mathbb{B}_{r_1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}$, $\widetilde{v}_n$ converges to $-\infty$ uniformly in $A$. This leads to
$\widetilde{f}_n(y)dy$ converges to the Dirac measure $\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)\delta_{(0,0)}(y)$. Recalling \eqref{W1q-2}, we have
$\widetilde{u}_n$ converges to $\widetilde{G}_0$ weakly in $W^{1,q}(\mathbb{B}_{r_1})$ and a.e. in $\mathbb{B}_{r_1}$, where $\widetilde{G}_0$
satisfies
$$-\Delta_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{G}_0(y)=\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)\delta_{(0,0)}(y)-\rho|\Sigma|^{-1},\quad y\in\mathbb{B}_{r_1}.$$
Clearly $\widetilde{G}_0$ is represented by
$$\widetilde{G}_0(y)=-\frac{\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)}{2\pi}\log|y|+A_0+O(|y|)$$
as $y\rightarrow 0$, where $A_0$ is a constant. Noting that $\widetilde{v}_n$ converges to $-\infty$
locally uniformly in $\mathbb{B}_{r_1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}$, we have by applying elliptic estimates to \eqref{un-2} that
$$\widetilde{u}_n\rightarrow \widetilde{G}_0\quad {\rm in}\quad C^2_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{B}_{r_1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}).$$
Multiplying both sides of \eqref{un-2} by $y\cdot\nabla_{\mathbb{R}^2}\widetilde{u}_n(y)$, completely analogous to \eqref{Pohozaev-2}
and \eqref{mess-2}, we obtain
$\widetilde{\mu}(0,0)=8\pi$, and thus
\begin{eqnarray}\label{boundary-2}\mu(x^\ast)=4\pi.\end{eqnarray}
Note that if $\mu(x_i)>0$ for some $x_i\in\overline\Sigma$, then there must exist $x_{i,n}\subset\overline\Sigma$ satisfying
$u_n(x_{i,n})\rightarrow+\infty$. For otherwise, $(u_n)$ is uniformly bounded near $x$, which leads to $\mu(x)=0$. The lemma then follows
from \eqref{inner-2} and \eqref{boundary-2} immediately. $\hfill\Box$
\subsection{An improved Trudinger-Moser inequality}\label{3.2}
For a compact surface with smooth boundary, it was proved by Yang \cite{2006} that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T-M-mean-2}\sup_{u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma),\,\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g\leq 1,\,\int_\Sigma udv_g=0}\int_\Sigma e^{2\pi u^2}dv_g<\infty.\end{eqnarray}
Denote $\overline{u}=\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma udv_g$. By \eqref{T-M-mean-2} and the Young inequality, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}\log\int_\Sigma e^{u-\overline{u}}dv_g&\leq&\log\int_\Sigma e^{2\pi\frac{(u-\overline{u})^2}{\|\nabla_gu\|_2^2}+\frac{1}{8\pi}
\|\nabla_gu\|_2^2}dv_g\\
&=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+\log\int_\Sigma e^{2\pi\frac{(u-\overline{u})^2}{\|\nabla_gu\|_2^2}}dv_g\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{8\pi}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+C.\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T-M-weak-2}\log\int_\Sigma e^{u}dv_g\leq \frac{1}{8\pi}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma udv_g,\quad\forall
u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma).\end{eqnarray}
\begin{lemma}\label{improved-2}
Let $b_0$ and $\gamma_0$ be two positive constants, $\Omega_1,\cdots,\Omega_k$ be $k$ domains of $\overline\Sigma$ with
${\rm dist}(\Omega_i,\Omega_j)\geq b_0$ for all $1\leq i<j\leq k$. Then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists some constant $C$
depending only on $b_0,\gamma_0,k,\epsilon$, such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{imp-2}\log\int_\Sigma e^udv_g\leq \frac{1}{8k\pi-\epsilon}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma udv_g+C\end{eqnarray}
for all $u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{comp-2}\int_{\Omega_i}e^{u}dv_g\geq\gamma_0\int_\Sigma e^udv_g,\,\, i=1,\cdots,k.\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\proof We follow the lines of Chen-Li \cite{Chen-Li}. Take smooth functions $\phi_1,\cdots,\phi_k$
defined on $\overline\Sigma$ satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}\label{phi-1-2}{\rm supp}\phi_i\cap {\rm supp}\phi_j=\varnothing,\quad\forall 1\leq i<j\leq k,\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{phi-2-2}\phi_i\equiv 1 \,\,{\rm on}\,\,\Omega_i; \,\,0\leq\phi_i\leq 1 \,\,{\rm on}\,\, \overline\Sigma,\,\,\forall 1\leq i\leq k, \end{eqnarray}
and for some positive constant $b_1$ depending only on $b_0$ and the metric $g$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{phi-3-2}|\nabla_g\phi_i|\leq b_1,\quad\forall 1\leq i\leq k.\end{eqnarray}
For any $u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ satisfying \eqref{comp-2}, we have $\phi_i u\in W^{1,2}(\Omega)$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$, and thus
\eqref{T-M-weak-2} implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\Sigma e^udv_g&\leq&\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\int_{\Omega_i}e^{u}dv_g\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\int_{\Sigma}e^{\phi_iu}dv_g\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\exp\le(\frac{1}{8\pi}\|\nabla_g(\phi_iu)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma \phi_iu dv_g +C\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that \eqref{phi-1-2} gives
$$\sum_{i=1}^k\|\nabla_g(\phi_i u)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2=\le\|\nabla_g\le(u\sum_{i=1}^k\phi_i\right)\right\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2,$$
and \eqref{phi-2-2} implies
$$\sum_{i=1}^k\int_\Sigma \phi_iudv_g\leq\int_\Sigma |u|dv_g\leq \frac{1}{|\Sigma|^{1/2}}\|u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}. $$
Combining the above three estimates, \eqref{phi-3-2}, the Young inequality and an elementary inequality
$$a\leq (a_1\cdots a_k)^{1/k}\,\, {\rm if}\,\,
0\leq a\leq a_i, \, i=1,\cdots,k,$$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\int_\Sigma e^udv_g&\leq&\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\le(\prod_{i=1}^k\exp\le(\frac{1}{8\pi}\|\nabla_g(\phi_iu)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2
+\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma \phi_iu dv_g+C\right)\right)^{1/k}\\
\nonumber&=&\frac{e^C}{\gamma_0}\exp\le(\frac{1}{8k\pi}\sum_{i=1}^k\|\nabla_g(\phi_iu)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+
\frac{1}{k}{\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}}\sum_{i=1}^k\int_\Sigma\phi_i udv_g\right)\\\nonumber
&=&\frac{e^C}{\gamma_0}\exp\le(\frac{1}{8k\pi}\le\|\nabla_g\le(u\sum_{i=1}^k\phi_i\right)\right\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+
\frac{1}{k}{\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}}\sum_{i=1}^k\int_\Sigma\phi_i udv_g\right)\\\label{uL2-2}
&\leq& C\exp\le(\frac{1}{8k\pi}(1+\epsilon_1)\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+C(\epsilon_1)\|u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $0<\lambda_1\leq \lambda_2\leq \cdots\leq \lambda_\ell\leq\lambda_{\ell+1}\leq\cdots$ be all eigenvalues of the
Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the Neumann boundary condition. Clearly $\lambda_i\rightarrow+\infty$ as $i\rightarrow\infty$. Let $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ be the corresponding
unit normal eigenfunctions, i.e., $\Delta_g e_i=\lambda_ie_i$, $\int_\Sigma e_idv_g=0$, $\int_\Sigma e_ie_jdv_g=\delta_{ij}$ for $i,j=1,2,\cdots$. It is known that $\mathscr{H}:=\{u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma): \overline{u}=0\}=E_\ell\oplus E_\ell^\perp$, where $E_\ell={\rm span}\{e_1,\cdots,e_\ell\}$ and $E_\ell^\perp={\rm span}\{e_{\ell+1},e_{\ell+2},
\cdots\}$.
Let $u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ be given as above. We decompose $u-\overline{u}=v+w$ with $v\in E_\ell$ and $w\in E_\ell^\perp$. Thus the Poincar\'e inequality implies
$$\|v\|_{C^0(\overline\Sigma)}\leq \sum_{i=1}^\ell \|e_i\|_{C^0(\overline\Sigma)}\int_\Sigma |u-\overline{u}||e_i|dv_g\leq C_\ell\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}.$$
While by the definition of the $(\ell+1)$-th eigenvalue $\lambda_{\ell+1}$,
$$\int_\Sigma w^2dv_g\leq \frac{1}{\lambda_{\ell+1}}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gw|^2dv_g.$$
Having the above two estimates and applying \eqref{uL2-2} to $w$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\Sigma e^{u-\overline{u}}dv_g&\leq& e^{C_\ell\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}}\int_\Sigma e^wdv_g\\
&\leq& Ce^{C_\ell\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}}\exp\le(\frac{1}{8k\pi}(1+\epsilon_1)\|\nabla_gw\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2+
\frac{C(\epsilon_1)}{\lambda_{\ell+1}}\|\nabla_gw\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2\right)\\
&\leq&Ce^{C_\ell\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}}\exp\le(\frac{1}{8k\pi}\le(1+\epsilon_1+\frac{C(\epsilon_1)}{\lambda_{\ell+1}}\right)
\|\nabla_gu\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
This together with the Young inequality gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sec-2}\log\int_\Sigma e^{u-\overline{u}}dv_g\leq \frac{1}{8k\pi}\le(1+\epsilon_1\frac{C(\epsilon_1)}{\lambda_{\ell+1}}+\epsilon_1\right)
\int_\Sigma |\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+C_{\ell,k,\epsilon_1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $0<\epsilon<8k\pi$ be any given number. Choosing $\epsilon_1=\epsilon/(16k\pi-2\epsilon)$, and then taking a sufficiently large $\ell$ such that ${C(\epsilon_1)}/{\lambda_{\ell+1}}\leq 1$, we have by \eqref{sec-2} that
$$\log\int_\Sigma e^{u-\overline{u}}dv_g\leq \frac{1}{8k\pi-\epsilon}\int_\Sigma |\nabla_gu|^2dv_g+C,$$
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $b_0$, $\gamma_0$, $k$, and $\epsilon$. This is exactly \eqref{imp-2}. $\hfill\Box$\\
Define a functional $J_\rho:W^{1,2}(\Sigma)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{funct-2}J_\rho(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu|^2dv_g-\rho\log\int_\Sigma he^{u}dv_g+\frac{\rho}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma udv_g.\end{eqnarray}
From now on to the end of this section, $J_\rho$ is always given as in \eqref{funct-2}.
\subsection{Continuous maps between sub-levels of \texorpdfstring{$J_\rho$}{the functional} and \texorpdfstring{$\Sigma_k$}{baycenter}}\label{3.3}
Let $\overline\Sigma_k$ be defined as in \eqref{O-S-k}, and $(\partial\Sigma)_k$ be defined by
$$(\partial\Sigma)_k=\le\{\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\delta_{x_i}:t_i\geq 0,\sum_{i=1}^k=1,x_i\in\partial\Sigma\right\}.$$
\begin{lemma}\label{Psi-2}
Let $\rho\in(4k\pi,4(k+1)\pi)$. Then for any sufficiently large $L>0$, there exists a continuous retraction
$$\Psi:J_\rho^{-L}=\le\{u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma): J_\rho(u)\leq -L\right\}\rightarrow \overline{\Sigma}_k.$$
Moreover, if $(u_n)\subset W^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ satisfies
$\frac{e^{u_n}}{\int_\Sigma e^{u_n}dv_g}dv_g\rightarrow\sigma\in\overline\Sigma_k$, then $\Psi(u_n)\rightarrow \sigma\in\overline\Sigma_k$.
\end{lemma}
\proof Since the proof is almost the same as that of Lemma \ref{Psi}, we omit the details here. $\hfill\Box$\\
For any finite set $E$, we denote the number of all distinct points of $E$ by $\sharp E$. We define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{subset}
\mathscr{S}_k=\left\{\sigma\in\overline{\Sigma}_k: \sharp{({\rm supp}\sigma\cap\Sigma)}+
\sharp{{\rm supp}\sigma}\leq k\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us explain what $\mathscr{S}_k$ means. Clearly, $\mathscr{S}_1=(\partial\Sigma)_1=\partial\Sigma$; For $k=2$, $\mathscr{S}_2=\{\delta_x:x\in\Sigma\}\cup\{t\delta_{x_1}+(1-t)\delta_{x_2}:0\leq t\leq 1,x_1,x_2\in\partial\Sigma\}=(\partial\Sigma)_2\cup\Sigma$; For $k=3$, we write
$\mathscr{S}_3=\{t\delta_{x_1}+(1-t)\delta_{x_2}:0\leq t\leq 1, x_1\in\Sigma,x_2\in\partial\Sigma\}\cup\{t_1\delta_{x_1}+t_2\delta_{x_2}+t_3
\delta_{x_3}: 0\leq t_i\leq 1, x_i\in\partial\Sigma,1\leq i\leq 3, t_1+t_2+t_3=1\}=(\partial\Sigma)_3\cup \mathscr{A}_3$, where
$\mathscr{A}_3=\{t\delta_{x_1}+(1-t)\delta_{x_2}:0\leq t\leq 1, x_1\in\Sigma,x_2\in\partial\Sigma\}$. We observe that ${\rm dim}\mathscr{A}_3<
{\rm dim}(\partial\Sigma)_3=5$, since $(\partial\Sigma)_3\setminus (\partial\Sigma)_2$ is a smooth $5$-dimensional manifold, and
${\rm dim}\mathscr{A}_3\leq 4$.
\begin{lemma}\label{Sk-nonc}
For any $k\geq 1$, $\mathscr{S}_k$ is non-contractible.
\end{lemma}
\proof Obviously $\mathscr{S}_1=\partial\Sigma$ is non-contractible. For $k\geq 2$, based on the above observation, an induction argument shows
$\mathscr{S}_k=(\partial\Sigma)_k\cup\mathscr{A}_k$,
where ${\rm dim}\mathscr{A}_k<{\rm dim}(\partial\Sigma)_k=2k-1$. Though $(\partial\Sigma)_k$ is a combination of several
different dimensional branches, we still denote the maximum dimension of those branches by
${\rm dim}(\partial\Sigma)_k$. Arguing as \cite[Lemma 4.7]{Djadli}, we have that $(\partial\Sigma)_k$ is non-contractible. (This was also noticed by Zhang-Zhou-Zhou \cite{Zhang-Zhou-Zhou}). In fact, we have
\begin{equation}\label{non-00}
H_{2k-1}((\partial\Sigma)_k,\mathbb{Z}_2)\not=\{0\}.
\end{equation}
Given any $(2k-1)$-dimensional closed chain $\mathcal{C}_{2k-1}$ and any $(2k-1)$-dimensional boundary chain ${\mathcal{E}}_{2k-1}$ of $(\partial\Sigma)_k$.
Since $(\partial\Sigma)_k$ is a closed sub-topological space in $\mathscr{S}_k$, and ${\rm dim}((\partial\Sigma)_k)=
{\rm dim}(\mathscr{S}_k)=2k-1$, one easily sees that $\mathcal{C}_{2k-1}$ is also a closed chain of $\mathscr{S}_k$
and $\mathcal{E}_{2k-1}=0$ is also the boundary $(2k-1)$-chain of $\mathscr{S}_k$. Hence $$H_{2k-1}((\partial\Sigma)_k,\mathbb{Z}_2)\subset H_{2k-1}(\mathscr{S}_k,\mathbb{Z}_2),$$ which together with (\ref{non-00}) implies
that
$\mathscr{S}_k$ is non-contractible. $\hfill\Box$ \\
Take a smooth increasing function $\eta:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
satisfying $\eta(t)=t$ for $t\leq 1$, and $\eta(t)=2$ for $t\geq 2$. Set $\eta_r(t)=r\eta(t/r)$ for $r>0$.
For $\lambda>0$, $x\in\overline\Sigma$, and $1\leq\ell<m$, we define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ppp-2}\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)=\log\le(\sum_{i=1}^\ell \frac{t_i}{2}\frac{8\lambda^2}{(1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2
({\rm dist}(x,x_i)))^2}+\sum_{i=\ell+1}^m {t_i}\frac{8\lambda^2}{(1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2
({\rm dist}(x,x_i)))^2}\right)\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{p-1-2}\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)=\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)-\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}dv_g.\end{eqnarray}
\begin{lemma}\label{P-2}
Let $\rho\in(4k\pi,4(k+1)\pi)$. If $\lambda>0$ is chosen sufficiently large, and $r>0$ is chosen sufficiently small, then for any $\sigma\in\mathscr{S}_k$, there hold
\begin{eqnarray}\label{J-less-2}J_\rho(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\leq \le(4k\pi-\rho\right)\log\lambda\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{tend-2}\frac{e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}}{\int_\Sigma e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g}dv_g\rightarrow \sigma\quad{\rm as}\quad\lambda\rightarrow+\infty.\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\proof Both the cases ${\rm supp}\sigma\cap\Sigma=\varnothing$ and ${\rm supp}\sigma\cap\Sigma\not=\varnothing$ can be dealt with in the same way. Given $\sigma\in \mathscr{S}_k$. With no loss of generality, we assume ${\rm supp}\sigma=\{x_1,\cdots,x_m\}\subset\overline\Sigma$,
${\rm supp}\sigma\cap \Sigma=\{x_1,\cdots,x_\ell\}$, and $m+\ell\leq k$.
Let $\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}$ and $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ be defined as in \eqref{ppp-2}
and \eqref{p-1-2} respectively, where $\lambda>0$ and $r>0$.
Write $r_i=r_i(x)={\rm dist}(x,x_i)$ for $x\in\overline\Sigma$. A simple observation gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{wide-2}
\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda, \sigma}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
\log \frac{8 \lambda^2}{(1+4 \lambda^{2}r^{2} )^2 } &{\rm for}& x \in \overline\Sigma\setminus \cup_{i=1}^{k} B_{2 r}(x_i)
\\[1.5ex]
\log \left(\frac{8 \lambda^2 \overline{t}_{i}}{ \left(1+\lambda^{2} \eta_r^{2}\left(r_i\right) \right)^2 }+\frac{8 \lambda^2\left(1-\overline{t}_{i}\right)}{ (1+4\lambda^{2} r^{2})^2}\right) &{\rm for}& x \in B_{2 r}(x_i),
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\overline{t}_i=t_i/2$ for $1\leq i\leq\ell$, $\overline{t}_i=t_i$ for $\ell+1\leq i\leq m$, and $B_{2 r}(x_i)=\{x\in\overline\Sigma:{\rm dist}(x,x_i)<2r\}$ denotes a geodesic ball centered at $x_i$ with radius $2r$.
One easily sees $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ and $\int_\Sigma\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}dv_g=0$.
For $x\in B_{2r}(x_i)$, $i=1,\cdots,m$, a straightforward calculation shows
$$\nabla_g\widetilde\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)=\frac{\frac{8\lambda^2\overline{t}_i}{(1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i))^2}}
{\frac{8\lambda^2\overline{t}_i}{(1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i))^2}+\frac{8\lambda^2(1-\overline{t}_i)}{(1+4\lambda^2r^2)^2}}
\frac{4\lambda^2\eta_r(r_i)\eta_r^\prime(r_i)\nabla_gr_i}{1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i)},$$
and thus
$$|\nabla_g\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)|\leq \frac{4\lambda^2\eta_r(r_i)\eta_r^\prime(r_i)}{1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i)}.$$
In view of \eqref{wide-2}, there holds $\nabla_g\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}(x)=0$ for $x\in \overline\Sigma\setminus \cup_{i=1}^{m} B_{2 r}(x_i)$.
We calculate for $1\leq i\leq \ell$,
$$\int_{B_{2r(x_i)}}
\le(\frac{4\lambda^2\eta_r(r_i)\eta_r^\prime(r_i)}{1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i)}\right)^2dv_g=16\pi(1+O(r^2))\le(\log(1+\lambda^2r^2)
+\frac{1}{1+\lambda^2r^2}-1\right);$$
and for $\ell+1\leq i\leq m$,
$$\int_{B_{2r(x_i)}}
\le(\frac{4\lambda^2\eta_r(r_i)\eta_r^\prime(r_i)}{1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i)}\right)^2dv_g=8\pi(1+O(r^2))\le(\log(1+\lambda^2r^2)
+\frac{1}{1+\lambda^2r^2}-1\right).$$
For a fixed $r>0$, since $x_1,\cdots,x_m$ are arbitrary, one sees that
$\{B_{2r}(x_1),\cdots,B_{2r}(x_m)\}$ may have nonempty intersections, and thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \int_\Sigma |\nabla_g\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}|^2dv_g&=&\int_{\cup_{i=1}^mB_{2r}(x_i)}|\nabla_g\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}|^2dv_g\\
\nonumber&\leq&\sum_{i=1}^m\int_{B_{2r(x_i)}}
\le(\frac{4\lambda^2\eta_r(r_i)\eta_r^\prime(r_i)}{1+\lambda^2\eta_r^2(r_i)}\right)^2dv_g\\
\nonumber&\leq&\le((16\pi\ell+8\pi(m-\ell)\right)(1+O(r^2))\le(\log(1+\lambda^2r^2)+\frac{1}{1+\lambda^2r^2}-1\right)+O(1)\\
&\leq& 8k\pi(1+O(r^2))\log \lambda^2+C\label{nabl-2}
\end{eqnarray}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $r$. Moreover, for any $s$, $0<s<\min\{r,\frac{1}{2}\min_{1\leq i< j\leq m}{\rm dist}(x_i,x_j)\}$, there holds
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\cup_{i=1}^mB_{2r}(x_i)}e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g&=&\int_{\cup_{i=1}^mB_{s}(x_i)}e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g
+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right)\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^m\int_{B_{s}(x_i)}
\frac{8\lambda^2\overline{t}_i}{(1+\lambda^2r_i^2)^2}dv_g+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right)\\
&=&4\pi(1+O(s^2))+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\Sigma\setminus\cup_{i=1}^mB_{2r}(x_i)}e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g=O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2r^4}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sense-2}\int_\Sigma e^{\widetilde\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g=4\pi(1+O(s^2))+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right)+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2r^4}\right).\end{eqnarray}
Passing to the limit $\lambda\rightarrow+\infty$ first, and then $s\rightarrow 0+$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{limit-2}\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow+\infty}\int_\Sigma e^{\widetilde\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g=4\pi.\end{eqnarray}
Note that there exists some constant $C$ depending only on $r$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ggg-2}\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\int_\Sigma \widetilde\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}dv_g\leq -\log\lambda^2+C.\end{eqnarray}
Hence by \eqref{limit-2} and \eqref{ggg-2},
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber\int_\Sigma e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g&\geq& C\le(1+o_\lambda(1)\right)\lambda^2
\end{eqnarray}
This together with \eqref{nabl-2} gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
J_\rho(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_g\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}|^2dv_g-\rho\log\int_\Sigma he^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g\\
&\leq&(4k\pi-\rho+O(r^2))\log\lambda^2+C_r.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\rho>4k\pi$, choosing $r>0$ sufficiently small and $\lambda>0$ sufficiently large, we conclude \eqref{J-less-2}.
Finally we prove \eqref{tend-2}. Let $\sigma=\sum_{i=1}^mt_i\delta_{x_i}\in\mathscr{S}_k$ be as above. For any $\varphi\in C^1(\overline\Sigma)$, similar to \eqref{sense-2}, we calculate
$$
\int_\Sigma\varphi e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g
=4\pi\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\varphi(x_i)+O(s^2)+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2s^2}\right)+O\le(\frac{1}{\lambda^2r^4}\right).
$$
Letting $\lambda\rightarrow+\infty$ first, and then $s\rightarrow 0+$, we get
$$\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow+\infty}\int_\Sigma\varphi e^{\widetilde{\phi}_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g=4\pi\sum_{i=1}^kt_i\varphi(x_i).$$
This together with \eqref{limit-2} implies \eqref{tend-2}.
$\hfill\Box$\\
Similar to \eqref{proj}, for a sufficiently small $\epsilon_0>0$, we have a continuous retraction
$$\mathfrak{p}:\{\sigma\in\mathcal{D}(\Sigma):{\mathbf d}(\sigma,\mathscr{S}_k)<\epsilon_0\}\rightarrow\mathscr{S}_k.$$
\begin{lemma}\label{PHI-2}
Let $\Psi$ and $L$ be as in Lemma \ref{Psi-2}. If $\lambda>0$ is chosen sufficiently large,
then there exists a continuous map $\Phi_\lambda: \mathscr{S}_{k}\rightarrow J_\rho^{-L}$ such that
$\mathfrak{p}\circ\Psi\circ \Phi_\lambda:\mathscr{S}_k\rightarrow\mathscr{S}_k$ is homotopic to the identity map ${\rm Id}:\mathscr{S}_k\rightarrow\mathscr{S}_k$.
\end{lemma}
\proof Let $\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ be constructed as in Lemma \ref{P-2}. For any $\sigma\in\mathscr{S}_k$, we define
$\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)=\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$ for large $\lambda>0$. Clearly the map $\Phi_\lambda:\mathscr{S}_k\rightarrow W^{1,2}(\Sigma)$ is continuous.
By \eqref{J-less-2}, if $\lambda\geq e^{L/(\rho-4k\pi)}$, then $J_\rho(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\leq -L$. Thus
$\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)\in J_\rho^{-L}$. By Lemma \ref{Psi-2} and \eqref{tend-2}, there holds
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathfrak{p}\circ\Psi\circ\Phi_\lambda(\sigma)&=&\mathfrak{p}\circ\Psi(\phi_{\lambda,\sigma})\\
&=&\mathfrak{p}\circ\psi_k\le(\frac{e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}}{\int_\Sigma e^{\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}}dv_g}dv_g\right)\\
&\rightarrow&\sigma
\end{eqnarray*}
as $\lambda\rightarrow+\infty$. Hence $\mathfrak{p}\circ\Psi\circ \Phi_\lambda$ is homotopic to ${\rm Id}:\mathscr{S}_k\rightarrow\mathscr{S}_k$. $\hfill\Box$
\subsection{Min-max values}\label{3.4}
Let $$\mathcal{H}=\le\{u\in W^{1,2}(\Sigma):\int_\Sigma udv_g=0\right\}$$
and
$$\widehat{\mathscr{S}}_k=\mathscr{S}_k\times [0,1]/(\mathscr{S}_k\times\{0\})$$ be the topological cone over
$\mathscr{S}_k$. A path set associated to
the metric space
$\widehat{\mathscr{S}}_k$ is defined by
$$\Gamma_\lambda=\le\{\gamma\in C^0(\widehat{\mathscr{S}}_k,\mathcal{H}):\gamma|_{\widehat{\mathscr{S}}_k\times\{1\}}\in\Gamma_{\lambda,0}\right\},$$
where $\Gamma_{\lambda,0}$ is given by
$$\Gamma_{\lambda,0}=\le\{\gamma\in C^0({\mathscr{S}}_k\times\{1\},\mathcal{H}):\gamma(\sigma,1)=\Phi_\lambda(\sigma),\forall \sigma\in{\mathscr{S}}_k\,\right\}.$$
If we write a path $\overline{\gamma}:\widehat{\mathscr{S}}_k\rightarrow \mathcal{H}$ by $\overline{\gamma}(\sigma,t)=t\phi_{\lambda,\sigma}$,
then $\overline{\gamma}\in \Gamma_\lambda$, and thus $\Gamma_\lambda\not=\varnothing$.
For real numbers $\lambda$ and $\rho$, we set
$$\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}=\inf_{\gamma\in\Gamma_\lambda}\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in\widehat{\mathscr{S}}_k}J_\rho(\gamma(\sigma,t))$$
and
$$\beta_{\lambda,\rho}=\sup_{\gamma\in\Gamma_{\lambda,0}}\sup_{(\sigma,t)\in{\mathscr{S}}_k\times\{1\}}
J_\rho(\gamma(\sigma,t)).$$
\begin{lemma
Let $\rho\in(4k\pi,4(k+1)\pi)$.
If $\lambda$ is chosen sufficiently large, and $r$ is chosen sufficiently small, then
$-\infty<\beta_{\lambda,\rho}<\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}<+\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\proof The proof is very similar to that of Lemma \ref{mini}. It suffices to use Lemma \ref{PHI-2} instead of
the fact $\pi\circ\Psi\circ\Phi_\lambda:\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$ is homotopic to ${\rm Id}:
\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}\rightarrow\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$, and use Lemma \ref{Sk-nonc} instead of the non-contractibility of $\Sigma_{\epsilon,k}$.
$\hfill\Box$
\subsection{Completion of the proof of \autoref{thm2}}\label{3.5}
Denote $\alpha_\rho=\alpha_{\lambda,\rho}$ for sufficiently large $\lambda>0$.
Similar to Lemma \ref{monotonicity}, $\alpha_\rho/\rho$ is decreasing in $\rho\in (4k\pi,4(k+1)\pi)$.
Let $$\Lambda_{k}=\le\{\rho\in(4k\pi,4(k+1)\pi): \frac{\alpha_\rho}{\rho}\,\,{\rm is\,\, differentiable\,\, at}\,\,\rho\right\}.$$
In view of an analog of Lemma \ref{dense}, $\alpha_\rho$ is a critical value of $J_\rho$ for any $\rho\in \Lambda_k$.
Now we let $\rho\in(4k\pi,4(k+1)\pi)$.
Take an increasing sequence of numbers
$(\rho_n)\subset\Lambda_{k}$ such that $\rho_n\rightarrow \rho$, $(\rho_n)\subset[a,b]\subset(4k\pi,4(k+1)\pi)$,
and $\alpha_{\rho_n}$ is achieved by $u_n\in \mathcal{H}$. Moreover,
$u_n$ satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{n-equ-2}\Delta_gu_n=\rho_n\le(\frac{he^{u_n}}{\int_\Sigma he^{u_n}dv_g}-\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\right).\end{eqnarray}
Since $\alpha_\rho/\rho$ is decreasing in $\rho\in [a,b]$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{alpha-n-2}\alpha_{\rho_n}\leq \frac{b}{a}\alpha_a.\end{eqnarray}
Denoting $v_n=u_n-\log\int_\Sigma he^{u_n}dv_g$, we have
$$\le\{\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta_gv_n=\rho_n(he^{v_n}-|\Sigma|^{-1})\\[1.5ex]
\int_\Sigma he^{v_n}dv_g=1.
\end{array}\right.$$
By Lemma \ref{compact-2}, $(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^\infty(\overline{\Sigma})$. Let $\Omega_1,\cdots,\Omega_{k+1}$ be disjoint
closed sub-domains
of $\overline\Sigma$. It follows from Lemma \ref{improved-2} that
$$\log\int_\Sigma e^{u_n}dv_g\leq \frac{1}{8(k+1)\pi-\epsilon}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu_n|^2dv_g+C_\epsilon$$
for any $\epsilon>0$ and some constant $C_\epsilon>0$. This together with \eqref{alpha-n-2} implies that for $0<\epsilon<8(k+1)\pi-2b$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu_n|^2dv_g&=&J_{\rho_n}(u_n)+\rho_n\log\int_\Sigma he^{u_n}dv_g\\
&\leq&\frac{b}{8(k+1)\pi-\epsilon}\int_\Sigma|\nabla_gu_n|^2dv_g+C.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then it follows that $(u_n)$ is bounded in $\mathcal{H}$. With no loss of generality, we assume
$u_n$ converges to $u_0$ weakly in $\mathcal{H}$, strongly in $L^p(\Sigma)$ for any $p>1$, and almost everywhere in $\overline\Sigma$.
Moreover, $e^{u_n}$ converges to $e^{u_0}$ strongly in $L^p(\Sigma)$ for any $p>1$. By \eqref{n-equ-2}, $u_0$ satisfies
$$\Delta_gu_0=\rho\le(\frac{he^{u_0}}{\int_\Sigma he^{u_0}dv_g}-\frac{1}{|\Sigma|}\right)$$
in the distributional sense.
In particular $u_0$ is a critical point of $J_\rho$. $\hfill\Box$
\hspace{3cm}\\
|
\section{Introduction and main results}
In this paper, we consider the Cauchy problem of fractional Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{align}\label{AB-eq}
\begin{cases}
&(i\partial_t+\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2})u=0,\quad (t,x)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{0\}, \\
&u(0,x)=f(x),
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $\alpha$ is a positive real number and the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$ is the magnetic Schr\"odinger operator given by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}=\Big(i\nabla+\frac{\mathbf{A}(\hat{x})}{|x|}\Big)^2,\quad x\in \mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{0\},\quad \hat{x}=\frac{x}{|x|}\in\mathbb{S}^1,
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{A}\in W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{S}^1,\mathbb{R}^2)$ satisfies the transversality condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:transversal}
{\mathbf{A}}(\hat{x})\cdot\hat{x}=0,
\qquad
\text{for all }x\in\mathbb{R}^2.
\end{equation}
In particular, a typical example of ${\bf A}$ is known as the {\it Aharonov-Bohm} potential
\begin{equation}\label{ab-potential}
{\bf A}(\hat{x})=\sigma\Big(-\frac{x_2}{|x|},\frac{x_1}{|x|}\Big),\quad \sigma\in\mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
which was initially used to study one of the most interesting and intriguing effect of quantum physics by Aharonov and Bohm in \cite{AB}. This Aharonov-Bohm effect occurs when electrons propagate in a domain with a zero magnetic field but with a nonzero vector potential, see \cite{PT89} and the references therein.
In another physic effect, the fermionic charges can be non-integer multiples of the Higgs charges in another typical cosmic-string scenarios observed by Alford and Wilczek \cite{AW}.
As the flux is quantized with respect to the Higgs charge, this will lead to a non-trivial Aharonov-Bohm scattering of these fermions. From the mathematical point,
the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$ can be extended as a self-adjoint operator (see \cite{FFFP}) and
the fractional operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}$ can be defined from the spectral perspective, see~\cite{FLS}~ for the fractional operator.
The solution of ~\eqref{AB-eq}~ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{AB-solution}
u(t,x)=e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f(x),
\end{equation}
which includes the usual wave and Schr\"odinger equation as two special cases.
The dispersive and Strichartz estimates associated with the magnetic Schr\"odinger operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$
have been extensively studied in \cite{FFFP,FZZ1,GYZZ} and we also refer to \cite{FZZ,GWZZ} for the resolvent estimates.
In this paper, we consider the the minimal regularity of initial data for which the above solution \eqref{AB-solution} pointwisely converges to the initial data $f\in H_{\bf A}^s(\mathbb{R}^2)$,
\begin{equation}\label{point-A}
\lim_{t\to 0}e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f(x)
=f(x),\quad a.\, e.
\end{equation}
that is, the pointwise convergence problem related to the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$.
The problem for free Schr\"odinger $(i\partial_t-\Delta)u=0$ with initial data $f\in H^s$ was first proposed by Carleson in ~\cite{Carl}~ (see also ~\cite{KR}~).
In this classical case, the solution can be formally expressed by using Fourier transform as
\begin{equation}\label{ss}
u(t,x)=e^{it\Delta}f(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}e^{2\pi ix\cdot\xi}e^{-2\pi it|\xi|^2}\hat{f}(\xi)d\xi.
\end{equation}
The standard routine for the pointwise convergence of the free Schr\"odinger operator \eqref{ss} is to find the minimal regularity of $f$
for which the corresponding maximal estimate holds as follows
\begin{equation}\label{max-s}
\left\|\sup_{0<t<1}|e^{it\Delta}f(x)|\right\|_{L^{q}(B^{n}(0,1))}\le C_{n,q,s}\|f\|_{H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^n)}
\end{equation}
where $B^{n}(0,1)$ is the unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
In one dimension, Carleson proved that \eqref{max-s} holds for $s\ge\frac{1}{4}$. In 1981, Dahlberg and Kenig \cite{D-K} proved that the result obtained by Carleson is sharp.
In higher dimension for $n\ge2$, Sj\"olin \cite{Sjolin} and Vega \cite{Vega} independently showed that \eqref{max-s} holds for $s>\frac{1}{2}$.
Later, this range was improved by Lee \cite{Lee} to $s>\frac{3}{8}$ for $n=2$, and by Bourgain \cite{Bour2013} to $s>\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4n}$ for $n\ge 3$.
Bourgain also proved that $s\ge\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{n}$ is necessary for \eqref{max-s} to hold. Du, Guth and Li \cite{DGL} obtained $s>\frac{1}{3}$ in dimension $n=2$.
Recently, Du and Zhang \cite{DZ} proved that \eqref{max-s} holds for $s>\frac{n}{2(n+1)}$ for $n\ge3$. Luc$\grave{a}$ and Rogers obtained the necessary condition
$s\ge\frac{n}{2(n+2)}$ and later Bougain obtained the best necessary condition $s\ge\frac{n}{2(n+1)}$ up to now.\vspace{0.2cm}
It is nature to ask the same problem for more general dispersive equations associated with Schr\"odinger operator with potentials.
However, due to the lack of Fourier transform, there are much fewer results compared with the free Schr\"odinger case.
The picture in this direction is far to be complete since many powerful tools (e.g. decoupling, polynomial decomposition) cannot be applied in this setting.
It worths to mention that one of the most interesting potentials, the so-called inverse-square potential, which prevents us from using Fourier transform to give the explicit expression of the solution and hence the related techniques of Fourier analysis fail to work.
However, by replacing the Fourier transform by the Hankel transform, the authors of ~\cite{ZZM}~ established the maximal estimates for Schr\"odinger equation with inverse-square potential, in which they write the solution in terms of spherical harmonics. For more details, we refer the interested readers to ~\cite{ZZM}~ and the references therein. As for other types of maximal estimates, one is referred to ~\cite{B,B1}~ for quadratic Weyl sum and ~\cite{KLO}~ for average over space curve.
Even though, almost all of the results are far to be sharp in the setting of equations with potentials.\vspace{0.2cm}
To the best of our knowledge, there are few papers on the maximal estimates related to the magnetic operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$ available, for which we start a new program to study the maximal estimates associated with the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$. To be specific, we try to establish the local- and global-in-time maximal estimates associated with the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$. The proof is based on the cut-off spectral measure estimates.
To state the main theorems, we define the distorted Sobolev space as follows
\begin{align}\label{AB-inhomo}
&H^s_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbb{R}^2):=(I+\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}})^{-\frac{s}{2}}L^2(\mathbb{R}^2).
\end{align}
In particular, we shall write
\begin{equation}\label{AB-inhomo-norm}
\|f\|_{H^s_\mathbf{A}(\mathbb{R}^2)}:=\|(I+\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}})^{\frac{s}{2}}f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)},
\end{equation}
in what follows.
Now we are in the position to state our main results.
\begin{theorem}[Local estimate]\label{thm:local}
Let $u(t,x)=e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f(x),\alpha>0$ be the solution to ~\eqref{AB-eq}~ with $f\in H^s_\mathbf{A}(\mathbb{R}^2)$, then
for
$\bullet$ either $2\leq q\leq 6$ and $s>\frac\alpha4(\frac6q-1)+(1-\frac{2}{q})$
$\bullet$ or $6\leq q<\infty$ and $s>1-\frac{2}{q}$,
there exists a constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\big\|\sup_{|t|\leq1}|e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f|\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}\leq C\|f\|_{H_{\mathbf{A}}^s(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
As a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:local} with $q=2$ for $0<\alpha\le\frac{4}{3}$ and $q=6$ for $\alpha>\frac{4}{3}$,
we have the following pointwise convergence result.
\begin{coro}
Let $s>\frac{\alpha}{2}$ when $0<\alpha\le\frac{4}{3}$ or $s>\frac{2}{3}$ when $\alpha>\frac{4}{3}$, then there holds the pointwise convergence \eqref{point-A}
for $ f\in H^{s}_{\mathbf{A}}(\mathbb{R}^2)$.
\end{coro}
\begin{remark}
In particular $\alpha=1$, i.e., the half-wave operator, from Rogers and Villarroya in \cite[Theorem 1]{RV}, the result is sharp up to endpoint $s=\frac12$.
But the result is far to be sharp in the most interesting and challenging Schr\"odinger case, that is, $\alpha=2$. We will continue investigating the problem in future work.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
In the free case ${\bf A}\equiv0$, in which the Fourier transform is available, Sj\"olin and Walther independently used the stationary phase to obtain the corresponding maximal estimate for the operator $e^{it(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}$. In one dimension Sj\"olin \cite{Sjolin} obtained the pointwise convergence holds for $s\ge\frac{1}{4}$ for $\alpha>1$ which is sharp, and Walther \cite{W} proved that the pointwise convergence holds for $s>\frac{\alpha}{4}$ for $0<\alpha<1$, which is almost sharp up to the endpoint. In higher dimension, for $\alpha>1$ Sj\"olin \cite{Sjolin} obtained the result of $s>\frac{1}{2}$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ if $n\ge3$
and $s\ge\frac{1}{2}$ if $n=2$, and the pointwise convergence for the free Schr\"odinger equation for $0<\alpha<1$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $n\ge2$ is left to be solved.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}[Global estimate]\label{thm:global}
Let $u(t,x)=e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f(x), \alpha>0$ be the solution to ~\eqref{AB-eq}~ with $f\in \dot{H}^s_\mathbf{A}(\mathbb{R}^2)$, then for $6\leq q<\infty$ and $s>1-\frac{2}{q}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{est:global}
\begin{split}
\big\|\sup_{t\in\mathbb{R}}|e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f|\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}\leq C\|f\|_{\dot{H}_{\mathbf{A}}^s(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} These results extend the local maximal estimates in Theorem \ref{thm:local} to global ones when $q\geq6$.
In the case of $\alpha=1$, which corresponds to the wave equation with a magnetic field,
the global maximal estimate is sharp up to the endpoint regularity, we refer to~\cite[Theorem 2]{RV}.
In the Schr\"odinger case $\alpha=2$, from \cite[Theorem 8]{RV1}, the regularity assumption $s>1-\frac2q$ is necessary for \eqref{est:global} up to the endpoint $s=1-\frac2q$.
\end{remark}
We close this section by briefly stating the organization of the whole paper as follows.
In Sec.2, we provide the main tools needed in the proof of our main results, i.e., the spectral measure estimates.
In Sec.3 and 4, we prove Theorem \ref{thm:local} and Theorem \ref{thm:global} respectively.
\vspace{0.1cm}
\section{preliminaries}
In this section, we provide the key spectral cluster estimates, which play a critical role in our proof.
For $0<\epsilon\leq 1$, we define the spectral projector associated with the magnetic Schr\"odinger
operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$ on the frequencies $[k,k+\epsilon]$ by
\begin{equation}\label{chi-k-epsilon}
\chi_{k,\epsilon}(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2})=\int_0^\infty \chi_{[k,k+\epsilon]}(\lambda^{\alpha}) \, dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda),\qquad \alpha>0,
\end{equation}
where $\chi_E(s)$ is the characteristic function on the set $E$ and $dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda)$ is the spectral measure given by
\begin{equation}\label{resolvent}
dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda)=\frac{d}{d\lambda}E_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda)d\lambda
=\frac{\lambda}{i\pi}\big(R(\lambda+i0)-R(\lambda-i0)\big)d\lambda.
\end{equation}
Here $R(\lambda\pm i0)$ is the (outcoming/ingoing) resolvent
$$R(\lambda\pm i0)=(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}-(\lambda^2\pm i0))^{-1}=\lim_{\epsilon\searrow0}\big(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}-(\lambda^2\pm i\epsilon)\big)^{-1}.$$
Very recently, Fanelli-Zhang-Zheng \cite{FZZ} used the spectral measure constructed in \cite{GYZZ} to prove
the following resolvent estimates.
\begin{lemma}\cite[Theorem 3.1]{FZZ}\label{lem:2.1}
Let $1\leq p<\frac43$ and $4<q\leq \infty$ satisfy $\frac23\leq \frac1p-\frac1q<1$.
Then there exists a constant $C=C(p,q)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{resolvent-estimate}
\|(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}-(\lambda^2\pm i0))^{-1}f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}\leq C\lambda^{ 2(\frac1p-\frac1q)-2}\|f\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^2)}, \quad
\end{equation}
where $(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}-(\lambda^2\pm i0))^{-1}:=\lim_{\epsilon\to0^+}(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}-(\lambda^2\pm i\epsilon))^{-1}$.
In particular, if $6\leq q<\infty$, then \eqref{resolvent-estimate} holds for $q=p'$.
\end{lemma}
Therefore, from \eqref{resolvent} and \eqref{resolvent-estimate}, we have the following spectral measure estimate
\begin{equation}
\| dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda)\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^2)\to L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}\leq C\lambda^{ 2(\frac1p-\frac1q)-1}.
\end{equation}
Integrating on a frequency band of width $\epsilon$, we obtain
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:2.2}
For the operator $\chi_{k,\epsilon}(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2})$ defined by \eqref{chi-k-epsilon}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{spec-1}
\|\chi_{k,\epsilon}(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2})\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^2)\to L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)} \leq C \big((k+\epsilon)^{\frac1\alpha}-k^{\frac1\alpha}\big) (k+\epsilon)^{ (2(\frac1p-\frac1q)-1)/\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $1\leq p<\frac43$ and $4<q\leq \infty$ satisfy $\frac23\leq \frac1p-\frac1q<1$.
In particular, for $6\leq q=p'<+\infty$, then
\begin{equation}\label{spec-2}
\|\chi_{k,\epsilon}(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha 2})\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^2)\to L^{p'}(\mathbb{R}^2)} \leq C \big((k+\epsilon)^{\frac1\alpha}-k^{\frac1\alpha}\big) (k+\epsilon)^{ (2(\frac1p-\frac1{p'})-1)/\alpha}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
To prove the local result in Theorem \eqref{thm:local} for the range $2\leq q\leq6$, here we prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:L2-est}
Let $U(t)=e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}$, then there exists a constant $C$ such that $$\| D_t^{s}U(t)\|_{\dot H_{\bf A}^{\alpha s}\to L^2}\leq C,$$
where $0\leq s\leq 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By the interpolation, we only need to consider $s=0$ and $s=1$. By the spectral theory, we have
\begin{equation*}
T^s(t):=D_t^{s} U(t)=\int_0^\infty e^{it\lambda^\alpha} \lambda^{\alpha s}\,dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda).
\end{equation*}
For $\varphi\in C_c^\infty([1,2])$, we define
\begin{equation}
T^s_k(t)=\int_0^\infty e^{it\lambda^\alpha}\varphi(2^{-k}\lambda)\lambda^{\alpha s} \,dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda),
\end{equation}
then $T^s(t)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} T^s_k(t)$. By orthogonality, we have
\begin{equation*}
\|T^s(t)f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\|T^s_k(t)f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\|T^s_k(t) f_k\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)},
\end{equation*}
where $f_k=\tilde{\varphi}(2^{-k}\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}) f$ with $\tilde{\varphi}\in C_c^\infty([\frac12,4])$ such that
$\tilde{\varphi}=1$ on supp\,$\varphi$.
It thus suffices to prove
$$\|T^s_k(t)\|_{L^2\to L^2}\leq C2^{\alpha s k},$$
which is equivalent to $$\|\big(T^s_k(t)\big)^*T^s_k(t)\|_{L^2\to L^2}\leq C^22^{2\alpha s k}.$$
To this end, we set $\psi=\varphi^2 \in C_c^\infty([1, 2])$, then it is further enough to show
\begin{equation}\label{est:L2-ker}
\begin{split}
\Big|\int^\infty_0 \psi(2^{-k}\lambda)\lambda^{2\alpha s} dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\bf A}}}(\lambda;x,y)\Big|\lesssim \frac{2^{2k}2^{2\alpha s k}}{(1+2^k|x-y|)^{K}},\quad k\in\mathbb{Z},\quad\forall K\geq0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant independent of $k\in \mathbb{Z}$.
On the one hand, by scaling,
\begin{equation}\label{scaling-L2}
\begin{split}
\Big|\int^\infty_0 \psi(2^{-k}\lambda)\lambda^{2\alpha s} &dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\bf A}}}(\lambda;x,y)\Big|\\
&=2^{2k}2^{2\alpha s k}\Big|\int^\infty_0 \psi(\lambda)\lambda^{2\alpha s} dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\bf A}}}(\lambda; 2^kx, 2^ky)\Big|.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other, by \cite[Proposition 1.1]{GYZZ} and integration by parts K times, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Big|\int^\infty_0 \psi(\lambda) \lambda^{2\alpha s}dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\bf A}}}(\lambda;x,y)\Big|\lesssim \frac{1}{(1+|x-y|)^{K}}+\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{(1+|d_s|)^{K}} |B_{\alpha}(s,\theta_1,\theta_2)| ds,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where for the definition of $d_s$ and $B_{\alpha}(s,\theta_1,\theta_2)$ we can refer to \cite{GYZZ}.
From \cite[(1.25)]{GYZZ}, one has $|d_s|^2\geq (r_1+r_2)^2\geq |x-y|^2$.
Hence, it follows from \cite[(3.3)]{GYZZ} that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Big|\int^\infty_0 \psi(\lambda) \lambda^{2\alpha s} dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\bf A}}}(\lambda;x,y)\Big|\lesssim \frac{1}{(1+|x-y|)^{K}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This together with \eqref{scaling-L2} yields \eqref{est:L2-ker}.
\end{proof}
\section{The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:local}}
In this section, we shall prove the local maximal estimate associated with the magnetic operator $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$.
We need to prove the following local-in-time estimate
\begin{equation}\label{local-1}
\begin{split}
\big\|e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty([-1,1]))}\lesssim\|f\|_{H_{\mathbf{A}}^s(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To this end, we first observe that there exists a Schwarz function $\rho\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ with Fourier support $\text{supp}\,\hat{\rho}\subset(-2,2)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{local-global}
\big\|e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty([-1,1]))}\lesssim\big\|\rho(t) e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}.
\end{equation}
Then to prove ~\eqref{local-1}~, it is sufficient to show
\begin{equation}\label{global-1}
\big\|\rho(t) e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}\lesssim\|(I+\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}})^{\frac{s}{2}}f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{equation}
In the case that $2\leq q\leq 6$, by interpolation, it suffices to prove
\begin{equation}\label{q=2}
\begin{split}
\big\|\rho(t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}\lesssim\|f\|_{H_{\mathbf{A}}^{\sigma\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^2)},\quad \sigma>\frac{1}{2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{q=6}
\begin{split}
\big\|\rho(t) e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^6(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}
\lesssim\|f\|_{H_{\mathbf{A}}^{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^2)},\quad \sigma>\frac{2}{3}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The inequality \eqref{q=2} is a consequence of Lemma \ref{lem:L2-est} and the Sobolev embedding $\dot{H}_t^{\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon}(\mathbb{R})\cap \dot{H}_t^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}(\mathbb{R})\hookrightarrow L^\infty_t(\mathbb{R})$ with $0<\epsilon\ll1$.
Indeed, for $\sigma>\frac{1}{2}$, by Lemma \ref{lem:L2-est} we have
\begin{align*}
\big\|\rho(t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}
&=\big\|e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}(\rho(t)f)\big\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}\\
&\lesssim\big\|D_{t}^{\sigma}e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}(\rho(t)f)\big\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2;L^{2}(\mathbb{R}))}\\
&\lesssim\big\|\rho(t)\big\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}\|f\|_{H_{\mathbf{A}}^{\sigma\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^2)}\\
&\lesssim\|f\|_{H_{\mathbf{A}}^{\sigma\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{align*}
The inequality \eqref{q=6} is the endpoint of the following case $q\geq 6$. Therefore, from now on, we focus on the case that $6\leq q<+\infty$.
Recall \eqref{chi-k-epsilon} with $\epsilon=1$
\begin{equation}\label{k-alpha}
\chi_{k}^{\alpha}:=\chi_{k,1}(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2})=\int_0^\infty \chi_{[k,k+1]}(\lambda^{\alpha}) \, dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda),
\end{equation}
then we have the decomposition $f=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\chi_{k}^{\alpha}f$.
By \eqref{spec-2}, for $6\leq q<\infty$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{chi-k-q}
\|\chi_{k}^{\alpha}f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}\lesssim \big((k+1)^{\frac1\alpha}-k^{\frac1\alpha}\big)^{\frac12}(k+1)^{(\frac12-\frac2q)/\alpha}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}, \quad \forall k\geq0.
\end{equation}
Let $0<\delta\ll1$ and
\begin{equation}\label{F}
F(t,x):=|D_t|^{1/2+\delta}(\rho(t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f(x)),
\end{equation}
then by Sobolev embedding, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{rho-F}
\big\|\rho(t) e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}\lesssim\|F(t,x)\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^2(\mathbb{R}))}.
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{equation}\label{F-k}
F_k(t,x):=|D_t|^{1/2+\delta}(\rho(t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}\chi_{k}^{\alpha}f(x)),
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}\label{F-F-k}
F(t,x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty F_k(t,x).
\end{equation}
Taking Fourier transform in variable $t$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{Four-F}
\hat{F}_k(\tau,x)=|\tau|^{1/2+\delta}\int_0^\infty\hat{\rho}(\tau-\lambda^\alpha)\chi_{[k,k+1]}(\lambda^\alpha)dE(\lambda)f(x).
\end{equation}
By Plancherel's identity and the compact support property of $\hat{\rho}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{orth-F}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}F_k(t,x)\overline{F_\ell(t,x)}dt=(2\pi)^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\hat{F}_k(\tau,x)\overline{\hat{F}_\ell(\tau,x)}d\tau=0,\quad |k-\ell|>100.
\end{equation}
Therefore we get
\begin{equation}\label{orth-L2}
\|F(t,x)\|_{L_t^2(\mathbb{R})}^2\lesssim\sum_{k=0}^\infty\|F_k(t,x)\|_{L_t^2(\mathbb{R})}^2=(2\pi)^{-1}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\|\hat{F}_k(\tau,x)\|_{L_\tau^2(\mathbb{R})}^2.
\end{equation}
This together with \eqref{rho-F} gives
\begin{equation}\label{orth-rho}
\big\|\rho(t) e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}\lesssim\big\|\big(\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\|\hat{F}_k(\tau,x)\|_{L_\tau^2(\mathbb{R})}^2\big)^{1/2}\big\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{equation}
Notice that $q\geq6$ and \eqref{Four-F}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{Minkowski}
&\big\|\rho(t) e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|^2_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}
\lesssim\sum_{k=0}^\infty\int_{\mathbb{R}}\|\hat{F}_k(\tau,x)\|^2_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}d\tau\\
&=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\int_{\mathbb{R}}|\tau|^{1+2\delta}\Big\|\int_0^\infty\hat{\rho}(\tau-\lambda^\alpha)\chi_{[k,k+1]}
(\lambda^\alpha)dE(\lambda)f(x)\Big\|^2_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}d\tau.\nonumber
\end{align}
By \eqref{chi-k-q}, we thus get
\begin{align*}
&\big\|\rho(t) e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f\big\|^2_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))} \\
&\lesssim\sum_{k=0}^\infty\int_{k-3}^{k+3}|\tau|^{1+2\delta}
\big((k+1)^{\frac1\alpha}-k^{\frac1\alpha}\big)(k+1)^{(1-\frac4q)/\alpha}\|\chi_{k}^{\alpha}f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}d\tau\nonumber\\
&\lesssim\sum_{k=0}^\infty\big((k+1)^{\frac1\alpha}-k^{\frac1\alpha}\big)(k+1)^{\frac1\alpha(1-\frac4q)+1+2\delta}\|\chi_{k}^{\alpha}f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\|(1+k)^{\frac1\alpha(1-\frac2q)+\delta}\chi_{k}^{\alpha}f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}
\approx\|(I+\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}})^{1-\frac2q+\delta\alpha}f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}.\nonumber
\end{align*}
\section{Proof of theorem \ref{thm:global}}
In this section, we extend the local estimates in Theorem \ref{thm:local} to global estimates. In fact, we shall prove the following estimate:
\begin{equation}\label{global-max}
\|u\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}\lesssim\|\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{s/2}f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)},\quad6\leq q\leq\infty.
\end{equation}
To prove ~\eqref{global-max}~, we only need to show that, for $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, there exists a constant independent of $\epsilon$ such that
\begin{equation}
\|e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty((-1/\epsilon,1/\epsilon)))}
\lesssim\|(\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}+\epsilon I)^sf\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{equation}
Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:local}, it is further sufficient to show that
\begin{equation}
\|\rho(\epsilon t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}
\lesssim\|(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}+\epsilon I)^{s/2}f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)},
\end{equation}
where $\rho\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ is some fixed Schwarz function with supp$\hat{\rho}\subset(-2,2)$.
Let
\begin{equation}
\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}:=\chi_{k\epsilon,\epsilon}(\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2})=\int_0^\infty \chi_{[k\epsilon,(k+1)\epsilon]}(\lambda^{\alpha}) \, dE_{\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}}(\lambda),\quad \epsilon\in(0,1),
\end{equation}
then we have decomposition $f=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}f$ for a fixed value of $\epsilon$.
By \eqref{spec-2} and $TT^*$ argument, we have for $6\leq q<\infty$
\begin{equation}\label{chi-k-epsilon-q}
\|\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}f\|^2_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}
\lesssim(((k+1)\epsilon)^{\frac1\alpha}-(k\epsilon)^{\frac1\alpha})((k+1)\epsilon)^{(1-\frac4q)/\alpha}\|f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}, \quad \forall k\geq0.
\end{equation}
Sobolev embedding $\dot{H}_t^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}(\mathbb{R})\hookrightarrow L^\infty_t(\mathbb{R})$ will give us
\begin{equation}
\|\rho(\epsilon t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}
\lesssim\||D_t|^{1/2+\delta}(\rho(\epsilon t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}f)\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^2(\mathbb{R}))}.
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}
F^\epsilon(t,x):=|D_t|^{1/2+\delta}(\rho(\epsilon t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac\alpha2}}f)(x)
\end{equation}
and take the Fourier transform in time variable, we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\widehat{F^\epsilon}(\tau,x)=|\tau|^{1/2+\delta}\epsilon^{-1}(\hat{\rho}(\epsilon^{-1}(\tau-\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}))f)(x)
:=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\widehat{F^\epsilon_k}(\tau,x),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\widehat{F^\epsilon_k}(\tau,x)=|\tau|^{1/2+\delta}\epsilon^{-1}(\hat{\rho}(\epsilon^{-1}(\tau-\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}))\circ\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}f)(x).
\end{equation}
Consequently, we have the following orthogonality
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}F^\epsilon_k(t,x)\overline{F^\epsilon_\ell(t,x)}dt=(2\pi)^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\widehat{F^\epsilon_k}(\tau,x)\overline{
\widehat{F^\epsilon_\ell}(\tau,x)}d\tau=0,\quad |k-\ell|>100.
\end{equation}
Notice the fact that $f=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\chi^\epsilon_kf$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\|F^\epsilon(\cdot,x)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R})}^2=\|\sum_{k=0}^\infty F^\epsilon_k(\cdot,x)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R})}^2
&\lesssim\sum_{k=0}^\infty\|F^\epsilon_k(\cdot,x)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R})}^2\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\|\widehat{F^\epsilon_k}(\cdot,x)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R})}^2.
\end{align}
Collecting the above facts, we deduce tha
\begin{align}
\|\rho(\epsilon t)e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}f\|^2_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}
&\lesssim\sum_{k=0}^\infty\int_{\mathbb{R}}\|\widehat{F^\epsilon_k}(\tau,\cdot)\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}^2d\tau\\
&=\epsilon^{-2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\int_{(k-3)\epsilon}^{(k+3)\epsilon}|\tau|^{1+\delta}\|\hat{\rho}(\epsilon^{-1}
(\tau-\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}))\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}^2d\tau\nonumber\\
&\lesssim\epsilon^{-2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\epsilon((k+1)\epsilon)^{1+\delta}
\|\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2)}^2.\nonumber
\end{align}
Using \eqref{chi-k-epsilon-q} and letting $s:=1-\frac{2}{q}+\alpha\delta$, we further have
\begin{align}
\|\rho(\epsilon t)&e^{it\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}f\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^2;L^\infty(\mathbb{R}))}^2\\
&\lesssim\epsilon^{-2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\epsilon((k+1)\epsilon)^{1+\delta}
(((k+1)\epsilon)^\frac1\alpha-(k\epsilon)^\frac1\alpha)((k+1)\epsilon)^{(1-\frac{4}{q})/\alpha}\|\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}^2 \nonumber\\
&=\epsilon^{-2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\epsilon^2((k+1)\epsilon)^{\frac{2}{\alpha}(1-\frac{2}{q})+\delta}
\|\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}^2\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\|((k+1)\epsilon)^s\chi_{k\epsilon}^{\alpha}f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}^2\thickapprox\|(\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}}+\epsilon I)^sf\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}^2.\nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Junyong Zhang for the encouragement and constructive suggestions.
They would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.
\begin{center}
|
\section{Induction}
Let $b (x) : \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ and
$\sigma (x) : \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ be two locally
Lipschitz continuous functions. We consider the ordinary differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{1.1}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ccl}
d X_t & = & b (X_t) d t,\\
X_0 & = & x_0,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^d$. We also consider the corresponding stochastic differential equation defined on $(\Omega, \{ \mathcal{F}_t \}_{t \geq 0},
\mathcal{F}, P)$
\begin{equation}\label{1.2}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ccl}
d X^{\varepsilon}_t &=& b (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t + \varepsilon \sigma
(X^{\varepsilon}_t) d W_t,\\
X^{\varepsilon}_0 &=& x_0.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Here $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^d$, $W_t$ is a standard $d$-dimension Brownian motion and the filtration $ \{ \mathcal{F}_t \}_{t \geq 0} $ satisfies the usual condition.
For the strong solutions $X^\varepsilon$ of equation \eqref{1.2}, we use $P^{\varepsilon}_x := P \circ (X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon})^{- 1}$
to denote probability measures on the trajectory space. We denote invariant measures of \eqref{1.2} by $\mu_{\varepsilon}$ for any $\varepsilon\in(0, +\infty)$. If $\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$ or its subsequence has a weak limit as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$, then we denote the limit by $\mu$.
There have been a lot of literatures studying stochastic dynamical systems like \eqref{1.2}. Among them there are two important kinds of properties studied extensively. The first kind is to study exit problems, which includes the exit time and the exit location. Existing works about these problems can be devided into works for stable set networks and for heteroclinic networks, which can be found in \cite{peano} \cite{fw} \cite{yb11} \cite{rl} \cite{rt} and references therein. The second kind is to study properties of invariant measures $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\} $. In this paper, we study concentration phenomena and the large deviations principle of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\} $ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$.
There are many literatures devoted to these important problems. For example, in one dimension case, by using explicit
solutions of stationary Fokker-Planck equations of \eqref{1.2}, \cite{1d} shows $\mu$ supports on points attaining the minimum of the energy function.
By using Lyapunov-like functions and stationary Fokker-Planck equations, \cite{me} gets an estimate of the decay rate of
$\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$ for \eqref{1.2} defined on $\mathbb{R}^d$. \cite{chen} proves $\mu$ is also an invariant measure of \eqref{1.1}.
Thus, by using results in \cite{me} and \cite{mane}, for stochastic dynamical systems driven by L\'evy noise, \cite{chen} proves that $\mu$ supports on the Birkhoff center of \eqref{1.1} except repelling sets.
\cite{fw} considers \eqref{1.2} defined on a compact space with continuous
coefficients. By large deviations methods, \cite{fw} gets an estimate for $\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$ in any sufficiently small neighborhood of equivalent sets. There are also some relative works on SPDEs such as \cite{li} \cite{sdpe17} \cite{spderd} \cite{sr} \cite{flan} \cite{ex1} \cite{ex2} \cite{ex3}.
In general, stationary Fokker-Planck equations of \eqref{1.2} can be set on
non-compact spaces with very general coefficients. Denote $\{\varrho_{\varepsilon}\}$ as solutions of stationary Fokker-Planck equations of \eqref{1.2}.
Under some broad conditions, $\{\varrho_{\varepsilon}\}$ are
density functions of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$. To study concentration phenomena of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$, one may need some asymptotic properties of $\{
\varrho_{\varepsilon} \}$, which can be proved by using either explicit
expressions of $\{\varrho_{\varepsilon}\}$ or decay properties of $\{
\varrho_{\varepsilon} \}$, both rely heavily on uniformly decay properties
of Lyapunov-like functions. Unfortunately, the
Lyapunov-like functions can not have a uniformly decay property near the
stationary sets of \eqref{1.1}. Therefore, for \eqref{1.1} with more than one ergodic state, this method can not go further to analyse measures of saddle points or stable sets under $\mu$. For the large deviations method provided in
{\cite{fw}}, it relies on the compactness of space and the
boundness of coefficients, which are necessary for the large deviations property and some essential estimates.
In this paper, our main result shows that under conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} and
Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, for \eqref{1.2} defined on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with locally Lipschitz continuous coefficients, $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$ concentrates on the intersection of stable equivalent sets where a cost functional $ W(K_i)$ is minimized and the Birkhoff center of \eqref{1.1} as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$. Furthermore, we show the large deviations principle of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$ and give the action function of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$. To achieve these goals, we mainly do following three aspects of work. First, by Lyapunov-like functions, we get the uniform large deviation property for $\{P_x^{\varepsilon}\}$ with respect to the initial point in any compact set. Second, we devide $\mathbb{R}^d$ into neighborhoods of stable equivalent sets, neighborhoods of unstable equivalent sets and the complement of neighborhoods of stable equivalent sets and unstable equivalent sets. By using the large deviations method and dissipative properties of \eqref{1.2} in a neighborhood of the stable equivalent sets and a domain outside of a compact set, we establish an estimate of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$ in the above three kinds of sets. Finally, we prove $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$ satisfies the large deviations principle and give its action function, which shows the convergence rate of $\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$.
Our results show differences between the support of $ \mu$ and $\omega$-limit sets of \eqref{1.1}. These imply that long time behaviors of \eqref{1.1} and \eqref{1.2} are essentially different. Thus, under inevitable perturbations in real physical phenomena, in a long time observation, we will only be able to see the states that $\mu$ supports on.
This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, for \eqref{1.2}
with locally Lipschitz continuous coefficients in $\mathbb{R}^d$, we prove that under conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, strong solutions of \eqref{1.2} satisfy the Freidlin-Wentzell type
large deviations principle. In this section, the explicit action functional is also given. In section 3, we discuss connections between stabilities in the sense of quasi-potential and in the sense of deterministic dynamical systems. In section 4, under conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} and Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, we give an expression of $\mu_{\varepsilon}$ and an estimate of $\mu_{\varepsilon}$ in different domains. In section 5, we give some large deviations properties of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$. In section 6, we provide some examples with numerical simulations. We analyse these examples from both theoretical and numerical perspectives.
\medskip
\section{Large deviations of $ \{P_x^\varepsilon\} $}
Let us first introduce some notations.
\begin{notation}
For $0 \leq T_1 \leq T_2 < + \infty$ and $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$, we denote
$$C_x ([T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d) = \left\{\varphi\in C([T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d):\varphi_{T_1}=x\right\}.$$
Similarly, for any $D \subset \mathbb{R}^d $, we denote $C_x ([T_1, T_2] ; D)$ as the space of continuous functions in $D$ from $T_1$ to $T_2$ beginning at $x$.
Let $ C_x ([T_1, T_2] ;
\mathbb{R}^d)$ be the space endowed with the metric
\[\rho_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi, \psi) = \max_{t \in [T_1, T_2]} | \varphi_t -\psi_t |,\]
Where $\varphi, \psi $ belong to $ C_x ([T_1, T_2] ;
\mathbb{R}^d)$.
For the sake of simplicity, we denote
\[AC_x ([T_1, T_2]; \mathbb{R}^d) =\left\{\varphi \in C_x ([T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d): \varphi \textrm{ is absolutely continuous}\right\},\]
and the Cameron Martin space
\[H_0 ([T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d) = \left\{\varphi \in A C_0 ([T_1, T_2]; \mathbb{R}^d):
\int^{T_2}_{T_1} | \dot{\varphi}_s |^2 d s < + \infty \right\}\]
with norm
$$\| \varphi \|_1 := \left(\int^{T_2}_{T_1} | \dot{\varphi}_s |^2 d s\right)^\frac{1}{2}.$$
We also denote
$$H_x ([T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d) =\left\{\varphi:\varphi -x \in H_0 ([T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d)\right\}.$$
We will use $X(x)$ to denote the solution of equation \eqref{1.1} with initial point $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and $X^\varepsilon(x)$ to denote the strong solution of equation \eqref{1.2} with initial point $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$. And we denote the first entrance time for $O\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ as:
\[ \tau_{O,x}=\inf\{t\ge0:X_t(x)\in O\}, \quad\tau_{O,x}^\varepsilon=\inf\{t\ge0:X_t^\varepsilon(x)\in O\}.\]
We use $B_a(M):=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:|x-a|<M\}$ to represent the ball of radius $M>0$ and centered at $a\in\mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{notation}
The Freidlin-Wentzell large deviations principle in {\cite{fw}} can be used to deal
with problems about limiting properties of $\{ P^{\varepsilon}_x \}$ as
$\varepsilon \downarrow 0$ for bounded and uniformly continuous coefficients $b(x)$ and $\sigma (x)$. Under those conditions, the LDP is uniformly with
respect to the initial point $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$. {\cite{gfw}} and references therein show that for $b (x)$ and $\sigma (x)$ satisfying local Lipschitz and linear growth conditions, $\{ P^{\varepsilon}_x \}$ also has
Freidlin-Wentzell type LDP uniformly with respect to the initial point in any
compact set belong to $\mathbb{R}^d$.
In this section, we extend the LDP
results in {\cite{gfw}} by Lyapunov-like function instead
of the linear growth condition. The linear growth condition in {\cite{gfw}} is
used to ensure that the uniqueness of solutions of \eqref{1.2} and \eqref{aum1} and some bounded estimates of them. This change of condition allows our model to
be applied to some meaningful examples such as stochastic Duffing equation and Bernoulli equation.
To investigate the LDP, let us introduce the action functional and the level set.
Let $\sigma$ be an invertible matrix in $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$.
For $0 \leq T_1 \leq T_2 $ and $\varphi \in C_x ([T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{af1}
S_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2} \int^{T_2}_{T_1} | (\dot{\varphi}_t - b (\varphi_t))^T(\sigma\sigma^T)^{-1} (\varphi_t)
(\dot{\varphi}_t - b (\varphi_t)) |^2 d t, &\varphi \in A C_x ([T_1,
T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d),\\ \\
+ \infty,& \tmop{otherwise} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
and
\[ \Phi_x (s) = \{ \varphi \in C_x ([T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d): S_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi)
\leq s \} . \]
\begin{prop}\label{prop:LDP}
Let $T$ and $s_0$ be positive constants and $F \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a fixed compact set. Suppose that following conditions hold:
\begin{trivlist}
\item[i).] There exists a function $U \in C^1(\mathbb{R}^d;\mathbb{R}^+)$ and three positive constants $\zeta,
\kappa, M $ such that following two inequalities hold:
\begin{equation}\label{ash2}
\nabla U (x) \cdot b (x) \leq - \zeta | \nabla U (x) |^2, \quad
x \in \mathbb{R}^d,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{ash3}
\nabla U(x) \cdot \frac{x}{|x|} \geq \kappa,\quad
\forall x \in B_0^c(M).
\end{equation}
\item[ii).]
$\sigma$ is bounded by $\bar{\lambda}>0$ and there exists a positive constant $ \underline{\lambda}$ such that the eigenvalues of $\sigma\sigma^T$ is larger than $ \underline{\lambda}$.
\item[iii).] Let $\tilde{U} \in C^2 (\mathbb{R}^d;\mathbb{R}^+)$ be a function satisfying $\lim_{| x | \uparrow + \infty} \tilde{U} (x) = + \infty $. There exist two constants $\varepsilon_1, \chi \in (0, +
\infty)$ such that for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_1)$ and $x \in B_0^c(M) $, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ash4}
\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2} \sum_{i, j} a_{i j} (x) \frac{\partial^2}{\partial
x_i \partial x_j} \tilde{U} (x) + \nabla \tilde{U} (x) \cdot b(x) < -
\chi,
\end{equation}
where $(a_{i j} )_{d \times d}=\sigma \sigma^T $.
\end{trivlist}
Then $\{ P^{\varepsilon}_x \}$ satisfies the large deviations principle on
$C_x ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$ with good rate function $
S_{0 T} (\cdot)$, uniformly with respect to $x
\in F$ and $s \in [0, s_0)$ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$. Precisely speaking,
for any fixed compact set $F\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ and any $s_0,\delta,
\gamma > 0$, there exists an $\varepsilon_0 = \varepsilon_0 (\gamma, \delta,
T, F, s_0) > 0$ such that following two estimates are true:
\begin{equation}\label{ldpl}
P^{\varepsilon}_x (\rho_{0 T} (X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon}, \varphi) <
\delta) \geq \exp \left( - \varepsilon^{- 2} (S_{0 T} (\varphi) +
\gamma) \right),
\end{equation}
for any $x\in F$, $s\in [0,s_0)$, $\varphi \in \Phi_x (s)$ and $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$, and
\begin{equation}\label{ldpu}
P^{\varepsilon}_x (\rho_{0 T} (X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon}, \Phi_x (s)) \geq
\delta) \leq \exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (s - \gamma)),
\end{equation}
for any $x\in F$, $s\in [0,s_0)$ and $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$.
\end{prop}
To prove Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, we need the
following Lemma \ref{lem:ash}. Its idea comes from a similar Lemma in {\cite{gfw}}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:ash}
Suppose that i), ii) and iii) in Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} hold.
Then:
\begin{trivlist}
\item[a).]
\eqref{1.2} has a unique strong solution $X^\varepsilon$ for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_1)$. Moreover, for any $T>0$, $h \in H ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$ and $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$, the integral equation
\begin{equation}\label{aum1}
\varphi_t = x + \int^t_0 b (\varphi_s) d s + \int^t_0 \sigma (\varphi_s)
\dot{h}_s d s,\qquad t\in[0,T],
\end{equation}
has a unique solution $\varphi \in C_x ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$.
\item[b).] For any $\alpha > 0$, the solution map of equation \eqref{aum1}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_x (\cdot) : H ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)&\longrightarrow& C_x ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)\\
h&\longmapsto& \varphi
\end{eqnarray*}
is continuous on $K_{\alpha} := \{
\| h \|_1 \leq \alpha \}$.
\item[c).] (quasi-continuous)
For any positive constants $\rho, \alpha, c, R $, there exists an $\varepsilon_0>0$ and a $\beta > 0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
P (\rho_{0 T} (X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon}, \varphi_{\cdot}) > \rho, \quad \rho_{0
T} (\varepsilon W_{\cdot}, h_{\cdot}) \leq \beta) \leq \exp (-
\varepsilon^{- 2} R)
\end{equation*}
holds for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0)$ and $h$, $x$ satisfying $\| h \|_1 \leq \alpha$ and $| x | \leq c$.
Here $\varphi$ is $S_x (h)$.
\end{trivlist}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We prove the Lemma part by part.
\begin{trivlist}
\item[\mathbf a):]
Let us set $S^{\varepsilon}_n = \inf \{ t : | X^{\varepsilon}_t | \geq
n \}, \forall \ n \in \mathbb{N}^+, \varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_1)$.
Because of the locally Lipschitz continuity of $b$ and $\sigma$, Theorem 5.2.5 in {\cite{gtm113}} shows that
\[ X_{t \wedge S^{\varepsilon}_n}^{\varepsilon} = x_0 + \int^t_0 b (X_{s
\wedge S^{\varepsilon}_n}^{\varepsilon}) d s + \varepsilon \int^t_0
\sigma (X_{s \wedge S^{\varepsilon}_n}^{\varepsilon}) d W_s \]
has a unique strong solution, for any $ n \in \mathbb{N}^+$ and $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_1)$. Thus, if
\begin{equation}\label{ash9}
P \left(\lim_{n \uparrow + \infty} S^{\varepsilon}_n < t\right) = 0, \qquad\forall \ t \in (0, + \infty),
\end{equation}
we can prove that \eqref{1.2} has a unique strong solution for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_1)$. According to condition iii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, we can prove \eqref{ash9} by taking $\tilde{U} (x) + C$ as $V (t, x)$ in Theorem 3.5 of {\cite{km}}, where $C$ is a sufficiently large constant.
Because of the locally Lipschitz continuity of the
coefficients, by the Picard iteration we know that this integral
equation \eqref{aum1} has a unique continuous local solution.
Now it is sufficient to show that $\varphi$ is bounded on $[0,T]$. We prove it by contradiction. If not,
for the smallest critical point $t_0 \in [0, T]$, i.e. $t_0=\sup\{t \in [0, T]:|\varphi(t)|<\infty\}$, there
must exist a sequence of $\{ t_n \}$ such that $\{t_n\}$ strictly increases and converges to $t_0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, so we have $\lim_{n \rightarrow + \infty} |
\varphi_{t_n} | = + \infty$. We set $U^{\ast} = \max_{| x | = M} U (x)$,
$U_{\ast} = \min_{| x | = M} U (x)$, $U^{\ast 0} = \max_{| x | = | \varphi_0
|} U (x)$ and $U_{\ast 0} = \min_{| x | = | \varphi_0 |} U (x)$. We choose a particular $n\in\mathbb{N}$, such that $| \varphi_{t_n} | > (M \vee | \varphi_0 |) + \frac{
{\bar{\lambda}}^2}{2 \zeta \kappa} | h |_1 +\left( \frac{U^{\ast} - U_{\ast}}{\kappa}
\vee \frac{U^{\ast 0} - U_{\ast 0}}{\kappa}\right) + 1$. We set $M_n = \max_{t \in [0,
t_n]} | \varphi_t | < + \infty$. Since $U\in C^1(\mathbb{R}^d;\mathbb{R}^+)$, $U$ is bounded and
Lipschitz continuous on $\overline{B_0(M_n)}$. Because $\varphi$ is
absolutely continuous on $[0, t_n]$, $U (\varphi)$ is
absolutely continuous on $[0, t_n]$.
We denote
$\tilde{t} = \max_{t \in [0, t_n]} \{ t : | \varphi_t | \leq M \}$, when $| \varphi_0 | \leq M$.
From \eqref{ash2} in i) and the boundness of $\sigma$ in ii), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
U (\varphi_{t_n}) - U (\varphi_{\tilde{t}})
& = & \int^{t_n}_{\tilde{t}}
\frac{d U (\varphi_s)}{d s} d s\label{eq:Uphtn-Uphtt}\\
&=&\int^{t_n}_{\tilde{t}}\left\langle \nabla U(\varphi(s)), b(\varphi(s))+\sigma(\varphi(s))\dot h\right\rangle_{\mathbb{R}^d} d s \\
&\leq& \int^{t_n}_{\tilde{t}} - \zeta | \nabla U (\varphi_s) |^2
+ \bar{\lambda} | \nabla U (\varphi_s) | | \dot{h}_s | d s\nonumber\\
& \leq & \int^{t_n}_{\tilde{t}} - \frac{\zeta}{2} | \nabla U
(\varphi_s) |^2 + \frac{ {\bar{\lambda}}^2}{2 \zeta} | \dot{h}_s |^2 d s\nonumber\\
&\leq& \frac{ {\bar{\lambda}}^2}{2 \zeta} \| h \|_1^2,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{ash5}
U (\varphi_{t_n}) \leq \frac{ {\bar{\lambda}}^2}{2 \zeta} \| h \|_1^2 + U (\varphi_{\tilde{t}})
\leq \frac{ {\bar{\lambda}}^2}{2 \zeta} \| h \|_1^2 + U^{\ast} .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, by \eqref{ash3}, for any $y \in \{ x : | x | > M \}$, there exists a $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that $\xi$ is a convex combination of $ y $ and $ \frac{M}{| y |} y $, and we have
\begin{equation}\label{ash6}
U (y) - U \left( \frac{y}{| y |} M \right) = \nabla U (\xi) \cdot \left( y
- \frac{y}{| y |} M \right) \geq \kappa \left| y - \frac{y}{| y |} M
\right|=\kappa(|y|-M).
\end{equation}
Because of \eqref{ash6} and $|\varphi_{t_n} |>M$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ash7}
U (\varphi_{t_n}) \geq \kappa (| \varphi_{t_n} | - M) + U_{\ast}.
\end{equation}
Hence, by comparing \eqref{ash5} and \eqref{ash7} we have
\[ | \varphi_{t_n} | \leq M + \frac{ {\bar{\lambda}}^2}{2 \zeta \kappa} \| h
\|_1^2 + \frac{U^{\ast} - U_{\ast}}{\kappa}, \]
which is contrary to the definition of $\varphi_{t_n}$.
For the similar reason as before, if $| \varphi_0 | > M$, then we have
\[ | \varphi_{t_n} | \leq | \varphi_0 | + \frac{ {\bar{\lambda}}^2}{2 \zeta
\kappa} \| h \|_1^2 + \frac{U^{\ast 0} - U_{\ast 0}}{\kappa}, \]
which is also contrary to the definition of $\varphi_{t_n}$.
Consequently,
we have
\begin{equation}\label{ash8}
| \varphi_t | \leq \left( M \vee | \varphi_0 |\right) + \frac{ {\bar{\lambda}}^2}{2 \zeta
\kappa} \| h \|_1^2 + \left( \frac{U^{\ast} - U_{\ast}}{\kappa} \vee \frac{U^{\ast
0} - U_{\ast 0}}{\kappa}\right) , \qquad\forall t \in [0, T],
\end{equation}
which implies that \eqref{aum1} has a unique solution in $C_x ([0, T] ;
\mathbb{R}^d)$.
\item[\mathbf b):]
According to \eqref{ash8}, for any fixed
initial point $x$ and $\{ h_n \} \subset K_{\alpha}$, $\{ S_x (h_n)
\}$ are bounded in $[0, T].$ Thus, $b (S_x (h_n)) \in C ([0, T] ;
\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\sigma (S_x (h_n)) \in C ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^{d \times
d})$ are bounded and Lipschitz continuous. Therefore, the proof of Lemma 2.5
in {\cite{gfw}} can tell us that b) is true.
\item[\mathbf c):]
The proof of Theorem 2.9 in {\cite{gfw}}
shows that c) is true for bounded Lipshitz continuous $b$ and $\sigma$.
The following proof of general case comes from {\cite{gfw}}. We
write it in more details.
From \eqref{ash8}, under the conditions $\| h \|_1 \leq \alpha$ and $| x
|=|\varphi_0| \leq c$, we know that there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $|
\varphi_t | \leq C$ for all $t \in [0, T]$. For any $\rho > 0$, we define
\[ \tilde{b} (x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
b (x), \hspace{7em} | x | \leq C + 2 \rho,\\
b \left( \frac{x}{| x |} (C + 2 \rho) \right), \qquad | x | > C + 2
\rho,
\end{array} \right. \]
and
\[ \tilde{\sigma} (x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\sigma (x), \hspace{7em} | x | \leq C + 2 \rho,\\
\sigma \left( \frac{x}{| x |} (C + 2 \rho) \right), \qquad | x | > C +
2 \rho .
\end{array} \right. \]
It is easy to see that $\tilde{b}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}$ are bounded
Lipschitz continuous. We set
\[ \tilde{X}^{\varepsilon}_t = x + \int^t_0 \tilde{b}
(\tilde{X}^{\varepsilon}_s) d s + \int^t_0 \varepsilon \tilde{\sigma}
(\tilde{X}^{\varepsilon}_s) d W_s \]
and
\[ \tilde{\varphi}_t = x + \int^t_0 \tilde{b} (\tilde{\varphi}_s) d s +
\int^t_0 \varepsilon \tilde{\sigma} (\tilde{\varphi}_s) \dot{h}_s d s. \]
It is clear that $X_t^{\varepsilon}$ is equal to $\tilde{X}^{\varepsilon}_t$
in indistinguishable sense up to exiting the ball $\{ | x | \leq C + 2 \rho
\}$. Moreover, we have $\varphi_t =
\tilde{\varphi}_t$ for $t \in [0, T]$, since $| \varphi_t | < C$ in $[0, T]$. For any $X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon}
(\omega) \in \{ \rho_{0 T} (X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon}, \varphi_{\cdot}) >
\rho, \rho_{0 T} (\varepsilon W_{\cdot}, h_{\cdot}) \leq \beta \}$, there
exists a $t_0 \in [0, T]$ satisfying $| X_{t_0}^{\varepsilon} (\omega) -
\varphi_{t_0} | > \rho$. Thus, there exists a $\eta \in (0, 0.5 \rho)$ such
that $| X_{t_0}^{\varepsilon} (\omega) - \varphi_{t_0} | > \rho + \eta$.
Because of~$X_0^{\varepsilon} = \varphi_0 = x$, there must exist a
$t_1 \in [0, t_0]$ satisfying \ $| X_{t_1}^{\varepsilon} (\omega) -
\varphi_{t_1} | = \rho + \frac{\eta}{2}$. Meanwhile, we have $X_{t_1}^{\varepsilon}
(\omega) \in \{ x : | x | \leq C + 2 \rho \}$, which implies
$\tilde{X}^{\varepsilon}_{t_1} (\omega) = X_{t_1}^{\varepsilon} (\omega)$.
Hence, we have
\[ \{ \rho_{0 T} (X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon}, \varphi_{\cdot}) > \rho, \rho_{0
T} (\varepsilon W_{\cdot}, h_{\cdot}) \leq \beta \} = \{ \rho_{0 T}
(\tilde{X}_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon}, \tilde{\varphi}_{\cdot}) > \rho,
\rho_{0 T} (\varepsilon W_{\cdot}, h_{\cdot}) \leq \beta \} . \]
By virtue of the property that $\tilde{X}^{\varepsilon}_t$ and
$\tilde{\varphi}_t$ satisfy c), we finish the proof.
\end{trivlist}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:ase}
In the case that $b$ is bounded Lipschitz continuous and
$\sigma$ is a constant, a),b) and c) are true. In fact, a) in Lemma \ref{lem:ash} is clearly true.
Moreover, for this case, \eqref{1.2} can be pathwisely regarded as \eqref{aum1} for almost every $\omega\in \Omega$. Therefore, its solution is $X_\cdot^\varepsilon=S_x(\varepsilon W_\cdot)$ almost surely.
Furthermore, it can be proved by Gronwall inequality that the solution map $S_x
(\cdot)$ is actually a uniformly continuous map from $ C_0([0,T];\mathbb{R}^d)$ to $ C_x([0,T];\mathbb{R}^d)$. Thus, b) and c) in Lemma \ref{lem:ash} are also true.
\end{rem}
By the result of Lemma \ref{lem:ash}, \cite{gfw} proves that the strong solution of \eqref{1.2} satisfies the LDP with respect to an initial point. However, it is not difficult to get the conclusion that the strong solution of \eqref{1.2} satisfies the LDP with respect to the initial point uniformly in any compact set from \cite{gfw}.
Now we can give a proof of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, which is based on arguments in \cite{gfw}.
\begin{proof}[\mathbf Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}]
To show that $S_{0 T} (\varphi)$ is a good rate function, we need to prove
that for any $\alpha > 0$, $\{ \varphi : S_{0 T} (\varphi) \leq \alpha \}$ is
a compact set in $C_x ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$. Indeed, by condition ii), we know that $\sigma$ is always invertible. Thus, $\{ \varphi
: S_{0 T} (\varphi) \leq \alpha \} \subset C_x ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$ is
the image of the compact set $\left\{ h : \frac{1}{2} \| h \|^2_1 \leq \alpha
\right\} \subset C ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$ under $S_x (\cdot)$. According
to condition b) of Lemma \ref{lem:ash}, we know that $S_x (\cdot)$ is a continuous map
on $\left\{ h : \frac{1}{2} \| h \|^2_1 \leq \alpha \right\}$. Thus, $\{
\varphi : S_{0 T} (\varphi) \leq \alpha \}$ is a compact set in $C_x ([0, T]
; \mathbb{R}^d)$.
By the proof of Theorem 2.4 in {\cite{gfw}}, following results are
obtained: For any $x \in F$, every closed set $C \subset C_x ([0, T] ;
\mathbb{R}^d)$ and every open set $G \subset C_x ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$
satisfying
\[ \inf_{\varphi \in C} S_{0 T} (\varphi) < s_0, \inf_{\varphi \in G} S_{0
T} (\varphi) < s_0, \]
we have:
\begin{trivlist}
\item [i).]
For any $x \in F$, there exists an $\varepsilon_0 = \varepsilon_0
(F, s_0, C)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ldpc}
\lim \sup_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \varepsilon^2 \ln P^{\varepsilon}_x
(X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon} \in C) \leq -
\inf_{\varphi \in C} S_{0 T} (\varphi)
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0) .$
\item [ii).]
For any $x \in F$, there exists an $\varepsilon_0 = \varepsilon_0
(F, s_0, G)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ldpo}
\lim \inf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \varepsilon^2 \ln P^{\varepsilon}_x
(X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon} \in G) \geq -
\inf_{\varphi \in G} S_{0 T} (\varphi)
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0) .$
\end{trivlist}
From the standard fact of the LDP theory, we know that \eqref{ldpc}
and \eqref{ldpo} imply \eqref{ldpl} and \eqref{ldpu}
respectively.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\section{Stability in the sense of quasi-potential}
In this section, we introduce the definition of stability in the sense of quasi-potential and its properties. These properties allow us to connect the stability in the sense of quasi-potential with the trajectory property of \eqref{1.1}.
The definitions and notations about \eqref{1.2} below are from \cite{fw}.
\begin{defn}(\cite{fw})
By the definition of $S_{T_1 T_2} (\cdot)$, for any $x, y
\in \mathbb{R}^d$, the quasi-potential with respect to $x$ is defined as
\[ V (x, y) = \inf \{ S_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi) : \varphi \in C ([T_1, T_2] ;
\mathbb{R}^d), \varphi_{T_1} = x, \varphi_{T_2} = y, 0 \leq T_1 \leq T_2 \} . \]
In the same way, for a set $D \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$ and any $x, y
\in D$, we define
\[ V_D (x, y) = \inf \{ S_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi) : \varphi \in C ([T_1, T_2] ;
\bar{D}), \varphi_{T_1} = x, \varphi_{T_2} = y, 0 \leq T_1 \leq T_2 \} . \]
For $x, y \in D$, the notation $x \thicksim_D y$ means $V_D (x, y) = V_D (y,
x) = 0$. Obviously, this is an equivalent relation in $D$. A set $C \subseteq
D$ is called an equivalent set, if for any $x, y \in C$, we have $x \thicksim_D
y$. For the sake of simplicity, we replace $x
\thicksim_D y$ by $x \thicksim y$, if $D =\mathbb{R}^d$.
Let $K_1, K_2, \ldots , K_l$ be different equivalent sets in $\mathbb{R}^d$, which
satisfy $K_i \cap K_j = \varnothing$ and $x \nsim y$, for any $x \in K_i, y \in
K_j, i \neq j$. We define
\[ V (K_i, K_j) = \inf \{ S_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi) : \varphi \in C ([T_1, T_2] ;
\mathbb{R}^d), \varphi_{T_1} \in K_i, \varphi_{T_2} \in K_j, 0 \leq T_1 \leq T_2
\} \]
and
\[ V_D (K_i, K_j) = \inf \{ S_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi) : \varphi \in C ([T_1, T_2]
; \bar{D}), \varphi_{T_1} \in K_i, \varphi_{T_2} \in K_j, 0 \leq T_1 \leq T_2 \} .
\]
Furthermore, we define
\[ \tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) = \inf \left\{ S_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi) : \varphi \in C
\left( [T_1, T_2] ; \mathbb{R}^d \backslash \bigcup_{s \neq i, j} K_s
\right), \varphi_{T_1} \in K_i, \varphi_{T_2} \in K_j, 0 \leq T_1 \leq T_2
\right\} . \]
If there is no such $\varphi$, then we set $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) = + \infty$.
We also define
\[ \tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) = \inf \left\{ S_{T_1 T_2} (\varphi) : \varphi \in C
\left( [T_1, T_2] ; \bar{D} \backslash \bigcup_{s \neq i, j} K_s \right),
\varphi_{T_1} \in K_i, \varphi_{T_2} \in K_j, 0 \leq T_1 \leq T_2\right\} . \]
If there is no such $\varphi$, then we set $\tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) = +\infty$.
Let $C \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be an arbitrary set. We use $\partial C$ to represent the boundary of $C$.
For any $\delta > 0$, we set
$$C_{\delta} = \{ x :\exists y \in C,\ | x - y | < \delta \}$$
and
\[ C_{- \delta} = \{ x : x \in C,\ \min_{y \in \partial C} | x - y | >\delta \} . \]
Furthermore, if $C$ is a compact set with smooth boundary, for a point $x$ lying between
$\partial C$ and $\partial (C_{- \delta})$, we denote the closest point on
$\partial (C_{- \delta})$ by $x_{- \delta}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}(\cite{fw})
A set $C \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is called a {\tmstrong{stable set}} of equation
\eqref{1.2}, if $V (x, y) > 0$ for any $x \in C$ and any $y \not\in C$. Otherwise,
$C$ is called an {\tmstrong{unstable set}}.
\end{defn}
In the proof of the main result, we will use some important assumptions. For the sake of clarity, we list them here. Let us set $\mathcal{L}= \{ 1, 2, \ldots, l \}$ and introduce the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}\label{mainassumption}
$\,$
\begin{trivlist}
\item[1).] There is a finite number of compact
equivalent sets $K_1, K_2, \ldots, K_l$, all of which are contained in $B_0(M)$, satisfying $x \nsim y$ for $x \in K_i,\, y \in K^c_i, \, i \in
\mathcal{L}$. Furthermore, every $\omega$-limit set of \eqref{1.1} is
contained entirely in one of the $K_i,\; i \in \mathcal{L}$.
\item[2).] Let $U$ be the one in i) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}.
For any $x \in \mathbb{R}^d \backslash \cup_{i \in \mathcal{L}}
K_i$,
we suppose $\nabla U (x) \neq 0$. Moreover,
there exists a constant $\tilde{\delta} > 0$ and two constants
$k_1 \ge k_2>0 $, such that for any $\delta', \delta''$ satisfying $0 <
(\frac{k_1}{k_2})^{\frac{1}{2}} \delta'' < \delta' < \tilde{\delta}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{con23}
\min_{x \in \partial (K_i)_{\delta''}, y \in \partial (K_i)_{\delta'}} \Big(U
(y) - U (x)\Big) \geq k_2 (\delta')^2 - k_1 (\delta'')^2,
\end{equation}
for any stable $K_i, i \in \mathcal{L}$.
\item[3).] Let $\tilde{U} (x) \in C^2 (\mathbb{R}^d;\mathbb{R}^+)$ be a function satisfying $\lim_{| x | \uparrow + \infty} \tilde{U} (x) = + \infty $. We suppose that for any small $\delta>0$, there exist two constants
$\varepsilon_{\delta}, \chi_{\delta} \in (0, + \infty)$, such that we have
\begin{equation}\label{con25}
\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2} \sum_{i, j} a_{i j} (x) \frac{\partial^2}{\partial
x_i \partial x_j} \tilde{U} (x) + \nabla \tilde{U} (x) \cdot b(x) < -
\chi_{\delta},
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_{\delta})$ and $x \in \mathbb{R}^d \backslash \cup_{i \in \mathcal{L}} \left(K_i\right)_{\delta}$.
Here $(a_{i j} (x))_{d \times d}$ is $\sigma \sigma^T (x)$.
\end{trivlist}
\end{assumption}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:generalpositivecon}
Let $H(U(x))$ denote the Hessian matrix of $U$ at $x$. If $K_i$ is a stable point, then the positive definiteness of $H(U(K_i))$ guarantee that \eqref{con23} holds. In general, for any $n\in\mathbb{N}^{+}$, \eqref{con23} can be replaced by
\begin{equation*}
\min_{x \in \partial (K_i)_{\delta''}, y \in \partial (K_i)_{\delta'}} \Big(U
(y) - U (x)\Big) \geq k_2(\delta')^{2n} - k_1 (\delta'')^{2n},
\end{equation*}
for any $0 < (\frac{k_1}{k_2})^{\frac{1}{2n}} \delta'' < \delta' < \tilde{\delta}$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:con2simplification}
If $U$ satisfies the following condition:
\begin{trivlist}
\item[3)$'$.]Let $\chi$ and $\varepsilon_1$ be two positive constants. We suppose that $U\in C^2 (\mathbb{R}^d;\mathbb{R}^+)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2} \sum_{i, j} a_{i j} (x) \frac{\partial^2}{\partial
x_i \partial x_j} U(x) -\zeta \left|\nabla U(x) \right|^2 < -
\chi,
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon\in \left( 0, \varepsilon_1\right) $ and $ x \in B_0^c(M)$.
\end{trivlist}
Then we can take $U(x)$ as $\tilde{U}(x)$ and reduce 3) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption} to 3)$'$.
\end{rem}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:lowerboundedofqp}
Under conditions i) and ii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, the quasi-potential of equation \eqref{1.2} has a lower estimate
\begin{equation}\label{lowerboundedofqp}
V (x, y) \geq \frac{2 \zeta}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2} (U (y) - U (x)),
\end{equation}
for any $x, y \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By i) and ii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, for any $x, y \in \mathbb{R}^d$, $T \in [0, + \infty)$ and $\varphi \in \{\varphi\in AC_x ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d):\varphi_T=y\}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_{0 T} (\varphi) & = & \frac{1}{2} \int^T_0 | \sigma^{- 1} (\varphi_t)
(\dot{\varphi}_t - b (\varphi_t)) |^2 d t\\
& \geq & \frac{1}{2 {\bar{\lambda}}^2} \int^T_0 | \dot{\varphi}_t - b
(\varphi_t) |^2 d t\\
& = & \frac{1}{2 {\bar{\lambda}}^2} \int^T_0 | \dot{\varphi}_t - b
(\varphi_t) - 2 \zeta \nabla U (\varphi_t) + 2 \zeta \nabla U (\varphi_t)
|^2 d t\\
& \geq & \frac{1}{2 {\bar{\lambda}}^2} \int_0^T | \dot{\varphi}_t - b
(\varphi_t) - 2 \zeta \nabla U (\varphi_t) |^2 d t + \frac{2
\zeta}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2} \int_0^T (\dot{\varphi}_t, \nabla U (\varphi_t)) d
t\\
& \geq & \frac{2 \zeta}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2} (U (\varphi_T) - U (\varphi_0)) =
\frac{2 \zeta}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2} (U (y) - U (x)) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, $V (x, y) \geq \frac{2 \zeta}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2} (U (y) - U (x))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:infinitycost}
Let us suppose that the conditions i) and ii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} hold. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:infinitycost}
\lim_{| y | \uparrow + \infty} V (x, y) = + \infty, \quad x\in \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
The following Corollary \ref{rem:howtogetstable} and Proposition \ref{prop:sstoos} provide a way to determine whether a set is stable or not. This method will be used in Example \ref{Bernoulli}, Example \ref{Non-symmetrical Example} and Example \ref{duffing}.
\begin{cor}\label{rem:howtogetstable}
Suppose that conditions i) and ii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} hold.
If for some $i\in\mathcal L$,
there exists $\delta>0$, such that for any $x \in K_i, y \in (K_i)_{\delta} \backslash K_i $, we have $U(y)-U(x) > 0$, then $K_i$ is a stable set.
\end{cor}
The following lemma from {\cite{fw}} illustrates the continuity of the
quasi-potential.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:qpcontinuous}(\cite{fw})
Let $C \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a convex compact set. Then there exists a constant $L=L(C)$, such that for any
$x, y \in C$, there exists $\varphi \in C ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$
with $\varphi_0 = x, \varphi_T = y, T = | x - y |$
and
\[ S_{0 T} (\varphi) \leq L | x - y | . \]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We choose $\varphi$ as
\[ \varphi_t = x + \frac{t}{| x - y |} (y - x), \quad t \in [0, | x - y |], \]
then by the local boundness of coefficients $b$ and $\sigma$, we can finish the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:sstoos}
If $K \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is a stable set of equation \eqref{1.2},
then for any $\delta > 0$, there exists a $\delta' \in (0, \delta)$ such that
the solution of equation \eqref{1.1} starting at $x_0 \in K_{\delta'}$ does not
leave $K_{\delta}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove this by contradiction. If not, there exists
a $\delta > 0$ such that for every $n \in \mathbb{N}^+$ satisfying
$\frac{1}{n} < \delta$ there exists an $x_n \in K_{\frac{1}{n}}$ and a $t_n$
satisfying $X_{t_n} (x_n) \in K_{\delta + 1} \backslash K_{\delta}$. Thus,
there exists an $x^{\ast} \in K$ and a $y^{\ast} \in K_{\delta + 1}
\backslash K_{\delta}$ such that we can choose a subsequence of $\{ x_n \}$
still denoted by $\{ x_n \}$, satisfying $x_n \rightarrow x^{\ast}$ and
$X_{t_n} (x_n) \rightarrow y^{\ast}$ as $n \uparrow +\infty$.
We claim that $V (x^{\ast}, y^{\ast}) = 0$. Because of Lemma \ref{lem:qpcontinuous},
for any $\epsilon > 0$ there exists an $n$ such that $V (x^{\ast}, x_n) <
\epsilon$ and $V (X_{t_n} (x_n), y^{\ast}) < \epsilon$. Therefore, we have
$V (x^{\ast}, y^{\ast}) = V (x^{\ast}, x_n) + V (x_n, X_{t_n} (x_n)) + V
(X_{t_n} (x_n), y^{\ast}) < 2 \epsilon$. Hence, we have $V (x^{\ast},
y^{\ast}) = 0$, which contradicts to the fact that $K$ is a stable set.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:ssandos}
Proposition \ref{prop:sstoos} shows that a stable set defined
by the quasi-potential is also a stable set in the sense of deterministic
dynamical systems.
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:existoness}
Under condition 1) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, there exists at least one stable $K_i$ for some $i \in \mathcal L$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove this result by contradiction. If all the $K_i$ are unstable, then
there exists an $x_i \in K_i$ and a $y_i \in K^c_i$
satisfying $V (x_i, y_i) = 0$ for any $i\in\mathcal L$. Since all the $\omega$-limit sets are in
$\cup_{s \in \mathcal{L}} K_s$, there must be a set $K_j$ satisfying $V (y_i,
K_j) = 0$.
If $j=i$, then we have $y_i \sim K_i$, which is
contradict to condition 1) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}. If $j\neq i$, then
we have $V (K_i, K_j) = 0$. Repeating the above steps,
there is a pair $(K_m, K_n)$ admitting $V (K_m, K_n) = V
(K_n, K_m) = 0$ because of the finiteness of the set $\mathcal L$. Condition 1) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption} implies $l = 1$. Therefore, we only
need to exclude the case that there is only one unstable $K_1$.
If this is the case, there exists an $x \in K_1$ and a $y \in \mathbb{R}^d
\backslash K_1$ such that $V (x, y) = 0$. However, by 1) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, $K_1$ contains all $\omega$-limit sets
of equation \eqref{1.1}. Thus, $X_t (y)$ converges into $K_1$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$, which implies $V
(y, K_1) = 0$. Hence, we have $y \thicksim K_1$, which is contradict to condition
1) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\section{The concentration of the weak limitation of $\{ \mu_{\varepsilon} \}$}
In this section, we show concentration phenomena of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon} \}$ by the LDP method. To construct invariant measures $\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$, we use the method in \cite{km} by the aid of Markov chains. Transition probabilities of Markov chains are estimated in Proposition \ref{prop:transpb}. Lemma \ref{lem:qponcompactset}-Lemma \ref{lem:fw2} are preparations for Proposition \ref{prop:transpb}.
From now on, we assume $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$ has a weak limit or its subsequence has a weak limit $\mu$. This property need the tightness of $\{\mu_{\varepsilon}\}$. Corresponding results can be found in \cite{chen}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:qponcompactset}
Suppose conditions i) - ii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} are true. Then there exists a bounded domain $D \supset \cup_{i \in \mathcal{L}} K_i$ with smooth boundary such that for any $i, j \in \{ 1, 2, \ldots, l \}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{lem:qponcompactset1}
\tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) = \tilde{V} (K_i, K_j).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us fix $i, j\in \mathcal L$ arbitrarily.
\begin{trivlist}
\item[\mathbf If $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) = + \infty$:] then for every domain $D$ we
have $\tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) \geq \tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) = + \infty$. Thus,
$\tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) = \tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) = + \infty$.
\item[\mathbf If $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) < + \infty$:] we claim that there exists a
compact set $D_{i j}$ such that $\tilde{V}_{D_{i j}} (K_i, K_j) =
\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j)$. By Corollary \ref{cor:infinitycost},
there exists an $N^{}_{i j} > M$ such that for any $x \in
\{ x : | x | = M \}, y \in \{ y : | y | > N_{i j} \}$, we have $V (x, y) >
\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) + 1$, since i) and ii) in Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} are true.
For any $\varphi \in \{ \varphi : \varphi \in
C_x (\mathbb{R}^+ ; \mathbb{R}^d \backslash \cup_{s \neq i, j} K_s), x \in
K_i, \exists \ \tilde{t} \triangleq \tilde{t} (\varphi) > 0 \text{ s.t. } |
\varphi_{\tilde{t}} | > N_{i j} \}$, we set $\epsilon = \sup \{ s : s <
\tilde{t}, | \varphi_s | = M \}$, then $S_{0 \tilde{t}} (\varphi) \geq
S_{0 \epsilon} (\varphi) + S_{\epsilon \tilde{t}} (\varphi) > \tilde{V}
(K_i, K_j) + 1$. On the other hand, by the definition of
$\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j)$, we know that there exists a sequence of absolutely
continuous functions $\{ \varphi^{(n)} \}$ and a sequence of positive constants $\{ T_n
\}$, $n \in \mathbb{N}^+$ such that $\varphi_0^{(n)} \in K_i,
\varphi_t^{(n)} \in \mathbb{R}^d \backslash \cup_{s \neq i, j} K_s, t \in
[0, T_n]$ and $S_{0 T_n} (\varphi^{(n)}) \leq \tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) +
\frac{1}{n}$. Let $D_{i j} = \{ x : | x | \leq N_{i j} \}$.
Thus, for any $n \in \mathbb{N}^+$, we have $\varphi_t^{(n)} \in D_{i j}
\backslash \cup_{s \neq i, j} K_s, t \in [0, T_n]$, which means
$\tilde{V}_{D_{i j}} (K_i, K_j) = \tilde{V} (K_i, K_j)$.
Therefore, we can choose a domain $D \supset \cup_{i, j} D_{i j}$ with
smooth boundary satisfying \eqref{lem:qponcompactset1}.
\end{trivlist}
Hence, we finish the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:incompaceset}
Suppose conditions i) - ii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} are true.
Let $C \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a compact set and $T, \Theta$ be
positive constants. Then there exists a compact set $\Lambda \subset
\mathbb{R}^d$ such that for any $\varphi \in \{ \varphi \in C_x ([0, T] ;
\mathbb{R}^d): S_{0 T} (\varphi) \leq \Theta, x \in C \}$, we have
$\varphi([0,T]) \subset \Lambda$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $| C | = \sup \{ | x | : x \in C \}$. By Corollary \ref{cor:infinitycost}, for any $x \in \partial B_0(M \vee | C |) $, there exists a constant $\tilde{M}$ sufficiently large such that
for any $y$ with $| y | > \tilde{M}$, we have
\[ V (x, y) \geq \frac{2 \zeta}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2} (U (y) - U (x)) > \Theta +
1. \]
For any $\varphi \in \{ \varphi \in C_x ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^d): x
\in C, \exists \ \tilde{t} \in [0, T]\ \text{ s.t. }\ | \varphi_{\tilde{t}} | > \tilde{M} \}$, we set $\epsilon (\varphi) = \inf \{ s : s < T, |
\varphi_s |=M \vee | C | \}$, then
\[ S_{0 T} (\varphi) \geq S_{0 \epsilon} (\varphi) + S_{\epsilon \tilde{t}}
(\varphi) \geq \Theta + 1. \]
Thus, we have finished the proof by $\Lambda =\overline{B_0(\tilde M)}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:uppertimeestimate}
Suppose conditions i) - iii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} and 1)
of Assumption \ref{mainassumption} are true.
Let $O \supset \cup_{i \in \mathcal{L}}K_i$ be a bounded open
set and $C \subset \mathbb{R}^d \backslash O$ be a compact set. Then for any
$\alpha > 0$, there exist two constants $T, \varepsilon_0 > 0$ such
that we have
\[ P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau^{\varepsilon}_O > T) \leq \exp (- \varepsilon^{-
2} \alpha) ,\]
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$ and $x \in C$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha>0$ be fixed arbitrarily.
By Corollary \ref{cor:infinitycost},
there exists a compact set $C_1 \supset (O \cup C)$ such that for any
$x \in C$ and $y \in C_1^c$, we have $V (x, y) > \alpha + 1$.
By 1) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, we have
$$\tau_{O,x} < + \infty, \quad \forall x\in (C_1\setminus O).$$
It is easy to
prove that $\{x\in (C_1\setminus O):\tau_{O,x} \geq a \}$ is a close set for any $a > 0$, since the solution of
\eqref{1.1} is continuous with respect to the initial point. Therefore,
$\tau_{O,x}$ is upper semi-continuous. Thus, $\tau_{O,x}$ can get
the finite maximum denoted by $T_0$ in $C_1 \backslash O$.
Let us set $T_1
= T_0 + 1$. We claim that for any $\varphi \in \{ \varphi \in C_x ([0, T_1] ;
\mathbb{R}^d \backslash O): x \in C_1 \backslash O \}$, there exists a constant $\theta >
0$ such that $S_{0 T_1} (\varphi) > \theta$. Otherwise, there exists a
sequence of $\{ \varphi_n \} \subset \{ \varphi \in C_x ([0, T_1]
; \mathbb{R}^d \backslash O): x \in C_1\setminus O \}$ such that $S_{0 T_1} (\varphi) <
\frac{1}{n}$, $n \in \mathbb{N}^+$. By Lemma \ref{lem:incompaceset},
there exists a compact set $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{R}^d \backslash O$ such
that $ \varphi_n \subset \Lambda$ for all $n$. Thus, there exists a subsequence of
$\{ \varphi_n \}$, which converges to some $\varphi^{\ast} \in \{\varphi
\in C_x ([0, T_1] ; \mathbb{R}^d \backslash O): x \in C_1\setminus O \}$. Therefore, we have $S_{0 T_1} (\varphi^{\ast})
= 0$, since $S_{0 T_1} (\cdot)$ is lower semi-continuous. Hence, we have $\varphi_t^{\ast} = X_t (\varphi_0^{\ast}) \in \Lambda
\subset \mathbb{R}^d \backslash O, \forall t \in [0, T_1]$, which is
contradict to the definition of $T_0$.
Therefore, for a continuous trajectory $\varphi$ that starts from $C$ and spends time $T$ more than $
T_1$ in $\mathbb{R}^d \backslash O$, we have $S_{0 T} (\varphi) >\theta$.
In general, for a continuous $\varphi$ that starts from $C$ and spends time $T $ more than $
T_1$ in $C_1 \backslash O$, we have
\[ S_{0 T} (\varphi) > \left[ \frac{T}{T_1} \right] \theta > \left(
\frac{T}{T_1} - 1 \right) \theta, \]
and $S_{0 T} (\varphi) > \alpha
+ 1$, if $\varphi$ reaches $C_1^c$.
Thus, there exists a $T_2 > 0$ such that for any $\varphi$
spending time $T_2$ in $\mathbb{R}^d \backslash O$, we have $S_{0 T_2}
(\varphi) > \alpha + 1$ anyhow.
By \eqref{ldpc}, because of the closeness of $\{ \varphi \in C_x ([0, T_2] ;
\mathbb{R}^d \backslash O) \}$ in $C_x ([0, T_2] ;
\mathbb{R}^d)$, there exists a $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ such
that we have
\[ P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau^{\varepsilon}_O > T_2) \leq \exp (-
\varepsilon^{- 2} \alpha), \]
for any $x \in C$ and $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$.
\end{proof}
Let $K_i, i \in \mathcal{L}$ be equivalent sets as in 1) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}. We set $\delta_1 = \frac{1}{8} \min_{i, j} \tmop{dist} (K_i, K_j)$. For any
$\rho_0 \in (0, \delta_1)$, $\rho_1 \in (0, \rho_0)$ and $\rho_2 \in (0,
\rho_1)$, let us choose open sets $g_i, G_i$ with smooth boundaries
satisfying
\[ \begin{array}{l}
K_i \subset g_{_i} \subset (K_i)_{\rho_2} \subset G_i
\subset (K_i)_{\rho_1}.
\end{array} \]
We denote
\[ g = \bigcup_{i = 1}^l g_i, \quad G = \bigcup_{i = 1}^l
G_i . \]
For any $\varepsilon > 0$, we consider the following two sequences of
stopping times related to $X^{\varepsilon}_t$:
\[ \tau^{\varepsilon}_0 = 0,\quad \sigma^{\varepsilon}_n = \inf \{ t : t \geq
\tau^{\varepsilon}_{n - 1}, X^{\varepsilon}_t \in \partial G \},\quad
\tau^{\varepsilon}_n = \inf \{ t : t \geq \sigma^{\varepsilon}_n,
X^{\varepsilon}_t \in \partial g \}, \quad n \in \mathbb{N}^+ . \]
In order to define the Markov chain
$Z^{\varepsilon}_n = X^{\varepsilon}_{\tau^{\varepsilon}_n}$
appropriately, we need the following lemma. Here, $ \{Z^{\varepsilon}_n\}$ are used to construct $\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:recurrent}
Under conditions i) - iii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, we have $P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau^{\varepsilon}_n <
+ \infty) = 1$, for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_1)$, $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and ${n \in \mathbb{N}^+}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We prove this lemma by two statements: a). $\forall \ x \in
\mathbb{R}^d, P^{\varepsilon}_x (\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1 < + \infty) = 1$ and
b). $\forall \ x \in \partial G, P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 < +
\infty) = 1$ and induction on n.
For the case $n=1$, by a), b) and the strong
Markov property of $X^{\varepsilon}_t$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{recurrent1}
P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 < + \infty) & = &
E^{\varepsilon}_x \left(1_{\{ \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1 < + \infty \}} 1_{\{
\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 - \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1 < + \infty \}}\right) \nonumber\\
& = & E^{\varepsilon}_x \left(E^{\varepsilon}_x \left(1_{\{ \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1
< + \infty \}} 1_{\{ \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 - \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1 < +
\infty \}} | \mathcal{F}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1} \right)\right) \nonumber\\
& = & E^{\varepsilon}_x \left( 1_{\{ \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1 < + \infty
\}} P_{X_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1}^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon}
(\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 < + \infty) \right) \nonumber\\
& = & 1,
\end{eqnarray}
for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
For $n \geq 2$, suppose that $P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau^{\varepsilon}_{n - 1} < + \infty) =
1$, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$. By the strong Markov property, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau^{\varepsilon}_n < + \infty) & = &
E^{\varepsilon}_x (1_{\{ \tau^{\varepsilon}_{n - 1} < + \infty \}} 1_{\{
\tau^{\varepsilon}_n - \tau^{\varepsilon}_{n - 1} < + \infty \}})
\nonumber\\
& = & E^{\varepsilon}_x \left( 1_{\{ \tau^{\varepsilon}_{n - 1} < +
\infty \}} P_{X_{\tau^{\varepsilon}_{n - 1}}^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon}
(\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 < + \infty) \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
By the induction
hypothesis and \eqref{recurrent1}, we have
\[ P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau^{\varepsilon}_n < + \infty) = P^{\varepsilon}_x
(\tau^{\varepsilon}_{n - 1} < + \infty) = 1, \]
since $X_{\tau^{\varepsilon}_{n - 1}}^{\varepsilon} \in \partial g, a.s. \
P^{\varepsilon}_x$ is well-defined.
Now we only need to prove a) and b). According to Theorem 3.9 in
{\cite{km}} and iii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, by taking $V (s, x)$ in {\cite{km}}
as $\tilde{U} (x)$ and $U_1$ in {\cite{km}} as $\{ x : | x | < M \}$, we
know that the process $X^{\varepsilon}_t$ is recurrent with respect to the
bounded open set $F \triangleq \{ x : | x | < M \}$, for any $\varepsilon \in
(0, \varepsilon_1)$. Namely, we have $P^{\varepsilon}_x (\tau_{x,F}^{\varepsilon} < +
\infty) = 1$, for any $x \in B_0^c(M)$ and $\varepsilon
\in (0, \varepsilon_1)$. Furthermore, Lemma 4.1 in {\cite{km}} tells us
a) and b) are true. Hence, we finish the proof of this lemma.
\end{proof}
The following two lemmata about compact sets from {\cite{fw}} will be used in
the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:transpb}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:fw1}
(\cite{fw}) Let $C$ be a compact set with a smooth boundary.
For any $\Theta, \gamma > 0$, $\exists \ \bar{\delta} > 0$ such that for any
$\delta \in (0, \bar{\delta}]$ and any $\varphi \in C ([0, T] ; C)$
satisfying $T + S_{0 T} (\varphi) \leq \Theta$, there exists a $\bar{\varphi} \in
C ([0, T] ; C_{- \delta})$ satisfying
\[ \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\bar{\varphi}_0 = \varphi_0, \bar{\varphi}_T = \varphi_T,
\hspace{3.5em} \tmop{for}\ \varphi_0, \varphi_T \in C_{- \delta}\\
\bar{\varphi}_0 = (\varphi_0)_{- \delta}, \bar{\varphi}_T =
(\varphi_T)_{- \delta}, \tmop{otherwise},
\end{array} \right. \]
and $S_{0 T} (\bar{\varphi}) \leq S_{0 T} (\varphi) + \gamma$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:fw2}
(\cite{fw}) Let C be a compact subset in $\mathbb{R}^d$.
Let $K \subset C$ be the max equivalent set which contains $K$. Then for any
$\delta, \gamma > 0$ and $x, y \in K$, there exists a $ T \in (0, + \infty)$ and a curve $\varphi \in C
([0, T] ; K_{\delta})$ satisfying $\varphi_0 = x$,
$\varphi_T = y$ and $S_{0 T} (\varphi) \leq \gamma$.
\end{lem}
The following lemma generalizes Lemma 6.2.1 in {\cite{fw}} from compact
sets to $\mathbb{R}^d$, which is a key lemma in this paper.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:transpb}
Under conditions i) - iii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} and 1)
of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, for any $\gamma > 0$, there exist constants $\rho_2 \in (0,
\delta_1)$ and $\varepsilon_0 >0$ such that one
step transition probabilities of $Z^{\varepsilon}_n$ satisfy inequalities:
\begin{equation}\label{transeq}
\exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) + \gamma)) \leq
P^{\varepsilon}_x (Z^{\varepsilon}_1 \in \partial g_j) \leq \exp (-
\varepsilon^{- 2} (\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) - \gamma)),
\end{equation}
for any $i, j \in \mathcal{L}$, $x \in g_i$ and $\varepsilon \in (0,
\varepsilon_0)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) = + \infty$, then there is no continuous trajectory, which connects $K_i$ and $K_j$ without touching any $K_l$ for $l\neq i,j$. Otherwise, by Lemma \ref{lem:qpcontinuous}, the quasi-potential must be finite. Hence,
we have $P^{\varepsilon}_x
(Z^{\varepsilon}_1 \in \partial g_j) = 0$. Thus, inequality \eqref{transeq} holds.
Now, we suppose that $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) < + \infty$ and $i \neq j$.
\textbf {Proof of the lower bound of \eqref{transeq}:}
By Lemma \ref{lem:qponcompactset}, we can choose a
compact set $D$ satisfying $D \supset B_0(M)$ and $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) =
\tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j)$. Let us arbitrarily fix $\rho_0 \in \left( 0, \delta_1 \wedge \frac{\gamma}{10 L}
\right)$ and $\rho_1 \in (0, \rho_0)$, where $L$ is the constant
corresponding to $D$ in Lemma \ref{lem:qpcontinuous}.
By the definition of $\tilde{V}_D (K_i,
K_j)$, there exists a pair of $T_{i j} > 0$, $\varphi^{i j} \in C ([0, T_{i
j}] ; D)$ such that
\[ \varphi^{i j}_0 \in K_i,\quad \varphi^{i j}_{T_{i j}} \in K_j,\quad \varphi^{i j}_t
\in D \backslash \bigcup_{s \neq i, j} K_s \textrm{ for all } t\in[0,T_{ij}], \]
and
\[ S_{0 T_{i j}} (\varphi^{i j}) \leq \tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) + 0.1 \gamma . \]
We choose positive constants $\rho_2, d_{ij}$ satisfying
\[ \rho_2 \in \left(0, \rho_1 \wedge \frac{1}{3} \tmop{dist} \left( \varphi^{i j},
\bigcup_{s \neq i, j} K_s \right)\right), \quad d_{i j} \in \left( 0, \frac{1}{3} \tmop{dist} \left( \varphi^{i j},
\bigcup_{s \neq i, j} K_s \right) \wedge \rho_2 \right). \]
For any $x \in \partial g_i$, by Lemma \ref{lem:qpcontinuous}, we can connect $x$ to
$K_i$ with a $\phi^{(1)} \in C ([0, \rho_2] ; g_i \cup \partial g_i)$
satisfying $S_{0 \rho_2} (\phi^{(1)}) \leq 0.1 \gamma$. According to Lemma
\ref{lem:fw2}, we can construct a curve $\phi^{(2)} \in C ([0, T^{(2)}_{i
j}] ; g_i)$ from $\phi_{\rho_2}^{(1)}$ to $\varphi^{i j}_0$ satisfying $S_{0
T^{(2)}_{i j}} (\phi^{(2)}) \leq 0.1 \gamma$.
Furthermore, we construct a curve connecting $\partial g_i$ and
$K_j$ as follow. Firstly, we connect the end point of $\phi^{(1)}$ to
the start point of $\phi^{(2)}$. Secondly, we connect the end point of
$\phi^{(2)}$ to the start point of $\varphi^{i j}$. For the sake of
simplicity, we still denote this new curve as $\varphi^{i j}$ with time
$T_{i j}$. Hence, by \eqref{ldpl} we know that for any $ x \in \partial g_i$,
there exists a $\varepsilon_2^{i j} > 0$ such that we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
P^{\varepsilon}_x (Z_1^{\varepsilon} \in \partial g_j) & \geq &
P^{\varepsilon}_x (\rho_{0 T_{i j}} (X_{\cdot}^{\varepsilon},
\varphi_{\cdot}^{i j}) < d_{i j})\\
& \geq & \exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (S_{0 T_{i j}} (\varphi^{i j}) + 0.1
\gamma))\\
& \geq & \exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) + 0.4 \gamma))
,
\end{eqnarray*}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_1 \wedge \varepsilon_2^{i j})$.
Thus, the lower bound of \eqref{transeq} is true.
\textbf{Proof of the upper bound of \eqref{transeq}:} By the strong Markov property of the solution $X^{\varepsilon}_t$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{upper1}
P^{\varepsilon}_x (Z_1^{\varepsilon} \in \partial g_j) = E^{\varepsilon}_x
\left( E^{\varepsilon}_x \left( 1_{\{
X_{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon} \in \partial g_j \}} |
X^\varepsilon_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1} \right) \right) \leq
\sup_{y \in \partial G_i} P^{\varepsilon}_y
(X_{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon} \in \partial g_j) , \quad \forall x \in \partial g_i.
\end{equation}
It is clear that for any $T^{\ast} > 0$, $y \in \partial G_i$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{upper2}
P^{\varepsilon}_y (X_{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon} \in \partial
g_j) \leq P^{\varepsilon}_y (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \geq T^{\ast}) +
P^{\varepsilon}_y (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq T^{\ast},
X_{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon} \in \partial g_j) .
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:uppertimeestimate}, for any $y \in \partial G_i$, there exist two
constants $T_{i j}^{ (3)}, \varepsilon_3^{i j} > 0$ such that for any
$\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_3^{i j})$, the first term in the right hand side
of \eqref{upper2} satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{upper3}
P^{\varepsilon}_y (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \geq T_{i j}^{(3) }) \leq \exp (-
\varepsilon^{- 2} (\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) + \gamma + 1)) .
\end{equation}
For the second term in the left side of \eqref{upper2}, we claim that
there exists a constant $\delta > 0$ such that for all $y \in \partial
G_i$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{upper4}
\{ \varphi : \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq T_{i j}^{ (3)},
\varphi_{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon} \in \partial g_j, \varphi_0^{\varepsilon}
= y \} \subset \{ \varphi : \rho_{0 T_{i j}^{ (3)}} (\varphi,
\Phi_y (\tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) - 0.6 \gamma)) \geq \delta \}.
\end{equation}
Otherwise, for each $n\in \mathbb N^+$, we set $\delta_n=\frac{1}{n}$, then there exist three sequences: $\{ y_n \} \subset \partial G_i$,
$\{ \varphi^{(n)} \} \subset \{ \varphi : \varphi \in C_{y_n} ([0, T_{i j}^{
(3)}] ; \mathbb{R}^d), \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq T_{i j}^{ (3)},
\varphi_{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1} \in \partial g_j \}$ and $\{ \psi^{(n)}
\} \subset C_{y_n} ([0, T_{i j}^{ (3)}] ; \mathbb{R}^d)$, which satisfy $S_{0 T_{i j}^{ (3)}} (\psi^{(n)}) \leq
\tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) - 0.6 \gamma$ and $\rho_{0 T_{i j}^{ (3)}} \left(
{\varphi^{(n)}} , \psi^{(n)} \right) \leq \delta_n= \frac{1}{n}$, $\forall n \in
\mathbb{N}^+$. By Lemma
\ref{lem:incompaceset}, there exists a compact set $\mathcal{M} \subset
\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $ \psi^{(n)} \subset \mathcal{M}, \forall
n \in \mathbb{N}^+$. By some suitable choices, we can ensure that $\mathcal{M}$ with smooth $\partial \mathcal{M}$
contains $D$. Since these $\psi^{(n)}$ may intersect with $\cup_{s \neq i, j} K_s$, we need the following
$\tilde{\psi}^{(n)}$. By Lemma \ref{lem:fw1}, we know that there exists
a $\beta \in \left( 0, \delta_1 \wedge \frac{\gamma}{10 L} \right)$ such
that for any $\psi^{(n)}$, there exists a $\tilde{\psi}^{(n)}$
satisfying $\tilde{\psi}^{(n)} \subset \mathcal{M}_{- \beta} \backslash
\cup_{s \neq i, j} (K_s)_{\beta}$ and
\[ S_{0 T_{i j}^{ (3)}} (\tilde{\psi}^{(n)}) \leq S_{0 T_{i j}^{ (3)}}
(\psi^{(n)}) + 0.1 \gamma \leq \tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) - 0.5 \gamma .
\]
Let us fix a positive integer $n > \frac{10 L}{\gamma}$. By setting $T_{i j}^{ (4)}
= \rho_1$, we can connect $K_i$ and $y_n$ through a curve $\eta^{(1)}$ satisfying
$S_{0 T_{i j}^{ (4)}} (\eta^{(1)}) \leq 0.1 \gamma$. Furthermore, setting
$T_{i j}^{ (5)} = \tmop{dist} \left( \tilde{\psi}_{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1
(\varphi^{(n)})}^{n}, K_j \right)$, we can connect
$\tilde{\psi}_{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 (\varphi^{(n)})}^{n}$ and $K_j$
through a curve $\eta^{(2)}$ satisfying $S_{0 T_{i j}^{ (5)}} (\eta^{(2)}) \leq
0.2 \gamma$. We denote $\tilde{T} = T_{i j}^{ (4)} + \tau^{\varepsilon}_1
(\varphi) + T_{i j}^{ (5)}$ and construct the curve as
\[ \xi (t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\eta_t^{(1)}, \qquad & t \in [0, T_{i j}^{ (4)}],\\
\tilde{\psi}_t^{n}, \qquad & t \in [T_{i j}^{ (4)}, T_{i j}^{ (4)} +
\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 (\varphi)],\\
\eta_t^{(2)}, \qquad & t \in [T_{i j}^{ (4)} + \tau^{\varepsilon}_1
(\varphi), \tilde{T}].
\end{array} \right. \]
Then we have $\xi \in C ([0, \tilde{T}] ; \mathbb{R}^d \backslash \cup_{s \neq i,
j} (K_s)_{\beta})$, $\xi_0 \in K_i$, $\xi_{\tilde{T}} \in K_j$ and $S_{0
\tilde{T}} (\xi) \leq \tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) - 0.1 \gamma$. The above facts
are contradict to the definition of $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j)$. Therefore,
\eqref{upper4} holds.
Thus, according to \eqref{ldpu}, there exists an $\varepsilon_4^{i j} >
0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{upper5}
P^{\varepsilon}_y (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq T_{i j}^{ (3)},
X_{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon} \in \partial g_j) & \leq &
P_y^{\varepsilon} (\{ \varphi : \rho_{0 T_{i j}^{ (3)}} (\varphi, \Phi_y
(\tilde{V}_D (K_i, K_j) - 0.6 \gamma)) \geq \delta \}) \nonumber\\
& \leq & \exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) - 0.7 \gamma))
\end{eqnarray}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_4^{i j})$ and $y \in \partial G_i$.
Combining \eqref{upper1}-\eqref{upper3} with \eqref{upper5}, for
any $x \in \partial g_i$, $\gamma > 0$ as long as $\varepsilon <
\varepsilon_1 \wedge \varepsilon_3^{i j} \wedge \varepsilon_4^{i j}$ we have
\[ P^{\varepsilon}_x (X_{\tau_1^{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon} \in \partial
g_j) \leq \exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) - \gamma)) .
\]
Thus, the proof of the case $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_j) < + \infty$, $i \neq j$
is finished.
For the case $i=j \in \mathcal L$, we have $\tilde{V} (K_i, K_i) =0$. Thus, the upper bound is
clear.
The lower bound can be proved by the same method as in the case of $i \neq j$.
Finally, let us set $\varepsilon_2 = \min_{i, j} \varepsilon_2^{i j}$, $\varepsilon_3 =
\min_{i, j} \varepsilon_3^{i j}$ and $\varepsilon_4 = \min_{i, j}
\varepsilon_4^{i j}$. From the above discussion, if
we choose $\rho_0 < \delta_1 \wedge \frac{\gamma}{10 L}$, $\rho_1 < \rho_0$,
$\rho_2 < \rho_1 \wedge \frac{1}{3} \tmop{dist} \left( \varphi^{i j},
\cup_{s \neq i, j} K_s \right)$ and $\varepsilon_0 <
\varepsilon_1 \wedge \varepsilon_2 \wedge \varepsilon_3 \wedge
\varepsilon_4$, then \eqref{transeq} holds for all $i, j \in \mathcal{L}$, $x \in g_i$ and $\varepsilon \in (0,
\varepsilon_0)$.
Therefore, the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:transpb} is complete.
\end{proof}
For the rest of our paper, we need following notations and results from {\cite{fw}}.
For any
$i\in \mathcal{L}$, $m \in \mathcal{L} \backslash \{i\}$, $n \in
\mathcal{L}$ and $m \neq n$, a set consisting of arrows ``$m \rightarrow
n$'' is called an $\{i\}$-graph if
\begin{trivlist}
\item [i).]
Every $m \in \mathcal{L} \backslash \{i\}$ is an initial point of exactly
one arrow.
\item[ii).]
There are no cycles in the set.
\end{trivlist}
Let $G (i)$ be the set of all $\{i\}$-graphs
and set
\[ W (K_i) = \min_{q \in G (i)} \sum_{(m \rightarrow n) \in q} \tilde{V} (K_m, K_n) . \]
$W (K_i)$ can be understood as the minimum total cost of getting $K_i$.
Lemma 6.4.1 in {\cite{fw}} shows $W (K_i) = \min_{q \in G (i)}
\sum_{(m \rightarrow n) \in q} V (K_m, K_n)$.
According to the proof of lemma 6.4.3 in {\cite{fw}},
it is easy to check that $\min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} W
(K_i)$ can only be attained in the stable $K_i$ for \eqref{1.2}, since all $\omega$-limit sets of \eqref{1.1} are in a compact set $\cup_{i \in \mathcal{L}}K_i $.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:invariantmeasureestimate}
Under conditions i) - iii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} and 1)
of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, for any $\gamma > 0$, there exist positive constants $\rho_2, \varepsilon_0 $ such that for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$,
the invariant measure $\nu_{\varepsilon}$ of $\{ Z^{\varepsilon}_n \}$
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasofMC}
\nu_{\varepsilon} (\partial g_i) \in (e (i, \varepsilon, 4 (l - 1)
\gamma), e (i, \varepsilon, - 4 (l - 1) \gamma)),
\end{equation}
where $e (i, \varepsilon, \gamma): = \exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (W
(K_i) - \min_j W (K_j) + \gamma))$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop:transpb}, for any $\gamma > 0$, there exist
$\rho_0, \rho_1, \rho_2 > 0$ and an $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ such that
\eqref{transeq} holds for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$ and
every pair of $i, j$. Thus, according to the standard result in Lemma 6.3.2 of
{\cite{fw}}, we know that \eqref{invariantmeasofMC} is true.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:invariantmeasureexist}
Under conditions i) - ii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} and 1), 3)
of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, there exist two positive constants $\delta_2, \delta_3$
such that for any fixed $\rho_1 \in (0,
\delta_2)$ and $ \rho_2\in (0, \rho_1 \wedge \delta_3 )$, there exists an $\varepsilon_5=\varepsilon_5(\rho_2)>0$ such that for any $A \subset \mathcal{B} (\mathbb{R}^d)$, the unique invariant
measure $\mu_{\varepsilon}$ of \eqref{1.2} can be represented as
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasurebounded}
\mu_{\varepsilon} (A) = \int_{\partial g} E^{\varepsilon}_y
\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_A (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y),
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_5)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The uniqueness of $\mu_{\varepsilon}$ is owing to the strong Feller property
and irreducibility of $X^{\varepsilon}_t$, which can be found in
{\cite{dyl}} and {\cite{dp}}. Thus, we only need to prove that the measure
given in \eqref{invariantmeasurebounded} is a finite invariant measure. To show
the finiteness of $\mu_\varepsilon$, we should prove
$\mu_{\varepsilon} (\mathbb{R}^d) < + \infty$. In fact,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{invariantmeasurebounded1}
\mu_{\varepsilon} (\mathbb{R}^d) & = & \int_{\partial g} E^{\varepsilon}_y
\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_{\mathbb{R}^d} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& = & \int_{\partial g} E^{\varepsilon}_y \tau^{\varepsilon}_1
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& \leq & \sup_{y \in \partial g} E^{\varepsilon}_y \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 .
\end{eqnarray}
By the strong Markov property of $X^{\varepsilon}_t$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasurebounded2}
E^{\varepsilon}_y \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 = E^{\varepsilon}_y
(E^{\varepsilon}_y (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 - \sigma_1^{\varepsilon} |
\mathcal{F}_{\sigma_1^{\varepsilon}}) + \sigma_1^{\varepsilon})
\leq \sup_{z \in \partial G} E^{\varepsilon}_z \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 +
E^{\varepsilon}_y \sigma_1^{\varepsilon}.
\end{equation}
According to Lemma 6.1.7 and Lemma 6.1.8 in {\cite{fw}}, we know that for any $\gamma>0$, there exist
$\delta_2, \delta_3, \varepsilon' \in (0, + \infty)$ such that for any $\rho_1 \in (0,
\delta_2)$, $\rho_2 \in (0,\delta_3 \wedge \rho_1) $ and $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon')$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{recurrentexpectation1}
E^{\varepsilon}_y \sigma_1^{\varepsilon} \in \exp \left( \pm \varepsilon^{-
2} \frac{\gamma}{2 l} \right).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, according to 3) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption} and Theorem 3.9 in {\cite{km}} (We take $V(s, x)$ therein as $U (x)$, $U_1$ therein as $\mathbb{R}^d \backslash g$),
there exists a $\beta=\beta(\rho_1,\rho_2) \in (0, + \infty)$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{recurrentexpectation2}
\sup_{z \in \partial G} E^{\varepsilon}_z \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq \beta \triangleq \chi_{\rho_2}^{-1}\max_{x \in \partial G}\tilde{U}(x),
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_{\rho_2})$. Let
$\varepsilon_5 = \varepsilon_{\rho_2} \wedge \varepsilon'$.
By \eqref{invariantmeasurebounded1} and \eqref{invariantmeasurebounded2}, we get
\[ E^{\varepsilon}_y \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 < \beta + \exp \left( -
\varepsilon^{- 2} \frac{\gamma}{2 l} \right) < + \infty, \]
for any $y \in \partial g, \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_5)$, which implies the well-posedness of $\mu_{\varepsilon}$.
To show $\mu_{\varepsilon}$ is an invariant measure of
$X_t^{\varepsilon}$, we need to prove that for any bounded continuous function $f$ in
$\mathbb{R}^d$, $\mu_{\varepsilon}$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} f (x) \mu_{\varepsilon} (d x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}
E^{\varepsilon}_x f (X^{\varepsilon}_t) \mu_{\varepsilon} (d x), \quad
\forall t \in (0, + \infty).
\end{equation*}
This can be proved by the method provided in Theorem 4.1 in
{\cite{km}}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{simplifiedbeta}
If $U(x)$ satisfies 3)$'$, then we can choose
\begin{equation*}
\beta = 2 (\min_{x \in \mathbb{R}^d \backslash g} \zeta| \nabla U (x) |^2
\wedge \chi)^{- 1} \max_{x \in \partial G} U (x).
\end{equation*}
This fact means that for any fixed $ \rho_1, \rho_2>0 $, there exists a constant $\varepsilon_{\rho_2}>0$ satisfying $\sup_{z \in \partial G} E^{\varepsilon}_z \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq \beta$, for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_{\rho_2})$.
\end{rem}
\
The next theorem is the main result of this paper. Let $I = \{ i : i
\in \mathcal{L}, K_i\ \tmop{is}\ a \ \tmop{stable}\ \tmop{set} \}$ and its subset
$I_0 = \{ i : i \in I, W (K_i) = \min_{j \in \mathcal{L}} W (K_j)
\}$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:mian}
Suppose that conditions i) - ii) of Proposition \ref{prop:LDP} and
Assumption \ref{mainassumption} are true, then $\mu$ supports on
$\cup_{i \in I_0} K_i$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For the sake of simplicity of notations, we write \eqref{con23} of Assumption \ref{mainassumption} in an equivalent way: For any stable $K_i$,
there exist three common constants $\tilde{\delta} > 0, k_1 \geq 1, k_2>0 $ such that for any $\delta', \delta''$ admitting $0 <
k_1^{\frac{1}{2}} \delta'' < \delta' < \tilde{\delta}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equivalent}
\min_{x \in \partial (K_i)_{\delta'}, y \in \partial (K_i)_{\delta''}} U
(y) - U (x) \geq k_2\left( (\delta')^2 - k_1 (\delta'')^2\right).
\end{equation}
Let $\Delta_{i j} = V (K_i, K_j)$ and $\Delta = \min_{i
\in I, j \in \mathcal{L}} \Delta_{i j}$. $\Delta_{i j}
> 0$ is because of the definition of the stable set. For every $K_i, i \in
\mathcal{L}$, by the continuity of $V (x, y)$ in $\{ x : | x | < M
\}$, there exists a $\delta_4 > 0$ such that for any $i \in \mathcal{L}$ and
$x \in (K_i)_{\delta_4}$, we have $V (x, K_i) < \frac{1}{8} \Delta$ and $V
(K_i, x) < \frac{1}{8} \Delta$.
Let us fix a $\delta \in \left( 0, \frac{1}{3} (\delta_4 \wedge
\tilde{\delta} \wedge \delta_1) \right)$. For some $\rho_1 \in (0,\delta)$ and some constant $c\in(0,1)$, we want to have:
$$ \min_{x \in \partial (G_i)_{c\delta},\\ y \in \partial (G_i)_{\delta}} (U (y) - U (x)) > 0. $$
Therefore, according to 2) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption}, we constrain $c<k_1^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $ \rho_1 < \frac{1-c}{2}\delta$.
Under above constraints, let us divide
$\mathbb{R}^d$ into $l + 1$ parts: $(G_1)_{\delta}$, $(G_2)_{\delta}$,
{...}, $(G_l)_{\delta}$ and $\mathbb{R}^d \backslash (G)_{\delta}$.
For all stable $K_i$, let us denote $\Upsilon_i = \min_{x \in
G_i, y \in \partial (G_i)_{\delta}} V (x, y)$.
$\Upsilon_i > 0$ is owing to the definition of the stable set. By 2) of Assumption \ref{mainassumption} and Lemma \ref{lem:lowerboundedofqp}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{lowerenergyestimatationofstableset}
\min_{i \in I} \Upsilon_i \geq \min_{x \in (G_i)_{c\delta}, y \in \partial (G_i)_{\delta}} \frac{2 \zeta}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2}(U (y) - U (x)) > \frac{2 \zeta k_2}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2}\left[ \left( \frac{3-c}{2}\right)^2 -k_1\left(\frac{1+c}{2} \right)^2 \right]\delta^2,
\end{equation}
for any $\rho_1 \in (0, \frac{1-c}{2}\delta)$. We set
$$ \Upsilon = \frac{2 \zeta k_2}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2}\left[ \left( \frac{3-c}{2}\right)^2 -k_1\left(\frac{1+c}{2} \right)^2 \right]\delta^2
$$
and $\check{W} = \min_{i \not\in I_0} W (K_i) - \min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} W (K_i)$.
Let us choose an arbitrary fixed $\gamma \in \left( 0, \frac{1}{5} (
\Upsilon\wedge \Delta \wedge \check{W}) \right)$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:invariantmeasureestimate} and Lemma \ref{lem:invariantmeasureexist}, there exist proper
$\rho_0, \rho_1, \rho_2, \varepsilon_0 $ and $\varepsilon_5$ satsifying $ \rho_1 < \frac{1-c}{2}\delta \wedge \delta_2, \rho_2 < \delta_3 $ and other restrictions of Proposition \ref{prop:transpb} such that we have
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasureofz_n}
\nu_{\varepsilon} (\partial g_i) \in \left( e \left( i, \varepsilon,
\frac{l - 1}{l} \gamma \right), e \left( i, \varepsilon, - \frac{l - 1}{l}
\gamma \right) \right),
\end{equation}
and the well-posedness of $\mu_{\varepsilon}$,
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0 \wedge \varepsilon_5)$.
Next, under the above restrictions, we will give some estimates of $\mu_\varepsilon((G_i)_{\delta})$, $i\in\mathcal L$ and $\mu_\varepsilon(\mathbb{R}^d \backslash (G)_{\delta})$:
\textbf{Proof of the estimate of $ \mu_{\varepsilon} ((G_i)_{\delta}) $:}
According to \eqref{invariantmeasurebounded}, because $\rho_1, \delta < \delta_1 $, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i}
\mu_{\varepsilon} ((G_i)_{\delta}) & = & \int_{\partial g}
E^{\varepsilon}_y \left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_{(G_i)_{\delta}}
(X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& = & \int_{\partial g_i}\left( E^{\varepsilon}_y \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1\right)
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) + \sum_{j = 1}^l \int_{\partial g_j}
E^{\varepsilon}_y \left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1}
1_{(G_i)_{\delta}} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y),
\end{eqnarray}
for any $i\in \mathcal{L} $.
By \eqref{invariantmeasureofz_n}, \eqref{recurrentexpectation1} and \eqref {recurrentexpectation2}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i1}
\int_{\partial g_i} \left(E^{\varepsilon}_y \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1\right)
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \in \left( e \left( i, \varepsilon, \frac{l -
0.5}{l} \gamma \right), e \left( i, \varepsilon, - \frac{l - 0.5}{l}
\gamma \right) \right)
\end{equation}
and $\max_{z \in \partial G}
E^{\varepsilon}_z \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq \beta$, for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0 \wedge \varepsilon_5)$.
For $j = i$, by the strong Markov property, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i2}
\int_{\partial g_i} E^{\varepsilon}_y
\left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1} 1_{(G_i)_{\delta}}
(X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) & = & \int_{\partial g_i}
E^{\varepsilon}_y
E_{X^{\varepsilon}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1}}^{\varepsilon} \left(
\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_{(G_i)_{\delta}} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t
\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& \leq & \max_{z \in \partial G_i} E^{\varepsilon}_z \tau^{\varepsilon}_1
\cdot \nu_{\varepsilon} (\partial g_i) \nonumber\\
& \leq & \beta e \left( i, \varepsilon, - \frac{l - 1}{l}
\gamma \right),
\end{eqnarray}
for any $\varepsilon \in ( 0 , \varepsilon_5)$.
For $j \neq i$, by the strong Markov property, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i3}
\int_{\partial g_j} E^{\varepsilon}_y
\left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1} 1_{(G_i)_{\delta}}
(X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) & = & \int_{\partial g_j}
E^{\varepsilon}_y
E_{X^{\varepsilon}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1}}^{\varepsilon} \left(
\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_{(G_i)_{\delta}} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t
\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& \leq & \max_{z \in \partial G_j} P^{\varepsilon}_z
(\tau^{\varepsilon}_{(G_i)_{\delta}} < \tau^{\varepsilon}_1) \cdot \max_{z
\in \partial G_j} E^{\varepsilon}_z \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \cdot
\nu_{\varepsilon} (\partial g_j) .
\end{eqnarray}
For any $z \in \partial G_j$ and $T > 0$, we have
\begin{equation*}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i4}
P^{\varepsilon}_z (\tau^{\varepsilon}_{(G_i)_{\delta}} <
\tau^{\varepsilon}_1) \leq P^{\varepsilon}_z
(\tau^{\varepsilon}_{(G_i)_{\delta}} < \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq T) +
P^{\varepsilon}_z (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 > T) .
\end{equation*}
According to Lemma \ref{lem:uppertimeestimate}, there exist $T_0, \varepsilon_6 > 0$ such
that we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PGtau>T}
P^{\varepsilon}_z (\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 > T_0) < \exp (-
\varepsilon^{- 2} (W (K_j) - \min_i W (K_i) + \Delta))
\end{equation}
for any $z \in
\partial G_j $ and $ \varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_6) $.
Suppose that $K_j$ is a stable set,
for the upper bound of $P^{\varepsilon}_z
(\tau^{\varepsilon}_{(G_i)_{\delta}} < \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq T_0)$, according to the choice of $\delta$ and \eqref{ldpu}, there exist $\theta_{ij}, \varepsilon^{ij}_7 > 0$ such that we have
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i5}
P^{\varepsilon}_z (\tau^{\varepsilon}_{(G_i)_{\delta}} <
\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq T_0) \leq P^{\varepsilon}_z (\{\varphi:\rho_{0 T_0}
(\varphi, \Phi_z (0.5 \Delta)) > \theta_{ij}\}) \leq \exp (-
\varepsilon^{- 2} (0.4 \Delta)),
\end{equation}
for any $z \in \partial G_j $ and $ \varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon^{i j}_7)$.
The existence of $\theta_{ij}$ can be proved by contradiction as the proof of \eqref{upper4}. We denote $\varepsilon_7 = \min_{i,j} \varepsilon_7^{i,j}$.
Then by \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i3}, \eqref{eq:PGtau>T} and \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i5} we have
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i6}
\int_{\partial g_j} E^{\varepsilon}_y
\left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1} 1_{(G_i)_{\delta}}
(X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) < 2\beta \exp \left( -
\varepsilon^{- 2} \left( W (K_j) - \min_i W (K_i) - \frac{l - 1}{l} \gamma
+ 0.4 \Delta \right) \right),
\end{equation}
for $j \neq i$ and $j \in I$.
If $K_j$ is an unstable set, then by \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i3}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i7}
\int_{\partial g_j} E^{\varepsilon}_y
\left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1} 1_{(G_i)_{\delta}}
(X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t \right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \leq \beta \exp \left( -
\varepsilon^{- 2} \left( W (K_j) - \min_i W (K_i) - \frac{l - 1}{l} \gamma
\right) \right),
\end{equation}
since $P^{\varepsilon}_z(\tau^{\varepsilon}_{(G_i)_{\delta}} < \tau^{\varepsilon}_1)\le 1$.
Equations \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i1}, \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i6} and \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i7} tell us that
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i8}
\mu_{\varepsilon} ((G_i)_{\delta}) \in (\exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} \gamma),
\exp (\varepsilon^{- 2} \gamma)),
\end{equation}
for any $K_i$, $i \in I_0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i9}
\mu_{\varepsilon} ((G_i)_{\delta}) \leq \exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2}
(\check{W} \wedge 0.4 \Delta - \gamma)),
\end{equation}
for any $K_i$, $i \in \mathcal{L} \backslash I_0$, $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0 \wedge \varepsilon_5 \wedge \varepsilon_6 \wedge \varepsilon_7) $.
\textbf{Proof of the upper bound of $\mu_{\varepsilon}(\mathbb{R}^d
\backslash (G)_{\delta})$:} In fact, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofoutside1}
\mu_{\varepsilon} (\mathbb{R}^d \backslash (G)_{\delta}) & = &
\int_{\partial g} E^{\varepsilon}_y \left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_{\{
\mathbb{R}^d \backslash (G)_{\delta} \}} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t\right)
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& = & \sum_{i = 1}^l \int_{\partial g_i} E^{\varepsilon}_y
E_{X^{\varepsilon}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1}}^{\varepsilon} \left(
\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_{\{ \mathbb{R}^d \backslash (G)_{\delta}
\}} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t \right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& \leq & \sum_{i = 1}^l \max_{z \in \partial G_i} P^{\varepsilon}_z
(\tau^{\varepsilon}_{\{ \mathbb{R}^d \backslash (G)_{\delta} \}} <
\tau^{\varepsilon}_1) \cdot \max_{z \in \partial G_i} E^{\varepsilon}_z
\tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \cdot \nu_{\varepsilon} (\partial g_i) .
\end{eqnarray}
Just like above, for any stable $K_i$, according to
\eqref{lowerenergyestimatationofstableset}, Lemma \ref{lem:uppertimeestimate} and \eqref{ldpu}, there exist
$\varepsilon_8^i, \theta_{i}^{'}, T > 0$ such that we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofoutside2}
P^{\varepsilon}_z (\tau^{\varepsilon}_{\{ \mathbb{R}^d \backslash
(G)_{\delta} \}} < \tau^{\varepsilon}_1) & \leq & P^{\varepsilon}_z
(\tau^{\varepsilon}_{\{ \mathbb{R}^d \backslash
(G)_{\delta} \}} < \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 \leq T) + P^{\varepsilon}_z ( \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 > T)
\nonumber\\
& \leq & P^{\varepsilon}_z
(\{\varphi:\rho_{0 T} (\varphi, \Phi_z (0.5 \Upsilon )) \geq \theta_i^{'}\}) + P^{\varepsilon}_z ( \tau^{\varepsilon}_1 > T)
\nonumber\\
& \leq & \exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (0.4 \Upsilon)) ,
\end{eqnarray}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_8^i)$ and $z \in \partial G_i$.
Moreover, for any unstable $K_i$ and $z \in \partial G_i$, we use
$P^{\varepsilon}_z (\tau^{\varepsilon}_{\{ \mathbb{R}^d \backslash
(G)_{\delta} \}} < \tau^{\varepsilon}_1) \leq 1$ directly. We denote $\varepsilon_8 = \min_{i\in I} \varepsilon_8^i$.
Hence,
\eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofoutside1} and \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofoutside2} show
\begin{equation}\label{invariantmeasureestimationofoutside3}
\mu_{\varepsilon} (\mathbb{R}^d \backslash (G)_{\delta}) \leq l \beta
\exp (- \varepsilon^{- 2} (0.4 \Upsilon \wedge \check{W} -
\gamma)),
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0 \wedge \varepsilon_5 \wedge \varepsilon_8)$.
Finally, because $\gamma \in \left( 0, \frac{1}{5} ( \Upsilon \wedge \Delta \wedge
\check{W}) \right)$, equations \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i8}, \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i9} and \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofoutside3} show that $\mu_\varepsilon$
concentrates on $(G_i)_{\delta}$, $i \in I_0$ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$.
Because we can choose $\delta$ and $\rho_1$ arbitrarily small, we have proven that $\mu$
supports on $\cup_{i \in I_0} K_i$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:order}
In the above proof, the order of choosing constants is extremely important. We firstly settle down $\delta$, secondly $\gamma$, then $\rho_0,\rho_1$ and $ \rho_2$, finally $\varepsilon$.
\end{rem}
According to i) in Proposition \ref{prop:LDP}, \eqref{1.1} can be restricted in $B_0^c(M)$. Thus, by Theorem 2.1 in \cite{chen}, $\mu$ is an invariant measure for \eqref{1.1} defined on $B_0^c(M)$ and supports on $\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:x\in\omega(x)\}$. Here for \eqref{1.1}, $\omega(x)$ represents the $\omega$ limit set of $x$. Therefore, we have the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{co:cap}
Under conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:mian}, $\mu$ supports on
$\cup_{i \in I_0} K_i \cap \{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:x\in\omega(x)\}$.
\end{cor}
An important application of Theorem \ref{thm:mian} is the quasi-gradient
system with stochastic perturbations. Let us consider the following SDE:
\begin{equation}\label{qgsystem}
\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
d X^{\varepsilon}_t &= (- \nabla U (X^{\varepsilon}_t) + H
(X^{\varepsilon}_t)) d t + \varepsilon d W_t,\\
X^{\varepsilon}_0 &= x_0 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Here we need three conditions: $U \in C^2 (\mathbb{R}^d ; \mathbb{R}), H \in C \left( {\mathbb{R}^d} ;
\mathbb{R}^d \right)$ and $\left\langle \nabla U (x), H (x)\right\rangle=0$ for any $x \in
\mathbb{R}^d$. The next corollary comes from Theorem \ref{thm:mian}.
\begin{cor}\label{co:qgsystem}
Suppose that following conditions are true:
\begin{trivlist}
\item[i).] There exist two positive constants $M,
\kappa$ such that
$$\nabla U(x) \cdot \frac{x}{|x|} \geq \kappa,\quad
\forall x \in B_0^c(M).$$
\item[ii).] There is a finite number of compact
equivalent sets $K_1, K_2, \ldots, K_l$, all of which are contained in $B_0(M)$, satisfying $x \nsim y$ for $x \in K_i, y \in K^c_i, \forall \ i \in
\mathcal{L}$. Furthermore, every $\omega$-limit set of \eqref{1.1} is
contained entirely in one of $K_i,\; i \in \mathcal{L}$.
\item[iii).]
For any $x \in \mathbb{R}^d \backslash \cup_{i \in \mathcal{L}}
K_i$, $\nabla U (x) \neq 0$.
Moreover,
there exists a constant $\tilde{\delta} > 0$ and two constants
$k_1 \ge k_2>0 $ such that for any $\delta', \delta''$ with
$0 < \left(\frac{k_1}{k_2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2} }\delta'' < \delta' < \tilde{\delta}$, we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\min_{x \in \partial (K_i)_{\delta''}, y \in \partial (K_i)_{\delta'}} U
(y) - U (x) \geq k_2 (\delta')^2 - k_1 (\delta'')^2,
\end{equation}
for any stable $K_i, i \in \mathcal{L}$.
\item[iv).] There exist two positive constants $\chi$ and $\varepsilon_1$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2} \Delta U(x) -\zeta \left|\nabla U(x) \right|^2 < -
\chi,
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon\in \left( 0, \varepsilon_1\right) $ and $ x \in B_0^c(M)$.
\end{trivlist}
Then $\mu$ of \eqref{qgsystem}
supports on $\cup_{i \in I_0} K_i$.
\end{cor}
\medskip
\section{The large deviations of $\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$}
In this section, we study the rate of convergence of $\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$. We first proof the LDP of $\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$ and then give an estimate of the rate function. In this chapter, we assume the conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:mian} are satisfied.
\begin{thm}\label{ldp}
$\{\mu_\varepsilon\}$ satisfies the large deviations principle with good rate function $\mathcal{S}(x)= \min_{i \in \mathcal{L}}(W(K_i)+V(K_i,x))-\min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} W(K_i)$ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Before the proof, we mention that for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, it can be viewed as an equivalent set $K_{l+1}$. According to Lemma 6.4.3 in \cite{fw}, we have
$$W(K_{l+1})=\min_{i \in \mathcal{L}}(W(K_i)+V(K_i,x)).$$
We prove this theorem in three steps.
First, we prove the level set of $\mathcal{S}(x)$ is compact. According to the definition of $\mathcal{S}$ and the continuity of quasi-potential, $ \mathcal{S}(x) $ is a continuous function. Moreover, for any $\alpha \in (0, +\infty)$, we have $ \{ \mathcal{S}(x) \leq \alpha \} \subset \cup_{i \in \mathcal{L}} \{ x: V(K_i,x) \leq \alpha \}$. Thus, by \eqref{ash6}, Lemma \ref{lem:lowerboundedofqp} and the continuity of $\mathcal{S}(x)$, the level sets of $\mathcal{S}$ is compact.
Second, we prove the lower estimate of LDP. For any fixed $ x \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\delta, \gamma \in (0,+\infty)$, according to the proof of \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i1}, there exist proper $\rho_2,\varepsilon_0 \in (0, +\infty)$ such that we have $g_{l+1} \subset (K_{l+1})_\delta$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{mulowerldp}
\mu_{\varepsilon}((x)_\delta) & \geq & \mu_{\varepsilon} (g_{l+1})\nonumber \\
& = & \int_{\partial g}
E^{\varepsilon}_y \left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_{g_{l+1}}
(X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& = & \int_{\partial g_{l+1}} \left( E^{\varepsilon}_y \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1\right)
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) + \sum_{j = 1}^{l+1} \int_{\partial g_j}
E^{\varepsilon}_y \left(\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1}
1_{g_{l+1}} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t\right) \nu_{\varepsilon} (d y)\nonumber\\
& = & \int_{\partial g_{l+1}} \left( E^{\varepsilon}_y \sigma^{\varepsilon}_1 \right)
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
& \geq & \exp\left(-\varepsilon^{-2} \left(\min_{i \in \mathcal{L}}\left(W(K_i)+V(K_i,x)\right)-\min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} W(K_i)+ \frac{l + 0.5}{l+1} \gamma \right) \right)\nonumber\\
& \geq & \exp(-\varepsilon^{-2}(\mathcal{S}(x)+\gamma)),
\end{eqnarray}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0)$.
Finally, we need to prove for any fixed $ x \in \mathbb{R}^d$, $ s\in[0,+\infty) $ and $\delta, \gamma \in (0,+\infty)$, there exists an $\varepsilon_0 \in (0, +\infty)$ satisfying
\begin{equation}{\label{muupperldp}}
\mu_\varepsilon(\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\rho\left(x, \Phi(s) \right) \geq \delta\}) \leq \exp (-\varepsilon^{-2}(s-\gamma))
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$. Here, we set $\Phi(s)=\{x\in\mathbb{R} : \mathcal{S}(x)\leq s \}$.
\textbf{$s=0$:} \eqref{muupperldp} is clearly true.
\textbf{$s>0$:} We choose a $ \rho_1 \in (0,\delta) $ satisfied $ \max_{i\in \mathcal{L}} V(K_i,\partial G_i) <\frac{\gamma}{4}$. By Lemma \ref{lem:invariantmeasureexist}, there exist proper $\rho_1,\rho_2,\beta,\varepsilon' \in (0,+\infty)$ such that we have $\max_{z\in\partial G_i}E_z^{\varepsilon}\tau_1^{\varepsilon} <\beta$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{muupperldp1}
\mu_\varepsilon(\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\rho\left(x, \Phi(s) \right) \geq \delta\}) &=& \int_{\partial g} E^{\varepsilon}_y
\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_0 1_{\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\rho\left(x, \Phi(s) \right) \geq \delta\}} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t
\nu_{\varepsilon} (d y) \nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}}\int_{\partial g_i} E^{\varepsilon}_y
\int^{\tau^{\varepsilon}_1}_{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_1} 1_{\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\rho\left(x, \Phi(s) \right) \geq \delta\}} (X^{\varepsilon}_t) d t
\nu_{\varepsilon} (dy) \nonumber\\
& \leq & \sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}} \max_{z\in\partial G_i}P_z^{\varepsilon}\left(\tau_{\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\rho\left(x, \Phi(s) \right) \geq \delta\}}^{\varepsilon}\leq\tau_1^{\varepsilon}\right) \cdot \max_{z \in \partial G_i} E_z^{\varepsilon}\tau_1^{\varepsilon}\cdot \nu_{\varepsilon}(\partial g_i)
\end{eqnarray}
for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon')$.
For any $i \in \mathcal{L}$, according to the definition of $\mathcal{S}(x) $ and the proof of \eqref{invariantmeasureestimationofG_i5}, we have
$$V(K_i,x) \geq s + \min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} W(K_i)- W(K_i)$$
and there exists an $\varepsilon '' \in (0, +\infty)$ satisfied
\begin{equation}\label{muupperldp2}
\max_{z\in\partial G_i}P_z^{\varepsilon}\left(\tau_{\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\rho\left(x, \Phi(s) \right) \geq \delta\}}^{\varepsilon}\leq\tau_1^{\varepsilon}\right) \leq \exp\left(-\varepsilon^{-2}\left(s + \min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} W(K_i)- W(K_i)-\frac{\gamma}{3}\right)\right),
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon'')$.
Hence, combining \eqref{muupperldp1} with \eqref{muupperldp2}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mu_\varepsilon(\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\rho\left(x, \Phi(s) \right) \geq \delta\})\leq l \beta \exp\left(-\varepsilon^{-2}\left(s-\frac{2\gamma}{3}\right)\right),
\end{equation*}
for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon ' \wedge \varepsilon '') $, which implies \eqref{muupperldp}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:estimateofS}
According to the proof of \eqref{ash6} and Lemma \ref{lem:lowerboundedofqp}, for any $x \in B_0^c(M) $, we can give a lower bound of $\mathcal{S}(x)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{S}(x) &\geq& \min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} W(K_i) + \min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} V(K_i, x) -\min_{i \in \mathcal{L}} W(K_i)\nonumber\\
&\geq& \min_{i\in\mathcal{L},y \in \partial B_0(M) } V(K_i,y) + \min_{y \in \partial B_0(M) } V(y,x)\nonumber\\
&\geq& \min_{i\in\mathcal{L},y \in \partial B_0(M) } V(K_i,y) + \frac{2\zeta\kappa}{{\bar{\lambda}}^2}(|x|-M).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{rem}
\medskip
\section{Examples and Numerical Simulations}
To show our conclusion more intuitive, we will give some specific examples with theoretical analyses and
numerical simulations. These examples are organized from simple to complex. All
the numerical simulations are obtained by the tamed-Euler method provided in {\cite{ns}}.
\begin{example}\label{gsystem}
A Gradient System:
\end{example}
Let us consider the gradient system with Brownian perturbations in $\mathbb{R}^2$:
\[ \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
\left( \begin{array}{l}
d X^{\varepsilon}_t\\
d Y^{\varepsilon}_t
\end{array} \right) &= - \left( \begin{array}{c}
(X^{\varepsilon}_t)^3 - X^{\varepsilon}_t\\
Y^{\varepsilon}_t
\end{array} \right) d t + \varepsilon \left( \begin{array}{l}
d W^{(1)}_t\\
d W^{(2)}_t
\end{array} \right),\\
\left( \begin{array}{l}
X^{\varepsilon}_0\\
Y^{\varepsilon}_0
\end{array} \right) &= \left( \begin{array}{l}
x_0\\
y_0
\end{array} \right) .
\end{array} \right. \]
Here we choose $(x_0, y_0)^T$ arbitrarily in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $J (x, y) = \frac{x^4}{4} + \frac{y^2}{2} - \frac{x^2}{2} + 1$. Figure \ref{fig:gradient13} is the phase graph of the corresponding deterministic equation.
{\tmstrong{Theoretical analysis:}} This system has three equivalent sets: $K_1=(0,0),\ K_2=(-1,0),\ K_3=(1,0)$. According to Corollary \ref{rem:howtogetstable}, $K_2, K_3$ are stable. By Proposition \ref{prop:sstoos}, $K_1$ is unstable.
In this special case, from the stationary Fokker-Planck equation of this example, we have
\[ \mu_{\varepsilon}(dxdy) = \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \exp \left( - \frac{2 J (x,
y)}{\varepsilon^2} \right) d x d y \right)^{- 1} \exp \left( - \frac{2 J
(x, y)}{\varepsilon^2} \right)dxdy. \]
By using the above explicit solution of this example, it is not difficult to check
$\mu = \frac{1}{2} \delta_{(- 1, 0)} + \frac{1}{2} \delta_{(1, 0)}$.
The numerical simulation of this system supports the theoretical analysis.
{\tmstrong{Numerical Simulation:}} Figure \ref{fig:gradientsys} shows the distribution of the numerical solution with $(x_0, y_0) =
(0, 0)$, $\varepsilon = 0.01$ and time $T = 10000$. In this experiment, the
numerical solution is obtained by choosing step size $h = 0.01$ with $100$ samples.
\begin{center}
\tmfloat{h}{small}{figure}{\raisebox{0.0\height}{\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=4.0cm]{gradient1_3}}}{\label{fig:gradient13}}
\tmfloat{h}{small}{figure}{\raisebox{0.0\height}{\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=4.0cm]{gradient}}}{\label{fig:gradientsys}}
\end{center}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:difficultreason}
In this example, the explicit solution tells us that the $\min W(K_i)$ must be attached at $K_2, K_3$. But in general, it seems very difficult to show which equivalent sets can attach the $\min W(K_i)$, because it is not easy to give a proper upper estimate of $V(K_i, K_j)$.
\end{rem}
\bigskip
The following example comes from \cite{chen}, we will explain this example in our view.
\begin{example}\label{Bernoulli}
Stochastic Bernoulli Equation:
\end{example}
Let us set
$$
O(x,y)=(x^2+y^2)^2-4(x^2-y^2), \quad U(O)=\frac{O^2}{2(1+O^2)^{\frac{3}{4}}}, \quad \Theta(O)=\frac{O}{(1+O^2)^{\frac{3}{8}}}.
$$
It can be checked that the following SDE:
\[ \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
\left( \begin{array}{l}
d X^{\varepsilon}_t\\
d Y^{\varepsilon}_t
\end{array} \right) &= \left( - \left( \begin{array}{c}
\partial_x U (X^{\varepsilon}_t, Y^{\varepsilon}_t)\\
\partial_y U (X^{\varepsilon}_t, Y^{\varepsilon}_t)
\end{array} \right) + \left( \begin{array}{c}
\partial_y \Theta(X^{\varepsilon}_t, Y^{\varepsilon}_t)\\
-\partial_x \Theta (X^{\varepsilon}_t, Y^{\varepsilon}_t)
\end{array} \right) \right) d t + \varepsilon \left( \begin{array}{l}
d W^{(1)}_t\\
d W^{(2)}_t
\end{array} \right),\\
\left( \begin{array}{l}
X^{\varepsilon}_0\\
Y^{\varepsilon}_0
\end{array} \right) &= \left( \begin{array}{l}
x_0\\
y_0
\end{array} \right) .
\end{array} \right. \]
satisfies the condition of Corollary \ref{co:qgsystem}. Here we choose $(x_0, y_0)^T$ arbitrarily in $\mathbb{R}^2$. Figure \ref{fig:deterbernoulli} is the phase graph for the corresponding deterministic equation.
\begin{center}
\tmfloat{h}{small}{figure}{\raisebox{0.0\height}{\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=4.0cm]{deterbernoulli}}}{\label{fig:deterbernoulli}}
\tmfloat{h}{small}{figure}{\raisebox{0.0\height}{\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=4.0cm]{stobernoulli}}}{\label{fig:stobernoulli}}
\end{center}
\bigskip
{\tmstrong{Theoretical analysis:}} This system has three equivalent set $ K_1=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2:(x^2+y^2)^2 = 4(x^2-y^2) \} $, $K_2=(-\sqrt2,0)$ and $K_3=(\sqrt2,0)$. According to Corollary \ref{rem:howtogetstable}, $K_1$ is stable. By Proposition \ref{prop:sstoos}, $K_2, K_3$ are unstable. In Example \ref{Bernoulli}, $K_1$ is the only stable set, thus $\mu$ can only supports on $K_1$. Furthermore, according to Corollary \ref{co:cap} $\mu$ can only supports on $(0,0)$.
The following numerical simulation supports the theoretical analysis.
{\tmstrong{Numerical Simulation:}}
Figure \ref{fig:stobernoulli} shows the distribution of the numerical solution with
$(x_0, y_0) = (0, 0.5)$, $\varepsilon = 0.0003$ and time $T = 30000$. In this
experiment, the numerical solution is obtained by choosing step size $h =
0.01$ with $100$ samples. The sample points are concentrated near $(0,0)$.
\bigskip
\begin{example}\label{duffing}
Stochastic Duffing Equation:
\end{example}
Let us consider the Duffing equation with Brownian perturbations in
$\mathbb{R}^2$:
\begin{equation}\label{stoduffing}
\left\{ \begin{array}{cll}
\left( \begin{array}{l}
d X^{\varepsilon}_t\\
d Y^{\varepsilon}_t
\end{array} \right) &=& \left( - \left( \begin{array}{c}
(X^{\varepsilon}_t)^3 - X^{\varepsilon}_t\\
Y^{\varepsilon}_t
\end{array} \right) + \left( \begin{array}{c}
- Y^{\varepsilon}_t\\
(X^{\varepsilon}_t)^3 - X^{\varepsilon}_t
\end{array} \right) \right) d t + \varepsilon \left( \begin{array}{l}
d W^{(1)}_t\\
d W^{(2)}_t
\end{array} \right),\\
\left( \begin{array}{l}
X^{\varepsilon}_0\\
Y^{\varepsilon}_0
\end{array} \right) &=& \left( \begin{array}{l}
x_0\\
y_0
\end{array} \right) .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Here we choose $(x_0, y_0)^T$ arbitrarily in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $J (x, y)
= \frac{x^4}{4} + \frac{y^2}{2} - \frac{x^2}{2} + 1$. Figure \ref{fig:duffing13} is the phase graph of the Duffing equation. It can be checked that \eqref{stoduffing} satisfying the requirements in Corollary \ref{co:qgsystem}.
{\tmstrong{Theoretical analysis:}} We denote $K_1 = (0, 0)$, $K_2 = (- 1, 0)$, $K_3 = (1, 0)$. According to Corollary \ref{rem:howtogetstable}, $K_2, K_3$ are stable. By Proposition \ref{prop:sstoos}, $K_1$ is unstable.
According to Corollary \ref{co:qgsystem},
the weak limitation of the invariant measure of \eqref{stoduffing} does
not support on the saddle point $K_1$, which is unstable. Owing to the symmetrical property of \eqref{stoduffing}, we can prove $W(K_2)=W(K_3)$, which implies our method can not further exclude $K_2$ or $K_3$.
To show $W (K_2) = W
(K_3)$, we need to consider the value of $V (K_2, K_1)$, $V (K_2, K_3)$, $V
(K_1, K_2)$, $V (K_1, K_3)$, $V (K_3, K_2)$ and $V (K_3, K_1)$. We claim that
$$V ((x_1, x_2), (y_1, y_2)) = V ((- x_1, -x_2), (- y_1, - y_2)), \forall (x_1, x_2), (y_1, y_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2.$$
It is because for any $(\varphi^{(1)},
\varphi^{(2)}) \in A C ([0, T] ; \mathbb{R}^2)$ satisfying $(\varphi_0^{(1)},
\varphi_0^{(2)}) = (x_1, x_2)$ and $(\varphi_T^{(1)}, \varphi_T^{(2)}) \\= (y_1, y_2)$, there
is a $(\phi^{(1)}, \phi^{(2)}) = (- \varphi^{(1)}, - \varphi^{(2)}) \in A C ([0, T] ;
\mathbb{R}^2)$ satisfying $(\phi_0^{(1)}, \phi_0^{(2)}) = (- x_1, - x_2)$, $(\phi_T^{(1)},
\phi_T^{(2)}) = (- y_1, - y_2)$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_{0 T} (\phi) & = & \frac{1}{2} \int^T_0 (\dot{\phi}_t^{(1)} - b^{(1)} (\phi_t))^2
+ (\dot{\phi}_t^{(2)} - b^{(2)} (\phi_t))^2 d t\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \int^T_0 (- \dot{\varphi}_t^{(1)} - b^{(1)} (- \varphi_t))^2 + (-
\dot{\varphi}_t^{(2)} - b^{(2)} (- \varphi_t))^2 d t\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \int^T_0 (\dot{\varphi}_t^{(1)} - b^{(1)} (\varphi_t))^2 +
(\dot{\varphi}_t^{(2)} - b^{(2)} (\varphi_t))^2 d t\\
& = & S_{0 T} (\varphi) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, we have $V (K_2, K_1) = V (K_3, K_1)$, $V (K_2, K_3) = V (K_3, K_2)$ and
$V (K_1, K_2) = V (K_1, K_3)$. From above facts we get $W (K_2) = W (K_3)$, which implies that $\mu$ may support both on $(- 1, 0)$ and $(1,
0)$.
The following results of numerical simulation supports our theoretical analysis above.
\begin{center}
\tmfloat{h}{small}{figure}{\raisebox{0.0\height}{\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=4.0cm]{duffing1_3}}}{\label{fig:duffing13}}
\tmfloat{h}{small}{figure}{\raisebox{0.0\height}{\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=4.0cm]{duffing_4}}}
{\label{fig:duffinglongsto}}
\end{center}
{\tmstrong{Numerical Simulation:}} Figure \ref{fig:duffinglongsto} shows the distribution of
numerical solution with $(x_0, y_0) = (- 0.05, 0.05)$, $\varepsilon = 0.01$
and time $T = 20000$. In this experiment, the numerical solution is obtained
by choosing step size $h = 0.01$ with $200$ samples. According to
Figure \ref{fig:duffinglongsto},
we can see that although the initial point $(- 0.05,
0.05)$ is in the attracting domain of $(- 1, 0)$, the solution of \eqref{stoduffing} with small perturbations
beginning at $(- 0.05, 0.05)$ still concentrates on both $(- 1, 0)$ and $(1, 0)$. This fact is quite different from the deterministic case.
\begin{example}\label{Non-symmetrical Example}
Non-symmetrical Equation:
\end{example}
Let us set $J (x, y) = x^6 + y^6 + 3 x^4 y^2 + 3 y^4 x^2 - 1.515 (x^4 + y^4 + 2 x^2
y^2) + 0.03 (x^2 + y^2) + 1$. We denote $\nabla J (x, y) = (J_1 (x, y),
J_2 (x, y))^T$ and $H (x, y) = (- J_2 (x, y), J_1 (x, y))^T$. It can be
checked the following SDE:
\[ \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
\left( \begin{array}{l}
d X^{\varepsilon}_t\\
d Y^{\varepsilon}_t
\end{array} \right) &= \left( - \left( \begin{array}{c}
J_1 (X^{\varepsilon}_t, Y^{\varepsilon}_t)\\
J_2 (X^{\varepsilon}_t, Y^{\varepsilon}_t)
\end{array} \right) + \left( \begin{array}{c}
- J_2 (X^{\varepsilon}_t, Y^{\varepsilon}_t)\\
J_1 (X^{\varepsilon}_t, Y^{\varepsilon}_t)
\end{array} \right) \right) d t + \varepsilon \left( \begin{array}{l}
d W^{(1)}_t\\
d W^{(2)}_t
\end{array} \right),\\
\left( \begin{array}{l}
X^{\varepsilon}_0\\
Y^{\varepsilon}_0
\end{array} \right) &= \left( \begin{array}{l}
x_0\\
y_0
\end{array} \right) .
\end{array} \right. \]
satisfying the requirements in Corollary \ref{co:qgsystem}. Here we choose $(x_0, y_0)^T$ arbitrarily in $\mathbb{R}^2$. Figure \ref{fig:nonsym105} is the phase graph for the corresponding deterministic equation.
{\tmstrong{Theoretical analysis:}} In Example \ref{Non-symmetrical Example}, the non-symmetrical property is to say that the stable sets of this system are not symmetrical. As a comparison, Example \ref{duffing} is a symmetrical system. For this system, it has three equivalent sets $K_1=(0,0)$, $K_2=\{(x,y):x^2+y^2 = 0.01\}$ and $K_3=\{(x, y) : x^2 + y^2 = 1 \}$.
$K_2$ and $K_3$ are equivalent sets because of
$$\nabla J (x, y)=0, H (x, y)=0, \ \forall \ (x,y) \in K_2,K_3.$$
Precisely speaking, for any $(x_1,y_1), (x_2,y_2) \in K_3$, denote the length of arc between $(x_1,y_1)$ and$(x_2,y_2)$ on $\{(x, y) : x^2 + y^2 = 1 \} $ as $s$. We can choose $\varphi \in C([0,\epsilon^{-1}s];K_3)$ connecting $(x_1,y_1)$ and $ (x_2,y_2)$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\begin{array}{l}
\dot{\varphi}^{(1)}_t=\\
\dot{\varphi}^{(2)}_t=
\end{array} \begin{array}{l}
\epsilon{\varphi}^{(2)}_t,\\
-\epsilon{\varphi}^{(1)}_t.
\end{array}\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
Thus, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
V((x_1,y_1), (x_2,y_2))& \leq &S_{0\epsilon^{-1}}(\varphi)\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \int^{\epsilon^{-1}s}_0 \epsilon^2 (({\varphi}^{(1)})^2+({\varphi}^{(2)})^2) d t\\
& = & \frac{\epsilon s}{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the arbitrariness of choosing $\varepsilon$, we have $V((x_1,y_1), (x_2,y_2))=0 $. Hence, $K_2, K_3$ are equivalent sets. According to Corollary \ref{rem:howtogetstable}, $K_1, K_3$ are stable. By Proposition \ref{prop:sstoos}, $K_2$ is unstable. Furthermore, we can check that $K_3$ is only one stable set getting the $\min W(K_i)$.
In fact, it is easy to check $\tilde{V}(K_2, K_1) = \tilde{V}(K_2, K_3)=0$ and $\tilde{V}(K_1,K_3)=\tilde{V}(K_3,K_1)=+\infty$. By Lemma \ref{lem:lowerboundedofqp}, we get $\tilde{V}(K_3, K_2) \geq 0.5285$. As for $\tilde{V}(K_1, K_2)$, we choose
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\varphi_t^{(1)}& = t,\\
\varphi_t^{(2)}& = 0,
\end{array} t \in \left[0,0.01\right] \right .
\end{equation*}
to connect $K_1$ with $K_2$. Setting $T=0.01$, it is not difficult to calculate $S_{0T}(\varphi) \approx 5.03 \times 10^{-3} $, which implies $ \tilde{V}(K_3, K_2) > S_{0T}(\varphi) \geq\tilde{V}(K_1, K_2) $. Thus, using the definition of $W(K_i)$, we have $W(K_3)<W(K_1)$, which implies $\mu$ only supports on $K_3=\{(x, y) : x^2 + y^2 = 1 \}$.
The following numerical simulation supports the theoretical analysis.
{\tmstrong{Numerical Simulation:}}
Figure \ref{fig:nonsymsys} shows the distribution of the numerical solution with
$(x_0, y_0) = (0, 0)$, $\varepsilon = 0.001$ and time $T = 10000$. In this
experiment, the numerical solution is obtained by choosing step size $h =
0.01$ with $100$ samples. It is interesting to notice that although $(0, 0)$
is a stable point of this system, in a long time observation, we may only
see the state $\{ (x, y) : x^2 + y^2 = 1 \}$.
\begin{center}
\tmfloat{h}{small}{figure}{\raisebox{0.0\height}{\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=4.0cm]{nonsym1_05}}}{\label{fig:nonsym105}}
\tmfloat{h}{small}{figure}{\raisebox{0.0\height}{\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=4.0cm]{nonsym}}}{\label{fig:nonsymsys}}
\end{center}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors are grateful to the helpful discussion with
Jifa Jiang and Lifeng Chen. The authors would like to thank Derui Sheng
for the help in numerical simulation. Zhao Dong was partially supported by National Key R\&D Program of China (No. 2020YFA0712700), Key Laboratory of Random Complex Structures and Data Science, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. 2008DP173182), NSFC No.11931004, NSFC No.12090014. Liang Li was partially supported by NSFC NO.11901026, NSFC NO. 12071433, NSFC NO.12171032.
|
\section*{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
One-dimensional (1D) models and zero-dimensional (0D) or lumped-parameter models of blood flow, based on simplified representations of the components of the cardiovascular system, can contribute strongly to the study and the deep understanding of the circulatory physiology and pathology. These two families of models can be derived from the three-dimensional (3D), time-dependent, incompressible Navier-Stokes equations by exploiting specific features of blood flow, such as the basically cylindrical morphology of the vessels. Usually, in fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problems, the Navier-Stokes equations are also coupled to the equations of solid mechanics for the 3D structure, the deformable vessel wall.
These 3D models offer great level of detail and potentially accurate description of relevant quantities, but their numerical discretization is very challenging and requires high computational resources. Even though they are highly simplified with respect to the local dynamics, 1D and 0D models can then provide reasonably good approximations of more complex models at a much lower computational effort. Under suitable assumptions on the velocity profile and the tube law relating pressure and area, 1D models can provide accurate descriptions of wave propagation phenomena at a lower computational cost; 0D models can not resolve wave propagation and the spatial variation of physical quantities of interest, but they are cheaper than 3D and 1D models, representing simple mathematical objects with physical parameters that can be usually quantified from clinical measurements. The selection of the appropriate dimensionality in a model representation (from 0D to 3D) depends on problem-specific characteristics (like flow conditions and spatial/temporal scales), the aim of the application in mind and thus the required level of accuracy by which the physical process has to be described.\\
0D cardiovascular system representation and analysis started with the modelling of arterial flow using the well-known Windkessel model. The first and simplest 0D mono-compartment description is the famous two-element Windkessel model, which was first proposed by Stephen Hales in 1733, and later formulated mathematically by Otto Frank in 1899 \cite{Sagawa:1990a}. The Windkessel model consists of two parallel elements, a capacitor $C$, describing the storage properties of large arteries, and a resistor $R$, that describes the dissipative nature of small peripheral vessels including arterioles and capillaries. Later on, this approach was expanded to cover the modelling of other cardiovascular components, such as the heart, heart valves and veins, with either mono-compartment or multi-compartment 0D models, to simulate the global haemodynamics in the whole circulation system, by assuming a uniform distribution of the fundamental variables (pressure, flow and volume) within any 0D component of the system.
In the multi-compartment approach, suitable $RLC$ models for a single vascular segment were then derived, as building blocks for constructing the entire vessel network model. In this regard, we refer to the works of Formaggia and Veneziani \cite{Formaggia:2003a}, Mili\v{s}i\'{c} and Quarteroni \cite{Milisic:2004a} and Formaggia \textit{et al.} \cite{FormaggiaQuarteroni:2009a}, where four typical compartment model configurations suited to the description of a vessel segment were derived, assuming that mean flow rate and pressure over the whole vessel are equivalent to either the input or the output values. Lumped-parameter models can also provide boundary conditions for 1D and local 3D models. For instance, in \cite{Alastruey:2008b}, the authors studied the effect of the parameters of the 0D outflow models on the waveforms propagated in an arterial network, with the aim of providing appropriate outflow 0D models for patient-specific simulations.\\
More recently, in a multiscale approach for modelling the whole cardiovascular system, as the one proposed by M\"{u}ller and Toro \cite{Mueller:2014a,Mueller:2014b}, 0D models have been used to model the heart, the pulmonary circulation and blood flow in arterioles, capillaries and venules, while 1D models have been adopted for large vessels of both arterial and venous networks. Indeed, 1D models have been extensively used to study wave propagation phenomena in arteries and, more recently, this has been extended also the venous circulation. A deep understanding of pressure and flow pulse wave propagation in the cardiovascular system and the impact of disease and anatomical variations on these propagation patterns can provide valuable information for clinical diagnosis and treatment \cite{Matthys:2007a,Blacher:2005a,Cruickshank:2002a,Fujimoto:2004a}.\\
However, modelling blood flow in highly complex networks, such as the global, closed-loop multiscale model for the whole cardiovascular system developed in M\"{u}ller and Toro \cite{Mueller:2014a,Mueller:2014b} or the ADAN (Anatomical Detailed Arterial Network) model proposed by Blanco \textit{et al.} in \cite{Blanco:2014a,Blanco:2015a}, can result in computationally expensive simulations. The very high computational cost and execution time increase significantly when long time scales are to be simulated, taking several minutes per cardiac cycle. The situation is even more severe when, for instance, we want to face the modelling of several mechanisms that need to be integrated in the cerebral microcirculation, that are brain perfusion, waste clearance mechanisms and exchange of solutes between blood and various tissue beds.\\
Several works concerning lumped-parameter models to simulate arterial blood flow are found in the literature, which address the issues of execution time and optimization of topological complexity. In \cite{Fossan:2018a}, the authors presented a method to optimize/reduce the number of arterial segments included in 1D blood flow models and to find the model with the fewest number of necessary arteries for a given clinical application, by lumping distributed 1D segments into 0D Windkessel models, while preserving key features of flow and pressure waveforms. Similarly in \cite{Epstein:2015a}, in the context of patient-specific 1D blood flow modelling, Epstein \textit{et al.} investigated the effect of a reduction in the number of arterial segments in a given distributed 1D model on the shape of the simulated pressure and flow waveforms, by systematically lumping peripheral 1D model branches into Windkessel models that preserve the net resistance and total compliance of the original model. In \cite{Safaei:2018a}, to address the issue of execution time and the question of granularity in the context of the modelling of the cerebral circulation, the authors proposed a lumped-parameter mathematical model, which was constructed using a bond graph formulation to ensure mass and energy conservation. In this work, the topology of the original 1D network was fully preserved and the model included arterial vessels with geometric and anatomical data based on the ADAN model \cite{Blanco:2015a}. Furthermore in \cite{Mirramezani:2020a}, a distributed lumped-parameter (DLP) modelling framework was proposed to efficiently compute blood flow and pressure in vascular domains at a computational cost that is orders of magnitude lower than that of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. By developing an expression of the generalized resistance $\mathcal{R}$, various sources of energy dissipation, including viscous dissipation, unsteadiness, flow separation, vessel curvature and bifurcations, were taken into account.\\
In the present work, the issue of computational efficiency and execution time, related to the modelling of blood flow in highly complex networks, has been faced by constructing lumped-parameter models departing from 1D models for blood flow in deformable vessels. The approach we propose is similar to the one presented in \cite{Safaei:2018a}, but here the main difference and novelty is that, even if they are simpler than the 1D models due to the fact that the space dependence is completely lost, these 0D models must preserve important properties of the original 1D models, such as the nonlinearity in the tube law relating the pressure to the cross-sectional area, and the dependence of the 0D model parameters on the time-varying vessel cross-section.\\
Indeed, it is important to emphasize that the mechanics of the cardiovascular system can exhibit strong nonlinearities. These nonlinear effects include, for example, the contribution of the convective acceleration terms in the momentum equation, the nonlinear relationship between pressure and volume which is observed in real vessels, the pressure-dependent vessel compliance, the collapse of vessels due to environmental pressure, \textit{etc}. For a complete review on these nonlinear phenomena characterizing the cardiovascular system see \cite{Shi:2011a}, for instance. Among these nonlinearities, pressure-dependent constitutive equations and vessel properties represent an example of great interest. Indeed, in the 0D model description, the values of the different components $C$, $L$ and $R$ are generally taken to be constant. However, since they represent real physical parameters, they are subject to the same nonlinearities, such as nonlinear constitutive material relations, as any other description of vascular mechanics \cite{Shi:2011a}. As the vessel diameter changes under changes of pressure, its compliance will change as will its resistance to flow. Furthermore, the vessel wall exhibits a nonlinear stress-strain curve \cite{Fung:1993a}, meaning that the compliance $C$ is also a function of the luminal pressure. These effects are typically included in 1D models, but neglected in 0D models. In particular, since the diameter changes in the arterial system are relatively small and the range of arterial pressures over the cardiac cycle is such that the material tends to operate in a relatively linear region of the stress-strain curve, it is a common practice to neglect the pressure dependence of the arterial properties \cite{Shi:2011a}. This is not true for veins, at least when they enter a collapsed state.\\
Several models based on \textit{in vivo} measurements or theoretical derivations have been proposed to describe the relation between cross-sectional area and internal pressure exhibited by vessels. Ursino \textit{et al.} \cite{Ursino:1996a,Ursino:1999a} used an exponential curve to describe the nonlinear pressure-volume relationship in the peripheral and venous compartments in the simulation of carotid baro-regulation of pressure pulsation. Fogliardi \textit{et al.} \cite{Fogliardi:1996a} compared the linear (\textit{i.e.} incorporating a constant compliance) and nonlinear (\textit{i.e.} including a nonlinear pressure-dependent compliance) formulation of the $RCR$ Windkessel model, concluding that no additional physiological information was gained when a pressure-dependent compliance was incorporated. In contrast, Li et al. \cite{Li:1990a,Berger:1992a} examined the consequences of incorporating a pressure-dependent compliance with exponential variation in a modified arterial system model given by a three-element $RCR$ vessel model and concluded that a pressure-dependent compliance could more accurately reflect the behaviour of the arterial system. Cappello \textit{et al.} \cite{Cappello:1995a} developed a one-step computational procedure for estimating the parameters of the nonlinear three-element Windkessel model of the arterial system incorporating a pressure-dependent compliance. In \cite{Ursino:1997a}, the authors proposed a simple mathematical model of intracranial pressure dynamics, where the resistance in the the arterial-arteriolar cerebrovascular compartment was defined to be inversely proportional to the fourth power of inner radius.\\
However, when dealing with 0D models suited to the discretization of a single vascular segment \cite{Formaggia:2003a,Milisic:2004a,Safaei:2018a}, the nonlinearities characterizing the original 1D models have never been taken into account, assuming a linear relationship between the pressure and volume of the vascular compartment and constant parameters $C$, $L$ and $R$, which are usually defined in terms of a reference state $(A_0, P_0)$.\\
The main goal of the present work is then to derive lumped-parameter models for blood flow in deformable vessels in a way that: (i) important nonlinear properties of the 1D models are preserved; and (ii) when these 0D models are applied to a network of vessels, each 1D vessel is replaced by a ``0D vessel’’ by a per-segment (one-to-one 1D-to-0D) mapping, so that the topology of the original 1D network is naturally preserved.
Concerning the first point, we firstly require the relation between mean pressure and cross-sectional area to be nonlinear, as the corresponding tube law in the original 1D model. In this way, the constant compliance $C$ is replaced by the nonlinear pressure-area relation in which the mechanical properties of the vessel wall are embedded. In addition, the other components $L$ and $R$ of each 0D vessel are no longer taken to be constant, but are defined in terms of a time-dependent average cross-sectional area, in order to account for vessel cross-section changes under changes of pressure. This feature is expected to be relevant when modelling large deviations from a baseline state, such as hypertension, an haemorrhage or a collapsed state. Actually, remarkable differences will be also observed when comparing results obtained with the standard linear and the newly derived nonlinear 0D models even in physiologically normal conditions. Then, these results and observations prove that, by including these nonlinearities, we obtain more realistic and consistent 0D models with respect to the original 1D model.
Furthermore, the convective terms are not excluded \textit{a-priori} from these nonlinear 0D models. The dimensional analysis of the 1D equations and an exhaustive investigation of the contribution and relative importance of the convective terms in both 1D and 0D blood flow models will be crucial in deciding whether these terms can be reasonably neglected in the 0D models.\\
In order to validate and test these newly derived 0D models we reproduce several benchmark test cases proposed in \cite{Boileau:2015a}. We compare the 0D results obtained with the nonlinear 0D models against the original 1D model for different arterial networks, to assess the ability of such 0D models to produce reasonably good approximations of pressure and flow waveforms in all vessels of a network with respect to the reference 1D results. Furthermore, the nonlinear 0D results are also compared against the linear 0D results from the 0D models with linear pressure-area relation and constant parameters, to evaluate the improvement we obtain in the 0D results when including certain nonlinearities in the lumped-parameter models.\\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:1Dmodel} we briefly introduce the governing equations of 1D blood flow in compliant vessels and we perform a dimensional analysis of these equations. Then, in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel} a family of nonlinear 0D models is derived departing from the 1D model. First, we describe the derivation procedure and present the resulting system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs); then, we focus on the main features characterizing these lumped-parameter models, especially on the nonlinearity preserved in the pressure-area relation; finally, we conclude this section by considering the different 0D representations for a vessel segment depending on the different data prescribed at the inlet and outlet of the vessel. Afterwards, in Section \ref{sec:stability} we restrict to the linear case, namely to the standard 0D models with constant parameter, linear pressure-volume relation and without convective terms, to carry out a stability analysis of the corresponding ODE systems. Thereafter, in Section \ref{sec:0Djunction} we describe how to couple 0D vessels converging to a shared node (bifurcations/junctions of vessels) and how to couple 0D vessels to terminal Windkessel models. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:numexp} we perform several benchmark test problems by applying the derived family of 0D models to different arterial networks of increasing complexity and discuss the obtained results. We conclude with Section \ref{sec:conclusion}, where final remarks are made and perspectives for future work are outlined.
\section{One-dimensional (1D) blood flow model}\label{sec:1Dmodel}
A well-established formulation of the one-dimensional (1D) blood flow equations in deformable vessels is given by the following system
\begin{equation}\label{sys1D}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_t A+\partial_x q=0,\\
& \partial_t q +\partial_x\left(\alpha\frac{q^2}{A}\right) +\frac{A}{\rho}\partial_x p= f,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $x\in\left[ 0, l \right]$, with $l$ being the vessel length, is the axial coordinate along the longitudinal axis of the vessel and $t>0$ is time; $A(x,t)$ is the cross-sectional area of the vessel; $q(x,t)$ is the flow rate; $p(x,t)$ is the average internal pressure over a cross-section; $\alpha$ is a momentum correction factor, also called Coriolis coefficient, and $f(x,t) = -k_R \frac{q}{A}$ is the friction force per unit length, where $k_R > 0$ is the viscous resistance coefficient. Both parameter $\alpha$ and $k_R$ depend on the assumed velocity profile. Here, the following axisymmetric velocity profile was prescribed
\begin{equation}\label{velocityprofile}
u_x (x, \xi, t) = u(x,t) s(\xi) = u(x,t) \frac{\zeta + 2}{\zeta} \left[ 1 - \left(\frac{\xi}{r}\right)^{\zeta} \right],
\end{equation}
where $u_x (x, \xi, t)$ is the axial component of the fluid velocity, $u(x,t)=\frac{q}{A}$ is the mean velocity on each cross-section, $s(\xi)$ is the assumed velocity profile, $\xi$ is the vessel radial coordinate, $r(x,t)$ is the lumen radius and $\zeta$ is the velocity profile order. The viscous resistance per unit length of tube $k_R$ is defined as a function of the velocity profile as
\begin{equation}
k_R = -\frac{\mu}{\rho} \int_{\partial S} \frac{\partial s}{\partial \vec{n}_{\partial S}} d\gamma,
\end{equation}
where $\partial S$ is the boundary of the vessel cross-section $S$ and $\vec{n}_{\partial S}$ is the outward normal vector to $\partial S$, and which, for the velocity profile chosen in (\ref{velocityprofile}), becomes
\begin{equation}
k_R = 2(\zeta + 2)\pi \frac{\mu}{\rho},
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ and $\mu$ are the constant blood density and viscosity, respectively. The momentum correction coefficient $\alpha$ is well-defined for unidirectional flow, namely
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \frac{\int_{S} u_x^2\, d\sigma}{A u^2},
\end{equation}
from which we have that the Coriolis coefficient $\alpha$ and the velocity profile order $\zeta$ are related by $\alpha = \frac{\zeta + 2}{\zeta +1}$. The value $\zeta = 9$, for which $\alpha = 1.1$, defines a flat velocity profile, which is especially valid for large arteries \cite{Hunter:1972}. The choice $\alpha = 1$, which indicates a completely flat velocity profile, is also commonly used since it simplifies the analysis of the resulting 1D model. In contrast, for a Poiseuille flow, the parabolic velocity profile is obtained by setting $\zeta=2$, for which $\alpha = \frac{4}{3}$.\\
Pressure $p(x,t)$ is related to the cross-sectional area $A(x,t)$ by the following algebraic relation
\begin{equation}\label{tubelaw}
p(x,t) - p_{ext}(x,t) = \psi(A(x,t); A_0, K, m, n, P_0),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{transmuralpressure}
\psi(A(x,t); A_0, K, m, n, P_0) = K \left[ \left(\frac{A(x,t)}{A_0}\right)^m - \left(\frac{A(x,t)}{A_0}\right)^n \right] + P_0,
\end{equation}
where $p_{ext}(x,t)$ is the external pressure acting on the vessel and $P_0$ is the reference pressure at which $A=A_0$. The above relation describes the elastic deformation of the vessel wall with variations of the transmural pressure, assuming that viscoelastic effects are negligible. Pressure $p(x,t)$ also depends on the reference cross-sectional area $A_0$ and on parameters $K$, $m$ and $n$, which take into account geometrical and mechanical properties of the vessel.\\
In particular, if we assume all these parameters to be independent of $x$ and we consider arterial vessels, then the factor $K>0$ in (\ref{tubelaw}) denotes the arterial stiffness and it is modelled as in \cite{Toro:2016a,FormaggiaQuarteroni:2009a} by
\begin{equation}\label{kappa}
K\equiv K_a =\frac{\sqrt{\pi}h_0 E}{(1-\nu^2)\sqrt{A_0}},
\end{equation}
where $h_0$ is the vessel wall thickness, $E$ is the Young's modulus and $\nu$ is the Poisson ratio. We adopt $\nu=0.5$, which implies that the vessel wall is assumed to be incompressible. The parameters $m$ and $n$ are obtained from higher-order models or simply computed from experimental measurements. Typical values for arteries are $m=0.5$ and $n=0$.\\
We note that system (\ref{sys1D}) can be rewritten under the classical form of balance laws, that is
\begin{equation}\label{conservationlaws}
\partial_t \bm{Q} +\partial_x \bm{F}(\bm{Q}) = \bm{S}(\bm{Q}),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\bm{Q} = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
A\\[1ex]
q
\end{array} \right],
\quad \bm{F}(\bm{Q}) = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
q\\[1ex]
\alpha \dfrac{q^2}{A} +\dfrac{K A}{\rho} \left[ \dfrac{m}{m+1} \left(\dfrac{A}{A_0}\right)^m - \dfrac{n}{n+1} \left(\dfrac{A}{A_0}\right)^n \right]
\end{array} \right],
\quad \bm{S}(\bm{Q})= \left[ \begin{array}{c}
0\\[1ex]
-k_R \dfrac{q}{A}
\end{array} \right],
\end{equation}
where $\bm{Q}$ is the vector of conserved variables, $\bm{F}$ is the flux function and $\bm{S}$ is the source term.\\
We introduce here also the wave speed, denoted by $c$, as follows
\begin{equation}\label{c}
c = \sqrt{\frac{A}{\rho} \frac{\partial p}{\partial A}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Dimensional analysis}\label{sec:1Dmodel:dimanalysis}
In order to assess the relative importance of each term in the 1D blood flow model (\ref{sys1D}), especially of convective, pressure and friction terms in the momentum balance equation, we perform here a dimensional analysis, similar to the analysis performed in \cite{Ghigo:2017a,Saito:2011a}. For this purpose, we introduce the following nondimensional variables
\begin{equation}\label{nondimvar}
t = T_0 \overline{t}, \quad x = L_0 \overline{x}, \quad A = A_0 \overline{A}, \quad q = Q_0 \overline{Q} = \left( A_0 U_0 \right) \overline{Q},
\end{equation}
where the constants $T_0$, $L_0$, $A_0$ and $U_0$ are orders of magnitude of the dimensional variables, so that nondimensional variables $\overline{t}$, $\overline{x}$, $\overline{A}$ and $\overline{Q}$ are of order $1$. In particular, $T_0$ is the time scale, $L_0$ is the longitudinal spatial scale, $A_0$ is the reference cross-sectional area and $U_0$ is a reference flow velocity.\\
The nondimensional equation of conservation of mass reads
\begin{equation}\label{nondimmasseq}
\frac{\partial \overline{A}}{\partial \overline{t}} + \left[ \frac{T_0 U_0}{L_0} \right] \frac{\partial \overline{Q}}{\partial \overline{x}} = 0.
\end{equation}
By rewriting the pressure gradient $\partial_x p$ in terms of the nondimensional variables (\ref{nondimvar}), after straightforward calculations we get the following nondimensional momentum balance equation
\begin{equation}\label{nondimmomentumeq}
\frac{\partial \overline{Q}}{\partial \overline{t}} + \gamma_C \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{x}} \left( \alpha \frac{\overline{Q}^2}{\overline{A}}\right) + \gamma_P \frac{\partial \overline{A}}{\partial \overline{x}} = - \gamma_F\frac{\overline{Q}}{\overline{A}},
\end{equation}
where the three coefficients for the convective, pressure and friction terms have been introduced, respectively given by
\begin{equation}\label{coefficients:dimanalysis}
\gamma_C := \frac{T_0 U_0}{L_0}, \quad \gamma_P := \frac{T_0}{L_0 U_0} c^2, \quad \gamma_F := \frac{k_R T_0}{A_0}.
\end{equation}
The above coefficients are nondimensional quantities and their magnitudes indicate the relative importance of each of these terms in the momentum balance equation. In Section \ref{sec:numexp} we will exploit this kind of analysis to decide whether the convective terms can be neglected or not in the family of nonlinear 0D models we are going to derive in the next section.
\section{Derivation of zero-dimensional (0D) models}\label{sec:0Dmodel}
Here we extend the traditional approach of deriving lumped-parameter models for blood flow in a vascular segment \cite{Formaggia:2003a,Milisic:2004a,FormaggiaQuarteroni:2009a}, in a way to preserve certain properties (nonlinear characteristics) of the original 1D blood flow models. The proposed strategy to do so will be extensively described in this section, where we first derive a family of 0D model for a simple vascular compartment formed by a single vessel and then, by application of appropriate matching conditions obtained from conservation principles, we couple different 0D models to build more complex networks of vessels.
\subsection{Governing ODE system}\label{sec:0Dmodel:derivation}
First of all, given a vessel with $x \in \left[ x_L, x_R \right]$ of length $l = \lvert x_R - x_L \rvert$, we introduce the integral averages of the physical quantities of interest over the vessel length, as follows
\begin{equation}\label{meanvar}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \widehat{Q}(t) = \frac{1}{l} \int_{x_L}^{x_R} q(x,t)\, dx\, :\, \textrm{mean (volumetric) flow rate,}\\
& \widehat{A}(t) = \frac{1}{l} \int_{x_L}^{x_R} A(x,t)\, dx\, :\, \textrm{mean cross-sectional area,}\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
and we define the volume $V(t)$ of the vessel compartment as
\begin{equation}\label{volume-area}
V(t) := \widehat{A}(t)\, l.
\end{equation}
Integrating in space the continuity equation in (\ref{sys1D}) over the interval $[x_L, x_R]$ leads to the following ordinary differential equation (ODE) in time for the volume $V(t)$
\begin{equation}\label{ode1}
\frac{d}{dt} V(t) + Q_R(t) - Q_L(t) = 0,
\end{equation}
where we have used definition (\ref{volume-area}) to rewrite the mass conservation equation in terms of the volume $V(t)$ and we have set
\begin{equation}
Q_L(t) = q(x_L, t), \quad Q_R(t) = q(x_R, t),
\end{equation}
to denote the flow at the inlet and outlet of the vessel, respectively.\\
When considering the momentum balance equation in (\ref{sys1D}), two simplifying assumptions are added in the standard approach of deriving 0D models \cite{Formaggia:2003a,Milisic:2004a,FormaggiaQuarteroni:2009a,Safaei:2018a}: (i) the contribution of the convective term $\partial_x (\alpha q^2/A)$ is neglected, assuming this term to be small compared to the other terms; (ii) the variation of $A$ with respect to $x$ is small compared to that of $p$ and $q$, replacing $A$ in the momentum equation with a constant value for the area, generally assumed to be the area at rest $A_0$. Indeed, the first assumption is particularly suited to represent the peripheral circulation, where blood flow is in general quite slow, while the second assumption is reasonable when the axial average is carried out over short segments.\\
However, in order to preserve certain important properties of the original 1D models in deriving the 0D models, we start integrating in space the momentum equation in (\ref{sys1D}) over the interval $[x_L, x_R]$ without considering the above simplifying assumptions. By including the contribution of the convective term, straightforward calculations yield
\begin{equation}\label{integralA}
\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{1}{l} \int_{x_L}^{x_R} q\, dx \right) + \frac{\alpha}{l} \left( \frac{Q_R(t)^2}{A_R(t)} - \frac{Q_L(t)^2}{A_L(t)} \right) + \frac{1}{l} \int_{x_L}^{x_R} \frac{A}{\rho} \partial_x p\, dx = - \frac{k_R}{l} \int_{x_L}^{x_R} \frac{q}{A}\, dx.
\end{equation}
Observing that space integrals of the pressure gradient and the viscous force depend on the area $A(x,t)$, we approximate the variable $A$ by its spatial average $\widehat{A}(t)$, rather than by a constant value $A_0$ as done in the traditional approach, and since this quantity is no longer space-dependent we can bring it outside of these integrals, to get
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{Q}(t) + \frac{\alpha}{l} \left( \frac{Q_R(t)^2}{A_R(t)} - \frac{Q_L(t)^2}{A_L(t)} \right) + \frac{\widehat{A}(t)}{\rho l} \int_{x_L}^{x_R} \partial_x p\, dx = - \frac{k_R}{\widehat{A}(t)} \left( \frac{1}{l}\int_{x_L}^{x_R} q\, dx \right),
\end{equation}
that is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{Q}(t) + \frac{k_R}{\widehat{A}(t)} \widehat{Q}(t) + \frac{\widehat{A}(t)}{\rho l} \left( P_R(t) - P_L(t) \right) + \frac{\alpha}{l} \left( \frac{Q_R(t)^2}{A_R(t)} - \frac{Q_L(t)^2}{A_L(t)} \right) = 0,
\end{equation}
where, again, we have set:
\begin{equation}
P_L(t) = p(x_L, t), \quad A_L(t) = A(x_L, t), \quad P_R(t) = p(x_R, t), \quad A_R(t) = A(x_R, t),
\end{equation}
to denote the upstream and downstream pressures and cross-sectional areas. We then introduce the following parameters
\begin{equation}\label{LandR}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& L(\widehat{A}) := \frac{\rho l}{\widehat{A}}\, : \, \textrm{\textit{nonlinear} inductance,}\\
& R(\widehat{A}) := \frac{\rho k_R l}{\widehat{A}^2}\, : \, \textrm{\textit{nonlinear} resistance,}\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
to obtain the final form of the 0D momentum equation
\begin{equation}\label{ode2}
L(\widehat{A}) \frac{d}{dt}\widehat{Q}(t) + R(\widehat{A}) \widehat{Q}(t) + P_R(t) - P_L(t) + \frac{\alpha \rho}{\widehat{A}} \left( \frac{Q_R(t)^2}{A_R(t)} - \frac{Q_L(t)^2}{A_L(t)} \right) = 0.
\end{equation}
Equations (\ref{ode1}) and (\ref{ode2}) are then collected together in the following system of ODEs
\begin{equation}\label{sys0D}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{d}{dt} V(t) + Q_R(t) - Q_L(t) = 0,\\
& L(\widehat{A}) \frac{d}{dt}\widehat{Q}(t) + R(\widehat{A}) \widehat{Q}(t) + P_R(t) - P_L(t) + \frac{\alpha \rho}{\widehat{A}(t)} \left( \frac{Q_R(t)^2}{A_R(t)} - \frac{Q_L(t)^2}{A_L(t)} \right) = 0.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
The state variables of the above system are the volume $V(t)$ of the vessel compartment and the mean flow rate $\widehat{Q}(t)$ over the vascular segment; the parameters characterizing the 0D model, defined in (\ref{LandR}), are $R(\widehat{A})$, which represents the resistance induced to the flow by the blood viscosity and depends on the chosen velocity profile, and $L(\widehat{A})$, which represents the inertial term in the momentum equation and is called inductance of the flow. These parameters are said to be \textit{nonlinear} in the sense that they do no longer depend on a constant reference cross-sectional area $A_0$, but on the time-dependent average cross-section $\widehat{A}(t)$, which in turn, as we will see in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel:nonlinearity}, will depend on the mean pressure $P(t)$ acting on the vessel in a nonlinear way. We point out that it is important to define these vessel properties in terms of a time-varying cross-sectional area $\widehat{A}$, in order to account also for possible deviations from the baseline state, such as hypertension, vessel collapse or postural changes. We also remark that if in definition (\ref{LandR}) the time-dependent area $\widehat{A}(t)$ is replaced by the reference value $A_0$, then these parameters become constant and coincide with the constant parameters found in standard 0D models, namely
\begin{equation}
L_0 = L(A_0) = \frac{\rho l}{\pi r_0^2}, \quad R_0 = R(A_0) = \frac{\rho k_R l}{A_0^2} = \frac{2(\zeta + 2)\mu l}{\pi r_0^4}.
\end{equation}
The ODE system (\ref{sys0D}) also involves input and output quantities, $Q_L$, $P_L$ and $Q_R$, $P_R$, respectively, that need to be defined along with initial conditions in order to close problem (\ref{sys0D}). As we will see in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig}, depending on the different possible assumptions about the data prescribed at the inlet and at the outlet of the vessel, we will obtain four different configurations, all of them describing flow and volume/pressure dynamic in a single vascular segment. Note that these are not boundary conditions, since the continuous space dependence has been lost in the axial average.
\subsection{Nonlinearity}\label{sec:0Dmodel:nonlinearity}
System (\ref{sys0D}) describes the temporal evolution of volume $V(t)$ and mean flow rate $\widehat{Q}(t)$. At this point, we are interested in relating the system state variables to another important physical quantity, the mean pressure $\widehat{P}(t)$. Indeed, the nonlinear 0D model (\ref{sys0D}) is derived without making any assumptions about the pressure law relating the mean pressure $\widehat{P}(t)$ to the average cross-sectional area $\widehat{A}(t)$, or, equivalently, to the volume $V(t)$ and the 0D mass conservation equation is obtained for the volume, not for the pressure. Therefore, in the following, we are going to characterize the relation to compute the pressure $\widehat{P}(t)$ from the area $\widehat{A}(t)$.\\
In the original 1D blood flow model, the pressure $p(x,t)$ is related to the cross-sectional area $A(x,t)$ by the elastic tube law (\ref{tubelaw}), which is a nonlinear relationship describing the behaviour of vessel walls in response to changes in the transmural pressure. On the one hand, in the traditional approach of deriving 0D models, where the convective terms are neglected and the model parameters $L_0$ and $R_0$ are constant, pressure $\widehat{P}$ and volume $V$ are linearly related via the constant compliance $C_0$, as follows
\begin{equation}\label{linearPV}
\widehat{P}(t) = P_0 + \frac{V(t) - V_0}{C_0} + P_{ext}(t),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{constantC}
C_0 := l \left( \frac{\partial A}{\partial p} \right)\bigg|_{A=A_0} = l \frac{2A_0}{K} = \frac{3}{2} \frac{\pi r_0^3 l}{E h_0},
\end{equation}
where the last two expressions of $C_0$ are specific for arteries. Since coefficient $C_0$, which represents the mass storage capacity due to the compliance of the vessel, is constant, the nonlinearity of the 1D pressure-area relation is lost in the resulting 0D models. Indeed, in the traditional approach, the 0D mass conservation equation is derived for the pressure $\widehat{P}$, and not for the volume $V$, by integrating in space both the 1D continuity equation and the 1D tube law under suitable assumptions (for the complete derivation, see for instance \cite{FormaggiaQuarteroni:2009a}). This procedure leads to the linear pressure law stated in equation (\ref{linearPV}), where the nonlinearity of the original 1D pressure-area relation is completely lost.\\
Here we propose to directly compute the pressure $\widehat{P}$ from the average cross-sectional area $\widehat{A}$ via the nonlinear tube law (\ref{tubelaw}), given by
\begin{equation}
\widehat{P}(t) - P_{ext}(t) = K \left[ \left(\frac{\widehat{A}(t)}{A_0}\right)^m - \left(\frac{\widehat{A}(t)}{A_0}\right)^n \right] + P_0,
\end{equation}
which in the case of arteries turns out to be
\begin{equation}\label{nonlinearPA}
\widehat{P}(t) - P_{ext}(t) = \dfrac{K}{\sqrt{A_0}} \left[ \sqrt{\widehat{A}(t)} - \sqrt{A_0} \right] + P_0,
\end{equation}
so that the nonlinearity of the original 1D pressure-area relation of the vessel is fully preserved also in the family of derived 0D models. In particular, the 0D model (\ref{sys0D}) provides the temporal dynamic of volume $V$, from which the time-dependent average cross-sectional area $\widehat{A}$ can be easily computed as $\widehat{A}(t)=V(t)/l$, to get the mean pressure $\widehat{P}(t) \equiv \widehat{P}(\widehat{A}(t))$ via the nonlinear tube law (\ref{nonlinearPA}). The derived family of 0D models is then said to be \textit{nonlinear}, together with the fact that parameters $L$ and $R$ characterizing these 0D models depend on the time-dependent cross-section $\widehat{A}(t)$, rather than on the constant reference value $A_0$.\\
Rewriting the linear relation (\ref{linearPV}) in terms of the area $\widehat{A}$ and replacing the explicit expression for the constant compliance $C_0$ leads to
\begin{equation}\label{linearPA}
\widehat{A} = A_0 + \frac{C_0}{l} \left(\widehat{P}-P_0-P_{ext}\right) = A_0 \left[ 1 + \frac{2}{K}\left(\widehat{P}-P_0-P_{ext}\right) \right],
\end{equation}
namely, the average cross-sectional area $\widehat{A}$ depends linearly on pressure $\widehat{P}$. In contrast, from the nonlinear tube law (\ref{nonlinearPA}), this dependence is kept quadratic, as follows
\begin{equation}\label{nonlinearAP}
\widehat{A} = A_0 \left[ 1 +\frac{\widehat{P}-P_0-P_{ext}}{K} \right]^2 = A_0 \left[ 1 + \frac{2}{K} \left(\widehat{P}-P_0-P_{ext}\right) +\frac{\left(\widehat{P}-P_0-P_{ext}\right)^2}{K^2} \right].
\end{equation}
As a consequence, by adopting relation (\ref{linearPV}) or, equivalently, (\ref{linearPA}), we are neglecting the second-order term coming from the tube law (\ref{nonlinearPA}) and thus the nonlinearity of the original 1D pressure-area relation is lost. This nonlinearity is then fully preserved if, in the derived 0D models, the pressure $\widehat{P}$ is computed from the area $\widehat{A}$ via the nonlinear tube law (\ref{nonlinearPA}).\\
In conclusion, the ODE system (\ref{sys0D}) involves the mean flow rate $\widehat{Q}$, the volume $V$ and the mean pressure $\widehat{P}$ over the entire vessel, where the pressure $\widehat{P}$ is related to the average cross-sectional area $\widehat{A}$, and thus to $V$, via the nonlinear tube law (\ref{nonlinearPA}). Furthermore, system (\ref{sys0D}) also depends on the input and output quantities exchanged by the vessel with the rest of the systems, namely $P_{L}$, $Q_{L}$, which from now on will be denoted by $P_{in}$, $Q_{in}$, and $P_{R}$, $Q_{R}$, which will be instead replaced by $P_{out}$, $Q_{out}$. As we will illustrate in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig}, some input/output data, along with initial conditions, need to be prescribed in order to close system (\ref{sys0D}).\\
For the sake of simplicity, from now on we will denote the flow rate $\widehat{Q}$ and pressure $\widehat{P}$ just by $Q$ and $P$, respectively.
\subsection{0D vessel configurations}\label{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig}
The ODE system (\ref{sys0D}) defines a family of nonlinear 0D models. Indeed, four different 0D models are obtained depending on the different possible assumptions about the data prescribed at the inlet and outlet of the vessel. These models determine all the possible configurations of the same 0D vessel, which are the $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$, $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$, $(P_{in}, P_{out})$ and $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessels, all of them describing flow and volume/pressure dynamic in a compliant vessel.\\
In the following, we will discard the contribution of the convective component in the momentum balance equation, originally included in the general formulation of the family of nonlinear 0D models (\ref{sys0D}). This choice, commonly adopted in the literature, will be fully justified in Section \ref{sec:numexp}, where we will extensively discuss whether it is reasonable or not to incorporate the contribution of the convective terms in the 0D models, also observing that including these terms in the 0D models is not straightforward as one would expect. Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels} summarizes the different 0D vessel configurations and the corresponding ODE systems, which will be described in detail throughout the remaining of this section.
\subsubsection{$(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel}\label{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig:PinQout}
Suppose that the data prescribed at the inlet and outlet of the vessel are $P_{in}$ and $Q_{out}$, respectively. This first 0D vessel type, the $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type vessel, is displayed in the first row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}. Then, the temporal dynamic of the state variables $Q$ and $V$, which are the unknowns under time derivative, is governed by the following system of ODEs
\begin{equation}\label{PinQout}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q - Q_{out},\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L(\widehat{A})}\left[ P_{in} - R(\widehat{A}) Q - P \right],
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where, in the above momentum balance equation, the mean pressure $P$ depends on the time-dependent area $\widehat{A}$ via the nonlinear relation (\ref{nonlinearPA}). Clearly, for this 0D model, we have $Q_{in} = Q$. Given the nonlinear resistance $R_{tot}(\widehat{A})$ of the entire vessel according to formula (\ref{LandR}), this total resistance has been split and equally distributed into two resistances in series, $R$ and $R_d$, in order to add the distal resistance $R_d = R_{tot}(\widehat{A})/2$ at the outlet of the vessel, as shown in Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}. Then, the outlet pressure $P_{out}$ is directly computed as
\begin{equation}
P_{out}(t) = P(t) - R_d Q_{out}(t).
\end{equation}
The above value of the pressure $P_{out}$ at the outlet of the vessel, obtained by splitting the total vessel resistance and adding a distal resistance to the vessel, can then be used to enforce the continuity of pressure either at 0D junctions, or in the coupling with terminal elements, as it will be described in Section \ref{sec:0Djunction}. For the same motivation, a proximal resistance will be added to the $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessel and both a proximal and a distal resistance will be appended to the $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel, as illustrated in Sections \ref{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig:QinPout} and \ref{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig:QinQout}, respectively. We observe that this choice does not involve additional hypothesis on the flow since the total vessel resistance to flow is kept the same and it is just split into two (or more) resistances in series.\\
We observe that, by adding the usual simplifying assumptions considered in the standard approach of deriving 0D models, namely that the model parameters $L$ and $R$ are constant, and pressure $P$ and volume $V$ are linearly related via the constant compliance $C_0$, then the well-established formulation of the \textit{linear} 0D blood flow model is restored, as follows
\begin{equation}\label{PinQoutLinear}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q - Q_{out},\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L_0}\left[ P_{in} - R_0 Q - P \right],
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel:nonlinearity}, the following linear relation between $P$ and $V$ holds
\begin{equation}\label{linearPVnew}
P - P_{ext} = P_0 + \frac{V-V_0}{C_0}.
\end{equation}
The $(P_{in},Q_{out})$-type vessel described so far is displayed in the first row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}. This representation is precisely valid for the linear system (\ref{PinQoutLinear}), where the model parameters are constant, the convective terms are neglected and the pressure $P$ is linearly related to the volume $V$ via the compliance $C_0$. However, this description can still be conveniently used also for the nonlinear 0D model (\ref{PinQout}): the model parameters $L$ and $R$ are nonlinear, while the compliance $C$ is now replaced by the nonlinear tube law (\ref{nonlinearPA}) relating the mean pressure $P$ and the average cross-sectional area $\widehat{A}$, in which the mechanical properties of the vessel wall are embedded. In general, the $C$-element represents the elastic component of the vessel regardless of how pressure and area are related.
\paragraph{\normalfont\textit{Formulation of the mass conservation equation.}}
By computing the time derivative of both sides of the linear relation (\ref{linearPVnew}), the mass conservation equation can be rewritten in terms of pressure $P$, as follows
\begin{equation}\label{dPdtLinear}
\frac{d P}{dt} = \frac{Q - Q_{out}}{C_0}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, this equivalence between the two formulations of the 0D mass conservation equation, the one in (\ref{PinQoutLinear}) describing the dynamic of $V$ and the other (\ref{dPdtLinear}) the dynamic of $P$, is no longer true for the nonlinear 0D model (\ref{PinQout}), since now pressure $P$ depends in a nonlinear fashion on the cross-sectional area $\widehat{A}$, and thus on volume $V$, via the tube law (\ref{nonlinearPA}). Indeed, on the one hand, the continuity equation in system (\ref{PinQout}), describing the time-variation of volume $V$, is an exact relation obtained by directly integrating the 1D equation $\partial_t A + \partial_x q = 0$ over the vessel length $l = |x_R - x_L|$. On the other hand, using the fact that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial A}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial A}{\partial p} \frac{\partial p}{\partial t},
\end{equation*}
the mass conservation equation in system (\ref{sys1D}) integrated along the axial direction can be rewritten as follows
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{l} \int_{x_L}^{x_R} \frac{\partial A}{\partial p} \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}\, dx + \frac{1}{l} \left( Q_R(t) - Q_L(t)\right) = 0.
\end{equation}
To compute the integral in the above equation, we assume $\partial A/\partial p$ to be evaluated at $A=\widehat{A}$, being $\widehat{A}(t)$ the time-dependent average cross-sectional area of the vessel, namely we introduce the following approximation
\begin{equation}\label{approxdAdp}
\frac{\partial A}{\partial p} \approx \left( \frac{\partial A}{\partial p}\right) \bigg|_{A=\widehat{A}},
\end{equation}
so that this quantity is no longer space-dependent and can be brought outside of the integral, to get
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{l} \left(\frac{\partial A}{\partial p} \right)\bigg|_{A=\widehat{A}} \int_{x_L}^{x_R} \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}\, dx + \frac{1}{l} \left( Q_R(t) - Q_L(t)\right) = 0,
\end{equation}
which can be finally rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{dPdt}
C(\widehat{A}) \frac{d P(t)}{dt} + Q_R(t) - Q_L(t) = 0,
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the following nonlinear parameter
\begin{equation}\label{C}
C(\widehat{A}) := l \left(\frac{\partial A}{\partial p} \right)\bigg|_{A=\widehat{A}}\, :\, \text{\textit{nonlinear} compliance}.
\end{equation}
The parameter $C(\widehat{A})$ represents the vessel wall compliance and, like the parameters $L$ and $R$ defined in (\ref{LandR}), is said to be \textit{nonlinear}, in the sense that it depends on the time-dependent area $\widehat{A}(t)$. In the case of the $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel under study, the approximate equation (\ref{dPdt}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{dPdtNonlinear}
C(\widehat{A}) \frac{d P}{dt} = Q - Q_{out}.
\end{equation}
The shape of this equation strongly recalls that of equation (\ref{dPdtLinear}) obtained in the linear case, but now, because of the approximation introduced in (\ref{approxdAdp}), it is no longer equivalent to the first exact formulation of the continuity equation in (\ref{PinQout}). For this reason, in the nonlinear 0D model, we will restrict ourselves to consider the mass conservation equation in terms of the volume $V$, as given in (\ref{PinQout}), which is exact, while the pressure $P$ will be always computed from the nonlinear relation (\ref{nonlinearPA}) in order to fully preserve the nonlinearity of the original 1D tube law.
\subsubsection{$(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessel}\label{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig:QinPout}
Suppose now that $Q_{in}$ and $P_{out}$ are given data. The 0D vessel configuration corresponding to these input data is displayed in the second row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels} and the governing equations of the nonlinear 0D model for the $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type vessel read
\begin{equation}\label{QinPout}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q_{in} - Q,\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L(\widehat{A})} \left[ P - R(\widehat{A}) Q - P_{out} \right].
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Here, we clearly have $Q_{out} = Q$. Furthermore, also for this 0D vessel type, the nonlinear resistance $R_{tot}(\widehat{A})$ of the entire vessel, given in formula (\ref{LandR}), has been split into two equal resistances in series, $R_p$ and $R$, in order to add the proximal resistance $R_p = R_{tot}(\widehat{A})/2$ at the inlet of the vessel and to explicitly compute the inlet pressure $P_{in}$ as
\begin{equation}
P_{in}(t) = P(t) + R_p Q_{in}(t),
\end{equation}
which will be used in the coupling procedure between 0D vessels at 0D junctions and in the coupling of a 0D vessel to terminal elements, in order to enforce the continuity of pressure.
\subsubsection{$(P_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessel}\label{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig:PinPout}
With the $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$ and $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type vessels at hand, the last two 0D vessel types can be easily constructed by connecting two basic 0D configurations described so far, as can be clearly seen from Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}. Indeed, if pressure is prescribed at both inlet and outlet of the vessel, $P_{in}$ and $P_{out}$, respectively, the corresponding system can be modelled by connecting a $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel to a $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessel, yielding the configuration illustrated in the third row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}. Then, the nonlinear 0D model is governed by the following ODE system
\begin{equation}\label{PinPout}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q - Q_d,\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L(\widehat{A})} \left[ P_{in} - R(\widehat{A}) Q - P \right],\\
& \frac{d Q_d}{dt} = \frac{1}{L_d(\widehat{A})} \left[ P - R_d(\widehat{A}) Q_d - P_{out} \right],
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the quantities $Q$ and $Q_d$ define the flow rates through the first proximal and the second distal parts of the 0D vessel, respectively. By construction, the total resistance $R_{tot}(\widehat{A})$ and inductance $L_{tot}(\widehat{A})$, as defined in (\ref{LandR}), are equally distributed between these two proximal and distal portions of the segment, namely into $(R, L)$ and $(R_d, L_d)$, as shown in Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}.
\subsubsection{$(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel}\label{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig:QinQout}
Finally, assuming that both flow rates $Q_{in}$ and $Q_{out}$ are prescribed yields the last possible configuration, that is the $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel, obtained by connecting a $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessel to a $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel and displayed in the bottom row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}. In this case, the resulting system of ODEs reads
\begin{equation}\label{QinQout}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q_{in} - Q,\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L(\widehat{A})} \left[ P - R(\widehat{A}) Q - P_d \right],\\
& \frac{d V_d}{dt} = Q - Q_{out},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the quantities $V$, $P$ and $V_d$, $P_d$ define volumes and pressures in the first proximal and in the second distal compartments of the vascular segment, respectively.
The nonlinear resistance $R_{tot}(\widehat{A})$ over the entire vessel has been split into a proximal resistance $R_p$ at the inlet of the vessel, a resistance $R$ between the two capacitors and a distal resistance $R_d$ at the outlet of the vessel, as shown in Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}, so that the inlet and outlet pressures $P_{in}$ and $P_{out}$ are computed as
\begin{equation}
P_{in}(t) = P(t) + R_p Q_{in}(t), \qquad P_{out}(t) = P_d(t) - R_d Q_{out}(t).
\end{equation}
Admissible choices are also to set either $R_d=0$, so that we just have $P_{out} = P_d$, or $R_p=0$, that implies $P_{in} = P$. Also for this 0D vessel configuration, the inlet and outlet pressures $P_{in}$ and $P_{out}$ will be used, as described in Section \ref{sec:0Djunction}, to couple 0D vessels in a network by enforcing the conservation of mass and the continuity of pressure.\\
\begin{table}[h!]\small
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
\toprule
\textbf{0D vessel} & \textbf{ODE system} & \textbf{Representation} \\
\midrule
$(P_{in}, Q_{out})$ &
$\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \dfrac{d V}{dt} = Q - Q_{out}\\
& \dfrac{d Q}{dt} = \dfrac{1}{L(\widehat{A})}\left[ P_{in} - R(\widehat{A}) Q - P \right]
\end{aligned}
\right.$
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{PinQout.pdf}} \\
\midrule
$(Q_{in}, P_{out})$ &
$\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \dfrac{d V}{dt} = Q_{in} - Q\\
& \dfrac{d Q}{dt} = \dfrac{1}{L(\widehat{A})} \left[ P - R(\widehat{A}) Q - P_{out} \right]
\end{aligned}
\right.$
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{QinPout.pdf}} \\
\midrule
$(P_{in}, P_{out})$ &
$\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \dfrac{d V}{dt} = Q - Q_d\\
& \dfrac{d Q}{dt} = \dfrac{1}{L(\widehat{A})} \left[ P_{in} - R(\widehat{A}) Q - P \right]\\
& \dfrac{d Q_d}{dt} = \dfrac{1}{L_d(\widehat{A})} \left[ P - R_d(\widehat{A}) Q_d - P_{out} \right]
\end{aligned}
\right.$
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{PinPout.pdf}} \\
\midrule
$(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$ &
$\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \dfrac{d V}{dt} = Q_{in} - Q\\
& \dfrac{d Q}{dt} = \dfrac{1}{L(\widehat{A})} \left[ P - R(\widehat{A}) Q - P_d \right]\\
& \dfrac{d V_d}{dt} = Q - Q_{out}
\end{aligned}
\right.$
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{QinQout.pdf}} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the four possible 0D vessel configurations depending on the different data prescribed at the inlet and outlet of the vessel: for each 0D vessel type, we report the associated governing ODE system (middle column) and display its representation in electric circuit notation (right column). In the linear case, the vessel wall compliance $C$ is a constant parameter, as defined in (\ref{constantC}); in the nonlinear case, $C$ represents the mechanical properties of the vessel wall embedded in the nonlinear pressure-area relation (\ref{nonlinearPA}).} \label{table:equations0Dmodels}
\end{table}
\section{Stability analysis} \label{sec:stability}
In this section, we are interested in studying the stability properties of the systems of ODEs governing the 0D blood flow models. In particular, for each of the four different 0D vessel configurations presented in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel:0Dconfig}, we will perform the stability analysis of the corresponding linear ODE system with constant parameters $C_0$, $R_0$ and $L_0$, linear pressure-volume relation (\ref{linearPVnew}) and without convective terms. These systems of ODEs are linear and inhomogeneous, with periodic forcing terms. We point out that, to the best of our knowledge, such a stability analysis to investigate the behaviour of the exact solution of an ODE system arising from lumped-parameter models for blood flow has never been reported before, in the open literature.\\
When including the convective part into the 0D models, even if the model parameters are still constant and the pressure-volume relation is kept linear, the convective terms introduce a nonlinear component in the corresponding ODE systems. It is well-known that the theory on the stability of systems of ODEs is strictly valid only in the case in which the ODE system is linear. Indeed, in the nonlinear case, the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix associated to the ODE system can not be used to describe the behaviour of the exact solution of the original problem. The analytical study of the stability properties of the complete ODE systems including the convective terms turns out to be extremely complicated, if not impossible. Therefore, we limit our study to the linear case without convective terms. In general, we observed that results obtained for the linear case are valid also for the nonlinear case, as confirmed by numerical experiments presented in Section \ref{sec:numexp}. Moreover, in that section, we comment on numerical findings that suggest that the incorporation of convective terms has very strong implications on the stability of the resulting ODE global system, which in turn results in an extremely high computational cost and lack of robustness of its numerical treatment.\\
We first consider the $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel displayed in the top row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels} and, by adding the following assumptions:
\begin{itemize}
\item the model parameters $L_0$ and $R_0$ are constant,
\item pressure $P$ is linearly related to volume $V$ via the constant compliance $C_0$ according to (\ref{linearPVnew}),
\end{itemize}
the resulting system of ODEs governing such a 0D vessel configuration reads
\begin{equation}\label{PinQoutLin1}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q - Q_{out},\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L_0} \left[ P_{in} - R_0 Q - P \right],
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $R_0$ denotes the constant resistance between $Q$ and $P$. The data prescribed at the inlet and outlet of the vessel, $P_{in} \equiv P_{in}(t)$ and $Q_{out} \equiv Q_{out}(t)$, respectively, are given time-dependent functions, that we assume to be periodic of a certain period $T_0 > 0$. By using relation (\ref{linearPVnew}), the momentum equation in (\ref{PinQoutLin1}) can be reformulated in terms of the state variable $V$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{PinQoutLin2}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q - Q_{out},\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L_0}\left[ P_{in} - R_0 Q - \frac{V}{C_0} \right],
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where, for the sake of simplicity in the notation, in (\ref{linearPVnew}) we have set $V_0 = P_0 = P_{ext}=0$. Then, the above ODE system can be rewritten in matrix form as
\begin{equation}\label{matrixForm}
\frac{d \bm{x}(t)}{dt} = \bm{A} \bm{x}(t) + \bm{b}(t),
\end{equation}
where we have set
\begin{equation}
\bm{x} (t) = \left[ \begin{matrix}
V(t)\\[2ex] Q(t)
\end{matrix}\right],
\quad
\bm{A} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
0 & 1\\[2ex] -\dfrac{1}{C_0 L_0} & -\dfrac{R_0}{L_0}
\end{matrix} \right],
\quad
\bm{b}(t) = \left[ \begin{matrix}
-Q_{out}(t)\\[2ex]
\dfrac{P_{in}(t)}{L_0}
\end{matrix}\right].
\end{equation}
Namely, $\bm{x}(t)$ is the vector of unknowns, the model state variables $V$ and $Q$, $\bm{A}$ is the constant coefficient matrix and $\bm{b}(t)$ is the time-dependent vector periodic forcing function, providing external data to the system. As the coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ is constant, we have a non-homogeneous linear system of ODEs with constant coefficients.\\
The stability of the exact solution of the complete ODE system (\ref{matrixForm}) is determined by the real part of the eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$. In particular, we are going to use the following two results:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Given a linear homogeneous system of ODEs with constant coefficients, that is an ODE system of the form (\ref{matrixForm}) with null forcing function $\bm{b}(t)\equiv 0$, a necessary and sufficient condition for this system to be \textit{asymptotically stable} is that all eigenvalues of $\bm{A}$ have strictly negative real part.
\item[(ii)] If the forcing function $\bm{b}(t)$ is periodic and if the homogeneous part of system (\ref{matrixForm}) is asymptotically stable, then the exact solution of the original inhomogeneous problem will converge to the periodic solution of system (\ref{matrixForm}) as $t$ increases, for any admissible choice of the initial condition.
\end{itemize}
These are well-known results and further details and proofs can be found in Appendix \ref{appendix:stabilityanalysis:part1}.\\
The eigenvalues $\lambda_{1,2}$ associated to matrix $\bm{A}$ are the roots of the following second-degree characteristic polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{polynomial}
\lambda^2 + \frac{R_0}{L_0} \lambda + \frac{1}{C_0 L_0} = 0,
\end{equation}
whose discriminant is
\begin{equation}\label{Delta}
\Delta = \left( \frac{R_0}{L_0} \right)^2 - \frac{4}{C_0 L_0}.
\end{equation}
At this point, we will show that, regardless of the sign of the above discriminant $\Delta$, the eigenvalues associated to $\bm{A}$ have always strictly negative real part, condition that ensures the asymptotic stability of the homogeneous part of system (\ref{matrixForm}). We distinguish and analyze the following three cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] If $\Delta < 0$, then the eigenvalues $\lambda_{1,2}$ of matrix $\bm{A}$ are complex and conjugate, given by
\begin{equation}\label{eigenvalues1}
\lambda_{1,2} = - \frac{R_0}{2 L_0} \pm i \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-\Delta} = - \frac{R_0}{2 L_0} \pm i \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{4}{C_0 L_0} - \left( \frac{R_0}{L_0} \right)^2},
\end{equation}
with strictly negative real part, that is
\begin{equation}
Re(\lambda_1) = Re(\lambda_2) = - \frac{R_0}{2 L_0} <0.
\end{equation}
\item[2.] If $\Delta = 0$, then the two eigenvalues associated to matrix $\bm{A}$ are equal, real and strictly negative, namely
with strictly negative real part, that is
\begin{equation}\label{eigenvalues2}
\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = - \frac{R_0}{2 L_0} <0.
\end{equation}
\item[3.] If $\Delta > 0$, then the eigenvalues $\lambda_{1,2}$ of matrix $\bm{A}$ are distinct, real and both negative, given by
\begin{equation}\label{eigenvalues3}
\lambda_1 = - \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{R_0}{L_0} + \sqrt{\Delta} \right), \quad \lambda_2 = - \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{R_0}{L_0} - \sqrt{\Delta} \right).
\end{equation}
From (\ref{eigenvalues3}), the first eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ is clearly strictly negative, and it is straightforward to verify that the second eigenvalue $\lambda_2$ is also strictly negative. Indeed, the following chain of inequalities holds
\begin{equation}
0 < \Delta = \left( \frac{R_0}{L_0} \right)^2 - \frac{4}{C_0 L_0} < \left( \frac{R_0}{L_0} \right)^2 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sqrt{\Delta} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{R_0}{L_0} \right)^2 - \frac{4}{C_0 L_0}} < \frac{R_0}{L_0},
\end{equation}
which implies $\lambda_2 < 0$.
\end{itemize}
In conclusion, the eigenvalues associated to the constant coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ of system (\ref{matrixForm}) have always strictly negative real part. Therefore, the homogeneous part of system (\ref{matrixForm}) is asymptotically stable and, as a consequence, the complete ODE system (\ref{PinQoutLin1}) is stable, meaning that, for any choice of the initial condition, the exact solution will converge to the periodic solution.\\
Under the assumption that the forcing terms prescribed at the inlet and outlet of the vessel, $Q_{in}\equiv Q_{in}(t)$ and $P_{out}\equiv P_{out}(t)$, respectively, are periodic functions of $t$, the stability analysis of the $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type vessel is similar to that of the $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type vessel performed above. Indeed, it is straightforward to check that the eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ associated to the linear ODE system corresponding to the $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessel are the same to those of the $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel, thus leading to the same stability properties of the exact solution of the ODE system.\\
Next, we move to the $(P_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessel displayed in the third row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}. The governing ODE system, of which we want to investigate the stability, reads
\begin{equation}\label{PinPoutLin}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q - Q_d,\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L_0/2} \left[ P_{in} - \frac{R_0}{2} Q - P \right],\\
& \frac{d Q_d}{dt} = \frac{1}{L_0/2} \left[ P - \frac{R_0}{2} Q_d - P_{out} \right],
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where, as usual, the pressure data prescribed at the inlet and outlet of the vessel, $P_{in} \equiv P_{in}(t)$ and $P_{out} \equiv P_{out}(t)$, respectively, are assumed to be time-dependent periodic functions of a certain period $T_0 > 0$. In this case, the eigenvalues associated to the constant coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ of the homogeneous part of system (\ref{PinPoutLin}) are given by
\begin{equation}
\lambda_1 = -\frac{R_0}{L_0}, \quad \lambda_{2,3} = \begin{cases}
- \dfrac{R_0}{2 L_0} \pm i \dfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{-\Delta}, & \text{ if } \Delta = \left( \dfrac{R_0}{L_0} \right)^2 - \dfrac{16}{C_0 L_0} <0,\\[2ex]
- \dfrac{R_0}{2 L_0}, & \text{ if } \Delta = 0,\\[2ex]
- \dfrac{R_0}{2 L_0} \pm \dfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{\Delta}, & \text{ if } \Delta > 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Therefore, we conclude that all the above eigenvalues have always strictly negative real part, meaning that the homogeneous part of system (\ref{PinPoutLin}) is asymptotically stable. As a consequence, for any choice of the initial conditions, any solution of the inhomogeneous system (\ref{PinPoutLin}) will converge to the periodic one.\\
We consider now the linear ODE system governing the last 0D vessel configuration, the $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel depicted in the bottom row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}, that is
\begin{equation}\label{QinQoutLin}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d V}{dt} = Q_{in} - Q,\\
& \frac{d Q}{dt} = \frac{1}{L_0} \left[ P - R_0 Q - P_d \right],\\
& \frac{d V_d}{dt} = Q - Q_{out},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $R_0$ denotes the resistance element between $P$ and $P_d$ only. Algebraic manipulations yield the following eigenvalues associated to the constant coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ of the homogeneous part of system (\ref{QinQoutLin})
\begin{equation}\label{eigenvalQinQout}
\lambda_1 = 0, \quad \lambda_{2,3} = \begin{cases}
- \dfrac{R_0}{2 L_0} \pm i \dfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{-\Delta}, & \text{ if } \Delta = \left( \dfrac{R_0}{L_0} \right)^2 - \dfrac{16}{C_0 L_0} <0,\\[2ex]
- \dfrac{R_0}{2 L_0}, & \text{ if } \Delta = 0,\\[2ex]
- \dfrac{R_0}{2 L_0} \pm \dfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{\Delta}, & \text{ if } \Delta > 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The eigenvalues $\lambda_{2,3}$ have always strictly negative real part regardless the sign of the discriminant $\Delta$, while the first eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ turns out to be equal to zero.\\
In the following, we are going to study the asymptotic properties of system (\ref{QinQoutLin}) in order to find suitable assumptions on the periodic forcing functions $Q_{in}(t)$ and $Q_{out}(t)$ ensuring the stability of such ODE system, for both cases $\Delta<0$ and $\Delta>0$. However, by analyzing the orders of magnitude of typical physiological values of all geometrical and physical parameters defining the elements $R_0$, $L_0$ and $C_0$, and thus the expression of $\Delta$ in (\ref{eigenvalQinQout}), it is easy to check that we always have $\Delta<0$. The above expression of $\Delta$ can be reformulated as follows
\begin{equation}\label{deltaQinQout}
\begin{split}
\Delta & = \left( \dfrac{R_0}{L_0} \right)^2 - \dfrac{16}{C_0 L_0} = \dfrac{1}{L_0} \left( \dfrac{R_0^2}{L_0} - \dfrac{16}{C_0} \right)\\
& = \dfrac{1}{L_0}\dfrac{4}{\pi r_0^3} \left[ f_1 - f_2 \right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{f1f2}
f_1 = (\zeta+2)^2 \dfrac{\mu^2 l }{\rho r_0^3}, \quad f_2 = \dfrac{8}{3} \dfrac{E h_0}{l}.
\end{equation}
We consider the following order of magnitude ranges in arterial vessels for the variables defining the above factors $f_1$ and $f_2$
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\rho \sim 10^0 & \text{[g/cm$^3$]}, \\
\mu \sim 10^{-2} & \text{[dyne$\cdot$ s/cm$^2$]}, \\
l \sim 10^0-10^1 & \text{[cm]}, \\
r_0 \sim 10^{-1}-10^0 & \text{[cm]}, \\
h_0 \sim 10^{-2}-10^{-1} & \text{[cm]}, \\
E \sim 10^6-10^7 & \text{[dyne/cm$^2$]}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then, for the first term $f_1$, its order of magnitude approximately ranges between $10^{-3}$ and $10^2$, while the order of magnitude of the second factor $f_2$ is estimated to vary between $10^4$ and $10^6$. Therefore, the second term $f_2$ is always the largest one, thus ensuring the negativity of $\Delta$. These findings were also confirmed by computing exact values of $f_1$, $f_2$ and $\Delta$ for all vessels of all arterial networks considered in this paper and described in Section \ref{sec:numexp}. Table \ref{table:deltaQinQout} displays maximum and minimum values, mean value and corresponding standard deviation of the two factors $f_1$ and $f_2$ defined in (\ref{f1f2}), for the aortic bifurcation model (Section \ref{sec:numexp:test1}), the 37-artery network (Section \ref{sec:numexp:test2}) and the reduced ADAN56 model (Section \ref{sec:numexp:test3}). Even if there is high variability in the values of these two factors, we observe that the second factor $f_2$ is always orders of magnitude larger with respect to the first factor $f_1$, thus implying that the discriminant $\Delta$ corresponding to the $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel and given in (\ref{deltaQinQout}) is always strictly negative for all vessels of the three arterial networks considered. Then, our case of interest is the one corresponding to $\Delta<0$.\\
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc|cccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Network} & max($f_1$) & min($f_1$) & mean($f_1$) & std.dev($f_1$) & max($f_2$) & min($f_2$) & mean($f_2$) & std.dev($f_2$)\\
\midrule
\textbf{Aortic bifurcation} & 7.19 & 2.47 & 5.61 & 2.72 & 160000.00 & 158117.65 & 158745.10 & 1086.78 \\
\textbf{37-artery network} & 315.26 & 7.30e-02 & 82.72 & 97.86 & 3076923.08 & 17777.78 & 227502.13 & 563787.17 \\
\textbf{ADAN56 model} & 1837.19 & 8.96e-03 & 113.44 & 313.31 & 1777910.46 & 5184.12 & 187403.52 & 354118.73 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Quantitative assessment of the two factors $f_1$ and $f_2$ defining the discriminant $\Delta$ of the characteristic polynomial associated to the coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ of the $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel, for the vessels of the aortic bifurcation, the 37-artery network and ADAN56 model.}\label{table:deltaQinQout}
\end{table}
In general, if a linear homogeneous system of ODEs with constant coefficients has a null eigenvalue, then the coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ is singular, with non-trivial null space, and any vector of the null space is an equilibrium point for the system. In other words, the homogeneous system (\ref{homogeneous}) does not have a unique equilibrium point, but a line of equilibria, which can be either stable (but not asymptotically stable) or unstable, depending on the sign of the other eigenvalues. Hence, an homogeneous system of the form (\ref{homogeneous}) with coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ having a zero eigenvalue is stable if all other eigenvalues of $\bm{A}$ have strictly negative real part, in the sense that it has an attractive line of equilibria and each equilibrium is stable, but not asymptotically stable.\\
However, the stability of the homogeneous system is not sufficient to ensure the stability of the corresponding inhomogeneous system (\ref{matrixForm}), but an additional assumption on the periodic forcing function is needed in order to preserve the stability of ODE system, namely that any solution of (\ref{matrixForm}) for any admissible choice of the initial condition will converge to the periodic one as $t \to +\infty$.
We state here only the obtained condition, but the full derivation of this assumption on the periodic forcing function $\bm{b}(t)$ is extensively provided in Appendix \ref{appendix:stabilityanalysis:part2}, first in the scalar case of a single ODE, then for a system of ODEs, specifically focusing on system (\ref{QinQoutLin}) governing the $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel.\\
Given the inhomogeneous linear ODE system (\ref{QinQoutLin}), whose coefficient matrix $\bm{A}$ has a null eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ and two eigenvalues $\lambda_{2,3}$ with strictly negative real part, the following condition on the periodic forcing function $\bm{b}(t)$ ensures the stability of the exact solution of the ODE system
\begin{equation}\label{condtionQinQoutFINAL}
\int_{0}^{T_0} \left[ Q_{in}(s) - Q_{out} (s) \right]\, ds = 0
\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad
\int_{0}^{T_0} Q_{in}(s)\, ds = \int_{0}^{T_0} Q_{out} (s)\, ds.
\end{equation}
Namely, under this assumption, the complete inhomogeneous system (\ref{QinQout}) is stable, in the sense that for any admissible choice of the initial condition the exact solution will converge to the periodic one. This is also a physically consistent condition: in order for the volume $V(t)+V_d(t)$ not to constantly increase/decrease and asymptotically explode, the integral over a period $[0, T_0]$ of the inflow $Q_{in}(t)$ entering the vessel must equal the integral over
the same period of the outflow $Q_{out}(t)$ leaving the vessel.
\begin{remark}
The present work focuses on arteries. However, we expect that the family of nonlinear 0D models for blood flow derived in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel} can be applied not only to arteries, but also to veins, by appropriately changing the geometrical and mechanical properties of vessels and the tube law relating the mean internal pressure to the vessel cross-sectional area. Indeed, in the tube law (\ref{tubelaw}), typical values for parameters $m$ and $n$ for collapsible tubes, such as veins, are $m\approx 10$ and $n=-1.5$. A relation for the venous stiffness $K_v$ can also be derived from considerations made on the collapse of thin-walled elastic tubes, or, alternatively, $K_v$ can be estimated from pulse wave velocities, as described in \cite{Mynard:2011a}. Furthermore, the stability analysis presented in this section for arterial vessels can be straightforwardly repeated also for veins, in order to study the stability properties of the corresponding ODE systems.
\end{remark}
\section{0D junctions and networks}\label{sec:0Djunction}
Equipped with the family of nonlinear 0D models for blood flow derived in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel} for a single vessel, we consider now the coupling of 0D vessels to construct more complex networks of vessels.\\
Two or more 0D vessels can be coupled through 0D junctions, which satisfy the conservation of mass and also impose a common pressure on all branches, to ensure the continuity of pressure throughout the 0D junction. We immediately note that, in contrast to 1D junctions between 1D vessels, where the total pressure continuity can be enforced, in junction between 0D vessels we enforce pressure continuity only. The choice of imposing pressure continuity at each 0D junction allows us to always solve a linear coupling problem, whereas it is well-known that the nonlinear problem to be solved at 1D junctions can become very computationally expensive. However, on the other hand, in order to arrange compatible segment types into a network, with inlets and outlets coupled appropriately, restrictions on admissible 0D vessel types are necessary for vessels converging at a 0D junction. In particular, input data to prescribe at the inlet and outlet of each vessel are defined by the state of their adjacent compartments, in order to ensure the conservation of mass and continuity of pressure. The coupling of 0D vessels without any restrictions on compatible 0D vessel configurations would be possible by enforcing total pressure continuity coming at the cost of solving nonlinear coupling problem at each junction node.\\
The simplest 0D junctions are two-vessel and three-vessel junctions, connecting two or three vessels, respectively, which can be generalized in a generic 0D junction attaching an arbitrary number of 0D vessels. In addition, in open-loop networks, terminal vessels can be coupled to single-resistance or $RCR$ Windkessel elements to model the cumulative effects of all vessels distal to the terminal segments of the vessel network.
\subsection{Two-vessel junction (J2)}\label{sec:0Djunction:J2}
To describe the coupling procedure adopted, let us consider, for instance, two $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessels connected in a simple two-vessel junction, as displayed in Figure \ref{fig:J2}. Coupling conditions are needed to determine, at the junction point, the flow rate $Q_{out}^1$ at the outlet of the first (parent) vessel and the pressure $P_{in}^2$ at the inlet of the second (daughter) vessel. By enforcing the conservation of mass, we obtain:
\begin{equation*}
Q_{out}^1 (t) = Q^2(t),
\end{equation*}
where $Q^2$ is the flow rate state variable in the second vessel; then, by imposing the continuity of pressure, we get:
\begin{equation*}
P_{in}^2(t) = P^1(t) - R_d^1 Q_{in}^1(t) = P^1(t) + R_d^1 Q^2(t),
\end{equation*}
where $P^1$ is the pressure state variable in the parent vessel and $R_d^1$ is the distal resistance at the outlet of the same vessel, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:J2}. Note that in the case where $R_d^1=0$, we simply obtain $P_{in}^2 = P^1$.\\
From this test case, it is straightforward to conclude that all the possible pairs of vessel types that can be coupled to form a two-vessel 0D junction are such that the outlet of the parent vessel is of pressure type and the inlet of the daughter vessel is of flow type, or vice versa. All other configurations are not allowed, because no assumption would be made either on the flow rate $Q$ or on the pressure $P$ at the interface between vessels.\\
Moreover, we observe that the two-vessel junction may be also used to represent a single 0D vessel with two 0D compartments of the same type coupled in series, either $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$ or $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$. Indeed, the per-segment mapping replaces each 1D vessel of a network by a 0D vessel, which, in turn, can be composed of just one or more 0D compartments.\\
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][J2\label{fig:J2}]{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{J2.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[][J3\label{fig:J3}]{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{J3.pdf}}\\
\caption{(A) Example of a 0D representation for a two-vessel junction between two $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessels. (B) Example of a 0D representation for a bifurcation branch (three-vessel splitting flow junction): $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel for parent vessel and $(P_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessels for daughter vessels.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Three-vessel junction (J3)}\label{sec:0Djunction:J3}
For the family of three-vessel junctions, we present here the coupling procedure adopted in the case of a \textit{splitting flow} junction, where the 0D junction represents the branching point at which the end of the parent vessel is connected to the inlets of the two daughter vessels, but the coupling conditions to be imposed in a \textit{merging flow} junctions, where the 0D junction represents the adjoining point at which the outlets of the two daughter vessels converge into the beginning of the parent vessel, can be easily derived in a similar way, as proposed in \cite{Safaei:2018a}.\\
We consider, for instance, a $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel for the parent vessel and $(P_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessels for both daughter vessels. By imposing the mass conservation, we get that the flow rate $Q_{out}^{P}$ at the outlet of the parent vessel must be equal to the sum of the two daughter branches' flows $Q^{D1}$ and $Q^{D2}$, that is
\begin{equation*}
Q_{out}^P(t) = Q^{D1}(t) + Q^{D2}(t).
\end{equation*}
Then, by enforcing the continuity of pressure, we have that the pressure at the inlet of both daughter vessels must be equal to the distal pressure in the parent vessel, namely
\begin{equation*}
P_{in}^{D1}(t) = P_{in}^{D2}(t) = P_d^P(t) - R_d^P Q_{out}^P(t) = P_d^P(t) - R_d^P \left( Q^{D1}(t) + Q^{D2}(t) \right),
\end{equation*}
where the pressure $P_d^P$ is the distal pressure state variable in the parent vessel and $R_d^P$ is the distal resistance at the outlet of the same vessel, as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:J3}. We observe that in the particular case where $R_d^P=0$, the above condition of continuity of pressure becomes $P_{in}^{D1} = P_{in}^{D2} = P_d^P$.\\
From this test case, we can then derive the following restrictions on compatible segment types for vessels converging in a three-vessel splitting flow junction: the outlet of the parent vessel must be of flow type, while the inlets of both daughter vessels must be of pressure type.
\subsection{Generic 0D junction} \label{sec:0Djunction:generic}
In the most general situation, a 0D junction connects an arbitrary number of 0D vessels, sharing their inlets or outlets at the junction point, as displayed in Figure \ref{fig:genericJ}.\\
In order to couple appropriately all the 0D vessels converging at the junction, first of all, a single vessel has to be chosen as parent vessel (for instance, the vessel with the largest cross-sectional area), while all other vessels are classified as daughter vessels. As a consequence, the role of each vessel, either parent or daughter, will define the corresponding vessel type, depending on the inlet/outlet data to be prescribed at the junction point.\\
For the parent segment, at the vessel end shared at the junction a condition on the flow $Q^P$ is prescribed, which is computed by imposing the conservation of mass. Indeed, at the junction, the flow rate in each daughter vessel is known and denoted by $Q^{D_j}$. For instance, if we refer to the configuration illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:genericJ}, the flow rate $Q_{out}^P$ at the outlet of the chosen parent vessel is given by
\begin{equation}\label{consFlow}
Q_{out}^P (t) = \sum_{j=1}^{N} Q^{D_j} (t).
\end{equation}
In equation (\ref{consFlow}), the flow direction in each vessel, namely if the blood stream enters or leaves the 0D junction, is taken into account by the sign of $Q$. On the other hand, for each daughter, at the vessel end shared at the junction a condition on the pressure $P^{D_j}$ must be prescribed in order to enforce pressure continuity throughout the 0D junction. Then, this pressure must be equal to the pressure in the parent vessel, that is
\begin{equation}
P_{in/out}^{D_j} (t) = P^P (t) \quad j = 1,\ldots, N.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{genericJunction.pdf}
\caption{Example of a generic 0D junction connecting $(N+1)$ 0D vessels: one vessel is chosen as parent vessel, while all other N segments are treated as daughter vessels.}\label{fig:genericJ}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Terminal vessels}\label{sec:0Djunction:terminal}
In open-loop arterial networks, the cumulative effects of all distal vessels (small arteries, arterioles and capillaries) at ending locations of terminal arteries have to be taken into account. These effects can be modelled using either single-resistance or $RCR$ Windkessel elements coupled to the terminal arteries.\\
Each $RCR$ Windkessel element is composed of a proximal terminal resistance $R_{wk}^1$, a terminal capacitor $C_{wk}$ and a distal terminal resistance $R_{wk}^2$, as displayed in Figure \ref{fig:RCR}. Pressure $P_{wk}$ and flow rate $Q_{wk}$ in this terminal element are governed by
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{d P_{wk}}{dt} = \frac{Q - Q_{wk}}{C_{wk}},\\
& Q_{wk} = \frac{P_{wk} - P_v}{R_{wk}^2},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $Q$ is the flow rate from the 0D vessel coupled to the $RCR$ element and $P_v$ is the constant outflow pressure.\\
Depending on the configuration of the 0D vessel coupled to the Windkessel model, either the flow rate $Q_{out}$ or the pressure $P_{out}$ must be prescribed at the outlet of the vessel. For instance, in the case of a $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel, the flow rate $Q_{out}$ has to be assigned at the outlet of the vascular segment, as illustrated in the top row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}, which is computed from the coupling to the Windkessel element, as follows
\begin{equation}
Q_{out} = \frac{P - P_{wk}}{(R_d + R_{wk}^1)},
\end{equation}
where $P$ and $R_d$ are pressure and (if present) distal resistance in the 0D vessel, respectively. On the other hand, if we consider, for example, a $(Q_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessel, the pressure $P_{out}$ to be enforced at the outlet of the vessel, as displayed in the second row of Table \ref{table:equations0Dmodels}, can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
P_{out} = P_{wk} + R_{wk}^1 Q,
\end{equation}
where $Q$ is the flow rate in the 0D vessel coupled to the $RCR$ element.\\
Alternatively, if terminal vessels are coupled to single-resistance terminal elements, we simply get
\begin{equation}
Q_{out} = \frac{P - P_v}{(R_d + R_{wk})} \qquad \text{or} \qquad P_{out} = P_v + R_{wk} Q,
\end{equation}
where $R_{wk}$ is now the only peripheral resistance to the flow in the terminal element.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{RCR.pdf}
\caption{$RCR$ Windkessel terminal element.}\label{fig:RCR}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Numerical experiments}\label{sec:numexp}
In this section, we validate the ability of the derived nonlinear 0D models to reproduce the essential blood flow distribution and the main features of pressure and flow waveforms in networks of deformable vessels with respect to the well-known and widely used 1D blood flow model (\ref{sys1D}), at a much lower computational cost.\\
We reproduce several benchmark problems proposed in \cite{Boileau:2015a}. First, we consider a simple test case: a model of blood flow in the aortic bifurcation (Section \ref{sec:numexp:test1}). Then, we assess the results in two different arterial networks: the 37-artery network of the aorta and the largest central system arteries constructed in \cite{Matthys:2007a}, for which \textit{in vitro} pressure and flow waveforms were acquired in \cite{Matthys:2007a} (Section \ref{sec:numexp:test2}), and a reduced version of the ADAN model developed by Blanco \textit{et al.} \cite{Blanco:2014a,Blanco:2015a}, which contains the largest 56 systemic arteries of the human circulation (Section \ref{sec:numexp:test3}), referred to as ADAN56. For each test case, 0D results of pressure and flow rate in each vessel of the network are qualitatively and quantitatively compared to the 1D results obtained from the 1D model (\ref{sys1D}). Furthermore, in order to assess the properties of the newly derived nonlinear 0D models, we also compare the results from the nonlinear and the linear 0D models, where in the latter the convective terms are neglected \textit{a-priori}, the model parameters are constant and the pressure-volume relation is linear. For each test case, we provide graphical comparisons supported by error tables.\\
The numerical methods adopted to solve the 1D and 0D models are described in Section \ref{sec:numexp:methods}. The relative error metrics for pressure $P$ and flow rate $Q$ are introduced in Section \ref{sec:numexp:errors}. Before performing the 0D simulations and compare 0D results to 1D results, a detailed analysis of the contribution and relative importance of the convective component within the momentum equation is carried out in Section \ref{sec:numexp:convterms}, to decide whether it is reasonable or not to neglect the convective terms in the 0D models.
\subsection{Numerical methods}\label{sec:numexp:methods}
\subsubsection{Second-order MUSCL-Hancock scheme for the 1D model}
System (\ref{sys1D}) governing 1D blood flow is solved using a second-order MUSCL-Hancock numerical scheme \cite{vanLeer:1984b}, where MUSCL stands for Monotonic Upstream-Centred Scheme for Conservation Laws, with ENO (Essentially Non-Oscillatory) reconstruction \cite{Harten:1987a,Harten:1987b} and numerical source computed following the ADER approach \cite{Toro:2001c,Toro:2009}.\\
In order to approximate the solutions of system (\ref{sys1D}), we first discretize the 1D space domain $\left[ 0, l \right]$ in $M$ cells of constant size $\Delta x$, where each cell $I_i = ( x_{i-\frac{1}{2}} , x_{i+\frac{1}{2}} )$ has centre located in $x_i$, with $x_{i\pm\frac{1}{2}} = x_i \pm \frac{\Delta x}{2}$, for $i = 1, \ldots, M$. The time domain $\left[ 0, t_{\text{end}} \right]$ is also discretized by assuming a constant time step $\Delta t$, which is restricted according to the usual Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) stability condition. Then, if we consider system (\ref{sys1D}) written under the balance law form (\ref{conservationlaws}), given the approximate solution $\bm{Q}_i^n$ at time $t_n$ in each cell $I_i$, we can evolve the numerical solution to time $t_{n+1}=t_n + \Delta t$ by using a finite volume method of the form
\begin{equation}\label{FVS}
\bm{Q}_i^{n+1} = \bm{Q}_i^n - \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \left[ \bm{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} - \bm{F}_{i-\frac{1}{2}} \right] + \Delta t \bm{S}_i,
\end{equation}
where $\bm{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ is the numerical flux that approximates the time-integral average over $[t_n, t_{n+1} ]$ of flux $\bm{F}$ at the cell interface $x=x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$, while $\bm{S}_i$ is the numerical source in cell $I_i$ that approximates the volume-integral average over $V=[ x_{i-\frac{1}{2}} , x_{i+\frac{1}{2}} ] \times [t_n, t_{n+1} ]$ of the source term $\bm{S}$. Finite volume schemes (\ref{FVS}) may be interpreted as resulting from integrating the equations of system (\ref{conservationlaws}) on the control volume $V=[ x_{i-\frac{1}{2}} , x_{i+\frac{1}{2}} ] \times [t_n, t_{n+1} ]$, where suitable approximations of the integral averages have been introduced.\\
In this framework, the MUSCL–Hancock approach achieves a second-order extension of the well-known Godunov's first-order upwind method by computing the intercell flux $\bm{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ according to the following three steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(I)] Data reconstruction and cell boundary values
\begin{equation}
\bm{Q}_i^L = \bm{P}_i(x_{i-\frac{1}{2}}), \quad \bm{Q}_i^R = \bm{P}_i(x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}),
\end{equation}
where $\bm{P}_i(x)$ is the first-degree reconstruction polynomial vector in cell $I_i = ( x_{i-\frac{1}{2}} , x_{i+\frac{1}{2}} )$, that is
\begin{equation}\label{reconstructionpol}
\bm{P}_i(x) = \bm{Q}_i + ( x- x_i) \Delta_i,
\end{equation}
with $\Delta_i$ being the slope vector associated to the reconstruction polynomial (\ref{reconstructionpol}), here computed by using the ENO criterion to preserve conservation and non-oscillatory properties.
\item[(II)] Evolution of boundary extrapolated values by a time $\frac{1}{2}\Delta t$ accounting for source term
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\overline{\bm{Q}}_i^L = \bm{Q}_i^L - \dfrac{1}{2}\dfrac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \left[ \bm{F}(\bm{Q}_i^R) - \bm{F}(\bm{Q}_i^L) \right] + \dfrac{1}{2} \Delta t \bm{S}(\bm{Q}_i^L),\\[2ex]
\overline{\bm{Q}}_i^R = \bm{Q}_i^R - \dfrac{1}{2}\dfrac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \left[ \bm{F}(\bm{Q}_i^R) - \bm{F}(\bm{Q}_i^L) \right] + \dfrac{1}{2} \Delta t \bm{S}(\bm{Q}_i^R).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\item[(III)] Solution of a classical Riemann problem with data $\left( \overline{\bm{Q}}_i^R, \overline{\bm{Q}}_{i+1}^L \right)$ to obtain the similarity solution $\bm{Q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}(x/t)$ to compute the intercell flux
\begin{equation}
\bm{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \bm{F}\left( \bm{Q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}(0) \right).
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
As last step, the numerical source is computed imitating the ADER approach \cite{Toro:2001c}, as follows
\begin{equation}
\bm{S}_i = \bm{S}\left( \bm{Q}_i^n + \frac{1}{2}\Delta t \left[ -\bm{A}(\bm{Q}_i^n) \Delta_i + \bm{S}(\bm{Q}_i^n) \right] \right),
\end{equation}
where $\bm{A}$ is the Jacobian matrix of system (\ref{conservationlaws}).\\
The coupling of several 1D vessels at junction points is treated following the methodology proposed in \cite{Sherwin:2003a} and extended in \cite{Spilimbergo:2021a} to achieve second-order accuracy also of the coupling procedure and preserve the global second-order accuracy in space and time over the entire 1D network. As in these cited papers, also here we will restrict to sub-critical flow conditions, \textit{i.e.} when $|u|<c$, which is a crucial assumption in ensuring the strictly hyperbolic nature of the PDE system and in determining the type of boundary conditions that can be applied to the 1D model.\\
In the case of $N_J$ vessels converging at a junction $J$ (for the networks considered in the present work, we will have $N_J=2$ for the two-vessel junction and $N_J=3$ for the three-vessel junction, only), the computational cells involved in the coupling of the $k$-th vessel, with $k = 1,\ldots, N_J$, provide the state $\bm{Q}_k^n = \left[ A_k^n, Q_k^n \right]^T$ at time $t^n$. Then, in order to couple the $N_J$ vessels, we have to compute the unknown cross-sectional area $A_k^*$ and flow $Q_k^*$ for each vessel converging at node $J$, by imposing: (i) conservation of mass, (ii) continuity of total pressure; (iii) continuity of the generalized Riemann invariants. Therefore, to achieve the second-order coupling, we will set $\bm{Q}_k^n = \bm{Q}_k^{\text{MUSCL,}n}$, for $k = 1,\ldots, N_J$, where $\bm{Q}_k^{\text{MUSCL,}n}$ is the evolved boundary extrapolated value, given by either $\overline{\bm{Q}}_{k,1}^{L,n}$ if the first computational cell of vessel $k$ is converging to node $J$, or $\overline{\bm{Q}}_{k,M}^{R,n}$ if instead the last computational cell ($M$) of vessel $k$ converges to node $J$.\\
The same second-order reconstruction is also adopted for the coupling between terminal vessels and $RCR$ Windkessel/single-resistance terminal elements.\\
The number of computational cells used in the $j$-th vessel of each arterial network is defined as
\begin{equation}
M_j = \max\left\{ \ceil{ \frac{l_j}{\Delta x_{\text{max}}} }, 2 \right\},
\end{equation}
where $l_j$ is the length of vessel $j$. For all numerical experiments, before setting the maximum mesh size $\Delta x_{\text{max}}$, a mesh convergence study of the 1D solution was first carried out in order to select a reference sufficiently accurate 1D solution for the comparison with the 0D results. The values of $\Delta x_{\text{max}}$, which ensure a 1D mesh-independent solution, used in the different benchmark problems are displayed, together with all other computational parameters for the 1D/0D simulations, in Table \ref{table:param}.
\subsubsection{Numerical method for solving the 0D models}
In parallel with the fully 1D discretization considered so far, a vascular network can also be entirely modelled by using 0D vessels. In particular, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:0Djunction}, in order to arrange compatible segment types into a structure, the 0D configuration to be used for each vessel of the network has to be chosen so that inlets and outlets of vessels converging at the 0D junctions are all coupled appropriately. Hence, we end up with just one system of ODEs describing the dynamic of the entire network, where the single subsystems corresponding to each vessel are not isolated, but are connected to each other via the variables prescribed at the inlets and outlets of vessels. Indeed, pressures and/or flow rates imposed at the inlet and outlet of each vessel are defined by the state of the adjacent vessels, in order to ensure the conservation of mass and continuity of pressure.\\
The resulting ODE system can be written in compact form as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{globalODEsystem}
\frac{d \bm{y}(t)}{dt} = \bm{F} (t, \bm{y}(t)),
\end{equation}
where $\bm{y}(t)$ is the unknown vector containing the $2N$ state variables $(V_i(t), Q_i(t))$, $i = 1, \ldots, N$, of the $N$ vessels of the network. Then, for all numerical tests, the global ODE system (\ref{globalODEsystem}) is solved using the four-step explicit fourth-order Runge-Kutta (RK4) method, with appropriate time step to guarantee the stability of the numerical scheme and the mesh independence of the solution (see Table \ref{table:param} for details).\\
It is worth also noting that numerical experiments have shown that the restrictions on the allowable time step ensuring the stability of RK4 method to solve the different arterial networks are the same when using linear and nonlinear 0D models. Indeed, as can be observed from Table \ref{table:param}, for each arterial network we adopt the same time step $\Delta t$ to solve both the linear and nonlinear fully 0D network configurations. Then, we conclude that the coupling between several nonlinear 0D models is not affecting the numerical stability of the discretized model.\\
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Aortic bif.} & \textbf{37-artery network} & \textbf{ADAN56 model}\\
\midrule
$\Delta x_{\text{max}}$ & 2 mm & 1 mm & 1 mm \\
CFL number & 0.9 & 0.9 & 0.9 \\
RK4 time step, $\Delta t$ & 10$^{-3}$ s & 10$^{-4}$ s & 10$^{-4}$ s \\
Cardiac cycle, $T_0$ & 1.1 s & 0.827 s & 1.0 s\\
Final time, $t_{\text{end}}$ & 29.7 s & 24.81 s & 15.0 s \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Computational parameters adopted in the 1D/0D numerical simulations for the three arterial networks.}\label{table:param}
\end{table}
\subsection{Error calculations}\label{sec:numexp:errors}
To provide a quantitative assessment of the predicted waveforms compared with the reference 1D solution and to measure the benefit, if any, that we get by preserving certain nonlinearities of the original 1D model in the newly derived 0D models, we introduce the following relative error metrics for pressure $P$ and flow rate $Q$:
\begin{equation}\label{metrics}
\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_P^{\text{RMS}} = \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \dfrac{P_i^{0D} - P_i^{1D}}{P_i^{1D}}\right)^2}, & \qquad \varepsilon_Q^{\text{RMS}} = \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \dfrac{Q_i^{0D} - Q_i^{1D}}{\max_j \left( Q_j^{1D} \right)}\right)^2},\\
\varepsilon_P^{\text{SYS}} = \dfrac{\max \left( P^{0D} \right) - \max \left( P^{1D} \right)}{\max \left( P^{1D} \right)}, & \qquad \varepsilon_Q^{\text{SYS}} = \dfrac{\max \left( Q^{0D} \right) - \max \left( Q^{1D} \right)}{\max \left( Q^{1D} \right)},\\
\varepsilon_P^{\text{DIAS}} = \dfrac{\min \left( P^{0D} \right) - \min \left( P^{1D} \right)}{\min \left( P^{1D} \right)}, & \qquad \varepsilon_Q^{\text{DIAS}} = \dfrac{\min \left( Q^{0D} \right) - \min \left( Q^{1D} \right)}{\max \left( Q^{1D} \right)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $i = 1, \ldots, n$ are time points over the cardiac cycle at which the solution is sampled, $P^{0D}$ and $Q^{0D}$ are 0D pressure and flow, either from the nonlinear or the linear 0D models, and $P^{1D}$ and $Q^{1D}$ are 1D pressure and flow at the midpoint of the vessel. We compare the solution obtained using 1D models sampled at this location since this is a commonly observed variable in this research field. Other choices are possible (like, for example, averaged quantities over the 1D domain) and would not affect the conclusions of this work (results not reported here).\\
All error metrics are calculated over a single cardiac cycle, once the numerical results are in the periodic regime. Periodicity is defined as the distance in $L^{\infty}$-norm between the normalized solutions over two consecutive cardiac cycles to be smaller than a threshold of $10^{-3}$ (pressure and cross-sectional area are normalized by the mean pressure and mean cross-sectional area, respectively, over the cardiac cycle; flow rate is normalized by the maximum flow over the cardiac cycle).
\subsection{Convective terms}\label{sec:numexp:convterms}
We note that we have made no assumptions yet about the contribution of the convective terms in the family of nonlinear 0D models governed by the system of ODEs (\ref{sys0D}).
A first insight into the role of the convective term in the momentum balance equation of the 1D blood flow model (\ref{sys1D}) and its relative importance especially with respect to the pressure term is given by the dimensional analysis of the 1D equations carried out in Section \ref{sec:1Dmodel:dimanalysis} and, in the following, applied to the different arterial networks considered. The coefficients $\gamma_C$ and $\gamma_P$ characterizing the convective and pressure terms, respectively, in the nondimensional momentum balance equation (\ref{nondimmomentumeq}) are defined in terms of the average flow velocity $U_0$. Since for all the arterial networks of interest 1D simulations of blood flow have been performed to obtain 1D mesh-independent solutions, the average flow velocity $U_{1D}^{\text{mean}}$ and the maximum flow velocity $U_{1D}^{\text{max}}$ can be computed from the 1D results for each vessel of each network. Then, from the estimated velocities, we are able to quantify the nondimensional coefficients (\ref{coefficients:dimanalysis}) and to assess the contribution and relative importance of the convective, pressure and friction terms within the momentum equation. Values of the ratios $\gamma_C/\gamma_P$ and $\gamma_F/\gamma_P$ are displayed for the aortic bifurcation, some vessels of both the 37-artery network and ADAN56 model in Table \ref{table:dimanalysis}. Furthermore, for the 37-artery network maximum and mean values of the ratio $\gamma_C/\gamma_P$ are
\begin{equation}
\left( \gamma_C/\gamma_P \right)_{\text{max}}^{\text{net37}} = \begin{cases}
0.00259 & \text{if } U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{mean}},\\
0.00947 & \text{if } U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{max}},
\end{cases}
\qquad
\left( \gamma_C/\gamma_P \right)_{\text{mean}}^{\text{net37}} = \begin{cases}
4.801\text{e-04} & \text{if } U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{mean}},\\
0.00223 & \text{if } U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{max}},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where the two maximum values of $\gamma_C/\gamma_P$ are found in the left anterior tibial and in the left iliac-femoral III arteries, respectively, while for the reduced ADAN56 model we have
\begin{equation}
\left( \gamma_C/\gamma_P \right)_{\text{max}}^{\text{adan56}} = \begin{cases}
0.00791 & \text{if } U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{mean}},\\
0.09804 & \text{if } U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{max}},
\end{cases}
\qquad
\left( \gamma_C/\gamma_P \right)_{\text{mean}}^{\text{adan56}} = \begin{cases}
0.00195 & \text{if } U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{mean}},\\
0.02233 & \text{if } U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{max}}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where the two maximum values of $\gamma_C/\gamma_P$ are both achieved in the thoracic aorta VI.\\
The magnitude of these coefficient ratios clearly suggests that the pressure gradient is the dominating term in the momentum balance equation in (\ref{sys1D}), with respect to the convective and the friction terms. In particular, from Table \ref{table:dimanalysis} we observe that, on the one hand, the frictional losses become more and more important as we consider vessels of consecutive generations of bifurcation further from the aortic trunk, while, on the other hand, the pressure term is always significantly dominating over the convective component. As expected, the pressure gradient represents the main term in the momentum balance equation, while the contribution of the convective term turns out to be consistently smaller in all vessels of the three arterial networks.\\
In addition, this analysis shows that overall the ratio $\gamma_C/\gamma_P$ is larger in ADAN56 model than in the 37-artery network, suggesting that in ADAN56 model the contribution of the convective term is of greater importance.\\
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{ll|cc|cc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{mean}}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$U_0 = U_{1D}^{\text{max}}$} \\
\midrule
\textbf{Test case} & \textbf{Vessel name} & $\gamma_C/\gamma_P$ & $\gamma_F/\gamma_P$ & $\gamma_C/\gamma_P$ & $\gamma_F/\gamma_P$ \\
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Aortic bifurcation}} & Aorta & 2.537e-05 & 7.915e-05 & 0.00233 & 7.584e-04\\
& Iliac artery & 2.027e-05 & 1.214e-04 & 9.479e-04 & 8.303e-04\\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\textbf{37-artery network}} & Aortic arch II & 1.047e-04 & 2.085e-05 & 0.00266 & 1.050e-04\\
& Thoracic aorta II & 1.071e-04 & 7.530e-05 & 0.00273 & 3.802e-04 \\
& L subclavian I & 2.199e-04 & 0.00174 & 0.00195 & 0.00518\\
& R iliac-femoral II & 3.344e-04 & 0.00393 & 0.00327 & 0.01227\\
& L ulnar & 5.963e-04 & 0.00734 & 0.00120 & 0.01041\\
& R anterior tibial & 7.988e-04 & 0.01186 & 0.00200 & 0.01878\\
& R ulnar & 6.389e-04 & 0.00603 & 0.00105 & 0.00775 \\
& Splenic & 0.00121 & 0.01436 & 0.00223 & 0.01948 \\
\midrule
\multirow{12}{*}{\textbf{ADAN56 model}} & Aortic arch I & 0.00106 & 8.842e-05& 0.02354 & 4.168e-04\\
& Thoracic aorta III & 0.00249 & 5.660e-05 & 0.03793 & 2.209e-04\\
& Abdominal aorta V & 0.00228 & 3.677e-04 & 0.04167 & 0.00157\\
& R common carotid & 7.868e-04 & 9.420e-04 & 0.01311 & 0.00384\\
& R renal & 0.00453 & 0.00157 & 0.01482 & 0.00284 \\
& R common iliac & 0.00224 & 0.00126 & 0.03577 & 0.00505 \\
& R internal carotid & 0.00106 & 0.00324 &0.00994 & 0.00993\\
& R radial & 0.00256 & 0.03949 & 0.01074 & 0.08010\\
& R internal iliac & 0.00189 & 0.00230 & 0.01100 & 0.00555\\
& R posterior interosseous & 0.00135 & 0.08253 & 0.00329 & 0.12892\\
& R femoral II & 1.271e-04 & 0.00247 & 0.03294 & 0.03983\\
& R anterior tibial & 0.00102 & 0.04334 & 0.01833 & 0.18414\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Quantitative assessment of the relative importance of the convective, pressure and friction terms within the momentum balance equation, by computing the ratio between coefficients $\gamma_C$ and $\gamma_P$ and between coefficients $\gamma_F$ and $\gamma_P$, for the vessels of the aortic bifurcation, the 37-artery network and ADAN56 model.} \label{table:dimanalysis}
\end{table}
Equipped with these findings, we conclude that the convective terms can be neglected in the family of nonlinear 0D models derived in Section \ref{sec:0Dmodel} according to the following two main motivations:
\begin{itemize}
\item the dimensional analysis performed so far shows that the pressure gradient is significantly larger with respect to the convective term in the 1D momentum balance equation;
\item the ultimate goal of our work is to apply this family of nonlinear 0D models to larger and more complex networks of vessels, such as the global, closed-loop, multiscale model of M\"{u}ller and Toro \cite{Mueller:2014a,Mueller:2014b} and the complete ADAN model developed by Blanco \textit{et al.} \cite{Blanco:2014a,Blanco:2015a}, in order to construct hybrid 1D-0D networks in the attempt of facing the issues of computational efficiency and execution time. These newly derived 0D models would then be applied not to all vessels of the network, but to small vessels where it is well-known that the convective terms are negligible.
\end{itemize}
Finally, it is worthy to note that numerical experiments (not reported) have shown that including the convective terms into the 0D models is not a straightforward operation. Indeed, numerical difficulties arise in solving the resulting 0D models even by using implicit methods and ODE solvers for stiff problems. We claim that these numerical issues are not related to the instability or stiffness of the ODE systems to be solved, but that the source of these problems lies in the fact that, according to the coupling approach described in Section \ref{sec:0Djunction}, the input data to be prescribed at the inlet/outlet of the vessels converging at the 0D junction are defined by the state of their adjacent compartments, but in each 0D vessel no interaction between the input data and internal vessel state is enforced. This coupling procedure is indeed different from the approach usually adopted for 1D junctions, where in the Riemann problem to be solved at the 1D junction the unknown boundary state vectors are connected not only among themselves, but also to the vessel initial condition states via non-linear waves. As a consequence, this produces ambiguity in determining which are the correct flow rates $Q_L$, $Q_R$ and cross-sections $A_L$, $A_R$ to be used in the convective terms difference originally included in (\ref{sys0D}).\\
In conclusion, dealing with convective terms in 0D blood flow models is clearly an open problem which, to the best of our knowledge, has never been addressed in previous scientific works. Indeed, in the standard derivation of 0D blood flow models, convective terms are commonly neglected under the assumption that the contribution of the convective terms difference is small compared to the other terms in the momentum balance equation and can thus be discarded. No further discussion is found in the literature about this topic, which remains to be further investigated.
\subsection{Aortic bifurcation model}\label{sec:numexp:test1}
We simulate the abdominal aorta branching into the two iliac arteries using a single-bifurcation model, consisting of a three-vessel junction \cite{Boileau:2015a}. Both iliac arteries are coupled to a $RCR$ Windkessel terminal element of the rest of the systemic circulation. The geometrical and mechanical properties of this model are summarized in Table \ref{table:param:test1}. 1D/0D initial areas $A(x,0)/\widehat{A}(0)$ are computed using the tube law (\ref{tubelaw}) with $P_0 = P_d$ and $A_0 = A_d$. The inflow boundary condition $Q_{in}(t)$ is an \textit{in vivo} signal taken from \cite{Xiao:2014a} and available in the Supporting Information of \cite{Boileau:2015a}.\\
For the 0D simulations, the abdominal aorta (parent vessel) is discretized using a $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel, while both iliac arteries (daughter vessels) are represented as $(P_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessels. Flow rate $Q_{in}$ at the inlet of the parent vessel is given by the periodic inflow boundary condition; flow rate $Q_{out}$ at the outlet of the aorta and pressure $P_{in}$ at the inlet of both iliac arteries are determined by imposing the coupling conditions at a 0D junction; pressure $P_{out}$ at the outlet of both parent vessels is defined by the adjacent $RCR$ Windkessel terminal element. The computational parameters of the 1D/0D simulations are chosen according to Table \ref{table:param}.\\
Figure \ref{fig:plot:test1} shows a qualitative comparison of pressure and flow waveforms for the aortic bifurcation model. We can observe that, compared to the reference 1D results, the amplitude and the shape of these waveforms are well-captured by both the nonlinear and linear 0D results, with differences between the two 0D models that can not be appreciated in the scale of the figures. However, the 0D solution becomes less accurate when using the linear pressure-volume relation and constant parameters $C_0$, $R_0$ and $L_0$ in the 0D simulations. This is evident in the systolic phase of the pressure waveform, where the systolic peak corresponding to the linear 0D results is higher with respect to the reference 1D results, while the pressure peak is perfectly captured by the nonlinear 0D model. These observations are confirmed also by the quantitative assessment. Relative errors were determined with respect to the 1D solution and are displayed in Table \ref{table:errors:test1}. Relative errors for pressure and flow rate are consistently very small, relative root mean square errors are all smaller than 0.5\% for the pressure and smaller than 1\% for the flow rate. Furthermore, relative errors in the nonlinear 0D results are in general smaller than the corresponding relative errors in the linear 0D results.\\
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\textbf{Property} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Value}}\\
\midrule
Blood density, $\rho$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1.060 g/cm$^3$} \\
Blood viscosity, $\mu$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.04 dyne$\cdot$s/cm$^2$} \\
Velocity profile order, $\zeta$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9} \\
Diastolic pressure, $P_d$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9.4$\hat{6}$ $\cdot$10$^4$ dyne/cm$^2$} \\
External pressure, $p_{ext}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0}\\
\midrule
& \textbf{Aorta} & \textbf{Iliac}\\
\midrule
Length, $l$ & 8.6 cm & 8.5 cm\\
Radius at diastolic pressure, $r_d$ & 0.86 cm & 0.60 cm\\
Area at diastolic pressure, $A_d$ & 2.3235 cm$^2$ & 1.1310 cm$^2$\\
Wall thickness, $h$ & 1.032 mm & 0.72 mm\\
Young's modulus, $E$ & 5.0$\cdot$10$^6$ dyne/cm$^2$ & 7.0$\cdot$10$^6$ dyne/cm$^2$\\
WK resistance, $R_1$ & - & 6.8123$\cdot$10$^2$ dyne$\cdot$s/cm$^5$\\
WK compliance, $C$ & - & 3.6664$\cdot$10$^{-5}$ cm$^5$/dyne\\
WK resistance, $R_2$ & - & 3.1013$\cdot$10$^4$ dyne$\cdot$s/cm$^5$\\
Outflow pressure, $P_{out}$ & - & 0\\
\midrule
Initial cross-sectional area, $A(x, 0)/\widehat{A}(0)$ & 1.8062 cm$^2$ & 0.94789 cm$^2$\\
Initial velocity, $u(x, 0)/U(0)$ & 0 & 0\\
Initial pressure, $p(x, 0)/P(0)$ & 0 & 0\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Geometrical and mechanical properties of the aortic bifurcation model.}\label{table:param:test1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l | c | cccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Vessel} & \textbf{0D model} & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{RMS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{RMS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{SYS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{SYS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{DIAS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{DIAS}} (\%)$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Abdominal aorta} & 0D-NL & 0.231 & 0.620 & -0.027 & 0.424 & -0.013 & 0.127\\
& 0D-L & 0.437 & 0.680 & 0.551 & 0.970 & -0.482 & 0.092\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Iliac arteries} & 0D-NL & 0.149 & 0.406 & 0.051 & -0.484 & 0.010 & 0.212\\
& 0D-L & 0.462 & 0.695 & 0.823 & 1.010 & -0.458 & -0.445\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Aortic bifurcation. Relative errors (in \%) for pressure and flow between for both nonlinear (0D-NL) and linear (0D-L) 0D results with respect to the 1D results (1D) at the midpoint of the vessel, computed according to the relative error metrics (\ref{metrics}).}\label{table:errors:test1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Abdominal aorta\label{fig:test1:aorta}] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_aorticbif_aorta-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\qquad
\subfloat[][Iliac arteries\label{fig:test1:iliac}] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_aorticbif_iliac-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\caption{Aortic bifurcation. Comparison between 1D, nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in the abdominal aorta (A) and in the iliac arteries (B). 1D/Q 1D: 1D numerical solution at the midpoint of the vessel; P 0DNL/Q 0DNL: 0D numerical solution from the nonlinear 0D models; P 0DL/Q 0DL: 0D numerical solution from the linear 0D models.}\label{fig:plot:test1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{37-artery network}\label{sec:numexp:test2}
We consider the arterial network presented in \cite{Matthys:2007a}, for which \textit{in vitro} pressure and flow measurements were acquired at multiple locations. This arterial tree is made up of 37 silicone vessels representing the largest central systemic arteries of the human vascular system. For the detailed topology of the network, the reader is referred to \cite{Matthys:2007a}. At the inlet of the ascending aorta, the flow rate measured \textit{in vitro} is prescribed as the inflow boundary condition $Q_{in}(t)$. Terminal vessels are coupled to single-resistance terminal models. In all vessels, initial 1D/0D cross-sectional areas $A(x,0)/\widehat{A}(0)$, corresponding to the zero initial pressure prescribed, are computed using the tube law (\ref{tubelaw}) with reference pressure $P_0 = P_d = 0$ and cross-sectional area $A_0 = A_d$. General parameters of this arterial network are given in Table \ref{table:test2}. For a complete set of parameters, we refer the reader to the Supplementary Information of \cite{Boileau:2015a}. We note that, differently from \cite{Matthys:2007a,Boileau:2015a}, the 1D results we present in this work do not include vessel tapering. For each vessel, the reference constant radius $r_0$, from which the reference cross-sectional area $A_0$ is computed, is obtained as the mean value between the cross-sectional radii at the inlet and outlet of the vessel, $r_{in}$ and $r_{out}$ respectively, given in \cite{Matthys:2007a,Boileau:2015a}. We point out that this is a limitation of our study that will be addressed in future works.\\
For the 0D simulations, the first vessel of the arterial network, the ascending aorta, is discretized using a $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessel, terminal vessels, which are coupled to single-resistance terminal elements, are represented as $(P_{in}, P_{out})$-type 0D vessels, while all other vessels, which are not at the extremities of the network, are modelled as two-split $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessels. Results are shown for two aortic segments (aortic arch II and thoracic aorta II), two vessels of the first generation of bifurcations (left subclavian I and right iliac-femoral II), two of the second generation (left ulnar and right anterior tibial) and two of the third generation (right ulnar and splenic). Qualitative comparisons between nonlinear 0D, linear 0D and reference 1D solutions are shown in Figure \ref{fig:plot:test2:aorta} for the aortic segments and in Figures \ref{fig:plot:test2:gen1}-\ref{fig:plot:test2:gen3} for the vessels of first, second and third generations, respectively. Table \ref{table:errors:test2} displays the relative errors computed for both nonlinear and linear 0D results with respect to 1D results.\\
As expected, when we move to a more complex network, the differences between 0D and 1D results become more significant, even when adopting the nonlinear 0D models. In Figures \ref{fig:plot:test2:aorta}-\ref{fig:plot:test2:gen3} we observe that, especially in the flow waveforms, some oscillations are amplified, while other oscillations are not captured by the 0D models with respect to the reference 1D solution. However, if we focus on the nonlinear 0D results, we can conclude that they are quite satisfactory: overall, the predicted pressure and flow waveforms are in good agreement with the 1D results and, given the complexity of the flow to be simulated, the essential features, shape and amplitude, of these waves are well-captured. Furthermore, from this benchmark problem we clearly see how the nonlinearity included in the 0D models, through the nonlinear pressure-area relation and the nonlinear parameters, strongly improves the 0D results, especially the pressure waveforms: in general, the linear 0D solution overestimates the systolic peak in pressure, while the pressure peak reproduced by the nonlinear 0D results is much more in agreement with the reference 1D results.\\
All these observations are confirmed also by the quantitative assessment presented in Table \ref{table:errors:test2}. Relative errors in the nonlinear 0D results are overall smaller than the corresponding relative errors in the linear 0D results. Indeed, when moving from the linear to the nonlinear 0D models, the RMS relative errors decrease and, in particular, the systolic relative errors in pressure are significantly reduced, suggesting that overall the proposed family of nonlinear 0D models is able to better reproduce pressure and flow waveforms and to capture their essential features, such as the systolic peak of the pressure wave. Indeed, since the nonlinearity mostly enters in the evaluation of the pressure via the nonlinear pressure-area relation, this improvement is mainly reflected on the pressure waveforms, as expected. For the nonlinear 0D results, RMS relative errors are all smaller than 6.0\% for the pressure and smaller than 15.0\% for the flow rate; systolic relative errors are all smaller than 4.0\% for the pressure and smaller than 6.0\% for the flow rate, with an exception in the right iliac-femoral II artery, where the systolic peak in the flow rate seems to be slightly overestimated.\\
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
\textbf{Property} & \textbf{Value} \\
\midrule
Blood density, $\rho$ & 1.050 g/cm$^3$ \\
Blood viscosity, $\mu$ & 0.025 dyne$\cdot$s/cm$^2$ \\
Velocity profile order, $\zeta$ & 9 \\
Young's modulus, $E$ & 1.2$\cdot$10$^7$ dyne/cm$^2$ \\
Diastolic pressure, $P_d$ & 0 \\
External pressure, $p_{ext}$ & 0 \\
Outflow pressure, $P_{out}$ & 4.2663$\cdot$10$^3$ dyne/cm$^2$ (3.2 mmHg)\\
Initial velocity, $u(x, 0)/U(0)$ & 0\\
Initial pressure, $p(x, 0)/P(0)$ & 0\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{General model parameters of the 37-artery network.}\label{table:test2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l | c | cccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Vessel} & \textbf{0D model} & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{RMS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{RMS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{SYS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{SYS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{DIAS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{DIAS}} (\%)$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Aortic arch II} & 0D-NL & 0.638 & 6.218 & -0.205 & 5.532 & 0.983 & 7.135\\
& 0D-L & 2.780 & 7.641 & 4.958 & 5.443 & -1.568 & 7.967\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Thoracic aorta II} & 0D-NL & 0.868 & 7.803 & 0.308 & 2.543 & -0.161 & -6.772 \\
& 0D-L & 3.028 & 10.085 & 5.438 & 2.576 & -2.150 & 5.367 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{L subclavian I} & 0D-NL & 1.193 & 10.638 & 0.251 & -4.304 & 0.369 & -13.605\\
& 0D-L & 3.114 & 12.584 & 5.610 & -6.796 & -2.372 & -16.745\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R iliac-femoral II} & 0D-NL & 2.560 & 13.841 & 1.786 & 10.405 & -2.846 & -6.015\\
& 0D-L & 6.286 & 20.628 & 8.489 & 11.780 & -3.264 & -10.194\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{L ulnar} & 0D-NL & 2.839 & 7.199 & 2.401 & -2.167 & -1.141 & -1.025\\
& 0D-L & 4.653 & 9.115 & 5.924 & -3.247 & -4.483 & -2.019\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R anterior tibial} & 0D-NL & 5.291 & 7.785 & 3.600 & -1.957 & -2.675 & 4.733\\
& 0D-L & 10.635 & 11.526 & 7.854 & -2.466 & -8.565 & 0.104\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R ulnar} & 0D-NL & 2.766 & 8.322 & 1.855 & 0.160 & -1.248 & -2.766\\
& 0D-L & 3.829 & 8.849 & 4.992 & 4.683 & -3.301 & -0.366\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Splenic} & 0D-NL & 1.748 & 4.970 & 0.805 & -0.422 &-0.584 & 2.417 \\
& 0D-L & 3.571 & 7.517 & 4.717 & -0.519 & -2.388 & -0.251 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{37-artery network. Relative errors (in \%) for pressure and flow between for both nonlinear (0DNL) and linear (0DL) 0D results with respect to the 1D results (1D) at the midpoint of the vessel, computed according to the relative error metrics (\ref{metrics}).} \label{table:errors:test2}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Aortic arch II] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_network37_vess10-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Thoracic aorta II] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_network37_vess17-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\caption{37-artery network. Comparison between 1D (at vessel midpoint), nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in two aortic segments.}\label{fig:plot:test2:aorta}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Left subclavian I] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_network37_vess11-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Right iliac-femoral II] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_network37_vess29-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\caption{37-artery network. Comparison between 1D (at vessel midpoint), nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in two first-generation vessels.}\label{fig:plot:test2:gen1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Left ulnar] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_network37_vess14-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Right anterior tibial] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_network37_vess34-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\caption{37-artery network. Comparison between 1D (at vessel midpoint), nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in two second-generation vessels.}\label{fig:plot:test2:gen2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Right ulnar] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_network37_vess7-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Splenic] {\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_network37_vess20-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\caption{37-artery network. Comparison between 1D (at vessel midpoint), nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in two third-generation vessels.}\label{fig:plot:test2:gen3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Reduced ADAN56 model}\label{sec:numexp:test3}
The last benchmark model considered is a reduced version of the anatomically detailed arterial network model developed by Blanco \textit{et al.} \cite{Blanco:2014a,Blanco:2015a}. This model contains the largest 56 vessels of the human arterial system, as described in \cite{Blanco:2015a}. General properties of this arterial model are shown in Table \ref{table:test3}, while for the topology of the network and a complete set of parameters, we refer the reader to \cite{Boileau:2015a}. The inflow boundary condition $Q_{in}(t)$, inspired from one of the inflow signals reported in \cite{Murgo:1980a}, is taken from \cite{Boileau:2015a}. Terminal vessels are coupled to $RCR$ Windkessel terminal elements. In the tube law (\ref{tubelaw}), we set $P_0 = P_d = 10^5$ dyne/cm$^2$ and $A_0 = A_d$, from which the 1D/0D initial cross-sectional areas $A(x,0)/\widehat{A}(0)$ corresponding to the prescribed initial pressure are computed in all vessels. The vessel wall thickness is computed using the following empirical expression \cite{Blanco:2015a}
\begin{equation}
h = r_0\left[ \widetilde{a}\exp(\widetilde{b} r_0) + \widetilde{c}\exp(\widetilde{d} r_0) \right],
\end{equation}
where $r_0$ is the reference radius, related to $A_0$, $\widetilde{a} = 0.2802$, $\widetilde{b} = -5.053$ cm$^{-1}$, $\widetilde{c} = 0.1324$ and $\widetilde{d} = -0.1114$ cm$^{-1}$. As for the 37-artery network, also here we do not consider vessel tapering, but we assume all vessels to have a constant reference cross-sectional area $A_0$, related to the constant reference radius $r_0$ computed as the mean value between the proximal and distal radii given in \cite{Boileau:2015a}.\\
For the 0D simulations, the choice of the 0D vessel configurations is the same as that for the 37-artery network: the first vessel of the arterial model, that is the first portion of the aortic arch, is of $(Q_{in}, Q_{out})$-type; terminal vessels are of $(P_{in}, P_{out})$-type and coupled to $RCR$ Windkessel terminal elements; all other vessels of the network are modelled as two-split $(P_{in}, Q_{out})$-type 0D vessels. Results are shown for three aortic segments (aortic arch I, thoracic aorta III and abdominal aorta V), three first-generation vessels (right common carotid, right renal and right common iliac), three second-generation vessels (right internal carotid, right radial and right internal iliac) and three third-/fourth-generation vessels (right posterior interosseous, right femoral and right anterior tibial). Qualitative comparisons between nonlinear 0D, linear 0D and reference 1D solutions are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:plot:test3:aorta} for the aortic segments and in Figures \ref{fig:plot:test3:gen1}-\ref{fig:plot:test3:gen34} for the vessels of first, second and third/fourth generations, respectively. Table \ref{table:errors:test3} summarizes the relative errors computed for both nonlinear and linear 0D results with respect to 1D results.\\
As for the 37-artery network considered in Section \ref{sec:numexp:test2}, for this arterial model we also observe that, even if some oscillations in the pressure and flow waveforms are amplified, there is globally a good agreement between the nonlinear 0D predicted results and the reference 1D results. Overall, pressure and flow profiles are reproduced with a reasonably good level of accuracy; the main features, shape and amplitude, of the waveforms are well-captured by the nonlinear 0D models, even if the differences between 1D and 0D results are not negligible. For instance, in Figure \ref{fig:plot:test3:gen34}, we note that for these vessels of third and fourth generations of bifurcations the 0D waveforms are slightly delayed to the right with respect to the 1D waves. However, once again, we note that generally, by preserving in the 0D models adopted the nonlinearity of the original 1D model, the 0D results are strongly improved with respect to the linear case also for this benchmark arterial network. This is quite evident in the pressure waves, where the systolic pressure is well-reproduced by the nonlinear 0D models. There are only few isolated cases where the linear 0D results seem to be better than the nonlinear ones, as, for example, in the right radial artery, where from Figure \ref{fig:plot:test3:rightradial} we can observe the systolic peak in pressure to be approximated better by the linear 0D solution, rather than by the nonlinear 0D solution.\\
The quantitative assessment presented in Table \ref{table:errors:test3} supports all these observations. From the linear to the nonlinear 0D results, the RMS relative errors computed with respect to the reference 1D results are reduced, suggesting that the nonlinear 0D models are able to better reproduce the overall dynamics of pressure and flow rate in all vessels. Furthermore, also in this case, the systolic relative errors for pressure are confirmed to be, in general, significantly smaller in the nonlinear 0D results with respect to the linear ones, illustrating the ability of the nonlinear 0D models to capture and reproduced the essential features of pressure and flow waveforms. For the nonlinear 0D results, RMS relative errors are all smaller than 12.0\% for the pressure and smaller than 18.0\% for the flow rate; systolic relative errors are all smaller than 4.0\% for the pressure and smaller than 10.0\% for the flow rate, with an exception in the right anterior tibial artery, where the peak in the flow rate waveform seems to be underestimated, as confirmed by Figure \ref{fig:plot:test3:rightanteriortibial}.\\
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
\textbf{Property} & \textbf{Value} \\
\midrule
Blood density, $\rho$ & 1.040 g/cm$^3$ \\
Blood viscosity, $\mu$ & 0.04 dyne$\cdot$s/cm$^2$ \\
Velocity profile order, $\zeta$ & 2 \\
Young's modulus, $E$ & 2.25$\cdot$10$^6$ dyne/cm$^2$ \\
Diastolic pressure, $P_d$ & 10$^5$ dyne/cm$^2$ \\
External pressure, $p_{ext}$ & 0 \\
Outflow pressure, $P_{out}$ & 0 \\
Initial velocity, $u(x, 0)/U(0)$ & 0\\
Initial pressure, $p(x, 0)/P(0)$ & $P_d$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{General parameters of the reduced ADAN56 model.}\label{table:test3}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l | c | cccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Vessel} & \textbf{0D model} & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{RMS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{RMS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{SYS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{SYS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_P^{\text{DIAS}} (\%)$ & $\varepsilon_Q^{\text{DIAS}} (\%)$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Aortic arch I} & 0D-NL & 1.010 & 3.230 & 0.479 & 1.331 & -0.361 & 0.808 \\
& 0D-L & 1.790 & 4.147 & 1.210 & 0.955 & -1.075 & -3.114\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Thoracic aorta III} & 0D-NL & 1.200 & 4.131 & 0.649 & 2.303 & -1.332 & 5.122\\
& 0D-L & 2.198 & 6.403 & 3.011 & 2.788 & -1.412 & 8.198\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Abdominal aorta V} & 0D-NL & 1.735 & 9.719 & 1.740 & -7.392 & 0.732 & 13.722\\
& 0D-L & 3.447 & 12.800 & 5.656 & -7.777 & -0.319 & 16.683\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R common carotid} & 0D-NL & 1.111 & 6.857 & 1.272 & 6.378 & -0.926 & 0.372 \\
& 0D-L & 2.081 & 9.335 & 4.937 & 7.623 & -0.694 & -1.530 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R renal} & 0D-NL & 1.281 & 3.211 & 1.230 & 0.118 & 0.398 & -0.780\\
& 0D-L & 2.765 & 5.940 & 4.733 & 3.339 & -0.429 & -2.143\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R common iliac} & 0D-NL & 2.119 & 9.885 & 1.522 & -7.062 & 2.242 & 8.388 \\
& 0D-L & 3.718 & 13.111 & 5.680 & -5.566 & 1.030 & 9.935\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R internal carotid} & 0D-NL & 2.268 & 5.845 & 3.489 & 3.459 & -0.712 & 4.082 \\
& 0D-L & 3.552 & 8.918 & 7.456 & 5.690 & -1.081 & 2.035 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R radial} & 0D-NL & 3.324 & 4.985 & 1.529 & -3.377 & 0.453 & 11.274\\
& 0D-L & 3.586 & 5.514 & -0.319 & -7.678 & -0.358 & 13.079 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R internal iliac} & 0D-NL & 2.620 & 6.387 & -0.204 & -8.080 & 2.152 & 10.220\\
& 0D-L & 4.012 & 8.659 & 3.104 & -7.054 & 1.711 & 7.333 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R post. inteross.} & 0D-NL & 3.275 & 4.132 & 0.134 & -1.734 & 0.998 & -0.9951 \\
& 0D-L & 3.801 & 4.737 & -2.797 & -4.547 & 0.469 & -0.155 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R femoral II} & 0D-NL & 4.888 & 16.954 & -2.224 & -7.812 & 6.997 & -0.868\\
& 0D-L & 7.103 & 21.109 & 1.012 & -15.742 & 7.955 & 0.225 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{R anterior tibial} & 0D-NL & 11.454 & 14.681 & -1.044 & -19.454 & 5.643 & 3.510 \\
& 0D-L & 14.342 & 17.424 & -0.949 & -27.568 & 6.699 & 3.128 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{ADAN56 model. Relative errors (in \%) for pressure and flow between for both nonlinear (0DNL) and linear (0DL) 0D results with respect to the 1D results (1D) at the midpoint of the vessel, computed according to the relative error metrics (\ref{metrics}).} \label{table:errors:test3}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Aortic arch I] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess1-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Thoracic aorta III] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess29-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Abdominal aorta V] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess47-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{ADAN56 model. Comparison between 1D (at vessel midpoint), nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in three aortic segments.}\label{fig:plot:test3:aorta}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Right common carotid] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess5-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Right renal] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess44-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Right common iliac] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess48-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{ADAN56 model. Comparison between 1D (at vessel midpoint), nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in three first-generation vessels.}\label{fig:plot:test3:gen1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Right internal carotid] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess13-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Right radial] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess8-eps-converted-to.pdf}\label{fig:plot:test3:rightradial}}
\subfloat[][Right internal iliac] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess51-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{ADAN56 model. Comparison between 1D (at vessel midpoint), nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in three second-generation vessels.}\label{fig:plot:test3:gen2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[][Right posterior interosseous] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess10b-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Right femoral II] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess53a-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\subfloat[][Right anterior tibial] {\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig_adan56_vess54-eps-converted-to.pdf}\label{fig:plot:test3:rightanteriortibial}}
\caption{ADAN56 model. Comparison between 1D (at vessel midpoint), nonlinear 0D and linear 0D results in three third- and fourth-generation vessels.}\label{fig:plot:test3:gen34}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{CPU times}\label{sec:numexp:CPU}
With this work, by constructing nonlinear 0D blood flow models to replace the original 1D model in not necessarily all, but in certain vessels of a network (according to some \textit{a-priori} model selection criteria), we aim at obtaining cheap simulations of blood flow in large and highly complex vascular networks, by drastically reducing their computational cost and execution time, while still preserving a good level of details in the results.\\
In Table \ref{table:CPUtimes} we compare the mean CPU times per cardiac cycle measured to perform the fully 1D and fully 0D (nonlinear and linear) simulations for the three arterial networks. 1D and 0D simulations were executed in Python, running on a Linux Ubuntu 18.04 machine with Gold Intel$^{\textregistered}$ Xeon$^{\textregistered}$ 6130 processor (2.1 GHz, 3.7 GHz Turbo, 16C/32T, 10,4 GT/s 2UPI, 22 MB Cache). From Table \ref{table:CPUtimes}, we first observe that the CPU time gradually increases with increasing network complexity. We note that, in the fully 1D simulations, the mean CPU times needed to solve the 37-artery network and ADAN56 model are approximately comparable, even if the second arterial network is larger than the first one. This observation can be justified by the fact that, because of the very fine mesh we are using to perform the 1D mesh-independent simulations, the time step $\Delta t$, computed according to the CFL condition, results to be smaller in the 37-artery network ($\Delta t\approxeq$ 6.05e-05 s) than in the ADAN56 model ($\Delta t\approxeq$ 1.3e-04 s), thus increasing the CPU time demanded to solve the first network. Furthermore, most importantly, the computational cost of the 0D simulations in all arterial networks is strongly reduced by orders of magnitude with respect to the corresponding 1D simulation, while the difference between the CPU times of nonlinear and linear 0D simulations is negligible. In Table \ref{table:CPUtimes}, in the columns of the CPU times corresponding to the 0D simulations, the speed-up gained when passing from the fully 1D simulation to the fully 0D simulation (either linear or nonlinear) is also indicated between brackets, measured as the ratio CPUtime1D/CPUtime0D. For the 37-artery network, the mean CPU time required to perform the fully 1D simulation with mesh-independent results is about 6245.1 s, while the CPU time demanded for the nonlinear, fully 0D simulation is significantly reduced to approximately 27.0 s, with a speed-up in the simulation of more than 230 times. Similarly, for the reduced ADAN56 model, the fully 1D simulation with mesh-independent results is performed with a mean CPU time of about 6492.7 s, while the CPU time demanded for the nonlinear, fully 0D simulation is decreased to approximately 84.9 s, with a speed-up in the simulation of more than 75 times. These results prove that the derived family of nonlinear 0D models may represent a powerful tool to improve the computational efficiency of blood flow simulations, while still preserving and well reproducing the main features of pressure and flow waveforms in networks of vessels. Of course, we expect this to be even more pronounced when this methodology will be applied to more complex networks, such as the global, closed-loop, multiscale cardiovascular model developed by M\"{u}ller and Toro \cite{Mueller:2014a,Mueller:2014b}, the ADAN model presented by Blanco \textit{et al.} \cite{Blanco:2014a,Blanco:2015a} and the comprehensive 1D model of the entire adult cardiovascular system reported by Mynard and Smolich \cite{MynardSmolich:2015a}. Indeed, in these networks, the number of vessels and spatial scales change drastically and, since we expect to always use 1D models for the larger vessels, the agreement in the results and the gain in terms of computational efficiency and execution time will be strongly improved by using hybrid 1D-0D networks.
We observe that, in many practical situations and applications, the mesh-independence of the 1D solution may not be necessary and cheaper 1D models may be employed. In this case, the computational cost of the fully 1D simulations would be considerably reduced with respect to that of the 1D mesh-independent model and thus, also the speed-up obtained by adopting the 0D models would be not as relevant. However, our main goal here is to investigate and assess the ability of the newly derived nonlinear 0D models to reproduce the physics and physical properties of blood flow through the vessel, when compared to the original 1D model. For this reason, it is important to have mesh-independent 1D results, to ensure that the physics of the problem is reproduced by the 1D model as accurately as possible. In addition, as pointed out above, we expect really impressive improvements in terms of computational efficiency when this methodology will be applied to much more complex networks and models, where the heterogeneity of spatial and/or temporal scales is relevant and also non mesh-independent simulations are really expensive.
Finally, we remark that the CPU time analysis presented in this section represents a preliminary study to get a first insight and estimate of the impact of using 0D models on the computational cost and efficiency of the simulations. More than the single CPU time values, the 1D/0D CPU time ratios are more relevant and informative about the speed-up obtained with respect to the reference 1D simulations. This analysis was performed using Python as programming language. We believe that what may drastically increment/decrement the speeds-up reported in this work is how efficiently 1D and 0D model discretizations are implemented, rather than the specific choice of the programming language. Indeed, in the case of serial code, we expect these ratios/speeds-up to be approximately maintained also when moving to another programming language (like C\ensuremath{++}), even if this would not be necessarily true in the case of a parallel code implementation.\\
\begin{table}[h!]\footnotesize
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{|c}{\textbf{CPU time per card.cycle}}\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Test case}} & \textbf{1D sim.} & \textbf{0D-NL sim.} & \textbf{0D-L sim.}\\
& & \textbf{(speed-up)} & \textbf{(speed-up)}\\
\toprule
Aortic bifurcation & 51.251 & 0.400 (128.096) & 0.332 (154.179) \\
37-artery network & 6245.066 & 27.010 (231.215) & 19.566 (339.424) 19.923 (313.455) \\
ADAN56 model & 6492.655 & 84.887 (76.486) & 78.486 (82.724) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison between mean CPU times per cardiac cycle (in seconds) of the 1D, nonlinear 0D (0D-NL) and linear 0D (0D-L) simulations for the aortic bifurcation model, the 37-artery network and ADAN56 model. The speed-up gained in the 0D simulation (either linear or nonlinear) with respect to the 1D simulation is also reported between brackets, measured as the ratio CPUtime1D/CPUtime0D.} \label{table:CPUtimes}
\end{table}
\subsection{Analysis of relative contributions of single nonlinear terms}\label{sec:numexp:singlenonlinearities}
In this section, we perform the analysis of the relative contributions of considering as nonlinear single components of the 0D models (resistance, inductance and pressure-area relation) in determining pressure and flow waveforms and in producing more accurate 0D results. Indeed, in Sections \ref{sec:numexp:test2} and \ref{sec:numexp:test3}, we found that, for both the 37-artery network and ADAN56 model, overall considering nonlinear pressure-area relation and nonlinear parameters $L$ and $R$ in the 0D blood flow models strongly improves their ability of accurately predict pressure and flow waveforms, which are in good agreement with the reference 1D results.
Here, we want to investigate and assess the contribution to the 0D model accuracy obtained by including only a single component as nonlinear and to compare these different possible scenarios with the previously considered ones where all components are either linear or nonlinear.\\
To this aim, we performed, for both the 37-artery network and ADAN56 model, a new set of fully 0D simulations, where in each simulation a single nonlinear term is activated in the 0D models (either the resistance $R$, the inductance $L$ or the pressure-area relation), while all the other components are kept linear. The obtained 0D results are then compared to the available fully-linear and fully-nonlinear 0D results.
Figures \ref{fig:singlenonlinear:network37} and \ref{fig:singlenonlinear:adan56} display the error analysis carried out for the 37-artery network and ADAN56 model, respectively. For each type of 0D model (fully-linear, with nonlinear resistance, with nonlinear inductance, with nonlinear pressure-area relation and fully-nonlinear), the errors in the predicted 0D results are computed with respect to the reference 1D results in the different relative error metrics (\ref{metrics}).
In each boxplot, errors are compared over the entire network and in several specific vascular regions, namely the aorta, right arm and right leg, to examine whether specific features of the performance of the different 0D models emerge in any of the vascular districts considered.
In all boxplots, for all error metrics, 0D model types and vascular regions, we report the median value, the interquartile range (IQR) and the minimum and maximum values of the error data. The IQR is computed as the difference between the 75th (upper) and 25th (lower) quartiles of each error dataset.
From this error analysis, several observations and outcomes are worthy to be pointed out.
Overall, the fully-nonlinear scenario improves the performance of the corresponding 0D blood flow models and the accuracy of the predicted results with respect to the fully-linear scenario; in few isolated cases, the fully-nonlinear and fully-linear results are comparable, with no significant gain obtained when all the nonlinearities are included in the 0D models, but also with no relevant worsening.
Furthermore, when activating single nonlinear terms in the 0D models, the nonlinear inductance $L$ results to be the most determining nonlinear component which brings the major benefits to these models in terms of reduction of errors with respect to the reference 1D solution. Indeed, the contribution of this nonlinear parameter alone is significant in accurately defining both pressure and flow waveforms, with errors having small median values and small variability (small-sized IQR).
The nonlinear pressure-area relation also plays a considerable role in defining more accurate pressure results. This fact is evident when looking at the boxplots for the relative systolic errors, for both arterial networks considered.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the main motivation for the introduction of nonlinear components, especially the pressure-area relation, regards the application of these 0D models to situations in which large deviations from a baseline state are to be considered, such as hypertension, an haemorrhage, a collapsed state or postural changes. Indeed, in these non physiological conditions, the combined contribution of the nonlinear pressure-area relation and of the nonlinear pressure-dependent parameters is expected to play an important role in accurately predicting the corresponding haemodynamic states.\\
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{network37_boxplot_errorAnalysis_singleNonlinearities_byRegions_NotNormalized_Median+IQR-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{37-artery network. Boxplots comparing the errors computed in the different relative error metrics (\ref{metrics}) with respect to the reference 1D results for (in each boxplot, from left to right): fully-linear 0D results (all-LIN), 0D results with nonlinear resistance (NL-R), 0D results with nonlinear inductance (NL-L), 0D results with nonlinear pressure-area relation (NL-Tl) and fully-nonlinear 0D results (all-NL). In each boxplot, errors are compared over the entire network (yellow) and in several specific vascular regions: aorta (blue), right arm (green) and right leg (red). Relative errors for pressure $P$ are shown in the top row boxplots (from left to right boxplots: RMS, systolic and diastolic errors), while relative errors for flow rate $Q$ are reported in the bottom row boxplots. In each box, the box mid-line represents the median value, the box itself corresponds to the interquartile range (IQR), while the lines (whiskers) extending from the box indicate the minimum and maximum values.}\label{fig:singlenonlinear:network37}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{adan56_boxplot_errorAnalysis_singleNonlinearities_byRegions_NotNormalized_Median+IQR-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{ADAN56 model. Boxplots comparing the errors computed in the different relative error metrics (\ref{metrics}) with respect to the reference 1D results for (in each boxplot, from left to right): fully-linear 0D results (all-LIN), 0D results with nonlinear resistance (NL-R), 0D results with nonlinear inductance (NL-L), 0D results with nonlinear pressure-area relation (NL-Tl) and fully-nonlinear 0D results (all-NL). In each boxplot, errors are compared in the entire network (yellow) and in several specific vascular regions: aorta (blue), right arm (green) and right leg (red). Relative errors for pressure $P$ are shown in the top row boxplots (from left to right boxplots: RMS, systolic and diastolic errors), while relative errors for flow rate $Q$ are reported in the bottom row boxplots. In each box, the box mid-line represents the median value, the box itself corresponds to the interquartile range (IQR), while the lines (whiskers) extending from the box indicate the minimum and maximum values.}\label{fig:singlenonlinear:adan56}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding remarks and future work}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper we have extended the well-known family of lumped-parameter models for blood flow in a vascular segment, in order to construct 0D models that preserve important properties of the original 1D model. In particular, the main features characterizing these models are: (i) the nonlinearity in the pressure-area relationship and (ii) the nonlinearity in the model parameters $R$ and $L$, which depend on the average time-varying cross-sectional area. The different 0D vessel configurations depending on the data prescribed at the inlet and outlet of the vessel have been described; 0D junctions have been introduced to couple 0D vessels in a network.\\
In order to validate the newly derived family of nonlinear 0D models, fully 1D and fully 0D simulations have been performed and compared for three different benchmark arterial networks, showing that, even if there are discrepancies between 0D and 1D results, these nonlinear 0D models are able to capture and reproduce the essential features of pressure and flow waveforms. Furthermore, remarkable differences between linear and nonlinear 0D results have been observed in these physiologically normal cases and we expect that these differences will be even more relevant when addressing large deviations from the baseline haemodynamic states, like, for example, when simulating hypertension or haemorrhagic events.\\
Our ultimate goal is to construct hybrid 1D-0D networks, where certain vessels are treated 1D, while others are modelled as 0D vessels. Indeed, our work is primarily motivated by the attempt of facing the issues of computational efficiency and execution time, related to the modelling of blood flow in highly complex networks. Potential applications of the proposed framework will regard for instance the ADAN model developed by Blanco \textit{et al.} \cite{Blanco:2014a,Blanco:2015a} and the global, closed-loop, multiscale mathematical model for the human cardiovascular system of M\"{u}ller and Toro \cite{Mueller:2014a,Mueller:2014b}. By approximating not necessarily all, but some vessels of such complex networks with these nonlinear 0D models, defining the different 0D vessel configurations, we expect that the computational cost and execution time of the resulting hybrid 1D-0D vessel networks will be dramatically reduced with respect to the fully 1D networks, even for long term simulations, and that the results will be significantly improved with respect to the fully 0D networks, still preserving the topology of the original 1D network and without losing any essential information with respect to the full 1D model. For this purpose, future work will include to find relevant \textit{a-priori} model selection criteria to define an adaptive model selection strategy that will allow to determine, given a network, the most suitable model to be used for each vessel of the network, either the 1D model or the newly derived nonlinear 0D models.\\
Moreover, we will consider purely 0D and hybrid 1D-0D couplings in order to find appropriate coupling conditions between 1D/0D vessels that do not require any restrictions on the admissible 0D vessel types converging at a junction.\\
Finally, in the proposed nonlinear lumped-parameter models we will incorporate additional aspects of the pressure-area relation, such as the viscoelastic properties of vessel walls, in order to derive more realistic and reliable 0D models.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Beatrice Ghitti acknowledges the University of Trento for financing her Ph.D. studentship.\\
Lucas O. M\"{u}ller acknowledges funding from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR) in the frame of the Departments of Excellence Initiative 2018–2022 attributed to the Department of Mathematics of the University of Trento (grant L. 232/2016) and in the frame of the PRIN 2017 project Innovative numerical methods for evolutionary partial differential equations and applications.\\
All authors warmly thank Prof. Marco Sabatini (Department of Mathematics, University of Trento, Italy) for very helpful discussions that contributed to the completion of the ODE stability analysis presented in this work.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\input{ms.bbl}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Real-time estimation of 6-DOF camera pose has become a fundamental requirement in many automated systems such as robotics, autonomous vehicle navigation, and AR.
Advanced solutions \cite{Davison2007MonoSLAM,qin2018vins,lategahn2011visual}
simultaneously estimated the camera pose while constructing the environment map by detecting and tracking visual features, which is named as simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM).
Among SLAM approaches,
monocular SLAM has the advantages of low cost, small size and easy installation. However, it suffers from inherent problems of scale uncertainty and scale drift.
Though stereo \cite{Mur2017ORB} and RGB-D \cite{fu2019robust} camera systems can solve the problem of scale uncertainty, the cost of hardware and computation complexities are significant.
Recently developed visual-inertial (VI) systems \cite{qin2018vins,huang2018online} solve the problem at a low cost. On one hand, IMU measurement helps recover the metric scale. On the other hand, the IMU bias can be corrected by vision information.
Due to the cumulative error in both visual and inertial systems, however, the above-mentioned VI systems can guarantee positioning accuracy only in a short time period, which limits its application in long-term and large-scale area. Loop closure can reduce the positioning drift, but will increase the computational cost. Moreover, large-scale outdoor applications can hardly benefit from loop closure \cite{zhang2017loop,naseer2015robust}.
Another drawback in VI systems is that the estimated pose is not aligned to the world frame, which is essential for applications (e.g, the intelligent vehicle) using a priori global map.
Among other commonly used localization methods,
GNSS provides global positioning information in the world frame with time-independent accuracy.
It can help eliminate the cumulative error and correct the scale drift.
Visual, inertial and GNSS (VI-GNSS) integration forms a promising framework for outdoor long-term positioning solution \cite{shin2020dvl,surber2017robust,yu2019gps,niesen2016robust}.
In this paper, we propose an innovative VI-GNSS global positioning framework, which can realize rapid initialization and online localization in the world frame. Even in challenging scenarios, it guarantees reliable positioning performance with robustness to GNSS degradation and visual instability.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.35 \textwidth]{wangjing.png}
\caption{
Global localization result of the proposed method
\label{wangjing_result}
\end{figure}
The main \textbf{contributions} of this paper are as follows:
1. We propose a novel Maximum a Posteriori (MAP)-based VI-GNSS joint initialization framework. Compared with other visual initialization algorithms, it has the advantages of shorter initialization time, more accurate scale estimation, and online estimation of the extrinsic parameters between the local and world frames.
2. We propose an innovative multi-layer fusion framework, in which the translation and rotation estimation is dedicatedly decoupled according to the observation properties from different sources to achieve optimized estimation in each layer.
3. Exhaustive experiments and applications
are conducted to show that, compared with the existing algorithms, our proposed method can achieve
higher accuracy
up to 69\% in the initialization and 63\% in the online localization in large-scale challenging scenarios.
\section{RELATED WORKS}
In recent decades, there have been many efforts to realize camera pose estimation by fusing visual, inertial sesnors and GNSS, wheel encoder, etc .
Among them, Visual SLAM is the basis for fusing other sensors.
\textbf{Visual SLAM}
The mainstream visual SLAM methods include indirect methods \cite{klein2007parallel,Mur2017ORB,Davison2007MonoSLAM} and direct methods \cite{engel2013semi,forster2014svo}.
Since the depth of visual feature is ambiguous, the monocular visual SLAM can provide only up-to-scale poses. Some solutions use a
binocular or RGB-D camera \cite{hu2012robust} or lidar \cite{shin2018direct} to determine the depth directly. Other methods that introduce inertial sensor to restore the real scale \cite{bloesch2015robust,Tong2018VINS} gain more interest due to its relatively low cost. However, when the acceleration excitation is low (e.g., the vehicle moves at a constant speed), the metric scale is unobservable and easily diverged.
Visual SLAM can estimate the pose only relative to the first camera frame.
However, many applications (e.g., the intelligent vehicles, etc.) require the global pose in the world frame so that it can be aligned to a prior map.
Therefore, multi-source sensors should be fused to obtain the global pose.
According to the different frameworks where multiple sensors are fused, the fusion algorithms
are usually divided into loosely-coupled positioning and tightly-coupled positioning.
\textbf{Loosely-coupled positioning v.s. Tightly-coupled positioning}.
In the framework of loosely-coupled fusion
\cite{qin2019general,mascaro2018gomsf,surber2017robust}
, parts of the original sensor data (e.g., visual and inertial measurements) are fused at the first stage and produce the estimation as a new measurement.
The pre-estimated data is further fused with other sensors. The process of modeling errors in the pre-esitmation may cause inaccuracy.
Moreover, the drift of the metric scale in visual SLAM cannot be corrected for a long time, which may eventually cause a large error in the final positioning result.
The limitations can be overcome by
directly modeling the noise of various sensors' observations and fusing them in one single sliding window. The improvement leads to the tightly-coupled positioning that guarantees higher accuracy \cite{cioffi2020tightly,yu2019gps}. However, the tightly-coupled system is more nonlinear and has a higher degree of freedom. Abnormal data from single sensor may cause large drifts in the final positioning.
The proposed
framework in this paper is between loosely- and tightly- coupled methods: we firstly fuse a portion of data from visual, inertial and GNSS in the inner-layer in a small time period using a tightly-coupled way. In addition to accurately modeling the observation noise, we deal with the visual-inertial scale drift by introducing GNSS velocity. Then we fuse the GNSS position and course in a longer time period in the outer-layer to further improve the global pose accuracy. Also, outliers are eliminated in this layer, making it more robust in scenarios with large GNSS drift and short-term visual measurement degradation.
\textbf{Parameter initialization methods}
In the mainstream VI SLAM algorithms \cite{qin2018vins,Mur2017ORB,mur2017visual}, initial state variables (e.g., camera pose, metric scale, etc. ) are obtained by solving a numerical analytic solution,
which are not accurate enough.
In the latest research Orb-slam3 \cite{campos2020inertial}, MAP method is used to estimate the initial state variables in an optimization framework, which is prone to achieve more accurate initialization. However, Orb-slam3 does not finely set the initial values in MAP optimization, and may result in a local optimum result.
Our proposed algorithm roughly estimates initial values using the analytical method and then performs further optimization by MAP estimation.
In addition,
we involve the initialization of local-global transformation to guarantee accurate estimation of global poses.
\section{INITIALIZATION}
In the MAP based monocular VI-GNSS online optimization system, a pure monocular camera can provide relative pose information where the scale is normalized. IMU helps recover the real metric scale, however the accuracy suffers from the drift of bias. GNSS provides the position, velocity and course information in the world frame(i.e., East-North-Up (ENU) navigation coordinate system) with relatively low accuracy.
The initialization procedure should guarantee good initial values for all state variables and parameters, e.g. the metric scale, IMU bias, extrinsic parameters of the world frame, etc., to avoid diverging or converging to a local minimal.
In this section, we propose a numerical solution aided MAP initialization algorithm where
initial values are calculated in a uniform framework.
It can also be applied to other VI GNSS and/or odometer systems.
The entire initialization algorithm includes 3 steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Estimate the initial pose with real metric scale using sliding window visual odometry (VO) aided by GNSS velocity.
\item Solve the extrinsic parameters of the initial camera frame against the world frame.
\item Estimate and refine all parameters using the VI-GNSS MAP optimization.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.45]{init.png}
\caption{ Initialization Procedure }
\label{figure_init}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Sliding window VO aided by GNSS velocity}
In this step, we roughly estimate the initial pose with real metric scale while constructing the initial 3D feature point map simultaneously. In order to guarantee the real-time calculation performance, we use a fixed-length sliding window to maintain the data from latest several frames. For all the matched frames, when the number of tracking points and the parallax are sufficient and the GNSS signals are good , we calculate the relative rotation $R_0$ and translation $t_0$ by the 7-point method \cite{hartley2003multiple}. Furthermore, we retrieve the metric scale by comparing the relative translation of the two matched frames against the GNSS velocity. The initial 3D visual point map is then constructed by triangulating all matched feature points. Poses of other frames are estimated by perspective-n-point (PnP) method \cite{lepetit2009epnp}. Finally, we take a GNSS-aided visual bundle adjustment (BA) in Equation \ref{ba_initial} to optimize poses of all frames in the sliding window.
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&X = [\delta s,p^{c_0}_{c_0},q^{c_0}_{c_0},p^{c_0}_{c_1},q^{c_0}_{c_1}...p^{c_0}_{c_k},q^{c_0}_{c_k},{\lambda}_0,{\lambda}_1...{\lambda}_m] \\
&X^* = \arg \min_X \{ { \rho ( \lVert r(z_{c_k},X) \rVert}^2) +
{\lVert r(z_{\Delta p},X) \rVert} ^ 2
\} \\
&r(z_{c_i}, \chi)= {q_{c_j}^{c_0}}^{-1} \otimes
\left[ {q_{c_i}^{c_0}} * p_i / {\lambda}_l + p^{c_0}_{c_i} - p^{c_0}_{c_j} \right] - p_j
\\
&r(z_{\Delta p},X) = \frac{1}{2} * (v_i + v_j) * \Delta t - s * \lVert p^{c_0}_{c_j} - p^{c_0}_{c_i} \rVert
\end{split}
\label{ba_initial}
\end{align}
where $r(z_{c_k},X)$ is the visual re-projection error.
$r(z_{\Delta p},X)$ is the relative translation error of corresponding frames.
$ p^{c_0}_{c_i},q^{c_0}_{c_i} $ is the pose of frame i relative to initial frame.
$\rho(x)$ is Huber robust loss function which is used to reduce the influence of outliers \cite{barron2019general}.
There are few outliers in the translation
error estimates, so $\rho(x)$ is not applied to relative translation error.
${\lambda}_l$ is the inverse depth of feature point in the firstly observed camera frame. $p_i$ is the position of feature in the normalized plane.
$v_i,v_j$ are the velocities of GNSS at the time of i-th and j-th
frames, and $\Delta t$ the time interval between the i-th and j-th
frames.
We estimate the metric scale using the relative translation derived from GNSS velocities which are considered more accurate than GNSS positions thanks to the Doppler measurement.
\subsection{Numerical solution for world frame extrinsic parameter}
The poses acquired in the former step are relative to the initial camera frame, however the global positions are required to support outdoor large-scale applications. So it is essential to estimate the relative rotation extrinsic parameters between the initial camera frame and the world frame.
To estimate the 3-DOF rotation extrinsic parameters, the system should render the roll, pitch, and yaw angles observable. Firstly, we align the GNSS positions in the world frame with the camera positions in the first frame to derive the initial yaw angle.
\begin{equation}
p^w_{g_k} = q^w_{c_0}(y) \otimes \{ s * p^{c_0}_{c_k} - q^{c_0}_{c_k}\otimes {q^b_c}^{-1} \otimes (t^b_g - t^b_c)\}
\end{equation}
where
$q^w_{c_0}(y)$
is the yaw angle in the extrinsic parameters.
$q^b_c,t^b_c$
are the rotation and translation parameters between camera and IMU frame.
$t^b_g$
is the translation between IMU and GNSS antenna in the IMU body frame.
Then, we estimate roll and pitch angles using the acceleration of IMU, where the motion acceleration is eliminated by differentiating the GNSS velocity.
\begin{equation}
q^w_{c_0}(r, p) \otimes q^{c_0}_{c_k} \otimes {q^i_c}^{-1} * a_i
= (G + a_l)
\end{equation}
where
$q^w_{c_0}(r, p)$
are roll and pitch angles of extrinsic parameters.
$a_i$
is the acceleration measurement from IMU.
$a_l$
is the motion acceleration in the world frame.
Finally, we combine $q^w_{c_0}(r, p)$, $q^w_{c_0}(y)$ to form $q^ w_{c_0}(r, p, y)$ as the initial rotation extrinsic parameters between the world frame and the initial camera frame.
\subsection{VI-GNSS MAP optimization}
In the last two steps, we have roughly estimated the initial metric scale by GNSS and VO fusion, however it can be further optimized using the IMU measurements. Besides, the rotation extrinsic parameters are only estimated by single or a few frames and is not accurate enough. We use the roughly estimated parameters as the first guess and conduct a MAP optimization using all information in the first few frames to obtain more accurate initial values.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&X_0 = \left\{ b_g, s, q^w_{c_0}, v_0, v_1, v_2 ... v_n \right\}\\
&X_0^* = argmin_X \left\{
{ \lVert r(z_{p},X) \rVert} ^ 2 _{ \Omega_g} +
{\lVert r(z_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}},X) \rVert} ^ 2
\right\} \\
&r(z_{p},X) = q^w_{c_0} \otimes \{ s * p^{c_0}_{c_k} - q^{c_0}_{c_k}\otimes {q^i_c}^{-1} \otimes (t^i_g - t^i_c)\}
- p^w_{g_k}
\\
&r(z_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}},X) = \\
&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\alpha_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}} -
{q^{c_0}_{b_k}}^{-1} \otimes {q^w_{c_0}}^{-1} \otimes
(p^w_{b_{k+1}} - p^w_{b_k} +\\ \frac{1}{2} G \Delta t ^ 2 - v^w_{b_k}\Delta t) \\
\beta_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}} -
{q^{c_0}_{b_k}}^{-1} \otimes {q^w_{c_0}}^{-1} \otimes
(v^w_{b_{k+1}} - v^w_{b_k} + G \Delta t)\\
{q^{c_0}_{b_{k+1}}}^{-1} \otimes
q^{c_0}_{b_{k}} \otimes
\gamma^{b_{k}}_{b_{k+1}} \otimes
\dbinom{1}{\frac{1}{2}*J^{\gamma}_{b_g}\delta {b_g}}
^2
\end{array}
\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
$r(z_{p},X)$ is the translation residual and
$r(z_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}},X)$ the pre-integration residual \cite{qin2018vins}. $b_g$ is the bias of gyroscope. $\delta s$ is the scale error. $q^w_{c_0}$ is the extrinsic parameter between the initial camera frame and the world frame. $v_i$ is the velocity of IMU relative to the world frame.
We can solve this MAP problem with roughly estimated parameters as initial values using Levenberge-Marquart algorithm to obtain more accurate states. At each iteration, we substitute the latest $b_g, s, q^w_{c_0}$ in case of getting into local minimal.
\section{ONLINE POSE ESTIMATOR}
The online estimation process is shown in Figure \ref{factorGraph.png}. This framework consists of two layers. 1) The inner-layer is the sliding window BA optimization. And, 2) the outer-layer is 4-DOF pose graph optimization in a large scale.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{factorGraph.png}
\caption{ Factor Graph of Multi-layer VI-GNSS Global Positioning Framework}
\label{factorGraph.png}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Sliding window BA}
In the sliding window BA, we mainly fuse visual inertial measurements and GNSS velocity to get accurate poses, which can simultaneously calibrate the extrinsic parameters between camera and IMU body frames. The states to be estimated in the sliding window are
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\chi = \left[\xi_0, \xi_1, \xi_2 ... \xi_m, T^b_c, \rho_0, \rho_1 ... \rho_n \right]\\
&\xi_k = \left[p^{w_0}_{b_k}, q^{w_0}_{b_k}, v^{w_0}_{b_k}, b_\omega, b_a\right]\\
&T^b_c = \left[p^{b}_{c}, q^{b}_{c}\right]
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\xi_k$ is the state of IMU at k-th frame.
$p^{w_0}_{b_k}$, $q^{w_0}_{b_k}$, $v^{w_0}_{b_k}$ are the pose and velocities of IMU at k-th frame.
$b_\omega$, $b_a$ are the biases of gyroscope and accelerometer respectively.
$\rho_k$ is the inverse depth of visual feature.
m is the number of frames in the sliding window and n the number of features in the visual feature point map.
By optimizing the residuals of multiple sensors in the sliding window , we can obtain accurate poses and camera-IMU extrinsic parameters. A marginal method is required to avoid the loss of information caused by the direct removal of historical frames. The Mahalanobis norm is used to normalize the observation residuals. The overall cost function is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\chi^* = arg min_{\chi} \left\{
\left \| r_m - H_m * \chi \right \|^2
+
\sum_{i=0}^n \rho ( \left \| r(z^{c_i}, \chi ) \right \|^2_{\Omega_{c_i}})
\right. \\ \left.
+
\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \left \| r(z^{b_{j+1}}_{b_j}, \chi ) \right \|^2_{\Omega_{b_j}}
+
\sum_{k=0}^{m} \rho (\left \| r(z^{g_{v_k}}, \chi ) \right \|^2_{\Omega_{g_{v_k}}})
\right\}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
$H_m$ is the information matrix of a priori residuals.
$r(z^{c_i})$ is the re-projection residual.
$r(z^{b_{j+1}}_{b_j})$ is the IMU pre-integration residual.
$r(z^{g_{v_k}})$ is the velocity residual.
$\Omega_{c_i},\Omega_{b_j},\Omega_{g_{v_k}}$ are Hessian matrixes of re-projection, IMU pre-integration and velocity.
The residual of re-projection is
\begin{equation}
r(z^{c_i}, \chi)= {q_c^b}^{-1} \left[ {q_{b_i}^{w_0}}^{-1} *
(X^{w_0}_i - p_{b_i}^{w_0}) - t_c^b \right] - p_{c_i}
\end{equation}
where
$p_{c_i}$ is the normalized position of visual feature in the camera frame.
$X^{w_0}_i$ is the 3D position of visual feature point in the initial world frame.
The residual for IMU pre-integration is
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& r(z^{b_{j+1}}_{b_j}, \chi) = [r_q, r_p, r_v, r_{b_\omega}, r_{b_a}]\\
& r_q = {\Delta q_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}}}^{-1} \otimes {q^{w_0}_{b_{k}}}^{-1} \otimes q^{w_0}_{b_{k+1}}\\
& r_p = {q^{w_0}_{b_{k}}}^{-1} \otimes
\left( p^{w_0}_{b_{k+1}} - p^{w_0}_{b_{k}} - v^{w_0}_{b_{k}} \Delta t
+ \frac{1}{2}g \Delta t^2
\right) - \Delta p_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}}\\
&r_v = {q^{w_0}_{b_{k}}}^{-1} \otimes
\left( v^{w_0}_{b_{k+1}} - v^{w_0}_{b_{k}}
+ g \Delta t
\right) - \Delta v_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}}\\
&r_{b_\omega} = b_{\omega_{k+1}} - b_{\omega_{k}}\\
&
r_{b_a} = b_{a_{k+1}} - b_{a_{k}}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where
$\Delta q_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}}, \Delta p_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}}, \Delta v_{b_k}^{b_{k+1}}$ are the pre-integration of rotation, position and velocity between two consecutive frames.
The residual of velocity is
\begin{equation}
r(z^{g_{v_k}}, \chi ) = q_{w_0}^w \otimes v_{b_k}^{w_0} - v^w_{k}
\end{equation}
where
$q_{w_0}^w$ is the rotation error of the world frame estimated in the initialization step. We will optimize it using a large scale pose graph in the next section.
$v^w_{k}$ is the velocity of GNSS/RTK in the world frame. This term plays an important role to restrain the scale divergence of VI SLAM, and also help correct the course of motion.
\subsection{Large scale pose graph}
The step of pose graph integrates the poses estimated in multiple sliding windows, as well as GNSS positions and courses in a large scale. Furthermore, it also performs online correction for extrinsic parameters between GNSS antenna and IMU. The pose graph is performed in 4DOF since GNSS measurements in z-axis are ambiguous which may deteriorate the estimation of roll and pitch. Note that the IMU measurements have provided observable roll and pitch angles in BA process, we estimate only the yaw angle which gains the observability from GNSS measures.
The overall state variables are
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\chi = \left[\zeta_0, \zeta_1, \zeta_2 ... \zeta_n, q_{w_0}^w, t^g_b \right]
\\
&\zeta_k = \left[ p^w_{b_k}, \phi^w_{b_k} \right]
\\
&\chi^* = \arg \min_{\chi}
\left\{
\sum_{k=0}^{n} \left \| r(p^{b_{k+1}}_{b_k}, \chi ) \right \|^2_{\Omega_{p_k}}
+\right.
\\
&
\sum_{k=0}^{n} \left \| r(\phi^{b_{k+1}}_{b_k}, \chi ) \right \|^2_{\Omega_{\phi_k}}
+
\sum_{k=0}^{n} \left \| r(\phi^{b_{w}}_{b_k}, \chi ) \right \|^2_{\Omega_{\phi_{v_k}}}
+\\
&\left.
\sum_{k=0}^{n}\rho (\left \| r(\phi^{w}_g, \chi ) \right \|^2_{\Omega_{\phi_{w_k}}})
+
\sum_{k=0}^{n} \rho (\left \| r(p^{w}_g, \chi ) \right \|^2_{\Omega_{p_{w_k}}})
\right\}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
r(p^{b_{k+1}}_{b_k}, \chi ) &=
q(\phi^w_{b_k},\theta^w_{b_k},\gamma^w_{b_k})^{-1} \otimes
(p^w_{b_{k+1}} - p^w_{b_k}) - \\
&{q^{w_0}_{b_k}}^{-1} \otimes (p^{w_0}_{b_{k+1}} - p^{w_0}_{b_k})\\
r(\phi^{b_{k+1}}_{b_k}, \chi ) &=
\{q(\phi^w_{b_k},\theta^w_{b_k},\gamma^w_{b_k})^{-1} \otimes
q(\phi^w_{b_{k+1}},\theta^w_{b_{k+1}},\gamma^w_{b_{k+1}})\}^{-1}\\
&\otimes
\{{q^{w_0}_{b_k}}^{-1} \otimes
{q^{w_0}_{b_{k+1}}}\} \\
r(\phi^{b_{w}}_{b_k}, \chi) &=
(q^w_{w_0} \otimes q^{w_0}_{b_k})^{-1} \otimes q(\phi^w_{b_k},\theta^w_{b_k},\gamma^w_{b_k})\\
r(\phi^{w}_g, \chi ) &=
\phi^w_{b_k} - \phi^w_{g_k}\\
r(p^{w}_g, \chi ) &=
p^w_{b_k} + q(\phi^w_{b_k},\theta^w_{b_k},\gamma^w_{b_k}) \otimes
t^b_g - p^w_{g_k}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where,
$p^w_{b_k} $ is the position and
$\phi^w_{b_k}, \theta^w_{b_k}, \gamma^w_{b_k}$ are the yaw, pitch, roll angles of IMU in the world frame.
$p^{w_0}_{b_k}, q^{w_0}_{b_k}$
are the IMU poses in the initial world frame estimated in the BA process.
$q_{w_0}^w$
is the rotation error between the initial estimated world frame and real world frame.
$p^w_{g_k}, \phi^w_{g_k}$
are the position and course measurements of GNSS.
$r(p^{b_{k+1}}_{b_k}, \chi )$,$r(\phi^{b_{k+1}}_{b_k}, \chi )$,$r(\phi^{b_{w}}_{b_k}, \chi )$
are the prior residuals and $\Omega_{p_k},\Omega_{\phi_k}$, $\Omega_{\phi_{v_k}}$ the information matrixes for BA estimated relative translation, rotation and absolute yaw angle.
$r(\phi^{w}_g, \chi )$, $r(p^{w}_g, \chi )$
are the residuals and $\Omega_{p_{w_k}},\Omega_{\phi_{w_k}}$ the information matrixes for GNSS measured course and position.
$\rho(x)$is the huber loss function. We keep a large-scale sliding window to fuse global GNSS positions and courses. This plays an important role to avoid global position and yaw drift. Furthermore, outer-layer estimator run at a low frequency to reduce computational cost.
\section{EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS}
\label{experiment}
The proposed framework is evaluated on two public datasets.
1. The famous indoor dataset EuRoc \cite{burri2016euroc}: the performance of the whole framework, especially the initialization is evaluated on each of 11 sequences, in comparison with other state-of-the-art methods.
2. The outdoor dataset Kaist \cite{jeong2019complex}: We validate the long-term practicability to outdoor challanges, e.g., the GNSS degradation, sparsity of feature points, low excitation of IMU, etc.
In addition, we also apply the proposed method on self-developed intelligent vehicle and conduct large-scale tests.
In each test, we estimate the camera pose fusing data from monocular camera, IMU and global positions.
All tests are run on an Intel Xeon(R) W-2125 CPU at 3.0GHz with 32 GB memeory.
\subsection{Experiment on Euroc}
We ran the experiments using only images from the left camera at 20Hz and IMU measurements at 200Hz. We add Gaussian noise to the ground-truth measurements to simulate global positions(refer to \cite{2020Tightly}). The standard deviation of the noise in each direction is 0.2m. The frequency of the signal is the same as the camera frequency.
We conducted a total of 11 sequences of the test. 5 sequences in the office
are labeled as MH\_, and others in the factory scene as V\_.
\subsubsection{Initialization performance}
As shown in Table \ref{initial_result}, the initialization performance is evaluated in terms of the scale error and the time cost.
On average, the scale errors of the proposed algorithm before and after BA are 22.82\% and 8.13\% respectively, which are significantly better than 52.15\% and 25.90\% of VINS-Mono.
This is because we introduce the velocity of GNSS
and use a tightly-coupled framework to efficiently and accurately correct the scale.
The time consumption of calculating the initial value $t_{\text{Init}}$ and BA $t_\text{BA}$ is close to that of VINS-Mono.
Note that VINS-Mono only performs visual-inertial initialization, the proposed method additionally complete the world frame alignment and therefore requires longer time $t_{\text{Tot}}$ to complete the overall initialization process.
\begingroup
\begin{table*}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
\caption {Initialization Comparation: VINS-Mono with the proposed method}
\label{initial_result}
\setlength\tabcolsep{2.0pt}
\begin{tabular}{|c||cc|ccc|cc|ccc|}
\hline
{} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{VINS-Mono Initialization \cite{qin2018vins} } & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{ The proposed method} \\
\cline{2-6} \cline{7-11}
{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{scale error (\%)} & & & & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{scale error (\%)} & & & \\
\cline{2-3} \cline{7-8}
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} Seq. \\ Name \end{tabular} & VI Align & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} VI Align. \\ + BA \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} $t_{Init}$ \\ (s) \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} $t_{BA}$ \\ (s) \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} $t_{Tot}$ \\ (s) \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} VI Align. \\ +GNSS \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} VI + GNSS \\ + BA \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} $t_{Init}$ \\ (s) \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} $t_{BA}$ \\ (s) \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} $t_{Tot}$ \\ (s) \end{tabular} \\ \hline \\ \hline
V1\_01 & 62.23 & 51.65 & 0.10 & 0.15 & \textbf{1.28} & \textbf{33.78} & \textbf{10.25} & \textbf{0.08} & \textbf{0.13} & 3.63 \\
V1\_02 & 65.65 & 36.83 & 0.10 & 0.14 & 1.45 & \textbf{26.83} & \textbf{7.23} & \textbf{0.09} & \textbf{0.13} & \textbf{1.14} \\
V1\_03 & 72.45 & 49.15 & 0.12 & 0.14 & \textbf{3.17} & \textbf{30.31} & \textbf{12.84} & \textbf{0.06} & \textbf{0.08} & 8.40 \\
V2\_01 & 45.21 & 33.26 & 0.15 & 0.21 & \textbf{1.09} & \textbf{22.77} & \textbf{7.07} & \textbf{0.05} & \textbf{0.09} & 1.54 \\
V2\_02 & 44.14 & 13.84 & 0.11 & 0.14 & \textbf{1.13} & \textbf{12.85} & \textbf{4.35} & \textbf{0.06} & \textbf{0.10} & 1.27 \\
V2\_03 & 70.36 & 27.75 & 0.12 & 0.15 & \textbf{2.80} & \textbf{30.14} & \textbf{4.34} & \textbf{0.07} & \textbf{0.09} & 6.34 \\
\hline
MH\_01 & 25.20 & 13.34 & 0.13 & 0.19 & \textbf{2.49} & \textbf{10.01} & \textbf{5.26} & \textbf{0.06} & \textbf{0.10} & 2.52 \\
MH\_02 & \textbf{29.72} & 12.39 & 0.11 & 0.17 & \textbf{1.56} & 33.52 & \textbf{5.29} & \textbf{0.08} & \textbf{0.11} & 1.59\\
MH\_03 & 53.39 & 14.99 & 0.10 & 0.15 & 1.86 & \textbf{17.47} & \textbf{3.49} & \textbf{0.08} & \textbf{0.11} & \textbf{1.64} \\
MH\_04 & 49.22 & \textbf{10.93} & 0.11 & 0.16 & \textbf{1.18} & \textbf{10.74} & 14.65 & \textbf{0.05} & \textbf{0.08} & 2.03 \\
MH\_05 & 57.09 & 20.80 & 0.11 & 0.15 & 1.33 & \textbf{22.55} & \textbf{14.67} & \textbf{0.06} & \textbf{0.09} & \textbf{1.06} \\
\hline \\ \hline
Mean Values & 52.15 & 25.90 & 0.11 & 0.13 & \textbf{1.76} & \textbf{22.82} & \textbf{8.13} & \textbf{0.07} & \textbf{0.10} & 2.83\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\endgroup
\subsubsection{Localization results}
In Figure \ref{eurocv203}, we take sequence V2\_03 as an example to show intuitively the localization results.
It can be clearly seen that VINS-Mono trajectory diverges badly from the ground truth due to the accumulated position error and scale drift. VINS-Fusion \cite{qin2019general} performs significantly better thanks to the fusion of GNSS to eliminate accumulated errors. However, our proposed method provides the best performance. The improvement derives from more accurate initialization, as well as efficient usage of global measurements in the multi-layer estimator.
Table \ref{tab_euroc}
shows comparative results of each sequence in terms of the average translation error.
As can be seen, methods fusing GNSS are significantly more accurate than the VI only method.
Among the VI-GNSS fusion methods, the tightly-coupled one\footnote{Note that the result of \cite{2020Tightly} is directly quoted from the paper since the algorithm is not open-sourced.
We listed the result of N = 1 which is consistent with our setup.} has better performance than the loosely-coupled one (i.e., VINS-Fusion) due to the enhanced optimization from global measurements. However, it can also be sensitive to measurement noises. Our proposed method overcomes the problem using a multi-layer framework and achieves the best performance.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.42 \textwidth]{eurocv203.png}
\caption{Localization result on EuRoC V2\_03}
\label{eurocv203}
\end{figure}
\begingroup
\begin{table}[ht]
\scriptsize
\centering
\caption {Localization results on the EuRoc dataset}
\label{tab_euroc}
\setlength\tabcolsep{2.0pt}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Translation mean error (m) } \\
\cline{2-5}
{} & VI only & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{VI-GNSS } \\
\cline{2-5}
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} Seq. \\ Name \end{tabular}
& \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} VINS-Mono \end{tabular}&
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} VINS-\\Fusion \cite{qin2019general} \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} Tightly-\\coupled \cite{2020Tightly} \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} Proposed \end{tabular}
\\
\hline \hline
MH\_01 & 0.216 & 0.178 & \textbf{0.031} & 0.036 \\
MH\_02 & 0.236 & 0.060 & 0.036 & \textbf{0.026} \\
MH\_03 & 0.273 & 0.090 & 0.048 & \textbf{0.044} \\
MH\_04 & 0.191 & 0.044 & 0.068 & \textbf{0.026} \\
MH\_05 & 0.551 & 0.083 & 0.056 & \textbf{0.040} \\
V1\_01 & 0.139 & 0.048 & 0.041 & \textbf{0.035} \\
V1\_02 & 0.112 & 0.055 & 0.048 & \textbf{0.026} \\
V1\_03 & 0.259 & 0.034 & 0.068 & \textbf{0.025} \\
V2\_01 & 0.104 & 0.100 & 0.038 & \textbf{0.022} \\
V2\_02 & 0.152 & 0.048 & 0.046 & \textbf{0.033} \\
V2\_03 & 0.385 & 0.343 & 0.098 & \textbf{0.029} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\endgroup
\subsection{Outdoor experiments}
We conduct experiments
on the large-scale dataset Kaist \cite{jeong2019complex} and compare the result with VINS-Fusion.
The camera is Pointgrey Flea3 with the resolution of 1600$\times$1200 and the acquisition frequency of 10Hz. The IMU is Xsens’s MTi-300, with frequency of 100Hz. The RTK-GNSS is SOKKIA’s GRX2, with frequency of 1 Hz. Since the GNSS data has a low frequency and is not synchronized with other sensors, we linearly interpolate the GNSS data at each image frame.
The dataset also parovide ground-truth. It should be noted that, as the authors mentioned \cite{jeong2019complex}, due to the very complicated experimental scene, the ground-truth also has noise.
\subsubsection{Localization results}
The first three sequences contain typical urban scenes, and are labeled as urban\_.
The last three sequences are highway scenes, and are labeled as highway\_. The total length for urban\_ and highway\_ are 29.99km and 8.8km respectively.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.40 \textwidth]{googleearth.jpg}
\caption{Localization result on urban\_1}
\label{kaist39}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{kaist39} shows comparatively the trajectories of urban\_1.
Since VINS-Fusion does not estimate the local-global transformation in the real-time, the trajectory is produced by offline optimization. Note that the trajectory of our proposed method is generated in the online mode.
It is obvious from Figure \ref{kaist39} that
VINS-Fusion improves the trajectory smoothness in urban canyons where GNSS drift occurs. However, continuous GNSS errors (refer to the upper figures in Figure \ref{kaist39}) will reveal the limitations of accumulated scale drift in VI fusion and fragile local-global alignment in the VI-GNSS loosely-coupled framework.
Our proposed algorithm eliminates scale drift in the inner-layer using global measurement and estimates the local-global transformation more accurately in the outer-layer. The improvement ensures enhanced robustness to long-term GNSS degradation.
Figure \ref{kaist_box} shows the localization error statistics with box plots of all
sequences. Our proposed method significantly outperforms VINS-Fusion in both urban and highway scenarios.
In urban scenarios, the improvement derives from the enhanced robustness to GNSS drift, as we mentioned above. The highway scenario faces challenges in two aspects:
1) the visual features are sparse and are far away from the camera; 2) the IMU excitation is weak due to the limited speed variation. The problems therefore cause accumulated scale drift. Our proposed method fuses the GNSS velocity in the inner-layer BA to continuously correct the metric scale. As can be seen, tests on all three highway sequences achieve very high localization accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.45 \textwidth]{kaist_box.png}
\caption{Localization error distribution of Kaist dataset}
\label{kaist_box}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Application on intelligent vehicle}
We apply the proposed framework to a self-developed intelligent vehicle.
The localization platform is equipped with a monocular rolling shutter camera which costs as low as 10\$. The resolution is 1920 $\times$ 1080. The
IMU module costs 2\$, and its data frequency is 412Hz. The GNSS module costs 10\$ working under the RTK mode at 10Hz.
The sensors are synchronized using Pulse Per Second (PPS) signal.
The ground truth is obtained by post-process of a high-proformance GNSS-inertial integration device Trimble AP60.
We conducted tests on expressways and urban roads in Chaoyang District, Beijing. The total length is 36.04km.
As shown in Table
\ref{tab_asample},
the localization error reduced by 63\% compared with VINS-Fusion.
\begingroup
\begin{table}[ht]
\scriptsize
\centering
\caption {Localization error on self-developed experimental platform}
\label{tab_asample}
\setlength\tabcolsep{2.0pt}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Translation error (m) } \\
\cline{2-5}
Method.
&
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} Mean \end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} Max \end{tabular}&
90\% &
95\%
\\
\hline
GNSS& 0.52 & 32.51 & 1.34 & 1.51 \\
VINS-Fusion& 0.42 & 14.43 & 0.78 & 1.53 \\
Proposed & \textbf{0.19} & \textbf{7.51} & \textbf{0.43} & \textbf{0.86} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\endgroup
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
This paper proposes a high-precision localization method based on vision-inertial and GNSS fusion.
A novel hierarchical framework is developed to fuse various sensor information efficiently in multiple layers to achieve accurate and reliable real-time positioning.
In order to quickly obtain an accurate initial values, we also propose a numerical solution aided MAP initialization method.
Tests on indoor and outdoor datasets, as well as on our self-developed platform show that the algorithm in this paper can achieve more accurate real-time localization compared to existing algorithms in large-scale scenarios.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}
Topological materials have been studied for more than a decade
\cite{Kane2005,Bernevig2006,Hasan2010,Qi2011}
and growing interest has been directed toward the exploration of a class of topological semimetals (SMs)
\cite{Murakami2007a,Murakami2007b,Wang2012,Wang2013,Young2012,Young2015,Young2015,
Yang2014,Yi2014,Xu2015,Kargarian2016,Park2017,Doh2017,Yan2017,Armitage2018,Yang2018,Ramankutty2018,
Luo2020}
--- such as Weyl SMs (WSMs), Dirac SMs (DSMs), and nodal-line SMs (NLSMs) --- in addition with further deepening of the studies of prototypical topological insulators, for instance, on non-Hermitian topological systems,\cite{Kunst2018,Yao2018}
topological photonics,\cite{Ozawa2019}
higher-order topological insulators,
\cite{Benalcazar2017,Langbehn2017,Peng2017}
topological excitons,
\cite{Budich2014,Entina2016,Chen2017}
topological surface plasmon polaritons,
\cite{Li2014,Deshko2016}
and so on.
WSMs and DSMs are three dimensional (3D) gapless phases of materials, in which
bands cross linearly at points
protected by topology and symmetry.
There is close connection with the
chiral anomaly (the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly) in linearly dispersing fermionic
excitations in particle physics, which gives rise to the nonconservation of
an axial current even for a massless particle.
\cite{Weyl1929,Majorana1937,Gynther2011,Elliott2015,Adler1969,Bell1969,Nielsen1983}
In accord with the prediction of the chiral anomaly, large negative magnetic resistance is observed in magnetotransport in WSMs.
\cite{Son2013,Burkov2013,Burkov2014,Xiong2015}
Further, these SMs exhibit a great number of novel transport properties such as
ultra-high mobility, titanic magnetic resistance, and anomalous Hall conductivity.
\cite{Wang2013,Jeon2014,Feng2015,Liang2015,Wang2016,Son2013,Arnold2016,Huang2015,
Ali2014,Shekhar2015,Yan2017}
In NLSMs, bands cross along special lines in the Brillouin zone (BZ) in the shape of
a closed ring or a line.
Breaking of either time- reversal (T-) symmetry or spatial-inversion (I-) symmetry leads DSMs and NLSMs to WSMs.\cite{Yang2018}
In the T-breaking WSMs, there are a pair of Weyl nodes with opposite chirality,
on which a surface state is pinned with a characteristic Fermi arc, while
the number of Weyl nodes in the I-breaking WSMs is a multiple of four.
\cite{Murakami2007b,Armitage2018}
An interaction of topological SMs with a continuous-wave laser provides the studies of
topological materials with another avenue from the perspective of the quantum control of
underlying topological properties by means of built-in laser parameters --- intensity, frequency
$\omega$, and polarization --- and the exploration of topological phases
that are in non-equilibrium.
\cite{Wang2014,Taguchi2016a,Taguchi2016b,Hubener2017,Zou2016,Zhang2016,Chen2018,
Kumar2019,Zhu2020,Salerno2020,Gao2020,Kawaguchi2020,
Tokman2020,Zhang2021,Liang2021,Ma2015,Juan2017,Ghorashi2018,Umer2021a,Umer2021b}
Here, the total Hamiltonian $H(t)$ of concern at time $t$ has temporal periodicity
$H(t)=H(t+T)$ to ensure the Floquet theorem with $T=2\pi/\omega$.
\cite{Shirley1965}
By the drive with a circularly polarized laser --- in place of the application of a static intrinsic Zeeman field ---,
the T-symmetry in DSMs and NLSMs is broken to form WSMs, and these are termed as Floquet WSMs (FWSMs).
This scenario for creating FWSMs is applied to the DSMs of alkali pnictides NaBi$_3$,\cite{Hubener2017} type-II and hybrid LNSMs,\cite{Chen2018}
and
3D stacked graphene systems.\cite{Zou2016}
In particular, it is reported that the drive of a 3D Luttinger semimetal by
an elliptically polarized light leads to the coexistence of WSM phases with
double and single Weyl points, which can be tuned to be type-I or type-II.
\cite{Ghorashi2018}
Further, by virtue of Floquet engineering due to periodical driving of
hybrid multi-WSM phases, the number of various isolated band touching points
can be increased on-demand by tuning system parameters, where intricate Fermi arc structures are hosted.
\cite{Umer2021a}
In addition, NLSMs are driven to result in FWSMs, revealing
a photovoltaic anomalous Hall effect
associated with the Weyl point nodes.\cite{Taguchi2016b}
Very recently, frequency-independent magnetization mechanisms in response to
circularly polarized light are studied in WSMs.
\cite{Gao2020,Tokman2020}
As regards the I-symmetry, this is also broken by the introduction of an interaction of electron with the continuous-wave laser.
However, the time-glide I-symmetry holds correct instead to realize
the same invariance in $H(t)$ as the I-symmetry.\cite{Zhang2021,Morimoto2017}
The symmetry operation associated with this symmetry is represented by
the operation of putting time $t$ ahead by a half period $T/2$, followed by the I-operation.
In most of theoretical studies of Floquet topological materials,
\cite{Kitagawa2010,Oka2009,Zhenghao2011,Lindner2011,Rudner2013,Rechtsman2013,Claassen2017,
Kitamura2017,Hansen2017,Nakagawa2020}
an electron-light interaction is introduced exclusively by employing the Peierls phase transform
--- given by the replacement of a Bloch momentum $\boldsymbol{k}$ by $\boldsymbol{k}+\boldsymbol{A}(t)$ --- under the off-resonant condition that
$\omega \gg E_g$.
Here, $\boldsymbol{A}(t)$ and $E_g$ represent a vector potential of the laser at $t$, and
a bandgap of the concerned material, respectively, and the atomic units are used.
Further, the effective Floquet Hamiltonian is constructed by relying on the Floquet-Magnus expansion with respect to $E_g/\omega$.\cite{Mananga2011,Mananga2016,Haga2019}
It is remarked that the convergence of this expansion is not ensured
at the resonant limit of $\omega=E_g$.\cite{Haga2019}
The resulting Floquet bands are likely modified from original bands before laser irradiation.
It is assumed that under the above off-resonant condition, effects of interband electric-dipole transitions between a valence band and a conduction band
are negligibly small,
compared with those of the above-mentioned Peierls interaction. \cite{Wang2014,Hubener2017,Hansen2017}
Here, interband and intraband couplings caused by the electron-light interaction due to the
Peierls phase transform are termed as the Peierls interaction to make a distinction from the interband electric-dipole interaction.
The aim of this paper is to create a FWSM phase by driving Zn$_3$As$_2$
\cite{LinChung1969,Okamoto1992,Sieranski1994,Botha1999}
belonging to the group II-V semiconductors
with a circularly polarized laser which meets an almost on-resonant condition $\omega \approx E_g$,\cite{Lindner2011,Zhang2021} and to explore the properties of surface states hosted by this FWSM.
It is remarked that this material is topologically trivial without band inversion.
This differs from a DSM of Cd$_3$As$_2$,\cite{LinChung1969,Sieranski1994,Neupane2014,Liu2014,Crassee2018} realized
by the band-inversion mechanism due to
the presence of a $n(>2)$-fold uniaxial rotational
symmetry along a symmetry line,
hosting edge modes known as double Fermi arcs at the surfaces.
\cite{Wang2012,Wang2013,Yang2014,Kargarian2016,Armitage2018}
The creation of the FWSM is governed by an almost resonant transition due to the
interband electric-dipole interaction rather than that due to the Peierls interaction, as shown in more detail later (Sec.~\ref{sec3}).
This is the key issue of this paper.
Below, a more detailed explanation is made on this key issue
based on the four-band model of the semiconductor Zn$_3$As$_2$, where
the valence and conduction bands are labeled as $J_z=\pm3/2$ and $\pm 1/2$,
respectively, with $J_z$ as the $z$-component of total angular momentum quantum number at the $\Gamma$-point ($\boldsymbol{k}=\boldsymbol{0}$).
First, given the driving laser with a left-hand circular polarization (rotating in
counterclockwise sense with time), the coupling of this light with
an electric dipole moment induced by the transition between the down-spin bands with $J_z=-3/2$ and $-1/2$ is dominant over that between the up-spin bands
with $J_z=3/2$ and $1/2$.\cite{Allen2003}
This is maximized when the on-resonant condition is met.
It is remarked that the roles of the up-spin and down-spin bands are exchanged
for a laser with a right-hand circular polarization.
A left-hand polarization is favored throughout this paper unless otherwise stated.
Second, as the laser intensity increases, the ac-Stark effect gives rise to
larger energy splitting of each down-spin band into two leaves
with conspicuous modification of the band profile,
\cite{Zhang2021,Autler1955,Knight1980,Sie2015}
whereas the up-spin bands are just slightly affected.
The ac-Stark effect is also maximized by the on-resonant condition.
Third, the present resonant interband-transition yields real carrier excitation, differing from virtual carrier excitation due to the off-resonant one.
Thus, it is likely that orbital magnetization results from the inverse Faraday effect
that is a non-linear optical process caused by a circularly polarized laser field.
\cite{Gao2020,Kawaguchi2020,Tokman2020,Liang2021,Pershan1966,Kimel2005,Hertel2006,
Zhang2009,Battiato2014}
Consequently, it is expected that the laser drive with a circular polarization in the almost on-resonant condition provides intriguing physics with FWSMs, which is sharply distinct from the conventional
off-resonant laser drive.\cite{Wang2014,Hubener2017,Hansen2017}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec2} describes the theoretical framework,
Sec.~\ref{sec3} presents the results and discussion, and Sec.~\ref{sec4} presents the conclusion.
Further, three appendices are included.
Hereafter,
the atomic units (a.u.) are used throughout, unless otherwise stated.
\section{Theory}
\label{sec2}
\subsection{Effective Hamiltonian}
\label{sec2A}
The crystal of concern, Zn$_3$As$_2$, is a narrow gap semiconductor,
the structure of which is very similar to that of Cd$_3$As$_2$,
though in the latter, a band is inverted to result in a DSM.
\cite{LinChung1969,Sieranski1994,Neupane2014,Liu2014,Crassee2018}
There are many equilibrium phases of Zn$_3$As$_2$ depending on pressure and temperature,
for instance, $\alpha$Zn$_3$As$_2$ (with a body-centered tetragonal structure I4$_1/$cd)
and $\alpha^\prime$Zn$_3$As$_2$ (with a tetragonal structure P4$_2/$nbc).
\cite{Okamoto1992}
Here, one employs the structure of $\alpha^\prime$Zn$_3$As$_2$
having the C$_4$-rotational symmetry along the $\Gamma-$Z axis in the BZ
for constructing an effective Hamiltonian.
The low-energy electronic
properties of it are mostly determined by the conduction band composed of Zn 4$s$-orbitals
and the valence band composed of As 4$p$-orbitals.
Here, an effective electronic Hamiltonian for Zn$_3$As$_2$ is constructed by
following the Kane model used in Ref.~\onlinecite{Wang2013} for the crystal structure of
Cd$_3$As$_2$ with a tetragonal structure P4$_2/$nbc.
To be specific, one considers
the following four states as conduction $s$-states
$|\Gamma_6, J_z=\pm 1/2\rangle$ and heavy-hole $p$-states $|\Gamma_7, J_z=\pm 3/2\rangle$, and light-hole states and split-off states are disregarded
because of relatively large energy
separation from these four states at the $\Gamma$-point.
The effective Hamiltonian is read as the $4 \times 4$-matrix:
\cite{Kane1957,Luttinger1956}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})
=c(\boldsymbol{k})I+\sum_{j=3}^5 d_j(\boldsymbol{k})\gamma_j
\label{calH}
\end{equation}
with $\boldsymbol{k}=(k_x, k_y,k_z)$ as a 3D Bloch momentum.
Here, $\gamma_j$'s represent the
four-dimensional Dirac matrices for the Clifford algebra, defined by
\(
\gamma_1=\tau_x\otimes\sigma_x,\:
\gamma_2=\tau_x\otimes\sigma_y,\:
\gamma_3=\tau_x\otimes\sigma_z,\:
\gamma_4=\tau_z\otimes I_2
\), and
\(
\gamma_5=\tau_y\otimes I_2
\), where
$I$ and $I_2$ represent the $4\times 4$ and $2\times 2$ unit matrices, respectively,
$\tau_l$ and $\sigma_l$ with $l=x,\:y,\:z$ represent
the Pauli matrices for orbital and spin degrees of freedom, respectively, and
the anti-commutation relation,
\(
\{\gamma_j, \gamma_{j^\prime} \}=2\delta_{jj^\prime}
\),
is ensured.
According to the above definition of $\gamma_j$'s, it is understood that
the states of
$|\Gamma_6, J_z=1/2\rangle,\: |\Gamma_7, J_z= 3/2\rangle,\:
|\Gamma_6, J_z=-1/2\rangle$,
and
$|\Gamma_7, J_z=-3/2\rangle
$
are labeled as $1, 2, 3$, and 4, respectively,
for the matrix elements of
$\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})$, namely, $\{\mathcal{H}_{mn}(\boldsymbol{k})\}$
with $m,n=1\sim4$.
Moreover, $d_j(\boldsymbol{k})$'s are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
d_3(\boldsymbol{k})=t_{sp}\sin{(k_xd_x)}\\
d_4(\boldsymbol{k})=\Delta_g
+\sum_{l=x,y,z}\epsilon_l(k_l)\\
d_5(\boldsymbol{k})=t_{sp}\sin{(k_yd_y)}
\end{array}
\right.,
\label{dk}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_l(k_l)=-2t^{xy}\{1-\cos{(k_ld_l)}\}
\label{epsilonl0}
\end{equation}
for $l=x,y$,
and
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_z(k_z)=-2t^z\{1-\cos{(k_zd_z)}\}.
\label{epsilonz0}
\end{equation}
Here, $t^l$ represents a hopping matrix between identical bands in the $l$-direction
with $l=x,y,z$, where $t^l<0$, $t^{xy}\equiv t^x=t^y$, and
$t_{sp}$ represents a hopping matrix between different bands due to a spin-orbit coupling.
Further, $d_l$ represents a lattice constant in the $l$-direction, and
the bandgap at the $\Gamma$-point $E_g$ is given by $E_g=E_{\Gamma_6}-E_{\Gamma_7}$ with $\Delta_g=E_g/2$, where the conduction and valence band energies at $\Gamma_6$ and $\Gamma_7$
are represented as $E_{\Gamma_6}$ and $E_{\Gamma_7}$, respectively.
An additional energy $c(\boldsymbol{k})$ is given by
\begin{equation}
c(\boldsymbol{k})=E_F
+2\sum_{l=x,y,z}m^{l}\{1-\cos{(k_ld_l)}\}
\end{equation}
with $m^l$'s constants,
and the Fermi energy $E_F$ is set equal to zero: $E_F=0$.
Hence,
$E_{\Gamma_6}=c(\boldsymbol{0})+d_4(\boldsymbol{0})$ and
$E_{\Gamma_7}=c(\boldsymbol{0})-d_4(\boldsymbol{0})$.
It is assumed that the off-diagonal block matrices of $\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})$ have
little contributions to the band structure under the present tetragonal symmetry,
that is, $d_1(\boldsymbol{k}), d_2(\boldsymbol{k}) \approx0$, leading to
$[I_2 \otimes \sigma_z,\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})]\approx 0$.\cite{comment2}
Thus, $\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})$ is cast into the block-diagonal form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})
=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
h(\boldsymbol{k})& 0\\
0& h^*(-\boldsymbol{k})
\end{array}
\right),
\label{Hcal2}
\end{equation}
where
\(
h(\boldsymbol{k})=d_3(\boldsymbol{k})\tau_x+d_4(\boldsymbol{k})\tau_z
+d_5(\boldsymbol{k})\tau_y.
\)
An interaction of electron with light is introduced into $\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})$
by replacing $\boldsymbol{k}$ by $\boldsymbol{K}(t)=\boldsymbol{k}+\boldsymbol{A}(t)$, followed by adding to $\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{K}(t))$ an interband electric dipole
interaction represented by
\(
\mathcal{H}^\prime(t).
\)
\cite{comment1}
Here, the replacement by $\boldsymbol{K}(t)$ results from the Peierls phase transform
in the lattice representation of the effective Hamiltonian,
and the optical interaction arising from this replacement is herein termed as the Peierls interaction, as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec1}.
Further, the interband electric-dipole interaction is provided as
$\mathcal{H}^\prime(t)=\boldsymbol{F}(t)\cdot\boldsymbol{M}$, where
$\boldsymbol{M}$ represents a matrix of electric-dipole transition between
$|\Gamma_6, J_z=\pm 1/2\rangle$ and $|\Gamma_7, J_z=\pm 3/2\rangle$, independent of $\boldsymbol{k}$; a double sign corresponds.
The vector potential is given by
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{A}(t)=\left(
-{F_x\over \omega} \sin\omega t,{F_y\over \omega} \cos\omega t,0
\right)
\label{A}
\end{equation}
with $F_x$ and $F_y$ constants,
and in view of $\boldsymbol{F}(t)=-\dot{\boldsymbol{A}}(t)$,
the associated electric field becomes
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{F}(t)=\left(
F_x\cos\omega t,F_y\sin\omega t,0
\right).
\label{F}
\end{equation}
The laser is linearly polarized in the $x$-direction when $F_x\not=0$ and
$F_y=0$,
while left-hand circularly polarized in the $x-y$ plane
when $F_x$ is set equal to $F_y$, namely,
$F_c\equiv F_x=F_y$.
The time-dependent effective Hamiltonian of the driven semiconductor is thus read as
\cite{comment1}
\begin{equation}
H(\boldsymbol{k},t)=C(\boldsymbol{k},t)I
+\sum_{j=3}^5D_j(\boldsymbol{k},t)\gamma_j
+\mathcal{H}^\prime(t),
\label{H}
\end{equation}
where
$C(\boldsymbol{k},t)\equiv c(\boldsymbol{K}(t))$ and
$D_j(\boldsymbol{k},t)\equiv d_j(\boldsymbol{K}(t))$.
Obviously, this Hamiltonian ensures the temporal periodicity, $H(\boldsymbol{k},t+T)=H(\boldsymbol{k},t)$
with $T=2\pi/\omega$, and the system of concern follows the Floquet theorem.\cite{Shirley1965}
Thus, the present time-dependent problem ends up with the following Floquet eigenvalue problem as:
\begin{equation}
L(\boldsymbol{k},t)\Psi_\alpha(t)=E_\alpha(\boldsymbol{k})\Psi_\alpha(t),
\label{Floquet}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
L(\boldsymbol{k},t)=H(\boldsymbol{k},t)-iI{\partial\over \partial t},
\label{L}
\end{equation}
$E_\alpha(\boldsymbol{k})$ represents the $\alpha$th eigenvalue termed a quasienergy
or a Floquet energy, and $\Psi_\alpha(t)$ represents the associated eigenvector ensuring
the temporal periodicity,
$\Psi_\alpha(t+T)=\Psi_\alpha(t)$.
In actual calculations, a set of $E_\alpha(\boldsymbol{k})$'s are
obtained by numerically solving Eq.~(\ref{Floquet}) in the $\omega$-domain,
where the Floquet matrix $L(\boldsymbol{k},t)$ is recast into
a Fourier-Floquet matrix element
$\tilde{L}_{nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)$
with respect to $n$ and $n^\prime$ photon states.\cite{Shirley1965}
This is read as
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{L}_{nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)
&=&
\tilde{C}_{nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)I
+\sum_{j=3}^5 \tilde{D}_{j,nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)\gamma_j
\nonumber\\
&&
+\tilde{\mathcal{H}^\prime}_{nn^\prime}(\omega)
+n\omega I\delta_{nn^\prime},
\label{Ltilde}
\end{eqnarray}
where it is understood that the Fourier transform of matrix $X(t)$ is represented by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{X}_{nn^\prime}(\omega)=
{1\over T}\int^T_0 dt\:e^{-i(n-n^\prime)\omega t}X(t).
\end{equation}
In addition, it is remarked that in fact, $\tilde{C}_{nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)$
is less dependent on the set of photon numbers, $n$ and $n^\prime$, and
almost identical to $c(\boldsymbol{k})$.
Hence, hereafter, it is understood that $E_\alpha(\boldsymbol{k})$'s are reckoned from
$c(\boldsymbol{k})$; in other words, the effect of $c(\boldsymbol{k})$
on $E_\alpha(\boldsymbol{k})$'s is neglected.
Explicit expressions of $\tilde{D}_{j,nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)\;\;(j=3\sim5)$
are given in Appendix~\ref{app1}.
\subsection{Electric dipole couplings}
\label{sec2B}
It is convenient to describe an explicit form of $\mathcal{H}^\prime(t)$.
This is provided as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}^\prime(t)
=(\Omega_y\sin{\omega t})\tau_x\otimes I_2
+(\Omega_x\cos{\omega t}) \tau_y\otimes \sigma_z,
\label{Hprime}
\end{equation}
where
$\Omega_x=F_xP/\sqrt{2}$ and $\Omega_y=F_yP/\sqrt{2}$.
Here, $P$ is a dipole matrix element given by
$P=\langle S|x|X\rangle =\langle S|y|Y\rangle$,
where
$x$ and $y$ represent the $x$ and $y$ components of electron position $\boldsymbol{r}$,
respectively,
and the states of
$|\Gamma_6, J_z=\pm 1/2\rangle$ and $|\Gamma_7, J_z=\pm 3/2\rangle$ are
represented by
$|\Gamma_6, J_z=\pm 1/2\rangle=i|S\rangle$
and
$|\Gamma_7, J_z=\pm 3/2\rangle=\pm(1/\sqrt{2})|X\pm i Y\rangle$,
respectively,
in terms of $s, p_x$, and $p_y$ states denoted as
$|S\rangle, |X\rangle$, and $|Y\rangle$, respectively.
Similar to Eq.~(\ref{Hcal2}), $\mathcal{H}^\prime(t)$ is block-diagonalized
as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}^\prime(t)
=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
V^{(+)}(t)& 0\\
0& V^{(-)}(t)
\end{array}
\right),
\label{V}
\end{equation}
where
$V^{(+)}(t)$ and $V^{(-)}(t)$ represent the electric dipole couplings
between the up-spin bands,
$|\Gamma_6, J_z=1/2\rangle$ and $|\Gamma_7, J_z= 3/2\rangle$,
and the down-spin bands, $|\Gamma_6, J_z=-1/2\rangle$ and $|\Gamma_7, J_z= -3/2\rangle$,
respectively, given by
\begin{equation}
V^{(\pm)}(t)
=(\Omega_y\sin{\omega t}) \tau_x
\pm(\Omega_x\cos{\omega t}) \tau_y,
\label{V+-}
\end{equation}
where a double sigh corresponds.
The Fourier transform of $V^{(\pm)}(t)$ into the $\omega$-domein is given in Appendic~\ref{app1}.
In view of Eqs.~(\ref{H}) and (\ref{V}),
$H(\boldsymbol{k},t)$ is cast into the block-diagonalized form:
\begin{equation}
H(\boldsymbol{k},t)
=C(\boldsymbol{k},t)I
+\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
H^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k},t)& 0\\
0& H^{(-)}(\boldsymbol{k},t)
\end{array}
\right),
\label{H2}
\end{equation}
that is,
$[I_2 \otimes \sigma_z,H(\boldsymbol{k},t)]=0$.
Here, the up-spin Hamiltonian $H^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k},t)$ and
the down-spin Hamiltonian $H^{(-)}(\boldsymbol{k},t)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k},t)&=&
\left[
\pm D_3(\boldsymbol{k},t)+\Omega_y\sin{\omega t}
\right]\tau_x
+D_4(\boldsymbol{k},t)\tau_z \nonumber\\
&&
+
\left[
D_5(\boldsymbol{k},t)\pm\Omega_x\cos{\omega t}
\right]\tau_y.
\label{H+-}
\end{eqnarray}
The expression of Eq.~(\ref{V+-}) implies that in general, an optical dipole interaction between up-spin
bands
is different from that between down-spin
bands.
To be specific, for a linearly polarized light,
\begin{equation}
V^{(\pm)}(t)=
\pm(\Omega_x\cos{\omega t})\tau_y
=
\pm\Omega_x\cos{\omega t}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0&-i\\
i&0
\end{array}
\right)
\label{Vlin}
\end{equation}
with $\Omega_y=0$,
and $V^{(+)}(t)$ is identical to $V^{(-)}(t)$
aside from an unimportant phase factor $\mp i$.
On the other hand,
for a left-hand circularly polarized light,
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{(\pm)}(t)&=&
\Omega_c
\left[
(\sin{\omega t})\tau_x
\pm
(\cos{\omega t})\tau_y
\right]
\nonumber\\
&=&
\mp i\Omega_c
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0&e^{\pm i\omega t}\\
-e^{\mp i\omega t}&0
\end{array}
\right)
\label{Vcir}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\Omega_c\equiv\Omega_x=\Omega_y$,
and $V^{(+)}(t)$ and $V^{(-)}(t)$ are different from each other.
In particular, this distinction stands out for a linear optical transition,
for instance, from the valence band at $\Gamma_7$ to
the conduction band at $\Gamma_6$.
In view of the matrix element $V^{(\pm)}_{12}(t)$ of Eq.~(\ref{Vcir}),
the transition amplitudes of the photoabsorption between the up-spin bands, represented as
$a^{(+)}$, and that between the down-spin bands, represented as
$a^{(-)}$,
are given by
\begin{equation}
a^{(\pm)}=\mp i\Omega_c\int^\infty_{-\infty} dt\: e^{i(E_{\Gamma_6}-E_{\Gamma_7}\pm\omega)t}
\propto \delta(E_g\pm\omega)
\end{equation}
with $E_g=E_{\Gamma_6}-E_{\Gamma_7}>0$.
It is evident that
the transition between the up-spin bands is forbidden, namely, $a^{(+)}=0$,
while that between the down-spin
bands is allowed, namely, $a^{(-)}\not=0$,
because of the energy conservation $\omega=E_g$.
Incidentally, as regards the related photoemission,
in view of the matrix element $V^{(\pm)}_{21}(t)$,
the transition amplitudes of it are given by
\begin{equation}
b^{(\pm)}=\pm i\Omega_c\int^\infty_{-\infty} dt\: e^{i(E_{\Gamma_7}-E_{\Gamma_6}\mp\omega)t}
\propto \delta(E_g\pm\omega),
\end{equation}
and the same discussion as the photoabsorption is applicable;
$b^{(+)}=0$ and $b^{(-)}\not=0$.
As long as $\omega \approx E_g$,
these results almost hold correct in non-linear optical processes
including strongly photoinduced processes,
though the contribution from up-spin bands does not vanish because
the energy conservation is not required in virtual states.
In other words, the effect of $V^{(-)}(t)$ is dominant over that of
$V^{(+)}(t)$.
This is one of the key issues in this paper, as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec1}.
In contrast, as regards off-resonant cases that $\omega \gg E_g$ or $\omega \ll E_g$,
$V^{(+)}(t)$ and $V^{(-)}(t)$ would have almost equal, however, vanishingly small contributions
to optical processes, as long as
$ |E_g-\omega|\gg 2\Omega_c$;
for more detail, see Eq.~(\ref{bandsn}) or (\ref{bandpn}) to be shown later.
\subsection{Symmetries}
\label{sec2C}
It is evident that
both T- and I-symmetries are conserved in $\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})$,
that is,
\(
\Theta^{-1}\: \mathcal{H}(-\boldsymbol{k}) \Theta=\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})
\), and
\(
\Pi^{-1}\: \mathcal{H}(-\boldsymbol{k}) \Pi=\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})
\),
where $\Theta$ and $\Pi$ represent the T- and I-operators, defined by
$\Theta=-iI_2\otimes \sigma_y K$ and $\Pi=\tau_z\otimes I_2$, respectively, where
$K$ means an operation of taking complex conjugate.
Further,
the T-symmetry is still respected in $H(\boldsymbol{k},t)$ for a linearly polarized light,
that is,
\(
\Theta^{-1} H(-\boldsymbol{k},-t) \Theta=H(\boldsymbol{k}, t)
\),
and thus, a pair of up-spin and down-spin Floquet bands forms Kramers degeneracy.
On the other hand,
the T-symmetry is broken for a circularly polarized light,
that is,
\(
\Theta^{-1} H(-\boldsymbol{k},-t) \Theta\not=H(\boldsymbol{k}, t)
\).
As regards the I-symmetry, this is broken,
that is,
\(
\Pi^{-1} H(-\boldsymbol{k},t) \Pi\not =H(\boldsymbol{k},t)
\),
because
$D_j(-\boldsymbol{k},t) \not=-D_j(\boldsymbol{k},t)$ for $j=$3 and 5, $D_4(-\boldsymbol{k},t) \not=D_4(\boldsymbol{k},t)$,
and
$\Pi^{-1} \mathcal{H}^\prime(t) \Pi\not =\mathcal{H}^\prime(t)$.
In fact, it is shown that in terms of an operator defined as
$\tilde{\Pi}=\Pi \mathcal{T}_{1/2}$, the symmetry
\(
\tilde{\Pi}^{-1} H(-\boldsymbol{k},t+T/2) \tilde{\Pi}=H(\boldsymbol{k},t)
\)
is retrieved,
where $\mathcal{T}_{1/2}$ represents the operation of putting $t$ ahead by a half period $T/2$,
namely, the replacement of $t \rightarrow t+T/2$.\cite{Zhang2021,Morimoto2017}
This is the time-glide $I$-operator mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec1}.
Therefore, despite the breaking of the I-symmetry,
a Floquet band disperses in a symmetric manner with respect to $\boldsymbol{k}$, namely, $E_\alpha(\boldsymbol{k})=E_\alpha(-\boldsymbol{k})$.
For a linearly polarized light,
it is still probable that a four-fold band crossing occurs at the high-symmetry points,
namely, the time-reversal invariant momenta.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\label{sec3}
In the actual calculations, the following material parameters\cite{Wang2012,Wang2013} and laser parameters are employed as:
$E_g=0.0169\: (0.46 \:\text{eV}), \omega=0.0147\: (0.4 \:\text{eV}), d_x=d_y=5.67\: (3\text{\AA}), d_z=9.44\: (5\text{\AA}), t^{xy}=-0.0018, t^z=-0.0074, t_{sp}=0.0037,
F_x=F_c=0.0003\:(1.54\:\text{MV/cm})$, and $P=25.9$.
Further, the maximum
number of photons $(N_p)$ incorporated in the calculations is set to be three to reach numerical convergence, that is, $n,n^\prime=-N_p\sim N_p$ for the Fourier-Floquet matrix $\tilde{L}_{nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)$.
Based on these numerical parameters, one evaluates the degree of magnitude of effects due to the Peierls interaction.
These contributions are determined in terms of factors given by
the $n$th-order Bessel function of the first kind $J_n(z_l)$ that is included in
$\tilde{D}_{j,nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)\;(j=3\sim 5)$ of
Eqs.~({\ref{appD3})-(\ref{appD5}) with
$z_l \equiv F_ld_l/\omega\;(l=x,y)$.
For $z_l=0.116$, one obtains that $J_0(z_l)-1=-0.0034, J_1(z_l)=0.056$, and $J_2(z_l)=0.0017$, implying that the hopping matrices of $t^l$ and $t_{sp}$ are modified
just by the order of $10^{-2}\sim 10^{-3}$ by the Peierls interaction.
Thus, it is stated that in the system of concern, this interaction plays a less significant role
than the interband electric-dipole interaction.
\subsection{Qualitative Understanding of Band Structures}
\label{sec3A}
It is preferable to show an overall Floquet band structure in the present system
in a qualitative manner prior to the discussion of rather complicated numerical results.
Here, a Floquet state $\alpha$ attributed to a $b$-band dressed with $n$ photons is
denoted as $b(n)$ with $b=e,hh$,
where the bands $e$ and $hh$ represent the $s$ and heavy-hole $p$ orbitals, respectively.
Below, one seeks approximate Floquet bands represented
in an analytic closed form in a two-step manner.
First, based on a two-band model incorporating $e(n-1)$ and $hh(n)$ for each spin state,
one seeks expressions of hybridized bands of states $e(n-1)$
for up- and down-spins, represented as
$\mathcal{E}^{(+)}_{e(n-1)}$ and $\mathcal{E}^{(-)}_{e(n-1)}$,
respectively.
Here, the ac-Stark effect with a Rabi frequency $\Omega_l$ is incorporated by employing the
rotational-wave approximation.
Similarly, the coupling between $e(n)$ and $hh(n+1)$ for each spin state
results in expressions of hybridized bands of states $hh(n+1)$
for up- and down-spins, represented as
$\mathcal{E}^{(+)}_{hh(n+1)}$ and $\mathcal{E}^{(-)}_{hh(n+1)}$,
respectively.
Second, by introducing the residual spin-orbit interaction between
$\mathcal{E}^{(\pm)}_{e(n-1)}$ and $\mathcal{E}^{(\pm)}_{hh(n+1)}$ bands,
one obtains the desired expressions of hybridized Floquet bands represented by
$E^{(\pm)}_{e(n-1)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ and $E^{(\pm)}_{hh(n+1)}(\boldsymbol{k})$:
a double sign corresponds.
For more detail of the derivation, consult Appendices~\ref{app2-1}-\ref{app2-3}.
In the case that the band $hh(n+1)$ is located above the band $e(h-1)$,
the resulting energy, represented by $E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})$,
is cast into
$E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})=E^{(\pm)}_{hh(n+1)}(\boldsymbol{k}) \ge n\omega$
and $E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})=E^{(\pm)}_{e(n-1)}(\boldsymbol{k}) \le n\omega$,
the expressions of which are
given by Eqs.~(\ref{Ebeta}) and (\ref{E0beta}), respectively.
To avoid unnecessary complication in these expressions,
the approximations that
$J_0(z_l)\approx 1$ and $J_{n(\not=0)}(z_l)\approx 0$ are made.
Thus, these are read as
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{(\pm)}_{e(n-1)}(\boldsymbol{k})
&\approx&-\left[\left\{
\omega/2
-\left(\eta(\boldsymbol{k})^2+|\mathcal{W}_0^{(\pm)}|^2
\right)^{1/2}
\right\}^2
\right.\nonumber\\
&&
\left.
+|\mathcal{V}_0^{(\pm)}|^2
\right]^{1/2}+n\omega,
\label{bandsn}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{(\pm)}_{hh(n+1)}(\boldsymbol{k})
&\approx&\left[\left\{
\omega/2
-\left(\eta(\boldsymbol{k})^2+|\mathcal{W}_0^{(\pm)}|^2
\right)^{1/2}
\right\}^2
\right.\nonumber\\
&&
\left.
+|\mathcal{V}_0^{(\pm)}|^2
\right]^{1/2}+n\omega,
\label{bandpn}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\eta(\boldsymbol{k})=d_4(\boldsymbol{k})-{\omega\over 2},
\end{equation}
and $d_4(\boldsymbol{k})$ is given in Eq.~(\ref{dk}).
Further,
$\mathcal{W}_0^{(+)}=[\mathcal{W}_0^{(-)}]^*=-i\Omega_x/2$ for the linearly polarized light, while
$\mathcal{W}_0^{(+)}= 0$ and $\mathcal{W}_0^{(-)}= i\Omega_c$ for the circularly polarized light.
Defining $\mathcal{V}_0^{\pm)}$ as an approximation expression of $\mathcal{V}^{(\pm)}$
of Eq.~(\ref{mathcalV2})
in view of the above approximations, one has
\begin{equation}
|\mathcal{V}_0^{(\pm)}|=t_{sp}\sigma^{(\pm)}\sqrt{\sin^2{(k_xd_x)}+\sin^2{(k_yd_y)}},
\end{equation}
where the prefactor $\sigma^{(\pm)}$ depending on the polarization of light
is given by Eq.~(\ref{sigma+-}).
In Eqs.~(\ref{bandsn}) and (\ref{bandpn}), $\mathcal{V}_0^{(\pm)}$ is attributed to
$\mathcal{D}_3(\boldsymbol{k},t)$ and $\mathcal{D}_5(\boldsymbol{k},t)$ in Eq.~(\ref{H}),
while $\mathcal{W}_0^{(\pm)}$ is attributed to
$\mathcal{H}^\prime(t)$.
Hereafter, it is understood that in the opposite case that $hh(n+1)$ is located
below $e(h-1)$, the subscript of $e(n-1)$ is replaced by that of $hh(n+1)$ in the above
equations, that is,
$E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})=E^{(\pm)}_{hh(n+1)}(\boldsymbol{k}) \le n\omega$
and $E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})=E^{(\pm)}_{e(n-1)}(\boldsymbol{k}) \ge n\omega$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Figure1.png}
\caption{The scheme of the surface state formation.
(a) In the FDSM arising from the drive of linearly polarized laser,
this phase hosts
non-trivial surface states with up-spin (red) and down-spin (blue) that are pinned to
a pair of surface Dirac nodes at $k_z=\pm k_z^{D(\pm)}$.
(Here, $k_z^{D(\pm)}$ is replaced by the notation of $k_z^{D}$
just for the sake of simplicity.)
(b) In the FWSM arising from the drive of left-hand circularly polarized laser,
due to the breaking of the T-symmetry, the Dirac nodes of the above FDSM are split into a pair of Weyl nodes,
and each FWSM phase hosts a non-trivial surface state.
One surface state (red) is characteristic of an up-spin band and
is pinned to a pair of surface Dirac nodes at $k_z=\pm k_z^{(+)}$.
The other state (blue) is characteristic of a down-spin band and
is pinned to a pair of surface Dirac nodes at $k_z=\pm k_z^{(-)}$.
(Here, $k_z^{W(\pm)}$ is replaced by the notation of $k_z^{(\pm)}$
just for the sake of simplicity.)
For more detail, consult the text.}
\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Now, one examines the possibility of creating Dirac nodal points on the $k_z$-axis that result from band inversion for the irradiation of the linearly polarized light.
It is likely that the band $e(n-1)$ crosses the band $hh(n^\prime+1)$ for $n =n^\prime$
at $\boldsymbol{k}=(0,0,k_z)$
when
$E_{e(n-1)}(\boldsymbol{k})=E_{hh(n+1)}(\boldsymbol{k})$.
Here, one takes account of the pair of Floquet bands of
$e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$.
These bands are enabled to be inverted to form
a pair of Dirac nodes at the positions $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{D(\pm)}\equiv \pm (0,0,k_z^{D(\pm)})$ subject to the equation
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_z(k_z^{D(\pm)})={1\over 2}\left[
\omega-E_{g}+
\sqrt{\omega^2-\Omega_x^2}
\right]
\label{Dirac}
\end{equation}
in terms of $\epsilon_z(k_z)$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{epsilonz0})
under the condition that
\begin{equation}
\omega_1^D<\omega<\omega_2^D,
\label{cond}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\omega_1^D
=\text{Max}\left( \Omega_x,
\frac{\Delta^{2}_g+(\Omega_x/2)^2}
{\Delta_g}
\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\omega_2^D
=
\frac{(\Delta_g-4t^z)^2+(\Omega_x/2)^2}
{\Delta_g-4t^z}.
\end{equation}
For more accurate expressions than Eqs.~(\ref{Dirac}) and (\ref{cond}), consult Eqs.~(\ref{node}) and (\ref{nodecond}), respectively.
The existence of these nodes exhibits the manifestation of the Floquet DSM (FDSM) phases
in the original crystal of Zn$_3$As$_2$ that is in a topologically trivial phase.
Due to the T-symmetry in addition with the time-glide I-symmetry,
the up-spin and down-spin bands for the states $e(-1)$
and $hh(1)$ are doubly degenerate, that is,
$E^{(+)}_{e(-1)}(\boldsymbol{k})=E^{(-)}_{e(-1)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ and
$E^{(+)}_{hh(1)}(\boldsymbol{k})=E^{(-)}_{hh(1)}(\boldsymbol{k})$, and the above Dirac nodes are four-fold degenerate, namely, $k_z^{D(+)}=k_z^{D(-)}$.
Thus, it is considered that the FDSM carries Chern number zero and is not topologically protected.\cite{Armitage2018}
In addition, as shown in Eq.~(\ref{Dcone}),
$E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})\ge0$ forms
an upper part of the Dirac cone (linear dispersion) in the vicinity of $\boldsymbol{k}=
\boldsymbol{k}^{D(\pm)}$, that is,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})\nonumber\\
&&\approx
\left[
\sum_{l=x,y,}(\xi^D_l)^2(k_ld_l)^2+(\xi^D_z)^2(\Delta k_zd_z)^2
\right]^{1/2},
\label{Dcone0}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\Delta k_z=k_z- k_z^{(D(\pm)}$, and the constants of
$\xi^D_x=\xi^D_y$ and $\xi^D_z$ are given right below
Eq.~(\ref{Dcone}).
Further, in the similar manner to DSMs created by the band inversion mechanism
in stationary systems such as Cd$_3$As$_2$ and Na$_3$Bi,\cite{Wang2012,Wang2013,Yang2014,Kargarian2016,Armitage2018}
two-dimensional (2D) nontrivial surface states are also expected in the FDSM phase.
As shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(a),
these surface states are composed of up-spin and down-spin states forming a Kramers pair,
each energy band of which is attached to the same pair of the Dirac nodes that are projected
to the surface 2D-BZ; hereafter, these projected Dirac nodes are termed as surface Dirac nodes or surface Dirac points.
The intersection of the Fermi energy with these two leaves of surface bands
would result in the formation of double Fermi arcs,
supposing that the whole of carriers are occupied just below $E_F$
in disregard of the non-equilibrium system
of concern.
Next, as regards the circularly polarized laser drive,
the T-symmetry is broken to lift the two-fold degeneracy between up-spin and down-spin bands.
Thus, the four-fold degeneracy at the Dirac nodes (at $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{D(\pm)}$) are also lifted to be split into two pairs of Weyl nodes
residing at $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}\equiv \pm (0,0,k_z^{W(-)})$ and
$\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}\equiv \pm (0,0,k_z^{W(+)})$;
a double sign corresponds.
The nodal momentum $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}$ is attributed to the down-spin Floquet band,
and its location is subject to the similar equation as
Eq.~(\ref{Dirac}),
aside from the replacement of $\Omega_x$ by $2\Omega_c$,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_z(k_z^{W(-)})={1\over 2}\left[
\omega-E_{g}+
\sqrt{\omega^2-4\Omega_c^2}
\right]
\label{Weyl-}
\end{equation}
under the condition that
\begin{equation}
\omega_1^{W(-)}<\omega<\omega_2^{W(-)},
\label{cond-}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\omega_1^{W(-)}
=\text{Max}\left( 2\Omega_c,
\frac{\Delta^{2}_g+\Omega_c^2}
{\Delta_g}
\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\omega_2^{W(-)}
=
\frac{(\Delta_g-4t^z)^2+\Omega_c^2}
{\Delta_g-4t^z}.
\end{equation}
Here the ac-Stark effect plays a key role.
On the other hand,
the nodal momentum $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}$ is attributed to the up-spin Floquet band,
and its location is subject to the equation
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_z(k_z^{W(+)})=\omega-\Delta_{g}
\label{Weyl+}
\end{equation}
under the condition that
\begin{equation}
\omega_1^{W(+)}<\omega<\omega_2^{W(+)},
\label{cond+}
\end{equation}
where
$
\omega_1^{W(+)}=\Delta_{g}
$
and
$
\omega_2^{W(+)}=\Delta_{g}-4t^z.
$
Here, in contrast, the ac-Stark effect is less significant because
the optical interaction given by $V^{(+)}(t)$ of Eq.~(\ref{Vcir})
has negligibly small contributions in the case of $\omega\approx E_g$;
consult Sec.~\ref{sec2B}.
Thus, it is obvious that $k_z^{W(+)}>k_z^{D(\pm)}>k_z^{W(-)}$;
based on Eqs.~(\ref{Dirac}), (\ref{Weyl-}) and (\ref{Weyl+}), approximate values of $k_z^{W(+)}$, $k_z^{D(\pm)}$, and $k_z^{W(-)}$
are estimated as
$k_z^{W(+)}=0.956/d_z, k_z^{D(\pm)}=0.910/d_z$, and $k_z^{W(-)}=0.732/d_z$, respectively.
In addition, as shown in Eq.~(\ref{W-cone}),
$E^{(-)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ forms an upper part of
the Weyl cone (linear dispersion) in the vicinity of $\boldsymbol{k}=
\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}$, that is,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E^{(-)}(\boldsymbol{k})\nonumber\\
&&\approx
\left[
\sum_{l=x,y,}(\xi^W_l)^2(k_ld_l)^2+(\xi^W_z)^2(\Delta k_zd_z)^2
\right]^{1/2},
\label{W-cone0}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\Delta k_z=k_z- k_z^{(W(-)}$, and the constants of
$\xi^W_x=\xi^W_y$ and $\xi^W_z$ are given right below
Eq.~(\ref{W-cone}).
On the other hand,
as shown in Eq.~(\ref{W+cone}), in contrast wth $E^{(-)}(\boldsymbol{k})$,
$E^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ forms a quadratic dispersion with respect to $k_x$ and $k_y$ and a linear dispersion with respect to $\Delta k_z$ in the vicinity of $\boldsymbol{k}=
\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}$, that is,
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k}
\approx
\left|
(-t^{xy})\sum_{l=x,y}(k_ld_l)^2
+\eta_z^{(1)}(\Delta k_zd_z)
\right|
\label{W+cone0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta k_z=k_z-k_z^{W(+)}$, and
$\eta^{(1)}_z=-2t^z\sin{(k_z^{W(+)}d_z)}$.
Here, a term of linear dispersion represented by
$\sum_{l=x,y}\nu_l^{(+)}(k_ld_l)$ is considered negligibly small, because the expansion coefficient is given by $|\nu_l^{(+)}|=t_{sp}[t_{sp}J_1(z_c)/(2\eta(\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}))]^2$
due to the reduction of the spin-orbit interaction by the Peierls interaction by a factor of
the order of $J_1(z_c)$;
see also the explanation below Eq.~(\ref{W+cone}).
Further, the FWSM
band structure $E^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ in the vicinity of the $k_x-k_y$ plane
$(k_z=0)$ is examined.
Following Eq.~(\ref{bandpn}) for $d_4(\boldsymbol{k})>\omega/2$,
this is represented simply as
\begin{equation}
E^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\approx \omega-d_4(\boldsymbol{k})
\end{equation}
within the order of $t_{sp}J_1(z_c)\approx 0$
due again to the reduction of $t_{sp}$ by the Peierls interaction.
Thus, there is a closed ring in the $k_x-k_y$ plane $(k_z=0)$ on which
$E^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k})\approx 0$; the locus of this ring is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-2t^{xy}\sum_{l=x,y}[1-\cos{(k_ld_l)}]=\omega-\Delta_g >0.
\label{ring}
\end{eqnarray}
As regards the FWSM of the down-spin state, an effect of $\Omega_c$ causes
a gap to open between
$E^{(-)}_{hh(1)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ and
$E^{(-)}_{e(-1)}(\boldsymbol{k})$
in this plane.
Consult Eq.~(\ref{closedsurf}) and the related discussion in Appendix~\ref{app2-3}
on the closed ring formation in the $k_x-k_y$ plane $(k_z\not=0)$ and the
origin of the difference between the up- and down-spin states.
Given the relation between Dirac points and Weyl points in stationary systems,
the surface Dirac point in the FDSM is regarded as
the stable merger of two Weyl points in the FWSM
that have different handedness and are projected to the same surface momentum.
Hereafter, these Weyl points are termed as surface Weyl nodes or surface Weyl points.
Due to the breaking of the T-symmetry and the resulting splitting of the Dirac node
into of the pair of Weyl nodes,
the associated energy bands of the two surfaces with different spin states are pinned to
different surface Weyl points,
as shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(b).
That is,
the surface band characteristic of up-spin/down-spin state is pinned to the surface Weyl point
projected from the bulk Weyl points at $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}/\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}$.
Further, it is considered that the energy gap $\mathcal{E}_g^{(+)}$ arising from the hybridization between the up-spin Floquet bands $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ are largely
different from the energy gap $\mathcal{E}_g^{(-)}$ attributed to the down-spin bands
mostly due to the difference of magnitude between $V^{(+)}(t)$
and $V^{(-)}(t)$; to be more specific, $\mathcal{E}_g^{(+)} \ll \mathcal{E}_g^{(-)}$.
Such difference is straightforward reflected on the band gaps projected to the surface BZ;
see Fig.~\ref{fig1}(b).
Therefore, it is speculated that the most parts of down-spin surface band are energetically
separated from the up-spin surface band; for more detail, consult Sec.~\ref{sec3C}.
\subsection{Floquet Band Structures of FDSM and FWSM}
\label{sec3B}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Figure2N_New.png}
\caption{Band structures of FDSM and FWSM.
(a) The calculated band structure of FDSM with the drive of a
linearly polarized laser.
Inset: Expanded view of the band structure in the vicinity of the anticrossing along the
$\Gamma$-X line.
(b) The calculated band structure of FWSM with the drive of a left-hand
circularly polarized laser.
(c) Expanded view of panel (b) in the vicinity of the band crossing along the $\Gamma$-Z line
with specification of the Weyl nodes at $k_z^{(+)}$ and $k_z^{(-)}$;
these are the abbreviation of $k_z^{W(+)}$ and $k_z^{W(-)}$, respectively.
In panels (a), (b), and (c), bands dominated rather by the $s/p$-orbital component are denoted
by a red/blue solid line.
(d) The bulk BZ of the crystal Zn$_3$As$_2$.
}
\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig2}(a) and \ref{fig2}(b) show the calculated Floquet band structures of FDSM and FWSM,
respectively, for the crystal structure of Zn$_3$As$_2$ given in Fig.~\ref{fig2}(d).
In Fig.~\ref{fig2}(a), it is found that there is a Dirac node along the $\Gamma$-Z line
at $k_z^{D(\pm)}$
in addition with anticrossings
along the lines of $\Gamma$-X and $\Gamma$-M
with energy differences of approximately 3 and 30 meV, respectively.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}(b), the two-fold degeneracy confirmed in panel (a) is lifted to
result in energy splitting between the up-spin and down-spin bands.
It is noted that a pair of Weyl nodes emerges along the $\Gamma$-Z line
at different $k_z$'s following $k_z^{W(-)} < k_z^{W(+)}$, as shown in the enlarged view of
Fig.~\ref{fig2}(c).
As regards the up-spin bands, the anticrossing along the line of $\Gamma$-M
is largely reduced
from that in panel (a) to approximately 0.4 meV, while the energy difference along the line of
$\Gamma$-X is almost the same as 2 meV.
In contrast, as regards the down-spin bands, the energy differences of anticrossings
along the lines of $\Gamma$-X is largely enhanced from that in panel (a) to
approximately 23 meV, while that along the line of
$\Gamma$-M is slightly changed to approximately 20 meV.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{Figure3N.png}
\caption{Energy dispersions $E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ of up-spin and down-spin bands at $k_z=0$
and in the vicinity of the Weyl points.
The axis of abscissa $k_l$ is gauged in the unit of $1/d_l$ with $l=x,y,z$.
Here, $E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ is simply represented as
$E(\boldsymbol{k})$, and bands dominated rather by the $s/p$-orbital component are denoted
by a red/blue solid line.
(a) $E(\boldsymbol{k})$ in the $k_x-k_y$ plane at $k_z=0$ for the up-spin bands.
(b) The same as panel (a) but for the down-spin bands.
(c) $E(\boldsymbol{k})$ as a function of $k_x$ with $k_y=0$ in the vicinity of the Weyl point $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}$ for the up-spin bands.
(d) The same as panel (c) but in the vicinity of the Weyl point $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}$
for the down-spin bands.
(e) $E(\boldsymbol{k})$ as a function of $k_z$ with $k_x=k_y=0$
for the up-spin bands with the Weyl points $\pm k_z^{W(+)}=\pm 0.887/d_z$.
(f) The same as panel (e) but for the down-spin bands with
the Weyl points $\pm k_z^{W(-)}=\pm 0.775/d_z$.
}
\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig3}(a) and \ref{fig3}(b)
show the energy dispersions of the up-spin and down-spin bands at
$k_z=0$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig3}(a), the up-spin band structure is reminiscent of a NLSM phase
with a nodal ring on the $k_x-k_y$ plane; see also the enlarged figure of it given in Appendix~\ref{app3}.
According to the analytic model developed in Sec.~\ref{sec3A},
the locus of the ring is approximately represented as Eq.~(\ref{ring}).
In fact, this ring is slightly blurred at most by $\mathcal{E}_g^{(+)}\approx 2$ meV
around $E=0$
that corresponds to the above-mentioned energy difference
along the line of $\Gamma$-X.
On the other hand, it is obviously seen in Fig.~\ref{fig3}(b)
that the down-spin band is gapped by the order of $\mathcal{E}_g^{(-)}\approx 20$ meV
due to the relatively strong anticrossing between $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$; see also the enlarged figure of it given in Appendix~\ref{app3}.
The definite contrast in the energy dispersions between up-spin and down-spin bands
seen in Figs.~\ref{fig3}(a) and \ref{fig3}(b)
is caused by the different manner of couplings between the Floquet states of
$e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$.
It is noted that the leading contribution arises from a two-photon coupling
between $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$,
because the difference of
the photon number of these Floquet bands equals two.
This coupling is given by a successive interaction composed of the coupling
due to $\tilde{D}_{4,nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)$ and
one of the three terms, $\tilde{D}_{j,nn^\prime}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega), (j=3, 5)$
and $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}^\prime_{nn^\prime}(\omega)$, in Eq.~(\ref{Ltilde})
with $|n-n^\prime|=1$.
For example, for down-spin bands,
it is likely that $hh(1)$ is mediated by a two-photon interaction,
$\tilde{\mathcal{H}}^\prime_{01}(\omega)$ followed by $\tilde{D}_{4,-10}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)$, to be coupled with $e(-1)$.
As regards up-spin bands, because the effect of $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}^\prime_{01}(\omega)$
is negligibly small,
$hh(1)$ is couplied with $e(-1)$ by a two-photon interaction,
$\tilde{D}_{j,01}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega), (j=3, 5)$ followed by $\tilde{D}_{4,-10}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega)$.
The magnitudes of interactions $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}^\prime_{01}(\omega)$
and $\tilde{D}_{j,01}(\boldsymbol{k},\omega), (j=3, 5)$ are roughly evaluated to be
$\Omega_c$ and $J_1(z_c)t_{sp}$, respectively;
consult Eqs.~(\ref{Vcir}), (\ref{appD3}), and (\ref{appD5}).
Thus, it is stated that the inverted band gap $\mathcal{E}_g^{(-)}$ in the down-spin state is mostly caused by
a strong resonant electric dipole
coupling, while $\mathcal{E}_g^{(+)}$ in the up-spin state is just
attributed to an optical spin-orbit coupling, namely, a spin-orbit coupling reduced by a factor of $J_1(z_c)$; actually, $\Omega_c=5.49\times10^{-3} \gg t_{sp}J_1(z_c)=2.07\times10^{-4}$.
The resulting FWSM phase for the up-spin state is considered as a Floquet NLSM (FNLSM)
phase that is generated by the drive of the present circularly polarized light.
Such sharp distinction between the up-spin and down-spin bands is also seen
in the energy dispersions in the $k_x$-direction
in the vicinity of the Weyl points at $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}$ and $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}$,
respectively, as shown in Figs.~\ref{fig3}(c) and \ref{fig3}(d).
It is noted that the up-spin band crosses with quadratic band touching,
following
\begin{equation}
E^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\approx
(-t^{xy})(k_xd_x)^2\ge 0,
\label{W+cone1}
\end{equation}
as given in Eq.~(\ref{W+cone0}),
while the down-spin band crosses with linear band touching, as often happens, following
\begin{equation}
E^{(-)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\approx
\xi^W_x|k_xd_x|\ge 0,
\label{W-cone1}
\end{equation}
as given in Eq.~(\ref{W-cone0}),
where $\xi^W_x$ is of the order of $t_{sp}$.
In fact, there is a contribution from the linear dispersion of the form of $\nu_x^{(+)}(k_xd_x)$
in Eq.~(\ref{W+cone1}), however, this is neglected because
of $\nu_x^{(+)}\ll 1$, as mentioned before.
Further, it is seen in Figs.~\ref{fig3}(e) and \ref{fig3}(f) that
the two bands of $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ are inverted to form a pair of Weyl nodes along
the $k_z$-axis at $k_z^{W(\pm)}$ and $-k_z^{W(\pm)}$.
These dispersions in the vicinity of $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(\pm)}$ are given by
\begin{equation}
E^{(+)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\approx
\eta_z^{(1)}|\Delta k_zd_z|\ge 0
\label{W+cone3}
\end{equation}
for the up-spin state,
and
\begin{equation}
E^{(-)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\approx
\xi^W_z|\Delta k_zd_z|\ge 0
\label{W-cone3}
\end{equation}
for the down-spin state, following
Eqs.~(\ref{W+cone0}) and (\ref{W-cone0}), respectively.
Here, the obtained numerical value of
$k_z^{W(+)}(=0.887/d_z)$ is greater than that of $k_z^{W(-)}(=0.775/d_z)$, which is in harmony with
the qualitative discussion based on the approximated expressions of
Eqs.~(\ref{Weyl-}) and (\ref{Weyl+}); consult the values thus obtained for
$k_z^{W(\pm)}$ below Eq.~(\ref{cond+}).
It is speculated that the difference of the former numerical values from the latter approximate ones is attributed to the non-resonant contributions of interband couplings
beyond the rotational-wave approximation in
the nearly resonant two-band model adopted in Sec.~\ref{sec3A}.
Actually, the intense laser field is applied to the system of concern with the order of $\Omega_c/\omega\approx 0.37$, and hence, for instance, the Floquet band $hh(1)$ is
somewhat
coupled with other non-resonant bands of $e(n\not=0)$
in addition with the nearly resonant band $e(0)$.
\subsection{Surface States}
\label{sec3C}
Here, it is considered that a vanishing boundary condition in the $y$-direction is imposed on the Floquet eigenvalue problem given by Eq.~(\ref{Floquet}) in place of a periodic boundary condition.
To be specific, an electron is confined in the finite range of $y$ from $L_1=0$ to $L_2=40$ a.u., while it moves freely in the $x-z$ plane.
Such confinement results in energy dispersions $\mathcal{E}(\bar{\boldsymbol{k}})$
that are the projection of bulk bands $E(\boldsymbol{k})$ on the $k_x-k_z$ plane
where $\bar{\boldsymbol{k}}=(k_x,k_z)$.
Further, it is likely that surface states are hosted by the projected bands.
For the sake of the later convenience, the positions of surface Weyl nodes
for the up-spin and down-spin bands are
represented as $\pm\bar{\boldsymbol{k}}^{W(+)}=\pm(0,k_z^{W(+)})$ and
$\pm\bar{\boldsymbol{k}}^{W(-)}=\pm(0,k_z^{W(-)})$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=9cm]{Figure4N.png}
\caption{Projected energy dispersions $\mathcal{E}(\bar{\boldsymbol{k}})$ with a surface state of down-spin.
The axis of abscissa $k_x$ is gauged in the unit of $1/d_x$.
Here, bands dominated rather by the $s/p$-orbital component are denoted
by a red/blue solid line.
(a) $\mathcal{E}(\bar{\boldsymbol{k}})$ at $k_z=0.7$ slightly smaller than $k_z^{W(-)}$.
(b) The same as pannel (a) but at $k_z=0.35$.
(c) The same as pannel (a) but at $k_z=0$.
(d) Enlarged view of pannel (c).
}
\label{fig4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig4} shows the projected energy dispersions of down-spin bands with surface states at three different $k_z$'s.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}(a), at $k_z$ close to $k_z^{W(-)}$,
the inverted bands of $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ form a definite energy gap $\mathcal{E}_g^{(-)}$,
hosting a pair of surface states just in a small range of $k_x$.
It is evident that as $k_z$ becomes closer to $k_z^{(-)}$, the range of $k_x$ becomes more reduced, and eventually, the pair of surface states are embedded in the surface Weyl point
at $\bar{\boldsymbol{k}}^{W(-)}$.
Meanwhile, it is remarked that the appearance of such a pair is due to a numerical artifact ascribable to the above-mentioned confinement
of electron in the finite range in place of a semi-infinite confinement corresponding to
$L_2=\infty$.
Here, it is understood that in all of the figures in Fig.~\ref{fig4}, just the surface states with a positive gradient are taken account of.
As shown in Figs.~\ref{fig4}(b)-\ref{fig4}(d), with the further decrease of $k_z$,
the range of $k_x$ in which the surface state is supported becomes larger, and is maximized
at $k_z=0$, where this range extends over a half of the BZ in the $k_x$ direction.
Moreover, as $k_z$ changes from $k_z=0$ to the negative $k_z$-direction, the range of $k_x$ turns to a decrease, and eventually,
at $k_z=-k_z^{W(-)}$, the surface state is incorporated with another surface Weyl point at
$-\bar{\boldsymbol{k}}^{W(-)}$; though not shown here.
These nontrivial surface states sliced in the interval $-k_z^{W(-)}\le k_z \le k_z^{W(-)}$ are unified to form a tilted surface band in the $k_x-k_z$ plane.
Both edges of it are pinned to the respective surface Weyl points at $\pm \bar{\boldsymbol{k}}^{W(-)}$.
This surface band is schematically depicted
as the tilted surface that is colored blue in the right figure of Fig.~\ref{fig1}(b).
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=9cm]{Figure5N.png}
\caption{Projected energy dispersions $\mathcal{E}(\bar{\boldsymbol{k}})$ with a surface state of up-spin.
The axis of abscissa $k_x$ is gauged in the unit of $1/d_x$.
Here, bands dominated rather by the $s/p$-orbital component are denoted
by a red/blue solid line.
(a) $\mathcal{E}(\bar{\boldsymbol{k}})$ at $k_z=0.8$ slightly smaller than $k_z^{W(+)}$.
(b) The same as pannel (a) but at $k_z=0.4$.
(c) The same as pannel (a) but at $k_z=0$.
(d) Enlarged view of pannel (c).
}
\label{fig5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig5}(a)-\ref{fig5}(c) show the projected energy dispersions of up-spin bands with surface states at three different $k_z$'s.
It is seen that the pattern of variance of the surface states formed here follows that shown in the down-spin bands of Fig.~\ref{fig4}.
However, the energy gap $\mathcal{E}_g^{(+)}$
is extremely smaller than $\mathcal{E}_g^{(-)}$, and as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig5}(d), the surface band is
slightly tilted with overall negative gradient and undulation.
The pattern of variance in the negative $k_z$-direction is also
subject to that seen in the down-spin bands; though not shown here.
As a result, the nontrivial surface states sliced in the interval $-k_z^{W(+)}\le k_z \le k_z^{W(+)}$ form a slightly tilted and undulated surface band in the $k_x-k_z$ plane.
Both edges of it are pinned to the respective surface Weyl points
at $\pm\bar{\boldsymbol{k}}^{W(+)}$.
This surface band is schematically depicted
as the tilted surface that is colored red in the left figure of Fig.~\ref{fig1}(b).
\subsection{Physical Properties}
\label{Sec3D}
First, discussion is made on the chirality of the FWSM phases and the related topological phase transitions.
It is considered that based on the qualitative discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec3A}, the conditions of generating the Weyl nodes for the up-spin and down-spin states are approximately evaluated as Eqs.~(\ref{cond+}) and ~(\ref{cond-}),
respectively.
According to these, when $\omega$ is made greater from $\omega_1^{W(\pm)}$ and eventually identical to $\omega_2^{W(\pm)}$,
the Weyl nodes at $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(\pm)}$ move along $k_z$ axis from the $\Gamma$ point $k_z=0$ toward the boundary of the BZ
at $k_z=\pi/d_z$ to annihilate with the other pair of the Weyl nodes at $-\boldsymbol{k}^{W(\pm)}$ that move in the opposite direction toward the boundary
at $k_z=-\pi/d_z$; a double sign corresponds.
This implies that the Weyl nodes at $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(\pm)}$ possess
opposite handedness from that at the other Weyl nodes at $-\boldsymbol{k}^{W(\pm)}$.
In other words, there should be the relations that
\begin{equation}
h_+^{(+)}h_-^{(+)} =-1,\;h_+^{(-)}h_-^{(-)} =-1,
\label{hrel1}
\end{equation}
where
$h_{\pm}^{(+)}$ and $h_{\pm}^{(-)}$, which are either 1 or -1, represent helicities of the Weyl cones at
$\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}$ for the up-spin and $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}$ for the down-spin, respectively.
Further, it is noted that the handedness of the Weyl node for the up-spin state
at $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)} (-\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)})$ is opposite from that for the down-spin
state at $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)} (-\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)})$, because
a pair of Weyl nodes for the up-spin and down-spin states at $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}$ and $\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}$, respectively, are generated by splitting of the Dirac node at $\boldsymbol{k}^D(-\boldsymbol{k}^D)$ due to the breaking of the T-symmetry.
That is, there should be the relations that
\begin{equation}
h_+^{(+)}h_+^{(-)} =-1, \;h_-^{(+)}h_-^{(-)} =-1.
\label{hrel2}
\end{equation}
Actually, the above relations of Eqs.~(\ref{hrel1}) and (\ref{hrel2}) are confirmed
by defining these helicities as Eqs.~(\ref{h++}) and (\ref{h+-}), followed by
mathematical evaluation, as developed in Appendix~\ref{app2-4}.
Here, these expressions of helicities are extracted from effective Fourier-Weyl Hamiltonians
of Eqs.~(\ref{LW+}) and (\ref{LW-}), which are
reduced from the original Floquet Hamiltonian of Eq.~(\ref{Ltilde}).
Here, one mentions that recently, dynamical characterization of Floquet-Weyl nodes is discussed in Ref. \onlinecite{Umer2021b}.
In passing, when $\omega$ exceeds $\omega_2^{W(\pm)}$, the topological order is changed from the FWSM phase to a phase of Floquet topological insulator
due to the gap opening.
Further, the reduction of $\omega$ below $\omega_1^{W(\pm)}$ in the other direction
brings the FWSM phase just back to a trivial insulator phase.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=9cm]{Figure6N.png}
\caption{Frequency dependence of energy dispersions $E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})$
of up-spin and down-spin bands as a function of $k_z$ with $k_x=k_y=0$ for $\omega$
equal to
(a) 0.2\:eV (7.35$\times 10^{-3}$ a.u.),
(b) 0.3\:eV (1.10$\times 10^{-2}$ a.u.),
(c) 0.35\:eV (1.29$\times 10^{-2}$ a.u.),
(d) 0.4\:eV (1.47$\times 10^{-2}$ a.u.),
(e) 0.5\:eV (1.84$\times 10^{-2}$ a.u.), and
(f) 0.7\:eV (2.57$\times 10^{-2}$ a.u.).
The abscissa $k_z$ is gauged in the unit of $1/d_z$.
The panel (d) is the same as Figs.~\ref{fig3}(e) and \ref{fig3}(f).
Here, the legend of ordinate $E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})$ is simply represented as
$E$.
The up-spin bands $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ are depicted
by blue solid lines, and the down-spin bands $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ are
depicted by red solid lines.
The parent bands are also labeled as $e(0)$ and $hh(0)$.
In all panels, red solid lines are partially superimposed on blue solid lines.
}
\label{fig6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig6} shows the energy dispersions $E^{(\pm)}(\boldsymbol{k})$
of up-spin and down-spin bands as a function of $k_z$ with $k_x=k_y=0$ for $\omega=0.2\sim 0.7$ eV.
Below, discussion is made on the alteration of just $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ bands
of an up-spin state (depicted by blue solid lines) and a down-spin state
(depicted by red solid lines) with respect to $\omega$.
In the panel (a) for $\omega=0.2$ eV, both spin bands are not inverted,
and in the panel (b) for $\omega=0.3$ eV,
the up-spin band is inverted
to form a FWSM phase with a pair of Floquet-Weyl nodes
while the down-spin band is left open.
In the panel (c) for $\omega=0.35$ eV, both bands become inverted
to form FWSM phases with two pairs of Floquet-Weyl nodes,
and similarly, in the panel (d) for $\omega=0.4$ eV $(< E_g$),
both bands remain inverted.
Such band inversion is still retained in the panels (e) and (f) even for $\omega=$0.5 and 0.7 eV $(> E_g$).
Incidentally, the discontinuities of the down-spin band
seen in the panels (e) and (f) are due to an anticrossing between
$e(-1)$ and $hh(0)$ and that between
$e(0)$ and $hh(1)$.
It is worth comparing these numerical results with the results estimated
by Eqs.~(\ref{cond+}) and (\ref{cond-})
based on the analytic model in Sec.~\ref{sec3A},
where $\omega_1^{W(+)}=0.23\: {\text eV}, \omega_2^{W(+)}=0.64\: {\text eV}, \omega_1^{W(-)}=0.33 \:{\text eV}$, and $\omega_2^{W(-)}=0.67\: {\text eV}$.
It is found that aside from the panel (f),
the above-stated changes of topological order with respect to $\omega$ are
well consistent with these estimated existence conditions of FWSM phases.
The variance seen in the panel (f) is due to the breaking of the rotational-wave approximation adopted in this model.
Actually, this approximation is considered accurate under the situation
that $\omega \approx E_g (= 0.46$ eV).
Second, discussion is made on a magnetic property induced by the irradiation of the
intense laser with a left-hand circular polarization.
As far as the nearly resonant optical transition is concerned,
down-spin electrons that are situated in a valence band before the irradiation are selectively excited to a conduction band, and some fractions of the excited
electrons are deexcited back to the valence band due to
the Rabi oscillation,
whereas up-spin electrons remain almost in the valence band;
consult Sec.~\ref{sec2B}.
In terms of the Floquet picture,
these excitation and deexcitation processes in a series of the non-equilibrium dynamics
are interpreted as couplings between
one pair of down-spin bands $hh(1)$ and $e(0)$, and between
another pair of down-spin bands $hh(0)$ and $e(-1)$, respectively.
Thus, carriers are likely distributed to both bands of $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$,
which are further coupled by the two-photon interaction mentioned in
Sec.\ref{sec3B} to form the FWSM phase through the ac-Stark splitting.
On the contrary, it is considered that the up-spin bands of $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ are almost unoccupied.
Therefore, the down-spin electrons are exclusively distributed over the surface,
while these
coexist with the up-spin electrons in the bulk though both electronic states are
energetically separated by the amount of $\mathcal{E}_g^{(-)}$.
This implies that the system of concern exhibits transient surface
magnetization with down spins that survives for
as long as the associated population relaxation time,
besides bulk magnetization that is expected to be induced as well.
In addition with such an effect of spin magnetization, it is likely that
the circularly polarized laser induces the inverse Faraday effect, which is
a sort of a generation mechanism of orbital magnetization.
\cite{Pershan1966,Kimel2005,Hertel2006,Zhang2009,Battiato2014}
This effect is expected to contribute the above surface magnetization to a certain extent.
Indeed, the surface magnetization seems faint and transient, but the magnitude of it can
be somewhat enhanced by increasing the strength of the circularly polarized laser.
Moreover, the measurement of such an intriguing phenomenon would be feasible
by means of the longitudinal magneto-optic Kerr effect that can detect the degree of strength of magnetization manifested just in the surface.
\cite{Kerr1877,Weinberg2008,Haider2017}
To do this, a pump-probe measurement is expected to be effective, in which
a linear polarized laser causing the magneto-optic Kerr effect is
incorporated as a probe in addition with the pump laser with the left-hand circular
polarization.
Below, additional comments
on the results described in Secs~\ref{sec3A}-\ref{sec3C} are enumerated.
(1) The up-spin FWSM band is considered as a FNLSM phase, because
the band gap of $\mathcal{E}_g^{(+)}$ is of the order of 2 meV; consult Sec~\ref{sec3B}.
Actually, such small energy separation and
the concomitant surface state would be possibly
smeared with homogeneous broadening due to an electron correlation effect
and inhomogeneous broadening due to finite temporal width of a laser pulse
--- in place of the ideal continuous-wave laser ---, which is of the order of
a couple of meV for a pico-second pulse.
Although the up-spin bands are almost unoccupied as stated above,
these would be detectable by reconstructing the optical system of concern as follows:
the up-spin bands of $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ are excited in advance by an intense ultrashort pulse laser with linear polarization, followed by the irradiation of the pico-second pulse (the continuous-wave laser) with the left-hand circular polarization.
(2) In view of the above comment (1), the surface states hosted by the down-spin band are entirely embedded in
the continuum (bulk) of the FNLSM phase of the up-spin band; consult Figs.~\ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5}.
When a spin flip interaction attributed to the spin-orbit coupling is tuned on, the surface states become somewhat unstable
due to the effect of Fano resonance, namely, the collapse of the discrete levels of the surface states into the continuum states which is caused by the interaction between both of these states.\cite{Fano1961}
The spin flip interaction becomes effective when either $d_1(\boldsymbol{k})$ or $d_2(\boldsymbol{k})$ has a non-negligible contribution to
the effective Hamiltonian given in Eq.~(\ref{Hcal2}).
(3) The crystal Zn$_3$As$_2$ has a bulk rotational symmetry around the $z$-axis,
and this leads to the formation of FWSMs under the conditions of Eqs.~(\ref{cond-})
and (\ref{cond+}).
In fact, there remains internal compression normal to this axis within the crystal,
and this symmetry is considered partially broken.
Such breaking will open up a slight gap to make the Floquet system of concern
insulating.\cite{Wang2012}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec4}
It is found that the narrow gap semiconductor Zn$_3$As$_2$ is driven by
a left-hand circularly-polarized continuous-wave laser with
frequency nearly resonant with the band gap $E_g$
to produce the two types of FWSM phases simultaneously in the crystal,
which are sharply distinguished by their spins.
The bulk rotational symmetry around the $z$-axis protects a pair of Weyl nodes
with opposite chirality along the
$k_z$-axis in the respective FWSM phases
under the condition of either Eq.~(\ref{cond-}) or Eq.~(\ref{cond+}).
In the down-spin FWSM phase, the Floquet bands of $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ touch
in a linear manner
in the vicinity of the Weyl nodes situated
at $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(-)}$, hosting the
nontrivial surface states pinned to both nodes.
Since the above-mentioned laser makes electrons excited exclusively
in the down-spin Floquet bands, it is considered that
the surface states are selectively occupied by
such spin-polarized electrons, showing transient magnetization with
partial modification by the inverse Faraday effect.
This surface magnetization would be measured by virtue of the magneto-optic Kerr effect.
On the other hand, in the up-spin FWSM phase,
the Floquet bands of $e(-1)$ and $hh(1)$ touch in the vicinity of the Weyl nodes situated
at $\pm\boldsymbol{k}^{W(+)}$
almost in a quadratic manner in the $k_x$- and $k_y$-directions and in a linear manner
in the $k_z$-direction.
Because of the negligibly small band gap, this up-spin FWSM phase is rather
considered as the FNLSM phase.
To detect this phase somehow or other,
it would be necessary to make excited electrons occupied in the up-spin bands in advance
prior to the irradiation of the circularly polarized laser.
The exploration of the transient non-equilibrium dynamics of the concerned system
is inevitable in addition with Floquet band structures
to deepen the understandings of the underlying physics of the FWSMs.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. JP19K03695.
The authors are grateful to Prof. J. Fujioka for fruitful comments and discussion.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent progress in deep learning approaches for solving combinatorial optimization problems (COPs) has shown that specific subclasses of these problems can now be solved efficiently through training a parameterized model on a distribution of problem instances. This has most prominently been demonstrated for the vehicle routing problem (VRP) and its variants (\cite{kool2018attention, chen2019learning, xin2021multi}).
The current leading approaches model the VRP either as a local search problem, where an initial solution is iteratively improved or
as a sequential construction process successively adding customer nodes to individual tours until a solution is achieved.
Both types of approaches bypass the implicit bin-packing problem
that assigns packages (the customers and their demands) to a pre-defined maximum number of bins (the vehicles). We show that this assignment can be learned explicitly while also minimizing the main component of the vehicle routing objective, i.e. the total tour length.
Furthermore, finding a tour plan for a fixed fleet size constitutes an essential requirement in many practical applications. To this end, many small or medium-sized service providers cannot accommodate fleet size adjustments where they require additional drivers on short notice or where very high acquisition costs prohibit the dynamic extension of the fleet.
Figure \ref{fig:hist} shows the variation of fleet sizes for different problem sizes. For all problem sizes the baseline approaches (green, red, purple) employ more vehicles than our approach (blue, orange) and thereby inquire potentially more costs by requiring more vehicles. In contrast our vanilla approach (blue) guarantees to solve the respective problems with exactly the apriori available number of vehicles (4, 7, 11 for the VRP20, VRP50, VRP100 respectively) or less.
Our approach of learning to construct a complete, valid tour plan that assigns all vehicles a set of customers at once has so far not been applied to the VRP. We amend and extend the Permutation Invariant Pooling Model (\cite{kaempfer2018learning}) that has been applied solely to the simpler multiple Traveling Salesmen Problem (mTSP), for which also multiple tours need to be constructed, but are albeit not subject to any capacity constraints.
In this work we propose an end-to-end learning framework that takes customer-coordinates, their associated demands and the maximal number of available vehicles as inputs to output a bounded number of complete tours and show that the model not only learns how to optimally conjunct customers and adhere to capacity constraints, but that it also outperforms the learning-based reinforcement learning (RL) baselines when taking into account the total routing costs.
By adopting a full-fledged supervised learning strategy, we contribute the first framework of this kind for the capacitated VRP that is not only faster and less cumbersome to train, but also demonstrates that supervised methods are able, in particular under practical circumstances, to outperform state-of-the-art RL models.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\subfloat[VRP with 20 Customers]{%
\includegraphics[trim=0.2cm 0.0cm 1.5cm 1.0cm,width=0.32\textwidth]{histogram20_tours_SolG_greedy.pdf}%
}%
\hfill%
\subfloat[VRP with 50 Customers]{%
\includegraphics[trim=0.3cm 0.0cm 1.5cm 1.0cm,width=0.32\textwidth]{histogram50_tours_SolG_v2.pdf}%
}%
\hfill%
\subfloat[VRP with 100 Customers]{%
\includegraphics[trim=0.3cm 0.0cm 1.5cm 1.0cm,width=0.32\textwidth]{histogram100_tours_SolG_greedy.pdf}
}%
\caption{Histograms over the fleet sizes used for solving the VRP. Our approach (blue) is able to solve the VRP with 20, 50, 100 customers with 4, 7 and 11 vehicles respectively, while the baseline approaches (see section 5) utilize considerably more vehicles. Our approach (orange) refers to the setting of where we ensure a solution to be found (see section 4.3)}
\label{fig:hist}
\end{figure}
The contributions of this work can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Tour-plan construction approach for the capacitated VRP with fixed Vehicle Costs}: We propose a deep learning framework that \textit{learns to solve} the NP-hard capacitated VRP and constructs a complete tour-plan for an specified fleet size. In this way it ensures to solve the problem for an apriori fixed number of vehicles.
\item \textit{Supervised learning for discrete optimization}: The proposed approach is the first ML-based construction approach for the VRP that relies \textit{entirely} on supervised learning to output feasible tours for all available vehicles.
\item \textit{Competitiveness}: We compare our model against prominent state-of-the-art deep learning and OR solvers through a thorough and unified experimental evaluation protocol that ensures comparability amongst different ML-based approaches. We show that our approach delivers competitive results in comparison to approaches that work only for unbounded fleet sizes and outperforms these methods when considering fixed vehicle costs.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\textbf{Learned Construction Heuristics.}
The work by \cite{vinyals2015pointer} introducing \textit{Pointer Networks (PtrNet)} revived the idea of developing end-to-end deep learning methods to construct solutions for COPs, particularly for the TSP, by leveraging an encoder-decoder architecture trained in a supervised fashion. \cite{bello2016neural} and \cite{khalil2017learning} proposed RL to train the Pointer Network for the TSP, while \cite{nazari2018reinforcement} extended the PtrNet in order to make the model invariant to the order of the input sequence and applied it to the CVRP. The \textit{Attention Model (AM)} described in \cite{kool2018attention} features an attention based encoder-decoder model that follows the Transformer architecture (\cite{vaswani2017attention}) to output solution sequences for the TSP and two variants of the CVRP. \cite{xin2021multi} extend the AM by replacing the single decoder with multiple, identical decoders with no shared parameters to improve diversity among the generated solutions.
Besides these sequential approaches, "heatmap" construction approaches that learn to assign probabilities to given edges in a graph representation through supervised learning have recently been applied to routing problems. \cite{joshi2019efficient} use a Graph Convolutional Network to construct TSP tours and show that by utilizing a parallelized beam search, auto-regressive construction approaches for the TSP can be outperformed. \cite{kool2021deep} extend the proposed model by \cite{joshi2019efficient} for the CVRP while creating a hybrid approach that initiates partial solutions using a heatmap representation as a preprocessing step, before training a policy to create partial solutions and refining these through dynamic programming.
\cite{kaempfer2018learning} extend the learned heatmap approach to the number of tours to be constructed; their \textit{Permutation Invariant Pooling Network} addresses the mTSP (a TSP involving multiple tours but no additional capacity constraints), where
feasible solutions are obtained via a beam search and have been proven to outperform a meta-heuristic mTSP solver.
\noindent\textbf{Learned Search Heuristics.}
In contrast to construction heuristics that build solutions to routing problems from scratch, learned search heuristics utilize well-known local search frameworks commonly adopted in the field of operations research (OR) to learn to improve an initial given solution in an iterative fashion through RL.
The \textit{NeuRewriter} model (\cite{chen2019learning}) learns a policy that is composed of a "rule-picking" and a "region-picking" part in order to iteratively refine a VRP solution and demonstrates superior performance over certain auto-regressive approaches (\cite{nazari2018reinforcement, kool2018attention}).
Similarly, the \textit{Learning to Improve} approach by \cite{Lu2020A} learns a policy that iteratively selects a local search operator to apply to the current solution and delivers new state-of-the-art results amongst existing machine learning heuristics. However, it is computationally infeasible during inference in some cases taking more than thirty minutes to solve a single instance, which makes this approach incomparable to most other methods.
In contrast, \textit{Neural Large Neighborhood Search (NLNS)} (\cite{hottung2020neural}) is based on an attention mechanism and integrates learned OR-typical operators into the search procedure, demonstrating a fair balance between solution quality and computational efficiency, but can only be evaluated in batches of thousand instances in order to provide competitive results.
\section{Problem Formulation}
This section introduces the capacitated vehicle routing problem which implicitly encompasses a bin packing problem through finding a feasible assignment of customer nodes to a given set of vehicles. We showcase how existing ML-based approaches circumvent this property and solve a simpler variant of the problem. We then demonstrate how to cast the VRP into a supervised machine learning task
and finally
propose an evaluation metric that respects the utilization of vehicles in terms of
fixed vehicle costs.
\subsection{The Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem}
Following \cite{baldacci2007recent} the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem (CVRP) can be defined in terms of a graph theoretical problem. It involves a
graph $G = (V,E)$ with vertex set $V = \{0,...,N\}$ and edge set $E$.
Each customer $i \in V_{\text{c}} = \{1,...,N\}$ has a demand $q_i$ which needs to be satisfied and each weighted edge $\{i,j\} \in E$ represents a non-negative travel cost $d_{ij}$. The vertex $0 \in V$ represents the depot.
A set $M$ of identical (homogeneous) vehicles with same capacity $Q$ is available at the depot.
The general CVRP formulation sets forth that "all \textit{available vehicles} must be used" (\citet[p.~271]{baldacci2007recent}) and $M$ cannot be smaller than $M_{\text{min}}$, corresponding to the minimal fleet size needed to solve the problem.
Accordingly, the CVRP consists of finding \textit{exactly} $M$ simple cycles with minimal total cost corresponding to the sum of edges belonging to the tours substitute to the following constraints: (i) each tour starts and ends at the depot, (ii) each customer is served exactly once and (iii) the sum of customer demands
on each tour cannot be larger than $Q$. A formal mathematical definition of the problem can be found in Appendix \ref{AppMathForm}.
Therefore the solution requires exactly $M$ cycles to be found, which requires in turn the value of $M$ to be set in an apriori fashion.
However, already the task of finding a \textit{feasible} solution with exactly $M$ tours is NP-complete, thus many methods choose to work with an unbounded fleet size (\citet[p.~375]{cordeau2007vehicle})
which guarantees a feasible solution by simply increasing $M$ if there are any unvisited customers left.
In contrast, our method tackles the difficulty of the assignment problem by jointly learning the optimal sequence of customer nodes and the corresponding optimal allocation of customers
to a fixed number of vehicles.
In order to do so, we rely on generated near-optimal targets that determine $M_{\text{min}}$ for each problem instance in the training set.
\subsection{The VRP as a Supervised Machine Learning Problem}
The goal of the supervised problem is to find an assignment $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}$ that allocates optimally ordered sequences of customers to vehicles.
Respectively each VRP instance $X$ which defines a single graph theoretical problem, is characterised by the following \textit{three entities}:
\begin{itemize}
\item A set of $N$ customers. Each customer $i$, $i \in \{1,...,N\}$ is represented by the features $\mathbf{x}^{\text{cus}}_i$.
\item $M$ vehicles, where each vehicle $k \in \{1,...,M\}$ is characterised by the features $\mathbf{x}^{\text{veh}}_k$.
\item The depot, the $0$-index of the $N$ customers, is represented by a feature vector $\mathbf{x}^{\text{dep}}$.
\end{itemize}
Consequently, a single VRP instance is represented as the set $X = (\mathbf{x}^{\text{dep}}; \mathbf{x}^{\text{cus}}_{1, \ldots,n}; \mathbf{x}^{\text{veh}}_{1,\ldots, M})$.
The corresponding ground truth target reflects the near-optimal tour plan and is represented by a binary tensor $\mathbf{Y}^{M \times N \times N}$, where $\mathbf{Y}_{k,i,j}=1$ if the $k^{\text{th}}$ vehicle travels from customer node $i$ to customer node $j$ in the solution and else $\mathbf{Y}_{k,i,j}=0$.
Let $\X$ represent the predictor space populated by VRP instances $X$ and let $\Y$ define the target space comprising a population of target instances $\mathbf{Y}$.
The proposed model is trained to solve the following assignment problem:
Given a sample $\D\in(\X \times \Y)^*$ from an unknown distribution $p$ and a loss function $\ell: \Y\times\Y\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, find a model $\hat{y}: \X\rightarrow\Y$ which minimizes the expected loss, i.e.\,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3.1}
\min \ \EE_{(x,y)\sim p} \ \ell(y, \hat y(x))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For a sampled predictor set $x$, the model $\hat y(x)$ outputs a stochastic adjacency tensor $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{M \times N \times N}$ that consists of the approximate probability distribution defining a tour plan.
\subsection{Fixed Vehicle Costs}
In order to highlight the importance of the assignment problem incorporated in the CVRP and the
possible impact of an unlimited fleet sizes in real world use cases,
we introduce fixed vehicle costs in the evaluation.
As mentioned above, a problem instance is theoretically always "solvable" in terms of feasibilty by any method that operates on the basis of unbounded fleet sizes. Nevertheless, the increase in the number of tours is undisputedly also a cost driver besides the mere minimization of route lengths.
Thus, we compare our approach to state-of-the-art RL approaches that do not limit the number of tours in a more holistic and realistic setting via the metric that we denote $\text{Cost}_\text{v}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3.2}
\text{Cost}_\text{v} =
\sum_{k,i,j} d_{ij} \mathbf{Y}_{k,i,j}
+ c_\text{v}\sum_k \mathds{1}(\mathbf{Y}_{k,0,0}=0)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $c_\text{v}$ is the fixed cost per vehicle \textit{used}, such that if a vehicle $k$ leaves the depot, we have $\mathbf{Y}_{k,0,0}=0$, else we indicate that this vehicle remains at the depot with $\mathbf{Y}_{k,0,0}=1$.
Concerning the value of $c_{\text{v}}$ we rely on data used in the \textit{Fleet Size and Mix VRP} in \cite{golden1984fleet} and find matching values corresponding to the capacities used in our experimental setting.
To this end, we incorporate fixed costs of $c_\text{v}=35$, $c_\text{v}=50$ and $c_\text{v}=100$ for the VRP with 20, 50 and 100 customers respectively (a summarizing Table can be found in Appendix \ref{AppVehicleCost}).
We want to note that even though the RL baselines are not specifically trained to minimize this more realistic cost function, our model is neither, as will be shown in section 4.
This realistic cost setting functions as mere statistical evaluation metric to showcase the implications of fixed vehicle costs.
\section{Permutation Invariant VRP Model}
The proposed model outputs a complete feasible tour-plan for the CVRP in the form of a stochastic adjacency tensor $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}$. Inspired by the Transformer-based architecture in \cite{kaempfer2018learning} that tackles the mTSP, we extend this architecture to additionally capture vehicle capacity constraints. The framework encompasses three components: (i) an embedding layer (\textit{Encoder}), (ii) an information extraction mechanism (\textit{Pooling}) and (iii) an output construction block (\textit{Decoder}). Figure \ref{model_graph} displays an overview of the model architecture.
\subsection{Model Architecture}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8,trim=0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm,width=1.0\textwidth]{PermInvVRP_new.pdf}
\caption{Permutation Invariant VRP model. Framework overview.}
\label{model_graph}
\end{figure}
\noindent\textit{Embedding}. The three entities that make up a VRP instance $X$ are embedded separately, such that each encoding is embedded into a shared dimensional space $d_m$ by a linear projection:
\begin{align}
\label{eq4.1}
h^{(0)}_{\text{g}} = W_{\text{g}}\mathbf{x}^{\text{g}} + b_{\text{g}} \quad \text{for g $\in \{$dep, cus, veh$\}$}
\end{align}
where $h^{(0)}_{\text{g}} \in \mathbb{R}^{l_{\text{g}} \times d_m}$ is the initial embedding of each entity that will remain of different lengths $l_{\text{cus}}=N, l_{\text{veh}}=M, l_{\text{dep}}=1$.
The separate embedding for each entity and the architecture of the network ensure that the order of the elements in the entities is not relevant for the operations performed in the network, which establishes the permutation invariance.
\noindent\textit{Information Extraction}. The information extraction component iteratively pools contexts across entities and linearly transforms these context vectors $c_{g,1},\ldots,c_{g,l_g}$ with the entity embeddings of the current layer $h_g^{l}$.
For each element $r \in \{1,\ldots,l_g\}$ in an entity the contexts are pooled:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4.2}
\begin{aligned}
c^{(l)}_{g,r} &= \text{pool}(h^{(l)}_{g,1},\ldots,h^{(l)}_{g,l_{g}}) \quad \text{for g $\in \{$dep, cus, veh$\}$}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For the next layer's entity representation, the contexts and previous embeddings are linearly projected:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4.4}
\begin{aligned}
h^{(l+1)}_{g} &= f_g([h^{(l)}_g; c^{(l)}_{g}]) \quad \text{for g $\in \{$dep, cus, veh$\}$}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This pooling mechanism proceeds until a final representation of each entity is retrieved; $h^{(L)}_{\text{dep}}$, $h^{(L)}_{\text{cus}}$ and $h^{(L)}_{\text{veh}}$. These are then passed to the decoding procedure.
A more detailed description of the operations performed in the Pooling Layer is described in Appendix \ref{AppLOOPool}.
\noindent \textit{Decoder}.
The decoding step in the model constructs the output tensor $\hat{\mathbf{Y}} \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times N' \times N'}$ where $N'=N+1$ indicates the size of the full adjacency tensor including the depot. A preliminary step consists of forming a feature representation of all edges (potential paths) between all pairs of vertices in the graph, denoted as $E'$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4.5}
\begin{aligned}
&E = [h^{(L)}_{\text{dep}}; h^{(L)}_{\text{cus},1};\ldots; h^{(L)}_{\text{cus},N}] \quad \phantom{al} \in \mathbb{R}^{N' \times d_m} \\
&E' = [[E_{i:.} ; E_{j:.}] \phantom{l} | \phantom{l} i,j=1:N'] \quad \in \mathbb{R}^{(N'\cdot N') \times 2\cdot d_m}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The final construction procedure combines the edge ($E'$) and fleet ($V=h^{(L)}_{\text{veh}}$) representations where
each vehicle representation $V_k=h^{(L)}_{\text{veh},k},\ k \in M$ enters the combination process twice:
\begin{enumerate}
\item In the linear transformation
with the edges $E'$, where $W_o$ and bias $b_o$ are the learned weights and $V'_k$ is an expanded version of $V_k$ to match the dimensionality of $E'$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4.6}
A_k = \text{ReLU}(W_o[E';V'_k] + b_o)
\end{equation}
\item In a scaled dot-product which returns compatibility scores for each path potentially travelled by vehicle $k$ to emphasize a direct interaction between vehicles and convolved edges:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4.7}
\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_k = \text{softmax}(\frac{A_k^TV'_k}{\sqrt{d_m}})
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Finally a softmax is applied to transform the compatibility scores of vehicles and edges into probabilities $\hat{\mathbf{Y}} \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times N' \times N'}$.
\subsection{Solution Decoding}
In order to transform the doubly-stochastic probability tensor $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}$ into discrete tours in terms of a binary assignment, we use a greedy decoding strategy.
In \textit{training}, a pseudo-greedy decoding (see Appendix \ref{PseudoGreedy}) renders potentially infeasible solutions by transforming $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}$ into a binary assignment tensor $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*$, where $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*=1$ for the \textit{predicted} path of vehicle $k$ between vertices $i$ and $j$ and 0 otherwise.\\
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\footnotesize
\REQUIRE $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}\in \mathbb{R}^{M \times N' \times N'}$, $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^* \in \{0,1\}^{M \times N'\times N'}$, $q \in \mathbb{R}^{N'}$, $Q' \in \mathbb{R}^{M}$, $U$,$Q \in \mathbb{R}$
\ENSURE $\text{Routes } \hat{\mathbf{Y}}^* \in \{0,1\}^{M \times N'\times N'} $
\FOR{$ i \in U$}
\IF{$Q'- q_i < 0_{M}$}
\STATE $M \leftarrow M+1$ \Comment*[r]{Add new tour if "guarantee solution" is set}
\STATE $ \hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*_{M,.,.} \leftarrow 0$ \Comment*[r]{Update binary solution tensor}
\STATE $ Q'_M \leftarrow Q$\Comment*[r]{Update capacity tensor}
\ENDIF
\STATE $v \leftarrow \argmax(Q'- q_i)$ \Comment*[r]{Vehicle with max capacity left}
\STATE $V_a \leftarrow \textrm{argselect}(\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*_v > 0)$ \Comment*[r]{Select all possible vertices for insertion}
\STATE $j_{\text{before}} \leftarrow V_a[\argmax(\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{v,V_a,i})]$ \Comment*[r]{Assign incoming edge of inserted customer}
\STATE $j_{\text{after}} \leftarrow \argmax(\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*_{v,j_{\text{before}},:})$ \Comment*[r]{Assign outgoing edge of inserted customer}
\STATE $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*_{v,j_{\text{before}},:}$ $ \ \leftarrow 0.0$ \Comment*[r]{Update Solution Tensor}
\STATE $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*_{v,j_{\text{before}},i} \ \leftarrow 1.0$
\STATE $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*_{v,i,j_{\text{before}}} \ \leftarrow 1.0$
\STATE $Q'_v \leftarrow Q'_v-q_i$ \Comment*[r]{Update $v$'s capacity after insertion}\ENDFOR\RETURN $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Repair Greedy Solution. $q$ is the customer's demand vector, $Q'$ is the vector remaining capacity for all vehicles.}
\label{alg:make_valid}
\end{algorithm}
During \textit{inference}, the pseudo-greedy decoding is substituted by a strictly greedy decoding, and thereby accepts only tour-plans, which do not violate the respective capacity constraint. This is done by tracking the remaining capacity of all vehicles and masking nodes that would surpass the capacity.
Any un-assigned customers violating capacity constraints in the final state of the algorithm are recovered in a list $U$ and passed as input to a repair procedure for $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*$ (Algorithm \ref{alg:make_valid}).
For each unassigned customer in list $U$,
Algorithm \ref{alg:make_valid} assigns customer $i$ to the vehicle with most remaining capacity and positions the missing customer between $j_{\text{before}}$ and $j_{\text{after}}$ according to the distribution $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}$, before updating the predicted binary solution tensor $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*$ and the remaining capacity $Q'$ accordingly.
\subsection{Inference Solution Post-Processing}
Unfortunately the repair operation of Algorithm \ref{alg:make_valid}
leads to a situation where the resulting tours during inference are not necessarily local optima anymore. To improve these tours we add a heuristic post processing procedure doing several iterations of local search via the google OR-tools solver (\cite{ortools}).
Given a valid solution for a particular number of vehicles, the solver runs a (potentially time-limited) search that improves the initial solution $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^*$.
During inference, the method optionally can
relax the bound on the fleet size to guarantee to find a solution which is important in cases where instances are particularly difficult to solve due to a
very tight bound on capacity. This is done by initially adding an artificial tour to the plan for the remaining missing customers before running the post-processing scheme. Thus, this mechanism enables our method to also solve instances it is not initially trained for to provide maximum flexibility.
\subsection{Training the Permutation Invariant VRP Model}
In order to train our model to learn the assignment of customer nodes to the available vehicles and adhere to capacity constraints, we extend the original negative log-likelihood loss by a penalty formulation ($L_{\text{over}}$) and a auxiliary load loss, controlled via weights $\alpha_{\text{over}}$ and $\alpha_{\text{load}}$.
The model's characteristic of permutation invariance induces the necessity for the training loss to be agnostic to the vehicle-order as well as the travel direction of the tours. Concerning the route-direction, we denote $\mathbf{Y}_{k,i,j}^0 = \mathbf{Y}_{k,i,j}$ and $\mathbf{Y}_{k,i,j}^1 = \mathbf{Y}_{k,j,i}$
Therefore, the loss to be minimized is the minimum (penalized) normalized negative log-likelihood of $\hat{\mathbf{Y}}$ with respect to the sampled target $\mathbf{Y}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\footnotesize
\label{eq4.8}
\mathcal{L}(\hat{\mathbf{Y}})
:=
\min_{\pi, b\in\{0,1\}^M}
-\sum_{k=1}^M \left(\sum_{i,j=0}^N
\mathbf{Y}_{\pi(k),i,j}^{b_k} \log \hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{k,i,j} \right)
&+ \alpha_{\text{load}} |\text{load}(\hat Y_{k,.,.})-\text{load}(Y_{\pi(k),.,.})| \\
&+ \alpha_{\text{over}} L_{\text{over}}(\text{load}(\hat Y_{k,.,.}))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with the load of a tour $T = \mathbf{Y}_{k,.,.} \in\{0,1\}^{N'\times N'}$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\small
\label{eq4.9}
\text{load}(T) := \sum_{i,j=0}^{N'} T_{i,j} q_i
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and a shifted quadratic error for overloading
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\small
\label{eq4.10}
L_{\text{over}}(q) := \begin{cases}
0, & \text{if } q\leq Q
\\ (1 + q - Q)^2, & \text{else}
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The calculation of the loss formulation in Equation \ref{eq4.8} would induce considerable computational overhead, therefore a less memory-intensive formulation of the same loss is implemented (see Appendix \ref{AppTrainLoss}).
The extensions to the original Permutation Invariant Pooling Network are summarized in Appendix \ref{AppDelineation}.
\section{Experiments}
In the following experiments we want to showcase and validate our main contributions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Our method works for problems with bounded fleet sizes and outperforms state-of-the-art RL models when accounting for fixed vehicle costs.
\item Our supervised learning model is fast to train and delivers competitive results in comparison to the state-of-the-art, while utilizing considerably less vehicles.
\end{enumerate}
We consider three different problem sizes, with 20, 50 and 100 customer vertices respectively and generate solvable training instances following a rejection-sampled version of the data generating process in \cite{kool2018attention}. The near-optimal target instances are generated with google's OR-Tools guided local search solver (\cite{ortools}), where we set $M = 4, 7, 11$ and $Q = 30, 40, 50$ for each problem size respectively. In total we generate roughly 100,000 training samples per problem size. The hyperparameter settings are described in Appendix \ref{AppHyerparam}.
For the evaluation, we work with two versions of the test dataset in \cite{kool2018attention}, the originally provided one and a \textit{rejection sampled} version of it, as technically our model is trained to solve only the instances for which the lower bound $\sum_{i \in n} q_i \leq MQ$ holds.
We compare our model to recent RL methods that comprise leading autoregressive (AM (\cite{kool2018attention}), MDAM (\cite{xin2021multi})) as well as a search based (NLNS (\cite{hottung2020neural})) approaches.
The NeurRewriter (\cite{chen2019learning}) and L2I model (\cite{Lu2020A}) are not re-evaluated due to extensive training- and inference times.
Details concerning the re-evaluated (and not re-evaluated) baselines are found in Appendix \ref{sssec:baselines}.
Furthermore, we revisit different published results in a \textit{per-instance} re-evaluation to elevate comparability and demonstrate strengths and weaknesses of the methods. We note that most methods were originally evaluated in a per-batch fashion
where they can leverage the massive parallelization capabilities of current graphical processing units, while that setting is of less practical relevance.
\subsection{Fixed Vehicle Costs}
To validate the first point of our main contribution, we evaluate the performance of different RL methods and our own model on the metric defined in Equation \ref{eq3.2}. Table \ref{tab:comparative_sampled} shows the results for evaluating the methods on the total tour length ($\text{Cost}$), as well as the measure incorporating fixed costs for each vehicle ($\text{Cost}_{\text{v}}$).
\begin{table}[h]
\label{tab:comparative_fixedcost}
\centering
\small
\caption[Baseline Comparison Results]{
Results for different learning-based models on 10000 \textbf{rejection sampled} VRP Test Instances.
Cost including fixed vehicle costs ($\text{Cost}_{\text{v}}$) and without (Cost) is reported.
Regarding the percentage of solved instances we achieve 99\%, 99.5\% and 100\% coverage for the problem sizes 20, 50 and 100 respectively.}
\label{tab:comparative_sampled}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-0.8pt}
\begin{tabular}{llcrclcrcllr}
\toprule
&\multicolumn{3}{c}{VRP20} && \multicolumn{3}{c}{VRP50} && \multicolumn{3}{c}{VRP100} \\
\cmidrule(l){2-4} \cmidrule(l){6-8} \cmidrule(l){10-12}
Model&Cost&$\text{Cost}_{\text{v}}$&$t/\text{inst}$&&Cost&$\text{Cost}_{\text{v}}$&$t/\text{inst}$&&Cost&$\text{Cost}_{\text{v}}$&$t/\text{inst}$\\
\midrule
NLNS & 6.22& 145.0&1.21s && 10.95 &367.3& 2.01s&&17.18 &913.3 & 3.02s\\
\midrule
AM (greedy)& 6.33 &147.4& 0.04s&& 10.90 &357.0& 0.12s && 16.68 &888.4& 0.22s\\
AM (sampl.)& 6.18 &143.7& 0.05s && 10.54 &352.2& 0.19s && 16.12 &873.4& 0.57s\\
MDAM (greedy)& 6.21 &147.3& 0.46s && 10.80 &370.40 & 1.08s && 16.81 & 961.3& 2.02s \\
MDAM (bm30)& 6.17 &140.3& 5.06s && 10.46 &351.66 &9.00s && 16.18 & 889.1& 16.58s \\
\midrule
\midrule
Ours & \textbf{6.16} & \textbf{135.5}& 0.05s&& 10.76 &\textbf{346.1}& 0.16s && 16.93 & \textbf{859.6} &0.84s \\%2h18m
Ours** & \textbf{6.17} & \textbf{136.0}& 0.05s && 10.77 &\textbf{346.1}& 0.16s && 16.93 & \textbf{859.6} &0.84s
\end{tabular}
\\ \small (**) \text{With the option of a guaranteed solution}
\end{table}
The results in Table \ref{tab:comparative_sampled} shows that method outperforms state-of-the-art RL methods on the VRP with fixed vehicle costs across all sizes of the problem and even outperforms them on the plain total tour length minimization cost for the VRP with 20 customers, while delivering the shortest inference times per instance together with the AM Model.
Furthermore, our method's results do not greatly differ whether we set the option of guaranteeing a solution (last row) to True versus accepting that there are unsolved samples, speaking for the strength of our model for being able to solve both problems incorporated in the VRP at once, the feasible assignment problem to a particular number vehicles and the minimization of the total tour length. This is also represented in Figure \ref{fig:hist}; while the amount of solutions solved with more than the apriori fixed fleet size is vanishingly small for the VRP20 and VRP50 it is exactly 0 for the VRP100.
For the VRP of size 50 the RL-based methods only outperform our greedily evaluated method on the routing length minimization when employing sampling or a beam search during inference, while being worse when used greedily.
Concerning the problem with 100 customers, our method is outperformed by the RL approaches on the vanilla total route length cost, but solves the majority of the problems with a significantly smaller fleet size, reflected by the considerably smaller total costs ($\text{Cost}_{\text{v}}$).
This is strongly supported by Figure \ref{fig:hist}, where we see that especially for the VRP with 100 customers, the RL-based methods consistently require more vehicles than needed.
\subsection{Comparative Results on the Benchmark Dataset}
We want to assess the competitiveness of our method also on the literature's bench-marking test set provided in \cite{kool2018attention}. Technically, these instances are not all solvable by our model, as it is not trained to solve problems where $\sum_{i \in n} q_i \leq MQ$. In Table \ref{tab:comparative_orig} we therefore indicate the percentage of solved instances by our plain model in brackets.
Looking at Table \ref{tab:comparative_orig}, our method's performance is generally on par with or slightly better than RL-based construction methods when employing a greedy decoding.
Concerning the per-instance run times, MDAM and the NLNS take orders of magnitude longer than the AM model and our method.
We acknowledge that exploiting parallelism to enhance computational efficiency is a justified methodological choice, but in terms of comparability,
we argue for the pragmatic approach of comparing per-instance runtimes to remedy problematic comparison of models using different architectures and mini batch sizes.
For completeness Table \ref{tab:comparative_orig_app} in Appendix \ref{AppBenchFull} illustrates the per-batch evaluation of the baselines. Appendix \ref{sssec:baselines} also discusses the discrepancies in performances of NLNS and MDAM with respect to their published results.
Even though the solution quality and competitiveness of our method decrease when considering larger problem sizes, the per-instance inference time remains among the best.
Nevertheless, we want to emphasize that the baselines in general require more tours than our method potentially leading to higher costs when employed in real-world scenarios.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\small
\caption[Baseline Comparison Results]{Results for different ML and OR Models on 10000 VRP Test Instances (\cite{kool2018attention}).}
\label{tab:comparative_orig}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-2.8pt}
\begin{tabular}{llrclrclr}
\toprule
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{VRP20} && \multicolumn{2}{c}{VRP50} && \multicolumn{2}{c}{VRP100} \\
\cmidrule(l){2-3} \cmidrule(l){5-6} \cmidrule(l){8-9}
Model&Cost&$t$&&Cost&$t$&&Cost&$t$\\
\midrule
Gurobi& 6.10 & -&& - &- &&- &\\
LKH3& 6.14& 2h && 10.38 &7h && 15.65 &13h\\%12h59m
\midrule
&Cost&$t/\text{inst}$&&Cost&$t/\text{inst}$&&Cost&$t/\text{inst}$\\
\midrule
NLNS (t-limit)& 6.24& 2.41s && 10.96& 2.41s && 17.72 &2.02s\\
\midrule
AM (greedy)& 6.40 & 0.04s&& 10.98 & 0.09s && 16.80 & 0.17s\\
AM (sampl.)& 6.25 & 0.05s && 10.62 & 0.17s && 16.20 & 0.51s\\
MDAM (greedy)& 6.28 & 0.46s && 10.88& 1.10s && 16.89 & 2.00s\\
MDAM (bm30)& 6.15 & 5.06s && 10.54 &9.00s&& 16.26& 16.56s\\
\midrule
\midrule
Ours & 6.18 (\footnotesize{94\%*}) & 0.05s&& 10.81 (\footnotesize{94\%*}) & 0.16s && 16.98 (\footnotesize{98\%*}) &0.82s \\%2h18m
Ours** & 6.24 & 0.05s && 10.87& 0.17s && 17.02 &0.82s \\%2h18m
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\\ \small (*) Percentage of solved instances. \small (**) \text{With the option of a guaranteed solution}
\end{table}
\subsection{Training Times}\label{ssec:traintimes}
We showcase the fast training of our model against the NeuRewriter model (\cite{chen2019learning}) as a representative for RL methods. Table \ref{tab:train} shows the results from runs on an A100-SXM4 machine with 40GB GPU RAM. To train the NeuRewriter for the VRP50 and VRP100 with the proposed batch size of 64, 40GB GPU RAM are not sufficient. Instead, we used a batch size of 32 and 16 respectively, where the total runtime is estimated for completing 10 epochs.
Accounting for our dataset generation, we note that with 2 Xeon Gold 6230 CPU cores, it takes roughly 11 days to generate one dataset. That said, we emphasize that the OR Tools is straightforwardly parallelizable (emberrassingly parallel!), such that doubling the amount of cores, roughly halves the runtime.
\begin{table}[h]
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-3.0pt}
\caption{Training Times per Epoch and Total Train Time of NeuRewriter (\cite{chen2019learning}) and our Model}
\label{sample-table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\multicolumn{1}{l}{} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{VRP20}& &\multicolumn{2}{c}{VRP50}
&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{VRP100} \\
\cmidrule(l){2-3} \cmidrule(l){5-6}
\cmidrule(l){8-9}
&$t/\text{epoch}$&$t$&&$t/\text{epoch}$&$t$&&$t/\text{epoch}$&$t$\\
\hline \\
NeuRewriter &15h & 6d&& $>$ 31h& $>$ 13d && $>$ 36h & $>$ 15d\\
Ours & 4m&4h && 5.4m& 4.5h&& 1h& 1.5d\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:train}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
With the proposed supervised approach for solving the VRP, we investigate a new road to tackle routing problems with machine learning that comes with the benefit of being fast to train and
which is able to produce feasible solutions for a apriori fixed fleet size.
We show that our model
is able to jointly learn to solve the VRP assignment problem
and the route length minimization.
Our work focuses on and showcases practical aspects for solving the VRP that are important for decision makers in the planning industry and shows that our method outperforms existing models when accounting for fixed vehicle costs.
In future work, we aim to alleviate the computational shortcomings of the train loss calculation, such that the model's fast training capability can be extended to problems with larger fleet sizes.
\section{Reproducibility Statement}
Considering the current pace at which new approaches and methods are emerging, not only but also for the research area of learning based combinatorial optimization, fast and easy access to source codes with rigorous documentation needs to be established in order to ensure comparability and verified state-of-the-arts.
To this end, we will provide the code for our fast supervised learning method on a github repository, which will be publicly available.
During the review process, the code will be made available to he reviewers.
On a broader scope, since the findings in this paper comprise not only our own results, but also those of re-evaluated existing approaches in the field, we plan to develop a benchmark suite on learning-based routing methods for which the re-evaluations and produced codes will build the basis for.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Software containers as a technology gained traction mainly as a solution to
problems encountered in cloud computing.\cite{TheHistoryof2015} Providing
isolation between processes and their environments, they enable lightweight
multi-tenancy and efficient resource sharing.\cite{ContainersandCloud2014}
Current container technology does offer more though (compare e.g.
\cite{Docker2015}): Applications with all their dependencies (services,
configuration, etc.) can be bundled as a single artifact, seriously simplifying
deployment processes. Shipping all dependencies bundled within one artifact,
further allows for greatly simplified (even immutable) infrastructure -- a host
with just a container runtime -- reducing host-deployment and -maintenance
efforts. With intercompatible container runtimes being available for all major
operating systems (OSs) (Linux, Windows, OSX), a containerized application can be
deployed virtually independent of the host machine and OS.
Apart from the increased security through process- and usually additional
network-isolation from the host machine, especially the benefits in deployment
and cross-platform compatibility have made containers (and \emph{docker}
especially) a tool for reproducible deployments not only in cloud computing, but
research in general, as proposed in \cite{Anintroductionto2015}, and even
robotics research in particular, as proposed in \cite{TrytoStart2019}. As
identified in \cite{ROSandDocker2017}, a major advantage of bundling
dependencies in robotics development lies in consistently reproducible
deployments of even cutting edge algorithms and software modules, not available
as stable distributions through package management systems.
ROS as a framework enables the composition of robotics applications as
distributed systems on heterogenous hardware. While this trait gives a high
flexibility in development and enables optimal hardware choice and resource
utilization, multi-host distributed systems require serious maintenance efforts.
To mitigate compatibility issues, ROS provides a package management solution as
specially maintained and versioned repositories, and automated dependency
fetching using \emph{rosdep}\cite{rodepROSWiki} to support the deployment
process. \emph{roslaunch}, on the other hand, is ROS' own solution to combating
runtime complexity,
supporting node spawning, parametrization and supervision, as well as setting
parameters and supporting remapping \cite{roslaunchROSWiki}. While all the latter simplifies the
deployment of ROS nodes, still the ROS distribution itself and
additional dependencies like services and necessary files have to be maintained
manually. As shown in \cite{VirtualizationonInternet2017}, containers are a
technology suitable to be used on resource constrained systems with negligible
performance penalties. With this ability to use containers at the edge, they pose
a unified solution to combat the complexity of distributed ROS-system deployment
over different hardware, as well as ROS-node an dependency deployment with
cutting edge technology implementations not available through package
management.
The bidirectional communication and establishment of communication channels
required by ROS poses a challenge to using ROS deployments spread over multiple
machines, mixing containerized and non-containerized nodes. We will first analyze
the suitability of different container networking modes for ROS communication,
as well as their possible implications on the final deployment. Using the
obtained information we will derive the concrete problem of using ROS in
containers in true distributed multi-host environments, and develop a suitable
solution.
\emph{For the remaining work we will focus on \emph{docker} as container
runtime, as it is available for all major hardware platforms and operating
systems, optimally reflecting the idea of heterogenous host systems. This choice
influences the following analysis in regard to the provided networking modes and
their specific implementation; most runtimes do provide equivalent networking
modes though (compare e.g. \cite{NetworkingoverviewDocker,UseIPvlannetworks}
with \cite{NetworksLXD} and \cite{systemd.nspawn5}). The proposed solution will be
runtime agnostic.}
\section{ROS and docker -- related works}\label{relatedworks} Official ROS
\emph{docker} images are published to \emph{docker hub} since the release of ROS
\emph{Jade}\cite{ROSandDocker2017}, introduced at ROScon
2015\cite{ROS+Docker2015}. The ROS Wiki officially introduces docker in
\cite{dockerTutorialsDocker}, but covers the use of container on a single host
only. The complementing documentation for ROS and docker networking at
\cite{dockerTutorialsNetwork} is not existent. While
\cite{RobotOperatingSystem2017} devotes a whole chapter\cite{ROSandDocker2017}
to docker, networking outside a single host is not covered, though the author
proposes \emph{docker swarm} networking for connecting multiple hosts at ROSCon
2015\cite{ROS+Docker2015}.
While acknowledged as a tool for establishing reproducibility in robotics
applications, we can mostly find publications on benefits of using \emph{docker}
with ROS in academic use cases and descriptions of uses in education like
\cite{TrytoStart2019,ROSLabSharingROS2019}. While we can find
\cite{AmodularCPS2017} as a solitary example, publicly available works using
\emph{docker} with ROS for \emph{distributed deployments} seem sparse. None of
the above examples exhibits and covers the challenges of building distributed
ROS deployments with containerized nodes. As we will discover in
\cref{dockernwros}, the challenge in containerizing ROS nodes is a
communications problem. We will thus briefly consider works combining cloud
computing with ROS, as the encountered problems from network partitioning are
assumed to be similar. While in \cite{CloudroboticsA72016} an OpenStack-based
cloud is used for data processing and storage, this cloud is a local deployment
on the same network as the remaining nodes, thus not incurring any problems of
traditional cloud computing. We can find an actual cloud computing setup in
\cite{CloudRoboticswith2020}, overcoming network boundaries by using
\emph{rosbridge} an a custom \emph{cloud bridge}. Apart from \emph{rosbridge} --
identified as the most common tool to enable cloud robotics applications with
ROS by \cite{Therisingprospects072013} -- we can find
\emph{ROSLink}\cite{ROSLinkBridgingROS2017} as another tool to solve the problem
of connecting ROS applications over multiple network segments. All these
solutions do not behave transparently for a ROS deployment, but have to be
interfaced explicitly with custom, application specific protocols.
\section{Docker networking and ROS}\label{dockernwros}
To understand the problems and limitations when using ROS in containers, we will
first introduce the operating principle of the ROS middleware. With this
foundation we will evaluate the fitness for containerized ROS applications of
the currently available networking modes provided by \emph{docker}.
\subsection{ROS communications}\label{roscomm} The ROS middleware is composed of
two different parts: An \emph{Extensible Markup Language Remote Procedure Call
(XMLRPC)}-based management protocol and the actual data transmission protocol
\emph{TCPROS}. Following we will analyze both protocols separately.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{1\baselineskip}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{roscomm.pdf}
\caption{Order of communications in ROS: Advertising topic \emph{/chat} by
node \emph{talker} and subscribing from node \emph{listener}. Arrows showing
direction of communications channel establishment, and XMLRPC method call and
return value.}
\label{roscomm:img:order}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{XMLRPC -- Master- \& Slave-API}
ROS defines two XMLRPC-based Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for
management purposes; a \emph{Master-}\cite{ROSMaster_APIROS} and
\emph{Slave-API}\cite{ROSSlave_APIROS}. XMLRPC uses the \emph{Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP)} as underlying transport.
\paragraph{Master-API}
The \emph{Master-API} is implemented by the ROS master. Its address has to be
known to all nodes participating in a ROS network. Nodes consume this API to
(un-) register topic publications and subscriptions, services, as well as
performing topic-, service- and node-information-lookup. When registering, nodes
report their slave API endpoint to the master, using an explicitly configured
hostname or IP-address. A connection to consume the \emph{Master-API} is
initiated by a node.
\Cref{roscomm:img:order} shows invocation of the \emph{Master-API} for the
\emph{talker} node, registering as publisher for the \emph{/chat} topic. As step
2, \emph{listener} calls the \texttt{registerSubscriber} method on the
\emph{Master-API} to register itself as a subscriber to the \emph{/chat} topic,
and retrieve a list of \emph{Slave-API}-XMLRPC-endpoint-addresses of nodes
publishing the topic.
\paragraph{Slave-API}
Each node provides a \emph{Slave-API}. This API is consumed by the master as
well as other nodes. Apart from querying runtime information about a node, the
master consumes this API for management purposes like updating parameters and
shutting down nodes, as well as to notify nodes about new publishers of their
subscriptions. Nodes mutually consume their \emph{Slave-APIs} to negotiate a
communication channel for topic-data transmission; the subscribing node
initiates the connection. A random TCP-port is allocated for the underlying HTTP
server.
\Cref{roscomm:img:order} shows the \emph{Slave-API} call for the
\texttt{requestTopic} method from \emph{listener} to \emph{talker}, yielding a
description (\texttt{protocolParams}) of a mutually supported communications
channel\footnote{See \cref{TCPROS} for limitations}.
\subsubsection{TCPROS}\label{TCPROS} While ROS supports the negotiation of the
protocol and implementation to use for data exchange, TCPROS is the only
officially provided and supported protocol. TCPROS supports data exchange for
topics and service calls; representing the last step and actual data exchange
(4) in \cref{roscomm:img:order}. Per node usually one TCPROS endpoint is
allocated on a random TCP-port, the connection is established by a subscribing
oder service-calling node. In contrast to the XMLRPC/HTTP based management
protocol, TCPROS does not include any routing information.\cite{ROSTCPROSROS}
\subsection{Docker networking-mode fitness for ROS}\label{dockernw} We will
cover the networking modes provided by a stock \emph{docker} installation. While
\emph{libnetwork} -- as provider and implementation of virtual networking in
\emph{docker} -- does support plugins to extend its functionality, their
deployment on host machines adds additional efforts, largely invaliding the
motivation of containerizing applications. The available network modes are
documented in brief at \cite{NetworkingoverviewDocker}; while omitting
\emph{ipvlan} for unknown reasons, its documentation is available at
\cite{UseIPvlannetworks}. Following, the need for bidirectional communication
establishment as seen in \cref{roscomm}, will be the main focus of our
discussion. Discussed networking modes will be \emph{bridged}, \emph{host},
\emph{ipvlan} and \emph{macvlan}, as well as \emph{overlay} networking.
\emph{ipvlan} and \emph{macvlan} target the use case of connecting containers to
external (outside the host machine) networks. For these networking modes we will
therefore as well discuss the stock IP-address management (IPAM) mechanism and
behavior, as these impact the integration mechanisms of containers in external
networks.
\subsubsection{Bridged}\label{dockernw:bridged} \emph{Bridged} is the default
network mode used by \emph{docker}. The operation principle is shown in
\cref{container:img:br}. A network bridge \emph{br} is created on the host
machine \emph{host A/B}. The virtual network interfaces \emph{eth0} of
containers \emph{container A/B} connect to the bridge acting as a network
switch. Connectivity from the containers to an \emph{external network} segment
is provided by a router \SymbRouter, performing Network Address Translation
(NAT) between \emph{br} a host network interface (e.g. \emph{eht0}). Each host
can communicate with all containers running on that host, e.g. \emph{host A}
with \emph{container A}, and \emph{host B} with \emph{container B}. As the host
performs NAT routing, containers can reach all network targets on \emph{external
network} the host itself can reach, e.g. \emph{container A} can reach \emph{host
A} and \emph{host B}. Containers, being located behind a router, are not
directly reachable from the \emph{external network}, e.g. \emph{host A} and
\emph{container A} cannot reach \emph{container B}. Exposing applications from
within a container to the \emph{external network} is performed by forwarding
ports from the host to the container. This technique is shown for \emph{host B}
and \emph{container B}: Forwarding port 80 from the container to port 8080 on
the host machine, allows participants on the \emph{external network} to access a
service on port 80 in \emph{container B} by connecting to port 8080 on
\emph{host B}.
ROS requires bidirectional connection establishment, which is not directly
satisfiable using \emph{bridge} networking. As described in \cref{roscomm}, the
ports allocated for communication by ROS are chosen at random. This behavior
prohibits the use of port forwarding to make containerized applications
available to an outside network segment, as the ports to forward are not
deterministic and not know a priori. Thus, using \emph{bridged} networking, it is
not directly possible to connect containerized ROS nodes to nodes on an external network.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{0.5\baselineskip}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{container_br.pdf}
\caption{\emph{docker} default bridge networking topology}
\label{container:img:br}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Host}
Using \emph{host} networking mode does not allocate virtual network interfaces
within a container, but grants direct access to the host network interfaces from
within a container.
Tough it does technically allow ROS nodes to be ran inside a container and
communicate with nodes on an external network, we evaluate \emph{host}
networking to not qualify as a universal solution for the following reasons: It
removes network isolation and thus a major portion of the benefits of
containerizing applications, and it is no portable solution as it is only
available on Linux based system \cite{Usehostnetworking}.
\subsubsection{ipvlan \& macvlan}
\emph{Ipvlan layer3-mode} uses a similar setup to \emph{bridge} networking, and
exhibits similar behavior with the major difference, that reverse routing is
technically possible when using static routes from the external network. Due to
this similarity we will not consider \emph{ipvlan layer3-mode} any further and
scope the following analysis to \emph{ipvlan layer2-mode}. \emph{Ipvlan} and
\emph{macvlan} networking modes each allocate a sub-interface on an interface of
the host machine, mapping this sub-interface into a container. While
\emph{macvlan} allocates an additional MAC-address on the interface,
\emph{ipvlan} does only allocate an additional IP-address. In each case, a
container gets direct access to the network of the underlying host/parent
interface, while retaining host and container network isolation and allowing
members of the external network to reach containers as if they were physical
hosts.
While both networking modes -- \emph{ipvlan layer3-mode} and \emph{macvlan} --
do in theory provide an optimal solution in terms of enabling direct network
access for containers, they do come with a caveat though: IP-address management.
\paragraph{IPAM}\label{ipam} Networking in \emph{docker} is implemented using
\emph{libnetwork}. Each networking mode is implemented by a
driver\cite{libnetworkDesign}. A driver is responsible for all aspects of
network-operation, including IP-address management (IPAM). IPAM in turn is
implemented by IPAM-drivers, owned and controlled by an instance of a network
driver\cite{libnetworkDesign,libnetworkIPAMDriver}. The available default
IPAM-drivers shipped with \emph{docker} do assign addresses from either a random
or user-defined subnet, but do not support address assignment using Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCP).
Using \emph{macvlan/ipvlan} networking on multiple hosts on the same network
requires synchronization of subnets to guarantee connectivity, and
synchronization of disjoint address-pools to avoid address conflicts, over all
hosts; adding management efforts and an additional problem of configuration
distribution among hosts.
While a third party network driver with DHCP support is available at
\cite{dockernetdhcp}, and an experimental DHCP-IPAM-driver is available at
\cite{nerdalertlibnetwork,ExperimentalDockerLibnetwork}, we could not confirm
them to be working on all OSs targeted by \emph{docker}. As stated in
\cref{dockernw} we do not consider plugins to be a viable universal solution
(see \cref{proxy} for further information). Based on the behavior of the stock
IPAM-drivers we evaluate \emph{macvlan} and \emph{ipvlan} networks as not
suitable for containerized ROS applications. We believe address management to be
an issue to be tackled by either using DHCP, or while deploying the host
machines and their operating systems, and not to be solved by manual
configuration distribution at container instantiation time.
\subsubsection{Overlay}
Allows to build networks spanning multiple \emph{docker} instances on multiple
hosts, transparently connecting containers over host boundaries. While solving
the problem of connecting containerized ROS nodes on multiple hosts,
\emph{overlay} networking does not allow to communicate with non-containerized
nodes on different hosts and/or networks.
\subsection{Problem Statement}\label{problem}
Focusing on \emph{docker}, as the container runtime available for the most
common operating systems, from our analysis in \cref{dockernw} we can conclude,
that no stock-available networking mode is suitable to run containerized
ROS nodes, with our basic requirements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item nodes distributed among different machines
\item mix of nodes ran directly on host OS and containerized
\item no additional configuration distribution and management
\end{enumerate}
While \emph{overlay} networking allows to satisfy requirement 1, it fails to
satisfy requirement 2 and 3. \emph{Macvlan} and \emph{ipvlan} networking can satisfy
requirements 1 and 2, while failing to satisfy requirement 3 with the provided
\emph{IPAM} implementation (see \cref{ipam} for details).
Consequently, we need to find a way to enable the use of ROS in containers,
while being able to communicate between containerized nodes and nodes ran
directly on the host OS, and removing additional \emph{out-of-band}
configuration and management. As \emph{out-of-band} we want to classify all
configuration an management that is not local to ROS and \emph{docker}, or not
supported by their distribution/deployment mechanisms; e.g. installing
third-party plugins would be considered \emph{out-of-band}, while pulling
container images from a registry would not (see e.g. \cref{ipam}).
\section{L7 ROS proxy}\label{proxy}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{0.5\baselineskip}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{container_rosproxy.pdf}
\caption{Networking topology and connections, when using containerized ROS
nodes with proposed \emph{rosproxy}}
\label{container:img:rosproxy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{1\baselineskip}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{rosproxy.pdf}
\caption{\emph{rosproxy} schematic operation principle and connection topology}
\label{rosproxy:img}
\end{figure*}
As the container runtime cannot provide a suitable solution by itself, we have
to find a solution \emph{within} the bounds of ROS and \emph{docker}, on a
higher networking layer.
With \emph{bridged} networking and port forwarding, \emph{docker} provides a
networking mode with the ability to expose containerized applications on the
network, with no configuration to be shared and managed among multiple hosts. As
described in \cref{dockernw:bridged}, the main problem of using \emph{bridged}
networking is the non-deterministic allocation of ports used for ROS
communications. Finding a way to allocate all ports used for ROS communications
from a deterministic port range, would provide a foundation to use
\emph{bridged} networking with containerized ROS nodes. Allocating and
forwarding ports to the host machine would provide an additional benefit: Name-
and address-resolution will be scoped to the network of host machines and not
require routing rules and public (scoped to the network) name resolution
services for containers. We will further require our solution to be
\textbf{transparent} (i.e. no changes to node implementations and network
configuration of containers) for all nodes; containerized or not.
\subsection{Concept}
As a solution we propose a proxy\footnote{We will later find, that a proxy
server provides additional benefits outside of containerization.} for ROS
communications, on the application layer (layer 7 / L7), ran in a separate
container, with the capability of allocating all ports for ROS communication
from a specified range to be forwarded to the host. The concept is shown in
\cref{container:img:rosproxy}. A proxy server \emph{rosproxy} is ran in a
container, sharing a bridged network with containers running ROS nodes. A set
$\{ [m,n],o \}$ of a port $o$ and a range of ports $[m,n]$ from the proxy
container will be forwarded to the hosts interface \emph{eth0} as ports
$\{[x,y],z \}$. While containerized ROS nodes can connect directly to other
nodes on the network using TCPROS,
the \emph{rosproxy} shall allow the reverse and proxy TCPROS communication from
ports within the range $[m,n]$ to the relevant containerized nodes in containers
\emph{node A/B}. As seen in \cref{roscomm}, the latter is required for all
XMLRPC communications as well.
\subsubsection{Proxying XMLRPC}
Nodes report their XMLRPC-management-API to the ROS master, consisting of a
randomly allocated TCP-port and either a hostname or IP-address (explicitly
configured from environment variables \texttt{ROS\_HOSTNAME} or
\texttt{ROS\_IP}). To expose these API endpoints using the proxy, communication
from nodes to the master will have to be intercepted (cmp.
\cref{container:img:rosproxy}), and the reported XMLRPC endpoints rewritten to
the address of an endpoint provided by the proxy and reachable on the external
network. Requiring interception and modification of nodes XMLRPC calls to the
master, we can find a simple concept of \textbf{transparently} injecting the
proxy server into the communications: The proxy server will be set as the ROS
master address for all containerized nodes on a machine. On startup, nodes will
register with the master. Configuring the proxy as the address of the ros
master, we can intercept this communication. XMLRPC leveraging HTTP as transport
protocol, allows to dynamically allocate an HTTP endpoint on the proxy per node,
rewrite the nodes XMLRPC-API-address to this new endpoint, and proxy calls to
this endpoint back to the respective node. As documented in
\cite{ROSMaster_APIROS}, the calls reporting a nodes XMLRPC address (as
\texttt{caller\_api}), thus requiring interception and modification, are
\texttt{registerService}, \texttt{registerSubscriber},
\texttt{unregisterSubscriber}, \texttt{registerPublisher} and
\texttt{unregisterPublisher}. \cref{container:img:rosproxy} shows this behavior
of relaying all XMLRPC requests from nodes through the \emph{rosproxy}, as well
as relaying all calls to the nodes slave APIs through the proxy. All ingress
from the external network is over ports forwarded to the hosts network
interface.
\subsubsection{Proxying TCPROS}
TCPROS itself does not contain any connection information and does not need any
interception and data modification. To proxy TCPROS connections, a simple TCP
proxy, forwarding traffic from a port on the host to the port allocated for
TCPROS communications by a ROS node is sufficient. The TCPROS endpoint, as
allocated by a node, is reported either on service registration
(\texttt{service\_api} when calling \texttt{registerService} on the master API
\cite{ROSMaster_APIROS}) or as a protocol parameter in response to a
\texttt{requestTopic} call to a nodes slave API \cite{ROSSlave_APIROS}. To
effectively proxy TCPROS connections, these XMLRPC calls have to be intercepted
as well; instantiating a new TCP proxy for each TCPROS port reported by a node,
and rewriting the \texttt{service\_api} or relevant \texttt{ProtocolParam}
values in the XMLRPC call or response. As shown in
\cref{container:img:rosproxy}, outbound TCPROS connections from within a
container are routed directly by \emph{docker}, while inbound connections are
proxied from ports forwarded to the hosts interface on the external network.
\subsection{Implementation}
Based on the above concept we can develop an architecture for an implementation
of a \emph{rosproxy}. The concept is shown in \cref{rosproxy:img}. At runtime,
the proxy will consist of multiple individual TCP proxies and multiple HTTP
endpoints as XMLRPC proxies. A \texttt{/master} endpoint will proxy all calls to
the master API from nodes on the internal network \emph{br}. For each node (e.g.
node \texttt{/caller\_id}) a new HTTP endpoint will be allocated dynamically
(e.g. \texttt{/node/caller\_id}). This node specific endpoint will expose a
nodes slave API via the proxy. For each TCPROS endpoint reported by a node, a
TCP proxy -- forwarding a port on the \emph{rosproxy} host to the respective
endpoint -- will be instantiated. In addition to an HTTP endpoint, an additional
TCP proxy will be allocated for each nodes slave API. All the resources
allocated per individual node are shown enclosed by a gray dashed line in
\cref{rosproxy:img}. Lifetime of those resources is managed by counting a nodes
subscriptions, publications and registered services, as well as cyclic "pinging"
of the node, using its XMLRPC API. This resource lifetime management in combination with
the additional TCP proxy for each nodes slave API enables support for stale node
detection an registration removal, as implemented by \texttt{rosnode
cleanup}\cite{rosnodeROSWiki}.
The internal handler functions for each HTTP endpoint will take care of
allocating new endpoints and TCP proxies, and rewriting those
addresses/endpoints in XMLRPC calls.
While the diagram in \cref{rosproxy:img} focuses on the operating principle and
shows proxying of ROS communication from an internal to an external network, we
can see the core functionality enabling containerization of ROS nodes: The
exemplary ports $p_1$ and $p_2$ can be allocated from a predefined range
($[x,y]$ in \cref{container:img:rosproxy}) and exposed via the host. In the
intended setup as shown in \cref{container:img:rosproxy}, the \emph{rosproxy} in
turn has to use (and can be configured to do so) the hosts hostname or address
for the reported and rewritten XMLRPC and TCPROS endpoints.
We implement \emph{rosproxy} using \emph{JavaScript} (\emph{ECMA Script}),
targeting the \emph{Node.js} runtime. The implementation is available at
\cite{rosproxy}.
\section{Conclusion}
We analyzed the networking-related challenges while containerizing ROS nodes in
distributed multi-host environments for mixed deployment of containerized nodes
and nodes ran directly on a host machines OS. Focusing on \emph{docker} as
container runtime, we provide a solution to the problem of bidirectional
connection establishment, requiring no shared configuration management, no
modification to a stock \emph{docker} installation or changes to the underlying
infrastructure and container host, by enabling the proposed proxy itself to be
ran inside a container. Despite the focus on the \emph{docker} runtime, the
presented solution is runtime agnostic. We believe the work to be of great value
by enabling fast and easily reproducible deployments of ROS systems on
heterogenous infrastructure, by leveraging containerization and container
distribution mechanisms. Simultaneously lowering the maintenance and management
overhead for these systems, as containers can ship all required dependencies.
While this work targets ROS and not ROS 2, we believe that enabling evaluation
and research into containerized ROS deployments will deliver value beyond the
lifetime of ROS and into ROS 2. The ROS 2 DDS/RTSP-based \cite{ROSDDS} transport
and discovery may in the future lend itself to replicating similar setups as
implemented and discussed here, by e.g. using DDS routing services as shown in
\cite{DDSDocker}.
While we set out to only enable containerization of ROS nodes, we effectively
provide a solution to proxy ROS communication over network boundaries and
between network segments in general. With this capability, we imagine the work
to enable further research in cloud robotics, by enabling transparent proxying
for ROS, using its native communication protocols and technologies.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\IfFileExists{./bib/bibliography_final.bib}{%
\typeout{using: bibliography_final.bib}%
|
\section{Introduction}
This work is concerned with an inverse potential problem for the diffusion model with a space-dependent
potential and its rigorous numerical analysis. Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ ($d=1,2,3$) be a convex
polyhedral domain with a boundary $\partial\Omega$. Fixing $T>0$ as the final time, we consider the following initial-boundary value problem for the diffusion model with $\alpha\in(0,1]$:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:pde}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t) - \Delta u(x,t) +q(x) u(x,t)&=f(x), &&(x,t)\in \Omega\times(0,T],\\
u(x,t)&=b(x),&&(x,t)\in \partial\Omega\times(0,T],\\
u(x,0)&=v(x),&&x\in\Omega,
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $v$ denotes the initial condition, $b$ and $f$ are space-dependent boundary data and source term, respectively .
The function $q$ refers to the radiativity or
reaction coefficient or potential in the standard parabolic case ($\alpha=1$), dependent of the specific applications.
Throughout, we assume that the potential $q$ is space-dependent.
The notation $\partial_t^\alpha u$ denotes the conventional first-order derivative when $\alpha=1$, and the Djrbashian-Caputo fractional derivative in time $t$ for
$\alpha\in(0,1)$ \cite[p. 92]{KilbasSrivastavaTrujillo:2006}, namely,
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t^\alpha u (t) =
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t u(t),&&\text{for}~~\alpha=1;\\
&\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}\int_0^t (t-s)^{-\alpha} u'(s)\ {\rm d}s,&&\text{for}~~\alpha\in(0,1);
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $\Gamma(z)=\int_0^\infty s^{z-1}e^{-s}\mathcal D(K_g) s$ (for $\Re(z)>0$) denotes Euler's Gamma function.
The fractional derivative $\partial_t^\alpha u$ recovers the usual first order derivative $u'$
as the order $\alpha\to1^-$ for a sufficiently smooth function $u$.
The model \eqref{eqn:pde} with $\alpha\in(0,1)$ has been drawing increasing
attention over the past several decades,
due to the extraordinary capability of the model for describing anomalously slow diffusion processes,
also known as subdiffusion. At a microscopical level, it
can be described by continuous time random walk, where the waiting time distribution between consecutive jumps is heavy
tailed with a divergent mean, in a manner similar to Brownian motion for the standard diffusion equation ($\alpha=1$).
The model \eqref{eqn:pde} can be viewed as the governing equation for the probability density function of the particle
appearing at certain time instance $t$ and space location $x$. It has found many applications in physics, biology and finance etc.
One may consult the review \cite{MetzlerKlafter:2000} for physical motivation and an extensive list of applications.
In this work, we study the following \textbf{inverse potential problem} for the (sub)diffusion model \eqref{eqn:pde}:
setting appropriate problem data $v, f, b$ and measuring the final time data $g(x):=u(x,T;q^\dag)$,
then we aim to recover the unknown potential term $q^\dag(x)\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{equation*
u(x,T; q^\dag)=g(x)\quad \mbox{in }\Omega.
\end{equation*}
Here we denote the solution corresponding to the potential $q$ by $u(x,t;q)$.
We also consider the numerical reconstruction from a noisy data
\begin{equation*}
g_\delta(x) = u(x,T; q^\dag) + \xi(x) \quad \mbox{in }\Omega,
\end{equation*}
and $\xi$ denotes the measurement noise.
The accuracy of the observational data $g_\delta$ is measured by the noise level $\|g_\delta - g\|_{C(\overline\Omega)} = \delta$.
This inverse potential problem arises in many practical applications, where
$q^\dag$ represents the radiativity coefficient in heat conduction \cite{YZ:2001} and perfusion coefficient in Pennes' bio-heat
equation in human physiology \cite{Pennes:1948}.
The theoretical analysis of inverse potential problem in diffusion equation from final time observational data has a long history, see e.g, \cite{Isakov:1991,
ChoulliYamamoto:1996,ChoulliYamamoto:1997,ChenJiangZou:2020,KlibanovLiZhang:2020} and the references therein.
In \cite{Isakov:1991} Isakov showed the uniqueness and (conditional) existence of the inverse potential problem for parabolic equations,
by developing a unique continuation principle and a constructive fixed point iteration. A similar strategy was then adopted in \cite{ZhangZhou:2017}
by Zhang and Zhou for a one-dimensional time-fractional subdiffusion model. Using the spectrum perturbation argument
(\cite[Lemma 2.2]{ZhangZhou:2017} and \cite{Trubowitz:1987}) they proved that the fixed point iteration
is a contraction, from which the uniqueness and existence followed immediately.
Choulli and Yamamoto proved a generic
well-posedness result in a H\"older space \cite{ChoulliYamamoto:1996}, and then proved a conditional stability result in a Hilbert space setting \cite{ChoulliYamamoto:1997}
for sufficiently small $T$. By using refined
properties of two-parameter Mittag--Leffler functions, e.g., complete monotonicity and asymptotics, a similar result was proved in \cite{JinZhou:IP2021-a}
for the case that $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
Kaltenbacher and Rundell \cite{KaltenbacherRundell:2019} proved the invertibility
of the linearized map (of the direct problem) from the space $L^2(\Omega)$ to $H^2(\Omega)$ under the condition $u_0>0$ in $\Omega$
and $q\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ using a Paley-Wiener type result and a type of strong maximum principle.
In \cite{KR:2020}, they studied the recovery of several parameters simultaneously from overposed data consisting of $u(T)$.
Chen et al \cite{ChenJiangZou:2020} considered the observational data in $[T_0, T_1]\times\Omega$ for the parabolic equation,
and proved conditional stability of the inverse problem in negative Sobolev spaces.
Most recently, Jin et al \cite{JLQZ:2021} used the same observational data
and showed a weighted $L^2$ stability which leads to a H\"older type stability
in the standard $L^2$ norm under a positivity condition.
We also refer interested readers to \cite{KianYamamoto:2019,MillerYamamoto:2013,KR:2020-b}
and references therein for the inverse potential problem for (sub)diffusion models from different types of observational data.
In this work, we construct an operator $K$ from the PDE \eqref{eqn:pde} as follows:
\begin{equation*}
K\psi(x)=\frac{f(x)-\partial_t^\alpha u(x,T;\psi)+\Delta g(x)}{g(x)}.
\end{equation*}
From the observational data $g(x):=u(x,T;q)$, we see that the exact potential $q^\dag$ is one of the
fixed points of $K$.
We show the monotonicity of $K$ and use it to construct a decreasing sequence converging to one fixed point.
With this monotone sequence, we prove that there is at most one fixed point,
which immediately leads to the uniqueness result of the inverse problem (Theorem \ref{thm:uniqueness2}).
Besides, this argument also deduces a simple reconstruction algorithm.
Noting that such the operator $K$ has been considered in \cite{Isakov:1991, ZhangZhou:2017},
but the argument is substantially different.
For instance, in \cite{Isakov:1991}, the proof of uniqueness relied on a unique continuation
result of the solution $u$, while the proof in \cite{ZhangZhou:2017} used some inverse spectral estimates,
which are only valid in the one-dimensional case (cf. \cite[Lemma 2.2]{ZhangZhou:2017}).
In this work, our analysis mainly relies on the monotonicity of the operator $K$,
which works for convex polyhedral domains in higher dimensions.
This novel argument also provides the feasibility of applying the approach in other PDE models.
Moreover, under some conditions on problem data, we show a Lipschitz-type stability in Hilbert spaces (Theorem \ref{thm:cond-stab})
$$ \| q_1 - q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le C \| u(T;q_1) - u(T;q_2) \|_{H^2(\Omega)},\qquad \text{for all}~~ q_1, q_2 \in \mathcal{Q}. $$
The proof relies heavily on the smoothing properties and asymptotics of solution operators.
This conditional stability plays an essential role in the numerical analysis of our reconstruction algorithm with fully discretization in space and time.
The ill-posed nature of inverse potential problems usually poses big
challenges to construct accurate and stable numerical approximations.
Regularization, especially Tikhonov regularization, is
designed to overcome the ill-posed nature \cite{EnglKunischNeubauer:1989,YZ:2001,DengYuYang:2008,YangYuDeng:2008}.
In practical computation, one still needs to discretize the continuous regularized formulation
and hence introduces the discretization error.
See \cite{YZ:2001} for the convergence of
the discrete approximations in the parabolic case. However, the convergence rates of discrete approximations
are generally very challenging to obtain, due to the strong nonconvexity of the regularized functional, which
itself stems from the high degree nonlinearity of the parameter-to-state map.
So far there have been only very few error bounds on discrete approximations, even though
an optimal \textsl{a priori} estimate provides a useful guideline to choose suitable discretization parameters according to the noise level.
See \cite{JLQZ:2021} for an $L^2$ estimate under a positivity condition,
where the observational data is required to be known in $[T-\sigma, T]\times\Omega$ for some positive parameter $\sigma$.
Moreover, in case that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, due to the presence of the nonlocal fractional differential operator,
the subdiffusion model \eqref{eqn:pde} differs considerably from the normal diffusion problem. For example,
many powerful tools, e.g. energy argument and integration by parts formula, are not directly applicable,
and the solution has only limited spatial and temporal regularity, even for smooth problem data.
Both of them often result in additional difficulties to the mathematical and numerical analysis for both direct and inverse problems.
See a related inverse conductivity problem in \cite{Wang2010ErrorEO} and \cite{JinZhou:SICON} respectively for normal diffusion and subdiffusion model,
where the error estimate requires the observational data in $(0,T]\times\Omega$.
In this work, we discretize the continuous problem \eqref{eqn:pde} by using Galerkin finite element method
with conforming piecewise bilinear finite elements in space and backward Euler method in time for $\alpha=1$.
In case that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, we apply the convolution quadrature generated by backward Euler method for the time discretization.
To numerically reconstruct the potential from the noisy observation, we develop a constructive iteration
and show that it generates a sequence
linearly converging to a fixed point $q^*$, provided that $T$ is relatively large.
Besides, we show the following \textsl{a priori} error estimate for any parameter $\epsilon \in (0, \min(1,2-\frac{d}{2}))$ (Theorem \ref{thm:err-fully})
\begin{align*}
\| q^\dag - q^* \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le \frac{c}{1- c T^{{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}}} \Big(\frac{\delta}{h^2} + h + \tau \Big) \le c\Big(\frac{\delta}{h^2} + h+ \tau\Big)
\end{align*}
if $c T^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}\le c_0<1$ for some constant $c_0$. Here $h$ and $\tau$ denote the space mesh size and time step size respectively.
This \textsl{a priori} error estimate provides guidelines to choose discretization parameters $h$ and $\tau$ according to the noise level $\delta$.
For example, the choice $\tau = h = O(\delta^{\frac13})$
leads to a best convergence rate $O(\delta^{\frac13})$. This is fully supported by our numerical results in Section \ref{sec:numerics}.
Note that at the continuous level with exact data, the iteration converges without any requirement on the terminal time $T$ (Theorem \ref{thm:uniqueness2}).
However, at the discrete level with noisy data, our theory indicates that the accuracy of the numerical reconstruction requires that $T$ cannot be too small.
The necessity of this requirement on $T$ is supported by our numerical experiments.
In Figure \ref{fig:1D:err-ite}, we observe that for a small $T$, the iteration might converge to a limit far away from the exact potential.
Our analysis relies heavily on some nonstandard error estimates (in terms of data regularity) for the
direct problem as well as the aforementioned conditional stability.
The argument works for both normal diffusion equations ($\alpha=1$) and the subdiffusion equations ($0<\alpha<1$).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:uni}, we provide some preliminary results
and show the uniqueness of the inverse potential problem by constructing a monotone fixed point iteration.
Then in Section \ref{sec:stability}, we prove a conditional stability of the inverse problem in Hilbert spaces by
using the smoothing properties and asymptotics of solution operators.
The numerical reconstruction with fully discretization is developed and analyzed in Section \ref{sec:fully},
where we show the linear convergence of the iterative algorithm and
establish \textsl{a priori} error estimates (in terms of discretization parameters and noise level) for the reconstructed potential.
Finally, in Section \ref{sec:numerics}, we present illustrative one- and two-dimensional numerical results to complement the analysis.
Now we conclude with some useful notations.
For any $k\geq 0$ and $p\geq1$, the
space $W^{k,p}(\Omega)$ denotes the standard Sobolev spaces of the $k$th order, and we write $H^k(\Omega)$,
when $p=2$. The notation $(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the $L^2(\Omega)$ inner product.
We use the Bochner spaces $W^{k,p}(0,T;B)$ etc, with $B$ being a
Banach space. Throughout, the notations $c$ and $C$, with or without a subscript, denote generic constants
which may change at each occurrence, but they are always independent of space mesh size $h$, time step size $\tau$ and noise level $\delta$.
\section{Unique identification by the monotone iteration}\label{sec:uni}
The aim of this section is to investigate the uniqueness of the inverse potential problem.
Our approach is to propose a monotone operator which generates a pointwise
decreasing sequence converging to the exact potential.
To begin with, we collect some preliminary setting for the controllable
conditions $v ,b, f$, and the (unknown) exact potential $q^\dag$. Throughout,
we assume that the exact potential $q^\dag$ belongs to the admissible set
\begin{equation}\label{admissible_q}
q^\dag \in \mathcal Q:=\{\psi\in C(\overline \Omega): 0\le \psi\le M_1\}.
\end{equation}
Now we recall the maximum principle for the diffusion model \eqref{eqn:pde}.
See \cite{Friedman:1958} for the normal diffusion, \cite{LuchkoYamamoto:2017} and \cite[Section 6.5]{Jin:2021book} for the subdiffusion.
\begin{lemma}\label{positive}
Let $q\in \mathcal{Q}$, $v, f \in L^2(\Omega)$ and $b\in H^{\frac32}(\partial\Omega)$ with $v, f, b \ge 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$.
Then the solution $u$ to equation \eqref{eqn:pde} satisfies $u \ge 0$ a.e. in $(0,T)\times \Omega$.
Moreover, if $v,b > 0$, then $u > 0$ in $(0,T)\times \Omega$.
\end{lemma}
Now we present the solution representation of the initial-boundary value problem \eqref{eqn:pde}.
For the simplicity of notations, we let $I$ be the identity operator, and $A(q)$ be the realization of $ -\Delta + q I$ with the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition with the domain
$ \text{Dom}(A(q)) = \{ \psi \in H_0^1(\Omega):\, A(q) \psi \in L^2(\Omega) \}=H_0^1(\Omega)\cap H^2(\Omega) $.
If $q\in\mathcal Q$, for any $ \psi \in H_0^1(\Omega)\cap H^2(\Omega)$, the full elliptic regularity implies
(see e.g. \cite[Lemma 2.1]{LiSun:2017} and \cite[Theorems 3.3 and 3.4]{GruterWidman:1982})
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:equiv-n}
c_1\| \psi \|_{H^2(\Omega)} \le \| A(q) \psi \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \| \psi \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c_2\| \psi \|_{H^2(\Omega)}
\end{equation}
with constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ independent of $q$.
Let $D(q)$ be the Dirichlet map by $\phi=D(q)\psi$
with $\phi$ satisfying
$$ -\Delta \phi + q \phi = 0 ~~\text{in } \Omega ~~\text{and}~~ \phi = \psi ~~\text{in } \partial\Omega. $$
In particular, for any $q\in \mathcal{Q}$, there exists a constant $c$ independent of $q$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Dqb2}
\| D(q) \psi \|_{H^2(\Omega)} \le C \| \psi \|_{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\qquad \text{for all}~~ \psi\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial\Omega).
\end{equation}
This is a direct result of the regularity of the Dirichlet operator $D(0)$ \cite[(1.2.2)]{Lasiecka:1980} and a simple shift argument.
Then the solution $u$ of problem \eqref{eqn:pde} could be represented by \cite[eq. (2.2)]{Lasiecka:1980}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sol-rep}
\begin{aligned}
u(t) &= F(t;q)v + A(q) \int_0^t E(s;q)D(q)b \mathcal D(K_g) s + \int_0^t E(s;q)f \mathcal D(K_g) s \\
&= F(t;q)v + (I-F(t;q))D(q)b +(I-F(t;q)) A(q)^{-1}f,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the operators $F(t;q)$ and $E(t;q)$ are defined by \cite[eq. (6.25) and (6.26)]{Jin:2021book}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sol-op-1}
\begin{aligned}
F(t;q) = \frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm{i}} \int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\kappa}} e^{zt} z^{\alpha-1} (z^\alpha
+ A(q))^{-1} \,\mathcal D(K_g) z~~\text{and}~~
E(t;q) = \frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm{i}} \int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\kappa}} e^{zt} (z^\alpha +A(q))^{-1}\,\mathcal D(K_g) z,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
respectively.
Here $\Gamma_{\theta,\kappa}$ denotes the integral contour in the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$ oriented counterclockwise, defined by
$
\Gamma_{\theta,\kappa} =\{z \in \mathbb{C}: |z| = \kappa , |\arg z|\le \theta\}
\cup \{ z\in \mathbb{C}: z = \kappa e^{\pm i\theta},\rho\ge \kappa\},
$
with $ \kappa\ge 0$ and $\theta \in (\frac{\pi}{2}, \pi)$.
Throughout, we fix $\theta \in(\frac{\pi}{2},\pi)$ so that $z^{\alpha} \in \Sigma_{\alpha\theta}
\subset \Sigma_{\theta}:=\{0\neq z\in\mathbb{C}: {\rm arg}(z)\leq\theta\},$ for all $z\in\Sigma_{\theta}$.
Note that $E(t;q)=-A(q)\frac{d}{dt}F(t;q)$, and in case that $\alpha=1$ there holds $F(t;q)=E(t;q)$.
The next lemma gives smoothing properties and asymptotics of $F(t;q)$ and $E(t;q)$. The proof follows from
the resolvent estimate (for any $q\in \mathcal{Q}$) \cite[Example 3.7.5 and Theorem 3.7.11]{ArendtBattyHieber:2011}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:resol}
\| (z+A(q))^{-1} \|\le c_\phi (|z|^{-1},\lambda^{-1}) \quad \forall z \in \Sigma_{\phi},
\,\,\,\forall\,\phi\in(0,\pi) ,
\end{equation}
where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the operator norm from $L^2(\Omega)$ to $L^2(\Omega)$,
and $\lambda$ denotes the smallest eigenvalue of $-\Delta$ with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition.
In case that $q\in\mathcal{Q}$, the constant $c_\phi$ can be chosen independent of $q$.
The full proof of the following lemma has been given in \cite[Theorems 6.4 and 3.2]{Jin:2021book}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:op}
Let $\lambda$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $-\Delta$ with homogeneous boundary condition.
Let $F(t;q)$ and $E(t;q)$ be the solution operators defined in \eqref{eqn:sol-op-1} with potential coefficient $q\in\mathcal{Q}$.
Then they satisfy the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\rm(i)$] $\|A(q) F (t;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + t^{\alpha-1} \| A(q) E (t;q)v \| \le c t^{-\alpha} \|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)},\quad\forall\,t\in(0,T]$;
\item[$\rm(ii)$] $\|F(t;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ t^{1-\alpha}\|E(t;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c \min(1, \lambda^{-1} t^{-\alpha}) \|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} , \quad\forall\,t\in(0,T]$,
\end{itemize}
where the constants are independent of $q$ and $t$.
\end{lemma}\vskip5pt
We also need the following assumption on the problem data.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:cond-1}
Let the initial data $v$, the boundary data $b$ and the source term $f$ satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $v \in H^2(\Omega)$, $v \ge M_2 >0$ in $\Omega$, $v(x) = b(x)$ for all $x \in \partial\Omega$;
\item[(ii)] $b \in H^{2}(\partial\Omega)$, $b \ge M_2 >0$ in $\partial\Omega$;
\item[(iii)] $f\in W^{1,p}(\Omega) \subset C( \overline \Omega)$ (with some $p>\max(d,2)$), $f \ge 0$ and $f +\Delta v - M_1 v \ge 0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}\vskip5pt
Under Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1}, we have the following results about the solution regularity and behaviours for the direct problem \eqref{eqn:pde}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:u-reg}
Let $q\in \mathcal{Q}$ and Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} be valid. Then
the solution $u(t)$ to problem \eqref{eqn:pde} with potential $q$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $u(t) \in H^2 (\Omega)$ for all $t>0$, and there exists a constant $C$ independent of $q$ such that
$\max_{t\in[0,T]} \| u(t) \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \le C$;
\item[(ii)] $\partial_t^\alpha u(t)\in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_0^1(\Omega) $, $\Delta u(t) \in C(\overline \Omega)$, and $\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t) \ge 0$, $u(x,t)\ge M_2$ for all $(x,t)\in\overline\Omega\times[0,T]$;
\item[(iii)] $ f(x)+ \Delta u(x,t) \ge q(x)M_2$ for all $t>0$ and $x\in \overline \Omega$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the smoothing property in Lemma \ref{lem:op}, we observe that
\begin{equation*}
A(q)[F(t;q)v -F(t;q)D(q)b-F(t;q) A(q)^{-1}f] \in L^2(\Omega).
\end{equation*}
Then the elliptic regularity (see \cite[Lemma 2.1]{LiSun:2017} and \cite[Theorems 3.3 and 3.4]{GruterWidman:1982}) implies that
$F(t;q)v -F(t;q)D(q)b -F(t;q) A(q)^{-1}f \in H^2(\Omega) $.
Besides, we observe that
$D(q)b$ and $A(q)^{-1}f$ belong to $H^2(\Omega) $ (see e.g. \cite[Proposition 2.12]{Acquistapace:1991}
and \cite[Theorem B.54]{ern-guermond}).
These together with \eqref{eqn:sol-rep}
imply that $u(t)\in H^2(\Omega)$. Finally, we define an auxiliary function $\phi(x,t)$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{PDE_q_0}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t^\alpha \phi(x,t)-\Delta \phi(x,t) &=f(x), &&(x,t)\in \Omega\times(0,T],\\
\phi(x,t)&=b(x),&&(x,t)\in\partial\Omega\times(0,T],\\
\phi(x,0) &=v(x) ,&&x\in\Omega.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
By Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} and the maximal $L^p$ regularity
(see e.g. \cite[Lemma 2.1]{LiSun:2017} for parabolic equation and \cite[Theorem 6.11]{Jin:2021book} for fractional evolution equations),
we know that $\phi \in W^{\alpha, q}(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap L^q(0,T; H^2(\Omega))$ for any $q\in[2,\infty)$.
Then by means of the Sobolev embedding and the interpolation between $W^{\alpha, q}(0,T;L^2(\Omega))$ and $L^q(0,T;H^2(\Omega))$, we have $\phi \in C([0,T]\times\overline\Omega)$.
As a result, the comparison principle implies
$ \| u \|_{C([0,T]\times\overline\Omega)} \le \| \phi \|_{C([0,T]\times\overline\Omega)} \le C $,
where the constant $C$ is independent of potential $q$. Then we complete the proof of (i).
Next, we let $w=\partial_t^\alpha u$, which is the solution to the following initial-boundary value problem
\begin{equation}\label{PDE_w_1}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t^\alpha w(x,t)-\Delta w(x,t) +q(x) w(x,t) &=0, &&(x,t)\in \Omega\times(0,T],\\
w(x,t)&=0,&&(x,t)\in\partial\Omega\times(0,T],\\
w(x,0)=f(x)+\Delta v (x) &- q(x)v (x),&&x\in\Omega.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Noting that $w(x,0)\in L^2(\Omega)$ by Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1},
then we apply Lemma \ref{lem:op} to arrive that
$$ A(q)w(t) = A(q) F(t) [f +\Delta v - q v ] \in L^2(\Omega). $$
Then the elliptic regularity
implies $\partial_t^\alpha u(t) = w(t) \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_0^1(\Omega) \subset C(\overline \Omega)$ for $t>0$.
Recalling Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} (i) and (iii), we have
$f(x)+\Delta v (x) - q(x) v (x) \ge 0$.
This and Lemma \ref{positive} indicate the
positivity of $\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t)$.
Meanwhile, the facts that $u(t), \partial_t^\alpha u(t), q, f \in C( \overline \Omega)$ lead to $\Delta u(t) \in C(\overline \Omega)$.
Besides, by means of the facts that $v(x),b(x)\ge M_2$ in Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} and $\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t) \ge 0$, we derive
$$ u(x,t) = u(x,0) + \int_0^t \frac{(t-s)^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \partial_s^\alpha u(x,s)\,\mathcal D(K_g) s \ge u(x,0) \ge M_2$$
for all $(x,t)\in \bar \Omega \times [0,T]$.
Finally, by the positivity of $\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t)$ we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qinD}
f(x)+ \Delta u(x,t)=\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t)+q(x)u(x,t)\ge q(x)u(x,t) \ge q(x) M_2.
\end{equation}
This completes the proof of (ii) and (iii).
\end{proof}\vskip5pt
From now on, we use the notation $u(q)$ to denote the solution to \eqref{eqn:pde} with the potential $q$.
Let $q^\dag$ be the exact potential to be reconstructed.
Under Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1}, according to Lemma \ref{lem:u-reg},
the (exact) observation $g(x) = u(x,T; q^\dag)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{ass:g}
g \in C(\overline\Omega), ~~ \Delta g \in C(\overline\Omega),~~ f(x) + \Delta g(x) \ge 0, ~~\text{and}~~ g(x)\ge M_2 > 0 ~ \text{for all}~x\in \overline\Omega .
\end{equation}
To show the uniqueness of the potential, we define an operator
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:K}
Kq(x)=\frac{f(x)-\partial_t^\alpha u(x,T;q)+\Delta g(x)}{g(x)} \quad \text{for}~~q \in \mathcal{Q}.
\end{equation}
Then under Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1}, Lemma \ref{lem:u-reg} implies that the exact potential $q^\dag$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}\label{eqn:DK}
q^\dag \in \mathcal{D}(K)=\Big\{\psi\in C(\overline \Omega):0\le\psi\le \frac{f(x)+ \Delta g(x)}{g(x)}\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
Next, we intend to show that the inverse potential problem is equivalent
to find a fixed point of the operator $K$ in the set $\mathcal{D}(K)$.
This is given by the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:equiv}
Let Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} be valid and the operator $K$ be defined by \eqref{eqn:K}.
Then we have the following equivalence.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $q^\dag\in\mathcal{Q}$ satisfies $u(x,T;q^\dag)=g(x)$,
then $q^\dag$ is a fixed point of the operator $K$ in $\mathcal{D}(K)$.
\item[(ii)] If $q^\dag \in \mathcal{D}(K)$ is a fixed point of the operator $K$, then $q^\dag$ satisfies $u(x,T;q^\dag)=g(x)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is obvious that $u(x,T;q^\dag)=g(x)$ implies that $q^\dag$ is the fixed point of $K$.
Then the relation \eqref{ass:g} and the fact that $\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t;q^\dag) \ge 0$
(by Lemma \ref{lem:u-reg}) yield that $q^\dag \in \mathcal{D}(K)$.
Therefore, it suffices to show the reversed conclusion.
We assume that $q^\dag \in \mathcal{D}(K)$ is one fixed point of operator $K$, then we have
\begin{equation*}
f(x)-\partial_t^\alpha u(x,T;q^\dag)=q^\dag(x)g(x)-\Delta g(x)=-\Delta u(x,T; q^\dag )+q^\dag(x)u(x,T; q^\dag ).
\end{equation*}
Letting $w(x)=u(x,T;q^\dag)-g(x)$, we observe that $w$ satisfies the elliptic system
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
-\Delta w(x)+q^\dag(x)w(x)&=0, &&x\in \Omega,\\
w(x)&=0,&&x\in\partial\Omega.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Then the comparison principle of elliptic equation implies $w=0$.
Hence $u(x,T;q^\dag)=g(x)$, which implies that $q^\dag$ generates the terminal measurement $g(x)$.
\end{proof}
Due to the equivalence given by Lemma \ref{lem:equiv} and the fact that $q^\dag \in \mathcal{D}(K)$,
we aim to verify that the operator
$K$ admits a unique fixed point in $\mathcal{D}(K)$.
To this end, we intend to show that $K$ generates a decreasing sequence in $\mathcal{D}(K)$
from an \textsl{\textsl{a priori}} chosen starting value.
Then the uniqueness of the fixed point follows immediately.
\begin{lemma}[Monotonicity]\label{monotone}
Let Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} be valid. Then
$K$ is a monotone operator, i.e., $Kq_1\le Kq_2$ for any $q_1,q_2\in \mathcal{D}(K) $ with $q_1\le q_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all, we recall Lemma \ref{lem:u-reg} which implies that $\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t;q_2)\ge 0$ in $[0,T]\times\Omega$.
Then we define $w(x,t)=\partial_t^\alpha (u(x,t;q_1) - u(x,t;q_2))$, and note that $w$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t^\alpha -\Delta + q_1(x)) w(x,t)&=(q_2-q_1)\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t;q_2),&&(x,t)\in \Omega\times(0,T],\\
w(x,t)&=0,&&(x,t)\in\partial\Omega\times(0,T],\\
w(x,0)&= (q_2 - q_1) v(x) ,&&x\in\Omega.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Since $ (q_2 - q_1) v(x) , \, (q_2-q_1)\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t;q_2)\ge 0$, using Lemma \ref{positive} again yields that
\begin{equation*}
w(x,t)=\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t;q_1)-\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t;q_2)\ge 0.
\end{equation*}
From the definition of $K$ in \eqref{eqn:K} and the fact that $g(x)\ge M_2 >0 $ in $\Omega$ by \eqref{ass:g}, we have
\begin{equation*}
Kq_1-Kq_2=\frac{\partial_t^\alpha u(x,T;q_2)-\partial_t^\alpha u(x,T;q_1)}{g(x)}\le 0.
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Then the monotonicity of $K$ immediately implies the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{uniqueness1}
Suppose that $v , f, b$ satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1}.
If $q_1, q_2\in \mathcal{D}(K)$ are both fixed points of $K$ and $q_1 \le q_2$, then $q_1=q_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma \ref{lem:equiv}, we have $u(x,T;q_1)=u(x,T;q_2)=g(x)$.
Define $w(x,t)=u(x,t;q_1)-u(x,t;q_2)$, then the PDE model for $w$ is given as
\begin{equation}\label{PDE-w}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t^\alpha-\Delta+q_1(x)) w(x,t)&=(q_2-q_1)u(x,t;q_2), &&(x,t)\in \Omega\times(0,T],\\
w(x,t)&=0,&&(x,t)\in\partial\Omega\times(0,T],\\
w(x,0)&=0,&&x\in\Omega.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
From Lemma \ref{positive}, we have $u(x,t;q_2)> 0$ in $\Omega\times [0,T]$,
which leads to the non-negativity of the source $(q_2-q_1)u(x,t;q_2)$.
This yields that
$w(x,t)\ge 0$ in $\overline \Omega\times[0,T]$. From the proof of Lemma \ref{monotone}, we have
$\partial_t^\alpha (u(x,t;q_1)- u(x,t;q_2))=\partial_t^\alpha w(x,t)\ge 0$. The relation
\begin{equation*}
w(x,T)= w(x,0)+ \int_0^T \frac{(T-t)^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \partial_t^\alpha w(x,t)\ dt
\end{equation*}
together with the results
$$w(x,T)=u(x,T;q_1)-u(x,T;q_2)=0,~~ w(x,0)=0 ~~ \text{and}~~ \partial_t^\alpha w(x,t)\ge 0$$
immediately yields that $\partial_t^\alpha w(x,t)=0$ for $t\in (0,T)$ almost everywhere, and hence $w(x,t)\equiv0$.
This and the equation \eqref{PDE-w} imply that $(q_2-q_1)u(x,t;q_2)=0$ on
$\Omega\times [0,T]$. This together with the strict positivity of $u(x,t;q_2)$ in $\Omega\times [0,T]$ leads to $q_1=q_2$.
\end{proof}
The above results motivate us to define the iteration:
\begin{equation}\label{iteration}
q_0(x) =\frac{f(x)+\Delta g(x)}{g(x)}\in\mathcal{D}(K) \quad \text{and}\quad q_n=K q_{n-1}
~~ \text{for}~~n\in\mathbb N^+.
\end{equation}
Note that the initial guess $q_0$ is set to be the upper bound of the set $\mathcal{D}(K)$.
Next, we shall state the main theorem in this section which shows that the
fixed point of $K$ must be the limit of the sequence $\{q_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ generated by \eqref{iteration} and hence it is unique.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:uniqueness2}
If there exists one fixed point $q^\dag\in\mathcal{D}(K)$ of $K$, then the sequence
$\{q_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ generated by \eqref{iteration} is included in $\mathcal{D}(K)$ and converges decreasingly to $q^\dag$.
Therefore, the operator $K$ admits at most one fixed point in $\mathcal{D}(K)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the proof of Lemma \ref{monotone}, we conclude that $\partial_t^\alpha u(x,T;q_0)\ge 0$.
This gives that
\begin{equation*}
q_1=K q_0=\frac{f(x)-\partial_t^\alpha u(x,T;q_0)+\Delta g(x)}{g(x)}
\le \frac{f(x) + \Delta g(x)}{g(x)}=q_0(x).
\end{equation*}
Meanwhile, we know that $q^\dag\in \mathcal{D}(K)$ and so $q^\dag\le q_0$. This and Lemma \ref{monotone} result in
$$0\le q^\dag=K q^\dag\le K q_0=q_1.$$
As a result, we obtain $0\le q^\dag\le q_1\le q_0$. Using Lemma \ref{monotone} again, we have $K q^\dag\le K q_1\le Kq_0$, namely $q^\dag\le q_2\le q_1$.
Continuing this argument, we can conclude that
\begin{equation*}
0\le q^\dag\le \cdots\le q_{n+1}\le q_n\le\cdots\le q_0.
\end{equation*}
Now we have proved $\{q_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ is decreasing and bounded by $q^\dag$ from below and $q_0$ from above.
Therefore, this sequence is included in $\mathcal{D}(K)$.
Next, we intend to show that the sequence $\{q_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ converges to $q^\dag$. Note that the sequence $\{q_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ is decreasing and
it has a lower bound, therefore this sequence converges and we denote the limit by $q^*$, i.e. $q^*=\lim_{n\to \infty}K^n q_0$.
Then $q^*$ is one fixed point of the operator $K$.
Moreover,
we have $q^\dag\le q^*$ since $q^\dag$ is the lower bound of $\{q_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$,
and $q^\dag\le q^*\le q_0$ indicates that $q^*\in \mathcal{D}(K)$.
Finally, we apply Lemma \ref{uniqueness1} to conclude that $q^\dag=q^*$, and hence complete the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Conditional stability}\label{sec:stability}
The aim of this section is to establish a stability of the inverse potential problem.
Note that \cite{ZhangZhou:2017} provides a conditional stability in a Hilbert space setting for one dimensional diffusion problem
by applying a spectrum perturbation argument
(cf. \cite[Lemma 2.2]{ZhangZhou:2017} and \cite{Trubowitz:1987}), which is not applicable in high dimensional cases.
We refer interested readers to \cite{ChoulliYamamoto:1996,ChoulliYamamoto:1997,JinZhou:IP2021-a} for some conditional stability results
for sufficiently small $T$.
Let us begin with the following \textsl{a priori} estimate for $ \partial_t^\alpha u(t;q)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Dalu}
Let $q\in \mathcal{Q}$ and $u(q)$ be the solution to problem \eqref{eqn:pde}. Then we have the estimate
$$ \| \partial_t^\alpha u(t;q) \|_{H^{s}(\Omega)}
\le c \min(t^{-s\alpha/2}, t^{-\alpha}) \quad \text{for all}~~s\in[0,2],$$
where $c$
is independent of $q$ and $t$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
According to \eqref{PDE_w_1}, we have the representation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Dalu-4}
\partial_t^\alpha u(t;q) = F(t;q)(\Delta v - q v + f ) \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_0^1(\Omega)\quad\text{for all}~~ t>0.
\end{equation}
Then applying Lemma \ref{lem:op}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\| \partial_t^\alpha u(t;q) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le \|F(t;q)(\Delta v - q v + f )\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\le c \min(1,t^{-\alpha}) \big(\|v\|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Next, by applying the norm equivalence in \eqref{eqn:equiv-n} and the estimate in Lemma \ref{lem:op}, we derive
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\| \partial_t^\alpha u(t;q) \|_{H^2(\Omega)} &\le c\Big(\| F(t;q) (\Delta v - q v + f ) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|A(q) F(t;q)(\Delta v - q v + f )\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \big) \\
&\le c \big( \min(1,t^{-\alpha}) \|\Delta v - q v + f \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + c t^{-\alpha} \|\Delta v - q v + f \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \\
&\le ct^{-\alpha}\big(\|v\|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
These together with interpolation between $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^2(\Omega) \cap H_0^1(\Omega)$ immediately lead to the desired result.
\end{proof}
For different potentials $q_1,q_2\in \mathcal{Q}$, we denote the solution to
\eqref{eqn:pde} with potential $q_i$ by $u(q_i)$.
Then the following lemma provides an important \textsl{a priori} estimate
which (and whose discrete analogue) plays a crucial role in our error analysis.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:stab-0}
Let Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} be valid and $q_1, q_2 \in \mathcal{Q}$.
Then for any $t>t_0$ and any positive parameter $\epsilon < \min(1,2-\frac{d}{2})$ there holds
\begin{equation*}
\|\partial_t^\alpha(u(q_1)-u(q_2))(t)\|_{H^2(\Omega)} \le c \max(t^{-\alpha}, t^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}) \|q_1-q_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)},
\end{equation*}
where the constant $c$
is independent of $q_1$, $q_2$ and $t$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\phi(x,t)=\partial_t^\alpha(u(q_1)-u(q_2))(t)$. Then we note that $\phi(x,t)\in H_0^1(\Omega)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{PDE-phi}
(\partial_t^\alpha-\Delta+q_1(x)) \phi(x,t) =(q_2-q_1)\partial_t^\alpha u(x,t;q_2)\quad \text{for}~~(x,t)\in \Omega\times(0,T]
\end{equation}
with the initial condition
$ \phi(0) = (q_2-q_1)v$.
We apply the solution representation \eqref{eqn:sol-rep} to derive
\begin{equation*}
\phi(t) = F(t;q_1) \phi(0) + \int_0^t E(s;q_1) (q_2-q_1) \partial_t^\alpha u(t-s;q_2) \,\mathcal D(K_g) s.
\end{equation*}
Taking $L^2$ norm on the above relation, Lemma \ref{lem:op} and Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} lead to for any $\epsilon\in(0,1)$
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\| \phi(t) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &= \| F(t;q_1)\|\, \|(q_2 - q_1)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \int_0^t \| E(s;q_1) \| \, \|(q_2-q_1) \partial_t^\alpha u(t-s;q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \,\mathcal D(K_g) s\\
&\le c \| q_2-q_1 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big(t^{-\alpha} + \int_0^t s^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2} \|\partial_t^\alpha u(t-s;q_2)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \,\mathcal D(K_g) s\Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Here we use the estimate that $\| E(s;q_1) \| \le c s^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2}$ which is a direct result of the second assertion of Lemma \ref{lem:op}
and the interpolation.
Then according to Lemma \ref{lem:Dalu} and the Sobolev embedding theorem, we obtain for $r>\frac{d}{2}$ and $d=1,2,3$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\| \phi(t) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le c \| q_2-q_1 \|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\Big(t^{-\alpha} + \int_0^t s^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2} \|\partial_t^\alpha u(t-s;q_2)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \,\mathcal D(K_g) s\Big)\\
&\le c \| q_2-q_1 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big(t^{-\alpha} + \int_0^t s^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2} \|\partial_t^\alpha u(t-s;q_2)\|_{H^r(\Omega)} \,\mathcal D(K_g) s\Big)\\
&\le c \| q_2-q_1 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big(t^{-\alpha} + \int_0^t s^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2} (t-s)^{-r\alpha/2} \,\mathcal D(K_g) s\Big)\\
&\le c \| q_2-q_1 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \big(t^{-\alpha} + t^{\epsilon\alpha/2-r\alpha/2}\big).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Finally, the choice that $r=2-\epsilon$ leads to the estimate that
$$ \| \phi(t) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c \| q_2-q_1 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \big(t^{-\alpha} + t^{-\alpha(1-\epsilon)}\big) \le c \max(t^{-\alpha}, t^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}) \|q_1-q_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}. $$
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Next, we state the main theorem of this section, which shows
the conditional stability of the inverse potential problem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:cond-stab}
Let Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} be valid, $q_1, q_2 \in \mathcal{Q}$, and $u(t;q_i)$ be the solution to \eqref{eqn:pde} with the potential $q_i$.
Then there exists $T_0\ge0$ such that for any $T\ge T_0$ there holds
$$ \| q_1 - q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le C \| u(T;q_1) - u(T;q_2) \|_{H^2(\Omega)},$$
where the constant $C$
is independent of $q_1$, $q_2$ and $T$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recalling that, for $i=1,2$, $q_i$ could be written as
$$q_i = \frac{f-\partial_t^\alpha u(T;q_i) + \Delta u(T;q_i)}{u(T;q_i)}.$$
Then we split $q_1 - q_2$ into three parts:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
q_1 - q_2
& = f\frac{u(T;q_2)-u(T;q_1)}{u(T;q_1)u(T;q_2)} + \frac{ u(T;q_1)\partial_t^\alpha u(T;q_2) -u(T;q_2)\partial_t^\alpha u(T;q_1) }{u(T;q_1)u(T;q_2)}\\
&\quad + \frac{u(T;q_2)\Delta u(T;q_1)-u(T;q_1)\Delta u(T;q_2)}{u(T;q_1)u(T;q_2)}. \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Using Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1}, we conclude that $u_i \ge M_2>0$ and hence
$$ \Big\| f\frac{u(T;q_2)-u(T;q_1)}{u(T;q_1)u(T;q_2)} \Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \frac{\| f \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}}{M_2^2} \| u(T;q_2)-u(T;q_1) \|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$
Besides, we use the fact that $\|u_i(T)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ and $\|\partial_t^\alpha u_i (T)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$
are bounded uniformly in $q$ (Lemma \ref{lem:u-reg}) and Lemma \ref{lem:stab-0} to derive for any $\epsilon$ close to $0$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \Big\| \frac{ u(T;q_1)\partial_t^\alpha u(T;q_2) -u(T;q_2)\partial_t^\alpha u(T;q_1) }{u(T;q_1)u(T;q_2)} \Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \\
&\le c \Big(\| u(T;q_1)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \| \partial_t^\alpha (u(T;q_2) - u(T;q_1)) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \| \partial_t^\alpha u(T;q_1) \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\| u(T;q_1) - u(T;q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\Big)\\
&\le c \Big( \max(T^{-\alpha},T^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}) \| q_1 -q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \| u(T;q_1) - u(T;q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Similarly, we apply the fact that $\|u_i(T)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ and $\|\Delta u_i (T)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ are bounded uniformly in $q_i$ (Lemma \ref{lem:u-reg}) to arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \Big\|\frac{u(T;q_2)\Delta u(T;q_1)-u(T;q_1)\Delta u(T;q_2)}{u(T;q_1)u(T;q_2)} \Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \\
&\le c \Big(\| u(T;q_1)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \| \Delta (u(T;q_2) - u(T;q_1)) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \| \Delta u(T;q_1) \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\| u(T;q_1) - u(T;q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\Big)\\
&\le c \Big( \| \Delta (u(T;q_1)-u(T;q_1)) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \| u(T;q_1) - u(T;q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
As a result, we arrive at
$$ \| q_1 - q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c_1 \| u(T;q_1) - u(T;q_2) \|_{H^2(\Omega)} + c_2 \max(T^{-\alpha},T^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}) \| q_1 -q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)}. $$
Then for $T_0$ such that $c_2 \max(T_0^{-\alpha},T_0^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}) \le c_3$ for some constant $c_3\in(0,1)$, and $T\ge T_0$, we have
$$ \| q_1 - q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \frac{c_1 }{1-c_3} \| u(T;q_1) - u(T;q_2) \|_{H^2(\Omega)} . $$
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Completely discrete scheme}\label{sec:fully}
In this section, we shall develop a fully discrete scheme for solving the inverse potential problem.
To this end, we shall introduce the time stepping method using convolution quadrature in the first part,
then discuss the spatial discretization using finite element method. A reconstruction algorithm will be presented
to recover the potential from the noisy observational data. Finally, we establish an \textsl{a priori} error bound
showing the way to choose the (space/time) mesh sizes according to the noise level.
\subsection{Time stepping scheme for solving the direct problem}
The literature on the numerical approximation for the nonlocal-in-time subdiffusion
equation \eqref{eqn:pde} is vast, see e.g., \cite{JinLazarovZhou:2019} for an overview of existing schemes.
Here we apply the convolution quadrature to discretize the fractional derivative on uniform grids.
Let $\{t_n=n\tau\}_{n=0}^N$ be a uniform partition of the time interval $[0,T]$,
with a time step size $\tau=T/N$.
The convolution quadrature (CQ) was first proposed by Lubich \cite{Lubich:1986}
for discretizing Volterra integral equations. This approach provides a systematic framework
to construct high-order numerical methods to discretize fractional derivatives, and has been the
foundation of many early works. The time stepping scheme for problem \eqref{eqn:pde}
reads: given $u^0(q)=v$, find $u^n(q) \in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $\gamma_0(u^n(q)) = b$ and
\begin{align}\label{eqn:step-0}
\bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q) -\Delta u^n(q) + q u^n(q) = f \quad \text{with}~~ n=1,2,\ldots,N,
\end{align}
where $\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha \varphi^n$ denotes the
backward Euler CQ approximation (with $\varphi^j=\varphi(t_j)$) \cite{Lubich:1986}:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:CQ-BE}
\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha \varphi^n = \tau^{-\alpha} \sum_{j=0}^nb_j^{(\alpha)} (\varphi^n - \varphi^0) ,\quad\mbox{ with } (1-\xi)^\alpha=\sum_{j=0}^\infty b_j^{(\alpha)}\xi^j.
\end{equation}
Note that the weights $b_j^{(\alpha)}$ are given explicitly by
$b_j^{(\alpha)} = (-1)^j\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}{\Gamma(\alpha-j+1)\Gamma(j+1)}$, and thus
$b_j^{(\alpha)} = (-1)^j(j!)^{-1}\alpha(\alpha-1)\cdots(\alpha-j+1)$, for $j\geq 1$,
from which it can be verified directly that $b_0^{(\alpha)}=1$ and $b_j^{(\alpha)}<0$ for $j\geq 1$.
In particular, when $\alpha = 1$, the operator $\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha$ reduces to the standard backward difference quotient:
$$ \bar\partial_\tau^1 \varphi^n = \frac{\varphi^n - \varphi^{n-1}}{\tau}, $$
and the scheme \eqref{eqn:CQ-BE} reduces to the standard backward Euler scheme.
Using the superposition principle, the time stepping solution in \eqref{eqn:step-0} could be written in the operational form as \cite{ZhangZhou:2020}
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sol-rep-step}
\begin{aligned}
u^n(q)%
&= F_\tau(n;q)(v-D(q)b) + D(q)b +\tau\sum_{j=1}^{n} E_\tau(j;q) f\\
&= F_\tau(n;q)(v-D(q)b) + D(q)b +(I-F_\tau(n;q))A(q)^{-1} f.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here the time discrete operators $F_\tau(n;q)$ and $E_\tau(n;q)$ are defined by the discrete inverse Laplace transform:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:op-step}
\begin{aligned}
F_\tau(n;q) &= \frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm{i}}\int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau } e^{zt_n} {e^{-z\tau}} \delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^{\alpha-1}({ \delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha}+A(q))^{-1}\,\mathcal D(K_g) z,\\
E_\tau(n;q) &= \frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm{i}}\int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau } e^{zt_n} e^{-z\tau}({ \delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha}+A(q))^{-1}\,\mathcal D(K_g) z,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $\delta_\tau(\xi)=(1-\xi)/\tau$ and the contour
$\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau :=\{ z\in \Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}:|\Im(z)|\le {\pi}/{\tau} \}$ where $\theta\in(\pi/2,\pi)$ is close to $\pi/2$
(oriented with an increasing imaginary part).
The next lemma gives elementary properties of the kernel $\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})$. The detailed proof has been given in
\cite[Lemma B.1]{JinLiZhou:SISC2017}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:delta}
For a fixed $\theta'\in(\pi/2,\pi/\alpha)$, there exists $\theta\in(\pi/2,\pi)$ and
positive constants $c,c_1,c_2$ independent of $\tau$ such that for all $z\in \Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& c_1|z|\leq
|\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})|\leq c_2|z|,
&&\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})\in \Sigma_{\theta'}, \\
& |\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})-z|\le c\tau |z|^{2},
&&|\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha-z^\alpha|\leq c\tau |z|^{1+\alpha}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
For any $q\in \mathcal{Q}$, Lemma \ref{lem:delta} and resolvent estimate of elliptic operator \eqref{eqn:resol} immediately lead to
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:relso-step}
\|(\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha+A(q))^{-1}\| \le C\min(|z^{-\alpha}|,\lambda^{-1}), \quad \forall z \in \Sigma_{\phi},
\,\,\,\forall\,\phi\in(0,\pi),
\end{equation}
for a constant $C$ independent of $q$.
Next we give some useful properties of $F_\tau(n;q)$ and $E_\tau(n;q)$.
The first lemma provides an estimate for $F_\tau(n;q)- F(t_n;q)$.
It has been proved in the earlier work \cite[Lemma 4.2, eq. (4.7)]{ZhangZhou:2020},
so we omit its proof here.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:fully-approx}
Let $F_\tau(n;q)$ and $E_\tau(n;q)$ be defined as in \eqref{eqn:op-step}, and $\lambda$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $-\Delta$ with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition. Then for $q\in \mathcal Q$, there holds
\begin{equation*}
\| (F_\tau(n;q)- F(t_n;q))v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\le c \,n^{-1} \min(1,\lambda^{-1}t_n^{-\alpha})\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\quad \text{for all} ~~n\ge 1,
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\| A(q)(F_\tau(n;q)- F(t_n;q))v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\le c \,n^{-1} t_n^{-\alpha} \|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\quad \text{for all} ~~n\ge 1,
\end{equation*}
where the constants are independent of $q$, $\tau$ and $t_n$.
\end{lemma}
The next lemma provides some smoothing and asymptotic properties of operators $F_\tau(t;q)$ and $E_\tau(t;q)$.
This is a discrete analogue to Lemma \ref{lem:op}. The proof follows from the solution representation
\eqref{eqn:sol-rep-step}-\eqref{eqn:op-step},
Lemma \ref{lem:delta}, the resolvent estimate \eqref{eqn:relso-step},
and the same argument of the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:op} in
\cite[Theorem 6.4 and 3.2]{Jin:2021book}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:op-step}
Let $F_\tau(n;q)$ and $E_\tau(n;q)$ be defined as \eqref{eqn:op-step}, and $\lambda$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $-\Delta$ with homogeneous boundary condition.
Then for $q\in \mathcal Q$, there holds
\begin{equation*}
\|A(q) F_\tau(n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + t_n^{1-\alpha}\|A(q) E_\tau(n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c t_n^{-\alpha}\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\|F_\tau(n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ t_n^{1-\alpha} \|E_\tau(n;q)v||_{L^2(\Omega)}\le c\min(1,\lambda^{-1} t_n^{-\alpha})\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)},~~ n\ge 1.
\end{equation*}
Here $c$ is the generic constant independent of $\tau$, $t_n$ and $q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The asymptotics of $A(q)F_\tau(n;q)$ could be derived directly
from Lemmas \ref{lem:op} and \ref{lem:fully-approx}:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|A(q)F_\tau(n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}& \le \|A(q)(F_\tau(n;q) - F(t_n;q))v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|A(q)F(t_n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le c (n^{-1} + 1) t_n^{-\alpha}\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le ct_n^{-\alpha}\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Similarly, for $F_\tau(n;q)$, we apply Lemmas \ref{lem:op} and \ref{lem:fully-approx} again to derive
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|F_\tau(n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}& \le \|(F_\tau(n;q) - F(t_n;q))v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|F(t_n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le c (n^{-1} + 1) \min(1,\lambda^{-1} t_n^{-\alpha})\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\le c \min(1,\lambda^{-1} t_n^{-\alpha}) \|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Next, we turn to the estimate of $A(q)E_\tau(n;q)$.
Using the representation \eqref{eqn:op-step}, resolvent estimate \eqref{eqn:relso-step}
and Lemma \ref{lem:delta}, we derive
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|A(q)E_\tau(n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le c\int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau} |e^{zt_n}| |e^{-z\tau}| \|A(q)(\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha+A(q))^{-1}v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} |\mathcal D(K_g) z|\\
&\le c\int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau} |e^{zt_n}| \Big( \| v \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + |\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha|\| (\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha+A(q))^{-1}v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big)|\mathcal D(K_g) z|\\
&\le c \|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau} |e^{zt_n}| |\mathcal D(K_g) z|
\le c\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \left(\int_\sigma^\infty e^{-c\rho t_n} d\rho + c\sigma\int_{-\theta}^\theta \mathcal D(K_g) \psi\right)\le c\sigma.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Then we let $\sigma = t_n^{-1}$ to derive the desired estimate for $A(q)E_\tau(n;q)$.
The estimate for $E_\tau(n;q)$ could be derived using similar argument. By letting
$\sigma = t_n^{-1}$, we apply the resolvent estimate \eqref{eqn:relso-step}
and Lemma \ref{lem:delta} to deduce
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|E_\tau(n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le c\int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau} |e^{zt_n}| \|(\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha+A(q))^{-1}v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} |\mathcal D(K_g) z|\\
&\le c\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau} |e^{zt_n}| \min(|z|^{-\alpha},\lambda^{-1})|\mathcal D(K_g) z|\\
&\le c\|v\|\min(t_n^{\alpha-1},\lambda^{-1}t_n^{-1}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Then we complete the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:op-step}.
\end{proof}
Next, we are ready to show some \textsl{a priori} estimate of the time stepping solution.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:bDalun}
Let Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} be valid and $q\in \mathcal{Q}$. Then the solution $u^n(q)$ to the time stepping scheme \eqref{eqn:step-0} satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\| u^n (q) \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \le c ~~\text{for all}~~n=1,2,\ldots,N.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, there holds for all $s\in[0,2]$,
\begin{equation*}
\|\bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q)\|_{H^s(\Omega)} \le c \min(t_n^{-s\alpha/2},t_n^{-\alpha}) ~~\text{for}~~n=1,2,\ldots,N.
\end{equation*}
Here the generic constants are independent of $\tau$, $t_n$ and $q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the solution representation \eqref{eqn:sol-rep-step} and triangle inequality we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\| u^n(q) \|_{H^2(\Omega)} & \le \| F_\tau(n;q)(v-D(q)b) + D(q)b +(I-F_\tau(n;q))A(q)^{-1} f \|_{H^2(\Omega)} \\
&\le \| F_\tau(n;q)(v-D(q)b)\|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \| D(q)b \|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \|(I-F_\tau(n;q))A(q)^{-1} f \|_{H^2(\Omega)}.
\end{align*}
We use the norm equivalence \eqref{eqn:equiv-n} and Lemma \ref{lem:op-step} to obtain
\begin{align*}
\| F_\tau(n;q)(v-D(q)b)\|_{H^2(\Omega)} &\le c\Big( \| F_\tau(n;q) A(q) (v-D(q)b)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \| F_\tau(n;q)(v-D(q)b)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big)\\
&\le c\Big( \| A(q) (v-D(q)b)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \| v-D(q)b \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big) \\
&\le c \| v-D(q)b \|_{H^2(\Omega)} \le c \Big( \| v \|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \| D(q)b \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big).
\end{align*}
Then the estimate \eqref{eqn:Dqb2} implies
$$\| F_\tau(n;q)(v-D(q)b)\|_{H^2(\Omega)} \le c (\| v \|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \| b \|_{H^\frac{3}{2}(\partial\Omega)}).$$
This combined with Sobolev embedding theorem yields $ \| u^n(q) \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \le c$
where the constant $c$ is independent of $\tau$, $t_n$ and $q$.
Next,
we let $w^n(q) = \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q)$. By a simple computation, we obtain that $w^n(q) \in H_0^1(\Omega)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:bDalu-step}
\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha w^n(q) + A(q)w^n(q) = 0~~ \text{for all}~~ 1\le n\le N\quad \text{and}\quad w^0(q)= f+ \Delta v - qv.
\end{equation}
Then the solution representation \eqref{eqn:sol-rep-step} leads to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sol-bDalu-step}
w^n(q) = \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q) = F_\tau(n;q)(f+\Delta v - qv).
\end{equation}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:op-step} and the condition $q\in\mathcal{Q}$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\| \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} = \|F_\tau(n;q)(f+\Delta v - qv )\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\le c \min(1,t^{-\alpha}) \big(\|v\|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Next, the norm equivalence \eqref{eqn:equiv-n} and Lemma \ref{lem:op-step} yield
\begin{align*}
\| \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q) \|_{H^2(\Omega)}
\le c\big(\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|A(q)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \big) \le c t_n^{-\alpha}(\|v\|_{H^2(\Omega)}+\|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)}).
\end{align*}
Here $c$ is independent of $\tau$, $t_n$ and $q$. The case that $s\in(0,1)$ follows immediately by interpolation.
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Finally, we shall provide a useful \textsl{a priori} error estimate for $\bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q) - \partial_t^\alpha u(t;q)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:un-err}
Let Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} be valid and $q\in \mathcal{Q}$. Let $u^n(q)$ and $u(t;q)$ be the solutions to \eqref{eqn:step-0}
and \eqref{eqn:pde}, respectively. Then there holds
$$ \| \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q) - \partial_t^\alpha u(t_n;q) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c \tau t_n^{-\alpha-1} $$
with the constant independent of $q,\tau$ and $n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Combining \eqref{eqn:Dalu-4} with \eqref{eqn:bDalu-step}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q)- \partial_t^\alpha u(t_n;q) = (F_\tau(n;q)-F(t_n;q))(\Delta v - q v + f).
\end{equation*}
Then we apply Lemma \ref{lem:fully-approx} with $s=0$ and note that $q\in\mathcal{Q}$ to derive
\begin{equation*}
\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q)- \partial_t^\alpha u(t_n;q)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\le c \tau t_n^{-\alpha-1}\Big(\|v\|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\Big).
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Fully discrete scheme}
In this section, we shall discuss the completely discrete scheme to solve the inverse potential problem.
We use the convolution quadrature for the time discretization and use Galerkin
finite element method for the space discretization. To begin with, we introduce some settings for the finite element methods.
To illustrate the main idea, we consider the square region
$\Omega = (a, b)^d \subset\mathbb{R}^d$, with $1\le d\le 3$ and the discussion could be extended to
general convex polyhedral domain.
For all $i=1,\dots, d$, we denote by $a=x_{0}<x_{1}<\dots<x_{M}=b$
a partition of the interval $[a, b]$ with a uniform mesh size $\displaystyle h=x_{i}-x_{i-1} = (b-a)/M$
for all $i=1,\dots,M$.
Then domain $\Omega$ is now separated into $M^d$ subrectangles by all grid points
$(x_{j_1 }, \ldots, x_{j_d})$,
with $0 \le j_i \le M$ and $i=1,\dots, d$. We denote this partition by $\mathcal{T}_h$,
and note that $\displaystyle h$ is the mesh size of the partition $\mathcal{T}_h$.
Then we apply the tensor-product Lagrange finite elements on the partition $\mathcal{T}_h$.
Let $Q_1$ be the space of polynomials in the variables $x_1, \ldots, x_d$, with real coefficients and
of degree at most one in each variable, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
Q_1 = \Big\{ \sum_{0\le \beta_1,\beta_2,\ldots,\beta_d\le 1} c_{\beta_1 \beta_2\ldots \beta_d} x_1^{\beta_1} \cdots x_d^{\beta_d},
\quad \text{with}~~ c_{\beta_1 \beta_2\ldots \beta_d} \in\mathbb{R} \Big\}.
\end{equation*}
The $H^1$-conforming tensor-product finite element space, denoted by $X_h$, is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Xh}
X_h = \{ v\in H^1(\Omega): v|_K \in Q_1 \,\, \text{for all} \,\, K\in \mathcal{T}_h \}.
\end{equation}
Besides, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Xh0}
X_h^0 = X_h \cap H_0^1(\Omega) = \{ v\in H_0^1(\Omega): v|_K \in Q_1 \,\, \text{for all} \,\, K\in\mathcal{T}_h \}.
\end{equation}
We let $\mathcal{I}_h$ denote the Lagrange interpolation operator associated with the finite element space $X_h$. It satisfies
the following error estimates for $s=1,2$ and $1 \le p\le \infty$ with $sp>d$
\cite[Theorem 1.103]{ern-guermond}:
\begin{align}\label{eqn:int-err}
\|v-\mathcal{I}_hv\|_{L^p(\Omega)} + h\|v-\mathcal{I}_hv\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)} \leq ch^s\|v\|_{W^{s,p}(\Omega)}, \quad \forall v\in W^{s,p}(\Omega).
\end{align}
Similarly, we let $\mathcal{I}_h^\partial$ denote the Lagrange interpolation operator on the boundary.
We define the orthogonal $L_2$-projection $P_h:L^2(\Omega)\to X_h^0$ and
the Ritz projection $R_h(q):H^1_0(\Omega)\to X_h^0$ by
\begin{equation*
\begin{aligned}
(P_h \psi,\chi_h)&=(\psi,\chi_h),&& \quad\forall \chi\in X_h^0,\\
(\nabla R_h(q) \psi,\nabla\chi_h)&=(\nabla \psi,\nabla\chi_h) + (q\psi,\chi_h),&& \quad \forall \chi\in X_h^0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
It is well-known that the operators $P_h$ and $R_h(q)$ (with $q\in \mathcal{Q}$) have the following
approximation property, cf. \cite[Lemma 1.1]{Thomee:2006} or
\cite[Theorems 3.16 and 3.18]{ern-guermond}, for $s\in[1,2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{ph-bound}
\begin{aligned}
\|P_h \psi-\psi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \|R_h(q) \psi-\psi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}& \le c h^s\| \psi\|_{H^s(\Omega)}, \quad \forall \psi\in H^s(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega).\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Noting that $q\in\mathcal{Q}$, the constant $c$ is independent of $q$.
Let $\gamma_0$ be the trace
operator \cite[Section B.3.5]{ern-guermond}, and the set
$ X_{h}^\partial = \left\{\gamma_0(\chi_h): \ \chi_h \in X_h \right\}. $
Now we introduce a discrete operator $D_h (q) : X_{h}^\partial \rightarrow X_h$ such that
$w_h = D_h {(q)} b_h$
for $b_h \in X_{h}^\partial$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
(\nabla w_h , \nabla \chi_h) + (qw_h,\chi_h)= 0\quad \text{for all}~~ \chi_h \in X_h^0,\qquad \text{and} ~~\gamma_0(w_h) = b_h.
\end{equation*}
Then for any $q\in\mathcal{Q}$ and $b\in H^2(\partial\Omega)$, there holds the estimate \cite[Lemma 3.28]{ern-guermond}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:err-Dh}
\| D(q)b - D_h(q) \mathcal{I}_h^\partial b \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c h^2 \| b \|_{H^2(\partial\Omega)}.
\end{equation}
To discretize the problem \eqref{eqn:pde}, we consider the weak formulation to
find $u(t) \in H^1(\Omega)$ such that for all $\varphi \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $t>0$,
\begin{equation*}
(\partial_t^\alpha u(t), \varphi) + (\nabla u(t),\nabla \varphi) + (q u(t), \varphi) =(f,\varphi), ~~\text{with}~~ u(\cdot,t)=b~~\text{in}~ \partial\Omega ~~\text{and}~~u(0)=v .
\end{equation*}
Then the fully discrete scheme for \eqref{eqn:pde} reads: find $u_h^n(q)\in X_h$ for $t\ge0$
such that $\gamma_0(u_h^n(q)) = \mathcal{I}_h^\partial b$ on $\partial\Omega$ and for all $\varphi_h \in X_h^0 $ and $n=1,2,\ldots,N$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:fully-i}
( \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_{h}^n(q),\varphi_h) + (\nabla u_{h}^n(q), \nabla \varphi_h) +(q u_{h}^n(q), \varphi_h) = (f,\varphi_h)\quad \text{with}~~u_h^0(q)=\mathcal{I}_h v.
\end{equation}
For $q\in \mathcal{Q}$ we define the discrete operator $A_h(q):\, X_h^0\to X_h^0$ such that
$$(A_h(q)\xi_h,\chi_h) = (\nabla\xi_h,\nabla\chi_h) + (q \xi_h,\chi_h) \quad \text{for all} ~\ \xi_h,\chi_h \in X_h^0.$$
Then by splitting the fully discrete solution to \eqref{eqn:fully-i} as $u_h^n(q) = \varphi_h^n(q) + D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b$,
we observe that $\varphi_h^n(q)\in X_h^0$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\bar \partial_\tau^\alpha \varphi_h^n(q) + A_h(q)\varphi_h^n(q) = P_h f \qquad \text{for}~ t >0,
\end{equation*}
with $\varphi_h^0(q) = \mathcal{I}_h v - D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b$.
In particular, we define $\Delta_h=-A_h(0)$.
Then analogue to \eqref{eqn:sol-rep-step}, the fully discrete solution in
\eqref{eqn:fully-i} could be written in the operational form
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sol-rep-fully}
\begin{aligned}
u_h^n(q) &= F_\tau^h(n;q)\big(\mathcal{I}_h v-D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b\big) + D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b + \tau \sum_{j=1}^n E_\tau^h(j;q) P_h f\\
&= F_\tau^h(n;q)\big(\mathcal{I}_h v-D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b\big) + D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b + (I- F_\tau^h(n;q)) A_h(q)^{-1} P_h f,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the fully discrete operators $F_\tau^h(n;q)$ and $E_\tau^h(n;q)$ are defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:op-fully}
\begin{aligned}
F_\tau^h(n;q) &= \frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm{i}}\int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau } e^{zt_n} {e^{-z\tau}} \delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^{\alpha-1}({ \delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha}+A_h(q))^{-1}\,\mathcal D(K_g) z,\\
E_\tau^h(n;q) &= \frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm{i}}\int_{\Gamma_{\theta,\sigma}^\tau } e^{zt_n} e^{-z\tau}({ \delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha}+A_h(q))^{-1}\,\mathcal D(K_g) z.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let $\lambda$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $-\Delta$ with the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition, and $\lambda_h(q)$ be the smallest eigenvalue of discrete operator $A_h(q)$. Recalling that the finite element space $X_h^0$ is conforming in $H_0^1(\Omega)$ and $q\in\mathcal{Q}$ ,
the Courant minimax principle implies the relation that
$ 0<\lambda \le \lambda_h(0) \le \lambda_h(q)$.
Then we have the resolvent estimate for the (discrete) elliptic operator $A_h(q)$:
with fixed $\phi\in(0,\pi)$
\begin{equation*}
\|(\delta_\tau(e^{-z\tau})^\alpha+A_h(q))^{-1}\| \le C\min(|z^{-\alpha}|,\lambda_h(q)^{-1}) \le C\min(|z^{-\alpha}|,\lambda^{-1}), \quad \forall z \in \Sigma_{\phi},
\end{equation*}
for a constant $C$ independent of $q$ and $h$.
This immediately indicates the following result
for the fully discrete scheme \eqref{eqn:fully-i}, similar to Lemmas \ref{lem:op} and \ref{lem:op-step}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:op-fully}
Let $F_\tau^h(n;q)$ and $E_\tau^h(n;q)$ be the operators defined in \eqref{eqn:op-fully}.
Let $\lambda$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $-\Delta$ with homogeneous boundary condition.
Then for any $q\in \mathcal Q$ and $v_h\in X_h^0$, there holds for $n\ge 1$,
\begin{align*
\|A_h(q) F_\tau^h(n;q)v_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + t_n^{1-\alpha} \|A_h(q) E_\tau^h(n;q)v_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le c t_n^{-\alpha}\|v_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)},\\
\|F_\tau^h(n;q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ t_n^{1-\alpha} \|E_\tau^h(n;q)v_h||_{L^2(\Omega)}&\le c\min(1,\lambda^{-1} t_n^{-\alpha})\|v_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{align*}
Here $c$ is the generic constant independent of $\tau$, $t_n$ and $q$.
\end{lemma}
Next, we recall the following useful inverse inequality of finite element functions (see e.g., \cite[Corollary 1.141]{ern-guermond}).
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:inv-ineq}
Let $X_h$ and $X_h^0$ be the finite dimensional spaces defined in \eqref{eqn:Xh} and \eqref{eqn:Xh0} respectively.
Then we have the inverse estimates
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\| \psi_h \|_{L^p(\Omega)} & \le C h^{d(\frac1p-\frac1q)}\| \psi_h \|_{L^q(\Omega)} \quad \text{for all} ~~ 1\le q\le p \le \infty ~~\text{and}~~\psi_h \in X_h,\\
\| \Delta_h \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &+ h^{-1}\| \nabla \phi_h \| \le C h^{-2}\| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \quad \text{for all} ~~ \psi_h \in X_h^0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
Next, we intend to derive an \textsl{a priori} estimate for $\bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^n(q) - \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:uhn-err}
Let Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} be valid and $q\in \mathcal{Q}$. Let $u^n(q)$ and $u_h^n(q)$ be the solutions to \eqref{eqn:step-0}
and \eqref{eqn:fully-i}, respectively. Then there holds for any $\epsilon\in(0,1)$,
$$ \| \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha (u_h^n(q) - u^n(q)) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c h^{2-\epsilon} \max(t_n^{-\alpha},t_n^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}). $$
Here the constants are independent of $q,\tau$ and $n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all, we recall that $w^n(q) = \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q) \in H_0^1(\Omega)$ and it satisfies \eqref{eqn:bDalu-step}.
Meanwhile, Assumption \eqref{assump:numerics} implies that the fully discrete approximation
$w_h^n(q) = \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^n(q)\in X_h^0$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:whn}
\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha w_h^n(q)+A_h(q)w_h^n(q) = 0 ,~~n\ge 1,~~\text{with}~~w_h^0(q) = P_h f - A_h(q)(\mathcal{I}_hv-D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b).
\end{equation}
To derive an estimate for $w_h^n(q) - w^n(q)$, we apply the splitting
$$
w_h^n(q)-w^n(q) = \big(w_h^n(q)- P_h w^n(q)\big)+ \big( P_h w^n(q)-w^n(q)\big)=: \theta_h^n+\rho^n.
$$
Then the bound of $\rho^n$ can be derived from \eqref{eqn:int-err} and Lemma \ref{lem:bDalun} as
\begin{equation*}
\|\rho^n\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\le ch^2 \|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q)\|_{H^2(\Omega)}\le ch^2 t_n^{-\alpha}.
\end{equation*}
Next we turn to derive an estimate for $\theta_h^n \in X_h^0$, which satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha \theta_h^n +A_h(q)\theta_h^n &= A_h(q)(R_h(q)-P_h)w^n(q) \quad \text{for all}~~ n=1,2,\ldots,N,\\
\theta_h^0 &= A_h(q)R_h(q)(v-D(q)b)-A_h(q)(\mathcal I_h v-D_h(q)\mathcal I_h^\partial b),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where we use the fact that $A_h(q)R_h(q) \psi = P_h A(q) \psi$ for $\psi\in H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega)$.
By the representation \eqref{eqn:sol-rep-fully} we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:thetah-2}
\theta_h^n = F_\tau^h(n;q)\theta_h(0)+\tau \sum_{j=1}^{n} E_\tau^h(j;q)A_h(q)(R_h(q)-P_h)w^{n+1-j}(q) =: I+II.
\end{equation}
From Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1}, we have
$v-D(q)b \in H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega)$. Then \eqref{eqn:int-err}, \eqref{ph-bound}, \eqref{eqn:err-Dh} and Lemma \ref{lem:op-fully} imply
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|I\|_{L^2(\Omega)}&\le ct_n^{-\alpha} \|R_h(q)(v-D(q)b) - (\mathcal{I}_h v-D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \\
&\le ct_n^{-\alpha}\Big( \|(R_h(q)-I)(v-D(q)b) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|v-\mathcal{I}_h v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|D(q)b - D_h(q)\mathcal{I}_h^\partial b \|_{L^2(\Omega)}\Big)\\
&\le c h^2 t_n^{-\alpha}\Big( \|v \|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \|b\|_{H^2(\partial\Omega)}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Now we turn to the estimate for the term $II$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:op-fully},
we have $$\|A_h(q)^s E_\tau^h(n;q) v_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c t_n^{(1-s)\alpha -1}\|v_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$
Meanwhile, the second inverse inequality in Lemma \ref{lem:inv-ineq} implies
$$ \| A_h(q)^s v_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c h^{-2s} \|v_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$
The fact $q\in\mathcal{Q}$ implies that the constant $c$ is independent of $q$.
Then we apply the above estimates combined with Lemma \ref{lem:bDalun} for $s=2-\epsilon$,
and obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|II\|_{L^2(\Omega)}&\le \tau \sum_{j=1}^{n} \|E_\tau^h(j;q)A_h(q)^{1-\epsilon/2}\| \, \|A_h(q)^{\epsilon/2}(R_h(q)-P_h)w^{n+1-j}(q)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le c\tau \sum_{j=1}^{n} t_{j}^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2} \, \| (R_h(q)-P_h)w^{n+1-j}(q)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} h^{-\epsilon}\\
&\le ch^{2-\epsilon} \tau \sum_{j=1}^{n} t_{j}^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2} \, \| w^{n+1-j}(q)\|_{H^{2-\epsilon}(\Omega)} \\
&\le ch^{2-\epsilon} \tau \sum_{j=1}^{n} t_{j}^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2} t_{n+1-j}^{-\alpha+\epsilon\alpha/2} \le ch^{2-\epsilon} t_{n}^{-\alpha+\epsilon\alpha}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
The next result provides an \textsl{a priori} estimate for $ \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^n(q_1) - \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^n(q_2) $,
which plays a key role in the stability analysis for the numerical solution of the inverse potential problem.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Dal-uhn}
Suppose that Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} is valid and $q_1,q_2\in \mathcal{Q}$.
For $i=1,2$, let $u_h^n(q_i)$ be the solution to the fully discrete scheme \eqref{eqn:fully-i}, with potential $q_i$, respectively.
Then there holds for any positive parameter $\epsilon<\min(1,2-\frac{d}{2})$,
\begin{equation*}
\| \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha (u_h^n(q_1) - u_h^n(q_2)) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c \max(t_n^{-\alpha},t_n^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha})\| q_1 - q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)},
\end{equation*}
where the constant $c$ is independent of $h$, $\tau$, $q_1$, $q_2$ and $t_n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We let $\theta_h^n = \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha (u_h^n(q_1)-u_h^n(q_2))$. Note that $\theta_h^n\in X_h^0$ and it satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha \theta_h^n +A_h(q_1)\theta_h^n =P_h[(q_2-q_1)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^n(q_2)]~~\text{with}~~ \theta_h^0 = P_h[(q_2-q_1)\mathcal I_hv].
\end{equation*}
Now we apply the stability of $L^2$-projection $P_h$ to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:theta0}
\begin{split}
\| \theta_h(0) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le \| (q_2-q_1) \mathcal{I}_h v \|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\le \| q_2-q_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \| \mathcal{I}_h v \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\\
& \le \| q_2-q_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \| v \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Meanwhile, using the stability of $P_h$ and the inverse inequality in Lemma \ref{lem:inv-ineq} we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \|P_h[(q_2-q_1)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2)]\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le c\|q_2-q_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\\
&\le c\|q_2-q_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\left(\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha(u_h^n(q_2)-\mathcal{I}_h u^n(q_2)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\|\mathcal{I}_h \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\right)\\
&\le c\|q_2-q_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\left(h^{-\frac d2}\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha(u_h^n(q_2)-\mathcal{I}_h u^n(q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\| \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Then we apply the Sobolev embedding theorem to derive that for $\epsilon<\min(1,2-\frac{d}{2})$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad \|P_h[(q_2-q_1)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2)]\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
& \le c\|q_2-q_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\left(h^{-\frac d2}\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha(u_h^n(q_2)-\mathcal{I}_h u^n(q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\| \bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2)\|_{H^{2-\epsilon}(\Omega)}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
This together with Lemma \ref{lem:bDalun} leads to
\begin{equation*}
\|P_h[(q_2-q_1)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2)]\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\le c\|q_2-q_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\left(h^{-\frac d2}\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha(u_h^n(q_2)-\mathcal{I}_h u^n(q_2))\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ t_n^{-(1-\epsilon/2)\alpha} \right).
\end{equation*}
Then using Lemmas \ref{lem:bDalun} and \ref{lem:uhn-err}, we obtain for $\epsilon<\min(1,2-\frac{d}{2})$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\quad h^{-\frac d2}\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha(u_h^n(q_2)-\mathcal{I}_h u^n(q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \\
&\le h^{-\frac d2}\Big(\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha(u_h^n(q_2)- u^n(q_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} +
\|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha(\mathcal{I}_h u^n(q_2) - u^n(q_2))\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\Big)\\
&\le c h^{2-\frac d2-\epsilon} \Big(t_n^{-(1-\epsilon/2)\alpha} + \|\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2) \|_{H^{2-\epsilon}(\Omega)} \Big)
\le c h^{2-\frac d2-\epsilon} t_n^{-(1-\epsilon/2)\alpha}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
As a result, we conclude that for $\epsilon<\min(1,2-\frac{d}{2})$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:theta1-1}
\|P_h[(q_2-q_1)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u^n(q_2)]\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\le ct_n^{-(1-\epsilon/2)\alpha}\|q_2-q_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{equation}
Now, using the representation \eqref{eqn:sol-rep-fully}, we derive
\begin{equation*}
\theta_h^n = F_\tau^h(n;q_1)\theta_h^0+\tau\sum_{j=1}^n E_\tau^h(j;q_1) P_h[(q_2-q_1)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^{n+1-j}(q_2)].
\end{equation*}
Then Lemma \ref{lem:op-fully} indicates that for any $\epsilon<\min(1,2-\frac{d}{2})$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|\theta_h^n\|_{L^2(\Omega)}&\le \|F_\tau^h(n;q_1)\theta_h(0)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} +\tau\sum_{j=1}^n \|E_\tau^h(j;q_1) P_h[(q_2-q_1)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^{n+1-j}(q_2)]\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le ct_n^{-\alpha}\|\theta_h^0\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \tau\sum_{j=1}^n t_j^{-1+\epsilon\alpha/2}\|P_h[(q_2-q_1)\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^{n+1-j}(q_2)]\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
This combined with \eqref{eqn:theta0} and \eqref{eqn:theta1-1} leads to the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The inverse potential problem: numerical reconstruction and error estimate}
In this part, we shall design a robust completely discrete scheme for the recovery of the potential.
Throughout this section, we need the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}\label{assump:numerics}
We assume that the exact potential $q^\dag$ and observational data $g_\delta$ satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $q^\dag\in \mathcal{Q}\cap W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ with some $p>\max(d,2)$ and $q^\dag|_{\partial\Omega}$ is \textsl{a priori} known;
\item[(ii)] $g_\delta(x) \in C(\overline \Omega)$ is noisy and it satisfies
$\gamma_0(g_\delta) = \gamma_0(g) = b$ and $\| g_\delta - g \|_{C(\overline \Omega)} = \delta$.
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}
Based on Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1} and Assumption \ref{assump:numerics} (i), we have $f,q^\dag\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ for some $p>\max(d,2)$. Moreover, Lemma \ref{lem:u-reg} indicates that $ \partial_t^\alpha u(T,q^\dag), u(T;q^\dag)\in H^2(\Omega) \subset W^{1,p}(\Omega) \subset L^\infty(\Omega)$ with $p\in(\max(d,2),6)$. Therefore, we conclude that
for some $p \in(\max(d,2),6)$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Deltau}
\Delta g(x) = \Delta u(T;q^\dag) = -f+ \partial_t^\alpha u(T,q^\dag) + q^\dag u(T;q^\dag) \in W^{1,p}(\Omega).
\end{equation}
Besides, Assumption \ref{assump:numerics} (i) and (ii) imply
$$\gamma_0(\Delta g) = \gamma_0(qg - f) = \gamma_0(q) b - \gamma_0(f),$$
which is \textsl{a priori} known.
Note that $\Delta g_\delta$ might not be well-defined in $L^2(\Omega)$.
Therefore, we need a numerical approximation to the unknown function $\Delta g$.
Now we define a function $\psi_h \in X_h$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:psih}
\gamma_0(\psi_h)= \mathcal{I}_h^\partial( \gamma_0(q) b - \gamma_0(f) ) \quad \text{and}\quad (\psi_h,\phi_h)=-(\nabla \mathcal{I}_h g_\delta, \nabla \phi_h)~~\text{for all}~~ \phi_h \in X_h^0.
\end{equation}
Then we have $\psi_h \approx \Delta g$
provided that $h=O(\delta^\frac13)$.
This is given by the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:reg-err}
Suppose that Assumptions \ref{ass:cond-1} and \ref{assump:numerics} are valid.
Let $\psi_h \in X_h$ be the function defined in \eqref{eqn:psih}.
Then there holds
\begin{equation*}
\| \psi_h - \Delta g \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c \Big(\frac{\delta}{h^2} + h\Big)
\end{equation*}
where the constant $c$ is independent of $h$ and $\delta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To derive the estimate, we define the auxiliary function
$ \tilde \psi_h\in X_h$
such that
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_0( \tilde \psi_h)=\mathcal{I}_h^\partial( \gamma_0(q) b - \gamma_0(f) ) \quad \text{and}\quad
( \tilde \psi_h,\phi_h)=-(\nabla \mathcal{I}_h g, \nabla \phi_h)~~\text{for all}~~ \phi_h \in X_h^0.
\end{equation*}
Then we consider the split
\begin{align*}
\psi_h - \Delta g
= (\psi_h-\tilde \psi_h ) + (\tilde \psi_h - \mathcal{I}_h \Delta g )
+ (\mathcal{I}_h \Delta g - \Delta g ) .
\end{align*}
According to the definition of $\psi_h$ and $\tilde \psi_h$, we know $\psi_h-\tilde \psi_h \in X_h^0$.
Then the inverse inequality in Lemma \ref{lem:inv-ineq} implies
\begin{align*}
\| \psi_h-\tilde \psi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &= \sup_{\phi_h \in X_h^0}\frac{(\psi_h-\tilde \psi_h, \phi_h)}{\| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}}
= \sup_{\phi_h \in X_h^0}\frac{(\nabla (\mathcal{I}_h g - \mathcal{I}_h g_\delta), \nabla \phi_h)}{\| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}}\\
&\le c h^{-2} \| \mathcal{I}_h g - \mathcal{I}_h g_\delta \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c \delta h^{-2}.
\end{align*}
Meanwhile, using the fact that $\Delta g \in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ for some $p\in(\max(2,d),6)$ by \eqref{eqn:Deltau}, the approximation property of $\mathcal{I}_h$ in \eqref{eqn:int-err} implies
\begin{align*}
\|\mathcal{I}_h \Delta g - \Delta g \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \|\mathcal{I}_h \Delta g - \Delta g \|_{L^p(\Omega)} \le c h \| \Delta g \|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}.
\end{align*}
Finally, according to the definition of $\tilde \psi_h$, we know $\tilde \psi_h - \mathcal{I}_h \Delta g \in X_h^0$, and hence
\begin{align*}
\| \tilde \psi_h - \mathcal{I}_h \Delta g \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &=
\sup_{\phi_h \in X_h^0} \frac{(\tilde \psi_h - \mathcal{I}_h \Delta g, \phi_h)}{\| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}}
= \sup_{\phi_h \in X_h^0} \frac{(\tilde \psi_h - \Delta g, \phi_h) + ( \Delta g - \mathcal{I}_h \Delta g, \phi_h)}{\| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}} \\
&= \sup_{\phi_h \in X_h^0} \frac{(\nabla (g-\mathcal{I}_h g) , \nabla \phi_h)}{\| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}} + ch \| \Delta g \|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)} .
\end{align*}
Then the superconvergence \cite[Theorem 4.1]{LinLin:2006}
\begin{align*}
(\nabla (g-\mathcal{I}_h g) , \nabla \phi_h) \le ch^2 \| g \|_{H^3(\Omega)} \| \phi_h \|_{H^1(\Omega)},
\end{align*}
together with the inverse inequality in Lemma \ref{lem:inv-ineq} leads to
\begin{align*}
\| \tilde \psi_h - \mathcal{I}_h \Delta g \|_{L^2(\Omega)}
&\le \sup_{\phi_h \in X_h^0} \frac{ c h^2 \| \phi_h \|_{H^1(\Omega)}}{\| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}} + ch \le \sup_{\phi_h \in X_h^0} \frac{ ch \| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\| \phi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}} + ch \le ch.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Now we define the operator $K_{h,\tau}: \mathcal{Q} \rightarrow \mathcal{Q}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Kh}
K_{h,\tau} q (x) := P_{[0,M_1]}\Big(\frac{f(x)-\bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^N(x;q) + \psi_h(x) }{g_\delta(x)} \Big),
\end{equation}
where the function $P_{[0,M_1]}:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ denotes a truncation function defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:P0M1-fully}
P_{[0,M_1]} (a) := \max(\min( M_1, a ),0).
\end{equation}
The next lemma shows a contraction property of the operator $K_{h,\tau}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Dal-uhn-2}
Let $q_1,q_2 \in \mathcal{Q}$. Then there holds for any positive $\epsilon < \min(1,2-\frac{d}{2}) $,
$$\| K_{h,\tau} q_1 - K_{h,\tau} q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c \max(T^{-\alpha},T^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}) \| q_1 - q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} .$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the definition \eqref{eqn:Kh} and the property that $|P_{[0,M_1]} (a) - P_{[0,M_1]} (b) | \le |a-b|$, there holds
\begin{align*}
|(K_{h,\tau} q_1 - K_{h,\tau} q_2)(x)| \le \Big|\frac{ \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha (u_h^N(x;q_2) - u_h^N(x;q_1) ) }{g_\delta(x)}\Big|
\le \frac{| \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha (u_h^N(x;q_2) - u_h^N(x;q_1) ) |} {M_2 - \delta},
\end{align*}
where the second inequality follows from the facts that $g(x)=u(x,T)\ge M_2$ (Lemma \ref{lem:u-reg})
and $\| g - g_\delta \|_{C(\overline\Omega)}= \delta$. Then Lemma \ref{lem:Dal-uhn} yields for any positive $\epsilon < \min(1,2-\frac{d}{2}) $,
\begin{align*}
\|K_{h,\tau} q_1 - K_{h,\tau} q_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le c \| \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha (u_h^N(q_2) - u_h^N(q_1) ) \|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le c\max(T^{-\alpha},T^{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}) \| q_1 - q_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to present the main theorem of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:err-fully}
Suppose that Assumptions \ref{ass:cond-1} and \ref{assump:numerics} are valid.
Let $K_{h,\tau}$ be the operator defined in \eqref{eqn:Kh}. Then with sufficiently large $T$,
for any $q_0 \in \mathcal{Q}$, the iteration
\begin{align}\label{eqn:iter-fully}
q_{n+1} = K_{h,\tau} q_n,\qquad \forall~~ n=0,1,\ldots,
\end{align}
linearly converges to a unique fixed point $q^* \in L^\infty(\Omega)$ of $K_{h,\tau}$ with $0\le q^*\le M_1$ s.t.
\begin{align*}
\| q^* - q_{n+1} \|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\le cT^{{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}}
\| q^* - q_{n} \|_{L^2(\Omega)}\qquad \text{for}~~ n\ge 0. \end{align*}
Moreover, there holds
\begin{align*} \| q^* - q^\dag \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c \Big(\frac{\delta}{h^2} + h + \tau\Big), \end{align*}
\end{theorem}
where $q^\dag$ is the exact potential and the constant $c$ is independent of $\tau$, $h$ and $\delta$.
\begin{proof}
Choosing an arbitrary initial guess $q_0 \in \mathcal{Q}$, the contraction mapping theorem and Lemma \ref{lem:Dal-uhn-2} (with sufficiently large terminal time $T$) imply that
the iteration \eqref{eqn:iter-fully} generates a Cauchy sequence $\{q_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ sense. Therefore the sequence $\{ q_n \}$ converges to a fixed point of $K_{h,\tau}$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, denoted by
$q^*\in L^2(\Omega)$. Then the use of the box restriction $P_{[0,M_1]}$ indicates $0 \le q^* \le M_1$.
Next, we show the error estimate between $q^*$ and $q^\dag$. Since $q^\dag \in \mathcal{Q}$, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\| q^\dag - q^* \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le \Big\|\frac{f- \partial_t^\alpha u(T;q^\dag) + \Delta g}{g}
- \frac{f- \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^N(q^*) +\psi_h }{g_\delta}\Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le \Big\|\frac{f - \partial_t^\alpha u( T;q^\dag) + \Delta g}{g} - \frac{f - \partial_t^\alpha u(T;q^\dag) + \Delta g}{g_\delta}\Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\quad + \Big\| \frac{f - \partial_t^\alpha u(T;q^\dag) + \Delta g}{g_\delta} - \frac{f- \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^N(q^*) +\psi_h }{g_\delta}\Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
=: I + II.
\end{align*}
Due to the fact that $f(x),\ \partial_t^\alpha u(x, t;q^\dag), \ \Delta g \in L^2(\Omega)$, it is straightforward to see that the first term satisfies $I \le c\delta$.
So it suffices to establish a bound for $II$. First, we observe that for any positive $\epsilon < \min(1,2-\frac{d}{2}) $,
\begin{align*}
&\quad \| \partial_t^\alpha u(T;q^\dag) - \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^N(q^*) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \\
& \le \| \partial_t^\alpha u(T;q^\dag) - \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u^N(q^\dag) \|_{L^2(\Omega)}
+ \| \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u^N(q^\dag) - \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^N(q^\dag) \|_{L^2(\Omega)}
+ \| \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^N(q^\dag) - \bar \partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^N(q^*) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \\
& \le c (h^2 + \tau T^{-1}) T^{{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}} +c T^{{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}} \| q^\dag - q^* \|_{L^2(\Omega)},
\end{align*}
where for the last inequality we apply Lemmas \ref{lem:un-err}, \ref{lem:uhn-err} and \ref{lem:Dal-uhn}. This combined with Lemma \ref{lem:Dal-uhn-2} implies that
with $T$ away from $0$ there holds
\begin{align*}
II \le c \Big(\frac{\delta}{h^2} + h + \tau \Big) + c T^{{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}} \| q^\dag - q^*\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{align*}
Then we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\| q^\dag - q^* \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le c_1 \Big(\frac{\delta}{h^2} + h + \tau \Big) + c_2 T^{{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}} \| q^\dag - q^* \|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, there exists a constant $T_0$ sufficiently large such that $ c_2 T_0^{{-(1-\epsilon)\alpha}} \le c_0 $ with some constant $c_0 \in(0,1)$ and
for any $T\ge T_0$ there holds
\begin{align*}
\| q^\dag - q^* \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le \frac{c_1}{1- c_0} \Big(\frac{\delta}{h^2} + h + \tau \Big) \le c\Big(\frac{\delta}{h^2} + h+ \tau\Big) .
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The error estimate in Theorem \ref{thm:err-fully} provides useful guidelines to choose discretization parameters $h$ and $\tau$ according to the \textsl{a priori} known noise level $\delta$. For example, the choice $\tau, h = O(\delta^{\frac13})$ leads to the best convergence rate $O(\delta^{\frac13})$. This is fully supported by our numerical results in Section \ref{sec:numerics}.
\end{remark}
\section{Numerical experiments}\label{sec:numerics}
In this section, we present some one- and two-dimensional numerical results to illustrate the analysis.
The noisy data $g_\delta$ is generated by
$$g_\delta(x_i) = u(x_i,T)+\delta\zeta(x_i),$$
where $\zeta$ follows the standard Gaussian distribution and the points $x_i$ are grid points of a fine partition of $\Omega$.
Then to compute the numerical reconstruction $q^*$, we follow the idea in Section \ref{sec:fully} and design the iterative algorithm \ref{alg}.
All the computations are carried out on a personal desktop with MATLAB 2021.
\begin{algorithm}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{input}\SetKwInOut{Output}{output}
\caption{An iterative algorithm for finding fixed point $q^*$ from $g_\delta$ }\label{alg}
\KwData{Order $\alpha$, terminal time $T$, source term $f$, initial condition $v$, boundary data $b$,
noisy observation $g_\delta$, upper bound constant $M_1$, discretization parameter $h$ and $\tau$;}
\KwResult{Approximate potential $q^*$.}
Compute $\psi_h$ by \eqref{eqn:psih};
set $q_0 = P_{[0,M_1]}\Big[ \dfrac{f+\psi_h}{g_\delta}\Big]$, $k=0$ and $e^0 = 1$\;
\While{$e^k>\text{tol}=10^{-10}$}{Compute $u_h^n(q_k)$, the fully discrete solution to \eqref{eqn:fully-i} with potential $q_k$\;
Update the potential by
$$
q_{k+1} = K_{h,\tau}q_k = P_{[0,M_1]}\Big[\frac{f-\bar\partial_\tau^\alpha u_h^N(q_k)+\psi_h}{g_\delta} \Big];$$\\
Compute error
$$
e^{k+1} = \|q_{k+1} - q_k\|_{L^2(\Omega)};
$$\\
$k\leftarrow k+1$\;
}
$q^*\leftarrow q_k$\;
\Output{The approximated potential $q^*$.}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{One-dimensional examples}
To begin with, we consider the diffusion model in one dimension with $\Omega = (0,10)$. We set the problem data as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ion}
b(0) = b(10) = 1,\quad v = \frac{1}{50}x(10-x)+1\quad \text{and}\quad f = 10.
\end{equation}
These data satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1}. In our experiments,
we test the following three (exact) potentials:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] Smooth potential: $q^\dag_1 = 3+ \cos(0.6\pi x)$;
\item[(2)] Piecewise smooth potential: $q^\dag_2 = 4-tri(x)$, where $tri(x)$ is a triangle wave with value between $[0,1]$ and period $2$;
\item[(3)] Nonsmooth potential: $q^\dag_3 = 4-\chi_{[2,4]\cup[6,8]}$, where $\chi_D(x)$ denotes the characteristic function.
\end{itemize}
Note that $q^\dag_1$ and $q^\dag_2$ satisfy Assumption \eqref{assump:numerics} (i), while $q_3^\dag \in H^{\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon}(\Omega)$
for any $\epsilon\in(0,1/2)$.
As we discussed in Section \ref{sec:fully},
we use the standard piecewise linear FEM with uniform mesh size $h$
for the space discretization, and the backward Euler (convolution quadrature) method with
uniform step size $\tau$ for the time discretization.
Since the closed form of exact solution is unavailable, we compute the exact observational data $g(x)=u(T;q^\dag)\approx u_h^N(q^\dag)$
by the fully discrete scheme \eqref{eqn:fully-i} with the fine meshes, i.e. $h=10^{-2}$, $\tau = 10^{-3}$.
For the \text{a priori} known noise level $\delta$, we choose the discretization parameters $h,\tau = O(\delta ^{1/3})$, and examine the relative error
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:eq}
e_q = \|q^\dag - q^*\|_{L^2(\Omega)}/\|q^\dag\|_{L^2(\Omega)},
\end{equation}
where $q^\dag$ is the exact potential and $q^*$ is the numerical reconstruction by Algorithm \ref{alg}.
Theorem \ref{thm:err-fully} concludes that Algorithm \ref{alg} produces a sequence $\{q_k\}$
linearly converging to a fixed point $q^*$, and the error satisfies $e_q = O(\delta ^{1/3})$.
In Figure \ref{fig:1D:sol-err} (a), (b) and (c), we present the profiles of exact potentials and reconstructed potentials with noise level $\delta=0.001$ and terminal time $T=1$.
We observe that our reconstructions agree with the exact potentials.
In Figure \ref{fig:1D:sol-err} (d), (e) and (f), we plot the relative error $e_q$ defined by \eqref{eqn:eq} versus $\delta$, with different $\alpha$.
Our numerical results show that for the
smooth potentials $q^\dag_1$ and $q^\dag_2$,
the convergence rate is $O(\delta ^{1/3})$ which fully supports our theoretical results.
However, if the potential is discontinuous, the convergence rate is clearly less than order $1/3$ (cf. Figure \ref{fig:1D:sol-err} (f)).
This illustrates the necessity of the Assumption on the smoothness of exact potential.
Meanwhile, the experiments indicate that the error is robust with respect to the order $\alpha$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{SM1D_sol}
\caption{Numerical reconstruction of $q^\dag_1$}
\end{subfigure}\hskip5pt
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{NSM1D_sol}
\caption{Numerical reconstruction of $q^\dag_2$}
\end{subfigure}\hskip5pt
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{NSM1D_sol_step}
\caption{Numerical reconstruction of $q^\dag_3$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{SM1D_err}
\caption{Reconstruction error for $q^\dag_1$}
\end{subfigure}\hskip5pt
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{NSM1D_err}
\caption{Reconstruction error for $q^\dag_2$}
\end{subfigure}\hskip5pt
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{NSM1D_err_step}
\caption{Reconstruction error for $q^\dag_3$}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{(a), (b) and (c): Numerical reconstruction of potential with $\alpha = 0.5$, $\delta = 10^{-3}$, $h=0.1$, $\tau = 0.01$.
(d), (e) and (f): relative error $e_q$ versus noise level $\delta$ with $h= \delta^{1/3}$, $\tau = \delta^{1/3}/10$ and $\alpha = 0.25,\,0.5,\,0.75,\,1$.}
\label{fig:1D:sol-err}
\end{figure}
Next, we test the convergence of the iteration in Algorithm \ref{alg}, with different $\alpha$ and $T$.
In the experiments, we use the problem data \eqref{eqn:ion} and the exact potential $q^\dag = q^\dag_2$.
Meanwhile, we fix $\delta = 10^{-6}$, $h = 10^{-2}$, $\tau = T/100$ and $q_0=4+x(1-x)/5$.
We let $q_k$ be the numerical solution obtained by $k$-th iteration in Algorithm \ref{alg}, and compute the error at each iteration:
$$ e_k = \|q_k - q^\dag\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\qquad \text{for all}~~k\ge 0.$$
In Figure \ref{fig:1D:err-ite} (a) and (b), we report the convergence histories for $T=0.1$ and $T=2$ with different $\alpha$.
We clearly observe that the iteration converges linearly, and the convergence factor decreases as $T$ becomes larger.
Besides, the convergence appears to be robust to different fractional orders $\alpha$.
The errors stop at $8\times10^{-3}\approx \delta^{1/3}$, which agrees well with our theory.
Moreover, in Figure \ref{fig:1D:err-ite} (c), we test the convergence behavior for both large $T$ and small $T$.
Our experiments show that for small $T$, e.g. $T=10^{-2}$ and $10^{-3}$, the iteration does not converge to a reasonable
approximation to the exact potential.
In Figure \ref{fig:counter_eg1} (a) and (b), we plot the numerical reconstructions for $T=10^{-4}$ and $T=1$ respectively,
where we set $\delta=10^{-3}$, $h=0.1$ and $\tau = T/100$.
The numerical results show that Algorithm \ref{alg} produces an excellent reconstruction for $T=1$,
while the numerical reconstruction is inaccurate when $T$ is small.
This observation shows the necessity of the assumption in Theorems \ref{thm:cond-stab} and \ref{thm:err-fully}
that the terminal time $T$ should be sufficiently large.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{err_ite_diffal}
\caption{$T=0.1$}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{err_ite_diffal_v2}
\caption{$T=2$}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{err_ite}
\caption{$\alpha =0.5$}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{Convergence histories of Algorithm \ref{alg} with different $T$ and $\alpha$.}\label{fig:1D:err-ite}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{counter_eg_sol_1}
\caption{$T= 10^{-4}$}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{counter_eg_sol_2}
\caption{$T=1$}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{Plot of numerical reconstruction $q^*$. Left: $T= 10^{-4}$, $29819$ iterations and $\| q^{29819} - q^{29818} \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le 10^{-10}$.
Right: $T=1$, $11$ iterations and $\| q^{11} - q^{10} \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le 10^{-10}$. }
\label{fig:counter_eg1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Examples in 2D}
Next, we present numerical experiments for a two-dimensional problem with the domain $(x,y)\in\Omega=(0,3)^2$
and the problem data
\begin{equation*}
f(x,y) = 10, ~~ b(x,y) =\frac{x(3-x)}{4}+1,~~ v(x,y) = x(3-x)\Big(\frac 14+\frac{y(3-y)}{10}\Big)+1.
\end{equation*}
Note that those data satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:cond-1}.
In the example, we test a smooth potential function
$$
q^\dag(x,y) = 3- \cos(\pi x)\cos(\pi y),\quad \text(x,y)\in\Omega,
$$
and set $M_1 = 5$.
The exact observational data $g(x) = u(x,T)\approx U_h^N(x)$ is computed by the fully discrete scheme \eqref{eqn:CQ-BE}
with the spatial mesh size $h=0.01$ and time step size $\tau = T/10^4$.
In Figure \ref{fig:2D:err}, we report the reconstruction error \eqref{eqn:eq} versus noise level $\delta$,
where we set $h=\delta^{\frac13}$ and $\tau=\delta^{\frac{1}{3}}\times T/10$.
For $T=1$ and $T=5$, we clearly observe the convergence with rate $O(\delta^\frac13)$, cf. Figure \ref{fig:2D:err} (a) and (b).
Moreover, in case that $T$ is very small, our numerical results show that Algorithm \ref{alg} does not provide a good reconstruction $q^*$ for $\alpha = 0.50,\,0.75,\,1.0$, due to the loss of the stability (Theorem \ref{thm:cond-stab}), cf. Figure \ref{fig:2D:err} (c).
Interestingly, when $T=10^{-4}$, we still observe the convergence of optimal order $O(\delta^\frac13)$ for $\alpha=0.25$. This might be due to the faster decay of $\partial_t^\alpha u(t)$ for small $\alpha$ when $t$ is close to zero.
The exact reason still awaits further theoretical investigation.
See also Figure \ref{fig:2D:sol}
for an illustration of the reconstructions at different noise levels.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{2D_err}
\caption{$T=1$}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{2D_err_largeT}
\caption{$T=5$}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{2D_err_smallT}
\caption{$T = 10^{-4}$}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{Relative error $e_q$ versus noise level $\delta$, where $h= \delta^{1/3}$,
$\tau = \delta^{1/3}/10$ and $\alpha=0.25, \, 0.5, \,0.75, \,1$.}\label{fig:2D:err}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{2D_q_exact}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{2D_q_1}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{2D_q_2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{2D_q_3}
x
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\raggedleft
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{2D_q_1_err}
\caption{$\delta =10^{-2}$}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{2D_q_2_err}
\caption{$\delta =10^{-3}$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{2D_q_3_err}
\caption{$\delta= 10^{-4}$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Top left: Exact potential $q^\dag$. The other three columns are profiles of numerical reconstructions $q^*$ and corresponding pointwise error $e=|q^*-q^\dag|$, with $T=1$, $\alpha=0.5$, $h=\delta^\frac 13$ and $\tau = \delta^\frac 13/10$.}
\label{fig:2D:sol}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
|
\section{Parameter Tuning}\label{appendix:parameter_tuning}
The flow-based refinement algorithm has several parameters whose choice influences
the solution quality and running time of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar}.
This section summarizes our parameter tuning experiments and explains the tradeoffs
that led to the final parameter configuration.
We summarize the running times of all evaluated configurations in Table~\ref{tbl:gmean_time_parameter_tuning}.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_bulk_piercing} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_bulk_piercing_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~and \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~with
($+$BP) and without bulk piercing ($-$BP) on set A.}
\label{fig:performance_profile_bulk_piercing}
\end{figure*}
\myparagraph{Bulk Piercing.}
We evaluated the performance of the \Partitioner{FlowCutter} algorithm as flow-based refinement in \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar}
with (\Partitioner{$+$BP}) and without bulk piercing (\Partitioner{$-$BP}).
The experiments are conducted on set A and machine A with $k \in \{2,4,8,16,32,64,128\}$, $\varepsilon = 0.03$ and $10$ repetitions.
All configurations use $10$ threads.
Figure~\ref{fig:performance_profile_bulk_piercing} shows that there are no noticable differences in solution quality
when using bulk piercing. Furthermore, both variants that uses bulk piercing are slightly faster than their
counterparts that only pierces one vertex in each iteration (gmean time $\placeholder{bulk_piercing}{default_with_bulk}$s vs
$\placeholder{bulk_piercing}{default_without_bulk}$s, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}, and $\placeholder{bulk_piercing}{quality_with_bulk}$s vs
$\placeholder{bulk_piercing}{quality_without_bulk}$s, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}). Thus, we enable bulk piercing per default.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_parallel_search_mult} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_parallel_search_mult_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing the solution quality for different values of $\tau$ that controls
the available parallelism in our scheduler which is initialized with $\min(\min(t, \frac{k(k-1)}{2}),\tau \cdot k)$ threads.}
\label{fig:parallel_search_mult}
\end{figure*}
\myparagraph{Scheduler Parallelism.} The scheduler starts $\min(\min(t, \frac{k(k-1)}{2}),\tau \cdot k)$ threads which
process the block pairs of the quotient graph in parallel.
We evaluated \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with $\tau \in \{0.5, 1, 2, 4, \infty\}$, $k \in \{2,8,16,64\}$, $\varepsilon = 0.03$ and $3$ repetitions
on a subset of set B\footnote{19 out of 94 instances: 5 VLSI, 5 SPM and 9 SAT instances.} and machine B. All configurations use $64$ threads.
Figure~\ref{fig:parallel_search_mult} shows that all evaluated configurations for $\tau$ produces partitions with
comparable solution quality.
\Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with $\tau = 1$ is faster than all other configurations.
Figure~\ref{fig:conflicts_parallel_search_mult} shows the number of interferences between
the threads for increasing values of $\tau$ in percentage.
We can see that the number of conflicts significantly increases for $\tau \ge 1$.
This also explains that the running times slightly increase for $\tau > 1$. Applying the move sequences
fails more often for larger values of $\tau$, which slows down the convergence
of the scheduling algorithm. Therefore, we choose $\tau = 1$.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\centering
\includeplot{flow_insights_stats_parallel_search_mult} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\centering
\includeplot{flow_insights_stats_parallel_search_mult_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.55cm}
\caption{Conflict rates for different values of $\tau$ with $k \in \{8,16\}$ (left) and $k = 64$ (right) on a subset of set B.
The ticks are explained in Figure~\ref{fig:conflict_rates}.}
\label{fig:conflicts_parallel_search_mult}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_bfs_distance} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_bfs_distance_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing the solution quality if we restict
the distance of each node to the cut hyperedges to be smaller or equal to $\delta$
when we grow the region $B$.}
\label{fig:bfs_distance}
\end{figure*}
\myparagraph{Maximum BFS Distance.} If we grow the region $B$ (defines the flow network)
around the cut hyperedges of a bipartition, we restrict the distance of each node to the
cut hyperedges to be smaller than or equal to $\delta$. We evaluate \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with
$\delta \in \{1,2,4,8,\infty\}$, $k \in \{2,8,16,64\}$, $\varepsilon = 0.03$ and $3$ repetitions
on a subset of set A\footnote{subset includes 100 instances which are also used in
the parameter tuning experiments of \Partitioner{KaHyPar}~\cite{KAHYPAR-DIS}.} and machine B.
All configurations use $16$ threads.
Figure~\ref{fig:bfs_distance} shows that the solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with $\delta = 2$
is slightly better compared to those with $\delta = 1$. All configurations of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with $\delta > 2$ produces partitions
that are marginally better than those with $\delta = 2$. However, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~is
$\placeholder{bfs_distance}{slower_delta_4}\%$ slower with $\delta = 4$ than with $\delta = 2$.
Therefore, we choose $\delta = 2$.
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\centering
\caption{Summarizes geometric mean running times of all configurations
evaluated in our parameter tuning experiments.}
\label{tbl:gmean_time_parameter_tuning}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\begin{tabular}{lr|lr|lr}
& $t[s]$ & & $t[s]$ & & $t[s]$ \\
\midrule
$\delta = 1$ & $\placeholder{bfs_distance}{gmean_delta_1}$ &
$\tau = 0.5$ & $\placeholder{parallel_search_mult}{gmean_tau_05}$ &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{$-$BP} & $\placeholder{bulk_piercing}{default_without_bulk}$ \\
$\delta = 2$ & $\placeholder{bfs_distance}{gmean_delta_2}$ &
$\tau = 1$ & $\placeholder{parallel_search_mult}{gmean_tau_1}$ &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{$+$BP} & $\placeholder{bulk_piercing}{default_with_bulk}$ \\
$\delta = 4$ & $\placeholder{bfs_distance}{gmean_delta_4}$ &
$\tau = 2$ & $\placeholder{parallel_search_mult}{gmean_tau_2}$ &
\mtkahyparqflowsconfig{$-$BP} & $\placeholder{bulk_piercing}{quality_without_bulk}$ \\
$\delta = 8$ & $\placeholder{bfs_distance}{gmean_delta_8}$ &
$\tau = 4$ & $\placeholder{parallel_search_mult}{gmean_tau_4}$ &
\mtkahyparqflowsconfig{$+$BP} & $\placeholder{bulk_piercing}{quality_with_bulk}$ \\
$\delta = \infty$ & $\placeholder{bfs_distance}{gmean_delta_inf}$ &
$\tau = \max$ & $\placeholder{parallel_search_mult}{gmean_tau_max}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\FloatBarrier
\section{Pairwise Comparisons with other Algorithms}\label{appendix:pairwise_comparisons}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_pairwise_set_a} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.45cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_set_a_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~with different partitioners individually on set A.}
\label{fig:quality_pairwise_set_a}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_pairwise_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.45cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_set_b_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~with different partitioners individually on set B.}
\label{fig:quality_pairwise_set_b}
\end{figure*}
\FloatBarrier
\section{Quality with Increasing Number of Threads}\label{appendix:quality_threads}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_mt_kahypar_hd_scaling_set_a} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_mt_kahypar_hd_scaling_set_a_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with increasing number of threads on set A.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_mt_kahypar_hq_scaling_set_a} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_mt_kahypar_hq_scaling_set_a_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~with increasing number of threads on set A.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_mt_kahypar_hd_scaling_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_mt_kahypar_hd_scaling_set_b_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with increasing number of threads on set B.}
\label{fig:performance_profile_threads_set_b}
\end{figure*}
\DTLloaddb[noheader, keys={key,value}]{scalability_set_a}{data/set_a_scalability.dat}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\centering
\caption{Summarizes geometric mean running times of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar}
with increasing number of threads on set A and B.}
\label{tbl:gmean_time_mt_kahypar}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\begin{tabular}{lr|lr|lr}
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{Set A} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Set B} \\
Algorithm & $t[s]$ & Algorithm & $t[s]$ & Algorithm & $t[s]$ \\
\midrule
\mtkahyparqflowsconfig{1} & $\placeholder{scalability_set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hq_1}$ &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{1} & $\placeholder{scalability_set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd_1}$ &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{1} & $\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd_1}$ \\
\mtkahyparqflowsconfig{10} & $\placeholder{scalability_set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hq_10}$ &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{10} & $\placeholder{scalability_set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd_10}$ &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{4} & $\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd_4}$ \\
\mtkahyparqflowsconfig{20} & $\placeholder{scalability_set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hq_20}$ &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{20} & $\placeholder{scalability_set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd_20}$ &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{16} & $\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd_16}$ \\
& &
& &
\mtkahypardflowsconfig{64} & $\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd_64}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\FloatBarrier
\section{Flow Algorithms}\label{appendix:flow_algo_comparison}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includeplot{relative_running_times_flows} %
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\caption{Single-threaded running times of the evaluated flow algorithms relative to a sequential push-relabel implementation (\Partitioner{SeqPR}).}\label{fig:runtime:plain_flows}
\end{figure*}
In Figure~\ref{fig:runtime:plain_flows} we plot the running time of different flow algorithms relative to a sequential hypergraph-based FIFO push-relabel implementation (\Partitioner{SeqPR}).
The instances used are the networks that we extracted for the scalability experiments.
We measure the time for computing a maximum preflow.
In case of \Partitioner{Dinitz} algorithm the measurement also includes the time for deriving the source-side cut.
The parallel algorithms are run with one thread, in order to investigate the overheads of using parallel data structures and loop constructs.
As we can see, the graph-based push-relabel implementation (\Partitioner{LawlerPR}) is consistently a factor of two or more slower.
Note that all push-relabel versions use the additional capacities optimization from Section~\ref{sec:flows:impl-details}.
Using parallel queues for active nodes and global relabeling in the sequential FIFO code (\Partitioner{SeqPR-ParQueue}) is consistently slower, but not by much.
In previous versions of the framework~\cite{REBAHFC, KAHYPAR-HFC}, \Partitioner{Dinitz} algorithm~\cite{Dinitz} was used because it is well suited for the incremental flow problems of \Partitioner{FlowCutter}.
This may have been an oversight, as \Partitioner{Dinitz} performs worse than \Partitioner{SeqPR} on roughly $\frac{2}{3}$ of the instances, often by a substantial margin; though this measurement does not consider incremental flow problems.
As opposed to the push-relabel versions, \Partitioner{SeqPR} does not strictly outperform \Partitioner{Dinitz}, since \Partitioner{Dinitz} is noticeably faster on $\frac{1}{3}$ of the instances.
We consider two parallel push-relabel implementations that differ in the way they address the relabeling bug (confer Section~\ref{sec:flows:bug}): run global relabeling before termination (\Partitioner{ParPR-RL}) or block nodes from relabeling after being pushed to (\Partitioner{ParPR-Block}).
They perform completely equivalently.
We observe very moderate slowdowns over \Partitioner{SeqPR}, ranging mostly between 1 and 2.
\subsection{Comparison with other Algorithms}
We now compare different partitioners with \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar} when using flow-based refinement.
Since performance profiles do not permit a full ranking of three or more algorithms,
we additionally add pairwise comparisons of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~and all evaluated partitioners using performance profiles
in Appendix~\ref{appendix:pairwise_comparisons}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_set_a} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.65cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_set_a_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~with different partitioners on set A.}
\label{fig:quality_set_a}
\end{figure*}
\myparagraph{Medium-Sized Instances.}
\DTLloaddb[noheader, keys={key,value}]{set_a}{data/set_a.dat}
On set A, we compare \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar} to \Partitioner{KaHyPar-HFC}~\cite{KAHYPAR-MF, REBAHFC}
(uses similar algorithmic components as \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}) which is the current best sequential
partitioner in terms of solution quality~\cite{KAHYPAR-DIS}, the recursive bipartitioning version (\Partitioner{hMetis-R}) of
\Partitioner{hMetis $2.0$}~\cite{HMETIS}, as well as the default (\Partitioner{PaToH-D}) and quality preset (\Partitioner{PaToH-Q}) of
\Partitioner{PaToH $3.3$}~\cite{PATOH}. All configurations of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar} use $10$ threads.
Figure~\ref{fig:quality_set_a} and~\ref{fig:relative_running_time} (left) compare the solution quality and running times of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar} with different partitioners on set A.
In an individual comparison, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~finds better partitions than \Partitioner{PaToH-D}, \Partitioner{PaToH-Q},
\Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D}, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q}, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}, \Partitioner{hMetis-R} and \Partitioner{KaHyPar-HFC}
on $\placeholder{set_a}{betterThanPaToHD}\%$, $\placeholder{set_a}{betterThanPaToHQ}\%$, $\placeholder{set_a}{betterThanMtKaHyParD}\%$,
$\placeholder{set_a}{betterThanMtKaHyParQ}\%$, $\placeholder{set_a}{betterThanMtKaHyParHD}\%$, $\placeholder{set_a}{betterThanHMetisR}\%$
and $\placeholder{set_a}{betterThanKaHyParHFC}\%$ of the instances, respectively.
The median improvement of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~and \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~compared to the configurations that use
no flow-based refinement is $\placeholder{set_a}{medianImprovementDefaultFlowsVsNonFlows}\%$ and
$\placeholder{set_a}{medianImprovementQualityFlowsVsNonFlows}\%$ while only incuring a slowdown by
a factor of $\placeholder{set_a}{runtimeFactorDefaultFlowsVsNonFlows}$
(gmean time $\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd}$s vs $\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_d}$s) and
$\placeholder{set_a}{runtimeFactorQualityFlowsVsNonFlows}$
($\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hq}$s vs $\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_q}$s).
To put this into perspective, the quality preset of \Partitioner{PaToH} (\Partitioner{PaToH-Q})
improves the default preset (\Partitioner{PaToH-D}) by
$\placeholder{set_a}{medianImprovementPaToHQVsPaToHD}\%$ in the median and is a factor
of $\placeholder{set_a}{runtimeFactorPaToHQVsPaToHD}$ slower
($\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_patoh_q}$s vs $\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_patoh_d}$s).
The median improvement of \Partitioner{hMetis-R} compared to \Partitioner{PaToH-Q}
is $\placeholder{set_a}{medianImprovementHMetisRVsPaToHQ}\%$ while it is a factor
of $\placeholder{set_a}{runtimeFactorHMetisRVsPaToHQ}$ slower
($\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_hmetis_r}$s vs $\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_patoh_q}$s).
The solutions produced by \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~are $\placeholder{set_a}{medianImprovementQualityFlowsVsHMetisR}\%$
better than those of \Partitioner{hMetis-R} in the median and it has a similar running time as \Partitioner{PaToH-Q}
($\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hq}$s vs $\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_patoh_q}$s).
If we compare our two partitioners that use flow-based refinement (see also Figure~\ref{fig:quality_pairwise_set_a} in Appendix~\ref{appendix:pairwise_comparisons}), we can see that
\Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~gives only minor quality improvements over \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~(median improvement
is $\placeholder{set_a}{medianImprovementQualityFlowsVsDefaultFlows}\%$ whereas without flow-based refinement
it is $\placeholder{set_a}{medianImprovementMtKaHyParQVsD}\%$).
This demonstrates the effectiveness of flow-based refinement.
The solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~and \Partitioner{KaHyPar-HFC} are on par (see also Figure~\ref{fig:quality_pairwise_set_a} in Appendix~\ref{appendix:pairwise_comparisons}),
while \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~is an order of magnitude faster with $10$ threads
($\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hq}$s vs $\placeholder{set_a}{gmean_kahypar_hfc}$s).
In conclusion, we achieved the solution quality of the currently hiqhest quality sequential partitioner in a fast parallel code.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\vspace{-0.65cm}
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{performance_profiles_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.65cm}
\centering
\includeplot{performance_profile_set_b_legend} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\caption{Performance profiles comparing solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with different partitioners on set B.}
\label{fig:quality_set_b}
\end{figure*}
\myparagraph{Large Instances.}
\DTLloaddb[noheader, keys={key,value}]{set_b}{data/set_b.dat}
On set B, we compare \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar} with the parallel algorithms \Partitioner{Zoltan} $3.83$~\cite{ZOLTAN} and \Partitioner{BiPart}~\cite{BIPART},
as well as \Partitioner{PaToH-D}, which is the only sequential algorithm to complete the experiments in a reasonable time frame.
All parallel algorithms use $64$ threads.
Figure~\ref{fig:quality_set_b} and~\ref{fig:relative_running_time} (right) compare the solution quality and running times of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar} with different partitioners on set B.
The quality of the partitons produced by \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~and \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~are comparable
(see also Figure~\ref{fig:quality_pairwise_set_b} in Appendix~\ref{appendix:pairwise_comparisons}) while
\Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~is a factor of $\placeholder{set_b}{runtimeFactorQualityFlowsVsDefaultFlows}$ faster
(gmean time $\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd}$s vs $\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hq}$s).
Therefore, we focus on \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~in this evaluation.
In an individual comparison, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~finds better partitions than \Partitioner{BiPart}, \Partitioner{Zoltan},
\Partitioner{PaToH-D}, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D}, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q} and \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~on
$\placeholder{set_b}{defaultBetterThanBipart}\%$, $\placeholder{set_b}{defaultBetterThanZoltan}\%$, $\placeholder{set_b}{defaultBetterThanPaToHD}\%$,
$\placeholder{set_b}{defaultBetterThanMtKaHyParD}\%$, $\placeholder{set_b}{defaultBetterThanMtKaHyParQ}\%$ and $\placeholder{set_b}{defaultBetterThanMtKaHyParHQ}\%$
of the instances, respectively.
The median improvement of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~and \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~compared to the configurations that use
no flow-based refinement is $\placeholder{set_b}{medianImprovementDefaultFlowsVsNonFlows}\%$ and
$\placeholder{set_b}{medianImprovementQualityFlowsVsNonFlows}\%$ while they are slower by a factor
of $\placeholder{set_b}{runtimeFactorDefaultFlowsVsNonFlows}$
($\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd}$s vs $\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_mt_kahypar_d}$s) and
$\placeholder{set_b}{runtimeFactorQualityFlowsVsNonFlows}$
($\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hq}$s vs $\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_mt_kahypar_q}$s).
Both the improvements and slowdowns are more pronounced here than on set A.
The slowdowns are expected since the size of the flow problems scales linearly with instance sizes, while the
complexity of the flow-based refinement routine does not.
\Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~($\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_mt_kahypar_hd}$s) is slower
than \Partitioner{Zoltan} ($\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_zoltan}$s) and
\Partitioner{BiPart} ($\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_bipart}$s), but faster
than \Partitioner{PaToH-D} ($\placeholder{set_b}{gmean_patoh_d}$s).
However, \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~computes partitions that are
$\placeholder{set_b}{medianImprovementDefaultFlowsVsZoltan}\%$
better than those of \Partitioner{Zoltan} and twice as good as
those of \Partitioner{BiPart} in the median.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includeplot{relative_running_time_set_a_and_b} %
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption{Running times relative to \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~on set A (left) and B (right).
The \ClockLogo~axis markers represent timouts for the baseline \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~(at the bottom)
or the compared algorithm (at the top).}
\label{fig:relative_running_time}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Scalability}\label{sec:experiments:scalability}
\DTLloaddb[noheader, keys={key,value}]{scalability}{data/scalability.dat}
\DTLloaddb[noheader, keys={key,value}]{conflicts}{data/conflicts.dat}
\DTLloaddb[noheader, keys={key,value}]{flow_cutter}{data/flow_cutter.dat}
\DTLloaddb[noheader, keys={key,value}]{plain_flows}{data/plain_flows.dat}
In Figure~\ref{fig:speedups}, we summarize self-relative speedups for several algorithmic
components of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~with varying number of threads $t \in \{4,16,64\}$.
In the plot, we represent the speedup of each instance as a point and the centered rolling
geometric mean with a window size of $25$ as a line.
\myparagraph{FlowCutter.}
To assess the scalability of \Partitioner{FlowCutter} and the flow algorithm \Partitioner{ParPR-RL}, we extract flow networks from bipartitions of the instances in set B.
The instances are available on the website along the other benchmark instances.
The results are shown in the top middle and right plots of Figure~\ref{fig:speedups}.
With 4 threads, we observe near-perfect speedups throughout, with fairly small variance.
For $t = 16,64$, the parallelization overheads are only outweighed for longer running instances, with more threads becoming worthwhile at about $10$ seconds of sequential time.
Unfortunately, we even experience some minor slowdowns and the speedups are strongly scattered.
The maximum achieved speedups are
$\placeholder{flow_cutter}{max_speedup_flow_cutter_16}$, $\placeholder{flow_cutter}{max_speedup_flow_cutter_64}$
for \Partitioner{FlowCutter} and
$\placeholder{plain_flows}{max_speedup_plain_flows_16}$, $\placeholder{plain_flows}{max_speedup_plain_flows_64}$ for \Partitioner{ParPR-RL}.
These results match what we expected from~\cite{BaumstarkSyncPushRelabel}.
Restricted to instances with sequential running time $\geq 10$ seconds, the geometric mean speedups are
$\placeholder{flow_cutter}{gmean_speedup_flow_cutter_long_16}$ and $\placeholder{flow_cutter}{gmean_speedup_flow_cutter_long_64}$
for \Partitioner{FlowCutter} and
$\placeholder{plain_flows}{gmean_speedup_plain_flows_long_16}$, $\placeholder{plain_flows}{gmean_speedup_plain_flows_long_64}$ for \Partitioner{ParPR-RL}.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{speedups_mt_kahypar_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.65cm}
\centering
\includeplot{speedups_mt_kahypar_legend_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Speedups of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~and the flow-based refinement routine (for different values of $k$) as well as of the
\Partitioner{FlowCutter} and parallel flow algorithm (\Partitioner{ParPR-RL}).}
\label{fig:speedups}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{flow_running_time_stats_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-1.75cm}
\centering
\includeplot{flow_insights_stats_legend_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{Running times of the different phases of the flow-based refinement routine relative to its total running time
for $k = 2$ (left), $k \in \{8,16\}$ (middle) and $k = 64$ (right) on set B.}
\label{fig:running_time_shares}
\end{figure*}
\myparagraph{Mt-KaHyPar.}
We run the scalability experiments for \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~on a subset of set B (76 out of 94 hypergraphs) that
contains all hypergraphs on which \mtkahypardflowsconfig{64} was able to complete in under $600$ seconds for
all $k \in \{2,8,16,64\}$\footnote{This experiment still took 4 weeks on machine B}.
We omit scalability experiments with \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-Q-F}~due to the long time requirements and because flow-based refinement is used in the same context in \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}.
Note that we use sequential implementations of the flow network construction and maximum flow algorithm in case
the number of flow problems processed in parallel is equal to the number of available threads.
Hence, scalability is limited by parallelization overheads and memory bandwidth, which makes achieving perfect speedups difficult.
The overall geometric mean speedup of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~is
$\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_speedup_mt_kahypar_4}$ for $t = 4$,
$\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_speedup_mt_kahypar_16}$ for $t = 16$ and
$\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_speedup_mt_kahypar_64}$ for $t = 64$.
If we only consider instances with a single-threaded running time $\ge 100$s, we achieve a geometric
mean speedup of $\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_speedup_large_mt_kahypar_64}$ for $t = 64$.
For $k = 2$, the scalability of the flow-based refinement routine largely depends on \Partitioner{FlowCutter} as the only parallelism source.
We can see that the speedups of the two are comparable (compare Figure~\ref{fig:speedups} top-middle with bottom-left).
There are a few outliers (e.g. \texttt{nlpkkt200} with a speedup of $\placeholder{scalability}{max_speedup_mt_kahypar_flow_64}$ for $t = 64$)
where the flow network construction dominates the overall execution time for $t = 1$.
For $k = 64$ and $t = 64$, we achieve a geometric mean speedup of $\placeholder{scalability}{gmean_speedup_mt_kahypar_flow_64_k64}$.
In this case, all parallelism is leveraged in the scheduler, and none in \Partitioner{FlowCutter}, which explains why we obtain
more reliable speedups than for all other $k$.
As the outer parallel construct, the scheduler is the more amenable parallelism source.
For $k \in \{8,16\}$, both parallelism sources are used.
The speedups are slightly better than for $k = 2$. Note that the poor speedups for instances with short single-threaded
running times ($\le 10$s) are caused by parallelization overheads of the network construction and maximum flow algorithm.
Figure~\ref{fig:running_time_shares} shows the running times of the different phases of the flow-based refinement routine
relative to its total running time. For $k \le 16$, \Partitioner{FlowCutter} dominates the running time.
For $k = 64$, the flow network construction and \Partitioner{FlowCutter} have the same share on the total running time, while applying move sequences and growing the region $B$ are negligible.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\includeplot{flow_insights_stats_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\vspace{-1.25cm}
\centering
\includeplot{flow_insights_stats_legend_set_b} %
\end{minipage} %
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Conflicts for $k \in \{8,16\}$ (left) and $k = 64$ (right) on set B.
For each instance, we count the refinements that exceed the time limit (\ClockLogo), the
potential improvements ($\Delta_{\text{exp}} \ge 0$) and
move sequences that violate the balance constraint ($c(V_i) \ge L_{\max}$) or degrade ($\Delta_{\lambda - 1} < 0$) or improve the
connectivity metric ($\Delta_{\lambda - 1} \ge 0$). For move sequences with $\Delta_{\lambda - 1} \ge 0$, we
count if the actual improvements equals the expected ($\Delta_{\lambda - 1} = \Delta_{\text{exp}}$)
and zero-gain improvements ($\Delta_{\lambda - 1} = 0$).
}
\label{fig:conflict_rates}
\end{figure*}
\myparagraph{Search Interference.}
Figure~\ref{fig:conflict_rates} gives an overview on the different types of conflicts in the
flow-based refinement routine (as explained in Section~\ref{sec:scheduling}) and how often they occur.
In the median, $\placeholder{conflicts}{med_found_improvement_t64}\%$ of flow-based refinements find a potential
improvement, of which we successfully apply $\placeholder{conflicts}{med_success_t64}\%$ to the global partition for $t = 64$
($\placeholder{conflicts}{med_success_t16}\%$ for $t = 16$ and $\placeholder{conflicts}{med_success_t4}\%$ for $t = 4$).
For $t = 64$, $\placeholder{conflicts}{med_balance_violations_t64}\%$ of the move sequences violate the balance constraint
($\placeholder{conflicts}{med_balance_violations_t16}\%$ for $t = 16$ and $\placeholder{conflicts}{med_balance_violations_t4}\%$ for $t = 4$)
and $\placeholder{conflicts}{med_degrade_solution_t64}\%$ actually degrade the solution quality
($\placeholder{conflicts}{med_degrade_solution_t16}\%$ for $t = 16$ and $\placeholder{conflicts}{med_degrade_solution_t4}\%$ for $t = 4$).
However, increasing the number of threads does not adversely affect the solution quality of \Partitioner{Mt-KaHyPar-D-F}~(see
Figure~\ref{fig:performance_profile_threads_set_b} in Appendx~\ref{appendix:quality_threads}).
\section{Parallel Maximum Flow Algorithm}\label{sec:parallel_flows}
The maximum flow problem is log-space complete for P~\cite{FlowsPHard}, i.e., the existence of a poly-log depth algorithm is unlikely.
Furthermore, practical algorithms are notoriously difficult to parallelize efficiently~\cite{ShiloachVishkin, BaumstarkSyncPushRelabel, AndersonSetubalPushRelabel, ColoringPushRelabel} and often achieve only mediocre speedups.
Push-relabel algorithms are the most amenable to parallelization~\cite{AndersonSetubalPushRelabel, ColoringPushRelabel, BaumstarkSyncPushRelabel}.
We picked the synchronous parallel algorithm of Baumstark {et al}.\@ ~\cite{BaumstarkSyncPushRelabel} because it restricts the amount of parallel work less than a recent coloring-based algorithm~\cite{ColoringPushRelabel} and does not seem to incur additional work when more threads are added as opposed to recent asynchronous algorithms~\cite{HongHeAsyncPushRelabel}.
The second property is particularly important to us because threads may arbitrarily join a running flow computation due to the work-stealing scheduler.
We first outline their algorithm, then describe a so far undocumented bug followed by our fix, and conclude with implementation details and intricacies of using FlowCutter with preflows.
A preflow already yields a minimum cut, which suffices for our purpose.
\subsection{Synchronous Parallel Push-Relabel}
The algorithm proceeds in rounds in which all active nodes are discharged in parallel.
The flow is updated globally, the nodes are relabeled locally and the excess differences are aggregated in a second array using atomic instructions.
After all nodes have been discharged, the distance labels $\ensuremath{d}$ are updated to the local labels $\ensuremath{d}'$ and the excess deltas are applied.
The discharging operations thus use the labels and excesses from the previous round.
This is repeated until there are no nodes with $\ensuremath{\operatorname{exc}}(v) > 0$ and $\ensuremath{d}(v) < n$ left.
To avoid concurrently pushing flow on residual arcs in both directions (race condition on flow values), a deterministic winning criterion on the old distance labels is used to determine which direction to push, if both nodes are active.
If a node has an admissible arc it cannot push due to this, it may not be relabeled this round.
Its discharging terminates after finishing the ongoing scan of residual arcs.
The rounds are interleaved with global relabeling~\cite{DBLP:journals/algorithmica/CherkasskyG97}, after linear push and relabel work, using parallel reverse BFS.
\subsection{A Bug in the Synchronous Algorithm}\label{sec:flows:bug}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{img/push_relabel_bug.pdf}
\caption{Illustrates a push-relabel conflict in the parallel discharge routine (adapted from Ref.~\cite{ColoringPushRelabel}). The numbers on the arcs denote their residual capacities.}
\label{fig:push_relabel_bug}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
The parallel discharge routine does not protect against push-relabel conflicts~\cite{ColoringPushRelabel} as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:push_relabel_bug}.
In particular the winning criterion does not help.
A node $u$ may be relabeled too high if it is concurrently pushed to through a residual arc $(v,u)$ with $\ensuremath{d}'(v) = \ensuremath{d}(u) + 1$.
The arc $(u,v)$ may not be observed as residual yet, and thus $u$ may set its new label $\ensuremath{d}'(u) > \ensuremath{d}'(v) + 1$, violating label correctness.
The bug becomes noticeable when the algorithm terminates prematurely with incorrect distances.
We propose two alternative fixes.
The first is an atomic blocking mechanism, where active nodes are prohibited from being relabeled after being pushed to and prohibited from being pushed to after being relabeled in the same round; whichever operation comes first.
The second fix is to collect mislabeled excess nodes during global relabeling.
When the algorithm would terminate (no active nodes remaining), we run global relabeling, and restart the main loop if new active nodes were found.
We experimentally compare the two methods in~\cref{appendix:flow_algo_comparison}, finding that they perform equivalently well for plain flow computations.
This is because the bug occurs quite rarely, and with the collection of mislabeled excess nodes in intermediate global relabeling steps, the final global relabeling is actually never necessary on our benchmark instances.
For FlowCutter, however, we need the cuts, not just the flow assignment.
Finding the sink-side cut can be done jointly with running the last global relabeling, so its work is already accounted for.
Therefore, we chose this method.
\subsection{Implementation Details}\label{sec:flows:impl-details}
To facilitate an efficient, practical code, we discuss several implementation details.
This covers techniques specific to the hypergraph setting, multi-source multi-sink settings and general techniques.
\myparagraph{Restricting Capacities.}
Recall that only bridge edges $(\ensuremath{e_{\text{in}}}, \ensuremath{e_{\text{out}}})$ have finite capacity ($\omega(e)$) in the Lawler network.
Since $(\ensuremath{e_{\text{in}}}, \ensuremath{e_{\text{out}}})$ is the only outgoing edge of $\ensuremath{e_{\text{in}}}$ with non-zero capacity, the flow (but not preflow) on edges $(u, \ensuremath{e_{\text{in}}})$ is also bounded by $\omega(e)$.
Adding these capacities during the preflow stage is a trivial optimization, but it reduces running time for one flow computation on our largest instance from over two hours to 14 seconds, when using 16 cores.
It also boosts the available parallel work, since hypernodes are not immediately relieved of all their excess.
Without this optimization the minimum cut contains only bridge edges, but now may contain edges $(u, \ensuremath{e_{\text{in}}})$.
This matters when tracking cut hyperedges (for collecting piercing candidates), which are detected by checking if $\ensuremath{e_{\text{in}}}$ and $\ensuremath{e_{\text{out}}}$ are on different sides.
Therefore, we do not check the capacity and visit $\ensuremath{e_{\text{in}}}$ nodes during forward residual BFSs.
\myparagraph{Avoid Pushing Flow Back.}
Once the correct flow value is found, the algorithm could terminate in theory.
This is often achieved in very few discharging rounds ($< 1\%$).
Furthermore, we observed that the number of active nodes follows a power law distribution.
At this point flow is only pushed back to the source.
We terminate once all nodes with $\ensuremath{\operatorname{exc}}(u) > 0$ have $\ensuremath{d}(u) \geq n$, which is most often detected by global relabeling.
Due to little work per round, it takes many rounds to trigger.
We perform additional relabeling, if the flow value has not changed for some rounds (500), and only few active nodes ($< 1500$) were available in each.
Since we expect to terminate, we also set markers for $T_r$.
\myparagraph{Active Nodes.}
The set of active nodes is implemented as an array containing the nodes and an array of insertion timestamps that are atomically set to avoid duplicates.
Nodes are accumulated in thread-local buffers that are frequently flushed to the shared array.
During discharging, we build the array for the next round.
We insert a node if it gets pushed to, or if it has excess left after its discharge operation.
After a round of discharging, we swap the previous active nodes array with the newly built one, and increment the timestamp to reset the markers.
These arrays are reused for global relabeling as well as deriving the source-side and sink-side cuts.
This enables computing the cut-side weights via a simple parallel reduction over the respective arrays, which we use to decide which side to grow.
\myparagraph{Flow Value.}
We track the flow value to abort the refinement in case it exceeds the previous cut.
Traditionally in push-relabel algorithms, the flow value is determined from the excess of the sink.
Since we have many sinks, we do not want to repeatedly accumulate all of their excesses.
Instead, we also insert sinks into the active nodes for the next round.
This way, we can add their excess deltas to the flow value during the update phase, but we of course do not discharge them in the next round.
\myparagraph{Hypergraph Implementation.}
For performance reasons we implement the flow algorithm directly on the hypergraph, simulating the Lawler expansion without actually constructing the graph flow network.
We implement three separate discharge operations that scan the pins plus the bridge edge (in-node and out-node) or the incident hyperedges of a hypernode and push the appropriate amount of flow.
The performance impact of this is demonstrated experimentally in Appendix~\ref{appendix:flow_algo_comparison}.
While it is not as drastic as for Dinitz, where better optimizations are possible~\cite{REBAHFC, KAHYPAR-HFC}, it is still worthwhile.
\subsection{Intricacies with Preflows and FlowCutter}
In this section, we discuss (some unexpected) challenges we faced during the implementation that arose from using FlowCutter with preflows.
The major difference to actual flows is that there are nodes with positive excess left.
\myparagraph{Source-Side Cut.}
First, note that a preflow only yields a sink-side cut via the reverse residual BFS, but for FlowCutter we also need the source-side cut.
We can run a flow decomposition algorithm~\cite{DBLP:journals/algorithmica/CherkasskyG97} to push excess back to the source, to obtain an actual flow and then compute it via forward residual BFS.
However, flow decomposition is difficult to parallelize~\cite{BaumstarkSyncPushRelabel}.
Instead, we initialize the forward residual BFS with all non-sink excess nodes.
This finds the reverse paths that carry flow from the source to the excess nodes, which is precisely what we need.
\myparagraph{Sink-Side Piercing.}
When transforming a node with positive excess to a sink, its excess must be added to the flow value.
Fortunately, this only happens when piercing, as sink-side nodes have no excess if they are not sinks yet.
\myparagraph{Maintain Distance Labels.}
Ideally, we want to reuse the distance labels to avoid re-initialization overheads.
However, as the labels are a lower bound on the distance from the sink, piercing on the sink side invalidates the labels.
Additionally, no new excess nodes are created.
In this case, we run global relabeling to collect the existing excess nodes, before starting the main discharge loop.
When piercing on the source side, new excesses are created, so we do not run the additional global relabel.
Instead, we collect the existing excess nodes during regular runs; at the latest for the termination check.
\subsection{Parallel Active Block Scheduling} \label{sec:active_block_scheduling}
\section{Introduction}
\input{sections/introduction}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminaries}
\input{sections/preliminaries}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related_work}
\input{sections/related_work}
\section{Framework Overview}\label{sec:overview}
\input{sections/overview}
\section{Parallel Active Block Scheduling}\label{sec:scheduling}
\input{sections/active_block_scheduling}
\section{Network Construction}\label{sec:network_construction}
\input{sections/network_construction}
\section{Flow-Based Refinement}\label{sec:flowbased_refinement}
\input{sections/parallel_flows}
\section{Integration into a Multilevel Framework}\label{sec:integration}
\input{sections/integration}
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}
\input{sections/experiments}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{sections/conclusion}
|
\section{Introduction}
Heterotic $M$-theory is eleven-dimensional Horava-Witten theory
\cite{Horava:1995qa,Horava:1996ma} dimensionally reduced to five-dimensions by compactifying on a Calabi-Yau (CY) complex
threefold. It was first introduced in \cite{Lukas:1997fg} and discussed in detail in \cite{Lukas:1998yy, Lukas:1998tt}. The five-dimensional heterotic $M$-theory consists of two four-dimensional orbifold planes separated by a finite fifth-dimension.
The two orbifold planes, each
with an $E_{8}$ gauge group, are called the observable and hidden sectors respectively~\cite{Lukas:1997fg, Lukas:1998yy, Lukas:1998tt, Donagi:1998xe,Ovrut:2000bi}. By choosing a suitable CY threefold, as well as an
appropriate holomorphic vector bundle~\cite{Donagi:1999gc} on the CY compactification at the observable sector, one can find realistic low energy $N=1$ supersymmetric particle physics models. A number of such realistic observable sector theories
have been constructed. See, for example,~\cite{Braun:2005nv,Braun:2005bw,Braun:2005ux,Bouchard:2005ag,Anderson:2009mh,Braun:2011ni,Anderson:2011ns,Anderson:2012yf,Anderson:2013xka,Nibbelink:2015ixa,Nibbelink:2015vha,Braun:2006ae,Blaszczyk:2010db,Andreas:1999ty,Curio:2004pf}. In \cite{Braun:2013wr,Ovrut:2018qog,Ashmore:2020ocb}, it was shown that for a heterotic vacuum to be phenomenogically viable, the hidden sector must be
consistent with a series of constraints: 1) allowing for five-branes in the $S^1/\mathbb{Z}_2$ orbifold interval, the
entire theory must be anomaly-free~\cite{Lukas:1999nh,Donagi:1998xe}; 2) the unified gauge coupling
parameters must be positive in both the observable and hidden sectors; 3) the regions of K\"ahler moduli space where both the observable and hidden sector bundles are slope-stable must overlap and 4) prior to a specified supersymmetry breaking mechanism being introduced, $N = 1$ SUSY must be preserved at the compactification scale. Early attempts~\cite{Braun:2013wr} to build such a hidden sector were valid only in the weakly coupled heterotic string regime in which, however, one cannot obtain reasonable values for the observable sector unification scale and unified gauge coupling~\cite{Witten:1996mz,Banks:1996ss,Banks:1996rr}.
This problem was rectified in \cite{Ashmore:2020ocb}, where we proposed that the hidden sector gauge bundle be a rank-two Whitney sum $L\oplus L^{-1}$ constructed from a line bundle $L$. The associated $U(1)$ structure group is then embedded into the $E_{8}$ gauge group via the mapping $U(1) \rightarrow SU(2)\subset E_8$.
Importantly, within a substantial region of K\"ahler moduli
space, the genus-one corrected slope of the bundle $L$ vanishes, yielding a poly-stable $L\oplus L^{-1}$ bundle. For a given set of line bundles $L$, this vacuum was shown to satisfy all of the above constraints within the context of \emph{strongly coupled} heterotic $M$-theory vacua. The coupling parameter was found to be large enough
to yield the correct value for the observable sector $SO(10)$ unification mass and
gauge coupling. This work was extended in \cite{Ashmore:2021xdm} to hidden sector gauge bundles consisting of Whitney sums of multiple line bundles, with similar results. Importantly, these admissible hidden sectors have gauge bundles which contain so-called ``anomalous'' $U(1)$ factors \cite{Dine:1987xk,Dine:1987gj,Anastasopoulos:2006cz,Blumenhagen:2005ga}.
In \cite{Ashmore:2020wwv}, we analyzed a possible SUSY-breaking mechanism for the vacua found in \cite{Ashmore:2020ocb}, namely
gaugino condensation in the hidden sector. The condensate induces non-zero F-terms in the 4D
effective theory which break SUSY globally~\cite{Choi:1997cm,Kaplunovsky:1993rd,Horava:1996vs,Lukas:1997rb,Nilles:1998sx,Binetruy:1996xja,Antoniadis:1997xk,Minasian:2017eur,Gray:2007qy,Lukas:1999kt,Font:1990nt}. This effect is mediated by gravity and induces calculable
moduli-dependent soft SUSY-breaking terms in the observable sector. We found a subregion inside the K\"ahler cone that leads to realistic four-dimensional physics, satisfying all known phenomenological constraints in the observable sector of the theory. However, we did not compute the canonically normalized mass eigenstates involving the moduli and the hidden sector matter scalars and fermions. Nor did we discuss their possible interactions or their interactions with the observable sector fields.
This was partially accomplished in the analysis given in \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh}. In that paper, we reviewed the general mathematical formalism for computing the inhomogeneous transformations of the dilaton and K\"ahler moduli axions in the presence of an ``anomalous'' $U(1)$ in the hidden sector. Along with matter multiplets, which transform homogeneously under $U(1)$, an important, but restricted, part of the $U(1)$ invariant low energy hidden sector Lagrangian was presented and analyzed. This analysis, however, did not include non-perturbative effects and, hence, the vacua were ``D-flat'' and preserved $N=1$ supersymmetry. Within this context, a detailed mathematical formalism was given for rotating these fields to a new basis of chiral superfields with normalized kinetic energy and a diagonal mass matrix. Two explicit examples were presented, the first with vanishing and the second with non-zero Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) term. Other studies of the properties of heterotic vacua with anomalous $U(1)$ exist in the literature, but they are usually within the context of the observable sector \cite{Ibanez:2001nd,Aldazabal:2000dg}, or relatively specific contexts that are not directly hidden sectors in a realistic heterotic $M$-theory vacuum \cite{Blumenhagen:2005ga,Blumenhagen:2006ux,Weigand:2006yj,Lukas:1999nh,Anderson:2009nt,Anderson:2010mh,Binetruy:1996uv}
The main goal of the present paper is to extend the analysis described above and compute the low energy Lagrangian for the moduli and hidden sector matter fields after non-perturbative effects spontaneously break the 4D $N=1$ supersymmetry. We will also discuss, in detail, the effects of including some relevant non-gauge interactions and coupling the theory to supergravity. Doing this allows us to explicitly compute the masses of the canonically normalized scalars and fermions, as well as to calculate physically relevant interactions of these fields with themselves and with observable sector fields. Although our previous work in \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh} was carried out within the context of a specific Calabi-Yau three-fold with $h^{1,1}=3$, in this paper, for simplicity, we choose a simpler CY threefold for which $h^{1,1}=1$. Hence, there is only one K\"ahler modulus present in the theory, which greatly simplifies our notation. Furthermore, we will assume that only a limited number of matter supermultiplets are present on the hidden sector. We make no attempt to build a realistic, phenomonologically viable model in this $h^{1,1}=1$ context; this choice serves solely to reduce the degrees of freedom in the system and, hence, to significantly simplify the process of computing the final mass eigenstates after supersymmetry is broken. These mass eigenstates mix different types of moduli fields and matter fields. We think that our method, as well as our conclusions, become more clear in this reduced set-up. Furthermore, once this analysis is well understood, it is straightforward to extend it to more complicated heterotic vacua constructions, such as those studied in \cite{Ashmore:2020ocb}.
Specifically, we do the following. In Section \ref{sec:Effective theory}, we present the matter, moduli and gauge field content of our model. In Section \ref{sec:D-term_s}, we discuss the D-term stabilization mechanism in vacua with an anomalous $U(1)$ present in the 4D theory. We identify two distinct types of D-flat vacua, depending on whether the genus-one corrected FI term vanishes or not. Most of this section is a review of our work in \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh}, but now applied to the simpler $h^{1,1}=1$ model. In Section \ref{mass_spect_sec}, we compute the full matter spectrum after $N=1$ supersymmetry is broken by non-perturbative effects in the hidden sector. The analysis is general, and applies to any particular method of supersymmetry breaking. We compute the mass matrices and the mass eigenstates, in both types of D-flat vacua. In Section \ref{sec:DM}, we show how the massive moduli and hidden matter field states couple to the observable sector. We also discuss some interesting dark matter candidates and propose a mechanism of producing these states during reheating. In Section \ref{Sec:Mod_Stab}, we give explicit examples of non-perturbative effects that can break $N=1$ supersymmetry at low-energy. We discuss the possibility of stabilizing the moduli in these non-supersymmetric vacua. We also compute the moduli mass spectrum in each of these examples, applying the results of Section \ref{mass_spect_sec}. Mathematical details used in the computation of both scalar and fermion masses are presented in the Appendix.
\section{4D Effective Theory}\label{sec:Effective theory}
Consider heterotic $M$-theory vacua compactified on a Calabi-Yau (CY) threefold $X$. In our previous work \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh} we analyzed the D-term stabilization mechanism and chose $h^{1,1}=3$ to be consistent with various realistic heterotic $M$-theory vacua and, specifically, the $B-L$ MSSM~\cite{Ambroso:2009jd,Marshall:2014kea,Marshall:2014cwa,Ovrut:2012wg,Ovrut:2014rba,Barger:2008wn,FileviezPerez:2009gr}. In the present work, in the context of such D-flat vacua, we will condider non-perturbative effects such as gaugino condensation to spontaneously break the $N=1$ supersymmetry. This introduces a moduli-dependent superpotential into the effective Lagrangian and, as a result, greatly complicates all relevant calculations. For this reason, in the present paper, we will consider heterotic vacua compactified on a CY threefold with $h^{1,1}=1$, greatly simplifying the formalism. It follows that the $D=4$ low energy effective theory contains, in addition to the universal dilaton chiral multiplet $\tilde{S}=(S, \psi_{S})$, a single K\"ahler modulus chiral superfield $\tilde{T}=(T, \psi_{T})$. Furthermore, we will assume that the observable sector contains a phenomenologically realistic $N=1$ supersymmetric particle physics model; that is, the MSSM or some viable extension thereorf. We will, for simplicity, refer to any matter chiral supermultiplet in the observable sector theory simply as $\tilde{C}_{(o)}^{\cal{I}}=(C_{(o)}^{\cal{I}}, \psi_{(o)}^{\cal{I}})$, where ${\cal{I}}=1, \dots,{\cal{N}}_{(o)}$. We assume that the hidden sector gauge bundle consists of a single line bundle $L={\cal{O}}_{X}(l)$, where $l$ is an integer, with structure group $U(1)$ appropriately embedded in the hidden sector $E_{8}$ gauge group. In addition, we assume that the $U(1)$ is ``anomalous''. We denote the $U(1)$ gauge connection and its Weyl spinor gaugino by $A_{2 \mu}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ respectively.
\
The low energy matter spectrum of this hidden sector generically contains chiral multiplets that transform under $U(1)$ but are singlets under the associated commutant subgroup. Generically, there can be many such ``singlet'' matter superfields. However, as we will show below, it is sufficient to assume, for simplicity, that there are only two such matter multiplets. The extension to more than two multiplets is trivial. We denote these two singlet matter chiral multiplets as $\tilde{C}^{L}=(C^{L}, \psi^{L}), L=1,2$.
In our analysis, the chiral matter multiplet transforming non-trivially under the associated commutant subgroup do not play any role and have therefore been left out.
In a series
of papers~\cite{Anderson:2010mh, Anderson:2011cza,Anderson:2011ty}, it has been shown that in particular examples (i.e. compactifying on a CY with a point-like
sub-locus in complex structure moduli space where the gauge bundle is holomorphic, such that $h^{1,2}_{\text{hol}}=0$) one could be
able to fix all the complex structure moduli at the compactification scale. We will assume this is the case in our analysis and henceforth, we will neglect the contribution of the complex structure moduli. The work in~\cite{Cicoli:2013rwa}, however, offers a more general discussion on the topic of stabilizing the complex structure moduli. Furthermore, we disregard any effects of the five-brane in the fifth dimensional bulk space--other than its role in canceling the anomaly.
The properties of heterotic vacua with the above properties and assumptions can be completely determined using the formalism and definitions presented in~\cite{Lukas:1997fg,Lukas:1998tt} (see also~\cite{Brandle:2003uya} for the $h^{1,1}=3$ case). Specifically, one finds the following. In the absence of five-branes, the K\"ahler potential of the system is
\begin{equation}
K=K_S+K_T+K_{\text{matter}}^{\text{(hid)}}+K_{\text{matter}}^{\text{(obs)}}\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
K_S&=-\kappa_4^{-2}\ln(S+\bar S)\ ,\\
K_T&=-3\kappa_4^{-2}\ln(T+\bar T)\ ,\label{bl1} \\
K_{\text{matter}}^{\text{(hid)}}&=e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}C^1\bar C^1+e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}C^2\bar C^2\ ,\\
K_{\text{matter}}^{\text{(obs)}}&=e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3 } \mathcal{G}_{{\cal{I}}{\bar{\cal{J}}} } C_{(o)}^{\cal{I}}\bar{C}_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal{J}}}\ .
\end{align}
Note that, for simplicity, we have chosen the internal metric in $K_{\text{matter}}^{\text{(hid)}}$ to be $\mathcal{G}_{L{\bar{M}}}=\delta_{L{\bar{M}}}$.
The complex scalar components of the moduli superfields decompose as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:def_scalar_intro}
& S=s+i\sigma\ ,\\
&T=t+i\chi\ ,\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ and $\chi$ are the dilaton axion and the K\"ahler axion respectively.
The moduli and the hidden matter scalars transform under the anomalous $U(1)$ as~\cite{Anderson:2010mh,Dumitru:2021jlh}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:Killing_vects}
\delta_\theta S&=2i\pi a\epsilon_S^2\epsilon_R^2 \beta l \theta ~ \equiv k_S\theta\ ,\\
\delta_\theta T& =-2i a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2 l\theta ~\equiv k_T\theta\ ,\\
\delta_\theta C^1&=-iQ_1C^1\theta ~\equiv k_1\theta,\\
\delta_\theta C^2&=-iQ_2C^2\theta ~\equiv k_2\theta \ ,\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the parameter $a$ depends on the line bundle embedding into the hidden $E_8$, while $\epsilon_{S}$ and $\epsilon_{R}$ are expansion parameters in the strong coupling regime.
The total scalar superpotential is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:superpotential}
W=W^{\text{(obs)}}+W^{\text{(mod)}}+W^{\text{(hid)}}\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{shoe1}
W^{\text{(obs)}}=\mu_{\cal{I} \cal{J}} C_{(o)}^{\cal{I}}C_{(o)}^{\cal{J}}+Y_{\cal{I}\cal{J}\cal{K}}C_{(o)}^{\cal{I}}C_{(o)}^{\cal{J}}C_{(o)}^{\cal{K}}\
\end{equation}
is the matter field superpotential on the observable sector,
\begin{equation}
W^{\text{(hid)}}= m_{LM}C^{L}C^{M}+\lambda_{KLM}C^KC^LC^M
\end{equation}
is the matter field superpotential on the hidden sector, while
\begin{equation}
W^{\text{(mod)}}=\hat W_{np}(S,T)
\end{equation}
is the moduli superpotential generated by non-perurbative effects, such as gaugino condensation on the hidden sector or five-brane instantons.
Finally, to order $\kappa^{2/3}_4$ gauge threshold corrections~\cite{Lukas:1997fg}, the gauge kinetic functions on the observable and the hidden sectors are given by
\begin{equation}
f_1=f_2=S\ .
\end{equation}
These gauge kinetic functions determine the values of the gauge couplings $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ on the observable and hidden sector respectively. That is,
\begin{equation}
{g_{1}^{2}}=\frac{\pi \hat{\alpha}_{\text{GUT}}}{a\text{Re} f_{1}} , \qquad {g_{2}^{2}}=\frac{ \pi \hat{\alpha}_{\text{GUT}}}{a\text{Re} f_{2}} \ .
\label{umb1}
\end{equation}
In this paper, we focus on the effective theory in the moduli and the hidden sector. Similarly, in this paper, as shown in an explicit example in \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh}, we use the fact that the matter scalars $C^1, C^2$ in the hidden sector generically cannot form a gauge invariant superpotential. Hence, we can also ignore $W^{\text{(hid)}}$. However, since the main focus of the present work is to discuss the effect of gaugino condensation on the hidden sector, the non-perturbative superpotential $\hat W_{np}(S,T)$ is central to our analysis and will be introduced and discussed in detail below. However, before proceeding to this analysis, let us briefly summarize the results of \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh}--that is, no gaugino condensation and, hence, $\hat W_{np}(S,T)=0$--within the simplified context used in this paper.
\section{D-term Stabilization}\label{sec:D-term_s}
\subsection{Effective Potential}
The low-energy gauge group arising in the hidden sector from a line bundle $L$ necessarily includes an
“anomalous” $U(1)$ factor in the 4D low-energy gauge group. Associated with the anomalous $U(1)$
is a moduli dependent D-term, whose form is well-known \cite{Freedman:2012zz}.
Specifically, the D-term potential energy
\begin{equation}
\label{late1}
V_D=\frac{1}{2\text{Re}f_2}{\mathcal{P}^2}\ ,
\end{equation}
is generated perturbatively on the hidden sector after compactification.
The moment map $\mathcal{P}$ depends on the first derivatives of the Kähler potential with respect to the scalar
fields which are charged under the anomalous $U(1)$. For the field content presented in the previous
section, it has the form
\begin{equation}
\label{last1}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}&=ik_S\partial_S K+ik_T\partial_T K+ik_1\partial_{C^1}K+ik_2\partial_{C^2}K\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The first derivatives of the K\"ahler potential with respects to the scalar field components are
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:first_der_K}
\partial_SK&=-\kappa_4^{-2}\frac{1}{S+\bar S}=-\kappa_4^{-2}\frac{1}{2s}\ ,\\
\partial_TK&=-3\kappa_4^{-2}\frac{1}{T+\bar T}+\frac{\kappa_4^2}{3}\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}C^1\bar C^1+\frac{\kappa_4^2}{3}\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}C^2\bar C^2\ ,\\
&=-3\kappa_4^{-2}\frac{1}{2t}-\frac{1}{4t^2}C^1\bar C^1-\frac{1}{4t^2}C^2\bar C^2\ ,\\
\partial_{C^1}K&=e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\bar C^1=\frac{1}{2t}\bar C^1\ ,\\
\partial_{C^2}K&=e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\bar C^2=\frac{1}{2t}\bar C^2\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Substituting the expressions for the Killing vectors defined in eq. \eqref{eq:Killing_vects} and for the first derivatives of the K\"ahler potential calculated in eq. \eqref{eq:first_der_K} into \eqref{last1}, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{burt1}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}=&-\frac{ a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2}{\kappa^{2}_{4}}
\left( -\frac{1}{s}\pi\beta \epsilon_Sl+\frac{3l}{t} \right)-e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\tilde Q_1C^1\bar C^1-e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\tilde Q_2C^2\bar C^2\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ is the hidden sector ``charge'' defined in \cite{Ashmore:2020ocb} and we have defined the moduli-dependent charges
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\tilde Q_1&=Q_1-2a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2 l\frac{\kappa_4^2}{3}\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}\ ,\\
\tilde Q_2&=Q_2-2a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2 l\frac{\kappa_4^2}{3}\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that the first term in \eqref{burt1} depends only on $s={\rm Re}S$ and $t={\rm Re}T$ and is independent of the matter scalar fields. Since Re$f_{2}$ also only depends on Re$S$ and Re$T$, it follows that the ``axion'' components $\sigma$ and $\chi$ of $S$ and $T$ respectively do not enter the scalar potential $V_{D}$. Therefore, in the context of minimizing the potential, they are free to take any values.
Minimizing the $D$-term potential \eqref{late1} defines $D$-flat, $N=1$ supersymmetry preserving vacuum states for which the moment map vanishes,
\begin{equation}
\label{umb2}
\langle {\cal{P}} \rangle = 0 \ .
\end{equation}
Therefore, in order to preserve $N=1$ supersymmetry, it follows from \eqref{burt1} that the VEVs of the dilaton, the K\"ahler modulus and the matter scalars are constrained to satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{umb3}
-\frac{ a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2}{\kappa^{2}_{4}}
\left( -\frac{1}{\langle s \rangle}\pi\beta \epsilon_Sl+\frac{3l}{\langle t \rangle} \right) - e^{\kappa_{4}^{2}\langle K_{T} \rangle /3} \left(\langle \tilde Q_1 \rangle \langle C^1\rangle \langle\bar C^1\rangle
+\langle \tilde Q_2 \rangle \langle C^2\rangle \langle\bar C^2\rangle \right) = 0 \ .
\end{equation}
The first term in \eqref{umb3} corresponds to the Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) term. That is
\begin{equation}
\label{cup1}
\text{FI}=-\frac{ a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2}{\kappa^{2}_{4}}
\left(- \frac{1}{\langle s \rangle}\pi\beta \epsilon_Sl+\frac{3l}{\langle t \rangle} \right)\ .
\end{equation}
Therefore, the D-term flatness condition $\langle V_{D} \rangle =0$--required to preserve unbroken $N=1$ supersymmetry in the vacuum-- sets
\begin{align}
\label{cup4}
\langle \mathcal{P}\rangle =0\quad
\Rightarrow \quad \text{FI}=e^{\kappa_{4}^{2}\langle K_{T} \rangle /3} \left(\langle \tilde Q_1 \rangle \langle C^1\rangle \langle\bar C^1\rangle
+\langle \tilde Q_2 \rangle \langle C^2\rangle \langle\bar C^2\rangle \right) \ .
\end{align}
Further analysis of the vacuum state requires one to expand the scalar fields around a chosen solution of the D-term flatness condition. The physical results depend heavily on whether one chooses the vacuum to satisfy a) $\text{FI}=0$ or b) $\text{FI}\neq 0$. These two types of $N=1$ supersymmetric vacua correspond to very different low energy physics and, therefore, we will analyze them seperately throughout the remainder of this paper. Furthermore, the addition of non-perturbative effects--to be discussed in later sections-- produces different final mass spectra for each of these two types of vacua. In the rest of this section, however, we analyze the field spectrum which results after only the $D$-flatness condition is satisfied. We begin with the case when the FI term vanishes.
\subsection{Vanishing FI Term}
It follows from \eqref{cup1} that a vanishing Fayet-Iliopoulos term requires
\begin{equation}
\label{cup2}
\left( -\frac{1}{\langle s \rangle}\pi\beta \epsilon_Sl+\frac{3l}{\langle t \rangle} \right) = 0
\end{equation}
or, equivalently, that
\begin{equation}
\label{cof1}
\langle s \rangle =\frac{\pi\epsilon_{S} \beta}{3} \langle t \rangle \ .
\end{equation}
%
Of course, if the FI term vanishes, the $D$-flatness condition \eqref{cup4} implies that the matter field VEVs must vanish; that is
\begin{equation}
\label{cup3}
\langle C^1\rangle= \langle C^2\rangle= 0.
\end{equation}
This latter condition ``decouples'' the hidden sector matter fields from the $S$ and $T$ moduli. Ignoring the hidden sector matter scalars, one can compute the D-term potential $V_{D}$ over the $s$ and $t$ component scalars using \eqref{late1} and \eqref{burt1}. This is plotted in Figure \ref{fig:D_flat11}--where, for specificity, we have chosen $\pi\epsilon_{S}\beta/3=1$. The $\langle s \rangle$, $\langle t \rangle$ VEVs satisfying the $D$-flatness condition \eqref{cof1} form the dashed green flat line in the figure.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Dflat1.pdf}
\caption{For the $FI=0$ case, where the $C^1$ and $C^2$ matter fields decouple, we plot the D-term potential $V_{D}$ given in eq. \eqref{late1} in $s,t$ moduli space. The potential is given in units of $M_U^4$. The $V_{D}=0$ locus is displayed by the dashed green line. This D-flat direction is defined by eq. \eqref{cof1}, where we here assume, for specificity, that $\frac{\pi\epsilon_S\beta}{3}=1$. The D-flat vacuum can be chosen to be anywhere along the dashed green line. One such point, displayed in yellow, is at $\langle s\rangle=\langle t\rangle =2.3$. Scalar perturbations around this vacuum define a massless field, $\phi^2$, aligned along the green line, and a massive field $\phi^1$, aligned along the maximum variation of the potential around the chosen vacuum. }
\label{fig:D_flat11}
\end{figure}
Let us now choose any point $\langle s \rangle$, $\langle t \rangle$ satisfying the $D$-flatness condition \eqref{cof1}; that is, any point on the dashed green line. Expanding $S=\langle s \rangle+\delta S$ and $T=\langle t \rangle+\delta T$, one finds that the Lagrangian for $\delta S$ and $\delta T$ has off-diagonal kinetic energy and mass terms. However, it was shown in \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh} that one can define two new complex scalar fields $\xi^{1}$ and $\xi^{2}$ with canonically normalized kinetic terms which are mass eigenstates. Specifically, we define a unitary matrix $\mathbf U$ which rotates the scalar perturbations $\delta S$ and $\delta T$ into a massive scalar $\xi^1$ and a massless scalar $\xi^2$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{light1}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\xi^1\\\xi^2
\end{matrix}
\right)={\mathbf U}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\delta S\\\delta T
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,\quad
\left(\begin{matrix}
\delta S\\\delta T
\end{matrix}
\right)={\mathbf U}^{-1}\left(\begin{matrix}
\xi^1\\\xi^2
\end{matrix}
\right)
\ ,
\end{equation}
with ${\mathbf U}$ and its inverse ${\mathbf U}^{-1}$ given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:U22}
{\mathbf U}=&
\frac{1}{\langle \Sigma \rangle }\begin{pmatrix}[1.4]
\langle g_{S\bar S}\bar k_S \rangle &\quad\langle g_{T\bar T}\bar k_T \rangle\\
\sqrt{\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T} \rangle} \langle \bar k_T \rangle&\quad -\sqrt{\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T} \rangle} \langle \bar k_S \rangle
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
{\mathbf U}^{-1}&=
\frac{1}{\langle \Sigma \rangle}\begin{pmatrix}[1.4]
\langle k_S \rangle&\quad\sqrt{\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\rangle} \langle k_T \rangle\\
\langle k_T \rangle&\quad-\sqrt{\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\rangle} \langle k_S \rangle
\end{pmatrix}\ ,
\label{eq:U22A}
\end{align}
respectively, where
\begin{equation}
\label{pad3}
\Sigma^2=g_{S\bar S}k_S\bar k_S+g_{T\bar T}k_T\bar k_T\ .
\end{equation}
The field
\begin{equation}
\label{pad1}
\xi^1=\left\langle g_{S\bar S}\frac{\bar k_S}{\Sigma} \right\rangle \delta S+\left\langle g_{T\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma}\right\rangle \delta T
\end{equation}
is a massive complex field with mass $m_{\text{anom}}\sim \mathcal{O}(M_U)$, while the complex field
\begin{equation}
\label{pad2}
\xi^2=\sqrt{\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T}\rangle }\left\langle \frac{ \bar k_T}{\Sigma} \right\rangle \delta S-\sqrt{\left\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T}\right\rangle }\left\langle \frac{\bar k_S}{\Sigma} \right\rangle \delta T
\end{equation}
is massless. A brief summary of that analysis is the following.
First consider the complex scalar $\xi^{1}$. Expressed in terms of its real component fields
\begin{equation}
\label{pink1}
\xi^{1}=\eta^{1}+i \phi^{1} \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{pink4}
\phi^{1}=\left\langle g_{S\bar S}\frac{i\bar k_S}{\Sigma} \right\rangle \delta s+\left\langle g_{T\bar T}\frac{i\bar k_T}{\Sigma}\right\rangle \delta t
\end{equation}
is a canonically normalized real scalar field with mass
\begin{equation}
m_{\phi^{1}}= \sqrt{2\langle g_{2}^{2} \Sigma^{2} \rangle} \ .
\label{pink2}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the real scalar $\eta^{1}$ was shown to simply be the $U(1)$ Goldstone boson which can be gauged away, giving the $U(1)$ gauge field $A_{2 \mu}$ the anomalous mass
\begin{equation}
m_{\text{anom}}=m_{\phi^{1}}= \sqrt{2\langle g_{2}^{2} \Sigma^{2} \rangle} \ .
\label{pink3}
\end{equation}
The scalar field $\phi^{1}$ forms the real bosonic degree of freedom of a massive vector superfield with mass \eqref{pink3}
\begin{equation}
\label{day1}
m_{\text{anom}}=\sqrt{2\langle g_{2}^{2} \Sigma^{2} \rangle} \sim \mathcal{O}(M_U) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $M_{U}$ is the unification scale of the non-Abelian complement of the anomalous $U(1)$ which, although model dependent, typically exceeds $10^{16}$GeV.
Hence, $\xi^{1}$ disappears from the low energy matter spectrum leaving $\xi^{2}$ as a canonically normalized massless scalar. Writing
\begin{equation}
\label{pink5}
\xi^{2}=\eta^{2}+i \phi^{2} \ ,
\end{equation}
it follows from \eqref{pad2} that
\begin{equation}
\label{pad2A}
\phi^2=\sqrt{\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T}\rangle }\left\langle \frac{i \bar k_T}{\Sigma} \right\rangle \delta s-\sqrt{\left\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T}\right\rangle }\left\langle \frac{i\bar k_S}{\Sigma} \right\rangle \delta t
\end{equation}
is a massless real scalar field. That is, $\phi^{2}$ is a fluctuation along the dashed green line in Figure 1. Since, by construction, the scalar fields $\phi^{1}$ and $\phi^{2}$ are orthogonal to each other, it follows that field $\phi^{1}$ is always orthogonal to the dashed green line in Figure 1 for any initial values of $\langle s \rangle$ and $\langle t \rangle$. This is indicated in Figure 1.
On the other hand, the real scalar field
\begin{equation}
\label{pad2B}
\eta^2=\sqrt{\left\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T} \right\rangle }\left\langle \frac{i \bar k_T}{\Sigma} \right\rangle \sigma-\sqrt{\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T}\rangle }\left\langle \frac{i\bar k_S}{\Sigma} \right\rangle \chi \ ,
\end{equation}
which is orthoganal to $\eta^{1}$, remains in the effective theory as a massless axion. As discussed above, since $\eta^{2}$ is a linear combination of the $S$ and $T$ axions, $\sigma$ and $\chi$ respectively, it does not enter the potential $V_{D}$.
Using the same formalism, the fermions $\psi_{S}$ and $\psi_{T}$ associated with the chiral superfields $\tilde{S}$ and $\tilde{T}$ respectively, can be rotated to a canonically normalized basis of mass eigenstates $\psi_{\xi}^1$, $\psi_{\xi}^2$ using the same unitary matrix $\mathbf U$. That is,
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_\xi^1\\ \psi_\xi^2
\end{matrix}
\right)=\mathbf{U}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_S\\\psi_T
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,\quad
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_S\\\psi_T
\end{matrix}
\right)=\mathbf{U}^{-1}\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_\xi^1\\ \psi_\xi^2
\end{matrix}
\right)
\ .
\end{equation}
The fermion $\psi_{\xi}^1$combines with the $U(1)$ gaugino field to form a Dirac fermion. Since $N=1$ supersymmetry remains unbroken, this Dirac fermion acquires the same mass $m_{\text{anom}}\sim \mathcal{O}(M_U)$ and becomes part of the massive $U(1)$ vector supermultiplet, while $\psi_{\xi}^2$ remains massless. Hence, $\psi_{\xi}^{1}$ disappears from the low energy matter spectrum leaving $\psi_{\xi}^{2}$ as a canonically normalized massless fermion.
Therefore, ignoring interaction terms, the hidden sector low energy moduli Lagrangian when $FI=0$ is simply
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \supset -\partial^{\mu} \bar{\xi}^{2} \partial_{\mu} \xi^{2} -i \psi_{\xi}^{2} \slashed\partial \psi_{\xi}^{2\dagger} \ .
\label{help1}
\end{equation}
At this point, we recall that when $\text{FI}=0$ the hidden sector matter chiral multiplets $\tilde{C}_{1}$ and $\tilde{C}_{2}$ have ``decoupled'' from the $\tilde{S}$ and $\tilde{T}$ superfields. Hence, they remain massless multiplets with their own kinetic energy Lagrangian. This massless matter field Lagrangian is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \supset - G_{L\bar M}\partial_\mu C^L \partial^\mu \bar C^{\bar M}
-iG_{L\bar M}\psi^L \slashed{\partial} \psi^{\bar M\dag} \ ,
\label{ny1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
G_{L\bar M}=
\frac{\partial^2 K_{\text{matter}}^{\text{(hid)}}}
{\partial C^L\partial \bar C^{\bar M}} = e^{\kappa_{4}^{2}K_{T}/3} \delta_{L\bar{M}}
\label{black1}
\end{equation}
and $L,M=1,2$ .
\subsection{Non-Vanishing FI Term}
It follows from \eqref{cup4} that if $\text{FI} \neq 0$, then at least one of the scalar matter field VEVs $\langle C^{i} \rangle, i=1,2$ must be non-vanishing so as to cancel the FI term and set $\langle V_{D} \rangle =0$ . Assuming, for simplicity, that the $U(1)$ charges of the matter supermultiplets are identical, that is, $Q_1=Q_2$--as was the case in the $B-L$ MSSM vacuum presented in \cite{Ashmore:2020ocb}--then one can always rotate $C^1$ and $C^2$ so that, for example,
\begin{equation}
\langle C^1 \rangle \neq 0~, \quad \langle C^2 \rangle =0 \ .
\label{book1}
\end{equation}
In this case, unlike when $\text{FI}=0$, the $C^1$ matter field does {\it not} decouple from the $S$ and $T$ moduli. Rather it mixes with them in a complicated way. Note, however, that the $C^2$ matter scalar continues to completely decouple.
For each set of VEVs $\langle s \rangle$, $\langle t \rangle$ and $\langle C^1 \rangle$ satisfying the $D$-flatness condition, there again exists a unitary matrix $\mathbf{U}$ that rotates the scalar fluctuation basis $\delta S$, $\delta T$ and $\delta C^1$ to a new basis $\xi^{1}, \xi^{2}, \xi^{3}$
whose kinetic terms in the effective Lagrangian are canonically normalized and are mass eigenstates. Both the real and imaginary parts of $\xi^{1}$ are ``eaten'' by the anomalous $U(1)$ vector superfield which becomes massive. Now, however, its mass is the sum of two different terms. The first is the anomalous mass $m_{\text{anom}} \sim \mathcal{O}(M_U)$ arising as in the $\text{FI}=0$ case. The second mass, however, is due to the spontaneous breaking of the $U(1)$ symmetry by the non-zero VEV of $C^1$ and, hence, has the form $m_{\text{matter}} \sim \langle C^1 \rangle $. Therefore, $\xi^{1}$ disappears from the low energy matter spectrum leaving $\xi^{2}$ and $\xi^{3}$ as canonically normalized massless scalars.
Since $N=1$ supersymmetry is unbroken, it follows that the three fermions $\psi_{S}, \psi_{T}$ and $\psi_{C^1}$ are also rotated by matrix $\mathbf{U}$ to a new basis $\psi_{\xi}^{1}, \psi_{\xi}^{2}, \psi_{\xi}^{3}$ with canonical kinetic energy terms. The fermion $\psi_{\xi}^{1}$ also has mass $m_{\text{anom}} + m_{\text{matter}}$ and is ``eaten'' by the gaugino part of the anomalous $U(1)$ vector superfield. This leaves only two massless fermions, $\psi_{\xi}^{2}$ and $\psi_{\xi}^{3}$, in the low energy effective Lagrangian.
Therefore, ignoring interaction terms, the hidden sector low energy Lagrangian when $\text{FI} \neq 0$ has two separate contributions. The first is due to the $\tilde{S,}\tilde{T,}$ and $\tilde{C^1}$ chiral superfields and is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \supset \sum_{i=2,3} \big(-\partial^{\mu} \bar{\xi}^{i} \partial_{\mu} \xi^{i} -i \psi_{\xi}^{i} \slashed\partial \psi_{\xi}^{i\dagger} \big) \ .
\label{help1a}
\end{equation}
The second contribution is due to the $\tilde{C}_{2}$ chiral superfield which, since it does not have a non-vanishing VEV, has ``decoupled'' from the other fields.
Hence, it remains a massless multiplet with its own kinetic energy Lagrangian. This massless matter field Lagrangian is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \supset -G_{22}\partial_\mu C^2 \partial^\mu \bar C^{2}
-iG_{22}\psi^2 \slashed{\partial} \psi^{\bar 2\dag} \ ,
\label{ny1b}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
G_{22}=
\frac{\partial^2 K_{\text{matter}}^{\text{(hid)}}}
{\partial C^2\partial \bar C^{2}} = e^{\kappa_{4}^{2}K_{T}/3} \ .
\label{black1b}
\end{equation}
\section{Mass Spectrum after SUSY breaking}\label{mass_spect_sec}
In this section, we analyze the mass spectrum of the low energy theory after turning on non-perturbative effects. That is, we introduce the non-vanishing superpotential
\begin{equation}
\hat W_{np}(S,T) \neq 0
\label{view1}
\end{equation}
which generates non-vanishing F-terms $F_S$ and $F_T$ that break $N=1$ supersymmetry and produce a potential energy term $V_{F}$ that, as has the form
given by
\begin{equation}
V_F=e^{\kappa^2_4K}\left[ g^{A\bar B}(D_A\hat W_{np})(D_{\bar B}\hat W_{np}^*)-3\kappa_4^2{|\hat W_{np}|^2} \right]
\label{fly4}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_A\hat W_{np}=\partial_{A}\hat W_{np}+\kappa_4^2K_A\hat W_{np}\ .
\label{fly4A}
\end{equation}
The indices $A,B$ each run over $S,T$.
This non-perturbative potential potentially stabilizes the remaining massless scalar fields
defined in the previous section. Recall that before turning on these non-perturbative effects, the matter content in both the observable and the hidden sectors was massless. Furthermore--as discussed in Section 2--the theory contained one massless modulus supermultiplet $(\xi^2,\psi_\xi^2)$ when $FI=0$, and several such massless supermultiplets $(\xi^i,\psi_\xi^i)$, $i \geq 2$ for $FI \neq 0$.
After the non-perturbative effects which break supersymmetry are turned on, the mass terms of the low energy theory are the following. As discussed in \cite{Choi:1997cm,Soni:1983rm,Kaplunovsky:1993rd,Brignole:1997wnc,Martin:1997ns}:
\begin{itemize}
\item The gravitino mass
\begin{equation}
m_{3/2}=\kappa_{4}^{2}e^{(K_{S}+K_{T})/2}|\hat W_{np}|\ .
\end{equation}
The gravitino mass is a good indicator of the scale of the masses aquired by the low-energy spectrum after supersymmetry is broken. Therefore, we define
\begin{equation}
m_{\text{SUSY}}=m_{3/2}=\kappa_{4}^{2}e^{(K_{S}+K_{T})/2}|\hat W_{np}|\ .
\end{equation}
\item Soft SUSY breaking mass terms on the observable sector. These include the universal gaugino mass term
\begin{equation}
M_{1/2}=\frac{1}{2{\rm Re} f_1}F^{A}\partial_{A}{\rm Re}f_{1}\ ,
\end{equation}
as well as the quadratic scalar masses
\begin{equation}
m_{\cal{I} \bar{\cal{J}}}^{2}=m^{2}_{3/2}Z_{\cal{I} \bar{\cal{J}}}-F^{A}\bar{F}^{\bar{B}}R_{A \bar{B} \cal{I}\bar{\cal{J}}}\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
R_{A \bar{B} \cal{I}\bar{\cal{J}}}=\partial_{A}\partial_{\bar{B}}Z_{\cal{I}\bar{\cal{J}}}-\Gamma^{\cal{N}}_{A\cal{I}}Z_{\cal{N}\bar{\cal{L}}}{\bar{\Gamma}}^{\bar{\cal{L}}}_{\bar{B}\bar{\cal{J}}}
\label{r1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\cal{N}}_{A\cal{I}}=Z^{\cal{N}\bar{\cal{J}}}\partial_{A}Z_{\bar{\cal{J}}\cal{I}} \ .
\label{r2}
\end{equation}
In our model
\begin{equation}
Z_{\cal{I} \bar{\cal{J}}}=e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\mathcal{G}_{\cal{I}\bar{\cal{J}}}\ .
\end{equation}
\item Hidden scalar mass terms. The hidden sector scalar fields $C^1$ and $C^2$ also obtain soft SUSY breaking mass contributions. The formulas are identical to the scalars on the observable sector shown above with, however, the $\cal{I}, \cal{J}, \dots$ indices replaced by $L,M, \dots$. In addition, on the hidden sector, we have
\begin{equation}
Z_{L\bar M}\equiv G_{L\bar M}=e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\delta_{L\bar M}\ , \quad \text{for}\quad L,M=1,2\ .
\end{equation}
\item Moduli and hidden scalar mass terms. All these scalar masses are obtained by studying the second derivatives of the potential $V_D+V_F$ with respect to moduli fields $S$, $T$ and the matter fields $C^{1}$, $C^{2}$ evaluated at the vacuum state. We get
\begin{multline}
V=\Lambda+\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial z^A\partial \bar z^{\bar B}}\right\rangle\delta z^A\delta \bar z^{\bar B}+\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial z^A\partial z^{B}}\right\rangle\delta z^A\delta z^{B}+\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \bar z^{\bar A}\partial \bar z^{\bar B}}\right\rangle\delta \bar z^{\bar{A}}\delta \bar{z}^{\bar B}+\dots\ ,
\end{multline}
where $z^A, z^B=S,T, C^{1}, C^{2}$ are the scalar perturbations and
\begin{equation}
\left\langle V \right\rangle=\Lambda\ .
\end{equation}
The total potential has to satisfy the following conditions in order to define a stable vacuum state:
\begin{equation}
\left \langle \frac{\partial V}{\partial z^A}\right\rangle=0\ ,\quad \left \langle \frac{\partial V}{\partial \bar z^A}\right\rangle=0 \ .
\end{equation}
In this section, we will assume that it is always possible to find a solution which satisfy the above conditions in both classes of vacua that we study, that is, when $\text{FI}=0$ and when $\text{FI}\neq 0$. In Section \ref{Sec:Mod_Stab}, we will discuss a few simple examples of scalar potentials which do satisfy these conditions.
We can separate the mass contributions from the D-term and F-term potentials and write
\begin{multline}
V=\Lambda+m_{\text{anom}}^2\bar\xi^1\xi^1+\\
\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V_{F}}{\partial z^A\partial \bar z^{\bar B}}\right\rangle\delta z^A\delta \bar z^{\bar B}+\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V_{F}}{\partial z^A\partial z^{B}}\right\rangle\delta z^A\delta z^{B}+\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V_{F}}{\partial \bar z^{\bar A}\partial \bar z^{\bar B}}\right\rangle\delta \bar z^{\bar{A}}\delta \bar{z}^{\bar B}+\dots\ ,
\end{multline}
After computing the mass matrices in the scalar pertrurbations, it is necessary to project these perturbations into a mass eigenstate basis, such that the mass matrix becomes diagonal. One of these mass eigenstates must be the state $\xi^1$, given in eq. \eqref{pad1}, which is fixed at compactification by the D-term potential. The rest of the moduli scalar states must be orthogonal to it. We will outline this process in the rest of this section, for both the vanishing FI and non-vanishing FI cases.
\item Observable sector fermion mass terms. Fermion masses arise in the observable sector from the Higgs mechanism--and are are not directly generated by soft SUSY breaking fermion mass terms due to gaugino condensation.
\item Hidden sector matter fermion masses. As in the observable sector, for the hidden sector matter chiral superfields with $\langle C_{L} \rangle =0$, there are no soft SUSY breaking fermion mass terms generated by gaugino condensation. Furthermore, within the context we study, there is no hidden sector Higgs mechanism. It follows that the hidden sector matter fermions whose scalar partners satisfy $\langle C_{L} \rangle = 0$ are all massless--that is,
\begin{equation}
m_{\psi_{L}}=0 \ .
\label{blue1}
\end{equation}
\item Moduli fermions mass terms. Adding a non-perturbative superpotential generates new moduli fermion masses in the low-energy effective theory. These originate from the fermion bilinear terms
%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\supset
-\frac{1}{2}e^{\kappa_4^2K/2}\mathcal{D}_A{D}_B\hat W_{np} \psi^{A}\psi^{B}+h.c.\
\end{equation}
in the supergravity Lagrangian, where $A,B$ each run over $S,T$ and
\begin{multline}
\mathcal{D}_AD_B\hat W_{np}=\partial_{A}\partial_{B}\hat W_{np}+\kappa_4^2(\partial_{A}\partial_{B}K\hat W_{np}+\partial_{A}KD_B\hat W_{np}+\partial_{B}KD_A\hat W_{np})\\-\Gamma^C_{AB}D_C\hat W_{np}+\mathcal{O}(M_P^{-3})\ .
\end{multline}
These moduli fermion mass terms are non-vanishing in vacua in which the F-terms $F_S=D_S\hat W_{np}$ and $F_T=D_T\hat W_{np}$ are non-vanishing.
\end{itemize}
Since the form of the soft SUSY breaking terms in the both the observable and $\langle C^{L} \rangle =0$ hidden sector which result from gaugino condensation are well-known, in the rest of this section we will study the mass spectrum of the moduli fields as well as matter fields with $\langle C^{L} \rangle \neq 0$ . The results, once again, depend on whether or not the Fayet-Iliopoulos term vanishes. As before, we will begin our analysis for the $\text{FI}=0$ case.
\subsection {Vanishing $\text{FI}$ Term}
\subsubsection{Scalar Moduli Eigenstates}\label{sec:scalar_eigen1}
Prior to turning on the non-perturbative gaugino condensate superpotential, the canonically normalized complex scalar mass eigenstates $\xi^{1}$ and $\xi^{2}$ were presented in Subsection 2.2. Eigenstate $\xi^{1}$ was shown to have the non-vanishing mass $m_{\text{anom}} \sim\mathcal{O}(M_U)$, while $\xi^{2}$ was shown to be massless. In Section 2--following the analysis in \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh}--we absorbed $\xi^{1}$ into a massive $U(1)$ vector superfield and considered only the non-interacting effective Lagrangian for the zero mass $\xi^2$ scalar. This was given by the first term in \eqref{help1}. However, it will be useful in the following analysis to consider the effective Lagrangian for both scalars $\xi^1$ and $\xi^2$--prior to $\xi^1$ being absorbed.
It is straightforward to show that the scalar part of \eqref{help1} then becomes
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \supset -\partial^{\mu} \bar{\xi}^{1} \partial_{\mu} \xi^{1} -\partial^{\mu} \bar{\xi}^{2} \partial_{\mu} \xi^{2}-m_{\text{anom}}^2{\xi^1}\bar \xi^1\ \ .
\label{help1A}
\end{equation}
After turning on the non-perturbative potential term $V_{F}$, however, it is necessary to completely reanalyze the mass eigenstates. In this case, ignoring the kinetic terms, which will remain canonically normalized, the non-interaction part of the scalar Lagrangian in the $\text{FI}=0$ case is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{light3}
\mathcal{L}\supset -m_{\text{anom}}^2{\xi^1}\bar \xi^1
-&2(\delta \bar S,\>\delta \bar T)
{\mathbf{M_s}}
\left( \begin{matrix}\delta S\\\delta T \end{matrix}\right)\\
&-(\delta S,\>\delta T)
{\mathbf{M_s^\prime}}
\left( \begin{matrix}\delta S\\\delta T \end{matrix}\right)-( \delta \bar S,\>\delta \bar T)
{\mathbf{M_s^{\prime \prime}}}
\left( \begin{matrix}\delta \bar S\\\delta \bar T \end{matrix}\right)\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the $2\times 2$ scalar moduli squared mass matrices are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:M_s}
{\mathbf{M_s}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
m^2_{S\bar S}&m^2_{S\bar T}\\
m^2_{T\bar S}&m^2_{T\bar T}\\
\end{matrix}
\right)\ , \quad {\mathbf{M_s^\prime}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
m^2_{S S}&m^2_{S T}\\
m^2_{T S}&m^2_{T T}\\
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,\quad {\mathbf{M_s^{\prime \prime}}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
m^2_{\bar S\bar S}&m^2_{\bar S\bar T}\\
m^2_{\bar T\bar S}&m^2_{\bar T\bar T}\\
\end{matrix}
\right)\ .
\end{equation}
The matrix elements have the expressions
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:s_mass_1}
\left[{\mathbf{M_s}}\right]_{A\bar B}&\equiv m_{z^A\bar z^{\bar B}}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V_F}{\partial z^A\partial \bar z^{\bar B}}\right\rangle\ ,\\
\left[{\mathbf{M_s}^\prime}\right]_{A B}&\equiv m_{z^A z^{ B}}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V_F}{\partial z^A\partial z^{ B}}\right\rangle\ ,
\\
\left[{\mathbf{M_s}^{\prime \prime}}\right]_{\bar A\bar B}&\equiv m_{\bar z^{\bar A}\bar z^{\bar B}}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V_F}{\partial \bar z^{\bar A}\partial \bar z^{\bar B}}\right\rangle\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $z^A\in [S, T]$ and $A,B=1,2$.
These mass matrix elements are the order of the SUSY breaking scale, $m_{\text{SUSY}}$, discussed in detail in \ref{AppendixB1}. For example, for the matrix elements of $\mathbf{M_s}$ we have
\begin{equation}
m_{S\bar S},\>m_{S\bar T},\>m_{T\bar T}\sim \mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}})\ .
\label{plane1}
\end{equation}
It is generically true that
\begin{equation}
m_{S\bar S},\>m_{S\bar T},\>m_{T\bar T}\ll m_{\text{anom}}\sim \mathcal{O}(M_U) \ .
\label{plane2}
\end{equation}
Rewriting $\delta S$ and $\delta T$ in terms of $\xi^1$ and $\xi^2$ using \eqref{light1} and \eqref{eq:U22}, \eqref{eq:U22A}, expression \eqref{light3} becomes
{\small
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{L}\supset=-m_{\text{anom}}^2{\xi^1}{\bar \xi}^1+
\\
&-2({\bar \xi}^1,\>{\bar \xi}^2)
{\mathbf{U}^{-1}}^\dag \mathbf{M_s}\mathbf{U}^{-1}
\left( \begin{matrix} \xi^1\\ \xi^2 \end{matrix}\right)
-({ \xi}^1,\>{ \xi}^2)
{\mathbf{U}^{-1 {\text{T}}}} \mathbf{M_s^\prime}\mathbf{U}^{-1}
\left( \begin{matrix} \xi^1\\ \xi^2 \end{matrix}\right)
-({\bar \xi}^1,\>{\bar \xi}^2)
{\mathbf{U}^{-1}}^{*} \mathbf{M_s^{\prime \prime}}\mathbf{U}^{-1\dag}
\left( \begin{matrix}\bar \xi^1\\ \bar \xi^2 \end{matrix}\right)
\\
&
=-m_{\text{anom}}^2{\xi^1}{\bar \xi}^1-({\bar \xi}^1,\>{\bar \xi}^2)
\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}}
\left( \begin{matrix} \xi^1\\ \xi^2 \end{matrix}\right)
-({ \xi}^1,\>{ \xi}^2)
\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}\prime}
\left( \begin{matrix} \xi^1\\ \xi^2 \end{matrix}\right)
-({\bar \xi}^1,\>{\bar \xi}^2)
\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}\prime\prime}
\left( \begin{matrix}\bar \xi^1\\ \bar \xi^2 \end{matrix}\right)\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
}
The mass matrices $\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}}$, $\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}\prime}$ and $\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}\prime\prime}$
are all non-diagonal. Therefore, to get the new mass eigenstates after adding the non-perturbative effects, we need to diagonalize these matrices. However, since $m_{SUSY} \ll M_{U}$, it is straightforward to give a highly accurate approximation to the result. This is the following. Since $m_{\text{anom}}$ is so large,
the $\xi^{1}$ scalar and its mass remain essentially unchanged after turning on the non-perturbative effects. Hence, we will assume that these quantities remain strictly unchanged and, since $\xi^1$ is so heavy, that it effectively decouples from the low energy theory. It follows that the direction of the eigenstate $\xi^2$ is fixed. The mass $m_{22}^2$ is then nothing more than the variation of the non-peturbative potential $V_F$ along this fixed direction. In conclusion, at the scale of SUSY breaking, we are left with a single scalar field $\xi^{2}$ and its conjugate, which form mass terms
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}\supset - \left[ \mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}}\right]_{22}\bar {\xi^2} \xi^2- \left[ \mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}\prime}\right]_{22} {\xi^2}\xi^2- \left[ \mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}\prime\prime}\right]_{22}\bar {\xi^2}\bar \xi^2\ .
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:first_sc_masses}
\left[ \mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}}\right]_{22}&= 2m_{S\bar S}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2m_{S\bar T}^2\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2m_{T\bar S}^2\langle\frac{k_T\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+2m_{T\bar T}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ ,\\
\left[ \mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}^\prime}\right]_{22}&=m_{SS}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{S T}^2 \langle \frac{k_S k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{T S}^2 \langle \frac{k_S k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{T T}^2 \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle\ ,\\
\left[ \mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{s}}^{\boldmath{\xi}\prime \prime}\right]_{22}&= m_{\bar S\bar S}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{\bar k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{\bar S\bar T}^2 \langle \frac{ \bar k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{\bar T\bar S}^2 \langle \frac{\bar k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{\bar T\bar T}^2\ \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{\bar k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle\ .\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using that $k_Ak_B=\bar k_A\bar k_B=-k_A\bar k_B$, where the indices $A, B$ run over $S$ and $T$, we find the Lagrangian mass terms
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:first_sc_masses}
\mathcal{L}\supset &
-2 \left( m_{S\bar S}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{S\bar T}^2\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{T\bar S}^2\langle\frac{k_T\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{T\bar T}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \right) \bar {\xi^2} \xi^2\\
&+ \left( m_{SS}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T \bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{S T}^2\langle\frac{k_S \bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{T S}^2\langle\frac{k_S \bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{T T}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \right) {\xi^2} \xi^2\\
&+ \left( m_{\bar S\bar S}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{\bar S\bar T}^2\langle\frac{ k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-m_{\bar T\bar S}^2\langle\frac{ k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{\bar T\bar T}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{ k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \right)\bar {\xi^2}\bar \xi^2\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The mass terms above can also be written in terms of the real and imaginary components of $\xi^2$, that is
\begin{equation}
\xi^2=\text{Re}(\xi^2)+i\text{Im}(\xi^2)\equiv {\eta^2}+i{\phi^2}\ .
\end{equation}
We obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:first_sc_masses2}
\mathcal{L}\supset &
-\bigg[ (2m_{S\bar S}^2-m_{S S}^2-m_{\bar S\bar S}^2)\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-
(2m_{S\bar T}^2-m_{S T}^2-m_{\bar S\bar T}^2)\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\\
&-(2m_{T\bar S}^2-m_{T S}^2-m_{\bar T\bar S}^2)\langle\frac{k_T\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+(2m_{T\bar T}^2-m_{T T}^2-m_{\bar T\bar T}^2)\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \bigg] {\eta^2}^2\\
&-\bigg[ (2m_{S\bar S}^2+m_{S S}^2+m_{\bar S\bar S}^2)\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-
(2m_{S\bar T}^2+m_{S T}^2+m_{\bar S\bar T}^2)\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\\
&-(2m_{T\bar S}^2+m_{T S}^2+m_{\bar T\bar S}^2)\langle\frac{k_T\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+(2m_{T\bar T}^2+m_{T T}^2+m_{\bar T\bar T}^2)\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \bigg] {\phi^2}^2\\
&-2i\bigg[ (m_{S S}^2-m_{\bar S\bar S}^2)\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-
(m_{S T}^2-m_{\bar S\bar T}^2)\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\\
&-(m_{T S}^2-m_{\bar T\bar S}^2)\langle\frac{k_T\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+(m_{T T}^2-m_{\bar T\bar T}^2)\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \bigg] {{\phi^2}} {\eta^2}\ .\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Recalling from \eqref{pad2B} that $\eta^{2}$ is a linear combination of the $S$ and $T$ axions, $\sigma$ and $\chi$ respectively, it follows that
if the $F$-term potential generated by non-perturbative effects depends on the real parts of the moduli fields $s=\text{Re}(S)$ and $t=\text{Re}(T)$ only,
the mass term coefficient in front of ${\eta^2}^2$, as well as the coefficient of the mixing term ${\phi^2}{\eta^2}$ in the above expression vanish. This is, of course, expected, since such a potential cannot generate a non-flat direction along the axion components of the moduli fields.
In general, however, the non-perturbative potential can depend on the axionic components $\sigma$ and $\chi$ as well. In this case, the one must compute the mass coefficients in eq. \eqref{eq:first_sc_masses2} in front of ${\eta^{2}}^{2}$ and ${\phi^2}{\eta^2}$. Note that the potentially problematic mixing term ${\phi^2}{\eta^2}$ is possibly non-zero. However, we find that the dependence of the allowed scalar potentials on the axion fields is proportional to
$\cos \sigma, \>\cos \chi$. In general, these potentials are minimized when the cosine functions equal $-1$. Therefore, in vacuum states defined as having minimal energy, any cross terms such as ${\phi^2}{\eta^2}$, which couple axion fields and real scalar components, will vanish. In Section \ref{Sec:Mod_Stab}, we will show that this indeed the case in a set of explicit examples. From here on, we will always assume that the axionic degrees of freedom are separated from the real scalar ones in the mass matrices.
The complexity of these mass computations increases quickly
for $FI \neq 0 $ (as well as when manifolds with $h^{1,1}>1$ are considered). In this case, the matter fields from the hidden sector are mixed with the moduli--as we will show in the next section. It is, therefore, easier to separate the real scalar and axion components in the potential from the start. That is, instead of expressing the mass mixing matrices as in eq \eqref{light3}, we write
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{light23}
\mathcal{L}\supset -m_{\text{anom}}^2{\phi^1}^2-m_{\text{anom}}^2{\eta^1}^2
-&(\delta s,\>\delta t)
{\mathbf{M^{(r)}_s}}
\left( \begin{matrix}\delta s\\\delta t \end{matrix}\right)-(\delta \sigma,\>\delta \chi)
{\mathbf{M^{(i)}_s}}
\left( \begin{matrix}\delta \sigma \\ \delta \chi \end{matrix}\right)\ .\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The symbols $(r)$ and $(i)$ label the real and the imaginary components of the moduli fields, respectively.
In this case, the $2\times 2$ scalar moduli squared mass matrices are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:M_s2}
{\mathbf{M_s^{(r)}}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
m^2_{s s}&m^2_{st}\\
m^2_{t s}&m^2_{tt}\\
\end{matrix}
\right)\ , \quad {\mathbf{M_s^{(i)}}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
m^2_{\sigma \sigma}&m^2_{\sigma \chi}\\
m^2_{\chi \sigma}&m^2_{\chi \chi}\\
\end{matrix}
\right)\ .
\end{equation}
Note that, from the above discussion, no mixing between the real scalars and axion components exists. The expressions for the matrix elements of ${\mathbf{M_s^{(r)}}}$ are obtained by doubly differentiating the $F$-term potential with respect to $s$ and $t$, while the matrix elements of ${\mathbf{M_s^{(i)}}}$ are obtained by doubly differentiating the $F$-term potential with respect to $\sigma$ and $\chi$. For example
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:s_mass_potential}
\left[{\mathbf{M_s^{(r)}}} \right]_{11}&\equiv m_{\sigma \sigma}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\langle\frac{\partial^2 V_F}{\partial \sigma\partial \sigma}\right\rangle\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The next step in our analysis is to rotate these scalar perturbations into a base for the real and imaginary parts of the eigenstates $\xi^1$ and $\xi^2$. From equation \eqref{light1}, we derive the the relations
\begin{equation}
\label{bird1}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\delta s\\\delta t
\end{matrix}\right)
=i\mathbf{U}^{-1}
\left(\begin{matrix}
{\phi^1}\\ {\phi^2}
\end{matrix}\right)\ ,\quad
\left(\begin{matrix}
\delta \sigma\\\delta \chi
\end{matrix}\right)
=-i\mathbf{U}^{-1}
\left(\begin{matrix}
{\eta^1}\\ {\eta^2}
\end{matrix}\right)
\end{equation}
where matrix $\mathbf{U}^{-1}$ is given in \eqref{eq:U22A}.
After decoupling the heavier states ${\phi^1}$ and ${\eta^1}$, which have mass close to the unification scale, we are left with the low energy mass terms
\begin{multline}
\mathcal{L}\supset
-\left( m_{ss}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2m_{st}^2\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+2m_{tt}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \right){\phi^2}^2\\
-
\left( m_{\sigma\sigma}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2m_{\sigma \chi}^2\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{\chi \chi}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \right){\eta^2}^2\ ,
\end{multline}
which have the same form as in eq. \eqref{eq:first_sc_masses2} with vanishing mixing term ${\phi^2}{\eta^2}$.
\subsubsection{Fermion Moduli Eigenstates}
The analysis for the fermions is similar. The matrix $\mathbf U$ which rotates the moduli fermions $\psi_S$ and $\psi_T$ into the massive state $\psi_\xi^1$ and the massless state $\psi_\xi^2$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{bird2}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_\xi^1\\ \psi_\xi^2
\end{matrix}
\right)=\mathbf{U}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_S\\\psi_T
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,\quad
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_S\\\psi_T
\end{matrix}
\right)=\mathbf{U}^{-1}\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_\xi^1\\ \psi_\xi^2
\end{matrix}
\right)
\ ,
\end{equation}
is the same as for the scalars.
During the superHiggs mechanism described in Section 2, $\psi_{\xi}^{1}$ formed a Dirac fermion with the $U(1)$ gaugino $\lambda_{2}$ and became part of a massive $U(1)$ vector superfield. We considered only the non-interacting effective Lagrangian for the zero mass $\psi_{\xi}^2$ fermion. This was given by the second term in \eqref{help1}. However, it will be useful in the following analysis to consider the effective Lagrangian for both fermions $\psi_\xi^1$ and $\psi_{\xi}^2$--prior to $\psi_{\xi}^1$ being absorbed.
It is straightforward to show that the fermion part of \eqref{help1} then becomes
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \supset -i \psi_{\xi}^{1} \slashed\partial \psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger} -i \psi_{\xi}^{2} \slashed\partial \psi_{\xi}^{2\dagger} -\frac{i}{\langle g_2^2\rangle}\lambda_{2} \slashed{\partial} \lambda_{2}^\dag - m_{\text{anom}} \left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)
\ .
\label{help1A}
\end{equation}
After turning on the non-perturbative potential term $V_{F}$, however, it is necessary to completely reanalyze the mass eigenstates. As explained in the introduction of this section, adding a non-perturbative superpotential generates new fermion masses in the low-energy effective theory, originating from the fermion bilinear terms
%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\supset
-\frac{1}{2}e^{\kappa_4^2K/2}\mathcal{D}_A{D}_B\hat W_{np} \psi^{A}\psi^{B}+h.c.\
\end{equation}
in the supergravity Lagrangian, where $A,B$ each run over $S,T$.
In this case, ignoring the kinetic terms which will remain canonically normalized, the non-interaction part of the fermion Lagrangian in the $\text{FI}=0$ case is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \supset -m_{\text{anom}} \left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)-\left[
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_S&\psi_T
\end{matrix}
\right)
{\mathbf{M_f}}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_S\\\psi_T
\end{matrix}
\right)+h.c.\right]\ ,
\end{equation}
where we have defined the fermion mass matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{mfm}
{\mathbf{M_f}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
M_{S S}& M_{ST}\\
M_{T S}& M_{TT}
\end{matrix}
\right) \ .
\end{equation}
These matrix elements are defined in the Appendix \ref{AppendixB2}. For the $FI=0$ case, where $\langle C^1\rangle=\langle C^2\rangle=0$, these are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:f_mass_1}
&M_{SS}=\tfrac{1}{2} e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}\rangle /2} \langle \partial^2_S\hat {W}_{np}+\kappa_4^2(\partial^2_SK_S {\hat W}_{np}+2\partial_SK_S{ \partial_S\hat W}_{np}\\
&\hspace{6cm}
+\kappa_4^2(\partial_SK_S)^2\hat W_{np})+\Gamma_{SS}^AD_A\hat W_{np} \rangle \ ,\\
&M_{S T},\>M_{T S}=\tfrac{1}{2} e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}\rangle/2}\langle \partial_S\partial_{T}{\hat W_{np}}+\kappa_4^2(\partial_SK_S \partial_{T}{\hat W_{np}}+\partial_{T}K_T \partial_S{\hat W_{np}} \\
&\hspace{6cm}+
\kappa_4^2\partial_SK_S\partial_TK_T\hat W_{np})+\Gamma^A_{ST}D_A\hat W_{np}\rangle\ , \\
&M_{T T}=\tfrac{1}{2} e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}\rangle/2}\langle \partial^2_{T}{\hat W_{np}}
+\kappa_4^2(\partial^2_{T}K_T \hat W_{np}+2\partial_{T}K_T \partial_{T}{\hat W_{np}}\\
&\hspace{6cm}+\kappa_4^2
(\partial_TK_T)^2\hat W_{np})+\Gamma^A_{TT}D_A\hat W_{np}\rangle \ .\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Written in terms of the states $\psi_\xi^1,\>\psi_\xi^2$ only, using \eqref{light1} and \eqref{eq:U22} , \eqref{eq:U22A}, the fermion mass terms in the Lagrangian become
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}&\supset-m_{\text{anom}}\left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)-\left(\begin{matrix}[1.5]
\psi_\xi^{1}&\psi_\xi^{2}
\end{matrix}
\right) \left(\begin{matrix}[1.5]
\begin{matrix}
\langle\frac{ \bar k_S}{\Sigma}\rangle &\quad \langle\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma}\rangle \\
\quad\ \sqrt{\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\rangle}\langle\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma}\rangle&\quad- \langle\frac{\bar k_S}{\Sigma}\rangle\sqrt{\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\rangle}\\
\end{matrix}
\end{matrix}
\right)\times \\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\times
\left(
\begin{matrix}[1.2]
M_{S S}& M_{S T}\\
M_{T S}& M_{T T}
\end{matrix}
\right)
\left(\begin{matrix}[1.5]
\begin{matrix}
\frac{ \langle k_S}{\Sigma}\rangle &\quad \langle\frac{ k_T}{\Sigma}\rangle \\
\quad\ \sqrt{\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\rangle}\langle\frac{ k_T}{\Sigma}\rangle&\quad- \langle\frac{ k_S}{\Sigma}\rangle\sqrt{\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\rangle}\\
\end{matrix}
\end{matrix}
\right) \left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_\xi^1\\\psi_\xi^2
\end{matrix}
\right)+h.c.
\\
&
=-m_{\text{anom}}\left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)-\left[( \psi_\xi^{1},\> \psi_\xi^{2 })
\left(
\begin{matrix}
M_{11}&M_{1 2}\\
M_{2 1}&M_{2 2}\\
\end{matrix}
\right)\left( \begin{matrix} \psi_\xi^1\\ \psi_\xi^2 \end{matrix}\right)+h.c.\right]\\
&=-m_{\text{anom}}\left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)
-\left[\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{f}}^{\boldmath{\xi}}\right]_{AB}\psi_\xi^A\psi_\xi^{B }
-\left[\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{f}}^{\boldmath{\xi}}\right]_{\bar A\bar B}\psi_\xi^{\bar A\dag}\psi_\xi^{\bar B\dag }\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The elements of the fermion mass matrix $\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{f}}^{\boldmath{\xi}}={\mathbf{U}^{-1}}^\dag \mathbf{M_f}\mathbf{U}^{-1}$ are
\begingroup
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
M_{11}&= M_{S S}\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle+2M_{S T}\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+M_{TT}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ ,\\
M_{12}&= M_{SS}\langle\sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-M_{S T}\langle\sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+M_{T S}\langle\sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-M_{T T}\langle\sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}\frac{k_T\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ ,\\\
\label{eq:first_f_masses}
M_{22}&= M_{SS}\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2M_{S T}\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+M_{T T}\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\endgroup
The mass $m_{\text{anom}}$ of the Dirac fermion $\Psi= \dbinom{\lambda_{2}^{\dagger}/\langle g_2\rangle}{\psi_{\xi}^{1}} $ is much larger than $M_{12}(=M_{21})$ and $\>M_{22}$. Therefore, the state $\psi_\xi^1$, together with the gaugino $\lambda_2$, are decoupled at the SUSY breaking scale, leaving only $\psi_{\xi}^{2}$ in the low energy Lagrangian. Hence, the only fermion mass terms present in the effective theory are
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\supset -M_{22}\left(\psi_\xi^2\psi_\xi^{2}+\psi_\xi^{2\dag}\psi_\xi^{2\dag}\right)\ .
\end{equation}
This is the mass of a Majorana fermion
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\supset -M_{\Psi^2_\xi}\Psi_\xi^2\Psi_\xi^{2\dag}\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Psi_\xi^2= \dbinom{\psi_\xi^2}{\psi_\xi^{2\dag}} \ , \quad M_{\Psi^2_\xi}=2M_{22}\ .
\end{equation}
It follows from the above expression for $M_{22}$ that
\begin{equation}
\label{books2}
M_{\Psi_\xi^2} \sim {\mathcal{O}}(m_{\text{SUSY}}) \ll {\cal{O}}(M_{U}) \ .
\end{equation}
Finally, we note that turning on non-perturbative gaugino condensation leads to $N=1$ SUSY breaking. As a consequence, the masses of the scalars $\phi^2$, $\eta^2$ and the fermion $\psi^2_\xi$, which used to be identical--that is, were all vanishing-- prior to supersymmetry breaking, now differ. That is,
\begin{equation}
m_{\phi^2}\neq m_{\eta^2}\neq M_{\Psi_\xi^2}\ .
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Final Low-Energy States}\label{sec:final_states1}
We conclude this subsection by displaying, in the case that $\text{FI}=0$, the Lagrangian for the low-energy spectrum of the moduli and hidden sector after supersymmetry breaking. Ignoring all interaction terms, this Lagrangian is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}&= -\partial^{\mu} \phi^{2} \partial_{\mu} \phi^{2}-\partial^{\mu} \eta^{2} \partial_{\mu} \eta^{2}- G_{L\bar M}\partial_\mu C^L \partial^\mu \bar C^{\bar M} -i \Psi_{\xi}^{2} \slashed\partial \Psi_{\xi}^{2\dagger}-iG_{L\bar M}\psi^L \slashed{\partial} \psi^{\bar M\dag}\\
&- m_{\phi^2}^2{\phi^2}^2- m_{\eta^2}^2{\eta^2}^2-\tfrac{1}{2}M_{\Psi_\xi^2}\Psi_\xi^2\Psi_\xi^{2\dag}-m_{L\bar M}^2C^{L}\bar C^{\bar M}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mphi2}
m_{\phi^2}^2&= m_{s s}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2m_{s t}^2\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{tt}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ , \\
\label{eq:meta2}
m_{\eta^2}^2&= m_{\sigma \sigma}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2m_{\sigma\chi}^2\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{\chi \chi}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ , \\
M_{\Psi_\xi^2}&= 2M_{S S}\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-4M_{ST}\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+2M_{T T}\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle\
\label{eq:mPsi2}
\end{align}
are the moduli masses computed above. The hidden matter scalars $C^1$ and $C^2$ obtain the masses
\begin{equation}
m^2_{L\bar M}=m^{2}_{3/2}G_{L\bar M}-F^{A}\bar F^{\bar B}R_{A\bar BL\bar M}\ ,
\label{pro1}
\end{equation}
while the hidden matter fermions $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ remain massless. An equivalent expression for the hidden scalar masses has been derived in Appendix \ref{AppendixB1}.
We now continue to the case in which $\text{FI} \neq 0$.
\subsection{Non-vanishing $\text{FI}$ Term}\label{non-vanish_mass}
Let us now allow consider the case when $\text{FI}\neq 0$. That is,
\begin{equation}
- \frac{a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2}{\kappa_{4}^{2}}
\left( -\frac{1}{\langle s \rangle}\pi \beta \epsilon_S l+\frac{3l}{\langle t \rangle} \right) \neq 0 \ .
\label{clip1}
\end{equation}
Then, as discussed in Subsection 2.3, in order to satisfy the $D$-flatness condition $\langle V_{D} \rangle=0$ it is necessary for at least one of the hidden sector matter field VEVs to be non-zero. Following the discussion in that subsection, we will henceforth assume that
\begin{equation}
\langle C^1 \rangle \neq 0 , \quad \langle C^2 \rangle =0 \ .
\label{clip2}
\end{equation}
As discussed previously, it follows that the matter field $C^1$ mixes with the $S$ and $T$ moduli, while only the $C^2$ hidden matter field completely decouples. The condition \eqref{umb3} to preserve $N=1$ supersymmetry is then given by
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathcal{P}\rangle =0\quad \Rightarrow \quad - \frac{a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2}{\kappa_{4}^{2}}
\left( -\frac{1}{\langle s \rangle}\pi \beta \epsilon_S l+\frac{3l}{\langle t \rangle} \right) -e^{\kappa_{4}^{2}\langle K_{T} \rangle /3} \langle \tilde Q_1 \rangle \langle C^1\rangle \langle\bar C^1\rangle=0\ ,
\end{equation}
This vacuum is defined by the expectation values of three scalar fields, $T$, $S$ and $C^1$. The scalar perturbations around the vacuum are $\delta S$, $\delta T$ and $\delta C^1$. Based on the results of our work in \cite{Dumitru:2021jlh}, we find prior to turning on any non-perturbative effects, a linear combination of these scalar perturbations
given by
\begin{equation}
\xi^1=\langle g_{S\bar S}\frac{\bar k_S}{\Sigma^\prime} \rangle \delta S+\left\langle g_{T\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma^\prime}
+g_{T\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma^\prime}\right\rangle \delta T+\left\langle g_{C^1\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma^\prime}+g_{C^1\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma^\prime}\right\rangle \delta C^1
\end{equation}
acquires the mass $m_{\text{anom}} \sim {\cal{O}(}M_{U})$. One can then form two other states, $\xi^{2}$ and $\xi^{3}$, as linear combinations of these perturbations which remain massless. As a consequence, one must extend the $2 \times 2$ rotation matrix $\mathbf{U}$ defined in the previous sections to a $3 \times 3$ matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{fdr1}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\xi^1\\ \xi^2\\ \xi^3
\end{matrix}
\right)=\mathbf{U}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\delta S \\ \delta T\\ \delta C^1
\end{matrix}
\right) \ .
\end{equation}
As above, it is useful to write $\xi^{i}=\eta^{i}+i\phi^{i}$, $i=1,2,3$ and let
\begin{equation}
\label{fdr2}
\delta S= \delta s +i \delta \sigma , \quad \delta T= \delta t +i \delta \chi , \quad \delta C^1 = {\text{Re}} (\delta C^1) +i {\text{Im}} (\delta C^1) \ .
\end{equation}
Rotation \eqref{fdr1} can then be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{matrix}
{\phi^1}\\{\phi^2}\\{\phi^3}
\end{matrix}
\right)=-i\mathbf{U^{(r)}}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\delta s\\\delta t\\ \text{Re}(\delta C^1)
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,\quad
\left(\begin{matrix}
{\eta^1}\\{\eta^2}\\{\eta^3}
\end{matrix}
\right)=i\mathbf{U^{(i)}}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\delta \sigma\\\delta \chi\\ \text{Im}(\delta C^1)
\end{matrix}
\right)\ .
\label{fdr3}
\end{equation}
Similarly, prior to turning on any non-perturbative effects, it follows from $N=1$ supersymmetry that the associated fermions $\psi_{S}, \psi_{T}, \psi_{C^1}$ also transform as
\begin{equation}
\label{bird3}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_\xi^1\\\psi_\xi^2\\\psi_\xi^3
\end{matrix}
\right)=\mathbf{U}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_S\\ \psi_T\\ \psi_1
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,
\end{equation}
with the same unitary matrix $\mathbf{U}$.
When $\langle C^1\rangle=0$, we are in the vanishing $\text{FI}$ case we studied earlier. The matter scalar perturbations are not coupled to the moduli perturbations and, hence. the rotation matrices have the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\mathbf{U^{(r)}}=\mathbf{U^{(i)}}=\mathbf{U}=
\left(\begin{matrix}
\frac{1}{\langle \Sigma \rangle }\begin{pmatrix}[1.3]
\langle g_{S\bar S}\bar k_S \rangle &\quad\langle g_{T\bar T}\bar k_T \rangle\\
\sqrt{\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T} \rangle} \langle \bar k_T \rangle&\quad -\sqrt{\langle g_{S\bar S}g_{T\bar T} \rangle} \langle \bar k_S \rangle
\end{pmatrix}&0\\
0&i
\end{matrix}
\right) \ ,\\
&\mathbf{U^{(r)}}^{-1}=\mathbf{U^{(i)}}^{-1}=\mathbf{U}^{-1}=
\left(\begin{matrix}
\frac{1}{\langle \Sigma \rangle }\begin{pmatrix}[1.4]
\langle k_S \rangle&\quad\sqrt{\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\rangle} \langle k_T \rangle\\
\langle k_T \rangle&\quad-\sqrt{\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\rangle} \langle k_S \rangle
\end{pmatrix}&0\\
0&-i
\end{matrix}
\right)\ .
\end{split}
\label{river1}
\end{equation}
However, when we turn on a scalar matter field VEV $\langle C^1 \rangle \neq 0$,
we expect the rotation matrices for the real scalar components, the axions and the fermions--henceforth denoted by $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}$, $\mathbf{U_s^{(i)}}$ and $\mathbf{U_f}$ respectively for clarity--to differ; that is $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}} \neq\mathbf{U_s^{(i)}} \neq\mathbf{U_f}$. This was not the case in the previous example when $\text{FI}=0$, because one of the eigesntates, $\xi^1={\eta^1}+i{\phi^1}$, was already fixed at the compactification scale, while the remaining one, $\xi^2={\eta^2}+i{\phi^2}$ was unique and orthogonal to it.
Let us assume that when we turn on the $\langle C^1 \rangle \neq 0$ VEV, the rotation matrices have the form
\begin{align}
&\mathbf{U}\mapsto \mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}=\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}\mathbf{U}\ , \label{br1}\\
&\mathbf{U}\mapsto \mathbf{U_s^{(i)}}=\mathbf{R_s^{(i)}}\mathbf{U}\ ,\label{br2}\\
&\mathbf{U}\mapsto \mathbf{U_f}=\mathbf{R_f}\mathbf{U}\ ,
\label{eq:fermion_matrix}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}$, $\mathbf{R_s^{(i)}}$ and $\mathbf{R_f}$ are $3\times 3$ matrices and $\mathbf{U}$ is given in \eqref{river1}.
The form of these $\mathbf{R}$ matrices must be such that $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}$, $\mathbf{U_s^{(i)}}$ and $\mathbf{U_f}$ normalize the kinetic terms. For example, the matrix $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}$ must rotate the real scalar perturbations
$(\delta s,\>\delta t\ ,\delta \text{Re}(C^1)$ into the eigenstates $({\phi^1},\>{\phi^2},\>{\phi^3})$, such that
\begin{equation}
g_{A\bar B} \partial^{\mu} \text{Re}(\delta z^A)\partial _{\mu} \text{Re}(\delta \bar z^{\bar B})=\delta_{AB}\partial^{\mu}\phi^A \partial_{\mu} \phi^{B}\ .
\end{equation}
The kinetic energy normalization condition shown above is satisfied for
\begin{equation}
g_{A\bar B}\left[\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}\right]^{ A}_{ C}\left[{\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}}^{\dag}\right]^{\bar B}_{\bar D}=\delta_{C\bar D}\ ,
\end{equation}
from which we recover an orthogonality condition for the rotation matrix $\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}$; that is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&g_{A\bar B}\left[\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}\right]^{ A}_{ C}\left[{\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}}^{\dag}\right]^{\bar B}_{\bar D}=\delta_{C\bar D}\ ,\\
&\Rightarrow g_{A\bar B}\left[\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}\right]^{ A}_{ E}\left[{\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}}^{\dag}\right]^{\bar B}_{\bar F}[{\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}}^{-1}]^E_C[{\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}^{-1}}^\dag]^{\bar F}_{\bar D}=\delta_{C\bar D}\\&\Rightarrow
\delta_{E\bar F}[{\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}}^{-1}]^E_C[{\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}^{-1}}^\dag]^{\bar F}_{\bar D}=\delta_{C\bar D}\\
&\Rightarrow{\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}}^\dag\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}=\mathcal{I}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To get the third equality we have used the fact that the matrix $\mathbf{U}^{-1}$ diagonalizes the metric $g_{A\bar B}$ as well.
Hence, we learned that $\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}$ is a $3\times 3$ unitary matrix. Choosing the VEV of $C^1$ to be real, such that $\langle C^1\rangle =v\in \mathbb{R}$, one can show that
{\small
\begin{multline}
\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}=\\=\left(\begin{matrix}
\cos \alpha_r \cos \beta_r \quad &\quad\cos \alpha_r \sin \beta_r \sin \gamma_r-\sin \alpha_r \cos \gamma_r&\quad\cos\alpha_r\sin \beta_r\cos \gamma_r+\sin \alpha_r \sin \gamma_r\\
\sin \alpha_r \cos \beta_r &\quad \sin \alpha_r \sin \beta_r \sin \gamma_r+\cos \alpha_r \cos \gamma_r&\quad\sin \alpha_r \sin \beta_r \cos\gamma_r-
\cos \alpha_r \sin \gamma_r\\
-\sin \beta_r \quad &\quad\cos \beta_r \sin \gamma_r&\quad\cos \beta_r \cos \gamma_r
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,
\end{multline}
}
where $\alpha_r,\>\beta_r\ ,\gamma_r$ are arbitrary \emph{real} rotation angles in 3D.
Continuing our analysis with this generic expression is possible, but very complicated. Therefore, for simplicity, we henceforth assume that the matter field VEV $v$, while non-vanishing, is infinitesimally small compared to the unification scale. That is, take
\begin{equation}
\label{sky1}
v=qM_U,\quad q\ll 1\ .
\end{equation}
This is equivalent to the relation
\begin{equation}
\langle k_C \rangle \ll \langle k_S \rangle, \langle k_T \rangle \ .
\end{equation}
When this is the case, the rotation angles $\alpha_r\>,\beta_r,\>\gamma_r$ are infinitesimally small. To linear order in $\alpha_r,\>\beta_r,\>\gamma_r$, the matrix $\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{R_s^{(r)}}\approx \left(\begin{matrix}
1 \quad &\quad-\alpha_r&\quad\beta_r\\
\alpha_r &\quad 1&\quad-\gamma_r\\
-\beta_r \quad &\quad\gamma_r&\quad1
\end{matrix}
\right)=\bm{\mathcal{I}}_3+\left(\begin{matrix}
0 \quad &\quad-\alpha_r&\quad\beta_r\\
\alpha_r &\quad 0&\quad-\gamma_r\\
-\beta_r \quad &\quad\gamma_r&\quad0
\end{matrix}
\right)\ .
\end{equation}
Hence, using \eqref{river1} and \eqref{br1} we find that
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}=\left(\begin{matrix}[1.4]
\langle \frac{1}{\Sigma}g_{S\bar S} \bar k_S- \frac{\alpha_r}{\Sigma}\sqrt{{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}} \bar k_T \rangle&\quad\langle \frac{1}{\Sigma}g_{T\bar T} \bar k_T+\frac{\alpha_r}{\Sigma}\sqrt{{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\bar k_S \rangle &\quad i\beta_r\\
\langle \frac{1}{\Sigma}\sqrt{{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\bar k_T+\frac{\alpha_r}{\Sigma}g_{S\bar S} \bar k_S \rangle &\quad \langle -\frac{1}{\Sigma}\sqrt{{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}\bar k_S+ \frac{\alpha_r}{\Sigma}\bar k_T \rangle &\quad-i\gamma_r\\
\langle -\beta_r g_{S\bar S}\bar k_S+\gamma_r \sqrt{{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\bar k_T \rangle & \langle -\beta_r \bar k_T-\gamma_r \sqrt{{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\bar k_S \rangle &\quad i
\end{matrix}
\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:u_m1_matrix}
\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}=\left(\begin{matrix}[1.4]
\langle \frac{1}{\Sigma} k_S+ \frac{\alpha_r}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}} k_T\rangle &\quad \langle \frac{1}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}} k_T-\frac{\alpha_r}{\Sigma}k_S \rangle & \quad \langle \frac{\beta_r}{\Sigma} k_S- \frac{\gamma_r}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}k_T \rangle\\
\langle \frac{1}{\Sigma}k_T-\frac{\alpha_r}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}} k_S \rangle &\quad \langle - \frac{1}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}} k_S- \frac{\alpha_r}{\Sigma}k_T \rangle &\quad \langle \frac{\beta_r}{\Sigma} k_T + \frac{\gamma_r}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}k_S\ \rangle \\
-i\beta_r&i\gamma_r&\quad -i
\end{matrix}
\right)\ .
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[tdplot_main_coords, scale = 2.8]
\coordinate (O) at (0,0,0);
\coordinate (P) at ({1/sqrt(3)},{1/sqrt(3)},{1/sqrt(3)});
\coordinate (P1) at (1,1,0);
\coordinate (P11) at (1,1,0.3);
\coordinate (P2) at (0.8,-0.8);
\coordinate (P22) at (0.78,-0.78,-0.26);
\coordinate (P3) at (0,0,1.06);
\coordinate (P33) at (-0.14,-0.17,0.9);
\shade[ball color = lightgray,
opacity = 0.5
] (0,0,0) circle (1cm);
\tdplotsetrotatedcoords{0}{0}{0};
\draw[dashed,
tdplot_rotated_coords,
gray
] (0,0,0) circle (1);
\tdplotsetrotatedcoords{90}{90}{90};
\draw[dashed,
tdplot_rotated_coords,
gray
] (1,0,0) arc (0:180:1);
\tdplotsetrotatedcoords{0}{90}{90};
\draw[dashed,
tdplot_rotated_coords,
gray
] (1,0,0) arc (0:180:1);
\draw[-stealth] (0,0,0) -- (1.80,0,0)
node[below left] {$\delta s$};
\draw[-stealth] (0,0,0) -- (0,1.30,0)
node[below right] {$\delta s$};
\draw[-stealth] (0,0,0) -- (0,0,1.30)
node[above] {$\text{Re}(\delta C)$};
\draw[dashed, gray] (0,0,0) -- (-1,0,0);
\draw[dashed, gray] (0,0,0) -- (0,-1,0);
\pic [ draw,teal, thick, "$\beta_r$", angle radius=10mm,anchor=north east,angle eccentricity=1.1] {angle = P1--O--P11 };
\pic [ draw,teal, thick, "$\gamma_r$", angle radius=20mm ,angle eccentricity=1.1] {angle = P2--O--P22 };
\draw[thick,blue, -stealth] (0,0,0) -- (P1) node[right] {${\phi^1}$};
\draw[thick,red, -stealth] (0,0,0) -- (P11) node[right] {${\phi^1}$};
\draw[thick,blue, -stealth] (0,0,0) -- (P2) node[left] {${\phi^2}$};
\draw[thick,red, -stealth] (0,0,0) -- (P22) node[left] {${\phi^2}$};
\draw[thick, blue,-stealth] (0,0,0) -- (P3) node[right] {${\phi^3}$};
\draw[thick, red,-stealth] (0,0,0) -- (P33) node[left] {${\phi^3}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{With blue we show the scalar eigenstates $\phi^1,\phi^2,\phi^3$, defined in eq. \eqref{fdr3}, in the vanishing $\text{FI}$ case. With red we show the same eigenstates, after a matter field VEV $\langle C^1\rangle$ is turned on infinitesimally. The angle $\beta_r$ is fixed by the D-term stabilization condition and has the expression given in eq. \eqref{tf1}. The
$\gamma_r$ angle is fixed after non-perturbative effects are turned on, such that the scalar perturbations $\phi^2$ and $\phi^3$ are aligned along the new mass eigenstates of the system (see eq. \eqref{align123}). The rotations of the scalars $\eta^1, \eta^2, \eta^3$ and the fermions $\psi_\xi^1,\psi_\xi^2,\psi^3_\xi$ into the new eigenstates, after turning on the $ C^1$ field VEV infinitesimally, have similar forms. In their cases, the $\beta_i$ angle, corresponding to the $\eta$ states, and the $\beta_f$ angle, corresponding to the fermions, are equal to the $\beta_r$ angle. They are all fixed by the D-flatness condition. On the other hand, the $\gamma_r$,$\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_f$ angles, defined so as to diagonalize the mass mixing matrices after SUSY is broken, differ from each other.}
\end{figure}
The $\alpha_r$, $\beta_r$ and $\gamma_r$ rotation parameters are determined after aligning the linear combinations $\phi^1$, $\phi^2$ and $\phi^3$ along the true mass eigenstates of the system. We learned that the D-term stabilization condition yields a massive scalar eigenstate $\xi^1$ in the direction
\begin{equation}
\xi^1=\langle g_{S\bar S}\frac{\bar k_S}{\Sigma^\prime} \rangle \delta S+ \left \langle g_{T\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma^\prime}
+g_{T\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma^\prime}\right\rangle \delta T+ \left \langle g_{C^1\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma^\prime}+g_{C^1\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma^\prime}\right\rangle \delta C^1\ ,
\end{equation}
The imaginary component of this scalar field is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:phi_1}
\phi^1= \langle g_{S\bar S}\frac{\bar k_S}{\Sigma^\prime} \rangle \delta s+ \left \langle g_{T\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma^\prime}
+g_{T\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma^\prime}\right \rangle \delta t+ \left \langle g_{C^1\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma^\prime}+g_{C^1\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma^\prime}\right\rangle\text{Re}(\delta C^1)\ .
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\Sigma^\prime}^2=g_{S\bar S}k_S\bar k_S+g_{T\bar T}k_T\bar k_T+ k_1 \bar k_1\ .
\end{equation}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\langle \Sigma^\prime \rangle} \approx \frac{1}{\langle \Sigma \rangle} \left(1-\langle \frac{1}{2}\frac{k_1 \bar k_1}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \right) ,
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma$ is defined in \eqref{pad3}.
Since we compute the rotation matrix to linear order only, we can consider $\langle \Sigma^\prime \rangle=\langle \Sigma \rangle$. Comparing the first row of the matrix $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}$ to the linear relation in \eqref{eq:phi_1}, we learn that the $D$-term stabilization condition fixes the rotation angles $\alpha_r$ and $\beta_r$ to be
\begin{equation}
\label{tf1}
\alpha_r=0\ ,\quad i\beta_r= \langle g_{C^1\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma} \rangle+\langle g_{C^1\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma} \rangle \ .
\end{equation}
For $v=\langle C^1\rangle$ real, both $ \langle \bar k_T \rangle$ and $ \langle \bar k_1 \rangle$ are purely imaginary. Therefore, choosing $\beta_r$ as a real parameter was well motivated.
Hence, we have determined the rotation matrices $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}$ and $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}$ up to one real parameter $\gamma_r$--which remains undetermined. The reason this parameter is still unfixed is because, so far, we have used what we learned from the D-term term stabilization condition only. At the unification scale, the D-flatness condition determines the $\phi^1$ direction, but leaves two flat directions $(\phi^2,\phi^3)$ undetermined. The orthogonality relations between these directions reduce the number of degrees of freedom in choosing these flat directions from two to one only, namely the $\gamma_r$ parameter.
Similar arguments apply for the axion (or imaginary) components of the scalar fields, as well as for the fermion components of the supermultiplets. In those cases, one would find that the matrices $\mathbf{U_s^{(i)}}$ and $\mathbf{U_f}$ have the same form as $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}$, and contain the undermined parameters $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_f$ respectively.
\subsubsection{Scalar Eigenstates}
After the D-term stabilization process alone, the scalar mass terms present in the effective theory are
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\supset -m_{\text{anom}}^2\xi^1\bar \xi^1=-m_{\text{anom}}^2{\phi^1}^2-m_{\text{anom}}^2{\eta^1}^2\ .
\end{equation}
When non-perturbative effects are turned on, the Lagrangian gets additional scalar mass terms. Following our conclusions at the end of Subsection \ref{sec:scalar_eigen1}, we will express the mass matrices in a basis composed of the real scalar components and the corresponding imaginary component fields. That is,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:mass_terms_before}
\mathcal{L}&\supset
= -m_{\text{anom}}^2{\phi^1}^2-m_{\text{anom}}^2{\eta^1}^2\\
&-\left( \delta s,\>\delta t, \>\text{Re}(\delta C^1)\right)
{\mathcal{M}_s^{(r)}}
\left( \begin{matrix}\delta s\\\delta t\\ \text{Re}(\delta C^1) \end{matrix}\right)
-\left( \delta \sigma,\>\delta \chi, \>\text{Im}(\delta C^1)\right)
{\mathcal{M}_s^{(i)}}
\left( \begin{matrix}\delta \sigma \\\delta \chi\\\text{Im}(\delta C^1) \end{matrix}\right) \ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the above equation, the scalar squared mass matrices are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:calM_s}
{\mathcal{M}^{(r)}_s}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
m^2_{ss}&m^2_{st} &0\\
m^2_{ts}&m^2_{tt}&0\\
0&0&m^2_{1}
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,\quad
{\mathcal{M}^{(i)}_s}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
m^2_{\sigma \sigma}&m^2_{\sigma \chi} &0\\
m^2_{\chi \sigma}&m^2_{\chi \chi}&0\\
0&0&m^2_{1}
\end{matrix}
\right)\ ,
\end{equation}
These mass matrices have been defined in Appendix \ref{AppendixB1}. We left out the mass term of the $C^2$ field for the moment, which will be added back in the end results.
Next, we rotate the $\left(\delta s, \delta t, \text{Re}(\delta C^1)\right)$ and $\left(\delta \sigma, \delta \chi, \text{Im}(\delta C^1)\right)$ fields into the eigenstates $(\phi^1,\phi^2,\phi^3)$ and $(\eta^1,\eta^2,\eta^3)$, respectively.
This set of transformations are achieved using the $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}$ matrix, given--up to one undetermined angle $\gamma_{r}$--in eq. \eqref{eq:u_m1_matrix}, and $\mathbf{U_s^{(i)}}^{-1}$ which, as discussed above, is identical with the exception of one undetermined angle $\gamma_i$. Assuming that $\phi^1,\>\eta^1$ are fixed at the unification scale as presented above, the angles $\gamma_r,\gamma_i$ are fixed by aligning the linear combinations $\phi^2,\>\phi^3$ and, respectively, $\eta^2,\>\eta^3$ along the new scalar mass eigenstates of the system, such that the mass matrices become diagonal. We will outline this process in detail below. Before we begin, however, it is important to point out that because the mass matrices $\mathcal{M}^{(r)}_s$ and ${\mathcal{M}^{(i)}_s}$ differ in general, we expect the $\gamma_{r}$ and $\gamma_{i}$ angles to be different in order to achieve the eigenstate alignment for the real and imaginary component scalar fields. Consequently,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}\neq \mathbf{U_s^{(i)}}^{-1}\ .
\end{equation}
Our next step is to rewrite the scalar mass terms in eq. \eqref{eq:mass_terms_before} in the new eigenstate basis. It follows from the above discussion that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:mass_terms_after}
\mathcal{L}\supset
& m_{\text{anom}}^2{\phi^1}^2+m_{\text{anom}}^2{\eta^1}^2+\left( {\phi^1},\>{\phi^2} , \>{\phi^3}\right)i{\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1 {\text{T}}}}
{\mathcal{M}_s^{(r)}}i\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}
\left( \begin{matrix}{\phi^1}\\ {\phi^2} \\ {\phi^3} \end{matrix}\right)\\
&\hspace{3cm}+\left( {\eta^1},\>{\eta^2}, \>{\eta^3} \right)(-i){\mathbf{U_s^{(i)}}^{-1 {\text{T}}}}
{\mathcal{M}_s^{(i)}}(-i)\mathbf{U_s^{(i)}}^{-1}
\left( \begin{matrix}{\eta^1} \\ {\eta^2} \\ {\eta^3} \end{matrix}\right)\\
=& \left( {\phi^1},\>{\phi^2} , \>{\phi^3}\right)
{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}
\left( \begin{matrix}{\phi^1}\\ {\phi^2} \\ {\phi^3} \end{matrix}\right)
+\left( {\eta^1},\>{\eta^2}, \>{\eta^3} \right)
{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(i)}}
\left( \begin{matrix}{\eta^1} \\ {\eta^2} \\ {\eta^3} \end{matrix}\right)\ .\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent We begin by considering the first term--that is, the $\phi^{i}$, $i=1,2,3$ contribution to the Lagrangian. The elements of the (symmetric) $3\times 3$ matrix ${{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}}$ are
\begingroup
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{11}&=m^2_{\text{anom}}+m_{ss}^2\langle \frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle+2m_{st}^2 \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle
+m_{tt}^2 \langle \frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle\\
&=m_{\text{anom}}^2+
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]^\prime_{11}\ ,\\
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{12}&=m_{ss}^2 \langle \sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle-m_{st}^2 \langle \sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle\\
&\qquad\qquad+m_{ts}^2 \langle \sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle-m_{tt}^2 \langle\sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}\frac{k_T\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ ,\\
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{13}&=-\beta_{r}\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]^\prime_{11}+\gamma_r \left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{12}\ ,\\
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{22}&=m_{ss}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle -2m_{st}^2 \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{tt}^2 \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ ,\\
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{23}&=-\beta_{r} \left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{12}^2+\gamma_r \left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{22}\ ,\\
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{33}&=m_1^2-\beta_{r} \left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{13}+{\gamma_r}\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{23}\ .
\end{align}
\endgroup
Since $m_{\text{anom}}\gg m_{\text{soft}}$, $\phi^1$ is actually decoupled from $\phi^2$ and $\phi^3$ in the spectrum. It follows that the $\phi^{i}$ mass terms in the Lagrangian can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\supset m_{\text{anom}}^2{\phi^1}^2+(\phi^2,\>\phi^3)
\left(
\begin{matrix}[1.5]
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{22}&\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{23}\\
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{23}&\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{33}\\
\end{matrix}
\right)\left( \begin{matrix}\phi^2\\ \phi^3\end{matrix}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
The mass matrix is diagonal if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{align123}
\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{23}=0\quad \Rightarrow \quad \gamma_r
=\frac{ \left[{{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{12} }
{ \left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{22} }\beta_{r}\ .
\end{equation}
Therefore, as promised, turning on the non-perturbative effects fixed the remaining angle $\gamma_r$ in the rotation matrix for the real component scalars, that is ${\mathbf{{U}^{(r)}_s}}^{-1}$. The
$\gamma_r$ angle was fixed such that the scalar perturbations $\phi^2$ and $\phi^3$ - which before turning on any non-perturbative effects were just flat directions orthogonal to $\phi^1$ - are aligned along the new mass eigenstates of the system. The mass of these states are
\begin{align}
\label{eq:second_sc_masses}
m_{\phi^2}^2&=m_{ss}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle -2m_{st}^2 \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{tt}^2 \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle\\
&=\mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}}^2)\nonumber\\
m_{\phi^3}^2&=m_1^2+\beta_{r}^2\frac{\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{11}^\prime \left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{22}-\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]^2_{12}}{\left[ {{\mathcal{M}_s^{\xi(r)}}} \right]_{22}}\nonumber\\
\label{eq:second_sc_masses2}
&=m_1^2+\beta_{r}^2\frac{\left( m_{ss}^2m_{tt}^2-m_{st}^4\right) \left(\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{|k_S|^4}{\Sigma^4}\rangle +\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{|k_T|^4}{\Sigma^4} \rangle \right)-2m_{st}^4 \langle \frac{|k_S|^2|k_T|^2}{\Sigma^4}\rangle }{m_{ss}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle -2m_{st}^2 \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle
+m_{tt}^2 \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle}\\
&=\mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}}^2)\nonumber\\
\end{align}
Let us now consider consider the second term in \eqref{eq:mass_terms_after}--that is, the $\eta^{i}$, $i=1,2,3$ contribution to the Lagrangian. For these axionic components, the conclusions are similar. After decoupling the heavy $\eta^1$ state, the masses of the $\eta^{2}$ and $\eta^{3}$ states left in the low energy spectrum are given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:second_sc_masses_axion}
m_{\eta^2}^2&=m_{\sigma \sigma}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle -2m_{\sigma \chi}^2 \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{\chi \chi}^2 \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle\\
&=\mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}}^2)\nonumber\\
\label{eq:second_sc_masses_axion2}
m_{\eta^3}^2
&=m_1^2+\beta_{i}^2\frac{\left( m_{\sigma \sigma}^2m_{\chi \chi}^2-m_{\sigma \chi}^4\right) \left(\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{|k_S|^4}{\Sigma^4}\rangle +\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{|k_T|^4}{\Sigma^4} \rangle \right)-2m_{\sigma \chi}^4 \langle \frac{|k_S|^2|k_T|^2}{\Sigma^4}\rangle }{m_{\sigma \sigma}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle -2m_{\sigma \chi}^2 \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle
+m_{\chi \chi}^2 \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle} \\
&=\mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}}^2) \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\beta_{i}=\beta_{f}$ given in \eqref{tf1}.
\subsubsection{Fermion Eigenstates}
After the D-term stabilization process alone, the fermion mass term present in the effective theory is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\supset - m_{\text{anom}} \left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)
\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\psi_\xi^1$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\psi_\xi^1= \langle g_{S\bar S}\frac{\bar k_S}{\Sigma^\prime} \rangle \psi_S+ \left \langle g_{T\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma^\prime}
+g_{T\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma^\prime}\right \rangle \psi_T+ \left \langle g_{C^1\bar T}\frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma^\prime}+g_{C^1\bar C^1}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma^\prime}\right\rangle\psi_1
\end{equation}
and $\lambda$ is the $U(1)$ gaugino.
When non-perturbative effects are turned on, the Lagrangian gets additional fermion mass terms
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}&\supset
-(\psi_S,\>\psi_T, \>\psi_1){\mathcal{M}_f}
\left( \begin{matrix} \psi_S\\ \psi_T\\ \psi_1 \end{matrix}\right)+h.c.\ ,
\end{align}
where the fermion mass matrix is given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{M}_f}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
M_{S S}&M_{ST} &0\\
M_{T S}&M_{T T}&0\\
0&0&0
\end{matrix}
\right)\ .
\end{equation}
The mass matrix elements $M_{S S},\>M_{S T}=M_{T S},\> M_{T T}$ are defined in eq. \eqref{eq:f_mass_1}.
Next, we rotate the $\psi^A=(\psi_S,\psi_T,\psi_1)$ fermions into the the $\psi_\xi^A=(\psi_\xi^1,\psi_\xi^2,\psi_\xi^3)$ mass eigenstates.
This rotation is achieved using the $\mathbf{U_f}$ matrix, defined in eq. \eqref{eq:fermion_matrix}, which depends on the yet undetermined parameter $\gamma_f$. Assuming the $\psi_\xi^1$ is fixed at the unification scale as discussed above, the angle $\gamma_f$ is set by aligning the linear combinations $\psi_\xi^2,\>\psi_\xi^3$, along the new mass eigenstates of the system.
The conclusions in the case of the fermions are similar to the results for the scalar field components. We find that.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}&\supset
= - m_{\text{anom}} \left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)-
\left[(\psi^\dag_S,\>\psi^\dag_T, \>\psi^\dag_1){\mathcal{M}_f}
\left( \begin{matrix} \psi_S\\ \psi_T\\ \psi_1 \end{matrix}\right)+h.c.\right]\ \\
&= -m_{\text{anom}} \left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)-\left[
(\psi_\xi^{1},\>\psi_\xi^{2}, \>\psi_\xi^{3})
{\bm{\mathbf{U}}_f^{-1{\text{T}}}}{\mathcal{M}_f}
{\bm{\mathbf{U}}_f^{-1}}\left( \begin{matrix} \psi_\xi^1\\ \psi_\xi^2\\ \psi_\xi^3 \end{matrix}\right)+h.c.\right]
\\
&\equiv -m_{\text{anom}} \left(\psi_{\xi}^{1\dagger}\frac{\lambda_{2}^\dag}{\langle g_2\rangle} + \psi_{\xi}^{1} \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\langle g_2\rangle} \right)-\left(\left[{{\mathcal{M}_f^\xi}}\right]_{A B}\psi_\xi^A\psi_\xi^{ B}+h.c.\right)
\end{align}
After decoupling the $\psi_\xi^1$ heavy state, the fermion mass matrix becomes diagonal for
\begin{equation}
\gamma_f=\frac{\left[{{\mathcal{M}_f}}\right]_{12}}{\left[{{\mathcal{M}_f}}\right]_{22}}\beta_{f} \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\left[{{\mathcal{M}_f}}\right]_{12}&=M_{S S} \langle \sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle -M_{ST}\langle \sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle
\\
&\qquad \qquad+M_{TS} \langle \sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle -M_{TT} \langle \sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}\frac{k_T\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\ , \\
\left[{{\mathcal{M}_f}}\right]_{22}&=M_{SS}\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle -2M_{ST}\langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+M_{T T} \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
\end{align}
and $\beta_{f}=\beta_{r}$ is given in \eqref{tf1}.
Just as in the case of the scalars, the $\gamma_f$ angle from the rotation matrix $\mathbf{{U}_f}^{-1}$ was fixed such that the fermion states $\psi_\xi^2$ and $\psi_\xi^3$ - which before turning on any non-perturbative effects were just flat directions orthogonal to $\psi_\xi^1$ - are aligned along the new mass eigenstates of the system.
Putting everything together, we get two Majorana fermions
\begin{equation}
\Psi_\xi^2= \dbinom{\psi_\xi^2}{\psi_\xi^{2\dag}} \ ,\quad \Psi_\xi^3= \dbinom{\psi_\xi^3}{\psi_\xi^{3\dag}}
\end{equation}
with non-vanishing mass terms
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\supset -M_{22}\Psi_\xi^2\Psi_\xi^{2\dag}-M_{33}\Psi_\xi^3\Psi_\xi^{3\dag}\ .
\end{equation}
The masses of these Majorana fermions are found to be
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:second_f_masses}
M_{\psi_{\xi}^2}&=2M_{SS} \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle -4M_{S T} \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle
+2M_{T T}\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \\
&=\mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}})\\
M_{\psi_\xi^3}
&=2\beta_{f}^2\frac{\left( M_{S S}M_{T T}-M_{ST}^2\right) \left(\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{|k_S|^4}{\Sigma^4}\rangle+\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{|k_T|^4}{\Sigma^4} \rangle \right)-2M_{ST}^2 \langle \frac{|k_S|^2|k_T|^2}{\Sigma^4}\rangle}{M_{SS} \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle -2M_{S T}\langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+M_{T T} \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle}\\
&=\mathcal{O}(q^2m_{\text{SUSY}})\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where from \eqref{sky1} $q=\frac{v}{M_{U}}=\frac{\langle C^1 \rangle}{M_{U}}$.
\subsubsection{Final Low-Energy States}\label{sec:final_states2}
We conclude this subsection by displaying the Lagrangian for the low-energy spectrum after supersymmetry breaking. Ignoring all interaction terms, as well as the fields from the observable sector, this Lagrangian is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}&= -\partial^{\mu} \phi^{2} \partial_{\mu} \phi^{2}-\partial^{\mu} \eta^{2} \partial_{\mu} \eta^{2}-\partial^{\mu} \phi^{3} \partial_{\mu} \phi^{3}-\partial^{\mu} \eta^{3} \partial_{\mu} \eta^{3}- e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\partial_\mu C^2 \partial^\mu \bar C^2\\
&- m_{\phi^2}^2{\phi^2}^2- m_{\eta^2}^2{\eta^2}^2- m_{\phi^3}^2{\phi^2}^2- m_{\eta^3}^2{\eta^3}^2-m_{1}^2C^2\bar C^2\\
& -i \Psi_{\xi}^{2} \slashed\partial \Psi_{\xi}^{2\dagger}-i \Psi_{\xi}^{3} \slashed\partial \Psi_{\xi}^{3\dagger}-ie^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\psi_2 \slashed{\partial} \psi_2^{\dag}-\tfrac{1}{2}M_{\Psi_\xi^2}\Psi_\xi^2\Psi_\xi^{2\dag}-\tfrac{1}{2}M_{\Psi_\xi^3}\Psi_\xi^3\Psi_\xi^{3\dag} \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
m_{\phi^2}^2&= m_{s s}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2m_{s t}^2\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{tt}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ , \\
m_{\eta^2}^2&= m_{\sigma \sigma}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-2m_{\sigma\chi}^2\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+m_{\chi \chi}^2\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle \ , \\
M_{\Psi_\xi^2}&= 2M_{S S}\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle-4M_{ST}\langle\frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+2M_{T T}\langle\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle\ \\
m_{\phi^3}^2&=m_1^2+\beta_{r}^2\frac{\left( m_{ss}^2m_{tt}^2-m_{st}^4\right) \left(\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{|k_S|^4}{\Sigma^4}\rangle +\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{|k_T|^4}{\Sigma^4} \rangle \right)-2m_{st}^4 \langle \frac{|k_S|^2|k_T|^2}{\Sigma^4}\rangle }{m_{ss}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle -2m_{st}^2 \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle
+m_{tt}^2 \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle}\\
m_{\eta^3}^2
&=m_1^2+\beta_{i}^2\frac{\left( m_{\sigma \sigma}^2m_{\chi \chi}^2-m_{\sigma \chi}^4\right) \left(\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{|k_S|^4}{\Sigma^4}\rangle +\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{|k_T|^4}{\Sigma^4} \rangle \right)-2m_{\sigma \chi}^4 \langle \frac{|k_S|^2|k_T|^2}{\Sigma^4}\rangle }{m_{\sigma \sigma}^2 \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle -2m_{\sigma \chi}^2 \langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2} \rangle
+m_{\chi \chi}^2 \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2} \rangle}\\
M_{\psi_\xi^3}
&=2\beta_{f}^2\frac{\left( M_{S S}M_{T T}-M_{ST}^2\right) \left(\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{|k_S|^4}{\Sigma^4}\rangle+\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{|k_T|^4}{\Sigma^4} \rangle \right)-2M_{ST}^2 \langle \frac{|k_S|^2|k_T|^2}{\Sigma^4}\rangle}{M_{SS} \langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle -2M_{S T}\langle \frac{k_S\bar k_T}{\Sigma^2}\rangle
+M_{T T} \langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_S}{\Sigma^2}\rangle}\
\end{align}
are the moduli masses computed above. The hidden matter fermions $\psi_2$ remain massless.
\section{Coupling of the the Moduli Fields to the Observable Sector}\label{sec:DM}
In Section \ref{sec:Effective theory}, we presented the spectrum for both the observable and hidden sectors of phenomenologically realistic heterotic $M$-theory vacua with an anomalous line bundle on the hidden sector. We specified the associated K\"ahler potentials, the anomalous $U(1)$ transformations of the moduli and hidden sector scalar fields and the generic form of the observable sector and hidden sector perturbative superpotentials. We also briefly discussed possible non-perturbative hidden sector superpotentials. Section 3 was devoted to determining the scalar and fermion mass eigenstates with canonical kinetic energy in the case of a pure $D$-term potential $V_{D}$--both for a vanishing and a non-vanishing Fayet-Iliopoulos term. With the exception of one heavy modulus, which decouples at low energy, all other scalar and fermion masses vanish. In Section 4, we introduced gaugino condensation and the associated non-perterbative superpotential $\hat W_{np}(S,T)$. We showed that the related $F$-terms, and the $V_{F}$ potential generated by them, led to new canonically normalized mass eigenstates. Now, however, in addition to the very massive modulus, most of the other scalars and fermions also had non-vanishing masses--although at a much smaller mass scale. These masses were explicitly computed, both for the $\text{FI}=0$ and $\text{FI} \neq 0$ cases. However, in all cases, interactions of these mass eigenstates were ignored.
In this section, we will derive the interactions between these scalars and fermions for both types of Fayet-Iliopoulos terms. We will, however, limit our discussion to the vertices which directly couple the observable sector fields to the moduli and hidden matter fields. This is motivated by our interest in exploring the possible role of moduli and hidden sector matter as cosmological dark matter candidates.
We continue to use the notation
\begin{equation}
z^A=(S,\>T,\>C^1,\>C^2,\>C_{(o)}^{\cal I})\ ,\quad A=1,\dots 4+\mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
for the scalar component fields in our theory, and
\begin{equation}
\psi^A=(\psi_S,\>\psi_T,\>\psi_1,\>\psi_2,\>\psi_{(o)}^{\cal I})\ ,\quad A=1,\dots 4+\mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
for the corresponding fermions. We further assume that supersymmetry breaking effects determine a vacuum in which
\begin{equation}
\left \langle \frac{\partial V}{\partial z^A}\right\rangle=0\ ,\quad \left \langle \frac{\partial V}{\partial \bar z^A}\right\rangle=0 \ ,
\end{equation}
where $V=V_D+V_F$ is the scalar potential.
In the following, we identify the interactions which are sourced from two distinct terms in the 4D $N=1$ supergravity Lagrangian:
\begin{enumerate}
\item{Kinetic Terms}
We find the following kinetic terms for the matter scalars
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:kinetic_terms_infl}
\mathcal{L}&\supset -e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\mathcal{G}_{\cal I\bar {\cal J}} \partial_\mu C_{(o)}^{\cal I}\partial^\mu \bar C_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}}
-e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3} \partial_\mu C^1\partial^\mu \bar C^1-e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3} \partial_\mu C^2\partial^\mu \bar C^2\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and for the matter fermions
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}&\supset -i e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\mathcal{G}_{\cal I\bar {\cal J}} \psi_{(o)}^{\bar{ \cal J}\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{(o)}^{I}
-ie^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3} \psi_{1}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{1}
-ie^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3} \psi_{2}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{2}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Expanding to linear order in the moduli field scalar perturbations we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:int_sc_1}
\mathcal{L}&\supset - e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle}\mathcal{G}_{\cal I\bar {\cal J}} \partial_\mu C_{(o)}^{\cal I}\partial^\mu \bar C_{(o)}^{\bar{\cal J}}
- e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle} \partial_\mu C^1\partial^\mu \bar C^1-e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle} \partial_\mu C^2\partial^\mu \bar C^2\ \\
&-\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle }\left(
\frac{1}{3}\langle\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T} \rangle\delta T+
\frac{1}{3}\langle \frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}\rangle \delta \bar T
\right)\mathcal{G}_{\cal I\bar {\cal J}}\partial_\mu C_{(o)}^{\cal I}\partial^\mu \bar C_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}}\\
&-\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3 \rangle}\left(
\frac{1}{3}\langle\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}\rangle \delta T+
\frac{1}{3}\langle\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}\rangle\delta \bar T
\right)\left(\partial_\mu C^1\partial^\mu \bar C^1+\partial_\mu C^2\partial^\mu \bar C^2\right)\ \\
&= - e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle}\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} \partial_\mu C_{(o)}^{\cal I}\partial^\mu \bar C_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}}
- e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle} \partial_\mu C^1\partial^\mu \bar C^1-e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle} \partial_\mu C^2\partial^\mu \bar C^2\\
&+2\frac{e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle }}{\langle T+\bar T\rangle }\delta t\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}\partial_\mu C_{(o)}^{\cal I}\partial^\mu \bar C_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}}
+2\frac{e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle}}{\langle T+\bar T\rangle }\delta t \left(\partial_\mu C^1\partial^\mu \bar C^1+\partial_\mu C^2\partial^\mu \bar C^2\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:int_sc_2}
\mathcal{L}&\supset -i e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} \psi_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{(o)}^{{\cal I}}- ie^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}\psi_{1}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{1}-ie^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}\psi_{2}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{2}
\ \\
&-i\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}\left(
\frac{1}{3}\langle\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T} \rangle\delta T+
\frac{1}{3}\langle \frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}\rangle \delta \bar T
\right)\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} \psi_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{(o)}^{{\cal I}}\\
&-i\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}\left(
\frac{1}{3}\langle\frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T} \rangle\delta T+
\frac{1}{3}\langle \frac{\partial K_T}{\partial T}\rangle \delta \bar T
\right)\left(\psi_{1}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{1}+\psi_{2}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{2}\right)\\
&= -i e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} \psi_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{(o)}^{{\cal I}}- ie^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}\psi_{1}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{1}-ie^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}\psi_{2}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{2}
\ \\
&+2i\frac{e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}}{\langle T+\bar T\rangle }\delta t\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} \psi_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{(o)}^{I}+2i\frac{e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T/3\rangle/3}}{\langle T+\bar T\rangle }\delta t\left(\psi_{1}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{1}+\psi_{2}^{\dag}\slashed{\mathcal{D}} \psi_{2}\right)\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
These terms represent the couplings of the matter scalars and fermions to the moduli perturbation $\delta t$. The kinetic terms do not source couplings to the axionic components of the moduli. Note however, that in more general models, the K\"ahler metric of the matter fields depends on the dilaton field as well. Such classes of models allow for interactions between the matter fields and the real scalar component $\delta s$.
\item{Fermion Bilinear}
The bilinear fermion terms
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}&\supset-\frac{1}{2}e^{\kappa_4^2 K_{\text{mod}}/2}\mathcal{D}_A{D}_BW \psi^{A}\psi^{B}+h.c,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
are a second source of interactions between the scalars and the fermions of the theory. In the expression above, $W$ is the full superpotential of the theory. Expanding these terms around the vacuum state defined above, we obtain couplings of the type
\begin{equation}
\label{shoe2}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{L}\supset\\
&-{\frac{1}{2}e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}\rangle/2}\langle \mathcal{D}_A{D}_BW \rangle \psi^{A}\psi^{B}}-{
{\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \partial_C (e^{\kappa_4^2 K_{\text{mod}}/2}\mathcal{D}_A{D}_BW)\right\rangle\delta z^C \psi^{A}\psi^{B}}}\\
&{-\frac{1}{4}\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}\rangle/2} e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T\rangle /3}\langle \mathcal{D}_A{D}_BW\rangle \psi^{A}\psi^{B}
\left(\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}C_{(o)}^{{\cal I}}\bar C_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}}+C^1\bar C^1+C^2\bar C^2\right)}
+\dots\
\\&\hspace{11cm}+h.c\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we have also used the expansion
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
e^{\kappa_4^2K/2}&\approx e^{\kappa^2_4\hat K_{\text{mod}}/2}\times \\ &\times \left(1+\frac{\kappa^2_4}{2}e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}C_{(o)}^{{\cal I}}\bar C_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}}+\frac{\kappa^2_4}{2}e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}C^1\bar C^1+\frac{\kappa^2_4}{2}e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}C^2\bar C^2\right)\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As a result, we have recovered the fermion mass terms
\begin{equation}
-{\frac{1}{2}e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}} \rangle /2} \langle \mathcal{D}_A{D}_BW \rangle \psi^{A}\psi^{B}}+h.c.\ ,
\end{equation}
as well as the interaction terms
\begin{multline}
-{
{\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \partial_C (e^{\kappa_4^2 K_{\text{mod}}/2}\mathcal{D}_A{D}_BW)\right\rangle\delta z^C \psi^{A}\psi^{B}}}\\{-\frac{1}{4}\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}\rangle /2} e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_T \rangle/3}\langle \mathcal{D}_A{D}_BW\rangle \psi^{A}\psi^{B}
\left(\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}C_{(o)}^{{\cal I}}\bar C_{(o)}^{\bar {\cal J}}+C^1\bar C^1+C^2\bar C^2\right)}\ .
\end{multline}
The fermion moduli mass matrix has been computed in the previous section, in both the vanishing \text{FI} and non-vanishing \text{FI} scenarios. For the matter fields, the only non-zero contribution is
\begin{equation}
M_{AB}=\mu_{{\cal I}{\cal J}}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{{\cal I}{\cal J}}$ occurs in the superpotential \eqref{shoe1} for the observable sector matter fields only, specifically for the Higgs doublet. Indeed, after SUSY is broken by F-terms generated by a non-perturbative superpotential, no soft-SUSY breaking mass terms are generated for any of the matter fermions.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{3a.pdf}
\caption*{\centerline{(a)}}{{\small$2{p}_\mu^{\cal I}{p}^{\mu\cal J}\left\langle \frac{e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}}{T+\bar T}\right\rangle \mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} [{\mathbf{U}^{-1}}]^2_2$}}
\label{fig:int_1a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{3b.pdf}
\caption*{\centerline{(b)}}{$2i\slashed{p}\left\langle \frac{e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}}{T+\bar T}\right\rangle \mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} [{\mathbf{U}^{-1}}]^2_2$}
\label{fig:int_1b}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{3c.pdf}
\caption*{\centerline{(c)}}{${\small-\frac{\kappa_4^2}{2}{\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}}e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}/2+K_T/3\rangle}}\times\newline {\small\left[\langle \hat F_{T} \rangle [{\mathbf{U}^{-1}}]^2_2 +\langle \hat F_{S} \rangle [{\mathbf{U}^{-1}}]^1_2 \right]}$}
\label{fig:int_1c}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{3d.pdf}
\caption*{\centerline{(d)}}{$-\frac{1}{2}\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T\rangle/3}\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}\times\newline \left[ {\mathbf{M_f}} \right]_{AB} [{\mathbf{U}^{-1}}]^A_2 [{\mathbf{U}^{-1}}]^B_2$}
\label{fig:int_1d}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{ Interaction terms when $\text{FI}=0$. The vertices shown in Figures \ref{fig:int_1}(a) and \ref{fig:int_1}(b) originate in the kinetic terms from eq. \eqref{eq:int_sc_1} and \eqref{eq:int_sc_2} respectively, and couple both the scalars and the fermions from the observable sector to the moduli scalar field $\phi^2$. Their associated amplitudes are proportional to the momenta $p^{\cal I},p^{\cal J}$ and $p$, respectively, of the incoming particles. The vertices shown in Figures \ref{fig:int_1}(c) and \ref{fig:int_1}(d) originate the from expression eq. \eqref{shoe2}. Those vertices couple the observable sector fields to the moduli field fermions $\psi_\xi^2$, $\psi_\xi^{2\dag}$. The matrix $\mathbf{M_f}$ is defined in eq. \eqref{mfm}.}
\label{fig:int_1}
\end{figure}
In the following, we will write these interaction terms in the mass eigenstate basis described in Section \ref{mass_spect_sec}, for the two types of vacua we identified.
When the genus-one corrected FI term vanishes, we use the rotations
\begin{equation}
\label{basis1}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\delta s\\\delta t
\end{matrix}\right)
=i\mathbf{U}^{-1}
\left(\begin{matrix}
{\phi^1}\\ {\phi^2}
\end{matrix}\right)\ ,
\quad
\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_S\\\psi_T
\end{matrix}
\right)=\mathbf{U}^{-1}\left(\begin{matrix}
\psi_\xi^1\\ \psi_\xi^2
\end{matrix}
\right)\
\end{equation}
presented in \eqref{bird1} and \eqref{bird2} to express equations \eqref{eq:int_sc_1}, \eqref{eq:int_sc_2} and \eqref{shoe2} in the mass eigenstate basis. The $2\times 2$ matrix $\mathbf{U}^{-1}$ was given in eq. \eqref{eq:U22A}. The hidden sector matter multiplets do not mix with the moduli in this case and, therefore, they do not couple directly to the observable sector\footnote{There are higher order terms in the $N=1$ supergravity potential term that do couple the observable and hidden sector directly, but are heavily supressed by powers of $\kappa_4^2$.}.
After the change of basis is performed, we obtain the four vertices shown in Figure \ref{fig:int_1} with their associated amplitudes written underneath.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{4a.pdf}
\caption*{\centerline{(a)}}{{\small$2{p}_\mu^{\cal I}{p}^{\mu\cal J} \left \langle \frac{e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}}{T+\bar T}\right\rangle \mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} \left[\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}\right]^2_{2,3}$}}
\label{fig:int_2a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{4b.pdf}
\caption*{\centerline{(b)}}{$i\slashed{p} \left \langle \frac{e^{\kappa_4^2K_T/3}}{T+\bar T}\right\rangle \mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}} \left[\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}\right]^2_{2,3}$}
\label{fig:int_2b}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{4c.pdf}
\caption*{\centerline{(c)}}{${\small-\frac{\kappa_4^2}{2}{\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}}e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}/2+K_T/3\rangle}}\times\newline {\small\left[\langle \hat F_{T} \rangle \left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^2_2 +\langle \hat F_{S} \rangle \left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^1_{2,3} \right]}$}
\label{fig:int_2c}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{4d.pdf}
\caption*{\centerline{(d)}}{$-\frac{1}{2}\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2\langle K_T\rangle/3}\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}\times\newline \left[ {\mathbf{M_f}} \right]_{AB} \left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^A_2\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^B_{2,3}$}
\label{fig:int_2d}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{ Interaction terms when $\text{FI}\neq 0$. The vertices shown in Figures \ref{fig:int_2}(a) and \ref{fig:int_2}(b) originate in the kinetic terms from eq. \eqref{eq:int_sc_1} and \eqref{eq:int_sc_2} respectively, and couple both the scalars and the fermions from the observable sector to the scalar fields $\phi^2$ or $\phi^3$. Their associated amplitudes are proportional to the momenta $p^{\cal I},p^{\cal J}$ and $p$ of the incoming particles. The vertices shown in Figures \ref{fig:int_1}(c) and \ref{fig:int_1}(d) originate from the expression in eq. \eqref{shoe2}. Those vertices couple the observable sector fields to the moduli field fermions $\psi_\xi^2$, $\psi_\xi^{2\dag}$, as well as to $\psi_\xi^3$, $\psi_\xi^{3\dag}$. The matrix $\mathbf{M_f}$ is defined in eq. \eqref{mfm}. }
\label{fig:int_2}
\end{figure}
On the other-hand, when the genus-one corrected FI term is non-zero, we use the $3\times 3$ rotations
\begin{equation}
\label{basis2}
\left( \begin{matrix}{\delta s}\\ {\delta t} \\ {\text{Re}(\delta C^1)} \end{matrix}\right)=i\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}
\left( \begin{matrix}{\phi^1}\\ {\phi^2} \\ {\phi^3} \end{matrix}\right)\ ,\quad \left( \begin{matrix} \psi_S\\ \psi_T\\ \psi_1 \end{matrix}\right)={\bm{\mathbf{U}}_f^{-1}}\left( \begin{matrix} \psi_\xi^1\\ \psi_\xi^2\\ \psi_\xi^3 \end{matrix}\right)\ .
\end{equation}
given in \eqref{fdr3} and \eqref{bird3} in order to express the interaction terms in the mass eigenstate basis.
The expressions for the matrices $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}$ and $\mathbf{U}_f^{-1}$ were derived in Section \ref{mass_spect_sec}. Matrix $\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}$ was given in \eqref{eq:u_m1_matrix} while $\mathbf{U}_f^{-1}$ is identical in form but with the parameter $\gamma_{r}$ replaced by $\gamma_{f}$.
After the change of basis is performed, we obtain the four vertices shown in Figure \ref{fig:int_2}, which have the associated amplitudes written underneath. The main difference from the vanishing FI case is that the low-energy spectrum contains an extra scalar-fermion pair of fields ($\phi^3,\psi_\xi^3$). These fields are linear combinations of the moduli fields and the matter fields from the hidden sector. They couple to the observable sector fields as well .
The couplings of the fields $\phi^2$, and $\psi_\xi^2$ to the observable sector are proportional to the matrix elements $[\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}]^2_{2}$ and $[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}]^2_{2}$. It can be shown that the values of these elements are of order $1$. The couplings of the fields ($\phi^3,\psi_\xi^3$) to the observable sector, however, are proportional to the matrix elements $[\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}]^2_{3}$ and $[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}]^2_{3}$. These matrix elements are, in turn, proportional to the the size of the $C^1$ field VEV that is needed to cancel the non-zero FI. It can be shown, therefore, that the values of these matrix elements are of the order
\begin{equation}
\left[\mathbf{U_s^{(r)}}^{-1}\right]^2_{3}\ ,\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^2_{3}\sim \frac{v}{M_U}=q\ .
\end{equation}
In principle, $q$ can take values as large as $1$. However, within the scenario analyzed in the previous section--in which the matter field VEV that is needed to cancel the non-zero FI term is arbitrarily small--these couplings are relatively suppressed.
\subsection{Some Possible Dark Matter Candidates}
In this section, we propose a scenario in which the inflaton is a linear combination of the observable sector scalar fields
\begin{equation}
\Phi=c_{\cal I}C_{(o)}^{\cal I}\ ,
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}
C_{(o)}^{\cal I}\ =c^{\cal I}\Phi \ .
\end{equation}
Such models have been analyzed in a number of papers~\cite{Deen:2016zfr,Cai:2018ljy,Ibanez:2014swa}.
Let us consider the case in which the FI term is non zero. The conclusions of this section can be easily extended to the vanishing FI case, by taking the limit $v\rightarrow 0$. In our model, the inflaton can produce the fermions $\psi_\xi^{2,3}$ via decay processes of the type
\begin{equation*}
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Inflaton.pdf}
\end{equation*}
These processes have the associated amplitudes
\begin{equation}
i\mathcal{A}_{2,3}=\frac{\kappa_4^2}{2}{c^J\mathcal{G}_{{\cal I}\bar {\cal J}}}e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}} \rangle/2}e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_T \rangle/3}\left[\langle \hat F_{T} \rangle\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^2_{2,3} +\langle \hat F_{S} \rangle\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^1_{2,3} \right]\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^1_{2}&=\left\langle\frac{1}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}k_T\right\rangle\ ,\\
\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^2_{2}&=- \left\langle\frac{1}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}k_S\right\rangle\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^1_{3}&=\left\langle\frac{\beta_{f}}{\Sigma} k_S- \frac{\gamma_f}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}}k_T\right\rangle\ ,\\
\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^2_{3}&=-\left\langle\frac{\beta_{f}}{\Sigma} k_T- \frac{\gamma_f}{\Sigma}\sqrt{\frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}}k_S\right\rangle\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The parameters $\beta_{f}$ and $\gamma_f$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\beta_{f} (=\beta_{r}=\beta_{i}) &=-\frac{1}{2t^2}\langle C^1\rangle \frac{\bar k_T}{\Sigma}+\frac{1}{2t}\frac{\bar k_1}{\Sigma}\ ,\\
\gamma_f&=\frac{M_{12}}{M_{22}}\beta_{f}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
These expressions are derived in the limit in which $v=\langle C^1\rangle$ is small; that is, such that $q=v/M_U\ll 1$. In this limit, we expect the couplings to be of order
\begin{align}
&\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^1_{2},\>\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^2_{2}\sim \mathcal{O}(1)\ ,\\
&\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^1_{3},\>\left[\mathbf{U_f}^{-1}\right]^2_{3}\sim \mathcal{O}(q)\ .
\end{align}
The low-energy spectrum after supersymmetry breaking, in both the moduli and the hidden sectors, was summarized in Subsection \ref{sec:final_states2}. Including the observable sector fields, we expect the following mass hierarchy during reheating:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{mass_hier}
&m_{C_{(o)}^{\cal I}}\sim \mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}})\ ,M_{\Psi_{(o)}^{\cal I}}=y_{\Phi \psi^{\cal I}\psi^{\cal I}}\sqrt{\langle \Phi^2 \rangle} , \qquad {\cal{I}}=1, \dots, \mathcal{N} ,\\
&m_{C^2}\sim \mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}}),\>m_{\Psi_2}=0\ ,\\
&m_{\phi^2},\>m_{\phi^3}\sim \mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}})\ ,\\
&m_{\eta^2},\>m_{\eta^3}\sim \mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}})\ ,\\
&M_{\Psi_\xi^2}\sim \mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}})\ , M_{\Psi_\xi^3}\sim \mathcal{O}(q^2m_{\text{SUSY}})\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the above equations, the fermion $\Psi^{\cal I}_{C(o)}$ from the observable sector has the mass
\begin{equation}
M_{\psi_{C(o)}^{\cal I}}=y_{\Phi \psi^{\cal I}\psi^{\cal I}}\sqrt{\langle \Phi^2 \rangle}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\sqrt{\langle \Phi^2 \rangle}$ is the the root mean square value of the inflaton during reheating, and $y_{\Phi \psi^I\psi^I}$ is the Yukawa-like coupling in the inflaton, two Weyl fermion $\psi^{\cal I}$ interaction.
Analyzing the expressions of the amplitudes $\mathcal{A}_{2,3}$, we deduce that
\begin{align}
i\mathcal{A}_2&\sim \kappa_4^3M_U^3\approx 10^{-5}\ ,\\
i\mathcal{A}_3&\sim q\kappa_4^3M_U^3\approx 10^{-5}q\ .
\end{align}
The decay rates associated with the processes $\Phi\rightarrow \Psi^{\cal I}\Psi_\xi^{2,3}$ are
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_{\Phi\rightarrow \Psi_\xi^2 \Psi^{\cal I}_{(o)}}&=\frac{|\mathcal{A}_2|^2m_\Phi}{8\pi}
\left[1-\left( \frac{M_{\psi_{(o)}^{\cal I}}+M_{\psi_\xi^2}}{m_\Phi} \right)^2 \right]^{3/2}\ ,\\
&\approx 10^{3} ~{\rm GeV }\left[ 1-\left(\frac{y_{\Phi \psi^{\cal I}\psi^{\cal I}}\sqrt{\langle \Phi^2 \rangle}}{m_\Phi}+\frac{M_{\psi_\xi^2}}{m_\Phi}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_{\Phi\rightarrow \Psi_\xi^3 \Psi^{\cal I}_{(o)}}&=\frac{|\mathcal{A}_3|^2m_\Phi}{8\pi}
\left[1-\left( \frac{M_{\psi_{C(o)}^I}+M_{\psi_\xi^3}}{m_\Phi} \right)^2 \right]^{3/2}\ ,\\
&\approx 10^{3}~\text{GeV}\>q^2\left[ 1-\left(\frac{y_{\Phi \psi^{\cal I}\psi^{\cal I}}\sqrt{\langle \Phi^2 \rangle}}{m_\Phi}+q^2\right)^2\right]^{3/2}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As $\langle \Phi^2\rangle \rightarrow 0$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_{\Phi\rightarrow \psi_\xi^3 \psi^{\cal I}_{(o)}}\rightarrow
10^{3}~\text{GeV}\>q^2\left[ 1-q^2\right]^{3/2}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The mass of the inflaton is a linear combination of the masses acquired by its component fields after supersymmetry breaking and, therefore, $m_{\Phi}\sim \mathcal{O}(m_{\text{SUSY}})$. Comparing the processes $\Phi\rightarrow \psi_\xi^2 \psi^{\cal I}_{C(o)}$ and $\Phi\rightarrow \psi_\xi^3 \psi^{\cal I}_{C(o)}$, it is not obvious which one is expected to be dominant during reheating. Although the decay rate of $\Phi\rightarrow \psi_\xi^3 \psi^{\cal I}_{C(o)}$ is supressed by $q^2$, the total mass of the decay products is smaller as well, allowing this process to start earlier during reheating. It would be interesting to find out if any of these processes can be responsible, at least partially, for the production of dark matter. The $\psi_\xi^3$ fermions are particularly interesting, because they are relatively light and also stable. However, a proper analysis within the context of realistic inflation and reheating scenarios is beyond the scope of this paper.
We point out that other mechanisms of producing dark matter have been proposed in literature, in similar contexts. For example, ~\cite{Chowdhury:2018tzw,Dutra:2019nhh}, propose the hidden sector matter fields as possible dark matter candidates. In such scenarios, the moduli fields are produced via processes of the type shown in Figures \ref{fig:int_1}(a) and \ref{fig:int_2}(a), and act as a ``portal'' between the observable and hidden sectors.
\section{SUSY Breaking and Moduli Stabilization $-$ Simple Examples}\label{Sec:Mod_Stab}
In Section \ref{mass_spect_sec}, we introduced non-perturbative effects, such as gaugino condensation, that generate a new potential term $V_{F}$ in the effective Lagrangian. It was assumed that the potential energy $V_{D}+V_{F}$ admits a stable minimum which spontaneously breaks $N=1$ supersymmetry.
The mass spectrum of the moduli and hidden sector matter fields were then explicitly computed in this vacuum. The treatment is completely general and, in principle, can be applied to any specific supersymmetry breaking context.
This section is dedicated to discussing a few simple examples of scalar potentials and stable vacua in which $N=1$ supersymmetry is broken. In each of these examples, we apply the results of Subsections \ref{sec:final_states1} and \ref{sec:final_states2} and compute the resultant low energy mass spectrum.
Turning on non-perturbative effects, such as gaugino condensation, generate a non-vanishing contribution to the superpotential, denoted by $\hat W_{np}(S,T)$. Then, as discussed in Section \ref{mass_spect_sec}, the potential energy now becomes
\begin{equation}
V=V_{D}+V_{F} \ ,
\label{fly3}
\end{equation}
with the $F$-term potential $V_{F}$ given by
\begin{equation}
V_F=e^{\kappa^2_4K}\left[ g^{A\bar B}(D_A\hat W_{np})(D_{\bar B}\hat W_{np}^*)-3\kappa_4^2{|\hat W_{np}|^2} \right]
\label{fly4}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_A\hat W_{np}=\partial_{A}\hat W_{np}+\kappa_4^2K_A\hat W_{np}\ .
\label{fly4A}
\end{equation}
The indices $A,B$ each run over $S,T$.
We propose a mechanism in which the $\langle s \rangle$ and $\langle t \rangle$ VEVs of the moduli, as well as one of the axion VEVs, which were not completely determined by the D-flatness condition studied in the Section \ref{sec:D-term_s}, can in principle be fixed at the minimum of the potential $V=V_D+V_F$. We analyze scenarios in which $N=1$ supersymmetry is spontaneously broken in the vacuum.
\subsection{Vanishing FI Term}
In this subsection, we offer a useful visualization of the moduli stabilization mechanism, in vacua in which $N=1$ supersymmetry is broken. We use a simplified setting. That is, we do not consider gauge threshold corrections which appear at order $\kappa_4^{4/3}$ in the gauge kinetic functions. Furthermore, we assume that the complex and bundle moduli have been stabilized, as in \cite{Anderson:2010mh, Anderson:2011cza}. The subject of moduli stabilization in the heterotic theory is a vast one and to the knowledge of the authors, it does not have a clear solution at present. A more realistic analysis of the moduli stabilization mechanism in heterotic vacua in which supersymmetry is broken by non-perturbative effects can be found in \cite{Cicoli:2013rwa}.
In the vanishing FI term case, the D-term potential $V_D$ is then given in eq. \eqref{late1}, where the matter fields $C^1$ and $C^2$ decouple. The shape of this potential was shown in Figure \ref{fig:D_flat11}. The potential vanishes along a ``D-flat'' direction defined by eq. \eqref{cof1}. Assuming $\frac{\pi\epsilon_S\beta}{3}=1$, this flat direction is along the $s=t$ line. Let us now add the non-perturbative potential $V_{F}$ given in \eqref{fly4}.
One possible non-perturbative effect is gaugino condensation in a
non-Abelian gauge group in the commutant of the hidden sector anomalous $U(1)$. This configuration has been analyzed in a number of papers~\cite{Barreiro:1998nd,Binetruy:1996uv,Ashmore:2020wwv}. When hidden sector gauginos condense, they produce a moduli dependent non-vanishing superpotental. Including corrections up to order $\kappa_{4}^{2/3}$ only, this superpotential has the expression
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sup1}
\hat W_{np}=M_U^3e^{-bS}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $M_{U}$ is the unification scale in the hidden sector and $b$ is a positive coefficient associated with the beta-function of the non-Abelian hidden sector gauge coupling. This superpotential leads to the F-term scalar potential
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:runaway_pot}
V_F&=\kappa_4^2M_U^6\frac{1}{(S+\bar S)(T+\bar T)^3}\left(b(S+\bar S) +1 \right)^2e^{-b\left(S+\bar S\right)} \ ,\\
&=\kappa_4^2M_U^6\frac{1}{16st^3}\left(2bs +1 \right)^2e^{-2bs}\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:runaway}. However, this is a runaway potential in both $s=\rm{Re}S$ and $t=\rm {Re}T$. Therefore, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:nonlift}, it cannot stabilize these moduli
along the D-flat direction, that is, the dashed green line, in Figure 1.
To do this, we propose another superpotential which can fix these moduli by turning on flux of the non-zero mode of the antisymmetric tensor field in the bulk space. This effect generates a constant superpotential $\hat W_{\text{flux}}$ in the 4D effective theory, proportional to the averaged three-form flux~\cite{Cicoli:2013rwa,Ibanez:2012zz}. The flux quantization condition~\cite{Lukas:1997rb,Gray:2007qy} constraints this constant contribution to be of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fluxsup}
\hat W_{\text{flux}} = cM_U^3\ .
\end{equation}
The value of the dimensionless constant $c$ is quantized such that
\begin{equation}
\quad c =\alpha n\ ,\quad n \in \mathbb{Z}\ ,\quad \alpha \sim \mathcal{O}(1)\ .
\end{equation}
Adding this effect to the gaugino condensate superpotential, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sup2}
\hat W^\prime_{np}=M_U^3(c+e^{-bS})\ ,
\end{equation}
This new superpotential leads to the F-term potential
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:V_F_prime}
V_F^\prime&=\kappa_4^2M_U^6\frac{1}{(S+\bar S)(T+\bar T)^3}\Big(\left|c+\left(b(S+\bar S) +1 \right)e^{-bS}\right|^2\Big) \ ,\\
&=\kappa_4^2M_U^6\frac{1}{16st^3}\bigg(\left|c+\left(2bs +1 \right)e^{-b\left(s+i\sigma\right)}\right|^2\bigg) \ ,\\
&=\kappa_4^2M_U^6\frac{1}{16st^3}\left( c^2+(2bs+1)^2e^{-2bs}+2c(2bs+1)e^{-bs}\cos b\sigma\right) \ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This potential is a function of the dilaton axion $\sigma$, as well as $s=\rm{Re} S$ and $t=\rm{Re}T$. Note, however, that $V_{F}^{\prime}$ does not contain the K\"ahler axion $\chi$, which we henceforth ignore. The dependence of this potential on the dilaton axion $\sigma$ is periodic, with period $\frac{2\pi}{b}$. For fixed $s=\rm{Re}S$ and $t=\rm{Re}T$, the potential is minimized for
\begin{equation}
\langle \sigma \rangle =\frac{\pi (2m+1)}{b}\ ,\quad m \in \mathbb{Z}\ .
\end{equation}
We will assume the axion has a fixed VEV in one of these minima, which, for simplicity, we choose to be
\begin{equation}
\langle \sigma\rangle =\frac{\pi}{b}\ .
\end{equation}
When $ \langle \sigma \rangle$ is fixed to $\pi/b$, the potential $V_F^\prime$ given in \eqref{eq:V_F_prime} takes the simple form
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:V_F_prime2}
V_F^\prime&=\kappa_4^2M_U^6\frac{1}{16st^3}\left( c-(2bs+1)e^{-bs} \right)^2 \ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which is positive definite. The potential vanishes at the unique minumum defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{pap1}
\langle s \rangle=\frac{1}{b}\ln \left(\frac{2b\langle s \rangle+1}{c}\right)\ ,
\end{equation}
This potential stabilizes the dilaton $s$, but leaves the K\"ahler moduli $t$ undetermined along a flat direction.
It is useful to plot the potential $V_F^\prime$ in \eqref{eq:V_F_prime2} as a function of $s$ and $t$. This is done in Figure \ref{fig:non-runaway} where, for specificity, we choose $c=1$ and take $b=0.75$. Note that for these choices of $c$ and $b$, the dilaton takes the fixed value of $\langle s \rangle \approx 2$, while the value of $t$ remains undetermined. This is shown as the dashed yellow line in Figure \ref{fig:non-runaway}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{RunawayPotential.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:runaway}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.38\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{NonLiftPotential.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:nonlift}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{NonRunawayPotential.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:non-runaway}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.38\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{LiftPotential.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:LiftPotential}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) Runaway F-term potential $V_F$ given in eq. \eqref{eq:runaway_pot} and generated by the superpotential in eq. \eqref{eq:sup1}, for $b=0.75$. The potential $V_F$ depends on the real component moduli fields $s$ and $t$ only. The green line indicates the $V_F$ profile along the D-flat direction $s=t$ in the vanishing FI term case with $\frac{\pi\epsilon_S\beta}{3}=1$. (b) $V_F$ profile along the D-flat direction $s=t$. The $V_F$ potential has no minimum along this direction and therefore, it cannot stabilize the remaining modulus of the theory. (c) Non-runaway F-term potential $V_F^\prime$ given in eq. \eqref{eq:V_F_prime} and generated by the superpotential in eq. \eqref{eq:sup2}, for $b=0.75$ and $c=1$. The potential $V_F^\prime$ depends on the real component moduli fields $s$ and $t$, and also on the value of the dilaton axion $\sigma$. For fixed $s$ and $t$, this potential is always minimized for $\langle \sigma \rangle=\frac{\pi n}{b}$, with $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. Here, as in the rest of the paper, we assume $\langle \sigma \rangle=\frac{\pi}{b}$. The green line indicates the $V_F^\prime$ profile along the D-flat direction $s=t$, in the vanishing FI term case. (d) $V_F^\prime$ profile along the D-flat direction $s=t$. The $V_F^\prime$ potential, calculated for $\sigma$ fixed to its VEV $\langle \sigma \rangle=\frac{\pi}{b}$, has a minimum along the D-flat direction and, therefore, it can stabilize the vacuum completely. The potential minimum is found at $\langle s\rangle=\langle t\rangle\approx 2$, at the intersection between the D-flat line shown with green and the F-flat line, displayed with yellow.
The field $\phi^{2}$ is the fluctuation around this minimum in the $s=t$ direction.
All potentials are expressed in multiples of $\kappa_4^2M_U^6$.}
\label{fig:D_flat1}
\end{figure}
Now consider the total potential $V_D+V_F^\prime$. This total potential will have a unique minimum at the intersection of the $V_F^{\prime}=0$ and the $V_{D}=0$ lines. For the values of $c$ and $b$ used in Figure 5, the potential has a unique minimum in $s,t$ space at $\langle s\rangle=\langle t\rangle\approx2$.
We learn that the D-term stabilization mechanism presented in the previous section, combined with the non-perturbative effects introduced in this section, are sufficient to stabilize the moduli in the theory in a vacuum with vanishing cosmological constant. The profile of this potential along the D-flat direction is shown in Figure \ref{fig:LiftPotential}. The fluctuation field $\phi^2$ is now to be evaluated at this minimum of the total potential and acquires a non-zero mass.
Furthermore, it can be checked that in this vacuum at $\langle s\rangle=\langle t\rangle\approx2$, the F-term associated with $S$ vanishes, while the F-term associated with the K\"ahler modulus $T$ is non-zero. That is,
\begin{align}
\langle F_S\rangle &=\langle D_S\hat W_{np}^\prime\rangle =0\ ,\\
\langle F_T\rangle&=\langle D_T\hat W_{np}^\prime\rangle\neq0\ .
\end{align}
Therefore, $N=1$ supersymmetry is spontaneously broken.
The mechanism of supersymmetry breaking via gaugino condensation in the hidden sector is well known. The non-vanishing moduli $F$-terms generate the soft SUSY-breaking Lagrangian in the observable sector via gravitational mediation.
Another consequence of supersymmetry breaking is that the scalar components of the moduli, as well as the corresponding fermions, become massive as well. Since they no longer belong to a supermultiplets, their acquired masses are expected to differ. Note that in scenarios in which moduli are stabilized by turning on a constant flux contribution of the type $\hat W_{\text{flux}}=cM_U^3$, where $c\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$, the scale of the soft-SUSY breaking terms, as well as the masses acquired by the moduli fields, are of the order $\kappa_4^2M_U^3\approx 10^{13}$GeV. Although turning on the flux contributions was a useful tool in stabilizing the vacuum, it has the caveat that it can work in a high-scale SUSY-breaking scenario only.
We can now apply the results derived in Section \eqref{sec:final_states1} to find the low-energy matter spectrum produced after supersymmetry is broken. In the vanishing FI case, after decoupling the heavy $\phi^1$ and $\eta^1$ states, the scalar matter spectrum is composed of two scalar moduli fields, $\phi^2$ and $\eta^2$, and the hidden sector matter fields $C^1$ and $C^2$. The fermion matter spectrum is composed of a Majorana fermion $\Psi_\xi^2$ and the matter fermions $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$. We now want to compute their masses, using expressions \eqref{eq:mphi2}-\eqref{pro1}, for the vacuum at the minimum of the potential $V_F^{\prime}$ given in eq. \eqref{eq:V_F_prime}, in the case in which the FI term vanishes. We found that when $b=0.75$ and $c=1$, this potential is minimized at $\langle s\rangle=\langle t\rangle\approx2$ and $\langle \sigma\rangle=\pi/b$. The masses of the $\phi^2$ and $\eta^2$ states are given in eq. \eqref{eq:mphi2} and eq. \eqref{eq:meta2} respectively. For the form of the $V_F^{\prime}$ potential that we use, $m^2_{st}=m^2_{ts}=m^2_{tt}=0$, and therefore, we have
\begin{equation}
m^2_{\phi^2}=m_{ss}^2\langle \frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_{\bar T}}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
m^2_{\eta^2}=m_{\sigma\sigma}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_{\bar T}}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\ .
\end{equation}
Using the fact that
\begin{equation}
\frac{k_S}{\Sigma}=\frac{k_T}{\Sigma}=\frac{\kappa_4}{\sqrt{\tfrac{1}{(S+\bar S)^2}+\tfrac{3}{(T+\bar T)^2}}}\ ,
\end{equation}
we compute the values of these mass terms at $\langle s\rangle=\langle t\rangle\approx2$ and $\langle \sigma\rangle=\pi/b$ and find
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
m_{\phi^2}=0.5\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}\ ,\quad m_{\eta^2}=2.2\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In our no-scale model, the hidden matter scalars $C^1$ and $C^2$ remain massless,
\begin{equation}
m_{C^1}=m_{C^2}=0\ .
\end{equation}
To compute the mass of the Majorana fermion $\Psi_\xi^2$, we apply eq. \eqref{eq:mPsi2}. However, recall that the vacuum defined by potential $V_F^\prime$ is characterized by $\langle F_S\rangle =0\ ,\langle F_T\rangle\neq 0$.
Therefore, the values of $M_{SS},M_{ST}$ and $M_{TS}$ vanish in these equations. The state ${\psi_\xi^2}$ aquires the mass
\begin{equation}
M_{\Psi_\xi^2}=2M_{TT}\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_{S}}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\ .
\end{equation}
At $\langle s\rangle=\langle t\rangle\approx2$ and $\langle \sigma\rangle=\pi/b$, we find that
\begin{equation}
M_{\Psi_\xi^2}=1.6\times 10^{12}\text{GeV},
\end{equation}
while the matter fermions $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ remain massless,
\begin{equation}
M_{\psi_1}=M_{\psi_2}=0\ .
\end{equation}
These masses are indeed of the same order as the ``supersymmetry breaking'' scale, defined as
\begin{equation}
m_{\text{SUSY}}=\kappa_4^2e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod} \rangle}/2} \langle |W_{np}^\prime|\rangle=0.8\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}\ .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Non-vanishing FI Term}
In Section \ref{sec:D-term_s}, we showed that the D-term potential imposes a relation between the VEVs of the moduli fields $s$ and $t$ and the matter scalars $C^1$ and $C^2$. That is, the D-flatness condition is satisfied at compactification if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{umb33}
-\frac{ a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2}{\kappa^{2}_{4}}
\left( -\frac{1}{\langle s \rangle}\pi\beta \epsilon_Sl+\frac{3l}{\langle t \rangle} \right) - e^{\kappa_{4}^{2}\langle K_{T} \rangle /3} \left(\langle \tilde Q_1 \rangle \langle C^1\rangle \langle\bar C^1\rangle
+\langle \tilde Q_2 \rangle \langle C^2\rangle \langle\bar C^2\rangle \right) = 0 \ .
\end{equation}
Let us now assume, as we did in Section \ref{sec:D-term_s}, that of the matter scalars only $C^1$ can obtain a non-vanishing VEV; that is
\begin{equation}
\langle C^1\rangle =v\ ,
\end{equation}
where $v$ can always be taken to be real. Let us continue to work under the assumption that $\pi\beta\epsilon_S/3=1$. Furthermore, based on our results in \cite{Ashmore:2020ocb}, the magnitude of the $\text{FI}$-term is expected to be of the order of the compactification scale squared. Therefore, for simplicity, we will take
\begin{equation}
\label{sc1}
\frac{ 3a\epsilon_S\epsilon_R^2}{\kappa^{2}_{4}}= \frac{M_{U}^{2}}{2} \ .
\end{equation}
It then follows from \eqref{cup1} that
\begin{equation}
\text{FI}=-\frac{M_U^2l}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\langle s\rangle}-\frac{1}{\langle t\rangle}\right)\ .
\end{equation}
Under these assumptions, and using expression \eqref{bl1} for the K\"ahler potential $K_{T}$, the D-flatness condition becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:blabla}
v^2=M_U^2\frac{l}{\tilde Q_1}\left(\frac{\langle t\rangle }{\langle s\rangle}-1\right)\ .
\end{equation}
There are two cases to be discussed:
\begin{enumerate}
\item{$\frac{l}{\tilde Q_1}>0$}: In this case, the D-flatness condition has solutions only for $\langle s\rangle <\langle t \rangle$. For fixed $v=qM_U$, it follows from \eqref{eq:blabla} that the D-flat direction in $(s,t)$ moduli space is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:st_Dflat1}
\langle t\rangle=\langle s\rangle \big(1+\frac{\tilde Q_1}{l}\frac{v^2}{M_U^2}\big) .
\end{equation}
\item{$\frac{l}{\tilde Q_1}<0$}: The D-flatness condition has solutions only for $\langle s\rangle >\langle t\rangle$. For fixed $v=qM_U$, the D-flat direction in $(s,t)$ moduli space is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:st_Dflat2}
\langle t\rangle=\langle s\rangle \big(1-\big|\frac{\tilde Q_1}{l}\frac{v^2}{M_U^2}\big| \big) .
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Note that when $v=0$, that is, when $FI=0$, both expressions reduce to
\begin{equation}
\label{wire1}
\langle s \rangle = \langle t \rangle \ ,
\end{equation}
as given in \eqref{cof1}. These solutions are represented in Figure \ref{fig:blue_red1} where for specificity, and to be consistent with the $FI=0$ case above, we choose $b=0.75$ and $c=1$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{FlatLines.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:blue_red1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.53\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{NoStableDir.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:blue_red2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) D-flat direction in $(s,t)$ moduli space for different values of $v^2$. The numbers associated with each line represent different values of $\frac{ |\tilde Q_1 |}{l}\frac{v^2}{M_U^2}$. The green line specifies the direction along which the FI term vanishes. With red we represent the D-flat solutions when $l/\tilde Q_1>0$, while with blue we represent the D-flat solutions when $l/\tilde Q_1<0$. (b) Plot of the potential $V_F^\prime$ given in eq. \eqref{eq:V_F_prime2} with $b=0.75$ and $c=1$. Its minimum, defined in \eqref{pap1}, is shown by the dashed yellow line. Turning on VEVs for $C^1$ defines D-flat lines in the $s$ and $t$ moduli space, displayed in red, green and blue--as given in \ref{fig:blue_red1}.
The vacuum state for any choice of $v^2$ lies at the intersection between the F-flat dashed yellow-line and the D-flat (red, green or blue) line.}
\label{fig:blue_red3}
\end{figure}
In the previous subsection we analyzed the vanishing FI case in which the hidden sector matter fields $C^1$ and $C^2$ decouple and have vanishing VEVs. Hence, the associated vacua must sit along the $FI=0$ line in the $s$ and $t$ moduli space. In this subsection, we extended our analysis to the more complicated case in which the VEVs of the hidden sector matter scalars can be non-zero. We explicitly look at vacua for which only the hidden sector matter field $C^1$ potentially has a non-zero VEV. The main consequence is that the D-flat line no-longer has a fixed direction in the $(s,t)$ moduli space. Instead, this direction can be shifted in moduli space by turning on a larger or smaller $\langle C^1 \rangle=v$ VEV, as seen in Figure \ref{fig:blue_red1}. As discussed above, and shown in Figure \ref{fig:blue_red2}, having chosen a value for $v$, the vacuum values for both $\langle s \rangle$ and $\langle t \rangle$ are fixed to be the intersection point of the red, green or blue D-flat line with the dashed yellow F-flat line of the $V_{F}^{\prime}$ potential. That is, turning on the non-perturbative potential $V_{F}^{\prime}$ given in \eqref{eq:V_F_prime2}, stabilizes both the $s$ and $t$ moduli completely. However, can it also stabilize the $C^1$ matter scalar? After a careful analysis, we have shown that $V_{F}^{\prime}$ in \eqref{eq:V_F_prime2} cannot by itself stabilize $C^1$ and, hence, fix the value of $\langle C^1 \rangle=v$. This would require additional non-perturbative contributions--which are beyond the scope of the present paper. Here, we will simply treat $v$ as a free parameter and, having chosen it, compute the associated values of $\langle s \rangle$ and $\langle t \rangle$.
We can now apply the results derived in Section \eqref{sec:final_states2} to find the low-energy matter spectrum produced after supersymmetry is broken.
In the non-vanishing FI case, the matter field $C^1$ mixes with the two moduli $S$ and $T$. The final low energy spectrum contains two sets of scalar moduli fields, ($\phi^2$, $\eta^2$) and ($\phi^3$, $\eta^3$), and the hidden sector matter field $C^2$, which does not mix with the rest of the states. In Section 3.2.1, we computed the masses acquired by these scalar mass eigenstates for the case in which the VEV of the matter field $C^1$ needed to cancel the non-zero FI is small compared to the unification scale; that is, $v=qM_U$, $q\ll 1$.
Let us again consider the vacuum state produced at the minimum of the potential $V_F^{\prime}$ given in eq. \eqref{eq:V_F_prime}, but for the case in which the FI term does not vanish. We asssume that the non-zero FI term can be cancelled by the VEV $v=qM_U$ of $C^1$, and that $q$ is relatively small. For specificity, we take
\begin{equation}
\left|\tfrac{\tilde Q_1}{l}\right|q^2=0.1\ .
\end{equation}
We have shown that when $b=0.75$ and $c=1$, the $V_F^\prime$ potential is minimized along the $\langle s\rangle\approx2$ direction and that $\langle \sigma\rangle=\pi/b$. Furthermore, when the $C^1$ field VEV is turned on, the D-flatness conditions shown in eq. \eqref{eq:st_Dflat1} and eq. \eqref{eq:st_Dflat2}, determine the value of the $t$ modulus. Using these expressions, we find that 1) for $\tilde Q_1/l>0$ we get $\langle t\rangle\approx2.2$, while 2) for $\tilde Q_1/l<0$ we find $\langle t\rangle\approx1.8$.
The masses of the $\phi^2$ and $\eta^2$ states are given in eq. \eqref{eq:second_sc_masses} and \eqref{eq:second_sc_masses_axion}, respectively. For the form of the $V_F^{\prime}$ potential that we use, $m^2_{st}=m^2_{ts}=m^2_{tt}=0$ and, therefore, these expressions simplify to
\begin{equation}
m^2_{\phi^2}=m_{ss}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_{\bar T}}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
m^2_{\eta^2}=m_{\sigma\sigma}^2\langle\frac{g_{T\bar T}}{g_{S\bar S}}\frac{k_T\bar k_{\bar T}}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\ .
\end{equation}
For ``branch'' 1), where the moduli values are fixed to $\langle s\rangle\approx2, \>\langle t\rangle\approx2.2$ and $\langle \sigma\rangle=\pi/b$, we find that these masses are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
m_{\phi^2}=0.42\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}\ ,\quad m_{\eta^2}=1.9\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, if we move to ``branch'' 2), with the moduli values $\langle s\rangle\approx2$ and $\langle t\rangle\approx1.8$, we find that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
m_{\phi^2}=0.58\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}\ ,\quad m_{\eta^2}=2.6\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the no-scale model, the hidden matter scalar $C^2$ remains massless,
\begin{equation}
m_{C^2}=0\ .
\end{equation}
The masses of the $\phi^3$ and $\eta^3$ states are given in eq. \eqref{eq:second_sc_masses2} and \eqref{eq:second_sc_masses_axion2}, respectively. We find that for our choice of $V_{F}^{\prime}$, for which $m^2_{st}=m^2_{ts}=m^2_{tt}$ as well as $m_1^2$ vanish, these scalars eigenstates remain massless as well. That is,
\begin{equation}
m_{\phi^3}=m_{\eta^3}=0\ .
\end{equation}
The analysis of the fermion mass spectrum is similar. The spectrum contains a state $\psi_\xi^1$ which forms a Dirac fermion with the $U(1)$ gaugino and becomes part of a massive vector multiplet which decouples below the compactification scale.
To compute the rest of the fermion mass spectrum, we need to calculate the F-terms associated with the moduli fields.
For the family of vacua defined along the $t$-flat line, the F-term associated with $S$ vanishes, while the F-term associated with the K\"ahler modulus $T$ is non-zero. Hence, the only non-zero element in the fermion mass matrix defined in Appendix \ref{AppendixB2} is $M_{TT}$. Therefore, the mass of the $\Psi_\xi^2$ fermion is given by the expression
\begin{equation}
M_{\Psi_\xi^2}=2M_{TT}\langle \frac{g_{S\bar S}}{g_{T\bar T}}\frac{k_S\bar k_{S}}{\Sigma^2}\rangle\ .
\end{equation}
At ``branch'' 1), where $\langle s\rangle\approx2$,$\langle t\rangle\approx2.2$ and $\langle \sigma\rangle=\pi/b$, we compute that
\begin{equation}
M_{\Psi_\xi^2}=0.9\times 10^{12}\text{GeV},
\end{equation}
while at ``branch'' 2), where $\langle s\rangle\approx2$,$\langle t\rangle\approx1.8$ and $\langle \sigma\rangle=\pi/b$, we find
\begin{equation}
M_{\Psi_\xi^2}=2.54\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}.
\end{equation}
The moduli fermion field $\psi_\xi^3$, as well as the matter fermion $\psi_2$, remain massless.
The fact that the masses of the $\phi^3$ and $\eta^3$ scalars vanish can be attributed to the fact that we have not managed to stabilize all of the moduli in this simple model. While $\langle s\rangle $ is fixed at a definite value, the values of $\langle t\rangle$ and $v$ can vary as long as the D-flatness constraint is satisfied. More specifically, the value of $\langle t \rangle$ is uniquely determined once the value of $v$ is chosen. However, for the non-perturbative potential $V_{F}^{\prime}$ we have chosen, the value of $v$ is not determined. In other words, there is no limit on how small or how large the FI term can be in this model, or the matter field VEV $v$ needed to cancel it. However, we should specify that features of this model, in particular the masslessness of the states $\phi^3,\eta^3$ and $\Psi_{\xi}^3$, are not expected to remain true in more general and realistic string theory models; which include, for example, gauge threshold corrections present at order $\kappa^{4/3}$. If stable vacuum states can be proven to exist in such more realistic models, then the mass hierarchy proposed in eq. \eqref{mass_hier} is expected to be valid.
It is interesting, however, to point out that even in our simple models, the masses of the fermions $\Psi_\xi^3$ can receive some non-zero contributions. These are sourced by terms that we have thus far neglected, such as those given in eq. \eqref{non-zerobla}. These terms are suppressed by $q^2M_U^2/M_P^2$ and, therefore, do not impact the mass matrix diagonalization conditions derived in Section \ref{mass_spect_sec}. They are in general negligible relative to the non-zero masses obtained by the $\Psi_\xi^3$ fermions in more realistic models, as discussed in the paragraph above. However, in our simple model they provide a lower bound for the masses that these fermions can take. That is,
\begin{equation}
M_{\Psi_\xi^3}\geq e^{\kappa_4^2 \langle K_{\text{mod}}/2+2K_T/3\rangle }\kappa_4^4v^2 \langle \hat W_{np}\rangle \approx q^2\times 5\times 10^7\text{GeV}\ .
\end{equation}
We conclude this section by pointing that we have chosen this simple model to serve as a useful visualization of how moduli can be stabilized. Note that there are many other non-perturbave superpotentials that can arise in string theory, such as in vacua with multiple gaugino condensates and so on. Other non-perturbative effects are generated by five-brane instantons~\cite{Carlevaro:2005bk,Gray:2003vw,Lima:2001nh}, for example. It is possible that when additional non-perturbative effects are included, as well as higher order corrections, the remaining unfixed VEV in our theory, namely, $\langle C^1 \rangle=v$, will also be stabilized. The subject of moduli stabilization is a vast one. Attempts have been made in the context of the heterotic string, with various degrees of succes~\cite{Choi:1998nx,Gukov:2003cy,PaccettiCorreia:2007ret,Anderson:2011cza,Cicoli:2013rwa,Dundee:2010sb,Parameswaran:2010ec}. To the knowledge of the authors, however, within the
context of phenomenologically realistic models, there are no models that fix all moduli.
Although the results in this paper were derived within the context of a simple $h^{1,1}=1$ model, we believe they will remain valid within the context of more generic, and more complicated, string vacua with $h^{1,1} \geq 1$, provided such stable vacua can be found.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Anthony Ashmore for many helpful conversations. Sebastian Dumitru is supported in part by research grant DOE No.~DESC0007901. Burt Ovrut is supported in part by both the research grant DOE No.~DESC0007901 and SAS Account 020-0188-2-010202-6603-0338.\\
|
\section{Introduction}
Bottom topography, and, in general, sloped boundaries add a layer of difficulty to the study of the hydrodynamics of water waves, and as such have been a classical subject of the literature, stemming from the seminal papers by Carrier and Greenspan~\cite{Carrier58,Greenspan58}, and Gurtin~\cite{Gurtin75}, among others. In fact, the mathematical modelling of liquid/solid moving contact lines is fraught with difficulties from a continuum mechanics viewpoint, and simplifying assumptions are invariably needed when such setups are considered. Nonetheless, even with the simplest models such as the hyperbolic shallow water equations (SWE),
fundamental effects such as shoaling of the water layer interacting with bottom topography can be qualitatively, and sometimes quantitatively, described~\cite{Carrier58,Greenspan58}.
Our work follows in these footsteps, and focusses on the dynamics of singular points in the initial value problem for hydrodynamic systems, including that of a contact line viewed as a ``vacuum" point, according to the terminology of gas-dynamics often adopted for hyperbolic systems (see, e.g.,~\cite{Liu1996,Liu1980,CoutardShkoller2011}).
Specifically, unlike most of the existing literature, we study initial data that are not necessarily set up as moving fronts; the evolution of higher order initial discontinuities in these settings can give rise to splitting of singular points, which in turn can lead to gradient catastrophes in finite times. We provide asymptotic time estimates from local analysis as well as characterize the initial time evolution of splitting singular points. Further, we introduce and analyze a class of exact self-similar solutions that illustrate, within closed-form expressions, the generic behaviour mentioned above. In particular, sloshing solutions for water layers in parabolic bottoms are shown to exist at all times depending on the value of the initial free surface curvature with respect to that of the bottom, while global, full interval gradient catastrophes can occur when the relative values are in the opposite relation. The analysis of these solutions builds upon our previous work in this area~\cite{Camassa-dambreak,Camassa-wetting-mechanism,Camassa-Geom}, extending it to non-flat horizontal bottoms, and highlights the effects of curvature in the interactions with topography. Remarkably, while this solution class is special, it can in fact govern the evolution of more general, analytic initial data setups, at least up to a gradient catastrophe time~\cite{Camassa-wetting-mechanism}.
This paper is organized as follows. We introduce basic elements and notations for the theory of wave fronts in Section~\ref{section: wavefront analysis}, where we consider the
evolution out of non-smooth initial data. Vacuum (dry) points evolution is studied in Section~\ref{section:vacuum points}. The dynamics of self-similar solutions interacting
with a class of bottom topographies is introduced in Section~\ref{section: parabolic solutions}, and a brief discussion and conclusions are presented in Section~\ref{conc}. The appendices report technical details and results on limiting behaviors. Specifically,
Appendix~A reviews the physical foundation of the SWE with variable bottom, Appendix~B reviews the salient points of the adapted variable
method used in the paper's body, and Appendix~C presents some new, though somewhat technical, results on the parabolic fronts with flat
bottom topography.
Finally, online supplementary material complements the exposition by showing animations of representatives of the exact sloshing solutions we derived.
\section{Wavefront analysis}
\label{section: wavefront analysis}
The shallow water equations (SWE) studied in this paper are
\begin{equation}
\label{SWE}
\eta_t+(u\eta)_x=0,\qquad u_t+u u_x+(\eta+b)_x=0,
\end{equation}
where $u(x,t)$ is the horizontal mean speed, $\eta(x,t)$~is the layer thickness and~$b(x)$ is a smooth function describing the bottom topography.
Sometimes it is preferable to use the free surface elevation~$\zeta \equiv \eta+b$ instead of the
layer-thickness~$\eta$ (see figure~\ref{fig:wavefront still fluid}) so that system~(\ref{SWE}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{SWE-z}
\zeta_t+(u(\zeta-b))_x=0,\qquad u_t+u u_x+\zeta_x=0\, .
\end{equation}
This section is devoted to the so-called wavefront expansion method, which is a helpful tool for analyzing the breaking of hyperbolic waves, especially when the system at hand is non-autonomous/non-homogeneous.
The idea is to study the solution in a neighborhood of the front location $x=X(t)$ by the shifting map (see e.g., \cite{Whitham99,Moodie91,Greenspan58,Gurtin75} and Appendix B for a review)
\begin{equation}
\xi=x-X(t),\qquad \tau=t.
\label{adap-var}
\end{equation}
In the configuration depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:wavefront still fluid}, on the left of the moving front location~$x=X(t)$ a generic function~$f(\xi,\tau)$ can be assumed to be expanded in Taylor series
\begin{equation}
\label{sol-exp}
f=f_0+f_1(\tau)\xi+f_2(\tau)\xi^2+\dots,\qquad f_k(\tau)=\lim_{\xi\to 0^-}\frac{1}{k!}\frac{\partial^k f}{\partial \xi^k}(\xi,\tau).
\end{equation}
Equations~(\ref{SWE-z}) give rise to the hierarchy of ODEs
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\dot \zeta_n+(n+1)\left[(u_0-\dot X)\zeta_{n+1}-b_0 u_{n+1}\right]-(n+1)b_{n+1}u_0+\\
&\hspace{5cm}+(n+1)\sum_{k=1}^n(\zeta_k-b_k)u_{n+1-k}=0, \\
& \dot u_n+(n+1)\left[\zeta_{n+1}+(u_0-\dot X)u_{n+1}\right]+\sum_{k=1}^n k \, u_k u_{n+1-k}=0
\end{split}
\label{SWE-ODE}
\end{equation}
where $u_i(t), \zeta(t)$ and $b_i(X(t))$ are the time-dependent coefficients of the $i$-th order term in the $\xi$ expansion~(\ref{sol-exp}).
We focus on the wavefront analysis to extract information about the time evolution of a class of piecewise-defined initial conditions for the SWE over a general bottom. The section is closed with a reminder of the flat bottom case (see also \cite{Camassa-dambreak,Camassa-wetting-mechanism}). In this particular setting, tools like simple waves and Riemann invariants allow for a closed form expression of the complete solution, and the shock time is computed without resorting to an asymptotic wavefront expansion.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{wavefront-2}
\caption{A wavefront $x=X(t)$ moving to the right, i.e., $\dot X>0$. It bounds a constant region on its right, where the fluid is quiescent, and a wave region on its left.}
\label{fig:wavefront still fluid}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Piecewise smooth initial conditions}
\label{sub: piecewise initial conditions}
In many physical interesting situations, the initial conditions for the SWE are piecewise smooth and globally continuous. The wavefront expansion technique provides a valuable tool for their analysis, especially in the presence of nontrivial bottom topographies. When $b_x=0$, the shallow water system admits Riemann invariants and simple waves. This allows to look for singularities from a global perspective, and compute the first shock time associated with given initial conditions (see \cite{Camassa-wetting-mechanism}). On the other hand, when $b_x\ne 0$, the SWE are inhomogeneous, and Riemann variables are no longer invariant along characteristic curves. Simple waves are unavailable as well, hence for general bottom shapes only the local viewpoint of the wavefront expansion for the study of singularities is in general available for analytical advances. We describe here how the machinery of the wavefront expansion applies to a prototypical example, and discuss the special case of a flat bottom in the next section.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{partition_2}
\caption{Sketch of trajectories of the two wavefronts $x=X_r(t)$ and $x=X_\ell(t)$ arising from piecewise differentiable initial conditions~(\ref{pw initial conditions u})--(\ref{pw initial conditions y}). This data class identifies three distinct regions, $\cal{L}$, $\cal{S}$ and $\cal{R}$, in the spacetime plane. The field variables of the SWE are denoted differently in each of the three regions so defined.}
\label{fig:spacetime partition}
\end{figure}
We assign initial conditions as follows: the fluid is initially at rest, and the water surface is composed by a constant part on the right, glued at the origin to a general smooth part on the left,
\begin{equation}
\label{pw initial conditions u}
u(x,0)=0\qquad \textnormal{for any }x\in \hbox{{\fontfamily{\sfdefault}\selectfont I\hskip -.35ex R}}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{pw initial conditions y}
\zeta(x,0)=\begin{cases}\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(x) &\textnormal{for }x\le 0,\\ 0 &\textnormal{for }x>0.\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Here, $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(x)$ is a smooth function in $(-\infty,0]$, subject to the condition $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(0)=0$, which ensures the global continuity of the initial data.
We further require that $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0)\ne 0$ (and bounded), so that the water surface has a discontinuous first derivative, a corner, at $x=0$ for $t=0$. Finally, we assume that $
\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(x)> b(x)$ in some neighbourhood of $x=0$. This assumption ensures that the SWE are locally hyperbolic so that a couple of distinct characteristics pass
through the origin in the spacetime plane (see Figures \ref{fig:spacetime partition} and \ref{fig:shoulder}). These characteristics satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{X_r X_ell}
\begin{cases}\dot X_r=u+\sqrt{\eta}\\ X_r(0)=0\end{cases},\qquad \begin{cases}\dot X_\ell=u-\sqrt{\eta}\\ X_\ell(0)=0\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
As remarked above, derivative jumps propagate along characteristic curves of hyperbolic systems
and the singular point initially located at $x=0$ splits into a pair of singular points transported along $x=X_r(t)$ and $x=X_\ell(t)$ after the initial time. Thus, for $t>0$, and as long as shocks do not arise, the solution is composed by three distinct smooth parts defined by the above pair of characteristics (see Figure \ref{fig:spacetime partition}). We append the superscript ``$+$'' to variables in the region~$\cal{R}$, that is for $x>X_r(t)$, characterized by the constant state $u^+(x,t)=0$, $y^+(x,t)=0$. Similarly we denote with a ``$-$'' the variables in the region~$\cal{L}$, for $x<X_\ell(t)$, which we regard as known functions of $(x,t)$, i.e., $u^-(x,t),\eta^-(x,t),\zeta^-(x,t)$ are solutions of the SWE corresponding to the initial condition $\zeta(x,0)=\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(x)$. This construction is well defined in the $\cal{L}$ region, as this is defined along the negative semiaxis $x<0$. Finally, we denote with capital letters~$V,N,Z$ the solution in the middle region $\cal{S}$, that is for $X_\ell(t)<x<X_r(t)$. We call this portion of the spacetime plane, enclosed by the two singular points, the \textit{shoulder} \cite{Camassa-dambreak,Camassa-wetting-mechanism}.
Even if no singularity were to occur in the $\cal{L}$ region, loss of regularity could certainly happen in the shoulder region~$\cal{S}$. Although we cannot generally rule out the onset of singularities in the
interior of $\cal S$, we focus here on its boundaries, i.e. the characteristic curves $x=X_\ell(t)$ and $x=X_r(t)$. The machinery described in the previous paragraph is
immediately applicable to the right wavefront $x=X_r(t)$, whereas it requires some further adaptation to be used for $x=X_\ell(t)$, as it propagates across a nonconstant
state. Thus, we next focus on the solution near the right boundary of the shoulder region, $x=X_r(t)$.
Piecewise initial conditions~(\ref{pw initial conditions y}) and~(\ref{pw initial conditions u}) introduce an element of novelty with respect to the analysis of Gurtin~\cite{Gurtin75}
mentioned in the previous section. The setting considered by Gurtin consists of a travelling wavefront stemming from some unspecified initial conditions. The wavefront analysis
is then applied to this dynamical setting, starting from some generic time, arbitrarily picked as the initial one. On the other hand, if the fluid is initially at rest, the wavefronts
arise as a consequence of the fluid relaxation. The shoulder components of the solution are not present at the initial time, so special attention is needed to identify initial conditions for the wavefront equations defined
by the first order of system~(\ref{SWE-ODE}) (see~(\ref{Riccati u_1 y_1}) for details)
\begin{equation}
\dot u_1+\frac{3}{2}u_1^2+\frac{5\ddot X}{2\dot X}u_1=0,\qquad \dot \zeta_1+\frac{3}{2\dot X}\zeta_1^2+\frac{3\ddot X}{2\dot X}\zeta_1=0.
\end{equation}
Note that neither $u_1$ or $\eta_1$ are defined at $t=0$, as they represent the limits of the
relevant quantities for $x\to X_r(t)^-$ with $X_\ell(t)<x<X_r(t)$. However, a consistent definition for $u_1(0)$ and $\zeta_1(0)$ can still be given in terms of appropriate limits
as $(x,t)\to (0,0)$ from the interior of $\cal S$, provided the gradients $\nabla Z$ and $\nabla V$ are continuous up to the boundary $\partial \cal S$. Namely we define
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}u_1(0)\equiv \lim_{(x,t)\to (0,0)}V_x(x,t)\\ \zeta_1(0)\equiv \lim_{(x,t)\to (0,0)}Y_x(x,t)\end{cases}\quad \textnormal{with } (x,t)\in \cal S.
\end{equation}
These values are computed from the given initial conditions as follows. From the continuity hypothesis on the solution, the fields $Z,V$, as well as their gradients, can be extended to the boundary $\partial \cal S$ along the two characteristics $X_r$, $X_\ell$ by taking the appropriate limits (the same applies to $\zeta^-,u^-,\zeta^+,u^+$ on their respective domains), and we have
\begin{equation}
\zeta^-(X_\ell(t),t)=Z(X_\ell(t),t),\qquad 0=Z(X_r(t),t).
\end{equation}
Once differentiated with respect to time these two relations give
\begin{gather*}
\zeta^-_x(X_\ell(t),t)\dot X_\ell(t)+\zeta^-_t(X_\ell(t),t)=Z_x(X_\ell(t),t)\dot X_\ell+Z_t(X_\ell(t),t),\\
0=Z_x(X_r(t),t)\dot X_r+Z_t(X_r(t),t).
\end{gather*}
We now subtract the second equation from the first one, and let $t\to 0^+$. The continuity of $Z,Z_x,Z_t$ on $\overline{\cal S}$ allows us to write
\begin{gather*}
\lim_{t\to 0^+}Z_x(X_\ell(t),t)=\lim_{t\to 0^+}Z_x(X_r(t),t)\equiv \zeta_1(0), \\
\lim_{t\to 0^+}Z_t(X_\ell(t),t)=\lim_{t\to 0^+}Z_t(X_r(t),t),
\end{gather*}
which yields an expression for the initial value of $\zeta_1$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1(0)=\frac{\zeta_x^-(0,0)\dot X_\ell(0)+\zeta^-_t(0,0)}{\dot X_\ell(0)-\dot X_r(0)}.
\label{zet10}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{IC_2}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{shoulder}
\caption{Sketch of initial conditions of class~(\ref{pw initial conditions y}) (left) and a snapshot of their evolution at an instant $t>0$ prior to any shock development (right). The shoulder part of the solution, not present at the initial time, is enclosed by the two moving points $x=X_r(t)$ and $x=X_\ell(t)$ for $t>0$.}
\label{fig:shoulder}
\end{figure}
According to (\ref{pw initial conditions u}), the velocity field $u$ vanishes identically at the initial time, so that $\dot X_r(0)=-\dot X_\ell(0)$ from (\ref{X_r X_ell}). Furthermore, the continuity equation
{(\ref{SWE-z})}
implies $\zeta_t(x,0)=0$ for
$x\neq 0$, so~(\ref{zet10}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\label{shoulder initial slope}
\zeta_1(0)=\frac{\zeta_x^-(0,0)}{2}\equiv\frac{\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0^-)}{2},
\end{equation}
where we have used the notation $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0^-)$ to denote a one-sided derivative.
Interestingly, immediately after the initial time, the slope of the water surface in region of the shoulder is half that of the neighboring region $\cal{L}$ (see Figure \ref{fig:shoulder birth}). Thus, according to (\ref{shoulder initial slope}), the initial slope of the shoulder part $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0^-)$ equals the algebraic mean of the slope values on the two sides.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{shoulder_birth}
\caption{Sketch of the solution at a very early stage $t\ll 1$. The shoulder part is approximately a segment with slope $\tan(\beta)\simeq -\zeta_1(0)$, half of the surface slope in the region $\cal{L}$, $\tan(\alpha)\simeq -\zeta_0'(0^-)$.}
\label{fig:shoulder birth}
\end{figure}
As $\zeta_1=\dot X_r u_1$, we also obtain the corresponding initial condition for $u_1$,
\begin{equation}
u_1(0)=\frac{\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0^-)}{2\dot X_r(0)}=\frac{\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0^-)}{2\sqrt{-b(0)}}.
\end{equation}
Here equation~(\ref{wavefront motion}) in Appendix B has been used in the last equality. Further details are reported in this appendix. Thus, together with these initial conditions, (\ref{y_1(t)}) (or (\ref{y_1(x)})) determine the onset of a gradient catastrophe at the wavefront $x=X_r(t)$. The gradient divergence depends on the bottom shape $b(x)$ as well as the given initial data $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(x)$. Of particular relevance is the sign of the surface slope $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0^-)$ near the singular point $x=0$, which markedly affects the solution behaviour. We will apply the results of this section to Section~\ref{section: piecewise parabolic solutions}, where a particular form for $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(x)$ is prescribed.
\subsection{The case of a flat bottom}
\label{sec: reminder flat bottom}
We now recall ideas already presented in \cite{Camassa-wetting-mechanism} for studying the time evolution of the shoulder region in the particular case $b_x=0$, which identifies a flat, horizontal bottom. It is straightforward to check that under this assumption, the shallow water system becomes autonomous (and homogeneous), which puts many analytical tools at our disposal. Indeed, as the solution features a constant state for $x>X_r(t)$, one of the Riemann invariants is constant throughout the shoulder region where the solution itself is a {simple wave} (see, e.g., \cite{Whitham99}). This fact allows us to obtain an exact (implicit) analytical expression for the solution in the shoulder region~$\cal{S}$ and determine when a shock first appears.
For definiteness, we assume that $b(x)=-Q$, with $Q>0$, so the initial conditions (\ref{pw initial conditions y}) in this case read
\begin{equation}
\eta(x,0)=\begin{cases}
\eta_{\mathrm{in}}(x) & \textnormal{for }x<0,\\
Q & \textnormal{for }x>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
As above, we still assume that the velocity field is identically zero at the initial time. It is worth noting that, for the flat bottom case, the curve $x=X_r(t)$ in Figure \ref{fig:spacetime partition} is a straight line of slope $\displaystyle \sqrt{Q}$, and the curve $x=X_\ell(t)$ has tangent $-\displaystyle\sqrt{Q}$ at its starting point (see Figure \ref{fig: shoulder coordinates}).
By plugging $b_x=0$ into
{ (\ref{SWE})}, the shallow water system can be cast in the characteristic form
\begin{equation}
\label{characteristic form SWE}
\partial_t R_\pm+\lambda_\pm\partial_x R_\pm=0,
\end{equation}
where the characteristic velocities $\lambda_\pm$ and the Riemann invariants $R_\pm$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\lambda_\pm=u\pm\sqrt{\eta},\qquad R_\pm=u\pm2\sqrt{\eta}.
\end{equation}
As long as shocks do not arise, the Riemann invariant $R_-$ is everywhere constant in the shoulder region. Namely, we have
\begin{equation}
R_-=V-2\sqrt{N}\equiv -2\sqrt{Q}\quad \textnormal{in}\quad \overline{\cal{S}\cup{R}}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, $R_+$ is constant along positive characteristics by virtue of (\ref{characteristic form SWE}), so both fields $N$ and $V$ are constant along curves $\dot x=\lambda_+$. This implies that positive characteristics are straight lines in the shoulder region, and their explicit expression is found by integrating the ODE
\begin{equation}
\frac{dx}{dt}=3\sqrt{N}-2\sqrt{Q}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{coordinate}
\caption{ Space-time diagram of the shoulder region for small times and initial data $u(x,0)\equiv 0$. The right and left limiting characteristics are straight lines of slope $\displaystyle \sqrt{Q}$
and $\displaystyle -\sqrt{Q}$ respective;ly. Dotted lines indicate positive characteristics in the shoulder region, where the construction of the coordinates $(t_0,\tau)$ for a point in the region is depicted; with the boundaries identified by the conditions $\tau=t_0$ and $t_0=0$.}
\label{fig: shoulder coordinates}
\end{figure}
We assign initial conditions for this equation along the left boundary of the shoulder region, that is
\begin{equation}
x(t_0)=X_\ell(t_0).
\end{equation}
Therefore, the general equation for positive characteristics is
\begin{equation}
\label{characteristics shoulder}
x=X_\ell(t_0)+(3\sqrt{N}-2\sqrt{Q})(t-t_0).
\end{equation}
Each of the characteristics (\ref{characteristics shoulder}) intersects the left boundary of the shoulder region at a different time $0\le t_0<+\infty$, which serves as a parameter to label the characteristic curves themselves. Note that the right boundary of $\cal S$ is the positive characteristic whose label is $t_0=0$. Moreover, as long as shocks do not arise, the parameter $t_0$ can be used along with the time variable to build a local coordinate system in the spacetime plane (see Figure \ref{fig: shoulder coordinates}). Namely, we define a change of variables $(t_0,\tau)\mapsto (x,t)$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{shoulder coordinates}
\begin{cases}
x=X_\ell(t_0)+(3\sqrt{N}-2\sqrt{Q})(\tau-t_0),\\
t=\tau.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
This gives a concise expression of the solution in the shoulder region. Indeed, as already stated, both fields $N$ and $V$ are constant along positive characteristics, so they are independent of $\tau$,
\begin{equation}
N=N(t_0),\qquad V=V(t_0).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, as long as the solution is continuous, the value of the field variables is fixed by the solution $\eta^-$, $u^-$ in the $\cal{L}$ region. Namely, we can write
\begin{equation}
\label{shoulder solution}
N(t_0)=\eta^-(X_\ell(t_0),t_0),\qquad V(t_0)=u^-(X_\ell(t_0),t_0).
\end{equation}
Once the solution in the shoulder region is known, we can look for gradient catastrophes as follows. First, we express the space and time derivatives in the new coordinates as
\begin{equation}
\partial_x={1\over x_{t_0}}\partial_{t_0},\qquad \partial_t=\partial_\tau-\frac{x_\tau}{x_{t_0}}\partial_{t_0},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
x_{t_0}(t_0,\tau)=\dot X_\ell(t_0)+3\left(\sqrt{N(t_0)}\right)_{t_0}(\tau-t_0)-3\sqrt{N(t_0)}+2\sqrt{Q}\,,\\
x_\tau(t_0)=3\sqrt{N(t_0)}-2\sqrt{Q}\,.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the slope of the water surface in the shoulder region is
\begin{equation}
N_x(t_0,\tau)=\frac{N_{t_0}(t_0)}{x_{t_0}(t_0,\tau)},
\end{equation}
which shows that the appearance of a gradient catastrophe is identified by the vanishing of $x_{t_0}$. The condition $x_{t_0}=0$ gives the time when the positive characteristic starting at $t=t_0$ from the left boundary of the shoulder region intersects another characteristic of the same family, that is
\begin{equation}
\label{shock time single}
\bar{\tau}(t_0)=t_0+\frac{3\sqrt{N(t_0)}-2\displaystyle \sqrt{Q}-\dot X(t_0)}{3\left(\sqrt{N(t_0)}\right)_{t_0}}.
\end{equation}
The earliest shock time for the shoulder part of the solution equals the non-negative infimum of the shock times~(\ref{shock time single}) associated to the single characteristics under the additional constraint that the shock position lies within the shoulder region itself, \begin{equation}
\label{shock time inf}
\tau_\textnormal{sh}=\inf_{t_0\in I}\bar{\tau}(t_0),
\end{equation}
where the set $I$ is
\begin{equation}
I\equiv\left\{t_0:X_\ell(\bar{\tau}(t_0))\le x(t_0,\bar{\tau}(t_0))\le X_r(\bar{\tau}(t_0))\right\}.
\end{equation}
The shock time $\tau_\textnormal{sh}$ is computed in the context of a specific example in Appendix~C.
Thanks to the solution's availability in the case of a flat bottom, we can verify the assumptions we made in the previous section for the general case. First of all, it is straightforward to check that the gradient of the field variables is continuous at the intersection of the shoulder domain with a strip
$\hbox{{\fontfamily{\sfdefault}\selectfont I\hskip -.35ex R}} \times[0,\epsilon]$
with $\epsilon$ sufficiently small. For example, the gradient of $N(x,t)$ (as well as of $V(x,t)$),
\begin{equation}
\label{gradient N}
N_x=\frac{N_{t_0}(t_0)}{x_{t_0}},\qquad N_t=-\frac{x_\tau}{x_{t_0}}N_{t_0}(t_0),
\end{equation}
is continuous up to the boundary of the shoulder domain as long as shocks do not arise. Indeed, $x_{t_0}$ is well defined on both the boundaries $t_0=\tau$ and $t_0=0$:
\begin{align}
&\textnormal{along $x=X_\ell(\tau)$:}\qquad x_{t_0}(\tau,\tau)=\dot X_\ell(\tau)-3\sqrt{N(\tau)}+2\sqrt{Q},\\
&\textnormal{along $x=X_r(\tau)$:}\qquad x_{t_0}(0,\tau)=-2\sqrt{Q}+3\frac{\,\mathrm{d}\sqrt{N(t_0)}}{\,\mathrm{d} t_0}\bigg|_{t_0=0}\tau.
\end{align}
Furthermore, as $\dot X_\ell(0)=-\sqrt{Q}$ and $N(0)=Q$, one can see that
\begin{equation}
x_{t_0}(0,0)=-2\sqrt{Q}.
\end{equation}
Thus $x_{t_0}$ is continuous and different from zero up to the boundaries of the shoulder domain for sufficiently small times, and so are the gradients $\nabla N$ and $\nabla V$.
Secondly, in this example a direct computation can be performed of the water surface's slope in the shoulder region at the initial time. Indeed, by using (\ref{shoulder solution}), we get
\begin{equation}
N_{t_0}(0)=\frac{\,\mathrm{d}\eta^-(X_\ell(t_0),t_0)}{\,\mathrm{d} t_0}\bigg|_{t_0=0}=\eta^-_t(0,0)+\dot X_\ell(0) \eta^-_x(0,0).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the initial condition $u(x,0)=0$, combined with the continuity equation, implies $\eta^-_t(0,0)=0$, so that we have
\begin{equation}
N_{t_0}(0)=-\sqrt{Q}\;\eta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0).
\end{equation}
Therefore, the first of equations (\ref{gradient N}) yields
\begin{equation}
N_x(0,0)=\frac{\eta_{\mathrm{in}}'(0)}{2},
\end{equation}
in accordance with~(\ref{shoulder initial slope}).
\section{Vacuum points}
\label{section:vacuum points}
The problem of predicting the motion of a shoreline in the presence of waves has a long history. When the bottom has a constant slope, so that $b_{xx}=0$, the SWE can be linearized by the so-called Carrier-Greenspan transform \cite{Carrier58, Rybkin20}. Several closed-form solutions can be constructed in this case and the corresponding shoreline motion can be described exactly, offering an elegant global perspective in the study of the breaking of waves. However, this
hodograph-like transformation is no longer available for general bathymetry. Hence, we turn to wavefront asymptotics to provide information about the shoreline motion and the local behaviour of the solution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{dry_boundary}
\caption{Schematic of moving vacuum point $x=X(t)$, separating a fluid-filled region on its left, where the water surface is strictly above the bottom, and a vacuum region to its right, where surface and bottom curves coincide.}
\label{fig:wavefront dry point}
\end{figure}
The shoreline reduces to a single dry point in our one-dimensional setting. In the terminology of gas-dynamics often used for hyperbolic systems, $\eta(x,t)$ plays the role of a gas density and this dry point is referred to as a ``vacuum point," i.e., a moving location $x=X(t)$ such that the condition
$\eta(X(t),t)=0$, holds identically in some interval of time.
We consider the setup depicted in Figure \ref{fig:wavefront dry point}, where the shoreline $x=X(t)$ separates a fluid-filled region to its left from a vacuum region on its right. For this reason, the term {``vacuum boundary"} will also be used when referring to $x=X(t)$.
{Being a boundary point, it is to be expected that the shoreline's velocity~$\dot{X}(t)$ equals the velocity $u_0$ of the fluid at $X$, i.e., the vacuum boundary is transported by the velocity field.
(A formal proof can be found, e.g., in~\cite{Camassa19} for the flat bottom case; however the proof is independent from the bottom topography $b(x)$, being based only on the local analysis of the mass conservation law for the layer thickness.)}
In this setting, it is more convenient to use the first form~(\ref{SWE}) of the shallow water equations,
as dry states are simply identified by the condition $\eta=0$. As to the velocity field, there is no preferential or meaningful way of assigning it in the dry/vacuum region. In particular, the zero constant solution is no longer admissible, since $u$ has to satisfy the non-homogeneous Hopf equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{hopf}
u_t+u u_x+b_x=0.
\end{equation}
This is the only constraint on $u$ in the dry region, and we will usually leave it unspecified. We still adopt the coordinate system (\ref{adap-var}), so that the SWE read
\begin{equation}
\label{SWE wavefront coordinates}
\eta_\tau-\dot X\eta_\xi+(u\eta)_\xi=0,\qquad u_\tau-\dot X u_\xi+u u_\xi+\eta_\xi+b_\xi=0.
\end{equation}
{Next, the wavefront expansion of the solution is introduced for the region~$\xi<0$. We consider a power series representation for $\eta$, $u$ and $b$
in the form (\ref{sol-exp}) (see also (\ref{solution expansion y}) and (\ref{b expansion}) in Appendix B).
Notice that $\eta_0=0$, in order to agree with the dry-point condition $\eta(X(\tau),\tau)=0$. In the following, we will abuse notation a little and use $t$ in place of $\tau$ for the time dependence argument, as long as this does not generate confusion. Plugging the previous formal series
in equations (\ref{SWE wavefront coordinates}), and collecting like powers of $\xi$, gives the following infinite hierarchy of ODEs:
\begin{equation}
\dot{u}_0+b_1+\eta_1=0\,,
\label{hie0}
\end{equation}
for $n=0$, and
\begin{gather}
\label{hierarchy eta}
\dot \eta_n+(n+1)(u_0-\dot X)\eta_{n+1}+(n+1)\sum_{k=1}^n u_k\eta_{n+1-k}=0,\\
\dot u_n+(n+1)(u_0-\dot X)u_{n+1}+(n+1)(\eta_{n+1}+b_{n+1})+\sum_{k=1}^n k u_l u_{n+1-k}=0\,,
\label{hierarchy u wet}
\end{gather}
for $n>0$. Note that for $n=0$ system~(\ref{SWE wavefront coordinates}) yields a single equation, as
the $\eta$-equation in~(\ref{SWE wavefront coordinates}) is automatically satisfied and hence provides no information.
As seen above, since~$\dot X=u_0$, the hierarchy simplifies to
\begin{gather}
\label{hierarchy eta simplified}
\dot \eta_n+(n+1)\sum_{k=1}^n u_k\eta_{n+1-k}=0 \tag{I},\\
\dot u_n+(n+1)(\eta_{n+1}+b_{n+1})+\sum_{k=1}^n k\, u_l u_{n+1-k}=0 \tag{II}.
\label{hierarchy u simplified}
\end{gather}
Table~\ref{table:1} shows the explicit form of the first few equations in this hierarchy, corresponding to powers
of~$\xi$ up to cubic.
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$n$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{(I)} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{(II)} \\
\hline
0 & $0=0$ & $\dot u_0+b_1+\eta_1=0$ \\
1 & $\dot \eta_1+2u_1\eta_1=0$ & $\dot u_1+2b_2+u_1^2+2\eta_2=0$ \\
2 & $\dot \eta_2+3u_2\eta_1+3u_1\eta_2=0$ & $\dot u_2+3b_3+3u_1u_2+3\eta_3=0$ \\
3 & $\dot \eta_3+4u_3\eta_1+4u_2\eta_2+4u_1\eta_3=0$ & $\dot u_3+4b_4+2u_2^2+4u_1u_3+4\eta_4=0$ \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The first equations~(I)--(II) for the unknown coefficients of the formal series (\ref{sol-exp}) for $u(\xi+X(\tau),\tau)$, $\eta(\xi+X(\tau),\tau)$ and $b(\xi+X(\tau))$.
}
\label{table:1}
\end{table}
\begin{rem}
\label{rmgen}
A few features of hierarchy~(\ref{hierarchy eta})--(\ref{hierarchy u wet}) are worth a close look:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
With $u_0=\dot X$ the $\dot u_0$-equation can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{wavefront acceleration}
\ddot X+b_1+\eta_1=0 \,.
\end{equation}
This relates the acceleration of the wavefront (the vacuum boundary) $x=X(t)$ to the slope of the water surface behind it, which is precisely $b_1+\eta_1$.
\item
A truncation of the infinite hierarchy~(\ref{hierarchy eta simplified})-(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) to some order $n=N$ would correspond to a reduction of the continuum governed by the SWE to a finite number of degrees of freedom dynamics, with $\eta$ and $u$ being polynomial functions of $x$, respectively of order $N+1$ and $N$. To this end, it is clear that a necessary condition for this to happen is that the bottom topography be a polynomial of degree~$N$, as opposed to an infinite power series. This is reflected by the structure of the hierarchy~(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}), which would lose the terms $\{b_n\}$ (generated by the bottom topography for $n>N$) that make equations~(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) inhomogeneous. Homogeneity would allow to set the corresponding series coefficients~$\{\eta_{n+1},u_n\}$ to zero if so initially, thereby reducing the power series solutions to mere $\xi$-polynomials. However, the very same structure of~(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) shows that the condition of polynomial bottom profiles in general cannot be sufficient for an exact truncation of the series: even in the absence of the~$\{b_n\}$ terms the equations in hierarchy~(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) for $n>N$ are not truly homogeneous, since functions of lower index series-coefficient $\{(u_n,\eta_n)\}$ for $n<N$ enter themselves as inhomogeneous forcing functions in all the remaining $n>N$ infinite system.
\item
The case of a quadratic bottom profile,
\begin{equation}
b(x)=c_0+c_1 x+c_2x^2/2
\label{quadb}
\end{equation}
for some constants $c_0$, $c_1$ and $c_2$, say, is clearly special (and often the one considered in the literature). In fact, for this case $b_1=c_1+c_2\,X(t)$, $b_2=c_2$ (and of course $b_n=0$ for $n>2$). With null
initial data $\eta_{n+1}(0)$ and $u_n(0)$ for $n>1$, equations~(\ref{hierarchy eta simplified})-(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) are consistent with $\eta_{n+1}(t)=0$ and $u_n(t)=0$ for $t>0$, $n>1$, and hence the hierarchy truncates to a finite, closed system for the four unknowns $X(t),\eta_1(t),\eta_2(t)$, and~$u_1(t)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{quadX}
\ddot{X}+c_2 \, X+c_1+\eta_1=0\,,\qquad \dot{\eta_1}+2u_1\eta_1=0\,,\qquad \dot{\eta_2}+3u_1\eta_2=0\,,\qquad
\dot{u_1}+u_1^2+2\eta_2+c_2=0\,.
\end{equation}
This {\it exact} truncation singles out the quadratic case as particularly amenable to complete analysis of solution behaviour, as we shall elaborate in more detail in Section~\ref{section: parabolic solutions} below.
\item
For $n=1$ equation (\ref{hierarchy eta simplified}) gives
\begin{equation}
\dot \eta_1+2u_1\eta_1=0 \,;
\end{equation}
this implies that if the initial conditions are such that $\eta_1(0)=0$, then $\eta_1(t)=0$ at all subsequent times, at least for as long as the solution maintains the regularity assumed for the convergence of the power series expressions~(\ref{sol-exp})
{for all the variables involved.}
Note that since $\eta(0,t)$ is the layer thickness at the front~$\xi=0$, $\eta_1=0$ implies that the derivative of the free surface matches that of the bottom at the dry point, that is, the free surface is tangent to the bottom there.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
This last point in Remark~\ref{rmgen} plays an important role in the classification and properties of the solutions with vacuum points, to which we turn next. Specifically, we analyze below the two cases $\eta_1=0$ and $\eta_1<0$ separately; in the literature these two different cases are commonly referred to as the ``nonphysical" and ``physical" vacuum points, respectively~(see, e.g., \cite{Liu1996}), and we will henceforth conform to this terminology.
\subsection{Nonphysical vacuum points}
We first consider the case $\eta_1(0)=0$, for which the water surface is tangent to the bottom at the vacuum boundary.
From equation (\ref{wavefront acceleration}) it follows that the motion of the wavefront is solely determined by the bottom shape as solution to the problem
\begin{equation}
\label{motion of nonphysical vacuum point}
\ddot X+b_x(X(t))=0,\qquad X(0)=x_0,\qquad \dot X(0)=u_0(0).
\end{equation}
This equation can be integrated once, to get
\begin{equation}
\frac{\dot X^2}{2}+b(X(t))=\textnormal{constant}.
\end{equation}
Thus, the motion of a nonphysical vacuum point turns out to be the same as that of a (unit mass) particle located at $x$ in a potential $b(x)$: the particle is repelled by local maxima of the bottom topography, and is attracted by local minima. This motion enters the equations of hierarchy~(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) by providing the $\{b_n(t)\}$ terms, which drive the evolution of the $u$- and $\eta$-coefficients by entering their respective equation as prescribed forcing functions of time, since~(\ref{motion of nonphysical vacuum point}) is no longer coupled to the $\{u_n,\eta_n\}$ equations.
The special case of a quadratic form for bottom profiles is further simplified for non-physical vacuum. In particular, if $c_2=0$, i.e., the bottom is a straight line, the first equation in system~(\ref{quadX}) reduces to
$\ddot X+c_1=0$ and the motion of the vacuum point $X(t)$ is that of uniform acceleration. If the bottom has a symmetric parabolic shape, $c_1=0$ and the same equation becomes
$\ddot X+c_2 X=0$.
Thus, the motion of the non-physical vacuum point $X(t)$ depends on the concavity of the parabolic bottoms: if it is upward, the motion is oscillatory harmonic, while if it is downward the point $X(t)$ is exponentially repelled from the origin at~$x=0$.
For general bottom profiles that can be expressed as (convergent) power series, the case of non-physical vacuum yields a remarkable property for the infinite hierarchy~(\ref{hierarchy eta simplified})-(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}).
When~$\eta_1=0$, the coupling term $u_2\eta_1$ in equation~$(2,\textnormal{I})$ of Table \ref{table:1} is suppressed
and equations~$(1,\textnormal{II})$ and $(2,\textnormal{I})$ of Table~\ref{table:1}, become a {\it closed} system of two nonlinear differential equations for the two unknowns $u_1(t)$ and $\eta_2(t)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{u1 eta2 system}
\dot u_1+u_1^2+2\eta_2+2b_2=0,\qquad \dot \eta_2+3u_1\eta_2=0.
\end{equation}
As remarked above, the function $b_2(t)$ can be thought of as an assigned time dependent forcing function, defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{b2t}
b_2(t)=\frac{1}{2}\,b_{xx}(X(t)),
\end{equation}
and hence determined by the solution $X(t)$ satisfying the uncoupled equation~(\ref{motion of nonphysical vacuum point}).
System~(\ref{u1 eta2 system}) admits an immediate reduction: the first equation is of Riccati type, hence the substitution
\begin{equation}
\label{phsub}
u_1={\dot{\phi} \over \phi}
\end{equation}
for a new dependent variable $\phi(t)$ allows the reduction of system~(\ref{u1 eta2 system}) to a single second order ODE,
\begin{equation}
\label{pheq}
\ddot{\phi} +{2 C\over \phi^2}+ 2\, b_2 \, \phi=0 \,,
\end{equation}
since the $\dot \eta_2$ equation can be integrated at once,
\begin{equation}
\dot\eta_2+{3 \dot \phi \over \phi}\eta_2=0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \eta_2={C \over \phi^3} \,,
\label{ph3}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$.
\begin{rem}
\label{rmrk}
A few comments are now in order:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
A glance at Table~(\ref{table:1}) and at system~(\ref{hierarchy eta simplified})-(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) shows that beyond~(\ref{u1 eta2 system}) the equations of the hierarchy constitute a recursive system of \textit{linear} differential equations for the index-shifted pair of unknowns $\{u_n,\eta_{n+1}\}$. In fact, the condition $\eta_1=0$ eliminates the term containing $u_{n+1}$ from the summation~(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) making the system closed at any order $n$ with respect to all the dependent variables up to that order, and, more importantly, past the first equation pair the system is { linear}, as its coefficients are determined only by the lower index variables $u_i$, $\eta_j$, with $i<n$ and $j<n+1$.
For this reason, the possible occurrence of movable singularities, determined by the initial conditions, is entirely governed by the leading order nonlinear pair of equations (\ref{u1 eta2 system}). (For the present case of nonphysical vacuum, this extends to non-flat bottoms an analogous result in~\cite{Camassa-wetting-mechanism}). Thus, the significance of system~(\ref{u1 eta2 system}) together with~(\ref{motion of nonphysical vacuum point}) has a `global' reach that extends well beyond that of just the first equations in the hierarchy, as it encapsulates the nonlinearity of the parent PDE, at least within the class of power series initial data with an initial nonphysical vacuum point considered here.
\item
If one assumes that $u$, $\eta$ and the bottom topography
at the initial time are in fact (one-sided) analytic functions {admitting the expansion (\ref{sol-exp})},
then the Cauchy–Kovalevskaya Theorem (see, e.g. \cite{Evans98}) assures that the solution of the initial value problem of system~(\ref{SWE wavefront coordinates}) exist
and is analytic for some finite time determined by the initial interval of convergence, i.e., by the initial values of the series' coefficients. Depending on these initial data, the
maximum time of existence could then be completely determined by the reduced system~(\ref{u1 eta2 system}) and~~\ref{b2t}), since, as per the previous comment, the
infinite system of equations past the~$(u_1,\eta_2)$-pair is linear and so its singularities coincide with those of the forcing functions, which in turn are entirely determined by
this pair.
\item
Equation~(\ref{pheq}) is isomorphic to that of a point (unit) mass subject to a force field $-(2 C/\phi^2 +b_2\phi)$, which in general will be time-dependent through $b_2$. This can have interesting consequences. For instance, the coefficient $b_2$ can be time-periodic by the choice
\begin{equation}
\label{duff}
b(x)=c_0+{c_2 \over 2} x^2+{c_4 \over 4}x^4 \,,
\end{equation}
which makes equation~(\ref{motion of nonphysical vacuum point}) for $X(t)$ that of a Duffing oscillator~\cite{Verhulst},
\begin{equation}
\label{duffx}
\ddot{X}+c_2 X+c_4X^3=0\,.
\end{equation}
As well known (see e.g.~\cite{Verhulst}) this equation has periodic solutions depending on the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ and on its initial conditions. In this case, for some classes of initial data, equation~(\ref{pheq}) can be viewed as that of a parametrically forced nonlinear oscillator, and resonances due to the periodic forcing $b_2(t)=c_2+3 c_4 \big(X(t)\big)^2$ from the solutions of~(\ref{duffx}) could arise, which in turn could generate nontrivial dynamics. This would further enrich the types of time evolution of PDE solutions supported by this class of bottom profiles with nonphysical vacuum initial data.
\item
Depending on initial conditions, bottom topographies with {\it local} minima, such as in the above case~(\ref{duff}) when $c_2>0$ and $c_4<0$, can lead to an overflow of part of an initially contained fluid into the downslope regions, whose evolution could develop singularities in finite times of the ODE (and so ultimately of the PDE) solutions as an initially connected fluid layer could become disconnected.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
Further aspects of the solution behaviour of the nonphysical vacuum case, for the special case of a parabolic bottom with an upward concavity, will be characterized in Section~\ref{section: parabolic solutions}.
Next, we will switch our focus to the case of a physical vacuum, which is significantly different as some of the properties of its nonphysical counterpart cease to hold.
\subsection{Physical vacuum points}
\label{sub: physical dry points}
The case of ``physical'' vacuum boundaries is characterized by $\eta_1(0)\ne 0$. When this condition holds, equation (\ref{wavefront acceleration}) is no longer sufficient to determine the motion of the wavefront $X(t)$ and the whole hierarchy of equations (\ref{hierarchy eta simplified})--(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}), for the unknowns $X(t),\{u_n(t),\eta_n(t)\}$, $n=0,1,\dots$ is now completely coupled. Indeed, at any given integer $n$, (\ref{hierarchy eta simplified})--(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}) involve variables of order $n+1$. Thus the wavefront approach appears to be less effective to study physical vacuum points. This issue was not present in the setup of Gurtin of
Section~\ref{section: wavefront analysis}, where the wave propagated over a constant state background. Indeed, whether it was $\zeta_1=0$ or $\zeta_1\ne 0$, the wavefront expansion was always sufficient to determine the motion
of the wavefront~$X(t)$. The reason for this discrepancy is the lack of information about the function $u_0(\tau)$, now treated as a variable. This is in contrast with the previous case of nonphysical vacuum: the continuity requirement on the solution at the wavefront implied that $u_0(\tau)=0$. However, the same argument cannot be invoked again here. Indeed, there is no preferential way to assign the velocity field in the dry region. Moreover, even if appeal to continuity were to be made to guide a possible choice, the resulting velocity field would necessarily become discontinuous across the vacuum boundary.
This result, already proved in \cite{Camassa-dambreak} (§ 3.2) for a horizontal bottom, is extended here to more general topography:
if the water surface is analytic and transverse to the bottom at the vacuum point $x=X(t)$, that is $\eta_1\ne 0$, and the velocity field $u$ is initially continuous, then $u$ becomes discontinuous at $x=X(t)$ for any $t>0$.
To see this, consider the Taylor expansion of the velocity field for the wavefront in the vacuum region $\xi>0$,
\begin{equation}
\restr{u}{\xi>0}=u_0'(\tau)+u_1'(\tau)\xi+u_2'(\tau)\xi^2+\dots,\qquad u_k'(\tau)=\lim_{\xi\to 0^+}\frac{1}{k!}\frac{\partial^k u}{\partial \xi^k}(\xi,\tau),
\end{equation}
whose coefficients evolve in time according to
\begin{equation}
\label{hierarchy u dry}
\dot u_n'+(n+1)b_{n+1}+\sum_{k=1}^n k \, u_k' u_{n+1-k}'=0. \tag{$\textnormal{II}'$}
\end{equation}
For $n=0$, (II) and (\ref{hierarchy u dry}) yield
\begin{equation}
\label{dry-wet 0th order equations}
b_1+\eta_1+\dot u_0=0,\qquad b_1+\dot u_0'=0,
\end{equation}
and these two equations together imply
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\llbracket u\rrbracket}{dt}=\dot u_0'-\dot u_0=\eta_1\ne 0,
\end{equation}
where $\llbracket u\rrbracket\equiv u_0'-u_0$ denotes the jump of the velocity field.
Thus, the graph of the velocity jump $\llbracket u\rrbracket(t)$ is never tangent to the curve $\llbracket u\rrbracket=0$. Moreover, since $\eta_1$ has constant sign (it is negative in the situation considered so far), the velocity jump $\llbracket u\rrbracket(t)$ can vanish only once in a simple zero. Hence, adjusting for a possible time shift, we see that the discontinuity of the velocity field at the vacuum/dry point has to emerge at $t=0^+$.
Another way of stating this result is that a shock wave always forms at a physical vacuum point for the velocity-like component of the system. However, as pointed out in~\cite{Camassa-dambreak}, this is a non-standard kind of shock. Besides being uncoupled to the other dependent variable (in this case the water surface that maintains its initial continuity for a nonzero time interval) it also does not involve dissipation of conserved quantities, in general. It is indeed not too difficult to verify that the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions for mass, momentum and energy are all satisfied at the same time for this non-standard shock.
\section{Parabolic solutions}
\label{section: parabolic solutions}
As mentioned in Remark~\ref{rmgen} above, if the graph of the bottom topography is a polynomial of at most second degree, the shallow water equations
(\ref{SWE})
admit a special class of explicit solutions which can be obtained by an exact truncation of the
hierarchy~~(\ref{hierarchy eta simplified})-(\ref{hierarchy u simplified}). This result can be cast in different light by working directly with~(\ref{SWE}) and seeking solutions by self-similarity. With a quadratic bottom topography, similarity quickly leads to the ansatz of a quadratic form for~$\eta$ and a linear one for~$u$, as direct inspection shows that these forms would be maintained by the evolution governed by~(\ref{SWE}), provided the polynomial coefficients evolve appropriately in time. With this in mind, it is convenient to seek solutions of~(\ref{SWE}) in the form
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{downward}
\caption{Schematic of the parabolic solution (\ref{5-field solution}) for $\gamma_0<0$. The water surface intersects the bottom at a couple of distinct dry/{physical}-vacuum points and the fluid domain is compact.}
\label{fig:downward parabola}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
\eta(x,t)=\mu(t)+\gamma(t)\big(x-\beta(t)\big)^2,\qquad u(x,t)=\delta(t)+\alpha(t)\big(x-\beta(t)\big).
\label{5-field solution}
\end{equation}
Solution ansatz of this form were considered for the flat bottom case by Ovsyannikov \cite{Ovsy1979} and extended by Thacker~\cite{Tha81} to a parabolic bottom and three-dimensions.
Expression~(\ref{5-field solution}) is advantageous for the study of system's~(\ref{SWE}) behaviour in the vicinity of a dry point~\cite{Camassa-Geom,Camassa-wetting-mechanism,Camassa-dambreak,Camassa19}.
The polynomial coefficients are chosen so that the location $x=\beta(t)$ is the critical point of the function $\eta(\:\cdot\:,t)$, whereas $\mu(t)$ is the corresponding critical magnitude, i.e., $\beta(t)$ and $\mu(t)$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial x}\bigg|_{x=\beta(t)}=0, \qquad \mu(t)=\eta(\beta(t),t).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, a simple calculation~\cite{Camassa-Geom} shows that $x=\beta(t)$ coincides with the (horizontal) position of the center of mass of the fluid layer.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{pot_phase_3}
\caption{Sketch of the energy selection, $(a)$, and phase plane portrait, $(b)$, of the $(q,p)$ dynamics~(\ref{canon_sys}). There is only one (stable) equilibrium at $(q,p)=(-1,0)$. When $E>3$, orbits with $q<0$ ($\gamma<0$) are closed periodic cycles with $q\in[q_-(E),q_+(E)]$ around the equilibrium point, whereas orbits with $q>0$
($\gamma>0$) are open and attracted to the origin $q\to 0^+$ ($\gamma\to +\infty$), $q\in (0,q_s(E)]$. When $E<3$ only open orbits exist with $q\in (0,q_s(E)]$. Here $q_\pm(E)$ and $q_s(E)$ are, respectively, the two negative and the positive real roots $U(q)=E$ which exist for $E>3$. For $E<3$ only one real (positive) root exists. }
\label{phase_portrait}
\end{figure}
The self-similar nature of these solutions, termed of the {\it second kind} in~\cite{Sedov}, is shown to be related to the scale invariance of system~(\ref{SWE}) in \cite{Camassa-Geom} (a complete account of symmetries and conservation laws for the shallow water system with a variable bottom can be found in \cite{Aksenov}). The relation between the form~(\ref{5-field solution}) and that of the truncated hierarchy to
the~$(u_1,\eta_2)$ pair~(\ref{sol-exp}) for $u$ and $\eta$ is as follows (recall that $\gamma$ can be negative):
\begin{gather}
\label{cnc}
X(t)=\beta(t)+\sqrt{{\mu(t)\over |\gamma(t)|}}\,, \qquad \eta_1(t)= -2\sqrt{|\gamma(t)| \mu(t)}\,,\qquad
\eta_2(t)=\gamma(t)\,,
\\
u_0(t)=\delta(t)+\alpha(t)\sqrt{{\mu(t)\over |\gamma(t)|}}\,,\qquad u_1(t)=\alpha(t) \,.
\end{gather}
(Here, of the two physical-vacuum points $X(t)=\beta(t)\pm\sqrt{\mu(t)/|\gamma(t)|}$ we have chosen to work with the one to the right to conform with the definitions of Section~\ref{section:vacuum points}.)
For simplicity, in what follows the form
\begin{equation}
b(x)=x^2-1\,,
\label{x2m1}
\end{equation}
for the bottom topography will be assumed, i.e., choose $c_0=-1$, $c_1=0$ and $c_2=1$ in~(\ref{quadb}). Plugging expressions~(\ref{5-field solution}) into the SWE~(\ref{SWE}) yields the following system of ODEs for
the time-dependent coefficients
\begin{equation*}
\dot\alpha+\alpha^2+2\gamma+2=0,\qquad \dot\gamma+3\alpha\gamma=0,\qquad \dot\mu+\alpha\mu=0,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation}
\label{5-fields ODE new variables}
\dot\beta=\delta,\qquad \dot \delta+2\beta=0 \,.
\end{equation}
These equations also follow directly from their series coefficient counterparts~(\ref{quadX}), of which they mirror the general structure, and from definitions~(\ref{cnc}). However, in this new set of variables the last two equations of~system (\ref{5-fields ODE new variables})
for the pair $\beta,\delta$ are uncoupled from the first three equations of the ODE for variables $\alpha$,
$\gamma$ and $\mu$, where the nonlinearity of the system is concentrated. The former are simply the equations of a harmonic oscillator in the variables
$\beta$ and $\delta$, with $\delta$ then being the velocity~$\dot\beta$ of the center of mass. Thus, for this parabolic topography the center of mass $\beta$ oscillates harmonically about the origin with period $T=\pi\sqrt{2}$. Furthermore, the nonlinear behaviour of the system is entirely captured by the $\dot\alpha$ and $\dot\gamma$ equations, since the evolution of
$\mu$ is slaved to that of $\alpha$. The possible occurrence of a finite-time singularity is thus governed by the coupled $(\alpha,\gamma)$ pair. It is easy to check that the quantity
\begin{equation}
\label{constant of the motion}
H=\frac{\alpha^2-4\gamma+2}{2\gamma^{2/3}}
\end{equation}
is a constant of motion for system (\ref{5-fields ODE new variables}), and can be used to characterize the dynamics in the $(\alpha,\gamma)$-plane.
As noted in \cite{Camassa-Geom}, the $H$ in~(\ref{constant of the motion}) is indeed a Hamiltonian function for the
$(\alpha,\gamma)$ dynamics with respect to a noncanonical Poisson structure. With the change of variables
\begin{equation}
q={1 \over \gamma^{1/3}}\,, \quad p={\alpha \over \gamma^{1/3}}
\label{qpdef}
\end{equation}
the $(\alpha,\gamma)$ dynamics is governed by the canonical system
\begin{equation}
H={p^2 \over 2}+q^2-{2\over q}\equiv{p^2\over 2}+U(q)\, \quad \Rightarrow \quad
\dot{q}={\partial H \over \partial p}=p,\quad \dot{p}=-{\partial H \over \partial q} =-{d U \over d q}=-\left(2q+{2\over q^2}\right) \,,
\label{canon_sys}
\end{equation}
i.e., that of the one-dimensional dynamics of a point mass subject to a (conservative) force with potential~$U(q)$. Note that this yields the same equation as~(\ref{pheq}) when $b_2=2$ and $C=1$. The analysis of such systems is straightforward, and we summarize here the main points. The phase portrait of system~(\ref{canon_sys}) is depicted in Figure~\ref{phase_portrait}.
The vertical asymptote at $q=0$ separates the $(q,p)$ phase plane into two regions $q<0$ and $q>0$, corresponding
to the curvature $\gamma$'s sign, which is hence preserved by the time evolution. The initial data $\alpha(0)=\alpha_0$ and
$\gamma(0)=\gamma_0$ for the first pair of ODEs
in~(\ref{5-fields ODE new variables}) select the constant, $E$ say, of the corresponding energy level set, i.e., $H(q,p)=E$, and if $E>\min_{q<0}U(q)=3$, the value of $U$ at the stationary point $U'(q)=0$ for $q=-1$, two different evolutions are possible: bounded periodic orbits for $q<0$ (and hence $\gamma_0<0$) and open orbits with asymptote $q\to 0^+$, $p\to \infty$,
for $q>0$ (and hence $\gamma_0>0$ and $\gamma\to +\infty$). If $E<3$ only open orbits are possible for initial conditions with $q>0$ (i.e., $\gamma_0>0$). Close to the fixed point $q=\gamma=-1$ and $p=\alpha=0$ the periodic motion is approximately harmonic with frequency $\sqrt{U''(-1)}=\sqrt{6}$, while for generic admissible energy levels $E$ the period is
\begin{equation}
T'=2\int_{q_-(E)}^{q_+(E)}{dq \over {\sqrt{2(E-U(q))}}}\,,
\label{prd}
\end{equation}
where $q_-(E)<q_+(E)<0$ are the two (negative) roots of $U(q)=E$.
In general, the solution $q(t)$ is expressed implicitly by
\begin{equation}
t-t_0= \pm \int_{q(E)}^q {dq' \over {\sqrt{2(E-U(q'))}}}\,,
\label{implc}
\end{equation}
and constructed by quadratures in terms of elliptic functions in the various cases picked by initial data, since the potential $U(q)$ leads to a cubic equation for the roots of $U(q)=E$, with the appropriate interpretation of the branch choice and the ``base" root $q(E)$. Our ultimate aim is to reconstruct the time dependence of the curvature function $\gamma(t)$, and it is convenient to change variable in the integrand to fix the location of the base root making it independent of the initial data. Further,
setting $t_0=0$ and $p(0)=0$, the energy level $E$ can be expressed as a function of the
initial curvature $\gamma(0)=\gamma_0$,
\begin{equation}
E=(1-2\gamma_0)/\gamma_0^{2/3},
\end{equation}
a relation that can be made one-to-one by confining $\gamma_0$ to the interval $(-1,0)$.
Thus, all periodic orbits can be parametrized by an initial condition $\gamma_0\in(-1,0)$
with $\alpha_0=0$.
Changing variables by
\begin{equation}
q={1\over \gamma_0^{1/3}\sigma} \Rightarrow \sigma=\left({\gamma \over \gamma_0}\right)^{1\over 3}
\label{sigmdef}
\end{equation}
the implicit form of the solution becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{tau evolution}
t=\pm\int_1^\sigma{d s\over \sqrt{4\gamma_0 s^5+2(1-2\gamma_0)s^4-2s^2}}
=\pm\int_1^\sigma{d s \over s\sqrt{4\gamma_0(s-1)(s-\sigma_+)(s-\sigma_-)}} \,,
\end{equation}
with the roots $\sigma_\pm$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{tau pm}
\sigma_\pm=\frac{-1\pm \displaystyle
\sqrt{1-8\gamma_0}}{4\gamma_0}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{periodo}
\caption{
Graph of the period $T'$~(\ref{period elliptic}) as function of $\gamma_0$. The small amplitude oscillations, corresponding to an almost flat water surface with $\gamma_0\approx -1$, are quasi-isochronous with
period~$\pi\sqrt{2/3}\simeq 2.56$. For larger amplitudes, corresponding to orbits selected by the limit $\gamma_0\to 0$, the period decreases to the lower bound value $\pi/\sqrt{2}\simeq 2.22$.}
\label{fig period}
\end{figure}
The quadrature expression for~(\ref{tau evolution}) in terms of elliptic functions is
\begin{equation}
t=\pm\frac{{g}}{2\sqrt{|\gamma_0|}}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_+}F(\phi,k)+\Big(1-{1\over \sigma_+}\, \Big)\Pi(\phi,n,k)\right) \,.
\label{ellptperiod}
\end{equation}
Here, the roots of the elliptic integral are such that
$
\sigma_+<1<\sigma_-
$
(and $\sigma_+$ is negative) when $\gamma_0<0$, while for $\gamma_0>0$ the roots $\sigma_\pm$ are either real or complex conjugate with negative real part;
$F(\phi,k)$ and $\Pi(n;\phi,k)$ are the incomplete elliptic integrals of the first and third kind~\cite{Byrd}, respectively, and their arguments are
\begin{gather}
g=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\sigma_--\sigma_+}},\qquad k=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_--1}{\sigma_--\sigma_+}},\qquad n=\sigma_+ k^2\,, \qquad
\sin \phi=\sqrt{\frac{1}{k}\frac{\sigma-1}{\sigma-\sigma_+}}\,.
\end{gather}
\subsection{The sloshing solution}
\label{sub: gamma_0<0}
When $\gamma_0<0$, the physical system consists of a water ``drop" of finite mass, sloshing within a parabolic-shaped bottom (see Figure \ref{fig:downward parabola}). The fluid domain is compact at all times, and is bounded by two physical vacuum points. The solution is globally defined and no singularities develop in time. As already noticed, the motion in the $(\alpha,\gamma)$-plane is periodic with period $T'$, given by~(\ref{prd}), whose quadrature expression in terms of elliptic integrals is given by~(\ref{ellptperiod}) by setting $\sigma=\sigma_-$,
\begin{equation}
\label{period elliptic}
T'=\frac{2}{\sqrt{|\gamma_0|}\sqrt{\sigma_--\sigma_+}}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_+}F\left({\pi \over 2},k\right)+\Big(1-{1\over \sigma_+}\, \Big)\Pi\left({\pi \over 2},n,k\right)\right).
\end{equation}
As a function of $\gamma_0$, the graph of the period $T'$ is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig period}, where we can see that $T'$ lies in the interval $T'\in (\pi/\sqrt{2},\pi\sqrt{2/3})$. The five dependent variables which parametrize the self-similar solutions are naturally arranged in the triplet $(\alpha,\gamma,\mu)$ and doublet $(\beta,\delta)$, whose dynamics can be viewed as representing that of a two (uncoupled) degree-of-freedom mechanical system. From this viewpoint, as mentioned in~Remark~\ref{rmrk}, the self-similar solutions can be interpreted as a reduction of the infinite number of degrees of freedom, or modes, of the wave-fluid continuum to just two. Only one of these degrees of freedom (that corresponding to the triplet~$(\alpha,\gamma,\mu)$) captures the nonlinearity of the original PDE, with the period of oscillation being a function of the mechanical system's initial conditions (and hence energy). Thus, for generic initial data the nonlinear period $T'$ given by~(\ref{period elliptic}) cannot be expected to be a rational multiple of that of the linear center-of-mass oscillator, $T=\pi \sqrt{2}$, and the oscillations of the fluid system will be quasiperiodic. Of course, in general the fluid continuum admits infinitely many configurations sharing the same position of the center of mass, and this lack of periodicity can be seen as a ``legacy," in this simple setting of self-similar solutions, of the original continuum dynamics. Nonetheless, given the initial condition dependence of the period $T'$ and its consequence on the continuum of values that this can attain, we can expect to have infinitely many initial configurations with periodic evolutions when $T'=m T/n$ for some integers $m$ and $n$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{oscillazione4}
\caption{Sample motion of a water mass sloshing inside a parabolic-shaped bottom. The snapshots depict one oscillation of the curvature, that is $0\le t\le T'$. The motion is started from rest, that is $\alpha_0=0,\delta_0=0$, with a water surface specified by $\gamma_0=-7,\mu_0=1,\beta_0=-1$. The snapshots correspond to times $t=0, 0.30, 0.60, 1.11, 1.60, 2.00, 2.22, 2.50$. The second to last frame corresponds
to half of the sloshing (center-of-mass) period $T$, which should be compared to the last frame taken at the time of (curvature) period $t=T'$ (specularly symmetric with respect to $y$-axis to the frame at $t=0$).}
\label{figure oscillating drop}
\end{figure}
The
oscillatory motion of the full fluid layer is exemplified in Figure~\ref{figure oscillating drop} and in animations provided in the Supplementary Material (see also, among recent papers on the
subject, reference~\cite{SES06} where the authors study the particular case of sloshing solutions where the free surface over a parabolic bottom is a straight-line segment at all times). At the fixed point $(\gamma_0,\alpha_0)=(-1,0)$, the free surface is a straight segment with slope
$2\beta(t)$ oscillating sinusoidally, with the end points sliding along the parabolic boundary.
In a neighborhood of this fixed point, the curvature $\gamma$ undergoes small amplitude oscillations with frequency $\displaystyle\sqrt{U''(-1)}=\sqrt{6}$, hence the upper bound for the period ~$T'$. The lower bound can be obtained explicitly by the asymptotic of large amplitude oscillations corresponding to $\gamma_0\to 0^-$; in fact,
in this limit the integral in~(\ref{tau evolution}) becomes asymptotically
\begin{equation}
T'\sim \sqrt{2} \int_1^\infty {\,\mathrm{d} s \over s \sqrt{s^2-1}}={\pi \over \sqrt{2}}
\qquad \textnormal{as}\qquad \gamma_0\to 0^-.
\end{equation}
Note that the two periods $T$ and $T'$ of the center of mass and the water surface curvature achieve the lowest order rational relation in this limit of large oscillations, since we have
\begin{equation}
T'\to\frac{T}{2}\qquad\textnormal{as}\qquad \gamma_0\to 0^-.
\label{subha}
\end{equation}
In fact, in this limit the free surface approaches a Dirac-delta function shape at the end points of
the $\gamma$~oscillation, which necessarily makes the the center of mass coincide with the support of the delta function; this explains the subharmonic resonance expressed by~(\ref{subha}) as $\gamma_0\to 0^-$. Of course, some of these considerations have to be interpreted with an eye on the physical validity of the long wave model in the first place. When the evolution lies outside of the long-wave asymptotics used for the model's derivation, some of the solutions presented here
could at most be expected to provide an illustration of trends in the actual dynamics of water layers. Note, however, that the robustness of the predicting power of these shallow water models can go beyond their strict asymptotic validity, as established by comparison with experiments and direct numerical simulations of the parent Euler system (see,.e.g.~\cite{Stoker48,Camassa19}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{upward}
\caption{A schematic of the parabolic solution (\ref{5-field solution}) for $\gamma_0>0$ and $\mu_0=0$. The water surface is tangent to the bottom at a single nonphysical vacuum point, $x=\beta(t)$.}
\label{fig:upward parabola}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The blow-up solution}
When $\gamma_0>0$, the parabolic water surface has positive curvature with magnitude larger than that of the bottom. Given the definition~(\ref{5-field solution}) of the layer thickness $\eta(x,t)$, this means that whenever
$\mu<0$ the possibility of a dry region exists, i.e., the water surface intersects the bottom at a pair of points, which can merge in a limiting case
as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:upward parabola}. As in the previous section, the motion of the ``center of mass" $x=\beta(t)$ is still oscillatory, with period $T=\sqrt{2}\pi$, though the notion of mass for these unbounded solution needs to be generalized. On the other hand, the solution of system (\ref{5-fields ODE new variables}) is unbounded in the $\gamma,\alpha$ components. Viewed from the equivalent variables $q,p$, the interpretation of the dynamics set by the force potential $U(q)$ immediately shows that the blow-up of $\gamma(t)$ must occur in finite time. In fact, $U$ gives rise to an attractive ``gravity-like" force which diverges as $\sim -2q^{-2}$ in the limit
$q\to 0^+$; this leads to $q\to 0^+$ and hence $\gamma(t)\to \infty$ in finite time starting from any finite initial condition $q_0>0$, $p_0=0$. Note that an ``escape velocity" does not exist in this gravitational force analogy, owing to the presence of the confining term $-q^2$ in the full expression of $U$, so that the ``plunge" into the origin $q=0$ will occur for any initial finite $p_0\neq 0$. Also note that the collision with the center of attraction at $q=0$ can be continued in time, by prolonging the trajectory so that $p$ jumps from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, which effectively ``closes" the orbits in right half phase-plane $q>0$ and makes them degenerate oscillations, with an infinite jump in the momentum-like variable at $q=0$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tcatvsg0}
\caption{Graph of the blowup time~(\ref{blow-up time integral}) vs.~$\gamma_0$ for parabolic bottom $b(x)=x^2-1$ (solid), compared to its counterpart $\pi /(4\sqrt{\gamma_0})$ (dash) for the flat bottom case with positive initial~$\gamma_0$~(see \cite{Camassa19},~\S~2).
}
\label{tblows}
\end{figure}
Just as for the period of the oscillatory solutions, the blowup time counterpart has a closed form expression in terms of elliptic functions,
\begin{equation}
\label{blow-up time integral}
t_\textnormal{bu}\equiv\int_1^{+\infty}\frac{\,\mathrm{d} s}{s\sqrt{2(s-1)(2\gamma_0 s^2+s+1)}}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma_0}\,\sigma_-
\displaystyle{\sqrt{1-\sigma_-}}}\left\{-F\Big({\pi\over 2},k\Big)+\Pi\left(n;{\pi\over 2},k\right)\right\} \,,
\end{equation}
which leads to the dependence on the initial curvature $\gamma_0$ shown in Figure~\ref{tblows}, where it is compared with the blowup time for the case of flat bottom discussed in~\cite{Camassa19}. Once again, limits $\gamma_0 \to 0^+$ and $\gamma_0 \to \infty$ can be analyzed, either directly from the integral or from known asymptotics of elliptic functions in~(\ref{blow-up time integral}), and it can be shown that
$$
t_\textnormal{bu}\sim {\pi\over 2^{3/2}} \quad \textnormal{as}\quad \gamma_0\to0^+\,,
\qquad \textnormal{and} \qquad
t_\textnormal{bu}\sim {\pi\over 4 \sqrt{\gamma_0}}\quad \textnormal{as}\quad\gamma_0\to \infty\,.
$$
%
\subsection{Piecewise parabolic solutions}
\label{section: piecewise parabolic solutions}
As an example of application of the methods described in Section~\ref{sub: piecewise initial conditions}, we consider here a particular class of piecewise initial conditions \cite{Camassa-wetting-mechanism,Camassa-dambreak,Camassa19}, whereby the fluid velocity is everywhere null, and the water surface is composed by a centered parabola continuously connected with a constant state on both sides (see figure~\ref{fig:pw parabola}):
\begin{equation}
\label{pw parabolic initial conditions y}
\zeta(x,0)=\begin{cases}0 &\textnormal{for }-1<x<-x_0\\ \zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(x) &\textnormal{for }-x_0\le x\le +x_0\\ 0 &\textnormal{for }+x_0<x<+1\end{cases},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(x)=(\gamma_0+1)(x^2-x_0^2)\,.
\end{equation}
Due to the symmetry of this configuration we can restrict our attention to the right semiaxis $x>0$. Immediately after the initial time, the corner at $x=x_0$ bifurcates into a couple of new derivative discontinuity points $X_\ell(t)$, $X_r(t)$, as described in Section~\ref{sub: piecewise initial conditions}. These points enclose the region which we called the \textit{shoulder} (see again Figure \ref{fig:spacetime partition} and \ref{fig:shoulder}). Equation (\ref{y_1(x)}), reported here for convenience,
\begin{equation}
\label{y_1(x) bis}
\zeta_1(x)=\frac{(b(x_0)/b(x))^{3/4}}{\zeta_1(x_0)^{-1}+\tfrac{3}{2}(-b(x_0))^{3/4}I(x)},
\end{equation}
can be used to predict the onset of a shock at the wavefront $x=X_r(t)$. This equation describes the slope of the water surface $\zeta_1$ immediately behind the wavefront position, as it progresses towards the shoreline located at $x=1$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{pw_parabola}
\caption{Sketch of piecewise initial conditions~(\ref{initial condition pw parabola}) for the water surface. A parabolic part is placed in the middle, and is continuously connected with a constant state at the sides through the singular points~$x=\pm x_0$.
}
\label{fig:pw parabola}
\end{figure}
The appropriate initial condition (\ref{pw initial conditions y}),
using~(\ref{shoulder initial slope}) in the shoulder region implies
\begin{equation}
\label{initial condition pw parabola}
\zeta_1(x_0)=\frac{\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}'(x_0)}{2} \,.
\end{equation}
The integral $I(x)$ is defined in (\ref{I(x)}) and turns out to diverge when $x\to 1^-$, that is
\begin{equation}
\label{I(x) bis}
I(x)=\int_{x_0}^x (1-\xi^2)^{-7/4}\,\mathrm{d}\xi\to+\infty\qquad \textnormal{as}\qquad x\to 1^-.
\end{equation}
Since $\zeta_1(x_0)$ in~(\ref{initial condition pw parabola}) is negative, the denominator of (\ref{y_1(x) bis}) will vanish for some $x_0<x_\textnormal{sh}<1$. This signifies that the wavefront will always break before reaching the shoreline. This result extends the one for a moving front of Gurtin~\cite{Gurtin75}, and holds for any regular bottom shape provided that the integral (\ref{I(x)}) diverges.
In this example the wavefront motion $X_r(t)$ can be obtained in closed form by solving (\ref{X_r X_ell}), which now reads
\begin{equation}
\dot X_r=\sqrt{1-X_r^2},\qquad X_r(0)=x_0\, ,
\end{equation}
and has solution
\begin{equation}
X_r(t)=\sin(\arcsin(x_0)+t)=x_0\cos t+\sqrt{1-x_0^2}\,\sin t.
\end{equation}
Note that $x=X_r(t)$ monotonically advances towards the shoreline $x=1$, and its speed $\dot X_r$ tends to zero for $X_r\to 1$.
The shock time for the wavefront can be computed as
\begin{equation}
\label{shock time}
t_\textnormal{sh}=\arcsin(x_\textnormal{sh})-\arcsin(x_0).
\end{equation}
It is worth remarking that (\ref{shock time})
is an upper bound on the maximal interval of definition of the continuous solution arising from the initial conditions (\ref{pw parabolic initial conditions y}). Indeed, it is by no means certain for general initial data that the solution maintains smoothness up to
$t_\textnormal{sh}$ and an earlier shock does not develop in the internal part of the shoulder region. However, regardless of the details of the initial data, the above argument assures that a shock will always develop at the wavefront location for $t=t_\textnormal{sh}$.
Next, we focus on the asymptotic behaviour of the shock location $x_\textnormal{sh}$ when $x_0\to 1^-$. We consider a sequence of initial conditions with the singular point
$x_0$ approaching the shoreline $x=1$. Throughout this limit procedure, we allow for a sequence of initial values $\gamma_0$, $\zeta_{\mathrm{in}}(0)$
such that the initial slope $
\zeta_1(x_0)$ of the parabola, given by (\ref{initial condition pw parabola}), is held constant. If $x_0\to 1^-$ (and consequently $x\to 1^-$) we can derive an asymptotic
estimate for the integral (\ref{I(x) bis}): with the shifted variable $s=1-\xi$, which tends to zero in this limit, integral (\ref{I(x) bis}) can be approximated by
\begin{equation}
\label{I(x) estimate}
I(x)=\int_{1-x_0}^{1-x}\frac{\,\mathrm{d} s}{[s(2-s)]^{7/4}}\sim \frac{2^{1/4}}{3}\left\{(1-x)^{-3/4}-(1-x_0)^{-3/4}\right\}.
\end{equation}
The asymptotic estimate for the shock position $x_\textnormal{sh}$ is obtained by replacing $I(x)$ with this estimate. Thus, for $x_0\to 1^-$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{interm-eq}
(1-x_\textnormal{sh})^{-3/4}-(1-x_0)^{-3/4}+2^{3/4}\zeta_1(x_0)^{-1}(-b(x_0))^{-3/4}\sim 0.
\end{equation}
The bottom topography is approximately
\begin{equation}
-b(x_0)=(1-x_0^2)\sim 2(1-x_0) \qquad\textnormal{as}\qquad x_0\to 1^-.
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{interm-eq}) then simplifies to
\begin{equation}
1-x_\textnormal{sh}-(1-\zeta_1(x_0)^{-1})^{-4/3}(1-x_0)\sim 0 \qquad\textnormal{as}\qquad x_0\to 1^-.
\end{equation}
Finally, as $\zeta_1(x_0)$ is constant throughout the limit procedure, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{asymptotic shock position}
(1-x_\textnormal{sh})\sim (1-x_0) \qquad\textnormal{as}\qquad x_0\to 1^-.
\end{equation}
Hence the shock position approaches the value $1$ at the same asymptotic rate as $x_0$.
According to (\ref{shock time}) and (\ref{asymptotic shock position}), the shock time $t_\textnormal{sh}$ tends to zero in the limit $x_0\to 1^-$. On the other hand, the limit configuration of (\ref{initial condition pw parabola}) corresponds to the situation already encountered in Section~\ref{sub: gamma_0<0}, where the parabolic surface intersects the bottom at $x=\pm x_0$ and the constant parts are not present. This observation suggests that this limiting initial configuration gives rise to a shock immediately after the initial time $t=0$. This is a reasonable conclusion if interpreted in light of Section~\ref{sub: physical dry points}. Indeed, as seen in that section, the velocity field becomes discontinuous immediately after the initial time. On the other hand, as noted in Section~\ref{sub: gamma_0<0}, the water surface does not suffer from the same discontinuity, and for this reason the shock that arises has to be regarded as non-standard~\cite{Camassa-dambreak}. This phenomenon is related to the mixed character of the shallow water system, which is locally parabolic at a dry point. These nonstandard shocks do not share many of the classic properties of their fully hyperbolic counterparts. For example, a whole infinite family of conserved quantities are also conserved across these shocks~\cite{Camassa-dambreak} (with the possible exception of the $u$-conservation only).
\FloatBarrier
\section{Conclusions and future directions}
\label{conc}
We have discussed several aspects of non-smooth wave front propagation in the presence of bottom topography, including the extreme case of vacuum/dry contact points, within the models afforded by long wave asymptotics and their hyperbolic mathematical structure. A notable extension of the flat bottom results in our previous work has been derived, in particular the finite time global catastrophe formation when the relative curvature of the interface with respect to that of the bottom is sufficiently large. A detailed characterization of the evolution of initial data singularities has been presented; in particular, in the case of vacuum points and quadratic bottom topographies, we have illustrated this time evolution by closed form expressions derived by identifying a class of exact self-similar solutions.
As in the flat bottom case~\cite{Camassa-wetting-mechanism},
these self-similar exact solutions acquire a more general interpretation for entire classes of initial data, those that can be piecewise represented by analytic functions and admit nonphysical vacuum dry points, whereby the surface is tangent to the bottom at the contact point(s). In this case, a reduction of the PDE to a finite number of degrees of freedom mechanical system is possible, and this captures the whole nonlinear behaviour in the hierarchy of equations for the power-series coefficient evolutions. An interesting consequence of this analysis, which we will pursue in future work, is the classification of the dynamics, within the reduced dynamical system, for polynomial bottom profiles of order higher than quadratic. These profiles inject time dependent drivers in the reduced system, which can lead to resonances and thus has implications for integrability of the full PDE evolution. Also currently under investigation is a notable application of our results to illustrate the transition from the nonphysical vacuum regime to the physical one, which does not appear to be fully understood~\cite{Serre2015} yet. The opposite transition form physical to nonphysical vacuum regimes seems to be more approachable as exemplified in~\cite{Camassa-dambreak}, where the authors find the explicit local behavior of the transition in the flat bottom case.}
On the more physical level, much remains to be done to include other relevant effects. First, the presence of surface tension and its dispersive mathematical features can naturally be expected to play a significant role in regularizing the singular behaviours we have encountered. In particular, it is of interest to examine the precise role of dispersive dynamics vis-\`a-vis the regions dominated by hyperbolic regimes such as the ``shoulders" we
have identified in Section~\ref{sub: piecewise initial conditions}. In particular, the transition between hyperbolic and dispersive dominated dynamics, which can be expected to occur when the typical Froude number of the flow~$|u|/\sqrt{g |\eta|}$ nears unity (see, e.g.,~\cite{Wetal19}), would modify the shoulders' generation and evolution, which could require developing an intermediate model to study. Further extension to stratified systems with two or more layers of different densities is also of interest, and in the special case of two-layer fluids in Boussinesq approximation our results can be applied almost directly thanks to the map to the shallow water system (paying attention to the additional subtleties caused by the map's multivaluedness)~\cite{EslerPierce2011,Ovsy1979}.
Finally, we remark that our investigation within 1-D models can be generalized to higher dimensions where, however, even for a flat bottom topography Riemann invariants may not
exist, and hence some of the progress would have to rely on numerical assistance for extracting detailed predictions from the models. This would extend the two-dimensional topography results in~\cite{Tha81} by connecting self-similar ``core" solutions to background states via the analog of ``shoulder" simple waves, similar to what we have done in our work here and elsewhere. Further, the complete analysis in three-dimensional settings should include classifications and time-estimates of gradient catastrophes. Thus, a priori estimates on the time of gradient blowup~\cite{Lax64} for hyperbolic one-dimensional systems
should be extended to higher dimensions, with the core blowup of the self-similar solutions providing an upper bound for more general initial conditions. These and other issues will be pursued in future work.
\FloatBarrier
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous referees for useful suggestions on the paper's exposition and for alerting us to references~\cite{Tha81,SES06,Wetal19}.
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sk{\l}odowska-Curie grant no 778010
{\em IPaDEGAN}. We also gratefully acknowledge the auspices of the GNFM Section of INdAM under which part of this work was carried out. RC thanks the support by
the National Science Foundation under grants RTG DMS-0943851, CMG ARC-1025523, DMS-1009750, DMS-1517879, DMS-1910824, and by the Office of Naval
Research under grants N00014-18-1-2490 and DURIP N00014-12-1-0749. MP thanks the Department of Mathematics and its Applications of the University of
Milano-Bicocca for its hospitality.
\setcounter{section}{0}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}}
\section*{Appendix A: {Shallow water equation with variable bottom}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{A.\arabic{figure}}
\label{app-SWE}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\setcounter{proposition}{0}
For the reader's convenience, we list here the different forms of the shallow water system analyzed in this paper (see \cite{Carrier58,Stoker48}). Following \cite{Carrier58}, we use a ``$*$'' superscript to denote a dimensional quantity; symbols not accompanied by this marker will be reserved for nondimensional ones. The one-dimensional shallow water equations (SWE) with general {smooth} bottom topography can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{dimensional shallow water equations}
\eta^*_{t^*}+(u^*\eta^*)_{x^*}=0,\qquad u^*_{t^*}+u^* u^*_{x^*}+g(\eta^*+b^*)_{x^*}=0,
\end{equation}
where $\eta^*(x^*,t^*)$ represents the thickness of the water layer, $b^*(x^*)$ is the bottom elevation over a reference level, and $u^*(x^*,t^*)$ represents the layer-averaged horizontal component of the velocity field. As usual, $g$ stands for the constant gravitational acceleration. An alternative form of system (\ref{dimensional shallow water equations}) is obtained by replacing the layer thickness $\eta^*$ with the elevation of the water surface
\begin{equation}
\zeta^*(x^*,t^*)=b^*(x^*)+\eta^*(x^*,t^*),
\end{equation}
which turns the SWE into
\begin{equation}
\label{dimensional shallow water equations 2nd form}
\zeta^*_{t^*}+[u^*(\zeta^*-b^*)]_{x^*}=0,\qquad u^*_{t^*}+u^* u^*_{x^*}+g \zeta^*_{x^*}=0.
\end{equation}
In this paper we will exclusively resort to the dimensionless form of (\ref{dimensional shallow water equations}) and (\ref{dimensional shallow water equations 2nd form}),
\begin{equation}
\label{dimensionless shallow water equations}
\eta_t+(u\eta)_x=0,\qquad u_t+u u_x+\eta_x+b_x=0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{dimensionless shallow water equations y}
\zeta_t+[u(\zeta-b)]_x=0,\qquad u_t+u u_x+\zeta_x=0.
\end{equation}
While the bottom term appears consistently with the long wave asymptotic approximation under which the shallow water equations are derived, it introduces additional parameters that can be scaled out in the dimensionless form (see \cite{Carrier58}). For example, when the bottom is a parabola with upward concavity,
\begin{equation}
b^*(x^*)=\kappa x^{*2}-Q, \qquad \kappa>0,\qquad Q>0,
\end{equation}
then a suitable scaling of the variables shows that SWE are independent of the parabola parameters. One appropriate choice is
\begin{gather}
\label{dimensionless variables}
x=\frac{x^*}{l_0},\qquad t=\sqrt{g\kappa}\:t^*,\qquad u=\frac{u^*}{l_0\sqrt{g \kappa}},\qquad \eta=\frac{\eta^*}{\kappa l_0^2},\\ \zeta=\frac{\zeta^*}{\kappa l_0^2},\qquad b=\frac{b^*}{\kappa l_0^2}.
\end{gather}
Here, the characteristic length $l_0=\sqrt{Q/\kappa}$ is chosen so as to simplify the bottom term, which in the new variables reads
\begin{equation}
\label{dimensionless parabolic bottom}
b(x)=x^2-1.
\end{equation}
We leave unspecified the bottom term in systems (\ref{dimensionless shallow water equations}) and (\ref{dimensionless shallow water equations y}) throughout Section~\ref{section: wavefront analysis} and Section~\ref{section:vacuum points}, whereas we consider the particular case (\ref{dimensionless parabolic bottom}) in
Section~\ref{section: parabolic solutions}, where parabolic solutions are introduced.
\section*{Appendix B: Overview of near-front local analysis}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{B.\arabic{equation}}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{B.\arabic{figure}}
\label{app-exp}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\setcounter{proposition}{0}
We consider a globally continuous piecewise smooth solution to the SWE, with a jump discontinuity of the $k$-th order derivatives across a curve $x=X(t)$ in the spacetime plane. We further assume that a constant state is established on one side of this curve. The physical picture is that of a wavefront propagating over a still medium, whose trajectory in the $(x,t)$-plane is the curve $x=X(t)$ (see Figure \ref{fig:wavefront still fluid}). This is the classical problem setting investigated by Greenspan \cite{Greenspan58} and Gurtin \cite{Gurtin75}. It is convenient to make use of the form (\ref{dimensionless shallow water equations y}) of the SWE, so that the constant state on the right of the wavefront will simply be represented by $\zeta=0$, $u=0$.
There are many possible choices of variable sets adapted to the motion of the wavefront. The simplest one is a time-dependent space translation, which fixes to zero the wavefront position:
\begin{equation}
\label{space translation}
\xi=x-X(t),\qquad \tau=t.
\end{equation}
Under the substitution (\ref{space translation}), the space and time derivatives transform as
\begin{equation}
\partial_t=\partial_\tau-\dot X\partial_\xi,\qquad \partial_x=\partial_\xi,
\end{equation}
and the shallow water system (\ref{dimensionless shallow water equations y}) takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{SWE wavefront coordinates y}
\zeta_\tau-\dot X \zeta_\xi+[u(\zeta-b)]_\xi=0,\qquad u_\tau+(u-\dot X)u_\xi+\zeta_\xi=0.
\end{equation}
With the aim of extracting information on the system behaviour in a neighbourhood of the wavefront, we make the following ansatz on the form of the solution behind the wavefront, that is, for $\xi<0$,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{solution expansion y}
&\restr{\zeta}{\xi<0}=\zeta_0(\tau)+\zeta_1(\tau)\xi+\zeta_2(\tau)\xi^2+\dots,\\ &\restr{u}{\xi<0}=u_0(\tau)+u_1(\tau)\xi+u_2(\tau)\xi^2+\dots.
\end{split}
\end{align}
This ansatz essentially assumes that the solution is one-sided analytic in a neighbourhood of the wave front; henceforth, we will refer to it as the \textit{wavefront expansion} of the solution. Its coefficients are to be determined by substituting expansion~(\ref{solution expansion y}) back into (\ref{SWE wavefront coordinates y}). Although $\zeta_0$ and $u_0$ are formally included in these expansions, both their values are fixed to zero to ensure that the series (\ref{solution expansion y}) continuously connect to the constant state at $\xi=0$. Here $u_k(\tau)$ and $\zeta_k(\tau)$ can be viewed as limits of the relevant derivatives of $u$ and $\zeta$ for $\xi\to 0^-$, that is
\begin{equation}
u_k(\tau)=\lim_{\xi\to 0^-}\frac{1}{k!}\frac{\partial^k u}{\partial \xi^k}(\xi,\tau),\qquad \zeta_k(\tau)=\lim_{\xi\to 0^-}\frac{1}{k!}\frac{\partial^k \zeta}{\partial \xi^k}(\xi,\tau).
\end{equation}
Similarly, the bottom topography is expanded in powers of $\xi$ (abusing notation a little
by writing $b(\xi,\tau)=b(x)$),
\begin{equation}
\label{b expansion}
b(\xi,\tau)=b_0(\tau)+b_1(\tau)\xi+b_2(\tau)\xi^2+\dots,
\end{equation}
where the time dependent coefficients $b_k$ are evaluated as
\begin{equation}
b_k(\tau)=\frac{1}{k!}\frac{\partial^k {b}}{\partial \xi^k}(0,\tau)=\frac{1}{k!}\frac{d^k b}{d x^k}(X(\tau)).
\end{equation}
Plugging the expansions (\ref{solution expansion y}) and (\ref{b expansion}) into equations (\ref{SWE wavefront coordinates y}) and collecting the various powers of $\xi$ yields two infinite hierarchies of ODEs,
\begin{gather}
\label{hierarchy y}
\begin{split}
&\dot \zeta_n+(n+1)\left[(u_0-\dot X)\zeta_{n+1}-b_0 u_{n+1}\right]-(n+1)b_{n+1}u_0+\cr
&\hspace{5cm}+(n+1)\sum_{k=1}^n(\zeta_k-b_k)u_{n+1-k}=0,
\end{split}
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
\dot u_n+(n+1)\left[\zeta_{n+1}+(u_0-\dot X)u_{n+1}\right]+\sum_{k=1}^n k \, u_k u_{n+1-k}=0
\label{hierarchy u}
\end{gather}
for $n\geq 1$, while $n=0$ yields
\begin{equation}
\label{0-0 system}
-\dot X \zeta_1-b_0 u_1=0,\qquad \zeta_1-\dot X u_1=0 \,,
\end{equation}
by recalling that $u_0=\zeta_0=0$.
The structure of these equations determines the wavefront speed $\dot X$. This can be seen as follows: if the solution has discontinuous first derivatives across the wavefront then at least one among $u_1$ and $\zeta_1$ is different from zero; this in turn implies that the coefficient matrix of the linear system (\ref{0-0 system}) is singular, that is
\begin{equation}
\label{wavefront motion}
\dot X^2+b_0=0.
\end{equation}
This first order nonlinear equation can in principle be solved to get the wavefront motion, which will depend solely on the bottom topography (with the choice of sign of $\dot X$ set by the initial data). The same result is obtained if the solution has a $k$-th order jump, with $k<\infty$, across the wavefront. For example, if the first derivatives were continuous and the second ones were not, we would obtain a linear algebraic system for $u_2$, $\zeta_2$ of the same form as (\ref{0-0 system}), once again reducing to (\ref{wavefront motion}). This is a general result (see e.g., \cite{Whitham99}); singularities of solutions of hyperbolic systems propagate along characteristic curves.
The structure of equations (\ref{hierarchy y})--(\ref{hierarchy u}) is such that, for any fixed $n$, variables of order up to $n+1$ are involved. However, higher order variables enter the system in such a way that both can be canceled by taking a single linear combination of the two equations. This becomes more transparent by writing system (\ref{hierarchy y})--(\ref{hierarchy u}) in matrix form
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\dot U}_n+(n+1)A \mathbf{U}_{n+1}+\mathbf{F}_n=0,\qquad A=\begin{pmatrix}-\dot X & -b_0\\ 1 & -\dot X\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{U}_n=(\zeta_n,u_n)^\top$, and $\mathbf{F}_n$ comprises variables of order up to $n$. The matrix $A$ is singular due to relation (\ref{wavefront motion}); thus, if the former equation is multiplied by the vector $(1,\dot X)$, the resulting scalar equation is free of higher order variables,
\begin{equation}
\label{linear combination}
\dot \zeta_n+\dot X \dot u_n+(1,\dot X) \mathbf{F}_n=0.
\end{equation}
One of the two equations of order $(n-1)$ can now be used to replace $\zeta_n$ with $u_n$, or vice versa. For example, from (\ref{hierarchy u}) we get
\begin{equation}
\label{y_n to u_n}
\zeta_n=\dot X u_n-\frac{1}{n}\bigg(\dot u_{n-1}+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} k u_k u_{n-k} \bigg).
\end{equation}
Once (\ref{y_n to u_n}) is substituted into (\ref{linear combination}), a first order differential equation is eventually obtained, where neither $\zeta_n$ nor any higher order variable appear, and the only unknown is $u_n$. By iterating this procedure, one can in principle solve the hierarchy (\ref{hierarchy y})--(\ref{hierarchy u}) up to any desired order.
The case $n=1$, for which (\ref{linear combination}) and (\ref{y_n to u_n}) give
\begin{equation}
\dot \zeta_1+\dot X \dot u_1+2(\zeta_1-b_1)u_1+\dot X u_1^2=0, \qquad \zeta_1=\dot X u_1\, ,
\label{ordo1}
\end{equation}
is of crucial importance for the prediction of gradient catastrophes at the wavefront.
The bottom term $b_1$ in (\ref{ordo1}) can be expressed in terms of $X(t)$. In fact, information about the bottom topography is encoded in the function $X(t)$, as obtained by solving (\ref{wavefront motion}). Taking the time derivative of (\ref{wavefront motion}) gives
\begin{equation}
\label{b1}
2\ddot X+b_1=0.
\end{equation}
By eliminating $\zeta_1$ in~(\ref{ordo1}) with the second of (\ref{ordo1}), and using (\ref{b1}), we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{\,\mathrm{d}}{\,\mathrm{d} t}(\dot X u_1)+\dot X \dot u_1+2(\dot X u_1+2\ddot X)u_1+\dot X u_1^2=0.
\end{equation}
The opposite substitution is also possible, and an equation for $\zeta_1$ can be obtained similarly. Upon rearranging the various terms, the evolution equation for $u_1$ and $\zeta_1$ take the form
\begin{equation}
\label{Riccati u_1 y_1}
\dot u_1+\frac{3}{2}u_1^2+\frac{5\ddot X}{2\dot X}u_1=0,\qquad \dot \zeta_1+\frac{3}{2\dot X}\zeta_1^2+\frac{3\ddot X}{2\dot X}\zeta_1=0.
\end{equation}
The Riccati-like mapping
$$
\zeta_1 = \frac{2}{3} \dot{X}(t) \frac{\dot{\phi}(t)}{\phi(t)}
$$
linearizes the second equation in~(\ref{Riccati u_1 y_1}),
$$
5 \dot{\phi}(t) \ddot{X}(t)+2\ddot{\phi}(t) \dot{X}(t)=0\, ,
$$
which yields the quadrature solution
\begin{equation}
\label{y_1(t)}
\zeta_1(t)=\frac{(\dot X(0)/\dot X(t))^{3/2}}{\zeta_1(0)^{-1}+\tfrac{3}{2}\dot X(0)^{3/2} I(t)},\quad \textnormal{where}\quad I(t)=\int_0^t\dot X(s)^{-5/2}\,\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
It is often more convenient to focus on the dependence of the surface slope $\zeta_1$ on the wavefront position rather than on time. By making use of (\ref{wavefront motion}) and the change of variable $t=X^{-1}(x)$, the integral above can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\label{I(x)}
I(x)=\int_{X^{-1}(x_0)}^{X^{-1}(x)}\dot X^{-\frac{5}{2}}(t')\,\mathrm{d} t'
=\int_{x_0}^{x} \dot X^{-\frac{7}{2}}(X^{-1}(x'))\,\mathrm{d} x'
=\int_{x_0}^{x} (-b(x'))^{-\frac{7}{4}}\,\mathrm{d} x',
\end{align}
where $x_0$ is the initial condition $X(0)=x_0$. Thus, equation (\ref{y_1(t)}) takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{y_1(x)}
\zeta_1(t)=\frac{(b(x_0)/b(x))^{3/4}}{\zeta_1(0)^{-1}+\tfrac{3}{2}(-b(x_0))^{3/4}I(X)} \Big{\vert}_{x=X(t)}\, .
\end{equation}
Of course, this construction relies on the existence of the inverse function $X^{-1}(x)$, and is well defined only for as long as the wavefront advances to the right.
The last equation allows one to predict the development of a gradient catastrophe at the wavefront location based on the given initial conditions and the bottom shape. It has been used by Greenspan \cite{Greenspan58} to investigate the breaking of a wavefront approaching a sloping beach with a straight bottom, and by Gurtin \cite{Gurtin75}, who extended Greenspan's analysis to general bottom shapes. In addition to the initial value $\zeta_1(0)$, the breaking conditions depend on the bottom topography, and in particular on its slope immediately close to the shoreline, which turns out to play a crucial role~\cite{Gurtin75} (see also \cite{Jeffrey80}).
\section*{Appendix C: {Flat bottom and piecewise parabolic solutions}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{C.\arabic{equation}}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{C.\arabic{figure}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\setcounter{proposition}{0}
\label{flatbottomapp}
As remarked in Section~\ref{sec: reminder flat bottom}, the absence of the bottom term $b_x$ in the governing equations (\ref{dimensionless shallow water equations}) allows a thorough analysis of the solution to be performed thanks to the existence of Riemann invariants. Here, we apply the results
of Section~\ref{sec: reminder flat bottom} to study the time evolution of initial conditions (\ref{pw parabolic initial conditions y}) in the special setting of a flat and horizontal bottom. The fluid is again assumed to be initially at rest, and the water surface is given by the piecewise parabolic initial conditions (\ref{pw parabolic initial conditions y}), which now read
\begin{equation}
\label{pw initial eta}
\eta(x,0)=\begin{cases}
Q & \textnormal{for } x<-x_0,\\
\eta_{\mathrm{in}}(x) & \textnormal{for } -x_0\le x \le x_0,\\
Q & \textnormal{for } x>x_0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Just like the previous section, the middle part is a centered parabola sector with downward concavity,
\begin{equation*}
\eta_{\mathrm{in}}(x)=\gamma_0 (x^2-x_0^2)+Q,\qquad Q>0,\qquad \gamma_0<0.
\end{equation*}
The free surface continuously connects with the background constant state $\eta=Q$ at the singular points
\begin{equation}
x=\pm x_0
\end{equation}
where the first derivative $\eta_x$ suffers a jump discontinuity. Once again, give the symmetry of this initial configuration, we henceforth restrict our attention to $x>0$, as all the reasoning applies unchanged to $x<0$ as well. The singular point at $x=x_0$ bifurcates into a couple of new singular points after the initial time. These are then transported along the characteristics $x=X_\ell(t)$ and $x=X_r(t)$. The positive one, $x=X_r(t)$, has uniform motion due to the presence of the constant state ahead of it. Specifically, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{X_r(t) flat bottom}
x=X_r(t)=x_0+\sqrt{Q}\:t.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the left wavefront, $x=X_\ell(t)$, exhibits a more complex behaviour, which depends on the parabolic part of the solution in the neighbouring region $x<X_\ell(t)$. This is given by
\begin{equation}
\eta(x,t)=\gamma(t)x^2+\mu(t),\qquad u(x,t)=\alpha(t)x,
\end{equation}
and evolves in time according to the system of ordinary differential equations
\begin{equation}
\dot\alpha+\alpha^2+2\gamma=0,\qquad \dot\gamma+\alpha\gamma=0,\qquad \dot\mu+\alpha\mu=0,
\end{equation}
with initial conditions
$$
\alpha(0)=0, \qquad \mu(0)=\mu_0=Q-\gamma_0\, x_0^2\,.
$$
Therefore, $x=X_\ell(t)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{dX_ell/dt}
\dot X_\ell=\alpha(t) X_\ell-\sqrt{\gamma(t) X_\ell^2+\mu(t)}\,,\qquad X_\ell(0)=x_0.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
({\it a})
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{para-wet-eta-neg-fig.pdf}\\
({\it b}) \\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{para-wet-vel-neg-fig.pdf}
\caption{Time evolution of the water surface ({\it a}) and velocity field ({\it b}) stemming from initial conditions (\ref{pw initial eta}) and null initial velocity with a subcritical value of the ratio $Q/\mu_0$. Parameters are $Q=1$, $\gamma_0=-1$, $\mu_0=2$ and the snapshots are at time $t=0,\;0.1,\;0.23,\;0.34,\;0.52,\;t_\textnormal{sh}\simeq 0.67$.
}
\label{para-wet-eta-neg-fig}
\end{figure}
By introducing the auxiliary variable $\sigma=(\gamma/\gamma_0)^{1/3}$ in place of the time $t$, the evolution of the parabolic part can be parametrized by
\begin{equation}
\label{parametric solution}
\alpha=2\sqrt{|\gamma_0|}\, \sigma\sqrt{1-\sigma},\qquad \gamma=\gamma_0\sigma^3,\qquad \mu=\mu_0\sigma,
\end{equation}
with $\sigma(t)$ solving
\begin{equation}
\label{tau flat bottom}
\dot \sigma=-2\sqrt{|\gamma_0|}\,\sigma^2\sqrt{1-\sigma},\qquad \sigma(0)=1,
\end{equation}
which can be integrated to give
\begin{equation}
\label{t(tau)}
t=\frac{\sqrt{1-\sigma}+\sigma \arctanh \sqrt{1-\sigma}}{2\sqrt{|\gamma_0|}\;\sigma},
\end{equation}
This shows that $\sigma$ ranges monotonically from $1$ to $0$ as $t$ goes from $0$ to $+\infty$. In terms of the new variable $\sigma$, equation (\ref{dX_ell/dt}) turns into
\begin{equation}
\frac{\,\mathrm{d} X_\ell}{\,\mathrm{d} \sigma}=-\frac{X_\ell}{\sigma}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2 X_\ell^2+(\mu_0/\gamma_0)}{\sigma^4-\sigma^3}},\qquad X_\ell(1)=x_0,
\end{equation}
which can be explicitly integrated by separation of variables with the substitution $w=\sigma X_\ell(\sigma)$. The solution is
\begin{equation}
X_\ell(\sigma)=\frac{\sqrt{(\mu_0-Q)\sigma}-\sqrt{Q(1-\sigma)}}{\sqrt{|\gamma_0|}\;\sigma}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
({\it a})\\
\includegraphics[width=0.6
\textwidth]{para-wet-eta-neg-weak-fig.pdf}\\
({\it b})\\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{para-wet-vel-neg-weak-fig.pdf}
\caption{(a) Time evolution of the water surface (a) and velocity field (b) stemming from initial conditions (\ref{pw initial eta}) and null initial velocity with a supercritical value of the ratio $Q/\mu_0$. Parameters are $Q=1$, $\gamma_0=-1$, $\mu_0=1.4$ and the snapshots are at $t=0,\;0.1,\;0.34,\;0.52,\; t_c\simeq0.67,\;t_\textnormal{sh}\simeq 1.05$.}
\label{para-wet-eta-neg-weak-fig}
\end{figure}
We are now in position to apply the formalism of Section~\ref{sec: reminder flat bottom} and draw some conclusions about the shoulder part of the solution. This is given by relations (\ref{shoulder solution}),
\begin{equation}
\label{solution shoulder tau_0}
N(\sigma_0)=\gamma(\sigma_0)X_\ell(\sigma_0)^2+\mu(\sigma_0),\qquad V(\sigma_0)=\alpha(\sigma_0)X_\ell(\sigma_0),
\end{equation}
with $\sigma(t_0)=\sigma_0$. As the left wavefront $x=X_\ell(t)$ propagates across the parabolic part of the solution, it eventually reaches the origin where it intersects the specular characteristic $x=-X_\ell(t)$ which originated at $x=-x_0$. We refer to the instant when this happens as the coalescence time. This instant is computed by setting $X_\ell(\sigma)=0$, which results in
\begin{equation}
\sigma_c=Q/\mu_0.
\end{equation}
After setting $\sigma_0=\sigma_c$ in (\ref{solution shoulder tau_0}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
N(\sigma_c)=Q, \qquad V(\sigma_c)=0,
\end{equation}
so that, at the coalescence time $t_c=(\sigma_c)$, both fields $\eta$ and $u$ regain their hydrostatic values at $x=0$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\eta(0,t_c)=Q,\qquad u(0,t_c)=0.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the parabolic part of the solution disappears at this time, and the background stationary state $\eta=Q$ and $u=0$ is attained at $x=0$. The solution features
three singular points at $t=t_c$, since two of the previously existing ones, namely $x=\pm X_\ell(t)$, have coalesced into a single one, $x=0$. Subsequently, this singular
point splits once again into a couple of new singular points which are transported along the characteristics passing through it. As hydrostatic conditions are established at
$(0,t_c)$, the characteristics passing through this point are determined by
\begin{equation}
\label{new X_ell(t)}
\frac{\,\mathrm{d} x}{\,\mathrm{d} t}=\pm\sqrt{Q}.
\end{equation}
Focusing once again on the positive part of the $x$ axis, we redefine the left boundary of the shoulder region for $t>t_c$ as the positive characteristic (\ref{new X_ell(t)}), defined by
\begin{equation}
x=X_\ell(t)=\sqrt{Q}\: (t-t_c)\qquad \textnormal{for}\; t>t_c.
\end{equation}
Note that, in terms of the parameter $\sigma_0$ (or $t_0$), this specific characteristic curve is identified by the label $\sigma_0=\sigma_c$ (or $t_0=t_c$).
The shock time can be explicitly calculated in this example as well. It is given by formulas (\ref{shock time single}) and (\ref{shock time inf}), expressed in terms of $\sigma$. Thus (\ref{shock time single}) reads
\begin{equation}
\bar{\tau}(\sigma_0)=t_0+\frac{3\sqrt{N(\sigma_0)}-2\sqrt{Q}-\displaystyle
\frac{\,\mathrm{d} X_\ell}{\,\mathrm{d} \sigma}(\sigma_0)\frac{\,\mathrm{d} \sigma}{\,\mathrm{d} t}(t_0)}{3 \displaystyle \frac{\,\mathrm{d} \sqrt{N}}{\,\mathrm{d}\sigma}(\sigma_0)\frac{\,\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\,\mathrm{d} t}(t_0)},
\end{equation}
where $t_0=t(\sigma_0)$. The positive lower bound of these times, for $\sigma_c\le \sigma_0\le 1$, is at $\sigma_0=1$, and evaluates to
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm{sh}}= \tau_\textnormal{sh}=\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{\frac{Q/\mu_0}{|\gamma_0| (1-Q/\mu_0)}}.
\label{tsh_expr}
\end{equation}
Therefore, a gradient catastrophe always happens for the class of initial conditions (\ref{pw initial eta}). Moreover, it takes place first on wavefront $x=X_r(t)$, as this is exactly the characteristic labelled by $\sigma_0=1$. Interestingly, the shock time can be either smaller or larger than the coalescence time,
\begin{equation}
t_c=t(\sigma_c)=\frac{\displaystyle\sqrt{ 1-\frac{Q}{\mu_0}}+\displaystyle\frac{
Q}{\mu_0}\arctanh\sqrt{1-\frac{Q}{\mu_0}}}{\displaystyle2\sqrt{|\gamma_0|}\frac{Q}{\mu_0}}.
\label{tc}
\end{equation}
In fact, numerically computing the root $Q/\mu_0=\varrho\simeq 0.6213$ from the equality of $t_\textnormal{sh}$ from~(\ref{tsh_expr}) with $t_c$ from~(\ref{tc}), yields
\begin{equation}
t_\textnormal{sh}\lesseqgtr t_c \iff \frac{Q}{\mu_0}\lesseqgtr \varrho\,,
\end{equation}
(with ${Q}/{\mu_0}\in(0,1)$).
In other words, if the initial parabolic core is ``steep" enough (i.e., the ratio $Q/\mu_0$ is small, not exceeding $\varrho$), the shock happens before the coalescence of the two singular points $x=\pm X_\ell(t)$, i.e. while the parabolic core of the solution is still present. This situation is depicted in Figures \ref{para-wet-eta-neg-fig}. In the opposite case, if the initial parabola is ``shallow," i.e., $Q/\mu_0>\varrho$, there is sufficient time for the parabola to disappear completely at the coalescence time. Thereafter, the two symmetric shoulders move away from the origin in opposite directions until the shock develops. This situation is illustrated in Figures \ref{para-wet-eta-neg-weak-fig}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\input{Sections/Introduction}
\section{CAD Motion Simulations}
\input{Sections/CAD_motion_simulations}
\section{Design Parameter Constraints}
\input{Sections/Design_parameter_constraints}
\section{Multidimensional Sparse Interpolation}
\input{Sections/Multidimensional_sparse_interpolation}
\section{Conclusion}
\input{Sections/Conclusion}
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
\subsection{Static constraints of a four-bar}
\label{sec:Static_constraint}
The combinations of design parameters $\vert OA \vert$, $\vert AB \vert$ and $\vert BC \vert$, to consider in the workflow above, are chosen so that the designs are located within the feasible design space of the four-bar mechanism. To determine this region of feasible designs, the first step is looking for static constraints. This implies that only the designs which can be assembled for the maximal and minimal angle of the output link BC ($\psi_i$ and $\psi_e$) can be part of the feasible design space. An example of a design that cannot be assembled in $\psi_{e}$ due to the chosen values for DP's $\vert OA \vert$, $\vert AB \vert$ and $\vert BC \vert$ is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:Infeasible_design}. This shows that the input link OA' cannot be connected with the coupler link A''B.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5 \columnwidth]{Graphics/Figures/fourbar_Infeasibledesign.pdf}
\caption{The combination of design parameters $\vert OA \vert$, $\vert AB \vert$ and $\vert BC \vert$ serve an infeasible design that cannot be assembled in $\psi_{e}$.}
\label{fig:Infeasible_design}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \columnwidth]{Graphics/Figures/StaticConstraints.pdf}
\caption{The static constraints (left), shown for 2 DP's, limit the design space to the area of designs that reach the output link's (BC) start- and end position ($\psi_i$ and $\psi_e$).}
\label{fig:Static_constraint}
\end{figure}
This assemblability define the first boundaries on the design space that is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:Static_constraint} (left) (only in 2D for illustrative purposes). These boundaries are obtained through a position analysis of the four-bar mechanism for both begin $\psi_{i}$- and end-position $\psi_{e}$. For analysis of the ventilator, the origin of the fixed frame is placed in joint O (the driver joint). Let $\theta$ be the angle of the input link OA measured relative to the x-axis and $\psi$ the angle of the output link BC relative to the x-axis, Figure \ref{fig:Static_constraint} (right). A relation between the input angle $\theta$ and output angle $\psi$ is obtained based on the length of the coupler link $\vert AB \vert$, which stays fixed during the mechanism's movement \cite{MCCarthy2010}. Therefore, the analysis can start with:
\begin{equation}
\Bigg ( \begin{bmatrix} x_{B}(\psi) \\ y_{B}(\psi) \end{bmatrix}-\begin{bmatrix} x_{A}(\theta) \\ y_{A}(\theta) \end{bmatrix} \Bigg ).\Bigg ( \begin{bmatrix} x_{B}(\psi) \\ y_{B}(\psi) \end{bmatrix}-\begin{bmatrix} x_{A}(\theta) \\ y_{A}(\theta) \end{bmatrix} \Bigg )=|AB|^2
\label{eq:Fixed_distance}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{matrix}
&x_{A}\left(\theta \right)=\vert OA \vert\, \cos\left(\theta \right) \\
&y_{A}\left(\theta \right)=\vert OA \vert\,\sin\left(\theta \right)\\
\end{matrix}
\quad
\begin{matrix}
&x_{B}\left(\psi \right)=x_{C}+\vert BC \vert\,\cos\left(\psi \right)\\
&y_{B}\left(\psi \right)=y_{C}+\vert BC \vert\,\sin\left(\psi \right).
\end{matrix}
\end{split}
\label{eq:Coordinates}
\end{equation}
By substitution of \eqref{eq:Coordinates} in \eqref{eq:Fixed_distance}, the dependency of the input angle $\theta$ based on the output angle $\psi$ is noted as
\begin{equation}
\theta_{1,2}\left(\psi \right)= \mathrm{atan2}\left(V\left(\psi \right),U\left(\psi \right)\right) \pm \mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{W\left(\psi \right)}{\sqrt{U^2\left(\psi \right)+V^2\left(\psi \right)}}\right) +\pi
\label{eq:theta_for_psi}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
U\left(\psi \right)=&-2\,x_{C}\,\vert OA \vert-2\,\vert OA \vert\,\vert BC \vert\,\cos\left(\psi \right) \\
V\left(\psi \right)=&-2\,y_{C}\,\vert OA \vert-2\,\vert OA \vert\,\vert BC \vert\,\sin\left(\psi \right)\\
W\left(\psi \right)=&{x_{C}}^2+{y_{C}}^2+\vert OA \vert^2+\vert BC \vert^2-\vert AB \vert^2+2\,\cos\left(\psi \right)\,x_{C}\,\vert BC \vert\\
&+2\,\sin\left(\psi \right)\,y_{C}\,\vert BC \vert.
\end{split}
\label{eq:parts_of_theta_for_psi}
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eq:theta_for_psi} allows the derivation of the input angle $\theta$ from the output angle $\psi$. The latter is the imposed output motion defined by the $\Delta\psi$ range. However, the mechanism can be assembled in two ways for a single output angle $\psi$, resulting in two possible solutions for $(\theta)$ in Equation \eqref{eq:theta_for_psi}. This is a consequence of having the possibility to construct the four-bar, with a certain angle $\psi$, with output link BC on both sides of the diagonal OB, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:elbowconfig}. Both constructions, called the elbow-up OABC and elbow-down OA'BC, provide feasible solutions. The method proposed in the present paper applies to both configurations, yet it is chosen to focus on the elbow-up OABC, as it is the most efficient one according to \cite{Srivatsan2013}. To obtain the corresponding $\theta_{1}$ which is smaller than $\theta_{2}$, the second term is subtracted from the first term in Equation \eqref{eq:theta_for_psi}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5 \columnwidth]{Graphics/Figures/fourbar_Elbowconfig.pdf}
\caption{The elbow-up OAB and elbow-down OA'B are two possible constructions in which the four-bar linkage can be assembled for one $\psi$ angle of the output link BC.}
\label{fig:elbowconfig}
\end{figure}
Regardless of the elbow configuration, feasibility constraints due to the solvability of Equation \eqref{eq:theta_for_psi} arise. A solution can be found if the argument of the $\arccos$ is in the range [-1,1]. Thus, a solution solely exist when the inequality constraint:
\begin{equation}
U^2\left(\psi \right)+V^2\left(\psi \right)-W^2\left(\psi \right) \geq 0
\label{eq:general_Static_constraint}
\end{equation}
is satisfied. In this way, an inequality constraint for the two output angles $\psi$ that bring point B farthest and closest to O must be established. Therefore, Equation \eqref{eq:general_Static_constraint} is evaluated for the maximal and minimal angle $\psi_{e}$ and $\psi_{i}$. This evaluates the assemblability in the positions $\psi_i$ and $\psi_e$.
\begin{equation}
U^2\left(\psi \right)+V^2\left(\psi \right)-W^2\left(\psi \right)\bigg|_{\psi=\psi_{i},\psi_{e}} \geq 0
\label{eq:Static_constraint_psi}
\end{equation}
By fulfilling Equation \eqref{eq:Static_constraint_psi}, one can say that the designed mechanism is assemblable over its movement. This design lies than within the area formed by the blue lines, which means that the mechanism is assemblable in $\psi_{i}$, and inside the area formed by red lines as it is assemblable in $\psi_{e}$ (see Figure \ref{fig:Static_constraint}).
\subsection{Dynamic constraints of a four-bar}
\label{sec:Dynamic_constraint}
The aforementioned static constraints in chapter \ref{sec:Static_constraint} are not sufficient to exclude all infeasible designs. To ensure that the desired movement $\psi(t)$ of the output linkage BC is feasible, all defects during the movement should also be excluded. The three types of defects that can occur during the motion of a four-bar linkage are \textbf{branch}, \textbf{order} and \textbf{circuit} defects. The broad review in \cite{Balli2002a} reveals that research about branch, order and circuit defect avoidance is of great significance in the field of linkage synthesizes. With a \textbf{branch} defect, the mechanism cannot perform the desired movement continuously. More specifically, four-bar linkages can move in two different ways. In Figure \ref{fig:fourbar_onecircuit}, the input link OA moves between its extreme positions ($\theta_{min}$ until $\theta_{max}$), resulting in a change of the transmission angle $\zeta$ between 0 and $\pi$. The extreme input angle positions $\theta_{min}$ and $\theta_{max}$ corresponds with an angle $\zeta$ equal to respectively $\pi$ and 0. The movement is conducted by initiating the motion of the output link BC clockwise or counter-clockwise around C. The movement in each initial direction around C (clockwise or counter-clockwise) represents separate a branch. If the mechanism has to change branch while moving, a branch defect occurs for this linkage system design \cite{Singh2017}. When a branch defect occurs, one can observe that the mechanism reaches the $\theta_{min}$ or $\theta_{max}$ position more than once during the movement. This results in a transmission angle $\zeta$ moving through 0 or $\pi$. Hence, when the mechanism moves through the positions $\zeta$ equal to 0 or $\pi$, a change in the direction of $\theta$ occurs.
\textbf{Order} defects appear if certain points $\begin{bmatrix} x_{B}(\theta) \\ y_{B}(\theta) \end{bmatrix}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}^*$ are not reached in a certain sequence or order \cite{Gogate2012}. Order defects are impossible in this study as a reciprocal mechanism is considered, which moves continuously (with a fixed motion profile $\pi(t)$) between the maximal and minimal angle $\psi_{e}$ and $\psi_{i}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{Graphics/Figures/circuit1.pdf}
\caption{An example of a four-bar mechanism that has two connecting branches on the first circuit. It is shown that moving the mechanism from $\theta_{min}$ until $\theta_{max}$ corresponds with a movement of the transmission angle on branch 1 from 180° to 360° while on branch 2 from 180° to 0°.}
\label{fig:fourbar_onecircuit}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:fourbar_onecircuit} indicates that a \textbf{circuit} can exist out of two connected branches. Moreover, this design reveals that a mechanism can have an other circuit in which the mechanism reaches whole other positions $\begin{bmatrix} x_{B}(\theta) \\ y_{B}(\theta) \end{bmatrix}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}^*$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:fourbar_circuittwo}. The maximum circuits a four-bar mechanism can have are limited to two. The mechanism can move in each circuit separately without the necessity of disconnecting any joints \cite{chase1993}. A \textbf{circuit} defect arises when the linkage mechanism must be disassembled and placed in the other circuit, shown in Figure \ref{fig:fourbar_circuitdefect}, to complete the motion. To obtain a circuit defect, $\theta$ should become bigger or smaller than $\theta_{max}$ (with $\zeta$=0) or $\theta_{min}$ (with $\zeta$=$\pi$) respectively, to fulfill the desired movement of the output link BC ($\psi(t)$). A circuit defect has the same influence on $\theta$ as during a branch defect. In this paper, PTP movements with only a desired start- and endpoint are considered. The movement takes place through the actuation of one joint, point O. Therefore, the movement should stay within a single branch of a single circuit \cite{Feki2013} (Figure \ref{fig:fourbar_onecircuit} or \ref{fig:fourbar_circuittwo}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{Graphics/Figures/circuit2.pdf}
\caption{The second circuit of this specific four-bar design indicate that another circuit entails a complete different range. Nonetheless, the circuit is also constructed by two connected branches, with the same transition conditions for $\zeta$.}
\label{fig:fourbar_circuittwo}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{Graphics/Figures/circuitdefect.pdf}
\caption{A designed linkage system that moves from one circuit to another must be disassembled, which is a circuit defect.}
\label{fig:fourbar_circuitdefect}
\end{figure}
To eliminate the possible circuit and branch defects, dynamic constraints are created based on the consequence of a defect that changes the direction of the input angle $\theta$. The calculations of the motor angle are always chosen for the elbow-up OABC. However, by altering the circuit, the configuration becomes an elbow-down in which $\theta$ moves in the other direction. Therefore, one can exclude branch and circuit defects by guaranteeing monotonicity in the motor position profile $\theta(t)$. The dynamic constraint
\begin{equation}
sign\left(\dot{\theta}\left(\psi_{i} \right) \right)=sign\left(\dot{\theta}\left(\psi_{e} \right) \right)
\label{eq:Dynamic_constraint_psi}
\end{equation}
will check if the first derivative of $\theta$, in the start- and end-position $\psi_{i}$ and $\psi_{e}$, does not alter its sign. Equation \eqref{eq:Dynamic_constraint_psi} is only applicable if the mechanism deals with an odd number of branch and or circuit defects while moving, as only then a change of sign is detected. Nonetheless, the method is still applicable when an even number of defects occur, because a defect results in very high required driving torques for each sign change. The interpolation in chapter \ref{sec:Multidimensional sparse interpolation} neglects these disproportional objective values. In that way, an even number of sign changes caused by an even number of defects will not affect the optimization. So, all the constraints together indicate the feasible design spaces, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:Constraints}. Within the feasible design spaces motion simulations, for certain samples, are performed to determine the objective value.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{Graphics/Figures/Constraints.pdf}
\caption{All constraints are shown for 2 DP's (left) and 3 DP's (right). The objects on the right are the feasible design spaces where the designs can perform the imposed reciprocal movement.}
\label{fig:Constraints}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Related work}
\label{sec:Related work}
In the literature the minimisation of the driving torque is done by establishing dynamic equations of the system to predict the dynamics. However, this makes the method inconvenient for machine builders. Moreover, \cite{El-Kribi2013,Affi2007,Rayner2009} do not define the feasible search domain nor include it in searching for the optimum result. The constraints that define the feasible design space are important as defects, giving infeasible designs, \cite{Hernandez2021} frequently occur in the kinematic mechanism synthesis of a four-bar linkage. The optimization algorithms of \cite{El-Kribi2013,Affi2007,Gogate2012} assure that the objective function has converged towards a minimum, yet it is generally not guaranteed that the designed linkage will be feasible. Therefore, the necessary constraints should be added so that the optimal solution can fulfill the movement without inconveniences. Using a constrained-global optimization algorithm requires a deterministic mathematical description of the constraints to find the global optimum. To the authors’ knowledge, this has not been done yet in the literature \cite{Shen2015}.
Developing a four-bar mechanism that follows the desired output trajectory is a classic design problem that researchers extensively explore \cite{hrones1978,Jaiswal2017,Bai2015,Li2020,Li2016}. However, all methods above are not implementable in global optimizers as the algebraic expression (when provided) is only evaluated in discrete defined points $\begin{bmatrix} x_{B}(\theta) \\ y_{B}(\theta) \end{bmatrix}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}^*$ on the coupler curve \textbf{B}($\theta$) (shown in Figure \ref{fig:fourbarDPs}). Thus, these cannot deliver a deterministic mathematical description of the feasible design space, which is required.
\subsection{Method}
\label{sec:Method}
In general, it will be shown how CAD-based motion simulations combined with a sparse interpolation technique enable a global optimizer that guarantees revealing the global optimum and thereby outperform heuristic optimizers regarding energy savings.
Mechanical design of systems is mainly done in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software. These CAD models include all required information (i.e., volume, mass, friction, damping, joints,...) to model the dynamics of a mechanism. This information is necessary to calculate the necessary torque of the mechanism through motion simulations. By driving the mechanism with the motion profile $\theta(t)$ at point O (Figure \ref{fig:fourbarDPs}), the location where the mechanism is driven in reality by a motor, the user can extract the necessary torque from the software (as in Figure \ref{fig:fourbar_optimconcept}) to fulfill the prescribed movement $\Delta\psi$ of the output link BC. Furthermore, within these motion simulations, the design parameters $\vert OA \vert$, $\vert AB \vert$ and $\vert BC \vert$ of the four-bar can be parameterized to simulate different designs. The objective value, to minimize by the optimizer is the RMS Torque (\(T_{RMS}\)) value, necessary to drive the mechanism fulfilling an imposed PTP motion ($\Delta\psi$). The literature states that minimizing the \(T_{RMS}\) corresponds with reducing the energy losses in the system \cite{Berselli2016}.
Hence, by calculating the RMS Torque based on CAD simulations as elucidated in Section \ref{sec:CAD motion simulations}, the objective value for a certain design (i.e., certain values for the three design parameters $\vert OA \vert$, $\vert AB \vert$ and $\vert BC \vert$) is obtained. The whole simulation process to obtain the objective value for different design parameter combinations ($\vert OA \vert$, $\vert AB \vert$ and $\vert BC \vert$) is automated. Constraints on the design parameter values are necessary to define an area containing feasible designs, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:Design parameter constraints}, from which designs are selected to simulate their corresponding objective value (\(T_{RMS}\)). As one design evaluation can take on average 1 minute and 25 seconds, computational simulation time becomes a burden. Therefore, wise selection of the simulated designs within the feasible design space is essential. The brute force method requires an inconceivable number of \(g^d\) motion simulations, with \textit{g} being the granularity of sampling and \textit{d} the number of design parameters. Even with state-of-the-art interpolation techniques, the construction of the objective function would require at least \((d+1).n^2.log^{2d-2}(n)\) samples \cite{Sauer2018}, with \textit{n} the total number of terms in the mathematical description of the objective function. In the case of the coronaventilator this would mean 782,933 samples are required. Therefore, the selection of samples is performed with certain rules in order to use an innovative multidimensional sparse interpolation approach \cite{Cuyt2018}. This novel interpolation technique, introduced in Section \ref{sec:Multidimensional sparse interpolation}, allows obtaining the objective function with a sparse sampling method within the feasible design space. This reduces the number of required samples to 618, with an additional 1252 validation samples. Limiting the number of samples to construct the objective function is a major enabler for a global optimizer. As the interpolation limits the number of CAD motion simulations to a bare minimum. In this case the number of necessary samples is reduced from 10,000,000 to 1870.
|
\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
{-3.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex
{2.3ex \@plus.2ex}%
{\normalfont\large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
{-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%
{1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
{\normalfont\bfseries}}
\newcommand{\mbox{Tr}}{\mbox{Tr}}
\renewcommand{\H}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\mbox{SU}}{\mbox{SU}}
\newcommand{\chi^{{\rm U}(\infty)}}{\chi^{{\rm U}(\infty)}}
\newcommand{\rm f}{\rm f}
\linespread{1.3}
\def{\mbox{\textbf R}}{{\mbox{\textbf R}}}
\def\gamma_{z\bz}{\gamma_{z{\bar z}}}
\def{\vec x}{{\vec x}}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def$\cal P_O${$\cal P_O$}
\def{\cal H}^+ {{\cal H}^+ }
\def${\cal H}^+ ~~${${\cal H}^+ ~~$}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def{\ell}{{\ell}}
\def{\cal H}^+{{\cal H}^+}
\def{\hat Q}{{\hat Q}}
\def\hat T{\hat T}
\def\hat C{\hat C}
\defz{z}
\def\mbox{\small $\hat{C}$}{\mbox{\small $\hat{C}$}}
\def{\mbox{\scriptsize \smpc \sc a}}{{\mbox{\scriptsize \hspace{.5pt} \sc a}}}
\def{\mbox{\scriptsize {\smpc $\alpha$}}}{{\mbox{\scriptsize {\hspace{.5pt} $\alpha$}}}}
\def{\mbox{\scriptsize {\smpc \sc c}}}{{\mbox{\scriptsize {\hspace{.5pt} \sc c}}}}
\def{\mbox{\scriptsize \smpc \sc c'}}{{\mbox{\scriptsize \hspace{.5pt} \sc c'}}}
\def{\mbox{\scriptsize {\smpc \sc s}}}{{\mbox{\scriptsize {\hspace{.5pt} \sc s}}}}
\def{\mbox{\scriptsize \smpc \sc b}}{{\mbox{\scriptsize \hspace{.5pt} \sc b}}}
\def{\mbox{\scriptsize \smpc \sc h}}{{\mbox{\scriptsize \hspace{.5pt} \sc h}}}
\def\oO{{}}
\def\mbox{\textit{\textbf{C}}}{\mbox{{\textbf C}}}
\def\nonumber{\nonumber}
\def{\rm i}{{\rm i}}
\def{\rm tr}{{\rm tr}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\hspace{.5pt}{\hspace{.5pt}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def{\textstyle{\frac 12}}{{\textstyle{\frac 12}}}
\def{\cal L}{{\cal L}}
\def{\textstyle{\frac i 2}}{{\textstyle{\frac i 2}}}
\def\overline{\partial}{\overline{\partial}}
\newcommand{\hspace{.5pt}}{\hspace{.5pt}}
\def\!\spc\smpc{\!\hspace{.5pt}\hspace{.5pt}}
\def\mbox{\small$U$}{\mbox{\textit{\textbf{U}}\hspace{.5pt}}}
\def\mbox{\textit{\textbf{U}\spc}}{\mbox{\textit{\textbf{U}\hspace{.5pt}}}}
\def\mbox{\textit{\textbf{T}}\spc}{\mbox{\textit{\textbf{T}}\hspace{.5pt}}}
\def\mbox{\textit{\textbf{C}}}{\mbox{\textit{\textbf{C}}}}
\def\mbox{\textit{\textbf{n}\!\,}}{\mbox{\textit{\textbf{n}\!\,}}}
\def\mbox{\textit{\textbf{P}\!\,}}{\mbox{\textit{\textbf{P}\!\,}}}
\def{\textit{\textbf{R}\!\,}}{{\textit{\textbf{R}\!\,}}}
\def{\rm i}{{\rm i}}
\def{\rm tr}{{\rm tr}}
\def\bigr\rangle{\bigr\rangle}
\def\bigl\langle{\bigl\langle}
\def\bigl |\spc{\bigl |\hspace{.5pt}}
\def\bigr |\spc{\bigr |\hspace{.5pt}}
\def\nonumber{\nonumber}
\defSL(2,\mathbb{R}){SL(2,\mathbb{R})}
\def\mathbb{R}{\mathbb{R}}
\def\mathbb{Z}{\mathbb{Z}}
\def\nonumber{\nonumber}
\def\centerarc[#1](#2)(#3:#4:#5
{ \draw[#1] ($(#2)+({#5*cos(#3)},{#5*sin(#3)})$) arc (#3:#4:#5); }
\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{2}
\newpage
\addtolength{\baselineskip}{.3mm}
\addtolength{\parskip}{.3mm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{.9mm}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{.9mm}
\renewcommand\Large{\fontsize{15.5}{16}\selectfont}
\newcommand{\newsubsection}[1]{
\vspace{.6cm}
\pagebreak[3]
\addtocounter{subsubsection}{1}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{\protect
\numberline{\arabic{section}.\arabic{subsection}.\arabic{subsubsection}}{#1}}
\noindent{\arabic{subsubsection}. \bf #1}
\nopagebreak
\vspace{1mm}
\nopagebreak}
\renewcommand{\footnotesize}{\small}
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-2mm}
Celestial conformal field theory (CCFT) aims to provide a holographic dual description of four-dimensional quantum gravity in asymptotically flat space-time~\cite{Strominger:2017zoo,Raclariu:2021zjz,Pasterski:2021rjz}. Its dictionary exploits the fact that the 4D Lorentz group SL$(2,\mathbb{C})$ acts via two-dimensional global conformal transformations on the celestial sphere~$\mathbb{S}^2$ and postulates an identification between 4D scattering amplitudes and correlation functions of local operators in a putative 2D CFT defined on~$\mathbb{S}^2$~\cite{deBoer:2003vf,Strominger:2013jfa,Strominger:2013lka,Cheung:2016iub,Pasterski:2016qvg,Pasterski:2017kqt,Pasterski:2017ylz}. A key feature of this framework is that it prioritizes infinite dimensional symmetry enhancements associated to the asymptotic symmetry group in the bulk. Via the identification between amplitudes and correlation functions, soft theorems of 4D quantum gravity translate into an infinite set of conformal Ward identities in the 2D dual.
To set notation, let us briefly summarize the celestial holographic mapping. Consider a massless scattering amplitude $A(p_i)$ in four-dimensional asymptotically flat space-time as a function of the on-shell momenta $p_i$ for the external scattering states. A lightlike momentum vector $p^\mu$ is parametrized by a direction $(z,{\bar z})$ on the celestial sphere $ \mathbb{S}^2$ and a light-cone momentum $\omega$ via
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ptosphere}
p^\mu = \pm\omega q^\mu , \qquad q^\mu \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! \frac1 2 \bigl( 1\!\spc\smpc +\!\spc\smpc {\bar z} z, z \!\spc\smpc +\!\spc\smpc {\bar z}, i ({\bar z}\!\spc\smpc - \!\spc\smpc z), 1\!\spc\smpc -\!\spc\smpc z{\bar z} \bigr).
\end{eqnarray}
The basis change between the amplitude $A(p_i)\! = \! A(\omega_i; z_i, {\bar z}_i)$ in the momentum eigenbasis and the amplitude in the boost eigenbasis proceeds via a Mellin transform
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Mellin}
A(\Delta_i, z_i,{\bar z}_i) \! & \! = \! & \! \Bigl[ \, \prod_i \int_0^\infty\!\! d\omega_i\, \omega_i^{\Delta_i-1} \Bigr]
A(\omega_i;z_i,{\bar z}_i)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Because the corresponding external wavefunctions transform covariantly under SL$(2,\mathbb{C}$), the Mellin amplitudes behave like conformal correlation functions of a local 2D CFT. This motivates the identification
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Arescaled}
A(\Delta_i,z_i,{\bar z}_i) \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! {\cal N} \, \Bigl\langle \mathcal{O}^{\pm}_{\Delta_1}(z_1,{\bar z}_1)\ldots \mathcal{O}^{\pm}_{\Delta_n}(z_n,{\bar z}_n) \Bigr\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal N} = {\prod_k \; i^{\mp \Delta_k } \Gamma(\Delta_k) }$ and $\mathcal{O}^{\pm}_{\Delta}(z,{\bar z})$ denote local primary operators of a putative celestial CFT. The $\pm$ phase depends on whether the particle is incoming or outgoing.
While CCFT has proven to be an effective framework for codifying the infrared symmetry properties of 4D scattering amplitudes~\cite{Strominger:2017zoo}, little is known about its dynamics, nor has it yet been employed to make dynamical predictions about 4D quantum gravity other than those that follow from symmetries. The main obstacle towards extracting such dynamical predictions is that an intrinsic construction of celestial CFT starting from a microscopic theory of quantum gravity is still lacking. It may thus seem premature to conclude that CCFT represents a conventional local QFT. Indeed, celestial correlation functions share some but not all properties of standard 2D CFT correlation functions. However, a first indication that celestial CCFT has local dynamics is that it has a candidate local stress energy tensor in the form of the subleading soft graviton mode~\cite{Kapec:2016jld}. We will find that it is still fruitful to adopt the viewpoint that CCFT exists as true physical quantum system and then use the holographic dictionary to deduce its dynamical properties.
In AdS holography, gravitational shockwave dynamics in the vicinity of a black hole horizon is now understood to be a manifestation of chaotic quantum dynamics of the dual CFT, and vice versa~\cite{Shenker:2013pqa,Shenker:2013yza,Susskind:2013aaa,Jackson:2014nla,Roberts:2014ifa}. The Lyapunov behavior of the CFT is governed by an emergent Goldstone mode associated with the breaking of translation invariance due to presence of the horizon, or on the CFT side, due to the presence of the thermal CFT plasma.
At first sight, one would not expect celestial CFT to exhibit the same type of chaotic behavior: flat space-time does not possess intrinsic event horizons that lead to Lyapunov growth. However, since celestial holography trades manifest space-time translation symmetry for boost invariance, and boosts are defined relative to a choice of origin in 4D space-time, the celestial sphere should be thought of as being located at some specified lightcone time $u$ along null infinity. While boosts act linearly in CCFT, space-time translations are non-linearly realized: the translation generator along the $u$ direction acts on conformal primary fields by shifting the conformal dimension from $\Delta$ to $\Delta + 1$~\cite{Donnay:2018neh,Stieberger:2018onx}.
This shift in conformal dimension is a first hint of exponential Lyapunov behavior, and indeed a first hint that from the CCFT point of view, 4D translation symmetry, rather than being an exact symmetry with associated conserved currents, should perhaps be thought as an emergent symmetry arising from underlying strongly coupled quantum dynamics.
Here we set out to study CCFT following the same logic used to exhibit chaotic dynamics in AdS. We will proceed via a combination of three methods. First, we will identify the relevant dynamics of the conformally soft sector of the 4D gravity theory, as determined by the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the asymptotic symmetry group. Specifically, we will focus on the backreaction associated to the superrotation Goldstone modes. We will see that, even without a full understanding of the holographic dictionary, we can make concrete statements about the holographic dictionary associated to the soft dynamics, and that this scope is naturally adapted to detect signals of chaotic phenomena.\footnote{As explored in~\cite{Pasterski:2020xvn}, the phase space of Goldstone modes for asymptotic symmetries captures backreaction effects due to matter in the vicinity of the event horizon.
While supertranslations correspond to the leading soft graviton theorem~\cite{He:2014laa}, the subleading soft graviton theorem plays a more intrinsic role in CCFT~\cite{Cachazo:2014fwa,Kapec:2014opa,Pasterski:2019ceq}.}
Second, taking a more geometrical perspective, we will argue that the CCFT Hilbert space defined through radial quantization should be identified with the Hilbert space of a Rindler observer following a constantly accelerating trajectory that reaches asymptotic infinity at the pole of the celestial sphere. Standard radial quantization involves a mapping to the celestial cylinder via the exponential coordinate transformation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{expmap}
z= e^{-\tau + i\phi}, \quad & &\quad {\bar z} = e^{-\tau-i\phi}.
\end{eqnarray}
The $\phi$ and $\tau$ evolution are indicated in figure~\ref{fig:tauphi}. Our proposal is that the CCFT dynamics in the $\tau$ direction in fact takes place at finite temperature $T$ and, moreover, displays quantum chaos with a Lyapunov exponent that saturates the chaos bound.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.95]
\draw[gray] (-3.3,-1.6) to[out=90,in=-155] (-2,0.275);
\draw[gray] (-3.3,-1.6) to[out=-90,in=155] (-2,-3.275);
\draw[gray] (-.7,-1.6) to[out=90,in=-25] (-2,0.275);
\draw[gray] (-.7,-1.6) to[out=-90,in=25] (-2,-3.275);
\draw[gray] (-2.7,-1.7) to[out=90,in=-130] (-2,0.25);
\draw[gray] (-2.7,-1.7) to[out=-90,in=130] (-2,-3.25);
\draw[gray] (-1.3,-1.7) to[out=90,in=-50] (-2,0.25);
\draw[gray] (-1.3,-1.7) to[out=-90,in=50] (-2,-3.25);
\draw[gray] (-2,-1.7) to[out=90,in=-90] (-2,0.25);
\draw[gray] (-2,-1.7) to[out=-90,in=90] (-2,-3.25);
\draw[yscale=.4,->] (-2.5,-6.2) arc (-135:-45:.75) node[above left]{\raisebox{-4mm}{$\phi$}};
\draw[xscale=.4,->] (0,-2) arc (-40:40:.7) node[below right]{\raisebox{-4mm}{\ $\tau$}};
\filldraw[black, thick] (-2,-3.25) circle (.2em);
\filldraw[black, thick] (-2,0.25) circle (.2em);
\draw[black, thick] (-2,-1.5) circle (5em);
\draw[dashed,yscale=.25] (-2,-6) circle (5em);
\draw[thick,yscale=.4] (3.666,0) circle (1.9em);
\draw[thick] (3,0) -- (3,-3);
\draw[gray] (3.2,-0.18) -- (3.2,-3.18);
\draw[gray] (3.433,-0.25) -- (3.433,-3.25);
\draw[gray] (3.666,-0.28) -- (3.666,-3.28);
\draw[gray] (3.9,-0.25) -- (3.9,-3.25);
\draw[gray] (4.133,-0.18) -- (4.133,-3.18);
\draw[thick] (4.33,0) -- (4.33,-3);
\draw[thick,yscale=.4] (3.666,-7.5) circle (1.9em);
\draw[dashed,yscale=.4] (3.666,-3.75) circle (1.9em);
\draw[yscale=.5,->] (3.3,-5) arc (-135:-45:.5) node[above left]{\raisebox{-4mm}{$\phi$}};
\draw[->] (4.75,-2) -- (4.75,-1) node[below right]{\raisebox{-4mm}{$\tau$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The cylinder coordinates $\tau$ and $\phi$ defined through \eqref{expmap} map the celestial sphere onto the celestial cylinder. We will argue that the CCFT dynamics in the $\tau$ direction exhibits maximal quantum chaos.}
\label{fig:tauphi}
\end{figure}
The conclusion that CCFT has finite temperature naturally follows by requiring that celestial amplitudes arise from analytic continuation to (2,2) signature. This motivates the interpretation of the CCFT Hilbert states as describing the quantum state of the Rindler horizon. The observations of a Rindler observer are restricted to a wedge of space-time outside event horizon and as a consequence, she experiences her environment as in a mixed quantum state with finite temperature. Moreover, to this observer, the shockwave interaction due to an incoming particle crossing the horizon will induce Lyapunov type behavior, similar to what happens for black hole horizons. Extrapolating lessons learned from AdS/CFT, one is led to conclude that the Rindler horizon represents a strongly coupled physical quantum system with maximal chaos. Via our working assumption that celestial holography represents a true duality between two physical systems, this implies that the CCFT should also exhibit maximal chaos. Finally, combining these insights with well-established general properties of correlation functions and conformal blocks in 2D CFT, we will study the out-of-time-ordered correlation functions (OTOCs) in CCFT and argue that they indeed display signatures of maximally chaotic dynamics.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2.7]
\definecolor{darkgreen}{rgb}{.0, 0.5, .1};
\draw[thick](0,0) --(1,1) node[right] {$i^0$} --(0,2)node[above] {$i^+$} --(-1,1) --(0,0) node[below] {$i^-$} ;
\draw[dashed] (-1/2,1/2) --(1/2,3/2) node[above right] {$\cal{I}^+$};
\draw[dashed] (1/2,1/2) node[below right] {$\cal{I}^-$} --(-1/2,3/2);
\draw[very thick,darkgray,dashed,-latex] (1/2+.01,1/2+.01) to [bend left=45] (1/2+.015,3/2-.015);
\draw[darkgray] (0.14,1) node[right] {$R$};
\draw[blue] (-.3,.65) node[right] {$A$};
\draw[red] (.65,.9) node[above] {$B$};
\draw[thick,red,-latex] (.75,.75) -- (-.25,1.75);
\draw[thick,blue] (-.475,.475) -- (.275,1.225);
\draw[thick,blue,-latex] (.225,1.275) -- (.475,1.525);
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Radial time evolution on the celestial sphere maps to time evolution of Rindler observer in space-time. A particle experiences a Shapiro time delay when crossing a shockwave. From the perspective of a fiducial Rindler observer, this time delay may have drastic effect that grows exponentially in time.}
\label{shockshift}
\end{figure}
This paper is organized as follows. We review the celestial dictionary and the emergence of celestial Virasoro symmetry in section~\ref{sec:dictionary}. We then study the celestial backreaction in section~\ref{sec:vir} and relate the associated Goldstone mode dynamics with properties of the CCFT. In particular, we will make a concrete proposal for the central charge of the Virasoro symmetry of CCFT. We then proceed to study the bulk interpretation of radial quantization in section~\ref{sec:ccftrindler} and show how to change between signatures in both the bulk and boundary. Finally, with all these ingredients in place, we then study CCFT on the celestial torus in section~\ref{CCFTorus} and demonstrate the chaotic behavior of OTOCs in section~\ref{OTOCinCCFT}.
\section{Celestial dictionary and symmetries}\label{sec:dictionary}
\vspace{-1mm}
To set the stage, we start with a brief review of some basic elements of celestial CFT including the bulk-to-boundary mapping from local operators in 4D space-time to local CFT operators on the 2D celestial sphere and the identification of an infinite asymptotic symmetry algebra isomorphic to the Virasoro algebra.
\subsection{Bulk to boundary mapping}
\vspace{-1mm}
A {\it conformal primary wavefunction} is a wavefunction $\Phi_{\Delta,J}(X^\mu;z,{\bar z})$ on $\mathbb{R}^{1,3}$ which transforms under SL$(2,\mathbb{C})$ as a 4D tensor field of spin-$s$ and as a 2D conformal primary of conformal dimension $\Delta$ and spin $J$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{deltaj2}
\Phi_{\Delta,J}\Big(\Lambda^{\mu}_{~\nu} X^\nu;\frac{a z+b}{cz+d},\frac{{\bar a} {\bar z}+{\bar b}}{{\bar c}{\bar z}+{\bar d}}\Big)=(cz+d)^{\Delta+J}({\bar c}{\bar z}+{\bar d})^{\Delta-J}D(\Lambda)\Phi_{\Delta,J}(X^\mu;z,{\bar z})\,,\\[-2mm] \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $D(\Lambda)$ is the 3+1D spin-$s$ representation of the Lorentz algebra~\cite{Pasterski:2016qvg,Pasterski:2017kqt,Pasterski:2020pdk}. A special subclass of conformal primary wave functions are the perturbative wave functions with that solve the linearized equations of motion for a massless (in which case $J=\pm s$) or massive spin-$s$ particle in vacuum.
Given a local 4D operator $\hat{O}(X)$ and a linearized conformal primary wavefunction $\Phi^\pm_{\Delta,J}(X;z,{\bar z})$, we can define the associated local CCFT operator $\mathcal{O}^\pm_{\Delta,J}(z,{\bar z})$ by taking the overlap computed via the appropriate Klein-Gordon inner product $\bigl(\; ,\; \bigr)_{\Sigma}$ on a Cauchy slice $\Sigma$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{kgin}
\mathcal{O}^\pm_{\Delta,J}(z,{\bar z})\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! i\bigl(\, \hat{O}\hspace{.5pt} ,\hspace{.5pt} \Phi^\pm_{\Delta,J}(z,{\bar z})^*\bigr)_{\Sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\Phi^\pm_{\Delta,J}(X;z,{\bar z})^* = \Phi^\mp_{\Delta^*,-J}(X;z,{\bar z})$.
Here the $\pm$ superscript indicates whether the operator prepares an outgoing or incoming state, respectively. In the interacting theory we want to push the Cauchy slice to future or past null infinity to prepare the out or in states from the corresponding 4D vacuum state.
In this paper we will aim to go beyond perturbation theory and determine the properties of celestial correlation functions of general local operators that follow from universal gravitational dynamics in the bulk. The above perturbative dictionary, however, still gives useful guidance. A first lesson is that, as shown in \cite{Pasterski:2017kqt}, finite energy perturbative modes are captured by conformal dimensions on the principal series
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\!\! & \! = \! & \! \! 1+i\lambda,~~~\lambda\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the spectrum of primary operators in CCFT will in general include operators with complex conformal dimensions. This in particular has consequences for the Hermiticity properties of the CCFT Hamiltonian and for the relation between celestial and bulk time-evolution. Secondly, the fact that there exists a map from bulk operators to boundary operators gives a direct motivation for our working hypothesis that the CCFT Hilbert space and bulk Hilbert space should be identified. This also means that the CCFT and bulk dynamics should be related. We will present a proposal for including dynamical time evolution in the bulk-to-boundary dictionary in section~\ref{sec:rad}.
In conventional treatments of celestial conformal field theory 4D translations are realized as an exact symmetry generated by conserved translation charges $P_\mu$ that act on the conformal primary operators via~\cite{Stieberger:2018onx}
\begin{eqnarray}
P_\mu \mathcal{O}^\pm_{\Delta,J}(z,{\bar z})\! & \! = \! & \! \pm q_\mu \mathcal{O}^\pm_{\Delta+1,J}(z,{\bar z}).
\end{eqnarray}
The associated Ward identities imply the existence of infinite towers of primary operators with precise relationships between their OPE coefficients.
When applying standard celestial CFT technology we need to keep in mind these larger multiplet structures~\cite{Stieberger:2018onx,Law:2019glh,Banerjee:2020kaa} and consider the behavior of correlators in the complex $\Delta$ plane~\cite{Donnay:2020guq,Arkani-Hamed:2020gyp}. Following this symmetry guided approach to its logical conclusion reveals that CCFT exhibits a large extended symmetry group in the form of a $w_{1+\infty}$-algebra \cite{Strominger:2021lvk}.
In this paper we will largely ignore the enhanced symmetry structure of CCFT, including those that follow from 4D translation symmetry. Instead we will mostly concentrate on properties of that follow from 4D Lorentz symmetry and its infinite dimensional extension, superrotation symmetry.
\subsection{Asymptotic symmetry algebra} \label{sec:asg}
\vspace{-1.5mm}
The key evidence that underlies celestial conformal field theory is that the asymptotic superrotation symmetries of gravity act on the celestial sphere via local 2D conformal transformations. This implies the existence of an infinite set of superrotation generators, which can be combined to constitute the local stress energy tensor of the CCFT. We start with a brief review of this result, while highlighting the role of the conformally soft modes.
In Bondi gauge, the metric near future null infinity takes the form~\cite{Bondi:1962px,Sachs:1962wk}
\begin{eqnarray}\begin{alignedat}{3}\label{bondi}
ds^2=&-du^2-2dudr+2r^2\gamma_{z{\bar z}}dzd{\bar z}+\frac{2m_B}{r}du^2+rC_{zz}dz^2+rC_{{\bar z}\bz}d{\bar z}^2\\
&+\bigl[(D^zC_{zz}-\frac{1}{4r}D_z(C_{zz}C^{zz})+\frac{4}{3r}(N_z+u\partial_z m_B))dudz+c.c.\bigr]+...
\end{alignedat}\end{eqnarray}
using the conventions of~\cite{Strominger:2017zoo}. The radiative data are captured by the news tensor $N_{zz}=\partial_u C_{zz}$, which can be specified as a free function of $(u,z,{\bar z})$ while the $u$ evolution of the Bondi mass $m_B$ and angular momentum aspect $N_z$ are determined by the constraint equations $G_{u\mu}=8\pi G T^M_{u\mu}$ at large-$r$.
The asymptotic symmetry group is determined by identifying residual diffeomorphisms which preserve these falloffs but act non-trivially near $\mathcal{I}^+$. These include supertranslations which shift the generators of null infinity by a free function of $(z,{\bar z})$, as well as superrotations which enhance the Lorentz subgroup and will be our focus here. In Bondi gauge the superrotation vector fields take the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{xiy}
\xi_Y\!\!\! & \! = \! & \!\!\! (1+\frac{u}{2r})Y\partial_z-\frac{u}{2r}D^{\bar z} D_z Y\partial_{\bar z}-\frac{1}{2}(u+r)D_zY\partial_r +\frac{u}{2}D_zY\partial_u+c.c
\end{eqnarray}
Under these diffeomorphisms, the news transforms as
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_Y N_{zz}\!\!\! & \! = \! & \!\!\!\frac{u}{2}D_A Y^A\partial_u N_{zz}+\mathcal{L}_Y N_{zz}-D_z^3 Y^z.
\end{eqnarray}
The last term is an inhomogeneous shift of the superrotation Goldstone mode~\cite{Himwich:2019qmj,Ball:2019atb}.
A key observation by Strominger~\cite{Strominger:2017zoo} is that Ward identities for asymptotic symmetries are manifested as soft theorems of the $\mathcal{S}$-matrix. The canonical charge generating the superrotation symmetry can be split into a soft and a hard part~\cite{Kapec:2014opa}. Combining the contributions from future $(+)$ and past $(-)$ null infinity (or more generally a signed sum over boundary components) we get a Ward identity of the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ward}
Q^\pm=Q^\pm_S+Q^\pm_H,~~~Q=Q^+-Q^-=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Acting on the vacuum, the operator $Q_S$ adds a soft graviton mode, while $Q_H$ induces the corresponding symmetry transformation of the matter fields and finite energy gravitational fluctuations.
The real power of the celestial CFT framework derives from the identification of the subleading soft graviton with the local 2D stress energy tensor~\cite{Kapec:2016jld}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{qs}
T_{zz}^{\rm\hspace{.5pt} CFT}\!\!\!\spc\smpc \! & \! = \! & \!\!\spc\smpc \! \frac{1}{8\pi G}\int\!\!\spc\smpc du \hspace{.5pt} u \widetilde{N}_{zz}. \quad
\end{eqnarray}
Here $ \widetilde{N}_{zz} \equiv -6 i \int\! \!\spc\smpc d^2 w \sqrt{\gamma} \frac 1 {(z-w)^4} N^{ww}$ amounts to
a shadow transform of the news tensor.\footnote{This is a proper 2D conformal shadow transform if the $u$-integral is performed first. Namely, the $duu$-integral of the news gives a weight $\Delta=0$, $J=-2$ operator whose shadow has weight $\Delta=2$, $J=2$.} This operator
inserts a zero energy graviton that couples to angular momentum and boost energy. Its charges
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{S}(Y) \! \! & \! = \! & \! \!
\oint \frac{dz}{2\pi i}Y^zT^{\rm CFT}_{zz}
\end{eqnarray}
generate the superrotation transformations and
measure the spin memory effect~\cite{Pasterski:2015tva}.
Superrotations act on the celestial sphere as local conformal transformations $z \to z + Y(z)$. The Laurent modes of the stress tensor thus generate a Virasoro algebra
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{virone}
T_n=\oint\! \frac{dz}{2\pi i}\hspace{.5pt} z^{n+1} T_{zz}^{\rm CFT}, \quad \qquad [T_{n},T_m]\!\!\! & \! = \! & \!\!\! (n\!\spc\smpc -\!\spc\smpc m)T_{n+m}
\end{eqnarray}
with vanishing central charge.
The insertion of a stress tensor in a CCFT correlation function of primary local operators gives rise to the familiar conformal Ward identity of 2D CFT
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Tward}
& &\bigl\langle\, T_{zz}^{\rm CFT}(z) \, \mathcal{O}_1(z_1)\ldots \mathcal{O}_n(z_n)\bigr\rangle=\sum_k\left[\frac{h_{k}}{(z-z_k)^2}+\frac{\partial_{z_k}}{z-z_k}\right]\bigl\langle\mathcal{O}_1(z_1) \ldots \mathcal{O}_n(z_n)\bigr\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
and similar for $\bar{T}_{{\bar z}\bz}$. In terms of our holographic dictionary, this 2D Ward identity follows from the subleading soft graviton theorem in 4D~\cite{Cachazo:2014fwa,Kapec:2014opa}.
\subsection{Superrotation Goldstone modes}
\vspace{-1.5mm}
Besides the CCFT stress tensor, the gravity theory contains geometric soft modes associated with supertranslations and superrotations. In the absence of matter stress energy, the off-diagonal asymptotic metric component $C_{zz}$ can be decomposed as~\cite{Compere:2016jwb,Compere:2018ylh}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{cdeco}
C_{zz} \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! (u+\mathcal{C})\Theta_{zz}-2D_z^2\mathcal{C}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\mathcal{C}$ is the supertranslation Goldstone mode and $\Theta_{zz}$ is the superrotation Goldstone mode.
The $\Theta_{zz}$ mode encodes the celestial backreaction due to insertion of a classical source that couples to CCFT stress tensor $T_{zz}^{\it CFT}$. It transforms under superrotations~as (here $Y=Y^z$)\footnote{As compared to ex.~\cite{Kapec:2014opa} where the canonical commutation relations in 4D imply $\delta_Y\Theta_{zz}= i[Q_S(Y),\Theta_{zz}]$ , our use of $\[~,~\]$ will denote the 4D Poisson bracket. This is intended to be suggestive for what follows since the algebra matches what is expected for the radial quantization commutator.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{thetatrafo}
\delta_Y\Theta_{zz}\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! [Q_S(Y),\Theta_{zz}]\, =\, Y \partial_z \Theta_{zz}+ 2 \partial_z Y \Theta_{zz} - \partial^3_zY.
\end{eqnarray}
We see that superrotation transformation rule of $\Theta_{zz}$ is identical to the conformal transformation rule of a 2D CFT stress tensor with unit central charge. Note, however, that $\Theta_{zz}$ itself is not a superrotation generator: its Laurent coefficients do not generate a Virasoro algebra but commute among themselves
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{virzero}
\Theta_n\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!\! \oint\! \frac{dz}{2\pi i} \hspace{.5pt} z^{n+1} \Theta_{zz}
\qquad \qquad [\Theta_{n},\Theta_m] \, =\, 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Meanwhile, the $T_n$ generators and $\Theta_m$ modes do satisfy a non-trivial commutator algebra.
Equation \eqref{thetatrafo} implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{virtwo}
[T_n,\Theta_m] \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! (n\!\spc\smpc -\!\spc\smpc m)\Theta_{n+m}\!\spc\smpc -\!\spc\smpc
(m^3\!-m)\delta_{n+m}.
\end{eqnarray}
As we will show in the next section, the commutation relations \eqref{virone}, \eqref{virzero} and \eqref{virtwo} can be repackaged in the form of (an In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction of) a pair of Virasoro algebras with divergent central charge.
The interpretation of $\Theta_{zz}$ as the superrotation Goldstone mode is made more manifest by writing it as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{thetaf}
\Theta_{zz}\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! -\{Z(z),z\}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{f, z\} = \frac{f'''}{f'}\!\spc\smpc - \!\spc\smpc \frac 3 2 \bigl(\frac{f''}{f'}\bigr)^2$ denotes the Schwarzian derivative. From equation \eqref{thetatrafo}, we then see that infinitesimal superrotations generate a linear shift in $Z(z)$ via
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_Y Z(z) \!\! \! & \! = \! & \! [Q_S(Y),Z(z)] \, = \, Y(z) .
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, by exponentiation, $Z(z)$ represents the full non-linear superrotation Goldstone mode. The soft superrotation dynamics and the associated appearance of a Virasoro algebra with non-zero effective central charge will play a key role in the derivation of the Lyapunov behavior of CCFT.
\section{Celestial backreaction}\label{sec:vir}
\vspace{-1mm}
The appearance of Virasoro symmetry and soft modes in 4D gravity is reminiscent of the asymptotic structure of 3D anti-de Sitter gravity. This relationship was anticipated in early work by de Boer and Solodukhin \cite{deBoer:2003vf}, based on the fact that 4D Minkowski space-time admits a hyperbolic foliation, as indicated in figure \ref{dBS}. The leaves of constant $X^2$ are Euclidean AdS$_3$ geometries inside the future and past lightcones of the origin (blue), and Lorentzian dS$_3$ geometries outside this lightcone (red). Lorentz transformations act as isometries on (A)dS${}_3$ and thus preserve the foliation. The celestial spheres are the common asymptotic boundaries connecting the two types of slices. Given that (A)dS${}_3$ gravity possesses an asymptotic symmetry group isomorphic to the product of two Virasoro algebras, it is natural that the asymptotic symmetries and soft dynamics of 4D gravity near the celestial boundary includes this same structure as a subsector~\cite{Cheung:2016iub}. In this section, we will use this observation to elucidate the link between celestial backreaction, symmetries and the central charge of the CCFT conformal algebra.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\raisebox{-0cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=-.9,yscale=.9]
\draw[thick] (3,0) node[left]{\small $i^0$}-- (0,3);
\draw[black!50!white] (0,0) --(1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,2) to[out=0,in=130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (2,0) to[out=90,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (1.5,0) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,1) to[out=0,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (1,0) to[out=90,in=-130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,.5) to[out=5,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (.5,0) to[out=85,in=230] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (2.5,0) to[out=95,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,2.5) to[out=-5,in=140] (1.5,1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\hspace{-5.5mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\draw[thick] (3,0) node[right]{\small $i^0$}-- (0,3) node[above]{\small $i^+$} ;
\draw[black!50!white] (0,0) --(1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,2) to[out=0,in=130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (2,0) to[out=90,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (1.5,0) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,1) to[out=0,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (1,0) to[out=90,in=-130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,.5) to[out=5,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (.5,0) to[out=85,in=230] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (2.5,0) to[out=95,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,2.5) to[out=-5,in=140] (1.5,1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{-6.25cm}
\raisebox{-2.445cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=-.9,yscale=-.9]
\draw[thick] (3,0) -- (0,3);
\draw[black!50!white] (0,0) --(1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,2) to[out=0,in=130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (2,0) to[out=90,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (1.5,0) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,1) to[out=0,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (1,0) to[out=90,in=-130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,.5) to[out=5,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (.5,0) to[out=85,in=230] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (2.5,0) to[out=95,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,2.5) to[out=-5,in=140] (1.5,1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\hspace{-6.675mm}
\raisebox{-2.95cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=.9,yscale=-.9]
\draw[thick] (3,0) -- (0,3) node[below]{\small $i^-$} ;
\draw[black!50!white] (0,0) --(1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,2) to[out=0,in=130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (2,0) to[out=90,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (1.5,0) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,1) to[out=0,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (1,0) to[out=90,in=-130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,.5) to[out=5,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (.5,0) to[out=85,in=230] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[red!50!white] (2.5,0) to[out=95,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[blue!50!white] (0,2.5) to[out=-5,in=140] (1.5,1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{A hyperbolic foliation of Minkowski space.}
\label{dBS}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Superrotated space-time}
The geometric origin of the Virasoro algebra can be understood directly from a 4D perspective by considering the vacuum solutions of the 4D Einstein equations obtained by acting with a finite superrotation on the standard Minkowski metric. Here we will focus on the structure of pure-superrotation vacua, setting $\mathcal{C}=0$ in equation \eqref{cdeco}. Let us now try to understand what this sector looks like from the bulk. We first write the superrotated metric in Bondi gauge and then apply the coordinate transformation to cast it in the hyperbolic foliation form.
Finite superrotated vacuum solutions were studied in~\cite{Compere:2016jwb,Adjei:2019tuj}. In Bondi gauge the metric for a pure superrotation takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{met}
g_{uu}\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! -1-\frac{2uV}{\sqrt{r^2+u^2V}},\qquad
g_{ur}=\frac{-r}{\sqrt{r^2+u^2V}},\qquad
g_{uA}=-D_A\sqrt{r^2+u^2V}\\[2mm]
g_{AB}\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! (r^2+2u^2V)\gamma_{AB}+u\sqrt{r^2+u^2V}\Theta_{AB}, \qquad\qquad V=\frac{1}{8}\gamma^{AB}\gamma^{CD}\Theta_{AC}\Theta_{BD} \notag
\end{eqnarray}
in terms of our $\Theta$ mode above. The above class of space-time metrics are all related via diffeomorphisms and therefore classically equivalent. In the quantum theory, however, they become physically distinguishable. A given perturbative vacuum of the 4D bulk QFT looks like a local vacuum state only in a specific local coordinate system. Once we have specified a QFT vacuum state, local diffeomorphism invariance is spontaneously broken. It is this sense in which on can think of the variable $Z(z)$ in~\eqref{thetaf} as the Goldstone mode due to the spontaneous breaking of diffeomorphism invariance by the QFT vacuum (see also~\cite{Choi:2019rlz,Nguyen:2020hot,Pasterski:2021dqe,Pasterski:2021fjn}).
To compare to the above AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$ intuition for gravitational realizations of Virasoro symmetries, it is worthwhile to look at this metric in terms of a hyperbolic foliation of Minkowski space~\cite{deBoer:2003vf} illustrated in figure~\ref{dBS}. For ease of presentation, we will focus on the two regions adjacent to the future celestial sphere. We will label these two regions by means of their respective points at infinity $ \textcolor{blue}{i^+} $ and $ \textcolor{red}{i^0} $. The flat Minkowski space metric in the (future) blue and (spacelike) red regions reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{v2}
\qquad ds^2\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! -d\eta^2+\eta^2\bigl(d\rho^2+ \sinh^2\! \rho\,\hspace{.5pt} 2\gamma_{z{\bar z}} dz d{\bar z}\bigr)\qquad \quad \textcolor{blue}{\ i^+} \\[2mm]
\qquad ds^2\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! d\tilde{\rho}^2+\tilde{\rho}^2\bigl(-d\tilde{\eta}^2+ \cosh^2\!\tilde{\eta}\, \hspace{.5pt} 2\gamma_{z{\bar z}} dz d{\bar z}\bigr)\qquad \quad \textcolor{red}{ \ i^0}.
\end{eqnarray}
To write the Bondi gauge superrotation vacuum \eqref{met} in the above foliation-friendly coordinates, we make the following coordinate identification
\begin{eqnarray}
\qquad u=\eta\hspace{.5pt} e^{-\rho},~&& ~\textstyle r=\eta \sqrt{\sinh^2\! \rho {\tiny\strut}-e^{-2\rho}V}, \qquad \quad \textcolor{blue}{ \ i^+}\\[1mm]
\qquad u=-\tilde{\rho} \hspace{.5pt} e^{-\tilde{\eta}},~&& ~\textstyle r=\tilde\rho \sqrt{\cosh^2\!\tilde\eta {\tiny\strut}-e^{-2\tilde{\eta}}V},\qquad \quad \textcolor{red}{ \ i^0}.
\end{eqnarray}
The superrotated metric~\eqref{met} in the new coordinates takes the form of a hyperbolic foliation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{v3}
\ ds^2\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!\! -d\eta^2\!+\eta^2\Bigl(d\rho^2\!+\left(\sinh^2\! \rho+e^{-2\rho}V\right)2\gamma_{z{\bar z}}dzd{\bar z}
\hspace{.5pt} + \hspace{.5pt} (1\!\spc\smpc -\!\spc\smpc e^{-2\rho}) \bigl(\Theta^+_{zz}dz^2\! +\Theta^+_{{\bar z}\bz}d{\bar z}^2\bigr) \Bigr)\qquad \textcolor{blue}{ \ i^+}\ \ \\[3mm]
\label{v4}
\ ds^2\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!\! d\tilde{\rho}^2\!+\tilde{\rho}^2\Bigl(-d\tilde{\eta}^2 \!+\left(\cosh^2\! \tilde{\eta}+e^{-2\tilde{\eta}}V\right)2\gamma_{z{\bar z}}dzd{\bar z}
\hspace{.5pt} - \hspace{.5pt} (1\!\spc\smpc +\!\spc\smpc e^{-2\tilde{\eta}}) \bigl(\Theta^-_{zz}dz^2\!+\Theta^-_{{\bar z}\bz}d{\bar z}^2\bigr) \Bigr)\qquad \textcolor{red}{\ i^0}. \ \
\end{eqnarray}
We recognize the metric on the three-dimensional leaves as the Ba\~nados geometry describing locally (A)dS space-times~\cite{Banados:1998gg}. Here we have given the $\Theta$ mode a $\pm$ superscript to indicate its restriction to the interior region to the future of the celestial sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$ or the exterior region to the past of $\mathbb{S}^2$. Requiring continuity of the metric across the future lightcone would imply that the two Goldstone modes must be identical
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{vacuum}
\Theta^+_{zz} = \Theta^-_{zz}.
\end{eqnarray}
The global metric obtained by combining the red and blue regions then describes a superrotated vacuum space-time with vanishing stress energy.
\subsection{Extended Virasoro algebra}
\vspace{-1mm}
If we were doing AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$, we would normally equate the $\Theta^\pm_{zz}$ in the Ba\~nados metric with the CFT stress tensor. The asymptotic Virasoro symmetry algebra in this case has non-zero central charge proportional to the AdS${}_3$ curvature radius in units of the 3D Planck length. In our setting, the asymptotic (A)dS${}_3$ space-time has infinite radius. If instead we introduce an IR cut-off by setting the (A)dS radius equal to $R= 2/\epsilon$, measured in 3D Planck units,
applying the (A)dS/CFT dictionary to both the blue and red regions would identify two stress energy tensors whose Laurent modes
\begin{eqnarray}
\quad T^\pm_{zz} \! = \! \pm \frac{i}{2\epsilon} \Theta_{zz}^\pm, \qquad \qquad L^\pm_n=\oint\! \frac{dz}{2\pi i}\hspace{.5pt} z^{n+1} T_{zz}^{\pm},
\end{eqnarray}
generate two Virasoro algebras with divergent central charge~\cite{Cheung:2016iub}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{twovirs}
[L_n^\pm,L_m^\pm]\! \! & \! = \! & \!\! (n-m)L^\pm_{n+m}\mp\frac{i}{4\epsilon}(m^3-m)\delta_{n+m}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the central charge and normalization of $T^\pm$ are imaginary because of the non-standard signature and curvature radius of the hyperbolic slicing: the space-like AdS-slices in the blue interior region have a time-like radius, whereas the time-like dS-slices in the exterior region have positive curvature. The vacuum condition \eqref{vacuum} amounts to the condition $T_n = L_n^+ + L_n^-=0$. Note that the operator $T_n$ generates a Virasoro algebra \eqref{virone} with zero central charge and setting $T_n=0$ is therefore a self-consistent first class constraint.
The above reasoning based on AdS/CFT intuition looks somewhat heuristic and has some tension with the standard celestial holographic dictionary equating the CFT stress tensor with the sub-leading superrotation memory mode~\eqref{qs}. We can resolve this tension as follows. First we observe that the combined algebra~\eqref{virtwo} generated by the $T_n$ and $\Theta_m$ derived in the previous section can be reached from an In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction of a pair of Virasoro algebras \eqref{twovirs} with divergent central charge via the identification\footnote{Note that $\Theta$ is a boundary value of the news, while $T$ involves $\frac{1}{G}$ times a $du u$ integral of the news. So $\epsilon$ is indeed dimensionless, since $[G]=L^{2}$ in 4d.}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{lpm}
L_n^\pm\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!\frac 1 2 \bigl( T_n \pm \frac{i}{2\epsilon}\hspace{.5pt} \Theta_n\bigr) ,
\end{eqnarray}
upon adding in the commutation relation $
[\Theta_n,\Theta_m]=-4\epsilon^2(n-m)T_{n+m}$
which vanishes in the $\epsilon \rightarrow0$ limit. This observation suggests that, starting from the two Virasoro symmetry algebras associated with the asymptotic symmetries of the (A)dS${}_3$ leaves of the hyperbolic foliation, we can extract the modes $T_n$ and $\Theta_n$ of the CCFT stress tensor $T_{zz}^{\rm CFT}$ and Goldstone mode $\Theta_{zz}$ via the identification
\begin{eqnarray}
T_n \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! L_n^+ + L_n^- , \qquad \qquad \Theta_n \, = \, -2i\epsilon(L_n^+ - L_n^-).
\end{eqnarray}
Let us summarize our proposal. Up to now, it has been open question whether the celestial Virasoro algebra should include a central charge term or not and, if so, what the value of the central charge should be. The above identifications provide a possible answer: the CCFT in fact incorporates two stress tensors, obtained by combining the stress tensor $T^{\rm \hspace{.5pt} CFT}_{zz}(z)$ obtained from the sub-leading soft graviton mode with the superrotation Goldstone mode $\Theta_{zz}(z)$ via
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{twotees}
T^{\hspace{.5pt} \pm}_{zz}(z)\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!\! \frac 1 2 \bigl( T^{\rm \hspace{.5pt} CFT}_{zz}(z) \pm \frac i {2\epsilon} \hspace{.5pt} \Theta_{zz}(z)\bigr).
\end{eqnarray}
The Laurent modes of these two stress tensors satisfy the Virasoro algebras \eqref{twovirs} with divergent imaginary central charge. The appearance of imaginary central charge is consistent with the Hermiticity properties of the mode operators acting on the CCFT Hilbert space.
\subsection{Incorporating backreaction}\label{sec:back}
\vspace{-1mm}
In this section we will argue that examining a sector of CCFT operators that commutes with one of the subalgebras~\eqref{lpm} amounts to incorporating backreaction effects where the celestial operators excite the superrotation Goldstone mode. If we look at operators in a sector that commutes with $L_n^-$ then we are able to apply techniques associated to large central charge limits of CFT correlators. As we will now explain, this means that we will only consider operators that carry energy relative to one of the 2D stress tensors, and use the coordinate freedom to set the other stress tensor equal to zero.
The two CCFT stress tensors \eqref{twotees} can be thought of as the generators of two independent superrotation symmetry groups with infinitesimal parameters $Y^\pm$.
The stress tensors themselves transform inhomogeneously under their respective superrotations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{tpmtrafo}
\delta_{Y^\pm} T^\pm_{zz}\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! [Q_S(Y^\pm),T^\pm_{zz}]\, =\, Y^\pm \partial_z T^\pm_{zz}+ 2 \partial_z Y^\pm T^\pm_{zz} \mp \frac{i}{4\epsilon} \partial^3_zY^\pm.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, instead of viewing $T_{zz}^\pm$ as two separate stress energy tensors, we can equally well think of them as two independent superrotation Goldstone modes.
The infinitesimal superrotation transformation \eqref{tpmtrafo} exponentiates to the familiar inhomogeneous conformal transformation rule of a 2D CFT stress tensor involving the Schwarzian derivative.
As before, we can make the interpretation of $T^\pm_{zz}$ as superrotation Goldstone modes more manifest by writing both as a pure superrotation parametrized by two dynamical variables
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{zpm}
T^\pm_{zz} \!\!\! & \! = \! & \!\!\! \mp \frac{i}{4\epsilon} \{Z^\pm,z\}.
\end{eqnarray}
From equation \eqref{tpmtrafo} we then see that infinitesimal superrotations generate a linear shift in $Z^\pm(z)$ via $\delta_Y Z^\pm(z) = Y(z)$.
Hence $Z^\pm(z)$ both behave as non-linear superrotation Goldstone modes.
Given the factorized form of the superrotation symmetry algebra, it is reasonable to assume that the CCFT operator algebra can also be naturally factorized into a tensor product of two operator algebras, spanned by primary operators ${\cal O}_+$ and ${\cal O}_-$ (and their respective descendants) that transform non-trivially under one Virasoro algebra and trivially under the other.\footnote{We use subscripts here to avoid conflating this with the $\pm$ superscript labeling in and out particles. Unless necessary we will drop the in/out label. As we will see in the appendix, once we go to the celestial torus these can be interchanged with an appropriate $\pi$ rotation.} The leading term of the OPE of the $T^\pm_{zz}$ stress tensors of, say, a local primary operators ${\cal O}_+$
at the origin takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
T^+_{zz}\!\spc\smpc(z)\, \mathcal{O}_+\!\spc\smpc(0)\! & \! \sim& \! \! \Bigl( \frac{h}{z^2}+\frac{1}{z}\partial\Bigr)\mathcal{O}_+(0)\notag \\[-1.5mm]
\label{ttward}\\[-1.5mm]
T^-_{zz}\!\spc\smpc(z)\, \mathcal{O}_+\!\spc\smpc(0)\! & \! \sim& \! \! {\rm regular \ for}\ \ z \to 0.\notag
\end{eqnarray}
In the sector where $T^-_{zz} = 0$, we can identify the $Z^+(z)$ Goldstone mode introduced in \eqref{zpm} with the standard $Z(z)$ superrotation Goldstone mode introduced in \eqref{thetaf}. Hence, looking at the above form of the OPE, we deduce that in the direct neighborhood of the local operator, the $Z(z)$ behaves as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{hzalpha}
-\frac{i}{2\epsilon} \{Z,z\} \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! \frac{h}{z^2} \qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad Z(z) \, = \, z^{1-2i\epsilon h},
\end{eqnarray}
where we used that $\epsilon$ is small. The above two equations tell us that the insertion of a local operator $\mathcal{O}_h^+\!\spc\smpc(0)$ leads to a gravitational backreaction in the form of a superrotation that creates a conical singularity at the local operator, with infinitesimal deficit angle equal to $2i \epsilon h.$ This map has a branch cut connecting the north to south poles of the celestial sphere, which extends into the bulk along the locus $X^1=X^2=0$. If we take the angular coordinate around this locus to span the usual range $\phi\in(0,2\pi]$ this locus becomes a cosmic string.
The case where $Z(z)= z^\alpha$ with $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ was considered in~\cite{Strominger:2016wns}, where $\alpha = \bar{\alpha} = 1-4G\mu$ for a string of energy density $\mu$. The spinning analog is the cosmon~\cite{Deser}. Meanwhile if we instead take $\phi\in(0,\frac{2\pi}{\alpha}]$ we obtain a bulk geometry that is free of conical defects, at the price of introducing an angular deficit on the celestial sphere itself~\cite{Adjei:2019tuj}. We will adopt this latter interpretation in what follows.
In this sector, the Goldstone and memory modes are linearly related. This linear relation implies that we can express the celestial backreaction as an operator product relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\Theta_{zz}(z) \mathcal{O}_+\!\spc\smpc(0)\! & \! \sim & -2{i\epsilon}\Bigl( \frac{h}{z^2}+\frac{1}{z}\partial\Bigr) \mathcal{O}_+\!\spc\smpc(0)
\end{eqnarray}
between the $\Theta_{zz}$ Goldstone mode and the local operator. So in terms of the $\Theta_{zz}$ field, the backreaction is of order $\epsilon$. We note further that, since we want the bulk geometry to be a smooth saddle, we are introducing an infinitesimal deficit angle on the celestial sphere determined by the weight of the operator under $T^{\rm CFT}$.
\section{Rindler Time and the Celestial Torus}\label{sec:ccftrindler}
\vspace{-1mm}
Let us now proceed to examine the Hilbert space description of CCFT on the celestial sphere and its analytic continuation to the celestial torus. Our guiding assumptions will be that this Hilbert space description exists, and secondly, that the Hilbert states and inner product can, via a suitable holographic dictionary, be identified with the Hilbert states and inner product of a unitary 4D quantum gravity theory. As we will argue, this 4D theory should be viewed from the perspective of a Rindler observer.
\subsection{Radial evolution on the celestial sphere}\label{sec:rad}
\vspace{-1mm}
An intrinsic way to introduce a Hilbert space description of celestial CFT is via standard radial quantization: choose an origin $(z,{\bar z}) = (0,0)$ on the celestial sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$ and identify time translations with scale transformations $(z,\bar{z}) \mapsto (\alpha z, \alpha \bar{z})$. Finite radial time translations are generated by the evolution operator
\begin{eqnarray}
U(t) \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! e^{t (L_0 + \bar{L}_0)}.
\end{eqnarray}
The radial time evolution acts on local operators via
\begin{eqnarray}\label{UO}
U(t)\mathcal{O}_\Delta (z,{\bar z})U^{\dag}(t)\! & \! = \! & \! e^{t \Delta}\mathcal{O}_{\Delta}(e^{t} z,e^{t}{\bar z}).
\end{eqnarray}
We would like to identify this transformation with unitary time evolution in the 4D quantum gravity theory. Hence, unlike in standard Euclidean 2D CFT, $U(t)$ should be a unitary operator.
Indeed, as shown in~\cite{Pasterski:2017kqt}, a difference between celestial CFT and ordinary 2D CFT is that finite energy scattering states in the 4D theory are mapped to CCFT primary fields that carry conformal dimensions on the principal series with complex scale dimension $\Delta= 1+i\lambda$, $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}.$
This indicates that the Hilbert space inner product in CCFT (at least when restricted to the subspace of primary states) should be chosen such that $L_0+ \bar{L}_0$ is anti-Hermitian rather than Hermitian. This difference with the standard BPZ inner-product is dictated by our postulate that the 2D and 4D Hilbert space should be identified and will play a crucial role in what follows.\footnote{See~\cite{Crawley:2021ivb} for a recent effort to realize the 2D BPZ inner product from a 4D construction.}
Denoting
${\mathcal O}_\Delta (z,{\bar z})$ by ${\mathcal O}(\lambda, z,{\bar z})$, we introduce local operators ${\mathcal O}(\tau,z,{\bar z})$ that act at some given instant $\tau$, via
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Otau}
{\mathcal O}(\tau,z,{\bar z}) \!\! & \! = \! & \! \! \int\! \frac{d\lambda \, e^{i\lambda \tau}}{2\sinh\pi \lambda} \, {\mathcal O}(\lambda,z,{\bar z}).
\end{eqnarray}
The reason for including the spectral factor $(2\sinh\pi \lambda)^{-1}$ will become clear below.
The radial time evolution simultaneously shifts $\tau$ and dilates $z$ and ${\bar z}$
\begin{eqnarray}
U(t) {\mathcal O}(\tau, z, {\bar z})U^\dag(t)\! & \! = \! & \! {\mathcal O}(\tau + t, e^{t} z, e^{t} {\bar z}).
\end{eqnarray}
Defining rescaled celestial coordinates via
\begin{eqnarray}
(w,{\bar w}) \!\! & \! = \! & \!\! (e^{-\tau} z, e^{-\tau}{\bar z}),
\end{eqnarray}
this equation takes the suggestive form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ow}
U(t) {\mathcal O}(\tau, w, {\bar w})U^\dag(t)\! & \! = \! & \! {\mathcal O}(\tau + t, w, {\bar w}).
\end{eqnarray}
Hence we can read $U(t)$ either as the radial evolution operator in the $z$ coordinates or as the evolution operator that implements the time evolution in $\tau$. From now on we will often suppress the $w$-dependence of the local operators ${\mathcal O}(\tau, w, {\bar w})$ and simply denote them as ${\mathcal O}(\tau)$.
\subsubsection{Periodicity of celestial correlators}
\vspace{-1mm}
One can show that CCFT correlation functions of local operators ${\mathcal O}(\tau)$ in~\eqref{Otau} can be expressed in terms of the original scattering amplitudes via
\begin{eqnarray}
\Bigl\langle {\mathcal O}^{\pm}_1(\tau_1)\ldots {\mathcal O}^{\pm}_n(\tau_n)\Bigr\rangle \! & \! = \! & \! \Bigl[\; \prod\limits_i \int_0^\infty\!\! d\omega_i \, e^{\mp i\omega_ie^{\pm \tau_i}} \Bigr] A(\omega_i)
\end{eqnarray}
where we've restored the $\pm$ label distinguishing the in- and outgoing asymptotic states. The above relation shows that the $\tau$ coordinate has the same properties as a Rindler coordinate: $\tau$ covers only the $u<0$ half of the light-cone time along future null infinity and the correlation functions exhibit $2\pi$ periodicity along the imaginary $\tau$ direction
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{kms}
\Bigl\langle {\mathcal O}^\pm_1(\tau_1) \,
... \, {\mathcal O}^\pm_{n-1}(\tau_{n-1}
) {\mathcal O}^{\pm}_n(\tau_n)\Bigr\rangle \! & \! = \! & \!
\Bigl\langle {\mathcal O}^\pm_n(\tau_n+\! 2\pi i)\, {\mathcal O}^\pm_1(\tau_1) \, ... \, {\mathcal O}^\pm_{n-1}(\tau_{n-1})\Bigr\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence the correlation functions of the ${\mathcal O}(\tau)$ operators look like thermal expectation values at finite temperature $T=1/2\pi$. In the following, we will identify $\tau$ as the time coordinate of a uniformly accelerating observer moving towards the north pole of the celestial sphere.
The conclusion that celestial correlators behave as thermal expectation values looks a bit surprising, given that radial quantization in standard 2D CFT on the Euclidean sphere produces vacuum expectation values at zero temperature. However, as emphasized above, the radial rescaling $(z,{\bar z})\to (e^t z, e^t {\bar z})$ represents unitary real time evolution in CCFT, in spite of the fact that the celestial sphere itself is Euclidean. Our postulate that the 4D Hilbert space and 2D Hilbert space should be identified dictates reality conditions that are at odds with the topology and signature of the celestial sphere.
A more appropriate setting for our purpose is to define 4D scattering amplitudes through analytic continuation from 4D Klein space $\mathbb{K}^{2,2}$ with (2,2) signature and replace the celestial sphere $\mathbb{S}^{2}$ by the celestial torus $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$~\cite{Atanasov:2021oyu}.
As we will see below, a practical way to view the relationship between the two celestial spaces is to perform a Wick rotation from the celestial sphere starting from the exponential map~\eqref{expmap} taking us to the celestial cylinder illustrated in figure~\ref{fig:tauphi}.
\medskip
\subsection{Klein space and the celestial torus} Scattering amplitudes are often defined by analytic continuation from Euclidean signature. In gravity, however, the condition of bulk diffeomorphism invariance restricts momenta to remain on-shell. For this reason, it has proven to be effective to define amplitudes in quantum gravity through analytic continuation from (2,2) signature.
Null infinity of Klein space $\mathbb{K}^{2,2}$ takes the form of a 2-torus with (1,1) signature.
This is most easily seen by introducing the double polar coordinate parametrization of
$\mathbb{K}^{2,2}$
\begin{eqnarray}
(X_0, X_1, X_2,X_3) \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! (q\cos \psi, \sigma\cos\phi, \sigma\sin\phi, q\sin\psi)
\end{eqnarray}
as in~\cite{Atanasov:2021oyu}. The (2,2) metric in polar coordinates reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{twotworindler}
ds^2\!\! \! & \! = \! & \!\!\! - dX_0^2 + dX_1^2 + dX_2^2 - dX^2_3 =
-dq^2-q^2 d\psi^2+d\sigma^2+\sigma^2d\phi^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Future null infinity ${\cal I}$ is defined by following the light-like trajectory $q=\sigma$ to $\infty$. It takes the form of a two torus ${\mathbb T}^{1,1}$ with metric
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{oneonetorus}
ds^2 \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! -d\psi^2 + d\phi^2 \qquad \qquad \psi \sim \psi + 2\pi, \ \phi \sim \phi + 2\pi.
\end{eqnarray}
A direct 4D way to go from (1,3) Minkowski space to (2,2) Klein space is to Wick rotate the $X^3$ coordinate. Alternatively, if we are only interested in asymptotic holographic data, we can directly perform the Wick rotation from the celestial sphere to the celestial torus. To do this, we suitably complexify the coordinates $(z,{\bar z})$ on $\mathbb{S}^2$ and write them as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{complexz}
\qquad z=e^{-\tau + i \phi}, \ & & \ {\bar z} = e^{-\tau-i\phi} \qquad {\rm with} \qquad \tau = t - i \psi
\end{eqnarray}
with $t, \psi$ and $\phi$ all real.
By the above argumentation, $\psi$ should be identified with the Euclidean Rindler time.
The 2+2 Lorentz group $SO(2,2)$ factorizes (up to a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ identification) into the product SL$(2,\mathbb{R})\times SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ of two 1D conformal groups acting on the celestial torus via M\"obius transformations
\begin{eqnarray}
\tan\!\spc\smpc
\frac {y_\pm} 2 \to \frac{a \tan\!\spc\smpc \frac{y_\pm\!} 2 + b}{c \tan \!\spc\smpc \frac{y_\pm}2 + d}, \qquad y_\pm\!\spc\smpc =
\hspace{.5pt} \psi\pm \phi.
\end{eqnarray}
The lightcone coordinates $y_\pm$ are also periodic with period $2\pi$. Note, however, that the torus defined by the periods \eqref{twotworindler} is a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ orbifold of the light-like torus $\tilde{T}^{1,1}$ defined by the $2\pi$ lightlike shifts in $y^\pm$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\vspace{-1em}\hspace{5em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.6]
\draw[thick] (0,0) --(3,0) node[right]{$i^0$}-- (0,3) node[above]{$i'$} --(0,0);
\draw[black!50!white] (0,0) --(1.5,1.5);
\draw[black!50!white] (0,2) to[out=0,in=130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[black!50!white] (2,0) to[out=90,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[black!50!white] (0,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[black!50!white] (1.5,0) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw[black!50!white] (0,1) to[out=0,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[black!50!white] (1,0) to[out=90,in=-130] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[black!50!white] (0,.5) to[out=5,in=-140] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[black!50!white] (.5,0) to[out=85,in=230] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[ultra thick,red!50!white] (2.5,0) node[below,red!70!white]{$L_{IR}$} to[out=95,in=-50] (1.5,1.5);
\draw[ultra thick,blue!50!white] (0,2.5) node[left,blue!50!white]{$L_{IR}$} to[out=-5,in=140] (1.5,1.5);
\filldraw[violet!80!white] (1.5,1.5) circle (1.75pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[transform canvas={scale=1.07,xscale=1,xshift=-10em,yshift=3em}]
\draw[thick,yscale=.5, double distance=1.8em] (2,5) circle (2em);
\draw[violet!30!white, thick,yscale=1.15] ($(1.6,2.57)+({.9*cos(-100)},{.9*sin(-100)})$) arc (-100:45:.9em);
\draw[violet, thick,yscale=1.15] ($(1.6,2.57)+({.9*cos(-100)},{.9*sin(-100)})$) arc (-100:-330:.9em);
\draw[violet,thick,yscale=.5] (2,5.15) circle (2em);
\end{tikzpicture}\\\hspace{6em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[transform canvas={scale=.8,xshift=-20em, yshift=12em}]
\filldraw[blue!30!white] (0,0)--(2,0) node[black,above left]{$\psi$}--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0);
\filldraw[red!30!white] (1,1) circle (1.5em);
\draw[violet!80!white,thick] (1,1) circle (1.5em);
\draw[->] (1.2,.3) arc (-90:0:.5);
\end{tikzpicture}\\\hspace{6em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[transform canvas={scale=.8,xshift=-20em, yshift=6em}]
\filldraw[red!30!white] (0,0)--(2,0)node[black,above left]{$\phi$}--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0);
\filldraw[blue!30!white] (1,1) circle (1.5em);
\draw[violet!80!white,thick] (1,1) circle (1.5em);
\draw[->] (1.2,.3) arc (-90:0:.5);
\end{tikzpicture}\\
\vspace{-3.5em}
\caption{Penrose diagram for $\mathbb{R}^{2,2}$. Null infinity is resolved by two $AdS_3/\mathbb{Z}$ hyperboloids at fixed $X^2=\pm L_{IR}^2$ glued together along a celestial torus. These hyperboloids cap off different cycles of the celestial torus. }
\label{penrose}
\end{figure}
The boundary of $\mathbb{K}^{2,2}$ has the topology of a three sphere $S^3$ with the celestial torus at its equator. The past and future hemispheres are identified with spatial infinity $i^0$ and with future infinity $i'$. The conformal metric for both takes the form of an AdS${}_3$/$\mathbb{Z}$, one with (2,1) and the other with (1,2) signature
\begin{eqnarray}
ds_3^2 \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! -\cosh^2\!\spc\smpc \rho\, d\psi^2 + \sinh^2 \!\spc\smpc \rho \, d\phi^2 + d{\rho}^2 \qquad \psi \sim \psi+2\pi \qquad \ \textcolor{blue}{i'}\\[1.5mm]
ds_3^2 \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! - \sinh^2 \!\spc\smpc \tilde\eta \, d\tilde\psi^2 + \cosh^2 \!\spc\smpc \tilde\eta\, d\tilde\phi^2 - d\tilde\eta^2 \qquad\, \tilde\phi \sim \tilde\phi+2\pi \qquad \ \textcolor{red}{i^0}.
\end{eqnarray}
The identifications $\tilde \psi \sim \tilde\psi+2\pi$ and $\phi \sim \phi+2\pi$ are automatically imposed by imposing smoothness at $\tilde\eta=0$ and $\rho=0$.
The two AdS${}_3$/$\mathbb{Z}$ caps are glued together via the identification $\tilde{\phi} = \phi$ and $\tilde{\psi} \, = \, \psi$.
It is useful to compare the metric \eqref{twotworindler} with the standard Rindler metric in Lorentzian signature
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{threeonerindler}
ds^2\! \! & \! = \! & \!\!
-\xi^2 d\tau^2 + d\xi^2+d\sigma^2+\sigma^2d\phi^2.
\end{eqnarray}
The metrics \eqref{twotworindler} and \eqref{threeonerindler} can be mapped to each other through the identification between the corresponding Euclidean metrics. We can double Wick rotate the (2,2) signature metric to Euclidean signature by replacing the $q$ coordinate by $q_{\!\spc\smpc E} = i q$.
Similarly, we obtain the Euclidean version of the Rindler metric \eqref{threeonerindler} by Wick rotating the Rindler time coordinate to $\tau_{\!\spc\smpc E} = -i \tau$. Equating the two metrics
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{fourzerorindler}
ds^2_{\!\hspace{.5pt}{E}} \! \! & \! = \! & \!\!
dq^2_{\!\hspace{.5pt}{E}} + q^2_{\!\hspace{.5pt}{E}} \hspace{.5pt} d\psi^2 +d\sigma^2+\sigma^2d\phi^2
\, = \,
d\xi^2+\xi^2 d\tau_E^2 + d\sigma^2+\sigma^2d\phi^2
\end{eqnarray}
leads us to identify the Rindler space coordinate $\xi$ with the Euclidean $q_{\!\spc\smpc E}$ coordinate of the Klein space-time and the celestial time coordinate $\psi$ with the Euclidean Rindler time coordinate $\tau_{\!\spc\smpc E}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi = q_{\!\spc\smpc E} = i q, \quad & & \quad \psi = \tau_{\!\spc\smpc E} = i \tau
\end{eqnarray}
on the locus $t=0$.
\subsection{Superrotated Klein space}
\vspace{-1mm}
As described the previous section for Minkowski space-time, one can again write a general class of vacuum solutions obtain by acting the with finite superrotation transformations on Klein space. Here we only state the form of the solutions in both regions
\begin{eqnarray}\label{tmm2}
ds^2\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! -d\eta^2+\eta^2\Big(d\rho^2-\frac{1}{4}(e^{\rho} dx^++4e^{-\rho} \Theta^+_{--}dx^-) (e^{\rho} dx^-+4e^{-\rho} \Theta^+_{++}dx^+)\Big) \qquad\ \ \textcolor{blue}{i'}\\[2mm]
ds^2\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! d\tilde\rho^2+\tilde\rho^2\Big(-d\tilde\eta^2-\frac{1}{4}(e^{\tilde\eta} dx^+-4e^{-\tilde\eta} \Theta^-_{--}dx^-) (e^{\tilde\eta} dx^--4e^{-\tilde\eta}\Theta^-_{++} dx^+)\Big) \qquad \textcolor{red}{i^0}.
\end{eqnarray}
In the vacuum solutions without any matter stress energy in the bulk, we need to impose the condition that $\Theta^\pm = \Theta^\pm$.
The standard Klein vacuum solution corresponds to special case that $\Theta^\pm_{--} = \Theta^\pm_{++} = 1/4$. The holographic CFT interpretation of this non-zero value of $\Theta^\pm$ is that the CCFT on the celestial torus has both a finite Casimir energy and a finite temperature. Indeed, as before, we can make a holographic dictionary between the asymptotic symmetry groups and Goldstone variables $\Theta^\pm$ of the (A)dS${}_3$ at $i'$ and $i^0$ and the appearance of two stress energy tensors $T^\pm$ in the dual CCFT on $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$. We will now describe some general properties of the partition function and correlation functions of this CCFT.
\def{\mbox{TFD}}{{\mbox{TFD}}}
\medskip
\section{CFT on the Celestial Torus}\label{CCFTorus}
\vspace{-1mm}
Via a slight generalization of the dictionary outlined above for the celestial sphere (which we review in appendix~\ref{sec:TOp}), one can identify scattering amplitudes in (2,2) signature space-time with correlation functions of a putative 2D CFT defined on ${\mathbb T}^{1,1}$. It is reasonable to assume that this CCFT is identical to the one obtained by Wick rotating the Euclidean CCFT defined on the celestial sphere and placing it on $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$.
We have shown that the chiral symmetry algebra of this CCFT contains two Virasoro algebras $L_n^+$ and $L_n^-$ with imaginary central charge $c\to \pm i\infty$ and
that this result is naturally linked to the way in which the celestial geometry is embedded in asymptotic infinity. In particular, in (2,2) signature, the celestial torus forms the interface between two halves of the asymptotic three sphere $S^3$, each of which take the form of an AdS${}_3/\mathbb{Z}$ space-time with infinite curvature radius. Hence, if we would cut the asymptotic three sphere open at the equator, along the celestial torus, we create two disconnected AdS${}_3$ space-times with asymptotic boundaries. It is natural to interpret the two Virasoro algebras as the edge modes associated with the asymptotic symmetry groups of theses two AdS${}_3$ hemispheres. Since the two AdS${}_3$ space-times have infinite radius, the corresponding Virasoro algebras have infinite central charge. The central charge is imaginary because both hemispheres have a non-standard signature.
In the following, we will assume that the Hilbert space and operator algebra of the CCFT can be factorized into a tensor product of two Hilbert spaces and two operator algebras, spanned by highest weight states and primary operators ${\cal O}^+$ and ${\cal O}^-$ and their respective $L_{-n}^+$ and $L_{-n}^-$ Virasoro descendants. To simplify the discussion and notation, we will focus our discussion below on the partition function and correlation functions of operators restricted to one of these two sectors. We will not explicitly indicate the $+$ or $-$ label.
\def\NN{\mbox
$N$}}
\def\NM{\mbox
$M$}}
\addtolength\parskip{1mm}
\def\mbox{\small$U$}{\mbox{\small$U$}}
\def\mbox{\small$V$}{\mbox{\small$V$}}
\def{\cal Z}{{\cal Z}}
\defi{i}
\def\mbox{$\sigma$}{\mbox{$\sigma$}}
\subsection{Partition function}\label{sec:spec}
\vspace{-1mm}
The first step in understanding the CCFT on the celestial torus is to write the partition function, defined by performing the CCFT path-integral on $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$. First, let us determine the modular parameter. Noting that the Lorentzian torus is obtained by analytic continuation from the Euclidean torus, or equivalently, by taking a real slice of the complexified torus $ds^2 = (dx + \mbox{$\sigma$} dy) (d \bar{x} + \bar{\mbox{$\sigma$}} d\bar{y})$ with modular parameter $\mbox{$\sigma$}$ via the identification $
x = \bar{x} = \phi$, $y = \bar{y} = \psi$ and $\mbox{$\sigma$} = -\bar\mbox{$\sigma$}= 1.$
The sum over states in the partition function are therefore weighted by $U = q^{L_0} \bar{q}^{\bar{L}_0}$ with $
q = e^{2\pi i \sigma} = e^{2\pi i}$ and $\bar{q} = e^{-2\pi i \bar\sigma} = e^{2\pi i }.$ So the partition function on the celestial torus takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Z}
{\cal Z} \! & \! = \! & \! {\rm tr}\bigl(
e^{2\pi i (L_0+ \bar{L}_0)} \bigr).
\end{eqnarray}
Here the trace is defined over the Hilbert space of all primary and descendant states in the CCFT, as defined via the standard operator state correspondence.
Concretely, we again wish to define the CCFT Hilbert space on the celestial torus via an operator state correspondence of the form $
|h,\bar{h}\rangle = \mathcal{O}_{{\Delta},{J}}(0,0)|0\rangle$, where $(h, \bar{h}) = \bigl(\frac 12 (\Delta\! +\!\spc\smpc J),\frac 12 (\Delta\! -\!\spc\smpc J)\bigr)$.
Note, however, that the states contributing to the trace in the $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$ partition function are not created by local operators on the celestial torus itself: the point $(z,z) = (0,0)$ does not describe a point on ${\mathbb T}^{1,1}$. Instead, we will identify it with the north pole of the celestial sphere.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\raisebox{1.8cm}{$e^{2\pi i(L_0+\bar{L}_0)} \ = \ $}~~~\raisebox{5mm}{\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.69]
\draw[yscale=.35] (1.57,1.15) circle (1.61em);
\draw[black,dashed,fill=white,yscale=.4] (1,1) to[out=90,in=180] (1.57,1.65) to[out=0,in=90] (2.15,1);
\draw[black,yscale=.4] (1.57,-.21) circle (1.62em);
\draw[thick] (1,-0.1) arc (342:16:.85);
\draw[thick] (2.15,-.12) arc (352:8:1.95);
\end{tikzpicture}}~~~~\raisebox{1.75cm}{$= \ {{\raisebox{-6pt}{\large $\sum$}} \atop{\raisebox{-6pt}{\scriptsize${i,N}$}}}\ e^{-2\pi \lambda_i}$}
\raisebox{3mm}{\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.395]
\tikzmath{\x1 = 5; \y1 =1; }
\draw[black,thick,fill=white] (-3.75+\x1,-1.25) to[out=90,in=180] (-2+\x1,.25) to[out=0,in=90] (-.25+\x1,-1.25);
\draw[dashed,xscale=.7,yscale=.725] (3.3,-5.35) arc (320:40:5);
\filldraw[black, thick] (-2+\x1,-3-\y1) circle (.2em) node[below,fill=white]{$\raisebox{-1pt}{\footnotesize $\ \, |i,N\rangle_{{\!}_{ R}}$}$};
\draw[black,thick] (-3.75+\x1,-1.25-\y1) to[out=-90,in=180] (-2+\x1,-3-\y1);
\draw[black,thick] (-2+\x1,-3-\y1) to[out=0,in=-90] (-.25+\x1,-1.25-\y1);
\draw[black,fill=white,yscale=.25] (-2+\x1,-4*\y1-5.25) circle (5em);
\filldraw[black, thick] (-2+\x1,0.25) circle (.2em) node[above,fill=white]{$\raisebox{1pt}{\footnotesize
${}_{{\!}_{ R}\!}\langle i,N| $}$};
\draw[yscale=.25] (-2+\x1,-5.25) circle (5em);
\draw[black,dashed,fill=white,yscale=.25] (-3.75+\x1,-5.65) to[out=90,in=180] (-2+\x1,-2.75) to[out=0,in=90] (-.25+\x1,-5.25);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\vspace{-7mm}
\end{center}
\caption{The evolution operator $U= e^{2\pi(L_0+ \bar{L}_0)}$ that brings states around the celestial torus can be expanded in states defined via the operator state correspondence of the CCFT on the celestial sphere. \label{t11decon}}
\end{figure}
According to the metric on $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$, $\psi$ is a periodic Lorentzian time coordinate. Hence it looks like the $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$ has closed time-like curves. This seems problematic, since we would like to consider the celestial CFT as a physical theory with consistent causal dynamics. However, just as for the celestial sphere, the signature of time direction on the celestial torus is opposite to what one would have expected based on the corresponding 4D interpretation of this time flow. As we have argued, evolution in the $\psi$ direction should be viewed as Euclidean Rindler time evolution. Hence, as before, we will need to choose our Hilbert space inner product such that the operator $U = e^{2\pi i (L_0 + \bar{L}_0)}$ that implements a full $2\pi$ shift in the $\psi$ coordinate has purely real eigenvalues of the form $e^{-2\pi \lambda} <1$, that in the mapping to 4D Rindler space represent the Boltzmann weights of the thermal Minkowski vacuum.
Based on the mapping between the 2D and 4D Hilbert space, we again deduce that the conformal weights are captured by data on the principal series, and thus take the form $\Delta = 1 + i \lambda$. Using the Laurent modes of the stress tensor, we generate Virasoro descendants
\begin{eqnarray} \label{descend}
|i, \NN\rangle \propto
\prod_{j,\bar{j}} L_{-n_j} \bar{L}_{-\bar{n}_{\bar j}}
|h_i, \bar{h}_i\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
where $N$ is the short-hand label for the collection of all descendant states with total conformal weight $
(L_0 + \bar{L}_0)|i, \NN\rangle = (\Delta_{i}\! + \NN) |i, \NN\rangle $
with $\NN \equiv \sum_j n_j + \sum_{\bar j} \bar{n}_{\bar j} .$
The partition function on $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$ is a trace over the Hilbert space of all CCFT states. Since in each case the conformal dimension of the descendent states is shifted by integer values, the unit modular parameter implies that all states in the same conformal tower appear with the same weight in the partition function~\eqref{Z}.
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{2\pi i (L_0+ \bar{L}_0)} \! & \! = \! & \! \sum_{i,N}\, e^{ 2\pi i \Delta_i}|i,\NN\rangle \langle i,\NN| \, = \, \sum_{i,N}\, e^{-2 \pi\lambda_i} |i,\NN\rangle\langle i,\NN|.
\end{eqnarray}
Upon taking a trace, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ceezee}
{\cal Z} \! & \! = \! & \! \sum_{i,N}\, e^{ 2\pi i \Delta_i}\, = \, \sum_{i,N}\, e^{- 2 \pi\lambda_i}.
\end{eqnarray}
We see that the partition sum contains a formally divergent factor in the form of the unrestricted sum over descendant states.
\subsection{Goldstone modes}
\vspace{-1mm}
The partition function ${\cal Z}$ in \eqref{ceezee} contains a divergent factor ${\cal Z}_0$ due to the presence of an infinite tower of Virasoro descendants. Their contribution is not suppressed, since, for the specific shape of the celestial torus, all descendants of a given primary state with conformal dimension $\Delta = 1+i\lambda$ acquire the same Boltzmann weight $e^{-2\pi \lambda + 2\pi i N} =e^{-2\pi \lambda}$. The divergent factor ${\cal Z}_0$ and infinite tower of descendants are both linked to the emergence of massless Goldstone modes associated with the Virasoro group Diff($S^1) \times$Diff($S^1)$. Indeed, ${\cal Z}_0$ can be shown to equal to the volume of the Virasoro group. In anticipation of their relevance the Lyapunov behavior of OTOCs, let us make this Goldstone mode contribution to the partition sum more explicit.
It is natural to define the celestial torus partition function with $q = e^{2\pi i}$ as the limit of a finite expression
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Z}\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! \lim_{q\to e^{2\pi i }} \,
\sum_i \, \raisebox{1pt}{$\chi$}\raisebox{-1pt}{${}_{h_i}\!$}(q)\,\raisebox{1pt}{$\chi$}\raisebox{-1pt}{${}_{\bar{h}_i}\!$}(\bar{q})\hspace{.5pt}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we introduced the Virasoro characters $\chi_h(q)$, defined as the trace of $q^{L_0 - \frac{c}{24}}$
over the Virasoro representation with highest weight $h$ and central charge $c$. As explained above, the conformal weights and the central charge are both imaginary. In particular, the asymptotic flat space-time corresponds to the $c\to i\infty$ limit. Plugging in the explicit form of the spectrum gives
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Z}\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!
\sum_i \hspace{.5pt} e^{-2\pi \lambda_i} {\cal Z}_{h_i\!\spc\smpc, \bar{h}_i} \qquad \qquad\
{\cal Z}_{h,\bar{h}} = \hspace{.5pt} \lim_{q\to 1}\, \raisebox{1pt}{$\chi$}\raisebox{-1pt}{${}_{h}\!$}(q)\,\raisebox{1pt}{$\chi$}\raisebox{-1pt}{${}_{\bar{h}}\!$}(\bar{q}).
\end{eqnarray}
We will now show that the prefactors ${\cal Z}_{h,\bar{h}}$ are in fact all identical and equal to the volume of Diff(S${}^1$).
The Virasoro character with conformal weight $h$ and central charge $c$ can be represented as a path integral over a co-adjoint orbit of Diff(S$^1$), the group of diffeomorphisms of the unit circle in the complex $z$ plane~\cite{Alekseev:1988ce,Alekseev:1990mp,Cotler:2018zff,Mertens:2019tcm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ascharacter}
\chi_h( q)\!\! \! & \! = \! & \!\!\! \int \!\spc\smpc \left[\mathcal{D}f\right] \, e^{\raisebox{1pt}{\hspace{.5pt}{\footnotesize $\frac {ic} {24\pi}$\!\!\!}
\footnotesize $\int\! dt\hspace{.5pt} dz \, ( \Omega -
T )$}}
\qquad{\rm with}\ \ \ \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
{T\hspace{.5pt} =\;} & \!\!\!\!\!\! -{\{ f, z\}
\qquad \qquad \qquad}\\[2.5mm]
{\Omega \hspace{.5pt} =\;} & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!
{ \mbox{\large ${\frac{\dot{f}}{2 f'} \!\spc\smpc\bigl (\!\spc\smpc \frac{f'''}{f'}}$}\!\spc\smpc
- \mbox{\small $2$} \mbox{\large ${\bigl(\!\spc\smpc\frac{f''}{f'}\!\spc\smpc \bigr)^{\mbox{\scriptsize 2}}}\hspace{.5pt} \bigr)$}}\\[3.85mm]
{f(e^{2\pi i} z)}\!\!\!\!\! &\; {= e^{2\pi i \alpha}f(z). \qquad }
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the functional integral runs over a two dimensional field $f(z,t)$, with $t$ a periodic Euclidean time coordinate with period $\beta_{\rm 2D} = \log q$ and $z$ restricted to the unit circle. Hence, for fixed $t$, the function $f(z,t)$ represents an element of Diff(S$^1$) and the integral runs over all paths in the Virasoro group. Diff(S$^1$) is a symplectic manifold endowed with a canonical symplectic two-form $\omega$ and \eqref{ascharacter} is a path integral over this phase space. $\Omega$ is the geometric Virasoro action, defined via the property that (upon replacing $\dot{f} dt = \delta f$, so that $\Omega$ becomes a one-form on the Virasoro group manifold) its exterior derivative with respect to $f$ equals $\delta\Omega = \omega$
with $\omega$ the canonical symplectic two-form on Diff(S$^1$). The geometric action and symplectic form are designed such that, upon quantization, the operators $T$ satisfy the Virasoro algebra
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{virasorohbar}
[T(z_1),T(z_2)]\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!\! - \hbar (T(z_1) + T(z_2) ) \delta'(z_{12}) + \frac{\hbar}{2}\delta'''(z_{12}), \qquad \qquad \hbar = \frac{6}{c}.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, the twisted boundary condition $f(e^{2\pi i} z) = e^{2\pi i \alpha} f(z)$ specifies the specific co-adjoint orbit associated with the highest weight representation with conformal weight $h$ related to the twist angle $\alpha$ via
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{24 h}{c} = 1-\alpha^2,
\end{eqnarray}
matching~\eqref{hzalpha} above. Note that in the $c \to i \infty$ limit with $h$ finite, the twist angle goes to zero ($\alpha\rightarrow 1$). From the point of view of the quantum theory \eqref{ascharacter} of the Virasoro algebra \eqref{virasorohbar}, sending $c \to i\infty$ corresponds to taking a classical $\hbar \to 0$ limit. In this limit, the trace over the Hilbert space reduces to an integral over the phase space.
As shown in \cite{Mertens:2017mtv}, in the scaling limit $q\to 1$, $c\to i \infty$ with $q^{c/12} = e^{-\beta}$ fixed, the partition function \eqref{ascharacter} of the geometric Virasoro theory reduces to the partition function of Schwarzian quantum mechanics
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{\mbox{\footnotesize ${{q\to 1},{c\to i\infty}}\atop{q^{\mbox{\tiny $c/12$}}}= \mbox{\scriptsize\,\hspace{.5pt} $e$}^{\mbox{\tiny $-1/\beta$}}$}}{\chi_h(q)}
\!\!\! & \! = \! & \!\! \int\!\spc\smpc [\mathcal{D}f]~e^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\frac 1 {\beta}\int\! dz \,\{f, z\}$} }
\end{eqnarray}
up to a divergent prefactor of the form $e^{S_0-\beta E_0}$. Here the functional integral runs over all diffeomorphisms $f(z)$ of the unit circle. In the strong coupling $\beta \to \infty$ limit of the Schwarzian QM, the overall divergent prefactor in the CCFT partition function reduces to the volume of the Virasoro group Diff(S$^1$) $\times$ Diff(S$^1$). More generally, if we relax this limit, we would find that the celestial CFT contains a soft sector described by Schwarzian quantum mechanics with coupling $\beta =- \frac{12}{c\log q}$. This suggests a possible link between celestial CFT and SYK-like dynamics \cite{PV3}.
\subsection{Correlation functions }
\vspace{-1mm}
Up to now, we have followed the standard philosophy and used the properties and symmetries of scattering amplitudes and the asymptotic geometry to extract information about the properties of the celestial CFT. In what follows, we will aim toward setting up the CCFT as a physical quantum system equipped with a Hilbert space and intrinsic dynamics. We will adopt the following guiding principles:
\addtolength\parskip{-1mm}
\begin{enumerate}
\addtolength\parskip{-1mm}
\item The spectrum of Hilbert states in CCFT, obtained by radial quantization on the celestial sphere ${\mathbb S}^2$, is isomorphic to the spectrum of the bulk theory in the Rindler wedge seen by a single Rindler observer.
\item Any observable that we can compute in the Rindler wedge has a celestial holographic CFT dual. In and out states in the wedge are created by operators localized at the north and south pole of ${\mathbb S}^2$.
\item The thermal mixed state seen by the Rindler observer corresponds to a thermal state in CCFT on $\mathbb{S}^2$. The Minkowski vacuum maps to a TFD state entangling two CCFTs defined on two copies of~${\mathbb S}^2$.
\addtolength\parskip{1mm}
\end{enumerate}
The previous subsection examined how to cut open and insert a complete set of states on the celestial torus. Combining this with our construction of local primary operators on $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$ detailed in appendix~\ref{sec:TOp}, we can give a 2D description for evaluating their correlation functions. In what follows, we will be interested in the time ordering dynamics and will suppress the $\phi$ coordinate. Unless otherwise specified the same statements will hold for operators smeared over the $\phi$ cycle.
Using our discussion of the modular parameter in the previous section, the $\tau$-ordered correlator can be written as a trace
over a complete set of states in the Hilbert space
\begin{eqnarray}\label{correlator}
\bigl\langle {\mathcal O}_1(\tau_1) \, ... \, {\mathcal O}_n(\tau_n)\bigr\rangle \! & \! = \! & \! {\rm Tr}\Bigl(e^{2\pi i(L_0+\bar{L}_0)} {\mathcal O}_1(\tau_1) \, ... \,\hspace{.5pt} {\mathcal O}_n(\tau_n)\Bigr).
\end{eqnarray}
Alternatively, we can represent this correlation function as an expectation value in the thermofield double state
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl\langle {\mathcal O}_1(\tau_1) \, ... \, {\mathcal O}_n(\tau_n)\bigr\rangle \! & \! = \! & \! \bigl\langle {\rm TFD} \bigl|
{\mathcal O}_1(\tau_1) \, ... \, {\mathcal O}_n(\tau_n) \bigr|\rm{TFD}\bigr\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
The thermofield double state is an entangled state between two copies of the CCFT Hilbert space, with the property that the mixed state in one copy obtained by tracing out the other copy is given by the thermal density matrix.
\begin{eqnarray}\label{torustfd}
\raisebox{.7cm}{$|{\rm TFD}\rangle ={{\raisebox{-6pt}{\large $\sum$}} \atop{\raisebox{-6pt}{\scriptsize ${i,N}$}}}\, e^{- \pi\lambda_i} |i,\NN\rangle_{{\!}_{ R}} |i,\NN\rangle_{{\!}_{ L}} = \ {{\raisebox{-6pt}{\large $\sum$}} \atop{\raisebox{-6pt}{\scriptsize ${i,N}$}}}\ e^{-\pi \lambda_i}$}~
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]\draw[thick,yscale=.5] (0.666,0) circle (1.9em) node{$\raisebox{1cm}{\small \,$|i,\NN\rangle_{{\!}_{ L}}$}$};
\draw[thick,yscale=.5] (3.666,0) circle (1.9em) node{$\raisebox{1cm}{\,\small $|i,\NN\rangle_{{\!}_{ R}}$}$};
\draw[thick] (1.33,0) arc (-180:0:.833);
\draw[thick,yscale=.95] (0,0) arc (-180:0:2.167);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{eqnarray}
We see that the Minkowski vacuum appears to prepare an entangled state on the $S^1\times S^1$. Via our interpretation of the $\psi$ evolution as imaginary Rindler time, it is natural to identify this TFD state with the Minkowski vacuum as experienced by the Rindler observer.
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl\langle {\mathcal O}_1(\tau_1) \, ... \, {\mathcal O}_n(\tau_n)\bigr\rangle\! & \! = \! & \! \sum_{i,N} e^{-2\pi \lambda_i} \bigl\langle i,\NN \bigr| {\mathcal O}_1(\tau_1) \, ... \hspace{.5pt} \, {\mathcal O}_n(\tau_n) \bigl|i,\NN\bigr\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
For the two point function we have
\def\beta{\beta}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{complete}
\bigl\langle {\mathcal O}_2(\tau) \, {\mathcal O}_1(0)\bigr\rangle
\!\! & \! = \! & \!\!\!\!\! \sum_{i,j,N,\tilde{N}}\! e^{-(2\pi\!\spc\smpc-\!\spc\smpc i\tau) \lambda_i \!\spc\smpc-\!\spc\smpc i\tau \lambda_j } \bigl\langle i,\NN \bigr| \hspace{.5pt} {\mathcal O}_1\hspace{.5pt} \bigl|j,\tilde\NN\bigr\rangle\bigl\langle j,\tilde\NN\bigr|\hspace{.5pt} {\mathcal O}_2\hspace{.5pt} \bigl|i,\NN\bigr\rangle \ = \; \sum_{i,j} \raisebox{-.9cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=0.36,yscale=1, rotate = 0]
\draw[thick] (-.7,0)--(0,0) -- (.7,0) -- node[above]{$j$}
(1,0) -- (2.25,0);
\draw[thick] (-.75,-1) -- (.8,-1) node[below]{$i$}--(2.25,-1) ;
\draw[thick] (1.85,0) -- (1.85,.5) node[right]{${\cal O}_1$} -- (1.85,.7);
\draw[thick] (-.25,0) -- (-.25,.5) node[left]{${\cal O}_2$} -- (-.25,.7);
\draw[thick,xscale=3] (-.2,-1) to[out=180,in=-90] (-.7,-.5) to[out=90,in=180] (-.2,0);
\draw[thick,xscale=3] (.75,-1) to[out=0,in=-90] (1.25,-.5) to[out=90,in=0] (.75,0);
\end{tikzpicture}}\,.\ \ \
\end{eqnarray}
Here on the right we have captured the sum over intermediate Virasoro sectors in graphical notation. Due to the left-right factorization of the conformal algebra, the correlation function are given by a (possibly infinite or continuous) sum of terms that factorize into a product of left- and right-moving conformal blocks. In the following section we will use features of 2D Virasoro blocks to examine OTOCs in this sector. The conformal block decomposition of perturbative amplitudes in celestial CFT has been studied in~\cite{Lam:2017ofc,Fan:2021isc,Atanasov:2021cje}.
\medskip
\section{Signatures of Chaos in Celestial CFT}\label{OTOCinCCFT}
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{4}
\vspace{-1mm}
Equipped with our 4D and 2D understandings of the CCFT dynamics and its relation to Rindler dynamics, we are prepared to study the out of time ordered correlation functions and identify the onset of chaotic behavior in both pictures. In this section, we will first introduce the OTOCs of interest and then outline and compare three basic methods of computation. The first two rely on standard tools from 2D conformal field theory, namely i) the known expressions for the monodromy matrices that relate different operator orderings of Virasoro conformal blocks and ii) the analytic properties of a suitably chosen vacuum block. Both methods are closely related and aided by fact that CCFT conformal blocks arise from taking the large central charge limit of Virasoro blocks. We then compare the CCFT results with the prediction obtained by including the gravitational backreaction of the 4D Einstein theory. We will see that all methods of computation will give the same answer. This match is not coincidental, but the consequence of a direct geometric correspondence between the gravitational backreaction and the monodromy properties of the CCFT conformal blocks.
\medskip
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\vspace{-0.2em}
\raisebox{-.75cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=-.7,yscale=.7]
\draw[thick,|->] (0,-1.5) node[left]{$0~$}--(0,-.75);
\draw[thick] (0,-.75)--(0,-.1);
\draw[thick,-|] (0,1.6) -- (0,3) node[left]{$2\pi i$};
\draw[thick] (-4,0.4) -- (-4,1.1);
\draw[thick] (-.25,0.15) -- (-3.75,0.15);
\draw[thick] (-3.75,1.35) -- (-.25,1.35);
\filldraw[black] (0,1.75) circle (2pt) node[left]{$B^\dagger$};
\filldraw[black] (0,-.3) circle (2pt) node[left]{$B~$};
\filldraw[black] (-4,.42) circle (2pt) node[right]{$A$};
\filldraw[black] (-4,1.09) circle (2pt) node[right]{$A^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (0,-.1) to[out=90,in=0] (-.25,0.15);
\draw[thick] (-.25,1.35) to[out=0,in=-90] (0,1.6);
\draw[thick] (-3.75,0.15) to[out=180,in=-90] (-4,.4);
\draw[thick] (-3.75,1.35) to[out=180,in=90] (-4,1.1);
\draw[<-] (-2.5,-1)--node[below]{$t$}(-1.5,-1);
\draw[->] (1.25,-.2+.5)--node[left]{$ \psi$}(1.25,.8+.5);
\end{tikzpicture}
}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\raisebox{-.75cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=-.7,yscale=.7]
\draw[thick,|->] (0,-1.5) node[left]{$0~$}--(0,-.5);
\draw[thick] (0,-.75)--(0,-.25);
\draw[thick,-|] (0,1.75) -- (0,3) node[left]{$2\pi i$};
\draw[thick] (-.25,0) -- (-3.75,0);
\draw[thick] (-3.75,.5) -- (-.25,.5);
\draw[thick] (-0.25,1) -- (-3.75,1);
\draw[thick] (-3.75,1.5) -- (-.25,1.5);
\filldraw[black] (0,1.75) circle (2pt) node[left]{$B^\dagger$};
\filldraw[black] (0,.75) circle (2pt) node[left]{$B~$};
\filldraw[black] (-4,.25) circle (2pt) node[right]{$A$};
\filldraw[black] (-4,1.25) circle (2pt) node[right]{$A^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (0,.75) to[out=90,in=0] (-.25,1);
\draw[thick] (0,-.25) to[out=90,in=0] (-.25,0);
\draw[thick] (-.25,.5) to[out=0,in=-90] (0,.75);
\draw[thick] (-.25,1.5) to[out=0,in=-90] (0,1.75);
\draw[thick] (-3.75,0) to[out=180,in=-90] (-4,.25)
to[out=90,in=180] (-3.75,.5);
\draw[thick] (-3.75,1) to[out=180,in=-90] (-4,1.25)
to[out=90,in=180] (-3.75,1.5);
\draw[<-] (-2.5,-1)--node[below]{$t$}(-1.5,-1);
\draw[->] (1.25,-.2+.5)--node[left]{$ \psi$}(1.25,.8+.5);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{The TOC and OTOC contours. The imaginary time direction is compact.}
\label{OTOCcontour}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0mm}
\subsection{OTOCs on the celestial torus}
\vspace{-1mm}
We are interested in studying the OTOCs of four local operators in celestial CFT on the celestial torus. As explained in the previous section, the Hilbert space on $\mathbb{T}^{1,1}$ is obtained by acting with local operators on the thermofield double state and, correspondingly, correlators are given by expectation values between two TFD states. For simplicity, we will only keep track of the $t$ dependence of the correlation function.
Consider an operator $B(t_0)$ smeared in the $\phi$ direction inserted at time instance $t_0$ and an operator $A(t_1)$ smeared in the $\phi$ direction inserted at a later time $t_1$. We will look at two types of states: the state $|x\rangle$ prepared by the time ordered configuration and
and the state $|y\rangle$ prepared by a time fold configuration
\begin{eqnarray}
|x\rangle\! \! & \! = \! & \!\!A(t_1)B(t_0)|{{\mbox{TFD}}} \rangle\\[2mm]
|y\rangle\! \! & \! = \! & \!\!B(t_0)A(t_1)|{\mbox{TFD}}\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
We can write the TO and OTO four-point correlation functions as inner products of these states
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle x |y\rangle \! \! & \! = \! & \!\!
{{\rm tr}}\bigl(e^{2\pi i (L_0+\bar{L}_0)}B^\dagger(t_0) A^\dagger(t_1) B(t_0)A(t_1)\bigr)\\[2mm]
\langle x|x\rangle\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!
{\rm tr}\bigl(e^{2\pi i (L_0+\bar{L}_0)}B^\dagger(t_0) A^\dagger(t_1) A(t_1)B(t_0)\bigr).
\end{eqnarray}
The overlap $\langle x |y\rangle $ between the time ordered ket-state $|y\rangle$ and out-of-time-ordered bra-state $\langle x|$ is the OTOC. The corresponding $\tau$ time-contour is indicated in figure \ref{OTOCcontour}. The time ordered four-point function defined by the norm $\langle x |x\rangle$ diverges and needs to be regulated by point-splitting. To leading order in the point-splitting distance, it factorizes into the product of two-point functions on the sphere, times the partition function on the celestial torus. It will be useful to consider the normalized ratio of the OTOC and TOC
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{otocratio}
\frac{\langle x|y\rangle }{\langle x|x\rangle}\! \! & \! = \! & \! \!
\frac{\langle B^\dagger A^\dagger B A \rangle }{\langle B^\dagger A^\dagger A B\rangle} \, = \, \frac{\langle B^\dagger A^\dagger B A \rangle }{\langle B^\dagger B\rangle\langle A^\dagger A \rangle}.
\end{eqnarray}
Below we will describe three ways of computing this ratio.
As a first preparation, we start by writing the time-ordered and out-of-time-ordered four point functions as a sum over conformal partial waves
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{toc}\langle B^\dagger A^\dagger A B\rangle \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! \sum_{{ijkl}, {\overline{ijkl}}} \hspace{.5pt}
\, \Psi_{ijkl}(z)\hspace{.5pt} \bar{\Psi}_{\overline{ijkl}}({\bar z})
\\[2mm]
\langle B^\dagger A^\dagger B A \rangle \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! \sum_{{ijkl}, {\overline{ijkl}}} \hspace{.5pt}
\Psi_{ijkl}(z^*)\hspace{.5pt} \bar{\Psi}_{\overline{ijkl}}({\bar z}^*).
\label{otoc}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\Psi_{ijkl}(z)$ and $\Psi_{ijkl}(z^*)$ are the respective chiral conformal blocks.
The sum over all four pairs of indices runs over the full spectrum of the CCFT. With a slight abuse of notation, we are using the the complex coordinate $z$ as short-hand for the location of the four operators along the celestial torus rather than just the cross ratio. The conformal blocks exhibits branch cuts for the special values of $z$ at which the two operators $A$ and $B$ are light-like separated. The OTOC is obtained from the TOC by analytically continuing $z$ to a new value, which for brevity we denote by $z^*$.
The conformal blocks on the celestial torus can be diagrammatically represented as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{psitoc}
\Psi_{ijkl}(z)\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! \delta_{ij} \,
\raisebox{-.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.63]
\draw[thick] (-1.6,0)--(-1,0)-- node[below]{$i$\ \,} (0,0) -- node[below]{$k$\, } (1,0) -- node[below]{\ $i$} (2,0) -- node[below]{\ $\ell$} (2.8,0);
\draw[thick] (-1.6,-1.3) --(2.8,-1.3);
\draw[thick] (1.05,0) -- (1.05,.8) node[above]{$A$};
\draw[thick] (2.03,0) -- (2.03,.8) node[above]{$B$};
\draw[thick] (-1.1,0) -- (-1.1,.8) node[above]{$B^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-.1,0) -- (-.1,.8) node[above]{$A^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-1.6,-1.3) to[out=180,in=-90] (-2.25,-.65) to[out=90,in=180] (-1.6,0);
\draw[thick] (2.8,-1.3) to[out=0,in=-90] (3.5,-.65) to[out=90,in=0] (2.8,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
} \quad ; \quad
\Psi_{ijkl}(z^*)
\, =\,
\raisebox{-.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.63]
\draw[thick] (-1.6,0)--(-1,0)-- node[below]{$i$\ \, } (0,0) -- node[below]{$k$\, } (1,0) -- node[below]{\ $j$} (2,0) -- node[below]{\ $\ell$} (2.8,0);
\draw[thick] (-1.6,-1.3) --(2.8,-1.3);
\draw[thick] (1.05,0) -- (1.05,.8) node[above]{$B$};
\draw[thick] (2.03,0) -- (2.03,.8) node[above]{$A$};
\draw[thick] (-1.1,0) -- (-1.1,.8) node[above]{$B^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-.1,0) -- (-.1,.8) node[above]{$A^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-1.6,-1.3) to[out=180,in=-90] (-2.25,-.65) to[out=90,in=180] (-1.6,0);
\draw[thick] (2.8,-1.3) to[out=0,in=-90] (3.5,-.65) to[out=90,in=0] (2.8,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
}. \\[-1mm] \notag
\end{eqnarray}
Here $i, j, k$ and $\ell$ label the intermediate Virasoro representations.
In equation \eqref{psitoc}, we used the fact that the two pairs of operators $A^\dag(t_1)$, $A(t_1)$ and $B^\dag(t_0)$, $B(t_0)$ are each right on top of each other. In this limit, we can use the fact that the identity operator gives the dominant contribution in the OPE between the two pairs of operators to make the replacement
\begin{eqnarray} \label{crossing2}
\raisebox{-.65cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.65]
\draw[thick] (0,0)node[left]{$i$\ } -- (1,0) -- node[below]{$k$} (2,0) -- (3,0) node[right]{$j$} ;
\draw[thick] (.9,0) -- (.9,.95) node[above]{$A^\dag$};
\draw[thick] (2.1,0) -- (2.1,.95) node[above]{$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}} \! & \! = \! & \!
F^A_{ik} \; \delta_{ij}\hspace{.5pt} \raisebox{-.35cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.62]
\raisebox{-.1cm}{\draw[thick] (0.4,0)node[left]{$i$\ } -- (1,0) -- (2,0) -- (2.6,0) node[right]{$i$} ;
\draw[dashed] (1.5,0) -- (1.5,.8) ;
\draw[thick] (1.5,.8) -- (.9,1.4) node[left]{$A^\dag$\!};
\draw[thick] (1.5,.8) -- (2.1,1.4) node[right]{\!$A$};}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\end{eqnarray}
where the dotted line indicates the vacuum channel and $ F^A_{ik} \hspace{.5pt} =F_k^0\bigl[\mbox{$\raisebox{-1pt}{\scriptsize${A\hspace{.5pt} A}$}\atop{i\; i }$}\bigr]$ is an appropriate fusion matrix of the CFT. The fusion coefficients $F^A_{ik}$ are universal for Virasoro CFTs with given central charge and were computed by Ponsot and Teschner~\cite{Ponsot:1999uf}. We will quote a special limit of their result later on. A similar equation holds for $B$ and $B^\dag$.
Combining the two relations, we find that the TOC conformal block simplifies to the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{psitoc2}
\raisebox{-.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.64]
\draw[thick] (-1.75,0)--(-1,0)-- node[below]{$i$\ \,} (0,0) -- node[below]{$k$\, } (1,0) -- node[below]{\ $i$} (2,0) -- node[below]{\ \ \ $\ell$} (2.8,0);
\draw[thick] (-1.75,-1.3) --(2.8,-1.3);
\draw[thick] (1.05,0) -- (1.05,.8) node[above]{$A$};
\draw[thick] (2.03,0) -- (2.03,.8) node[above]{$B$};
\draw[thick] (-1.1,0) -- (-1.1,.8) node[above]{$B^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-.1,0) -- (-.1,.8) node[above]{$A^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-1.75,-1.3) to[out=180,in=-90] (-2.4,-.65) to[out=90,in=180] (-1.75,0);
\draw[thick] (2.8,-1.3) to[out=0,in=-90] (3.45,-.65) to[out=90,in=0] (2.8,0);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\,
\! & \! = \! & \!
F^A_{ik} \, F^B_{i\ell}\,
\raisebox{-.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.64]
\draw[thick] (-1.75,0)--(-1,0)-- (0,0) -- node[below]{$i$\ \, } (1,0) -- (2,0) -- (2.75,0);
\draw[thick] (-1.75,-1.3) --(2.75,-1.3);
\draw[dashed] (-1,0) -- (-1,.8) ;
\draw[thick] (-1,.75) -- (-.5,1.2) node[right]{\!$B$};
\draw[thick] (-1,.75) -- (-1.5,1.2) node[left]{$B^\dag$\!};
\draw[dashed] (2,0) -- (2,.8) ;
\draw[thick] (2,.75) -- (1.5,1.2) node[left]{$A^\dag$\!};
\draw[thick] (2,.75) -- (2.5,1.2) node[right]{\!$A$};
\draw[thick] (-1.75,-1.3) to[out=180,in=-90] (-2.4,-.65) to[out=90,in=180] (-1.75,0);
\draw[thick] (2.75,-1.3) to[out=0,in=-90] (3.4,-.65) to[out=90,in=0] (2.75,0);
\end{tikzpicture}}\\[-1mm]\notag
\end{eqnarray}
representing the fact that ${\langle B^\dagger A^\dagger A B\rangle}$ factorizes into the product ${\langle B^\dagger B\rangle\langle A^\dagger A \rangle}$ of two point functions.
\subsubsection{OTOC from the Monodromy Matrix}
\vspace{-1mm}
To compute the ratio \eqref{otocratio}, we need the ability to exchange operators. This can be done either by explicit analytic continuation of the relevant conformal blocks, or by means of the crossing matrices that implement the basis change between the two orderings. We first describe the latter method. The relevant monodromy properties of
CCFT correlation functions can be studied by standard techniques of 2D conformal field theory.\footnote{While low point CCFT correlators defined through the standard celestial holographic dictionary have various exotic features, we will retain the optimistic assumption that these exotic features are artefacts of decomposing a Poincar\'e invariant theory into its Lorentz subgroup, and that these features will not obstruct the analytic continuation and monodromy properties of higher-point conformal blocks used in this section. }
We can exchange the operator ordering using the crossing matrix relating conformal blocks associated to different channels of the four point correlator. The space of four-point conformal blocks is a linear space with different possible basis choices. The crossing matrices are the unitary basis transformations that relate two different bases corresponding to the different ways of summing over a complete sets of intermediate states. For our purpose, the relevant crossing operator is the one that interchanges the order of two operators
\begin{eqnarray} \label{crossing}
\raisebox{-.55cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\draw[thick] (0.1,0)node[left]{$k$} -- (1,0) -- node[below]{$j$} (2,0) -- (2.9,0) node[right]{$\ell$} ;
\draw[thick] (.9,0) -- (.9,.85) node[above]{$B$};
\draw[thick] (2.1,0) -- (2.1,.85) node[above]{$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\! & \! = \! & \! \, \sum_{i} \, R_{j}^{\hspace{.5pt} i}\bigl[\mbox{${k \, A}\atop{\ell\, B }$}\bigr] \,
\raisebox{-.65cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\draw[thick] (0.1,0)node[left]{$k$} -- (1,0) -- node[below]{$i$} (2,0) -- (2.9,0) node[right]{$\ell$} ;
\draw[thick] (.9,0) -- (.9,.85) node[above]{$A$};
\draw[thick] (2.1,0) -- (2.1,.85) node[above]{$B$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $i, j, k$ and $\ell$ denote the Virasoro representations. The matrix $R_{j}^{\hspace{.5pt} i}\bigl[\mbox{${k \, A}\atop{\ell\, B }$}\bigr]$ is called the R-matrix. In holographic terms, it represents the partial wave decomposition of the 2-particle scattering matrix between the bulk excitations created by the local CCFT operators $A$ and $B$.
Crossing matrices in CFT, like the R-matrix, are determined by the conformal representation theory of the Virasoro algebra with a given central charge. An explicit expression of the R-matrix of Virasoro CFT is given in~\cite{Ponsot:1999uf}. We will not write the explicit result here, except to note that for our purpose we should take the limit of large imaginary central charge $c$. In this limit, the crossing matrix can be expressed in terms of the 6j-symbol of the 2D global conformal group, which (due to the imaginary value of $c$) we should identify with SU$(1,1)$. This specific large $c$ limit happens to be the same one that reduces the 2D CFT correlations functions and monodromy matrices to those of 1D Schwarzian quantum mechanics. The following discussion directly borrows from \cite{Mertens:2017mtv} and \cite{Lam:2018pvp}.
The analytic continuation that relates the time-ordered conformal block $\Psi_{ijkl}(z)$ and the out-of-time-ordered conformal block $\Psi_{ijkl}(z^*)$ involves moving one operator past the light cone of the other. So the point $z^*$ lies on the second sheet of the associated branch cut.
To obtain the linear relationship between the basis of conformal blocks evaluated on the first and second sheet, it is sufficient to apply the local R-matrix relation \eqref{crossing} associated to the interchange of the two operators $A$ and $B$. In diagrammatic notation, the crossing relation reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{tcrossing}
\raisebox{-.66cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.66]
\draw[thick] (-1.75,0)--(-1,0)-- node[below]{$m$\ \; } (0,0) -- node[below]{\ $k$} (1,0) -- node[below]{\ $j$} (2,0) -- node[below]{$\ell$\ } (3,0);
\draw[thick] (-1.75,-1.3) --(3,-1.3);
\draw[thick] (1.05,0) -- (1.05,1) node[above]{$B$};
\draw[thick] (2.03,0) -- (2.03,1) node[above]{$A$};
\draw[thick] (-1.15,0) -- (-1.15,1) node[above]{$B^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-.2,0) -- (-.2,1) node[above]{$A^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-1.75,-1.3) to[out=180,in=-90] (-2.4,-.65) to[out=90,in=180] (-1.75,0);
\draw[thick] (3,-1.3) to[out=0,in=-90] (3.65,-.65) to[out=90,in=0] (3,0);
\draw[magenta] (.25,-.7)--(3,-.7) -- (3,1.7) --(.25,1.7) -- (.25,-.7);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\! & \! = \! & \!
\; \sum_{i} R^{\hspace{.5pt} i}_{{j}}\bigl[\mbox{${k \, A}\atop{\ell\, B }$}\bigr]~
\raisebox{-.66cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.66]
\draw[thick] (-1.75,0)--(-1,0)-- node[below]{$m$\ \;} (0,0) -- node[below]{\ $k$} (1,0) -- node[below]{\ $i$} (2,0) -- node[below]{$\ell$\ } (3,0);
\draw[thick] (-1.75,-1.3) --(3,-1.3);
\draw[thick] (1.05,0) -- (1.05,1) node[above]{$A$};
\draw[thick] (2.03,0) -- (2.03,1) node[above]{$B$};
\draw[thick] (-1.15,0) -- (-1.15,1) node[above]{$B^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-0.2,0) -- (-0.2,1) node[above]{$A^\dagger$};
\draw[thick] (-1.75,-1.3) to[out=180,in=-90] (-2.4,-.65) to[out=90,in=180] (-1.75,0);
\draw[thick] (3,-1.3) to[out=0,in=-90] (3.65,-.65) to[out=90,in=0] (3,0);
\draw[magenta] (.25,-.7)--(3,-.7) -- (3,1.7) --(.25,1.7) -- (.25,-.7);
\end{tikzpicture}
}.\\[-1mm]\notag
\end{eqnarray}
The R-matrix only acts on the Virasoro representation label of the intermediate channel between the two operators $A$ and $B$ that need to be exchanged in going from the TOC to the OTOC. We furthermore have made use of the fact that $\Psi_{ijkl}(z)$ contains a factor of $\delta_{ij}$ to collapse the sum in \eqref{crossing} to a single term.
We can now compute the OTOC ratio \eqref{otocratio} as follows. First we decompose the OTOC into conformal blocks. Then we move the operators $A$ and $B$ to the same time instant. This produces a simple time evolution phase $e^{ih_j t}$,
where $t = t_1-t_0$ is the time-separation between the $A(t_1)$ and $B(t_0)$ operator insertions and $h_j$ the conformal dimension of the $j$ channel.
Next we apply the crossing relation \eqref{tcrossing}. Finally, we move the operators $A$ and $B$ back to their original time instants by including a phase $e^{-i h_i t}$. This yields the following result of the OTOC ratio
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{otocaa}
\frac{\langle B^\dagger A^\dagger B A \rangle }{\langle B^\dagger B\rangle\langle A^\dagger A \rangle}\! & \! = \! & \! \sum_{{ijkl}, {\overline{ijkl}}} \hspace{.5pt}
{\cal A}_{ijkl}(t)\;\;
\overline{\!{\cal A}_{ijkl}( t)
\end{eqnarray}
where\\[-8mm]
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{otocamp}
{\cal A}_{ijkl}(t)
\! & \! = \! & \! e^{i(h_j-h_i) t } R_{{i}{j}}\bigl[\mbox{${k \, A}\atop{\ell\, B }$}\bigr] \, F^A_{ik}\hspace{.5pt} F^B_{i\ell}\\[-4mm] \notag
\end{eqnarray}
and similar expression holds for $\,\overline{\!{\cal A}_{ijkl}(t)\!}\,$. Here $(h_i,\bar{h}_i)$ and $(h_j,\bar{h}_j)$ are the left and right conformal dimensions of the intermediate $i$ and $j$ channel.
The discussion so far has been very general and admittedly somewhat abstract. The pay-off, however, is that by plugging in the known results for the crossing matrices of the Virasoro CFT, equations \eqref{otocaa}-\eqref{otocamp} immediately give us practical explicit expression for the chiral components of the OTOC. The result further simplifies by virtue of the fact that the CCFT has a divergent central charge. As mentioned above, the CFT crossing matrices in this limit reduce to those of Schwarzian quantum mechanics, and can be expressed in terms of the Clebsch-Gordan and 6j-symbols of the global conformal group SU$(1,1)$. The relevant calculations are described in detail in \cite{Mertens:2017mtv} and \cite{Lam:2018pvp}. Here we will just quote the result.
It will be convenient to introduce the notation
\begin{eqnarray}
h_k\!\spc\smpc - h_j\hspace{.5pt} =\hspace{.5pt} {i\nu_1}, \qquad h_j \!\spc\smpc - h_\ell \hspace{.5pt} = \hspace{.5pt} {i\nu_2}, \qquad h_k \!\spc\smpc - h_i \hspace{.5pt} = \hspace{.5pt} {i\nu_3} \qquad h_i - h_\ell \hspace{.5pt} = \hspace{.5pt} {i\nu_4}.
\end{eqnarray}
One can think of each $\nu_i$ as the left-moving energy injected by each of the four operators into the correlator. We further make the simplifying assumption that the operator $A$ and $B$ both have the same conformal dimension $h$. The chiral OTOC amplitude then reads as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{asmat}
{\cal A}_{ijkl}(t) \! & \! = \! & \! e^{{i}(\nu_3\!\spc\smpc - \nu_1\!\spc\smpc )t}\;
\, {\langle \nu_4,\nu_3 | \, {\cal S}\, |\nu_2,\nu_1\rangle } \\[-7mm]\notag
\end{eqnarray}
where \\[-7mm]
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{smat1}
\langle \nu_4,\nu_3 | {\cal S} |\nu_2,\nu_1\rangle\!\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! {(4\pi i \epsilon)^{i (\nu_{1}\!\spc\smpc -\nu_3)}}\, \Bigl[\prod_{a=1}^4 e^{\pm \frac \pi 2 \nu_a } \textstyle \Gamma(h\pm i \nu_a) \Bigr]\, \textstyle \Gamma( i (\nu_{1}\!-\!\spc\smpc\nu_3))
\end{eqnarray}
times the usual energy conservation delta function $2\pi \delta(\nu_{1}\!+\!\nu_{2} \! -\! \hspace{.5pt} \nu_{3}\! -\nu_4)$.
The notation of the OTOC chiral amplitude as an $\mathcal{S}$-matrix element is deliberate. We can rewrite the right-hand side of \eqref{smat1} as an overlap integral
of the following gravitational shockwave $\mathcal{S}$-matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{thooft}
{\cal S} \! & \! = \! & \! e^{4\pi i \epsilon p_+p_-}
\end{eqnarray}
between four 2D Rindler mode functions. Here $p_+$ and $p_-$ represent the Minkowski light-cone momenta and the $\nu_a$ are Rindler energies.
Equation \eqref{thooft} is the 2D 't Hooft $\mathcal{S}$-matrix~\cite{Dray:1984ha} that encodes the gravitational shift $x^- \to x^- + 4\pi \epsilon p_+$ on a right moving trajectory due the presence of a left-moving particle with lightcone momentum $p_+$. This shift has an exponentially growing effect when viewed in Rindler coordinates. This is a first hint of Lyapunov behavior in CCFT.
In the next section we will re-derive the above result via the well-tested assumption that 2D CFT correlation functions in the large $c$ limit are dominated by a suitably chosen vacuum conformal block.
\subsubsection{OTOC from the Vacuum Block}
\vspace{-1mm}
The above treatment of the OTOC conformal blocks only made use of the Virasoro symmetry of CCFT. The emergence of gravitational dynamics from this subsector is not surprising, given its close relationship with AdS${}_3$ gravity. If we want to say more about the OTOCs, we would need to know about and use more of the specific properties of the spectrum, fusion rules, OPE coefficients and extended symmetries of CCFT. These more detailed properties are all implicitly contained in the sum over the intermediate channels in \eqref{otocaa}.
Gravitational saddle points describe universal or appropriately averaged properties of holographic CFTs. One practical implementation of this philosophy is that gravitational saddle points can often be identified with the contribution of an appropriate vacuum conformal block. The time-ordered correlation function can indeed be argued to be given by an identity conformal block
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{tocpsipsi}
\frac{\langle B^\dag_4 A^\dag_3 A_2 B_1\rangle }{\langle A^\dag_3 A_2\rangle\langle B_4^\dag B_1\rangle}\! & \! = \! & \! {\Psi} \Bigl( {}^{A}_{A} \; {}^{B}_{B} , {\rm vac},z\Bigr)\;\, \overline{\!{\Psi} \Bigl( {}^{A}_{A} \; {}^{B}_{B} , {\rm vac},z\Bigr)\!}
,~~~~~~~~~~z= -\frac{\sinh \frac 1 2 t_{23} \hspace{.5pt} \sinh\!\spc\smpc \frac 12 t_{14} }{\sinh\!\spc\smpc \frac 12 t_{12} \hspace{.5pt} \sinh\!\spc\smpc \frac 12 t_{34}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the vacuum block is defined on the sphere, or equivalently, the projective plane, and $z$ denotes the cross ratio of the coordinate location of the four operators on the sphere. The planar vacuum block dominates for two reasons. First, as before, we assume that the two pairs of operators $A^\dag$, $A$ and $B^\dag$, $B$ are pairwise very close to each other. We already used this above to write equation \eqref{psitoc2}. Second, we can use an exponential conformal mapping to unwind the thermal circle and re-express a thermal correlation function as a vacuum expectation value at zero temperature, but with an exponential identification of coordinates.
The reasoning that the vacuum block dominates for certain correlation functions generalizes Cardy's argument for determining the high temperature behavior and asymptotic spectrum of CFTs through vacuum block dominance of the torus partition function. Comparing \eqref{tocpsipsi} with equation \eqref{toc}, we see that, just as in the case of the Cardy spectrum, the sum over intermediate sectors simply factorizes into two independent sums. Moreover, we learn that the spectral properties of the CCFT should be such that the sum produces a chiral vacuum block. The above physical argumentation is not rigorous, but is well motivated for the case of standard holographic 2D CFTs in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence. Let us assume the the same reasoning can be applied to CCFT.
The out of time ordered correlation function is obtained by analytically continuing the time ordered conformal blocks to the second sheet. Assuming the vacuum blocks in \eqref{tocpsipsi} continue to provide the dominant contribution after the analytic continuation, we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\langle B_4^\dag A_3^\dag B_1 A_2\rangle }{\langle A_3^\dag A_2\rangle\langle B_4^\dag B_1\rangle}\! & \! = \! & \! {\Psi} \Big( {}^{A}_{A} \; {}^{B}_{B} , {\rm vac},z^*\Big)\;\, \overline{\!{\Psi} \Big( {}^{A}_{A} \; {}^{B}_{B} , {\rm vac},z^*\Big)\!}.
\end{eqnarray}
The vacuum conformal block at large central charge is explicitly known \cite{Chen:2016cms}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{block}
\lim_{\raisebox{-3.5pt}{\footnotesize ${{c\to \infty}\atop {x=cz~{\rm fixed}}}$}} {\Psi} \Big( {}^{A}_{A} \; {}^{B}_{B} , {\rm vac},z^*\Big) \!\! & \! = \! & \! \! x^{-2h} U(2h,1,1/x),
\qquad \ \
{x}\, = \, \frac{i}{4\pi \epsilon}\, \frac{e^{\frac 1 2 (t_1+t_2 - t_3-t_4)}}{4\sinh \!\spc\smpc \frac 1 2 t_{12} \hspace{.5pt} \sinh\!\spc\smpc \frac 1 2 t_{34}}
\end{eqnarray}
in terms of the confluent hypergeometric function, defined as the integral $U(a,1,y) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(a)} \int_0^\infty\! ds\, e^{-sy} \frac{s^{a-1}}{(1+s)^a}$.
Combining the two chiral blocks gives the following explicit result for the OTOC
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\langle B^\dag_4 A^\dag_3 B_1 A_2\rangle }{\langle A^\dag_3 A_2\rangle\langle B_4^\dag B_1\rangle}\! \! & \! = \! & \! \! x^{-2h}\bar{x}^{-2\bar{h}} \, U(2h,1,1/x) \; U(2\bar{h},1,1/\bar{x}).
\end{eqnarray}
Some brief remarks are in order. First, the explicit expression \eqref{block} of the chiral OTOC follows by integrating the result \eqref{asmat}-\eqref{smat1} for the chiral OTOC conformal block with uniform measure over all frequencies $\nu_a$
\begin{eqnarray}
\Bigl[\prod_{a=1}^4 \int\!
\frac{d\nu_a}{2\pi} e^{\pm i\nu_a t_a} \Bigr]\,
\, {\langle \nu_4,\nu_3 | \, {\cal S}\, |\nu_2,\nu_1\rangle } \! & \! = \! & \! \! x^{-2h} \, U(2h,1,1/x).
\end{eqnarray}
This suggests that the spectrum of the CCFT in the regime of interest is well approximated by the usual Cardy spectrum.
Secondly, this result matches the OTOC in Schwarzian QM. In nAdS${}_2$ holography, it describes the scattering of two particles that collide in the proximity of the horizon of the 2D black hole in JT gravity. It in particular exhibits the anticipated maximal Lyapunov behavior.
\subsubsection{OTOC from Celestial Backreaction}
\vspace{-1mm}
Finally, we present a geometric derivation of the OTOC based on 4D physics and our earlier description in section 3 of the backreaction due to the insertion of local CCFT operators on the celestial sphere. This gravitational derivation of the OTOC looks a priori quite different from the above more technically sophisticated CFT analysis, but the two are both directly linked via the so-called monodromy method for determining the explicit form and monodromy properties of 2D conformal blocks.
As explained in section 4, the exponential behavior of CCFT correlation functions has a simple geometric origin in terms of the coordinate identification from the celestial sphere to the celestial torus
\begin{eqnarray} (z,\bar{z}) \!\! & \! = \! & \!\! (e^{i(\tau_E+\phi)},e^{i(\tau_E-\phi)}), \qquad {\rm with} \qquad
\tau_E \,=\, \psi + i t\,
\end{eqnarray}
the complexified Rindler time coordinate. After Wick rotating, this coordinate relation shows that evolution in the Lorentzian Rindler time coordinate $t$ describes an exponential approach towards the origin of the $(z,\bar{z})$ plane
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{tshrink}
(z,\bar{z}) \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! (e^{-t+i\phi},e^{-t-i\phi}).
\end{eqnarray}
We immediately see that any small backreaction in the form of an infinitesimal coordinate shift in $z$ would cause an exponentially growing Shapiro time delay as measured in the Rindler time coordinate $t$. This is an expected consequence of the fact that the late time Rindler observer is exponentially close to the Rindler horizon, and thus correspondingly sensitive to infinitesimal shifts relative to the location of the horizon.
In the following we will exhibit the butterfly effect caused by a local CCFT operator $B(z_1)$. As explained in section~\ref{sec:vir}, the stress energy associated with this local operator induces a small geometrical defect in the form of an infinitesimal angle deficit around the location $z=z_1$. This angle deficit can be incorporated by means of the infinitesimal coordinate transformation (here, for simplicity, we only write the holomorphic part of the transformation)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{cdefect}
B(z_1): \qquad 1 - \frac z{\raisebox{1pt}{$z_1$}} \! & \to & \! \Bigl(1- \frac z{\raisebox{1pt}{$z_1$}}\Bigr)^{1-2i\epsilon h_b}, \qquad \qquad -i\epsilon = \frac{3}{c}
\end{eqnarray}
where $h_b$ denotes the left-moving scale dimension of $B$ and $\epsilon$ the IR cut-off parameter.
The above infinitesimal defect is the celestial imprint of the full 4D backreaction associated with the local CCFT operator.
The resulting butterfly effect on another local operator $A$ is encoded in the out-of-time correlation function, or equivalently, in the expectation value of the commutator squared $
\bigl\langle[A(z_2), B(z_1)]^2\bigr\rangle$~\cite{Roberts:2014ifa,Jackson:2014nla}.
At late times, the leading contribution to this commutator squared comes from considering the effect of the coordinate shift \eqref{cdefect} induced by the insertion of $B(z_1)$ on the operator $A(z_2)$ as it approaches the origin. The effect of this shift becomes visible by performing a monodromy transformation by moving the operator $A(z)$ around the location of $B(z_1)$, or equivalently, by analytically continuing the correlation function to the second sheet. A simple calculation gives that in the small $z_2$ limit
\begin{eqnarray}
A(z_2) B(z_1) \! \! & \! = \! & \! \! B(z_1)A(z_2)\bigr|_{{\rm 2nd\, sheet }}
\! \simeq \, B(z_1) A(z_2\! +\!\spc\smpc 4\pi i \epsilon h_b z_1).
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting \eqref{tshrink}, combining the left- and right parts and considering only $t$ dependence, we find that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{commutator}
[A(t_2), B(t_1)] \! & \! \simeq \! & \! 2\pi i \epsilon \Delta_b\cdot e^{t_2-t_1}B(t_1)\, \partial_{t_2} A(t_2)\,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\Delta_b$ the full scale dimension of $B(z_1)$.
Equation \eqref{commutator} expresses the gravitational backreaction due to the $B$ operator on the location of the $A$ operator. However, the situation is symmetric: the operator $A$ also creates a geometric defect that shifts the location of the operator $B$. We can write the commutation relation in a more suggestive and symmetric form by noting that $\Delta_b$ is the energy of the state created by the operator $B$. Hence for early $t_1$ we can use the state operator correspondence to equate $\Delta_b B(t_1) = \partial_{t_1} B(t_1)$. The above commutation equation then becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{commutatortwo}
[A(t_2), B(t_1)] \! & \! \simeq \! & \! 2\pi i \epsilon\, e^{t_2-t_1}\partial_{t_1} B(t_1)\, \partial_{t_2} A(t_2).\,
\end{eqnarray}
Again we see that the exponential growth of the OTOC is caused by a geometric shockwave interaction.
\section{Conclusion}
\vspace{-1mm}
In this paper we have argued that celestial conformal field theory, when viewed as a dynamical quantum system with unitary Hamiltonian time evolution, exhibits characteristics of maximal quantum chaos. To build our case, we re-examined the soft phase space associated to the superrotation symmetry of the 4D space-time and used the presence of the (2,0) Goldstone current~\cite{Ball:2019atb} to introduce two celestial stress tensors that generate two mutually commuting Virasoro algebras with a divergent imaginary central charge.
Restricting to operators that commute with one of the Virasoro algebras leads to backreaction effects which can be most clearly brought to light by means of the out-of-time-ordered correlators. We studied the OTOCs and demonstrated the Lyapunov growth using standard 2D CFT technology for large-$c$ systems.
The physical origin of this chaotic behavior lies in the identification of the time coordinate of CCFT, defined through radial quantization, with the Rindler time coordinate experienced by an accelerating observer in 4D space-time. Relating the celestial correlators to the observation of this accelerating observer involves an analytic continuation from the celestial sphere to the celestial torus. The celestial torus perspective naturally incorporates the fact that the CCFT dynamics takes place at finite temperature, in turn, matching the bulk interpretation in terms of the Rindler observer. This perspective also illuminates the appearance of two independent Virasoro algebras as the asymptotic symmetry groups of the two AdS caps that meet at the celestial torus, which ties back into our Goldstone mode analysis.
We are lead to the following natural future directions and open questions:
\vspace{.5em}
\noindent {\it Gluing Construction --} Interpreting our doubled-Virasoro algebra in terms of two large-radius AdS caps meeting at the celestial torus suggests a natural generalization to other vacuum transitions and currents. On the bulk gravitational side we have the impulsive wave analyses of~\cite{Nutku,Compere:2019odm,Freidel:2021qpz}. From the celestial CFT current algebra we have the $w_{1+\infty}$ symmetry of~\cite{Guevara:2021abz,Strominger:2021lvk}. The (A)dS$_3$ picture advocated here and in~\cite{deBoer:2003vf,Cheung:2016iub,Ball:2019atb} presents a natural route to toy examples of a CCFT and bulk dual pair that captures this symmetry algebra. We will further explore this tantalizing prospect in~\cite{PV3}.
\vspace{.5em}
\noindent {\it Incorporating Translations -- } In this paper we have focused on the dynamical properties of CCFT that follow from superrotation symmetry. Since Lorentz transformations and superrotations both act relative to a specific space-time point, translation and supertranslation symmetries are non-linearly realized in the celestial basis via spectrum shifting operators. Understanding the relationship between our study and the supertranslation current would be of interest for several reasons, in particular because supertranslations are naturally linked to the standard 4D gravitational shock wave $\mathcal{S}$-matrix. The role of the $\epsilon$ deformation of CCFT is also of interest and may illuminate the connection between Celestial CFT and flat space limits of AdS~\cite{Hijano:2019qmi,Hijano:2020szl,Compere:2019bua}.
\vspace{.5em}
\noindent {\it Adding Horizons -- } Understanding how black hole physics is encoded in celestial CFT is an interesting open problem. As seen in~\cite{Pasterski:2020xvn}, extra boundary components introduce an enhancement in the soft phase space. The observations in~\cite{Strominger:2016wns,Pasterski:2020pdk,Crawley:2021auj} point towards some natural starting points in terms of limits of scattering amplitudes or changing the modular parameter for CCFT on the celestial torus.
\vspace{.5em}
We see that in the course of examining the conformally soft sector, we are confronted with and are able to gain insight into foundational open questions about CCFT. The fact that we can predict and analyze the chaotic gravitational bulk dynamics, even without detailed knowledge of the full structure of CCFT, illustrates the power of 2D conformal symmetry when it comes to exhibiting interesting bulk physics and dynamics.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
\vspace{-1mm}
We thank Scott Collier, Laurent Freidel, Matthew Heydeman, Andrea Puhm, Andrew Strominger, Joaquin Turiaci, Emilio Trevisani, Erik Verlinde, and Sasha Zhiboedov for useful discussions and comments. The research of SP is supported by the Sam B. Treiman Fellowship at the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science. The research of HV is supported by NSF grant number PHY-1914860.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Energy is so an indispensable asset today that we cannot even think of being deprived of it. It is one of the important topics that influence both individuals and governments to great extents. Therefore, results of the research and trends on conventional and sustainable/renewable energy resources; on energy production, transmission, distribution, conversion, utilization, and forecast as well as that of recent research topics like energy efficiency and smart electricity grids have important implications on the society in general. To facilitate public access to recent energy trends, events, and research topics; the resources, algorithms, and tools offered within the discipline of computer science and information technologies can be customized, redesigned, and employed and this will be an important contribution to the interdisciplinary area of ``energy informatics".\\
In this paper, we propose a Web-based semantic system called EneMonIE (Energy Monitoring through Information Extraction) which facilitates monitoring up-to-date energy trends, events, and related energy research through the use of automatic, continuous, and guided (targeted) information extraction from diverse media available on the Internet.\\
After daily polling, filtering, and collection of data from these data sources, the system will apply several information extraction techniques on the collected data to extract and distil semantic information for indexing these media. Upon the completion of the information extraction procedure, the system will align, cluster, fuse, and summarize the collected data based on the extracted semantic information to arrive at up-to-date energy trends and research topics in addition to energy data. Furthermore, the system will enrich the social media texts by associating with them automatically determined opinions, through its sentiment analysis component.\\
The types of media to be handled by the system include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item News articles available online
\item Social media texts like tweets and blog posts
\item News videos available online
\item Open-access papers in scholarly journals, openly available academic theses, and technical reports available on preprint servers
\item Open numeric and textual data publicly provided by energy-related organizations
\end{enumerate}
EneMonIE will have a modular and extensible architecture with pluggable information extraction and other text processing components. Thereby, if need be, upon the completion of EneMonIE, newer information extraction tools can be integrated into the system without the need for considerable effort, provided that these tools comply with the corresponding software interfaces of the overall system.\\
To the best of our knowledge, no semantic system similar to EneMonIE has been described in the literature. Yet, there are systems that have some common features to EneMonIE: the fully-automated and semi-automated systems described in \cite{kuccuk2011exploiting} and \cite{kuccuk2013semi} have utilized information extraction techniques to facilitate semantic news video retrieval. Within these systems news videos and news articles are processed, yet other types of media within the scope of EneMonIE, such as social media, are not considered. Another difference between EneMonIE and the aforementioned two systems is that, these systems are also proposed for the generic domain of news. Additionally, these systems lack other important text processing components like those for sentiment analysis and summarization while EneMonIE will comprise these components to enrich its output and presentation.\\
We should also note the existence of related websites like OpenEI\footnote{\url{https://openei.org}}, reegle\footnote{\url{https://www.reeep.org/reegleinfo}}, and SETIS\footnote{\url{https://setis.ec.europa.eu/}}. OpenEI is a website hosting its collaboratively-managed energy-related resources and energy data sets which aims to serve this data as linked open data to public use. Reegle, on the other hand, is a clean energy information portal enabling its users to search for clean energy and energy efficiency information that it includes. Finally, SETIS (Strategic Energy Technologies Information System) is a portal for hosting studies and reports for energy-related decision makers, particularly to help implement and monitor the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) in European Union countries. These three systems have features mainly related EneMonIE's feature on open energy and energy-related documents and news, but EneMonIE's main contribution of semantic processing of the ubiquitous, external, and independent diverse media is not available through these systems. Lastly, in \cite{woon2014forecasting} keyword-based methods have been utilized on scholarly articles to determine the research trends in renewable energy papers as keyword taxonomies. The main contribution of this paper is similar to a feature of EneMonIE on scholarly articles which will be handled by its text categorization component. Hence, EneMonIE will be a larger full-fledged system having –among others- this feature as well.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\center \scalebox{0.525}
{\fbox{\includegraphics{enemon_sekil_7.eps}}}\caption{The EneMonIE Architecture}\label{fig:enemonie}
\end{figure*}
\section{EneMonIE Architecture}\label{sec:architecture}
The pipelined architecture of EneMonIE is demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:enemonie} together with its data (media) sources. Functional components and resources (database, ontologies, and lexical resources) are shown with different colours to facilitate the distinction. For illustrative purposes, all information extraction components (named entity recognizer, temporal expression extractor, and event extractor) are shown as a single component, under the name of Information Extraction.\\
The main information extraction components of EneMonIE will be:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Named entity recognition}: This task is usually defined as the extraction and classification of proper names such as the names of people, locations, and organizations in natural language texts. It is a long-studied topic of natural language processing (NLP) with recent work being mostly on unconventional texts like social media texts such as the study describing a system for named entity recognition on tweets \cite{ritter2011named}. We will develop a named entity recognition system tailored to the energy domain targeting at both the aforementioned basic named entity types and proprietary name classes for the energy domain (such as the names of power plants, feeders, governmental or public energy organizations) which will be able to process both formal and informal texts.
\item \emph{Temporal expression extraction}: Temporal expressions, such as date and time expressions (particularly when normalized to actual dates), are crucial to pinpoint the exact time of events mentioned in natural language texts. Hence, EneMonIE will include a temporal expression extractor to obtain this information from the media texts. For this purpose, existing state-of-the-art temporal expression extractors such as HeidelTime \cite{strotgen2010heideltime} can be employed and customized accordingly.
\item \emph{Event extraction}: Extraction of events, regarding security and health, from news articles have long been studied and similar to the case of named entity recognition, recent proposals target informal texts like the study described in \cite{ritter2012open}. Energy-related events occurring all over the world are of public importance. Examples of these events include small or large-scale power outages like blackouts or brownouts that may affect the lives of many people, installation of new power plants with many public or environmental implications, or the invention of a new technology concerning renewable energy production. EneMonIE will have an event extractor particularly tailored to the energy domain to monitor these energy events.
\end{enumerate}
Other functional components of the system will be tools for the following tasks:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Text categorization}: This module will be based on the employed energy ontologies and will filter the data sources to determine energy-related textual content. Hence, this categorization stage is the very first operation of EneMonIE on the incoming data stream. The documents passing this filtering stage will then be subject to the information extraction and other data processing stages of the system.
\item \emph{Social network construction}: This component will be applied to the extracted named entities within the documents to reveal mainly the co-occurrence and coreference relationships between the extracted entities. These social networks can further be employed to determine relationships between the documents as well.
\item \emph{Sentiment analysis}: Sentiment analysis (or, opinion mining) is a relatively new research topic in NLP which attracts considerable research attention \cite{pang2008opinion}. EneMonIE's sentiment analysis component will be applied to the social media texts to automatically determine the opinions of people on energy-related posts. We believe that this will be an important feature of EneMonIE, as the public opinions on energy events and technologies may affect the related decision-making processes.
\item \emph{Media interlinking (alignment)}: This component will utilize the findings of the named entity recognition and social media construction modules to interlink different media documents reporting the same topic or event. As it is hard to make sure that this alignment procedure is always highly precise, we will provide percentages denoting the degrees of confidence of this procedure to present these fuzzy results to the users.
\item \emph{Information fusion and summarization}: This component will combine the results of the aligned documents and provide informative and concise summaries of the related documents, making use of the text summarization techniques both on conventional formal texts like news articles and on informal texts as exemplified with the study on tweets \cite{chakrabarti2011event}. Thereby, the information to be presented to the users are prepared at this stage.
\item \emph{Web-based information retrieval and visualization}: Finally, Web-based user interface of EneMonIE will facilitate access to the extracted and distilled information regarding energy trends, events, scientific and technological developments, together with the corresponding links to the original data sources whenever applicable. Several significant statistical analysis results regarding this energy information compiled by EneMonIE's functional pipeline will be demonstrated with convenient visualization capabilities.
\end{enumerate}
The system will also comprise ontologies and other resources like lexicons that the system components make use of. There are existing ontologies on topics within the energy domain such as the ontology for electrical power quality \cite{kuccuk2010pqont}, the wind energy ontology \cite{kuccuk2014semi,kuccuk2018ontowind}, and more recently the electrical energy ontology \cite{kuccuk2015high}, to name a few. All of these ontologies are publicly available online for research purposes. Before their prospective employment within EneMonIE, these ontologies will be extended and revised to cover the larger domain of energy. The building processes of the ontologies and lexicons will be a blend of manual engineering and automatic machine learning approaches. EneMonIE will also make use of community-created resources like Wikipedia to enrich its semantic data sources, through automated means. Finally, the system outputs will be stored in a central relational database.\\
EneMonIE will be in operation for media in Turkish and English languages. We plan to ship our first operational prototype system supporting Turkish media. Next, together with the lessons learnt during the building of the first prototype, we will grossly increase the scope of EneMonIE by extending it to be applicable to media in English as well. Nevertheless, we plan to turn it into a multilingual system as a plausible direction of future work.\\
In order to ensure the feasibility of EneMonIE, existing open-source software and libraries for the functional components will be considered for adaptation in the first place. In case we cannot find a viable candidate for a particular task, we will consider building components from scratch through automatic learning, manual engineering, or hybrid methods combining the best practices. The existing knowledge resources like the aforementioned publicly available ontologies and community-created open knowledge bases like Wikipedia will enable us to have a good basis to build our semantic EneMonIE system.
\section{Contributions of EneMonIE}\label{sec:exam}
The main contributions of our Web-based semantic monitoring system for the energy domain, EneMonIE, are listed below:
\begin{itemize}
\item To the best of our knowledge, this is the first semantic system making heavy use of information processing technologies, particularly those of NLP, information retrieval, and knowledge-based systems, proposed for the high-impact topic of energy. As we have pointed out before, energy is a common asset affecting directly or indirectly the lives of every human being in the world. Therefore, automatic extraction, distillation, fusion and enrichment of energy-related trends, events as well as scientific and technological developments from the Internet and serving this information for public use is a considerable interdisciplinary (broadly combining energy (with related disciplines) and computer science) contribution. It can be considered as a significant accomplishment within the recent research topic of ``energy informatics".
\item EneMonIE will be a fully-automated system, the components of which will run continuously on the Internet, similar in nature to the open-domain continuous learning systems such as NELL \cite{carlson2010toward}, DeepDive \cite{niu2012deepdive}, and Knowledge Vault \cite{dong2014knowledge} although our system will be a targeted closed-domain one for the energy domain. Hence, the system will continuously extract valuable energy information, then will store this information after associating them with their original sources, and will present the extracted information to the interested parties, including decision-makers, in convenient presentation and visualization formats.
\item When building the text processing systems for the energy domain, we will pinpoint the challenges of this adaptation and development process. We will discover genuine and novel ways to tackle these challenges, will come up with efficient solutions, and eventually realize these solutions as efficient software systems.
\item EneMonIE is also significant for its set of diverse data sources, hence can be considered as a multimedia system. Different media types like news articles, news videos, social media texts, blog posts, scholarly articles and technical reports, and open energy data (may be available as linked open data) are all within the scope of the data sources of EneMonIE. Upon the implementation of EneMonIE, diverse documents from these sources will be processed, they will be interlinked, processed to extract important information, sentiments, and social networks, and finally the fused results will be presented for public use. Yet, we should note that only textual data processing is planned for the data sources, therefore, for media like videos, only associated video texts will be processed.
\item EneMonIE will be a bilingual system, operational on media in Turkish and English languages. But it will also have a modular structure allowing plugging in new components provided that these components comply with the related system interfaces. Therefore, EneMonIE will be an extensible system which can be turned into a multilingual system by equipping it with language-specific text processing tools.
\item Together with the automatic acquisition of open energy data and information obtained through scholarly articles and technical reports regarding the recent scientific and technological developments on energy, EneMonIE will also act as a hub promoting energy research with its facilities to showcase scientific and technological trends. Interested researchers will be able to carry out deeper analysis of the compiled data and information available through EneMonIE to derive valuable research results.
\item Wits its diverse data sources, automatic text processing capabilities, and presentation facilities; EneMonIE will be an important source of distilled and concise information for decision-makers including energy generation, transmission, and distribution system operators, energy research centres as well as academicians, students, other individuals interested in the pace of events about energy all over the world.
\end{itemize}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conc}
In this paper, we present the architecture of a semantic system, called EneMonIE, proposed for monitoring energy trends using open data sources available online. EneMonIE will be built as large-scale Web-based semantic system for monitoring up-to-date energy trends through the use of automatic, continuous, and guided information extraction from diverse media available on the Web. Here, with the term \emph{trend}, we mean all energy-related events such as scientific and technological developments; events with social, financial, and environmental impacts; and national and international policy changes. Additionally, EneMonIE will be a hub for open energy information and data published by related energy organizations or researchers. During the building process of EneMonIE, we aim to pinpoint the challenges of the adaptation and development of text processing tools for the energy domain, to come up with novel and efficient solutions to these challenges, and realize these solutions as efficient pieces of software components.
\bibliographystyle{lrec2006}
|
\section{Introduction}
Neural Machine Translation (NMT) has achieved great progress in sentence-level translation \cite{Bahdanau2015NeuralMT,xia2017deliberation,vaswani2017attention}. However, sentence-level models may ignore discourse phenomena and translate sentences in isolation.
The use of context in document-level translation has been advocated by NMT pioneers for decades and can be divided into two categories.
The first uses several surrounding sentences as the context ~\cite{miculicich2018document,voita2019good,ma2020simple,xu2020efficient},
the other uses the whole document context
~\cite{maruf2018document,tan2019hierarchical,xiong2019modeling,zheng2020towards}.
But these contexts are limited to a fixed span of the document and how to increase the diversity of context is still a challenge.
Inspired by memory-based methods in sentence-level translation \cite{gu2018search,xu2020boosting,shang2021guiding}, we can explicitly retrieve similar sentences to augment document-context. But \citet{bao2021g} conducted a detailed analysis that translating longer document may fail to not converge or stick around local minima. Besides, more document-contexts may contain more irrelevant words. Therefore, how to effectively leverage knowledge and select the proper words from a larger hypothesis space is another challenge.
To address the aforementioned problems, we propose a \textbf{S}elective \textbf{M}emory-augmented Neural \textbf{D}ocument \textbf{T}ranslation model (\textsc{SMDT}{}). The \textsc{SMDT}{} firstly retrieves sentence pairs from training corpus to enrich translation memory (TM). We merge the entire document and the retrieval content into one input unit and divide it by sentence. To capture the short- and long-term dependencies, we introduce two-stream attention with selective mechanism: 1) For each sentence, local attention can empower the model to capture the short-term dependencies and block other sentences, 2) and diverse global attention adopts three types of attention to obtain different aspects of context including retrieved sentence pairs, all sentences of the entire document and the most adjacent sentences.
Following \cite{yang2021learning}, we add a selection mechanism at the top of the encoder block to reduce
redundant words from TM.
In addition, sentence-level translation task has been shown can also help document-level translation task \cite{bao2021g}. To verify the idea, we perform multi-task learning and achieve significant improvement.
Our contributions can be summarized as follows:
(i) We introduce \textsc{SMDT}{}, a novel method of augmenting translation memory with retrieved similar sentences and including two-stream attention with selective mechanism to capture appropriate knowledge from multiple contextual information.
(ii) We evaluate this model on three document-level machine translation datasets. The experimental results show that our model can achieve competitive performance compared to previous works. We also present ablation studies to provide useful insights on the effectiveness of model variants.
\section{Method}
\subsection{Problem Definition}
Given a source document $X = \left\{x_1,\dots,x_m\right\}$ and target document $Y=\left\{y_1,\dots,y_m\right\}$, we can retrieve a set of similar sentence pairs $Z_X=\left\{z_1,\dots,z_m\right\}$ using similarity metric,
where each pair is combined with the retrieved source and target sentence. The target translation probability is formulated as below:
\begin{SmallEquation}
\begin{equation} \label{translaiton-probability}
P(Y|X) = \prod \limits_{i=1}^m P(y_i|X,Z_X;\theta)
\end{equation}
\end{SmallEquation}where $\theta$ are model parameters.
\subsection{Input Construction}
We first use the widely-used search engine Lucene\footnote{\url{https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr}} to retrieve similar sentences, which provide diverse context candidates. Given a source sentence $x$, the similar source sentence $x_{i}^{r}$ and corresponding target sentence $y_{i}^{r}$ from the bilingual training corpus are concatenated as one part $z_{i}=(x_{i}^{r},y_{i}^{r})$. The input of our work is set as the concatenated source sentences and the corresponding translation pairs $[X;Z]$, where we use a special separator to distinguish the original document and the retrieval sentences.
\subsection{Two-Stream Attention with Selective TM}
Self-attention and cross-attention with multi-head are used to obtain information from different representation subspaces at different positions \cite{vaswani2017attention}. Each head corresponds to a scaled dot-product attention, which operates on the query $Q$, key $K$, and value $V$. The masking matrix $M$ is used to mask illegal tokens before softmax:
\begin{SmallEquation}
\begin{equation} \label{attention}
\text{Attention}(Q,K,V,M) = \text{softmax}(\frac{QK^T}{\sqrt{d_k}}+M)V
\end{equation}
\end{SmallEquation}where $d_k$ is the dimension of the key vector.
The output values are concatenated and projected by a feed-forward layer to get final values:
\begin{SmallEquation}
\begin{equation} \label{mha}
\begin{split}
\text{MHA}(Q,K,V,M) = \text{Concat}(head_1, ..., head_h)W^O \\
\text{\textit{where} head}_i = \text{Attention}(QW_i^Q, KW_i^K, VW_i^V, M)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{SmallEquation}where MHA denotes the multi-head attention with $h$ heads. $W_O$, $W_Q$, $W_K$, and $W_V$ are parameters.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{diverse_global_attention.pdf}
\caption{Explanation of the diverse global attention. Each head chooses one attention type from (1)-(3).}
\label{figure1}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Our model extends the multi-head attention with two-stream attention architecture including local attention and diverse global attention.
The local attention is employed to capture local dependencies and diverse global attention at top layers is used for global context information.
\paragraph{Local Attention}
Local attention for encoder and decoder only obtains the local sentence information and disregards other sentences. We modify the masking matrix $M$ in Equation \ref{attention} to discard irrelevant sentences.
\paragraph{Diverse Global Attention}
Since different heads focus on diverse spans of the sentence \cite{sukhbaatar2019adaptive}, we adopt diverse global attention to concentrate on different context ranges.
More specifically, we provide three types of attention for each head to obtain different aspects of context.
In Figure \ref{figure1}, the diverse global attention includes three parts:
(i) \textbf{Memory-focus attention}, where each source sentence depends on the corresponding retrieved sentence pair. The translation memory can provide additional information and the context of the target locale.
(ii) \textbf{Document Attention}, which simultaneously focuses on all sentences in the same document. The entire document can provide rich information, but will also introduce a lot of noise.
(iii) \textbf{Adjacent Sentence Attention}, which regards close sentences as the context instead of entire document. Close sentences provide high-relevant context and alleviate the problem of large hypothesis space. In our work, we unify three types of attention as the diverse global attention to extract global and abundant representations from the document and retrieved pairs.
Local attention and diverse global attention are combined using a commonly used gate-sum module \cite{zhang2016gated} at the top two layers.
\paragraph{Selection Mechanism}
Following \citet{yang2021learning}, we add a selection layer at the top of the encoder to select useful pieces of the translation memory.
We use hidden states $h^{L+1}$ of $L$ weighted combinations of the encoder block features to choose the proper words, where the binary classification is used to decide whether the $j$-th position in the retrieved is retained:
\begin{SmallEquation}
\begin{equation} \label{selectlayer}
\begin{split}
h^{L+1} &= \text{Self-Attn}(\sum_{i=1}^{L}a_i h_i)\\
\sigma &= \text{argmax}\ \text{softmax}(W_s h^{L+1})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{SmallEquation}where $a_i$ is the learnable weight of the $i$-th block and $W_s\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times 2}$. $\sigma=(\sigma_1,...,\sigma_t)$ with $t$ words. $\sigma_j=1$ denotes the $j$-th word is selected while $\sigma_j=0$ denotes $j$-th word is discarded.
\subsection{Multi-task Learning Framework}
Our multi-task learning framework consists of main and auxiliary tasks. Herein, we refer to the document machine translation task as the main task and the sentence machine translation task as the auxiliary task.
We separately construct the training objectives for sentence-level and document-level translation based on Equation \ref{translaiton-probability}.
\begin{SmallEquation}
\begin{equation} \label{multitask}
L = \mathbb{E}_{X,Y,Z_{X} \in D_{b}}\log[-P(Y|X,Z_{X};\theta)]
\end{equation}
\end{SmallEquation}where $\theta$ are model parameters. $D_b$ is the bilingual corpus and $Z_{X}$ are retrieved pairs.
\paragraph{Document Translation}
The main task is translation at the document level. When preprocessing the data, we do not limit the number of sentences in the document, so each instance contains multiple sentences and retrieved translation pairs.
\paragraph{Sentence Translation}
The auxiliary task is sentence-level translation.
When $m=1$ in Equation \ref{translaiton-probability}, each instance is composed of a single sentence and the corresponding retrieved pair. Compared with the main task, sentence-level translation allows the model to focus on learning the local dependencies under the current single sentence and the external dependencies provided by translation memory, which helps the model learn to select important retrieved pieces.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
\toprule
\textbf{ Method} & {TED} & {News} & {Europarl}\\
\midrule
RNN \cite{bahdanau2015neural} & 19.24 & 16.51 & 26.26\\
SENTNMT \cite{vaswani2017attention} & 23.10 & 22.40 & 29.40 \\
SENTNMT (our implementation) & 24.71 & 25.04 & 31.50 \\
\midrule
HAN \cite{miculicich2018document} & 24.58 & {25.03} & 28.60 \\
SAN \cite{maruf2019selective} & 24.42 & 24.84 & 29.75 \\
Hybrid Context \cite{zheng2020towards} & {25.10} & 24.91 & 30.40 \\
Flat-Transformer \cite{ma2020simple} & 24.87 & 23.55 & 30.09 \\
G-Transformer \cite{bao2021g} & 23.53 & 23.55 & 32.18 \\ \midrule
\textbf{\textsc{SMDT}{} (Our method)} & \textbf{25.12} & \textbf{25.76} & \textbf{32.42} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Comparison results on three document-level machine translation benchmarks with BLEU metrc.}
\label{main}
\end{table}
\section{Experiments}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox{0.75\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|lll}
\toprule
Dataset & \#Sent & \#Documents \\
\midrule
TED & 0.21M/9K/2.3K & 1.7K/92/22\\
News & 0.24M/2K/3K & 6K/80/154\\
Europarl & 1.67M/3.6K/5.1K & 118K/239/359\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Statistics of three datasets.}
\label{datasets}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Datasets}
Following the previous work \cite{maruf2019selective}, we use three public datasets including TED, News, and Europarl.
Statistics of these datasets are reported in Table \ref{datasets}.
The documents are truncated to 1000 tokens.
We use Moses toolkit\footnote{\url{https://github.com/moses-smt/mosesdecoder}} to tokenize the sentences and encode words into subwords \cite{sennrich2016neural} with 30K merge operations. The evaluation metric is the case-sensitive BLEU points \cite{papineni2002bleu}.
\paragraph{Training Setting}
We use 512 embedding size, 2048 FFN size, and 8 attention heads. For diverse global attention, 3 heads use memory-focus attention, 3 heads use document attention, and 2 heads use adjacent sentence attention. Diverse global attention is only used in the top two layers.
A dropout rate of 0.3 is applied to residuals, attentions, and ReLU connections. We use Adam optimizer with $\beta_1=0.9$ and $\beta_2=0.98$ to train all models, and apply label smoothing with an uncertainty of 0.1. All models are trained on 4 GPUs of Nvidia V100. We determine the number of updates/steps automatically by the early stop on
validation set.
\paragraph{Main Results} In Table \ref{main}, we present the BLEU score of our model and other baselines on TED, News, and Europarl.
The results show that our \textsc{SMDT}{} can obtain a leading performance of 25.12/25.76/32.42 on three datasets.
It is noticeable that our proposed method significantly outperforms the Transformer-based SENTNMT baseline model on average, which proves our method sufficiently utilizes different types of contextual information.
Compared with the G-Transformer that also uses two-stream attention, our \textsc{SMDT}{} has improved significantly on TED and News, partly because of the use of the auxiliary task, and partly because of the improvements in our model architecture.
\section{Analysis}
\paragraph{Ablation Study}
To analyze the effect of each component of our \textsc{SMDT}{}, we conduct an ablation study by removing them from our models on the TED dataset in Table \ref{ablation}.
To eliminate the experimental interference of the auxiliary task, our ablation study is only trained on the main task.
After removing the selection layer, the performance drops by 0.86 BLEU scores, indicating the necessity of introducing the selection mechanism for noise filtering.
After removing the diverse global attention, the performance of the model drops by 1.04 BLEU scores, which shows that only using local attention is not enough for document-level translation.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox{0.6\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
\toprule
Operation & BLEU \\
\midrule
\textbf{\textsc{SMDT}{}} & \textbf{24.55} \\
\midrule
w/o select layer & 23.69 \\
w/o diverse global attention & 23.51\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Ablation study of our model only trained with the document translation task on the TED dataset.}
\label{ablation}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox{0.65\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|lll}
\toprule
Context & TED & News & Europarl \\
\midrule
\textbf{diverse (\textsc{SMDT}{})} & \textbf{24.55} & \textbf{24.32} & \textbf{32.24} \\
\midrule
only doc & 23.87 & 24.09 & 32.20 \\
only retrieval & 24.17 & 24.28 & 32.02 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Context replacement results of our model only trained with the document translation task on three datasets, emphasizing importance of document and retrieved sentence pairs.}
\label{replacement}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Context Replacement}
To investigate the influence of different contexts on translation quality, we conduct a context replacement experiment for global attention.
We only use the main task for training in the context replacement experiment to avoid the interference of the auxiliary task.
Table \ref{replacement} summarizes the results of the context replacement experiment.
It can be seen that the performance of our \textsc{SMDT}{} model on TED and News has declined due to the absence of the auxiliary task, which shows the important role of the sentence translation task.
After replacing the contexts of all heads in global attention with the whole input document, the model drops 0.68/0.23/0.04 on three datasets respectively.
Similarly, if the contexts of all heads are replaced with retrieved translation memory, the model drops 0.38/0.04/0.22 on three datasets respectively.
The experiment shows that the use of multiple types of contexts, including the context of the target locale and the context of high-relevant content using a smaller hypothesis space, is effective for improving the quality of document translation.
\section{Related Work}
\paragraph{Neural Machine Translation}
Neural Machine Translation (NMT) has achieved great progress in sentence-level translation \cite{Bahdanau2015NeuralMT,xia2017deliberation,vaswani2017attention}. Context-aware NMT is a more practical task because the sentence to be translated requires supplementary context to address the problem of pronoun translation, lexical cohesion, and discourse connectives \cite{maruf2018document}.
\paragraph{Document-level Translation}
Previous works extend NMT models with an extra module to encode context \cite{zhang2018improving,maruf2019selective,werlen2018document,yang2019enhancing}.
They ignore the relationship between current sentences and context since the dual encoder lacks interaction with each other. A unified encoder \cite{ma2020simple} is proposed to jointly encode current sentences and context. Following this line of research, two-stream self-attention \cite{bao2021g,zhang2020long} is adopted to capture long- and short-term dependencies. But these methods using the whole document encounter training difficulties, such as large hypothesis space and low-quality context with much noise. Different from aforementioned methods, our model extends the two-stream self-attention with selective memory and diverse global attention to enrich context information.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we explored solutions to improve the diversity of context in document-level machine translation. We propose a two-stream attention model called \textsc{SMDT}{} based on selective memory of retrieved pairs. To utilize useful spans of the document and retrieved pairs, diverse global attention is proposed to provide different aspects of global dependencies, which separately focuses on retrieved sentence pairs, the whole document, and the adjacent sentences. Experimental results demonstrate our model can effectively improve performance on three benchmarks in English$\to$German translation direction.
\bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
\nocite{*}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Clusters of galaxies occupy a special place in the hierarchy of cosmic structures as they are the most massive gravitationally bound systems in the Universe. According to the hierarchical scenario of the evolution of cosmic structure \citep{1980lssu.book.....P, 2005RvMP...77..207V}, they arise from the collapse of initial density perturbations having a typical comoving scale of about 10 Mpc/\textit{h} \citep{1993ppc..book.....P, 2008LNP...740..287B}. Above these scales, gravitational clustering is essentially in a linear regime and the dynamics are mostly driven by the Hubble flow, while the non-linear regime is prominent on smaller scales. Moreover, in the inner cluster regions, astrophysical processes such as gas cooling, star formation, feedback from supernovae and active galactic nuclei modify the evolution of the halo properties like, the density profile, the subhalo mass function, etc. \citep{rasia04,rasia06,giocoli10a,despali14,despali16,angelinelli20}. Galaxy clusters thus provide an ideal tool to study the physical mechanisms driving the formation and evolution of cosmic structures in the mildly non-linear regime \citep{tormen98a,springel01b}.
Massive galaxy clusters, composed of a large amount of dark matter \citep[about 85\%, see e.g.][]{1978MNRAS.183..341W}, are expected to grow at the highest peaks of the underlying matter distribution. This establishes a clear correlation between the galaxy cluster mass and the underling matter clustering amplitude. As already shown by \cite{1984ApJ...284L...9K}, the enhanced clustering of Abell galaxy clusters is explained by assuming that they form in the high-density regions. As a consequence, galaxy clusters are biased tracers of the background matter field. Several groups have further developed this idea within the framework of the \cite{PS...1974ApJ...187..425P} formalism \citep[e.g.,][]{1996MNRAS.282..347M, 1999MNRAS.308..119S, 2001MNRAS.323....1S,giocoli10b}, deriving quantitative predictions for the correlation between the halo density field and the underlying matter distribution within the hierarchical scenario for the formation of cosmic structures.
The relation between the cluster dark matter halo density contrast, $\delta_h$, and the
dark matter density contrast in the linear regime, $\delta_m$, is described by the so-called halo bias parameter, $b_{h}$, defined as \citep{2010ApJ...724..878T}
\begin{equation}
b_{h} = \delta_h / \delta_m \ .
\label{eq:halo bias}
\end{equation}
Measurements of the halo bias as a function of the halo mass therefore represent an important test for cosmological models.
The total matter distribution of a galaxy cluster can be broken down in a ``one-halo" term, which determines its halo matter component on scales smaller than the halo virial radius, and a ``two-halo" term for the correlated matter of the surrounding structures, which is prominent on scales much larger than the virial radius.
The first component is usually identified with the galaxy cluster halo and can be described by a Navarro-Frenk-White dark matter profile \citep[][]{1997ApJ...490..493N}. The second component, directly proportional to the halo bias, stems from mass elements in distinct pairs of halos. The two terms of the halo profile correlate in such a way that the bias follows an increasing function of mass \citep[][]{1984ApJ...284L...9K, 1989MNRAS.237.1127C, 1996MNRAS.282.1096M}. This relation has been shown and modeled in several studies based on \textit{N}-body numerical simulations \citep[e.g.][]{2004MNRAS.355..129S, 2005ApJ...631...41T, 2010ApJ...724..878T}.
Weak gravitational lensing (WL) is a suitable approach to investigate the halo model and to measure its major parameters: the mass and the bias. Gravitational lensing relates the deflection of light to the mass distribution along the line-of-sight. As gravitational lensing is based on the very well-tested theory of general relativity and does not rely on the hypothesis of dynamical equilibrium, it allows robust measurements of the mass of cosmic structures and cosmological parameters. WL by galaxy clusters is detected via statistical measurement of source galaxy shears, and provides an efficient way to derive mass density profiles without requiring any assumption about their composition or dynamical state.
For example, WL analysis allows us to reach scales up to $\sim 30 \ Mpc/\textit{h}$ from the center and therefore to directly measure the halo bias \citep{2014ApJ...784L..25C}.
Stacking the shear measurements of cluster background galaxies is a common practice to increase the lensing signals and compensate for the typical low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR hereafter) in the shear profiles of individual galaxy clusters \citep[see for instance][]{2013MNRAS.434..878S}.
This method also makes it possible to arrange the stacked density profiles as a function of the cluster properties, such as their redshift or their richness.
Several authors have probed the dependence of the halo bias on mass \citep{2005PhRvD..71d3511S, 2007arXiv0709.1159J, 2014ApJ...784L..25C, 2015MNRAS.449.4147S, 2016A&A...586A..43V}. These studies have obtained results consistent with the theoretical predictions, but the large uncertainty in the measurements did not allow them to discriminate between different theoretical models. Moreover, recently \citet{2018NatAs...2..744S} found a peculiar galaxy cluster at $z \sim 0.62$ in the PZS2LenS sample \citep[][]{2017MNRAS.472.1946S} showing an extreme value of the halo bias, well in excess of the theoretical predictions. This result motivates further observational work in order to probe with higher accuracy the halo bias-mass relation. Large sky surveys providing deep and high-quality photometric data and reliable catalogs of galaxy clusters are essential.
In this work we perform a novel measurement of the bias-mass relation by using the photometric data from the third data release of KiDS \citep[][]{2013ExA....35...25D, 2017A&A...604A.134D} and the galaxy cluster catalog identified using the Adaptive Matched Identifier of Clustered Objects detection algorithm \citep[AMICO,][]{2018MNRAS.473.5221B}. This catalog is optimal for a stacked WL analysis because of its large size (an effective area of 360.3 square degrees) and its dense field (an effective galaxy number density of $n_{eff} = 8.53 \ arcmin^{-2}$), which allows us to split the stacked WL signal into different bins of cluster redshift and richness while keeping a sufficiently high SNR in each of them. KiDS images are deep enough (limiting magnitudes are 24.3, 25.1, 24.9, 23.8 in \textit{ugri}, respectively) to include numerous sources (almost 15 million) and large enough to compute the profile up to the scales where the bias dominates. This study is part of a series of papers based on AMICO galaxy clusters in the third data release of KiDS. Previous and ongoing publications have presented the detection algorithm \citep{2018MNRAS.473.5221B}, the cluster catalog \citep{2019MNRAS.485..498M}, the calibration of WL masses \citep{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}, and constraints on cosmological parameters otained from cluster counts \citep{2020arXiv201212273L}, WL \citep{2021arXiv210305653G} and cluster clustering \citep{nanni}.
Following the method explained in \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}, we derive mass density profiles from almost 7000 clusters, which is among the largest cluster samples for this kind of analysis. We stack the lensing signal in richness and redshift cluster bins, calibrate the halo parameters and investigate the mass-bias relation. Throughout this paper we assume a spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM model with the following matter, dark energy and baryonic density parameters at the present time $\Omega_m=1-\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.3$, $\Omega_b=\Omega_m-\Omega_c=0.05$ and Hubble parameter $H_0 = 100\textit{h} \ km \ s^{-1} \ Mpc^{-1}$ with $\textit{h}=0.7$.
\section{Data}
\label{sec:Data}
For an accurate lensing signal, we have to look for deep and dense source samples in such way that the statistical number of background sources increases while the contamination of foreground and cluster member galaxies is small.
Our work is based on the optical wide-field imaging Kilo-Degree Survey \citep[KiDS,][]{2013ExA....35...25D}, split into an equatorial stripe (KiDS-N), and a second one centered around the South Galactic Pole (KiDS-S). The survey encompasses four broad-band filters (\textit{ugri}) managed by the OmegaCAM wide-field imager \citep{2011Msngr.146....8K}, presently located on the VLT Survey Telescope \citep[VST,][]{2011Msngr.146....2C}. The data set we use for this work is the Data Release 3\footnote{\url{http://kids.strw.leidenuniv.nl/DR3}} \citep[DR3,][]{2017A&A...604A.134D} and covers a total area of approximately 450 deg$^2$ in five patches following the GAMA survey convention \citep[][G9/G12/G15 within KiDS-N and G23/GS within KiDS-S]{2011MNRAS.413..971D}. This intermediate release includes one third of the final KiDS area, which will ultimately reach 1350 deg$^2$.
\subsection{Cluster catalog}
\label{sec:Cluster catalog}
We use the galaxy cluster catalog obtained from the application of the Adaptive Matched Identifier of Clustered Objects algorithm \citep[AMICO,][]{2018MNRAS.473.5221B} on KiDS DR3 data (AK3, hereafter). AMICO was selected to form part of the \textit{Euclid} analysis pipeline \citep[][]{2019A&A...627A..23E}. The algorithm exploits the Optimal Filtering technique \citep{2005A&A...442..851M, 2011MNRAS.413.1145B} and aims at maximising the SNR for the detection of objects following a physical model for clusters. Specifically, it identifies overdensities of galaxies associated with galaxy clusters taking into account their spatial, magnitude, and photometric redshift distributions \citep{2017A&A...598A.107R}.
The AK3 catalog is fully described in \cite{2019MNRAS.485..498M}. It contains 7988 candidate galaxy clusters covering an effective area of 377 deg$^2$. Clusters are detected above a fixed threshold of $SNR=3.5$. AK3 encompasses an intrinsic richness (defined as the sum of membership probabilities below a consistent radial and magnitude threshold across redshift) range of $2 < \lambda_{\ast} < 140$ and a redshift range $0.1 \leq z < 0.8$.
The richness and redshift distributions are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}. From the figure we can see that the richness slightly increases with redshift.
Conversely, poor and distant clusters are not detected due to their low $SNR$.
These blank regions are usually associated to low levels of completeness (i.e. the fraction between detected and mock galaxy clusters), as shown in Figure~13 of \cite{2019MNRAS.485..498M}.
\subsection{Shear catalog}
\label{sec:Galaxy catalog}
The halo lensing signal relies on the selection of background galaxies relative to galaxy clusters.
\cite{2017MNRAS.465.1454H} presented a complete tomographic cosmic shear analysis of the KiDS-450 catalog (K450), updated from earlier works on KiDS-DR1 and -DR2 \citep{2015A&A...582A..62D, 2015MNRAS.454.3500K}.
The shear is estimated using the \textit{lens}fit likelihood based model-fitting method \citep{2007MNRAS.382..315M, 2013MNRAS.429.2858M, 2008MNRAS.390..149K, 2017MNRAS.467.1627F} on galaxy \textit{r}-band images for which the best-seeing dark time is reserved. Photometric redshifts are derived from K450 galaxy photometry in the \textit{ugri}-bands. They are estimated with a Bayesian code \citep[BPZ,][]{2000ApJ...536..571B} following the methods used for CFHTLenS data in \cite{2012MNRAS.421.2355H}.
The redshift distribution of the galaxies is shown on the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:distribution} in light-gray.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/distribution.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Top panel}: Redshift distributions of AK3 clusters (dark gray) and K450 galaxies (light gray). \textit{Bottom panel}: AK3 clusters in the redshift-richness plane with $SNR \geq 3.5$. Colored rectangles correspond to the redshift-richness bins used in the following analysis (see Section~\ref{sec:Shear data stacked in bins}); the number of clusters enclosed in each bin is displayed. Single colored squares show the mean values in each redshift bin computed as in Equation~\eqref{eq:cluster bin stacking}.}
\label{fig:distribution}
\end{figure}
The survey covers 454 tiles, which after masking overlapping tiles, provides an effective area of $360.3 \ deg^2$. It comprises 14,650,348 sources and has an effective number density \citep[as defined in][]{2012MNRAS.427..146H} of $n_{eff}=8.53 \ arcmin^{-2}$.
\section{Method}
\label{sec:Method}
In this section we provide a short introduction to the WL formalism. We then describe the numerical method to derive the WL signal of galaxy clusters from the shapes of background sources. We discuss the selections of lens-source pairs that improve the stacked measurement and remove those for which the shear distorts the final signal. Finally, we stack the individual lens shear profiles in bins of cluster redshift and richness for an accurate measurement of the halo parameters.
\subsection{Weak-lensing formalism}
\label{sec:Weak-lensing formalism}
In gravitational lensing,
the matter distribution curves space-time and modifies the the path of light rays from background sources, manifesting in a distortion of their intrisic shape. Shape distortion yields isotropic or anisotropic deformation, called convergence, $\kappa$, and shear, $\gamma$, respectively. The tangential component of the shear $\gamma_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}}$ encodes the density of the intervening matter distributed between the source and us. Massive objects such as galaxy clusters are therefore dominant in the information that $\gamma_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}}$ encapsulates, as we will present later. For a review, see e.g. \cite{2001PhR...340..291B, Schneider:2005ka, 2015RPPh...78h6901K}.
The source shape distortion can be expressed in terms of the deflection potential $\psi$. It is described by the Jacobian matrix through the second derivatives of the potential, $\psi_{ij} \equiv \partial_i \partial_j \psi$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A} \equiv \left( \delta_{ij} - \psi_{ij} \right) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1-\kappa-\gamma_1 & -\gamma_2 \\
-\gamma_2 & 1-\kappa+\gamma_1
\end{pmatrix}
\ ,
\label{eq:jacobian matrix}
\end{equation}
in which the convergence $\kappa$ is defined by the Poisson equation $\bigtriangledown^2 \psi \equiv 2\kappa$ and the complex shear $\gamma \equiv \gamma_1 + i \gamma_2$ is given by $\gamma_1 = \frac{1}{2} \left( \psi_{11} - \psi_{22} \right)$ and $\gamma_2 = \psi_{12}$.
Sources initially have an intrinsic unlensed ellipticity $\epsilon_s$, which is converted by cosmic shear into the observed ellipticity $\epsilon$. One describes this deformed ellipse by its minor and major axes $( a, b )$, and from the position angle $\phi$ of the source relatively to the lens, $\epsilon = \vert \epsilon \vert e^{2i\phi}$, where $\vert \epsilon \vert = (a-b) / (a+b)$.
It is convenient to factor out the multiplicative term $(1-\kappa)$ from Equation~\eqref{eq:jacobian matrix} and thereby introduce the reduced shear observable $g \equiv \gamma / (1 - \kappa)$ and its conjugate version $g^{\ast}$. Considering $\vert g \vert \leq 1$, \cite{1997A&A...318..687S} relate shear and ellipticity by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \frac{\epsilon_s + g}{1 + g^{\ast} \epsilon_s} \ .
\label{eq:ellipticity-shear}
\end{equation}
In the WL limit $\gamma \ll 1$ and $\kappa \ll 1$, yielding $\epsilon \approx \epsilon_s + g$. Assuming that sources are randomly oriented, their complex intrinsic ellipticities average to zero, so $\left\langle \epsilon \right\rangle = \left\langle \gamma \right\rangle$. Therefore, the average ellipticity of background galaxies is a direct observable of the shear induced by foreground matter.
The two components of the complex shear are defined relative to a local Cartesian space and are conveniently decomposed into a tangential and a cross component,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \gamma_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}} = - \Re \left( \gamma e^{-2i\phi} \right) = - \left( \gamma_1 \cos 2 \phi + \gamma_2 \sin 2 \phi \right) \ ,
\\
& \gamma_{\textsf{\textbf{\scriptsize{x}}}} = - \Im \left( \gamma e^{-2i\phi} \right) = - \left( \gamma_2 \cos 2 \phi - \gamma_1 \sin 2 \phi \right) \ ,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:cross-tangential shear}
\end{equation}
respectively. Noticing the minus sign in the exponential, it is agreed that for an axially symmetric mass distribution the tangential component returns a positive value around an overdensity, while a negative value characterizes underdensities. On the other hand, the cross component of the shear does not hold any mass information, and thus averages to zero, in the absence of systematic uncertainties. It is possible to relate the shear to a physical quantity, the excess surface mass density $\Delta\Sigma$, as \citep{2004AJ....127.2544S}
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma (R) \equiv \overline{\Sigma}(< R) - \Sigma (R) = \Sigma_{cr} \gamma_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}} (R) \ ,
\label{eq:excess surface mass density}
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma (R)$ is the surface mass density and $\overline{\Sigma}(< R)$ its mean value within the projected radius $R$, and $\Sigma_{cr}$ is the critical surface mass density,
given by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{cr} \equiv \frac{c^2}{4 \pi G} \frac{D_s}{D_l D_{ls}} \ ,
\label{eq:critical density}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of light, $G$ is the gravitational constant and $D_s$, $D_l$ and $D_{ls}$ are the angular diameter distances from the observer to the source, from the observer to the lens and from the lens to the source, respectively.
The reduced shear is a more direct observable than the shear, which remains an approximation of the source ellipticities. However, the reduced shear is not directly included in the definition of the differential excess surface density, so we link these two quantities using $\kappa \equiv \Sigma / \Sigma_{cr}$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:excess surface mass density} and derive
\begin{equation}
g_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}} = \frac{\Delta\Sigma}{\Sigma_{cr} - \Sigma} \ .
\label{eq:g+}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Measurement of the lensing signal}
\label{sec:Measurement of the lensing signal}
Since the ellipticity is an indirect observable of the shear, we denote the corresponding excess surface mass density for $\Sigma_{cr} \epsilon_{\texttt{\textbf{+}} / \textsf{\textbf{\scriptsize{x}}}}$ as $\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_{\texttt{\textbf{+}} / \textsf{\textbf{\scriptsize{x}}}}$. We compute the lensing signal at a given distance from the cluster center by stacking the radial position and the ellipticity of the $i$-th galaxy source over the $j$-th radial annulus. Thereby, we assess the two observables using their weighted mean
\begin{equation}
R_j = \left( \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} R_i^{-\alpha} }{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} } \right)^{-1 / \alpha}; \ \widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_j = \left( \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} \Sigma_{cr, i} \epsilon_i}{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}} \right) \frac{1}{1 + K_j} \ ,
\label{eq:weighted radius delta sigma}
\end{equation}
where the lens-source weight of the $i$-th source is $w_{ls, i} = w_{s, i} \Sigma_{cr, i}^{-2}$ and $w_{s, i}$ is the inverse-variance source weight as defined in \cite{2013MNRAS.429.2858M}. Here, $K_j$ is the weighted mean of the \textit{lens}fit multiplicative bias $m_i$ introduced to calibrate the shear \citep[see][]{2017MNRAS.467.1627F},
\begin{equation}
K_j= \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} m_i }{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}} \ .
\label{eq:weighted multiplicative bias}
\end{equation}
The effective radius is estimated with a shear-weighted mean and computed by approximating the shear profile as a power-law, with $\alpha=1$. \cite{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}, which explored different methods to assess the mean radius, found that this configuration is less dependent on the binning scheme. We compute the average inverse surface critical density to derive the effective redshift of the background sources $z_{back}$ in each radial bin \citep{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{cr}^{-1}(z_{back}) = \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{s, i} \Sigma_{cr, i}^{-1}}{\sum_{i \in j} w_{s, i}} \ .
\label{eq:effective redshift}
\end{equation}
This estimate permits us to compute the modelled reduced shear in Equation~\eqref{eq:g+} as further described in Section~\ref{sec:Halo model}.
A preliminary measurement of the statistical errors of the two observables in Equation~\eqref{eq:weighted radius delta sigma} is given by the weighted standard deviation of the radial distances and by the standard error of the weighted mean, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{R, j}^2 = \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} \left( R_i - R_j \right)^2 }{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}}; \quad \sigma_{\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}, j}^2 = \frac{1}{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}} \ ,
\label{eq:error}
\end{equation}
respectively.
A more complete way to assess the uncertainty given by the averaged signal is to compute the covariance matrix as in Appendix~\ref{sec:Covariances}. This statistical measurement of the noise includes the errors which propagate among the bins.
In the following, we provide lensing profiles sampled in 30 annuli corresponding to 31 logarithmically equi-spaced radii in the range $\left[ 0.1, 30 \right] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. This choice is justified since our analysis both requires small and large scales to identify the two terms of the halo model. We discard the four inner annuli of the the measured shear profile to avoid contamination from cluster member galaxies and the contribution of the BCG in the resulting density profiles \citep{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. Effects of miscentering are minimized as the lensing signal is considered only for $R \gtrsim 0.2 \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. This measurement is also repeated around random lens points to compensate for the systematic signal, as discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec:Random fields}.
We illustrate the process of stacking the shear signal in Figure~\ref{fig:shear_example}, where a 2D distribution of selected sources around the AK3 cluster J225151.12-332409 is shown (more details in Section~\ref{sec:Selection of the sources}). For visual convenience in the illustration, we highlighted only 12 of the 31 radii in the radial range $\left[ 0.35, 3 \right] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. The tangential and the cross components of $\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}$ associated to the 10 annuli are additionally displayed in the bottom panel.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/shear_example.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Top panel}: Illustration of eleven of the thirty annuli in the radial range $\left[ 0.35, 3 \right] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$,for the cluster AK3 J225151.12-332409. The sources shown are selected following the cut discussed in Section~\ref{sec:Background galaxies}. Blank regions indicate masks \citep{2017MNRAS.465.1454H}. \textit{Bottom panel}: Tangential and cross components of the excess surface mass density (Equation~\ref{eq:weighted radius delta sigma}) of J225151.12-332409. Vertical error bars are derived from Equation~\eqref{eq:error}.}
\label{fig:shear_example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Selection of lens-source pairs}
\label{sec:Selection of the sources}
An effective discrimination between background lensed sources, and foreground and cluster member galaxies is necessary to accurately derive the halo density profile. We subsequently select background galaxies using photometric redshifts or their position in the (\textit{r}-\textit{i}) vs (\textit{g}-\textit{r})-color-color (hereafter dubbed \textit{gri}-CC) plane.
\subsubsection{Background galaxies}
\label{sec:Background galaxies}
A thorough selection of sources allows us to minimize contamination from misplaced galaxies and their incorrect shear. This step is essential as contaminated galaxies usually dilute the resulting lensing signal \citep{1538-4357-619-2-L143, 2007ApJ...663..717M}.
We first select members in the source catalog with
\begin{equation}
z_s > z_l + \Delta z \ ,
\label{eq:rough selection}
\end{equation}
where $z_s$ is the best-fitting BPZ photometric redshift of the source, $z_l$ is the lens redshift and $\Delta z = 0.05$ is a secure interval to balance uncertainties coming from photometric redshifts.
Then, we applied a more accurate redshift filter following the work of \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} and \cite{2017MNRAS.472.1946S},
\begin{equation}
\left( 0.2 \leq z_s \leq 1 \right) \wedge \left( \texttt{ODDS} \geq 0.8 \right) \wedge \left( z_{s, min} > z_l + \Delta z \right) \ .
\label{eq:photoz selection}
\end{equation}
The \texttt{ODDS} parameter from the KiDS shear catalog accounts for the probability distribution function (PDF) of the redshift: a high value indicates a high reliability of the best photo-z estimate. The parameter $z_{s, min}$ measures the lower bound of the $2 \sigma$ confidence interval of the PDF.
A complementary approach for selecting galaxies is based on the source distribution in the \textit{gri}-CC plane. \cite{2010MNRAS.405..257M} highlight a strong correlation between the location in the (\textit{r}-\textit{i}) vs (\textit{g}-\textit{r}) diagram and the galaxy redshift. Following an original proposal by \cite{2012MNRAS.420.3213O}, \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} exploit a relevant selection which filters KiDS galaxies beyond $z_s \simeq 0.7$, obtaining
\begin{equation}
\left( g-r < 0.3 \right) \vee \left( r-i > 1.3 \right) \vee \left( g-r < r-i \right) \ .
\label{eq:oguri selection}
\end{equation}
This selection was tested in \cite{2014ApJ...784L..25C}, \cite{2017MNRAS.472.1946S, 2018NatAs...2..744S} and \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}, and conserves 97 percent of galaxies with CFHTLenS spectroscopic redshifts above $z_s \gtrsim 0.63$ \citep{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}. In Appendix~\ref{sec:Colour-colour selections}, we discuss the alternative color-color selection presented in \cite{2010MNRAS.405..257M} and the contamination fraction that leads the two colour-colour cuts in the COSMOS field.
Finally, we formulate the selection of the background sources by combining the following Equations as follows
\begin{equation}
\eqref{eq:rough selection} \wedge \left[ \eqref{eq:photoz selection} \vee \eqref{eq:oguri selection} \right] \ .
\label{eq:full selection}
\end{equation}
As a further restriction for the selection presented in this study, we restricted the source redshifts to the range $z_s > 0.2$. This complementary selection is assumed since a large fraction of sources are below this limit, which might increase the contamination of nearby clusters \citep{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}.
\subsubsection{Foreground clusters}
\label{sec:Foreground clusters}
We consider galaxy clusters selected in the redshift range $z_l \in \left[ 0.1, 0.6 \right[$, as done in \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. We select clusters at $z_l < 0.6$ because the \textit{gri}-CC cut is very effective for sources at $z_s > 0.6$. Furthermore remote clusters convey a lower density of background sources. Objects at $z_l < 0.1$ are discarded because of the reduced lensing power of low mass clusters (see Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}) and the inferior photometric redshift accuracy of the sources. The final sample consists of 6961 clusters (87.1\% of the whole catalog).
In Figure~\ref{fig:full profile} we plot the mass density profile obtained for the complete cluster sample assuming the combined selection of sources given in Equation~\eqref{eq:full selection}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/full_profile.pdf}
\caption{The stacked matter density profile of AK3 clusters with $0.1 \leq z_l < 0.6$. The signal is computed assuming the combined selections given in Equation~\eqref{eq:full selection}.
Horizontal and vertical bars are derived from Equation~\eqref{eq:error}.}
\label{fig:full profile}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Shear data stacked in bins}
\label{sec:Shear data stacked in bins}
Stacking the signal permits us to constrain the two parameters of the halo model (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo model}) and derive a generic halo bias-mass relation (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-bias relation}). We consider 14 cluster bins combined in redshift and richness. Table~\ref{tab:bins} shows the binning pattern, also displayed in cells in the $z_l$ vs $\lambda_\ast$ diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}.
The binning scheme mostly follows \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} to provide nearly uniform WL SNR per bin. The only difference is for the last redshift bin, in which a larger number of clusters are considered for intermediate richness ranges. In this way, we compensate for the numerous galaxy clusters in the higher richness bin and homogenize the distribution of clusters in this redshift bin with the two other redshift bins.
Considering the $j$-th radial bin of the $k$-th galaxy cluster, the corresponding stacked observable in the $K$-th cluster bin is
\begin{equation}
O_{j, K} = \frac{\sum_{k \in K} W_{j, k} O_{j, k} }{\sum_{k \in K} W_{j, k}} \ ,
\label{eq:cluster radial bin stacking}
\end{equation}
with $W_{j, k} = \sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}$ . The shear estimate is not accurate since the correction of the multiplicative bias has already been applied via Equation~\eqref{eq:weighted radius delta sigma} to the signal of each individual galaxy cluster, while it should be corrected over the averaged measure of the bin. We compute the effective value of the cluster observable $O_k$, e.g. richness or redshift of cluster $k$, among the cluster bins $K$ through a lensing-weighted mean \citep[e.g.][]{2014ApJ...795..163U}
\begin{equation}
O_K = \frac{\sum_{k \in K} W_k O_k }{\sum_{k \in K} W_k} \ ,
\label{eq:cluster bin stacking}
\end{equation}
where $W_k = \sum_j W_{j, k}$ is the total weight of the cluster $k$ for the whole area of the cluster profile.
The analysis of covariance is performed by computing all the observable quantities using a bootstrap method with replacement and resampling the source catalog 1000 times. In addition, we combined the shear signal with a covariance matrix computed over the realizations of the bootstrap sampling. We also paid attention to the cross-covariances between the redshift-richness bins. As a final step, we subtract the signal around random points from the stacked profiles, and the corresponding error is added in quadrature. The final covariance signal can alternatively be assessed with a jackknife method, where the lensing signal is measured over regions of the sky. This way, there is no longer any need to combine cluster and random covariance matrices, since the statistical covariance is directly computed from the subtracted lensing signal \citep[][]{2017MNRAS.471.3827S}. Covariances and random signals aim to compensate for the statistical noise and the systematic effects.
We discuss these two contributions in detail in Appendices~\ref{sec:Covariances} and~\ref{sec:Random fields}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Redshift-richness bins for the WL analysis.}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline \hline
$z_l$ & $\lambda_\ast$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 15 \right[ \ \left[ 15, 25 \right[ \ \left[ 25, 35 \right[ \ \left[ 35, 45 \right[ \ \left[ 45, 140 \right[$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 20 \right[ \ \left[ 20, 30 \right[ \ \left[ 30, 45 \right[ \ \left[ 45, 60 \right[ \ \left[ 60, 140 \right[$ \\
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 25 \right[ \ \left[ 25, 40 \right[ \ \left[ 40, 55 \right[ \ \left[ 55, 140 \right[$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:bins}
\end{table}
\section{Halo model}
\label{sec:Halo model}
In this section we explore the theoretical mass density distribution of the halo, also called the halo model. A composite density profile is then fitted to the measured tangential reduced shear given in Equation~\eqref{eq:g+}. All the terms in this relation depend on the surface density $\Sigma$. It is computed by the projection over the line of sight of the excess matter density $\Delta\rho$ in a sphere centered on the halo as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(R) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \Delta\rho \left( \sqrt{R^2 + \chi^2} \right) d\chi \ .
\label{eq:Sigma}
\end{equation}
$\Delta\rho$ includes the two terms of the halo model from the halo-matter correlation function $\xi_{hm}$
\begin{equation}
\Delta\rho = \bar{\rho}_m \xi_{hm} \ ,
\label{eq:Delta rho}
\end{equation}
and the mean matter density $\bar{\rho}_m \equiv \Omega_m \rho_c$ must be computed in physical units at the redshift of the sample. The critical density $\rho_c$ is related to the first of the Friedmann equations, and is defined as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{c} = \frac{3H(z)^2}{8 \pi G} \ .
\label{eq:rho_c}
\end{equation}
In WL, we average this quantity over the disk to derive the mean surface density enclosed within the radius $R$
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Sigma}(<R) = \frac{2}{R^2} \int_0^R R^{\prime} \Sigma \left( R^{\prime} \right) dR^{\prime} \ .
\label{eq:mean Sigma}
\end{equation}
In the following and for the terms contributing to the halo model, we are interested in the main lens structure (Section~\ref{sec:Main halo component}), which comprises the total mass of the halo and its concentration.
In addition, we include the contribution of possibly miscentered density profiles in Section~\ref{sec:Miscentering correction}. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:Correlated matter component} completes the halo model with the correlated matter component and allows the cosmological study from the analysis of the halo bias. In Figure~\ref{fig:halo model} we display, as an example, the complete model for a given mass, concentration, bias and redshift of the halo.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/halo_model.pdf}
\caption{The halo model (blue) is composed of the BMO halo mass profile \citep[thick green,][]{2009JCAP...01..015B}, its off-centered contribution \citep[thick cyan,][]{2007ApJ...656...27J} and the second term derived from the linear matter power spectrum \citep[thick red,][]{1999ApJ...511....5E}. For comparison, we show the centered / off-centered NFW mass profile \citep[dashed green / cyan,][]{1997ApJ...490..493N} and the surrounding matter term with a non-linear power spectrum \citep[dashed red,][]{2012ApJ...761..152T}. The density profile is computed in this example for a halo at $z_l = 0.2$ with a total mass $M_{200c} = 10^{14} \ M_{\odot} / \textit{h}$, a concentration $c_{200c} = 4$ and a bias set at $b_h = 1$ (with $\sigma_8 = 0.83$). The variance and the fraction of an off-centered population contribute to the profile with $\sigma_{off} = 0.25 \ Mpc / \textit{h}$ and $f_{off} = 0.25$. Finally, the reduced shear is given for an effective source redshift $z_s = 1$, while the non-shaded area reveals the range allowed by the stacked WL analysis.}
\label{fig:halo model}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Main halo component}
\label{sec:Main halo component}
The correlation between the halo and its own matter content is given by the halo matter density profile $\rho_h$
\begin{equation}
\xi_{1h} = \frac{\rho_h}{\bar{\rho}_m} - 1 \ .
\label{eq:1 halo}
\end{equation}
Analytic calculations and numerical simulations suggest that dark matter halos have a symmetric density profile in a spherical aperture \citep{1996ApJ...462..563N}. More recent studies look at the impact of the triaxiality of the halos as a new source of uncertainty in the WL signal \citep[][]{Oguri_2005, 2010A&A...514A..93M, 2011MNRAS.416.3187S}. This systematic involves a larger scatter of the mass and over-estimates the concentration when triaxial clusters are aligned with the line of sight. Several works, such as \cite{1997ApJ...490..493N, 2001MNRAS.321..559B} provided a specific analytical form for the halo distribution, also called the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) density profile, in which the density varies with the distance from the center $r$ as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\textsc{nfw}} = \frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2} \ ,
\label{eq:NFW}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_s = \rho_c \delta_c$ is the scale density and $r_s$ the scale radius.
The overdensity contrast $\delta_c$ can be expressed as a function of the concentration $c$ and the overdensity factor $\Delta$ as
\begin{equation}
\delta_c = \frac{\Delta c^3}{3 m\left(c\right)} \ .
\label{eq:delta_c}
\end{equation}
The function $m(c)$ depends the choice of density profile and on the concentration parameter as in Equation\eqref{eq:m}. Therefore, we adopt the common virial value $\Delta = 200c$, relating to a spherical volume with a density 200 times higher than the critical density of the Universe. Hence, we parametrize the scale radius as $r_s = r_{200c} / c_{200c}$. We leave the concentration within that sphere free in order to study the relation between the mass and the concentration in Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-concentration relation}. A second approach would be to consider an existing mass-concentration scaling relation, e.g. from \cite{2015ApJ...806....4M} based on X-ray selected galaxy clusters of the Cluster Lensing And Supernova Survey with Hubble \citep[CLASH,][]{2012ApJS..199...25P}, or from simulations \citep[e.g.][]{2018ApJ...859...55C}. The 3D NFW profile can be analytically converted into a 2D version and thereby extended to an excess surface mass density version following \cite{2002A&A...390..821G}.
The NFW profile has a non-physical divergence of its total mass \citep[][]{2003MNRAS.340..580T}. The Baltz-Marshall-Oguri \citep[BMO,][]{2009JCAP...01..015B} profile is a smoothly truncated version of the NFW profile which allows to circumvent this problem with infinite mass. This profile presents the following shape
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\textsc{bmo}} = \frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2} \left( \frac{r_t^2}{r^2 + r_t^2} \right)^2 \ .
\label{eq:BMO}
\end{equation}
We set the truncation radius to $r_t = 3 r_{200c}$ in the following analysis \citep{2014ApJ...784L..25C, 2017MNRAS.472.1946S, 2019MNRAS.484.1598B}.
The BMO profile also provides less biased estimates of mass and concentration with respect to the NFW profile, and better describes the density profile at the transition scales between the one-halo and two-halo terms \citep{2011MNRAS.414.1851O}.
\cite{2009JCAP...01..015B} provide an analytical expression for the surface mass density.
The function $m$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:delta_c} differs according to the profile as \citep{2011MNRAS.414.1851O}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& m_{\mathrm{\textsc{nfw}}} = \ln \left(1+c\right)-\frac{c}{1+c} \\
& m_{\mathrm{\textsc{bmo}}} = \frac{\tau^{2}}{2(\tau^{2}+1)^{3}(1+c)(\tau^{2}+c^{2})} \\
&\quad \times\Big[c(\tau^{2}+1) \big\{c(c+1)-\tau^{2}(c-1)(2+3 x)-2 \tau^{4} \big\} \\
&\quad +\tau(c+1)(\tau^{2}+c^{2}) \big\{2(3 \tau^{2}-1) \arctan (c / \tau) \\
&\quad +\tau(\tau^{2}-3) \ln (\tau^{2}(1+c)^{2} / (\tau^{2}+c^{2})) \big\}\Big] \ ,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:m}
\end{equation}
where $\tau \equiv r_t/r_s$. We display the NFW and BMO surface mass density profiles in Figure~\ref{fig:halo model}. We indicate $r_{200c}$ and $r_t$ locations with vertical arrows.
\subsection{Miscentering correction}
\label{sec:Miscentering correction}
The detection of clusters is based on the identification of galaxy overdensities, hence the adopted cluster center corresponds to the peak in the projected space of the galaxy distribution. This peak may not coincide with the barycenter of the DM distribution.
In reality, we expect the detected pixel position of the cluster center to possibly be shifted with respect to the center of the halo. \cite{2011MNRAS.416.2388S} and \cite{2012ApJ...757....2G} discussed the importance of locating the centers of dark matter halos in order to properly estimate their mass profiles. Miscentering is expected to be a small with respect to the cluster radius, under the assumption that light traces dark matter
\citep{zitrin11a,zitrin11b,coe12,merten15,donahue16}. However, radial miscentering is larger for optical clusters selected in a survey with a complex mask footprint.
Hence, we introduce the radial displacement of the cluster center $R_{off}$, while the off-centered density profile is the average of the centered profile over a circle drawn around the incorrect center \citep{doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11091.x, 2007ApJ...656...27J}
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{off}(R|R_{off}) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \Sigma_{cen} \left( \sqrt{R^2 + R_{off}^2 + 2RR_{off} \cos{\theta}} \right) d\theta \ .
\label{eq:Sigma off single}
\end{equation}
This term holds for an isolated galaxy cluster. We extend the profile to a global population of galaxy clusters so that the off-centered contribution is given by
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Sigma}_{off}(R|\sigma_{off}) = \int_0^{\infty} P(R_{off}, \sigma_{off}) \Sigma_{off}(R|R_{off}) dR_{off} \ ,
\label{eq:Sigma off}
\end{equation}
where the displaced distances $R_{off}$ follows a Rayleigh distribution with parameter $\sigma_{off}^2$ \citep{2017MNRAS.466.3103S, 2017MNRAS.469.4899M}
\begin{equation}
P(R_{off}, \sigma_{off}) = \frac{R_{off}}{\sigma_{off}^2} \exp{ \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{R_{off}}{\sigma_{off}} \right)^2 \right]} \ .
\label{eq:Probability Roff}
\end{equation}
Considering $f_{off}$ as the fraction of the off-centered population, the total miscentered density profile can be modelled as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{mis}(R|\sigma_{off}, f_{off}) = (1-f_{off}) \Sigma_{cen}(R) + f_{off} \overline{\Sigma}_{off}(R|\sigma_{off}) \ .
\label{eq:Sigma mis}
\end{equation}
Since this mainly impacts the central region of the halo profile, we reduce the correction to the one-halo component of the model. The miscentering effect is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:halo model} with the two elements of the above sum. From the figure, we can also see that the miscentering parameters are degenerate with the halo concentration.
\subsection{Correlated matter component}
\label{sec:Correlated matter component}
On large scales, the lensing signal of the halo is dominated by correlated matter, e.g. neighbouring halos or filaments, rather than its own matter content. The two-halo term usually contributes to the whole profile at $R \gtrsim 10 \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. Following the standard approach, this signal is proportional to the matter-matter correlation function $\xi_m$ through the halo bias $b_h$
\begin{equation}
\xi_{2h} = b_h \xi_m \ .
\label{eq:2 halo}
\end{equation}
We derive the matter correlation function at radius $r$ from the Fourier transform of the dimensionless matter power spectrum $\Delta^2(k) \equiv P(k) k^3 / \left( 2\pi^2 \right)$, and the first-order spherical Bessel function $j_0(x) = \sin{x}/x$
\begin{equation}
\xi_m = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\Delta^2(k)}{k} j_0(kr) dk \ .
\label{eq:correlation function}
\end{equation}
We illustrate the second term of the surface mass density profile in Figure~\ref{fig:halo model} assuming bias $b_h = 1$. We also display results given by the linear matter power spectrum \citep{1998ApJ...496..605E, 1999ApJ...511....5E} and by the non-linear matter power spectrum computed assuming the so-called halofit model \citep{2012ApJ...761..152T}. A halo mass of $M_{200c} = 10^{14} \ M_{\odot} / \textit{h}$ and concentration of $c_{200c} = 4$ contribute 15\% and 25\%, resptively, to the whole profile at the intermediate scale $R=3.16$ Mpc/\textit{h}, considering the BMO miscentered profile as the one-halo term. We focus on the linear version, since we provide a comparative analysis with theoretical mass-bias relations \citep[e.g.][]{2010ApJ...724..878T} derived from simulations, where results are given in terms of ``peak height" in the linear density field. However, it is important to keep in mind that the non-linear version of the power spectrum shows a non-negligible contribution of mass fluctuations at small and intermediate scales.
The second term of the halo model is parameterized in terms of a degenerate value of the halo bias with $\sigma_8^2$. This parameter defines the rms fluctuations $\sigma (M)$ for a mass enclosed in a comoving sphere of radius $8 \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. This actually corresponds to the typical scale for the formation of galaxy clusters. The parameter $\sigma_8^2$ also derives from the matter power spectrum as a normalization factor and permits cosmological inference of the product $b_h\sigma_8^2$.
\subsection{Total halo model}
\label{sec:Total halo model}
The total surface mass density profile is modelled with the following terms and their associated marginalized parameters
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{tot} = \Sigma_{\substack{1h \\ \textsc{bmo} \\ mis}}(M_{200c}, c_{200c}, \sigma_{off}, f_{off}) + \Sigma_{\substack{2h \\ lin}}(b_h\sigma_8^2) \ .
\label{eq:Sigma tot}
\end{equation}
Mass and bias are the two most critical variables among the five free parameters since they both act on the amplitudes of the one-halo and two-halo terms, respectively. For example,
Figure~\ref{fig:halo model} shows Equation~\eqref{eq:Sigma tot} in blue with $z_l = 0.2$, $z_s = 1$, $M_{200c} = 10^{14} \ M_{\odot} / \textit{h}$, $c_{200c} = 4$, $\sigma_{off} = 0.25 \ Mpc / \textit{h}$, $f_{off} = 0.25$ and $b_h\sigma_8^2 = 0.83^2$.
In Section~\ref{sec:MCMC method}, we describe the numerical method used to assess the posteriors and best estimates given by the data derived in Sections~\ref{sec:Data} and~\ref{sec:Method} with the model described in this Section. Bayesian inference allows us to correlate the different halo parameters together and completes the cosmological study.
\section{MCMC method}
\label{sec:MCMC method}
In Bayesian statistics, the Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) method is commonly used to sample posterior distributions. The best parameters are found with the maximum likelihood distribution, giving the highest probability of the sample (also given by minimizing the $\chi^2$-distribution).
In this specific study, the likelihood function is the joint probability of getting the measurement $\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}$ with the parameters $\theta = [\log_{10} M_{200c}, c_{200c}, \sigma_{off}, f_{off}, b_h \sigma_8^2]$ given the model $\Delta \Sigma$. This probability distribution is assumed to be normal and multiplied over the radial bins $i,j$ of the profile to provide a global approximation of the variable
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \left( \theta \right) \equiv p \left( \widetilde{\Delta\Sigma} \vert \theta \right) \propto \exp \left( - \frac{\chi^2}{2} \right) \ ,
\label{eq:likelihood}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\chi^2 = \sum\limits_{i, j} \left( \widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_i - \Delta \Sigma_i \right) C_{ij}^{-1} \left( \widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_j - \Delta \Sigma_j \right) \ ,
\label{eq:chi square}
\end{equation}
and $C_{ij}$ is the covariance matrix described in Appendix~\ref{sec:Covariances}.
The $\chi^2$ parameter is a good indicator of the goodness of fit of a statistical model. Its probability distribution depends on the degree of freedom which is the difference between the number of observations considered in the analysis and the number of variables in the halo model, here $df = 26 - 5 = 21$. In a goodness-of-fit test, the null hypothesis assumes that there is no significant difference between the observed and the expected values. Considering a significance level of $\alpha=0.01$ defining the critical $\chi^2$ values on the left and right tails of the distribution, the null hypothesis is verified if $8.9 < \chi^2 < 38.9$.
The likelihood is defined in the prior uniform distribution of the halo parameters having the following conservative bounds \citep[][]{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}:
\begin{description}
\item[$\bullet$] $\log_{10} \left( M_{200c} /\left( M_{\odot} / \textit{h} \right) \right) \in [12.5, 15.5]$
\item[$\bullet$] $c_{200c} \in [1, 20]$
\item[$\bullet$] $\sigma_{off} \in [0, 0.5] \ Mpc / \textit{h}$
\item[$\bullet$] $f_{off} \in [0, 0.5]$
\item[$\bullet$] $b_h \sigma_8^2 \in [0, 20]$
\end{description}
We based the Bayesian inference on the \texttt{emcee}\footnote{\url{https://emcee.readthedocs.io/}} algorithm \citep[]{2013PASP..125..306F}, which uses an affine-invariant sampling method initially introduced in \cite{2010CAMCS...5...65G}. The cosmological parameters are defined for the fit as in Section~\ref{sec:Introduction}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/triangle.pdf}
\caption{Posterior distributions arising from the halo model and the density profile derived in this study. The median of the marginalized distribution of the mass, concentration, off-centering parameters and bias are displayed as dashed lines. The 2D posterior distributions also show the 68\% and 95\% confidence regions in shaded grey regions.}
\label{fig:MCMC}
\end{figure}
We adopted an ensemble sampler with 32 walkers over a chain of 10,000 steps, giving a total size of 320,000 walkers to sample the posterior distribution. This scheme was already adopted in \cite{2019MNRAS.482.1352M}. We define the burn-in phase as being twice the integrated autocorrelation time $\tau_f$ of our chain $f$. In addition, we tested the convergence of the MCMC by running the potential scale reduction factor $\hat{R}$ \citep[see][]{1992StaSc...7..457G}.
Convergence is reached if the criterion $\hat{R} < 1.1$ is satisfied.
In Figure~\ref{fig:MCMC}, we show the joint posterior distributions given by the sampler for the total profile shown in Figure~\ref{fig:full profile}. In the case of a normal PDF (as for the halo mass and bias), the 16\textit{th}-84\textit{th} and 2\textit{th}-98\textit{th} percentiles highlight $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence regions forming ellipsoids in the 2D parameter space.
In the opposite case, the percentiles show distorted ellipsoidal regions which define the errors on the parameter. For example the $f_{off}$ posterior distribution gives errors larger than the prior boundaries, while we expect the posterior of the parameter to follow a Gaussian-like distribution within the limits defined by the prior function. This effect suggests that the parameter is imprecisely constrained. Nevertheless, the sampler distributions of the parameters of interest (i.e. mass, concentration and bias) converge significantly, which makes it possible to consistently exploit their relation. For the following, we define the error on the parameters as the $1 \sigma$ confidence interval, specifically approximated here with the region where 68\% of walkers lie around the mean.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:Results}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/shears.pdf}
\caption{The stacked shear profiles and the halo model (blue) corresponding to the fitted parameters, with the $1 \sigma$ confidence interval (blue region). Each row corresponds to a redshift bin, while each panel corresponds to an associated richness bin. The top right legends show the SNR, computed from each radial bin and summed over the $[0.2, 30] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$ radial range, and the $\chi^2$ computed as in Equation~\eqref{eq:chi square} given by the 50\textit{th} percentile parameters. The model components: the main halo term (green), the off-centered contribution (cyan), and the correlated matter term (red). Empty points show the first four radial bins not considered in the fit.}
\label{fig:fitted shears}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Mass, concentration and bias resulting from the fit with their errors given in separate rows as different redshift and richness bins. These values correspond to the 16\textit{th}, 50\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentiles of the posterior distributions. We also show the mass measurement in the radial range $[0.2, 3.16] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$ in brackets. Mean richness ($\bar{\lambda}_{\ast}$), lens redshift ($\bar{z}_l$) and source redshift ($\bar{z}_s$) are computed from Equations~\eqref{eq:cluster bin stacking} and~\eqref{eq:effective redshift} and their errors are assumed to be the rms weighted sample deviation. We report both the number of clusters $N_l$ and the fraction of clusters relative to the full selected cluster sample in each redshift-richness bin (column 6).
}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline \hline
$z_l$ & $\lambda_{\ast}$ & $\bar{z}_l$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{\ast}$ & $\bar{z}_s$ & $N_l$ & $\log_{10} \left( M_{200c} /\left( M_{\odot} / \textit{h} \right) \right)$ & $c_{200c}$ & $b_h \sigma_8^2$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.1, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 140 \right[$ & $0.372 \pm 0.005$ & $19.92 \pm 0.50$ & $0.763 \pm 0.004$ & $6961 \left( 100.0 \% \right)$ & $13.69\tiny{\substack{+0.03 \\ -0.03}} \ \left( 13.68\tiny{\substack{+0.03 \\ -0.03}} \right)$ & $2.90\tiny{\substack{+1.43 \\ -0.70}}$ & $1.20\tiny{\substack{+0.10 \\ -0.10}}$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 15 \right[$ & $0.192 \pm 0.004$ & $10.25 \pm 0.21$ & $0.700 \pm 0.004$ & $1246 \left( 17.9 \% \right)$ & $13.24\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 13.23\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \right)$ & $9.27\tiny{\substack{+6.85 \\ -5.05}}$ & $0.60\tiny{\substack{+0.18 \\ -0.18}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 15, 25 \right[$ & $0.216 \pm 0.005$ & $18.94 \pm 0.28$ & $0.726 \pm 0.006$ & $683 \left( 9.8 \% \right)$ & $13.56\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 13.58\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.07}} \right)$ & $4.25\tiny{\substack{+5.18 \\ -2.05}}$ & $1.71\tiny{\substack{+0.24 \\ -0.25}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 25, 35 \right[$ & $0.226 \pm 0.009$ & $29.09 \pm 0.51$ & $0.742 \pm 0.011$ & $209 \left( 3.0 \% \right)$ & $14.01\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.07}} \ \left( 14.04\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.07}} \right)$ & $1.64\tiny{\substack{+1.00 \\ -0.46}}$ & $2.19\tiny{\substack{+0.46 \\ -0.46}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 35, 45 \right[$ & $0.232 \pm 0.017$ & $39.61 \pm 0.83$ & $0.740 \pm 0.020$ & $83 \left( 1.2 \% \right)$ & $14.29\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.07}} \ \left( 14.30\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.07}} \right)$ & $3.17\tiny{\substack{+2.23 \\ -1.10}}$ & $3.07\tiny{\substack{+0.76 \\ -0.77}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 45, 140 \right[$ & $0.228 \pm 0.019$ & $56.05 \pm 5.86$ & $0.747 \pm 0.022$ & $44 \left( 0.6 \% \right)$ & $14.53\tiny{\substack{+0.05 \\ -0.06}} \ \left( 14.52\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \right)$ & $3.95\tiny{\substack{+2.25 \\ -1.21}}$ & $3.56\tiny{\substack{+1.01 \\ -1.04}}$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 20 \right[$ & $0.374 \pm 0.005$ & $15.13 \pm 0.38$ & $0.860 \pm 0.002$ & $1110 \left( 15.9 \% \right)$ & $13.60\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 13.60\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \right)$ & $9.31\tiny{\substack{+6.57 \\ -4.58}}$ & $0.52\tiny{\substack{+0.28 \\ -0.26}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 20, 30 \right[$ & $0.388 \pm 0.005$ & $24.16 \pm 0.39$ & $0.863 \pm 0.003$ & $769 \left( 11.0 \% \right)$ & $13.87\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.07}} \ \left( 13.93\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.07}} \right)$ & $3.65\tiny{\substack{+3.71 \\ -1.54}}$ & $1.57\tiny{\substack{+0.36 \\ -0.35}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 30, 45 \right[$ & $0.390 \pm 0.008$ & $35.94 \pm 0.94$ & $0.863 \pm 0.004$ & $320 \left( 4.6 \% \right)$ & $14.20\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \ \left( 14.19\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \right)$ & $1.63\tiny{\substack{+0.82 \\ -0.43}}$ & $0.83\tiny{\substack{+0.52 \\ -0.47}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 45, 60 \right[$ & $0.393 \pm 0.015$ & $50.94 \pm 1.86$ & $0.866 \pm 0.008$ & $87 \left( 1.2 \% \right)$ & $14.40\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 14.39\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.08}} \right)$ & $10.65\tiny{\substack{+5.73 \\ -4.52}}$ & $2.51\tiny{\substack{+1.02 \\ -1.02}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 60, 140 \right[$ & $0.381 \pm 0.022$ & $75.81 \pm 9.29$ & $0.860 \pm 0.012$ & $45 \left( 0.6 \% \right)$ & $14.64\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \ \left( 14.66\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \right)$ & $5.11\tiny{\substack{+3.15 \\ -1.62}}$ & $4.20\tiny{\substack{+1.42 \\ -1.43}}$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 25 \right[$ & $0.498 \pm 0.006$ & $19.76 \pm 0.53$ & $0.887 \pm 0.003$ & $1107 \left( 15.9 \% \right)$ & $13.60\tiny{\substack{+0.10 \\ -0.11}} \ \left( 13.58\tiny{\substack{+0.10 \\ -0.11}} \right)$ & $6.53\tiny{\substack{+7.74 \\ -3.97}}$ & $0.82\tiny{\substack{+0.40 \\ -0.39}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 25, 40 \right[$ & $0.518 \pm 0.008$ & $30.75 \pm 0.74$ & $0.888 \pm 0.003$ & $952 \left( 13.7 \% \right)$ & $13.94\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \ \left( 13.93\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \right)$ & $8.43\tiny{\substack{+6.54 \\ -3.76}}$ & $1.68\tiny{\substack{+0.47 \\ -0.46}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 40, 55 \right[$ & $0.513 \pm 0.018$ & $46.14 \pm 1.54$ & $0.888 \pm 0.006$ & $232 \left( 3.3 \% \right)$ & $14.19\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 14.23\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.08}} \right)$ & $6.18\tiny{\substack{+5.77 \\ -2.65}}$ & $5.16\tiny{\substack{+0.89 \\ -0.91}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 55, 140 \right[$ & $0.516 \pm 0.028$ & $66.69 \pm 8.22$ & $0.888 \pm 0.012$ & $74 \left( 1.1 \% \right)$ & $14.56\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.10}} \ \left( 14.54\tiny{\substack{+0.10 \\ -0.11}} \right)$ & $1.50\tiny{\substack{+0.77 \\ -0.36}}$ & $1.07\tiny{\substack{+1.21 \\ -0.75}}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:halo parameters}
\end{table*}
We obtain the stacked radial shear profiles for the AMICO KiDS-DR3 galaxy clusters split into 14 redshift-richness bins, from 0.2 to 30 Mpc/\textit{h}. We use the MCMC method presented in Section~\ref{sec:MCMC method} to fit the profiles with the halo model discussed in Section~\ref{sec:Halo model}. Data and fitted models are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fitted shears}. The SNR is computed as $\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_j / \sigma_{\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_j}$ from Equations~\eqref{eq:weighted radius delta sigma} and~\eqref{eq:error} and summed over the radial bins $j$.
Table~\ref{tab:halo parameters} shows the best fit values for the halo mass, the concentration and the halo bias in each cluster bin with the 68\% confidence bounds. The parameters computed over the stacked profile of the full catalog are also displayed in the first row, and correspond to the dashed values shown in Figure~\ref{fig:MCMC} with $\chi^2 = 29.8$, which suggests that the goodness-of-fit test has been passed, as for the other bins. The mean redshift and the mean richness of the lenses are computed as in Equation~\eqref{eq:cluster bin stacking}, while the mean redshift of the sources is the effective redshift $z_{back}$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:effective redshift}. We additionally measure the mass from a fitting in the radial range $[0.2, 3.16] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$ assuming the same priors for the full profile, unlike the bias derived from \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T}. These measurements are in good agreements with \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} and show for the two lower redshift bins a relative percentage difference within $\sim 5\%$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:Mvslambda}). This variation could be explained by the different choice for the radial bins within 3.16 \ Mpc/\textit{h}: 14 logarithmically equispaced annuli were used in the previous study, while in this work we selected the radial bins within 3.16 \ Mpc/\textit{h} over the full radial range of the shear profile. These two definitions make the profiles and the derived measurements of the mass slightly different.
In the following, we investigate the correlations of the mass with the cluster richness (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-richness relation}), with the concentration (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-concentration relation}) and with the bias (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-bias relation}).
\subsection{Halo mass-richness relation}
\label{sec:Halo mass-richness relation}
The average redshift and richness of the lenses in each redshift bin are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}, and follow the global trend given by the removal of low mass clusters at high redshift for AK3 clusters with $SNR < 3.5$.
Figure~\ref{fig:fitted shears} shows that the differential density at a given radius increases with richness, suggesting a clear correlation between cluster mass and richness. Figure~\ref{fig:Mvslambda} shows the relation between the mass and the effective richness of the cluster bins. We fit this relation assuming the following power law in logarithmic scale
\begin{equation}
\log_{10} \frac{M_{200c}}{M_{piv}} = \alpha + \beta \log_{10} \frac{\lambda_{\ast}}{\lambda_{piv}} + \gamma \log_{10} \frac{E(z)}{E(z_{piv})} \ ,
\label{eq:Mvslambda}
\end{equation}
where $E(z) \equiv H(z)/H_0$ and $M_{piv} = 10^{14} M_{\odot} / \textit{h}$, $\lambda_{piv} = 30$, and $z_{piv} = 0.35$ corresponding to the median values for AK3 \citep[][]{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. We estimate the parameters of this multi-linear function applying an orthogonal distance regression method (\texttt{ODR}\footnote{\url{https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/odr.html}}), involving mass, richness and redshift uncertainties. The fit gives
\begin{description}
\item[$\bullet$] $\alpha = 0.007 \pm 0.019$
\item[$\bullet$] $\beta = 1.72 \pm 0.09$
\item[$\bullet$] $\gamma = -1.35 \pm 0.70$.
\end{description}
As Figure~\ref{fig:Mvslambda} shows, these results are in remarkable agreement with \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} despite the different definition of richness bins at high redshifts and the different fitting method. In addition, they are also perfectly consistent with \cite{2020arXiv201212273L} and \cite{2020MNRAS.497..894S}, regardless of the different approaches employed to fit the scaling relation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/Mvslambda.pdf}
\caption{Mass-richness scaling relation for the full catalog (black) and for the low (blue), intermediate (red) and high (green) redshift bins. The thick line corresponds to the model formulated in Equation~\eqref{eq:Mvslambda}. Full and empty data points represent the measurements over the whole radial profile and over the central region of the halo, respectively. We compared our results with those presented in \protect\cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. The fainter colored points represent the data and the dashed lines represent the model. The relative change with respect to the results of this work is displayed in the bottom panel.}
\label{fig:Mvslambda}
\end{figure}
The positive correlation between shear signal and richness is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fitted shears} at large radii and implies a strong correlation between the bias and the mass. The SNR of individual radial bins at large scales is relatively low due to the poor quality of the shear produced by low mass clusters, and increases with the richness.
The highest redshift-richness bin shows a particularly low SNR with a low amplitude for the shear profile, where usually we expect the signal amplitudes at small and large scales to be high in large richness bins. The poor quality of the lensing signal in this specific bin also impacts the halo mass and bias with a downward trend.
\subsection{Halo mass-concentration relation}
\label{sec:Halo mass-concentration relation}
Halo concentration is determined by the mean density of the Universe at the epoch of halo formation \citep{neto07,giocoli12b}. Thus, clusters that assemble later are expected to have a lower concentration than older clusters, formed when the mean density was higher. This determines a clear correlation with the halo mass in such a way that the halo concentration is expected to be a decreasing function of the halo mass. This is supported by our results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:CvsM}. We compare the results with the concentration and mass measured with stacked WL data from 130,000 SDSS galaxy groups and clusters \citep{2007arXiv0709.1159J} and 1176 CFHTLenS galaxy clusters \citep{, 2014ApJ...784L..25C}. These analyses are consistent within $1\sigma$.
The large and asymmetric error bars for the concentration reflect the high sensitivity of this parameter to the inner region, which is poorly covered by our WL analysis.
\cite{2013MNRAS.434..878S}, \cite{2014ApJ...795..163U} and \cite{2015MNRAS.449.2024S} discussed the effects stemming from the different choices and forms of the priors, and found a log-uniform prior might underestimate the concentration.
As done for the redshift-mass-richness relation, we fitted the redshift-concentration-mass relation with a power-law function \citep[][]{2008MNRAS.390L..64D}, given as
\begin{equation}
\log_{10} c_{200c} = \alpha + \beta \log_{10} \frac{M_{200c}}{M_{piv}} + \gamma \log_{10} \frac{1+z}{1+z_{piv}} \ .
\label{eq:cvsM}
\end{equation}
We assume the pivot mass and redshift have the same values as in Equation~\eqref{eq:Mvslambda}, while the multi-linear regression is processed with the \texttt{ODR} routine over the full sample. We find
\begin{description}
\item[$\bullet$] $\alpha = 0.62 \pm 0.10$
\item[$\bullet$] $\beta = -0.32 \pm 0.24$
\item[$\bullet$] $\gamma = 0.71 \pm 2.51$.
\end{description}
The large error on $\gamma$ suggests a weak constraint of the redshift evolution due to the sparse number of data points
\citep[][]{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}.
The black line in Figure~\ref{fig:CvsM} shows the fitted power law with the $1\sigma$ uncertainty interval, assumed as the range defined by the standard deviations of the estimated parameters and derived from the diagonal terms of the asymptotic form of the covariance matrix \citep[see][]{1987mem..book.....F}.
Because of the small set of data points, the fit in each redshift bin does not provide consistent results for the coefficients.
In Figure~\ref{fig:CvsM}, we also show the theoretical relations between mass and concentration given by six different analyses of numerical simulations \citep[][]{2008MNRAS.390L..64D, 2014MNRAS.441.3359D, 2014ApJ...797...34M, 2015ApJ...799..108D, 2018ApJ...859...55C, 2019ApJ...871..168D, 2020arXiv200714720I}.
In the corresponding mass range, our results are in good agreement with the theoretical predictions, but have a steeper and lower relation with respect to the results obtained by
\cite{2017MNRAS.472.1946S} on the PSZ2LenS sample. The average concentration for the full AK3 catalog seems to show a lower value than Equation~\eqref{eq:cvsM} and the theoretical expectations, but still remains in the $1\sigma$ confidence interval.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/CvsM.pdf}
\caption{The relation between the mass and the halo concentration for the full catalog (black) and for the low (blue), intermediate (red) and high (green) redshift bins. The results on the concentration are compared with calibrated data from a stacked WL analysis on SDSS and CFHTLenS galaxy clusters \citep[][]{2007arXiv0709.1159J, 2014ApJ...784L..25C}. The thick black line reports the best estimate of the linear regression for Equation~\eqref{eq:cvsM} with its $1\sigma$ confidence region. The relation is contrasted with results given by different theoretical analyses \citep[][]{2008MNRAS.390L..64D, 2014MNRAS.441.3359D, 2014ApJ...797...34M, 2015ApJ...799..108D, 2018ApJ...859...55C, 2019ApJ...871..168D, 2020arXiv200714720I}.}
\label{fig:CvsM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Halo mass-bias relation}
\label{sec:Halo mass-bias relation}
In Figure~\ref{fig:bvsM} we show the correlation between the cluster mass and the halo bias for the different redshift bins. The corresponding values are also reported in Table~\ref{tab:halo parameters}.
These results are also in good agreement with previous results based on stacked WL studies on SDSS \citep[][]{2007arXiv0709.1159J} and CFHTLens \citep[][]{2014ApJ...784L..25C, 2015MNRAS.449.4147S} galaxy clusters.
As expected with the fourth richness bin at the highest redshift, the Bayesian inference of the halo bias shows a low SNR consistent with the poor quality of the lensing signal at large scales.
\cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} calibrated the dependence of the large-scale bias on the mass by analysing the clustering of dark matter halos based on dark-matter only cosmological simulations, and obtained a 6\% scatter from simulation to simulation.
Alternatively, \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} and \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} also derived the average halo bias relation as a function of the cluster mass from \textit{N}-body simulations.
These bias-mass theoretical relations are reported in Figure~\ref{fig:bvsM} using the corresponding values of $\sigma_8$ in Table~\ref{tab:sigma8}.
Due to the limited number of points, the data in each redshift bin do not exhibit a strong correlation with the theoretical bias given at the effective redshift of the bin.
The black lines present an agreement within $2\sigma$ with all our measurements except the third richness point for the high redshift bin, which agrees within $3\sigma$ due to its high amplitude.
We attribute this statistical fluctuation to the low number of clusters in this region of richness-redshift space, since the few and uneven number of objects results in a poorer statistical measurement of the stacked lensing signal.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/BvsM.pdf}
\caption{Halo bias-mass relation for the full catalog (black) and for the low (blue), intermediate (red) and high (green) redshift bins. The results on the halo bias are compared with calibrated data from a stacked WL analysis on SDSS and CFHTLenS galaxy clusters \citep[][]{2007arXiv0709.1159J, 2014ApJ...784L..25C, 2015MNRAS.449.4147S}. Theoretical relations are derived from \protect\cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S, 2010ApJ...724..878T, 2011ApJ...732..122B} and respectively displayed as dotted, thick and dashed lines. These functions are computed within their confidence interval using the values of $\sigma_8$ reported in Table~\ref{tab:sigma8}.}
\label{fig:bvsM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Constraint on \texorpdfstring{$\sigma_8$}{sigma8}}
\label{sec:Constraint on sigma8}
Since the halo bias is degenerate with $\sigma_8^2$, it is important to obtain independent constraints on this cosmological parameter within a $\Lambda CDM$ framework.
Here we let $\sigma_8$ be a free parameter in the theoretical mass-bias relation and fit the $b_h \sigma_8^2$ results with the method described in Section~\ref{sec:MCMC method}, assuming a uniform prior $\sigma_8 \in [0.2, 2.0]$. We use a diagonal covariance matrix, where the variance terms are the square of the errors on the bias defined by the 68\% confidence regions. We do not account for the errors on the mass, hence accurate mass measurements are essential to constrain $\sigma_8$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Median, 16\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentiles of the posterior distribution for $\sigma_8$. We also show the difference, $\Delta\sigma_8$, between $\sigma_8$ measured on the median mass values, and $\sigma_8$ measured on the mass 16\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentile values.} The cosmological parameter is given for three relations derived from numerical simulations.
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline \hline
simulation & $\sigma_8$ & $\Delta\sigma_8$ \\
\hline
\cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} & $1.01 \tiny{\substack{+0.05 \\ -0.05}}$ & $0.02$ \\
\cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} & $0.63 \tiny{\substack{+0.11 \\ -0.10}}$ & $0.01$ \\
\cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} & $0.66 \tiny{\substack{+0.19 \\ -0.27}}$ & $0.12$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sigma8}
\end{table}
The resulting best fit values
are shown in Table~\ref{tab:sigma8}. \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} used the ``peak-background split" approach of \cite{1999MNRAS.308..119S} to fit the parameters of the mass function. The authors note that the bias function does not match the numerical results as well as direct calibrations, which could explain the discrepancy with respect to the results obtained with the two other relations. In order to estimate the effect of the mass uncertainty on cosmological inference, we measured $\sigma_8$ at masses corresponding to the 16\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentiles and noticed a difference with the median masses smaller than the statistical uncertainty of the parameter (see Table~\ref{tab:sigma8}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/sigma8.pdf}
\caption{Posterior distribution for $\sigma_8$. The probability function is shown for three halo bias-mass relations, i.e. \protect\cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S}, \protect\cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} and \protect\cite{2011ApJ...732..122B}, shown in blue, red and green, respectively. The dark to light shaded regions correspond to the $1-2-3\sigma$ intervals. We compare these distributions with the median values of Planck \citep[cyan,][Table 2, TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing]{2020A&A...641A...6P} and WMAP \citep[magenta,][Table 3, WMAP-only Nine-year]{2013ApJS..208...19H}.}
\label{fig:posterior_sigma8}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:posterior_sigma8} shows the three posterior distributions for $\sigma_8$ obtained in this work compared with the results from the cosmic microwave backround measurements by Planck \citep[][Table 2, TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing]{2020A&A...641A...6P} and WMAP \citep[][Table 3, WMAP-only Nine-year]{2013ApJS..208...19H}.
Our constraint on $\sigma_8$ with the \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} model, which has a sharp posterior that peaks around $\sigma_8 \sim 1$, highlights a discrepancy larger than $3\sigma$ with CMB values. The posteriors given by the \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} and \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} models overlap within $2\sigma$ and $1\sigma$ with the CMB data, respectively, but the \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} posterior is clearly different from a normal distribution. Because of the small size of the sample and the poor quality of the bias-mass measurements in some bins, our results yield quite broad posteriors that are necessarily in agreement with WMAP and Planck median values.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/sigma8_relative.pdf}
\caption{Comparison with literature results. Our reference $\sigma_8$ value is obtained assuming the \protect\cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} model. We show the median, 16\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentiles. We present from top to bottom results obtained in this work (black), \protect\cite{2020A&A...641A...6P} (blue), \protect\cite{2013ApJS..208...19H} (red), \protect\cite{nanni} (magenta), \protect\cite{2020arXiv201212273L} (cyan), \protect\cite{2019MNRAS.488.4779C} (turquoise), \protect\cite{2019ApJ...878...55B} (green), \protect\cite{2021arXiv210513549D} (light green), \protect\cite{2019PASJ...71...43H} (yellow) and \protect\cite{2021A&A...645A.104A} (orange). We show the relative constraints on $\sigma_8$ in a free cosmology (empty dots) and assuming $\Omega_m = 0.3$ (filled dots). The shaded regions correspond to the 99.7\%, 95\% and 68\% confidence intervals.}
\label{fig:sigma8_relative}
\end{figure}
Finally in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma8_relative} we present our reference result from \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} in the broader context of recent measurements of $\sigma_8$. This model was calibrated for a range of overdensities with respect to the mean density of the universe and can easily be converted to overdensities with respect to the critical density, which makes the bias more reliable for the mass definition $M_{200c}$. In addition, our $b_h \sigma_8^2$ results given by the \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} relation are more reliable in comparative terms, since studies referenced in this paper base their analyses on this relation.
In particular, we display the results from clustering and cluster counts studies based on the AK3 galaxy clusters sample \citep[][]{nanni, 2020arXiv201212273L}, from cluster counts analyses done on SDSS-DR8 and $2500 \ deg^2$ SPT-SZ Survey data \citep[][]{2019MNRAS.488.4779C, 2019ApJ...878...55B}, from galaxy clustering and weak lensing in DES-Y3 \citep[][]{2021arXiv210513549D}, and from cosmic shear analysis based on the HSC-Y1 and KiDS-DR4 catalogs \citep[][respectively]{2019PASJ...71...43H, 2021A&A...645A.104A}.
We also show the results from Planck \citep[][Table 2]{2020A&A...641A...6P} and WMAP \citep[][Table 3]{2013ApJS..208...19H} measurements.
Since the amplitude of the matter power spectrum correlates with the mean matter density, all these studies derived the combined parameter $S_8 \equiv \sigma_8 \sqrt{\Omega_m / 0.3}$. In this work we computed a direct measurement of $\sigma_8$, dependent on the specific cosmological model assumed in our analysis.
In the figure, we indicate with different symbols the measurements of $\sigma_8$ obtained without assuming specific values of the cosmological parameters (empty dots) and those assuming $\Omega_m = 0.3$ (filled dots).
Our results are closer to those obtained fixing $\Omega_m=0.3$, as a low inference of $\Omega_m$ induces a higher estimate of $\sigma_8$, and vice versa.
For example, \cite{2020A&A...641A...6P} results show a posterior mean slightly higher than $\Omega_m=0.3$, while for cosmic shear studies it is slightly lower, hence when fixing $\Omega_m$ to $0.3$ there is a shift in $\sigma_8$ to larger values for \cite{2020A&A...641A...6P} and lower values for cosmic shear surveys.
However, the $2-3\sigma$ regions for the posteriors of the three theoretical relations agree with the results of these external references, regardless of the cosmological dependencies considered, but still have to be taken carefully into consideration because of the poor constraint.
The gap of $\sigma_8$ results from \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} to \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} or \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} also stresses the importance of the theoretical model when constraining cosmological parameters in a stacked WL analysis.
\section{Summary and discussion}
\label{sec:Summary and discussion}
We investigated the halo bias from a revised stacked WL analysis presented in \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} on 6961 AMICO galaxy clusters identified in the recent KiDS-DR3 field. We divided the catalog into 14 bins in redshift and richness and for each of them we derived the excess surface mass density profiles.
We selected sources from their photometric redshifts or \textit{gri}-colors.
We compared the two color-color selections presented in \cite{2010MNRAS.405..257M} and \cite{2012MNRAS.420.3213O} with COSMOS accurate photometric redshifts in order to carry the most effective cut out for KiDS sources.
The final WL profiles are obtained by subtracting the signals given by a large number of random lenses. We computed the covariances by applying the bootstrap technique to the cluster and random shears, and added together the matrices to assess the uncertainties of the final profiles. We performed the Bayesian inference of the halo parameters with a MCMC method run over a radial range from 0.2 to 30 Mpc/\textit{h}.
We modelled the WL signal from galaxy clusters by including the contribution of a truncated version of the NFW profile, which includes a correction for the off-centered galaxy clusters and a correlated matter term originating from the linear matter power spectrum.
Our measurements of the halo mass within 3.16 Mpc/\textit{h} agree with the results obtained by \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} with a relative difference estimated on the order of 5\%. From the full radial range, we obtained halo masses and derived the mass-richness relation given by Equation~\eqref{eq:Mvslambda}
with $\alpha = 0.007 \pm 0.019$, $\beta = 1.72 \pm 0.09$ and $\gamma = -1.35 \pm 0.70$, in remarkable agreement with \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. We also studied the halo mass-concentration relation modelled as in Equation~\eqref{eq:cvsM}.
We obtained $\alpha = 0.62 \pm 0.10$, $\beta = -0.32 \pm 0.24$ and $\gamma = 0.71 \pm 2.51$. The constraints show a steeper but consistent relation with respect to theoretical results derived from the analysis of numerical simulations.
Our results on the halo bias are consistent with previous measurements and with simulations in a $\Lambda$CDM framework. Some data points are affected by a relatively low SNR, as the number of galaxy clusters in the given redshift-richness bins is limited. These effects and the small number of richness bins prohibited the detection of any trend for the halo bias with the effective redshift of the clusters in each redshift bin. The measurements over the stacked profile of the full AK3 catalog give $b_h \sigma_8^2 = 1.2 \pm 0.1$ located at $M_{200c} = 4.9 \pm 0.3 \times 10^{13} M_{\odot}/\textit{h}$, in good agreement with $\Lambda$CDM predictions.
In the fitting procedure, the halo bias parameter is degenerate with the amplitude of the power spectrum $\sigma_8$. This last cosmological parameter is fitted with the theoretical mass-bias relations given in \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S}, \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} and \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B}.
Assuming a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with $\Omega_m=1-\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.3$, we found $\sigma_8 = 1.01 \tiny{\substack{+0.05 \\ -0.05}}; \ 0.63 \tiny{\substack{+0.11 \\ -0.10}}; \ 0.66 \tiny{\substack{+0.19 \\ -0.27}}$ for the three above mentioned relations. These results present slight deviations with respect to the latest WMAP or Planck $\sigma_8$ estimates, but agree within $2\sigma$, with the exception of the results based on the \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} posterior, which shows a sharper distribution centered on a larger value of $\sigma_8$. Other works, based on cluster clustering, cluster counts and cosmic shear analyses, report values of $\sigma_8$ in agreement with our estimates within $2\sigma$, either assuming $\Omega_m$ fixed or free. The importance of the choice of the theoretical model for the halo bias also highlights the difficulty in constraining this cosmological parameter in a WL analysis.
For future work, we are interested in combining the inference on $\sigma_8$ with $\Omega_m$ to constrain the parameter $S_8 \equiv \sigma_8 \sqrt{\Omega_m / 0.3}$, which would compliment the study on $\sigma_8$ in this paper and $\Omega_m$ in \cite{2021arXiv210305653G}.
Specifically, \cite{2021arXiv210305653G} provided a similar analysis on the AK3 galaxy clusters with a stacked shear profile up to 35 Mpc/\textit{h} and recovered consistent mass measurements with respect to \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} and this paper.
The binning scheme differs from this work since the cluster amplitude as a binning property was favored, while we opted for richness. This mainly affects the scaling relation between the mass and the cluster richness or amplitude. The impact of the truncation radius has been deeply investigated in \cite{2021arXiv210305653G}, here we performed a robust analysis of the covariances and cross-covariances and studied the effects of the lensing signal systematics in each patch of the field through the random signal. Both studies were carried out with independent numerical pipelines and followed a process of cross-validation among the KiDS collaboration.
The methodology used in this work will constitute a baseline for future KiDS Data Releases \citep[][]{2019A&A...625A...2K} and similar but larger data sets that combine cluster and shear catalogs. Upcoming surveys, such as \textit{Euclid} \citep[][]{2019A&A...627A..23E} and LSST \citep[][]{2012arXiv1211.0310L}, will provide promising data sets allowing for further statistical analyses in deeper and wider fields. These data sets will be fundamental for the study of the halo properties such as mass and bias with stacked WL analyses, and will allow robust estimates of the main cosmological parameters.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge Shahab Joudaki for the thorough review of the manuscript.
LI is grateful to Nicolas Martinet for a relevant discussion on the multiplicative bias and BPZ PDFs, and Peter Melchior for his fruitful comments on the cross-covariance.
Based on data products from observations made with ESO Telescopes at
the La Silla Paranal Observatory under programme IDs 177.A-3016,
177.A-3017 and 177.A-3018, and on data products produced by
Target/OmegaCEN, INAF-OACN, INAF-OAPD and the KiDS production team, on
behalf of the KiDS consortium. OmegaCEN and the KiDS production team
acknowledge support by NOVA and NWO-M grants. Members of INAF-OAPD and INAF-OACN also acknowledge the support from the Department of Physics \& Astronomy of the University of Padova, and of the Department of Physics of Univ. Federico II (Naples). We acknowledge the KiDS collaboration for the public data realises and the various scientists working within it for the fruitful and helpful discussions.
MS acknowledges financial contribution from contract ASI-INAF n.2017-14-H.0 and contract INAF mainstream project 1.05.01.86.10.
CG, FM and LM acknowledge the grants ASI n.I/023/12/0, ASI-INAF n. 2018-23-HH.0 and PRIN MIUR 2015 Cosmology and Fundamental Physics: illuminating the
Dark Universe with Euclid". CG and LM are also supported by PRIN-MIUR 2017 WSCC32 ``Zooming into dark matter and proto-galaxies with massive lensing clusters''. CG acknowledges support from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Directorate General for Country Promotion.
This paper makes use of the astronomical data analysis software \texttt{TOPCAT} \citep[][]{2005ASPC..347...29T}, and packages available in the Python's open scientific ecosystem, including \texttt{numpy} \citep[][]{2020NumPy-Array}, \texttt{scipy} \citep[][]{2020SciPy-NMeth}, \texttt{matplotlib} \citep[][]{Hunter:2007}, \texttt{astropy} \citep[][]{astropy:2018}, \texttt{emcee} \citep[][]{2013PASP..125..306F}, \texttt{ray} \citep[][]{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1712-09381, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1712-05889}, \texttt{colossus} \citep[][]{2018ApJS..239...35D} and \texttt{cluster toolkit}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/tmcclintock/cluster_toolkit/}}.
Data analysis has been carried out with Fornax Physics Department computing cluster of the University Federico II of Naples.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Clusters of galaxies occupy a special place in the hierarchy of cosmic structures as they are the most massive gravitationally bound systems in the Universe. According to the hierarchical scenario of the evolution of cosmic structure \citep{1980lssu.book.....P, 2005RvMP...77..207V}, they arise from the collapse of initial density perturbations having a typical comoving scale of about 10 Mpc/\textit{h} \citep{1993ppc..book.....P, 2008LNP...740..287B}. Above these scales, gravitational clustering is essentially in a linear regime and the dynamics are mostly driven by the Hubble flow, while the non-linear regime is prominent on smaller scales. Moreover, in the inner cluster regions, astrophysical processes such as gas cooling, star formation, feedback from supernovae and active galactic nuclei modify the evolution of the halo properties like, the density profile, the subhalo mass function, etc. \citep{rasia04,rasia06,giocoli10a,despali14,despali16,angelinelli20}. Galaxy clusters thus provide an ideal tool to study the physical mechanisms driving the formation and evolution of cosmic structures in the mildly non-linear regime \citep{tormen98a,springel01b}.
Massive galaxy clusters, composed of a large amount of dark matter \citep[about 85\%, see e.g.][]{1978MNRAS.183..341W}, are expected to grow at the highest peaks of the underlying matter distribution. This establishes a clear correlation between the galaxy cluster mass and the underling matter clustering amplitude. As already shown by \cite{1984ApJ...284L...9K}, the enhanced clustering of Abell galaxy clusters is explained by assuming that they form in the high-density regions. As a consequence, galaxy clusters are biased tracers of the background matter field. Several groups have further developed this idea within the framework of the \cite{PS...1974ApJ...187..425P} formalism \citep[e.g.,][]{1996MNRAS.282..347M, 1999MNRAS.308..119S, 2001MNRAS.323....1S,giocoli10b}, deriving quantitative predictions for the correlation between the halo density field and the underlying matter distribution within the hierarchical scenario for the formation of cosmic structures.
The relation between the cluster dark matter halo density contrast, $\delta_h$, and the
dark matter density contrast in the linear regime, $\delta_m$, is described by the so-called halo bias parameter, $b_{h}$, defined as \citep{2010ApJ...724..878T}
\begin{equation}
b_{h} = \delta_h / \delta_m \ .
\label{eq:halo bias}
\end{equation}
Measurements of the halo bias as a function of the halo mass therefore represent an important test for cosmological models.
The total matter distribution of a galaxy cluster can be broken down in a ``one-halo" term, which determines its halo matter component on scales smaller than the halo virial radius, and a ``two-halo" term for the correlated matter of the surrounding structures, which is prominent on scales much larger than the virial radius.
The first component is usually identified with the galaxy cluster halo and can be described by a Navarro-Frenk-White dark matter profile \citep[][]{1997ApJ...490..493N}. The second component, directly proportional to the halo bias, stems from mass elements in distinct pairs of halos. The two terms of the halo profile correlate in such a way that the bias follows an increasing function of mass \citep[][]{1984ApJ...284L...9K, 1989MNRAS.237.1127C, 1996MNRAS.282.1096M}. This relation has been shown and modeled in several studies based on \textit{N}-body numerical simulations \citep[e.g.][]{2004MNRAS.355..129S, 2005ApJ...631...41T, 2010ApJ...724..878T}.
Weak gravitational lensing (WL) is a suitable approach to investigate the halo model and to measure its major parameters: the mass and the bias. Gravitational lensing relates the deflection of light to the mass distribution along the line-of-sight. As gravitational lensing is based on the very well-tested theory of general relativity and does not rely on the hypothesis of dynamical equilibrium, it allows robust measurements of the mass of cosmic structures and cosmological parameters. WL by galaxy clusters is detected via statistical measurement of source galaxy shears, and provides an efficient way to derive mass density profiles without requiring any assumption about their composition or dynamical state.
For example, WL analysis allows us to reach scales up to $\sim 30 \ Mpc/\textit{h}$ from the center and therefore to directly measure the halo bias \citep{2014ApJ...784L..25C}.
Stacking the shear measurements of cluster background galaxies is a common practice to increase the lensing signals and compensate for the typical low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR hereafter) in the shear profiles of individual galaxy clusters \citep[see for instance][]{2013MNRAS.434..878S}.
This method also makes it possible to arrange the stacked density profiles as a function of the cluster properties, such as their redshift or their richness.
Several authors have probed the dependence of the halo bias on mass \citep{2005PhRvD..71d3511S, 2007arXiv0709.1159J, 2014ApJ...784L..25C, 2015MNRAS.449.4147S, 2016A&A...586A..43V}. These studies have obtained results consistent with the theoretical predictions, but the large uncertainty in the measurements did not allow them to discriminate between different theoretical models. Moreover, recently \citet{2018NatAs...2..744S} found a peculiar galaxy cluster at $z \sim 0.62$ in the PZS2LenS sample \citep[][]{2017MNRAS.472.1946S} showing an extreme value of the halo bias, well in excess of the theoretical predictions. This result motivates further observational work in order to probe with higher accuracy the halo bias-mass relation. Large sky surveys providing deep and high-quality photometric data and reliable catalogs of galaxy clusters are essential.
In this work we perform a novel measurement of the bias-mass relation by using the photometric data from the third data release of KiDS \citep[][]{2013ExA....35...25D, 2017A&A...604A.134D} and the galaxy cluster catalog identified using the Adaptive Matched Identifier of Clustered Objects detection algorithm \citep[AMICO,][]{2018MNRAS.473.5221B}. This catalog is optimal for a stacked WL analysis because of its large size (an effective area of 360.3 square degrees) and its dense field (an effective galaxy number density of $n_{eff} = 8.53 \ arcmin^{-2}$), which allows us to split the stacked WL signal into different bins of cluster redshift and richness while keeping a sufficiently high SNR in each of them. KiDS images are deep enough (limiting magnitudes are 24.3, 25.1, 24.9, 23.8 in \textit{ugri}, respectively) to include numerous sources (almost 15 million) and large enough to compute the profile up to the scales where the bias dominates. This study is part of a series of papers based on AMICO galaxy clusters in the third data release of KiDS. Previous and ongoing publications have presented the detection algorithm \citep{2018MNRAS.473.5221B}, the cluster catalog \citep{2019MNRAS.485..498M}, the calibration of WL masses \citep{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}, and constraints on cosmological parameters otained from cluster counts \citep{2020arXiv201212273L}, WL \citep{2021arXiv210305653G} and cluster clustering \citep{nanni}.
Following the method explained in \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}, we derive mass density profiles from almost 7000 clusters, which is among the largest cluster samples for this kind of analysis. We stack the lensing signal in richness and redshift cluster bins, calibrate the halo parameters and investigate the mass-bias relation. Throughout this paper we assume a spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM model with the following matter, dark energy and baryonic density parameters at the present time $\Omega_m=1-\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.3$, $\Omega_b=\Omega_m-\Omega_c=0.05$ and Hubble parameter $H_0 = 100\textit{h} \ km \ s^{-1} \ Mpc^{-1}$ with $\textit{h}=0.7$.
\section{Data}
\label{sec:Data}
For an accurate lensing signal, we have to look for deep and dense source samples in such way that the statistical number of background sources increases while the contamination of foreground and cluster member galaxies is small.
Our work is based on the optical wide-field imaging Kilo-Degree Survey \citep[KiDS,][]{2013ExA....35...25D}, split into an equatorial stripe (KiDS-N), and a second one centered around the South Galactic Pole (KiDS-S). The survey encompasses four broad-band filters (\textit{ugri}) managed by the OmegaCAM wide-field imager \citep{2011Msngr.146....8K}, presently located on the VLT Survey Telescope \citep[VST,][]{2011Msngr.146....2C}. The data set we use for this work is the Data Release 3\footnote{\url{http://kids.strw.leidenuniv.nl/DR3}} \citep[DR3,][]{2017A&A...604A.134D} and covers a total area of approximately 450 deg$^2$ in five patches following the GAMA survey convention \citep[][G9/G12/G15 within KiDS-N and G23/GS within KiDS-S]{2011MNRAS.413..971D}. This intermediate release includes one third of the final KiDS area, which will ultimately reach 1350 deg$^2$.
\subsection{Cluster catalog}
\label{sec:Cluster catalog}
We use the galaxy cluster catalog obtained from the application of the Adaptive Matched Identifier of Clustered Objects algorithm \citep[AMICO,][]{2018MNRAS.473.5221B} on KiDS DR3 data (AK3, hereafter). AMICO was selected to form part of the \textit{Euclid} analysis pipeline \citep[][]{2019A&A...627A..23E}. The algorithm exploits the Optimal Filtering technique \citep{2005A&A...442..851M, 2011MNRAS.413.1145B} and aims at maximising the SNR for the detection of objects following a physical model for clusters. Specifically, it identifies overdensities of galaxies associated with galaxy clusters taking into account their spatial, magnitude, and photometric redshift distributions \citep{2017A&A...598A.107R}.
The AK3 catalog is fully described in \cite{2019MNRAS.485..498M}. It contains 7988 candidate galaxy clusters covering an effective area of 377 deg$^2$. Clusters are detected above a fixed threshold of $SNR=3.5$. AK3 encompasses an intrinsic richness (defined as the sum of membership probabilities below a consistent radial and magnitude threshold across redshift) range of $2 < \lambda_{\ast} < 140$ and a redshift range $0.1 \leq z < 0.8$.
The richness and redshift distributions are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}. From the figure we can see that the richness slightly increases with redshift.
Conversely, poor and distant clusters are not detected due to their low $SNR$.
These blank regions are usually associated to low levels of completeness (i.e. the fraction between detected and mock galaxy clusters), as shown in Figure~13 of \cite{2019MNRAS.485..498M}.
\subsection{Shear catalog}
\label{sec:Galaxy catalog}
The halo lensing signal relies on the selection of background galaxies relative to galaxy clusters.
\cite{2017MNRAS.465.1454H} presented a complete tomographic cosmic shear analysis of the KiDS-450 catalog (K450), updated from earlier works on KiDS-DR1 and -DR2 \citep{2015A&A...582A..62D, 2015MNRAS.454.3500K}.
The shear is estimated using the \textit{lens}fit likelihood based model-fitting method \citep{2007MNRAS.382..315M, 2013MNRAS.429.2858M, 2008MNRAS.390..149K, 2017MNRAS.467.1627F} on galaxy \textit{r}-band images for which the best-seeing dark time is reserved. Photometric redshifts are derived from K450 galaxy photometry in the \textit{ugri}-bands. They are estimated with a Bayesian code \citep[BPZ,][]{2000ApJ...536..571B} following the methods used for CFHTLenS data in \cite{2012MNRAS.421.2355H}.
The redshift distribution of the galaxies is shown on the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:distribution} in light-gray.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/distribution.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Top panel}: Redshift distributions of AK3 clusters (dark gray) and K450 galaxies (light gray). \textit{Bottom panel}: AK3 clusters in the redshift-richness plane with $SNR \geq 3.5$. Colored rectangles correspond to the redshift-richness bins used in the following analysis (see Section~\ref{sec:Shear data stacked in bins}); the number of clusters enclosed in each bin is displayed. Single colored squares show the mean values in each redshift bin computed as in Equation~\eqref{eq:cluster bin stacking}.}
\label{fig:distribution}
\end{figure}
The survey covers 454 tiles, which after masking overlapping tiles, provides an effective area of $360.3 \ deg^2$. It comprises 14,650,348 sources and has an effective number density \citep[as defined in][]{2012MNRAS.427..146H} of $n_{eff}=8.53 \ arcmin^{-2}$.
\section{Method}
\label{sec:Method}
In this section we provide a short introduction to the WL formalism. We then describe the numerical method to derive the WL signal of galaxy clusters from the shapes of background sources. We discuss the selections of lens-source pairs that improve the stacked measurement and remove those for which the shear distorts the final signal. Finally, we stack the individual lens shear profiles in bins of cluster redshift and richness for an accurate measurement of the halo parameters.
\subsection{Weak-lensing formalism}
\label{sec:Weak-lensing formalism}
In gravitational lensing,
the matter distribution curves space-time and modifies the the path of light rays from background sources, manifesting in a distortion of their intrisic shape. Shape distortion yields isotropic or anisotropic deformation, called convergence, $\kappa$, and shear, $\gamma$, respectively. The tangential component of the shear $\gamma_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}}$ encodes the density of the intervening matter distributed between the source and us. Massive objects such as galaxy clusters are therefore dominant in the information that $\gamma_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}}$ encapsulates, as we will present later. For a review, see e.g. \cite{2001PhR...340..291B, Schneider:2005ka, 2015RPPh...78h6901K}.
The source shape distortion can be expressed in terms of the deflection potential $\psi$. It is described by the Jacobian matrix through the second derivatives of the potential, $\psi_{ij} \equiv \partial_i \partial_j \psi$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A} \equiv \left( \delta_{ij} - \psi_{ij} \right) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1-\kappa-\gamma_1 & -\gamma_2 \\
-\gamma_2 & 1-\kappa+\gamma_1
\end{pmatrix}
\ ,
\label{eq:jacobian matrix}
\end{equation}
in which the convergence $\kappa$ is defined by the Poisson equation $\bigtriangledown^2 \psi \equiv 2\kappa$ and the complex shear $\gamma \equiv \gamma_1 + i \gamma_2$ is given by $\gamma_1 = \frac{1}{2} \left( \psi_{11} - \psi_{22} \right)$ and $\gamma_2 = \psi_{12}$.
Sources initially have an intrinsic unlensed ellipticity $\epsilon_s$, which is converted by cosmic shear into the observed ellipticity $\epsilon$. One describes this deformed ellipse by its minor and major axes $( a, b )$, and from the position angle $\phi$ of the source relatively to the lens, $\epsilon = \vert \epsilon \vert e^{2i\phi}$, where $\vert \epsilon \vert = (a-b) / (a+b)$.
It is convenient to factor out the multiplicative term $(1-\kappa)$ from Equation~\eqref{eq:jacobian matrix} and thereby introduce the reduced shear observable $g \equiv \gamma / (1 - \kappa)$ and its conjugate version $g^{\ast}$. Considering $\vert g \vert \leq 1$, \cite{1997A&A...318..687S} relate shear and ellipticity by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \frac{\epsilon_s + g}{1 + g^{\ast} \epsilon_s} \ .
\label{eq:ellipticity-shear}
\end{equation}
In the WL limit $\gamma \ll 1$ and $\kappa \ll 1$, yielding $\epsilon \approx \epsilon_s + g$. Assuming that sources are randomly oriented, their complex intrinsic ellipticities average to zero, so $\left\langle \epsilon \right\rangle = \left\langle \gamma \right\rangle$. Therefore, the average ellipticity of background galaxies is a direct observable of the shear induced by foreground matter.
The two components of the complex shear are defined relative to a local Cartesian space and are conveniently decomposed into a tangential and a cross component,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \gamma_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}} = - \Re \left( \gamma e^{-2i\phi} \right) = - \left( \gamma_1 \cos 2 \phi + \gamma_2 \sin 2 \phi \right) \ ,
\\
& \gamma_{\textsf{\textbf{\scriptsize{x}}}} = - \Im \left( \gamma e^{-2i\phi} \right) = - \left( \gamma_2 \cos 2 \phi - \gamma_1 \sin 2 \phi \right) \ ,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:cross-tangential shear}
\end{equation}
respectively. Noticing the minus sign in the exponential, it is agreed that for an axially symmetric mass distribution the tangential component returns a positive value around an overdensity, while a negative value characterizes underdensities. On the other hand, the cross component of the shear does not hold any mass information, and thus averages to zero, in the absence of systematic uncertainties. It is possible to relate the shear to a physical quantity, the excess surface mass density $\Delta\Sigma$, as \citep{2004AJ....127.2544S}
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma (R) \equiv \overline{\Sigma}(< R) - \Sigma (R) = \Sigma_{cr} \gamma_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}} (R) \ ,
\label{eq:excess surface mass density}
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma (R)$ is the surface mass density and $\overline{\Sigma}(< R)$ its mean value within the projected radius $R$, and $\Sigma_{cr}$ is the critical surface mass density,
given by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{cr} \equiv \frac{c^2}{4 \pi G} \frac{D_s}{D_l D_{ls}} \ ,
\label{eq:critical density}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of light, $G$ is the gravitational constant and $D_s$, $D_l$ and $D_{ls}$ are the angular diameter distances from the observer to the source, from the observer to the lens and from the lens to the source, respectively.
The reduced shear is a more direct observable than the shear, which remains an approximation of the source ellipticities. However, the reduced shear is not directly included in the definition of the differential excess surface density, so we link these two quantities using $\kappa \equiv \Sigma / \Sigma_{cr}$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:excess surface mass density} and derive
\begin{equation}
g_{\texttt{\textbf{+}}} = \frac{\Delta\Sigma}{\Sigma_{cr} - \Sigma} \ .
\label{eq:g+}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Measurement of the lensing signal}
\label{sec:Measurement of the lensing signal}
Since the ellipticity is an indirect observable of the shear, we denote the corresponding excess surface mass density for $\Sigma_{cr} \epsilon_{\texttt{\textbf{+}} / \textsf{\textbf{\scriptsize{x}}}}$ as $\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_{\texttt{\textbf{+}} / \textsf{\textbf{\scriptsize{x}}}}$. We compute the lensing signal at a given distance from the cluster center by stacking the radial position and the ellipticity of the $i$-th galaxy source over the $j$-th radial annulus. Thereby, we assess the two observables using their weighted mean
\begin{equation}
R_j = \left( \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} R_i^{-\alpha} }{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} } \right)^{-1 / \alpha}; \ \widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_j = \left( \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} \Sigma_{cr, i} \epsilon_i}{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}} \right) \frac{1}{1 + K_j} \ ,
\label{eq:weighted radius delta sigma}
\end{equation}
where the lens-source weight of the $i$-th source is $w_{ls, i} = w_{s, i} \Sigma_{cr, i}^{-2}$ and $w_{s, i}$ is the inverse-variance source weight as defined in \cite{2013MNRAS.429.2858M}. Here, $K_j$ is the weighted mean of the \textit{lens}fit multiplicative bias $m_i$ introduced to calibrate the shear \citep[see][]{2017MNRAS.467.1627F},
\begin{equation}
K_j= \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} m_i }{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}} \ .
\label{eq:weighted multiplicative bias}
\end{equation}
The effective radius is estimated with a shear-weighted mean and computed by approximating the shear profile as a power-law, with $\alpha=1$. \cite{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}, which explored different methods to assess the mean radius, found that this configuration is less dependent on the binning scheme. We compute the average inverse surface critical density to derive the effective redshift of the background sources $z_{back}$ in each radial bin \citep{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{cr}^{-1}(z_{back}) = \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{s, i} \Sigma_{cr, i}^{-1}}{\sum_{i \in j} w_{s, i}} \ .
\label{eq:effective redshift}
\end{equation}
This estimate permits us to compute the modelled reduced shear in Equation~\eqref{eq:g+} as further described in Section~\ref{sec:Halo model}.
A preliminary measurement of the statistical errors of the two observables in Equation~\eqref{eq:weighted radius delta sigma} is given by the weighted standard deviation of the radial distances and by the standard error of the weighted mean, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{R, j}^2 = \frac{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i} \left( R_i - R_j \right)^2 }{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}}; \quad \sigma_{\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}, j}^2 = \frac{1}{\sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}} \ ,
\label{eq:error}
\end{equation}
respectively.
A more complete way to assess the uncertainty given by the averaged signal is to compute the covariance matrix as in Appendix~\ref{sec:Covariances}. This statistical measurement of the noise includes the errors which propagate among the bins.
In the following, we provide lensing profiles sampled in 30 annuli corresponding to 31 logarithmically equi-spaced radii in the range $\left[ 0.1, 30 \right] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. This choice is justified since our analysis both requires small and large scales to identify the two terms of the halo model. We discard the four inner annuli of the the measured shear profile to avoid contamination from cluster member galaxies and the contribution of the BCG in the resulting density profiles \citep{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. Effects of miscentering are minimized as the lensing signal is considered only for $R \gtrsim 0.2 \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. This measurement is also repeated around random lens points to compensate for the systematic signal, as discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec:Random fields}.
We illustrate the process of stacking the shear signal in Figure~\ref{fig:shear_example}, where a 2D distribution of selected sources around the AK3 cluster J225151.12-332409 is shown (more details in Section~\ref{sec:Selection of the sources}). For visual convenience in the illustration, we highlighted only 12 of the 31 radii in the radial range $\left[ 0.35, 3 \right] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. The tangential and the cross components of $\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}$ associated to the 10 annuli are additionally displayed in the bottom panel.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/shear_example.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Top panel}: Illustration of eleven of the thirty annuli in the radial range $\left[ 0.35, 3 \right] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$,for the cluster AK3 J225151.12-332409. The sources shown are selected following the cut discussed in Section~\ref{sec:Background galaxies}. Blank regions indicate masks \citep{2017MNRAS.465.1454H}. \textit{Bottom panel}: Tangential and cross components of the excess surface mass density (Equation~\ref{eq:weighted radius delta sigma}) of J225151.12-332409. Vertical error bars are derived from Equation~\eqref{eq:error}.}
\label{fig:shear_example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Selection of lens-source pairs}
\label{sec:Selection of the sources}
An effective discrimination between background lensed sources, and foreground and cluster member galaxies is necessary to accurately derive the halo density profile. We subsequently select background galaxies using photometric redshifts or their position in the (\textit{r}-\textit{i}) vs (\textit{g}-\textit{r})-color-color (hereafter dubbed \textit{gri}-CC) plane.
\subsubsection{Background galaxies}
\label{sec:Background galaxies}
A thorough selection of sources allows us to minimize contamination from misplaced galaxies and their incorrect shear. This step is essential as contaminated galaxies usually dilute the resulting lensing signal \citep{1538-4357-619-2-L143, 2007ApJ...663..717M}.
We first select members in the source catalog with
\begin{equation}
z_s > z_l + \Delta z \ ,
\label{eq:rough selection}
\end{equation}
where $z_s$ is the best-fitting BPZ photometric redshift of the source, $z_l$ is the lens redshift and $\Delta z = 0.05$ is a secure interval to balance uncertainties coming from photometric redshifts.
Then, we applied a more accurate redshift filter following the work of \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} and \cite{2017MNRAS.472.1946S},
\begin{equation}
\left( 0.2 \leq z_s \leq 1 \right) \wedge \left( \texttt{ODDS} \geq 0.8 \right) \wedge \left( z_{s, min} > z_l + \Delta z \right) \ .
\label{eq:photoz selection}
\end{equation}
The \texttt{ODDS} parameter from the KiDS shear catalog accounts for the probability distribution function (PDF) of the redshift: a high value indicates a high reliability of the best photo-z estimate. The parameter $z_{s, min}$ measures the lower bound of the $2 \sigma$ confidence interval of the PDF.
A complementary approach for selecting galaxies is based on the source distribution in the \textit{gri}-CC plane. \cite{2010MNRAS.405..257M} highlight a strong correlation between the location in the (\textit{r}-\textit{i}) vs (\textit{g}-\textit{r}) diagram and the galaxy redshift. Following an original proposal by \cite{2012MNRAS.420.3213O}, \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} exploit a relevant selection which filters KiDS galaxies beyond $z_s \simeq 0.7$, obtaining
\begin{equation}
\left( g-r < 0.3 \right) \vee \left( r-i > 1.3 \right) \vee \left( g-r < r-i \right) \ .
\label{eq:oguri selection}
\end{equation}
This selection was tested in \cite{2014ApJ...784L..25C}, \cite{2017MNRAS.472.1946S, 2018NatAs...2..744S} and \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}, and conserves 97 percent of galaxies with CFHTLenS spectroscopic redshifts above $z_s \gtrsim 0.63$ \citep{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}. In Appendix~\ref{sec:Colour-colour selections}, we discuss the alternative color-color selection presented in \cite{2010MNRAS.405..257M} and the contamination fraction that leads the two colour-colour cuts in the COSMOS field.
Finally, we formulate the selection of the background sources by combining the following Equations as follows
\begin{equation}
\eqref{eq:rough selection} \wedge \left[ \eqref{eq:photoz selection} \vee \eqref{eq:oguri selection} \right] \ .
\label{eq:full selection}
\end{equation}
As a further restriction for the selection presented in this study, we restricted the source redshifts to the range $z_s > 0.2$. This complementary selection is assumed since a large fraction of sources are below this limit, which might increase the contamination of nearby clusters \citep{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}.
\subsubsection{Foreground clusters}
\label{sec:Foreground clusters}
We consider galaxy clusters selected in the redshift range $z_l \in \left[ 0.1, 0.6 \right[$, as done in \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. We select clusters at $z_l < 0.6$ because the \textit{gri}-CC cut is very effective for sources at $z_s > 0.6$. Furthermore remote clusters convey a lower density of background sources. Objects at $z_l < 0.1$ are discarded because of the reduced lensing power of low mass clusters (see Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}) and the inferior photometric redshift accuracy of the sources. The final sample consists of 6961 clusters (87.1\% of the whole catalog).
In Figure~\ref{fig:full profile} we plot the mass density profile obtained for the complete cluster sample assuming the combined selection of sources given in Equation~\eqref{eq:full selection}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/full_profile.pdf}
\caption{The stacked matter density profile of AK3 clusters with $0.1 \leq z_l < 0.6$. The signal is computed assuming the combined selections given in Equation~\eqref{eq:full selection}.
Horizontal and vertical bars are derived from Equation~\eqref{eq:error}.}
\label{fig:full profile}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Shear data stacked in bins}
\label{sec:Shear data stacked in bins}
Stacking the signal permits us to constrain the two parameters of the halo model (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo model}) and derive a generic halo bias-mass relation (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-bias relation}). We consider 14 cluster bins combined in redshift and richness. Table~\ref{tab:bins} shows the binning pattern, also displayed in cells in the $z_l$ vs $\lambda_\ast$ diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}.
The binning scheme mostly follows \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} to provide nearly uniform WL SNR per bin. The only difference is for the last redshift bin, in which a larger number of clusters are considered for intermediate richness ranges. In this way, we compensate for the numerous galaxy clusters in the higher richness bin and homogenize the distribution of clusters in this redshift bin with the two other redshift bins.
Considering the $j$-th radial bin of the $k$-th galaxy cluster, the corresponding stacked observable in the $K$-th cluster bin is
\begin{equation}
O_{j, K} = \frac{\sum_{k \in K} W_{j, k} O_{j, k} }{\sum_{k \in K} W_{j, k}} \ ,
\label{eq:cluster radial bin stacking}
\end{equation}
with $W_{j, k} = \sum_{i \in j} w_{ls, i}$ . The shear estimate is not accurate since the correction of the multiplicative bias has already been applied via Equation~\eqref{eq:weighted radius delta sigma} to the signal of each individual galaxy cluster, while it should be corrected over the averaged measure of the bin. We compute the effective value of the cluster observable $O_k$, e.g. richness or redshift of cluster $k$, among the cluster bins $K$ through a lensing-weighted mean \citep[e.g.][]{2014ApJ...795..163U}
\begin{equation}
O_K = \frac{\sum_{k \in K} W_k O_k }{\sum_{k \in K} W_k} \ ,
\label{eq:cluster bin stacking}
\end{equation}
where $W_k = \sum_j W_{j, k}$ is the total weight of the cluster $k$ for the whole area of the cluster profile.
The analysis of covariance is performed by computing all the observable quantities using a bootstrap method with replacement and resampling the source catalog 1000 times. In addition, we combined the shear signal with a covariance matrix computed over the realizations of the bootstrap sampling. We also paid attention to the cross-covariances between the redshift-richness bins. As a final step, we subtract the signal around random points from the stacked profiles, and the corresponding error is added in quadrature. The final covariance signal can alternatively be assessed with a jackknife method, where the lensing signal is measured over regions of the sky. This way, there is no longer any need to combine cluster and random covariance matrices, since the statistical covariance is directly computed from the subtracted lensing signal \citep[][]{2017MNRAS.471.3827S}. Covariances and random signals aim to compensate for the statistical noise and the systematic effects.
We discuss these two contributions in detail in Appendices~\ref{sec:Covariances} and~\ref{sec:Random fields}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Redshift-richness bins for the WL analysis.}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline \hline
$z_l$ & $\lambda_\ast$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 15 \right[ \ \left[ 15, 25 \right[ \ \left[ 25, 35 \right[ \ \left[ 35, 45 \right[ \ \left[ 45, 140 \right[$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 20 \right[ \ \left[ 20, 30 \right[ \ \left[ 30, 45 \right[ \ \left[ 45, 60 \right[ \ \left[ 60, 140 \right[$ \\
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 25 \right[ \ \left[ 25, 40 \right[ \ \left[ 40, 55 \right[ \ \left[ 55, 140 \right[$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:bins}
\end{table}
\section{Halo model}
\label{sec:Halo model}
In this section we explore the theoretical mass density distribution of the halo, also called the halo model. A composite density profile is then fitted to the measured tangential reduced shear given in Equation~\eqref{eq:g+}. All the terms in this relation depend on the surface density $\Sigma$. It is computed by the projection over the line of sight of the excess matter density $\Delta\rho$ in a sphere centered on the halo as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(R) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \Delta\rho \left( \sqrt{R^2 + \chi^2} \right) d\chi \ .
\label{eq:Sigma}
\end{equation}
$\Delta\rho$ includes the two terms of the halo model from the halo-matter correlation function $\xi_{hm}$
\begin{equation}
\Delta\rho = \bar{\rho}_m \xi_{hm} \ ,
\label{eq:Delta rho}
\end{equation}
and the mean matter density $\bar{\rho}_m \equiv \Omega_m \rho_c$ must be computed in physical units at the redshift of the sample. The critical density $\rho_c$ is related to the first of the Friedmann equations, and is defined as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{c} = \frac{3H(z)^2}{8 \pi G} \ .
\label{eq:rho_c}
\end{equation}
In WL, we average this quantity over the disk to derive the mean surface density enclosed within the radius $R$
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Sigma}(<R) = \frac{2}{R^2} \int_0^R R^{\prime} \Sigma \left( R^{\prime} \right) dR^{\prime} \ .
\label{eq:mean Sigma}
\end{equation}
In the following and for the terms contributing to the halo model, we are interested in the main lens structure (Section~\ref{sec:Main halo component}), which comprises the total mass of the halo and its concentration.
In addition, we include the contribution of possibly miscentered density profiles in Section~\ref{sec:Miscentering correction}. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:Correlated matter component} completes the halo model with the correlated matter component and allows the cosmological study from the analysis of the halo bias. In Figure~\ref{fig:halo model} we display, as an example, the complete model for a given mass, concentration, bias and redshift of the halo.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/halo_model.pdf}
\caption{The halo model (blue) is composed of the BMO halo mass profile \citep[thick green,][]{2009JCAP...01..015B}, its off-centered contribution \citep[thick cyan,][]{2007ApJ...656...27J} and the second term derived from the linear matter power spectrum \citep[thick red,][]{1999ApJ...511....5E}. For comparison, we show the centered / off-centered NFW mass profile \citep[dashed green / cyan,][]{1997ApJ...490..493N} and the surrounding matter term with a non-linear power spectrum \citep[dashed red,][]{2012ApJ...761..152T}. The density profile is computed in this example for a halo at $z_l = 0.2$ with a total mass $M_{200c} = 10^{14} \ M_{\odot} / \textit{h}$, a concentration $c_{200c} = 4$ and a bias set at $b_h = 1$ (with $\sigma_8 = 0.83$). The variance and the fraction of an off-centered population contribute to the profile with $\sigma_{off} = 0.25 \ Mpc / \textit{h}$ and $f_{off} = 0.25$. Finally, the reduced shear is given for an effective source redshift $z_s = 1$, while the non-shaded area reveals the range allowed by the stacked WL analysis.}
\label{fig:halo model}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Main halo component}
\label{sec:Main halo component}
The correlation between the halo and its own matter content is given by the halo matter density profile $\rho_h$
\begin{equation}
\xi_{1h} = \frac{\rho_h}{\bar{\rho}_m} - 1 \ .
\label{eq:1 halo}
\end{equation}
Analytic calculations and numerical simulations suggest that dark matter halos have a symmetric density profile in a spherical aperture \citep{1996ApJ...462..563N}. More recent studies look at the impact of the triaxiality of the halos as a new source of uncertainty in the WL signal \citep[][]{Oguri_2005, 2010A&A...514A..93M, 2011MNRAS.416.3187S}. This systematic involves a larger scatter of the mass and over-estimates the concentration when triaxial clusters are aligned with the line of sight. Several works, such as \cite{1997ApJ...490..493N, 2001MNRAS.321..559B} provided a specific analytical form for the halo distribution, also called the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) density profile, in which the density varies with the distance from the center $r$ as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\textsc{nfw}} = \frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2} \ ,
\label{eq:NFW}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_s = \rho_c \delta_c$ is the scale density and $r_s$ the scale radius.
The overdensity contrast $\delta_c$ can be expressed as a function of the concentration $c$ and the overdensity factor $\Delta$ as
\begin{equation}
\delta_c = \frac{\Delta c^3}{3 m\left(c\right)} \ .
\label{eq:delta_c}
\end{equation}
The function $m(c)$ depends the choice of density profile and on the concentration parameter as in Equation\eqref{eq:m}. Therefore, we adopt the common virial value $\Delta = 200c$, relating to a spherical volume with a density 200 times higher than the critical density of the Universe. Hence, we parametrize the scale radius as $r_s = r_{200c} / c_{200c}$. We leave the concentration within that sphere free in order to study the relation between the mass and the concentration in Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-concentration relation}. A second approach would be to consider an existing mass-concentration scaling relation, e.g. from \cite{2015ApJ...806....4M} based on X-ray selected galaxy clusters of the Cluster Lensing And Supernova Survey with Hubble \citep[CLASH,][]{2012ApJS..199...25P}, or from simulations \citep[e.g.][]{2018ApJ...859...55C}. The 3D NFW profile can be analytically converted into a 2D version and thereby extended to an excess surface mass density version following \cite{2002A&A...390..821G}.
The NFW profile has a non-physical divergence of its total mass \citep[][]{2003MNRAS.340..580T}. The Baltz-Marshall-Oguri \citep[BMO,][]{2009JCAP...01..015B} profile is a smoothly truncated version of the NFW profile which allows to circumvent this problem with infinite mass. This profile presents the following shape
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\textsc{bmo}} = \frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2} \left( \frac{r_t^2}{r^2 + r_t^2} \right)^2 \ .
\label{eq:BMO}
\end{equation}
We set the truncation radius to $r_t = 3 r_{200c}$ in the following analysis \citep{2014ApJ...784L..25C, 2017MNRAS.472.1946S, 2019MNRAS.484.1598B}.
The BMO profile also provides less biased estimates of mass and concentration with respect to the NFW profile, and better describes the density profile at the transition scales between the one-halo and two-halo terms \citep{2011MNRAS.414.1851O}.
\cite{2009JCAP...01..015B} provide an analytical expression for the surface mass density.
The function $m$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:delta_c} differs according to the profile as \citep{2011MNRAS.414.1851O}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& m_{\mathrm{\textsc{nfw}}} = \ln \left(1+c\right)-\frac{c}{1+c} \\
& m_{\mathrm{\textsc{bmo}}} = \frac{\tau^{2}}{2(\tau^{2}+1)^{3}(1+c)(\tau^{2}+c^{2})} \\
&\quad \times\Big[c(\tau^{2}+1) \big\{c(c+1)-\tau^{2}(c-1)(2+3 x)-2 \tau^{4} \big\} \\
&\quad +\tau(c+1)(\tau^{2}+c^{2}) \big\{2(3 \tau^{2}-1) \arctan (c / \tau) \\
&\quad +\tau(\tau^{2}-3) \ln (\tau^{2}(1+c)^{2} / (\tau^{2}+c^{2})) \big\}\Big] \ ,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:m}
\end{equation}
where $\tau \equiv r_t/r_s$. We display the NFW and BMO surface mass density profiles in Figure~\ref{fig:halo model}. We indicate $r_{200c}$ and $r_t$ locations with vertical arrows.
\subsection{Miscentering correction}
\label{sec:Miscentering correction}
The detection of clusters is based on the identification of galaxy overdensities, hence the adopted cluster center corresponds to the peak in the projected space of the galaxy distribution. This peak may not coincide with the barycenter of the DM distribution.
In reality, we expect the detected pixel position of the cluster center to possibly be shifted with respect to the center of the halo. \cite{2011MNRAS.416.2388S} and \cite{2012ApJ...757....2G} discussed the importance of locating the centers of dark matter halos in order to properly estimate their mass profiles. Miscentering is expected to be a small with respect to the cluster radius, under the assumption that light traces dark matter
\citep{zitrin11a,zitrin11b,coe12,merten15,donahue16}. However, radial miscentering is larger for optical clusters selected in a survey with a complex mask footprint.
Hence, we introduce the radial displacement of the cluster center $R_{off}$, while the off-centered density profile is the average of the centered profile over a circle drawn around the incorrect center \citep{doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11091.x, 2007ApJ...656...27J}
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{off}(R|R_{off}) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \Sigma_{cen} \left( \sqrt{R^2 + R_{off}^2 + 2RR_{off} \cos{\theta}} \right) d\theta \ .
\label{eq:Sigma off single}
\end{equation}
This term holds for an isolated galaxy cluster. We extend the profile to a global population of galaxy clusters so that the off-centered contribution is given by
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Sigma}_{off}(R|\sigma_{off}) = \int_0^{\infty} P(R_{off}, \sigma_{off}) \Sigma_{off}(R|R_{off}) dR_{off} \ ,
\label{eq:Sigma off}
\end{equation}
where the displaced distances $R_{off}$ follows a Rayleigh distribution with parameter $\sigma_{off}^2$ \citep{2017MNRAS.466.3103S, 2017MNRAS.469.4899M}
\begin{equation}
P(R_{off}, \sigma_{off}) = \frac{R_{off}}{\sigma_{off}^2} \exp{ \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{R_{off}}{\sigma_{off}} \right)^2 \right]} \ .
\label{eq:Probability Roff}
\end{equation}
Considering $f_{off}$ as the fraction of the off-centered population, the total miscentered density profile can be modelled as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{mis}(R|\sigma_{off}, f_{off}) = (1-f_{off}) \Sigma_{cen}(R) + f_{off} \overline{\Sigma}_{off}(R|\sigma_{off}) \ .
\label{eq:Sigma mis}
\end{equation}
Since this mainly impacts the central region of the halo profile, we reduce the correction to the one-halo component of the model. The miscentering effect is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:halo model} with the two elements of the above sum. From the figure, we can also see that the miscentering parameters are degenerate with the halo concentration.
\subsection{Correlated matter component}
\label{sec:Correlated matter component}
On large scales, the lensing signal of the halo is dominated by correlated matter, e.g. neighbouring halos or filaments, rather than its own matter content. The two-halo term usually contributes to the whole profile at $R \gtrsim 10 \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. Following the standard approach, this signal is proportional to the matter-matter correlation function $\xi_m$ through the halo bias $b_h$
\begin{equation}
\xi_{2h} = b_h \xi_m \ .
\label{eq:2 halo}
\end{equation}
We derive the matter correlation function at radius $r$ from the Fourier transform of the dimensionless matter power spectrum $\Delta^2(k) \equiv P(k) k^3 / \left( 2\pi^2 \right)$, and the first-order spherical Bessel function $j_0(x) = \sin{x}/x$
\begin{equation}
\xi_m = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\Delta^2(k)}{k} j_0(kr) dk \ .
\label{eq:correlation function}
\end{equation}
We illustrate the second term of the surface mass density profile in Figure~\ref{fig:halo model} assuming bias $b_h = 1$. We also display results given by the linear matter power spectrum \citep{1998ApJ...496..605E, 1999ApJ...511....5E} and by the non-linear matter power spectrum computed assuming the so-called halofit model \citep{2012ApJ...761..152T}. A halo mass of $M_{200c} = 10^{14} \ M_{\odot} / \textit{h}$ and concentration of $c_{200c} = 4$ contribute 15\% and 25\%, resptively, to the whole profile at the intermediate scale $R=3.16$ Mpc/\textit{h}, considering the BMO miscentered profile as the one-halo term. We focus on the linear version, since we provide a comparative analysis with theoretical mass-bias relations \citep[e.g.][]{2010ApJ...724..878T} derived from simulations, where results are given in terms of ``peak height" in the linear density field. However, it is important to keep in mind that the non-linear version of the power spectrum shows a non-negligible contribution of mass fluctuations at small and intermediate scales.
The second term of the halo model is parameterized in terms of a degenerate value of the halo bias with $\sigma_8^2$. This parameter defines the rms fluctuations $\sigma (M)$ for a mass enclosed in a comoving sphere of radius $8 \ Mpc/\textit{h}$. This actually corresponds to the typical scale for the formation of galaxy clusters. The parameter $\sigma_8^2$ also derives from the matter power spectrum as a normalization factor and permits cosmological inference of the product $b_h\sigma_8^2$.
\subsection{Total halo model}
\label{sec:Total halo model}
The total surface mass density profile is modelled with the following terms and their associated marginalized parameters
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{tot} = \Sigma_{\substack{1h \\ \textsc{bmo} \\ mis}}(M_{200c}, c_{200c}, \sigma_{off}, f_{off}) + \Sigma_{\substack{2h \\ lin}}(b_h\sigma_8^2) \ .
\label{eq:Sigma tot}
\end{equation}
Mass and bias are the two most critical variables among the five free parameters since they both act on the amplitudes of the one-halo and two-halo terms, respectively. For example,
Figure~\ref{fig:halo model} shows Equation~\eqref{eq:Sigma tot} in blue with $z_l = 0.2$, $z_s = 1$, $M_{200c} = 10^{14} \ M_{\odot} / \textit{h}$, $c_{200c} = 4$, $\sigma_{off} = 0.25 \ Mpc / \textit{h}$, $f_{off} = 0.25$ and $b_h\sigma_8^2 = 0.83^2$.
In Section~\ref{sec:MCMC method}, we describe the numerical method used to assess the posteriors and best estimates given by the data derived in Sections~\ref{sec:Data} and~\ref{sec:Method} with the model described in this Section. Bayesian inference allows us to correlate the different halo parameters together and completes the cosmological study.
\section{MCMC method}
\label{sec:MCMC method}
In Bayesian statistics, the Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) method is commonly used to sample posterior distributions. The best parameters are found with the maximum likelihood distribution, giving the highest probability of the sample (also given by minimizing the $\chi^2$-distribution).
In this specific study, the likelihood function is the joint probability of getting the measurement $\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}$ with the parameters $\theta = [\log_{10} M_{200c}, c_{200c}, \sigma_{off}, f_{off}, b_h \sigma_8^2]$ given the model $\Delta \Sigma$. This probability distribution is assumed to be normal and multiplied over the radial bins $i,j$ of the profile to provide a global approximation of the variable
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \left( \theta \right) \equiv p \left( \widetilde{\Delta\Sigma} \vert \theta \right) \propto \exp \left( - \frac{\chi^2}{2} \right) \ ,
\label{eq:likelihood}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\chi^2 = \sum\limits_{i, j} \left( \widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_i - \Delta \Sigma_i \right) C_{ij}^{-1} \left( \widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_j - \Delta \Sigma_j \right) \ ,
\label{eq:chi square}
\end{equation}
and $C_{ij}$ is the covariance matrix described in Appendix~\ref{sec:Covariances}.
The $\chi^2$ parameter is a good indicator of the goodness of fit of a statistical model. Its probability distribution depends on the degree of freedom which is the difference between the number of observations considered in the analysis and the number of variables in the halo model, here $df = 26 - 5 = 21$. In a goodness-of-fit test, the null hypothesis assumes that there is no significant difference between the observed and the expected values. Considering a significance level of $\alpha=0.01$ defining the critical $\chi^2$ values on the left and right tails of the distribution, the null hypothesis is verified if $8.9 < \chi^2 < 38.9$.
The likelihood is defined in the prior uniform distribution of the halo parameters having the following conservative bounds \citep[][]{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}:
\begin{description}
\item[$\bullet$] $\log_{10} \left( M_{200c} /\left( M_{\odot} / \textit{h} \right) \right) \in [12.5, 15.5]$
\item[$\bullet$] $c_{200c} \in [1, 20]$
\item[$\bullet$] $\sigma_{off} \in [0, 0.5] \ Mpc / \textit{h}$
\item[$\bullet$] $f_{off} \in [0, 0.5]$
\item[$\bullet$] $b_h \sigma_8^2 \in [0, 20]$
\end{description}
We based the Bayesian inference on the \texttt{emcee}\footnote{\url{https://emcee.readthedocs.io/}} algorithm \citep[]{2013PASP..125..306F}, which uses an affine-invariant sampling method initially introduced in \cite{2010CAMCS...5...65G}. The cosmological parameters are defined for the fit as in Section~\ref{sec:Introduction}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/triangle.pdf}
\caption{Posterior distributions arising from the halo model and the density profile derived in this study. The median of the marginalized distribution of the mass, concentration, off-centering parameters and bias are displayed as dashed lines. The 2D posterior distributions also show the 68\% and 95\% confidence regions in shaded grey regions.}
\label{fig:MCMC}
\end{figure}
We adopted an ensemble sampler with 32 walkers over a chain of 10,000 steps, giving a total size of 320,000 walkers to sample the posterior distribution. This scheme was already adopted in \cite{2019MNRAS.482.1352M}. We define the burn-in phase as being twice the integrated autocorrelation time $\tau_f$ of our chain $f$. In addition, we tested the convergence of the MCMC by running the potential scale reduction factor $\hat{R}$ \citep[see][]{1992StaSc...7..457G}.
Convergence is reached if the criterion $\hat{R} < 1.1$ is satisfied.
In Figure~\ref{fig:MCMC}, we show the joint posterior distributions given by the sampler for the total profile shown in Figure~\ref{fig:full profile}. In the case of a normal PDF (as for the halo mass and bias), the 16\textit{th}-84\textit{th} and 2\textit{th}-98\textit{th} percentiles highlight $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence regions forming ellipsoids in the 2D parameter space.
In the opposite case, the percentiles show distorted ellipsoidal regions which define the errors on the parameter. For example the $f_{off}$ posterior distribution gives errors larger than the prior boundaries, while we expect the posterior of the parameter to follow a Gaussian-like distribution within the limits defined by the prior function. This effect suggests that the parameter is imprecisely constrained. Nevertheless, the sampler distributions of the parameters of interest (i.e. mass, concentration and bias) converge significantly, which makes it possible to consistently exploit their relation. For the following, we define the error on the parameters as the $1 \sigma$ confidence interval, specifically approximated here with the region where 68\% of walkers lie around the mean.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:Results}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/shears.pdf}
\caption{The stacked shear profiles and the halo model (blue) corresponding to the fitted parameters, with the $1 \sigma$ confidence interval (blue region). Each row corresponds to a redshift bin, while each panel corresponds to an associated richness bin. The top right legends show the SNR, computed from each radial bin and summed over the $[0.2, 30] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$ radial range, and the $\chi^2$ computed as in Equation~\eqref{eq:chi square} given by the 50\textit{th} percentile parameters. The model components: the main halo term (green), the off-centered contribution (cyan), and the correlated matter term (red). Empty points show the first four radial bins not considered in the fit.}
\label{fig:fitted shears}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Mass, concentration and bias resulting from the fit with their errors given in separate rows as different redshift and richness bins. These values correspond to the 16\textit{th}, 50\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentiles of the posterior distributions. We also show the mass measurement in the radial range $[0.2, 3.16] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$ in brackets. Mean richness ($\bar{\lambda}_{\ast}$), lens redshift ($\bar{z}_l$) and source redshift ($\bar{z}_s$) are computed from Equations~\eqref{eq:cluster bin stacking} and~\eqref{eq:effective redshift} and their errors are assumed to be the rms weighted sample deviation. We report both the number of clusters $N_l$ and the fraction of clusters relative to the full selected cluster sample in each redshift-richness bin (column 6).
}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline \hline
$z_l$ & $\lambda_{\ast}$ & $\bar{z}_l$ & $\bar{\lambda}_{\ast}$ & $\bar{z}_s$ & $N_l$ & $\log_{10} \left( M_{200c} /\left( M_{\odot} / \textit{h} \right) \right)$ & $c_{200c}$ & $b_h \sigma_8^2$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.1, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 140 \right[$ & $0.372 \pm 0.005$ & $19.92 \pm 0.50$ & $0.763 \pm 0.004$ & $6961 \left( 100.0 \% \right)$ & $13.69\tiny{\substack{+0.03 \\ -0.03}} \ \left( 13.68\tiny{\substack{+0.03 \\ -0.03}} \right)$ & $2.90\tiny{\substack{+1.43 \\ -0.70}}$ & $1.20\tiny{\substack{+0.10 \\ -0.10}}$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 15 \right[$ & $0.192 \pm 0.004$ & $10.25 \pm 0.21$ & $0.700 \pm 0.004$ & $1246 \left( 17.9 \% \right)$ & $13.24\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 13.23\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \right)$ & $9.27\tiny{\substack{+6.85 \\ -5.05}}$ & $0.60\tiny{\substack{+0.18 \\ -0.18}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 15, 25 \right[$ & $0.216 \pm 0.005$ & $18.94 \pm 0.28$ & $0.726 \pm 0.006$ & $683 \left( 9.8 \% \right)$ & $13.56\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 13.58\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.07}} \right)$ & $4.25\tiny{\substack{+5.18 \\ -2.05}}$ & $1.71\tiny{\substack{+0.24 \\ -0.25}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 25, 35 \right[$ & $0.226 \pm 0.009$ & $29.09 \pm 0.51$ & $0.742 \pm 0.011$ & $209 \left( 3.0 \% \right)$ & $14.01\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.07}} \ \left( 14.04\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.07}} \right)$ & $1.64\tiny{\substack{+1.00 \\ -0.46}}$ & $2.19\tiny{\substack{+0.46 \\ -0.46}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 35, 45 \right[$ & $0.232 \pm 0.017$ & $39.61 \pm 0.83$ & $0.740 \pm 0.020$ & $83 \left( 1.2 \% \right)$ & $14.29\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.07}} \ \left( 14.30\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.07}} \right)$ & $3.17\tiny{\substack{+2.23 \\ -1.10}}$ & $3.07\tiny{\substack{+0.76 \\ -0.77}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.1, 0.3 \right[$ & $\left[ 45, 140 \right[$ & $0.228 \pm 0.019$ & $56.05 \pm 5.86$ & $0.747 \pm 0.022$ & $44 \left( 0.6 \% \right)$ & $14.53\tiny{\substack{+0.05 \\ -0.06}} \ \left( 14.52\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \right)$ & $3.95\tiny{\substack{+2.25 \\ -1.21}}$ & $3.56\tiny{\substack{+1.01 \\ -1.04}}$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 20 \right[$ & $0.374 \pm 0.005$ & $15.13 \pm 0.38$ & $0.860 \pm 0.002$ & $1110 \left( 15.9 \% \right)$ & $13.60\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 13.60\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \right)$ & $9.31\tiny{\substack{+6.57 \\ -4.58}}$ & $0.52\tiny{\substack{+0.28 \\ -0.26}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 20, 30 \right[$ & $0.388 \pm 0.005$ & $24.16 \pm 0.39$ & $0.863 \pm 0.003$ & $769 \left( 11.0 \% \right)$ & $13.87\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.07}} \ \left( 13.93\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.07}} \right)$ & $3.65\tiny{\substack{+3.71 \\ -1.54}}$ & $1.57\tiny{\substack{+0.36 \\ -0.35}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 30, 45 \right[$ & $0.390 \pm 0.008$ & $35.94 \pm 0.94$ & $0.863 \pm 0.004$ & $320 \left( 4.6 \% \right)$ & $14.20\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \ \left( 14.19\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \right)$ & $1.63\tiny{\substack{+0.82 \\ -0.43}}$ & $0.83\tiny{\substack{+0.52 \\ -0.47}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 45, 60 \right[$ & $0.393 \pm 0.015$ & $50.94 \pm 1.86$ & $0.866 \pm 0.008$ & $87 \left( 1.2 \% \right)$ & $14.40\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 14.39\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.08}} \right)$ & $10.65\tiny{\substack{+5.73 \\ -4.52}}$ & $2.51\tiny{\substack{+1.02 \\ -1.02}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.3, 0.45 \right[$ & $\left[ 60, 140 \right[$ & $0.381 \pm 0.022$ & $75.81 \pm 9.29$ & $0.860 \pm 0.012$ & $45 \left( 0.6 \% \right)$ & $14.64\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \ \left( 14.66\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \right)$ & $5.11\tiny{\substack{+3.15 \\ -1.62}}$ & $4.20\tiny{\substack{+1.42 \\ -1.43}}$ \\
\hline
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 0, 25 \right[$ & $0.498 \pm 0.006$ & $19.76 \pm 0.53$ & $0.887 \pm 0.003$ & $1107 \left( 15.9 \% \right)$ & $13.60\tiny{\substack{+0.10 \\ -0.11}} \ \left( 13.58\tiny{\substack{+0.10 \\ -0.11}} \right)$ & $6.53\tiny{\substack{+7.74 \\ -3.97}}$ & $0.82\tiny{\substack{+0.40 \\ -0.39}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 25, 40 \right[$ & $0.518 \pm 0.008$ & $30.75 \pm 0.74$ & $0.888 \pm 0.003$ & $952 \left( 13.7 \% \right)$ & $13.94\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \ \left( 13.93\tiny{\substack{+0.06 \\ -0.06}} \right)$ & $8.43\tiny{\substack{+6.54 \\ -3.76}}$ & $1.68\tiny{\substack{+0.47 \\ -0.46}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 40, 55 \right[$ & $0.513 \pm 0.018$ & $46.14 \pm 1.54$ & $0.888 \pm 0.006$ & $232 \left( 3.3 \% \right)$ & $14.19\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.08}} \ \left( 14.23\tiny{\substack{+0.07 \\ -0.08}} \right)$ & $6.18\tiny{\substack{+5.77 \\ -2.65}}$ & $5.16\tiny{\substack{+0.89 \\ -0.91}}$ \\
$\left[ 0.45, 0.6 \right[$ & $\left[ 55, 140 \right[$ & $0.516 \pm 0.028$ & $66.69 \pm 8.22$ & $0.888 \pm 0.012$ & $74 \left( 1.1 \% \right)$ & $14.56\tiny{\substack{+0.08 \\ -0.10}} \ \left( 14.54\tiny{\substack{+0.10 \\ -0.11}} \right)$ & $1.50\tiny{\substack{+0.77 \\ -0.36}}$ & $1.07\tiny{\substack{+1.21 \\ -0.75}}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:halo parameters}
\end{table*}
We obtain the stacked radial shear profiles for the AMICO KiDS-DR3 galaxy clusters split into 14 redshift-richness bins, from 0.2 to 30 Mpc/\textit{h}. We use the MCMC method presented in Section~\ref{sec:MCMC method} to fit the profiles with the halo model discussed in Section~\ref{sec:Halo model}. Data and fitted models are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fitted shears}. The SNR is computed as $\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_j / \sigma_{\widetilde{\Delta\Sigma}_j}$ from Equations~\eqref{eq:weighted radius delta sigma} and~\eqref{eq:error} and summed over the radial bins $j$.
Table~\ref{tab:halo parameters} shows the best fit values for the halo mass, the concentration and the halo bias in each cluster bin with the 68\% confidence bounds. The parameters computed over the stacked profile of the full catalog are also displayed in the first row, and correspond to the dashed values shown in Figure~\ref{fig:MCMC} with $\chi^2 = 29.8$, which suggests that the goodness-of-fit test has been passed, as for the other bins. The mean redshift and the mean richness of the lenses are computed as in Equation~\eqref{eq:cluster bin stacking}, while the mean redshift of the sources is the effective redshift $z_{back}$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:effective redshift}. We additionally measure the mass from a fitting in the radial range $[0.2, 3.16] \ Mpc/\textit{h}$ assuming the same priors for the full profile, unlike the bias derived from \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T}. These measurements are in good agreements with \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} and show for the two lower redshift bins a relative percentage difference within $\sim 5\%$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:Mvslambda}). This variation could be explained by the different choice for the radial bins within 3.16 \ Mpc/\textit{h}: 14 logarithmically equispaced annuli were used in the previous study, while in this work we selected the radial bins within 3.16 \ Mpc/\textit{h} over the full radial range of the shear profile. These two definitions make the profiles and the derived measurements of the mass slightly different.
In the following, we investigate the correlations of the mass with the cluster richness (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-richness relation}), with the concentration (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-concentration relation}) and with the bias (see Section~\ref{sec:Halo mass-bias relation}).
\subsection{Halo mass-richness relation}
\label{sec:Halo mass-richness relation}
The average redshift and richness of the lenses in each redshift bin are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:distribution}, and follow the global trend given by the removal of low mass clusters at high redshift for AK3 clusters with $SNR < 3.5$.
Figure~\ref{fig:fitted shears} shows that the differential density at a given radius increases with richness, suggesting a clear correlation between cluster mass and richness. Figure~\ref{fig:Mvslambda} shows the relation between the mass and the effective richness of the cluster bins. We fit this relation assuming the following power law in logarithmic scale
\begin{equation}
\log_{10} \frac{M_{200c}}{M_{piv}} = \alpha + \beta \log_{10} \frac{\lambda_{\ast}}{\lambda_{piv}} + \gamma \log_{10} \frac{E(z)}{E(z_{piv})} \ ,
\label{eq:Mvslambda}
\end{equation}
where $E(z) \equiv H(z)/H_0$ and $M_{piv} = 10^{14} M_{\odot} / \textit{h}$, $\lambda_{piv} = 30$, and $z_{piv} = 0.35$ corresponding to the median values for AK3 \citep[][]{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. We estimate the parameters of this multi-linear function applying an orthogonal distance regression method (\texttt{ODR}\footnote{\url{https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/odr.html}}), involving mass, richness and redshift uncertainties. The fit gives
\begin{description}
\item[$\bullet$] $\alpha = 0.007 \pm 0.019$
\item[$\bullet$] $\beta = 1.72 \pm 0.09$
\item[$\bullet$] $\gamma = -1.35 \pm 0.70$.
\end{description}
As Figure~\ref{fig:Mvslambda} shows, these results are in remarkable agreement with \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} despite the different definition of richness bins at high redshifts and the different fitting method. In addition, they are also perfectly consistent with \cite{2020arXiv201212273L} and \cite{2020MNRAS.497..894S}, regardless of the different approaches employed to fit the scaling relation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/Mvslambda.pdf}
\caption{Mass-richness scaling relation for the full catalog (black) and for the low (blue), intermediate (red) and high (green) redshift bins. The thick line corresponds to the model formulated in Equation~\eqref{eq:Mvslambda}. Full and empty data points represent the measurements over the whole radial profile and over the central region of the halo, respectively. We compared our results with those presented in \protect\cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. The fainter colored points represent the data and the dashed lines represent the model. The relative change with respect to the results of this work is displayed in the bottom panel.}
\label{fig:Mvslambda}
\end{figure}
The positive correlation between shear signal and richness is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fitted shears} at large radii and implies a strong correlation between the bias and the mass. The SNR of individual radial bins at large scales is relatively low due to the poor quality of the shear produced by low mass clusters, and increases with the richness.
The highest redshift-richness bin shows a particularly low SNR with a low amplitude for the shear profile, where usually we expect the signal amplitudes at small and large scales to be high in large richness bins. The poor quality of the lensing signal in this specific bin also impacts the halo mass and bias with a downward trend.
\subsection{Halo mass-concentration relation}
\label{sec:Halo mass-concentration relation}
Halo concentration is determined by the mean density of the Universe at the epoch of halo formation \citep{neto07,giocoli12b}. Thus, clusters that assemble later are expected to have a lower concentration than older clusters, formed when the mean density was higher. This determines a clear correlation with the halo mass in such a way that the halo concentration is expected to be a decreasing function of the halo mass. This is supported by our results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:CvsM}. We compare the results with the concentration and mass measured with stacked WL data from 130,000 SDSS galaxy groups and clusters \citep{2007arXiv0709.1159J} and 1176 CFHTLenS galaxy clusters \citep{, 2014ApJ...784L..25C}. These analyses are consistent within $1\sigma$.
The large and asymmetric error bars for the concentration reflect the high sensitivity of this parameter to the inner region, which is poorly covered by our WL analysis.
\cite{2013MNRAS.434..878S}, \cite{2014ApJ...795..163U} and \cite{2015MNRAS.449.2024S} discussed the effects stemming from the different choices and forms of the priors, and found a log-uniform prior might underestimate the concentration.
As done for the redshift-mass-richness relation, we fitted the redshift-concentration-mass relation with a power-law function \citep[][]{2008MNRAS.390L..64D}, given as
\begin{equation}
\log_{10} c_{200c} = \alpha + \beta \log_{10} \frac{M_{200c}}{M_{piv}} + \gamma \log_{10} \frac{1+z}{1+z_{piv}} \ .
\label{eq:cvsM}
\end{equation}
We assume the pivot mass and redshift have the same values as in Equation~\eqref{eq:Mvslambda}, while the multi-linear regression is processed with the \texttt{ODR} routine over the full sample. We find
\begin{description}
\item[$\bullet$] $\alpha = 0.62 \pm 0.10$
\item[$\bullet$] $\beta = -0.32 \pm 0.24$
\item[$\bullet$] $\gamma = 0.71 \pm 2.51$.
\end{description}
The large error on $\gamma$ suggests a weak constraint of the redshift evolution due to the sparse number of data points
\citep[][]{2017MNRAS.472.1946S}.
The black line in Figure~\ref{fig:CvsM} shows the fitted power law with the $1\sigma$ uncertainty interval, assumed as the range defined by the standard deviations of the estimated parameters and derived from the diagonal terms of the asymptotic form of the covariance matrix \citep[see][]{1987mem..book.....F}.
Because of the small set of data points, the fit in each redshift bin does not provide consistent results for the coefficients.
In Figure~\ref{fig:CvsM}, we also show the theoretical relations between mass and concentration given by six different analyses of numerical simulations \citep[][]{2008MNRAS.390L..64D, 2014MNRAS.441.3359D, 2014ApJ...797...34M, 2015ApJ...799..108D, 2018ApJ...859...55C, 2019ApJ...871..168D, 2020arXiv200714720I}.
In the corresponding mass range, our results are in good agreement with the theoretical predictions, but have a steeper and lower relation with respect to the results obtained by
\cite{2017MNRAS.472.1946S} on the PSZ2LenS sample. The average concentration for the full AK3 catalog seems to show a lower value than Equation~\eqref{eq:cvsM} and the theoretical expectations, but still remains in the $1\sigma$ confidence interval.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/CvsM.pdf}
\caption{The relation between the mass and the halo concentration for the full catalog (black) and for the low (blue), intermediate (red) and high (green) redshift bins. The results on the concentration are compared with calibrated data from a stacked WL analysis on SDSS and CFHTLenS galaxy clusters \citep[][]{2007arXiv0709.1159J, 2014ApJ...784L..25C}. The thick black line reports the best estimate of the linear regression for Equation~\eqref{eq:cvsM} with its $1\sigma$ confidence region. The relation is contrasted with results given by different theoretical analyses \citep[][]{2008MNRAS.390L..64D, 2014MNRAS.441.3359D, 2014ApJ...797...34M, 2015ApJ...799..108D, 2018ApJ...859...55C, 2019ApJ...871..168D, 2020arXiv200714720I}.}
\label{fig:CvsM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Halo mass-bias relation}
\label{sec:Halo mass-bias relation}
In Figure~\ref{fig:bvsM} we show the correlation between the cluster mass and the halo bias for the different redshift bins. The corresponding values are also reported in Table~\ref{tab:halo parameters}.
These results are also in good agreement with previous results based on stacked WL studies on SDSS \citep[][]{2007arXiv0709.1159J} and CFHTLens \citep[][]{2014ApJ...784L..25C, 2015MNRAS.449.4147S} galaxy clusters.
As expected with the fourth richness bin at the highest redshift, the Bayesian inference of the halo bias shows a low SNR consistent with the poor quality of the lensing signal at large scales.
\cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} calibrated the dependence of the large-scale bias on the mass by analysing the clustering of dark matter halos based on dark-matter only cosmological simulations, and obtained a 6\% scatter from simulation to simulation.
Alternatively, \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} and \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} also derived the average halo bias relation as a function of the cluster mass from \textit{N}-body simulations.
These bias-mass theoretical relations are reported in Figure~\ref{fig:bvsM} using the corresponding values of $\sigma_8$ in Table~\ref{tab:sigma8}.
Due to the limited number of points, the data in each redshift bin do not exhibit a strong correlation with the theoretical bias given at the effective redshift of the bin.
The black lines present an agreement within $2\sigma$ with all our measurements except the third richness point for the high redshift bin, which agrees within $3\sigma$ due to its high amplitude.
We attribute this statistical fluctuation to the low number of clusters in this region of richness-redshift space, since the few and uneven number of objects results in a poorer statistical measurement of the stacked lensing signal.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/BvsM.pdf}
\caption{Halo bias-mass relation for the full catalog (black) and for the low (blue), intermediate (red) and high (green) redshift bins. The results on the halo bias are compared with calibrated data from a stacked WL analysis on SDSS and CFHTLenS galaxy clusters \citep[][]{2007arXiv0709.1159J, 2014ApJ...784L..25C, 2015MNRAS.449.4147S}. Theoretical relations are derived from \protect\cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S, 2010ApJ...724..878T, 2011ApJ...732..122B} and respectively displayed as dotted, thick and dashed lines. These functions are computed within their confidence interval using the values of $\sigma_8$ reported in Table~\ref{tab:sigma8}.}
\label{fig:bvsM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Constraint on \texorpdfstring{$\sigma_8$}{sigma8}}
\label{sec:Constraint on sigma8}
Since the halo bias is degenerate with $\sigma_8^2$, it is important to obtain independent constraints on this cosmological parameter within a $\Lambda CDM$ framework.
Here we let $\sigma_8$ be a free parameter in the theoretical mass-bias relation and fit the $b_h \sigma_8^2$ results with the method described in Section~\ref{sec:MCMC method}, assuming a uniform prior $\sigma_8 \in [0.2, 2.0]$. We use a diagonal covariance matrix, where the variance terms are the square of the errors on the bias defined by the 68\% confidence regions. We do not account for the errors on the mass, hence accurate mass measurements are essential to constrain $\sigma_8$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Median, 16\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentiles of the posterior distribution for $\sigma_8$. We also show the difference, $\Delta\sigma_8$, between $\sigma_8$ measured on the median mass values, and $\sigma_8$ measured on the mass 16\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentile values.} The cosmological parameter is given for three relations derived from numerical simulations.
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline \hline
simulation & $\sigma_8$ & $\Delta\sigma_8$ \\
\hline
\cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} & $1.01 \tiny{\substack{+0.05 \\ -0.05}}$ & $0.02$ \\
\cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} & $0.63 \tiny{\substack{+0.11 \\ -0.10}}$ & $0.01$ \\
\cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} & $0.66 \tiny{\substack{+0.19 \\ -0.27}}$ & $0.12$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sigma8}
\end{table}
The resulting best fit values
are shown in Table~\ref{tab:sigma8}. \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} used the ``peak-background split" approach of \cite{1999MNRAS.308..119S} to fit the parameters of the mass function. The authors note that the bias function does not match the numerical results as well as direct calibrations, which could explain the discrepancy with respect to the results obtained with the two other relations. In order to estimate the effect of the mass uncertainty on cosmological inference, we measured $\sigma_8$ at masses corresponding to the 16\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentiles and noticed a difference with the median masses smaller than the statistical uncertainty of the parameter (see Table~\ref{tab:sigma8}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/sigma8.pdf}
\caption{Posterior distribution for $\sigma_8$. The probability function is shown for three halo bias-mass relations, i.e. \protect\cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S}, \protect\cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} and \protect\cite{2011ApJ...732..122B}, shown in blue, red and green, respectively. The dark to light shaded regions correspond to the $1-2-3\sigma$ intervals. We compare these distributions with the median values of Planck \citep[cyan,][Table 2, TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing]{2020A&A...641A...6P} and WMAP \citep[magenta,][Table 3, WMAP-only Nine-year]{2013ApJS..208...19H}.}
\label{fig:posterior_sigma8}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:posterior_sigma8} shows the three posterior distributions for $\sigma_8$ obtained in this work compared with the results from the cosmic microwave backround measurements by Planck \citep[][Table 2, TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing]{2020A&A...641A...6P} and WMAP \citep[][Table 3, WMAP-only Nine-year]{2013ApJS..208...19H}.
Our constraint on $\sigma_8$ with the \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} model, which has a sharp posterior that peaks around $\sigma_8 \sim 1$, highlights a discrepancy larger than $3\sigma$ with CMB values. The posteriors given by the \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} and \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} models overlap within $2\sigma$ and $1\sigma$ with the CMB data, respectively, but the \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} posterior is clearly different from a normal distribution. Because of the small size of the sample and the poor quality of the bias-mass measurements in some bins, our results yield quite broad posteriors that are necessarily in agreement with WMAP and Planck median values.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/sigma8_relative.pdf}
\caption{Comparison with literature results. Our reference $\sigma_8$ value is obtained assuming the \protect\cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} model. We show the median, 16\textit{th} and 84\textit{th} percentiles. We present from top to bottom results obtained in this work (black), \protect\cite{2020A&A...641A...6P} (blue), \protect\cite{2013ApJS..208...19H} (red), \protect\cite{nanni} (magenta), \protect\cite{2020arXiv201212273L} (cyan), \protect\cite{2019MNRAS.488.4779C} (turquoise), \protect\cite{2019ApJ...878...55B} (green), \protect\cite{2021arXiv210513549D} (light green), \protect\cite{2019PASJ...71...43H} (yellow) and \protect\cite{2021A&A...645A.104A} (orange). We show the relative constraints on $\sigma_8$ in a free cosmology (empty dots) and assuming $\Omega_m = 0.3$ (filled dots). The shaded regions correspond to the 99.7\%, 95\% and 68\% confidence intervals.}
\label{fig:sigma8_relative}
\end{figure}
Finally in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma8_relative} we present our reference result from \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} in the broader context of recent measurements of $\sigma_8$. This model was calibrated for a range of overdensities with respect to the mean density of the universe and can easily be converted to overdensities with respect to the critical density, which makes the bias more reliable for the mass definition $M_{200c}$. In addition, our $b_h \sigma_8^2$ results given by the \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} relation are more reliable in comparative terms, since studies referenced in this paper base their analyses on this relation.
In particular, we display the results from clustering and cluster counts studies based on the AK3 galaxy clusters sample \citep[][]{nanni, 2020arXiv201212273L}, from cluster counts analyses done on SDSS-DR8 and $2500 \ deg^2$ SPT-SZ Survey data \citep[][]{2019MNRAS.488.4779C, 2019ApJ...878...55B}, from galaxy clustering and weak lensing in DES-Y3 \citep[][]{2021arXiv210513549D}, and from cosmic shear analysis based on the HSC-Y1 and KiDS-DR4 catalogs \citep[][respectively]{2019PASJ...71...43H, 2021A&A...645A.104A}.
We also show the results from Planck \citep[][Table 2]{2020A&A...641A...6P} and WMAP \citep[][Table 3]{2013ApJS..208...19H} measurements.
Since the amplitude of the matter power spectrum correlates with the mean matter density, all these studies derived the combined parameter $S_8 \equiv \sigma_8 \sqrt{\Omega_m / 0.3}$. In this work we computed a direct measurement of $\sigma_8$, dependent on the specific cosmological model assumed in our analysis.
In the figure, we indicate with different symbols the measurements of $\sigma_8$ obtained without assuming specific values of the cosmological parameters (empty dots) and those assuming $\Omega_m = 0.3$ (filled dots).
Our results are closer to those obtained fixing $\Omega_m=0.3$, as a low inference of $\Omega_m$ induces a higher estimate of $\sigma_8$, and vice versa.
For example, \cite{2020A&A...641A...6P} results show a posterior mean slightly higher than $\Omega_m=0.3$, while for cosmic shear studies it is slightly lower, hence when fixing $\Omega_m$ to $0.3$ there is a shift in $\sigma_8$ to larger values for \cite{2020A&A...641A...6P} and lower values for cosmic shear surveys.
However, the $2-3\sigma$ regions for the posteriors of the three theoretical relations agree with the results of these external references, regardless of the cosmological dependencies considered, but still have to be taken carefully into consideration because of the poor constraint.
The gap of $\sigma_8$ results from \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} to \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} or \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B} also stresses the importance of the theoretical model when constraining cosmological parameters in a stacked WL analysis.
\section{Summary and discussion}
\label{sec:Summary and discussion}
We investigated the halo bias from a revised stacked WL analysis presented in \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} on 6961 AMICO galaxy clusters identified in the recent KiDS-DR3 field. We divided the catalog into 14 bins in redshift and richness and for each of them we derived the excess surface mass density profiles.
We selected sources from their photometric redshifts or \textit{gri}-colors.
We compared the two color-color selections presented in \cite{2010MNRAS.405..257M} and \cite{2012MNRAS.420.3213O} with COSMOS accurate photometric redshifts in order to carry the most effective cut out for KiDS sources.
The final WL profiles are obtained by subtracting the signals given by a large number of random lenses. We computed the covariances by applying the bootstrap technique to the cluster and random shears, and added together the matrices to assess the uncertainties of the final profiles. We performed the Bayesian inference of the halo parameters with a MCMC method run over a radial range from 0.2 to 30 Mpc/\textit{h}.
We modelled the WL signal from galaxy clusters by including the contribution of a truncated version of the NFW profile, which includes a correction for the off-centered galaxy clusters and a correlated matter term originating from the linear matter power spectrum.
Our measurements of the halo mass within 3.16 Mpc/\textit{h} agree with the results obtained by \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} with a relative difference estimated on the order of 5\%. From the full radial range, we obtained halo masses and derived the mass-richness relation given by Equation~\eqref{eq:Mvslambda}
with $\alpha = 0.007 \pm 0.019$, $\beta = 1.72 \pm 0.09$ and $\gamma = -1.35 \pm 0.70$, in remarkable agreement with \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B}. We also studied the halo mass-concentration relation modelled as in Equation~\eqref{eq:cvsM}.
We obtained $\alpha = 0.62 \pm 0.10$, $\beta = -0.32 \pm 0.24$ and $\gamma = 0.71 \pm 2.51$. The constraints show a steeper but consistent relation with respect to theoretical results derived from the analysis of numerical simulations.
Our results on the halo bias are consistent with previous measurements and with simulations in a $\Lambda$CDM framework. Some data points are affected by a relatively low SNR, as the number of galaxy clusters in the given redshift-richness bins is limited. These effects and the small number of richness bins prohibited the detection of any trend for the halo bias with the effective redshift of the clusters in each redshift bin. The measurements over the stacked profile of the full AK3 catalog give $b_h \sigma_8^2 = 1.2 \pm 0.1$ located at $M_{200c} = 4.9 \pm 0.3 \times 10^{13} M_{\odot}/\textit{h}$, in good agreement with $\Lambda$CDM predictions.
In the fitting procedure, the halo bias parameter is degenerate with the amplitude of the power spectrum $\sigma_8$. This last cosmological parameter is fitted with the theoretical mass-bias relations given in \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S}, \cite{2010ApJ...724..878T} and \cite{2011ApJ...732..122B}.
Assuming a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with $\Omega_m=1-\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.3$, we found $\sigma_8 = 1.01 \tiny{\substack{+0.05 \\ -0.05}}; \ 0.63 \tiny{\substack{+0.11 \\ -0.10}}; \ 0.66 \tiny{\substack{+0.19 \\ -0.27}}$ for the three above mentioned relations. These results present slight deviations with respect to the latest WMAP or Planck $\sigma_8$ estimates, but agree within $2\sigma$, with the exception of the results based on the \cite{2004MNRAS.355..129S} posterior, which shows a sharper distribution centered on a larger value of $\sigma_8$. Other works, based on cluster clustering, cluster counts and cosmic shear analyses, report values of $\sigma_8$ in agreement with our estimates within $2\sigma$, either assuming $\Omega_m$ fixed or free. The importance of the choice of the theoretical model for the halo bias also highlights the difficulty in constraining this cosmological parameter in a WL analysis.
For future work, we are interested in combining the inference on $\sigma_8$ with $\Omega_m$ to constrain the parameter $S_8 \equiv \sigma_8 \sqrt{\Omega_m / 0.3}$, which would compliment the study on $\sigma_8$ in this paper and $\Omega_m$ in \cite{2021arXiv210305653G}.
Specifically, \cite{2021arXiv210305653G} provided a similar analysis on the AK3 galaxy clusters with a stacked shear profile up to 35 Mpc/\textit{h} and recovered consistent mass measurements with respect to \cite{2019MNRAS.484.1598B} and this paper.
The binning scheme differs from this work since the cluster amplitude as a binning property was favored, while we opted for richness. This mainly affects the scaling relation between the mass and the cluster richness or amplitude. The impact of the truncation radius has been deeply investigated in \cite{2021arXiv210305653G}, here we performed a robust analysis of the covariances and cross-covariances and studied the effects of the lensing signal systematics in each patch of the field through the random signal. Both studies were carried out with independent numerical pipelines and followed a process of cross-validation among the KiDS collaboration.
The methodology used in this work will constitute a baseline for future KiDS Data Releases \citep[][]{2019A&A...625A...2K} and similar but larger data sets that combine cluster and shear catalogs. Upcoming surveys, such as \textit{Euclid} \citep[][]{2019A&A...627A..23E} and LSST \citep[][]{2012arXiv1211.0310L}, will provide promising data sets allowing for further statistical analyses in deeper and wider fields. These data sets will be fundamental for the study of the halo properties such as mass and bias with stacked WL analyses, and will allow robust estimates of the main cosmological parameters.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge Shahab Joudaki for the thorough review of the manuscript.
LI is grateful to Nicolas Martinet for a relevant discussion on the multiplicative bias and BPZ PDFs, and Peter Melchior for his fruitful comments on the cross-covariance.
Based on data products from observations made with ESO Telescopes at
the La Silla Paranal Observatory under programme IDs 177.A-3016,
177.A-3017 and 177.A-3018, and on data products produced by
Target/OmegaCEN, INAF-OACN, INAF-OAPD and the KiDS production team, on
behalf of the KiDS consortium. OmegaCEN and the KiDS production team
acknowledge support by NOVA and NWO-M grants. Members of INAF-OAPD and INAF-OACN also acknowledge the support from the Department of Physics \& Astronomy of the University of Padova, and of the Department of Physics of Univ. Federico II (Naples). We acknowledge the KiDS collaboration for the public data realises and the various scientists working within it for the fruitful and helpful discussions.
MS acknowledges financial contribution from contract ASI-INAF n.2017-14-H.0 and contract INAF mainstream project 1.05.01.86.10.
CG, FM and LM acknowledge the grants ASI n.I/023/12/0, ASI-INAF n. 2018-23-HH.0 and PRIN MIUR 2015 Cosmology and Fundamental Physics: illuminating the
Dark Universe with Euclid". CG and LM are also supported by PRIN-MIUR 2017 WSCC32 ``Zooming into dark matter and proto-galaxies with massive lensing clusters''. CG acknowledges support from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Directorate General for Country Promotion.
This paper makes use of the astronomical data analysis software \texttt{TOPCAT} \citep[][]{2005ASPC..347...29T}, and packages available in the Python's open scientific ecosystem, including \texttt{numpy} \citep[][]{2020NumPy-Array}, \texttt{scipy} \citep[][]{2020SciPy-NMeth}, \texttt{matplotlib} \citep[][]{Hunter:2007}, \texttt{astropy} \citep[][]{astropy:2018}, \texttt{emcee} \citep[][]{2013PASP..125..306F}, \texttt{ray} \citep[][]{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1712-09381, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1712-05889}, \texttt{colossus} \citep[][]{2018ApJS..239...35D} and \texttt{cluster toolkit}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/tmcclintock/cluster_toolkit/}}.
Data analysis has been carried out with Fornax Physics Department computing cluster of the University Federico II of Naples.
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, periodically driven (Floquet) quantum many-body systems have attracted considerable attention since they are crucial for understanding new non-equilibrium Floquet many-body localization (MBL)~\cite{Abanin2019} phase and may have potential applications in quantum metrology ~\cite{Lyu2020}.
One example of a non-equilibrium Floquet-MBL phase is the discrete time-crystalline (DTC) order~\cite{Sacha2015,Else2016,Khemani2016},
which is different from a continuous time crystal~\cite{Wilczek2012,Li2012,Huang2018,Huang2020} and is characterized by the breaking of discrete time-translation symmetry (TTS)~\cite{Sacha2020}. The DTC order has been realized experimentally in several quantum systems in the past few years~\cite{Choi2017,Zhang2017,Randall2021,Kyprianidis2021}. Under driving with a period $T$, the system can exhibit stroboscopic response with a period $nT$ and it is expected to be robust against imperfection of the driving~\cite{von Keyserlingk2016,Yao2017}.
Recently, the DTCs in open Floquet systems have been \mbox{reported~\cite{Lazarides2017,Else2017,Gong2018,Zhu2019,KL2021,Lazarides2020,Riera-Campeny2020}.}
Since any realistic systems will be unavoidably coupled to its surroundings and the influences of baths can be either negative or positive, the mechanisms of stabilizing DTC in dissipative systems will be important to explore.
\begin{figure}[tbh!]
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{Fig1}
\caption{Sketches of the setups for realizing the DTC order: ({\bf a}) a large ensemble of spins trapped in a cavity and ({\bf b}) a suspended hBN monolayer membrane with a few spin color centers under a microwave drive and a circular-localized magnetic field. The Hamiltonian is modeled by Equation~(\ref{H}) and the Floquet driving protocol is that the spin-cavity coupling $\lambda$ is switched on (off) in the first (second) half of a Floquet period $T$. In this work, both spin and cavity losses are considered.}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
Meanwhile, recent development of optomechanical systems~\cite{Fabre1994,Mancini1994,RMP2014,Yin2015,Xu2021casimir} has facilitated breakthroughs of quantum technologies such as ground state cooling~\cite{Chan2011,Liu2013}, optical sensing~\cite{Xiong2017,Liu2017,Krause2012,Ahn2020, LiBB2021}, and quantum information processing~\cite{Stannigel2010,Stannigel2012}.
With nanoscale cavity optomechanical devices, the coupling between light and motion of mechanical resonators can be flexibly modulated with controllable loss~\cite{Karg2020}, which may even reach ultrastrong coupling regime~\cite{Frisk Kockum2019}.
A natural choice of mechanical modes is to use membranes of two-dimensional materials due to their excellent mechanical properties~\cite{Akinwande2017}.
Recently, hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) has drawn great interest and served as a promising platform for exploring both quantum and nanophotonic effects~\cite{Tran2016,Cadiz2018,Liu2019,Xia2014,Klusek2010}. hBN has a very wide bandgap and outstanding chemical and thermal stability beyond that of graphene. As a type of van der Waals materials, hBN can be integrated with plasmonic, nanophotonic, and potentially more complex structures~\cite{Tran2017,Caldwell2019,Gao2020,Wu2021,Xu2021}. The hBN membranes have low mass, small out-of-plane stiffness, high elasticity modulus and strong tensile strength, which make them a promising candidate for high-Q mechanical resonators and high-sensitivity sensors~\cite{Kim2018,Shandilya2019}.
A spin-mechanical system based on color centers in a suspended hBN mechanical resonator has been proposed~\cite{Abdi2017,Abdi2019},
which can even simulate the Rabi model in the ultrastrong coupling regime. Very recently, optically addressable spin defects were observed in hBN~\cite{Gottscholl2020,Chejanovsky2021,Gao2021}. As the DTC order has been found in $N$ atoms in a lossy cavity ~\cite{Gong2018,Zhu2019,KL2021}, it is interesting to explore the DTC in such spin-optomechanical systems with incoherent noise (spin damping or~dephasing).
In this work, we consider the DTC behaviors in an open Floquet system as $N$ qubits in a (mechanical) cavity via switching on and off of the spin-cavity coupling. In the thermodynamic limit, it describes a cavity QED model with a large ensemble of trapped spins while, in the deep quantum regime (with few qubits), it characterizes an optomechanical model as a suspended hBN monolayer membrane with a few spin defects under a microwave drive and a Floquet magnetic field (Figure \ref{fig:fig1}). We discuss stroboscopic dynamics in both regimes and explore whether stroboscopic oscillations are stable to spin damping and spin dephasing as well as the effect of all-to-all spin coupling.
\section{Perfect DTC in the Thermodynamic Limit}
We consider an open system as $N$ qubits with all-to-all interactions in a (mechanical) cavity (Figure \ref{fig:fig1}). The all-to-all coupling can be mediated by a photon in an optical cavity~\cite{Gong2018} or a phonon in a mechanical oscillator~\cite{Abdi2017,Abdi2019,LiB2020}. The Hamiltonian is given by~\cite{Gong2018,Zhu2019,Abdi2017,Abdi2019,Morrison2008,Russomanno2017}
\begin{equation}\label{H}
\hat{H}(h,\lambda)=\omega_{0}\sum_{i}\hat{s}_{i}^{z}+\omega\hat{a}^{\dag}%
\hat{a}+\frac{2h}{N}\sum_{i<j}\hat{s}_{i}^{z}\hat{s}_{j}^{z}+\frac{2\lambda
}{\sqrt{N}}(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^{\dag})\sum_{i}\hat{s}_{i}^{x},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{a}$ ($\hat{a}^{\dag}$) is the annihilation (creation) operator of the photon field with optical frequency $\omega$,
$\hat{s}_{i}^{\mu}$ ($\mu=x,y,z$) is the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ angular momentum operator along the $\mu$ axis for the $i$-th qubit
of transition frequency $\omega_{0}$, and $h$ ($\lambda$) is related to the spin-spin (spin-cavity) coupling strength.
For convenience, a more compact version can be derived as
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}(h,\lambda)=\omega_{0}\hat{J}_{z}+\omega\hat{a}^{\dag}\hat{a}+\frac
{h}{N}\hat{J}_{z}^{2}+\frac{2\lambda}{\sqrt{N}}(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^{\dag})\hat
{J}_{x},
\end{equation}
by introducing the collective angular moment operator $\hat{J}_{\mu}=\sum_{i}\hat{s}_{i}^{\mu}$ and neglecting a constant term.
We consider a general decoherent model by including both the spin and cavity losses.
Then, the dynamics of the system can be described by the master equation (setting $\hbar=1$)
\begin{equation}\label{mseq}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\rho}}{\mathrm{d}t}=-\mathrm{i}[\hat{H},\hat{\rho
}]+\gamma D[\hat{a}]\hat{\rho}+\frac{\Gamma}{N}D[\hat{J}_{-}]\hat{\rho}%
+\frac{\tilde{\Gamma}}{N}D[2\hat{J}_{z}]\hat{\rho},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{J}_{-}=\hat{J}_{x}-\mathrm{i}\hat{J}_{y}$ is the collective lowering operator and
$D[\hat{o}]\hat{\rho}=\hat{o}\hat{\rho}\hat{o}^{\dag}-(\hat{o}^{\dag}\hat{o}\hat{\rho}+\hat{\rho}\hat{o}^{\dag}\hat{o})/2$. Here, $\gamma=\omega/Q$
is the cavity damping rate with $Q$ the quality factor.
In addition, $\Gamma$ and $\tilde{\Gamma}$ are the spin relaxation and dephasing rate, respectively. Previous works mainly focused on the DTC in cavity QED systems with merely the cavity loss or the nearest-neighbor (short-range) spin coupling~\cite{Gong2018,Zhu2019,KL2021}. They have neither discussed stabilizing DTC in dissipative systems with all-to-all coupling nor considered the effects of spin damping and spin dephasing.
\begin{figure*}[tbh!]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=15cm]{Fig2}
\caption{Stroboscopic dynamics (\textbf{top}) and stroboscopic trajectories (\textbf{bottom}) of the scaled angular momentum vector $\vec{j}=(j_x,j_y,j_z)$ (red, green, blue) in the thermodynamic limit for the perfect driving case $\varepsilon=0$. The top shows typical stroboscopic dynamics of $j_x$ (solid red curve), $j_y$ (dashed green curve) and $j_z$ (dotted blue curve) for the last $30$ periods of the entire $500$-period evolution. The bottom displays the stroboscopic trajectories on the Bloch sphere for the entire $500$ periods (green) and for the last $100$ periods (red) sphere. We consider no spin-cavity coupling $h=0$ in ({\bf a}--{\bf d}) and increasing spin-cavity coupling strength in ({\bf e}--{\bf h}) with $h=0.05$, $0.1$, $0.3$, $1$, respectively. The parameters are set as: ({\bf a},{\bf e}) $\gamma=\Gamma=0.05$, ({\bf b},{\bf f}) $\gamma=0.05$, $\Gamma=0.3$, (\textbf{c},\textbf{g}) $\gamma=\Gamma=0.3$ and (\textbf{d},\textbf{h}) $\gamma=1.5$, $\Gamma=0.3$. }
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure*}
First, we would like to consider the robustness of DTC behavior in the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$.
By performing the mean-field approximation and factorizing the means of operator product, we obtain a closed set of semiclassical equations as
\begin{align}\label{mfeqns}
\dot{j}_{x} & =-\omega_{0}j_{y}-hj_{y}j_{z}+\frac{\Gamma}{2}j_{x}%
j_{z}-\tilde{\Gamma}j_{x},\nonumber\\
\dot{j}_{y} & =\omega_{0}j_{x}-2\lambda\sqrt{2\omega}xj_{z}+hj_{x}%
j_{z}+\frac{\Gamma}{2}j_{y}j_{z}-\tilde{\Gamma}j_{y},\nonumber\\
\dot{j}_{z} & =2\lambda\sqrt{2\omega}xj_{y}+\frac{\Gamma}{2}(j_{z}^{2}-1),\nonumber\\
\dot{x} & =p-\frac{\gamma}{2}x,\nonumber\\
\dot{p} & =-\omega^{2}x-\frac{\gamma}{2}p-2\lambda\sqrt{2\omega}j_{x},
\end{align}
where $j_{\mu}= \langle \hat{J}_{\mu} \rangle /j$ with $j=N/2$ and ${\sum_{\mu}}j_{\mu}^{2}=1$, $x=\langle \hat{a}+\hat{a}^{\dag}\rangle/\sqrt{2N\omega}$, and $p=\mathrm{i}\langle \hat{a}^{\dag}-\hat{a}\rangle /\sqrt{2N/\omega}$.
The set of Equation~(\ref{mfeqns}) is a generalization of that in Reference~\cite{Gong2018} which is a special case as $h=0$ here.
The introduction of spin-spin coupling $h$ breaks the original stable attractors $(j_x, j_y, j_z)_\mathrm{st}=(\pm \sqrt{1-\mu^2},0,-\mu)/2$ and $(x,p)_\mathrm{st}=\mp[\lambda\sqrt{2\omega(1-\mu^2)}/(\omega^2+\gamma^{2}/4)](1,\gamma/2)$,
with $\mu=(\lambda_\mathrm{c}/\lambda)^2$ and the critical spin-cavity coupling strength $\lambda_\mathrm{c}=\sqrt{(\omega_0/\omega)(\omega^2+\gamma^2/4)}/2$.
We would also like to focus on the steady-state solutions as Reference~\cite{Gong2018}, which is instead numerically found out due to the more complexity considered.
It is clear that there exist trivial steady-state solutions as $x=p=j_{x}=j_{y}=0$ and $j_{z}=\pm1$.
Besides, as long as the dephasing exists ($\tilde{\Gamma}\neq0$), the steady-state solutions will fall into be trivial.
This can be understood as that the existence of dephasing will finally destroy the coherence (non-diagonal terms of density matrix)
and leads to the final state as either $\left\vert +N/2\right\rangle$ or $\left\vert -N/2\right\rangle$ when the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry is broken at $\lambda>\lambda_\mathrm{c}$. Here, $\left\vert \pm N/2\right\rangle $ are the eigenstates of $\hat{J}_{z}$ with
$\hat{J}_{z}$ $\left\vert \pm N/2\right\rangle =\pm N/2\left\vert \pm N/2\right\rangle$.
Therefore, we set $\tilde{\Gamma}=0$ in the following discuss, unless specifically mentioned.
Besides, we assume the spins are initially in the eigenstate $\left\vert \rightarrow\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\rightarrow
\right\rangle $ with $j_{x}|_{t=0}=1$, $j_{y}|_{t=0}=0$, and $j_{z}|_{t=0}=0$ and the cavity mode is initially in a coherent state $\left\vert
\alpha\right\rangle $ with $x|_{t=0}=p|_{t=0}=0$. If we consider the symmetry-broken regime $\lambda>\lambda_\mathrm{c}$, it is clear that the final state will fall into either one of the two nontrivial stable states. To observe a DTC order, we perform the Floquet driving protocol similar to Reference~\cite{Gong2018}: the spin-cavity coupling $\lambda$ is artificially switched off in the second-half period, i.e., $\lambda=0$ for $(n+1/2)T \leq t<(n+1)T$ with $n=0,1,2,\ldots$. From an alternative viewpoint, the Floquet driving is that we let the spins periodically driven by a leaky cavity in every first-half period $nT \leq t<(n+1/2)T$. We introduce the imperfection parameter $\varepsilon$ via a detuning between $\omega$ and $\omega_0$ as $\omega=(1-\varepsilon)\omega_\mathrm{T}$ and $\omega_0=(1+\varepsilon)\omega_\mathrm{T}$ with $\omega_\mathrm{T}=2\pi/T$. In the perfect case ($\varepsilon=0$), it is not difficult to check that the unitary dynamics during the second-half period contributes a parity operator $P=\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\pi(a^{\dag}a+J_z)}$ which flips the stable state to the other one. If certain observables of the spins (say $j_\mu$) or the cavity mode (say $x,p$) exhibit period doubling oscillations which are robust against imperfection driving $\varepsilon$, then a DTC order may be identified. We also consider nonunitary imperfections due to decoherence of the system. To observe the long-time behavior, we numerically solve a Floquet--Lindblad master equation (setting $\lambda$ in Equation~(\ref{mfeqns}) be periodically time-dependent as characterized above) up to $500$ periods $T$ by means of the Runge-Kutta method. We shall remark that we have also tried more periods such as $5000$ periods as in Reference~\cite{Gong2018} but there is no qualitative difference. For convenience, we set $\omega_\mathrm{T}=1$ and $\lambda=1$ to illustrate the perfect DTC in the $\lambda>\lambda_\mathrm{c}$ regime.
\begin{figure*}[tbh!]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=15cm]{Fig3}
\caption{Stroboscopic dynamics
(\textbf{top}) and stroboscopic trajectories \textbf{(bottom}) of the scaled angular momentum vector components $j_x$ (solid red curve), $j_y$ (dashed green curve), $j_z$ (dotted blue curve) in the thermodynamic limit for the imperfect driving case $\varepsilon=0.05$. Other parameters are the same as Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}. The robustness of DTC against imperfection is clearly shown in ({\bf a},{\bf d},{\bf e}). Besides, it is interesting to find that the DTC can even benefit from the imperfection as comparing Figure~\ref{fig:fig3}g with Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}g.}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure*}
In Figures~\ref{fig:fig2} and~\ref{fig:fig3}, we plot the stroboscopic dynamics of the scaled angular momentum vector $\vec{j}=(j_x,j_y,j_z)$ as well as their stroboscopic trajectories on the Bloch sphere for the perfect driving ($\varepsilon=0$) and imperfect driving ($\varepsilon\neq 0$) cases, respectively.
By comparing the first row a-d where there is no spin-spin coupling with $h=0$, we clearly observe different stroboscopic dynamics in different dissipation regimes. First, the DTC order is well preserved by the existence of weak spin damping $\Gamma$ as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}a and robust again imperfection $\varepsilon$ as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig3}a. As the spin damping rate $\Gamma$ increases, the DTC dynamics becomes irregular with the trajectory of $\vec{j}$ scattered on the Bloch sphere (Figures~\ref{fig:fig2}b and ~\ref{fig:fig3}b). However, the dynamics will become more regularly with the area of stroboscopic trajectories reduced if the cavity loss rate $\gamma$ increases (Figures~\ref{fig:fig2}c and ~\ref{fig:fig3}c). The eternal stroboscopic oscillations will occur again with the trajectories almost collapse into the two stable points for $\gamma\gg \Gamma$ (Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}d), which is robust against imperfection $\varepsilon$ (Figure~\ref{fig:fig3}d) so as to identify the DTC order.
Besides, by comparing the second row (e-h) where there is spin-spin coupling $h\neq 0$, different stroboscopic dynamics from that of $h=0$ is also demonstrated in different dissipation regimes. From Figures~\ref{fig:fig2}e--h (perfect $\varepsilon=0$ case) with growing all-to-all coupling $h$, we observe that DTC oscillations is gradually destroyed and the system finally falls into one of the trivial stable states with $j_x=j_y=0$ and $j_z=-1$ (Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}h).
By contrast, in the imperfect case ($\varepsilon\neq 0$) as shown in Figures~\ref{fig:fig3}e--h, we surprisingly find that the DTC order may be rebuilt by appropriate $h$ in the moderate damping regime, by comparing Figure~\ref{fig:fig3}g with Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}g.
\section{Transient DTC Behavior in the Deep Quantum Regime}
We proceed to focus on the few-atom cases [$N\sim O(1)$], which corresponds to the hBN optomechanical system as displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:fig1}b.
It is expected that a DTC behavior may still survive in few atom cases, the so-called deep quantum regime~\cite{Gong2018}.
In this regime, we do not perform semiclassical approximation so that all the quantumness of the system is well maintained.
The interplay among spin-spin coupling, spin-cavity coupling and dissipations may give rise to more subtle behaviors for transiently long DTC
in this deep quantum regime. By transiently long we mean that the DTC lasts much longer than the decay time $\gamma^{-1}$. The initial state is chosen to be $\left\vert \Rightarrow \right\rangle $ $\otimes$ $\left\vert \alpha\right\rangle $,
where $\left\vert\Rightarrow\right\rangle \equiv\otimes_{j=1}^{N}\left\vert \rightarrow\right\rangle $ is the eigenstate of $\hat{J}_{x}$ with the eigenvalue $N/2$ and $\left\vert \alpha\right\rangle $ is a coherent state with $\hat{a}\left\vert \alpha\right\rangle =\alpha\left\vert \alpha\right\rangle $.
The Floquet--Lindblad dynamics extended from Equations~(\ref{H}) and (\ref{mseq}) is directly solved under a truncation of $16$ photons for $\alpha=0.01$.
\begin{figure*}[tbh!]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6cm]{Fig4a}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6cm]{Fig4b}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6cm]{Fig4c}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6cm]{Fig4d}
\caption{Stroboscopic
dissipative dynamics of the scaled angular momenta of $j_x$ (red solid curve), $j_y$ (green dashed curve), and $j_z$ (blue dotted curve) in the two-qubit $N=2$ case. The inset shows quadratures $x$ (purple solid) and $p$ (black dashed) behaviors. We consider weak dissipation in (\textbf{a}) $h=\gamma=\Gamma=0.05, \tilde{\Gamma}=0$ and moderate dissipation in (\textbf{b}) $h=\gamma=\Gamma=0.3, \tilde{\Gamma}=0$ but without spin dephasing as the thermodynamic limit case. Contrast to (\textbf{a}) and (\textbf{b}), (\textbf{c}) and (\textbf{d}) includes spin dephasing $\tilde{\Gamma}\approx 2\Gamma$ as suggested in Reference~\cite{Abdi2017}.}
\label{fig:fig4}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[tbh!]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6cm]{Fig5a}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6cm]{Fig5b}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6cm]{Fig5c}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=6cm]{Fig5d}
\caption{Stroboscopic
dissipative dynamics of the scaled angular momenta of $j_x$ (red solid curve), $j_y$ (green dashed curve), and $j_z$ (blue dotted curve) for the
three-qubit $N=3$ case. The parameter setups are the same as those in Figure~\ref{fig:fig5}.}
\label{fig:fig5}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:fig4}a shows the stroboscopic dynamics of the scaled angular momenta $j_{\mu}$ and quadratures $x$, $p$ (inset)
in the strong coupling regime ($\lambda=1$)
and weak dissipation regime ($\gamma=\Gamma=0.05$) for the two-qubit case ($N=2$).
We clearly observe that $j_{x}$ and $x$ exhibit stroboscopic oscillations with doubling period $2T$ after $t\sim5T$,
which persists even at $t\sim50T$ and thus is much longer than the decay time (here $\gamma^{-1}=\Gamma^{-1}\sim3T$). In this sense, a transient DTC order is established in the deep quantum regime before reaching the stationary state.
In Figure~\ref{fig:fig4}b, we plot the stroboscopic dynamics in the moderate dissipation regime ($\gamma=\Gamma=0.3$). In this case, the decay time
can be estimated as $\gamma^{-1}=\Gamma^{-1}\sim 0.5 T$ so that the stroboscopic dynamics occur immediately and lasts over $10 T$,
which still maintains a transient DTC order.
Moreover, if the spin dephasing $\tilde{\Gamma}\approx 2 \Gamma$ as predicted in Reference~\cite{Abdi2017} is additionally considered, as shown in Figures~\ref{fig:fig4}c,d, we find that the oscillation time is merely comparable to the decay time and thus no transient DTC order exists. Besides, we observe similar phenomena if more spins are involved such as the case of $N=3$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig5}. One effect of increasing the spin number $N$ is that the transient oscillations evolve into an eternal one as predicted at the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow \infty$ in Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}. Another effect of increasing $N$ may be that the stroboscopic oscillations is more robust against the spin dephasing as comparing the oscillation dynamics of quadrature $x$ (purple solid) in Figures~\ref{fig:fig4}c and ~\ref{fig:fig5}c.
Before ending, we would like to discuss the setup of experimental parameters for realizing TDC order in the optomechanical system of hBN monolayer membrane. According to Referecne~\cite{Abdi2017}, a maximum magnetic field gradient $270$ $\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{nm}$ may be reached such that the spin-cavity coupling $\lambda$ may become comparable or even larger than the oscillator frequency $\omega$. In this work, we consider $\lambda=\omega_{\mathrm{T}}$, $\omega=(1-\varepsilon)\omega_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\omega_0=(1+\varepsilon)\omega_{\mathrm{T}}$ with $\varepsilon\leq 10 \%$, and the cavity loss rate $\gamma\leq 1.5 \omega_{\mathrm{T}}$, which indicates $\lambda_\mathrm{c}\leq 0.65 \omega_{\mathrm{T}}$.
To insure the occurrence of transient DTC dynamics, we need operate in the regime of $\lambda >\lambda_\mathrm{c}$. Then, the minimal spin-cavity coupling is to achieve $\lambda >0.65 \omega_{\mathrm{T}}$, which is realizable in a suspended circular hBN membrane with radius $R\sim 1$ $ \mu \mathrm{m}$. Another important aspect is to control the dephasing rate $\tilde{\Gamma}$ which is detrimental to the DTC order. According to Reference~\cite{Abdi2017}, the spin dephasing mainly stems from optical polarization $\tilde{\Gamma}_\mathrm{o}$ and membrane vibrations $\tilde{\Gamma}_\mathrm{v}$, which is proportional to the vibration frequency $\omega$. Therefore, to suppress the dephasing rate, it is suggested to reduce the cavity frequency $\omega$, which also corresponds to enhance the membrane radius $R$. Last, but not least, the cavity loss promotes spin cooling and localization, which is crucial to the emergence of DTC. However, as can be indicated by comparing Figure ~\ref{fig:fig4}b with Figure ~\ref{fig:fig4}a (or Figure ~\ref{fig:fig5}b with Figure ~\ref{fig:fig5}a), a too strong cavity loss $\gamma$ (corresponding to extremely low $Q$) may overdamp the system dynamics and destroy the DTC order. Besides, a stronger $\gamma$ leads to a higher critical spin-cavity coupling $\lambda_\mathrm{c}$ such that stronger spin-cavity coupling $\lambda$ is needed, which imposes a challenge to its experimental realization. For cavity loss rate $\gamma=0.05 \omega_{\mathrm{T}}$ as considered in Figures~\ref{fig:fig4}c and ~\ref{fig:fig5}c, the quality factor $Q$ is about $20$, which provides a balance between spin cooling and loss to make experimental realization more feasible ~\cite{Shandilya2019}. Overall, negligible spin dephasing, weak spin damping and appropriate cavity loss are suggested in realizing transient DTC order in such an optomechanical system.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:sec5}
In summary, we have investigated DTC order in a Floquet open system composed of $N$ qubits trapped in a (mechanical) cavity. The influences of all-to-all spin interactions, spin damping, spin dephasing as well as cavity loss are explored both in the thermodynamic limit and in the deep quantum regime. It is shown that the existence of dephasing will destroy the coherence of the system and finally leads the system to its trivial steady state. Without dephasing and all-to-all spin coupling, different stroboscopic dynamics in different dissipation regimes is demonstrated. First, with weak spin damping and weak all-to-all coupling, eternal DTC oscillations are observed and robust against imperfection. As the spin damping rate increases, the stroboscopic dynamics evolves irregularly accompanied by the trajectory of the scaled angular momentum vector scattered on the Bloch sphere. However, with enhancement of cavity loss, the dynamics will become more regularly and the eternal eternal DTC order will reemerge at strong cavity loss.
Besides, by growing the all-to-all coupling, we demonstrate that stroboscopic oscillations are gradually destroyed in the weak damping regime. It is interesting to show that the DTC order may be rebuilt by appropriate all-to-all coupling in the moderate damping regime.
We also focus on the few-atom cases, the so-called deep quantum regime, the model of which describes a suspended hBN monolayer membrane with a few spin defects under a microwave drive and a Floquet magnetic field. A transient DTC lasting much longer than the decay time can be found in both weak and moderate dissipation regimes when there is no spin dephasing. Nonetheless, the existence of dephasing will destroy transient oscillations and leads the system fast to a trivial steady state, which is consistent with the results obtained by semiclassical approximation in the thermodynamic limit. We also find that stroboscopic oscillations may be more robust against the spin dephasing by increasing the spin number. Finally, the parameters in the experimental aspect are briefly discussed and how to realizing transient DTC order in such an hBN optomechanical system is suggested.
T.L. acknowledges the support from NSF (Grant No. PHY-2110591). Z.H. acknowledges the support from the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. JUSRP21935) and the China Scholarship Council (CSC).
|
\section{Introduction}
Fix $\alpha\in \mathbb R$, and consider a Markov process $(Y_n^\alpha)_{n\ge 1}$ defined on some probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal F, \mathbb P)$ with the evolution governed by the transition kernel
\begin{equation}\label{E:1.1}
p(x, \cdot ) = \frac 1 2 \delta_{x+\alpha} + \frac 12 \delta_{x-\alpha}, \quad p : \mathbb S^1 \times \mathcal B (\mathbb S^1 ) \to [0,1],
\end{equation}
whose initial distribution, i.e. the distribution of $Y_1^\alpha$, is the Lebesgue measure (here $\mathcal B (\mathbb S^1 )$ stands for the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel subsets of $\mathbb S^1$). One can easily verify the process is stationary. More work is needed to show the Lebesgue measure is the unique possible choice for the law of $Y_1^\alpha$ to make the process stationary (see e.g. Theorem 7 and Remark 8 in \cite{Szarek_Zdunik_2016b}). In particular $(Y_n^\alpha)$ is ergodic, which means that if $A\in \mathcal B (\mathbb S^1 )$ is such that $p(x, A)=1$ for Lebesgue a.e. $x\in \mathbb S^1$ then $A$ is of the Lebesgue measure $0$ or $1$ (see e.g. Section 5 in \cite{Hairer_2006}, page 37, for characterizations of ergodicity and the relation to the notion of ergodicity in dynamical systems).
This paper is devoted to the central limit theorem (\textbf{CLT} for short) for additive functionals of $(Y_n^\alpha)$, i.e. processes of the form $\big(\varphi(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n)\big)$,
where a function $\varphi : \mathbb S^1 \to \mathbb R$ is usually called an observable. For convenience we assume that $\int \varphi(x)dx=0$. We say that \textbf{CLT} holds for the process if
$$\frac{\varphi(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n)}{\sqrt n} \Rightarrow \mathcal N (0, \sigma) \quad \textrm{as $n\to \infty$}$$
for some $\sigma>0$. The validity of \textbf{CLT} depends on Diophantine properties of $\alpha$. An angle $\alpha$ is called Diophantine of type $(c,\gamma)$, $c>0$, $\gamma\ge 2$ if
\begin{equation}\label{diophantine}
\bigg|\alpha - \frac p q \bigg| \ge \frac{c}{q^\gamma} \quad \textrm{for all $p, q\in \mathbb Z$, $q\not=0$.}
\end{equation}
An angle $\alpha$ is Liouville if it is not Diophantine of type $(c,\gamma)$ for any choice of $c>0$, $\gamma \ge 2$.
These and similar processes has been widely studied in the literature.
\begin{itemize}
\item Kesten \cite{Kesten_1960, Kesten_1961} investigated the limit distribution of
$$D_N(x,\alpha)=\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \varphi(x+n\alpha) - N\int_{\mathbb{S}^1}\varphi(x)dx,$$
where $\varphi$ is the characteristic function of some interval and $(x,\alpha)$ is uniformly distributed in $\mathbb S^1\times \mathbb S^1$. This was later generalized to higher dimensions by Dolgopyat and Fayad \cite{Dolgopyat_Fayad_2014, Dolgopyat_Fayad_2020}.
\item Sinai and Ulcigrai \cite{Sinai_Ulcigrai_2008} considered a similar problem when $\varphi$ is non-integrable meromorphic function.
\item In the above examples a point in the space is chosen randomly thus one calls it a spatial \textbf{CLT} . One can also fix a point in the space $x\in \mathbb S^1$, an angle $\alpha$ and, given $N$, pick randomly an integer number $n\in [1, N]$. The question arise what is the limit distribution of $D_n(x,\alpha)$ as $N$ is growing. This kind of limit theorems are called temporal. The first limit theorem in this flavour was proven by Beck \cite{Beck_2010, Beck_2011}. For further development see e.g. \cite{Dolgopyat_Sarig_2017}, \cite{Bromberg_Ulcigrai_2018}, \cite{Dolgopyat_Sarig_2020}.
\item Sinai \cite{Sinai_1999} considered a situation where one draws $+\alpha$ or $-\alpha$ with a probability distribution depending on the position in the circle (the method was to study a related random walk in random environment). He proved the unique ergodicity and stability of the process when $\alpha$ is Diophantine. Recently Dolgopyat et. al. \cite{Dolgopyat_Fayad_Saprykina_2021} studied the behaviour in the Liouvillean case
\item Borda \cite{Borda_2021} considered even a more general situation where several angles are given and one chooses one of them randomly. Given $p\in (0,1]$, he formulated certain Diophantine conditions implying \textbf{CLT} for all $\varphi$ in the class of $p$-H{\"o}lder functions. Thus the author was concerned about what assumptions one should put on the angles of rotation to imply \textbf{CLT} for all observables in a given class.
\end{itemize}
The situation here resembles the one from the last point, but here we rather touch the question how regular an observable should be to imply \textbf{CLT} if $\alpha$ is given. Namely, using celebrated result by Kipnis and Varadhan \cite{Kipnis_Varadhan_1986} we prove the following statement.
\begin{prop}\label{P:1}
Let us assume $\alpha$ to be Diophantine of type $(c,\gamma)$, $\gamma \ge 2$. If a non-constant function $\varphi \in C^{r}$, $r>\gamma-1/2$ (possibly $r=\infty$), is such that $\int\varphi(x)dx=0$ then there exists $\sigma>0$ such that
$$\frac{\varphi(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n)}{\sqrt{n}} \Rightarrow \mathcal N (0, \sigma).$$
In particular, \textbf{CLT} holds if $\alpha$ is Diophantine of an arbitrary type and $\varphi$ is smooth.
\end{prop}
\noindent The result is included for the sake of completeness, not because of novelty. This (or slightly different) statement has been proven independently by several people using various methods related to harmonic analysis (section 8 in \cite{Derriennic_Lin_2001}, section 7.5 in \cite{Weber_2009}, \cite{Zdunik_2017}, \cite{Borda_2021}).
By Proposition \ref{P:1} \textbf{CLT} holds if $\varphi$ is smooth and $\alpha$ is Diophantine of an arbitrary type. It is natural to ask then if for every Liouville $\alpha$ there exists a smooth $\varphi$ for which \textbf{CLT} fails. It is also natural to ask if \textbf{CLT} fails if analytic observables are considered. This leads us to the following theorems showing dichotomy between the behaviour of Liouville and Diophantine random rotation, similar to the one appearing in smooth conjugacy results for circle diffeomorphisms (see the beginning of Chapter I.3 in \cite{deMelo_vanStrien_1993}).
\begin{thm}\label{T:1}
There exists an irrational $\alpha$ and $\varphi \in C^\omega(\mathbb S^1)$ such that \textbf{CLT} fails.
\end{thm}
\noindent Note that by Proposition \ref{P:1} the angle in the assertion must be Liouville.
\begin{thm}\label{T:2}
Let $\alpha$ be an irrational number. Let us assume there exist $c>0$, $\gamma>5$ such that
$$\bigg|\alpha - \frac{p}{q} \bigg| \le \frac{c}{q^\gamma} \quad \textrm{for infinitely many $p,q \in \mathbb Z$, $q\not = 0$.} $$
Let $r$ be the largest positive integer with $r<\frac{\gamma}{2}-\frac 3 2$. Then there exist $\varphi \in C^r$ such that \textbf{CLT} fails.
\end{thm}
\noindent The only reason for making the assumption $\gamma>5$ is to ensure $\frac{\gamma}{2}-\frac 3 2$ greater than $1$, so that the condition $r<\frac{\gamma}{2}-\frac 3 2$ is satisfied for at least one positive integer $r$. A slightly changed proof of Theorem \ref{T:2} yields the following.
\begin{thm}\label{T:3}
Let $\alpha$ be Liouville. Then there exists $\varphi\in C^\infty(\mathbb S^1)$ such that \textbf{CLT} fails.
\end{thm}
Let us end this section with an interesting open problem. An angle $\alpha$ is called badly approximable when it is Diophantine of type $(c, 2)$ for some $c>0$ (for instance, every quadratic irrational is badly approximable). Proposition \ref{P:1} yields if $\varphi$ is $C^2$ then the additive functional satisfies \textbf{CLT}. Unfortunately, Theorem \ref{T:2} does not give any counterexample in that case. This leads to a natural question: does \textbf{CLT} holds if $\alpha$ is badly approximable (e.g. $\alpha$ is the golden ratio) and $\varphi$ is $C^1$?
\section{The Poisson equation and central limit theorem}\label{S:3}
One of methods of proving \textbf{CLT} for additive functionals of Markov chains is the Gordin-Lif\v{s}ic method \cite{Gordin_Lifsic_1978}, which is to be roughly explained in present section (note that in \cite{Weber_2009}, \cite{Zdunik_2017}, \cite{Borda_2021} different techniques have been used). Before that let us define the operator
$$
T\varphi(x)=\frac 1 2 \varphi(x+\alpha) + \frac 12 \varphi(x-\alpha), \quad \varphi\in B(\mathbb S^1), \ T: B(\mathbb S^1)\rightarrow B(\mathbb S^1),
$$
where $B(\mathbb S^1)$ is the space of Borel measurable functions. By the very definition of a Markov process, if $(Y_n^\alpha)$ is defined on $(\Omega, \mathcal F, \mathbb P)$ then
\begin{equation}\label{E:dual}
\mathbb E ( \varphi(Y^\alpha_{n+1} ) | Y_n^\alpha ) = \int_{\mathbb{S}^1} p( Y_n^\alpha, dy) \varphi(y) = T\varphi (Y_n^\alpha), \quad n\ge 1,
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the transition function (\ref{E:1.1}).
Let $\varphi : \mathbb S^1 \rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a square integrable function (with respect to the Lebesgue measure) with $\int \varphi(x)dx=0$. To show the convergence of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(\varphi(Y_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y_n))$ to the normal distribution we solve so called Poisson equation\footnote{In dynamical systems theory this equation (with $T$ replaced by a Koopman operator) is called a cohomological equation. The name ``Poisson equation'' is more common in theory of stochastic processes, probably due to the fact that writing down the corresponding equation for a Brownian motion, which is a continuous time Markov process, gives $\frac 1 2 \Delta \varphi = \psi$, where $\Delta$ is the Laplace operator. Note $\frac 1 2 \Delta$ is the infinitesimal generator of the Brownian motion.} $T\psi - \psi =\varphi$, where $\psi\in L^2(\mathbb S^1)$ is unknown. If the solution $\psi$ exists then we can write
$$\varphi(Y_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y_n)$$
\begin{equation}\label{E:P1.1}
=\big[(T\psi(Y_1)-\psi(Y_2))+\cdots+(T\psi(Y_{n-1})-\psi(Y_n))\big]+(T\psi(Y_n) - \psi (Y_1)).
\end{equation}
When divided by $\sqrt{n}$, the second term tends to zero in probability. It is sufficient then to show \textbf{CLT} for the first process, which is an ergodic, stationary martingale by (\ref{E:dual}). For such processess \textbf{CLT} is valid (see \cite{Brown_1971}). Thus the assertion follows provided the solution of the Poisson equation exists.
Observe that $(I-T) u_n=(1-\cos(2\pi n \alpha)) u_n$ for $u_n(x)=\exp(2\pi i n x)$, $x\in \mathbb S^1$, $n\in\mathbb Z$. Therefore the trigonometric system $(u_n)_{n\in\mathbb Z}$ is also the orthonormal system of eigenvectors of $I-T$ with corresponding eigenvalues $1-\cos(2\pi n \alpha)$, $n\in\mathbb Z$. We deduce the $n$-th Fourier coefficient of $(I-T)\psi$, $\psi \in L^2(\mathbb S^1)$, is of the form $(1-\cos(2\pi n \alpha))\hat{\psi}(n)$, $n\in \mathbb Z$. This yields a recipe to find $\psi$ when $\varphi$ is given. Namely, $\psi$ should be a square integrable function whose Fourier series coefficient are
\begin{equation}\label{fourier}
\hat{\psi}(n) = \frac{|\hat{\varphi}(n)|}{1-\cos(2\pi\alpha n)}, \quad n\in\mathbb Z \setminus \{0\},
\end{equation}
while $\hat{\psi}(0)$ is an arbitrary real number. Note we use here also the assumption that $\hat{\varphi}(0)=\int\varphi(x)dx=0$. Indeed, $1-\cos(0)=0$ implies that we must have $\hat{\varphi}(0)=0$ to solve the equation. What remains to do is to show the convergence
\begin{equation}\label{condition1}
\sum_{n\in\mathbb Z\setminus \{0\}} \frac{|\hat{\varphi}(n)|^2}{(1-\cos(2\pi\alpha n))^2}<\infty,
\end{equation}
to make sure the object with Fourier coefficients (\ref{fourier}) is indeed a square integrable function.
In fact the solution of the Poisson equation does not have to exists to have \textbf{CLT}. Note the processes under consideration are reversible, which means that the distribution of random vectors $(Y^\alpha_1, \ldots, Y^\alpha_n)$ and $(Y^\alpha_n, \ldots, Y^\alpha_1)$ are the same for every natural $n$ or, equivalently, the operator $T$ is self-adjoint. In celebrated paper \cite{Kipnis_Varadhan_1986} (see Theorem 1.3 therein) the authors have proven the condition $\varphi\in \textrm{Im}(I-T)$ can be relaxed to
\begin{equation}\label{Kipnis_Varadhan}
\varphi \in \textrm{Im}(\sqrt{I-T}),
\end{equation}
where $\sqrt{I-T}$ is the square root of $I-T$ (recall the square root of a positive semidefinite, self-adjoint operator $P$ acting on a Hilbert space is the operator $\sqrt{P}$ with the property $(\sqrt{P})^2=P$). Since the $n$-th Fourier coefficient of the function $(I-T)\psi$, $\psi \in L^2(\mathbb S^1)$ is given by $(1-\cos(2\pi n \alpha))\hat{\psi}(n)$, we easily deduce that $\sqrt{I-T}$ is well defined on $L^2(\mathbb S^1)$ and the $n$-th Fourier coefficient of the function $\sqrt{I-T}\psi$, $\psi \in L^2(\mathbb S^1)$, is given by $\sqrt{1-\cos(2\pi n \alpha)}\hat{\psi}(n)$. Thus (\ref{Kipnis_Varadhan}) leads to the condition
\begin{equation}\label{condition2}
\sum_{n\in\mathbb Z \setminus \{0\}} \frac{|\hat{\varphi}(n)|^2}{1-\cos(2\pi\alpha n)}<\infty,
\end{equation}
weaker than (\ref{condition1}). Moreover, \cite{Kipnis_Varadhan_1986} (see (1.1) therein) delivers a formula for $\sigma$, which reads here as
$$\sigma^2=\sum_{n\in \mathbb Z \setminus \{0\}} \frac{1+\cos(2\pi \alpha n)}{1-\cos(2\pi \alpha n)} |\hat{\varphi}(n)|^2.$$
Clearly, $\sigma^2<\infty$ if (\ref{condition2}) is satisfied and $\sigma>0$ if $\varphi$ is non-constant.
We are in position to prove Proposition \ref{P:1}. We recall the statement for the convenience of the reader.
\setcounter{prop}{0}
\begin{prop}
Let us assume $\alpha$ to be Diophantine of type $(c,\gamma)$, $\gamma \ge 2$. If a non-constant function $\varphi \in C^{r}$, $r>\gamma-1/2$ (possibly $r=\infty$), is such that $\int\varphi(x)dx=0$ then there exists $\sigma>0$ such that
$$\frac{\varphi(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n)}{\sqrt{n}} \Rightarrow \mathcal N (0, \sigma).$$
In particular, \textbf{CLT} holds if $\alpha$ is Diophantine of an arbitrary type and $\varphi$ is smooth.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We are going to prove (\ref{condition2}) is satisfied. Fix $\alpha$ and $\varphi$ as above. Clearly $\sum_{n\in \mathbb Z} |\hat{\varphi}(n)|^2<\infty$ since $\varphi$ is square integrable, therefore the problem is when $\cos(2\pi \alpha n)$ is close to 1, which happens exactly when $\alpha n$ is close to some integer. To handle this we will use the fact that $\alpha$ is Diophantine of type $(c, \gamma)$. This means
\begin{equation}\label{E:5.1}
\bigg|\alpha - \frac{p}{n}\bigg| \ge \frac{c}{n^\gamma} \quad \textrm{for all $p, n\in \mathbb Z$, $n\not = 0$.}
\end{equation}
By Taylor's formula $|\cos(2 \pi (p+x))-1|=\frac{(2\pi x)^2}{2}+o(x^2)$ for $p\in \mathbb Z$. As a consequence there exists $\eta>0$ such that
$$\big|\cos(2 \pi \alpha n)-1 \big|\ge 2\pi \eta|n\alpha - p|^2 \ge \frac{2\pi \eta c^2}{n^{2(\gamma-1)}}$$
for an arbitrary $n \in\mathbb Z$. If $\varphi \in C^r$ then $\hat{\varphi}(n)\le C|n|^{-r}$ for some constant $C$ thus
$$ \frac{|\hat{\varphi}(n)|^2}{1-\cos(2\pi\alpha n)} \le \frac{C^2}{2\pi \eta c^2} |n|^{-2r+2(\gamma-1)}$$
for every $n$. It is immediate that if $r>\gamma-\frac 12$, then the series (\ref{condition2}) is convergent. This implies \textbf{CLT} by Theorem 1.3 in \cite{Kipnis_Varadhan_1986}.
\end{proof}
Clearly, if $\varphi$ is a trigonometric polynomial, then series (\ref{condition2}) becomes a finite sum and thus the condition is trivially satisfied. This yields another proposition, which will be used in the proof of Theorem \ref{T:2}.
\begin{prop}
\label{P:2}
Let us assume $\alpha$ to be irrational. If $\varphi$ is a non-constant trigonometric polynomial with $\int\varphi(x)dx=0$ then there exists $\sigma>0$ such that
$$\frac{\varphi(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n)}{\sqrt{n}} \Rightarrow \mathcal N (0, \sigma).$$
\end{prop}
\section{Auxiliary results}
In the proofs three lemmas will be pivotal. Given integer $q\ge 1$, $\eta\in (0,1/2)$, define $G_q^\eta$ to be the subset of $\mathbb S^1$ containing all points whose distance from the set $\{ 0, \frac{1}{q}, \ldots, \frac{ q-1}{q} \}$ (where $\cos(2\pi q x)$ attains value 1) is less than $\frac {\eta}{q}$. Clearly $\textrm{Leb}(G_q^\eta)=2\eta$ whatever $q$ is. Recall that $(Y^{\alpha}_n)$ stands for the Markov process defined on some probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal F, \mathbb P)$ with transition function (\ref{E:1.1}) and $Y_1^\alpha \sim \textrm{Leb}$.
\begin{lem}\label{L:1}
Let $\alpha=\frac p q$, $\varphi(x)=2^{-q} \cos(2 \pi q x)$ and let $s\in (0,1)$. Let $N$ be an arbitrary natural number with $2^{-q-1}N^{1-s}>2$. If $\alpha'$ is sufficiently close to $\alpha$ then
$$\mathbb P \bigg(\frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha'})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha'})}{N^{s}} > 2 \bigg) > \frac{1}{6}.$$
\end{lem}
\noindent Note the assertion is more difficult to obtain when $s$ is close to 1.
\begin{proof}
The result is the consequence of the invariance of $\varphi$ under the action of the rotation of angle $\alpha$. In particular the set $G_q^\eta$ is invariant for every $\eta>0$. Take $N$ like in the statement, and choose $\alpha'$ so close to $\alpha$ that $x+n\alpha' \in G_q^{1/6}$ for $|n|\le N$ and $x\in G_q^{1/12}$. By the definition of $G_q^\eta$, the value of $\varphi$ on $G_q^{1/6}$ is greater or equal to $2^{-q}\cos(2\pi/6)\ge 2^{-q}\cdot 1/2$. Thus $\varphi(x+n\alpha')\ge 2^{-q}\cdot 1/2=2^{-q-1}$ for $|n|\le N$ and $x\in G_q^{1/12}$. This yields
$$\{ Y^{\alpha'}_1 \in G_q^{1/12} \} \subseteq \bigg\{ \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha'})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha'})}{N} > 2^{-q-1} \bigg\}$$
$$ = \bigg\{ \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha'})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha'})}{N^{s}} > 2^{-q-1}N^{1-s} \bigg\}$$
\noindent Using the facts that $Y_1^{\alpha'}\sim \textrm{Leb}$, $\textrm{Leb}(G_q^{1/12})=1/6$ and $2^{-q-1}N^{1-s}>2$ we have
$$\mathbb P \bigg(\frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha'})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha'})}{N^{s}} > 2 \bigg)$$
$$\ge \mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha'})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha'})}{N^{s}} > 2^{-q-1}N^{1-s} \bigg)
\ge \mathbb P (Y_1^{\alpha'} \in G_q^{1/12}) = \frac{1}{6},$$
which yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
A slightly different lemma is the following.
\begin{lem}\label{L:3}
Let $\alpha$ be an irrational number, $s\in (1/2, 1)$, $c>0$, $\gamma\ge 2$. If $\alpha$ satisfies
$$\bigg|\alpha - \frac p q \bigg|\le \frac{c}{q^\gamma}$$
for some pair of integers $p,q$, $q\not= 0$, then
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha})}{N^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}} \bigg) > \frac{1}{8},$$
where $\varphi(x)=q^{-(\gamma-1)(1-s)}\cos (2\pi q x)$, $N=\lfloor\frac{q^{\gamma-1}}{16c}\rfloor$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $|\alpha - \frac p q|\le \frac{c}{q^\gamma}$ and $|k|\le \frac{q^{\gamma-1}}{16c}$ then
\begin{equation}\label{L:3.1}
\bigg|k\alpha- k\frac p q \bigg|\le |k| \frac{c}{q^\gamma} < \frac{1}{16q}.
\end{equation}
Thus $z+n\alpha \in G^{1/8}_q$ for all $z\in G^{1/16}_q$ and integers $n$ with $|n|\le N$. On the other hand, the value of $\varphi$ on $G^{1/8}_q$ is greater or equal to $q^{-(\gamma-1)(1-s)}\cos(\frac{2 \pi}{8})=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\cdot q^{-(\gamma-1)(1-s)}$. By the same reasoning as in the proof of Lemma \ref{L:1} we have
$$\{Y_1^\alpha \in G^{1/16}_q \} \subseteq \bigg\{ \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha})}{N^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\cdot (16c)^{1-s}} \bigg\}$$
and consequently
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha})}{N^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\cdot (16c)^{1-s}} \bigg)\ge \mathbb P (Y_1^\alpha\in G^{1/16}_q) =\frac{1}{8}.$$
\end{proof}
Take $\alpha=p/q$ rational ($p/q$ is in the irreducible form) and the corresponding process $(Y_n^\alpha)$. If the initial point $Y_1^\alpha$ is already known, then we know also each $Y^\alpha_n$, $n\in \mathbb N$, is contained almost surely in the orbit of $Y_1^\alpha$ under the action of the rotation of angle $\alpha$, $\{Y_1^\alpha, Y_1^\alpha+\alpha, \ldots, Y_1^\alpha+(q-1)\alpha\}$ (this set is finite, since $\alpha$ is rational). The process $(Y^\alpha_n)$ can be therefore treated as a finite state Markov chain.
If $q$ is odd, then the process $(Y^\alpha_n)$ treated as a finite state Markov chain is aperiodic and irreducible. Its stationary distribution the uniform distribution on the set $\{Y_1^\alpha, Y_1^\alpha+\alpha, \ldots, Y_1^\alpha+(q-1)\alpha\}$ (every state is of measure $1/q$). It follows from Theorem 8.9 (page 131) \cite{Billingsley_1995} that
\begin{equation}\label{E:exp.conv.}
|\mathbb P (Y^\alpha_n = Y_1^\alpha+i\alpha) - 1/q| \le A \rho^n \quad \textrm{for $i=0,1, \ldots, q-1$},
\end{equation}
where the constants $A$ and $\rho\in(0,1)$ are independent of $x$ (since neither the space nor the transition probabilities depend on $x$). Let $\varphi(x)=a\cos(2\pi q' x)$ for some $a>0$ and $q'$ not a multiplicity of $q$. Since $p/q$ is assumed to be in an irreducible form, $p/q\cdot q'$ is not an integer and thus we have
$$1/q\sum_{i=0}^{q-1} \varphi(x+i\alpha)=0$$
for every $x\in \mathbb S^1$, which is equivalent to say that the integral of $\varphi$ with respect to the stationary distribution of $(Y_n^\alpha)$ (treated as a finite state Markov chain) equals zero. Moreover, using (\ref{E:exp.conv.}) gives
$$\bigg| \mathbb E\big( \varphi(Y^\alpha_n) \ \big| \ Y^\alpha_1 \big) \bigg|
= \bigg| \sum_{i=0}^{q-1} \mathbb P ( Y^\alpha_n = Y^\alpha_1+i\alpha ) \cdot \varphi(Y^\alpha_1+i\alpha) - 1/q\sum_{i=0}^{q-1} \varphi(Y^\alpha_1+i\alpha ) \bigg|$$
$$\le \sum_{i=0}^{q-1} \|\varphi\|_\infty \big| \mathbb P ( Y^\alpha_n = Y^\alpha_1+i\alpha ) - 1/q \big|
\le A q \|\varphi \|_\infty \rho^n$$
for $n\ge 1$. Thus
\begin{equation}\label{E:3.1}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \bigg| \mathbb E\big( \varphi(Y^\alpha_n) \ \big| \ Y^\alpha_1 \big) \bigg| \le \frac{A q \|\varphi \|_\infty}{1-\rho} \quad \textrm{a.s.}
\end{equation}
The next lemma is essentially the consequence of the central limit theorem for finite state irreducible and aperiodic Markov chains. However, using (\ref{E:3.1}) we may deduce it in simpler way.
\begin{lem}\label{L:2}
Let $\alpha=\frac p q$ be rational (in irreducible form), $q$-odd. Let $\varphi(x)=a\cos(2\pi q' x)$ for some $a>0$ and $q'$ not a multiplicity of $q$. If $s>1/2$ then for every $\varepsilon>0$ and $\delta>0$ there exists $N$ such that
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\big| \varphi(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n)\big|}{n^s} > \delta \bigg) < \varepsilon$$
for $n \ge N$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the Chebyshev inequality. We have
$$ \mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\big|\varphi(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n)\big|}{n^s} > \delta \bigg)
\le \frac{\mathbb E \big( \varphi(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n) \big)^2}{\delta^2 n^{2s}} $$
$$= \frac{ \big| \mathbb E \big(\sum_{i=1}^n \varphi^2(Y_i^\alpha) + 2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \varphi(Y^\alpha_i)(\varphi(Y^\alpha_{i+1})+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n) ) \big)\big|}{\delta^2 n^{2s}}$$
$$\le \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\mathbb E\varphi^2(Y_i^\alpha)}{\delta^2 n^{2s}} + 2\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\big| \mathbb E \big(\varphi(Y^\alpha_i) \mathbb E[ \varphi(Y^\alpha_{i+1})+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n) | Y^\alpha_i ]\big)\big|}{\delta^2n^{2s}}$$
$$=\frac{1}{\delta^2 n^{2s-1}} \int\varphi^2(x)dx + 2\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\big| \mathbb E \varphi(Y^\alpha_i) \big|\cdot \big| \mathbb E[ \varphi(Y^\alpha_{i+1})+\cdots+\varphi(Y^\alpha_n) | Y^\alpha_i ]\big|}{\delta^2n^{2s}}.$$
$$\le\frac{1}{\delta^2 n^{2s-1}} \int\varphi^2(x)dx + 2 \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\big| \mathbb E \varphi(Y^\alpha_i) \big|\cdot \bigg( \big|\mathbb E[ \varphi(Y^\alpha_{i+1})| Y^\alpha_i ]\big| +\cdots+ \big|\mathbb E[ \varphi(Y^\alpha_n) | Y^\alpha_i ]\big|\bigg)}{\delta^2n^{2s}}.$$
By (\ref{E:3.1}) and the stationarity of the process each of the numerators in the sum does not exceed $\frac{2A q \|\varphi \|^2_\infty}{1-\rho}$, thus the second term is bounded by
$$n\cdot \frac{2A q \|\varphi \|^2_\infty}{(1-\rho)\delta^2n^{2s}}=\frac{2A q \|\varphi \|^2_\infty}{(1-\rho)\delta^2n^{2s-1}}.$$
The entire expression tends to zero since $s>1/2$. The assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{T:1}}
Fix an arbitrary $s\in (\frac 1 2, 1)$. We are going to construct an angle $\alpha$ and an observable $\varphi$ with $\int\varphi(x)dx=0$ such that there exist infinitely many $n$'s with
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^\alpha)+\cdots+\varphi(Y_n^\alpha)}{n^{s}} > 1 \bigg) > \frac{1}{12}.$$
Consequently the process does not satisfy \textbf{CLT} since \textbf{CLT} would imply the above quantity tends to zero. First we shall define inductively a sequence of numbers $\alpha_k$ convergent to some $\alpha$ along with certain observables $\varphi_k$. Then we will put $\varphi=\sum_k \varphi_k$ and use some relations between $\alpha_k$ and $\varphi_k$ established during the induction process to get the above assertion.
Put $\alpha_1=\frac 1 3=\frac {p_1}{q_1}$ (when we represent a rational number as a fraction of integers we always assume it to be in an irreducible form, so here $p_1=1$ and $q_1=3$), and set $\varphi_1(x)=2^{-q_1} \cos(2\pi q_1 x)$. Take $N_1$ so large that $2^{-q_1-1}N_1^{1-s}>2$ and apply Lemma \ref{L:1} to obtain an angle $\alpha_2=\frac{p_2}{q_2}$, with $q_2>q_1$ and $q_2$ odd, such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.1}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_1(Y_1^{\alpha_2})+\cdots+\varphi_1(Y_{N_1}^{\alpha_2})}{N_1^{s}} >2 \bigg) >\frac 1 6.
\end{equation}
Define $\varphi_2(x)=2^{-q_2}\cos(2\pi q_2 x)$. Take $N_2>N_1$ so large that $2^{-q_2-1} N_2^{1-s}>2$. Clearly $q_1$ is not a multiplicity of $q_2$, hence by Lemma \ref{L:2} we can assume that $N_2$ is so large that
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.11}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\big|\varphi_1(Y_1^{\alpha_2})+\cdots+\varphi_1(Y_{N_2}^{\alpha_2})\big|}{N_2^{s}} >\frac 1 4 \bigg) < \frac 1 4 \cdot \frac{1}{6}.\end{equation}
Again use Lemma \ref{L:1} to obtain an angle $\alpha_3=\frac{p_3}{q_3}$, with $q_3>q_2$ and $q_3$ odd, such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.13}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_2(Y_1^{\alpha_3})+\cdots+\varphi_2(Y_{N_2}^{\alpha_3})}{N_2^{s}} > 2 \bigg) > \frac{1}{6}.
\end{equation}
We assume also the number $\alpha_3$ is so close to $\alpha_2$ that (\ref{E:4.1}) and (\ref{E:4.11}) still hold with $\alpha_2$ replaced by $\alpha_3$. This combined with (\ref{E:4.13}) gives
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha_3})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_i}^{\alpha_3})}{N_i^{s}} >2 \bigg) > \frac 1 6, \quad \textrm{for $i=1,2$,}$$
and
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\big|\varphi_1(Y_1^{\alpha_3})+\cdots+\varphi_1(Y_{N_2}^{\alpha_3})\big|}{N_2^{s}} >\frac 1 4 \bigg) < \frac 1 4 \cdot \frac{1}{6}.$$
Assume $\alpha_k=\frac{p_k}{q_k}$, $N_i$, $\varphi_i$ are already defined, $k\ge 3$, $i<k$. These objects satisfy the relations
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.51}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\big|\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha_{k}})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_j}^{\alpha_{k}})\big|}{N_j^{s}} >\frac{1}{4^i} \bigg) < \frac{ 1}{4^i} \cdot \frac{1}{6} \quad \textrm{for $j=1,\ldots, k-1$, $i<j$,}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.41}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha_{k}})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_i}^{\alpha_{k}})}{N_i^{s}} > 2 \bigg) > \frac{1}{6} \quad \textrm{for $i=1,\ldots, k-1$.}
\end{equation}
\noindent Define $\varphi_k(x)=2^{-q_k} \cos(2 \pi q_k x)$ and take $N_k>N_{k-1}$ so large that $2^{-q_k-1} N_k^{1-s}>2$ and
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.2}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\big|\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha_k})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha_k})\big|}{N_k^{s}} >\frac{1}{4^i} \bigg) < \frac{ 1}{4^i} \cdot \frac {1}{6}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\ldots, k-1$, by Lemma \ref{L:2}. Use Lemma \ref{L:1} to get a number $\alpha_{k+1}=\frac{p_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}$, with $q_{k+1}>q_k$, $q_{k+1}$ odd, such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.3}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_k(Y_1^{\alpha_{k+1}})+\cdots+\varphi_k(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha_{k+1}})}{N_k^{s}} > 2 \bigg) > \frac{1}{6}.
\end{equation}
We should take care that $\alpha_{k+1}$ is so close to $\alpha_k$ that (\ref{E:4.51}), (\ref{E:4.41}) and (\ref{E:4.2}) still hold with $\alpha_k$ replaced by $\alpha_{k+1}$. With this modification, (\ref{E:4.51}) and (\ref{E:4.2}) become
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.5}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\big|\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha_{k+1}})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_j}^{\alpha_{k+1}})\big|}{N_j^{s}} >\frac{1}{4^i} \bigg) < \frac{ 1}{4^i} \cdot \frac{1}{6} \quad \textrm{for $j=1,\ldots, k$, $i<j$}.
\end{equation}
while (\ref{E:4.41}) and (\ref{E:4.3}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.4}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha_{k+1}})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_i}^{\alpha_{k+1}})}{N_i^{s}} > 2 \bigg) > \frac{1}{6} \quad \textrm{for $i=1,\ldots, k$.}
\end{equation}
This completes the induction. Observe there is no inconsistency in assuming that $q_{k+1}$'s grow so fast that
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.8}
2^{-q_{k+1}} N_i^{1-s}<4^{-(k-i)} \quad \textrm{for $i=1,\ldots k$.}
\end{equation}
This way the sequences of numbers $(\alpha_k)$, $(N_k)$ and functions $(\varphi_k)$ are defined. Set $\alpha=\lim_{k\to \infty} \alpha_k$ and $\varphi=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \varphi_k$.
When passing to the limit, inequality (\ref{E:4.5}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.6}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\big|\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_j}^{\alpha})\big|}{N_j^{s}} \ge \frac{1}{4^i} \bigg) \le \frac{ 1}{4^i} \cdot \frac {1}{6} \quad \textrm{for $j>1$, $i<j$}.
\end{equation}
while (\ref{E:4.4}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.7}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_i}^{\alpha})}{N_i^{s}} \ge 2 \bigg) \ge \frac{1}{6} \quad \textrm{for $i\ge 1$.}
\end{equation}
The function $\varphi$ is analytic. Indeed, by design
$$\varphi(x) = \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty c_k e^{2\pi i k x},$$
where $c_k= \|\varphi_j\|_\infty=2^{-q_j}$ if $|k|=q_j$ and zero otherwise. Thus the Fourier coefficients of $\varphi$ decay exponentially fast, which implies $\varphi$ to be analytic\footnote{Indeed, $\varphi$ is defined as a series on the circle, however by the exponential convergence it can be extended to some neighbourhood of the unit disc $\mathbb D$ in the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$. Then $\varphi$ becomes a sum of holomorphic functions convergent uniformly on compact subsets of the domain of $\varphi$. Theorem 10.28 (page 214) in \cite{Rudin_1987} implies $\varphi$ is holomorphic.}. Obviously $\int \varphi(x)dx=0$ by the Lebesgue convergence theorem. Observe also that (\ref{E:4.8}) combined with $\|\varphi_i\|_\infty=2^{-q_i}$ yield
\begin{equation}\label{E:4.9}
\sum_{i>k} \|\varphi_i\|_\infty N_k^{1-s}<\sum_{i=1}^\infty 4^{-i}=\frac 1 2.
\end{equation}
We are in position to complete the proof, i.e. to show that
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^{s}} \ge 1 \bigg) \ge \frac {1}{12}$$
for every $k$. To this end fix $k$ and write
$$\frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^{s}} = \sum_{i\le k} \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^{s}}$$
$$+ \sum_{i>k} \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^{s}}.$$
From (\ref{E:4.9}) it easily follows that the absolute value of the second summand on the right-hand side is less than $\frac 1 2$ almost surely. Thus
$$\mathbb P \bigg ( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^{s}} \ge 1 \bigg )
\ge \mathbb P \bigg( \sum_{i\le k} \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^{s}} \ge 3/2 \bigg)$$
$$ \ge \mathbb P \bigg ( \frac{\varphi_k(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_k(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^{s}}\ge 2 \bigg )
-\sum_{i<k} \mathbb P \bigg ( \frac{\big|\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})\big|}{N_k^{s}} \ge \frac{1}{4^i} \bigg). $$
By (\ref{E:4.6}) and (\ref{E:4.7}) it follows that
$$\mathbb P \bigg ( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^{s}} \ge 1 \bigg ) \ge \frac{1}{6} - \sum_{i=1}^\infty\frac{1}{4^i} \cdot \frac{1}{6} = \frac{1}{12},$$
which is the desired assertion.
\section{Proof of Theorems \ref{T:2} and \ref{T:3}}
The entire section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{T:2}. In the end we will give a short remark how to change the proof to get Theorem \ref{T:3}.
Fix an irrational $\alpha$ and numbers $c>0$, $\gamma\ge 2$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:6.1}
\bigg|\alpha - \frac{p}{q} \bigg| \le \frac{c}{q^\gamma}
\end{equation}
for infinitely many pairs $p,q \in \mathbb Z$, $q\not = 0$. Take $r$ to be the largest possible integer with $r<\frac{\gamma}{2}-\frac 3 2$. The function $s\longmapsto (\gamma-1)(1-s)-1$ is decreasing, $s\in [\frac 1 2, 1)$, and its value at $s=\frac 1 2$ is $\frac{\gamma}{2}-\frac 3 2$, thus by continuity we can choose $s>\frac 1 2$ such that $r<(\gamma-1)(1-s)-1$. For this choice of $s$ we are going to construct an observable $\varphi$ with $\int\varphi(x)dx=0$ such that
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_n^{\alpha})}{n^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}} \bigg) > \frac{1}{16}$$
for infinitely many $n$'s. Consequently \textbf{CLT} is violated.
Take arbitrary $p_1, q_1 \in \mathbb Z$, $q_1\not = 0$, satisfying (\ref{E:6.1}). Set $\varphi_1(x) = q_1^{-(\gamma-1)(1-s)}\cos(2 \pi q_1 x)$ and apply Lemma \ref{L:3} to get
\begin{equation}\label{E:6.3}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_1(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_1(Y_{N_1}^{\alpha})}{N_1^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\cdot (16c)^{1-s}} \bigg) > \frac{1}{8},
\end{equation}
where $N_1=\lfloor\frac{q_1^{\gamma-1}}{16c}\rfloor$.
By Proposition \ref{P:2} the additive functional $(\varphi_1(Y^\alpha_1)+\cdots+\varphi_1(Y^\alpha_n))$ satisfies \textbf{CLT}, thus for $N$ sufficiently large
\begin{equation}\label{E:6.2}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_1(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_1(Y_N^{\alpha})}{N^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4 \cdot (16c)^{1-s}} \cdot \frac{1}{4} \bigg) < \frac{1}{8}\cdot\frac{1}{4}.
\end{equation}
Let us take $p_2, q_2\in \mathbb Z$, $q_2\not = 0$, such that (\ref{E:6.1}) holds, $N_2=\lfloor\frac{q_2^{\gamma-1}}{16c}\rfloor$ satisfies (\ref{E:6.2}) and
\begin{equation}
q_2^{-(\gamma-1)(1-s)} \cdot N_1^{1-s}<\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4 \cdot (16c)^{1-s}} \cdot \frac 1 4
\end{equation}
(this will imply that the inequality (\ref{E:6.3}) is not affected too much when $\varphi_1$ replaced by $\varphi_1+\varphi_2$). Lemma \ref{L:3} yields
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_2(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_2(Y_{N_2}^{\alpha})}{N_2^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\cdot (16c)^{1-s}} \bigg) >\frac{1}{8}.$$
Assume $N_k$, $p_k$, $q_k$ are already defined. Let us choose a pair $q_{k+1}, p_{k+1} \in \mathbb Z$ with (\ref{E:6.1}), where $q_{k+1}>q_k$ is so large that
\begin{equation}\label{E:6.5}
q_{k+1}^{-(\gamma-1)(1-s)} \cdot N_i^{1-s}< \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\cdot (16c)^{1-s}} \cdot 4^{-(k-i)} \quad \textrm{for $i=1,\ldots, k$.}
\end{equation}
Moreover, using Lemma \ref{L:2} we demand that $q_{k+1}$ is so large that
\begin{equation}\label{E:6.4}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_j(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_j(Y_{N_{k+1}}^{\alpha})}{N_{k+1}^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4 \cdot (16c)^{1-s}}\cdot \frac{1}{4^j} \bigg) < \frac{1}{8}\cdot\frac{1}{4^j} \quad \textrm{for $j \le k$,}
\end{equation}
where $N_{k+1}=\lfloor\frac{q_{k+1}^{\gamma-1}}{16c}\rfloor$. Finally we use Lemma \ref{L:3} to get
\begin{equation}\label{E:6.6}
\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_N^{\alpha})}{N^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}} \bigg) > \frac{1}{8},
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_{k+1}(x)=q_{k+1}^{-(\gamma-1)(1-s)}\cos (2\pi q_{k+1} x)$.
\noindent When the induction is complete put
$$\varphi(x)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \varphi_k(x)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty q_k^{-(\gamma-1)(1-s)}\cos(2 \pi q_k x).$$
By assumption $r<(\gamma-1)(1-s)-1$, therefore we can take $\varepsilon>0$ so that $r=(\gamma-1)(1-s)-(1+\varepsilon)$. If one differentiates this series $r$ times, then it still converges uniformly (with the rate at least $q^{-(1+\varepsilon)}$). Therefore Theorem 7.17 (page 152) in \cite{Rudin_1976} yields $\varphi$ is $C^r$.
Now it remains to show that
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}} \bigg) > \frac{1}{16}$$
for every $k\in\mathbb N$. We proceed analogously to the proof of Theorem \ref{T:1}. Fix $k$. We have
$$\frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^s}
= \sum_{i\le k} \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^s}$$
$$+\sum_{i> k} \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^s}.$$
The application of (\ref{E:6.5}) yields the second term is bounded by $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{8\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}}$ a.s. Therefore
$$\mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}} \bigg)$$
$$\ge \mathbb P \bigg( \sum_{i\le k} \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^s} > \frac{3\sqrt{2}}{8\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}} \bigg)$$
$$\ge \mathbb P \bigg( \frac{\varphi_k(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_k(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}} \bigg)$$
$$-\sum_{i<k} \mathbb{P} \bigg( \frac{\varphi_i(Y_1^{\alpha})+\cdots+\varphi_i(Y_{N_k}^{\alpha})}{N_k^s} > \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\cdot (16 c)^{1-s}}\cdot \frac{1}{4^i} \bigg). $$
The application of (\ref{E:6.4}) and (\ref{E:6.6}) yields Theorem \ref{T:2}.
To demonstrate Theorem \ref{T:3} observe that for $\alpha$ Liouville there exist sequences of integers $p_k$, $q_k$ with
$$\bigg|\alpha - \frac{p_k}{q_k} \bigg| \le \frac{1}{q^k} \quad \textrm{for every $k$.}$$
The only difference with the proof of Theorem \ref{T:2} is that $p,q$ are chosen from this sequence. Then again $\varphi=\sum_m \varphi_m$, and the series is uniformly convergent after differentiating it $r$-times for an arbitrary $r$. This implies $\varphi\in C^\infty$. The rest remains unchanged.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This research was supported by the Polish National Science Centre grant Preludium UMO-2019/35/N/ST1/02363. I am grateful to Anna Zdunik for fruitful discussions and for sharing her notes with the proof of \textbf{CLT} . I would also like to thank Corinna Ulcigrai for providing references \cite{Bromberg_Ulcigrai_2018, Sinai_Ulcigrai_2008}. I am grateful to two anonymous referees for many comments that helped improve the manuscript and for providing me reference \cite{Weber_2009}. Finally, I would like to thank Michael Lin for discussions and for pointing out that \cite{Kipnis_Varadhan_1986} applies here.
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{I}{nertial} measurement unit (IMU) plays great importance in robotics. It consists of a gyroscope, sensing angular velocities, and an accelerometer, which measuring linear acceleration signals on three axes in space. Both angular velocity accuracy and acceleration accuracy are crucial for robotics. But nowadays robots are equiped with low-cost IMU, which suffers from serious factor errors, axes misalignments and offsets. This makes low-cost IMU denoising vital for robotics.
Nowadays, the rapid development in robotics proposes even higher demand for IMU. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}, low-cost IMUs are used in various tasks on various platforms. Low-cost IMU has errors from different sources. The error is a mixture of linearity and non-linearity. Common IMU denoising method optimizes designed algorithms for a specific application scenario. From nonlinear filter methods \cite{conventional1}, \cite{wang2018adaptive} and \cite{conventional2} to neural network methods \cite{nn1}, \cite{wu2019ins} and \cite{nn2}, these methods perform well in dealing with IMU errors for specific tasks after optimization with labelled data. However, different robot platforms have different movement patterns, which can seriously influence IMU denoising performance. Also different IMUs have different error characteristics. Thus different IMU on different platform for different task can be seen as different domains. The denoising method mentioned can just perform well in one specific domain. Their optimized parameters can hardly work for other different domains. The huge gap between different tasks in different platform makes it difficult for learned denoisng models to be directly shared among different platforms.
Few-Shot Learning has been recently leveraged to solve domain adaptation problems. The pursuit is to train a model with the "learning to learn" ability. So the model uses just small amount of training samples to learn and can handle tasks in new domain. A remarkable work in few-shot learning is Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) \cite{MAML}. In this work, the parameters are trained to generalize well to new domain tasks with just a small number of gradient steps with a small amount of training samples from that task. To gain this, the sensitivity of the loss functions of new domain tasks with respect to the parameters is maximized in the learning process. MAML is model-agnostic so it can be applied in many learning problems such as classification, regression and reinforcement learning. And \cite{MAML-1}, \cite{MAML-2}, \cite{MAML-3}, \cite{wang2020visual} and \cite{MAML-4} all prove that MAML has great performance and can be used to many models theoretically.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{figure_1.eps}
\centering
\caption{IMU is mounted on various devices: from phones and cars in daily life to unmanned aerial vehicles, Quadruped robots, ships in industry.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Inspired by this, to solve the generalization problem, we propose IMU denoising method with few-shot domain adaptation ability. The method composes of domain adaptation IMU denoising framework and few-shot learning strategy. The domain adaptation IMU denoising framework models the errors and gets rid of them. It contains Embedding module, Restructor module and Generator module. The
denoised data is output by Generator module after Embedding module representation. To improve generalization ability of the whole framework, the Restructor along with reconstitution loss is employed for Embedding module to learn better representation in high dimensional space. Besides, to make the framework quickly adapt to the new domain, we propose few-shot learning strategy which enables the framework to further improve performance in the new domain after obtaining a small amount of labelled data.
The main contributions of this work are as followed:
\begin{itemize}
\item We are the first to take notice of the low-cost IMU denoising generalization problem brought by different IMUs in different application scenarios and locate the problem to the Embedding module.
\item We propose an IMU denoising method composed by a domain adaptation framework and a corresponding few-shot learning strategy. Proposed IMU denoising method can adapt to a new domain with few labelled data after being trained.
\item We implement our proposed IMU denoising method both on open dataset (EuRoC and TUM-VI) and two real robot (car and Quadruped robots) with multiple IMUs. The performance verifies the effectiveness of our method.
\end{itemize}
\section{Task Formulation And Modeling}
The error characteristics of gyroscope differ among multiple IMUs on multiple robots for different tasks. We define them as different domains.
Given noisy and biased IMU measurements of angular velocity and acceleration, our domain adaptation method is to denoise angular velocity in multiple domains without further updating any parameter and output accurate orientation estimation after trained.
We consider specific domain tasks $T$ made up by IMU sequences from multiple domains. The measurement of acceleration is represented as $\mathbf{a}_{n}$ and the noisy and biased measurement of gyroscope is expressed as $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{n}$. The estimated angular velocity is $\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_{n}$.
The orientation estimation is $\hat{\mathbf{R}}_{n}$.
The orientation estimation is an integration of orientation increments, the process of which can be modeled as following.
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{R}}_{n}=\hat{\mathbf{R}}_{n-1} \exp \left(\boldsymbol{\hat{\omega}}_{n} d t\right)
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{n} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ is the average velocity estimation during $dt$. $\exp (\cdot)$ is the $SO(3)$ exponential map. This model maps the IMU frame to the global frame by successively integrating. Thus the errors can propagate and result in time-varying offsets.
Referring to \cite{ORI}, the measurements of low-cost IMU for calibration is modeled as,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{u}_{n}^{\mathrm{IMU}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{n}^{\mathrm{IMU}} \\
\mathbf{a}_{n}^{\mathrm{IMU}}
\end{array}\right]=\mathbf{C}\left[\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{n} \\
\mathbf{a}_{n}
\end{array}\right]+\mathbf{b}_{n}+\boldsymbol{\eta}_{n}
\end{equation}
, in which $\boldsymbol{\eta}_{n} \in \mathbb{R}^{6}$ represents zero-mean, white Gaussian noises and $\mathbf{b}_{n} \in \mathbb{R}^{6}$ are quasi-constant biases.The acceleration $\mathbf{a}_{n}$ without the gravity effect has the following modeling.
$\mathbf{a}_{n}=\mathbf{R}_{n-1}^{T}\left(\left(\mathbf{v}_{n}-\mathbf{v}_{n-1}\right) / d t-\mathbf{g}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$. Here acceleration is in the IMU frame and $\mathbf{v}_{n} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ is IMU velocity in global frame. For the low-cost, consumer grade IMU, the calibration parameter can be approximated by following matrix.
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{S}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} \mathbf{M}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} & \mathbf{A} \\
\mathbf{0}_{3 \times 3} & \mathbf{S}_{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{a}}
\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
. Here $\mathbf{S}_{a}$ and $\mathbf{S}_{\omega}$ are diagonal matrices comprising scaling effects. $\mathbf{M}_{a}$ and $\mathbf{M}_{\omega}$ are lower unitriangular matrices with lower off-diagonal elements corresponding to misalignment small angles.
A is a fully populated matrix related to the g sensitivity. The scaling effect, misalignment and g sensitivity don't have high impact in low-cost IMU. Thus the model can be changed into increments and the calibration parameter can be estimated by iteration from identity matrix.
Referring to \cite{ORI}, we can model the noise-free angular velocity as:
\begin{equation}\label{model}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_{n}=\hat{\mathbf{C}}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} \boldsymbol{\omega}_{n}^{\mathrm{IMU}}+\boldsymbol{\omega}'_{n}
\end{equation}
Here, the intrinsic parameters $\hat{\mathbf{C}}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}=\hat{\mathbf{S}}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} \hat{\mathbf{M}}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} \in \mathbb{R}^{3 \times 3}$. The gyro bias $\boldsymbol{\omega}'_{n} = \hat{c}_{n} + \hat{b}_{n}$, in which $\hat{c}_{n}$ is a time-varying variable and $\hat{b}_{n}$ is static bias. So we need to compute $\boldsymbol{\omega}'_{n}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{C}}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$. Notice that they have the above relations and the IMU won't change in a task. So if one is accurately estimated, the other can be optimized. Thus we apply neural network to estimate $\hat{\omega}_{n}$. For $\hat{\mathbf{C}}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, we initialize it as a unit matrix $I\in \mathbb{R}^{3 \times 3}$ and then optimize it during the training process.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{framework.eps}
\centering
\caption{Framework of our method, we divide the framework into three modules: (1) an Embedding module; (2) a Restructor to help Embedding; (3) a Generator to denoising. The Embedding module is learned through few-shot learning. The green part represents the framework G. The Embedding module together with Restructor module represents the Restruction process $R$. The Embedding module together with Generator module represents the angular velocity error denoising process $D$.}
\label{framework}
\end{figure*}
\section{FEW-SHOT DOMAIN ADAPTATION}
In this section, we propose a few-shot domain adaptation IMU denoising method. It consists of a framework and few-shot learning strategy. Firstly, the framework and its key modules are introduced. The IMU denoising generalization problem is located to the Embedding module. Then the few-shot training strategy is specially designed for the Embedding module.
We use the following parameters when describing the training strategy for our framework.
$R$ and $D$: $R$ represents the reconstruction process and $D$ represents the angular velocity error denoising process.
$G$: $G$ represents the main framework involved in training (The green part in Fig. \ref{framework}). It is composed by the two process $R$ and $D$.
$\theta_{e}$, $\theta_{r}$ and $\theta_{g}$: We use parameters $\theta_{e}$, $\theta_{r}$ and $\theta_{g}$ to represent the Embedding module, Restructor module and Generator module separately. Thus $f$ has parameters $ \theta_{e}$ and $\theta_{r}$ while $h$ has parameters $\theta_{e}$ and $\theta_{g}$.
$\tau_{i}$: $\tau_{i}$ represents a new task.
$\theta_{i}^{\prime}$: $\theta_{i}^{\prime}$ represents the updated model parameters when the new task $\tau_{i}$ comes.
$\omega_{n}$, $a_{n}, \omega^{gt}_{n}$ and $a^{gt}_{n}$: $\omega_{n}$ and $a_{n}$ represent the sequence of noised angular velocity and the sequence of acceleration. $\omega^{gt}_{n}$ and $a^{gt}_{n}$ represent the ground truth angular velocity and acceleration.
\subsection{Framework}
The framework contains mainly three components: Embedding module, Restructor module and Generator module. The Embedding module creates representations where the data from different domains has similar distributions.
The Restructor module reconstructs the sequence for learning better representation. The Generator generates the error estimation in the IMU measurements. The Embedding module and the Restructor module make up the reconstruction process. The Embedding module and the Generator module compose the denoising process. After the integral operation, the IMU measurement compensated by the error estimation will produce the orientation estimation of the robots.
\subsubsection{Module Structure}
The Embedding module structure is Multi-Layer Perception (MLP). The Restructor module and the Generator module are all dilated convolutional neural networks (CNN).
The MLP structure is composed by multiple layers with many following neuron-like processing units in each layer.
\begin{equation}
a^{unit}=\phi\left(\sum_{j} w^{unit}_{j} x_{j}+b^{unit}\right)
\end{equation}
where the $x_{j}$ are the inputs to the unit, the $w^{unit}_{j}$ are the weights of one unit, $b$ is the bias of one unit, $\phi$ is the nonlinear activation function, and $a$ is the unit output. The unit output from the former layer will become the input of the next layer.
Inspired by \cite{DCNN} and \cite{ORI}, we employ the dilated convolution neural network structure in Generator module to achieve the gyro bias term $\boldsymbol{\omega}'_{n}$ in \eqref{model}:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\omega}'_{n}=f\left(\mathbf{u}_{n-N}^{\mathrm{IMU}}, \ldots, \mathbf{u}_{n}^{\mathrm{IMU}}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{u}_{n}^{\mathrm{IMU}}=\left[\begin{array}{l}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{n}^{\mathrm{IMU}} \\ \mathbf{a}_{n}^{\mathrm{IMU}}\end{array}\right]$. The N represents the length of local window of previous measurements, which is the base of correction for current state. As Fig. \ref{DCNN} represents, Generator module $R(\cdot)$ can approximate gyro bias term with five layer dilated convolution neural network structure. The dilation gaps for five layers are 1, 4, 16, 64, 1 separately and the kernel dimensions for each layer are all 7. The gyro bias term will then be brought in \eqref{model} to achieve the denoised angular velocity. Thus it can correct the data smoothly and bring multi-scale time information.
The Restructor module has similar five layer dilation convolution neural network structure except the output dimension. There will be some noise added to the Embedded IMU data before Restructor operations and the output of Restructor is expected to be as similiar as original angular velocity and acceleration measurements.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{DCNN.eps}
\centering
\caption{Restructor and Generator module structure sketch map}
\label{DCNN}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{meta.eps}
\centering
\caption{Diagram of our few-shot training strategy, which optimizes the parameter $\theta_{e}$ using data from different robots.}
\label{figure3}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Loss function}
For the reconstruction process, the output of the process is expected to greatest extent be restored to the original IMU sequence. Thus we use Mean Square Loss to build the loss function.
\begin{equation}
L^{R}=E\left\|[\hat{\omega}_n, \hat{a}_n]-[\omega_n,a_n]\right\|_{2}^{2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
[\hat{\omega}, \hat{a}]=R\left(\omega_n, a_n, \theta_r\right)
\end{equation}
, in which $\omega$ is the original data.
For the denoising process, referring to \cite{ORI}, it is not suitable to use mean-square error since tracking system performance relates to frequency. Thus we apply rotation matrix to build loss function:
\begin{equation}
\emph{L}^{D}_{i}=\sum_{i} \rho\left(\log \left(\delta \mathbf{R}^{gt}_{i, i+j} \delta \hat{\mathbf{R}}_{i, i+j}^{T}\right)\right)
\end{equation}
in which logarithm map SO(3) is $log(\cdot)$ and Huber loss $\rho(\cdot)$ are contained. The The $\delta \mathbf{R}_{i, i+j}$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\delta \mathbf{R}_{i, i+j}=\mathbf{R}_{i}^{T} \mathbf{R}_{i+j}=\prod_{k=i}^{i+j-1} \exp \left(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{k}\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\delta \mathbf{R}^{gt}_{i, i+j}=\prod_{k=i}^{i+j-1} \exp \left(\boldsymbol{\omega^{gt}}_{k}\right)
\end{equation}
Since the IMU working frequence tends to higher than the tracking system working frequency, the parameter $j$ is used to reduce the frequency of IMU.
The loss with different parameter $j$ can be added to achieve the final loss in order to gain better performance.
\subsection{Few-shot Training Strategy}
In real life, labelling data is quite time-consuming and laborious. For better representation with limited data, a few-shot training strategy is applied to learn the domain invariant representation in Embedding module. Referring to Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) \cite{MAML} structure in few-shot tasks, we apply meta-training methods to train Embedding module suitable for multiple domains. Fig. \ref{figure3} shows the training method especially for Embedding module.
To construct few-shot learning method, we treat tasks with different application scenarios as meta-tasks $\tau^{d}_{i}$. In each meta-task, the first part of the sequence will be seen as the support set $\tau_{s}$ and the remaining part will be seen as the query set $\tau_{q}$.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{few-shot learning strategy}
\label{alg::conjugateGradient}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
Sequence set $T$ containing different domain sequences $\tau^{d}_{1},\tau^{d}_{2},...,\tau^{d}_{n}$, each with IMU data and labeled data.$\theta_{e}$, $\theta_{r}$, $\theta_{g}$: random initialized model parameters.$\alpha$ and $\beta$: hyper-parameters;
\Ensure
Meta-learned Embedding module parameter $\theta_{e}^{meta}$, Restructor module $\theta_{r}$ and Generator module $\theta_{g}$;
\While {not done}
\State Sample batch sequences set $\tau$ from $T$
\State Partition $\tau$ into support set $\tau_{s}$ and query set $\tau_{q}$.
\ForAll {sequence {$\tau_{si}$} in {$\tau_s$}}:
\State $\theta_{ei}^{\prime}=\theta_{e}-\alpha \nabla_{\theta_{e}}\emph{L}_{\tau_{si}}\left(G_{\theta_{ei}^{\prime},{\theta_{g},\theta_{r}}} \right)$;
\EndFor
\State $\theta_{e,g,r}=\theta_{e,g,r}-\beta \nabla_{\theta_{e,g,r}} \sum_{\tau_{qi} \sim \tau_{q}} \emph{L}_{\tau_{qi}}(G_{\theta_{ei}^{\prime},{\theta_{g},\theta_{r}}})$;
\EndWhile
\State $[\theta_{e}^{meta},\theta_g,\theta_r]=\theta_{e,g,r}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The target of training is to obtain the meta parameters $\theta_{e}^{meta}$ by few-shot training and two parameters $\theta_{r}$ and $\theta_{g}$ by normal gradient descent.
Few-shot training phase is made up by two phases: Task optimizing phase and Meta optimizing phase. Task optimizing phase employs support data to get a set of trained $\theta'_{ei}$, each $\theta'_{ei}$ is suitable for each meta task. Then Meta optimizing phase utilizes the set of trained $\theta'_{ei}$ together with query data to achieve the final meta-trained $\theta'_{ei}$. The data from different domain has similar distribution in Embedding module thus $\theta_{r}$ and $\theta_{g}$ is trained by support data and query data with normal gradient descent.
In Task optimizing phase, for each task $\tau_{si}$, the Embedding module parameters $ \theta_{e}$ update into $\theta_{e}^{\prime}$. The parameter $\theta_{e}$ is updated by the following gradient descent for several times.
\begin{equation}
\theta_{ei}^{\prime}=\theta_{e}-\alpha \nabla_{\theta_{e}}\emph{L}_{\tau_{si}}\left(G_{\theta_{ei}^{\prime},{\theta_{g},\theta_{r}}} \right),
\end{equation}
in which $\theta_{ei}^{\prime}$ is the updated model parameters in task $\tau_{si}$. $\alpha$ is the fixed hyper-parameter.
$\emph{L}_{\tau_{1i}}\left(G_{\theta_{ei}^{\prime},{\theta_{g},\theta_{r}}}\right)$ has two kinds of loss from reconstruction process and denoising process separately:
\begin{equation}
\emph{L}_{\tau_{si}}=\emph{L}^{R}_{\tau_{si}} +\gamma \emph{L}^{D}_{\tau_{si}},
\end{equation}
in which $\gamma$ is hyper-parameter. For specific task $\tau_{si}$, $\emph{L}^{R}$ is the reconstitution loss in reconstruction process.
$\emph{L}^{D}$ is the loss in the denoising process with multiple frequencies.
In Meta optimizing phase: The model employs the rest data pairs, which are $\omega_{ n}$, $a_{n}$ and $\tilde \omega_{n}$. The model parameters $\theta_{e}$ is updated also through gradient descent, which means:
\begin{equation}
\theta_{e,g,r}=\theta_{e,g,r}-\beta \nabla_{\theta_{e,g,r}} \sum_{\tau_{qi} \sim \tau_{q}} \emph{L}_{\tau_{qi}}(G_{\theta_{ei}^{\prime},{\theta_{g},\theta_{r}}})
\end{equation}
Here $\theta_{ei}^{\prime}$ are the updated model parameters mentioned in the adaptation optimizing phase and $\beta$ is a fixed hyper-parameter. $\emph{L}_{\tau_{qi}}(G))$ is the loss in sequence set $\tau_{q}$.
$\theta_{e}$ is updated through meta-training method while $\theta_{r}$ and $\theta_{g}$ are updated through gradient descent method.
After being updated through all several training phases, the final updated model parameters is the meta-trained model parameter $\theta_{meta}$. The whole training algorithm is outlined in Algorithm 1.
\section{Experiment Results}
\subsection{Experiment Setup}
To illustrate the priority of our method, we apply it in public datasets: $\emph{EuRoC}$ \cite{euroc} and $\emph{TUM-VI}$ \cite{tumvi}:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\emph{EuRoC}$: The data comes from a micro aerial vehicle (MAV) equipped with not calibrated ADIS16448 IMU.
This dataset is composed by eleven sequences: MH 01 easy, MH 02 easy, MH 03 medium, MH 04 difficult, MH 05 difficult, V1 01 easy, V1 02 medium, V1 03 difficult, V2 01 easy, V2 02 medium and V2 03 difficult. MH is for industrial machine hall. V1 and V2 is for vicon room but V2 is created more than three months later. Easy, medium, hard mark different flight tasks.
\item $\emph{TUM-VI}$: The data comes from a hand-held device equipped with calibrated BMI160 IMU in different places and different motion modes. The ground truth is made by motion capture system but it only exists in a few sequences. So we use all six sequences with ground truth: Room 1-6.
\end{itemize}
In open datasets experiments, each task is seen as meta task. We set MH 01 easy, MH 02 easy, MH 03 medium, MH 05 difficult, V1 02 medium, V2 01 easy, V2 03 difficult from EuRoC, and room1, room3, room5 from TUM-VI as meta-training sets and set MH 04 difficult, V1 01 easy, V1 03 difficult, V2 02 medium, room2, room4 and room6 as meta-testing sets. In each meta task, data is divided into two parts for learning and validation. Here learning part is for optimizing parameters and validation part is for evaluating bias. Thus the number of tasks from different domains in Task optimizing phase is 10. The support set sequence length is about 60 seconds and the query set is the remaining part of the sequence.
\subsection{Compared Methods}
We compare the following approaches:
\begin{itemize}
\item GT: This is ground truth angular velocities.
\item DIGDL: This method \cite{ORI} beats top-ranked IMU denoising algorithms and visual-inertial odometry systems.
Its training, validation and test sets are the same with our approach.
\item FSDA: This is our framework without few-shot learning strategy for Embedding module.
\item FSDA-F: This is the proposed method with few-shot learning strategy.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics}
We evaluate methods by Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE):
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{RMSE}=\sqrt {\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {{{\left( \hat {\theta}_i - \theta_i \right)}^2}} }
\end{equation}
Here n is the length of the test sequence. $\hat {\theta}_i$ is the estimation of corresponding orientation angle in $i$ time step. $\theta_i$ is the ground-truth of corresponding orientation orientation angle in $i$ time step. These angles are calculated by integral operation.
\subsection{Results}
TABLE \ref{table} collects the RMSE of DIGDL, FSDA and FSDA-F in all test sequences in three orientation direction. Fig. \ref{resultcurvea} and Fig. \ref{resultcurveb} represent the whole orientation estimation and orientation error for DIGDL, FSDA and FSDA-F in room4 sequence and v1 01 easy sequence.
In order to verify the effectiveness of our proposed framework and the few-shot learning strategy respectively, we separate the analyse of the result in to two parts.
\subsubsection{proposed framework}
To demonstrate the importance of our proposed method's framework, we compare the orientation errors between DIGDL and FSDA.
We choose RMSE as our evaluation metric. Also the orientation estimations and orientation errors are visualized for further analysis.
From TABLE \ref{table}, our proposed method performs $36.21\%$ and $19.11\%$ better than DIGDL respectively on EuRoC and TUM-VI in average RMSE, with lower RMSE performance in all test sequences.
As can be seen from the Fig. \ref{resultcurvea} and Fig. \ref{resultcurveb}, as time goes, the orientation error of DIGDL becomes larger. This can be more serious in the case of large jilters. While our proposed method has good performance even in large jilters.
This experiment reflects that the proposed framework is effective in low-cost IMU denoising few-shot domain adaptation.
\begin{figure} [t!]
\centering
\subfloat[\label{fig:a}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{room4.eps}}
\subfloat[\label{fig:b}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{room4_error.eps}}
\caption{ a) Orientation estimates; b) Orientation errors on the test sequence room4 for different methods.}
\label{resultcurvea}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} [t!]
\centering
\subfloat[\label{fig:a}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{V1_01_easy.eps}}
\subfloat[\label{fig:b}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{V1_01_easy_err.eps}}
\caption{ a) Orientation estimates; b) Orientation errors on the test sequence V1 01 easy for different methods.}
\label{resultcurveb}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{ proposed few-shot learning strategy}
Here, we take the FSDA denoising performance as baseline to see the performance improvement of the few-shot learning strategy. As shown in TABLE \ref{table}, the FSDA-F has better performance than FSDA in most test sequences.
For the few cases where FSDA performance better in several orientation such as Room4 sequence, we compare the estimation error in the whole test sequence. As can be seen in Fig. \ref{resultcurvea}, the performance of FSDA and FSDA-F are almost the same in the orientation estimations in roll and pitch direction. But in the direction yaw with high variance and large jilters, we can see that the FSDA-F has obvious greater performance in period with high variance. This can also be verified in Fig. \ref{resultcurveb}. This shows that few-shot learning strategy can really improve the denoising performance of low-cost IMU when facing multi-domain tasks.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) in terms of orientation(roll, pitch and yaw) in degree on the test sequence.}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccc|ccc|ccc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Dataset} & \multirow{2}{*}{Sequence} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Roll} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Pitch} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Yaw} \\ \cline{3-11}
& & DIGDL & FSDA & FSDA-F & DIGDL & FSDA & FSDA-F & DIGDL & FSDA & FSDA-F \\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{EuRoC} & MH 04 difficult & 6.3545 & 4.0661 & \textbf{2.8777} & 1.4515 & 0.7197 & \textbf{0.5822} & 5.8232 & 3.3024 & \textbf{2.2552} \\ \cline{2-11}
& V2 02 medium & 15.2573 & \textbf{13.5855} & 14.8446 & 3.4115 & 3.1405 & \textbf{3.0593} & 14.6063 & \textbf{12.6688} & 13.9353 \\ \cline{2-11}
& V1 03 difficult & 15.5216 & 13.0684 & \textbf{5.8844} & 0.7688 & 0.8006 & \textbf{0.5490} &15.5827 & 13.0634 & \textbf{6.1500} \\ \cline{2-11}
& V1 01 easy & 4.7786 & 2.4963 & \textbf{1.9613} & 1.3872 & 0.7834 & \textbf{0.7083} & 4.0019 & 2.0675 & \textbf{1.8942} \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{TUM-VI} & Room2 & 1.4942 & 1.4272 & \textbf{1.4066} & 1.4109 & 1.3223 & \textbf{1.3163} & 6.1720 & 7.7549 & \textbf{5.8225} \\ \cline{2-11}
& Room4 & 1.5116 & \textbf{1.0619} & 1.1100 & 1.6430 & \textbf{1.1209} & 1.1762 & 8.6927 & 5.8566 & \textbf{5.0745} \\ \cline{2-11}
& Room6 & 1.2296 & 1.0577 & \textbf{1.0124} & 1.5086 & 1.3003 & \textbf{1.2401} & 6.5248 & 7.6963 & \textbf{5.6873}
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Execution on real robots}
We executed our few-shot domain adaptation method in two real robots and three different types of IMUs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figurereal1.eps}
\centering
\caption{Two robots (Car on top left and quadruped robot on the top right), trajectories ( on the down left) and three-axis angular velocity from gyroscopes}
\label{robot}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{IMU Setup}
We choose three IMUs with different precision. From high precision to low precision, they are CERTUS-EVO from ADVANCED NAVIGATION, MTI 600 series from XSENS and MPU-9250 from TDK InvenSense:
\begin{itemize}
\item The CERTUS-EVO has the gyroscope with $0.2 ^{\circ}/hr$ bias instability, $6^{\circ} /hr/ \sqrt[]{Hz}$ noise density and $<0.03 \% $ non-linearity, and accelerometer with $8 \mu g$ bias instability, $2 \mu g/\sqrt[]{Hz}$ noise density and $<0.05\%$ non-linearity.
\item The MTI 600 series has the gyroscope with $8 ^{\circ}/hr$ bias instability, $0.007^{\circ} /s/ \sqrt[]{Hz}$ noise density and $0.1 \% FS $ non-linearity, and accelerometer with $15 \mu g$ bias instability, $60 \mu g/\sqrt[]{Hz}$ noise density and $0.1\% FS$ non-linearity.
\item The MPU-9250 has the gyroscope with $0.01^{\circ} /s/ \sqrt[]{Hz}$ noise density and $\pm 0.1 \% $ non-linearity, and accelerometer with $300 \mu g/\sqrt[]{Hz}$ noise density and $\pm 0.5\%$ non-linearity.
\end{itemize}
Since the CERTUS-EVO has dual antenna system, the high-precision orientation sequence from the CERTUS-EVO can be seen as ground truth.
\subsubsection{Robot Platform}
Two robot platforms are car and quadruped, which are set up as shown in Fig. \ref{real-robot}. We use all the public datasets and some tasks of car and quadruped robot as the meta-training task. The remaining tasks of car and quadruped robot are set to be meta-testing task. The domain adaptation ability of the Embedding module trained in this experiment is shown in the t-SNE figure Fig.\ref{tsne}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{real-robot.eps}
\centering
\caption{The comparison of the orientation estimation and orientation estimation errors of different methods on real robots}
\label{real-robot}
\end{figure}
In implementation, the car robot drives six times and each time it drove in a circle. The quadruped robot walked twice and each time it's trajectory was 3/4 lap.
Due to page limitation, we choose the yaw angle that is most likely to accumulate errors to show the performance of our method.
The performance is shown in Fig. \ref{real-robot}. As can be seen, our few-shot domain adaptation method works well on real robots and IMUs. Obviously, the divergence of the DIGDL is serious, which means DIGDL has no adaptability in sequence from different domains. Our FSDA framework drastically reduces the error. With the few-shot learning strategy, the performance is further improved.
\subsection{Interpreting the Embedding Module}
t-distributed stochastic neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) \cite{t-sne} is a method which can visualize the high-dimensional data by mapping it into a two dimensional space. The mapping is based on the principle that similar objects in high dimensional space are modeled by nearby points in two-dimensional space and the dissimilar objects are modeled by distant points with high probability.
The ability of our Embedding module is qualified by the t-SNE projection (a tool to visualize high-dimension data) to show IMU sequences from multiple domains to an identical representation. The same t-SNE parameters (Perplexity=10, step=1000) are applied. As can be seen in Fig. \ref{tsne}, originally, data points from different domains are distinctly separated into four folds. This proves that the datapoints from different tasks are dissimilar with each other. However, after the representation of Embedding module, the data points are scattered more dispersively. Even for EuRoC (the uncalibrated IMU), the distribution of its data points has intersections with that of others. This proves that the datapoints through Embedding module are nmore similar with each other. This verifies the effectiveness of Embedding module and domain adaptability of our method.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{tsne_seem_best.eps}
\centering
\caption{Visualization of extracted representations of IMU sequence from different domains. Here, the EuRoC uses uncalibrated IMU.}
\label{tsne}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We propose a few-shot domain adaptation method to improve the IMU adaptability in multiple scenarios.
To achieve the error of angular velocity, we propose a domain adaptation framework composed by Embedding module, Restructor module and Generator module.
The reconstitution loss is designed to improve domain adaptability.
In addition, we adopt a few-shot training strategy for further improving the adaptability in the case of limited data.
In the experiment, we first test our method on two datasets (EuRoC and TUM-VI). Performances of the proposed framework and the proposed few-shot learning trategy are verified on the RSME and the whole process of the sequence. We also implement our methods on two real robots with three kinds of IMUs. Besides, t-SNE is used to visualize the results of Embedding module on datasets and real robots. This further proves the adaptability of our method.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{S.1 Phase Space}
The contribution of the phase space to the excitation energy spectrum has been investigated. The shapes of the one and two-proton phase spaces have been calculated using the TGenPhaseSpace class of ROOT and corrected from geometrical efficiency determined using NPTool simulations \cite{Matta2016}. Fig.~\ref{fig:PS} shows the excitation energy spectrum of $^{36}$Ca reconstructed using the $^{37}$Ca($p,d)^{36}$Ca reaction. A gate is applied on outgoing K (left of Fig.~\ref{fig:PS}) or Ar isotopes (right of Fig.~\ref{fig:PS}) in order to isolate the one or two-proton decay channel, respectively. The green line shows the one or two-proton phase space, normalized in order to reproduce the data between 25 and 40~MeV. Since the intensity of the phase space is maximum at about 25-30~MeV, this allows to determine the maximum contribution of the phase spaces in the energy range of interest (between 0 and 10 MeV). Its maximum contribution is found to be about 1\% for the one-proton phase space and about 2\% for the two-proton one at 10~MeV and decreases when going to lower excitation energy, allowing to neglect phase-space contributions in our work.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.47\columnwidth]{1pPS.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\columnwidth]{PhaseSpace.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Excitation energy spectrum of $^{36}$Ca reconstructed using the $^{37}$Ca($p,d)^{36}$Ca reaction and obtained with a gate on outgoing K (left) and Ar (right) isotopes. The green line shows the computed one (left) and two-proton phase space (right), normalized in order to reproduce the data between 25 and 40~MeV}
\label{fig:PS}
\end{figure}
\section{S.2 DWBA analysis}
Calculation of the differential cross sections have been performed within the Distorded Wave Born Approximation (DWBA). The prescriptions used for the DWBA analysis of the $^{37}$Ca($p$,$d$)$^{36}$Ca~reaction are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Entrance potential describing the p + $^{37}$Ca channel: Menet $et~al.$ global proton optical potential \cite{Menet71}.
\item Exit potential describing the d + $^{36}$Ca channel: finite range adiabatic potential following the Jonhson-Tandy prescription \cite{Jonhson74} and using the Becchetti and Greenlees global optical potentials \cite{BG69} for the proton and the neutron inside the deuteron.
\item The bound state wave function of the neutron in $^{37}$Ca has been computed using a Wood-Saxon potential using a radius r$_0 = 1.27$~fm, a diffusivity a$_0=0.67$~fm and a spin-orbit potential V$_{SO}=6$~MeV (following the prescriptions of Ref.~\cite{BM98}). The depth of the potential well has been adjusted to reproduce the binding energy of the orbital from which the neutron was removed.
\item The bound state wave function of the neutron in the deuteron has been computed using a classical Reid soft-core potential \cite{Reid}. The $\bra{p}\ket{d}$ vertex has been treated in finite range.
\end{itemize}
In the case of the $^{38}$Ca($p$,$t$)$^{36}$Ca reaction, the same prescriptions have been used except for the exit channel potential for which the global triton potential of Ref.~\cite{Li07} has been used. Two-neutron transfer calculations include both direct and sequential transfer. For the latter, no experimental information was used for the intermediate nucleus $^{37}$Ca (the binding energy of intermediate nucleus is taken as the mean of the binding
energies of initial and final nuclei and no intermediate resonance is considered).
\section{S.3 The $d_{5/2}$ states}
Between 5 and 10~MeV, a large cross section is observed in the excitation energy spectrum of $^{36}$Ca, using the $^{37}$Ca($p$,$d$)$^{36}$Ca reaction (see Fig.~1 of the letter). A high density of state is expected to be populated in this energy range, with spin-parity from 1$^+$ to 4$^+$, from the removal of a $1d_{5/2}$ neutron in $^{37}$Ca. The fit of the excitation energy spectrum does not allow to conclude about the exact energy of the states due to the limited experimental resolution. However, the differential cross sections of Fig.~\ref{fig:XS8MeV} have been obtained by fixing the centroid of the Gaussian function at $E_x$ = 5.41, 6.54, 7.84 and 9.01~MeV in the fit, where peaks seem to be present. They all show a clear $L=2$ pattern, confirming the hypothesis of a $1d_{5/2}$ neutron hole configuration of these two resonances. With this four contributions, a large fraction of the $d_{5/2}$ strength has been collected, with an integrated $C^2S$ value of 4.38(88).
\begin{figure}[]
\begin{center}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{XS_d5_36Ca.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Differential cross sections obtained for the states at 5.41, 6.54, 7.84 and 9.01 MeV. The blue lines show the results of the DWBA calculations, using an $L=2$ neutron transfer. Corresponding spectroscopic factors are given in the left bottom corner of each plot.}
\label{fig:XS8MeV}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig2p.pdf}
\caption{Observed a) and simulated b) correlations between the energy of the first and second proton emitted during the two-proton decay of the 7.8~MeV state through the 1/2$^+$ resonant state in $^{35}$K, as shown in the decay scheme of c).}
\label{fig:2p}
\end{figure}
The two-proton decay pattern of the 7.8 MeV resonance can be studied to get insight in its spin-parity value. Fig.~\ref{fig:2p} shows the correlation between the energy of the first and second emitted protons during its decay. It has been obtained by selecting an outgoing Ar in the ZDD, as well as a deuteron and 2 protons in MUST2, at an excitation energy between 7.5 and 8.1~MeV. Two clear spots are identified in Fig.~\ref{fig:2p}, at proton energies of 1.7(3)~MeV and 3.4(3)~MeV, in good agreement with the expected energies of 1.47 and 3.65~MeV arising from the sequential decay through the $1/2^+$ state at 1.55~MeV in $^{35}$K (see bottom part of Fig.~\ref{fig:2p}). This two-proton decay pattern is further confirmed by the simulation shown in the top right part of Fig.~\ref{fig:2p}.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2p}, the two-proton decay can either occur through the 1.55~MeV or 2.69~MeV state (higher ones are not considered here since they will not be favored). The 1/2$^+$ and 5/2$^+$ are based on the systematics along the K isotopic chain, and energies observed in the mirror nucleus $^{35}$S. One can compute the ratio of penetration barrier factors to the 1/2$^+$ and to the 5/2$^+$ states, for different spin-parity assumptions of the initial resonance. Among the possible spin-parity values expected to be populated, the observed decay pattern is by far most compatible with an $J^\pi=1^+$ initial state in $^{36}$Ca at 7.8~MeV, which decays with an $L=0$ proton decay to the 1/2$^+$ resonance in $^{35}$K in competition with an $L=2$, one-proton decay emission, to the ground state of $^{35}$K.
\section{S.4 Two Nucleon Amplitude}
The Two-Nucleon Amplitudes (TNA) for a transition from the ground state of $^{38}$Ca to the 0$^+_1$ ground state, as well as the 0$^+_2$ and 2$^+_1$ excited states of $^{36}$Ca, have been computed using the
Shell Model with Configuration Interaction (SM-CI) calculations. These TNA, given in Table~\ref{tab:TNA}, are used to perform the DWBA calculations of the theoretical differential cross section for the $^{38}$Ca($p$,$t$)$^{36}$Ca transfer reaction.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Two-nucleon amplitudes for the ground state, 0$^+_2$ state and 2$^+$ state of $^{36}$Ca from the two SM calculations.}
\label{tab:TNA}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
\hline
& $(nlj)_1$ & $(nlj)_2$ & TNA \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{g.s.} & $d_{3/2}$ & $d_{3/2}$ & -0.97 \\
& $s_{1/2}$ & $s_{1/2}$ & -0.21 \\
& $d_{5/2}$ & $d_{5/2}$ & -0.20 \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{0$^+_2$} & $d_{3/2}$ & $d_{3/2}$ & -0.05 \\
& $s_{1/2}$ & $s_{1/2}$ & 0.29 \\
& $d_{5/2}$ & $d_{5/2}$ & -0.12 \\ \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{2$^+$} & $d_{3/2}$ & $d_{3/2}$ & 0.09 \\
& $d_{3/2}$ & $s_{1/2}$ & -1.42 \\
& $d_{3/2}$ & $d_{5/2}$ & -0.05 \\
& $s_{1/2}$ & $d_{5/2}$ & 0.36 \\
& $d_{5/2}$ & $d_{5/2}$ & 0.12 \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The main contributing channel for the ground state is the removal of a pair of neutrons from the $d_{3/2}$ orbital, in agreement with the expected structure of this state, while for the second 0$^+_2$ state, the removal of neutrons from the $s_{1/2}$ orbital dominates the total cross section. Both channels lead to $L=0$ distributions. In the case of the 2$^+$ state, the cross section takes its major contribution from the removal of a neutron from the $d_{3/2}$ and another from the $s_{1/2}$ orbital. In this case an L=2 angular distribution would be observed.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{XSpt_02_sup.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Differential cross section obtained for the 0$^+_2$ intruder state. Black points are experimental data while the blue and green lines show the results of the DWBA calculations (using TNA values given in Table~\ref{tab:TNA}) for the 0$^+_2$ state and the 2$^+$ state, respectively. The full lines correspond to the result obtained considering all the contributing channels, dashed lines to the best fit to data, while the dashed-dotted line shows the calculated values using the dominant TNA contribution only (see text for details).
}
\label{fig:XSTh}
\end{figure}
The amplitude of the cross section of the 0$^+_2$ state is underestimated by the calculation, as shown by the full green line in Fig.~\ref{fig:XSTh}. However, by taking only into account the dominating channel in the calculation (removal of a pair of neutron in the $s_{1/2}$ orbital, see Table~\ref{tab:TNA} ), the amplitude is better reproduced (see the dashed-dotted green line in Fig.~\ref{fig:XSTh}), highlighting the fact that the small TNA values of the competing channels generate destructive interferences with the dominant channel and affect significantly the amplitude of the cross section. At the opposite, the 2$^+$ cross section amplitude is largely over estimated by the calculation (blue dashed line) since no significant $L=2$ component is needed to fit the data. Considering the dominant channel with one neutron in the $s_{1/2}$ and one in the $d_{3/2}$ orbital only, the theoretical cross section is significantly reduced, as shown with the dashed-dotted blue line in Fig.~\ref{fig:XSTh}.
|
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
This project has received financial support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sk{\l}odowska-Curie grant agreement No. 721463 to the SUNDIAL ITN network.
\bibliographystyle{model2-names}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we explore and compare two interpretable machine learning techniques, namely Localized General Matrix LVQ (LGMLVQ) and Random Forest (RF),
for the analysis
and classification of foreground stars and background galaxies versus UCDs and GCs.
Due to the class of interest being highly underrepresented compared the former objects we also investigate the influence of Synthetic Minority Oversampling TEchnique (SMOTE) and
its borderline extension on the classification performance.
Localized distances allowing non-linear decision boundaries within the data improves the classification in LGMLVQ,
even in this situation where the classes largely overlap.
LGMLVQ is also highly interpretable in the form of prototype class representatives and feature relevances which attach values to the contribution of a feature to classification.
Additionally, the experiments uncover classification patterns in terms of feature relevances, which serve as discriminative markers for the classification.
The $u-i$ and $i-Ks$ colors are expected to be the most relevant colors for classification since they carry physical information on ages and metallities of astronomical objects.
However, higher signal-to-noise ratio colors such as $g-i$ and $r-J$ in LGMLVQ and $u-g$ and $g-r$ in Random Forest are found to be more important for the data-driven classification.
The importance of other colors compared to $u-i$ and $i-Ks$, that have almost $0$ relevance contribution, implies that this disparity may be attributed to astronomically expected
features having uncertain measurements, but also the correlation across the features, meaning that they partially contain the same critical information.
Furthermore, angular size features $FWHM^{\ast}g$, $FWHM{\ast}i$, $FWHM^{\ast}u$ are identified by both methods independently as the most important features for the classification.
We discuss that this outcome is due to a measurements biases of the faint sources of class 2 (UCDs/GCs).
In this work we showed that existing machine learning techniques can be used to identify UCDs/GCs in big astronomical data.
These methods can handle the imbalance in the data and classify sources with a good performance.
Subsequent analysis of the transparent techniques allows further insight and can provide valuable information for the astronomical experts to inform about possible biases in the data set.
A future deeper data set with more accurate size and color measurements will most likely increase the performance of the automated classification even further.
\section{Astronomical Data and Preprocessing}
\label{sec:data}
The data used in this research is extracted from multi-wavelength wide astronomical surveys obtained from a combination of 6 filters,
i.e optical filters ($u$, $g$ ,$r$ and $i$) and near-infrared filters ($J$ and $Ks$).
The optical $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$ data was obtained from Fornax Deep Survey (FDS) using the ESO VLT survey telescope (VST),
$J$ from VISTA Hemisphere Survey (VHS, \citealp{vhs}) using the VISTA telescope and $Ks$ from the ESO/VISTA archival data.
The imaging data in $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, $J$, $K_s$ has 5$\sigma$ limiting magnitude (point-source detection with signal to noise ratio S/N = 5) about 24.1, 25.4, 24.9 and 24.0, 20.7, 18.4 mag respectively.
The limiting magnitudes in optical ($ugri$) and near-infrared ($JK_s$) are expressed in AB and Vega magnitude systems.
The data set provides photometric information in the direction of the Fornax galaxy cluster and is described in detail in \citet{teymoor}.
Here we use the catalogue of the spectroscopically confirmed objects referred to as $KNOWN$ catalogue in \citet{teymoor},
that consists of sources with existing radial velocity value in the literature.
After excluding larger objects likely to be galaxies in the Fornax cluster or slightly more distant and removing UCDs/GCs that are closer than 60 arcsec to the brightest Fornax cluster galaxies, mainly NGC1399 (to avoid larger uncertainties in colours and magnitudes),
any observed object in the dataset belong to one of the following 3 classes:
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt,noitemsep,label=class \arabic*:,partopsep=0pt,parsep=0pt,labelwidth=\widthof{\ref{class3}},leftmargin=!]
\item
consists of 2826 background galaxies further away than the galaxies in the Fornax cluster,
\item
denotes the class of interest consisting of 512 UCDs and GCs, and
\item
contains 4399 nearby foreground stars located in our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
\label{class3}
\end{enumerate}
In the absence of spectroscopic data, these classes are difficult to distinguish for two main reasons:
(1) the UCD and GC (class 2) observations are faint and ambiguous
as they are engulfed between the two other classes, and (2) there is only a small number of confirmed examples of them.
The labelled data consists of 23 features.
The coordinates of the objects in the sky are given in right ascension ($RA$) and declination ($DEC$) as a degree of point of observation from earth and illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig: datadefinition}(c).
Features $FWHM^{\ast}g$, $FWHM^{\ast}r$, $FWHM^{\ast}i$, $FWHM^{\ast}u$, $FWHM^{\ast}j$ and $FWHM^{\ast}k$, also known as the Full width half maximum,
are the proxies for the angular sizes of the objects as seen from the corresponding filters.
Followed by $u-g$, $u-r$, $u-i$, $u-J$, $u-Ks$, $g-r$, $g-i$, $g-J$, $g-Ks$, $r-i$, $r-J$, $r-Ks$, $i-J$, $i-Ks$ and $J-Ks$, which are
colour indices indicating the emission of the astronomical object in logarithmic scale, known as magnitude and correlated to physical properties like age and metallicity.
The FWHM$^{\ast}$ parameter constitutes an alternative way to estimate the compactness of sources and consequently it is similar to the other measures, such as the concentration index.
The data used in our analysis consists of 7737 complete observations in total.
\begin{figure*
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{subplot}
\caption{
The position of the objects in the sky in right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC) (panel c).
PCA-projection of the data colouring the background galaxies, UCDs/GCs and foreground stars,
and its corresponding Eigenvalue profile (panel a and b), respectively.
}
\label{fig: datadefinition}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig: datadefinition}(b) shows the Eigenvalue profile of the data obtained using the unsupervised Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
The two major Eigenvalues explain 88\% of the data's variance and the corresponding two-dimensional projection is depicted in panel (a).
The large areas of overlap and imbalance of the classes is clearly visible.
Especially the latter states a problem for most classification techniques and
thus re-sampling techniques, such as Synthetic Minority Over-sampling (SMOTE) \citep{smotechawla} and Borderline-SMOTE \citep{borderlinesmote},
are investigated as preprocessing steps.
SMOTE increases the population of the minority classes by generating synthetic samples as weighted convex combination between random samples and its nearest neighbours.
Instead of choosing random samples Borderline-SMOTE specifically takes points near the boundaries between the classes which are more likely to be misclassified.
In this contribution we investigate and compare both methods as preprocessing to balance the classes.
\section{Experiments and Discussion}
\label{sec:experiments}
This section shows the results and discussion of the experiments conducted with the localized adaptive distance metric LVQ method (LGMLVQ) coupled with presence or
absence of resampling as a pre-processing step.
The performance and feature importance is compared with Random Forest (RF).
The corresponding feature relevances are examined and discussed in comparison with conventional astronomical expectations.
\subsection{Experimental setup and Evaluation Measures}
The experiments are set up with a $10$-fold cross validation where the data observations are divided up into a $90/10$ random but stratified training and test splits
with each individual class preserving its sample frequency.
For the distance based classifiers, such as LGMLVQ, each training set is normalised via Z-score transformation, i.e.\ zero mean and unit standard deviation,
with the same parameters used to transform the respective test set.
Decision trees and RF are not distance based and build instead rules on the features directly and therefore do not require transformative pre-processing in general.
However, the RF is very sensitive to class imbalance, which should be handled before training.
Therefore, resampling of the training data can be introduced to reduce or eliminate the imbalance of the classes.
In this contribution we compare two strategies, namely the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) and Borderline-SMOTE,
creating new feature vectors using the training samples of each minority class until their amount matches the size of the majority class.
The created synthetic minority samples lead to balanced classes to be used for training of the classification models.
The different models have different hyper-parameters.
In the experiments we train the RF with 100 decision trees, sampling with replacement of 0.75 fractions of the training set and
using the bagging aggregation method \citep{breiman2001random}.
The LVQ models provide several hyper-parameters to control the methods complexity, such as the number of prototypes,
number of metric tensors and their rank determining the projection dimension saving memory and enabling visualization.
Due to the non-linearity of the problem we use the localized, most powerful version of the LVQ family, namely LGMLVQ \citep{schneider2010regularization}
with one prototype per class and regularization of $10^{-5}$.
In order to choose the lower dimensional projection dimension we train the method using full metric tensors constructed using $\Omega^j\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ with $M=N$.
Subsequently, an Eigenvalue decomposition of the trained $\Lambda^j=U^j\Sigma^jU^{j(-1)}$ with diagonal matrices $\Sigma_{ii}^j=\sigma_i^j$ provides information about the
intrinsic dimensionality of the classification problem by counting the Eigenvalues $M=\max_{j}\sum_{i=1}^N[\sigma^j_i>\epsilon]$ significantly larger than zero.
Subsequently, a model is than trained with the rank $M$ reduced to maximal number obtained from the matrices.
Since the RF is an ensemble of decision trees, we also build an ensemble of LGMLVQ models using the same training sets, and the resulting label for a given sample
is determined by majority vote among the LGMLVQ models.
Model performances
are averaged across the cross-validation runs and evaluated with focus on the class of interest, namely UCDs/GCs Class 2.
For evaluation output statistics are generated after prediction with the models, i.e.\ training and test errors, and their standard deviations.
Since this is a multi-class classification problem and the major interest is in Class 2 UCD/GC objects, we extract the evaluation measures for each class and build the
macro averaged accuracies to evaluate the performance across the different classes and eliminate bias of the majority
class.
We also report binary class measures, such as Purity and Completeness (also known as Precision/Positive Predictive Value and Recall/Sensitivity),
for the class of interest versus all others classes combined, to represent the algorithms performance in classifying the unseen
test data.
The confusion matrix as illustrated in Table~\ref{fig:confmatdiag} can be used to evaluate the classification performance providing detailed information about the
accuracy for each class and the nature of misclassifications.
From it one can extract the binary measures, namely false positives (FP), true positives (TP), false negatives (FN) and true negatives (TN)
as shown below Table \ref{fig:confmatdiag} in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:binary_problem}.
Additionally, the false positive rate and true positive rate of the test set are plotted on a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve \citep{fawcett2006introduction}.
This curve shows the model's discriminative ability and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) summarizes the overall performance for the classification of the class of interest.
\def0.12\linewidth{0.12\linewidth}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Three-class confusion matrix and formulae to obtain the False Negatives, True Positives, False Positives and True Negatives
($FP_b$, $TP_b$, $FP_b$ and $TN_b$) to calculate
Purity and Completeness
with respect to class $b$.}
\label{fig:confmatdiag}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabularx}{0.76\linewidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}
|c| *{4}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.12\linewidth}|}}
\hline
\diaghead{\theadfont ActualPredicted}{Actual}{Predicted} & Class 1 & Class 2 & Class 3\\\hline
Class 1 & $C_{11}$ & $C_{12}$ & $C_{13}$ \\\cline{2-4}
Class 2 & $C_{21}$ & $C_{22}$ & $C_{23}$ \\\cline{2-4}
Class 3 & $C_{31}$ & $C_{32}$ & $C_{33}$ \\\hline
\end{tabularx}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{align}
\notag
FN_b &= \textstyle\sum_{\substack{f= 1 \\ f\neq b}}^3 C_{bf}
&FP_b &= \textstyle\sum_{\substack{f= 1 \\ f\neq b}}^3 C_{fb} \\
\notag
TN_b &= \textstyle\sum_{\substack{f= 1 \\ f\neq b}}^3 \sum_{\substack{q= 1 \\ q\neq b}}^3 C_{fqx}
&TP_b &= C_{bb} \\
\mathrm{Purity} &= \textstyle\frac{TP_b}{TP_b + FP_b}
&\mathrm{Compl.} &= \textstyle\frac{TP_b}{TP_b + FN_b}
\label{eq:binary_problem}
\end{align}
\vspace*{-0.85cm}
\end{table}
\subsection{Discusssion}
In this section we summarize the results of the methods on the astronomical classification problem.
The hyperparameter settings for the techniques LGMLVQ (T=L$_M$, with the subscript $M$ indicating the rank for the local metric tensors)
and Random Forest (T=RF) is abbreviated by $_{\{\varnothing|B|R\}}$T$^{\{\varnothing|\textrm{E}\}}$.
Here the preprocessing is marked by letters $\mathrm{R}$ and $\mathrm{B}$ for resampling with SMOTE or Borderline-SMOTE or no resampling
(leaving the prefix empty: $\varnothing$),
and the superscript $\mathrm{E}$ denotes the results of an ensemble consisting of 100 models.
The performance of the LGMLVQ models averaged across the 10 cross-validation folds is excellent already with an intrinsic dimensionality of $M=2$
even without resampling, as evident from the Purity and Completeness
of the minority class shown in Table \ref{tab:Results}.
Resampling improves the correct classification
for the minority class as demonstrated by $3.3\%$ increase in
the Completeness.
However, the Purity
reduces indicating that there are more false positives brought about by SMOTE resampling, which is an acceptable trade-off.
\begin{table}[t]
\def0.185\linewidth{0.185\linewidth}
\caption
Average performance (standard deviation) for techniques $_{\{\varnothing|B|R\}}$T$^{\{\varnothing|\textrm{E}\}}$, i.e.\ LGMVLQ (T=L$_M$) and Random Forest (T=RF),
with no resampling, SMOTE, Borderline-SMOTE and Ensembling (abbreviated by $\varnothing$, $R$, $B$ and $E$).
}
\label{tab:Results}
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} @{}>{\footnotesize}l@{} *{5}{@{}>{\footnotesize\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.185\linewidth}@{}} }
& \textbf{Purity} & \textbf{Compl.} & \textbf{F1 score} & \textbf{Train accur.} & \textbf{Test accur.} \\
\toprule
L$_2$ & 0.969 (.012) & 0.930 (.021) & 0.947 (.014) & 0.985 (.001) & 0.984 (.004) \\
$_\textrm{R}$L$_\textrm{2}$ & 0.935 (.020) & 0.963 (.020) & 0.948 (.016) & 0.983 (.001) & 0.982 (.005) \\
$_\textrm{B}$L$_\textrm{2}$ & 0.889 (.026) & 0.950 (.027) & 0.912 (.016) & 0.971 (.005) & 0.971 (.006) \\
$_\textrm{R}$L$^\textrm{E}_2$& 0.937 (.019) & 0.962 (.020) & 0.948 (.000) & 0.983 (.001) & 0.983 (.005) \\
$_\textrm{R}$RF$^\textrm{E}$ & 0.950 (.018) & 0.964 (.018) & 0.968 (.011) & 0.999 (.000) & 0.986 (.005) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:misclassifications} panel a) and b) show the test performance of $_\mathrm{R}$L$_\mathrm{2}$ with only $3$ false negatives for the minority class $2$
of UCDs and GCs.
Contrary to our expectations Borderline-SMOTE resampling does not perform better.
This could be caused by the overlap of the classes which increases the difficulty to define a clear boundary and hence boundary resampling becoming ineffective.
In summary the RF and LVQ models show comparable performance.
However, especially the latter is less complex and provides further insights into the results of the classification, which will be discussed in the following.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{confmat}
\hfil
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{roccurve_2_1}
\caption{Panel (a) shows the test confusion matrix for the $_\mathrm{R}$L$_2$ model
and panel (b) shows the corresponding ROC curve of minority class 2 vs. all the other classes and the corresponding AUC value of $0.99387$.}
\label{fig:misclassifications}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim={0 0.7cm 0 0},clip]{arcs}
\caption{Wrong (a) and correct (b) classification of two minority class observations.
Each shows the distances of all samples projected using the local $\Omega^j$ of each prototype, highlighting the samples with corresponding label $j$ in colour.
The
black points exemplify the
distances of a correct and misclassified sample.}
\label{fig:sampleinter}
\end{figure}
As mentioned before the LVQ models are intrinsically interpretable and transparent in many regards.
We can for example interpret the certainty of the classification by investigating the distance of each sample to all prototypes.
To demonstrate this we project all samples and all prototypes with the local transformations $\Omega^j$ and compute the distance to each prototype in the transformed space.
Figure\ \ref{fig:sampleinter} visualizes these distances highlighting the samples with the same respective class label $j$ in colour and of different classes in grey.
We furthermore highlight in black the distances of an observations consistently misclassified in repeated training runs (panel a) and a correctly classified sample (panel b).
The wrongly classified minority sample in (a) is within the boundary region where the classes 2 and 3 overlap as indicated by very similar distances to the prototypes of
these classes.
Panel (b), on the other hand, shows a typical example of a very certain correct classification where the sample is much closer to prototype 2 compared to the others.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from Figure \ref{fig:prob}.
It visualizes the probabilities $P(j|\vec{\xi}_i)$ Eq.~\eqref{eq:softmax} as stacked barplot for each minority class sample
($\vec{\xi}_i$ with $y_i=2$) for each class $j$, and highlights the same samples as depicted in black in Figure\ \ref{fig:sampleinter}.
While the classifier is certain about the label of the correctly classified example, it is not the case for the misclassified one.
This transparently informs the user how sure the LGMLVQ classifier is with the assignment of a class label for each observation,
which may also indicate samples with potentially controversial current label identification given the data at hand, marking them as candidates for further investigation.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{distance_all}
\caption{Stacked barplot of probabilities $P(j|\vec{\xi}_i)$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:softmax}) of UCDs/GCs samples for each class.
We highlight the probabilities of the same (in)correctly classified examples as specified in Figure \ref{fig:sampleinter},
which are [0,1,0] ([0,0.378,0.622]).}
\label{fig:prob}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 0.1cm,nodes = {anchor=north},>=latex]
\node[inner sep=1pt,text height=3.1cm] (a) {\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,trim={0 0.5cm 8.6cm 0},clip]{classifications1}};
\node[inner sep=1pt,anchor=west,text height=3.1cm] (b) at (a.east) {\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,trim={7.75cm 0.05cm 0 0},clip]{classifications1}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{a) Manifold charting projection of the data by LGMLVQ ($_\mathrm{R}$L$_{2}$)
with a misclassified UCD/GC sample circled in black as reference for Figure~\ref{fig:difficultexample}.
b) conventional color-color diagram used in photometric selection by Astronomy.}
\label{fig:ccvslgmlvq}
\end{figure}
Moreover, the local linear projections $\Omega^j\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ can be used for nonlinear visualization for $M\in\{2,3\}$ using manifold charting
as outlined in section \ref{sec:charting}.
Hence we report very good performance for LGMLVQ using the rank $M=2$, we show the resulting projected data of $_\mathrm{R}$L$_{2}$ to complement the data analysis
in Figure\ \ref{fig:ccvslgmlvq} panel a.
The more distinctive separation provided by the LGMLVQ model, especially for the minority class, explains the efficiency and nuance of the method's classification
performance as compared
to the traditional astronomical color-color diagram as shown in panel b.
This visualization shows the difficult regions and can be used to identify difficult observations, such as the circled class 2 sample in panel a,
in the now reduced overlapping areas.
As mentioned before the RF and LGMLVQ models allow to extract the importance of the measurements for the classification problem.
However, the Random Forest method is expensive in terms of memory costs and shows a clear tendency to overfit as seen in the test error being higher than the training error.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figure6}
\caption{Panel (a): class-wise feature relevance profiles of LGMLVQ $_\mathrm{R}$L$_{2}$ marking the top 6 in green and their corresponding percentage
of contribution to the respective class and (b) the Random Forest (RF) feature relevance profile.
Panel (c): pairwise plots of the $_\mathrm{R}$L$_{2}$ top 6 features for the UCDs/GCs class 2 (red markers) with focus on the area covered by that class, and
(d) corresponding violin plots with prototype positions relative to the feature value distribution for minority class $2$.}
\label{fig:lgmlvqrel}
\end{figure*}
Panel (b) in Figure\ \ref{fig:lgmlvqrel} shows the dominance of the angular size features $FWHM^{\ast}u$, $FWHM^{\ast}g$, $FWHM^{\ast}r$, $FWHM^{\ast}i$, $FWHM^{\ast}J$ and $FWHM^{\ast}Ks$
in importance for the Random Forest classifier.
In contrast to RF the LGMLVQ classifier extracts the feature relevances for each prototype and hence we can discuss also the relevance of the measurements for the
classification of each class of objects in our astronomical data.
Figure \ref{fig:lgmlvqrel}(a) shows the class-wise normalized feature importance profiles sorted by value of contribution with varying top relevant features
further explaining the non-linearity and motivation for choice of local metric tensors.
The top relevant features for classifying the minority class of UCDs and GCs from this experiment dominantly consist of the angular size parameters,
namely $FWHM^{\ast}g$, $FWHM^{\ast}i$, $FWHM^{\ast}u$ and $FWHM^{\ast}r$
and their pairwise correlation plots are visualized in panel (c) in Figure\ \ref{fig:lgmlvqrel}.
Similarly panel (d) provides additional information in form of a violin plot for the 6 features most important for the classification of class 2, showing the
distributions of the measurements of each class together with the value the class prototype exhibits after training.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{misclassifiedvssample}
\caption{Difficult UCD/GCs example (bottom) in contrast with the the closest correct prototype (middle) and corresponding relevance profile (top). The 6 most relevant features for UCD/GCs LGMLVQ classification are marked green.
\label{fig:difficultexample}
\end{figure}
\fi
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.96\linewidth]{misclassifiedvssample_new}
\caption
Class-wise relevance profiles of the closest correct and incorrect prototype (panel a and c)
to the difficult UCD/GCs example marked in Figure \ref{fig:ccvslgmlvq}a), with the 6 most relevant features coloured green.
Panels (b) and (d) show the difference between the sample and
the prototypes (i.e. $\vec{\xi}_i - \vec{\omega}^J$ and $\vec{\xi}_i - \vec{\omega}^K$).
\label{fig:difficultexample}
\end{figure}
To examine further the difficult misclassified UCD/GCs example circled in Figure \ref{fig:ccvslgmlvq}a),
we visualize in Figure \ref{fig:difficultexample}(b) and (d)
the difference between the feature values of the example to the closet correct/incorrect prototypes
(i.e. $\vec{\xi}_i - \vec{\omega}^J$ and $\vec{\xi}_i - \vec{\omega}^K$).
The 6 most important measurements for the classification are provided by the class-specific relevance profile (a and c)
on top of each prototype deviation panel and marked in green as before.
Panels (b) and (d) show that the difference between features of the example to those of the
foreground stars prototype (for the class-wise most important 6 features) is smaller, which explains the misclassification.
Such examples require more accurate measurements sizes (using deeper observations) to investigate whether the object indeed belongs to the expected class.
The
angular size features are important for separating the majority of objects in class $1$, whose objects are larger, from class $2$ and $3$ that have small sizes.
The astronomical expectation is that the angular size cannot discriminate class $2$ and $3$ as illustrated by the model.
The reason is, that the majority of objects of class $2$ (UCDs/GCs) have sizes smaller than 10 pc.
Therefore, these objects at the distance of Fornax cluster (20\,Mpc) are expected to appear as point-sources and exhibiting a similar
FWHM$^*$ value as the objects of class $3$ (foreground stars).
In this case, FWHM$^*$ would not be an informative parameter in separating class $2$ and $3$ objects.
However, in contrary to astronomical expectation, the angular sizes are found to be important to distinguish class $2$ and $3$ by both the LGMLVQ and RF,
as shown in Figure\ \ref{fig:lgmlvqrel}.
The disparity can be attributed to the measurement biases: The minority class $2$ objects are faint (and lower in signal-to-noise ratio) and
hence angular size measurements happen to be larger than the actual size which could introduce a bias to the data.
Therefore, their angular size proxies, i.e.\ $FWHM^{\ast}g$, $FWHM^{\ast}i$, $FWHM^{\ast}u$ and $FWHM^{\ast}r$,
could possess more discriminating information than colour indices.
Based on \citep{munoz2013next}, in the combined optical/near-infrared observations, the color indices of $u-i$ and $i-Ks$ are expected to be the most important features.
In a simple view, the $u-i$ color is more sensitive to the age of an object while $i-Ks$ represents the metallicity (the amount of metals heavier than Helium) of the object.
Other color indices, such as $g-i$, $g-r$, $r-J$ etc. could also partially carry these information but degenerate.
In contrary, the observations in the $u$ and $Ks$ are harder to be carried out and often have a lower signal-to-noise ratio compared to the other filters.
This makes the expected feature importance of $u-i$ and $i-Ks$ relatively uncertain.
Values of $g-r$ and $g-i$ on the other hand are notably accurate.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\iffalse
\textbf{Introduction outline}
\begin{itemize}
\item Astronomical motivation about UCDs/GCs: why they are important? (third paragraph)
\item what are GC and UCD? what are their difference?
\item the existing method for detecting GC and UCD (fourth and fifth paragraphs)
\item data set: which catalogue it belongs,
\item Machine learning: different use of ML in astronomy, including the one which has been already used for detecting GCs (what methodologies have been use in astroinformatics and similar situations) (first and second and sixth paragraphs),
\item our contributions: a) using both optical and infrared filters, b) from the LVQ variants with interpretability highlighted and investigation of the features,
\item random forest and ensemble for comparison.
\end{itemize}
\fi
Based on the current theories of galaxy formation and evolution \citep*{galaxyformation}, galaxies are formed hierarchically from the merger of low-mass galaxies that were formed earlier.
In this picture, the dense stellar structures such as Ultra-Compact Dwarf (UCD) galaxies and Globular Clusters (GCs), which are mostly found around galaxies and the core of galaxy clusters, are known to be the tracers of such merging events \citep{beasley2020}. However, extragalactic UCDs and GCs around other galaxies than the Milky Way look like stars (point-sources), due to their distance and current limitations of observational equipment. Therefore identifying them through imaging is challenging \citep{jordan2009}.
To find these objects, it is necessary to measure their distances, which is only possible using spectroscopy and measuring their radial velocity.
The Hubble-Lema\^{\i}tre Law \citep{hubble,lemaitre} says that more distant galaxies move faster away from us and thus astronomers measure the distance of galaxies by measuring their radial velocity. The latter can be measured using Doppler shifts of the absorption lines in the spectroscopic observations. Spectroscopy of astronomical objects, however, needs longer exposure times than imaging. In other words, spectroscopy for all the star-like objects (point-sources) is unfortunately not feasible in practice \citep{voggel2020}.
The recent advances in astronomical instrumentation and observations, without doubt, have provided us with a large amount of data to explore.
Traditionally, the possible UCDs/GCs candidates are identified by multi-wavelength observations in a few optical filters \citep{Cantiello2018}.
Once the candidates are found follow-up spectroscopy for selected nominees is carried out to measure the radial velocity and therefore the distance to confirm the
identity of the objects \citep{pota}. This implies that a more accurate UCD/GC selection makes the observation time shorter.
Recently, \citealp{munoz} has shown that a combination of optical/near infrared filters improves the quality of identifying UCDs/GCs.
However, this approach was not used until very recently, mostly because deep observations in the near-infrared are not as easy as the optical.
In the case of Fornax galaxy cluster, the second closest galaxy cluster to us, recent observations of optical and near-infrared have been available, which makes it possible to identify UCDs/GCs within the galaxy cluster.
The optical part of the data has been used earlier to identify GCs in the cluster using various techniques such as Bayesian Mixture Models, Growing Neural
Gas model and K-nearest neighbours \citep{DAbrusco,Prole-2019,angora,Cantiello2020,teymoor}.
Due to the sheer amount of astronomical data, automated
tools for analysis
are highly desirable.
Therefore, machine learning techniques get more and more attention among astronomers recently, and they have been popularly explored for astronomical applications.
The Random Forest (RF) has been used to build a classifier for quasar identification \citep{carrasco2015photometric, gao2009random} and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) has been employed to estimate the redshift \citep{Jones_2017}.
Other techniques used are k-nearest neighbor classifier for active galactic nuclei (AGN) detection \citep{li2008k},
Support Vector Data Description (SVDD) for GC detection \citep{mohammadi2019globular}, Multi Layer Perceptron (MLP) for estimating star formation rate \citep{delli2019star}, Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) for identification of galaxy mergers \citep{nevin2019accurate}, and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) for galaxy morphological classification and AGN detection \citep{ball2004galaxy,barchi2020machine,xiao2020efficient}.
Thus, a pletora of machine learning methods have been successfully applied in varying astronomical applications signifying a growing interest and mutually beneficial synergy.
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) generally includes techniques which provide output that
can be interpreted by a human.
Two examples of XAI techniques for classification are Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ) and Random Forest (RF) \citep{breiman2001random}.
The latter bags an ensemble of decision trees (DTs) for classification.
The trees within, are constructed from bootstrap examples that are sampled independently with replacement and random feature selection,
following a common distribution while growing to maximum depth with no pruning until all leaves are pure.
The label for a given input is predicted according to the most popular predicted label among all trees.
The stochastic ensemble strategy is robust to outliers and improves the performance, because of the law of large numbers from combination of rather low performing/weak DT classifiers \citep{breiman2001random}.
LVQ comprises a well-known family of prototype-based classifiers
that can efficiently distinguish potentially high dimensional multi-class problems.
One of the main advantages of LVQ classifiers is the interpretability of the adaptive parameters.
The learned prototypes, for example, can be investigated as typical representatives of the classes.
While the original formulations of the LVQ family, such as \emph{Generalized learning Vector Quantization} (GLVQ) \citep{sato&yamada} use the Euclidean distance, more complex extensions, such as Generalized Matrix LVQ (GMLVQ) and the localized version LGMLVQ \citep{schneiderBiehl, petrabiehl} employ adaptive distance metrics.
The latter algorithms also allow further insights by visualization of the decision boundaries after training \citep{BUNTELiram, kbuntethesis}.
In this contribution, we use an ensemble of LGMLVQ and RF to classify three astronomical structures, namely foreground stars, UCDs/GCs and background galaxies, based on their optical ($u$, $g$, $r$, $i$) and near-infrared ($J$, $Ks$) measurements of the Fornax Deep Survey, VISTA Hemisphere Survey and ESO/VISTA archive.
The LVQ and RF methods construct non-linear decision boundaries and the former allows to evaluate the importance of features for each class individually.
One major issue often faced in astronomical problems is the imbalance of the classes.
The total number of known UCDs and GCs in the Fornax cluster identified in the data is just over 500, whereas the majority class contains about 5 times more instances.
To tackle this challenge we apply over-sampling techniques, such as Synthetic Minority Oversampling (SMOTE) \citep{smotechawla} and Borderline SMOTE \citep{borderlinesmote}.
In contrast to previous works we have both optical and near-infrared filters in the dataset.
We use an ensemble of LGMLVQ and RF to detect the classes of objects in large amounts of high dimensional astronomical data, compare the performances and analyse the results, by detailing important features and visualization.
The paper is organized as follows:
In section \ref{sec:data} we describe the dataset followed by the explanation of
classifiers in section \ref{sec:methods}.
Afterwards, in section \ref{sec:experiments} we describe the experiments and discuss the results.
Finally we conclude in section \ref{sec:conclusion} and provide inspirations for future work.
\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
In this section, we introduce the state-of-the-art methodology used, with focus on localized adaptive distance metrics in Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ),
and corresponding interpretability.
Moreover, we present a comparison between Random Forest (RF) (which is an ensemble of Decision Trees) and an ensemble of the Learning Vector Quantization models.
\subsection{Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ)}
We assume $\{(\vec{\xi}_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^{n} $ denote the training set, where $\vec{\xi}_i\in \mathbb{R}^N$ and
$y_i \in \{1,\cdots,C\}$ represent $i$-th data point and its class label, respectively.
An LVQ classifier models the distribution of classes via a set of labelled prototypes $\{ (\vec{\omega^j}, c(\vec{\omega^j})) \}_{j=1}^m$,
where $c(\vec{\omega^j})$ is the label of the respective prototype.
These prototypes tessellate the data space into smaller regions, called Voronoi cells, enclosing data points for which the respective prototype is closer than any other.
Classification follows a \emph{nearest prototype scheme}, meaning any data point (including new ones) is assigned the class label of the nearest prototype.
To find prototype positions that minimize the classification error $E$, \emph{Generalized learning Vector Quantization} (GLVQ) \citep{sato&yamada}
introduced the following cost function, aiming at large margin optimization for better generalization:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:glvq}
E = \sum_{i=1}^n \Phi(\mu_i) \quad \mathrm{with } \quad \mu_i = \frac{d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^J) - d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^K)}
{d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^J) +d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^K)} \enspace,
\end{equation}
with $\Phi$ being a monotonically increasing function. We used the identity $\Phi(x) = x$ throughout this contribution.
Furthermore, $d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^J)$ denotes the distance of the data point $\vec{\xi}_i$ from the closest prototype with the same label $y_i = c(\vec{\omega}^J)$ and
$d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^K)$ the distance to the closest prototype with a different class label $y_i\neq c(\vec{\omega}^K)$.
The value of $\mu_i \in [-1,1]$ can be understood as a measure of confidence for the classification of sample $\vec{\xi}_i$.
The closer $\mu_i$ is to -1, the smaller the distance
to the closest prototype with the same label compared to the distance to the closest prototype with a different label, i.e.
$d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^J)\ll d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^K)$,
the more certain the classification
of $\vec{\xi}_i$.
More formally, one can compute the probability of a sample $\vec{\xi}_i$ to belong to class $j$, based on the distances to the prototypes, using the softmax:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:softmax}
P(j|\vec{\xi}_i) = \frac{\exp{(-d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^j))}}{\sum_{k=1}^{C} \exp{(-d(\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^k))}} \enspace .
\end{equation}
The cost function is non-convex and typically gradient techniques, such as stochastic gradient descent \citep{petrabiehl,kbuntethesis}, are utilized to minimize the costs
Eq.~\kb{\eqref{eq:glvq}}.
From the cost function Eq.\ \eqref{eq:glvq} it is clear that the the distance measure $d$ plays a major role for the performance of LVQ classifiers.
While the Euclidean distance is a common choice all dimensions contribute equally in it, which has
drawbacks in capturing underlying data semantics in noisy high-dimensional and heterogeneous data spaces \citep{petrabiehl}.
As such it is not capable to reflect if features differ in importance for the classification task at hand.
Therefore, \citet{hammer2002generalized} proposed to incorporate a weighting factor for each feature dimension that is adapted during training:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:adaptmetric}
d^{\Lambda} (\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^j) = (\vec{\xi}_i-\vec{\omega}^j)^\top \Lambda (\vec{\xi}_i-\vec{\omega}^j) \enspace,
\end{equation}
where the weight matrix $\Lambda$, also referred to as \emph{relevance matrix}, is a diagonal matrix with $0$ in the off-diagonals and
$\lambda_i$ on the diagonal with $\sum_i \lambda_i=1$.
These relevance weights indicate the discriminative contribution of each feature dimensions, which could facilitate decreasing influence or pruning of redundant,
noisy or ambiguous feature dimensions.
This concept can be further extended to more complicated metric tensors with adaptive off-diagonal elements, namely
Generalized Matrix LVQ (GMLVQ) \citep{schneiderBiehl, petrabiehl}, Limited Rank Matrix LVQ (LiRaM LVQ) \citep{BUNTELiram, kbuntethesis} and
localized versions with prototype-wise or class-wise matrices called Localized GMLVQ (LGMLVQ) \citep{schneiderBiehl}.
All algorithms are made publicly available in Matlab and can be found at \url{https://github.com/kbunte/LVQ_toolbox}.
The overlapping class regions as shown in the PCA projection Figure \ref{fig: datadefinition}(a) intuitively suggest non-linear class boundaries
and hence the localized adaptive metrics are more suitable and therefore the focus for this paper.
Local metric tensors allow to learn localized dissimilarities with respect to the specific class prototypes using a local transformation matrix $\Omega^j$
thus defining the non-linear decision boundaries.
The localized distance metric is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lgmlvqdist}
d^{\Lambda ^ j} (\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^j) = (\vec{\xi}_i-\vec{\omega}^j)^\top \Lambda^{j} (\vec{\xi}_i-\vec{\omega}^j) \enspace,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda^{j} = \Omega^{j\top}\Omega^j$ using the adaptive matrix $\Omega^j\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ with $M\le N$ to guarantee that $\Lambda^j$ is positive semi-definite.
The cost function therefore reads as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LGMLVQ}
E_\mathrm{LGMLVQ} = \sum_{i=1}^n \Phi(\mu_\mathrm{local}^i) \quad \mathrm{where } \quad \mu_\mathrm{local}^i = \frac{d^{\Lambda^J} - d^{\Lambda^K}}
{d^{\Lambda^J} + d^{\Lambda^K}}
\end{equation}
where $d^{\Lambda^J}$ and $d^{\Lambda^K}$ are the distances of the point $\vec{\xi}_i$ from the closest correct and incorrect prototypes respectively.
The update rules are described in detail in \cite{petrabiehl, kbuntethesis}.
Besides allowing non-linear decision boundaries and therefore learning of more complex classification problems, the localized matrices furthermore enable
the investigation of localized or class-wise relevances, marked on each diagonal of $\Lambda^j$,
identifying features that are important for the classification of each class respectively \citep{schneiderBiehl}.
\subsection{Ensemble methods}
With increasing complexity, classifiers get more powerful showing impressive performance in practice.
However, at the same time they often show overfitting effects in which the performance on training data is near perfect but it decreases facing new data samples not seen before.
This decreased \emph{generalization} performance is often tackled using ensemble methods, which combine several classifiers to assign a class label to a new data instance
to overcome the limitations of a single model.
In order to see the effect of ensemble learning and to facilitate a fair comparison with RF we explore an ensemble of LGMLVQ models.
For exact
comparison with RF the ensemble of LGMLVQ models is constructed from the same training bootstrap samples used in each decision tree in the random forest.
This will result in as many LGMLVQ models as the number of decision trees for each cross validation fold.
The results are then aggregated through majority voting \citep{ranawana2006}.
\subsection{Interpretability}
For many applications it is crucial for machine learning models to be interpretable, such that the domain expert is able to examine the significance
of the resulting trained model and its suitability for classification tasks.
Intrinsic model interpretability can be understood as how understandable the internals of a model and its output are to users \citep{explainableai}.
It is furthermore suggestively explained by Backhaus and Seiffert \citep{backhaus2014classification} through a three-fold criteria of the model's
1) feature selection capability,
2) ability to define class representatives, such as prototypes and
3) encoding of classification boundary information.
Interpretability for the random forest is achieved through random permutation of a feature's observations \citep{breiman2001random,strobl2007bias}
for the out of bag samples and estimating the corresponding decision tree's accuracy with the permuted features.
Here, more discriminative features are easily identified, since they have significant effect on the classification error.
The out of bag predictor importance uncovers the individual impact of the features and the information could similarly be used for feature selection and
understanding the random forest's classification.
On the other hand, the adaptive LVQ methods satisfy all three criteria by:
1) Feature selection by means of the diagonal of the metric tensors, $\Lambda$ from GMLVQ and the local $\Lambda^j$ in LGMLVQ,
that represents individual feature contribution that could be used as feature pruning criteria.
2) Prototype feature values used to classify novel observations
are learned during the model training, which subsequently become typical representatives of their corresponding classes.
3) The decision boundaries for classification
can be extracted and visualised, for example by linear projection of the data samples and the resulting class prototypes using $\Omega$ from GMLVQ.
Nonlinear visualizations using the localized variants LiRaMLVQ and LGMLVQ are also possible and the latter is outlined in the following.
\subsection{Nonlinear visualization with charting}\label{sec:charting}
Visualization can be useful to get a holistic view of the data and identify difficult instances.
From the definition of $\Lambda^{j} = \Omega^{j\top}\Omega^j$ in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:lgmlvqdist},
we see that the distance metric first transforms data points using the following local linear projections:
\[
P_j: \vec{\xi} \rightarrow \Omega^{j\top} ( \vec{\xi} - \vec{\omega}^j ) \enspace .
\]
For specific cases $M \in \{ 2, 3 \}$, the projected data points can be visualized, which can be used for discriminant visualization of the data based on the space
the classification takes place in.
However, since the localized metric provides several projections for each sample, it is challenging to study the outputs directly.
In order to tackle this problem, \citep{bunte2009nonlinear} proposed a post-processing step which combines local projections using charting \citep{brand2003charting}
to form a global nonlinear embedding of the data:
\[
\vec{\xi} \rightarrow \sum_j p_j (\vec{\xi}) B_j ( P_j(\vec{\xi})) \enspace .
\]
Here, $B_j(.):\mathbb{R}^M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^M$ is an affine transformation and
$p_j (\vec{\xi})$ is the responsibility of local transformation $\vec{\omega}^j$ for the data sample $\vec{\xi}$ with $\sum_jp_j(\vec{\xi})=1$.
More details about how to compute prototypes' responsibilities and affine transformations can be found in
\citep{bunte2009nonlinear} with the code made available at \url{https://github.com/kbunte/LVQ_toolbox}.
Using this nonlinear embedding we can easily project data to 2 (or 3) dimensions for
further investigation of the overlapping regions and difficult samples.
\iffalse
it finds affine projections $B_j: \mathbb{R}^M \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^M$ of local coordinates $P_j$ via minimizing the following cost function:
\[
E = \sum_{i,j,k} p_{ji} p_{ki} \lVert B_j (P_j ( \vec{\xi} )) - B_k ( P_k (\vec{\xi}) ) \rVert ^2
\]
where $p_{ji}$ is the responsibility of prototype $\vec{\omega}^j$ for the data $\vec{\xi}$, and it has reverse relationship to their distance $d^{\Lambda ^ j} (\vec{\xi}_i, \vec{\omega}^j)$. Note that the resulting points ...
\fi |
\section{Introduction}
One of the biggest challenges in the European Union is the cleaning of nuclear waste~\cite{NDA}. This task involves handling and moving extreme toxic material contaminated with different types of ionizing radiation. Unfortunately, higher doses of radiation harm the human body; therefore, the cleaning process should be taken with much precaution. Luckily, most of this work can be done by robots, but sadly the electronic devices controlling them are also susceptible to radiation. Remarkably, many artificial intelligence algorithms used in robots heavily rely on high-speed processors or graphics processing units (GPUs) which leads to significant growth in reliability issues due to the nature of the nanoscale technologies used in those chips,
One can categorize the radiation consequences on contaminated sites into two broad types: permanent and transient effects. One example of the permanent effects is the Total Ionizing Dose (TID), while Single Event Upset (SEU) is an example of transient effects. TID effect is a phenomenon that causes \textbf{permanent} damage, which inevitably, at some point, is going to result in total failure of the electronics. TID effects can only be minimized to extend the system life. The literature has come up with special hardened devices specifically targeting this effect \cite{Goncalves2013,Ramaswamy09}. Typically, these devices are much more expensive than unhardened ones.
On the other hand, SEUs are \textbf{transient} effects that cause bit-flips on memory elements. For example, one of the most employed solutions for radiation environments, especially for space applications, is Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) due to their reconfiguration capability and performance aspects. FPGAs are predominantly used for these applications \cite{lindoso17,Quinn15,Trimberger15} as they allow reconfiguration and thus hardware adaptability to deal with most transient effects.
The underlying idea of this paper is that instead of using an approach with radiation-hardened devices, we adopt consumer electronic level COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) devices and then monitor, manage and replace them with healthy ones before they stop working. This condition brings us a research challenge to anticipate when the board results in a total failure due to radiation, specifically TID effects.
In this paper, we first employ a statistical analysis of the collected data to prove that the measured values of the board under radiation show statistical significance compared to a scenario without radiation. Later, the paper tries to answer whether it is possible to predict when the board will stop working due to radiation with reasonable accuracy. For this purpose, we tested a low-cost COTS unhardened consumer electronic level 28nm FPGA used in many fault-tolerant techniques for transient radiation effects. We employ this board under gamma ($\gamma$) radiation and log its behaviour.
The monitoring of these boards needs to be executed with an enhanced approach. The paper shows that using simple techniques to observe voltage and temperatures may not indicate that the board will stop working. For example, one widely used data analysis tool is R control charts. This type of chart, popularly known as a control chart, monitors the mean and range of normally distributed variables simultaneously when samples are collected at regular intervals. Such a technique uses upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL) to monitor the behaviour of the variables. Still, it may not be sufficient to indicate that a given board is behaving abnormally. A few data points outside the operational limits caused by radiation do not suggest that the board will stop operating. This paper shows that this might take a few minutes or more than one hour. For this reason, we employ state-of-the-art machine learning (ML) techniques to understand and try to predict when the board is behaving abnormally. \textcolor{black}{Authors in \cite{LEUKEL202187} reviews works that used ML for failure prediction in industrial mechanical systems for the last decade and identify opportunities for future research, although there is no focus on electronics.}
The novelty of this works is three-folded: First, this is the first study to monitor and measure voltages and temperatures on a consumer electronic level SRAM-based FPGA SoC (System on Chip) under $\gamma$ radiation. Second, this is the first study performing a quantitative/statistical analysis of the effects of gamma radiation on voltages and temperatures of an FPGA and then compare to an environment without radiation. Finally, this is the first work using machine learning algorithms trying to predict when the board will be rendered in-operational by \textbf{gamma radiation} through the observation of temperature and voltage values only.
The paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{experimental design} details the hardware setup to monitor and test the boards under experiment, later presenting an example where the proposed technique might be used. Section~\ref{related_works} reviews the state-of-the-art of related techniques. Section~\ref{statistical_effects} explains the statistical analysis while Section~\ref{ML_techniques} details the employed machine learning techniques and how to measure its accuracy. Section~\ref{rad_experiments} details the experiments carried out under $\gamma$ radiation and how the data was organized to feed the machine learning algorithms. Finally, Section~\ref{evaluations} evaluates, compares and discuss the results, and Section~\ref{conclusion} draws conclusions and future plans.
\section{Related Work}
\label{related_works}
As the sophistication of embedded systems grows, their vulnerability to errors is adversely affected due to an increase in critical points of failure. Adopting fault mitigation or fault tolerance techniques is vital if FPGAs are used in radiation environments. Fault tolerance techniques that enhance embedded processor reliability can be categorized as hardware-, software- and hybrid-based techniques~\cite{kasap20}.
The hardware-based techniques, which mainly rely on spatial redundancy, provide two or more instances of a hardware component, such as processors, memories, buses or power supplies, for protection against soft errors. This class of techniques include Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR)~\cite{Xilinx06}, Duplication with Comparison (DWC)~\cite{pradhan97} and hardware monitors~\cite{parra14} which incorporate watchdog or checker modules to monitor the system and detect errors by verifying the control-flow related memory accesses of the target processor. These techniques can protect the system from errors in the computation outputs, i.e. SDCs, as exemplified in~\cite{quinn17}.
Software-implemented hardware fault tolerance (SIHFT) approaches handle hardware malfunctions by merely shielding the software without any hardware alteration. These techniques rely on adding redundant software code for comparison to detect errors. However, they exhibit a high-performance overhead, which may not be viable for some real-time systems. These kinds of techniques, such as ABFT~\cite{huang84}, HETA~\cite{azambuja13} and S-SETA~\cite{chielle15}, detect control-flow faults leading to FIs, which manifest themselves as hangs or crashes, and then place the system into a fail-safe state. \textcolor{black}{Note that both hardware- and software-based techniques are not capable of correcting 100\% of the errors}, but rather detecting them to avoid a failure that would have adverse effects on the entire mission. Furthermore, they protect the system either from SDCs or FIs, but not both.
The hybrid techniques are the ones that use a SIHFT method combined with a hardware intellectual property (IP), which performs consistency checks in the processor, making them effective against both SDCs and FIs. For instance, the lockstep technique is a hybrid fault-tolerance technique based on software and hardware redundancy. It employs the concepts of checkpointing and recovery mechanisms (e.g. roll-back recovery, roll-forward recovery) at the software level, and processor replication and checker circuits at the hardware level, as explained in the following sections. Therefore, it is capable of both error detection and correction. The lockstep technique’s most significant merit is its ability to detect and correct both SDCs and FIs, unlike many other fault tolerance techniques. Several researchers have developed and implemented their lockstep technique version, such as those in~\cite{Xilinx07,abate09,violante11,pham13,oliveira18}, to make a range of processors resistant to radiation-induced soft errors, extensively analyzed and compared in~\cite{wachter19}.
The Authors in ~\cite{Rezzak18} evaluated a ($^{60}C$) gamma-ray radiation testing of a space application FPGA, namely the RT4G150 from Microsemi. Microsemi is a qualified manufacturers list (QML)-certified manufacturer of high-reliability FPGAs for space applications, while RTG4 is the 4$^{th}$ generation family of radiation-tolerant flash-based FPGAs. The work assesses the degradation of the flash cell through its threshold-voltage ($V_T$) shift.
For space applications, dynamic burn-in (DBI) testing is used to evaluate the long term reliability of the device. Among all product screening tests employed by many business categories, including automotive, aerospace, and defence, the burn-in (BI) test is one of the most effective tests for early failure detection. The work indicates that RTG4 shows a shift of the programmed Pflash cell $V_T$ post-DBI is observed. The programmed Pflash VTshift is due to voltage degradation, resulting from approximately 1.75\% degradation of the DAC’s output. \textcolor{black}{It is essential to emphasize that this work does not monitor the temperature of the FPGA, this being out of the scope of the project.}
In ~\cite{villa2017} Authors evaluated a COTS FPGA, namely Microsemi ProASIC3E A3PE1500. Despite their low reliability, the authors state that this FPGA has been considered a promising alternative to replace radiation-hardened ones. The paper analyses the Single-Event Upset (SEU) sensitivity of the FPGA for a combined set of Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) and TID tests. This component was under the pre-qualification process for use in some satellites of the Brazilian Space Program. The TID test was performed by exposing the FPGA to a 10-keV effective energy X-ray beam. The device was roughly exposed to the TID expected to be cumulated on satellite electronics after operation for a period of 4 or 5 years in a given orbit, as specified by the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research. The conclusion is that FFs present a lower SEU-immunity degradation when exposed to conducted-EMI (5.6\%) than SRAM cells (resp. 6.3\%); the latter memory elements are intrinsically more robust to EMI since they present a much lower cross-section than FFs. \textcolor{black}{Note that this work does not monitor the temperature of the FPGA as well.}
Tarrilho et al.~\cite{Tarrillo2011} analyze the behaviour of flash-based FPGA from Actel under TID. In this work, a design with an embedded system composed of a MIPS microprocessor hardened with fault-tolerant techniques is employed on a COTS flash-based FPGA ProASIC3E family from Actel.
The TID experiment with no reconfiguration monitored the power supply current during radiation and the FPGA temperature. They reported that the Icc started to change after 45 krad(Si) when some modules stopped working. The current increases promptly and reaches 1.5 times the original current just before 65 krad(Si). The temperature and current drop abruptly when most modules fail around 65 krad(Si). The paper primarily showed the failure dose for some internal modules and did not present when the current starts behaving abnormally.
In ~\cite{Lentaris2019} evaluate TID effects on an SRAM-based COTS FPGA. They combine hardware and software techniques to perform on-chip irradiation via a $^{90}Sr$/$^{90}Y$ electron source and assess the degradation of the system. The experiment consists of two executions of Zynq XC7Z020T chips hosted by two distinct Zedboards. The analysis focuses on ring oscillators (ROs) implemented on the programmable logic of the FPGA for estimating/predicting the performance degradation due to the TID effects. The authors show specifically the RO frequency according to temperature, current and accumulated dose. The authors indicate that specifically for COTS 28-nm Zynq-7000 chips, the results show increased TID tolerance beyond the Mrad level. The tests were conducted with the FPGAs surviving up to 2 Mrad(Si). In summary, this work shows that COTS FPGAs can survive significant amounts of ionizing radiation, although not displaying the limit, since it was not the objective of their work.
These papers~\cite{Tarrillo2011,villa2017,Rezzak18} summarize most related work for TID effects in FPGAs. They either focus on flash-based devices\cite{Tarrillo2011,Rezzak18} or point out \cite{villa2017} that they could be a promising alternative for radiation-hardened ones. Also, only one paper monitors current and temperature, although it is not the main objective of that paper to correlate or predict the FPGA stop working.
\section{Experimental Design }
\label{experimental design}
This section explains the setup, shown in Fig.~\ref{setup}, built to measure and log all the tested experiments, later detailed in Section~\ref{rad_experiments}. The experimental setup is composed of (i) a laptop to control, collect and log all data; (ii) a \textit{Design Under Test (DUT) board} and (iii) a special \textit{monitoring board} to collect the data from it. The only electronic device exposed to radiation is the DUT, that being the reason for the monitoring board, which is outside the radiation cavity and connected to the DUT with voltage and temperature probes.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/setup.jpg}}
\caption{Block diagram of the experimental setup. Only the DUT is under radiation.}
\label{setup}
\end{figure}
The DUT is a MiniZed board, depicted in Fig.~\ref{minized}, a widely available and, most used, equipped with a low-cost ($\approx$£100) Xilinx 28nm Zynq FPGA. The monitoring board is an Arduino board coupled with temperature and voltage sensors, which during the experiments are located outside the radiation chamber; therefore, it can be reused.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{./Images/minized_cut.jpg}}
\caption{Employed a Minized board with connectors attached to monitor voltage and two thermocouple pairs to measure temperatures.}
\label{minized}
\end{figure}
The MiniZed board \cite{minized} (Fig.~\ref{minized}) is a development board containing a Xilinx Zynq single-core SoC XC7Z007S-1CLG225C \cite{zynq} with 512MB DDR3L micron storage, a 128MB QSPI flash and 8GB eMMC.
The FPGA contains a programmable logic and a Programmable Logic (PL)(FPGA) and Processing Subsystem(PS) (ARM Cortex-A9). The FPGA chip is fed by a power management integrated circuit (PMIC) Dialog DA9062 \cite{pmic} which controls five different voltages\cite{minized_power}: 0.675, 1.0, 1.35, 1.8 and 3.3 volts, detailed in Table~\ref{table_temp_volt}.
For example, $V_{DDR3}$ supplies the voltage to the DDR3 memory of the board.
The monitoring board is organized to monitor these voltages. We also use a thermocouple Wire to monitor the temperature on the surface of both FPGA and PMIC. This setup is arranged so that only the DUT and wires connecting to the monitoring board are inside the radiation chamber; therefore, the radiation does not interfere with the monitoring electronics.
\begin{table}[h]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{{Temperature and voltage monitored values}}
\label{table_temp_volt}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Expected value} & \textbf{Description} \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
$T_{FPGA}$ & - & FPGA temperature \\\hline
$T_{PMIC}$ & - & PMIC temperature \\\hline
$V_{core}$ & 1 V & Core supply \\\hline
$V_{aux}$ & 1.8 V & Auxiliary supply \\\hline
$V_{ddr3}$ & 1.35 V & DDR3 \\\hline
$V_{tt}$ & 0.675 V & Vtt \\\hline
$V_{cco}$ & 3.3 V & Vcco / board voltage \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering{\includegraphics[clip,trim={20cm 0 35cm 0},width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/arduino.pdf}}
\caption{The monitoring board composed of an Elegoo R3 board (1) coupled with voltage (2) and temperature (3) sensors.}
\label{arduino}
\end{figure}
The monitoring board is an Elegoo R3 board \cite{ELEGOO}, which is completely compatible with the official Arduino R3 version. The board is composed of an Atmel ATMEGA328P chip \cite{atmegaDATASHEET} and coupled with five DC0-25V voltage sensors and two Digilent Pmod TC1 K-Type thermocouple modules \cite{PmodTC1}.
The thermocouple sensor module works with a temperature range of -73°C to 482°C with a 0.25°C resolution. The voltage sensor works with a range of DC 0 to 25 V with a resolution of 0.01 V.
The board collects one reading each second, operating in a \textit{1 Hz frequency}. The data is sent to a laptop and stored for later computation.
In parallel, the MiniZed board runs a compute an intense set of operations whose outputs are sent to the host laptop through a serial interface for a sanity check aiming to determine if the board is still operational. When the board stops sending data, it is considered to be dead. Later, all the boards used on experiments were tested individually outside the radiation chamber to ensure they were inoperational. We tried to download the provided sanity check, and none of the boards responded to the cable connection attempts, confirming that the boards were dead.
\subsection{Motivational example}
\label{motivational}
Figure \ref{normal_behaviour} shows the measurements of the Minized board under normal operation. We monitor the power controlling IC and the FPGA temperature ($T_{PMIC}$ and $T_{FPGA}$ respectively) and five voltages ($V_{ddr3}$, $V_{aux}$, $V_{core}$, $V_{tt}$ and $V_{cco}$) supplied to the FPGA.
One can see a normal fluctuation in the temperature and voltages within some bounds. On the other hand, Figure \ref{radiation_behaviour} shows the same type of board under gamma radiation, where the black lines on voltages are the average of the initial readings. The temperature starts to rise faster, and voltages operate outside their normal bounds and eventually, the board stops working. These two simple examples clearly show that the board is not behaving normally under radiation, as expected.
Later sections try to correlate these behaviours to predict when the board will stop working. Furthermore, we would use state-of-the-art machine learning techniques to evaluate whether it is possible to indicate when a board will fail based on voltages and temperature sensor readings.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/normal.pdf}}
\caption{Voltage and temperature sensor reading in an environment without radiation. Temperature and voltage values operate inside certain bounds, and there are few deviations from the mean.}
\label{normal_behaviour}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/radiation_example.pdf}}
\caption{Voltage and temperature sensor reading on an environment with $\gamma$ radiation. Temperature and voltage values operate outside bounds compared to a mean without radiation.}
\label{radiation_behaviour}
\end{figure}
\section{Understanding the statistical effect of gamma radiation on Minized boards}
\label{statistical_effects}
To examine the effects of different levels of $\gamma$ radiation on our boards, we conducted a statistical analysis using measurements for boards that stopped working after being exposed to $\gamma$ radiation and for boards used in a non-radiation environment. To test whether any significant differences occurred in these measurements, we conducted one-way Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA). The first MANOVA test compared the $\gamma$ radiation effects on the boards (i.e. 0: the measurements collected from boards working under $\gamma$ radiation; 1: measurements obtained from boards on a non-radiation site) as independent variable, and sensor measurements, two temperatures ($T_{PMIC}$ and $T_{FPGA}$) and five voltages($V_{ddr3}$, $V_{aux}$, $V_{core}$, $V_{tt}$ and $V_{cco}$) as dependent variables. The second MANOVA test involved different $\gamma$ radiation levels (to which boards were exposed) as an independent variable (i.e. $\gamma$ radiation levels detailed in Table~\ref{table_scenarios}) and temperature and voltage as dependent variables.
The statistical results are presented in Table \ref{tab:anova_results1} and Table \ref{tab:anova_results2}. The partial eta squared ($\eta^2$) represents the effect size, determining how much the relationship will affect the values. On the other hand, the F-value is the test statistic used to determine how much one variable is associated with the response. The factors and interaction effects were analyzed with one-way analysis using the partial eta squared index of effect size. The Bonferroni procedure was used here. The definitions in \cite{Cohen1977} have been adopted to discuss the effect sizes: small effect size ($\eta^2 \leq .01$), medium effect size ($.01 \leq \eta^2 \leq .06$) and large effect size ($.06 \leq \eta^2 \leq .14$). The MANOVA levels of significance are reported using the F-statistics and probability $p$. A risk of $\alpha$ of .05 was used in all statistical tests.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Results of One-Way Multivariate Analyses of Variance to discover the sensory observation difference between functioning and non-functioning sensor boards used in radiation and non-radiation environments. $\eta^2$ is the partial eta squared measure of effect size. $^\star p < .05, ^{\star\star}p < .01, ^{\star\star\star}p < .001$. The table demonstrates the statistical effect of the main factor. The error degrees of freedom was the same for each dependent variable. }
\label{tab:anova_results1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|crc|}\hline
Source & Dependent Variable &$df$ & $F$ & $\eta^{2}$ \\
\hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}$\gamma$ Radiation \\ Functioning\end{tabular} & $T_{PMIC}$ &$1$ & $33051.493^{\star \star \star}$ &$.214$ \\
& $T_{FPGA}$ &$1 $ & $18569.785^{\star \star \star}$ &$.133$ \\
& $V_{aux}$ &$1$ & $1040594.28^{\star \star \star}$ &$.896$ \\
& $V_{ddr3}$ &$1$ & $463097.020^{\star \star \star}$ &$.793$ \\
& $V_{core}$ &$1$ & $30362.611^{\star \star \star}$ &$.200$ \\
& $V_{tt}$ &$1$ & $19258.336^{\star \star \star}$ &$.137$ \\
& $V_{cco}$ &$1$ & $87822.015^{\star \star \star}$ &$.420$ \\
\hline
Error && \multicolumn{3}{l|}{121226} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Results of One-Way Multivariate Analyses of Variance to discover the sensory observation difference for sensor boards at different gamma radiation levels. $^\star p < .05, ^{\star\star}p < .01, ^{\star\star\star}p < .001$. The table demonstrates the statistical effect of the main factor. The error degrees of freedom was the same for each dependent variable. }
\label{tab:anova_results2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|crc|}\hline
Source & Dependent Variable &$df$ & $F$ & $\eta^{2}$ \\
\hline
$\gamma$ Radiation & $T_{PMIC}$ &$6$ & $9721.465^{\star \star \star}$ &$.325$ \\
& $T_{FPGA}$ &$6$ & $4066.381^{\star \star \star}$ &$.168$ \\
& $V_{aux}$ &$6$ & $197999.152^{\star \star \star}$ &$.907$ \\
& $V_{ddr3}$ &$6$ & $94615.951^{\star \star \star}$ &$.824$ \\
& $V_{core}$ &$6$ & $6617.718^{\star \star \star}$ &$.247$ \\
& $V_{tt}$ &$6$ & $4006.448^{\star \star \star}$ &$.165$ \\
& $V_{cco}$ &$6$ & $148.701^{\star \star \star}$ &$.577$ \\
\hline
Error && \multicolumn{3}{l|}{121221} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison of boards behaviour on radiation and non-radiation sites}
There was a highly significant effect of the functioning ($Functioning$) of the boards deployed in radiation site when compared to a non-radiation sites in Table \ref{tab:anova_results1}. Overall, there was highly significant effect on the functioning of the sensor boards with very large effect sizes when the measurements collected from radiation and non-radiation sites: $F(1, 121226)=33051.493, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.214$ for temperature 1; $F(1, 121226)=18569.785, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.133$ for temperature 2; $F(1, 121226)=1040594.28, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.896$ for voltage 1; $F(1, 121226)=463097.020, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.793$ for voltage 2; ; $F(1, 121226)=30362.611, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.200$ for voltage 3; ; $F(1, 121226)=19258.336, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.137$ for voltage 4; ; $F(1, 121226)=87822.015, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.420$ for voltage 5.
Our results indicate a significant difference in the obtained measurements between the radiation and non-radiation sites.
This was an expected result, but this is the first work reporting these findings to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It is important to emphasize that since it corroborates the underlying assumption of the proposed analysis of this paper.
\subsection{The effect of different $\gamma$ radiation levels}
There was a highly significant effect of $\gamma$ radiation levels ($\gamma$ Radiation) with a very large effect sizes on the sensor board measurements in Table \ref{tab:anova_results2}: $F(6, 121221)=9721.465, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.325$ for temperature 1; $F(6, 121221)=4066.381, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.168$ for temperature 2; $F(6, 121221)=197999.152, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.907$ for voltage 1; $F(6, 121226)=94615.951, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.824$ for voltage 2; ; $F(6, 121221)=6617.718, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.247$ for voltage 3; ; $F(6, 121221)=4006.448, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.165$ for voltage 4; ; $F(6, 121221)=27547.584, p<.001$, $\eta^2=.577$ for voltage 5.
The posthoc analyses showed highly significant differences between most sensors when exposed to different $\gamma$ radiation levels $p<.001$. However, there were no significant differences in the following interactions. For temperature 1 measurements, there was no significant difference between 2469 and 7707 $\gamma$ radiation levels. For temperature 2, there was no significant difference between 0 and 5871 $\gamma$ radiation levels, and there was only a significant difference between 7707 and 16966 $\gamma$ radiation levels $p<.05$. For voltage 1, there was no significant difference between 2469 and 5137 and 5871 $\gamma$ radiation levels. Similar to temperature 2 results, there was only a significant difference between 7707 and 16966 $\gamma$ radiation levels for voltage 1 measurements. For voltage 2 measurements, there was a significant difference between 7707 and 16966 $\gamma$ radiation levels ($p<.05$). For voltage 3 measurements, there was no significant difference between 1209 and 7707 $\gamma$ radiation levels and between 5137 and 5871 $\gamma$ radiation levels. For voltage 4 measurements, there was no significant difference between 1209 and 7707 and 16966 $\gamma$ radiation levels. For voltage 5 measurements, there was no significant difference between 2469 and 5971 $\gamma$ radiation levels and between 7707 and 16966 $\gamma$ radiation levels.
These results indicate that it is impossible to correlate a given voltage to a radiation level and create a relationship between them. Different sensor inputs would have different weights depending on the radiation rate level. For this reason, more elaborate approaches, such as machine learning algorithms, would have better results since there is a tuning of inputs through experience, in this case, the historical readings of temperature and voltage.
\section{Anomaly Detection with Machine Learning Models}
\label{ML_techniques}
Typically, anomalous data in this study are connected to problems or rare events such as abnormal temperatures or voltages or malfunctioning components. This connection may imply which data points can be considered anomalies to identify these events that are typically useful for predicting the early failure of the system. This section explores three machine learning models: 1) Elliptical Envelope, 2) Local Outlier Factor, 3) One-Class Support Vector Machine as our anomaly detectors.
\subsection{Machine Learning Models}
\subsubsection{Elliptical Envelope}
Elliptical Envelope is a Gaussian distribution-based method that forms the key data parameters into an underlying multivariate Gaussian distribution expression. In short, it attempts to identify a boundary ellipse that covers most of the data. Therefore, any data not within the ellipse can be classified as an anomaly. The FAST-minimum covariance determinant is used to estimate the size of the ellipse, which selects non-overlapping samples of data and computes the mean $u$ and covariance matrix $C$. Therefore, Mahalanobis distance $d_{MH}$ for the input data vector $x$ can be calculated using the following equation, and the data are then ordered ascendingly by $d_{MH}$ \cite{hoyle15}.
\[{d_{MH}} = \sqrt {{{(x - \mu )}^T}{C^{ - 1}}(x - \mu )} \]
\subsubsection{Local Outlier Factor}
Local Outlier Factor is one of the Nearest Neighbour based methods for anomaly detection. In general, normal data are usually grouped in a neighbourhood that seems dense compared to the abnormal data, which are far from their close neighbours. To quantify this neighbourhood, these types of approaches typically use distance-based or density-based methods, where both ways require a similarity or a distance calculation to determine whether the data are on the degree of abnormality or not. We use the Local Outlier Factor (LOF) abnormal detector in this study \cite{alshawabkeh10}.
\subsubsection{One-Class Support Vector Machine}
One-Class Support Vector Machine (OCSVM) \cite{heller03} is a classification-based anomaly detection method. Depending on the availability of labels, it can be divided into one-class and multi-class classification models. This approach is similar to all other supervised learning techniques, has two phases: 1) Training phase and 2) Testing phase.
In the training phase, the classifier is trained using the labelled data, and then the data are classified as normal or abnormal using the trained model in the testing phase.
In OCSVM, the classification rule for the linear decision boundary is given as follows:
\[f(x) = \left\langle {\vec{w},\vec{x}} \right\rangle + b\
where $\vec{w}$ and $b$ are the normal vector and bias, respectively. The algorithm is trying to find the rule $f$ within the maximal geometric margin and then assign a label to a test example $\vec{x}$. For example, if $f(x)>0$, the label of $\vec{x}$ will be marked as normal; otherwise, it is labelled anomaly. This optimization problem can be solved by
\[\mathop {\min }\limits_\alpha \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{ij} {{\alpha _i}{\alpha _j}K({x_{i,}}{x_j})} \] %
where $\alpha_i$ is the $i^{th}$ weight, $0\le\alpha_i\le\frac{1}{vl}$ and $\sum\limits_{i}\alpha_i=1$. $v$ is a variable to control the maximizing the distance between the origin and the number of data points contained in the boundary. $l$ is the number of points in the training dataset. $K(x_i,x_j)$ is the kernel function, and it is given as follows.
\[K(x,y) = \left\langle {\phi (x),\phi (y)} \right\rangle \] %
where $\phi$ maps the training vectors from input space $X$ to a high dimensional feature space.
A series of mathematical functions, known as the kernel, is used by SVM algorithms. The kernel function takes data as input and translates it into the appropriate form. Different SVM algorithms use various kernel function types. The adopted version, OCSVM, uses the Radial Basis Function (RBF) kernel \cite{broomhead1988radial}.
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics: Precision, Recall, F1 score}
This paper employs three well-known metrics for pattern recognition/classification to evaluate the machine learning models: Precision, Recall and F1 score \cite{Powers11}. Precision is the fraction of relevance among the retrieved instances, while Recall is the fraction of the total amount of relevant instances. All these metrics would signify better results as they approach the value of 1.
In the context of this paper, there are two kinds of data: annotated and not annotated -- data with an anomaly and without it. The employed models should recognize if the data are an anomaly or not. Suppose we have a given dataset with ten anomalies and the remaining data are not an anomaly. A given ML model identifies eight data points as anomalies, of which five are anomalies (true positive) while the rest are not (false positives). The ML model’s precision is 5/8, while the Recall is 5/10. In this example, precision means how valid the results are, while Recall shows how complete the results are.
F1 score is a metric for accuracy. It considers both the precision and the Recall to compute the score. The F1 score is then calculated using the harmonic mean of the Precision and Recall, where an F1 score has its best value at 1 (perfect precision and Recall).
\section{Radiation Experiments}
\label{rad_experiments}
The experiments took place on the Dalton Cumbrian Facility (DCF) laboratory, where a $\gamma$ radiation source is available \cite{DCF}. \textcolor{black}{The source is composed of a Cobalt ($^{60}C$) self-shielded irradiator that can provide absorbed dose rates of up to 20 kGy/h depending on the distance from the source to the DUT. The radiation cavity contains three rods, as shown in Fig.~\ref{DCF_rods}, with different dose rates for each one. Thus, different radiation rates are achieved using various configurations of the available rods, including lead obstacles to absorb the radiation and/or positioning the samples at different distances from the sources.}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering{\includegraphics[clip,trim={0 50cm 0 55cm},width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/rods.jpg}}
\caption{Minized board inside radiation chamber. The three pipes on the back contain three radiation rods that are lifted from the ground when the chamber is closed.}
\label{DCF_rods}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./Images/time_to_fail_example.pdf}}
\caption{Voltages behaviour of experiments 0 and 5, respectively.}
\label{time_to_fail}
\end{figure*}
\textcolor{black}{We employ six different experiments, each one using a separate board (DUT) under radiation -- each board will be referred by its experiment number. Table \ref{table_scenarios} shows each feature of the experiments where different radiation rates were applied to see how the boards would behave. The DUT time is the time between the start of the experiment until the FPGA board stops sending data through the serial connection. This time should be considered the operational time of the DUT. On the other hand, the Monitoring board time is the time from the start of the experiment until the monitored voltages drop to zero, which means that the board itself, including the PMIC, is entirely inoperative. }
In each experiment, the board is under a constant radiation rate and stays the same distance from the rods. Before the actual radiation experiment begins, the radiation rate is measured using a probe removed afterwards. For this reason, the probe is inserted, the radiation is released and measured for one minute, then the experiment is stopped, and the probe is removed. The radiation rate measured during that period is assumed to be constant for the whole experiment.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{{Radiation experiment for the DUT}}
\label{table_scenarios}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Exp. \#} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Radiation \\ Rate (Gy/h)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{DUT Time} & \textbf{Monitoring Board Time} \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
0 & 1209 & 1:56:00 & 2:00:11 \\\hline
1 & 2469 & 0:39:14 & 0:41:31 \\\hline
2 & 5137 & 0:23:16 & 0:27:28 \\\hline
3 & 5871 & 0:19:49 & 0:23:23 \\\hline
4 & 7707 & 0:12:39 & 0:13:39 \\\hline
5 & 16966 & 0:06:58 & 0:07:38 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
After the experiments, all the boards stopped working. During the experiments, one can see an increase in the voltage bounds on all experiments. The interesting point is that the deviation from the normal bounds does not indicate that the board will stop working right away. If we take, for example, the two extremes for the radiation rates, i.e. experiments 0 and 5, one took almost two hours while the other took less than ten minutes to stop working. Fig.~\ref{time_to_fail} shows that although experiment 5 exhibits an early change in the bounds of the voltages, the board can take more than one hour to stop working. On the other hand, the board might take a few minutes to stop working with a higher radiation rate after the first values outside the normal bounds are observed. This observation leads to a search for a more elaborate way of predicting when the board will stop working than just watching voltages outside the normal bounds of operation.
\section{Evaluations}
\label{evaluations}
This Section compares the OCSVM method against the Local Outlier Factor and Elliptical Envelope methods. OCSVM copes well with non-linear functions and might be a more suitable approach for this problem.
The section is divided into four subsections. The first one shows how the data was preprocessed and explains the methodology used in the second subsection, where the training set is built. Then, the third subsection compares the OCSVM against the two other methods using the training set. Finally, the last subsection further explores how early we can detect anomalies with OCSVM.
\subsection{Training and Testing Methodology}
This subsection explains the steps to build the training data, later used to compare different approaches. The objective here is to compare how the training data would affect the results rather than comparing different ML algorithms. Hence, we show the comparison using the OCSVM algorithm.
The first step is to remove as least from the collected data, all of which are time-stamped. Unfortunately, a few points show the temperature as zero or undefined (e.g. NaN). Therefore, all data points for that period were removed, even if another sensor showed consistent data. These removals do not interfere with the evaluation since all the data points are time-stamped.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/compare_radiation.pdf}}
\caption{Comparison using different features as input for the training data. Respectively lines show the results using $i$) seven features (five voltages and two temperatures) and $ii$) the same seven features plus the constant radiation rate.}
\label{compare_radiation}
\end{figure}
After the data trimming step, we compare two approaches: one using seven features (five voltages and two temperatures) and one using the same features plus a constant value for the radiation rate -- the rates shown in Table~\ref{table_scenarios}.
Fig.~\ref{compare_radiation} shows the precision of the two models with the six experiments. Using the constant radiation rate as input weakens the results significantly. Therefore, for further experiments, only voltage and temperature values are considered.
\subsection{Exploring the best training and testing strategy in a radiation site}
At this point, the number of features is defined, we came up with three training and testing strategies to evaluate, compute or organize the measured data. The target is to find the right balance of data points in the training set. The following strategies evaluate trade-offs between a set of experiments employed and the number of data points. Each strategy represents a data processing approach, and it is detailed next as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Strategy 1: Train the model with the first minutes of a given board and then test on the remaining measurements of the same board.
\item Strategy 2: Train the model with the first minutes of a set of different experiments and test on the remaining measurements of all boards.
\item Strategy 3: Choose the number of data points that gives the best results in terms of F1 score.
\end{itemize}
The first strategy was employed using the first few minutes of each board and then test on the remaining measurements on the same board. Fig.~\ref{compare_strategy_1} shows the results for this strategy. Even using the same board data and comparing it with the remaining data does not provide good results. Only board from experiment 5 shows good scores for F1 and precision.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/comparison_one_board.pdf}}
\caption{Results using each experiment separately as training data. }
\label{compare_strategy_1}
\end{figure}
\textcolor{black}{Because of the weaker results of strategy 1, we decided to include more boards on the training data.
Strategy 2 evaluates different sets of boards as training data to check how many we need to include to get the best results. For this strategy, we trained all combinations sets of two up to all six boards, i.e. sets of two boards \{\{0,1\}, \{0,2\}, ... \{4,5\}\}, sets of three boards \{\{0,1,2\}, \{0,1,3\}, ... \{3,4,5\}\} and so on. Later we compared the F1 score for each board separately.} Results shown in Fig.~\ref{compare_strategy_2} include the worst and best set of boards only for the sake of space. One can assume that we get better results as we feed more information to the model (different boards). For example, the worst results for sets with two, three and four boards are much lower than results using five or all six boards.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/comparison_mult_board.pdf}}
\caption{Using sets of 2, 3, 4, 5 and all boards as training data. Figure showing only best and worst results for each set.}
\label{compare_strategy_2}
\end{figure}
On the third strategy, we evaluate the effects of the amount of training data fed into the model. Fig.~\ref{compare_training_time} shows the comparison of using the first 300, 360, 420, 480, 520 and all data points as input for the model. Interestingly, as we feed more data to the training set, it does not mean we would get better results. Adding more than 420 points does not increase the F1 score, and as it shows better average results, we keep this number of data points as a training set for all experiments.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{./Images/train_time_comparison_clustered.pdf}}
\caption{Comparison of training data for input data. Using the first 420 data points from all experiments show better results. 420 data points represent roughly seven minutes of data.}
\label{compare_training_time}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison of OCSVM with other anomaly detection techniques}
\label{results}
This subsection compares three state-of-the-art machine learning techniques: $i$) Elliptical Envelope, $ii$) Local Outlier Factor and $iii$) One Class Support Vector Machine (OCSVM). These techniques are trained using the proposed dataset, discussed previously, as inputs.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Window times where voltages exhibit values outside usual bounds for each experiment.}
\label{visual_anomalies}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Exp. \#} & \textbf{Window Time}\\ [0.5ex]
\hline
0 & 74 min\\\hline
1 & 18 min\\\hline
2 & 07 min\\\hline
3 & 07 min\\\hline
4 & 06 min\\\hline
5 & 03 min\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/comparison_ML_approaches_0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/comparison_ML_approaches_1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/comparison_ML_approaches_2.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of machine learning models for the dataset.}
\label{compare_ML_approaches}
\end{figure*}
To compare the anomaly detection results, we first need to annotate the data showing where the anomalies happened and then compare with the ML algorithms outputs.
We have calculated the size of the time window where each board exhibits values outside usual bounds during radiation experiments, visually observing the measured voltage (we could not observe such values for temperature). Table ~ shows the size of this window, and associated calculations are displayed for each board in Table~\ref{visual_anomalies}. As can be seen, the minimum window size observed is approximately 3 minutes. That is to say that the last 3 minutes of each experiment is the time where each board exhibits values outside normal bounds. Therefore, after adding a safety margin of 2 minutes, we annotate the last 5 minutes of each experiment as anomalies for use in the training dataset fed into the machine learning algorithms. Five minutes is roughly equivalent to 300 data points; therefore, we annotate this number of points as an anomaly.
Besides the observed window size, 300 data points also give the developer a reasonable amount of time to take action before the board stops working, e.g., move the computed data to safe storage, to another computing node in the system or even move it away from the radiation environment.
We can also consider a different amount of time as annotation, but it would result in the retraining of the model.
Then finally, we can summarize the training set with the annotation as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Remove all the inconsistent sensor readings;
\item Collect the first 420 data points from all boards (as justified in Fig.~\ref{compare_training_time});
\item We annotate the last 300 data points as an anomaly.
\end{itemize}
Using that training set, we then employ a multivariate analysis with seven variables (including five voltage and two temperature values) to feed the ML algorithms. Fig.~\ref{compare_ML_approaches} summarizes the results for Elliptical Envelope, LOF and OCSVM algorithms where the F1, Precision, and Recall scores are shown for each model. OCSVM demonstrates better outcomes for all scores. It is essential to highlight that the Recall score for OCSVM is the one for all experiments except number two, which is a remarkable result, showing an average Recall score of 0.95 and strong evidence that the model can detect the relevant results. The recall score in experiment 2 is not the maximum one but shows a high value (0.842) and will be discussed next.
\textcolor{black}{\subsection{Exploring how early OCSVM can detect anomalies}}
As the OCSVM showed the best F1, Precision and Recall results, this subsection details each experiment separately, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{OCSVM_results}. Each experiment shows in the rows: (i) the five observed voltages; (ii) two temperatures; (iii) anomaly annotation; and (iv) the OCSVM model output (i.e. 0 represents normal data and 1 an anomaly both for annotation and model output).
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/3_predict.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/2_predict.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/0_predict.pdf}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.13\textwidth} p{0.30\textwidth} p{0.30\textwidth} p{0.30\textwidth}}
& (a) - Exp. 0 & (b) - Exp. 1 & (c) - Exp. 2 \\
\end{tabular}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/1_predict.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/4_predict.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{./Images/5_predict.pdf}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.13\textwidth} p{0.30\textwidth} p{0.30\textwidth} p{0.30\textwidth}}
& (d) - Exp. 3 & (e) - Exp. 4 & (f) - Exp. 5 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results for each experiment using One-Class Support Vector Machine to predict the anomaly before the board stops working.}
\label{OCSVM_results}
\end{figure*}
Table~\ref{saving_boards} shows that in all experiments except one, the model marks the abnormal behaviour of the board before the annotation. This is an exceptional result, indicating that the model can be used as a suitable indicator/warning before the board stops working. Note that the ML output for experiment 2 is delayed by only 12 seconds; nevertheless, there still would be enough time for the board to be saved before it is permanently damaged.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Time showing how earlier the OCSVM marks the annotation (around 5 minutes before the board stops working). The model prediction is calculated with (Annotation - Prediction) from Fig.~\ref{OCSVM_results}.}
\label{saving_boards}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Exp. \#} & \textbf{Experiment duration} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Model prediction \\ before the annotation\end{tabular}} \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
0 & 2:00:11 & 1:43:53 \\\hline
1 & 0:41:31 & 0:25:56 \\\hline
2 & 0:27:28 & -0:00:12 \\\hline
3 & 0:23:23 & 0:07:04 \\\hline
4 & 0:13:39 & 0:06:42 \\\hline
5 & 0:07:38 & 0:00:34 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Experiment 0 is the longest in time under radiation mainly because it has the lowest radiation rate among the experiments. The board took almost two hours to stop working, and it is the worst result for the model output. Although the model could point to the anomaly, it has done it earlier, more than one hour before the board stops working.
Experiment 1 has a shorter execution time, and the model was also capable of predicting before the anomaly, i.e. 25 minutes before the annotation.
Experiment 2 has one particular behaviour different from the others. The model output shows one unique point marking as an anomaly in the first minutes. As this was the only point and not a continuous trend, we can disregard this result - one should always observe the trend rather than particular points. The model then marks only points 12 seconds after the anomaly annotation. We still consider this a good result since a few seconds later would still allow time to take action.
In experiments 3, 4 and 5, the model behaves similarly, marking the anomaly 7, 6 and 0.5 minutes before the annotation, which is a remarkable result. To summarize, all boards would have been saved since the model can point out before a board dies completely, thus allowing a few minutes for the designer to save or transfer the processed data to a safe environment.
It is essential to point out that the model has a trade-off. As we gathered more experiments with high radiation rates, five of the experiments have more than 2000 Gy/h; the model has been trained with more data for these environments. Therefore it also performs better, i.e. predicts near the annotation, on experiments with high radiation rates.
As we feed more information, that is, more experiments in different radiation rates, the model should perform better.
\section{Conclusion and Future Works}
\label{conclusion}
This paper proposed an anomaly detection machine-learning algorithm to predict when a COTS FPGA would stop working due to gamma radiation.
The OCSVM algorithm showed the best results in terms of Recall score and was capable of pointing out 100\% of the anomalies before the board stopped working. Annotating the anomaly before it stops working and giving time to the designer to take actions allowed to detect the anomaly before the board dies, considered an extraordinary achievement since it will enable the designer to use this as an assumption for future works.
This work employed six boards that were inoperable after the experiments. Using more boards with different radiation rates can improve the model results.
Future works include using the OCSVM algorithm at run-time experiments. The proposed approach with DUT and a monitoring board can also be modified to execute on a self-contained solution. The Arduino board of the DUT was used to remove the monitoring board and sensors from the radiation environment. In a real-case scenario, this would not be possible. To tackle that approach, the Minized board (DUT) could use the sensor boards directly and execute the OCSVM algorithm itself.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work is supported by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council through grants EP/R02572X/1 and EP/P017487/1.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{The Elsevier article class}
\paragraph{Installation} If the document class \emph{elsarticle} is not available on your computer, you can download and install the system package \emph{texlive-publishers} (Linux) or install the \LaTeX\ package \emph{elsarticle} using the package manager of your \TeX\ installation, which is typically \TeX\ Live or Mik\TeX.
\paragraph{Usage} Once the package is properly installed, you can use the document class \emph{elsarticle} to create a manuscript. Please make sure that your manuscript follows the guidelines in the Guide for Authors of the relevant journal. It is not necessary to typeset your manuscript in exactly the same way as an article, unless you are submitting to a camera-ready copy (CRC) journal.
\paragraph{Functionality} The Elsevier article class is based on the standard article class and supports almost all of the functionality of that class. In addition, it features commands and options to format the
\begin{itemize}
\item document style
\item baselineskip
\item front matter
\item keywords and MSC codes
\item theorems, definitions and proofs
\item lables of enumerations
\item citation style and labeling.
\end{itemize}
\section{Front matter}
The author names and affiliations could be formatted in two ways:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item Group the authors per affiliation.
\item Use footnotes to indicate the affiliations.
\end{enumerate}
See the front matter of this document for examples. You are recommended to conform your choice to the journal you are submitting to.
\section{Bibliography styles}
There are various bibliography styles available. You can select the style of your choice in the preamble of this document. These styles are Elsevier styles based on standard styles like Harvard and Vancouver. Please use Bib\TeX\ to generate your bibliography and include DOIs whenever available.
Here are two sample references: \cite{Feynman1963118,Dirac1953888}.
\section*{References}
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The fourth industrial revolution shows significant emphasis on the automation of high-precision cyber-physical manufacturing and machining processes. Automating such processes offer numerous advantages in terms of performance, productivity, efficiency, and safety; as manual operation is often associated with structural damage, risk of rework, and health hazards \cite{Liang2010, Eguti2014, Zhu2014, Mei2021}. Among other processes, drilling has been studied extensively by academics and practitioners due to their widespread use in various manufacturing activities, especially in the automotive and aerospace industries \cite{Karim2013, Liang2010, Zhan2012, Zhang2018a}. High-precision drilling is essential for these industries, as the quality of drilling is highly correlated with the performance and fatigue life of the machined structures \cite{Mei2021, Liu2016, Liang2010, Sun2019, Chen2018}.
Traditionally, the automation of drilling and similar machining processes has been highly dependant on Computer Numerical Control (CNC) equipment for their high-precision and repeatability. However, CNC equipment are limited in functionality and workspace, and require substantial investment in both equipment and infrastructure \cite{Ji2019, Liang2010}. In recent years, industrial robots have been rising as a promising alternative for CNC equipment in machining applications due to their cost efficiency, their wide range of functionality, their ability to operate on large workspace volumes and their capability to adapt to variations in the environment and workpiece positioning \cite{Chen2013, Eguti2014, Karim2013, Ji2019, Devlieg2011}. Despite several successful examples of utilizing robots in industrial machining applications, repeatability remains the main challenge in robotic machining; where errors originate either from the relatively low stiffness of robot joints \cite{Eguti2014, Sun2019, Olsson2010, Zhang2020} or the imperfect positioning and localization of a workpiece relative to the robot \cite{Perez2016, Bone2003}. These errors can be undermined by the use of real time guidance and closed-loop control based on sensory feedback and metrology systems \cite{Huang2018, Eguti2014, Ji2019, Perez2016}. Several works in the literature have adopted such approaches for precise position \cite{Jia2018, Wang2020}, orientation \cite{Rao2020, Rao2018}, and force \cite{Olsson2010, Rosa2017} control in a robotic machining paradigm.
Machine vision is amongst the most utilized perception technologies that enable the closed-loop control of robots due to their maturity, availability, and relatively low cost \cite{Perez2016}. In \cite{Zhu2014}, a 2D vision system was used to enhance the drilling positional accuracy through the detection and localization of several reference holes in the workpiece; achieving a position accuracy of 0.1 mm. Similarly, the work in \cite{Mei2021} utilizes feedback from an eye-in-hand camera and uses template matching to localize reference holes for a combined drilling and riveting process, reducing positioning errors to ~0.05 mm. \cite{Frommknecht2017} proposed combining the 2D camera detection with laser distance sensors to localize reference holes in 3D, and reported an accuracy of 0.3 mm. Similar approaches for the positioning of a drilling tool are reported in \cite{Zhan2012, Liu2016}; with variations in the underlying perception and reference hole detection algorithms. Several works in the literature focus exclusively on the robust detection of circular holes through contour refinement and model fitting due to its direct impact on the precision of the drilling process \cite{Lou2020, Mei2015, Xia2020}. These concepts of vision-based feature detection and workpiece localization are also widely adopted in other various manufacturing tasks \cite{Ji2019, Yu2019}. For instance, \cite{Jiang2021} proposed a visual guidance system for robotic a peg-in-hole application consisting of four cameras: two in an eye-to-hand configuration for the localization of the robotic tool, while the others are in an eye-in-hand configuration and are used for alignment of the tool with reference holes. A multi-view approach was presented in \cite{Yang2020} for the localization of target objects in a pick-and-place framework with sub-millimeter level accuracy. The versatility of vision systems have also enabled other uses in navigation, guidance, and calibration systems of mobile industrial robots \cite{Zhao2019, Mei2015a, Guo2017}.
All of the aforementioned robotic manufacturing approaches utilize conventional frame-based cameras, which suffer from latency, motion blur, low dynamic range and poor perception at low-light condition \cite{wang2020eye, Corke2000}. Frame-based cameras output intensity images based on a time integration of incident illumination over a fixed exposure period. This integral action introduces latency in perception, and causes blurring in the image when considerable relative motion exists; especially with larger exposure periods \cite{1996corke, Shin2019}. On the other hand, short exposure times greatly degrade image clarity in reduced lighting conditions, and require larger apertures which leads to a narrow depth of field \cite{1996corke, Pieters2013}. These shortcomings of frame-based cameras impose constraints on robot operational speeds, workspace volumes, and ambient lighting conditions; which affect the robustness and productivity of robotic manufacturing processes. Relevant work in the literature attempt to mitigate these problems with conventional cameras by adding additional supporting sensors \cite{SANTOS2022}; which increases the complexity and cost of the system.
The recent neuromorphic vision sensor (also known as event-based camera) has the potential to address the challenges of conventional machine vision. The pixels of a neuromorphic camera operate independently and respond asynchronously to variations in incident illumination in continuous time \cite{Lichtsteiner2008,indiveri2000neuromorphic}, providing low-latency, high dynamic range, and computationally efficient perception \cite{gallego2019event, Liu2019neuromorphic}. Neuromorphic cameras do not suffer from motion blur, and are robust to varying lighting conditions; making them an appealing choice for a wide variety of applications such as: autonomous driving \cite{Dong2020ADAS, Guang2020ADAS}, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control \cite{Hay2021}, object recognition and tracking \cite{Garrick2015recognition, Hongmin2010tracking}, localization and mapping \cite{Kim2016slam, visal2018slam}, and tactile sensing \cite{rajkumar2020slip, huang2020neuromorphic, Rigi2018}. In our recent work \cite{rajkumar2021}, we have demonstrated the advantages of neuromorphic cameras over their conventional frame-based counterparts for high-speed and uncontrolled lighting operation in a robotic pick-and-place framework. However, the low-resolution of the neuromorphic camera, the assumption of known depth, and the act-to-perceive nature of the event camera resulted in positional errors of up to 2 cm.
In this paper, we develop and employ a two-stage neuromorphic vision-based controller to perform a robotic drilling task with sub-millimeter level accuracy. The first stage localizes the target workpiece in 6DoF using a multi-view 3D reconstruction approach and Position Based Visual Servoing (PBVS). The second control stage applies Image Based Visual Servoing (IBVS) to compensate for positional errors using and a set of reference holes. Using both control stages, the robot performs peg-in-hole to insert a clamp mandrel (or split-pin) in the reference hole with less than 0.2 mm clearance. The clamp mandrel holds the robotic tool in place, and the robot drills nutplate installation holes on both side of each reference hole. The capabilities of the neuromorphic camera enables higher-speed operation and robustness to changes in ambient lighting. A video demonstrating the presented robotic drilling solution can be accessed through this link: \url{https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q9QwPvkd7ZcEBcGMIxIVy2r_iRfTKCSe/view?usp=sharing}
\cite{paper_video}.
The contributions of this paper can be summarized as below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first time, we present a neuromorphic vision-based control approach for robotic machining applications. The proposed method utilizes the feedback of a neuromorphic camera to precisely align a drilling tool with the target workpiece, and demonstrates advantages over conventional vision-based solutions in high speed operation and uncontrolled lighting conditions.
\item We devise an event-based multi-view 3D reconstruction method for the 6DoF localization of workpiece in the environment. This method matches events generated from different poses of the neuromorphic camera and solves for the 3D location of workpiece features using the Direct Linear Transformation (DLT).
\item We develop a novel event-based approach for the detection and tracking of circular objects in the scene. This approach applies an event-based variant of the circle hough transform in a bayesian framework to detect and track the location of reference holes in the workpiece.
\item We perform rigorous experimentation to test the precision and performance of the proposed methods. Experimental results validates the use of neuromorphic vision for robotic machining applications with positional accuracy of ~0.1 mm, and prove that our approach overcomes the speed and lighting challenges in conventional vision-based robotic machining approaches.
\end{enumerate}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec_setup} outlines the setup and configuration of the proposed robotic drilling system. Section \ref{sec_neuro_vision} describes the working principle and functional advantages of neuromorphic cameras. Section \ref{sec_multi_view} explains the event-based multi-view 3D reconstruction and workpiece localization algorithm. Section \ref{sec_hole_det} introduces the event-based circular hole detection and tracking pipeline. Section \ref{sec_control} presents the two-stage vision-based controller employing both PBVS and IBVS. Finally, Section \ref{sec_exp} demonstrates both quantitative and qualitative experimental evaluation of the presented approach, which confirm the advantages of using neuromorphic vision for precise robotic processes.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth, height=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/drilling_platform.png}} \qquad
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/drilling_endeffector_with_drill.png}} \qquad
\caption{The robotic nutplate hole drilling setup. (a) A workpiece with a set of reference holes is present within the industrial robot's workspace. (b) The nutplate hole drilling end-effector with a neuromorphic camera.}
\label{fig_drilling_setup}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure*}
\section{Robotic Drilling Setup}
\label{sec_setup}
The overall configuration of the robotic nutplate hole drilling system can be seen in Figure \ref{fig_drilling_setup}. The system consists of an industrial robot with an end-effector comprising a drill motor and a neuromorphic vision sensor for perception and guidance. The robotic system drills nutplate installation holes on a workpiece that includes a set of reference holes. We define the following frames of reference that are used throughout this paper for robot guidance and control:
\begin{itemize}
\item \(\mathcal{F}_B\): The robot base coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_E\): The robot end-effector coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_C\): The vision sensor coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_S\): The split-pin coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_W\): The workpiece coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_{h^i}\): The coordinate frame of the i'th reference hole.
\end{itemize}
We denote the rotation matrix that maps from a source frame \(\mathcal{F}_S\) to a target frame \(\mathcal{F}_T\) by \(_{T}R_{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{3\times3}\). The position of point \(b\) relative to point \(a\) described in coordinate frame \(\mathcal{F}_T\) is given by \(^{T} _{a}\vec{P}_{b} \in \mathbb{R}^3\). As such, we define the affine transformation matrix \(_{T}T_{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{4\times4}\) as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_affine_transformation}
_{T}T_{S} = \begin{bmatrix}
_{T}R_{S} & ^{T}_{T}\vec{P}_{s} \\
\mathbf{0}^T & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
For the remainder of this paper, we consider the transformation from \(\mathcal{F}_B\) to \(\mathcal{F}_E\) to be known by solving the robot's forward kinematics:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_forward_kinematric}
_{B}T_{E} = g(\theta), \theta \in \mathbb{C}
\end{equation}
where $g(\theta)$ is a nonlinear function representing the robot's kinematics, $\theta$ are the observed robot joint angles, and $\mathbb{C}$ is the robot's configuration space. Furthermore, $_{E}T_{C}$ and $_{C}T_{S}$ are constants, and can be found using a geometrical calibration procedure as described in \cite{Dornaika1998}. Therefore, $_{B}T_{C}$ and $_{B}T_{S}$ can be easily computed by combining $_{B}T_{E}$ and the calibrated transformations.
Similarly, the robot's forward kinematics are used to find the end-effector's twist vector \(\vec{\mathcal{V}}_E \in \mathbb{R}^6\) combining linear and angular velocity components, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\vec{\mathcal{V}}_E = J(\theta)^{\dagger} \dot{\theta}
\label{eq_vel_forward_kinematics}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
J(\theta) \triangleq \dfrac{\partial g}{\partial \theta} \in \mathbb{R}^{6 \times N_j}
\label{jacobian}
\end{equation}
where \(J(\theta)\) is the Jacobian matrix, \(N_j\) is the number of robot joints, and \(\dagger\) denotes the Moore-Penrose inverse computed using Singular Value Decompision. Additionally, the camera's twist vector \(\vec{\mathcal{V}}_C\) can be calculated from \(\vec{\mathcal{V}}_E\) using the adjoint representation of $_{C}T_{E}$, denoted by $_{C}[AD_T]_{E}$, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\vec{\mathcal{V}}_C = _{C}[AD_T]_{E} \vec{\mathcal{V}}_E
\label{eq_camera_twist}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
_{C}[AD_T]_{E} = \begin{bmatrix}
_{C}R_{E} & & & [^{C}_{C}\vec{P}_{E}]_x \hspace{0.1cm }_{C}R_{E} \\
\mathbf{0}^T & & & _{C}R_{E}
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_adjoint_representation}
\end{equation}
where \([^{C}_{C}\vec{P}_{E}]_x\) denotes the matrix representation of the cross product for the vector \(^{C}_{C}\vec{P}_{E}\).
In order to perform the drilling operation, the robot requires knowledge of $_{B}T_{h^i}$. We solve for this transformation in two stages. First, a multi-view 3D reconstruction approach provides an initial estimate of $_{B}T_{h^i}$ for all the workpiece holes as described in section \ref{sec_multi_view}. Then, for each hole, $_{B}T_{h^i}$ is refined to sub-millimeter accuracy using the circular hole detection and tracking approach presented in section \ref{sec_hole_det}. Following these two perception stages, robot control is performed by two subsequent methods: PBVS and IBVS; that align \(\mathcal{F}_S\) with \(\mathcal{F}_{h^i}\) and drills the required holes in the workpiece, which is explained in detail in section \ref{sec_control}.
\section{Neuromorphic Vision Sensor}
\label{sec_neuro_vision}
The Neuromorphic vision sensor, often referred to as `event camera', decodes illumination changes in the visual scene as a steam of events \(e_{k}=<u_k, v_k, t_k, p_k>\), where \((u_k, v_k)\) represent the pixel coordinates of the change, \(t_k\) is the event's timestamp, and \(p_k\) is the illumination change polarity (either 1 or -1). Unlike conventional frame-based imagers, neuromorphic vision sensors do not operate on a fixed sampling rate; instead, pixels operate asynchronously and respond to logarithmic illumination changes with microsecond resolution. Figure. \ref{fig_events_Vs_frames} visualizes the differences between neuromorphic event-based cameras and conventional imagers. Let \(I(u, v, t)\) denote the illumination intensity at pixel \((u,v)\) and time \(t\), an event \(e=<u, v, t, p\) is triggered as soon as the following condition is met:
\begin{equation}
log I(u, v, t) - log I(u, v, t-\Delta t) = p C
\label{eq_event_condition}
\end{equation}
where \(C\) is the logarithmic illumination change threshold, and \(\Delta t\) is the time since the last triggered event at \(u, v\).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/events_vs_frames.png}
\caption{Visualization of the output of conventional frame-based imagers and the event stream output of neuromorphic cameras.}
\label{fig_events_Vs_frames}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
The working principle of neuromorphic cameras provides substantial advantages over conventional imaging sensors. For instance, neuromorphic cameras offer high temporal resolution and an exceptionally low-latency in the order of microseconds; meaning that these sensors do not suffer from motion blur and guarantee timely perception of changes in the scene \cite{gallego2019event}. Additionally, since independent pixels are self-sampled, neuromorphic cameras have a wide dynamic range \((>120 dB)\) \cite{Liu2019neuromorphic}, and are not impeded by the exposure timing complications that arise in frame-based cameras. This enables neuromorphic cameras to offer robust perception across a variety of lighting conditions, including extremely low-light cases. Another practically valuable feature that result of the aforementioned capabilities of neuromorphic vision is the ability to perceive under very small aperture, leading to a substantially wide depth of field. In applications such as ours where the camera is expected to acquire information across a varied depth, this feature can alleviate the need of an autofocus system, which often requires additional hardware \cite{wang2021} and induces uncertainty in the camera projection model \cite{viala2021}. Other advantages of neuromoorphic vision include low power consumption and reduction in signal redundancy as only informative data is transmitted in the form of events. Despite the capabilities of neuromorphic vision, the fundamentally different output of these cameras require novel computer vision algorithms and processing techniques than those developed for conventional frame-based imaging.
It must be noted that neurmorphic cameras use identical optics as conventional cameras. As such, the standard pinhole model can still describe the projection properties of neuromorphic cameras. Following the pinhole model, the mapping between a point in three dimensional space \(^{B} _{B}\vec{P}_{a} = \begin{bmatrix} x_a & y_a & z_a \end{bmatrix}^T\) described in coordinate frame \(\mathcal{F}_B\), and its projection on the image plane \((u_a, v_a)\) can be expressed in homogeneous coordinates as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}u_a,v_a,1\end{bmatrix}^T \sim \bf{K} \hspace{1em} _{C}T_{B} \hspace{1em}
\begin{bmatrix} x_a & y_a & z_a & 1 \end{bmatrix}^T
\label{eq_pinhole}
\end{equation}
where \(\sim\) indicates equality up to an unknown scalar multiplication, and \(\bf{K}\) denotes the camera intrinsic matrix. In this paper, we consider \((u, v)\) to be the pixel coordinates post rectification for tangential and radial distortions.
\section{Neuromorphic Event-based Multi-View Workpiece localization}
\label{sec_multi_view}
This section presents the event-based multi-view 3D reconstruction method used for the 6-Dof localization of the workpiece. As described in section \ref{sec_dlt}, we utilize the camera's projective geometry and the Direct Linear Transformation (DLT) to solve for the location of each reference hole in the workpiece using their corresponding stream of events from multiple camera viewpoints. We establish correspondences between the asynchronous events and reference holes using the space-sweep approach described in \ref{sec_space_sweep}. Finally, we use model fitting to determine the correct orientation of the workpiece.
\subsection{The Direct Linear Transformation}
\label{sec_dlt}
As the camera moves in the environments, a stream of events will be generated corresponding to each reference hole in the workpiece. The objective of the direct linear transformation is to determine the holes' position from their corresponding events generated at \(N\) different time-steps. At a given time-step \(k\) and camera pose \(_{C}T_{B}^k\), the relationship between the position of the i'th reference hole \(^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i}\) and its corresponding event in homogenous coordinates \(eh^i_k = [u^i_k, v^i_k, 1]\) can be described using the pinhole model in eq. \eqref{eq_pinhole}. By multiplying both sides of eq. \eqref{eq_pinhole} by \([eh^i_k]_x\), which is the matrix representation of the cross product for vector \(eh^i_k\), we obtain the following expression:
\begin{equation}
[eh^i_k]_x \hspace{0.3em} eh^i_k =
\mathbf{0} =
\hspace{0.3em} [eh^i_k]_x \hspace{0.3em} \mathbf{K} \hspace{0.3em} _{C}T_{B}^k \hspace{0.3em} \begin{bmatrix}
^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i} \\ 1
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_dlt_step1}
\end{equation}
We define a matrix \(A_i \in \mathbb{R}^{3N\times4}\) that encapsulates the right side of eq. \eqref{eq_dlt_step1} across \(N\) observations of the i'th reference hole as follows:
\begin{equation}
A_i = \begin{bmatrix}
\hspace{0.3em} [eh^i_1]_x \hspace{0.3em} \mathbf{K} \hspace{0.3em} _{C}T_{B}^1 \\
\hspace{0.3em} [eh^i_2]_x \hspace{0.3em} \mathbf{K} \hspace{0.3em} _{C}T_{B}^2 \\
\vdots \\
\hspace{0.3em} [eh^i_N]_x \hspace{0.3em} \mathbf{K} \hspace{0.3em} _{C}T_{B}^N \\
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_dlt_step2}
\end{equation}
From eqs. \eqref{eq_dlt_step1} and \eqref{eq_dlt_step2}, it is evident that the following expression holds:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{0} = A_i \hspace{0.3em} \begin{bmatrix}
^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i} \\ 1
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_dlt_step3}
\end{equation}
Eq. \eqref{eq_dlt_step3} is used to obtain a valid solution for \(^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i}\) as a least square problem, which can be efficiently solved using Singular Value Decomposition.
\subsection{The Space-Sweep Method}
\label{sec_space_sweep}
Reconstruction using the Direct Linear Transformation described in section \ref{sec_dlt} requires accurate correspondence between features in the environment (reference holes) and the events generated from different camera views. For this objective, we use the space-sweep method first introduced in \cite{collins1996} and adapted for neuromorphic cameras in \cite{emvs2018}.
This approach utilizes a descritized representation of the volume of interest, denoted by \(\bar{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{w \times h \times N_z}\) where \(w\), \(h\), and \(N_z\) indicate the width, heigh, and depth of \(\bar{D}\). Each generated event is then back-projected as a ray passing through \(\bar{D}\) using the camera's pose and projection model. A Disparity Space Image (DSI) is defined that records the density of rays passing through each voxel of \(\bar{D}\). Local maxima are then extracted from the DSI, and the rays passing through high-density voxels are clustered together and are considered to correspond to the same feature in 3D space. Consequently, since each ray is defined by a camera pose and an event, the clustering of events and camera poses is inferred directly from these rays, and the DLT can hence be applied for each cluster independently. Figure \ref{fig_EMVS} visualizes the principal of the space-sweep method, and illustrates the different steps involved in this process. We refer interested readers to the original manuscripts in \cite{collins1996, emvs2018} for the details on the computationally efficient implementation of the Space-Sweep method.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
{\label{fig_EMVS}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]
{Figures/space_sweep.png}} \qquad
\caption{The Event-Based space-sweep step. Events generated at different camera viewpoints are back-projected and are used for the voting process in the DSI. The rays passing through each of the dense voxels of the DSI are grouped together, and are then used to solve for the 3D location of the reference holes through the Direct Linear Transform.}
\label{fig_EMVS}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
After estimating the position of all reference holes \(^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i}, i=[1,..,N_i]\), the orientation of the workpiece is found by fitting the estimated holes positions against a pre-known model of the workpiece; which can be done using an Iterative Closest Point approach. In our case, we only assume that the workpiece is flat such that all reference holes lie on the same plane; and hence we do not require knowledge of the number or position of holes in the workpiece. We simply fit a plane through the estimated position of all reference holes and and infer the workpiece's orientation from the parameters of the fitted plane. This plane-fitting step is also used to remove any outliers or noise in the localization of holes.
\section{Neuromorphic Event-based Hole Detection and Tracking}
\label{sec_hole_det}
The precise detection of circular holes from visual feedback directly affects the positional accuracy of the drilling process \cite{Xia2020}. In frame-based vision, several Well established methods exist for detecting circular formations in images \cite{Xia2020, Mei2015, Lou2020}, and the Circle Hough Transform (CHT) is amongst the most popular of these methods \cite{Atherton1999, Yuen1990}. In this section, we present an event-based variant of CHT that is appropriate for the asynchronous output of neuromorphic cameras
In conventional CHT, each feature point (e.g. edge point) in the image frame is mapped to the hough parameter space using the constraint equation given below:
\begin{equation}
(u_i - a)^2 + (v_i - b)^2 = r^2
\label{eq_cht}
\end{equation}
where \((u_i, v_i)\) are the pixel coordinates of the i'th edge point, \((a, b)\) are the coordinates of circle's center, and \(r\) is the circle's radius. As such, a three dimensional parameter space \(H \in \mathbb{R}^3\), often referred to as the hough parameter space, that spans all possible values for \(a\), \(b\) and \(r\) is defined. Following \eqref{eq_cht}, each edge point in the image plane represents a hollow cone in \(H\) as depicted in Figure \ref{fig_houh_detection}. The intersection of multiple cones signals the presence of a circle with parameters that correspond to the intersection's location in \(H\). In practice, \(H\) is discritized to form an accumulator array \(\bar{H}(a, b, r)\), and each edge point contributes to \(\bar{H}\) through a voting process. Circle parameters are finally extracted from peaks in \(\bar{H}\).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/hough_circle_color.eps}
\caption{The circle hough parameter space \(H\). Each edge point \(e_i\) in the image plane represents a hollow cone in the hough parameter space. The intersection of multiple cones signals the presence of a circular formation in the image plane.}
\label{fig_houh_detection}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
CHT cannot be directly used with neuromorphic cameras due to their significantly different output from frame-based cameras. CHT establishes correspondence between edge points assuming that they are extracted from the same image frame with exact temporal match. Neuromorphic cameras on the other hand do not output image frames, but output an asynchronous stream of events in continuous time as shown in Figure \ref{fig_events_Vs_frames}. A naive solution would be to concatenate events within a defined time period to form artificial frames, and apply CHT to these frames. However, the generation of events is dependent on the rate of changes in the visual scene. As such, it would be challenging to determine a single period for event concatenation that is appropriate for all conditions. Figure. \ref{fig_circle_detector_different_detector} provides a visualization for this premise, where grouping events at different rates result in contradicting CHT performance at different egomotion velocities.
To address these challenges, we formulate an event-based variant of CHT that adopts a bayesian framework to retain the asynchronous nature of neuromorphic cameras. In our algorithm, the accumulator array \(\bar{H}(a,b,r)\) is considered to be a Probability Mass Function (PMF) that reflects the probability of the existence of a circle for any given values of \(a\), \(b\), or \(r\). Following the principle of recursive bayesian filtering, our approach for event-based circle detection follows two steps: measurement update and prediction. The measurement update step follows the traditional CHT but in an asynchronous manner, where each event independently votes to regions in \(\bar{H}\) that satisfy \eqref{eq_cht}. Measurement update is performed whenever a new event is received, and is normalized so that \(\sum\bar{H} = 1\) after each update step.
The prediction step establishes a temporal continuity between events triggered at different times, and allows for the inference of circle parameters at any point in continuous time. In the prediction step, we update \(\bar{H}\) using the camera's egomotion, which is obtained by solving the forward kinematics of the robot manipulator as described in section \ref{sec_setup}. Given the camera's twist vector \(\vec{\mathcal{V}}_c = [v_x, v_y, v_z, \omega_x, \omega_y, \omega_z]^T\) that describe the camera's velocity in \(\mathcal{F}_C\), where \((v_x, v_y, v_z)\) are the linear components and \((\omega_x, \omega_y, \omega_z)\) are the angular components; the velocity in pixel coordinates of a feature point \((u, v)\) can be computed using the image Jacobian as shown below:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix} \dot{u} \\ \dot{v} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{-F}{Z} & 0 & u/Z & uv/F & -(F+u^2/F) & v \\
0 & \frac{-F}{Z} & v/Z & F+v^2/F & -uv/F & -u
\end{bmatrix} \vec{V}_c
\label{eq_img_jac}
\end{equation}
Where \(F\) is the focal length, and \(Z\) is depth. In our control pipeline discussed in section \ref{sec_control}, we constrain the camera' motion during the reference hole detection step to a linear 2D motion perpendicular to the camera's optic axis, such that \(v_z = 0\) and \(\omega_x = \omega_y = \omega_z = 0\). This constraint simplifies the expression in \eqref{eq_img_jac} to:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix} \dot{u} \\ \dot{v} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{-F}{Z} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{-F}{Z}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
v_x \\ v_y
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_img_jac_2D}
\end{equation}
It is evident from \eqref{eq_img_jac_2D} that features' velocities in pixel coordinates are uniform across all pixel locations, since they only depend on the camera's velocity and the depth of the point. We denote this uniform velocity by \((\dot{u}_{avg},\dot{v}_{avg})\). This translates to uniform motion in the \(a\) and \(b\) components of \(\bar{H}\). We define a gaussian kernel \(g(u, v, r)\) that incorporates this motion in accumulator array while also as follows:
\begin{equation}
g(u,v,r) = \alpha \hspace{1pt} exp\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{2}
\mathbf{\bar{X}}
\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1}
\mathbf{\bar{X}}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq_gaussian_filter}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\bar{X}} = \begin{pmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
u \\ v \\ r
\end{bmatrix}
-
\begin{bmatrix}
\Delta t \dot{u}_{avg} \\ \Delta t \dot{v}_{avg} \\ 0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq_gaussian_filter_mean}
\end{equation}
Where \(\Delta t\) is the time since the last prediction step, \(\mathbf{\Sigma}\) is the tunable covariance matrix, and \(\alpha\) is a scale factor so that \(\sum g = 1\). Although the expression in \eqref{eq_img_jac_2D} is deterministic, we select a gaussian distribution to model uncertainties in \(F\), \(Z\), or the camera's egomotion.
The prediction step is then realized by the convolution of \(\bar{H}\) with \(g\) as shown in \eqref{eq_prediction_step}. This step can be performed whenever an event is triggered or at a fixed rate independent from event generation. In our experiments, the prediction step is applied at a rate of 100Hz.
\begin{equation}
\bar{H}(t^+) = \bar{H}(t^-) * g
\label{eq_prediction_step}
\end{equation}
Finally, the circle parameters are extracted from the highest probability region of \(\bar{H}\) as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
a_{c}^{*} & b_{c}^{*} & r_{c}^{*}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\argmax_{(a,b,r)} \bar{H}
\label{eq_inference_step}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/robot_control.jpg}}
\caption{Outline of the different control steps for the proposed neuromorphic vision-based drilling system. The robot performs multiple stages of PBVS and IBVS to scan the environment, align with the wokrpiece, and drill the desired holes. This process is repeated until all the holes on the workpiece are drilled.}
\label{fig_robot_control}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\section{Vision Based Robot Controller}
\label{sec_control}
This section explains the vision-based control logic that utilizes the perception algorithms in sections \ref{sec_multi_view} and \ref{sec_hole_det} to regulate the robot motion during the drilling procedure. Figure \ref{fig_robot_control} provides an outline of this controller, which consists of two subsequent PBVS and IBVS stages. The PBVS stage guides the end-effector towards initial alignment with the reference holes on the workpiece using the 6-DoF pose estimate from the multi-view detection. IBVS refines the end-effector alignment to sub-millimeter accuracy using the event-based hole detection algorithm. Both stages are described in detail in sections \ref{sec_PBVS} and \ref{sec_IBVS}.
\subsection{Position Based Robot Control (PBVS)}
\label{sec_PBVS}
In the PBVS stage, we consider a known desired pose for the robot's end effector denoted by \(_{B}\hat{T}_{E}\). This pose is either a pre-defined constant, which is the case during the scanning step; or is computed from knowledge of the reference holes' poses \(_{B}T_{h_i}\) and a pre-defined stance of the end-effector relative to these holes \(_{h_{i}}\hat{T}_{E}\). Concurrently, we define a desired joint angles vector \(\hat{\theta}\in\mathbb{C}\) such that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_forward_kinematric_desired}
_{B}\hat{T}_{E} = g(\hat{\theta})
\end{equation}
which we solve for using the Newton-Raphson inverse kinematic approach of the open-source Kinematic and Dynamics Library (KDL)\footnote{KDL: https://www.orocos.org/kdl.html}. Using the current joint angles \(\theta\) and the desired ones \(\hat{\theta}\), we compute a time-parametrized trajectory for the joint angles \(\hat{\theta}(t)\) using RRT-connect \cite{rrt2000} implementation on the Open Motion Planning Library \cite{ompl2012} of MoveIt!\footnote{MoveIt!: https://moveit.ros.org/}. Finally, a low-level PID controller regulates each joint to track \(\hat{\theta}(t)\).
\subsection{Image Based Robot Control (IBVS)}
\label{sec_IBVS}
The IBVS stage refines the end-effector's position based on the detected hole location in image coordinates. Let ${\vec{f} = [a_{c}^{*}, b_{c}^{*}]^T} \in \mathbb{R}^2 $ denote the pixel coordinates of the the detected hole, and $\vec{\hat{f}} \in \mathbb{R}^2$ denote the desired coordinates of these high level features (e.g. the camera's principal point); we define an error vector as $\vec{\zeta}= \vec{f} - \vec{\hat{f}}$, and a control law that exponentially decays this error to zero as:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\vec{\zeta}} = - \lambda \vec{\zeta}
\label{eq_ibvs_control_law}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 2}$ is a positive-definite gain matrix.
What follows is the generation of joint movements that achieve the desired $\dot\vec{\zeta}$. First, we define the command twist vector \(\vec{V}^*_c = [v^*_x, v^*_y, v^*_z, \omega^*_x, \omega^*_y, \omega^*_z]^T\) that describes the camera's desired velocity in \(\mathcal{F}_C\). In our case, We constrain the camera's motion to a linear 2D movement perpendicular to camera's optical axis, such that \([v^*_z = 0]\) and \([\omega^*_x, \omega^*_y, \omega^*_z] = \vec{0}\). Hence, the linear \(x\) and \(y\) components of \(V^*_c\) can be easily computed by inverting the expression in \eqref{eq_img_jac_2D}, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_ibvs_control_v}
\begin{bmatrix}
v^*_x \\ v^*_y
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
-Z/F & 0 \\
0 & -Z/F
\end{bmatrix} \dot{\vec{\zeta}}
\end{equation}
It must be noted that the depth value \(Z\) is obtained from \(_{C}T_{h_i} = _{B}T_{C}^{-1} \hspace{0.5em} _{B}T_{h^i}^{-1}\), where \(_{B}T_{h^i}\) is estimated from the multi-view 3D localization step
Reference joint angular velocities \(\dot{\theta}^*\) that result in \(\vec{V}^*_c\) are then calculated by inverting the expressions in \eqref{eq_vel_forward_kinematics} and \eqref{eq_adjoint_representation} as:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\theta}^* = J(\theta)^{\dagger} \hspace{0.5em} _{C}[AD_T]_{E}^{-1} \hspace{0.5em} \vec{V}^*_c
\label{eq_ibvs_inverse_kinematics}
\end{equation}
Finally, \(\dot{\theta}^*\) is tracked using PID control for each indivdual joint.
Once the robot's end-effector is aligned with the target reference hole on the workpiece, the clamp mandrel (see Fig. \ref{fig_robot_exp_setup}-b) is inserted in the reference hole and the pressure foot clamps up against the workpiece until a target contact force is achieved. These contact forces are estimated from the torques on each of the robot's joints. Afterwards, the clamp mandrel is retracted against the workpiece from the blind side, providing additional clamping force. This two-sided clamping ensures stability during the drilling process and minimizes normality errors using the inherent compliance of the robot manipulator. The robot then proceeds with activating the drill motor and drilling nutplate installation holes on the sides of the reference hole.
\begin{figure*}[T]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth]{Figures/exp_setup.png}} \qquad
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/end_effector.png}} \qquad
\caption{Experimental setup for testing the proposed neuromorphic vision-based drilling method. (a) The mobile robot and the manipulator setup. (b) The configuration of the end-effector comprising the visual sensor and the drill motor.}
\label{fig_robot_exp_setup}
\end{figure*}
\section{Experimental Validation and Results}
\label{sec_exp}
\subsection{Experimental Setup and Protocol}
The presented event-based robotic drilling algorithms were tested on the setup shown in Figure \ref{fig_robot_exp_setup}. We used Universal Robot's UR10 \cite{UR10}, which provides a repeatability of 0.1mm, as the primary manipulator. The manipulator was mounted on top of a customized version of the Neobotix MPO-500 robot base \cite{mpo500}. The mobile robot uses two Sick S300 LIDARs \cite{sick300} and the ROS Navigation Stack \cite{ros_navi} to autonomously navigate the factory settings, and place the manipulator in the vicinity of the workpiece. This enables the robot to perform multiple drilling jobs and operate across a large workspace without the need for human involvement. Figure \ref{fig_robot_exp_setup}-b displays the end-effector configuration, which comprises the drill-motor and the camera. Inivation's DAVIS346 camera \cite{davis346} with a spatial resolution of 346x260 was used for visual perception, which provides both a neuromorphic event stream in addition to conventional frame-based intensity images. The event stream grants a dynamic range of 120 dB, a latency of \( ~ 20 \mu s\), and a bandwidth of \(12\times10^{6}\) events per second. While all operations are conducted solely using the event stream, intensity images are used as a benchmark to assess the performance and advantages of event-based perception. All required computations are executed using an on-board computer with an i7-5530 processer and 4GB of RAM.
Our experimental evaluation focuses on three aspects. In section \ref{sec_exp_3D}, we assess the accuracy of the event-driven multi-view 3D reconstruction technique, and quantify its advantages against conventional frame-based vision under different conditions of lighting and operational speeds. Similarly, we evaluate and benchmark our event-based hole detection and tracking pipeline in section \ref{sec_exp_hole}. Finally, section \ref{sec_exp_drill} presents the evaluation data of the comprehensive drilling experiments.
\subsection{6-DOF Workpiece localization}
\label{sec_exp_3D}
In this section, we quantify the accuracy of the proposed event-based multi-view reconstruction approach that provides initial estimates of position of the workpiece and its reference holes. The setup for these experiments is shown in Figure \ref{fig_multi_view_eval_setup}. Ground truth data is obtained using a set of four ArUco fiducials \cite{aruco_marker}, denoted by \(Ar_{j, j=1,...,4}\). The fiducials are observed from a static robot state using the intensity image output of the DAVIS346, and the 6-DoF pose of each fidicual \(_{B}T_{Ar^j}\) is estimated using OpenCV's ArUco library \cite{aruco_library}. As the position of each hole relative to each fiducial (denoted by \(^{Ar^j} _{Ar^j}\vec{P}_{h^i}\)) is known with high accuracy, the ground truth position of the i'th hole relative to \(\mathcal{F}_B\) is given by:
\begin{equation}
^{B}_{B}\vec{\hat{P}}_{h^i} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{j=1}^4 \hspace{1pt} {}_{B}T_{Ar^{j}} \hspace{1pt} ^{Ar^{j}} _{Ar^{j}}\vec{P}_{h^i}
\label{eq_ground_truth_hole}
\end{equation}
Consequently, we define the error \(d_i\) in the 3D localization of each hole as the mismatch between the hole's estimated location \(^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i}\) obtained using the multi-view approach and its ground truth location \(^{B}_{B}\vec{\hat{P}}_{h^i}\). This mismatch is averaged across all holes in the workpiece to quantify the overall error in 3D workpiece localization as follows:
\begin{equation}
D = \frac{1}{N_i} \sum_{i=1}^{N_i} d_i , \hspace{0.4em}
\\ \\
d_i = || ^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i} \hspace{0.3em} - ^{B}_{B}\vec{\hat{P}}_{h^i} ||
\label{eq_workpiece_err}
\end{equation}
where \(N_i\) represent the overall number of reference holes.
We benchmark the multi-view localization results obtained using the neuromorphic event stream against results obtained using conventional intentsity images. For conventional images, we use the standard Canny edge detector to extract features from each image and then perform the same multi-view procedure as described in section \ref{sec_multi_view}. To better assess the advantages of neuromorphic vision, we conduct the multi-view localization experiments across different lighting conditions and various speeds of the workspace scanning movement. Table \ref{tab_emvs_results} summarizes the obtained results in terms of position error across all experimental condition for both the event-based and conventional image-based approaches.
\begin{figure*}[T]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figures/multiview_exp_setup.png}} \qquad
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figures/multiview_exp_discription.png}} \qquad
\caption{The experimental evaluation of the neuromorphic 3D workpiece localization pipeline. (a) The experimental setup. (b) The error is quantified in terms of the euclidean distance between the estimated hole location and the corresponding ground-truth location extracted using a set of AruCo Fiducials.}
\label{fig_multi_view_eval_setup}
\end{figure*}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table*}[H]
\caption{Evaluatuin of the 3D workpiece localization error $D$ in $mm$ using both neuromorphic and conventional frame-based vision under different light intensity levels $I_v$ and maximum robot speed during the scanning movement $v_{max}$. Bold indicates the lower error. These positional errors are then reduced by the IBVS stage to sub-millimeter errors as seen in Table. \ref{tab_drilling_pos_result}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
\backslashbox{\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}\textbf{\(v_{max}\)} \\ ($m/s$)\end{tabular}}{\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}\textbf{\(I_v\)} ($lx$)\end{tabular}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\sim 400$ (Adequate lighting)} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$< 10$ (low light)} \\
& Neuromrophic & Conventional & Neuromrophic & Conventional \\ \hline \hline
0.1 & \(2.97\) & \(\mathbf{2.88}\) & \(\mathbf{2.18}\) & Fail \\ \hline
0.3 & \(3.19\) & \(\mathbf{3.11}\) & \(\mathbf{3.78}\) & Fail \\ \hline
0.5 & \(3.45\) & \(\mathbf{3.27}\) & \(\mathbf{7.36}\) & Fail \\ \hline
1.0 & \(\mathbf{2.77}\) & \(3.71\) & \(\mathbf{6.48}\) & Fail \\ \hline
1.5 & \(\mathbf{2.23}\) & \(Fail\) & \(\mathbf{8.73}\) & Fail \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab_emvs_results}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/multiview_exp_event_vs_frame.png}
\caption{The event stream (red and blue) and the intensity image output of DAVIS346 camera during the multi-view workpiece localization experiments on the setup shown in Figure \ref{fig_multi_view_eval_setup}. Intensity images clearly exhibit motion blur and higher latency while the event stream remains sharp and timely.}
\label{fig_multi_view_qualitative}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
Result in Table \ref{tab_emvs_results} indicate that at lower speeds and good lighting conditions, the multi-view localization using neuromorphic vision and conventional vision provides similar accuracy. The advantages of neuromorphic vision became apparent as the robot's operational speed is increased or at lower light conditions. At such conditions, perception using conventional cameras become challenging due to motion blur and high latency that results due to increased exposure timing. Neuromorphic cameras do not suffer from these shortcomings and as such, they result in more precise and reliable 3D localization results. Figure \ref{fig_multi_view_qualitative} visualizes the output of both types of cameras during the multi-view localization experiments, which confirms the reasoning of the superior performance of neuromorphic vision.
Regardless of the vision sensor, the multi-view localization step is not capable of achieving the sub-millimeter accuracy requirements of the drilling process. This signals the need for the second pose refinement step, which we do using hole detection, which we validate in the below section.
\begin{figure*}[B]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{m{0.1\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.2\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.2\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.2\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.2\textwidth}}
& (a) Standard CHT using conventional images & (b) Standard CHT using event frames, \(\Delta t = 1 ms\) & (c) Standard CHT using event frames, \(\Delta t = 10 ms\) & (d) The proposed event-based CHT \\ \hline
25 mm/s Egomotion &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/frame_circle_detector_25mms_red.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_25mms_1ms.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_25mms_10ms_red.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_25mms_tracker.jpg}
\\ \hline
200 mm/s Egomotion &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/frame_circle_detector_200mms.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_200mms_1ms_red.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_200mms_10ms_nocircl.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_200mms_tracker.jpg}
\\
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/legend.png}}
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Qualitative comparison between the proposed event-based variant of the CHT and the standard CHT applied to: (a) conventional images. (b) Artificial images created by the concatenation of events with a time period \(\Delta t = 1 ms\). (c) Artificial images created by the concatenation of events with a time period \(\Delta t = 1 ms\). The proposed event-based CHT provides consistent performance regardless of the camera's egomotion, while the performance of the standard CHT clearly degrades. In the case of regular images, the standard CHT fails due to excessive motion blur. As for event frames, the proper period at which events should be grouped is highly dependent on the motion in the visual scene, which in turn affects the quality of the CHT detection.}
\label{fig_circle_detector_different_detector}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Neuromorphic Hole Detection}
\label{sec_exp_hole}
This section evaluates our proposed event-based circular detection and tracking method against the conventional CHT. For evaluation purposes, we test the conventional CHT with both intensity images and artificial image frames generated from the concatenation of events at specified time period \(\Delta t\). We assess each method's capability to track the circular holes in the workpiece under different movement speeds and light intensity levels. Figure \ref{fig_circle_detector_different_detector} visualizes the results of each method at different camera egomotions. The use of intensity images leads to unreliable detection at higher egomotion speeds due to motion blur in the visual scene, which is caused by the working principal of conventional imagers that rely on the time integration of incident light. Using conventional CHT with event frames is sensitive to the time period at which events are being grouped. For instance, a small concatenation period leads to a featureless image at slower speeds; while larger periods cause an over-populated image at high speeds, where feature can no longer be accurately extracted. Our event-based variant of the CHT exploits the advantages of neuromorphic vision and takes into the account the asynchronous nature of the event stream. As such, it provides precise results regardless of the motion in the scene and does not suffer from the motion blur or latency complications of conventional cameras.
The experimental results shown in figure \ref{fig_circle_detector_different_speed} further enforce the advantages of neuromorphic vision coupled with our proposed event-based CHT. In these experiments, the speed of the camera was gradually increased and the tracking performance of each method is evaluated. Experiments were conducted at different lighting conditions to assess each method's robustness. For intensity image-based detection, the well-known Kanade-Lucas-Tomase (KLT) \cite{klt1991} tracker was coupled with conventional CHT to track the detected circular holes. As expected, intensity image-based tracking deteriorates at higher speeds due to motion blur; and entirely fails to detect the hole at low-light due to the inclarity of the image despite the increased exposure time. Neuromorphic vision-based perception on the other hand remains persistent despite these variations.
\begin{figure*}[T]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{m{0.12\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.425\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.425\textwidth}}
& Adequate light intensity ($\sim 400 lx$) & Low light intensity ($< 1 lx$) \\ \hline
Circle Detection and Tracking Results &
\includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_sinusoidal_test_good_light.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_sinusoidal_test_low_light.jpg}
\\ \hline
Camera View (Stationary camera) &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_frame_feedback_good_light.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_frame_feedback_low_light.jpg}
\\ \hline
Camera View (Moving camera) &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_frame_feedback_good_light_moving.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_frame_feedback_low_light_moving.jpg}
\\
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison between the proposed event-based variant of the CHT detector for the neuromorphic camera and the to conventional intensity image-based CHT with a KLT tracker for the detection and tracking of a circular hole 75mm in front of the camera at different lighting speeds and ego-motion velocities. The use of neuromorphic vision and our proposed circular hole detector clearly provides more reliable and consistent results at high operation speeds or imperfect lighting.}
\label{fig_circle_detector_different_speed}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Nutplate holes drilling performance}
\label{sec_exp_drill}
The performance of the overall nutplate holes' drilling process is presented in this section. Tests were conducted using the setup shown in Figure \ref{fig_robot_exp_setup} with five workpieces placed differently in the environment. The mobile robot autonomously navigates to the front of each of the workpieces, and then our novel neuromorphic visual control pipeline described in sections \ref{sec_multi_view}, \ref{sec_hole_det}, and \ref{sec_control} control the manipulators to perform the drilling objective. A video demonstration of these experiments can be viewed through this link: \url{https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q9QwPvkd7ZcEBcGMIxIVy2r_iRfTKCSe/view?usp=sharing} \cite{paper_video}. We assess the drilling performance in terms of the positional error of the nutplate holes. Table \ref{tab_drilling_pos_result} presents the per-hole positional error across the five different workpieces and Figure \ref{fig_drilled_plate} shows an example workpiece after drilling the nutplate holes.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/drilled_plate.png}
\caption{The target workpiece after drilling the nutplate installation holes using the proposed neuromorphic vision based robotic drilling approach.}
\label{fig_drilled_plate}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{Position error in mm for the nutplate holes' drilling experiments across multiple workpieces.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Workpiece} & \multicolumn{10}{c|}{\textbf{Hole ID}} & \multirow{2}{3em}{\textbf{Mean}} & \multirow{2}{3em}{\textbf{Max}} & \multirow{2}{5em}{\textbf{Standard Deviation}} \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{1} & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3} & \textbf{4} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{6} & \textbf{7} & \textbf{8} & \textbf{9} & \textbf{10} & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{A} & 0.039 & 0.134 & 0.157 & 0.100 & 0.131 & 0.075 & 0.094 & 0.052 & 0.077 & 0.103 & 0.096 & 0.157 & 0.037 \\ \hline
\textbf{B} & 0.141 & 0.102 & 0.064 & 0.062 & 0.110 & 0.068 & 0.076 & 0.099 & 0.070 & 0.063 & 0.085 & 0.141 & 0.026 \\ \hline
\textbf{C} & 0.069 & 0.034 & 0.101 & 0.030 & 0.090 & 0.114 & 0.082 & 0.113 & 0.052 & 0.023 & 0.071 & 0.114 & 0.035 \\ \hline
\textbf{D} & 0.183 & 0.003 & 0.085 & 0.100 & 0.175 & 0.175 & 0.047 & 0.061 & 0.017 & 0.098 & 0.095 & 0.183 & 0.066 \\ \hline
\textbf{E} & 0.011 & 0.086 & 0.106 & 0.108 & 0.124 & 0.077 & 0.066 & 0.144 & 0.126 & 0.051 & 0.091 & 0.145 & 0.040 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{11}{r|}{\textbf{Aggregate}} & \bf{0.088} & \bf{0.183} & \bf{0.042} \\ \cline{12-14}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab_drilling_pos_result}
\end{table*}
Quantitative results show that our proposed neuromorphic vision-based approach is capable of precisely drilling nutplate holes with an average error of less than 0.1 mm. These results conform with the precision requirements of a large variety of processes in the automotive and aerospace manufacturing industries. This validates the use of neuromorphic vision for precise manufacturing tasks and highlight the potential of using neuromorphic cameras for faster and more reliable automated manufacturing. The obtained results also prove the effectiveness of our proposed algorithms in employing the advantages of neuromorphic cameras while addressing several of their challenges in terms of unconventional data output, and relatively low resolution. We would like to indicate that the nature of the performed drilling process, which includes inserting the clamp mandrel in a pilot hole, contributes to further minimizing the positional errors. During this peg-in-hole stage, the end-effector's pose can be driven to better alignment with the reference hole due to the compliance of the manipulator, which can further reduce any errors resulting from the visual guidance process.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
In this paper, we presented the first system that employs the recent neuromorphic vision technology for robotic machining applications. In particular, we have developed a complete visual guidance solution that precisly positions the robot relative to the desired workpiece with sub-millimeter accuracy using two consequent stages of perception and control. The first stage utilizes a multi-view 3D reconstruction approach and PBVS for the initial alignment of the robot's end-effector. Concurrently, the second stage regulates any residual errors using a novel event-based hole detection algorithm and IBVS.
We have validated our system experimentally for a nutplate hole drilling application using a collaborative robot manipulator, an iniVation neuromorphic camera, and a customized end-effector. Our quantitative results show that the presented neuromorphic vision-based solution can successfully drill the target holes with an average positional error of less than 0.1mm. Our tests also verify that the use of neuromorphic cameras overcomes the lighting, speeds and motion blur challenges associated with the use of conventional frame-based cameras. These results demonstrate the potential of using neuromorphic cameras in precise manufacturing processes, where they can facilitate faster and more reliable production lines.
For future work, we aim to improve the normal adjustment and orientation control aspects of our robotic drilling system. In our current system, the only measurement on workpiece orientation is obtained using the multi-view reconstruction step; and any orientation errors resulting from this step would not be corrected for, unlike position measurements which are further refined using circular hole detection. Although the two-sided clamping and the compliance of the collaborative robot can passively drive the end-effector towards better normality with the workpiece, a more precise and reliable normal alignment method is required to expand the range of manufacturing processes our system can perform. To this end, We will investigate the application of visual tactile sensing \cite{baghaei2020neuromorphic, 1_baghaei2020neuromorphic} for the normality control in robotic machining processes.
\printcredits
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
\section{The Elsevier article class}
\paragraph{Installation} If the document class \emph{elsarticle} is not available on your computer, you can download and install the system package \emph{texlive-publishers} (Linux) or install the \LaTeX\ package \emph{elsarticle} using the package manager of your \TeX\ installation, which is typically \TeX\ Live or Mik\TeX.
\paragraph{Usage} Once the package is properly installed, you can use the document class \emph{elsarticle} to create a manuscript. Please make sure that your manuscript follows the guidelines in the Guide for Authors of the relevant journal. It is not necessary to typeset your manuscript in exactly the same way as an article, unless you are submitting to a camera-ready copy (CRC) journal.
\paragraph{Functionality} The Elsevier article class is based on the standard article class and supports almost all of the functionality of that class. In addition, it features commands and options to format the
\begin{itemize}
\item document style
\item baselineskip
\item front matter
\item keywords and MSC codes
\item theorems, definitions and proofs
\item lables of enumerations
\item citation style and labeling.
\end{itemize}
\section{Front matter}
The author names and affiliations could be formatted in two ways:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item Group the authors per affiliation.
\item Use footnotes to indicate the affiliations.
\end{enumerate}
See the front matter of this document for examples. You are recommended to conform your choice to the journal you are submitting to.
\section{Bibliography styles}
There are various bibliography styles available. You can select the style of your choice in the preamble of this document. These styles are Elsevier styles based on standard styles like Harvard and Vancouver. Please use Bib\TeX\ to generate your bibliography and include DOIs whenever available.
Here are two sample references: \cite{Feynman1963118,Dirac1953888}.
\section*{References}
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The fourth industrial revolution shows significant emphasis on the automation of high-precision cyber-physical manufacturing and machining processes. Automating such processes offer numerous advantages in terms of performance, productivity, efficiency, and safety; as manual operation is often associated with structural damage, risk of rework, and health hazards \cite{Liang2010, Eguti2014, Zhu2014, Mei2021}. Among other processes, drilling has been studied extensively by academics and practitioners due to their widespread use in various manufacturing activities, especially in the automotive and aerospace industries \cite{Karim2013, Liang2010, Zhan2012, Zhang2018a}. High-precision drilling is essential for these industries, as the quality of drilling is highly correlated with the performance and fatigue life of the machined structures \cite{Mei2021, Liu2016, Liang2010, Sun2019, Chen2018}.
Traditionally, the automation of drilling and similar machining processes has been highly dependant on Computer Numerical Control (CNC) equipment for their high-precision and repeatability. However, CNC equipment are limited in functionality and workspace, and require substantial investment in both equipment and infrastructure \cite{Ji2019, Liang2010}. In recent years, industrial robots have been rising as a promising alternative for CNC equipment in machining applications due to their cost efficiency, their wide range of functionality, their ability to operate on large workspace volumes and their capability to adapt to variations in the environment and workpiece positioning \cite{Chen2013, Eguti2014, Karim2013, Ji2019, Devlieg2011}. Despite several successful examples of utilizing robots in industrial machining applications, repeatability remains the main challenge in robotic machining; where errors originate either from the relatively low stiffness of robot joints \cite{Eguti2014, Sun2019, Olsson2010, Zhang2020} or the imperfect positioning and localization of a workpiece relative to the robot \cite{Perez2016, Bone2003}. These errors can be undermined by the use of real time guidance and closed-loop control based on sensory feedback and metrology systems \cite{Huang2018, Eguti2014, Ji2019, Perez2016}. Several works in the literature have adopted such approaches for precise position \cite{Jia2018, Wang2020}, orientation \cite{Rao2020, Rao2018}, and force \cite{Olsson2010, Rosa2017} control in a robotic machining paradigm.
Machine vision is amongst the most utilized perception technologies that enable the closed-loop control of robots due to their maturity, availability, and relatively low cost \cite{Perez2016}. In \cite{Zhu2014}, a 2D vision system was used to enhance the drilling positional accuracy through the detection and localization of several reference holes in the workpiece; achieving a position accuracy of 0.1 mm. Similarly, the work in \cite{Mei2021} utilizes feedback from an eye-in-hand camera and uses template matching to localize reference holes for a combined drilling and riveting process, reducing positioning errors to ~0.05 mm. \cite{Frommknecht2017} proposed combining the 2D camera detection with laser distance sensors to localize reference holes in 3D, and reported an accuracy of 0.3 mm. Similar approaches for the positioning of a drilling tool are reported in \cite{Zhan2012, Liu2016}; with variations in the underlying perception and reference hole detection algorithms. Several works in the literature focus exclusively on the robust detection of circular holes through contour refinement and model fitting due to its direct impact on the precision of the drilling process \cite{Lou2020, Mei2015, Xia2020}. These concepts of vision-based feature detection and workpiece localization are also widely adopted in other various manufacturing tasks \cite{Ji2019, Yu2019}. For instance, \cite{Jiang2021} proposed a visual guidance system for robotic a peg-in-hole application consisting of four cameras: two in an eye-to-hand configuration for the localization of the robotic tool, while the others are in an eye-in-hand configuration and are used for alignment of the tool with reference holes. A multi-view approach was presented in \cite{Yang2020} for the localization of target objects in a pick-and-place framework with sub-millimeter level accuracy. The versatility of vision systems have also enabled other uses in navigation, guidance, and calibration systems of mobile industrial robots \cite{Zhao2019, Mei2015a, Guo2017}.
All of the aforementioned robotic manufacturing approaches utilize conventional frame-based cameras, which suffer from latency, motion blur, low dynamic range and poor perception at low-light condition \cite{wang2020eye, Corke2000}. Frame-based cameras output intensity images based on a time integration of incident illumination over a fixed exposure period. This integral action introduces latency in perception, and causes blurring in the image when considerable relative motion exists; especially with larger exposure periods \cite{1996corke, Shin2019}. On the other hand, short exposure times greatly degrade image clarity in reduced lighting conditions, and require larger apertures which leads to a narrow depth of field \cite{1996corke, Pieters2013}. These shortcomings of frame-based cameras impose constraints on robot operational speeds, workspace volumes, and ambient lighting conditions; which affect the robustness and productivity of robotic manufacturing processes. Relevant work in the literature attempt to mitigate these problems with conventional cameras by adding additional supporting sensors \cite{SANTOS2022}; which increases the complexity and cost of the system.
The recent neuromorphic vision sensor (also known as event-based camera) has the potential to address the challenges of conventional machine vision. The pixels of a neuromorphic camera operate independently and respond asynchronously to variations in incident illumination in continuous time \cite{Lichtsteiner2008,indiveri2000neuromorphic}, providing low-latency, high dynamic range, and computationally efficient perception \cite{gallego2019event, Liu2019neuromorphic}. Neuromorphic cameras do not suffer from motion blur, and are robust to varying lighting conditions; making them an appealing choice for a wide variety of applications such as: autonomous driving \cite{Dong2020ADAS, Guang2020ADAS}, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control \cite{Hay2021}, object recognition and tracking \cite{Garrick2015recognition, Hongmin2010tracking}, localization and mapping \cite{Kim2016slam, visal2018slam}, and tactile sensing \cite{rajkumar2020slip, huang2020neuromorphic, Rigi2018}. In our recent work \cite{rajkumar2021}, we have demonstrated the advantages of neuromorphic cameras over their conventional frame-based counterparts for high-speed and uncontrolled lighting operation in a robotic pick-and-place framework. However, the low-resolution of the neuromorphic camera, the assumption of known depth, and the act-to-perceive nature of the event camera resulted in positional errors of up to 2 cm.
In this paper, we develop and employ a two-stage neuromorphic vision-based controller to perform a robotic drilling task with sub-millimeter level accuracy. The first stage localizes the target workpiece in 6DoF using a multi-view 3D reconstruction approach and Position Based Visual Servoing (PBVS). The second control stage applies Image Based Visual Servoing (IBVS) to compensate for positional errors using and a set of reference holes. Using both control stages, the robot performs peg-in-hole to insert a clamp mandrel (or split-pin) in the reference hole with less than 0.2 mm clearance. The clamp mandrel holds the robotic tool in place, and the robot drills nutplate installation holes on both side of each reference hole. The capabilities of the neuromorphic camera enables higher-speed operation and robustness to changes in ambient lighting. A video demonstrating the presented robotic drilling solution can be accessed through this link: \url{https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q9QwPvkd7ZcEBcGMIxIVy2r_iRfTKCSe/view?usp=sharing}
\cite{paper_video}.
The contributions of this paper can be summarized as below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first time, we present a neuromorphic vision-based control approach for robotic machining applications. The proposed method utilizes the feedback of a neuromorphic camera to precisely align a drilling tool with the target workpiece, and demonstrates advantages over conventional vision-based solutions in high speed operation and uncontrolled lighting conditions.
\item We devise an event-based multi-view 3D reconstruction method for the 6DoF localization of workpiece in the environment. This method matches events generated from different poses of the neuromorphic camera and solves for the 3D location of workpiece features using the Direct Linear Transformation (DLT).
\item We develop a novel event-based approach for the detection and tracking of circular objects in the scene. This approach applies an event-based variant of the circle hough transform in a bayesian framework to detect and track the location of reference holes in the workpiece.
\item We perform rigorous experimentation to test the precision and performance of the proposed methods. Experimental results validates the use of neuromorphic vision for robotic machining applications with positional accuracy of ~0.1 mm, and prove that our approach overcomes the speed and lighting challenges in conventional vision-based robotic machining approaches.
\end{enumerate}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec_setup} outlines the setup and configuration of the proposed robotic drilling system. Section \ref{sec_neuro_vision} describes the working principle and functional advantages of neuromorphic cameras. Section \ref{sec_multi_view} explains the event-based multi-view 3D reconstruction and workpiece localization algorithm. Section \ref{sec_hole_det} introduces the event-based circular hole detection and tracking pipeline. Section \ref{sec_control} presents the two-stage vision-based controller employing both PBVS and IBVS. Finally, Section \ref{sec_exp} demonstrates both quantitative and qualitative experimental evaluation of the presented approach, which confirm the advantages of using neuromorphic vision for precise robotic processes.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth, height=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/drilling_platform.png}} \qquad
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/drilling_endeffector_with_drill.png}} \qquad
\caption{The robotic nutplate hole drilling setup. (a) A workpiece with a set of reference holes is present within the industrial robot's workspace. (b) The nutplate hole drilling end-effector with a neuromorphic camera.}
\label{fig_drilling_setup}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure*}
\section{Robotic Drilling Setup}
\label{sec_setup}
The overall configuration of the robotic nutplate hole drilling system can be seen in Figure \ref{fig_drilling_setup}. The system consists of an industrial robot with an end-effector comprising a drill motor and a neuromorphic vision sensor for perception and guidance. The robotic system drills nutplate installation holes on a workpiece that includes a set of reference holes. We define the following frames of reference that are used throughout this paper for robot guidance and control:
\begin{itemize}
\item \(\mathcal{F}_B\): The robot base coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_E\): The robot end-effector coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_C\): The vision sensor coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_S\): The split-pin coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_W\): The workpiece coordinate frame.
\item \(\mathcal{F}_{h^i}\): The coordinate frame of the i'th reference hole.
\end{itemize}
We denote the rotation matrix that maps from a source frame \(\mathcal{F}_S\) to a target frame \(\mathcal{F}_T\) by \(_{T}R_{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{3\times3}\). The position of point \(b\) relative to point \(a\) described in coordinate frame \(\mathcal{F}_T\) is given by \(^{T} _{a}\vec{P}_{b} \in \mathbb{R}^3\). As such, we define the affine transformation matrix \(_{T}T_{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{4\times4}\) as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_affine_transformation}
_{T}T_{S} = \begin{bmatrix}
_{T}R_{S} & ^{T}_{T}\vec{P}_{s} \\
\mathbf{0}^T & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
For the remainder of this paper, we consider the transformation from \(\mathcal{F}_B\) to \(\mathcal{F}_E\) to be known by solving the robot's forward kinematics:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_forward_kinematric}
_{B}T_{E} = g(\theta), \theta \in \mathbb{C}
\end{equation}
where $g(\theta)$ is a nonlinear function representing the robot's kinematics, $\theta$ are the observed robot joint angles, and $\mathbb{C}$ is the robot's configuration space. Furthermore, $_{E}T_{C}$ and $_{C}T_{S}$ are constants, and can be found using a geometrical calibration procedure as described in \cite{Dornaika1998}. Therefore, $_{B}T_{C}$ and $_{B}T_{S}$ can be easily computed by combining $_{B}T_{E}$ and the calibrated transformations.
Similarly, the robot's forward kinematics are used to find the end-effector's twist vector \(\vec{\mathcal{V}}_E \in \mathbb{R}^6\) combining linear and angular velocity components, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\vec{\mathcal{V}}_E = J(\theta)^{\dagger} \dot{\theta}
\label{eq_vel_forward_kinematics}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
J(\theta) \triangleq \dfrac{\partial g}{\partial \theta} \in \mathbb{R}^{6 \times N_j}
\label{jacobian}
\end{equation}
where \(J(\theta)\) is the Jacobian matrix, \(N_j\) is the number of robot joints, and \(\dagger\) denotes the Moore-Penrose inverse computed using Singular Value Decompision. Additionally, the camera's twist vector \(\vec{\mathcal{V}}_C\) can be calculated from \(\vec{\mathcal{V}}_E\) using the adjoint representation of $_{C}T_{E}$, denoted by $_{C}[AD_T]_{E}$, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\vec{\mathcal{V}}_C = _{C}[AD_T]_{E} \vec{\mathcal{V}}_E
\label{eq_camera_twist}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
_{C}[AD_T]_{E} = \begin{bmatrix}
_{C}R_{E} & & & [^{C}_{C}\vec{P}_{E}]_x \hspace{0.1cm }_{C}R_{E} \\
\mathbf{0}^T & & & _{C}R_{E}
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_adjoint_representation}
\end{equation}
where \([^{C}_{C}\vec{P}_{E}]_x\) denotes the matrix representation of the cross product for the vector \(^{C}_{C}\vec{P}_{E}\).
In order to perform the drilling operation, the robot requires knowledge of $_{B}T_{h^i}$. We solve for this transformation in two stages. First, a multi-view 3D reconstruction approach provides an initial estimate of $_{B}T_{h^i}$ for all the workpiece holes as described in section \ref{sec_multi_view}. Then, for each hole, $_{B}T_{h^i}$ is refined to sub-millimeter accuracy using the circular hole detection and tracking approach presented in section \ref{sec_hole_det}. Following these two perception stages, robot control is performed by two subsequent methods: PBVS and IBVS; that align \(\mathcal{F}_S\) with \(\mathcal{F}_{h^i}\) and drills the required holes in the workpiece, which is explained in detail in section \ref{sec_control}.
\section{Neuromorphic Vision Sensor}
\label{sec_neuro_vision}
The Neuromorphic vision sensor, often referred to as `event camera', decodes illumination changes in the visual scene as a steam of events \(e_{k}=<u_k, v_k, t_k, p_k>\), where \((u_k, v_k)\) represent the pixel coordinates of the change, \(t_k\) is the event's timestamp, and \(p_k\) is the illumination change polarity (either 1 or -1). Unlike conventional frame-based imagers, neuromorphic vision sensors do not operate on a fixed sampling rate; instead, pixels operate asynchronously and respond to logarithmic illumination changes with microsecond resolution. Figure. \ref{fig_events_Vs_frames} visualizes the differences between neuromorphic event-based cameras and conventional imagers. Let \(I(u, v, t)\) denote the illumination intensity at pixel \((u,v)\) and time \(t\), an event \(e=<u, v, t, p\) is triggered as soon as the following condition is met:
\begin{equation}
log I(u, v, t) - log I(u, v, t-\Delta t) = p C
\label{eq_event_condition}
\end{equation}
where \(C\) is the logarithmic illumination change threshold, and \(\Delta t\) is the time since the last triggered event at \(u, v\).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/events_vs_frames.png}
\caption{Visualization of the output of conventional frame-based imagers and the event stream output of neuromorphic cameras.}
\label{fig_events_Vs_frames}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
The working principle of neuromorphic cameras provides substantial advantages over conventional imaging sensors. For instance, neuromorphic cameras offer high temporal resolution and an exceptionally low-latency in the order of microseconds; meaning that these sensors do not suffer from motion blur and guarantee timely perception of changes in the scene \cite{gallego2019event}. Additionally, since independent pixels are self-sampled, neuromorphic cameras have a wide dynamic range \((>120 dB)\) \cite{Liu2019neuromorphic}, and are not impeded by the exposure timing complications that arise in frame-based cameras. This enables neuromorphic cameras to offer robust perception across a variety of lighting conditions, including extremely low-light cases. Another practically valuable feature that result of the aforementioned capabilities of neuromorphic vision is the ability to perceive under very small aperture, leading to a substantially wide depth of field. In applications such as ours where the camera is expected to acquire information across a varied depth, this feature can alleviate the need of an autofocus system, which often requires additional hardware \cite{wang2021} and induces uncertainty in the camera projection model \cite{viala2021}. Other advantages of neuromoorphic vision include low power consumption and reduction in signal redundancy as only informative data is transmitted in the form of events. Despite the capabilities of neuromorphic vision, the fundamentally different output of these cameras require novel computer vision algorithms and processing techniques than those developed for conventional frame-based imaging.
It must be noted that neurmorphic cameras use identical optics as conventional cameras. As such, the standard pinhole model can still describe the projection properties of neuromorphic cameras. Following the pinhole model, the mapping between a point in three dimensional space \(^{B} _{B}\vec{P}_{a} = \begin{bmatrix} x_a & y_a & z_a \end{bmatrix}^T\) described in coordinate frame \(\mathcal{F}_B\), and its projection on the image plane \((u_a, v_a)\) can be expressed in homogeneous coordinates as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}u_a,v_a,1\end{bmatrix}^T \sim \bf{K} \hspace{1em} _{C}T_{B} \hspace{1em}
\begin{bmatrix} x_a & y_a & z_a & 1 \end{bmatrix}^T
\label{eq_pinhole}
\end{equation}
where \(\sim\) indicates equality up to an unknown scalar multiplication, and \(\bf{K}\) denotes the camera intrinsic matrix. In this paper, we consider \((u, v)\) to be the pixel coordinates post rectification for tangential and radial distortions.
\section{Neuromorphic Event-based Multi-View Workpiece localization}
\label{sec_multi_view}
This section presents the event-based multi-view 3D reconstruction method used for the 6-Dof localization of the workpiece. As described in section \ref{sec_dlt}, we utilize the camera's projective geometry and the Direct Linear Transformation (DLT) to solve for the location of each reference hole in the workpiece using their corresponding stream of events from multiple camera viewpoints. We establish correspondences between the asynchronous events and reference holes using the space-sweep approach described in \ref{sec_space_sweep}. Finally, we use model fitting to determine the correct orientation of the workpiece.
\subsection{The Direct Linear Transformation}
\label{sec_dlt}
As the camera moves in the environments, a stream of events will be generated corresponding to each reference hole in the workpiece. The objective of the direct linear transformation is to determine the holes' position from their corresponding events generated at \(N\) different time-steps. At a given time-step \(k\) and camera pose \(_{C}T_{B}^k\), the relationship between the position of the i'th reference hole \(^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i}\) and its corresponding event in homogenous coordinates \(eh^i_k = [u^i_k, v^i_k, 1]\) can be described using the pinhole model in eq. \eqref{eq_pinhole}. By multiplying both sides of eq. \eqref{eq_pinhole} by \([eh^i_k]_x\), which is the matrix representation of the cross product for vector \(eh^i_k\), we obtain the following expression:
\begin{equation}
[eh^i_k]_x \hspace{0.3em} eh^i_k =
\mathbf{0} =
\hspace{0.3em} [eh^i_k]_x \hspace{0.3em} \mathbf{K} \hspace{0.3em} _{C}T_{B}^k \hspace{0.3em} \begin{bmatrix}
^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i} \\ 1
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_dlt_step1}
\end{equation}
We define a matrix \(A_i \in \mathbb{R}^{3N\times4}\) that encapsulates the right side of eq. \eqref{eq_dlt_step1} across \(N\) observations of the i'th reference hole as follows:
\begin{equation}
A_i = \begin{bmatrix}
\hspace{0.3em} [eh^i_1]_x \hspace{0.3em} \mathbf{K} \hspace{0.3em} _{C}T_{B}^1 \\
\hspace{0.3em} [eh^i_2]_x \hspace{0.3em} \mathbf{K} \hspace{0.3em} _{C}T_{B}^2 \\
\vdots \\
\hspace{0.3em} [eh^i_N]_x \hspace{0.3em} \mathbf{K} \hspace{0.3em} _{C}T_{B}^N \\
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_dlt_step2}
\end{equation}
From eqs. \eqref{eq_dlt_step1} and \eqref{eq_dlt_step2}, it is evident that the following expression holds:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{0} = A_i \hspace{0.3em} \begin{bmatrix}
^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i} \\ 1
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_dlt_step3}
\end{equation}
Eq. \eqref{eq_dlt_step3} is used to obtain a valid solution for \(^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i}\) as a least square problem, which can be efficiently solved using Singular Value Decomposition.
\subsection{The Space-Sweep Method}
\label{sec_space_sweep}
Reconstruction using the Direct Linear Transformation described in section \ref{sec_dlt} requires accurate correspondence between features in the environment (reference holes) and the events generated from different camera views. For this objective, we use the space-sweep method first introduced in \cite{collins1996} and adapted for neuromorphic cameras in \cite{emvs2018}.
This approach utilizes a descritized representation of the volume of interest, denoted by \(\bar{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{w \times h \times N_z}\) where \(w\), \(h\), and \(N_z\) indicate the width, heigh, and depth of \(\bar{D}\). Each generated event is then back-projected as a ray passing through \(\bar{D}\) using the camera's pose and projection model. A Disparity Space Image (DSI) is defined that records the density of rays passing through each voxel of \(\bar{D}\). Local maxima are then extracted from the DSI, and the rays passing through high-density voxels are clustered together and are considered to correspond to the same feature in 3D space. Consequently, since each ray is defined by a camera pose and an event, the clustering of events and camera poses is inferred directly from these rays, and the DLT can hence be applied for each cluster independently. Figure \ref{fig_EMVS} visualizes the principal of the space-sweep method, and illustrates the different steps involved in this process. We refer interested readers to the original manuscripts in \cite{collins1996, emvs2018} for the details on the computationally efficient implementation of the Space-Sweep method.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
{\label{fig_EMVS}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]
{Figures/space_sweep.png}} \qquad
\caption{The Event-Based space-sweep step. Events generated at different camera viewpoints are back-projected and are used for the voting process in the DSI. The rays passing through each of the dense voxels of the DSI are grouped together, and are then used to solve for the 3D location of the reference holes through the Direct Linear Transform.}
\label{fig_EMVS}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
After estimating the position of all reference holes \(^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i}, i=[1,..,N_i]\), the orientation of the workpiece is found by fitting the estimated holes positions against a pre-known model of the workpiece; which can be done using an Iterative Closest Point approach. In our case, we only assume that the workpiece is flat such that all reference holes lie on the same plane; and hence we do not require knowledge of the number or position of holes in the workpiece. We simply fit a plane through the estimated position of all reference holes and and infer the workpiece's orientation from the parameters of the fitted plane. This plane-fitting step is also used to remove any outliers or noise in the localization of holes.
\section{Neuromorphic Event-based Hole Detection and Tracking}
\label{sec_hole_det}
The precise detection of circular holes from visual feedback directly affects the positional accuracy of the drilling process \cite{Xia2020}. In frame-based vision, several Well established methods exist for detecting circular formations in images \cite{Xia2020, Mei2015, Lou2020}, and the Circle Hough Transform (CHT) is amongst the most popular of these methods \cite{Atherton1999, Yuen1990}. In this section, we present an event-based variant of CHT that is appropriate for the asynchronous output of neuromorphic cameras
In conventional CHT, each feature point (e.g. edge point) in the image frame is mapped to the hough parameter space using the constraint equation given below:
\begin{equation}
(u_i - a)^2 + (v_i - b)^2 = r^2
\label{eq_cht}
\end{equation}
where \((u_i, v_i)\) are the pixel coordinates of the i'th edge point, \((a, b)\) are the coordinates of circle's center, and \(r\) is the circle's radius. As such, a three dimensional parameter space \(H \in \mathbb{R}^3\), often referred to as the hough parameter space, that spans all possible values for \(a\), \(b\) and \(r\) is defined. Following \eqref{eq_cht}, each edge point in the image plane represents a hollow cone in \(H\) as depicted in Figure \ref{fig_houh_detection}. The intersection of multiple cones signals the presence of a circle with parameters that correspond to the intersection's location in \(H\). In practice, \(H\) is discritized to form an accumulator array \(\bar{H}(a, b, r)\), and each edge point contributes to \(\bar{H}\) through a voting process. Circle parameters are finally extracted from peaks in \(\bar{H}\).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/hough_circle_color.eps}
\caption{The circle hough parameter space \(H\). Each edge point \(e_i\) in the image plane represents a hollow cone in the hough parameter space. The intersection of multiple cones signals the presence of a circular formation in the image plane.}
\label{fig_houh_detection}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
CHT cannot be directly used with neuromorphic cameras due to their significantly different output from frame-based cameras. CHT establishes correspondence between edge points assuming that they are extracted from the same image frame with exact temporal match. Neuromorphic cameras on the other hand do not output image frames, but output an asynchronous stream of events in continuous time as shown in Figure \ref{fig_events_Vs_frames}. A naive solution would be to concatenate events within a defined time period to form artificial frames, and apply CHT to these frames. However, the generation of events is dependent on the rate of changes in the visual scene. As such, it would be challenging to determine a single period for event concatenation that is appropriate for all conditions. Figure. \ref{fig_circle_detector_different_detector} provides a visualization for this premise, where grouping events at different rates result in contradicting CHT performance at different egomotion velocities.
To address these challenges, we formulate an event-based variant of CHT that adopts a bayesian framework to retain the asynchronous nature of neuromorphic cameras. In our algorithm, the accumulator array \(\bar{H}(a,b,r)\) is considered to be a Probability Mass Function (PMF) that reflects the probability of the existence of a circle for any given values of \(a\), \(b\), or \(r\). Following the principle of recursive bayesian filtering, our approach for event-based circle detection follows two steps: measurement update and prediction. The measurement update step follows the traditional CHT but in an asynchronous manner, where each event independently votes to regions in \(\bar{H}\) that satisfy \eqref{eq_cht}. Measurement update is performed whenever a new event is received, and is normalized so that \(\sum\bar{H} = 1\) after each update step.
The prediction step establishes a temporal continuity between events triggered at different times, and allows for the inference of circle parameters at any point in continuous time. In the prediction step, we update \(\bar{H}\) using the camera's egomotion, which is obtained by solving the forward kinematics of the robot manipulator as described in section \ref{sec_setup}. Given the camera's twist vector \(\vec{\mathcal{V}}_c = [v_x, v_y, v_z, \omega_x, \omega_y, \omega_z]^T\) that describe the camera's velocity in \(\mathcal{F}_C\), where \((v_x, v_y, v_z)\) are the linear components and \((\omega_x, \omega_y, \omega_z)\) are the angular components; the velocity in pixel coordinates of a feature point \((u, v)\) can be computed using the image Jacobian as shown below:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix} \dot{u} \\ \dot{v} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{-F}{Z} & 0 & u/Z & uv/F & -(F+u^2/F) & v \\
0 & \frac{-F}{Z} & v/Z & F+v^2/F & -uv/F & -u
\end{bmatrix} \vec{V}_c
\label{eq_img_jac}
\end{equation}
Where \(F\) is the focal length, and \(Z\) is depth. In our control pipeline discussed in section \ref{sec_control}, we constrain the camera' motion during the reference hole detection step to a linear 2D motion perpendicular to the camera's optic axis, such that \(v_z = 0\) and \(\omega_x = \omega_y = \omega_z = 0\). This constraint simplifies the expression in \eqref{eq_img_jac} to:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix} \dot{u} \\ \dot{v} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{-F}{Z} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{-F}{Z}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
v_x \\ v_y
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq_img_jac_2D}
\end{equation}
It is evident from \eqref{eq_img_jac_2D} that features' velocities in pixel coordinates are uniform across all pixel locations, since they only depend on the camera's velocity and the depth of the point. We denote this uniform velocity by \((\dot{u}_{avg},\dot{v}_{avg})\). This translates to uniform motion in the \(a\) and \(b\) components of \(\bar{H}\). We define a gaussian kernel \(g(u, v, r)\) that incorporates this motion in accumulator array while also as follows:
\begin{equation}
g(u,v,r) = \alpha \hspace{1pt} exp\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{2}
\mathbf{\bar{X}}
\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1}
\mathbf{\bar{X}}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq_gaussian_filter}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\bar{X}} = \begin{pmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
u \\ v \\ r
\end{bmatrix}
-
\begin{bmatrix}
\Delta t \dot{u}_{avg} \\ \Delta t \dot{v}_{avg} \\ 0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq_gaussian_filter_mean}
\end{equation}
Where \(\Delta t\) is the time since the last prediction step, \(\mathbf{\Sigma}\) is the tunable covariance matrix, and \(\alpha\) is a scale factor so that \(\sum g = 1\). Although the expression in \eqref{eq_img_jac_2D} is deterministic, we select a gaussian distribution to model uncertainties in \(F\), \(Z\), or the camera's egomotion.
The prediction step is then realized by the convolution of \(\bar{H}\) with \(g\) as shown in \eqref{eq_prediction_step}. This step can be performed whenever an event is triggered or at a fixed rate independent from event generation. In our experiments, the prediction step is applied at a rate of 100Hz.
\begin{equation}
\bar{H}(t^+) = \bar{H}(t^-) * g
\label{eq_prediction_step}
\end{equation}
Finally, the circle parameters are extracted from the highest probability region of \(\bar{H}\) as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
a_{c}^{*} & b_{c}^{*} & r_{c}^{*}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\argmax_{(a,b,r)} \bar{H}
\label{eq_inference_step}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/robot_control.jpg}}
\caption{Outline of the different control steps for the proposed neuromorphic vision-based drilling system. The robot performs multiple stages of PBVS and IBVS to scan the environment, align with the wokrpiece, and drill the desired holes. This process is repeated until all the holes on the workpiece are drilled.}
\label{fig_robot_control}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\section{Vision Based Robot Controller}
\label{sec_control}
This section explains the vision-based control logic that utilizes the perception algorithms in sections \ref{sec_multi_view} and \ref{sec_hole_det} to regulate the robot motion during the drilling procedure. Figure \ref{fig_robot_control} provides an outline of this controller, which consists of two subsequent PBVS and IBVS stages. The PBVS stage guides the end-effector towards initial alignment with the reference holes on the workpiece using the 6-DoF pose estimate from the multi-view detection. IBVS refines the end-effector alignment to sub-millimeter accuracy using the event-based hole detection algorithm. Both stages are described in detail in sections \ref{sec_PBVS} and \ref{sec_IBVS}.
\subsection{Position Based Robot Control (PBVS)}
\label{sec_PBVS}
In the PBVS stage, we consider a known desired pose for the robot's end effector denoted by \(_{B}\hat{T}_{E}\). This pose is either a pre-defined constant, which is the case during the scanning step; or is computed from knowledge of the reference holes' poses \(_{B}T_{h_i}\) and a pre-defined stance of the end-effector relative to these holes \(_{h_{i}}\hat{T}_{E}\). Concurrently, we define a desired joint angles vector \(\hat{\theta}\in\mathbb{C}\) such that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_forward_kinematric_desired}
_{B}\hat{T}_{E} = g(\hat{\theta})
\end{equation}
which we solve for using the Newton-Raphson inverse kinematic approach of the open-source Kinematic and Dynamics Library (KDL)\footnote{KDL: https://www.orocos.org/kdl.html}. Using the current joint angles \(\theta\) and the desired ones \(\hat{\theta}\), we compute a time-parametrized trajectory for the joint angles \(\hat{\theta}(t)\) using RRT-connect \cite{rrt2000} implementation on the Open Motion Planning Library \cite{ompl2012} of MoveIt!\footnote{MoveIt!: https://moveit.ros.org/}. Finally, a low-level PID controller regulates each joint to track \(\hat{\theta}(t)\).
\subsection{Image Based Robot Control (IBVS)}
\label{sec_IBVS}
The IBVS stage refines the end-effector's position based on the detected hole location in image coordinates. Let ${\vec{f} = [a_{c}^{*}, b_{c}^{*}]^T} \in \mathbb{R}^2 $ denote the pixel coordinates of the the detected hole, and $\vec{\hat{f}} \in \mathbb{R}^2$ denote the desired coordinates of these high level features (e.g. the camera's principal point); we define an error vector as $\vec{\zeta}= \vec{f} - \vec{\hat{f}}$, and a control law that exponentially decays this error to zero as:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\vec{\zeta}} = - \lambda \vec{\zeta}
\label{eq_ibvs_control_law}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 2}$ is a positive-definite gain matrix.
What follows is the generation of joint movements that achieve the desired $\dot\vec{\zeta}$. First, we define the command twist vector \(\vec{V}^*_c = [v^*_x, v^*_y, v^*_z, \omega^*_x, \omega^*_y, \omega^*_z]^T\) that describes the camera's desired velocity in \(\mathcal{F}_C\). In our case, We constrain the camera's motion to a linear 2D movement perpendicular to camera's optical axis, such that \([v^*_z = 0]\) and \([\omega^*_x, \omega^*_y, \omega^*_z] = \vec{0}\). Hence, the linear \(x\) and \(y\) components of \(V^*_c\) can be easily computed by inverting the expression in \eqref{eq_img_jac_2D}, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_ibvs_control_v}
\begin{bmatrix}
v^*_x \\ v^*_y
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
-Z/F & 0 \\
0 & -Z/F
\end{bmatrix} \dot{\vec{\zeta}}
\end{equation}
It must be noted that the depth value \(Z\) is obtained from \(_{C}T_{h_i} = _{B}T_{C}^{-1} \hspace{0.5em} _{B}T_{h^i}^{-1}\), where \(_{B}T_{h^i}\) is estimated from the multi-view 3D localization step
Reference joint angular velocities \(\dot{\theta}^*\) that result in \(\vec{V}^*_c\) are then calculated by inverting the expressions in \eqref{eq_vel_forward_kinematics} and \eqref{eq_adjoint_representation} as:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\theta}^* = J(\theta)^{\dagger} \hspace{0.5em} _{C}[AD_T]_{E}^{-1} \hspace{0.5em} \vec{V}^*_c
\label{eq_ibvs_inverse_kinematics}
\end{equation}
Finally, \(\dot{\theta}^*\) is tracked using PID control for each indivdual joint.
Once the robot's end-effector is aligned with the target reference hole on the workpiece, the clamp mandrel (see Fig. \ref{fig_robot_exp_setup}-b) is inserted in the reference hole and the pressure foot clamps up against the workpiece until a target contact force is achieved. These contact forces are estimated from the torques on each of the robot's joints. Afterwards, the clamp mandrel is retracted against the workpiece from the blind side, providing additional clamping force. This two-sided clamping ensures stability during the drilling process and minimizes normality errors using the inherent compliance of the robot manipulator. The robot then proceeds with activating the drill motor and drilling nutplate installation holes on the sides of the reference hole.
\begin{figure*}[T]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth]{Figures/exp_setup.png}} \qquad
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth]{Figures/end_effector.png}} \qquad
\caption{Experimental setup for testing the proposed neuromorphic vision-based drilling method. (a) The mobile robot and the manipulator setup. (b) The configuration of the end-effector comprising the visual sensor and the drill motor.}
\label{fig_robot_exp_setup}
\end{figure*}
\section{Experimental Validation and Results}
\label{sec_exp}
\subsection{Experimental Setup and Protocol}
The presented event-based robotic drilling algorithms were tested on the setup shown in Figure \ref{fig_robot_exp_setup}. We used Universal Robot's UR10 \cite{UR10}, which provides a repeatability of 0.1mm, as the primary manipulator. The manipulator was mounted on top of a customized version of the Neobotix MPO-500 robot base \cite{mpo500}. The mobile robot uses two Sick S300 LIDARs \cite{sick300} and the ROS Navigation Stack \cite{ros_navi} to autonomously navigate the factory settings, and place the manipulator in the vicinity of the workpiece. This enables the robot to perform multiple drilling jobs and operate across a large workspace without the need for human involvement. Figure \ref{fig_robot_exp_setup}-b displays the end-effector configuration, which comprises the drill-motor and the camera. Inivation's DAVIS346 camera \cite{davis346} with a spatial resolution of 346x260 was used for visual perception, which provides both a neuromorphic event stream in addition to conventional frame-based intensity images. The event stream grants a dynamic range of 120 dB, a latency of \( ~ 20 \mu s\), and a bandwidth of \(12\times10^{6}\) events per second. While all operations are conducted solely using the event stream, intensity images are used as a benchmark to assess the performance and advantages of event-based perception. All required computations are executed using an on-board computer with an i7-5530 processer and 4GB of RAM.
Our experimental evaluation focuses on three aspects. In section \ref{sec_exp_3D}, we assess the accuracy of the event-driven multi-view 3D reconstruction technique, and quantify its advantages against conventional frame-based vision under different conditions of lighting and operational speeds. Similarly, we evaluate and benchmark our event-based hole detection and tracking pipeline in section \ref{sec_exp_hole}. Finally, section \ref{sec_exp_drill} presents the evaluation data of the comprehensive drilling experiments.
\subsection{6-DOF Workpiece localization}
\label{sec_exp_3D}
In this section, we quantify the accuracy of the proposed event-based multi-view reconstruction approach that provides initial estimates of position of the workpiece and its reference holes. The setup for these experiments is shown in Figure \ref{fig_multi_view_eval_setup}. Ground truth data is obtained using a set of four ArUco fiducials \cite{aruco_marker}, denoted by \(Ar_{j, j=1,...,4}\). The fiducials are observed from a static robot state using the intensity image output of the DAVIS346, and the 6-DoF pose of each fidicual \(_{B}T_{Ar^j}\) is estimated using OpenCV's ArUco library \cite{aruco_library}. As the position of each hole relative to each fiducial (denoted by \(^{Ar^j} _{Ar^j}\vec{P}_{h^i}\)) is known with high accuracy, the ground truth position of the i'th hole relative to \(\mathcal{F}_B\) is given by:
\begin{equation}
^{B}_{B}\vec{\hat{P}}_{h^i} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{j=1}^4 \hspace{1pt} {}_{B}T_{Ar^{j}} \hspace{1pt} ^{Ar^{j}} _{Ar^{j}}\vec{P}_{h^i}
\label{eq_ground_truth_hole}
\end{equation}
Consequently, we define the error \(d_i\) in the 3D localization of each hole as the mismatch between the hole's estimated location \(^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i}\) obtained using the multi-view approach and its ground truth location \(^{B}_{B}\vec{\hat{P}}_{h^i}\). This mismatch is averaged across all holes in the workpiece to quantify the overall error in 3D workpiece localization as follows:
\begin{equation}
D = \frac{1}{N_i} \sum_{i=1}^{N_i} d_i , \hspace{0.4em}
\\ \\
d_i = || ^{B}_{B}\vec{P}_{h^i} \hspace{0.3em} - ^{B}_{B}\vec{\hat{P}}_{h^i} ||
\label{eq_workpiece_err}
\end{equation}
where \(N_i\) represent the overall number of reference holes.
We benchmark the multi-view localization results obtained using the neuromorphic event stream against results obtained using conventional intentsity images. For conventional images, we use the standard Canny edge detector to extract features from each image and then perform the same multi-view procedure as described in section \ref{sec_multi_view}. To better assess the advantages of neuromorphic vision, we conduct the multi-view localization experiments across different lighting conditions and various speeds of the workspace scanning movement. Table \ref{tab_emvs_results} summarizes the obtained results in terms of position error across all experimental condition for both the event-based and conventional image-based approaches.
\begin{figure*}[T]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figures/multiview_exp_setup.png}} \qquad
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:sf1}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figures/multiview_exp_discription.png}} \qquad
\caption{The experimental evaluation of the neuromorphic 3D workpiece localization pipeline. (a) The experimental setup. (b) The error is quantified in terms of the euclidean distance between the estimated hole location and the corresponding ground-truth location extracted using a set of AruCo Fiducials.}
\label{fig_multi_view_eval_setup}
\end{figure*}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table*}[H]
\caption{Evaluatuin of the 3D workpiece localization error $D$ in $mm$ using both neuromorphic and conventional frame-based vision under different light intensity levels $I_v$ and maximum robot speed during the scanning movement $v_{max}$. Bold indicates the lower error. These positional errors are then reduced by the IBVS stage to sub-millimeter errors as seen in Table. \ref{tab_drilling_pos_result}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
\backslashbox{\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}\textbf{\(v_{max}\)} \\ ($m/s$)\end{tabular}}{\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}\textbf{\(I_v\)} ($lx$)\end{tabular}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\sim 400$ (Adequate lighting)} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$< 10$ (low light)} \\
& Neuromrophic & Conventional & Neuromrophic & Conventional \\ \hline \hline
0.1 & \(2.97\) & \(\mathbf{2.88}\) & \(\mathbf{2.18}\) & Fail \\ \hline
0.3 & \(3.19\) & \(\mathbf{3.11}\) & \(\mathbf{3.78}\) & Fail \\ \hline
0.5 & \(3.45\) & \(\mathbf{3.27}\) & \(\mathbf{7.36}\) & Fail \\ \hline
1.0 & \(\mathbf{2.77}\) & \(3.71\) & \(\mathbf{6.48}\) & Fail \\ \hline
1.5 & \(\mathbf{2.23}\) & \(Fail\) & \(\mathbf{8.73}\) & Fail \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab_emvs_results}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/multiview_exp_event_vs_frame.png}
\caption{The event stream (red and blue) and the intensity image output of DAVIS346 camera during the multi-view workpiece localization experiments on the setup shown in Figure \ref{fig_multi_view_eval_setup}. Intensity images clearly exhibit motion blur and higher latency while the event stream remains sharp and timely.}
\label{fig_multi_view_qualitative}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
Result in Table \ref{tab_emvs_results} indicate that at lower speeds and good lighting conditions, the multi-view localization using neuromorphic vision and conventional vision provides similar accuracy. The advantages of neuromorphic vision became apparent as the robot's operational speed is increased or at lower light conditions. At such conditions, perception using conventional cameras become challenging due to motion blur and high latency that results due to increased exposure timing. Neuromorphic cameras do not suffer from these shortcomings and as such, they result in more precise and reliable 3D localization results. Figure \ref{fig_multi_view_qualitative} visualizes the output of both types of cameras during the multi-view localization experiments, which confirms the reasoning of the superior performance of neuromorphic vision.
Regardless of the vision sensor, the multi-view localization step is not capable of achieving the sub-millimeter accuracy requirements of the drilling process. This signals the need for the second pose refinement step, which we do using hole detection, which we validate in the below section.
\begin{figure*}[B]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{m{0.1\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.2\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.2\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.2\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.2\textwidth}}
& (a) Standard CHT using conventional images & (b) Standard CHT using event frames, \(\Delta t = 1 ms\) & (c) Standard CHT using event frames, \(\Delta t = 10 ms\) & (d) The proposed event-based CHT \\ \hline
25 mm/s Egomotion &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/frame_circle_detector_25mms_red.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_25mms_1ms.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_25mms_10ms_red.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_25mms_tracker.jpg}
\\ \hline
200 mm/s Egomotion &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/frame_circle_detector_200mms.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_200mms_1ms_red.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_200mms_10ms_nocircl.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/event_circle_detector_200mms_tracker.jpg}
\\
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/legend.png}}
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Qualitative comparison between the proposed event-based variant of the CHT and the standard CHT applied to: (a) conventional images. (b) Artificial images created by the concatenation of events with a time period \(\Delta t = 1 ms\). (c) Artificial images created by the concatenation of events with a time period \(\Delta t = 1 ms\). The proposed event-based CHT provides consistent performance regardless of the camera's egomotion, while the performance of the standard CHT clearly degrades. In the case of regular images, the standard CHT fails due to excessive motion blur. As for event frames, the proper period at which events should be grouped is highly dependent on the motion in the visual scene, which in turn affects the quality of the CHT detection.}
\label{fig_circle_detector_different_detector}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Neuromorphic Hole Detection}
\label{sec_exp_hole}
This section evaluates our proposed event-based circular detection and tracking method against the conventional CHT. For evaluation purposes, we test the conventional CHT with both intensity images and artificial image frames generated from the concatenation of events at specified time period \(\Delta t\). We assess each method's capability to track the circular holes in the workpiece under different movement speeds and light intensity levels. Figure \ref{fig_circle_detector_different_detector} visualizes the results of each method at different camera egomotions. The use of intensity images leads to unreliable detection at higher egomotion speeds due to motion blur in the visual scene, which is caused by the working principal of conventional imagers that rely on the time integration of incident light. Using conventional CHT with event frames is sensitive to the time period at which events are being grouped. For instance, a small concatenation period leads to a featureless image at slower speeds; while larger periods cause an over-populated image at high speeds, where feature can no longer be accurately extracted. Our event-based variant of the CHT exploits the advantages of neuromorphic vision and takes into the account the asynchronous nature of the event stream. As such, it provides precise results regardless of the motion in the scene and does not suffer from the motion blur or latency complications of conventional cameras.
The experimental results shown in figure \ref{fig_circle_detector_different_speed} further enforce the advantages of neuromorphic vision coupled with our proposed event-based CHT. In these experiments, the speed of the camera was gradually increased and the tracking performance of each method is evaluated. Experiments were conducted at different lighting conditions to assess each method's robustness. For intensity image-based detection, the well-known Kanade-Lucas-Tomase (KLT) \cite{klt1991} tracker was coupled with conventional CHT to track the detected circular holes. As expected, intensity image-based tracking deteriorates at higher speeds due to motion blur; and entirely fails to detect the hole at low-light due to the inclarity of the image despite the increased exposure time. Neuromorphic vision-based perception on the other hand remains persistent despite these variations.
\begin{figure*}[T]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{m{0.12\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.425\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.425\textwidth}}
& Adequate light intensity ($\sim 400 lx$) & Low light intensity ($< 1 lx$) \\ \hline
Circle Detection and Tracking Results &
\includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_sinusoidal_test_good_light.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_sinusoidal_test_low_light.jpg}
\\ \hline
Camera View (Stationary camera) &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_frame_feedback_good_light.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_frame_feedback_low_light.jpg}
\\ \hline
Camera View (Moving camera) &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_frame_feedback_good_light_moving.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/qualitative_circle_detector_results/circle_detector_frame_feedback_low_light_moving.jpg}
\\
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison between the proposed event-based variant of the CHT detector for the neuromorphic camera and the to conventional intensity image-based CHT with a KLT tracker for the detection and tracking of a circular hole 75mm in front of the camera at different lighting speeds and ego-motion velocities. The use of neuromorphic vision and our proposed circular hole detector clearly provides more reliable and consistent results at high operation speeds or imperfect lighting.}
\label{fig_circle_detector_different_speed}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Nutplate holes drilling performance}
\label{sec_exp_drill}
The performance of the overall nutplate holes' drilling process is presented in this section. Tests were conducted using the setup shown in Figure \ref{fig_robot_exp_setup} with five workpieces placed differently in the environment. The mobile robot autonomously navigates to the front of each of the workpieces, and then our novel neuromorphic visual control pipeline described in sections \ref{sec_multi_view}, \ref{sec_hole_det}, and \ref{sec_control} control the manipulators to perform the drilling objective. A video demonstration of these experiments can be viewed through this link: \url{https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q9QwPvkd7ZcEBcGMIxIVy2r_iRfTKCSe/view?usp=sharing} \cite{paper_video}. We assess the drilling performance in terms of the positional error of the nutplate holes. Table \ref{tab_drilling_pos_result} presents the per-hole positional error across the five different workpieces and Figure \ref{fig_drilled_plate} shows an example workpiece after drilling the nutplate holes.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/drilled_plate.png}
\caption{The target workpiece after drilling the nutplate installation holes using the proposed neuromorphic vision based robotic drilling approach.}
\label{fig_drilled_plate}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{Position error in mm for the nutplate holes' drilling experiments across multiple workpieces.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Workpiece} & \multicolumn{10}{c|}{\textbf{Hole ID}} & \multirow{2}{3em}{\textbf{Mean}} & \multirow{2}{3em}{\textbf{Max}} & \multirow{2}{5em}{\textbf{Standard Deviation}} \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{1} & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3} & \textbf{4} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{6} & \textbf{7} & \textbf{8} & \textbf{9} & \textbf{10} & & & \\ \hline
\textbf{A} & 0.039 & 0.134 & 0.157 & 0.100 & 0.131 & 0.075 & 0.094 & 0.052 & 0.077 & 0.103 & 0.096 & 0.157 & 0.037 \\ \hline
\textbf{B} & 0.141 & 0.102 & 0.064 & 0.062 & 0.110 & 0.068 & 0.076 & 0.099 & 0.070 & 0.063 & 0.085 & 0.141 & 0.026 \\ \hline
\textbf{C} & 0.069 & 0.034 & 0.101 & 0.030 & 0.090 & 0.114 & 0.082 & 0.113 & 0.052 & 0.023 & 0.071 & 0.114 & 0.035 \\ \hline
\textbf{D} & 0.183 & 0.003 & 0.085 & 0.100 & 0.175 & 0.175 & 0.047 & 0.061 & 0.017 & 0.098 & 0.095 & 0.183 & 0.066 \\ \hline
\textbf{E} & 0.011 & 0.086 & 0.106 & 0.108 & 0.124 & 0.077 & 0.066 & 0.144 & 0.126 & 0.051 & 0.091 & 0.145 & 0.040 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{11}{r|}{\textbf{Aggregate}} & \bf{0.088} & \bf{0.183} & \bf{0.042} \\ \cline{12-14}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab_drilling_pos_result}
\end{table*}
Quantitative results show that our proposed neuromorphic vision-based approach is capable of precisely drilling nutplate holes with an average error of less than 0.1 mm. These results conform with the precision requirements of a large variety of processes in the automotive and aerospace manufacturing industries. This validates the use of neuromorphic vision for precise manufacturing tasks and highlight the potential of using neuromorphic cameras for faster and more reliable automated manufacturing. The obtained results also prove the effectiveness of our proposed algorithms in employing the advantages of neuromorphic cameras while addressing several of their challenges in terms of unconventional data output, and relatively low resolution. We would like to indicate that the nature of the performed drilling process, which includes inserting the clamp mandrel in a pilot hole, contributes to further minimizing the positional errors. During this peg-in-hole stage, the end-effector's pose can be driven to better alignment with the reference hole due to the compliance of the manipulator, which can further reduce any errors resulting from the visual guidance process.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
In this paper, we presented the first system that employs the recent neuromorphic vision technology for robotic machining applications. In particular, we have developed a complete visual guidance solution that precisly positions the robot relative to the desired workpiece with sub-millimeter accuracy using two consequent stages of perception and control. The first stage utilizes a multi-view 3D reconstruction approach and PBVS for the initial alignment of the robot's end-effector. Concurrently, the second stage regulates any residual errors using a novel event-based hole detection algorithm and IBVS.
We have validated our system experimentally for a nutplate hole drilling application using a collaborative robot manipulator, an iniVation neuromorphic camera, and a customized end-effector. Our quantitative results show that the presented neuromorphic vision-based solution can successfully drill the target holes with an average positional error of less than 0.1mm. Our tests also verify that the use of neuromorphic cameras overcomes the lighting, speeds and motion blur challenges associated with the use of conventional frame-based cameras. These results demonstrate the potential of using neuromorphic cameras in precise manufacturing processes, where they can facilitate faster and more reliable production lines.
For future work, we aim to improve the normal adjustment and orientation control aspects of our robotic drilling system. In our current system, the only measurement on workpiece orientation is obtained using the multi-view reconstruction step; and any orientation errors resulting from this step would not be corrected for, unlike position measurements which are further refined using circular hole detection. Although the two-sided clamping and the compliance of the collaborative robot can passively drive the end-effector towards better normality with the workpiece, a more precise and reliable normal alignment method is required to expand the range of manufacturing processes our system can perform. To this end, We will investigate the application of visual tactile sensing \cite{baghaei2020neuromorphic, 1_baghaei2020neuromorphic} for the normality control in robotic machining processes.
\printcredits
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Since the discovery of 51 Peg\,b by \citet{Mayor1995}, the first extrasolar planet orbiting a solar-like star, over 4800 exoplanets\footnote{See e.g., \href{https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/}{https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu} (as of January 5, 2022).} have been detected, including almost 900 using the radial-velocity technique. Those distant worlds cover a broad diversity of orbital properties \citep{Udry2007,Winn2014}, expected to be fossil traces of the formation process of these systems and potentially linked as well to the properties and evolutionary stages of their host stars and their environments.
Models of planetary formation were at first developed based on the system we know best, the Solar System, and have evolved significantly in the past twenty years with the increasing flow of information derived from observations of exoplanet systems. The observed diversity of planet properties finds its origin in the physical process at play coupled with the local conditions during the formation of the system. Today, two main competing paradigms are proposed for planet formation: the core accretion model: a dust-to-planet bottom-up scenario \citep[e.g.,][]{Lissauer1993,Pollack1996,Alibert2005}, which can lead to the formation of gas giants in a few million years, and the disk's gravitational instability \citep{Boss1997, Durisen2006}, which can form massive planets on a very short timescale of a few thousand years \citep[see][for reviews on those processes]{Helled2014,Raymond2014}. Both agree on the formation of substellar companions from the circum-stellar accretion disk, but then differ depending on the initial environmental conditions in the disk, planet-disk, and planet-planet interactions.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Planet-search programs monitoring evolved stars.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
\hline
Survey & References \\
\hline
the Lick G- and K-giant survey & \citet{Frink2001, Hekker2006b} \\
the ESO planet search program & \citet{Setiawan2003a} \\
the Okayama Planet Search Program & \citet{Sato2005} \\
\hspace{15pt}with the collaborative survey "EAPS-Net" & \citet{Izumiura2005} \\
the Tautenburg observatory Planet Search & \citet{Hatzes2005, Dollinger2007a} \\
Retired A-stars and their companions & \citet{Johnson2006} \\
the CORALIE \& HARPS search in open clusters & \citet{Lovis2007} \\
\hspace{15pt}with the follow-up program & \citet{DelgadoMena2018} \\
the Penn States Torún Planet Search & \citet{Niedzielski2007} \\
\hspace{15pt}with the follow-up program Tracking Advanced Planetary Systems & \citet{Niedzielski2015b} \\
the BOAO K-giant survey & \citet{Han2010} \\
the Pan-Pacific Planet Search & \citet{Wittenmyer2011} \\
the Exoplanet aRound Evolved StarS project & \citet{Jones2011} \\
the Boyunsen Planet Search & \citet{Lee2011} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:surveys}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
Large planet-search surveys first focused on solar-type and very low-mass stars, leaving aside more massive stellar hosts that were more complex to observe and study. As the impact of the stellar mass on planet formation is still debated, it is of great interest to study the population of planets around intermediate-mass stars, that is in the $1.5-5\,M_{\odot}$ range.
Such systems are especially useful to probe the two main competing formation models. In the early phase of the process, the stellar mass seems to have little effect on the protoplanetary disk formation and evolution; however, after 3 million years stars with masses $> 2\,M_{\odot}$ start showing significant differences compared to lower mass stars, such as stronger radiation fields and higher accretion rates \citep{Ribas2015}. These impact the evolution of protoplanetary disks significantly, and by $\sim$10\,Myr there are no more disks around those higher mass stars. The typical timescale of core accretion could become problematic for massive stars that have shorter disk lifetimes \citep{Lagrange2000}. However, searching for planets orbiting main-sequence stars of intermediate masses (A to mid-F types) proves to be a challenge for Doppler searches, mainly due to the too few absorption lines present in early-type dwarfs as a consequence of their high effective temperatures, and secondly due to the rotational broadening of the lines (typical rotational velocities of 50-200\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for A-type stars, 10-100\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for early-F stars \citep{Galland2005}). A method to extract the radial-velocity from the spectrum in Fourier space was developed by \citet{Chelli2000} and then adapted and applied to early-type stars by \citet{Galland2005}. The typical radial-velocity uncertainties obtained were on the order of 100-300 and 10-50\,m\,s$^{-1}$ (normalized to a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) = 200) for A- and F-type stars, respectively. With this technique, the team confirmed the existence of the known planet around the F7V star HD\,120136 (Tau Boo) announced by \citet{Butler1997}. The orbital parameters from \citet{Galland2005} were consistent with the values previously found. These results confirmed the accuracy of the computed radial-velocities and the possibility to detect companions in the massive, giant planetary domain for A- and F-type stars with substantial v\,sini, using high-resolution, stable spectrographs such as HARPS.
On the other hand, stars will inflate during their evolution toward the red giant branch (RGB). The effective temperature thus reduces significantly, making many more absorption lines visible in the spectra. Moreover, the rotation of the star slows down, reducing the broadening effect on the lines and making them sharper. Those stars are thus suitable bright proxies for radial-velocity planet searches around intermediate-mass stars. The analysis and interpretation of the variability of radial-velocity time series of giant stars can, however, be challenging because of their intrinsic variability, which, moreover, can also be periodic \citep[e.g.,][]{Hekker2006a,Hekker2007b}. Disentangling stellar from potential planetary contributions represents a challenge in the search for long-period and low-mass companions around evolved stars.
Bringing observational constraints on the formation and evolution of planetary systems relies principally on the determination of orbital parameters such as semi-major axes and eccentricities. It also relies on the knowledge of host star properties such as mass, radius, age, metallicity, and the abundances of individual elements. For giant stars, the mass and age are poorly constrained with the classical method of isochrone fitting because the evolutionary tracks in the HR diagram are too close to each other. The uncertainties on the observations (stellar magnitudes and colors) and systematics of the models lead to typical relative uncertainties on the stellar masses of 80-100\%. \citet{Lovis2007}, followed by \citet{Sato2007a} and \citet{Pasquini2012}, overcame this difficulty. They studied giant star populations in open clusters, for which better ages can be determined. This lead them to better mass estimates from stellar evolution models (\citet{Lovis2007} using the Padova models at solar metallicity \citep{Girardi2000}). More recently, GAIA DR2 unprecedented homogeneous photometric and astrometric data covering the whole sky allows for more precise age determination \citep[e.g.,][derived parameters such as age, distance modulus, and extinction for a sample of 269 open clusters]{Bossini2019}.
In the late 1980s, a few surveys monitored giant star activity to better understand the origin of the observed large radial-velocity variations for late giant stars, with periods from days \citep{Hatzes1994} to hundreds of days \citep{Walker1989,Hatzes1993,Hatzes1999} and amplitudes of hundreds of m\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{Udry1999}. Such a variability can be explained by a combination of stellar intrinsic activity such as oscillations, pulsations or the presence of substellar companions. Several surveys searching for stable reference stars reported that many giants show relatively small radial-velocity standard deviations for early giant stars: $\sigma_{RV} \leq$ 20\,m\,s$^{-1}$ for several among the 86 K giants followed by \citet{Frink2001} and the 34 K giants observed by \citet{Hekker2006b}. These results show that giant stars are suitable for the detection of substellar companions with radial-velocity measurements. It is worth mentioning the case of Gamma Cep here \citep{Campbell1988}, which is also considered as intrinsically variable despite the K1 giant spectral type.
\citet{Frink2002}, as part of a radial-velocity survey of K giants \citep{Frink2001}, announced the detection of a 8.9\,M$_{jup}$ (minimal mass) companion orbiting the K2 III giant $\iota$ Draconis with a period of 536\,d period and an eccentricity of 0.70, making it the first substellar companion discovered orbiting a giant star. Since then, several radial-velocity surveys have been launched to follow evolved stars with intermediate masses. The list of these programs is presented in \autoref{tab:surveys}. As of November 2020, they have led to the discovery of 186 substellar companions around evolved stars in 164 systems\footnote{The list was established from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, accessible at \href{https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/TblView/nph-tblView?app=ExoTbls\&config=PSCompPars}{https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu}, by selecting the hosts with log\,g\,$\leq$\,3.5\,cm\,s$^{-2}$. The list thus contains giant and subgiant hosts.}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{graph_M_V_VS_B-V_lims.pdf}
\caption{Color-magnitude diagram from Hipparcos measurements \citep{ESA1997} for stars with parallax precisions better than 14\% (in gray), with clear localization of our sample (in orange). The dashed lines represent the selection limits at absolute magnitude $M_V < 2.5$ (green), and between the lower (red) and higher $B-V$ values at 0.78 and 1.06. The planet host candidates presented in this paper (HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123) are highlighted in red.}
\label{fig:hr_hipp}
\end{figure}
In this context, a survey of a volume-limited sample of evolved stars of intermediate masses, the CORALIE radial-velocity Search for Companions ArounD Evolved Stars (CASCADES), was initiated in 2006. The sample is presented in \autoref{sec:survey}, with the methods used to derive the stellar parameters described in \autoref{sec:methods}. \Autoref{sec:obs_analysis} describes the complete time series acquisition process and analysis, from the search for periodicities in the activity indicators to the Keplerian fitting of the radial velocities, which lead to orbital solutions of three newly discovered planetary companions in \autoref{sec:results}. Additional detections and statistical analysis of the survey will be presented in a series of subsequent publications. Finally, in \autoref{sec:conclusion} we discuss some implications of the first discoveries and provide concluding remarks in the broader context of the population of giant stars hosting substellar companions.
\section{The CASCADES survey}\label{sec:survey}
\subsection{Goals and sample definition}\label{sub:sample_def}
\begin{figure}[th!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{hist_Vmag.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{hist_dist_GAIA_bailer18.pdf}
\caption{Distributions of CASCADES survey sample (filled orange histogram), compared with the published giant stars known to host planet companions (dashed histogram). The top panel displays the apparent magnitude (TYCHO-2 catalog, \citet{Hog2000}) and the bottom one the distance (GAIA DR2, \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}). The CASCADES original 2006 sample and its 2011 extension are differentiated by lighter and darker orange shades, respectively. The positions of HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123 are represented by red lines.}
\label{fig:hist_v}
\end{figure}
In the context described above, in 2006 we (i.e., Christophe Lovis and Michel Mayor) launched a precise radial-velocity survey of evolved stars of intermediate masses, which we refer to as "giant stars" in this paper. The main motivation was to better understand the formation of planetary systems and their evolution around stars more massive than the Sun by completing the existing statistical properties of giant host stars and their companions. To conduct a well-defined statistical study, we chose the following criteria for the definition of the sample:
\begin{figure}[th!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 {-.042\height}},clip]{hist_rv_rms_raw.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{hist_rv_rms_raw_zoom.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of the radial-velocity dispersion observed for the stars in the sample. Top: Full range in logarithmic scale. Bottom: Zoomed-in image of smaller values, in linear scale. The positions of HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123 are represented by red lines.}
\label{fig:hist_rms}
\end{figure}
We defined a volume-limited sample, $d\leq300$\,pc. The selection was done in 2005 from the Hipparcos catalogue \citep{ESA1997}. We only selected stars from the catalog with a precision on the parallax better than 10\,\%. To increase the statistics, the sample was extended in 2011 to targets with a parallax precision better than $14\,\%$. We selected stars with $M_V < 2.5$ and $B-V>0.78$, to avoid stars on the main sequence. We selected only early-type giants, with G and K spectral types and luminosity class III. To avoid later types, which are known to be intrinsically variable, we introduced a color cut-off at $B-V<1.06$. We avoided close visual binaries for which we might have contamination by the secondary in the spectrograph fiber. The limit on the separation was set at $6''$. Finally, we selected stars observable by Euler, in the southern hemisphere, with a declination below $-25^{\circ}$, to be complementary to existing surveys in the north reaching down to $\delta=-25^{\circ}$.
The criteria and the final sample of 641 stars are represented in \autoref{fig:hr_hipp} displaying the Hipparcos color-magnitude diagram with the selected sample highlighted. In \autoref{fig:hist_v}, we show the distribution of stellar apparent magnitudes and distances for the sample. We paid particular attention to the potential bias induced by the criterion on the parallax precision when carrying out the statistical study of the sample.
Because of its size, timespan of observations, and the quantity and quality of the measurements, the above-defined planet search program is expected to significantly improve our knowledge of planetary systems around giant stars.
\subsection{Instrument description and observations}
\label{sub:instru}
Observations for this survey began at the end of 2006 and have been conducted since then with the CORALIE spectrograph on the 1.2-m Leonard Euler Swiss telescope located at La Silla Observatory (Chile). CORALIE is a 2-fiber-fed echelle spectrograph (2" fibers on the sky). It covers the 3880-6810 Å wavelength interval with 68 orders. The spectral resolution of the instrument was originally of 50\,000. The observations are performed in the so-called simultaneous thorium mode\footnote{A thorium-argon lamp illuminates fiber B at the same time as the star is observed on fiber A. Both spectra are recorded on the CCD.}. In 2007 and 2014, CORALIE went through two significant hardware upgrades to improve the overall performance of the instrument, such as improving the throughput of the instrument (gain of 2 magnitudes) and increasing the resolution to 60\,000. A Fabry-Perrot etalon was installed as well to replace the thorium-argon lamp used to track the variation of the spectrograph during the night. For simplicity, we refer to each dataset as {\footnotesize CORALIE-98} (or COR98) for the first version of the instrument, {\footnotesize CORALIE-07} (or COR07) for the 2007 upgrade and {\footnotesize CORALIE-14} (or COR14) for the 2014 instrument upgrade. The instrumental precision evolved through these upgrades, from 5\,m\,s$^{-1}$ for COR98, to 8\,m\,s$^{-1}$ for COR07, and finally to 2.5-3.2\,m\,s$^{-1}$ for COR14. Complete information on instrumental aspects and the precisions reached are given in, for instance, \citet{Queloz2000,Segransan2010,Segransan2021}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{graph_n_rv_VS_timespan_rv_rms_raw.pdf}\\
\caption{Number of measurements per star in the sample plotted against the respective time span of the observations. The points are color-coded by the radial-velocity rms. The star markers represent HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123.}
\label{fig:pts_tspan}
\end{figure}
Considering the size of the sample and the first results on the intrinsic variability of giant stars obtained by earlier surveys, we tried to optimize the exposure time in our program to match the limit set by stellar variation. Evolved stars often show distributions of the dispersion of radial-velocity time series ranging from $\sim$ 5\,m\,s$^{-1}$ up to a few hundreds of m\,s$^{-1}$, with a mode at $\sim$ 15\,m\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{Lovis2004,Hekker2006b,Quirrenbach2011}. One of our objectives is also to test if this intrinsic limit can be lowered by modeling stellar variability, and thus to be able to recognise low-amplitude planet signatures. To reach a sufficient precision ($\leq$ 2-3\,ms$^{-1}$), exposure times between 3 and 5 minutes are adequate for these very bright stars.
The CASCADES survey is also interesting in the broader context of projects running on the telescope. The brightness of the stars in the sample makes them ideal back-up targets when weather conditions are unfavorable.
Almost 15\,000 radial-velocity measurements have been obtained so far for the 641 stars of the sample. The study of the radial-velocity dispersion (see \autoref{fig:hist_rms}) confirms a distribution with a peak around 13\,m\,s$^{-1}$, with values as low as $\sim$ 4\,m\,s$^{-1}$. We also see a significant tail at higher values with a secondary peak around 20\,km\,s$^{-1}$ corresponding to binary systems.
Our observational effort is illustrated in \autoref{fig:pts_tspan}, with the three host stars presented in this paper (located with a $\star$ symbol) being among the most observed in the sample in terms of duration and number of data points. The program is continuing to obtain a minimum of 20 points per star and so can perform a solid statistical analysis of the sample.
\section{Determination of stellar properties}\label{sec:methods}
\subsection{Spectrocopic parameters of the stars in the sample}\label{sub:spec_param}
The analysis of high-resolution spectra can provide reliable stellar parameters such as effective temperature $T_{eff}$, surface gravity $log\,g,$ and iron metallicity ratio $[Fe/H]$ (which we refer to as metallicity in this paper for simplicity). \citet{Alves2015} presented a catalog of precise stellar atmospheric parameters and iron abundances for a sample of 257 G and K field evolved stars, all of them part of our sample, using UVES and CORALIE spectra. The approach, based on \citet{Santos2004}, uses the classic curve-of-growth method. The equivalent width of a set of Fe I and II lines is measured and their abundances are calculated. Then, the stellar parameters are derived when excitation and ionization balances are satisfied simultaneously under the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium. For a detailed description of the method and the results, we direct the reader to \citet{Santos2004,Sousa2014,Alves2015}.
Before 2014, the CORALIE spectra obtained for precise RV measurements were polluted by the strongest lines of the Thorium-Argon spectrum from the calibration fiber, and thus they were not suitable for a precise spectroscopic analysis. Dedicated additional spectroscopic observations (without calibration) were then obtained for our sample stars. After the CORALIE upgrade in 2014, the calibration spectrum from the Fabry-Perrot etalon was no longer polluting the stellar spectrum, and the observations of radial-velocity measurements can also be used for the spectroscopic analysis. We stacked the CORALIE-14 spectra from all stars in our sample to reach a high enough S/N (the median S/N of the master spectra is about 170), and we derived the spectroscopic parameters $T_{eff}$, $log\,g$ and $[Fe/H]$ using the ARES\citep{Sousa2007,Sousa2015} $+$ MOOG \citep{Sneden1973} methodology following \citet{Sousa2014}. For most of the stars, with T$_{eff}$\,<\,5200\,K, the iron line list presented in \citet{Tsantaki2013} was used. While for the hotter stars we used the standard line list presented in \citet{Sousa2008a}. We then compared these results with the ones presented in \citet{Alves2015} for the subsample of 254 common stars. \Autoref{fig:comp_param_stell} shows the good agreement found between the parameters obtained from the UVES and CORALIE spectra: in the case of metallicity, we observe an apparent positive offset of the order of the dispersion of the data around the 1:1 correlation, $\sim0.04$\,[dex] in favor of our estimation. More than 50\% of the subsample stars are inside the $1\sigma$ region and 90\% are inside $2\sigma$. These results confirm the quality of the CORALIE-14 spectra to extract reliable atmospheric parameters from them.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{comp_Teff_tsantaki_VS_Teff_sousa19.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{comp_feh_tsantaki_VS_feh_sousa19.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{comp_logg_tsantaki_VS_logg_sousa19.pdf}
\caption{Comparison plots of spectroscopic parameters extracted from CORALIE (this paper) and UVES \citep{Alves2015} spectra of the subsample of 254 stars in common. The black diagonal line represents the 1:1 correlation, and the red line represents the linear fit of the data. At the bottom of each figure, the residuals compared to the 1:1 correlation are shown, with their 1 and 2\,$\sigma$ dispersions represented by the shaded regions. Left: Effective temperatures seem to be perfectly correlated, with a dispersion of $\sim38$\,K. Middle: Metallicity ratio of iron [Fe/H] shows an apparent positive offset of the order of the dispersion of the data around the 1:1 correlation, $\sim0.04$\,[dex] in favor of our estimation. More than 50\% of the subsample is inside the $1\sigma$ region and 90\% inside the $2\sigma$. Right: Logarithm of the surface gravity shows a good correlation, with an offset $\sim0.05\,cm.s^{-2}$ lower than apparent dispersion of the data around the 1:1 correlation. More than 70\% of the subsample is inside the $1\sigma$ region.}
\label{fig:comp_param_stell}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth, trim={0 0 {.02\height} {-0.035\height}},clip]{comp_Teff_GAIA_VS_Teff_sousa19.pdf}
\adjincludegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth, trim={{.02\height} 0 0 {-0.035\height}},clip]{comp_R_GAIA_VS_R_GAIAspec.pdf}
\caption{Comparison plots of photometric (from \citep{Brown2018}) and spectroscopic (from this paper) determinations of the effective temperatures and the stellar radii. The black diagonal line represents the 1:1 correlation and the red line represents the linear fit of the data. At the bottom of each figure, the residuals compared to the 1:1 correlation are shown, with their 1 and 2\,$\sigma$ dispersions represented by the shaded regions. Left: Effective temperatures seem to show a linear trend, but this is not significant compared to the dispersion of the date of $\sim110$\,K, inside which more than 85\% of the data is located. Right: Radii are in good agreement but show an apparent trend and increasing dispersion for masses above than $\sim15\,M_{\odot}$.}
\label{fig:comp_spec_gaia}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{graph_evol_tracks_BaSTI.pdf}
\caption{Positions in Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of the subsample of 620 stars for which we derived spectroscopic parameters. The three host stars we focus on in the present paper are highlighted as red dots. We adopted the luminosities obtained with the method described in \autoref{sub:stellar_mass}. The evolutionary tracks are from models of \citet{Pietrinferni2004} for different stellar masses ($1.0$, $1.2$, $1.5$, $1.7$, $2.0$, $2.5$, $3.0$, $4.0,$ and $5.0$ $M_{\odot}$ from bottom to top). They are for models with solar metallicity.}
\label{fig:evoltrack}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stellar luminosities, radii, and masses}\label{sub:stellar_mass}
We derived the luminosity $L$ for the stars in our sample using the Gaia DR2 parallaxes corrected by \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}\footnote{\citet{Bailer-Jones2018} provided purely geometric distance estimates by using an inference procedure that accounts for the nonlinearity of the transformation (inversion of the parallax) and the asymmetry of the resulting probability distribution.}, $V$-band magnitudes from \citet{Hog2000}, and the bolometric correction relation $BC$ of \citet{Alonso1999}\footnote{Considering the short distance of the stars of the sample, the extinction was not taken into account.}. We then used this luminosity and the spectroscopic effective temperature $T_{eff}$ to compute the stellar radii using the Stephan-Boltzmann relation. The uncertainties of the radii were estimated using a Monte Carlo approach. We compared our temperatures and radii with the GAIA DR2 values and found them to be in good agreement, as illustrated in \autoref{fig:comp_spec_gaia}.
The derived luminosities and spectroscopic effective temperatures are plotted in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in \autoref{fig:evoltrack}, together with the stellar evolutionary tracks at solar metallicity of \citet{Pietrinferni2004}\footnote{Available on the BaSTI database \href{http://basti.oa-teramo.inaf.it/index.html}{http://basti.oa-teramo.inaf.it.}}. Those were used to estimate the masses of our stars using the SPInS software \citep{Lebreton2020}\footnote{\href{https://dreese.pages.obspm.fr/spins/index.html}{https://dreese.pages.obspm.fr/spins/index.html}, which employs a global Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach taking into account the different timescales at various evolutionary stages and interpolation between the tracks.}. The approach compares the luminosity, effective temperature, logarithm of surface gravity, and [Fe/H] of individual objects to theoretical evolutionary tracks and accounts for the observational errors in these four quantities. Giant stars are located in the area of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram where individual evolutionary tracks are close to each other; thus, the derived precisions on the stellar masses might be overestimated. However, in our sample, the degeneracy between the horizontal branch (HB) and RGB is not too pronounced. Comparisons with masses derived from detailed asteroseismic modeling (see \autoref{subsec:masses_astero}) show some small differences. These discrepancies mainly originate from the use of a fixed enrichment law in the grid of \citet{Pietrinferni2004}, such that the chemical composition a the stars of our sample is fully determined from the determination of $\left[Fe/H\right] $ in our modeling using SPInS. This was not the case for the seismic modeling pipeline, where the additional constraints justified allowing for an additional free parameter. Thus, solutions with a chemical composition deviating from a fixed enrichment law where helium and metal abundances are tied together were possible outcomes of the modeling procedure. This is particularly visible for the two stars with Fe/H $\sim-0.2$ studied in \autoref{subsec:masses_astero} (HD\,22532 and HD\,64121), for which the asteroseismic analysis reveals an initial helium abundance slightly higher than the solar one despite their subsolar metallicity. This situation of course cannot be reproduced by models with an initial helium abundance fixed by the metallicity, which then leads to an overestimation of the stellar mass determined by SPInS to compensate for the incorrect helium abundance and reproduce the observed location in the HR diagram.
Nevertheless, we can consider that these fits still allow us to globally estimate the stellar masses of our sample of stars. The obtained distribution for all stars is shown in \autoref{fig:params_distrib}. The median of the distribution is found around $2.1$ $M_{\odot}$, corresponding to intermediate-mass stars. However, as mentioned above, some uncertainty on the evolutionary stage of a subsample of stars of our sample could have affected our determinations, especially if we consider deviations from a given chemical enrichment law. Indeed, some stars of our sample identified here as being around $\approx 2.0$ $M_{\odot}$ on the RGB could actually be low-mass stars in the red clump. This degeneracy could be lifted using asteroseismic observations of dipolar oscillation modes that allow us to unambiguously determine the evolutionary stage of these stars \citep{Beck2011,Bedding2011}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\textwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{stellar_params_new.pdf}
\caption{Distributions and relations between stellar parameters for our subsample of 620 stars. Top left: Metallicity distribution of the stars of our sample (colored in orange) compared with the same distribution for the $\sim1000$ stars (dashed histogram) in the CORALIE volume-limited sample \citep{Udry2000,Santos2001}. Top right: Distribution of the stellar masses obtained from track fitting. The corresponding kernel density estimation is overplotted in orange, using a Gaussian kernel. Bottom left: Mass vs. metallicity relation. (bottom right) Metallicity vs. logarithm of surface gravity. The two black lines were drawn by eye and show the biases in the samples due to the B-V cut-off. The red-dashed rectangle delimits the area of the potential unbiased subsample. The three planet hosts presented in this paper are represented by red dots.}
\label{fig:params_distrib}
\end{figure*}
\Autoref{tab:sample_table} shows example lines of the complete set of stellar parameters for our sample, available online\footnote{Available at \href{https://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr}{CDS} and \href{https://dace.unige.ch/catalogs/?catalog=CASCADES}{https://dace.unige.ch.}}. We also illustrate our results in \autoref{fig:params_distrib}. The metallicity distribution decreases with increasing [Fe/H] for [Fe/H]\,>\,0.0-0.1, similarly to the metallicity distribution \citep{Santos2001} of a large, volume-limited sample of dwarf stars in the solar neighborhood, included in the CORALIE survey \citep{Udry2000}. We observe that our sample of giants is lacking the metal-rich and very metal-poor stars. This tendency has been observed in many studies \citep[e.g.,][]{Luck2007,Takeda2008,Ghezzi2010,Adibekyan2015a,Adibekyan2019}. It may be related to the fact that giants, most of them being more massive, are younger than their dwarf counterparts. They thus do not have time to migrate far from the inner to the outer disks of the galaxy during their short lifetimes \citep{Wang2013,Minchev2013}. \citet{Adibekyan2019} also addresses the role of the age-metallicity dispersion relation \citep{DaSilva2006,Maldonado2013}, as well as potential selection effects due to B-V color cut-off \citep{Mortier2013}, which excludes low-log-g stars with high metallicity and high-log-g stars with low metallicity. We illustrate this effect in \autoref{fig:params_distrib}, in the same way as \citep{Adibekyan2015a}, by drawing diagonal lines that show the biases in the sample due to the color cut-off. We also represent the area that would correspond to an unbiased subsample inside a cut rectangle (red dashed rectangle). We will perform a detailed statistical study of the stellar parameters of our sample in future work.
\subsection{Asteroseismic masses for the three planet hosts}\label{subsec:masses_astero}
To go further and improve the mass estimation for the host star, we performed a detailed seismic analysis of the TESS short-cadence photometric data \citep{Ricker2014}, following the methodology of \citet{Buldgen2019}. This asteroseismology approach has the considerable advantage of leading to a highly precise and accurate mass estimate independently of any stellar evolution models. We used the method to extract masses for the three stellar hosts presented in this paper (see \autoref{tab:stellar_params}) to obtain a better estimation of the minimum mass of their planetary companions. The seismic masses can also be used as a benchmark to assess the accuracy of the masses obtained from evolutionary models, which in this case appear to be overestimated by an offset of $\sim$0.3-0.4\,M$_\odot$ but are consistent within 3-4 $\sigma$. This aspect will be addressed in a forthcoming paper once more asteroseismic masses are available. In practice, the mass estimates we present here are a result of the combination of seismic inversions of the mean density with the values of the stellar radii derived from GAIA parameters. The seismic inversion of the mean density was carried out following the methodology of \citet{Buldgen2019} and validated on eclipsing binaries. This estimate still depends on the seismic data, as well as the details of the determination of the radii from GAIA and spectrocopic data, such as the bolometric corrections and extinction laws. An in-depth description of the data extraction and seismic modeling, as well as an analysis of the orbital evolution and atmospheric evaporation of the planetary systems, can be found in a companion paper \citep{Buldgen2021}.\\
In \autoref{tab:stellar_params}, we summarize the spectroscopic parameters of the three stellar hosts announced in this paper and their masses derived from evolutionary tracks and asteroseismology.
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\caption{Example entries of the table of stellar parameters for the complete sample, available online at CDS.$^8$}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.562}{%
\begin{tabular}{l*{19}{c}}
\hline
\hline
HD & Sp. Type & $V$ & $B-V$ & $BC$ & $\pi$ & $d$ & $M_{V}$ & $Bp-Rp$ & $G$ & $T_{eff}$ & $log\,g$ & $[Fe/H]$ & $M_{*}$ & $L_{*}$ & $R_{*}$ \\
& & [mag] & [mag] & $BC$ & [mas] & [pc] & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & [K] & [cm\,s$^{-2}$] & [dex] & [M$_{\odot}$] & [L$_{\odot}$] & [R$_{\odot}$] \\
& [1] & [2] & [2] & [3] & [4] & [5] & [2,4,5] & [4] & [4] & [6] & [6] & [6] & [7] & [2,3,4] & [2,3,4,6] \\
\hline
496 & K0III & 3.88 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.312 $\pm$ 0.016 & 24.20 $\pm$ 0.29 & 41.3 $\substack{+0.5 \\ -0.5}$ & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.218 $\pm$ 0.006 & 0.42 $\pm$ 0.03 & 4858 $\pm$ 41 & 2.56 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.93 $\pm$ 0.23 & 50.44 $\pm$ 1.46 & 10.03 $\pm$ 0.22 \\
636 & K1/K2III & 5.29 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.303 $\pm$ 0.019 & 12.60 $\pm$ 0.08 & 79.2 $\substack{+0.5 \\ -0.5}$ & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.177 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.47 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4879 $\pm$ 51 & 2.78 $\pm$ 0.15 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.23 $\pm$ 0.09 & 50.47 $\pm$ 1.17 & 9.94 $\pm$ 0.24 \\
770 & K0III & 6.54 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.317 $\pm$ 0.017 & 7.22 $\pm$ 0.04 & 137.9 $\substack{+0.7 \\ -0.7}$ & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.178 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.01 & 4845 $\pm$ 45 & 2.66 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 & 1.91 $\pm$ 0.17 & 49.14 $\pm$ 1.04 & 9.95 $\pm$ 0.21 \\
... & & & & ... & & & & ... & & & ... & & & & ...\\
224949 & K0III & 7.10 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.338 $\pm$ 0.013 & 5.73 $\pm$ 0.05 & 173.7 $\substack{+1.4 \\ -1.4}$ & 0.90 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.183 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4795 $\pm$ 32 & 2.49 $\pm$ 0.09 & -0.33 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.30 $\pm$ 0.06 & 47.32 $\pm$ 1.07 & 9.97 $\pm$ 0.17 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\begin{tablenotes}
\scriptsize
\item {[1]} - HIPPARCOS catalog \citep{ESA1997}, [2] - TYCHO-2 catalog \citep{Hog2000}, [3] - \citet{Alonso1999}, [4] - GAIA DR2 \citep{Brown2018},
[5] - \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}, [6] - this paper (see \autoref{sub:spec_param}), [7] - this paper, with evolutionary tracks from \citet{Pietrinferni2004}.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{center}
\label{tab:sample_table}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Observed and inferred stellar parameters.}
\begin{tabular}{lllccc}
\hline
\hline
& & ref. & HD\,22532 & HD\,64121 & HD\,69123\\
TIC & & & 200851704 & 264770836 & 146264536\\
GAIA DR2 & & & {\tiny 4832768399133598080} & {\tiny 5488303966125344512} & {\tiny 5544699390684005248}\\
\hline
Sp. Type & & [1] & G8III/IV & G8/K0III & K1III \\
$V$ & [mag] & [2] & 7.85 $\pm$ 0.01 & 7.44 $\pm$ 0.01 & 5.77 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$B-V$ & [mag] & [2] & 0.89 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$BC$ & & [3] & -0.250 $\pm$ 0.013 & -0.238 $\pm$ 0.012 & -0.318 $\pm$ 0.016 \\
$\pi$ & [mas] & [4] & 6.18~$\pm$~0.03 & 7.67~$\pm$~0.03 & 13.28~$\pm$~0.06 \\
$d$ & [pc] & [5] & 161.2 $\substack{+0.7 \\ -0.7}$ & 130.0 $\substack{+0.5 \\ -0.5}$ & 75.1 $\substack{+0.4 \\ -0.4}$ \\
$M_{V}$ & [mag] & [2,4,5] & 1.81 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.87 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.39 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$Bp-Rp$ & [mag] & [4] & 1.087 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.076 $\pm$ 0.004 & 1.183 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
$M_G$ & [mag] & [4] & 1.56 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.60 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.09 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$T_{eff}$ & [K] & [4] & 5067 $\substack{+59 \\ -22}$ & 5066 $\substack{+58 \\ -60}$ & 4787 $\substack{+280 \\ -51}$ \\
& & [6] & 5038 $\pm$ 24 & 5078 $\pm$ 22 & 4842 $\pm$ 41 \\
$log\,g$ & [cm\,s$^{-2}$] & [6] & 3.09 $\pm$ 0.07 & 3.19 $\pm$ 0.06 & 2.86 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
$[Fe/H]$ & [dex] & [6] & -0.19 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
$M_{*}$ & [M$_{\odot}$] & [7] & 1.57 $\pm$ 0.07 & 1.64 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.68 $\pm$ 0.09 \\
& & [8] & 1.20 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1.18 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1.43 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
$L_{*}$ & [L$_{\odot}$] & [2,3,4] & 18.80 $\pm$ 0.33 & 17.70 $\pm$ 0.30 & 29.51 $\pm$ 0.57 \\
$R_{*}$ & [R$_{\odot}$] & [2,3,4,6] & 5.69 $\pm$ 0.07 & 5.44 $\pm$ 0.07 & 7.72 $\pm$ 0.15 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small
\item {[1]} - HIPPARCOS catalog \citep{ESA1997}, [2] - TYCHO-2 catalog \citep{Hog2000}, [3] - \citet{Alonso1999}, [4] - GAIA DR2 \citep{Brown2018}, [5] - \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}, [6] - this paper (see \autoref{sub:spec_param}), [7] - this paper, with evolutionary tracks from \citet{Pietrinferni2004}, [8] - \citet{Buldgen2021}.
\end{tablenotes}
\label{tab:stellar_params}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\section{Data acquisition and analysis}\label{sec:obs_analysis}
\subsection{Data acquisition and processing}\label{subsec:ts_obs}
For each target, we collected several tens of radial-velocity data over a median time span of 13 years, with a typical S/N = 70 for an exposure time between 180 and 300\,s\footnote{Following the 2007 and 2014 upgrades, we have to fit a small radial-velocity offset between the three versions of the CORALIE instrument, the values of the offset depending on several aspects such as the considered star or the correlation mask used. We thus consider the three versions of CORALIE as three different instruments.}. \cref{tab:timeseries_hd22532,tab:timeseries_hd64121,tab:timeseries_hd69123} give the list of these measurements with their instrumental error bars.
We first analyzed the radial-velocity time series using the radial-velocity module of the Data \& Analysis Center for Exoplanets (DACE) web platform,\footnote{\href{https://dace.unige.ch/radialVelocities/?}{https://dace.unige.ch/radialVelocities/?.}} which provides an open access to a wide range of exoplanets' observational and theoretical data with the corresponding data visualization and analysis tools.
The formalism of the radial-velocity data analysis implemented in DACE is described in Ségransan et al. (submitted, Appendix~A) and is mainly based on algorithms presented in \citet{Diaz2014} and \citet{Delisle2016, Delisle2018}.
Our general approach for a periodic signal search is the following. For each time series, we follow an iterative process consisting of looking for successive significant dominant peaks in the periodograms of the corresponding radial-velocity residuals. At each step, the radial-velocity residuals are computed by readjusting the model composed of the N-independent Keplerians, potential linear or quadratic drift terms to fit long-term trends, the individual instrumental offsets, and additional noise. We fit a combination of white noise terms corresponding to individual instrumental precisions\footnote{The instrumental precisions are well constrained for each version of CORALIE, calibrated on non-active stars: $\sigma_{COR98}=5.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{COR07}=8.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$, and $\sigma_{COR14}=3.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$. Those values are used as priors on the instrumental noise terms in \autoref{sec:results}.} and a global noise term attributed to intrinsic stellar jitter. This approach allows us to obtain an idea of how much noise can be attributed to stellar physics; however, one must be aware of the degeneracy between those two sources of noise, which is only partially lifted by using strong priors on the instrumental noise. The final error bars on the velocities correspond to the quadratic sum of the error computed by the data reduction software, the instrumental noise and the stellar jitter. We proceeded with the periodicity search by computing the periodogram of the data in the $1-10\,000$ days\footnote{Using the algorithm implemented on DACE (see \citet{Delisle2020b}) and setting the upper bound of the periodogram at approximately twice the time span of the survey.} range and using the false alarm probability (FAP) to assess the significance of the signal, following the formalism of \citet{Baluev2008}. Significant signals can have different origins, and they are discussed in \autoref{subsec:stell_lineprof}.
\subsection{Stellar activity and line profile analysis}\label{subsec:stell_lineprof}
Stellar activity in giant stars originates from different phenomena. Short period modulations of the order of hours to days (first discussed by \citet{Walker1989,Hatzes1993,Hatzes1994}) are understood to be the result of solar-like radial pulsations (p, g, or mixed modes) \citep{Frandsen2002,DeRidder2006,Hekker2006a}.
Concerning longer period variations, mechanisms such as magnetic cycles \citep{Santos2010,Dumusque2011a}, rotational modulation of features on the stellar surface (star spots, granulation, etc. \citep{Lambert1987,Larson1993,DelgadoMena2018}), beating of modes, or a combination of all three are to be considered. Non-radial oscillations have also been discussed \citep{Hekker2006c} and confirmed by \citet{DeRidder2009,Hekker2010b} as a source of periodic modulation of the spectroscopic cross-correlation profile. Those modes can have lifetimes of up to several hundreds of days \citep{Dupret2009}.
The careful monitoring of the spectral line profile via the cross-correlation function (CCF) and of the chromospheric activity indicators is essential to help distinguish between planetary signals and stellar-induced variations of the radial velocities.
Our estimate of the star's radial velocity is based on the CCF technique \citep{Griffin1967,Baranne1979,Queloz2001}, which creates a sort of mean spectral line from the thousands of lines used in the correlation, and of significantly higher S/N compared to a single line. In order for stellar activity to significantly impact the CCF profile, and thus the radial-velocity value, it would have to affect the majority of the spectral lines. Such an effect could cause deformations in the line profile and possibly mimic a planetary signal. Computing the contrast, radial-velocity, full width at half maximum (FWHM), and the bisector inverse span (BIS), which are linked to the first four moments of the line profile, gives enough information to precisely control the evolution of the profile along the time series \citep{Aerts2000}.
Magnetic activity enhances the emission from the stellar corona and chromosphere, resulting in emissions in the X-Ray and UV regions, as well as emissions in the cores of the \textit{H\&K Ca II} lines and H$\alpha$. The H$\alpha$ activity index is sensitive to solar prominences and chromospheric activity. The reversal emission in the line core of \textit{Ca II H\&K} (S-index) \citep{Wilson1978}, which measures the contributions from the stellar photosphere and chromosphere, and the $log\,R'_{HK}$ activity index, which measures the chromospheric contribution of the \textit{H\&K Ca} lines excluding the photospheric component, cannot be directly computed from the CORALIE spectra in a reliable way, because of the low S/N in this part of the spectra.
The time series and corresponding periodograms of those line profiles and of the H$\alpha$ chromospheric indicator \citep[following the method described in][]{Boisse2009,GomesdaSilva2011} are produced systematically to check for any signs of periodicity and a possible origin of the radial-velocity variations. Correlations between these indicators and radial velocities were also checked. Causes such as stellar pulsations can be ruled out by comparing the behavior of line profiles from different spectral regions; for pulsating stars, the temporal and phasing behavior of the moments should remain the same for any spectral region (a signature should also be present in the BIS \citep{Hatzes1999}). For detailed examples, we invite the reader to consult the analyses of \cite{Briquet2001b} or \citet{Briquet2004}, which attempted to discriminate between stellar pulsation and rotational modulation (presence of stellar spots) as the source of observed periodic variability, using \textit{Si II} and \textit{He I} lines in slow pulsating B stars. In the case of rotational modulation, the BIS and the S-index should vary in phase and with the same period as the radial-velocities, which is a period that should also correspond to the stellar rotation period. However, phase shifts have been observed, for example, in the case of the G2 dwarf HD\,41248 \citep{Santos2014}. The star exhibits a 25\,day periodicity in the radial-velocity, FWHM, and $log\,R'_{HK}$ time series, probably explained by rotational modulation combined with a strong differential rotation of the star.
We should, however, stress here that giant stars are still not fully understood, and we have to keep in mind that the absence of periodic signals in line-shape variations does not mean for sure that the radial-velocity signal is induced by a planetary companion. It remains, however, our best interpretation of the observations.
\section{Analysis of individual systems: Orbital solutions}\label{sec:results}
Following the approach described in \autoref{subsec:ts_obs}, we analyzed the long time series of observations obtained for the three targets presented in this paper. The final parameters of each system were computed using the MCMC algorithm implemented in DACE (developed by \citet{Diaz2014,Diaz2016}) to probe the complete parameter space, with $1.6$ million iterations. We fit the following parameters for the Keplerian model: log\,P and log\,K to better explore ranges of several orders of magnitude with a uniform prior. $\sqrt{e \cos{\omega}}$ and $\sqrt{e \sin{\omega}}$ to obtain a uniform prior for the eccentricity. Finally, we obtained $\lambda_0,$ the mean longitude at epoch of reference (i.e., $BJD=2\,455\,500$ [d]), with a uniform prior. We used a uniform prior for the COR07 offset of reference, and Gaussian priors for the relative offsets between COR07 and COR98/14: $\Delta\,RV_{COR98-COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(0,4)$ m\,s$^{-1}$ and $\Delta\,RV_{COR14-COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(14,4)$ m\,s$^{-1}$. We also used Gaussian priors for the instrumental noise: $\sigma_{COR98}$: $\mathcal{N}(5,1)$ m\,s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(8,1.5)$ m\,s$^{-1 }$ , and $\sigma_{COR14}$: $\mathcal{N}(3,0.5)$ m\,s$^{-1}$. Finally, we used a uniform prior for the stellar jitter parameter.
For all three targets, the fit instrumental noises (on top of the photon noise) are in the range of the individual instrumental precisions. In the case of HD\,64121, the fit stellar jitter clearly dominates over the instrumental precision, with a level of $\sim$17\,m\,s$^{-1}$. For each time series, we checked for periodicities and correlations in the activity-related products of the
high-resolution spectra mentioned above.
\subsection{HD 22532}\label{subsec:hd22532}
For HD\,22532\footnote{TIC\,200851704 ; GAIA DR2 4832768399133598080} , we detect a $\sim$873\,day periodic variation of the radial velocities, which, fit by a Keplerian model, corresponds to a planet in a quasi-circular orbit, 1.9\,au away from its star, and with a semi-amplitude of 40\,m\,s$^{-1}$ corresponding to a minimum mass of 2.1\,M$_J$ (using $M_{\star}=1.2$\,M$_{\odot}$ from \autoref{tab:stellar_params}). We observe in the periodogram of the H$\alpha$ activity index of HD\,22532 (see bottom periodogram in \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd22532}) a non-significant peak at $\sim$810 days, with a FAP level well below 10\%, which is at the same level as the higher frequency white noise. We checked for a linear correlation with the radial-velocities, and the weighted Pearson coefficient was found as low as $R_{P}=-0.396\pm0.068$. We also computed the weighted Spearman's rank $R_S=0.411\pm0.066$, which is also considered a low correlation. The important dispersion of the H$\alpha$ data points and the low significance of a period approximately 60 days shorter than the one detected in the radial velocities indicates that those variations are most likely not at the origin of - nor are they linked to - the radial-velocity signal.
\begin{figure}[!p]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 {-.004\height}},clip]{HD22532_mcmc_figs_new.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: Radial velocities of HD\,22532 from CORALIE (COR98 in blue, COR07 in orange and COR14 in green) with the best Keplerian model superimposed (solid line), and corresponding residuals around the solution. Second panel: Phased radial-velocity solution. Third panel: Periodograms of the radial-velocity time series, the residuals of the radial-velocities after substraction of the fit periodic signal, and the periodiodogram of the H$\alpha$ activity index time series. The red vertical line indicates the period of the orbital solution (872.6\,days). Horizontal lines are the FAP levels at 10\% (continuous), 1\% (dashed), and 0.1\% (dotted-dashed).}
\label{fig:timeseries_hd22532}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!pt]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{HD64121_mcmc_figs_new.pdf}
\caption{Same as \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd22532}, but for HD\,64121. The period of the best solution is 623.0\,days.}
\label{fig:timeseries_hd64121}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!pt]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{HD69123_mcmc_figs_new.pdf}
\caption{Same as \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd22532}, but for HD\,69123. The period of the best solution is 1193.3\,days.}
\label{fig:timeseries_hd69123}
\end{figure}
\subsection{HD 64121}\label{subsec:hd64121}
In the case of HD\,64121\footnote{TIC\,264770836 ; GAIA DR2 5488303966125344512}, a $\sim$623 day periodic variation is fit by a Keplerian model. It corresponds to a planet in a low-eccentricity orbit, 1.5\,au away from its star, with a semi-amplitude of $\sim$55\,m\,s$^{-1}$ and corresponding to a minimum mass of 2.6\,M$_J$ ($M_{\star}=1.18$\,M$_{\odot}$). The periodogram of the radial-velocity residuals, after substraction of the fit, presents a non-significant peak at $\sim$1\,000\,days at the same level as the higher-frequency noise. HD\,64121 also exhibits a similar non-significant peak in the periodogram of the H$\alpha$ activity index (see bottom periodogram in \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd64121}), at $\sim$550 days. The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient with the radial-velocities was found to be non-significant at $R_P=0.072\pm0.116$. We also computed the weighted Spearman's rank $R_S=0.100\pm0.118$, which is also non-significant. We reach the same conclusion as for HD\,22532, that those variations are most likely not at the origin of - nor are they linked to - the radial-velocity signal.
\subsection{HD 69123}\label{subsec:hd69123}
Finally, HD\,69123\footnote{TIC\,146264536; GAIA DR2 5544699390684005248.} presents the longest periodic variation, with a $\sim$1193 day signal corresponding to a planet in a slightly eccentric orbit of $e=0.2$. The semi-major axis of the planetary orbit is $\sim$2.5\,au, and the semi-amplitude $\sim$47\,m\,s$^{-1}$ leads to a minimum mass of 3\,M$_J$ for the planetary companion ($M_{\star}=1.43$\,M$_{\odot}$). HD\,69123 presents a peak in the periodogram of the H$\alpha$ activity index, with a FAP level below 1\% (bottom panel in \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd69123}), at a period of $\sim$367 days. We suspect this almost one-year periodicity to be caused by a telluric contamination of the H$\alpha$ line, and potentially water lines.
\subsection{Intrinsic variability and final solutions}
For the three stars, none of our other activity indicators (contrast, FWHM and BIS) show any similar periodicity or significant correlation with the radial velocities (see \autoref{apdx:perio_act_indic}).
We also checked the V-band photometric data available in the All-Sky Automated Survey (ASAS-3, \citet{Pojmanski2002}) for our stars. This survey is very interesting as it is one of the only surveys with a time span of almost nine years. For reasons of consistency and reliability of the data post-processing (mainly correction of saturation and camera focus stability due to instrumental issues), we have to consider this data with caution when using it to check for variability due to intrinsic stellar processes or surface rotational modulation. We discuss this matter in more detail in \citet{Pezzotti2021}. No periodicities linked to the ones detected in the radial-velocity data have been found for any of the three stars presented in this paper.
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Radial-velocity observation statistics, best-fit solutions of the model with instrumental offsets, nuisance parameters, Keplerian orbital parameters, and inferred planetary parameters.}
\begin{tabular}{llccc}
\hline
\hline
& & HD\,22532b & HD\,64121b & HD\,69123b \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Observations}}\\
\hline
$N_{obs}$ & & 52 & 36 & 36 \\
$T_{span}$ & $[days]$ & 5016 & 4853 & 4507 \\
$rms_{tot}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 31.15 & 44.93 & 31.68 \\
$rms_{res}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 8.44 & 15.93 & 8.42 \\
$\chi^2_{red}$ & & 1.30 & 1.44 & 1.69 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Offsets $^{(1)}$}}\\
\hline
$\Delta\,RV_{COR98-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 2.0~$\pm$~2.3 & -0.1~$\pm$~3.7 & -4.1~$\pm$~3.5 \\
$\Delta\,RV_{COR07-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 29248.9~$\pm$~1.5 & -4117.9~$\pm$~4.0 & 27476.7~$\pm$~2.4 \\
$\Delta\,RV_{COR14-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 20.9~$\pm$~2.2 & 15.1~$\pm$~3.4 & 21.9~$\pm$~2.8 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Instrumental Noises}}\\
\hline
$\sigma_{COR98}$ & $[m/s]$ & 4.7~$\pm$~1.0 & 4.9~$\pm$~1.0 & 5.2~$\pm$~1.0 \\
$\sigma_{COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 6.8~$\pm$~1.2 & 7.8~$\pm$~1.5 & 7.8~$\pm$~1.4 \\
$\sigma_{COR14}$ & $[m/s]$ & 3.1~$\pm$~0.5 & 3.0~$\pm$~0.5 & 3.0~$\pm$~0.5 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Stellar Jitter}}\\
\hline
$\sigma_{jit}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 2.1~$\pm$~1.6 & 16.8~$\pm$~2.6 & 7.2~$\pm$~1.8 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Keplerians}}\\
\hline
$P$ & $[days]$ & 872.6~$\pm$~2.8 & 623.0~$\pm$~3.4 & 1193.3~$\pm$~7.0 \\
$K$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 40.0~$\pm$~1.6 & 55.2~$\pm$~4.1 & 46.8~$\pm$~2.4 \\
$e$ & & 0.03~$\pm$~0.03 & 0.11~$\pm$~0.07 & 0.19~$\pm$~0.06 \\
$\omega$ & $[deg]$ & 169.1~$\pm$~88.7 & 2.7~$\pm$~56.0 & -67.3~$\pm$~21.7 \\
$\lambda_0$ $^{(2)}$ & $[deg]$ & 110.7~$\pm$~2.3 & -77.5~$\pm$~7.3 & 227.6~$\pm$~4.5 \\
$T_p$ $^{(2)}$ & $[rjd]$ & 5575.0~$\pm$~221.0 & 5653.0~$\pm$~130.0 & 5715.7~$\pm$~64.6 \\
\hline
$a$ & $[au]$ & 1.900~$\pm$~0.004 & 1.510~$\pm$~0.006 & 2.482~$\pm$~0.010 \\
$m_2\,sin\,i$ $^{(3)}$ & $[M_J]$ & 2.12~$\pm$~0.09 & 2.56~$\pm$~0.19 & 3.04~$\pm$~0.16 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small
\item {$^1$} The reference instrument is COR07.
\item {$^2$} The mean longitude is given at $BJD=2\,455\,500$ [d], while $2\,450\,000$ has been subtracted from the date of passage through periastron ($T_p$).
\item {$^3$} Using the model-independent mass from seismic inversions \citep[see][]{Buldgen2021}).\end{tablenotes}
\label{tab:orbit_params}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
We are thus fairly confident that the observed radial-velocity periodic variations are not due to chromospheric stellar activity, or rotational modulation of surface features such as spots, which would require an significant percentage of the stellar surface to be covered. We also found no indication of long-period, non-radial oscillation modes (neither matching periodicities nor corresponding harmonics in the line profile moments). We thus consider that the observed radial-velocity signals are due to planetary companions orbiting the stars. The resulting models and residuals are shown in \cref{fig:timeseries_hd22532,fig:timeseries_hd64121,fig:timeseries_hd69123}, overplotted on the radial-velocities. In \autoref{tab:orbit_params}, we present the statistics of the distributions (i.e., the median and standard deviation) of the more common set of Keplerian parameters P, K, e, $\omega$ and T$_P$, as well as the distributions of the semi-major axis and minimum masses, derived from the MCMC chains of the fit parameters. In \autoref{apdx:corner}, we present the corner plots of the posterior distributions of the fit parameters for each star. The weighted rms scatter of the radial velocities $rms_{tot}$ and residuals to the Keplerian fit $rms_{res}$ are also provided in the table. For all three targets, the rms of the residuals are comparable to those of single giant stars with similar $B-V$ \citep[see][Fig.\,3]{Hekker2006b}.
\section{Discussion and conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
Since 2006, we have been conducting a high-precision radial-velocity survey of a volume-limited sample of 641 giant stars using the CORALIE spectrograph on the 1.2\,m Leonard Euler Swiss telescope at La Silla Observatory (Chile). Our goal is to better understand the formation and evolution of planets around stars more massive than the Sun, including the evolutionary stage of stars toward the giant branch, through a statistical study of the properties of the detected planet population. The sample is volume limited, targeting giant stars in the southern hemisphere (declination $<25^{\circ}$) inside a 300\,pc radius around the Sun. The evolutionary stage of the stars was constrained by magnitude ($M_V<2.5$) and color ($0.78<B-V<1.06$) cut-offs to avoid main-sequence stars and intrinsically variable late-type giants. We derived reliable spectroscopic parameters from CORALIE-14 spectra \citep[following][]{Santos2004,Sousa2014,Alves2015}. Our sample shows a distribution of a metallicity ratio of iron similar to the one of stars in the solar neighborhood, peaking between 0.0 and 0.1\,dex, but missing very low and rich metallicity stars. This may be explained by the young age of the giants, compared to their dwarf counterparts, which did not leave them enough time to migrate in the Galaxy \citet{Wang2013,Minchev2013}. A color cut-off bias could also be part of the explanation for this effect, excluding the low-log-g stars with high metallicity and the high-log-g stars with low metallicity, as discussed in \citet{Mortier2013, Adibekyan2019}. We also obtained stellar masses for the sample with global parameters fitting, using evolutionary tracks from \citet{Pietrinferni2004}, using the SPInS software \citep{Lebreton2020}. The distribution ranges approximately from 0.75 to 4\,M$_{\odot}$, with a maximum around 2\,M$_{\odot}$.
This paper is the first of a series in which we present the first results of the survey, namely the detection and characterization of three new planetary companions orbiting the giant stars HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123, taking advantage of asteroseismic masses, following the methodology of \citet{Buldgen2019}, obtained with the TESS data \citep{Ricker2014}. For each star, we systematically checked for any correlation with chromospheric activity, rotational modulation of surface features, or long-term non-radial pulsations. We also consulted the corresponding ASAS-3 photometry time series \citep{Pojmanski2002}, spanning 6.8 to 7.4 years. No significant periodicities or correlations linked to the radial-velocity signal detected have been found.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\textwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{pla_params.pdf}
\caption{Stellar and planetary parameter relations for the 186 discovered planets orbiting giant stars. The three planets presented in this paper are represented by red dots.}
\label{fig:pla_params}
\end{figure*}
The new planets are typical representatives of the known population of planets around giant stars, considering their masses, semi-major axes, and low eccentricities. This is illustrated in \cref{fig:pla_params} displaying the new detections together with the planet candidates from the literature. Most planets discovered around giant stars have eccentricities below 0.2-0.3 \citep[e.g.,][]{Jones2014,Yilmaz2017}, and are at distances, that is, farther away than 1\,au from the central star.
Monitoring of the CASCADES sample is continuing. As an interesting by-product, it is also bringing important information on stellar binaries and star-brown-dwarf systems. The formation scenario for the latter is still unclear. The system may form initially as a binary star with an extreme mass ratio, or through a formation process comparable to the one for planets in the proto-stellar disk, via disk instability or core accretion. The maximum mass of planets forming in a massive disk is not known. Forthcoming papers will present additional planetary candidates, as well as potential brown dwarfs and spectroscopic binaries found in the sample. We will also address through a statistical study of our sample, the main open questions linked with the planet population orbiting intermediate-mass (evolved) stars: distribution of orbital properties as constraints for planet formation models, correlations between planet characteristics and occurrence rate with primary star properties such as mass and metallicity.
In this context, some planet-host stars from our sample are particularly well suited for a deep asteroseismic analysis, giving access to their internal structure. The available information includes well-constrained planetary signals, long, photometric, high-precision time series from high-cadence observations with TESS, and accurate spectroscopic parameters. Asteroseismologic analysis can provide precious information concerning the past and future evolution of such systems. Among the highly interesting related questions is the one of the impact of stellar evolution on the planet orbits and of the potential engulfment of planets by the star \citep{Pezzotti2021}, for instance to explain the apparent lack of close-in, short-period planets ($P\leqslant100$\,days, $a\leqslant0.5$\,au). The second and third publications of the CASCADES series will focus on the asteroseimic analysis of the three stellar hosts presented in this paper \citep{Buldgen2021} and the analysis of a new planet-host star \citep{Pezzotti2021}, for which the full evolution of the system can be modeled.
Giant stars hosting planets are good candidates for planetary transit searches. Due to the increase in radius at the giant stage, companions of giant stars have a higher probability of transit than planets around main-sequence stars. However, as these planets are on long-period orbits, the transit duration is on the order of tens to hundreds of hours. Moreover, because of the relative size of the planet and the star, the expected transit depth is very small. For our sample stars, they are in the $10-1000$ ppm range. Although very limiting for ground-based observations, these two aspects are tractable from space with satellites such as TESS \citep{Ricker2014} and CHEOPS \citep{Benz2020}. The three systems described in this paper present transit probabilities around 1.5\,\% and transit depth between 170 and 350\,ppm (considering planets with a 1\,R$_J$ radius). Unfortunately, none of these candidates has thus far had a transit time prediction in the window of the TESS observations.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank all observers at La Silla Observatory from the past fourteen years for their contribution to the observations and the quality of their work. We acknowledge financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for the project 2020-178930. This work has, in part, also been carried out within the framework of the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS supported by SNSF. In particular, this publication makes use of the The Data \& Analysis Center for Exoplanets (DACE, https://dace.unige.ch), a platform of Planets, based at the University of Geneva (CH), dedicated to extrasolar planet data visualisation, exchange and analysis.
G.B. acknowledges funding from the SNF AMBIZIONE grant No. 185805 (Seismic inversions and modelling of transport processes in stars).
P.E. has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 833925, project STAREX).
C.P. acknowledges funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (project Interacting Stars, number 200020-172505).
V. A. acknowledges the support from FCT through Investigador FCT contract no. IF/00650/2015/CP1273/CT0001.
N.C.S acknowledges support from FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through national funds and by FEDER through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização by these grants: UID/FIS/04434/2019; UIDB/04434/2020; UIDP/04434/2020; PTDC/FIS-AST/32113/2017 \& POCI-01-0145-FEDER-032113; PTDC/FIS-AST/28953/2017 \& POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028953.
S.G.S acknowledges the support from FCT through Investigador FCT contract nr. CEECIND/00826/2018 and POPH/FSE (EC).
N.L. acknowledges financial support from "Programme National de Physique Stellaire" (PNPS) of CNRS/INSU, France.
This research has made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Since the discovery of 51 Peg\,b by \citet{Mayor1995}, the first extrasolar planet orbiting a solar-like star, over 4800 exoplanets\footnote{See e.g., \href{https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/}{https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu} (as of January 5, 2022).} have been detected, including almost 900 using the radial-velocity technique. Those distant worlds cover a broad diversity of orbital properties \citep{Udry2007,Winn2014}, expected to be fossil traces of the formation process of these systems and potentially linked as well to the properties and evolutionary stages of their host stars and their environments.
Models of planetary formation were at first developed based on the system we know best, the Solar System, and have evolved significantly in the past twenty years with the increasing flow of information derived from observations of exoplanet systems. The observed diversity of planet properties finds its origin in the physical process at play coupled with the local conditions during the formation of the system. Today, two main competing paradigms are proposed for planet formation: the core accretion model: a dust-to-planet bottom-up scenario \citep[e.g.,][]{Lissauer1993,Pollack1996,Alibert2005}, which can lead to the formation of gas giants in a few million years, and the disk's gravitational instability \citep{Boss1997, Durisen2006}, which can form massive planets on a very short timescale of a few thousand years \citep[see][for reviews on those processes]{Helled2014,Raymond2014}. Both agree on the formation of substellar companions from the circum-stellar accretion disk, but then differ depending on the initial environmental conditions in the disk, planet-disk, and planet-planet interactions.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Planet-search programs monitoring evolved stars.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
\hline
Survey & References \\
\hline
the Lick G- and K-giant survey & \citet{Frink2001, Hekker2006b} \\
the ESO planet search program & \citet{Setiawan2003a} \\
the Okayama Planet Search Program & \citet{Sato2005} \\
\hspace{15pt}with the collaborative survey "EAPS-Net" & \citet{Izumiura2005} \\
the Tautenburg observatory Planet Search & \citet{Hatzes2005, Dollinger2007a} \\
Retired A-stars and their companions & \citet{Johnson2006} \\
the CORALIE \& HARPS search in open clusters & \citet{Lovis2007} \\
\hspace{15pt}with the follow-up program & \citet{DelgadoMena2018} \\
the Penn States Torún Planet Search & \citet{Niedzielski2007} \\
\hspace{15pt}with the follow-up program Tracking Advanced Planetary Systems & \citet{Niedzielski2015b} \\
the BOAO K-giant survey & \citet{Han2010} \\
the Pan-Pacific Planet Search & \citet{Wittenmyer2011} \\
the Exoplanet aRound Evolved StarS project & \citet{Jones2011} \\
the Boyunsen Planet Search & \citet{Lee2011} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:surveys}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
Large planet-search surveys first focused on solar-type and very low-mass stars, leaving aside more massive stellar hosts that were more complex to observe and study. As the impact of the stellar mass on planet formation is still debated, it is of great interest to study the population of planets around intermediate-mass stars, that is in the $1.5-5\,M_{\odot}$ range.
Such systems are especially useful to probe the two main competing formation models. In the early phase of the process, the stellar mass seems to have little effect on the protoplanetary disk formation and evolution; however, after 3 million years stars with masses $> 2\,M_{\odot}$ start showing significant differences compared to lower mass stars, such as stronger radiation fields and higher accretion rates \citep{Ribas2015}. These impact the evolution of protoplanetary disks significantly, and by $\sim$10\,Myr there are no more disks around those higher mass stars. The typical timescale of core accretion could become problematic for massive stars that have shorter disk lifetimes \citep{Lagrange2000}. However, searching for planets orbiting main-sequence stars of intermediate masses (A to mid-F types) proves to be a challenge for Doppler searches, mainly due to the too few absorption lines present in early-type dwarfs as a consequence of their high effective temperatures, and secondly due to the rotational broadening of the lines (typical rotational velocities of 50-200\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for A-type stars, 10-100\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for early-F stars \citep{Galland2005}). A method to extract the radial-velocity from the spectrum in Fourier space was developed by \citet{Chelli2000} and then adapted and applied to early-type stars by \citet{Galland2005}. The typical radial-velocity uncertainties obtained were on the order of 100-300 and 10-50\,m\,s$^{-1}$ (normalized to a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) = 200) for A- and F-type stars, respectively. With this technique, the team confirmed the existence of the known planet around the F7V star HD\,120136 (Tau Boo) announced by \citet{Butler1997}. The orbital parameters from \citet{Galland2005} were consistent with the values previously found. These results confirmed the accuracy of the computed radial-velocities and the possibility to detect companions in the massive, giant planetary domain for A- and F-type stars with substantial v\,sini, using high-resolution, stable spectrographs such as HARPS.
On the other hand, stars will inflate during their evolution toward the red giant branch (RGB). The effective temperature thus reduces significantly, making many more absorption lines visible in the spectra. Moreover, the rotation of the star slows down, reducing the broadening effect on the lines and making them sharper. Those stars are thus suitable bright proxies for radial-velocity planet searches around intermediate-mass stars. The analysis and interpretation of the variability of radial-velocity time series of giant stars can, however, be challenging because of their intrinsic variability, which, moreover, can also be periodic \citep[e.g.,][]{Hekker2006a,Hekker2007b}. Disentangling stellar from potential planetary contributions represents a challenge in the search for long-period and low-mass companions around evolved stars.
Bringing observational constraints on the formation and evolution of planetary systems relies principally on the determination of orbital parameters such as semi-major axes and eccentricities. It also relies on the knowledge of host star properties such as mass, radius, age, metallicity, and the abundances of individual elements. For giant stars, the mass and age are poorly constrained with the classical method of isochrone fitting because the evolutionary tracks in the HR diagram are too close to each other. The uncertainties on the observations (stellar magnitudes and colors) and systematics of the models lead to typical relative uncertainties on the stellar masses of 80-100\%. \citet{Lovis2007}, followed by \citet{Sato2007a} and \citet{Pasquini2012}, overcame this difficulty. They studied giant star populations in open clusters, for which better ages can be determined. This lead them to better mass estimates from stellar evolution models (\citet{Lovis2007} using the Padova models at solar metallicity \citep{Girardi2000}). More recently, GAIA DR2 unprecedented homogeneous photometric and astrometric data covering the whole sky allows for more precise age determination \citep[e.g.,][derived parameters such as age, distance modulus, and extinction for a sample of 269 open clusters]{Bossini2019}.
In the late 1980s, a few surveys monitored giant star activity to better understand the origin of the observed large radial-velocity variations for late giant stars, with periods from days \citep{Hatzes1994} to hundreds of days \citep{Walker1989,Hatzes1993,Hatzes1999} and amplitudes of hundreds of m\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{Udry1999}. Such a variability can be explained by a combination of stellar intrinsic activity such as oscillations, pulsations or the presence of substellar companions. Several surveys searching for stable reference stars reported that many giants show relatively small radial-velocity standard deviations for early giant stars: $\sigma_{RV} \leq$ 20\,m\,s$^{-1}$ for several among the 86 K giants followed by \citet{Frink2001} and the 34 K giants observed by \citet{Hekker2006b}. These results show that giant stars are suitable for the detection of substellar companions with radial-velocity measurements. It is worth mentioning the case of Gamma Cep here \citep{Campbell1988}, which is also considered as intrinsically variable despite the K1 giant spectral type.
\citet{Frink2002}, as part of a radial-velocity survey of K giants \citep{Frink2001}, announced the detection of a 8.9\,M$_{jup}$ (minimal mass) companion orbiting the K2 III giant $\iota$ Draconis with a period of 536\,d period and an eccentricity of 0.70, making it the first substellar companion discovered orbiting a giant star. Since then, several radial-velocity surveys have been launched to follow evolved stars with intermediate masses. The list of these programs is presented in \autoref{tab:surveys}. As of November 2020, they have led to the discovery of 186 substellar companions around evolved stars in 164 systems\footnote{The list was established from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, accessible at \href{https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/TblView/nph-tblView?app=ExoTbls\&config=PSCompPars}{https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu}, by selecting the hosts with log\,g\,$\leq$\,3.5\,cm\,s$^{-2}$. The list thus contains giant and subgiant hosts.}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{graph_M_V_VS_B-V_lims.pdf}
\caption{Color-magnitude diagram from Hipparcos measurements \citep{ESA1997} for stars with parallax precisions better than 14\% (in gray), with clear localization of our sample (in orange). The dashed lines represent the selection limits at absolute magnitude $M_V < 2.5$ (green), and between the lower (red) and higher $B-V$ values at 0.78 and 1.06. The planet host candidates presented in this paper (HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123) are highlighted in red.}
\label{fig:hr_hipp}
\end{figure}
In this context, a survey of a volume-limited sample of evolved stars of intermediate masses, the CORALIE radial-velocity Search for Companions ArounD Evolved Stars (CASCADES), was initiated in 2006. The sample is presented in \autoref{sec:survey}, with the methods used to derive the stellar parameters described in \autoref{sec:methods}. \Autoref{sec:obs_analysis} describes the complete time series acquisition process and analysis, from the search for periodicities in the activity indicators to the Keplerian fitting of the radial velocities, which lead to orbital solutions of three newly discovered planetary companions in \autoref{sec:results}. Additional detections and statistical analysis of the survey will be presented in a series of subsequent publications. Finally, in \autoref{sec:conclusion} we discuss some implications of the first discoveries and provide concluding remarks in the broader context of the population of giant stars hosting substellar companions.
\section{The CASCADES survey}\label{sec:survey}
\subsection{Goals and sample definition}\label{sub:sample_def}
\begin{figure}[th!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{hist_Vmag.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{hist_dist_GAIA_bailer18.pdf}
\caption{Distributions of CASCADES survey sample (filled orange histogram), compared with the published giant stars known to host planet companions (dashed histogram). The top panel displays the apparent magnitude (TYCHO-2 catalog, \citet{Hog2000}) and the bottom one the distance (GAIA DR2, \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}). The CASCADES original 2006 sample and its 2011 extension are differentiated by lighter and darker orange shades, respectively. The positions of HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123 are represented by red lines.}
\label{fig:hist_v}
\end{figure}
In the context described above, in 2006 we (i.e., Christophe Lovis and Michel Mayor) launched a precise radial-velocity survey of evolved stars of intermediate masses, which we refer to as "giant stars" in this paper. The main motivation was to better understand the formation of planetary systems and their evolution around stars more massive than the Sun by completing the existing statistical properties of giant host stars and their companions. To conduct a well-defined statistical study, we chose the following criteria for the definition of the sample:
\begin{figure}[th!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 {-.042\height}},clip]{hist_rv_rms_raw.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{hist_rv_rms_raw_zoom.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of the radial-velocity dispersion observed for the stars in the sample. Top: Full range in logarithmic scale. Bottom: Zoomed-in image of smaller values, in linear scale. The positions of HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123 are represented by red lines.}
\label{fig:hist_rms}
\end{figure}
We defined a volume-limited sample, $d\leq300$\,pc. The selection was done in 2005 from the Hipparcos catalogue \citep{ESA1997}. We only selected stars from the catalog with a precision on the parallax better than 10\,\%. To increase the statistics, the sample was extended in 2011 to targets with a parallax precision better than $14\,\%$. We selected stars with $M_V < 2.5$ and $B-V>0.78$, to avoid stars on the main sequence. We selected only early-type giants, with G and K spectral types and luminosity class III. To avoid later types, which are known to be intrinsically variable, we introduced a color cut-off at $B-V<1.06$. We avoided close visual binaries for which we might have contamination by the secondary in the spectrograph fiber. The limit on the separation was set at $6''$. Finally, we selected stars observable by Euler, in the southern hemisphere, with a declination below $-25^{\circ}$, to be complementary to existing surveys in the north reaching down to $\delta=-25^{\circ}$.
The criteria and the final sample of 641 stars are represented in \autoref{fig:hr_hipp} displaying the Hipparcos color-magnitude diagram with the selected sample highlighted. In \autoref{fig:hist_v}, we show the distribution of stellar apparent magnitudes and distances for the sample. We paid particular attention to the potential bias induced by the criterion on the parallax precision when carrying out the statistical study of the sample.
Because of its size, timespan of observations, and the quantity and quality of the measurements, the above-defined planet search program is expected to significantly improve our knowledge of planetary systems around giant stars.
\subsection{Instrument description and observations}
\label{sub:instru}
Observations for this survey began at the end of 2006 and have been conducted since then with the CORALIE spectrograph on the 1.2-m Leonard Euler Swiss telescope located at La Silla Observatory (Chile). CORALIE is a 2-fiber-fed echelle spectrograph (2" fibers on the sky). It covers the 3880-6810 Å wavelength interval with 68 orders. The spectral resolution of the instrument was originally of 50\,000. The observations are performed in the so-called simultaneous thorium mode\footnote{A thorium-argon lamp illuminates fiber B at the same time as the star is observed on fiber A. Both spectra are recorded on the CCD.}. In 2007 and 2014, CORALIE went through two significant hardware upgrades to improve the overall performance of the instrument, such as improving the throughput of the instrument (gain of 2 magnitudes) and increasing the resolution to 60\,000. A Fabry-Perrot etalon was installed as well to replace the thorium-argon lamp used to track the variation of the spectrograph during the night. For simplicity, we refer to each dataset as {\footnotesize CORALIE-98} (or COR98) for the first version of the instrument, {\footnotesize CORALIE-07} (or COR07) for the 2007 upgrade and {\footnotesize CORALIE-14} (or COR14) for the 2014 instrument upgrade. The instrumental precision evolved through these upgrades, from 5\,m\,s$^{-1}$ for COR98, to 8\,m\,s$^{-1}$ for COR07, and finally to 2.5-3.2\,m\,s$^{-1}$ for COR14. Complete information on instrumental aspects and the precisions reached are given in, for instance, \citet{Queloz2000,Segransan2010,Segransan2021}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{graph_n_rv_VS_timespan_rv_rms_raw.pdf}\\
\caption{Number of measurements per star in the sample plotted against the respective time span of the observations. The points are color-coded by the radial-velocity rms. The star markers represent HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123.}
\label{fig:pts_tspan}
\end{figure}
Considering the size of the sample and the first results on the intrinsic variability of giant stars obtained by earlier surveys, we tried to optimize the exposure time in our program to match the limit set by stellar variation. Evolved stars often show distributions of the dispersion of radial-velocity time series ranging from $\sim$ 5\,m\,s$^{-1}$ up to a few hundreds of m\,s$^{-1}$, with a mode at $\sim$ 15\,m\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{Lovis2004,Hekker2006b,Quirrenbach2011}. One of our objectives is also to test if this intrinsic limit can be lowered by modeling stellar variability, and thus to be able to recognise low-amplitude planet signatures. To reach a sufficient precision ($\leq$ 2-3\,ms$^{-1}$), exposure times between 3 and 5 minutes are adequate for these very bright stars.
The CASCADES survey is also interesting in the broader context of projects running on the telescope. The brightness of the stars in the sample makes them ideal back-up targets when weather conditions are unfavorable.
Almost 15\,000 radial-velocity measurements have been obtained so far for the 641 stars of the sample. The study of the radial-velocity dispersion (see \autoref{fig:hist_rms}) confirms a distribution with a peak around 13\,m\,s$^{-1}$, with values as low as $\sim$ 4\,m\,s$^{-1}$. We also see a significant tail at higher values with a secondary peak around 20\,km\,s$^{-1}$ corresponding to binary systems.
Our observational effort is illustrated in \autoref{fig:pts_tspan}, with the three host stars presented in this paper (located with a $\star$ symbol) being among the most observed in the sample in terms of duration and number of data points. The program is continuing to obtain a minimum of 20 points per star and so can perform a solid statistical analysis of the sample.
\section{Determination of stellar properties}\label{sec:methods}
\subsection{Spectrocopic parameters of the stars in the sample}\label{sub:spec_param}
The analysis of high-resolution spectra can provide reliable stellar parameters such as effective temperature $T_{eff}$, surface gravity $log\,g,$ and iron metallicity ratio $[Fe/H]$ (which we refer to as metallicity in this paper for simplicity). \citet{Alves2015} presented a catalog of precise stellar atmospheric parameters and iron abundances for a sample of 257 G and K field evolved stars, all of them part of our sample, using UVES and CORALIE spectra. The approach, based on \citet{Santos2004}, uses the classic curve-of-growth method. The equivalent width of a set of Fe I and II lines is measured and their abundances are calculated. Then, the stellar parameters are derived when excitation and ionization balances are satisfied simultaneously under the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium. For a detailed description of the method and the results, we direct the reader to \citet{Santos2004,Sousa2014,Alves2015}.
Before 2014, the CORALIE spectra obtained for precise RV measurements were polluted by the strongest lines of the Thorium-Argon spectrum from the calibration fiber, and thus they were not suitable for a precise spectroscopic analysis. Dedicated additional spectroscopic observations (without calibration) were then obtained for our sample stars. After the CORALIE upgrade in 2014, the calibration spectrum from the Fabry-Perrot etalon was no longer polluting the stellar spectrum, and the observations of radial-velocity measurements can also be used for the spectroscopic analysis. We stacked the CORALIE-14 spectra from all stars in our sample to reach a high enough S/N (the median S/N of the master spectra is about 170), and we derived the spectroscopic parameters $T_{eff}$, $log\,g$ and $[Fe/H]$ using the ARES\citep{Sousa2007,Sousa2015} $+$ MOOG \citep{Sneden1973} methodology following \citet{Sousa2014}. For most of the stars, with T$_{eff}$\,<\,5200\,K, the iron line list presented in \citet{Tsantaki2013} was used. While for the hotter stars we used the standard line list presented in \citet{Sousa2008a}. We then compared these results with the ones presented in \citet{Alves2015} for the subsample of 254 common stars. \Autoref{fig:comp_param_stell} shows the good agreement found between the parameters obtained from the UVES and CORALIE spectra: in the case of metallicity, we observe an apparent positive offset of the order of the dispersion of the data around the 1:1 correlation, $\sim0.04$\,[dex] in favor of our estimation. More than 50\% of the subsample stars are inside the $1\sigma$ region and 90\% are inside $2\sigma$. These results confirm the quality of the CORALIE-14 spectra to extract reliable atmospheric parameters from them.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{comp_Teff_tsantaki_VS_Teff_sousa19.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{comp_feh_tsantaki_VS_feh_sousa19.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{comp_logg_tsantaki_VS_logg_sousa19.pdf}
\caption{Comparison plots of spectroscopic parameters extracted from CORALIE (this paper) and UVES \citep{Alves2015} spectra of the subsample of 254 stars in common. The black diagonal line represents the 1:1 correlation, and the red line represents the linear fit of the data. At the bottom of each figure, the residuals compared to the 1:1 correlation are shown, with their 1 and 2\,$\sigma$ dispersions represented by the shaded regions. Left: Effective temperatures seem to be perfectly correlated, with a dispersion of $\sim38$\,K. Middle: Metallicity ratio of iron [Fe/H] shows an apparent positive offset of the order of the dispersion of the data around the 1:1 correlation, $\sim0.04$\,[dex] in favor of our estimation. More than 50\% of the subsample is inside the $1\sigma$ region and 90\% inside the $2\sigma$. Right: Logarithm of the surface gravity shows a good correlation, with an offset $\sim0.05\,cm.s^{-2}$ lower than apparent dispersion of the data around the 1:1 correlation. More than 70\% of the subsample is inside the $1\sigma$ region.}
\label{fig:comp_param_stell}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth, trim={0 0 {.02\height} {-0.035\height}},clip]{comp_Teff_GAIA_VS_Teff_sousa19.pdf}
\adjincludegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth, trim={{.02\height} 0 0 {-0.035\height}},clip]{comp_R_GAIA_VS_R_GAIAspec.pdf}
\caption{Comparison plots of photometric (from \citep{Brown2018}) and spectroscopic (from this paper) determinations of the effective temperatures and the stellar radii. The black diagonal line represents the 1:1 correlation and the red line represents the linear fit of the data. At the bottom of each figure, the residuals compared to the 1:1 correlation are shown, with their 1 and 2\,$\sigma$ dispersions represented by the shaded regions. Left: Effective temperatures seem to show a linear trend, but this is not significant compared to the dispersion of the date of $\sim110$\,K, inside which more than 85\% of the data is located. Right: Radii are in good agreement but show an apparent trend and increasing dispersion for masses above than $\sim15\,M_{\odot}$.}
\label{fig:comp_spec_gaia}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{graph_evol_tracks_BaSTI.pdf}
\caption{Positions in Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of the subsample of 620 stars for which we derived spectroscopic parameters. The three host stars we focus on in the present paper are highlighted as red dots. We adopted the luminosities obtained with the method described in \autoref{sub:stellar_mass}. The evolutionary tracks are from models of \citet{Pietrinferni2004} for different stellar masses ($1.0$, $1.2$, $1.5$, $1.7$, $2.0$, $2.5$, $3.0$, $4.0,$ and $5.0$ $M_{\odot}$ from bottom to top). They are for models with solar metallicity.}
\label{fig:evoltrack}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stellar luminosities, radii, and masses}\label{sub:stellar_mass}
We derived the luminosity $L$ for the stars in our sample using the Gaia DR2 parallaxes corrected by \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}\footnote{\citet{Bailer-Jones2018} provided purely geometric distance estimates by using an inference procedure that accounts for the nonlinearity of the transformation (inversion of the parallax) and the asymmetry of the resulting probability distribution.}, $V$-band magnitudes from \citet{Hog2000}, and the bolometric correction relation $BC$ of \citet{Alonso1999}\footnote{Considering the short distance of the stars of the sample, the extinction was not taken into account.}. We then used this luminosity and the spectroscopic effective temperature $T_{eff}$ to compute the stellar radii using the Stephan-Boltzmann relation. The uncertainties of the radii were estimated using a Monte Carlo approach. We compared our temperatures and radii with the GAIA DR2 values and found them to be in good agreement, as illustrated in \autoref{fig:comp_spec_gaia}.
The derived luminosities and spectroscopic effective temperatures are plotted in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in \autoref{fig:evoltrack}, together with the stellar evolutionary tracks at solar metallicity of \citet{Pietrinferni2004}\footnote{Available on the BaSTI database \href{http://basti.oa-teramo.inaf.it/index.html}{http://basti.oa-teramo.inaf.it.}}. Those were used to estimate the masses of our stars using the SPInS software \citep{Lebreton2020}\footnote{\href{https://dreese.pages.obspm.fr/spins/index.html}{https://dreese.pages.obspm.fr/spins/index.html}, which employs a global Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach taking into account the different timescales at various evolutionary stages and interpolation between the tracks.}. The approach compares the luminosity, effective temperature, logarithm of surface gravity, and [Fe/H] of individual objects to theoretical evolutionary tracks and accounts for the observational errors in these four quantities. Giant stars are located in the area of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram where individual evolutionary tracks are close to each other; thus, the derived precisions on the stellar masses might be overestimated. However, in our sample, the degeneracy between the horizontal branch (HB) and RGB is not too pronounced. Comparisons with masses derived from detailed asteroseismic modeling (see \autoref{subsec:masses_astero}) show some small differences. These discrepancies mainly originate from the use of a fixed enrichment law in the grid of \citet{Pietrinferni2004}, such that the chemical composition a the stars of our sample is fully determined from the determination of $\left[Fe/H\right] $ in our modeling using SPInS. This was not the case for the seismic modeling pipeline, where the additional constraints justified allowing for an additional free parameter. Thus, solutions with a chemical composition deviating from a fixed enrichment law where helium and metal abundances are tied together were possible outcomes of the modeling procedure. This is particularly visible for the two stars with Fe/H $\sim-0.2$ studied in \autoref{subsec:masses_astero} (HD\,22532 and HD\,64121), for which the asteroseismic analysis reveals an initial helium abundance slightly higher than the solar one despite their subsolar metallicity. This situation of course cannot be reproduced by models with an initial helium abundance fixed by the metallicity, which then leads to an overestimation of the stellar mass determined by SPInS to compensate for the incorrect helium abundance and reproduce the observed location in the HR diagram.
Nevertheless, we can consider that these fits still allow us to globally estimate the stellar masses of our sample of stars. The obtained distribution for all stars is shown in \autoref{fig:params_distrib}. The median of the distribution is found around $2.1$ $M_{\odot}$, corresponding to intermediate-mass stars. However, as mentioned above, some uncertainty on the evolutionary stage of a subsample of stars of our sample could have affected our determinations, especially if we consider deviations from a given chemical enrichment law. Indeed, some stars of our sample identified here as being around $\approx 2.0$ $M_{\odot}$ on the RGB could actually be low-mass stars in the red clump. This degeneracy could be lifted using asteroseismic observations of dipolar oscillation modes that allow us to unambiguously determine the evolutionary stage of these stars \citep{Beck2011,Bedding2011}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\textwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{stellar_params_new.pdf}
\caption{Distributions and relations between stellar parameters for our subsample of 620 stars. Top left: Metallicity distribution of the stars of our sample (colored in orange) compared with the same distribution for the $\sim1000$ stars (dashed histogram) in the CORALIE volume-limited sample \citep{Udry2000,Santos2001}. Top right: Distribution of the stellar masses obtained from track fitting. The corresponding kernel density estimation is overplotted in orange, using a Gaussian kernel. Bottom left: Mass vs. metallicity relation. (bottom right) Metallicity vs. logarithm of surface gravity. The two black lines were drawn by eye and show the biases in the samples due to the B-V cut-off. The red-dashed rectangle delimits the area of the potential unbiased subsample. The three planet hosts presented in this paper are represented by red dots.}
\label{fig:params_distrib}
\end{figure*}
\Autoref{tab:sample_table} shows example lines of the complete set of stellar parameters for our sample, available online\footnote{Available at \href{https://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr}{CDS} and \href{https://dace.unige.ch/catalogs/?catalog=CASCADES}{https://dace.unige.ch.}}. We also illustrate our results in \autoref{fig:params_distrib}. The metallicity distribution decreases with increasing [Fe/H] for [Fe/H]\,>\,0.0-0.1, similarly to the metallicity distribution \citep{Santos2001} of a large, volume-limited sample of dwarf stars in the solar neighborhood, included in the CORALIE survey \citep{Udry2000}. We observe that our sample of giants is lacking the metal-rich and very metal-poor stars. This tendency has been observed in many studies \citep[e.g.,][]{Luck2007,Takeda2008,Ghezzi2010,Adibekyan2015a,Adibekyan2019}. It may be related to the fact that giants, most of them being more massive, are younger than their dwarf counterparts. They thus do not have time to migrate far from the inner to the outer disks of the galaxy during their short lifetimes \citep{Wang2013,Minchev2013}. \citet{Adibekyan2019} also addresses the role of the age-metallicity dispersion relation \citep{DaSilva2006,Maldonado2013}, as well as potential selection effects due to B-V color cut-off \citep{Mortier2013}, which excludes low-log-g stars with high metallicity and high-log-g stars with low metallicity. We illustrate this effect in \autoref{fig:params_distrib}, in the same way as \citep{Adibekyan2015a}, by drawing diagonal lines that show the biases in the sample due to the color cut-off. We also represent the area that would correspond to an unbiased subsample inside a cut rectangle (red dashed rectangle). We will perform a detailed statistical study of the stellar parameters of our sample in future work.
\subsection{Asteroseismic masses for the three planet hosts}\label{subsec:masses_astero}
To go further and improve the mass estimation for the host star, we performed a detailed seismic analysis of the TESS short-cadence photometric data \citep{Ricker2014}, following the methodology of \citet{Buldgen2019}. This asteroseismology approach has the considerable advantage of leading to a highly precise and accurate mass estimate independently of any stellar evolution models. We used the method to extract masses for the three stellar hosts presented in this paper (see \autoref{tab:stellar_params}) to obtain a better estimation of the minimum mass of their planetary companions. The seismic masses can also be used as a benchmark to assess the accuracy of the masses obtained from evolutionary models, which in this case appear to be overestimated by an offset of $\sim$0.3-0.4\,M$_\odot$ but are consistent within 3-4 $\sigma$. This aspect will be addressed in a forthcoming paper once more asteroseismic masses are available. In practice, the mass estimates we present here are a result of the combination of seismic inversions of the mean density with the values of the stellar radii derived from GAIA parameters. The seismic inversion of the mean density was carried out following the methodology of \citet{Buldgen2019} and validated on eclipsing binaries. This estimate still depends on the seismic data, as well as the details of the determination of the radii from GAIA and spectrocopic data, such as the bolometric corrections and extinction laws. An in-depth description of the data extraction and seismic modeling, as well as an analysis of the orbital evolution and atmospheric evaporation of the planetary systems, can be found in a companion paper \citep{Buldgen2021}.\\
In \autoref{tab:stellar_params}, we summarize the spectroscopic parameters of the three stellar hosts announced in this paper and their masses derived from evolutionary tracks and asteroseismology.
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\caption{Example entries of the table of stellar parameters for the complete sample, available online at CDS.$^8$}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.562}{%
\begin{tabular}{l*{19}{c}}
\hline
\hline
HD & Sp. Type & $V$ & $B-V$ & $BC$ & $\pi$ & $d$ & $M_{V}$ & $Bp-Rp$ & $G$ & $T_{eff}$ & $log\,g$ & $[Fe/H]$ & $M_{*}$ & $L_{*}$ & $R_{*}$ \\
& & [mag] & [mag] & $BC$ & [mas] & [pc] & [mag] & [mag] & [mag] & [K] & [cm\,s$^{-2}$] & [dex] & [M$_{\odot}$] & [L$_{\odot}$] & [R$_{\odot}$] \\
& [1] & [2] & [2] & [3] & [4] & [5] & [2,4,5] & [4] & [4] & [6] & [6] & [6] & [7] & [2,3,4] & [2,3,4,6] \\
\hline
496 & K0III & 3.88 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.312 $\pm$ 0.016 & 24.20 $\pm$ 0.29 & 41.3 $\substack{+0.5 \\ -0.5}$ & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.218 $\pm$ 0.006 & 0.42 $\pm$ 0.03 & 4858 $\pm$ 41 & 2.56 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.01 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.93 $\pm$ 0.23 & 50.44 $\pm$ 1.46 & 10.03 $\pm$ 0.22 \\
636 & K1/K2III & 5.29 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & -0.303 $\pm$ 0.019 & 12.60 $\pm$ 0.08 & 79.2 $\substack{+0.5 \\ -0.5}$ & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.177 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.47 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4879 $\pm$ 51 & 2.78 $\pm$ 0.15 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.23 $\pm$ 0.09 & 50.47 $\pm$ 1.17 & 9.94 $\pm$ 0.24 \\
770 & K0III & 6.54 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.04 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.317 $\pm$ 0.017 & 7.22 $\pm$ 0.04 & 137.9 $\substack{+0.7 \\ -0.7}$ & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.178 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.01 & 4845 $\pm$ 45 & 2.66 $\pm$ 0.10 & -0.08 $\pm$ 0.04 & 1.91 $\pm$ 0.17 & 49.14 $\pm$ 1.04 & 9.95 $\pm$ 0.21 \\
... & & & & ... & & & & ... & & & ... & & & & ...\\
224949 & K0III & 7.10 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.338 $\pm$ 0.013 & 5.73 $\pm$ 0.05 & 173.7 $\substack{+1.4 \\ -1.4}$ & 0.90 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.183 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4795 $\pm$ 32 & 2.49 $\pm$ 0.09 & -0.33 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.30 $\pm$ 0.06 & 47.32 $\pm$ 1.07 & 9.97 $\pm$ 0.17 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\begin{tablenotes}
\scriptsize
\item {[1]} - HIPPARCOS catalog \citep{ESA1997}, [2] - TYCHO-2 catalog \citep{Hog2000}, [3] - \citet{Alonso1999}, [4] - GAIA DR2 \citep{Brown2018},
[5] - \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}, [6] - this paper (see \autoref{sub:spec_param}), [7] - this paper, with evolutionary tracks from \citet{Pietrinferni2004}.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{center}
\label{tab:sample_table}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Observed and inferred stellar parameters.}
\begin{tabular}{lllccc}
\hline
\hline
& & ref. & HD\,22532 & HD\,64121 & HD\,69123\\
TIC & & & 200851704 & 264770836 & 146264536\\
GAIA DR2 & & & {\tiny 4832768399133598080} & {\tiny 5488303966125344512} & {\tiny 5544699390684005248}\\
\hline
Sp. Type & & [1] & G8III/IV & G8/K0III & K1III \\
$V$ & [mag] & [2] & 7.85 $\pm$ 0.01 & 7.44 $\pm$ 0.01 & 5.77 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$B-V$ & [mag] & [2] & 0.89 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$BC$ & & [3] & -0.250 $\pm$ 0.013 & -0.238 $\pm$ 0.012 & -0.318 $\pm$ 0.016 \\
$\pi$ & [mas] & [4] & 6.18~$\pm$~0.03 & 7.67~$\pm$~0.03 & 13.28~$\pm$~0.06 \\
$d$ & [pc] & [5] & 161.2 $\substack{+0.7 \\ -0.7}$ & 130.0 $\substack{+0.5 \\ -0.5}$ & 75.1 $\substack{+0.4 \\ -0.4}$ \\
$M_{V}$ & [mag] & [2,4,5] & 1.81 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.87 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.39 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$Bp-Rp$ & [mag] & [4] & 1.087 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.076 $\pm$ 0.004 & 1.183 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
$M_G$ & [mag] & [4] & 1.56 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.60 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.09 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
$T_{eff}$ & [K] & [4] & 5067 $\substack{+59 \\ -22}$ & 5066 $\substack{+58 \\ -60}$ & 4787 $\substack{+280 \\ -51}$ \\
& & [6] & 5038 $\pm$ 24 & 5078 $\pm$ 22 & 4842 $\pm$ 41 \\
$log\,g$ & [cm\,s$^{-2}$] & [6] & 3.09 $\pm$ 0.07 & 3.19 $\pm$ 0.06 & 2.86 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
$[Fe/H]$ & [dex] & [6] & -0.19 $\pm$ 0.02 & -0.21 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
$M_{*}$ & [M$_{\odot}$] & [7] & 1.57 $\pm$ 0.07 & 1.64 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.68 $\pm$ 0.09 \\
& & [8] & 1.20 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1.18 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1.43 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
$L_{*}$ & [L$_{\odot}$] & [2,3,4] & 18.80 $\pm$ 0.33 & 17.70 $\pm$ 0.30 & 29.51 $\pm$ 0.57 \\
$R_{*}$ & [R$_{\odot}$] & [2,3,4,6] & 5.69 $\pm$ 0.07 & 5.44 $\pm$ 0.07 & 7.72 $\pm$ 0.15 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small
\item {[1]} - HIPPARCOS catalog \citep{ESA1997}, [2] - TYCHO-2 catalog \citep{Hog2000}, [3] - \citet{Alonso1999}, [4] - GAIA DR2 \citep{Brown2018}, [5] - \citet{Bailer-Jones2018}, [6] - this paper (see \autoref{sub:spec_param}), [7] - this paper, with evolutionary tracks from \citet{Pietrinferni2004}, [8] - \citet{Buldgen2021}.
\end{tablenotes}
\label{tab:stellar_params}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\section{Data acquisition and analysis}\label{sec:obs_analysis}
\subsection{Data acquisition and processing}\label{subsec:ts_obs}
For each target, we collected several tens of radial-velocity data over a median time span of 13 years, with a typical S/N = 70 for an exposure time between 180 and 300\,s\footnote{Following the 2007 and 2014 upgrades, we have to fit a small radial-velocity offset between the three versions of the CORALIE instrument, the values of the offset depending on several aspects such as the considered star or the correlation mask used. We thus consider the three versions of CORALIE as three different instruments.}. \cref{tab:timeseries_hd22532,tab:timeseries_hd64121,tab:timeseries_hd69123} give the list of these measurements with their instrumental error bars.
We first analyzed the radial-velocity time series using the radial-velocity module of the Data \& Analysis Center for Exoplanets (DACE) web platform,\footnote{\href{https://dace.unige.ch/radialVelocities/?}{https://dace.unige.ch/radialVelocities/?.}} which provides an open access to a wide range of exoplanets' observational and theoretical data with the corresponding data visualization and analysis tools.
The formalism of the radial-velocity data analysis implemented in DACE is described in Ségransan et al. (submitted, Appendix~A) and is mainly based on algorithms presented in \citet{Diaz2014} and \citet{Delisle2016, Delisle2018}.
Our general approach for a periodic signal search is the following. For each time series, we follow an iterative process consisting of looking for successive significant dominant peaks in the periodograms of the corresponding radial-velocity residuals. At each step, the radial-velocity residuals are computed by readjusting the model composed of the N-independent Keplerians, potential linear or quadratic drift terms to fit long-term trends, the individual instrumental offsets, and additional noise. We fit a combination of white noise terms corresponding to individual instrumental precisions\footnote{The instrumental precisions are well constrained for each version of CORALIE, calibrated on non-active stars: $\sigma_{COR98}=5.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{COR07}=8.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$, and $\sigma_{COR14}=3.0\pm0.5$\,m\,s$^{-1}$. Those values are used as priors on the instrumental noise terms in \autoref{sec:results}.} and a global noise term attributed to intrinsic stellar jitter. This approach allows us to obtain an idea of how much noise can be attributed to stellar physics; however, one must be aware of the degeneracy between those two sources of noise, which is only partially lifted by using strong priors on the instrumental noise. The final error bars on the velocities correspond to the quadratic sum of the error computed by the data reduction software, the instrumental noise and the stellar jitter. We proceeded with the periodicity search by computing the periodogram of the data in the $1-10\,000$ days\footnote{Using the algorithm implemented on DACE (see \citet{Delisle2020b}) and setting the upper bound of the periodogram at approximately twice the time span of the survey.} range and using the false alarm probability (FAP) to assess the significance of the signal, following the formalism of \citet{Baluev2008}. Significant signals can have different origins, and they are discussed in \autoref{subsec:stell_lineprof}.
\subsection{Stellar activity and line profile analysis}\label{subsec:stell_lineprof}
Stellar activity in giant stars originates from different phenomena. Short period modulations of the order of hours to days (first discussed by \citet{Walker1989,Hatzes1993,Hatzes1994}) are understood to be the result of solar-like radial pulsations (p, g, or mixed modes) \citep{Frandsen2002,DeRidder2006,Hekker2006a}.
Concerning longer period variations, mechanisms such as magnetic cycles \citep{Santos2010,Dumusque2011a}, rotational modulation of features on the stellar surface (star spots, granulation, etc. \citep{Lambert1987,Larson1993,DelgadoMena2018}), beating of modes, or a combination of all three are to be considered. Non-radial oscillations have also been discussed \citep{Hekker2006c} and confirmed by \citet{DeRidder2009,Hekker2010b} as a source of periodic modulation of the spectroscopic cross-correlation profile. Those modes can have lifetimes of up to several hundreds of days \citep{Dupret2009}.
The careful monitoring of the spectral line profile via the cross-correlation function (CCF) and of the chromospheric activity indicators is essential to help distinguish between planetary signals and stellar-induced variations of the radial velocities.
Our estimate of the star's radial velocity is based on the CCF technique \citep{Griffin1967,Baranne1979,Queloz2001}, which creates a sort of mean spectral line from the thousands of lines used in the correlation, and of significantly higher S/N compared to a single line. In order for stellar activity to significantly impact the CCF profile, and thus the radial-velocity value, it would have to affect the majority of the spectral lines. Such an effect could cause deformations in the line profile and possibly mimic a planetary signal. Computing the contrast, radial-velocity, full width at half maximum (FWHM), and the bisector inverse span (BIS), which are linked to the first four moments of the line profile, gives enough information to precisely control the evolution of the profile along the time series \citep{Aerts2000}.
Magnetic activity enhances the emission from the stellar corona and chromosphere, resulting in emissions in the X-Ray and UV regions, as well as emissions in the cores of the \textit{H\&K Ca II} lines and H$\alpha$. The H$\alpha$ activity index is sensitive to solar prominences and chromospheric activity. The reversal emission in the line core of \textit{Ca II H\&K} (S-index) \citep{Wilson1978}, which measures the contributions from the stellar photosphere and chromosphere, and the $log\,R'_{HK}$ activity index, which measures the chromospheric contribution of the \textit{H\&K Ca} lines excluding the photospheric component, cannot be directly computed from the CORALIE spectra in a reliable way, because of the low S/N in this part of the spectra.
The time series and corresponding periodograms of those line profiles and of the H$\alpha$ chromospheric indicator \citep[following the method described in][]{Boisse2009,GomesdaSilva2011} are produced systematically to check for any signs of periodicity and a possible origin of the radial-velocity variations. Correlations between these indicators and radial velocities were also checked. Causes such as stellar pulsations can be ruled out by comparing the behavior of line profiles from different spectral regions; for pulsating stars, the temporal and phasing behavior of the moments should remain the same for any spectral region (a signature should also be present in the BIS \citep{Hatzes1999}). For detailed examples, we invite the reader to consult the analyses of \cite{Briquet2001b} or \citet{Briquet2004}, which attempted to discriminate between stellar pulsation and rotational modulation (presence of stellar spots) as the source of observed periodic variability, using \textit{Si II} and \textit{He I} lines in slow pulsating B stars. In the case of rotational modulation, the BIS and the S-index should vary in phase and with the same period as the radial-velocities, which is a period that should also correspond to the stellar rotation period. However, phase shifts have been observed, for example, in the case of the G2 dwarf HD\,41248 \citep{Santos2014}. The star exhibits a 25\,day periodicity in the radial-velocity, FWHM, and $log\,R'_{HK}$ time series, probably explained by rotational modulation combined with a strong differential rotation of the star.
We should, however, stress here that giant stars are still not fully understood, and we have to keep in mind that the absence of periodic signals in line-shape variations does not mean for sure that the radial-velocity signal is induced by a planetary companion. It remains, however, our best interpretation of the observations.
\section{Analysis of individual systems: Orbital solutions}\label{sec:results}
Following the approach described in \autoref{subsec:ts_obs}, we analyzed the long time series of observations obtained for the three targets presented in this paper. The final parameters of each system were computed using the MCMC algorithm implemented in DACE (developed by \citet{Diaz2014,Diaz2016}) to probe the complete parameter space, with $1.6$ million iterations. We fit the following parameters for the Keplerian model: log\,P and log\,K to better explore ranges of several orders of magnitude with a uniform prior. $\sqrt{e \cos{\omega}}$ and $\sqrt{e \sin{\omega}}$ to obtain a uniform prior for the eccentricity. Finally, we obtained $\lambda_0,$ the mean longitude at epoch of reference (i.e., $BJD=2\,455\,500$ [d]), with a uniform prior. We used a uniform prior for the COR07 offset of reference, and Gaussian priors for the relative offsets between COR07 and COR98/14: $\Delta\,RV_{COR98-COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(0,4)$ m\,s$^{-1}$ and $\Delta\,RV_{COR14-COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(14,4)$ m\,s$^{-1}$. We also used Gaussian priors for the instrumental noise: $\sigma_{COR98}$: $\mathcal{N}(5,1)$ m\,s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{COR07}$: $\mathcal{N}(8,1.5)$ m\,s$^{-1 }$ , and $\sigma_{COR14}$: $\mathcal{N}(3,0.5)$ m\,s$^{-1}$. Finally, we used a uniform prior for the stellar jitter parameter.
For all three targets, the fit instrumental noises (on top of the photon noise) are in the range of the individual instrumental precisions. In the case of HD\,64121, the fit stellar jitter clearly dominates over the instrumental precision, with a level of $\sim$17\,m\,s$^{-1}$. For each time series, we checked for periodicities and correlations in the activity-related products of the
high-resolution spectra mentioned above.
\subsection{HD 22532}\label{subsec:hd22532}
For HD\,22532\footnote{TIC\,200851704 ; GAIA DR2 4832768399133598080} , we detect a $\sim$873\,day periodic variation of the radial velocities, which, fit by a Keplerian model, corresponds to a planet in a quasi-circular orbit, 1.9\,au away from its star, and with a semi-amplitude of 40\,m\,s$^{-1}$ corresponding to a minimum mass of 2.1\,M$_J$ (using $M_{\star}=1.2$\,M$_{\odot}$ from \autoref{tab:stellar_params}). We observe in the periodogram of the H$\alpha$ activity index of HD\,22532 (see bottom periodogram in \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd22532}) a non-significant peak at $\sim$810 days, with a FAP level well below 10\%, which is at the same level as the higher frequency white noise. We checked for a linear correlation with the radial-velocities, and the weighted Pearson coefficient was found as low as $R_{P}=-0.396\pm0.068$. We also computed the weighted Spearman's rank $R_S=0.411\pm0.066$, which is also considered a low correlation. The important dispersion of the H$\alpha$ data points and the low significance of a period approximately 60 days shorter than the one detected in the radial velocities indicates that those variations are most likely not at the origin of - nor are they linked to - the radial-velocity signal.
\begin{figure}[!p]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 {-.004\height}},clip]{HD22532_mcmc_figs_new.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: Radial velocities of HD\,22532 from CORALIE (COR98 in blue, COR07 in orange and COR14 in green) with the best Keplerian model superimposed (solid line), and corresponding residuals around the solution. Second panel: Phased radial-velocity solution. Third panel: Periodograms of the radial-velocity time series, the residuals of the radial-velocities after substraction of the fit periodic signal, and the periodiodogram of the H$\alpha$ activity index time series. The red vertical line indicates the period of the orbital solution (872.6\,days). Horizontal lines are the FAP levels at 10\% (continuous), 1\% (dashed), and 0.1\% (dotted-dashed).}
\label{fig:timeseries_hd22532}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!pt]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{HD64121_mcmc_figs_new.pdf}
\caption{Same as \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd22532}, but for HD\,64121. The period of the best solution is 623.0\,days.}
\label{fig:timeseries_hd64121}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!pt]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\columnwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{HD69123_mcmc_figs_new.pdf}
\caption{Same as \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd22532}, but for HD\,69123. The period of the best solution is 1193.3\,days.}
\label{fig:timeseries_hd69123}
\end{figure}
\subsection{HD 64121}\label{subsec:hd64121}
In the case of HD\,64121\footnote{TIC\,264770836 ; GAIA DR2 5488303966125344512}, a $\sim$623 day periodic variation is fit by a Keplerian model. It corresponds to a planet in a low-eccentricity orbit, 1.5\,au away from its star, with a semi-amplitude of $\sim$55\,m\,s$^{-1}$ and corresponding to a minimum mass of 2.6\,M$_J$ ($M_{\star}=1.18$\,M$_{\odot}$). The periodogram of the radial-velocity residuals, after substraction of the fit, presents a non-significant peak at $\sim$1\,000\,days at the same level as the higher-frequency noise. HD\,64121 also exhibits a similar non-significant peak in the periodogram of the H$\alpha$ activity index (see bottom periodogram in \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd64121}), at $\sim$550 days. The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient with the radial-velocities was found to be non-significant at $R_P=0.072\pm0.116$. We also computed the weighted Spearman's rank $R_S=0.100\pm0.118$, which is also non-significant. We reach the same conclusion as for HD\,22532, that those variations are most likely not at the origin of - nor are they linked to - the radial-velocity signal.
\subsection{HD 69123}\label{subsec:hd69123}
Finally, HD\,69123\footnote{TIC\,146264536; GAIA DR2 5544699390684005248.} presents the longest periodic variation, with a $\sim$1193 day signal corresponding to a planet in a slightly eccentric orbit of $e=0.2$. The semi-major axis of the planetary orbit is $\sim$2.5\,au, and the semi-amplitude $\sim$47\,m\,s$^{-1}$ leads to a minimum mass of 3\,M$_J$ for the planetary companion ($M_{\star}=1.43$\,M$_{\odot}$). HD\,69123 presents a peak in the periodogram of the H$\alpha$ activity index, with a FAP level below 1\% (bottom panel in \autoref{fig:timeseries_hd69123}), at a period of $\sim$367 days. We suspect this almost one-year periodicity to be caused by a telluric contamination of the H$\alpha$ line, and potentially water lines.
\subsection{Intrinsic variability and final solutions}
For the three stars, none of our other activity indicators (contrast, FWHM and BIS) show any similar periodicity or significant correlation with the radial velocities (see \autoref{apdx:perio_act_indic}).
We also checked the V-band photometric data available in the All-Sky Automated Survey (ASAS-3, \citet{Pojmanski2002}) for our stars. This survey is very interesting as it is one of the only surveys with a time span of almost nine years. For reasons of consistency and reliability of the data post-processing (mainly correction of saturation and camera focus stability due to instrumental issues), we have to consider this data with caution when using it to check for variability due to intrinsic stellar processes or surface rotational modulation. We discuss this matter in more detail in \citet{Pezzotti2021}. No periodicities linked to the ones detected in the radial-velocity data have been found for any of the three stars presented in this paper.
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Radial-velocity observation statistics, best-fit solutions of the model with instrumental offsets, nuisance parameters, Keplerian orbital parameters, and inferred planetary parameters.}
\begin{tabular}{llccc}
\hline
\hline
& & HD\,22532b & HD\,64121b & HD\,69123b \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Observations}}\\
\hline
$N_{obs}$ & & 52 & 36 & 36 \\
$T_{span}$ & $[days]$ & 5016 & 4853 & 4507 \\
$rms_{tot}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 31.15 & 44.93 & 31.68 \\
$rms_{res}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 8.44 & 15.93 & 8.42 \\
$\chi^2_{red}$ & & 1.30 & 1.44 & 1.69 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Offsets $^{(1)}$}}\\
\hline
$\Delta\,RV_{COR98-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 2.0~$\pm$~2.3 & -0.1~$\pm$~3.7 & -4.1~$\pm$~3.5 \\
$\Delta\,RV_{COR07-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 29248.9~$\pm$~1.5 & -4117.9~$\pm$~4.0 & 27476.7~$\pm$~2.4 \\
$\Delta\,RV_{COR14-COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 20.9~$\pm$~2.2 & 15.1~$\pm$~3.4 & 21.9~$\pm$~2.8 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Instrumental Noises}}\\
\hline
$\sigma_{COR98}$ & $[m/s]$ & 4.7~$\pm$~1.0 & 4.9~$\pm$~1.0 & 5.2~$\pm$~1.0 \\
$\sigma_{COR07}$ & $[m/s]$ & 6.8~$\pm$~1.2 & 7.8~$\pm$~1.5 & 7.8~$\pm$~1.4 \\
$\sigma_{COR14}$ & $[m/s]$ & 3.1~$\pm$~0.5 & 3.0~$\pm$~0.5 & 3.0~$\pm$~0.5 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Stellar Jitter}}\\
\hline
$\sigma_{jit}$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 2.1~$\pm$~1.6 & 16.8~$\pm$~2.6 & 7.2~$\pm$~1.8 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Keplerians}}\\
\hline
$P$ & $[days]$ & 872.6~$\pm$~2.8 & 623.0~$\pm$~3.4 & 1193.3~$\pm$~7.0 \\
$K$ & $[m.s^{-1}]$ & 40.0~$\pm$~1.6 & 55.2~$\pm$~4.1 & 46.8~$\pm$~2.4 \\
$e$ & & 0.03~$\pm$~0.03 & 0.11~$\pm$~0.07 & 0.19~$\pm$~0.06 \\
$\omega$ & $[deg]$ & 169.1~$\pm$~88.7 & 2.7~$\pm$~56.0 & -67.3~$\pm$~21.7 \\
$\lambda_0$ $^{(2)}$ & $[deg]$ & 110.7~$\pm$~2.3 & -77.5~$\pm$~7.3 & 227.6~$\pm$~4.5 \\
$T_p$ $^{(2)}$ & $[rjd]$ & 5575.0~$\pm$~221.0 & 5653.0~$\pm$~130.0 & 5715.7~$\pm$~64.6 \\
\hline
$a$ & $[au]$ & 1.900~$\pm$~0.004 & 1.510~$\pm$~0.006 & 2.482~$\pm$~0.010 \\
$m_2\,sin\,i$ $^{(3)}$ & $[M_J]$ & 2.12~$\pm$~0.09 & 2.56~$\pm$~0.19 & 3.04~$\pm$~0.16 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small
\item {$^1$} The reference instrument is COR07.
\item {$^2$} The mean longitude is given at $BJD=2\,455\,500$ [d], while $2\,450\,000$ has been subtracted from the date of passage through periastron ($T_p$).
\item {$^3$} Using the model-independent mass from seismic inversions \citep[see][]{Buldgen2021}).\end{tablenotes}
\label{tab:orbit_params}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
We are thus fairly confident that the observed radial-velocity periodic variations are not due to chromospheric stellar activity, or rotational modulation of surface features such as spots, which would require an significant percentage of the stellar surface to be covered. We also found no indication of long-period, non-radial oscillation modes (neither matching periodicities nor corresponding harmonics in the line profile moments). We thus consider that the observed radial-velocity signals are due to planetary companions orbiting the stars. The resulting models and residuals are shown in \cref{fig:timeseries_hd22532,fig:timeseries_hd64121,fig:timeseries_hd69123}, overplotted on the radial-velocities. In \autoref{tab:orbit_params}, we present the statistics of the distributions (i.e., the median and standard deviation) of the more common set of Keplerian parameters P, K, e, $\omega$ and T$_P$, as well as the distributions of the semi-major axis and minimum masses, derived from the MCMC chains of the fit parameters. In \autoref{apdx:corner}, we present the corner plots of the posterior distributions of the fit parameters for each star. The weighted rms scatter of the radial velocities $rms_{tot}$ and residuals to the Keplerian fit $rms_{res}$ are also provided in the table. For all three targets, the rms of the residuals are comparable to those of single giant stars with similar $B-V$ \citep[see][Fig.\,3]{Hekker2006b}.
\section{Discussion and conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
Since 2006, we have been conducting a high-precision radial-velocity survey of a volume-limited sample of 641 giant stars using the CORALIE spectrograph on the 1.2\,m Leonard Euler Swiss telescope at La Silla Observatory (Chile). Our goal is to better understand the formation and evolution of planets around stars more massive than the Sun, including the evolutionary stage of stars toward the giant branch, through a statistical study of the properties of the detected planet population. The sample is volume limited, targeting giant stars in the southern hemisphere (declination $<25^{\circ}$) inside a 300\,pc radius around the Sun. The evolutionary stage of the stars was constrained by magnitude ($M_V<2.5$) and color ($0.78<B-V<1.06$) cut-offs to avoid main-sequence stars and intrinsically variable late-type giants. We derived reliable spectroscopic parameters from CORALIE-14 spectra \citep[following][]{Santos2004,Sousa2014,Alves2015}. Our sample shows a distribution of a metallicity ratio of iron similar to the one of stars in the solar neighborhood, peaking between 0.0 and 0.1\,dex, but missing very low and rich metallicity stars. This may be explained by the young age of the giants, compared to their dwarf counterparts, which did not leave them enough time to migrate in the Galaxy \citet{Wang2013,Minchev2013}. A color cut-off bias could also be part of the explanation for this effect, excluding the low-log-g stars with high metallicity and the high-log-g stars with low metallicity, as discussed in \citet{Mortier2013, Adibekyan2019}. We also obtained stellar masses for the sample with global parameters fitting, using evolutionary tracks from \citet{Pietrinferni2004}, using the SPInS software \citep{Lebreton2020}. The distribution ranges approximately from 0.75 to 4\,M$_{\odot}$, with a maximum around 2\,M$_{\odot}$.
This paper is the first of a series in which we present the first results of the survey, namely the detection and characterization of three new planetary companions orbiting the giant stars HD\,22532, HD\,64121, and HD\,69123, taking advantage of asteroseismic masses, following the methodology of \citet{Buldgen2019}, obtained with the TESS data \citep{Ricker2014}. For each star, we systematically checked for any correlation with chromospheric activity, rotational modulation of surface features, or long-term non-radial pulsations. We also consulted the corresponding ASAS-3 photometry time series \citep{Pojmanski2002}, spanning 6.8 to 7.4 years. No significant periodicities or correlations linked to the radial-velocity signal detected have been found.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=1\textwidth, trim={0 0 0 0},clip]{pla_params.pdf}
\caption{Stellar and planetary parameter relations for the 186 discovered planets orbiting giant stars. The three planets presented in this paper are represented by red dots.}
\label{fig:pla_params}
\end{figure*}
The new planets are typical representatives of the known population of planets around giant stars, considering their masses, semi-major axes, and low eccentricities. This is illustrated in \cref{fig:pla_params} displaying the new detections together with the planet candidates from the literature. Most planets discovered around giant stars have eccentricities below 0.2-0.3 \citep[e.g.,][]{Jones2014,Yilmaz2017}, and are at distances, that is, farther away than 1\,au from the central star.
Monitoring of the CASCADES sample is continuing. As an interesting by-product, it is also bringing important information on stellar binaries and star-brown-dwarf systems. The formation scenario for the latter is still unclear. The system may form initially as a binary star with an extreme mass ratio, or through a formation process comparable to the one for planets in the proto-stellar disk, via disk instability or core accretion. The maximum mass of planets forming in a massive disk is not known. Forthcoming papers will present additional planetary candidates, as well as potential brown dwarfs and spectroscopic binaries found in the sample. We will also address through a statistical study of our sample, the main open questions linked with the planet population orbiting intermediate-mass (evolved) stars: distribution of orbital properties as constraints for planet formation models, correlations between planet characteristics and occurrence rate with primary star properties such as mass and metallicity.
In this context, some planet-host stars from our sample are particularly well suited for a deep asteroseismic analysis, giving access to their internal structure. The available information includes well-constrained planetary signals, long, photometric, high-precision time series from high-cadence observations with TESS, and accurate spectroscopic parameters. Asteroseismologic analysis can provide precious information concerning the past and future evolution of such systems. Among the highly interesting related questions is the one of the impact of stellar evolution on the planet orbits and of the potential engulfment of planets by the star \citep{Pezzotti2021}, for instance to explain the apparent lack of close-in, short-period planets ($P\leqslant100$\,days, $a\leqslant0.5$\,au). The second and third publications of the CASCADES series will focus on the asteroseimic analysis of the three stellar hosts presented in this paper \citep{Buldgen2021} and the analysis of a new planet-host star \citep{Pezzotti2021}, for which the full evolution of the system can be modeled.
Giant stars hosting planets are good candidates for planetary transit searches. Due to the increase in radius at the giant stage, companions of giant stars have a higher probability of transit than planets around main-sequence stars. However, as these planets are on long-period orbits, the transit duration is on the order of tens to hundreds of hours. Moreover, because of the relative size of the planet and the star, the expected transit depth is very small. For our sample stars, they are in the $10-1000$ ppm range. Although very limiting for ground-based observations, these two aspects are tractable from space with satellites such as TESS \citep{Ricker2014} and CHEOPS \citep{Benz2020}. The three systems described in this paper present transit probabilities around 1.5\,\% and transit depth between 170 and 350\,ppm (considering planets with a 1\,R$_J$ radius). Unfortunately, none of these candidates has thus far had a transit time prediction in the window of the TESS observations.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank all observers at La Silla Observatory from the past fourteen years for their contribution to the observations and the quality of their work. We acknowledge financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for the project 2020-178930. This work has, in part, also been carried out within the framework of the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS supported by SNSF. In particular, this publication makes use of the The Data \& Analysis Center for Exoplanets (DACE, https://dace.unige.ch), a platform of Planets, based at the University of Geneva (CH), dedicated to extrasolar planet data visualisation, exchange and analysis.
G.B. acknowledges funding from the SNF AMBIZIONE grant No. 185805 (Seismic inversions and modelling of transport processes in stars).
P.E. has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 833925, project STAREX).
C.P. acknowledges funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (project Interacting Stars, number 200020-172505).
V. A. acknowledges the support from FCT through Investigador FCT contract no. IF/00650/2015/CP1273/CT0001.
N.C.S acknowledges support from FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through national funds and by FEDER through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização by these grants: UID/FIS/04434/2019; UIDB/04434/2020; UIDP/04434/2020; PTDC/FIS-AST/32113/2017 \& POCI-01-0145-FEDER-032113; PTDC/FIS-AST/28953/2017 \& POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028953.
S.G.S acknowledges the support from FCT through Investigador FCT contract nr. CEECIND/00826/2018 and POPH/FSE (EC).
N.L. acknowledges financial support from "Programme National de Physique Stellaire" (PNPS) of CNRS/INSU, France.
This research has made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
Cancer is after cardiovascular diseases the second most common cause of death. Among the newly diagnosed cancer incidences, statistically 3\% are tumors of the head and neck (HAN) region~\cite{Siegel21}. Due to the complex anatomy of the area, characterized by a large number of small soft tissue organs, image guided radiotherapy is the primary choice of treatment for HAN cancer. The segmentation of the organs at risk (OAR) on the planning CT scans is necessary for the radiotherapy and the main reason of treatment delivery delays throughout the clinical pathway of the therapy. The segmentation is time consuming, requires several highly educated medical experts and is still mainly performed manually, further observer variations are well-documented~\cite{Nikolov2018}. Due to the time-consuming and subjective manual process a field of research has developed around the automated segmentation of the HAN organs on medical images, with deep learning (DL) being the dominant and most successful learning based approach~\cite{Vrtovec2020}. Segmentation with DL can be interpreted as a voxel-wise classification problem using fully convolutional neural networks. The large difference in size of classes to be segmented can be defined as the class imbalance problem. Since the first introduction of a DL based multi-organ HAN segmentation approach~\cite{Tappeiner2019}, it is known that the HAN area is specially affected by the class imbalance problem. In addition to the large difference in ratio of background and foreground voxels, the HAN area is characterized by large size differences between the foreground classes themselves, which is anatomically given through the differently sized organs to be segmented. As a result the class imbalance causes a large performance difference in the segmentation of large and small organs~\cite{Vrtovec2020}.
In this work we focus on the training window or patch-size as the hyper-parameter with a direct influence on the class imbalance, as most segmentation networks are, due to GPU memory constraints, trained with randomly sampled patches of the original 3D image. Hence, we introduce a measurement for the class imbalance of differently sized training patches and optimize the patch-size accordingly. Additionally, we adapt the classical multi-class Dice loss formulation which does not account for missing classes within patches. Our class adaptive Dice loss formulation is robust against missing classes, which is relevant for sparse class distributions within the image dataset and for the training with smaller patch-sizes. We incorporate both, the class imbalance optimized patches and the class adaptive Dice loss into the currently best performing general purpose segmentation approach, the nnU-Net framework~\cite{Isensee2021}, and are able to increase the performance of its baseline version. The introduced multi-class confidence analysis following the work of Li et al.~\cite{Li2021} also reveals an increased segmentation confidence for mid-sized organs due to the class label imbalance optimized patch-size.
\section{Related Work}
Guo et al.~\cite{Guo2020} and Gao et al.~\cite{Gao2019} were the first to specifically address and solve the class imbalance problem of the HAN area by using several different cascaded networks. The approaches are inspired by the work of clinical experts, first segmenting large and easy anchor organs and then zooming in to segment the harder small soft tissue organs. Similarly, the authors combined a strong large organ segmentation network, a small organ localization network and specific small organ segmentation networks effectively reducing the class imbalance of each network. In their followup work, the FocusNetv2, Gao et al.~\cite{Gao2020} further incorporated autoencoder based shape priors~\cite{Oktay2018} and adversarial training~\cite{Goodfellow2014} into the small organ networks, achieving a Dice score (DSC) of 0.84 and a 95\% Hausdorff distance (95HD) of 2.17 mm which are the currently best reported results on the MICCAI 2015 HAN segmentation challenge reference dataset~\cite{Raudaschl2017}. An implicit reduction of the class imbalance, especially in favor of the small organs that are often visible in just a few CT slices, is recently achieved by hybrid networks using 2D convolutions and 3D convolutions in their architecture. Chen et al.~\cite{Chen2021} used 2D convolutions for the extraction of fine edges and 3D convolutions for coarse and fine semantic features in a single UNet~\cite{Ronneberger2015} based architecture. Tang et al.~\cite{Tang2021} extended a 2D UNet with an additional 3D convolution based context-aware attention path and were able to achieve state-of-the-art using a single HAN organ segmentation network.
Differently to architectural changes of the network, adapted cost functions can also reduce the class imbalance problem of DL. Roth et al.~\cite{Roth2017} presented the first DL based multi-organ segmentation approach of the abdominal area and applied a class weighted cross entropy (CE) loss function. The CE is an information theoretical measurement for probability distribution differences and allows to calculate the difference between the network's voxel-wise class prediction and the ground truth. As the CE is the classical loss function for image classification, Milletari et al.~\cite{Milletari2016} proposed the DSC as a volume based overlap measurement to be used as a loss function for image segmentation. The Dice loss transforms the voxel-wise measurement into a semantic label overlap measurement and has become the state-of-the-art loss function of the field. Effectively reducing the number of measurements to the number of labels, the Dice loss also reduces the sensitivity of the loss regarding the class imbalance effect. However, the Dice loss is not able to eliminate the problem due to its intrinsic bias towards large volumes~\cite{Nikolov2018} as well as the remaining severe over-presence of the largest class during training. Consequently, Carole et al.~\cite{Sudre2017} introduced the generalized Dice score (GDSC), which adaptively weights the DSC by the current class size. However, in a previous work~\cite{Tappeiner2019} we showed that the GDSC introduces noise in the learning curve by the adaptive weights and missing classes in case of the common patch-based training setting. Zhu et al.~\cite{Zhu2019} investigated different loss functions specifically for the imbalanced HAN area and showed the combination of the Dice loss and the focal loss~\cite{Lin2020} to outperform the plain Dice loss. Isensee et al.~\cite{Isensee2021} proposed to combine the CE and dice loss to measure both the voxel-wise class predictions and the semantic label overlap and were able to show advancements in many different segmentation tasks using the combined loss function in their nnU-Net.
Another approach to analyze the class imbalance in neural networks for image segmentation is presented by Li et al.~\cite{Li2021}. The authors found that the network output of under-represented classes tend to shift towards the decision boundary during test time, whereas well-represented classes are unaffected. As a result the authors claim that an overfitting of the small sized classes occurs during the training.
For their analysis of the class imbalance induced overfitting, the authors suggest to plot the logit output of the training data against the test data, which we adapt and confirm for our given multi-class setting.
\bigskip
\section{Method}
\label{li:sec:method}
\subsection{Dataset}
For our study of the class imbalance problem in the HAN area we utilize the MICCAI 2015 HAN auto segmentation challenge dataset~\cite{Raudaschl2017}. The CT images of the dataset are from the $0522$ multi-institutional clinical study of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group~\cite{Ang2014}, which made the data publicly available. The study contained multiple images of 111 patients with HAN cancer of the oropharynx, the hypopharynx or the larynx. The challenge dataset includes $40$ patient CT scans, with manual reference segmentations of nine structures: the left and right Parotid Gland (PG), the left and right Submandibular Gland (SG), the Optic Chiasm (OC), the Brainstem (BS), the Mandible (MA) and the left and right Optic Nerves (ON). Although the original images of the $0522$ study contained OAR reference segmentations for the radiotherapy planning, no standardized segmentation protocols existed at the time of the study and the segmented structures showed considerable differences in contouring. Accordingly, the nine organs for the dataset creation are iteratively re-contoured according to current scientific standard protocols until all segmentation experts agree and the observer bias is eliminated. For the scope of the challenge 25 specific images identified by their file names are released as training images, 10 as an offsite test set and the last 5 as an additional test set for the onsite event of the challenge. In our work we follow the challenge protocol regarding the dataset splits and combine the off- and onsite test images to one test set for our result presentation. The Submandibular Glands are not considered in our work as not all 40 CT scans contain the corresponding reference data.
\subsection{Segmentation Network Design}
Our work is based on the 3D nnU-Net framework of Isensee et al.~\cite{Isensee2021}. The authors claimed and showed that a well-parameterized UNet~\cite{Ronneberger2015} is hard to beat for any segmentation task and accordingly defined a set of well-proven fixed parameters and additional dataset dependent rule based parameters for a dynamically deep UNet. The fixed parameters are the learning rate, the optimizer, the data augmentation, the number of training iterations, the patch sampling strategy, the loss function, the inference using a sliding window approach and the post-processing as a largest component analysis. The most relevant dataset dependent parameters are the spacing and the patch-size further defining the UNet architecture. The spacing is evaluated as the median of the dataset in-plane spacing and the 10\textsuperscript{th} percentile of the out-plane spacing resulting in a spacing of $0.98\times0.98\times2.5$ mm. The patch-size is initialized to the dataset median after resampling and iteratively enlarged, simultaneously with the depth of the UNet to fill the available GPU memory using a fixed batch size of two resulting in a patch-size of $192\times160\times56$. The skeleton UNet is a basic UNet with two blocks of convolution, instance normalization~\cite{Ulyanov2016} and nonlinearity in each resolution, starting with a channel size of 32, which is getting doubled (halved) with each downsampling (upsampling) operation.
To inject gradients deeper in the network, deep supervision with auxiliary losses are used for the upsampling layer of the encoder. For further details regarding the original 3D version of the nnU-Net we refer to the work of Isensee et al.~\cite{Isensee2021}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{lab_imb_orig.png}
\end{subfigure} \hspace{.05\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{lab_imb_large.png}
\end{subfigure} \\[1ex]
\begin{subfigure}{.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{full_ps.pdf}
\caption{full volume (max patch-size)}
\end{subfigure} \hspace{.05\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{large_ps.pdf}
\caption{$192\times160\times56$ (large patch-size)}
\end{subfigure} \\[3ex]
\begin{subfigure}{.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{lab_imb_small.png}
\end{subfigure} \hspace{.05\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{lab_imb_min.png}
\end{subfigure} \\[1ex]
\begin{subfigure}{.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{small_ps.pdf}
\caption{$96\times80\times48$ (small patch-size)}
\end{subfigure} \hspace{.05\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{min_ps.pdf}
\caption{$8\times8\times8$ (min patch-size)}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Average background and organ volume imbalance ratios of seven HAN organs (from left to right: Background, Brainstem, Optic Chiasm, Optic Nerve left/right, Parotid Gland left/right, Mandible) for four different patch-size sampling strategies, evaluated over one training epoch.}
\label{li:fig:li}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Class Imbalance Measurement}
As the currently most advanced general purpose approach for medical image segmentation we mainly follow the 3D nnU-Net framework, but adapt the loss function and also the patch-size based on our class imbalance measurement as the parameters directly influencing the class imbalance while training. Figure~\ref{li:fig:li} shows the average imbalance of the organ and background volume ratios of the dataset within a training epoch for different training strategies. For the ratio measurement the dataset is rescaled following the spacing definition of the nnU-Net. Although the histograms visually show the difference of the organ volume ratios for the presented patch-size strategies, we propose to use the standard deviation $\sigma$ of the class ratios as a single measurement for the class imbalance. The standard deviation of the averaged in-patch organ ratios is a single and easily interpretable value. The ratios sum up to one, accordingly the standard deviation is the average distance to an ideally uniform distribution of in-patch organ ratios. Utilizing $\sigma$ as a cost function with the patch-size as parameter allows us to find the training parameter with a minimal imbalance for the given dataset.
\newpage
\subsection{Class Adaptive Dice Loss}
\label{li:sec:la_dice_loss}
The loss function proposed by the nnU-Net is the CE+Dice loss combining probabilistic voxel-wise class predictions and label overlap measurements, which is also advised by the currently largest study of loss functions for medical image segmentation by Ma et al.~\cite{Ma2021}. The CE loss is used in its basic multi-class formulation as:
\begin{equation}
\text{CE}(P,G) \; = \frac{1}{B} - \sum_{b,c,v} G_{bcv} \log(P_{bcv}) \;,
\label{eq:celoss}
\end{equation}
with $P$ and $G$ being the one-hot-encoded prediction and ground truth volumes, consisting of $B$ batches, $C$ classes and $V$ voxels. The multi-class Dice loss using $\epsilon$ as a small value for numeric stability is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\text{Dice}(P,G)=\frac{1}{BC}\sum_{b,c} \frac{2 \sum_{v}P_{bcv}G_{bcv}+\epsilon}{\sum_{v}P_{bcv}+\sum_{v}G_{bcv}+\epsilon} \; .
\label{eq:diceloss}
\end{equation}
The Dice loss formulation of the nnU-Net follows the batch Dice loss of Kodym et al.~\cite{Kodym2018} with the adaptation of ignoring the background class. Contrary to the original Dice definition, Kodym et al. propose to evaluate the DSC with the batch as part of the volume instead of averaging the DSC over the batches. Accordingly, the Dice loss formulation used in the nnU-Net is given by:
\begin{equation}
\text{nnU-Dice}(P,G)=\frac{1}{C-1}\sum_{c-1} \frac{2 \sum_{b,v}P_{bcv}G_{bcv}+\epsilon}{\sum_{b,v}P_{bcv}+\sum_{b,v}G_{bcv}+\epsilon} \;.
\label{eq:nnUNetdiceloss}
\end{equation}
However, due to the applied patch-based training, we propose to used the class adaptive Dice loss formulation in combination with the basic CE loss. We define the class adaptive Dice loss as:
\begin{equation}
\text{ca-Dice}(P,G)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{b,c} \frac{2 \sum_{v}P_{bcv}G_{bcv}}{\sum_{v}P_{bcv}+\sum_{v}G_{bcv}+\epsilon}, \;
N = \sum_{b,c}
\begin{dcases}
0,& \text{if} \sum_{v}G_{bcv}=0\\
1,& \text{else}
\end{dcases}
\label{eq:la_diceloss2}
\end{equation}
Differently to the original Dice loss our definition only involves the $N$ classes present in the sampled patch and thus evaluates to the real DSC of the sampled patch instead of considering missing classes as perfectly segmented, which biases the loss towards incorrect scores.
\section{Results}
\label{li:sec:exp_res}
The nnU-Net as a general purpose segmentation framework is based on a fixed and a dataset dependent set of parameters. The patch-size defining rule of the network is based on the assumption that large windows have a more global context and hence improve the segmentation result. However, using the standard deviation $\sigma$ of the organ volume ratios as a cost function to optimize the class imbalance within the patches, results in smaller patch-sizes than the global context maximizing patch-size assumption of the nnU-Net. Our measurement of the class ratio standard deviation $\sigma$ naturally shows that the class imbalance is maximal ($\sigma=0.3301$) if a whole image approach is used and minimal if the patch-size is minimal ($\sigma=0.27146$ for a patch-size of $8\times8\times8$). Figure~\ref{li:fig:li} shows the organ volume ratios, including the background of the sampling process using four different patch-sizes.
In our experiments, to investigate the effect of the patch-size and thus the class imbalance on the segmentation quality we use the suggested patch-size of the nnU-Net framework and half of the patch-size in-plane and a slightly reduced size out-plane to still give the network enough context in axial direction, resulting in the small patch-size $96\times80\times48$ ($\sigma=0.32337$). We omit the full volume strategy presented in Figure~\ref{li:fig:li} as being infeasible due to its GPU memory demands as well as the minimal possible patch-size only allowing a shallow U-Net with one downsampling (upsampling) layer. Additionally, we include our class adaptive Dice loss formulation (Section~\ref{li:sec:la_dice_loss}) into the nnU-Net loss, as a robust cost function for the patch-based training of datasets with sparse class distributions as given in the HAN area. Consequently, we conduct experiments with the original nnU-Net parameters (large patch-size $192\times160\times56$, nnU-Dice+CE loss) and our introduced class imbalance optimized patch-size and the class adaptive loss function (ca-Dice).
Table~\ref{li:table:avg_res} shows the average results of the networks trained on the MICCAI 2015 HAN challenge dataset~\cite{Raudaschl2017}, according to the challenge protocol. The results on the test data are evaluated using the DSC, the 95HD as well as the surface Dice (SD) as introduced by Nikolov et al.~\cite{Nikolov2018} combining a volume and a surface-based measurement (with surface tolerance $\tau$ identified by the authors in their observer agreement study). The bold values indicate the best results for the given measurement and values marked with stars significance
(Wilcoxon signed rank test with $p < 0.05$) over the baseline. Following the work of Li et al.~\cite{Li2021} in order to analyze a potential overfitting of the small organs we present in Figure~\ref{li:fig:overf} a comparison of the output confidence distribution of the training and the test samples for the segmented organs of our experiments as violin plot. The values in each plot indicate the distance of the average confidence from the training to the test data.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Segmentation results on the combined on- and off-site test data of the MICCAI 2015 HAN challenge dataset~\cite{Raudaschl2017}, for the evaluated configurations in terms of DSC, 95HD and surface Dice (SD). Bold values indicate the best results for the respective organ in each column and values marked with stars significance (Wilcoxon signed rank test with $p<0.05$) over the baseline.}
\label{li:table:avg_res}
\begin{tabular}{@{} l l D{?}{\,\pm\,}{3.3} D{?}{\,\pm\,}{4.5} D{?}{\,\pm\,}{3.4}@{}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Config (patch-size, loss)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Organ}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{DSC}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{95HD [mm]}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{SD}} \\
\midrule
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{large, nnU-Dice+CE} & BrainStem & 0.88 ? 0.02 & 3.29 ? 0.67 & 0.96 ? 0.03 \\
& Optic Chiasm & 0.54 ? 0.21 & 3.48 ? 2.02 & 0.84 ? 0.25 \\
& Mandible & 0.94 ? 0.01 & 2.13 ? 1.04 & 0.91 ? 0.05 \\
& OpticNerve\_L & 0.68 ? 0.11 & 4.91 ? 3.95 & 0.92 ? 0.10 \\
& OpticNerve\_R & 0.70 ? 0.08 & 3.10 ? 2.46 & 0.96 ? 0.06 \\
& Parotid\_L & 0.82 ? 0.08 & 5.36 ? 2.45 & 0.91 ? 0.06 \\
& Parotid\_R & 0.84 ? 0.11 & 6.07 ? 4.77 & 0.91 ? 0.10 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{large, ca-Dice+CE} & BrainStem & 0.88 ? 0.02 & 3.16 ? 0.45 & 0.96 ? 0.06 \\
& Optic Chiasm & 0.53 ? 0.21 & 69.42 ? 257.44 & 0.85 ? 0.25 \\
& Mandible & 0.94 ? 0.01 & 1.86 ? 0.65 & 0.91 ? 0.05 \\
& OpticNerve\_L & 0.72 ? 0.08 & \textbf{2.82} ? \textbf{2.06} & \textbf{0.97} ? \textbf{0.05} \\
& OpticNerve\_R & 0.70 ? 0.07 & \textbf{2.21} ? \textbf{0.45} & \textbf{0.99} ? \textbf{0.01} \\
& Parotid\_L & 0.86 ? 0.04 & 4.43 ? 1.62 & 0.94 ? 0.04 \\
& Parotid\_R & 0.83 ? 0.12 & 5.83 ? 5.27 & 0.91 ? 0.12 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{small, nnU-Dice+CE} & BrainStem & 0.88 ? 0.02 & \textbf{3.13} ? \textbf{0.63} & \textbf{0.96} ? \textbf{0.02} \\
& Optic Chiasm & 0.53 ? 0.21 & \textbf{3.23} ? \textbf{1.22} & \textbf{0.89} ? \textbf{0.13} \\
& Mandible & 0.94 ? 0.02 & 1.74 ? 0.75 & 0.92 ? 0.04 \\
& OpticNerve\_L & 0.71 ? 0.07 & 3.03 ? 2.08 & 0.96 ? 0.06 \\
& OpticNerve\_R & \textbf{0.73} ? \textbf{0.05} & 2.29 ? 0.48 & 0.98 ? 0.02 \\
& Parotid\_L & 0.88 ? 0.02 & 4.34 ? 2.44 & 0.95 ? 0.03 \\
& Parotid\_R & \textbf{0.88} ? \textbf{0.02} & 4.24 ? 1.61 & 0.93 ? 0.05 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{small, ca-Dice+CE} & BrainStem & 0.88 ? 0.02 & 3.33 ? 0.69 & 0.96 ? 0.06 \\
& Optic Chiasm & \textbf{0.55} ? \textbf{0.2} & 3.38 ? 1.86 & 0.87 ? 0.19 \\
& Mandible & 0.94 ? 0.02 & \textbf{1.72} ? \textbf{0.69} & 0.92 ? 0.04 \\
& OpticNerve\_L & \textbf{0.73} ? \textbf{0.08} & 2.86 ? 2.13 & 0.97 ? 0.06 \\
& OpticNerve\_R & 0.72 ? 0.07 & 2.53 ? 1.45 & 0.98 ? 0.03 \\
& Parotid\_L & \textbf{0.88} ? \textbf{0.02} & \textbf{4.27} ? \textbf{1.83} & \textbf{0.95} ? \textbf{0.02} \\
& Parotid\_R & \textbf{0.87} ? \textbf{0.04} & \textbf{4.08} ? \textbf{1.39} & \textbf{0.94} ? \textbf{0.04} \\
\midrule
\midrule
large, nnU-Dice+CE & average & 0.77 ? 0.17 & 4.05 ? 3.05 & 0.92 ? 0.12 \\
large, ca-Dice+CE & average & 0.78 ? 0.16 & 12.82 ? 97.3\textsuperscript{$\star$} & 0.93 ? 0.11\textsuperscript{$\star$} \\
small, nnU-Dice+CE & average & 0.79 ? 0.16 & \textbf{3.14} ? \textbf{1.69}\textsuperscript{$\star$} & \textbf{0.94} ? \textbf{0.07}\textsuperscript{$\star$} \\
small, ca-Dice+CE & average & \textbf{0.80} ? \textbf{0.15}\textsuperscript{$\star$} & 3.17 ? 1.70\textsuperscript{$\star$} & 0.94 ? 0.09\textsuperscript{$\star$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{overfitt_analysis.pdf}
\caption{Violin plot of the output confidence distribution of the training and the test samples for the segmented organs of our experiments, with the distance of the average confidence from the training to the test data indicating the potential of overfitting.}
\label{li:fig:overf}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Implementation Details}
Our implementation is based on the Monai DynUNet pipeline module\footnote{\url{https://github.com/Project-MONAI/tutorials/} (accessed 2021-12-21)}, a reimplementation of the dynamic UNet used in the nnU-Net framework~\cite{Isensee2021} and further adapted to follow the nnU-Net parameterization. Monai is a PyTorch-based framework for deep learning in healthcare imaging\footnote{\url{https://monai.io/} (accessed 2021-12-21)}. Our models are trained on Nvidia Titan RTX GPUs with 24 GB of memory for an average of 67 hours.
\section{Discussion}
\label{li:sec:dis_con}
The results of our experiments in Table~\ref{li:table:avg_res} reveal that the presented extensions to the nnU-Net framework, the patch-size adjustment especially in conjunction with the class adaptive Dice loss, are favorable for the present class imbalance in the HAN area.
Reducing the patch-size directly influences the class imbalance within the sampled patches. The standard deviation, introduced as a measurement for the volume ratio imbalance within a training image patch, changes from $\sigma=0.32605$ to $\sigma=0.32337$ using the GPU memory optimized large patch-size of $192\times160\times56$ compared to the suggested class imbalance optimized small patch-size of $96\times80\times48$. As visible in Figure~\ref{li:fig:li}, especially the ratio of the smaller classes increases within a patch. The improvement of the class imbalance therefore reduces the bias towards the large classes during the training and effectively results in an increase in performance of 2\% in terms of the DSC and a significant increase of 2\% regarding SD compared to the baseline nnU-Net framework. The 95HD is significantly reduced by 0.91 mm, yielding an improvement of 22\% compared the baseline.
The utilization of the class adaptive Dice loss in the loss formulation of the nnU-Net improves the segmentation results regarding the DSC and significantly the SD by another 1\%. The average of the 95HD is not improved as the Optic Chiasm is not segmented in one test sample, however all other single organ measurements show improvements over the baseline. Contrary to the standard multi-class Dice loss formulation the class adaptive Dice loss only evaluates the classes available within each patch, whereas the standard Dice loss calculates the average over all classes, distorting the average DSC depending on the current network prediction of the missing classes. The nnU-Dice which is based on the batch-Dice formulation~\cite{Kodym2018}, however, reduces the risk of missing classes by considering the batch dimension as part of the patch volume. The risk of missing classes within a patch depends on the volume size, the class distribution within the whole volume and, as adjustable training parameters, the patch-size and the sampling strategy. As the nnU-Net framework uses a 33\% random foreground oversampling strategy, the large patches and the batch-Dice formulation make the baseline nnU-Net already stable against missing classes. Nonetheless, we argue to use the class adaptive Dice, as it is robust against missing classes, especially if the patch-size is smaller and the class distribution within the volume sparse. By showing significantly improved segmentation results for all measures our experiments support the usage of a combined small patch-size and the class adaptive Dice for imbalanced segmentation problems.
Deviating from the suggestion of the original work of Li et al.~\cite{Li2021}, Figure~\ref{li:fig:overf} does not show the direct network output (the logits) of the segmented classes and its corresponding decision boundaries, which is only possible for up to three classes, but the confidence distribution after the softmax normalization of the eight HAN organs to be segmented. Although no decision boundary can be depicted for more then three classes, the presentation of the organ-wise normalized confidence values allows a direct comparison of the average confidence drift from train to test time and thus the identification of overfitting. The results in Figure~\ref{li:fig:overf} confirm the findings of Li et al.~\cite{Li2021} for the class imbalanced HAN area and show that the small organs (the Optic Chiasm and the Optic Nerves) are subject to larger differences in training and test time confidence and accordingly prone to overfitting. The measurements also indicate the overall performance enhancement of the ca-Dice loss over the baseline, visible in the increased average confidence values, but do not show a reduction of the overfitting of the small organs by the loss function adaption. Contrary, the experiments with the small patch-size optimized to reduce the class imbalance, show a clear average confidence difference reduction of the Parotid Glands. The Parotid Glands can be considered as mid-sized organs, allowing the assumption that a further reduction of the class imbalance can reduce the confidence drift for the small organs too and hence increase their final segmentation results. The assumption is also supported by the constantly small average confidence drift of the Mandible and the Brainstem being the largest organs with the largest patch ratio and consequently the least overfitting.
Finally, in Table~\ref{li:table:compare} we present the segmentation results combining the small patch-size and the class adaptive Dice and chronologically compare them with the segmentation results of the most important works in the field also presenting their results on the MICCAI 2015 HAN challenge dataset. The Table also indicates the number of organs and data samples used, as the original challenge protocol and its defined data splits are not followed in general.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Average DSC and 95HD on the MICCAI HAN challenge dataset}
\label{li:table:compare}
\begin{tabular}{@{} l D{?}{\,\pm\,}{3.3} D{?}{\,\pm\,}{3.3} c c}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Literature}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{DSC}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{95HD [mm]}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Data}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Organs}} \\
\midrule
Raudaschl et al.\cite{Raudaschl2017} & 0.76 & - & 25/15 & 9 (2 partly) \\
Fritscher et al. \cite{Fritscher2016} & 0.66 ? 0.08 & - & 20/10 & 6 \\
Tappeiner et al.\cite{Tappeiner2019} & 0.72 ? 0.18 & 6.30 ? 16.2 & 25/15 & 7 \\
Zhu et al. \cite{Zhu2019} & 0.79 ? 0.05 & - & 38/10 & 9 (3 partly) \\
Tappeiner et al. \cite{Tappeiner2020} & 0.75 ? 0.16 & 3.02 ? 1.92 & 25/15 & 7 \\
Guo et al. \cite{Guo2020} & 0.82 ? 0.05 & - & 33/15 & 9 (3 partly) \\
Gao et al. \cite{Gao2020} & 0.85 ? 0.06 & 2.17 ? 0.93 & 38/10 & 9 (3 partly) \\
Nikolov et al. \cite{Nikolov2018} & 0.81 ? 0.05 & - & (663)/15 & 8 (2 partly) \\
Chen et al. \cite{Chen2021} & 0.81 ? 0.05 & - & 33/10 & 9 (3 partly) \\
Tang et al. \cite{Tang2021} & 0.83 ? 0.05 & - & 33/15 & 9 (3 partly) \\
our (small, ca-Dice+CE) & 0.80 ? 0.15 & 3.17 ? 1.69 & 25/15 & 7 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In summary, in this work we present an intuitive measurement for the organ volume ratio difference, which is a central problem appearing in the DL based segmentation of the HAN area. Based on the measurement we optimize the patch-size parameter regarding the class imbalance for a single network based HAN segmentation architecture. Additionally, we utilize the class adaptive Dice as a robust loss function for missing classes within a training patch. Both adaptions are incorporated in the nnU-Net framework where we are able to increase the segmentation results by an additional 3\% in terms of the DSC and the SD and by 22\% regarding the 95HD, resulting in an average DSC of $0.8\pm0.15$ and a 95HD of $3.17\pm1.7$ mm for the segmented HAN organs respectively.
The patch-size optimization and the class adaptive Dice loss can both easily be integrated into current DL based segmentation approaches. In future work we want to improve the state-of-the-art performance of the recently presented hybrid 2D-3D, single network approach of Chen et al.~\cite{Chen2021} by integrating our adaptations. Single network approaches are end-to-end trainable, less complex and therefore of higher practical interest compared to complex multi-network solutions. As an addition to the overfitting analysis we like to investigate and combine asymmetric loss functions therms, proposed by Li et al.~\cite{Li2021} with our ca-Dice loss to increase the distance to the decision boundaries of the small classes to further increase their test time performance.
\section*{Declarations}
\subsection*{Conflict of interest}
Elias Tappeiner, Martin Welk, Rainer Schubert declare to have no conflict of interest.
\subsection*{Ethical approval}
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
\subsection*{Informed Consent}
Patients informed consent was given in the data originating clincal study~\cite{Ang2014}.
\subsection*{Availability}
The anonymized MICCAI 2015 HAN challenge dataset is publicly available (\url{http://www.imagenglab.com/newsite/pddca/}). The code of the work is available on Github (\url{https://github.com/elitap/classimbalance}).
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum linear response theory (LRT) has been actively developed since the formulation of the foundations of quantum mechanics and has become one of the most fundamental theories for the computation of various properties~\cite{nolting2009fundamentals}.
{At the same time,} the ongoing development of technological and, along with it, experimental capabilities has resulted in the need for a theory that captures phenomena beyond the LRT.
Specific examples include plasmonics \cite{Panoiu_2018, Lee2014}, optics \cite{doi:10.1063/1.5021553, Ventura_2019}, and more recently so-called warm dense matter (WDM) \cite{Dornheim_PRL_2020, Fuchs2015} {---an extreme state that occurs in astrophysical objects~\cite{Benuzzi_Mounaix_2014,saumon1} and that is also relevant for technological applications~\cite{Hu2010,Lazicki2021,Dattelbaum2021,Luetgert2021}.}
However, in contrast to the LRT, the foundations of a quantum theory of the non-linear response (NLRT) at finite wave numbers is far from being established even for simple model systems such as a free electron gas~\cite{review,loos}.
In this regard, the lack of a reliable theoretical foundation makes the \textit{ab initio} simulation an indispensable tool to guide the development of the NLRT.
This was demonstrated recently for warm dense matter by performing path integral quantum Monte Carlo (PIMC) simulations \cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231,JCP21_nonlin}. {Yet, while these results are exact, the fermion sign problem~\cite{PhysRevE.100.023307,troyer} limits their application to moderate levels of quantum degeneracy. In contrast, the thermal Kohn-Sham density functional theory (KS-DFT) method~\cite{Mermin_DFT_1965} does not suffer from this limitation.
Indeed, it has become standard practice to study the linear electronic response~\cite{Gross_Kohn_PRL_1985,martin2004electronic} based on the KS orbitals.
In this work, we explore a new KS-DFT based approach to the nonlinear electronic response of arbitrary materials. Firstly, this methodology allows us to compute higher-order (being quadratic, cubic, etc.~with respect to the perturbation amplitude) response functions, with the only approximation being given by the choice of the exchange--correlation (XC) functional. In addition, we can straightforwardly estimate the validity range of LRT, which is highly important in its own right.}
{As a particular example, we apply this approach to the free electron gas~\cite{loos,review}---the archetypical} model system
{with general relevance} for numerous applications in condensate matter physics and high-energy-density science.
From a many-particle physics perspective, {we note that} it is imperative to first develop a NLRT for
this general free electron gas model, before applying the NLRT to specific cases.
{In this context, {thermal} KS-DFT~\cite{Mermin_DFT_1965} constitutes the method of choice}
because it allows calculations over large temperature ranges covering the strongly to partially degenerate regimes. {Moreover, we note that the general nature of our present NLRT approach makes it directly usable for high-$T$ DFT methods~\cite{Zhang_POP_2016,bethkenhagen2021thermodynamic}, including orbital-free formulations~\cite{wesolowski2013recent}.}
Since the free electron gas model and the NLRT have important applications in WDM \cite{new_POP, Dornheim_PRL_2020}, we start from {relatively} high temperatures relevant for laboratory astrophysics \cite{Kritcher2020, Booth2015,PhysRevB.101.054301} {as well as astrophysical models~\cite{saumon1}}, inertial confinement fusion \cite{Hu2010}, and the synthesis of new materials at extreme conditions \cite{Dattelbaum2021, Lazicki2021, Luetgert2021}.
At these parameters, we can benchmark KS-DFT results against available PIMC results~\cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231,JCP21_nonlin,Dornheim_PRL_2020}.
{In addition, we consider lower temperatures down to the electronic ground state that are relevant for condensed matter physics.}
It is conventional to give the temperature $T$ and density $n_0$ of the free electron gas using the reduced temperature $\theta=T/T_F$ (with $T_F$ being the Fermi temperature) and the mean inter-particle distance in a.u., $r_s=(4\pi n_0/3)^{1/3}$.
For example, a rather loose definition of the WDM regime corresponds to temperatures $0.1 \lesssim \theta \lesssim 10$ and densities $0.5\lesssim r_s \lesssim 10$.
The prospect of the observation of nonlinear phenomena in WDM has triggered an active investigation of the non-linear density response properties of the free electron gas by Dornheim et al. \cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231, JCP21_nonlin, dornheim2021nonlinear} using the \textit{ab initio} PIMC method~\cite{PhysRevE.100.023307,Dornheim_permutation_cycles}. The focus of these PIMC studies was the static density response of WDM at temperatures $\theta\geq 1$.
The main reason for not considering lower temperatures was
{the aforementioned}
fermion sign problem \cite{PhysRevE.100.023307}, which results in an exponential increase in the computation time with decreasing temperature. Although there are other quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) methods that have different domains of applicability, such as the configuration PIMC approach \cite{JCP_Simon17, Yilmaz}, the permutation blocking PIMC method~\cite{Dornheim_2015,JCP_tobias_15}, and a phaseless auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo technique~\cite{JCP_Lee}, there are always parameters at which QMC methods encounter significant difficulties.
Approximately, the problematic domain for QMC methods corresponds to $\theta<1$ and $r_s\gtrsim 2$ \cite{dornheim_physrep_18, JCP_Lee, Yilmaz}.
On the other hand, the parameter range corresponding to densities $r_s\gtrsim 2$ and temperatures $0.01 \lesssim \theta<1$ is highly important for numerous applications. For example, recently it was shown that the static non-linear density response functions of the electron gas can be used for the construction of advanced kinetic
energy functionals required for orbital-free density functional theory (OF-DFT) based simulations \cite{PhysRevB.100.125106, PhysRevB.100.125107} with applications at {ambient} \cite{PhysRevB.104.045118} as well as extreme conditions \cite{PhysRevB.88.195103, PhysRevB.92.115104}. Additionally, non-linear density response functions can extend quantum fluid models (quantum hydrodynamics and time-dependent orbital-free density functional theory) beyond the weak perturbation regime \cite{zhandos_pop18, PhysRevX.11.011049, graziani2021shock, Manfredi2021, PhysRevB.104.235110, zhandos_cpp17_1d}. Moreover, static non-linear density response functions are needed for the systematic improvement of effective pair interaction models for WDM \cite{cpp21, PhysRevE.98.023207, PhysRevE.99.053203, pop15} and liquid metals \cite{SENATORE1996851, PhysRevB.81.224113, PhysRevB.64.224112}.
{Finally, Moldabekov and co-workers~\cite{moldabekov2021thermal,JPSP21} have recently suggested to deliberately probe the nonlinear regime in X-ray Thomson scattering experiments~\cite{RevModPhys.81.1625} as an improved method for the inference of plasma parameters such as the electronic temperature.}
However, these applications
{remain in their infancy}
since the NLRT of correlated electrons is significantly less developed compared to the LRT \cite{dornheim_physrep_18}. One of the reasons is that the derivations in the NLRT are much more mathematically involved \cite{PhysRevB.59.10145,PhysRevB.37.9268, PhysRevE.54.3518}.
In fact, the NLRT is burdened with easy-to-make-mistake mathematical tasks and poorly converging integrals.
Therefore, the \textit{ab initio} calculation of the non-linear response properties across parameter ranges is required not only to describe certain phenomena, but also to guide and test new theoretical developments.
The key goal of this work is to demonstrate the {high value of KS-DFT to study the nonlinear density response}
across temperature regimes as an alternative to much more expensive---for certain parameters even prohibitively expensive---QMC simulations.
{This is achieved by developing and testing the KS-DFT based methodology for the analysis and investigation of the higher order static density response functions.}
Therefore, first of all, we show that KS-DFT can be effectively used to compute static non-linear density response properties of correlated electrons at low temperatures ($\theta\lesssim 1$) and is able to reproduce available PIMC results at $\theta=1$. Secondly, we provide an analysis of the available theoretical results for the diagonal parts of quadratic and cubic response functions {by combining the KS-DFT simulation of correlated electrons, the KS-DFT calculations with the exchange-correlations functional set to zero, and recently developed machine learning representation of the local field correction of the free electron gas \cite{dornheim_ML,Dornheim_PRL_2020_ESA}}. This confirms the high accuracy of the analytic results for the quadratic response function and reveals the significant deficiency of the available analytical results for the cubic response function. Finally, we
{are able to show}
the change in the characteristic features of the non-linear response functions on the way from moderately to strongly degenerate regimes.
The paper is organized as the following: in Sec. 2, we provide the theoretical background of the studied non-linear response characteristics; in Sec. 3, we give the description of the performed simulations; the new results are presented and discussed in Sec. 4; the paper is concluded by summarizing the main findings and providing an outlook over future investigations in Sec. 5.
\section{Theory}
Let us start by briefly discussing the state-of-the-art theory of the static non-linear density response functions. Along with that, we establish the terminology used throughout the paper.
In general, the definition of the non-linear response functions follow from the perturbative expansion of the density $n(\vec r)$ around its unperturbed value $n_0(\vec r)$ \cite{PhysRevB.37.9268, PhysRevB.59.10145,PhysRevResearch.3.033231}.
Specifically, we consider the response of the uniform electron gas to an external harmonic perturbation~\cite{PhysRevLett.75.689,Dornheim_PRL_2020}, $V(\vec r)=2A\cos{\left(\vec q\cdot \vec r\right)}$, with amplitude $A$ and wave number $\vec q$. In this case, the Fourier expansion of the density distribution reads \cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:rho_tot}
n(\mathbf{r}) = n_0(\mathbf{r}) + 2 \sum_{\eta=1}^\infty \braket{\hat\rho_{\eta\mathbf{q}}}_{q,A} \textnormal{cos}\left(\eta\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r} \right),
\end{align}
where
we have introduced the density perturbation components in Fourier space $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$.
The latter quantity is essentially the density perturbation in $\vec k$ space induced by an external perturbation with amplitude $A$ and wavenumber $\vec q$.
From Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho_tot}), we see that $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$ has non-zero components at multiples of the perturbing field wavenumber, i.e. at $k=\eta \vec q$ with $\eta$ being an integer number. We refer to $\braket{\hat\rho_{\eta \mathbf{q}}}_{q,A}$ at $\eta=1$, $\eta=2$, $\eta=3$ as density perturbations at the first, second and third harmonics, respectively. Next, using the density response $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$, we arrive at the following definitions of the \textit{density response functions}\cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231, Mikhailov_Annalen, PhysRevLett.75.689}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:rho1}
\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{q}}_{q,A} &=& \chi^{(1)}(q) A + \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}(q) A^3 {+\dots}\ ,\\
\label{eq:rho2}
\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{2q}}_{q,A} &=& \chi^{(2)}(q) A^2 {+\dots} \ , \\
\label{eq:rho3}
\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{3q}}_{q,A} &=& \chi^{(3)}(q) A^3 {+\dots} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi^{(1)}(q)$ is the \textit{linear response function}, $\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}(q)$ is the \textit{cubic response function at the first harmonic}, $\chi^{(2)}(q)$ is the \textit{quadratic response function}, and $\chi^{(3)}(q)$ is the \textit{cubic response function at the third harmonic}. {Evidently, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:rho1})-(\ref{eq:rho3}) are given by expansions in terms of the perturbation amplitude $A$, and are accurate up to the third order. While the density response is only given by a single term at the wave number of the original perturbation within LRT, the consideration of nonlinear effects leads to a richer picture including the excitation of higher-order harmonics.}
In the ideal Fermi gas approximation, the linear response function $\chi^{(1)}_0$ is given by the {(temperature-dependent)} Lindhard function \cite{Lindhard}.
On the same level of description, Mikhailov expressed the ideal quadratic response function $\chi^{(2)}_0(q)$ and ideal cubic response function at the third harmonic $\chi^{(3)}_0(q)$ in terms of the Lindhard function ~\cite{Mikhailov_Annalen,Mikhailov_PRL}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Mikhailov2}
\chi^{(2)}_0(q) = \frac{2}{q^2}\left( \chi^{(1)}_0(2q)-\chi^{(1)}_0(q)\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Mikhailov3}
\chi_0^{(3)}(q)=\frac{3\chi_0^{(1)}(3q)-8\chi^{(1)}_0(2q)+5\chi_0^{(1)}(q)}{3q^4}.
\end{equation}
Next, on the mean field level, usually called RPA, the results for $\chi^{(2)}(q)$ and $\chi^{(3)}(q)$ can be obtained by taking into account screening on the level of the linear response and dropping quadratic or higher order corrections to screening \cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chi2_RPA}
\chi^{(2)}_{\rm RPA}( q)= \frac{\chi^{(2)}_{0}( q)}{\left[1-v(q)\chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{2} \left[1-v(2q)\chi^{(1)}_{0}( 2q)\right]}.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chi3_RPA}
\chi^{(3)}_{\rm RPA}( q)= \frac{\chi^{(3)}_{0}( q)}{\left[1-v(q)\chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{3} \left[1-v(3q)\chi^{(1)}_{0}( 3q)\right]}.
\end{equation}
Finally, some electronic correlation effects beyond the mean-field level can be taken into account using a local field correction (LFC) $G(k)$ in the denominator~\cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231}:
\begin{equation}
\chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}( q) = \chi^{(2)}_{0}( q) \left[1-v(q)\left[1-G(q)\right]\chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{-2}\times \left[1-v(2q)\left[1-G(2q)\right]\chi^{(1)}_{0}( 2q)\right]^{-1}, \label{eq:chi2_LFC}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}( q) = \chi^{(3)}_{0}( q) \left[1-v(q)\left[1-G(q)\right]\chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{-3} \times \left[1-v(3q)\left[1-G(3q)\right]\chi^{(1)}_{0}( 3q)\right]^{-1}.\label{eq:chi3_LFC}
\end{equation}
Similarly to the screened equations (\ref{eq:chi2_RPA}) and (\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}), Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chi2_LFC}) and (\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}) take into account electronic exchange-correlations on the basis of the linear response theory. However, contrary to the case of the LFC in the linear response function, the insertion of the LFC here cannot give an exact result as further terms are missing. Equations (\ref{eq:chi2_LFC}) and (\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}) are easy-to-compute solutions for the case of a harmonically perturbed electron gas since the static LFC at the parameters of interest is readily available from a machine-learning (ML) representation which is based on QMC simulation results ~\cite{dornheim_ML,Dornheim_PRL_2020_ESA}.
Finally, we note that there are no satisfactory analytical results for the ideal cubic response function at the first harmonic $\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_0(q)$.
Nevertheless, there is a formal relation between $\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_0$, and the cubic response function of correlated electrons which follows from the perturbative analysis based on the Green functions method \cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231} :
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cubic_first_LFC}
\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm LFC}( q)= \frac{\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{0}( q)}{\left[1-v(q)\left[1-G(q)\right]\chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{4}}.
\end{equation}
Note that the mean-field result for the cubic response function at the first harmonic follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:cubic_first_LFC}) by setting $G=0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cubic_first_RPA}
\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm RPA}( q)= \frac{\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{0}( q)}{\left[1-v(q)\chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{4}}.
\end{equation}
{In this work, we} use the KS-DFT method to compute the set of density response functions defined by Eqs. (\ref{eq:rho1})-(\ref{eq:rho3}) and subsequently verify the quality of the KS-DFT results
by comparing with PIMC results at $\theta=1$.
Then we use KS-DFT results to analyze the analytical approximations given by Eqs. (\ref{eq:Mikhailov2})-(\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}) in the wide range of parameters inaccessible for QMC methods. This allows us to unambiguously asses the importance of the neglected higher order (nonlinear) screening and LFC effects.
\section{Simulation details}\label{sec:simulation_details}
The computational workflow consists of four main steps: First, the thermal KS-DFT simulations \cite{Mermin_DFT_1965} of the free electron gas perturbed by an external field
$V(\vec r)=2A\cos{\left(\vec q\cdot \vec r\right)}$ are performed for different $A$ and $\vec q$ values;
Second, the wave functions from KS-DFT simulations are used to compute the total density distribution along the direction of the wave vector $\vec q$;
Third, the density perturbation components in $k$ space $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$ are computed using Eq. (\ref{eq:rho_tot});
Finally, the density response functions are found by fitting data for $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$ using Eqs. (\ref{eq:rho1})-(\ref{eq:rho3}).
To begin with, we consider a strongly correlated electron gas with $r_s=6$ at $\theta=1$ and $r_s=5$ at $\theta=0.01$. At $r_s=6$, we compare the results with the available finite temperature PIMC data for the linear and non-linear density response functions \cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231}. At $r_s=5$, we compare with the diffusion quantum Monte Carlo (DMC) results for the linear density response function computed by Moroni, Ceperley, and Senatore \cite{PhysRevLett.75.689}.
Furthermore, we investigate a metallic density with $r_s=2$ at three different values of the degeneracy parameter, $\theta=1$, $\theta=0.5$, and $\theta=0.01$.
In this case, we also benchmark results against PIMC data at $\theta=1$ and compare with the linear density response function from the DMC simulations at $\theta=0.01$.
The KS-DFT simulations of the free electron gas were performed using the GPAW code~\cite{GPAW1, GPAW2, ase-paper, ase-paper2}, which is a real-space implementation of the projector augmented-wave method. The number of particles in the main simulation box is varied in the range from $14$ to $66$. Accordingly, the main cubic cell size is defined by $r_s$ and $N$ as $L=r_s (\frac{4}{3}\pi N)^{1/3}$. The direction of the perturbation is set to be along the $z$ axis. Due to periodic boundary conditions, the value of the perturbation wave number of the external harmonic field is defined by the reciprocal lattice vectors of the main simulation cell $q=\eta \times 4\pi/L$, with $\eta$ being a positive integer number.
We used a Monkhorst-Pack~\cite{PhysRevB.13.5188} sampling of the Brillouin zone with a \emph{k}-point grid of $N_k\times N_k\times N_k$, with $N_k=12$ at $r_s=2$, and $N_k=8$ at $r_s=6$ and $r_s=5$. The calculations were performed using a plane-wave basis where the cutoff energy has been converged to $800~{\rm eV}$ at $\theta=1$ and $r_s=2$, and to $440~{\rm eV}$ at the rest of the $r_s$ and $\theta$ values.
The number of orbitals is set to $N_b=500$ at $r_s=2$ and $\theta=1$ with the smallest occupation number $f_{\rm min}\lesssim 10^{-7}$.
We set $N_b=240$ at $r_s=6$ and $\theta=1$, and $N_b=140$ at $r_s=2$ and $\theta=0.5$ ($f_{\rm min}\lesssim 10^{-6}$). At $\theta=0.01$, we set $N_b=70$ for $N=66$ particles, and $N_b=2 N$ for $N=20$ and $N=14$ particles (with $f_{\rm min}= 0$).
At $r_s=2$, the perturbation amplitudes are set in the range from $A=0.01$ to $A=0.1$ with a step of $\Delta A=0.03$ (here $A$ is in Hartree atomic units).
At $r_s=6$ and $r_s=5$, the perturbation amplitudes are in the range from $A=0.002$ to $A=0.017$ with the step $\Delta A=0.005$.
These values of the perturbation amplitudes used for the calculation of the density response functions were found empirically guided by the requirement $\Delta n/n_0\ll 1$, and by testing the validity of Eqs. (\ref{eq:rho_tot})-(\ref{eq:rho3}). Examples of the dependence of the density perturbation $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$ on $A$ as well as the application of Eqs. (\ref{eq:rho_tot})-(\ref{eq:rho3}) are illustrated in Appendix \ref{sec:app}.
The exchange-correlation (XC) functional in our KS-DFT simulations is the local density approximation (LDA) in the Perdew-Zunger parametrization~\cite{Perdew_LDA}.
Recently, it was demonstrated for $\theta=1$ that commonly used GGA functionals such as PBE ~\cite{PBE}, PBEsol~\cite{PBEsol}, AM05~\cite{PhysRevB.72.085108} and the meta-GGA functional SCAN~\cite{SCAN} are not able to provide a superior description compared to LDA in the case of the free electron gas perturbed by an external field with fixed wave number $\vec q$ when $\Delta n/n_0<1$ \cite{moldabekov_jcp21, moldabekov2021benchmarking}. We do not aim to further study this problem in this work. Therefore, we do not consider other types of XC functionals beyond LDA.
In addition to the LDA based calculations, we performed simulations with zero XC functional (NullXC).
This allows us to obtain exact results for the density response on the mean-field level. The value of this type of KS-DFT calculations
allows us to asses the accuracy of the corresponding
theoretical mean-field expressions given in
Eqs. (\ref{eq:chi2_RPA}) and (\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}). Furthermore, once the analytical results have been verified, the KS-DFT calculations on the mean-field level
can be combined with the LFC to compute a highly accurate response function. We demonstrate that this is the case for the quadratic response function and the cubic response function at the first harmonic using Eqs. (\ref{eq:chi2_LFC}) and (\ref{eq:cubic_first_LFC}).
\section{Results}\label{s:results}
\subsection{Strongly correlated hot electrons}
We start the discussion of our simulation results by considering the strongly correlated electron gas with the density parameter $r_s=6$ and at the reduced temperature $\theta=1$.
This corresponds to WDM generated in evaporation experiments \cite{Zastrau}. At these parameters, we can benchmark the KS-DFT calculations against previous PIMC calculations~\cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231,Dornheim_PRL_2020}.
\subsubsection{Linear density response in WDM regime}\label{sss:chi1_rs6}
First, we verify that our KS-DFT calculations provide accurate data for the linear static density response function $\chi^{\rm (1)}(q)$,
which allows us to systematically analyze and exclude the possibility of finite size effects~\cite{Dornheim_JCP_2021}. We start this analysis by comparing the linear static density response function computed using KS-DFT with the exact analytical results on the mean-field level and with $\chi^{(1)}$ of the correlated electron gas computed using the exact data for the LFC~\cite{dornheim_ML}.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics [width=0.45 \textwidth]{chi1_theta1_rs6.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:chi1}
Linear static density response function at $r_s=6$ and $\theta=1$.}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:chi1}, we present the KS-DFT results computed using $N=14$ electrons.
In this case, the cell size is $L=12.335~{\rm \mbox{\normalfont\AA}}$ and the accessible values of the wave numbers are multiples of $q_{\rm min}\simeq 0.8427 q_F$.
From Fig.~\ref{fig:chi1}, first of all, we see that the linear density response function computed using KS-DFT with zero XC functional, $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}$, accurately reproduces the exact random phase approximation (RPA) result for the static linear response function,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chi1_RPA}
\chi^{(1)}_{\rm RPA}(q)=\frac{\chi^{(1)}_0(q)}{1-v(q) \chi^{(1)}_0(q)},
\end{equation}
where $v(q)=4\pi/q^2$ and $\chi^{(1)}_0(q)$ is the Lindhard function. This shows that finite size effects in our KS-DFT calculations with as few as $14$ electrons is negligible in the considered case. {For completeness, we note that this is consistent with previous findings of PIMC simulations at similar conditions~\cite{dornheim_ML}.}
Secondly, we combine the density response function computed using the KS-DFT with zero XC functional, $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}$, with the LFC to find the linear density response function of correlated electrons:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dft_chi1_LFC}
\widetilde \chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}(q)=\frac{\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}(q)}{1+v(q)G(q)\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}(q)},
\end{equation}
where $G(q)$ is computed using the ML representation of the LFC ~\cite{dornheim_ML}.
From Fig.~\ref{fig:chi1}, we see that $\widetilde \chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}(q)$ is in excellent agreement with the exact value computed using the Lindhard function,
\begin{equation}
\chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}(q) = \frac{\chi^{(1)}_0(q)}{1-v(q)\left(1-G(q)\right) \chi^{(1)}_0(q)}
= \frac{\chi^{(1)}_{\rm RPA}(q)}{1+v(q)G(q) \chi^{(1)}_{\rm RPA}(q)}\label{eq:chi1_LFC},
\end{equation}
where after the second equality we used Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi1_RPA}) to express $\chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}(q)$ in terms of $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm RPA}(q)$.
Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:dft_chi1_LFC}) follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi1_LFC}) after the substitution $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC} \to \chi^{(1)}_{\rm RPA}$ and $\widetilde \chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)} \to \chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}$.
Now, after verifying that our calculations are not affected by the finite size effect, we compare the LDA based KS-DFT calculations of the linear density response function, $\widetilde \chi_{\rm LDA}^{(1)} (q)$, with the exact result $\chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}(q)$. From Fig.~\ref{fig:chi1}, we see that $\widetilde \chi_{\rm LDA}^{(1)} (q)$ is in good agreement with $\chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}(q)$ at $q<2q_F$ (with $q_F$ being the Fermi wave number) and exhibits significant disagreements at $q>2q_F$.
To understand this finding, we recall that the LDA corresponds to the long wave length approximation of the LFC with $G_{\rm LDA}=\gamma k^2$, where $\gamma$ is defined by the
compressibility sum rule \cite{PhysRevB.103.165102}. This approximation is applicable at $q\lesssim q_F$ and increasingly deviates from the exact result with the increase in the wave number beyond $2q_F$ \cite{moldabekov_jcp21}. Note that all $\widetilde \chi_{\rm LDA}^{(1)} (q)$, $\widetilde \chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}(q)$, and $\chi_{\rm LFC}^{(1)}(q)$ tend to $ \chi^{(1)}_{\rm RPA}(q)$ in the limit of large wave numbers since the screening factor dominates over XC effects in this limit. This can be seen from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chi1_LFC}) and (\ref{eq:dft_chi1_LFC}), where the LFC is suppressed by the factor $q^{-2}$
The insight that we have gained considering $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}$, $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}(q)$, and $\widetilde \chi_{\rm LDA} (q)$ will help us to understand the KS-DFT results for the higher-order nonlinear density response functions discussed in the next subsection.
Further, we use a tilde over a symbol to differentiate response functions calculated using KS-DFT from the theoretical definitions.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\minipage{0.344\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{final_rs6_second_q_dependence.pdf}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.344\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{final_rs6_cubic_q_dependence.pdf}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.344\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{final_rs6_third_q_dependence.pdf}
\endminipage
\caption{
Non-linear static density response functions at $r_s=6$ and $\theta=1$.
Left: The quadratic response function at the second harmonic.
Middle: The cubic response function at the first harmonic.
Right: The cubic response function at the third harmonic. }
\label{fig:NLR_rs6_theta1}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Non-linear density response in WDM regime}
{Our new} results for the non-linear density response functions at $r_s=6$ and $\theta=1$ are presented in Fig. ~\ref{fig:NLR_rs6_theta1}.
In particular, the left panel shows the results for the quadratic response function (defined by Eq. (\ref{eq:rho2})), the middle panel presents data for the cubic response function at the first harmonic (the cubic term in Eq. (\ref{eq:rho1})), and the right panel shows the results for the cubic response function at the third harmonic (defined by Eq. (\ref{eq:rho2})).
First of all, we observe that the LDA XC functional based calculations are generally in good agreement with the
PIMC results at $q<2q_F$ and overestimate the considered non-linear density response functions at $q>2q_F$.
The reason for this behavior of the LDA based calculations is the inaccuracy of the LFC incorporated in the LDA at $q>2q_F$ as it has been discussed in Sec.~\ref{sss:chi1_rs6} above.
Next, from the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:NLR_rs6_theta1}, we see that KS-DFT calculations with XC set to zero (NullXC) are in excellent agreement with the theoretical RPA curve for the quadratic response function. This confirms the high quality of the analytical result Eq. (\ref{eq:chi2_RPA}) in the WDM regime.
In the case of the cubic response function at the third harmonic as shown in the rightmost panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:NLR_rs6_theta1}, we observe that Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}) is accurate at $q>2q_F$, but overestimates the response at $q<2q_F$. Note that the LDA based KS-DFT results, the KS-DFT calculations without XC (NullXC), and the PIMC results all have positive sign at $q<q_F$, while the theoretical curves fail to capture the change in the sign of the cubic response function at the third harmonic with decrease in wave number.
Let us next combine the KS-DFT data for the quadratic response computed with zero XC functional, $\widetilde \chi_{\rm NullXC}^{(2)}(q)$, with the LFC.
For that, we express $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}(q)$ via $\chi_{\rm RPA}^{(2)}(q)$ using Eqs. (\ref{eq:chi2_LFC}) and (\ref{eq:chi2_RPA}).
Then we perform substitutions $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}(q) \to \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}(q)$ and $ \widetilde \chi_{\rm NullXC}^{(2)}(q)\to \chi_{\rm RPA}^{(2)}(q)$. As the result, we have the following relation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chi2_NullXC}
\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}(q)= \widetilde \chi_{\rm NullXC}^{(2)}(q) \times \frac{\left[1-v(q)\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{2} \left[1-v(2q)\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}( 2q)\right]}{\left[1-v(q)\left[1-G(q)\right]\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{2} \left[1-v(2q)\left[1-G(2q)\right]\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}( 2q)\right]^{}},
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)$ can be extracted from $\widetilde \chi_{\rm NullXC}^{(1)}(q)$ as
\begin{equation}
\widetilde \chi_{0}^{(1)}(q)=\frac{\widetilde \chi_{\rm NullXC}^{(1)}(q)}{1+v(q) \widetilde \chi_{\rm NullXC}^{(1)}(q)}.
\end{equation}
Comparing the results calculated using Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi2_NullXC}) with the PIMC data, we conclude that the relationship (\ref{eq:chi2_LFC}) is fulfilled with high accuracy.
Similarly, we derive the connection between $\widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm LFC}(q)$ and $\widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm NullXC}(q)$ using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cubic_first_LFC}) and (\ref{eq:cubic_first_RPA}), and replacing $\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm LFC}(q)\to \widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm LFC}(q)$ and $ \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm RPA}(q)\to \widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm NullXC}(q)$. As the result we find:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cubic_first_DFT}
\widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm LFC}(q)= \widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm NullXC}(q) \times \frac{{\left[1-v(q)\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{4}}}{{\left[1-v(q)\left[1-G(q)\right]\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{4}}}.
\end{equation}
Using $\widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm NullXC}(q)$ obtained from KS-DFT simulations with zero XC and the LFC computed using the ML representation~\cite{dornheim_ML}, we have found that
Eq.~(\ref{eq:cubic_first_DFT}) reproduces the PIMC results in the entire range of the wave numbers as it is can be seen from the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:NLR_rs6_theta1}. {It is only the availability of $\widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm NullXC}(q)$ that allows us to estimate the cubic response at the first harmonic with PIMC accuracy as no analytical theory for $\chi_0^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}$ currently exists. }
To further explore the combination of the KS-DFT calculations with zero XC functional and the ML representation of the LFC, we next analyze the
quality of the theoretical result Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}) for the cubic response at the third harmonic. Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}) and (\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}), and
replacing $\chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}(q)$ by $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}(q)$ and $\chi^{(3)}_{\rm RPA}(q)$ by $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm NullXC}(q)$, we arrive a the following relation between $\chi^{(3)}_{\rm NullXC}(q)$ computed using the KS-DFT calculations with zero XC functional and the LFC:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dft_ch3_LFC}
\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}(q)= \widetilde \chi_{\rm NullXC}^{(3)}(q) \times \frac{\left[1-v(q)\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{3} \left[1-v(3q)\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}( 3q)\right]}{\left[1-v(q)\left[1-G(q)\right]\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}(q)\right]^{3} \left[1-v(3q)\left[1-G(3q)\right]\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{0}( 3q)\right]}.
\end{equation}
The comparison of $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}(q)$ with the PIMC results is presented in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:NLR_rs6_theta1}.
From this figure we see that $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}(q)$ significantly deviates from the PIMC data at $q<2q_F$.
This means that the relation (\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}) does not provide an adequate description of the correlated electron gas.
This is expected since we have already demonstrated above that the RPA result Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}) is inadequate at $q<2q_F$.
Therefore, the description of the screening on the mean-field level must first be improved to describe the actual system.
\subsection{Strongly correlated and strongly degenerate electrons}
Next we investigate the strongly degenerate case with $r_s=5$ and $\theta=0.01$.
In this regime, we are able to verify our KS-DFT calculations by comparing with the accurate DMC calculations of the linear static density response function, $\chi^{(1)}$, by Moroni, Ceperley, and Senatore \cite{PhysRevLett.75.689}.
Additionally, we further assess possible finite size effects at low temperature by comparing the simulation results for $N=14$ particles to the results computed using $N=20$, $N=38$, and $N=66$ particles.
In this case, the cell size is $L=10.28~{\rm \mbox{\normalfont\AA}}$ (for $N=14$), $L=11.577~{\rm \mbox{\normalfont\AA}}$ (for $N=20$), $L=14.34~{\rm \mbox{\normalfont\AA}}$ (for $N=38$), and $L=17.236~{\rm \mbox{\normalfont\AA}}$ (for $N=66$).
Correspondingly, the accessible values of the wave numbers are multiples of $q_{\rm min}\simeq 0.8427 q_F$ (for $N=14$), $q_{\rm min}\simeq 0.74822 q_F$ (for $N=20$), $q_{\rm min}\simeq 0.604 q_F$ (for $N=38$), and $q_{\rm min}\simeq 0.50 q_F$ (for $N=66$).
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{chi1_rs5.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:chi1_rs5}
Comparison of the DMC data by Moroni, Ceperley, and Senatore \cite{PhysRevLett.75.689} with DFT results for the linear response function at $r_s=5$ and $\theta=0.01$.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Linear density response in the limit of strong degeneracy}\label{sss:chi1_rs5}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:chi1_rs5}, we present results for the static linear density response function.
Evidently, the results for $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}$ computed using different numbers of particles accurately reproduces the exact mean-field level result $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm RPA}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi1_RPA}). Furthermore, at all considered numbers of particles, the combination of $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}$ with the LFC by using Eq.~(\ref{eq:dft_chi1_LFC}) allows to reproduce the exact result given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi1_LFC}).
Therefore, the reduction of the number of particles from $N=66$ to $N=38$, then to $N=20$, and further to $N=14$ does not lead to a deterioration of the quality of the data for $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}$. This confirms the {remarkable} convergence of the KS-DFT simulations for as few as $N=14$ particles.
To get a picture about the quality of the LDA based calculations, we compare $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm LDA}$ with the DMC results by Moroni et al.~\cite{PhysRevLett.75.689}
and with $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm LFC}$ computed using the ML representation of the LFC by Dornheim et al.~\cite{dornheim_ML}. Despite the fact that the LDA is designed to describe only the long wave length limit of the LFC, we observe that in the strongly degenerate case, the LDA based KS-DFT calculations provide high quality results for the linear density response function with a level of accuracy similar to the ground state quantum Monte-Carlo calculations.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\minipage{0.332\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi2_theta0_rs5.jpg}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi13_theta0_rs5.jpg}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.334\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi33_theta0_rs5.jpg}
\endminipage
\caption{\label{fig:NLR_rs5}
Non-linear response functions at $r_s=5$ and $\theta=0.01$.
Left: The quadratic response function at the second harmonic.
Middle: The cubic response function at the first harmonic.
Right: The cubic response function at the third harmonic. }
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Non-linear density response in the limit of strong degeneracy}
After successfully testing the accuracy of our KS-DFT simulations on the linear density response function,
we analyze results for the higher order density response functions presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:NLR_rs5}.
In the left panel, we see that $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm NullXC}$ is in excellent agreement with $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm RPA}$ and that $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}$ is also reproduces $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}$. This confirms the correctness of the the analytical results for the quadratic response function given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chi2_RPA}) and (\ref{eq:chi2_LFC}) in the limit of strong degeneracy. The LDA based data $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LDA}$ provides an adequate description of
the quadratic response function and captures the effect of the stronger response when XC effects are included compared to the mean-field level results $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm RPA}$ and $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm NullXC}$. Certain quantitative disagreements between $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LDA}$ and $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}$ can be understood by noting that accurate data for LFC (beyond LDA) is needed to correctly describe the quadratic response. {In fact, Dornheim \textit{et al.}~\cite{JPSP21} have recently pointed out that the quadratic response is directly related to three-body correlations, which explains this sensitivity to XC-effects.}
The middle panel of Fig. \ref{fig:NLR_rs5} presents data for the cubic response at the first harmonic.
Compared to the partially degenerate case with $\theta=1$, the results exhibit a much sharper peak and much stronger response at $1.5q_F<q<2q_F$.
At these wave numbers, the difference between $\chi^{(1,cubic)}_{\rm LFC}$ and $\widetilde \chi^{(1,cubic)}_{\rm LDA}$
{are most likely a direct consequence of the}
fact that
the cubic response depends on the fourth power of the LFC, meaning that any deviations from the correct response in the first order gets amplified when a higher order response is considered.
The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:NLR_rs5} shows the cubic response at the third harmonic.
In this case, the theoretical result for the response at the mean-field level given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}), $\chi^{(3)}_{\rm RPA}$, fails to reproduce the exact data $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm NullXC}$.
This extends the conclusion that Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}) fails to correctly describe the screened response from the WDM regime considered earlier to the case of strong degeneracy.
As a consequence, being built upon Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}), the LFC result $\chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}) also does not provide the correct description of the cubic response of the correlated electron gas at the third harmonic.
This makes the analysis based on the comparison of $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}$ and $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LDA}$ less meaningful.
Since the LDA is an approximation to the true XC effects, $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LDA}$ cannot be considered to be the exact result. Nevertheless, it provides the correct quantitative outcome. Particularly, we see from the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:NLR_rs5} that XC effects lead to a stronger response of the system compared to $\chi^{(3)}_{\rm NullXC}$.
We stress that $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm NullXC}$ is still the exact ab initio result for the cubic response on the mean-field level.
Therefore, it can be used to verify theoretical derivations. Once a more accurate theoretical result for $\chi^{(3)}_{\rm RPA}$ {that includes nonlinear screening effects that are neglected in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA})} is derived, the correct way to include the LFC should
{directly follow.}
\subsection{Free electron gas at metallic density}
As a particularly important regime from the point of view of applications, we next consider $r_s=2$, which is a characteristic metallic density.
In this case, we investigate three different values of the degeneracy parameter, namely $\theta=1$, $\theta=0.5$, and $\theta=0.01$.
For $\theta=1$, we have performed series of calculations with $N=14$, $N=20$, and $N=34$.
At $\theta=0.5$, we have considered $N=14$ and $N=34$ particles. At $\theta=0.01$, we have performed simulations with $N=14$, $N=20$, $N=38$, and $N=66$ particles.
In agreement with the calculations in the strongly correlated case, there is no noticeable finite size effect for $r_s=2$ at these numbers of particles.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\minipage{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi1_theta1_rs2.jpg}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi1_theta05_rs2.jpg}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.33\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi1_ground_rs2_jcp.jpg}
\endminipage
\caption{\label{fig:chi1_rs2}
Linear static density response function for $r_s=2$ at $\theta=1$ (the left panel), at $\theta=0.5$ (the middle panel), and at $\theta=0.01$ (the right panel). }\label{fig:awesome_image3}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Linear density response}\label{sss:chi1_rs2}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:chi1_rs2}, we present results for the linear density response function at $r_s=2$ and compare the KS-DFT data with PIMC results and with $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm LFC}$ at $\theta=1$ in the left panel.
We observe that the LDA based results $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm LDA}$ are in good agreement with both the PIMC data and $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm LFC}$.
At $\theta=0.5$, too, we find good agreement of $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm LDA}$ with $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm LFC}$ as it can be seen from the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi1_rs2}. In the limit of $\theta\to0$, we compare $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm LDA}$ with the DMC data by Moroni \textit{et al.}~\cite{PhysRevLett.75.689} as well as with $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm LFC}$. Evidently, the LDA based KS-DFT simulations provide an accurate description of the linear density response function in the strongly degenerate case too. {We note that KS-DFT is more accurate in particular for $q>2q_\textnormal{F}$ compared to the previously considered case of $r_s=6$ due to the reduced impact of electronic XC-effects at the higher density.}
The comparison of $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm NullXC}$ with $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm RPA}$ that is also presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi1_rs2} confirms the high accuracy of the KS-DFT results for the description of the linear response function on the mean-field level across temperature regimes. As a consequence, $\widetilde \chi^{(1)}_{\rm LFC}$ is in an excellent agreement with $\chi^{(1)}_{\rm LFC}$ {over the entire wavenumber range}.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\minipage{0.37\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{final_second_q_dependence.pdf}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi2_theta05_rs2.jpg}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.32\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi2_theta0_rs2.jpg}
\endminipage
\caption{Quadratic static density response function for $r_s=2$ at $\theta=1$ (the left panel), at $\theta=0.5$ (the middle panel), and at $\theta=0.01$ (the right panel).}\label{fig:chi2_rs2}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Quadratic density response}\label{sss:chi2_rs2}
The results for the quadratic response function at $r_s=2$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_rs2}.
The quadratic response $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LDA}$ closely reproduces both the PIMC data and $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}$ at $\theta=1$ as it is demonstrated in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_rs2}. The agreement between $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LDA}$ and $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}$ somewhat deteriorates with the decrease in the temperature from $\theta=1$ to $\theta=0.5$ and further to $\theta=0.01$. This is shown in the middle and right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_rs2}. Nevertheless, the LDA, which is an XC functional purely based on the uniform electron gas model, provides an overall impressively accurate description of the quadratic response function at all considered wave numbers of the perturbation.
Similarly to the discussed cases of the strongly coupled electrons, $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm NullXC}$ and $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm RPA}$ are in close agreement with each other
at $\theta=1$, $\theta=0.5$, and $\theta=0.01$. This is a clear illustration of the high accuracy of the theoretical result Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi2_RPA}) for the mean-field description.
Consequently, we find almost the same result using $\widetilde \chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}$ and $\chi^{(2)}_{\rm LFC}$.
From comparing amplitudes of the quadratic response function in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2_rs2} at different temperatures, one can see that the response of the system at the second harmonic becomes stronger upon decreasing the temperature of the electrons. For example, the decrease of the temperature from the partially degenerate case ($\theta=1$) to the strongly degenerate case (here represented by $\theta=0.01$) leads to an increase of the maximum value of the quadratic response function by a factor of 2.5. For comparison, the amplitude of the linear response function increases about two times with the decrease of the temperature from $\theta=1$ to $\theta=0.01$ at the same conditions
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\minipage{0.37\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{final_cubic_q_dependence.pdf}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi13_theta05_rs2.jpg}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.32\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi13_theta0_rs2.jpg}
\endminipage
\caption{Cubic static density response function at the first harmonic for $r_s=2$ at $\theta=1$ (the left panel), at $\theta=0.5$ (the middle panel), and at $\theta=0.01$ (the right panel).}\label{fig:chi13_rs2}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Cubic density response at the first harmonic}\label{sss:chi13_rs2}
Let us next investigate the cubic response function at the first harmonic, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi13_rs2}.
The comparison with the PIMC data at $\theta=1$ is provided in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi13_rs2}.
From this comparison it is evident that the LDA based KS-DFT calculations are able to provide a very accurate description of the cubic response at $r_s=2$ and $\theta=1$,
as they are in good agreement to both the PIMC data and $\widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm LFC}$. This is an indication that the relation Eq.~(\ref{eq:cubic_first_LFC}) holds, since $\widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm LFC}$ is computed using the KS-DFT data $\widetilde \chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}_{\rm NullXC}$ and the LFC according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:cubic_first_DFT}).
Decreasing the electronic temperature leads to a substantial increase in the amplitude of the cubic response function at the first harmonic.
This is visible from the comparison of the amplitudes of the cubic response at $\theta=1$ (left), at $\theta=0.5$ (middle), and at $\theta=0.01$ (right) in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi13_rs2}. For example, the maximum of the cubic response function at the first harmonic at $\theta=0.01$ is about 16 times larger than at $\theta=1$.
The consequences of this remarkable behavior are discussed in more detail in Sec. 5.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\minipage{0.37\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{final_third_q_dependence.pdf}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi33_theta05_rs2.jpg}
\endminipage
\minipage{0.32\textwidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi33_theta0_rs2.jpg}
\endminipage
\caption{Cubic static density response function at the third harmonic for $r_s=2$ at $\theta=1$ (the left panel), at $\theta=0.5$ (the middle panel), and at $\theta=0.01$ (the right panel).}\label{fig:chi33_rs2}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Cubic density response at the third harmonic}\label{sss:chi33_rs2}
Finally, we present the results for the cubic response at the third harmonic in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi33_rs2}, and the left panel depicts the comparison with PIMC data at $\theta=1$.
Evidently, the LDA based calculations $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LDA}$ are in good agreement with the latter.
Next, $\chi^{(3)}_{\rm RPA}$ overestimates the strength of response compare to $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm NullXC}$ at $q<q_F$.
In contrast to the response at stronger coupling ($r_s=6$ and $\theta=1$), at $r_s=2$ we do not see the change in the sign of the cubic response at the third harmonic upon increasing the wave number from small $q<q_F$ to large $q>q_F$ values. However, this behavior is restored with a decrease in the temperature to $\theta=0.5$ as it is clearly visible in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi33_rs2}. Importantly, such behavior at $\theta=0.5$ is not captured by the analytical results given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}) and (\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}). At $q<1.5q_F$, this leads to a significant disagreement between the analytical result in the mean field-level approximation, Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}), and the exact result computed using null XC in the KS-DFT simulations.
However, in the limit of strong degeneracy depicted in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi33_rs2}, Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}) again provides the qualitatively correct result by reproducing the change in the sign of the corresponding response functio
, but remains in quantitative disagreement with $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm NullXC}$ in the vicinity of the positive maximum and the negative minimum
Interestingly, despite the poor performance of Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}), the agreement between $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LDA}$ and $\widetilde \chi^{(3)}_{\rm LFC}$ is rather good at all considered temperature regimes. This is explained by the fact that XC effects are less pronounced compared to the above considered strongly correlated cases.
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}\label{s:end}
In this work we have {explored a new methodology for the study of the nonlinear electronic density response based on KS-DFT. As a particular example, we have investigated the free electron gas model and} demonstrated that the KS-DFT method is an effective and valuable tool for the investigation of various
nonlinear electronic density response functions across temperature regimes. This conclusion is important for parameters where quantum Monte-Carlo methods experience significant difficulties or fail to converge at all due to the fermion sign problem. This approximately corresponds to $\theta<1$ and $r_s\gtrsim 2$ \cite{dornheim_physrep_18, JCP_Lee, Yilmaz}. A particularly effective method to gauge and guide the
{development of new theoretical approaches}
is given by the KS-DFT simulation with zero XC functional.
This is due to the fact that theoretical models of correlated electrons are built upon mean-field approximations, in combination with the electronic LFC.
Therefore, a disqualification of the analytical results for the non-linear density response functions in the mean-field approximation automatically rules out the applicability of the results obtained using LFC.
As a demonstration of the KS-DFT method based analysis of the theoretical results, we have considered the quadratic and cubic response functions at different values of the density and degeneracy parameters. First of all, we have confirmed the validity of the analytical results for the quadratic response function [Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chi2_RPA}) and (\ref{eq:chi2_LFC})] for partially to strongly degenerate electrons. This confirms and complements the earlier PIMC based analysis at $\theta\geq 1$ \cite{PhysRevResearch.3.033231}. Secondly, it has been shown that the analytical results for the cubic response function at the third harmonic [Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}) and (\ref{eq:chi3_LFC})] are quantitatively inaccurate at $q\lesssim 1.5~ q_F$ for all considered values of $\theta$. Moreover, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chi3_RPA}) and (\ref{eq:chi3_LFC}) are qualitatively inadequate at $\theta=0.5$.
The application of the KS-DFT method to study the cubic response at the first harmonic [as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho1})] has allowed us to observe a change of its characteristics with the decrease of the temperature to $\theta<1$. We have revealed that the decrease of the temperature from the partially degenerate regime with $\theta\sim 1$ to the strongly degenerate regime ($\theta\ll1$) leads to a significant increase in the maximum of the cubic response at the first harmonic.
Let us demonstrate the implication of this finding for electrons at a metallic density, $r_s=2$.
Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:rho1})-(\ref{eq:rho3}) and the data presented in Figs. \ref{fig:chi1_rs2}-\ref{fig:chi33_rs2},
one can deduce that, at $r_s=2$, both the quadratic response and the cubic response at the third harmonic remain inferior to the linear density response function if the perturbation amplitude $A<1$, at all considered $\theta$ values and wave numbers of the perturbation. In contrast, the cubic response function at the first harmonic becomes dominant over the linear response function if $A>0.8$ at $\theta=0.5$ and if $A>0.36$ at $\theta=0.01$. The applicability of the perturbative analysis requires the smallness of the higher order correction compared to the first order term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho1}).
Therefore, at $\theta\ll1$, not the quadratic response, but the cubic response at the first harmonic leads to the strongest restriction on the applicability of the non-linear density response theory of free electrons with respect to the perturbation amplitude.
Another important finding is that the LDA XC functional provides a {remarkably} accurate description of the linear and nonlinear density response at metallic density, $r_s=2$, across the entire considered temperature range.
{This strongly indicates that our new KS-DFT based approach constitutes a reliable tool for the investigation of the nonlinear density response both at ambient conditions and in the WDM regime.}
At stronger coupling parameters, $r_s=6$ and $r_s=5$, the LDA XC functional based KS-DFT calculations of the correlated electron gas provide qualitatively correct behavior but ought to be considered with caution from a quantitative point of view.
We conclude this study by pointing out that {the present methodology is very general and can be directly applied to arbitrary materials; the only approximation is given the choice of the XC-functional. In particular,} simulations including ions are much more problematic and computationally expensive for the quantum Monte-Carlo methods compared to the considered case of a free electron gas model. Therefore, the KS-DFT method is particularly valuable for multi-component systems.
This proof of concept of the capability of KS-DFT for the estimation of the NLRT of an electron gas is thus a pivotal first step before extending our considerations to real materials.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was funded by the Center for Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS) which is financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the Saxon Ministry for Science, Art, and Tourism (SMWK) with tax funds on the basis of the budget approved by the Saxon State Parliament. We gratefully acknowledge computation time at the Norddeutscher Verbund f\"ur Hoch- und H\"ochstleistungsrechnen (HLRN) under grant shp00026, and on the Bull Cluster at the Center for Information Services and High Performance Computing (ZIH) at Technische Universit\"at Dresden.
\section*{Author Declarations}
\subsection{Conflict of Interest}
The authors have no conflicts to disclose.
\section*{Appendix: Illustration of the extraction of response functions from the density perturbation}\label{sec:app}
Here we illustrate the extraction of the density response functions from the density perturbation components in Fourier space $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$. As an example, we consider $r_s=2$ and $\theta=1$. The results are computed by performing KS-DFT simulations of $N=14$ electrons in the main cell using the LDA XC functional.
In the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:rho1}, we show the density perturbation at the first harmonic ($k=q$) with the perturbation wave number $q\simeq 1.69 q_F$
The results for
Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho1}) are given by the solid line, where $\chi^{(1)}$ and $\chi^{(1,\textnormal{cubic})}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho1}) are found using the first two points (as indicated by the vertical lines).
This corresponds to a cubic fit which takes into account both the linear density response and the cubic density response at the first harmonic.
In this way, we extract data for these response functions. For comparison, we also show the linear response result neglecting the cubic contribution (dashed line). We see that the inclusion of the cubic contribution allows us to extend the description of the density response beyond $A=0.16$ up to $A=0.4$ (with an error less than $2~\%$).
The corresponding values of the relative difference between the simulation results and the data computed using Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho1}) are depicted in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:rho1}, where the difference is divided by the value of the total density perturbation $\rho_{\rm tot}$. The latter allows us to estimate the resulting error in the description of the total density.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics [width=0.4 \textwidth]{App_Fig1.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:rho1}
The density perturbation component $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$ at $k=q$ is used to find the linear density response and the cubic density response at the first harmonic at $r_s=2$ and $\theta=1$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics [width=0.4 \textwidth]{App_Fig2.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:rho2}
The density perturbation component $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$ at $k=2q$ is used to find the quadratic density response at $r_s=2$ and $\theta=1$.}
\end{figure}
{A similar analysis is presented for the density response at the second harmonic of the original perturbation ($k=2q$) in Fig.~\ref{fig:rho2}, and the top panel depicts}
{results for the} perturbation wave numbers $q\simeq 1.69 q_F$ and $q\simeq 0.84 q_F$.
The KS-DFT results are computed using the perturbation amplitudes in the range $0.01\leq A\leq0.6$. The solid lines show the fit according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho2}) based only on the first data point at $A=0.01$ (indicated by the vertical line). This allows one to find the value of the quadratic response. The corresponding values of the relative difference between the KS-DFT data and the result of the fit based on Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho2}) are given in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:rho2}.
Finally, we show the results for the density response at the third harmonic ($k=3q$) in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:rho3}
~In this case, the KS-DFT simulations are performed for $0.01\leq A\leq0.6$. The cubic response function at the third harmonic is found by using the data for $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{3q}}_{q,A}$ at $A=0.04$. The values of the relative difference between the KS-DFT data and the results computed using Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho3}) are provided in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:rho3}.
All KS-DFT based results for the linear and nonlinear density response that have been presented in this work for different wave numbers, densities, and temperatures have been obtained by performing a similar analysis to those shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:rho1}-\ref{fig:rho3}, but involving a reduced number of $A$ values. The specific ranges of the considered $A$ values are given in Sec.~\ref{sec:simulation_details}.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics [width=0.4 \textwidth]{App_Fig3.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:rho3}
The density perturbation component $\braket{\hat\rho_\mathbf{k}}_{q,A}$ at $k=3q$ is used to find the cubic density response at $r_s=2$ and $\theta=1$.}
\end{figure}
\section*{Data Availability}
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{B}{iphasic} face photo-sketch synthesis refers to generating sketches from face photos and generating photos from face sketches, which has attracted plentiful attention in recent years. The wide-ranging application fields of the biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis include digital entertainment, law enforcement, and criminal case judgment. Face sketch is one of the most popular and fundamental portrait painting styles in the scopes of digital entertainment [1]. However, it requires vast time and efforts to create distinct face sketches by professional artists. In law enforcement and criminal case judgment, police commonly just hold the sketches of suspects drawn from the description of the witnesses. Face photos synthesized from these sketches with clear identities and manifest features could provide a feasible way to promote the efficiency of the justice criminal cases [2]. Due to the significant practical value, it is especially essential to automatically synthesize face photos and sketches with realistic effects and consistent identity preservation. Thus far, numerous approaches have been proposed to facilitate face sketch synthesis and photo synthesis which could be unified together because of the inseparable relevance between these two tasks.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{parsing_U-2.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustrations of samples with facial prior knowledge and parsing layout in different databases: (a) CUHK database, (b) AR database, (c) XM2VTS database, (d) CUFSF database. For each database, from top to bottom are face photos, parsing layout of photos, saliency detection result of photos, sketches, parsing layout of sketches, and saliency detection result of sketches, sequentially.
}
\label{fig:prior}
\end{figure}
In the previous research studies on biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis, there are three types of methods, exemplar-based approaches [3], linear-regression based approaches [4], and model-based approaches [5].
In the scope of solving biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis, exemplar-based approaches are the primitive pioneering mainstream methods [1], [3], [6], [7]. The essential of the exemplar-based approaches is to bridge the mapping relationship from exemplar face images to test face images which belong to the dataset with strict alignment of photo and sketch. Concretely, these kinds of approaches mostly employ image patches for modeling, with the assumption that patches can be more easily matched for face alignment than the integral images [8]. Then the final output sketches (or photos) are constructed directly by blending the exemplar patches that corresponding to the photo-sketch pairs. Despite exemplar-based approaches obtain considerable performance in early researches, these approaches have obvious shortcomings. There is less personality identity of the synthesized sketches (or photos), which means the artifacts and over-smoothing phenomenon in the final images. Furthermore, exemplar-based approaches need massive computational cost and inference time in the patch-wise matching process. Otherwise, exemplar-based approaches are highly dependent on exemplars and have defective effects on the results generated by low-quality images which impair the generalization ability of these approaches in the real scenes.
Linear-regression based approaches engage in building the linear mapping between face photos and sketches, which relies on the hypothesis that they have similar structures in low-dimensional manifolds [9], [10]. In order to ensure that the synthesized sketches and photos retain sufficient personalized characteristics, the low-dimensional manifolds of the input images need to be learned from a large amount of training data. Therefore, three types of methods have been proposed to solve the problem of insufficient training data, which could be classified as: the Locally Linear Embedding (LLE) based method [10], [11], the Markov Random Field (MRF) based method [12], and the Bayesian-based method [13]. However, the mapping function might not be accurately formulated, resulting in the poor quality of the generated images. Moreover, although linear-regression based approaches are computationally inexpensive, it is difficult to guarantee the identity-specific consistency between results and input images, such as hairstyles, the contour of the ears and other details [6].
Recently, the image-to-image translation task has witnessed impressive progress with the development of deep learning, especially with Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) [14]. A large number of researchers are motivated to employ GAN on biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis tasks [15-18]. These researches directly model the mapping from face photos to sketches or vice versa, which avoids the problem of insufficient training data in the low-dimensional manifold hypothesis. Nevertheless, there are distortion and noises in the images generated by these methods, due to the low quality of sketches and complex photo variation in the real scenes. Therefore, many recent studies are dedicated to providing prior information and more supervisions for the generated images [19], [20]. However, these methods are often short of the realistic detailed depiction of the synthesized images. They generate sketches or face photos from the holistic perspective and ignore the local specificity of different regions in the face.
Motivated by the above studies, we propose a novel Semantic-Driven Generative Adversarial Network with Graph Representation Learning for biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis. To begin with, we leverage the pre-trained facial saliency detection network U2-Net [21] to obtain the prior information of overall facial texture structure. Besides, we inject class-wise semantic layouts as two modulation parameters into the generator to provide style-based spatial supervision for synthesized face photos and sketches. To improve the fidelity of the details of the generated images, we exploit semantic layouts to construct two types of Representational Graphs which could constrain the intra-class and inter-class features of the synthesized images. Furthermore, based on the observation of the inseparability of the symmetrical tasks of face sketch synthesis and photo synthesis, we propose a novel biphasic training strategy which is dedicated to refine the generated results through Iterative Cycle Training.
The main contributions of this study are summarized as:
$\bullet$ A novel Semantic-Driven Generative Adversarial Network with Graph Representation Learning is proposed for generating realistic photos and distinct sketches.
$\bullet$ We construct two types of Representational Graphs and design corresponding constraints which facilitate the preservation of the details in generated face photos and sketches.
$\bullet$ We propose a novel biphasic training strategy to improve the perceptual quality of the synthesized images through the Iterative Cycle Training.
$\bullet$ Extensive comparison experiments are conducted on CUFS and CUFSF datasets, which show that our method obtains state-of-the-art performance.
Compared to our preliminary work in [22], this article makes the following extensions and improvements: 1) We consult the previous intra-class feature supervision to propose a novel region-wise inter-class structural graph which facilitates the preservation of the details and personal identities in generated face photos and sketches; 2) A novel biphasic training strategy is proposed to refine the generated results through Iterative Cycle Training; 3) We conduct the further extension experiments on both sketch synthesis and face photo synthesis tasks.
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Biphasic Face Photo-Sketch Synthesis}
Biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis has developed rapidly in the last few decades. Massive works have been proposed to solve this problem, which includes two closely related subtasks: face sketch synthesis and face photo synthesis. Therefore, researchers often analyze and discuss these two subtasks in a unified manner.
Deep neural network based approaches are the mainstream routine of biphasic photo-sketch synthesis in recent years, which have gradually emerged with the boost of Generative Adversarial Networks. Ji \emph{et al.} [16] employed multi-domain adversarial methods to construct a mapping from photo-domain to sketch-domain. Zhu \emph{et al.} [19] borrowed knowledge from transfer learning and proposed a lightweight network supervised by a high-performance larger network. Zhang \emph{et al.} [23] embedded the photo parsing priors and designed a parametric sigmoid activation function in GAN based framework to facilitate robust sketch synthesis. Recently, Yu \emph{et al.} [20] decomposed the face parsing layouts into multiple compositions and encoded them into conditional GAN (cGAN) for biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis which achieved state-of-the-art performance. Moreover, Duan \emph{et al.} [18] introduced the gradient-based self-attention mechanism to combine the global residual connection and local residual connection in the proposed network which achieved better results. Besides, Zhang \emph{et al.} [24] designed a dual transfer strategy to promote the biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis. Lin \emph{et al.} [25] proposed the feature injection module to preserve the identity of synthesized sketches and photos. However, the sketches and photos synthesized by these methods are short of realistic detailed depiction.
Inspired by previous works, we inject the statistics information into the generator of our proposed network. However, our injection module is different from previous works which embedded the multi-level identity feature into the network. In contrast, we aim at providing class-wise style-based spatial supervision for synthesized face photos and sketches. Furthermore, the previous work [25] did not follow the common experiment setting which ignored the influence of background on the generated results.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{architecture.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The pipeline of our semantic-driven network. (a) The over architecture of network, which exploits Pix2Pix as backbone. The decoder contains several Statistics Injection (SI) ResBlocks with upsampling layers. (b) Details of Statistics Injection (SI) ResBlocks. (c) Details of Statistics Injection Module. In each Statistics Injection Module, the semantic map is convoluted to produce pixel-level normalization parameters $\gamma $ and $\beta $.}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Paired Image-to-Image Style Transfer}
Paired image-to-image style transfer tasks can be regarded as a combination of image-to-image translation tasks and style transfer tasks. The image-to-image translation is often formulated as pixel-wise image generation tasks applied with paired images like biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis. Isala \emph{et al.} [26] proposed a cGAN architecture to solve the image-to-image translation task with paired input and output named Pix2Pix. Due to the eminent performance of the Pix2Pix on the paired dataset, researchers have made numerous improvements based on Pix2Pix and applied them to a wide range of research fields [27], [28]. By combining Pix2Pix and residual blocks, Wang \emph{et al.} [29] proposed a novel network architecture to generate high-resolution images named pix2pixHD. Moreover, Park \emph{et al.} [30] introduced the semantic layouts as spatial supervision injected in the pix2pixHD for synthesizing photorealistic images. Motivated by previous researches, we exploit cGAN like Pix2Pix as our backbone network.
Biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis task could be treated as an image style transfer task between realistic photo and vivid sketch portraits. Gatys \emph{et al.} [31] successfully applied pre-trained CNNs to the image style transfer task. Furthermore, Ulyanov \emph{et al.} [32], [33] optimized the style transfer process by manipulating the Batch Normalization (BN) layers and Instance Normalization (IN) layers. Dumoulin \emph{et al.} [34] utilized a group of parameters to realize the transfer of various image styles. Consecutively, Huang \emph{et al.} [35] proposed the adaptive instance normalization (AdaIN) layers which could perform arbitrary style transfer without training repeatedly. Recently, Park \emph{et al.} [13] put forward the spatially-adaptive normalization (SPADE) layers that inject the image style from the semantic layouts to obtain photorealistic images. Motivated by the previous research, we inject the style-based statistic information into the network to generate images with more distinct characteristics.
\subsection{Graph Representation Learning}
Graph representation learning plays a significant role in the computer vision tasks which could encode each node represented by a low-dimensional dense embedding in the graph structure [36]. Perozzi \emph{et al.} [37] effectively embedded information of nodes by randomly sampling the graph structure. Furthermore, Defferrard \emph{at al.}[38] designed a novel pooling strategy to rearrange the nodes for preserving more useful information of graph. Li \emph{et al.} [39] constructed the structural graph of actions to capture the high-order dependencies between successive skeletons in the proposed actional-structural graph convolution network for skeleton-based action recognition. Besides, Ren \emph{et al.} [40] adopted the graph generator to build the connections among spatial parts and construct the feature graph of these nodes representation for biometrics. Yang \emph{et al.} [41] utilized a novel graph representation specifically designed for sketches by bridging the structural hierarchical relationship of sketches. This work has significantly improved the recognition accuracy of sketches. As for biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis task, Zhu \emph{et al.} [7] combined graphical exemplar-based features with deep neural networks to synthesize high-quality sketches. The results synthesized by [7] are robust against lighting variations and clutter backgrounds. However, they still suffer from over-smoothing and lacking specific-identify characters in the synthesized photos and sketches. On the contrary, our graph representation learning algorithms can make the restraint of intra-class features and inter-class features which help keeping the realistic personal details of synthesized photos and sketches.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Intra-Inter-graph.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of our proposed intra-class semantic graph and inter-class structural graph. The semantic masks are produced by pre-trained face parsing network from the input photo. Besides, both the intra-class semantic graph and inter-class structural graph consist of $\mu$ and $\nu$ as graph nodes which denote the mean center and variance center of each semantic class.}
\label{fig:graph}
\end{figure*}
\section{Method}
In this section, details about our proposed Semantic-Driven Generative Adversarial Network with Graph Representation Learning are presented. To begin with, we introduce the preliminaries and motivations of our method. Afterwards, our network architecture is described. Subsequently, we elaborate the graph representation learning algorithms and biphasic training strategy of our method. Finally, the objective functions of our model are introduced.
\subsection{Preliminaries}
Our semantic-driven network aims to construct a biphasic mapping from paired photo to sketch and sketch to photo by utilizing class-wise semantic layouts as guidance. Previous researches synthesize sketches or photos directly without taking advantage of semantic information. Inherently, the translations from face to sketch and sketch to photo are paired, and the maintenance of semantic information is extremely significant. Our network adopts semantic layouts to guide the generation of the sketches and photos, especially the detailed class-wise regions. Moreover, we construct two types of semantic related graph representation algorithms which are dedicate to apply the constraints on the intra-class and inter-class feature distributions of the synthesized images. Furthermore, we design a novel biphasic training strategy to refine the perceptual quality of the synthesized images through the Iterative Cycle Training. Besides, we conduct facial saliency detection on the input images to provide overall facial texture structure. In the following part, we take the sketch synthesis task as prototype to introduce our network.
Given paired photo-sketch training samples $\begin{Bmatrix}
\left ( x_{i},y_{i} \right )|x_{i}\in X, y_{i}\in Y
\end{Bmatrix}_{i=1}^{N}$, where $x_{i}$ represents photo and $y_{i}$ represents sketch. The purpose of face sketch synthesis is to construct a mapping from source photo domain $X$ to target sketch domain $Y$. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:prior}, we find that there are complex variations in the source domain which could result in severe impacts on the identity and fidelity of the generated sketches as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} (c), (d) and Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF} (c), (d). Conversely, in the photo synthesis task, the low quality sketches of the source domain will also affect the clarity of the generated image. Face saliency detection could effectively capture the structured texture of the input photos or sketches. With regards to this, to handle these challenging issues, we first utilize face saliency detection results as prior information to provide the overall facial texture structure. We concatenate the texture structure $M$ and the $X$ as the input to the generator. Besides, we also employ the pre-trained face parsing network to acquire semantic layouts $S$. Then the face semantic information $S$ is injected into our network to produce the final synthesized result. Therefore, the overall mapping can be formulated as $\begin{Bmatrix}X,M,S\end{Bmatrix}\rightarrow Y$.
\subsection{Semantic Driven Network Architecture}
Fig. \ref{fig:architecture} illustrates the overall architecture of our network. Specifically, we concatenate the paired $M$ and $X$ as inputs to supply the overall facial texture structure. Pix2Pix [32] is exploited as the backbone which contains 7 convolutional and downsampling layers in the encoder part. In order to further strengthen the conditional semantic information in the forwarding process, we also design 7 Statistics Injection (SI) ResBlocks in the decoder, which is motivated by [36]. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:architecture} (b), the SI ResBlock consists of two convolutional layers, two ReLU layers, and two Statistics Injection (SI) modules.
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:architecture} (c), each SI module takes two inputs: the forward activation features after Batch Normalization layer and semantic masks $S$, which are obtained by pre-trained BiSeNet [42]. In order to prevent semantic ambiguity, we divide the face into 12 classes which are closely related to sketches: two eyes, two eyebrows, two ears, glasses, upper and lower lips, inner mouth, hair, nose, skin, neck, cloth, and background.
Therefore, we have $S= \begin{Bmatrix}s^{(1)},\cdots,s^{(c)} \end{Bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{h\times w\times c}$, where $c\in \begin{bmatrix}1,2,\cdots,12\end{bmatrix}$, $s^{(c)}\in \begin{bmatrix}0,1\end{bmatrix}$, $h$ and $w$ denote the height and width of the feature maps.
In order to inject the semantic information into the SI module, we perform the convolutional operation on $S$ to produce the modulation parameters $\gamma $ and $\beta $ to normalize the final output. The produced $\gamma$ and $\beta$ encode sufficient spatial layout information which are multiplied and added to the normalized activation through an element-wise way as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:architecture} (c). In fact, the modulation parameters $\gamma $ and $\beta $ could provide a kind of spatial supervision from $X$ to $Y$ through $S$ which are robust to the low quality of sketches introduced by different artists and complex variations of photos.
Finally, the network structure of the discriminator keeps the same settings as Pix2Pix.
\subsection{Graph Representation Learning}
In previous studies, researchers always impose overall supervision and constraints on the entire generated sketches or photos, which leads to defective performances in facial details. In this paper, we construct two types of graph representations which are named intra-class semantic graph and inter-class structural graph to facilitate the preservation of the details in generated face photos and sketches as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:graph}. Meanwhile, we design an Adaptive Re-weighting algorithm which could extract the semantic graph nodes for two types of graphs. Besides, the Adaptive Re-weighting algorithm could balance the contributions of different semantic classes, especially the detailed parts.
\subsubsection{Intra-class Semantic Graph Representation}
As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:graph}, the synthesized sketch is represented as $F\in R^{h_{f}\times w_{f}\times c_{f}}$, where $h_{f}$, $w_{f}$ and $c_{f}$ denote the height, width and channel of the sketch, respectively. The $F$ could be treated as 12 semantic class-regions. Then we enforce the element-wise multiplication between $F$ and 12 semantic masks $S$ to extract the Interest-Region (IR) for each semantic class node. Consequently, each node of intra-class semantic graph could be formulated by Adaptive Re-weighting algorithm as follows:
\begin{align}
\mu\begin{pmatrix}
c
\end{pmatrix} = \frac{1}{\begin{vmatrix}
S\begin{pmatrix}
:,:,c
\end{pmatrix}
\end{vmatrix}}\sum_{i=1}^{h_{f}}\sum_{j=1}^{w_{f}}S\begin{pmatrix}
i,j,c
\end{pmatrix}F\begin{pmatrix}
i,j
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\nu\begin{pmatrix}
c
\end{pmatrix} = \frac{1}{\begin{vmatrix}
S\begin{pmatrix}
:,:,c
\end{pmatrix}
\end{vmatrix}}\sum_{i=1}^{h_{f}}\sum_{j=1}^{w_{f}}\left \{ S\begin{pmatrix}
i,j,c
\end{pmatrix}F\begin{pmatrix}
i,j
\end{pmatrix}-\mu \begin{pmatrix}
c
\end{pmatrix} \right \}^{2}.
\end{align}
where ${\begin{vmatrix}S\begin{pmatrix}:,:,c\end{pmatrix}\end{vmatrix}}$ represents the summation of pixel numbers in each node with the same semantic class $c$. Obviously, this strategy normalizes each node with ${\begin{vmatrix}S\begin{pmatrix}:,:,c\end{pmatrix}\end{vmatrix}}$ which could balance the contributions of different semantic classes. Moreover, $\mu(c)$ also could be considered as the mean center of all pixels in the $\emph{c-th}$ semantic category. Furthermore, the modulation variance $\nu(c)$ can faithfully react to the semantic variation of the intra-class feature distribution. Note that both $\mu$ and $\nu$ are tensors in practice. As depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:graph}, each circle in the Graph Nodes Space represents different semantic classes by distinct colors. Furthermore, we calculate the Cosine similarity between the synthesized sketch $F$ and each semantic node $\mu$ (and $\nu$) to construct the intra-class semantic graph. Formally, the computation is listed as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{C}_{1}=&\frac{F\cdot \mu }{\left \| F \right \|_{2}\cdot \left \| \mu \right \|_{2}}
\notag
\\\mathbb{C}_{2}=&\frac{F\cdot \nu }{\left \| F \right \|_{2}\cdot \left \| \nu \right \|_{2}}.
\end{align}
In this way, we construct the intra-class semantic graph for the synthesized sketch and the target sketch.
\subsubsection{Inter-class Structural Graph Representation}
Subsequently, we construct the inter-class structural graphs which could be defined as:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{G}_{1}= \langle \mu , \mathbb{E}_{1} \rangle
\notag
\\\mathbb{G}_{2}= \langle \nu , \mathbb{E}_{2} \rangle
\end{align}
where the $\mu$ and $\nu$ represent nodes in the structural graph, and the edge $\mathbb{E}$ between every two pairs of nodes is used to represent the relevant information of the set of nodes. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:graph}, we utilize the Euclidean Distance to measure relevant information between each paired nodes which could be calculated as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}(c_{1}, c_{2})=\mathcal{E}(\mu (c_{1}), \mu (c_{2}))
\notag
\\\mathbb{E}(c_{1}, c_{2})=\mathcal{E}(\nu (c_{1}), \nu (c_{2}))
\end{align}
where the $c \in \begin{bmatrix}1,2,\cdots,12\end{bmatrix}$ denotes different nodes and $\mathcal{E}$ represents the Euclidean Distance. And we conduct the constraint of inter-class structural graphs between the synthesized sketches and target sketches.
Accordingly, we construct two types of representational graphs which engage in providing the intra-class and inter-class supervisions from the region-wise semantic perception. These supervisions could enhance the quality of the detailed regions in the synthesized images.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{iterative_strategy.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The Pipeline of our proposed Iterative Training Strategy. We take the sketch synthesis task as prototype.}
\label{fig:iterative_strategy}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Iterative Training Strategy}
Inspired by the symmetry between the two tasks of sketch synthesis and face photo synthesis, we propose a biphasic iterative cycle training algorithm which could improve the perceptual quality of the synthesized results as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:iterative_strategy}.
There are multi-stages in our iterative training strategy. We name the generator and discriminator as $G_{k}^{i}$, $D_{k}^{i}$, $G_{o}^{i}$ and $D_{o}^{i}$, where $i\in \left \{ 0,1,\cdots ,n \right \}$ denote the iterative stages; $k$, $o$ represent sketch synthesis and face photo synthesis, sequentially. To begin with, we train the $G_{k}^{0}$ and $D_{k}^{0}$ from scratch for the sketch synthesis task; $G_{o}^{0}$ and $D_{o}^{0}$ for the face photo synthesis task, respectively. Afterwards, for face sketch synthesis, we take the pre-trained $G_{o}^{0}$ as knowledge extractor to boost the $G_{k}^{1}$ and $D_{k}^{1}$ which are trained from scratch. Concretely, we take the output fake sketch from $G_{k}^{1}$ as $\widehat{Y}$ that concat with saliency detection result $M_{k}$ (produced from real sketch) feed to the pre-trained $G_{o}^{0}$ to acquire the $\widehat{X}$. Meanwhile, we exploit the corresponding real sketch $Y$ and $M_{k}$ feed to the $G_{o}^{0}$ that acquire the $\widetilde{X}$. We make the distillation between the $\widehat{X}$ and $\widetilde{X}$. In addition, the pre-trained $G_{o}^{0}$ is regarded as a knowledge extractor to obtain higher-level perceptual information. We impose distillations on multi-scale feature maps to further improve $G_{k}^{1}$ and $D_{k}^{1}$. Similarly, we utilize the pre-trained $G_{k}^{0}$ to further boost the $G_{o}^{1}$ and $D_{o}^{1}$ from scratch. Note that this iterative cycle training strategy could be conducted on multi-stages until we obtain the optimal models. The detailed procedure of the optimization is presented in Algorithm \ref{algorithm1}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{The iterative training strategy of sketch synthesis}
\label{algorithm1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
~~\\
Input photo: $X$; saliency detection map: $M_{o}$; parsing mask: $S_{o}$; \\
Target sketch: $Y$; saliency detection map: $M_{k}$; parsing mask: $S_{k}$;\\
The number of iteration: $i$; max iteration: $T=4$;
\Ensure
~~\\
The optimal models $G_{k}^{i}$ and $D_{k}^{i}$;\\
\textbf{Step1:} Initialize training $G_{k}^{0}$, $D_{k}^{0}$, $G_{o}^{0}$ and $D_{o}^{0}$ from scratch;\\
\textbf{Step2:} Iterative training;
\For{$i = 0$ to T}
\State Feed the $X$, $M_{o}$ and $S_{o}$ to train the $G_{k}^{i+1}$ and $D_{k}^{i+1}$ which obtain fake sketch $\widehat{Y}$;
\State Feed the $\widehat{Y}$, $M_{k}$ and $S_{k}$ to the pre-trained $G_{o}^{i}$ to obtain corresponding $\widehat{X}$; Extract multi-level feature maps from $G_{o}^{i}$ as $\widehat{F_{o}}$;
\State Feed the $Y$, $M_{k}$ and $S_{k}$ to the pre-trained $G_{o}^{i}$ to obtain corresponding $\widetilde{X}$; Extract multi-level feature maps from $G_{o}^{i}$ as $\widetilde{F_{o}}$;
\State Compute the loss between $\widehat{X}$ and $\widetilde{X}$, $\widehat{F_{o}}$ and $\widetilde{F_{o}}$; Back-propagate the gradients;
\State Update the $G_{k}^{i+1}$ and $D_{k}^{i+1}$;
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{CUFS.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Ablation studies of synthesized sketches and photos on the CUFS dataset. From the top to bottom, the examples are selected from XM2VTS database, CUHK database, and AR database. (a) Source images, (b) Target Images, (c) CycleGAN, (d) Pix2Pix, (e) w/ $M$ , (f) w/ $M$ + $S$, (g) w/ $M$ + $S$ + Perceptual Loss, (h) w/ $M$ + $S$ + Perceptual Loss + BCE Loss, (i) w/ $M$ + $S$ + Perceptual Loss + BCE Loss + IAG Loss, (j) w/ $M$ + $S$ + Perceptual Loss + BCE Loss + IAG Loss + ITG Loss, (k) w/ $M$ + $S$ + Perceptual Loss + BCE Loss + IAG Loss + ITG Loss + ICT Loss. Note that the \emph{\textbf{(i)}} column represents the results of our preliminary work \textbf{SDGAN}.}
\label{fig:CUFS}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Objective Function}
The overall objective of our model includes seven loss functions: $\mathcal{L}_{GAN}$, $\mathcal{L}_{content}$, $\mathcal{L}_{IAG}$, $\mathcal{L}_{perceptual}$, $\mathcal{L}_{BCE}$, $\mathcal{L}_{ITG}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{ICT}$. Here, we adopt the sketch synthesis task as prototype to elaborate the objective functions.
\subsubsection{Adversarial Loss.} The adversarial loss is leveraged to correctly distinguish the real sketches or generated sketches. Follows the setting of [32], the adversarial loss is formulated as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{GAN}&=\mathit{E}_{X,M,Y}\left [ \log D\left ( X,M,Y \right ) \right ]
\notag
\\&+{E}_{X,M}\left [ \log \left ( 1-D\left ( X,M,G\left ( X,M \right ) \right ) \right ) \right ].
\end{align}
where $X$, $Y$ and $M$ denote the source photos, target sketches and saliency detection maps.
\subsubsection{Content Loss.} In addition, we utilize the normalized $L_{1}$ distance to represent content loss since it causes less blurring than $L_{2}$ distance.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{content}\left ( G \right )=\mathit{E}_{X,M,Y}\left [ \left \| Y-G\left ( X,M \right ) \right \|_{1} \right ].
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Perceptual Loss.} In order to ensure that the generated sketch and the target sketch have more similar specificity, we employ pre-trained VGG-19 net [43] as feature extractor to obtain high-level representations. We compare the features from VGG-19 after pool1 and pool2 layers. The perceptual loss engages to make training procedure more stable.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{perceptual}=\sum_{l=1}^{2}\left \| \omega^{l} \left ( Y \right ) -\omega^{l} \left ( G\left ( X,M \right ) \right )\right \|_{2}^{2}.
\end{align}
where $\omega ^{l}\left ( \cdot \right )$ represents the output features of VGG-19 net and $l$ denotes the selected pool1 and pool2 layers.
\subsubsection{Binary Cross-Entropy Parsing Loss.} Moreover, we introduce the Binary Cross-Entropy (BCE) loss to further refine the synthesized sketch in semantic level. We contrast the semantic mask of synthesized sketch and target sketch produced by pre-trained parsing network [42].
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{BCE}=\left ( \mathbb{P}\left ( Y \right ), \mathbb{P}\left ( G\left ( X,M \right ) \right )\right ).
\end{align}
where $\mathbb{P}$ denotes the inference process of parsing network.
\subsubsection{Intra-class Semantic Graph Loss.} In practice, we extract the intra-class semantic graphs from target sketch and synthesized sketch, respectively. These semantic graphs contain comprehensive knowledge between sketch and class-wise graph nodes space which represent the intra-class feature distribution. Furthermore, in the process of calculating graph nodes, the contribution of each semantic class is adaptively re-weighted. Consequently, we reinforce the supervision on these intra-class semantic graphs to restrain the generated sketch matching the feature distribution of the target domain. The IntrA-class Graph (IAG) loss is formulated as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{IAG}\left ( \mathbb{C}^{target}, \mathbb{C}^{fake} \right )&=\\
\notag
&\sum_{r=1}^{2}\sum_{c=1}^{12}\left \| \mathbb{C}_{r}^{target}\left ( c \right ) -\mathbb{C}_{r}^{fake}\left ( c \right )\right \|_{2}^{2}.
\end{align}
where the $r \in \begin{bmatrix}1,2\end{bmatrix}$ denotes two types of intra-class semantic graphs.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Results on face sketch synthesis in the CUFS and the CUFSF datasets. $\uparrow$ indicates the higher is better, $\downarrow$ indicates the lower is better. Our method reaches the \textbf{optimal} and \emph{\textbf{sub-optimal}} results in the CUFS dataset and the CUFSF dataset.}
\label{tab:sketch_synthesis}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|cccccccccc|cc}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Model} & CycleGAN & Pix2Pix & MDAL & KT & Col-cGAN & KD+ & MSG-SARL & SCAGAN & DP-GAN & DIR-MFP & \textbf{SDGAN } & \textbf{ours } \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{CUFS} & LPIPS(alex)$\downarrow$ & 0.2776 & 0.1654 & - & 0.2297 & - & 0.1971 & - & - & - & - & 0.1444 & \textbf{0.1432} \\
& LPIPS(squeeze)$\downarrow$ & 0.1863 & 0.1156 & - & 0.1688 & - & 0.1471 & - & - & - & - & 0.1017 & \textbf{0.0986} \\
& LPIPS(vgg-16)$\downarrow$ & 0.3815 & 0.3059 & - & 0.3483 & - & 0.3052 & - & - & - & - & 0.2767 & \textbf{0.2646} \\
& FSIM$\uparrow$ & 0.6829 & 0.7356 & 0.7275 & 0.7373 & - & 0.7350 & \textbf{0.7594} & 0.716 & 0.7345 & 0.7378 & 0.7446 & \textit{\textbf{0.7494}} \\
& SSIM$\uparrow$ & 0.4638 & 0.5172 & 0.5280 & - & 0.5244 & - & 0.5288 & - & - & \textbf{0.5703} & 0.5360 & \textit{\textbf{0.5493}} \\
& FID$\downarrow$ & 58.394 & 44.272 & - & - & - & - & 46.39 & 34.2 & - & - & 33.408 & \textbf{33.256} \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{CUFSF} & LPIPS(alex)$\downarrow$ & 0.2234 & 0.1932 & - & 0.2522 & - & 0.2368 & - & - & - & - & 0.1906 & \textbf{0.1867} \\
& LPIPS(squeeze)$\downarrow$ & 0.1617 & 0.1422 & - & 0.1740 & - & 0.1619 & - & - & - & - & 0.1370 & \textbf{0.1341} \\
& LPIPS(vgg-16)$\downarrow$ & 0.3787 & 0.3551 & - & 0.3743 & - & 0.3550 & - & - & - & - & 0.3358 & \textbf{0.3341} \\
& FSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.7011 & 0.7284 & 0.7076 & 0.7311 & - & 0.7171 & 0.7316 & 0.729 & 0.7080 & 0.7200 & 0.7328 & \textbf{0.7332} \\
& SSIM$\uparrow$ & 0.3753 & 0.4204 & 0.3818 & - & 0.4224 & - & 0.4230 & - & - & 0.4215 & 0.4339 & \textbf{0.4407} \\
& FID$\downarrow$ & 31.262 & 30.984 & - & - & - & - & 38.25 & \textbf{18.2} & - & - & 30.594 & \textit{\textbf{24.577}} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Inter-class Structural Graph Loss.} Based on our preliminary work [22], we employ the inter-class structural graph to facilitate the detailed identity-specific preservation of synthesized sketches. These inter-class structural graphs consist of nodes ($\mu$ and $\nu$) for each semantic class and structural information represented by graph edges. Consequently, we apply the constraints between the InTer-class structural Graphs (ITG) of synthesized sketches and target sketches named ITG Loss which could be formulated as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{ITG}\left ( \mathbb{G}^{target}, \mathbb{G}^{fake} \right )&=\\
\notag
&\sum_{r=1}^{2}\sum_{c=1}^{12}\left \| \mathbb{G}_{r}^{target}\left ( c \right ) -\mathbb{G}_{r}^{fake}\left ( c \right )\right \|_{2}^{2}.
\end{align}
where the $r \in \begin{bmatrix}1,2\end{bmatrix}$ denotes two types of inter-class structural graphs.
\subsubsection{Iterative Cycle Training Loss.} Finally, we design the Iterative Cycle Training (ICT) Loss for iterative training strategy. Four iterations of iterative cycle training are conducted in the experiments to reach the optimal solution. We express the ICT Loss as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{ICT}=\sum_{l=1}^{5}\left \| G_{o}^{l,i} \left ( Y \right ) -G_{o}^{l,i} \left ( G_{k}^{i}\left ( X,M \right ) \right )\right \|_{1}.
\end{align}
where $G_{o}^{l,i}\left ( \cdot \right )$ denotes the symmetric network from face sketch to photo and $i$ represents the times of iteration. We select the feature maps which could extract multi-level identity-specific information represented by $l$.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{CUFSF.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Ablation studies of synthesized sketches and photos on the CUFSF dataset. (a) Source images, (b) Target Images, (c) CycleGAN, (d) Pix2Pix, (e) w/ $S$, (f) w/ $S$ + Perceptual Loss, (g) w/ $S$ + Perceptual Loss + BCE Loss, (h) w/ $S$ + Perceptual Loss + BCE Loss + IAG Loss, (i) w/ $S$ + Perceptual Loss + BCE Loss + IAG Loss + ITG Loss, (j) w/ $S$ + Perceptual Loss + BCE Loss + IAG Loss + ITG Loss + ICT Loss. Note that the \emph{\textbf{(h)}} column represents the results of our preliminary work \textbf{SDGAN}. }
\label{fig:CUFSF}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Full Objective.} Eventually, we combine all loss functions to achieve overall supervision:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{total} = \mathcal{L} _{GAN}&+\alpha \mathcal{L}_{content}+\lambda \mathcal{L} _{perceptual}
\notag
\\&+\delta \mathcal{L} _{BCE}+\eta \mathcal{L} _{IAG}
\notag
\\&+\tau \mathcal{L} _{ITG}+\xi \mathcal{L} _{ICT}.
\end{align}
where the $\alpha $, $\lambda$, $\delta$, $\eta$, $\tau$ and $\xi$ are weighting factors. Furthermore, the generator $G$ and the discriminator $D$ could be optimized by the following formulation:
\begin{align}
\min_{G}\max_{D}\mathcal{L}_{total}
\end{align}
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we introduce the implementation details of our method, firstly. Afterward, we describe the biphasic photo-sketch datasets and evaluation criterion which is applied in the experiments. Next, the experimental results are presented from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives, which show the effectiveness of our proposed method. Finally, we conduct the ablation study to verify the utility of each module we proposed.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
We train the proposed model from scratch. Both the generator and discriminator are implemented on the platform Pytorch [44] with a single NVIDIA GeForce Titan X GPU. We leverage the Adam optimizer with $\beta _{1}=0.5$ and $\beta _{2}=0.999$. The total training epochs are 200, then the initial learning rate is set to 0.0002 for the first 100 epochs and decay linearly in the last 100 epochs. Additionally, we utilize the Instance Normalization [45], and set the batchsize = 1. Meanwhile, the weighting factors are set as $\alpha=100$, $\lambda=10$, $\delta=15$, $\eta=100$, $\tau=100$ and $\xi=5$, respectively.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Results on face photo synthesis in the CUFS and CUFSF datasets. $\uparrow$ indicates the higher is better, $\downarrow$ indicates the lower is better. Our method reaches the \textbf{optimal} and \emph{\textbf{sub-optimal}} results in the CUFS dataset and the CUFSF dataset. Note that the results of PS2MAN model is directly borrowed from [19].}
\label{tab:photo_synthesis}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccccccc|cc}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Model} & CycleGAN & Pix2Pix & KT & KD+ & MSG-SARL & SCGAN & PS2MAN & \textbf{SDGAN} & \textbf{ours} \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{CUFS} & LPIPS(alex) $\downarrow$ & 0.2898 & 0.1687 & 0.1919 & 0.1717 & - & - & 0.2464 & 0.1674 & \textbf{0.1497} \\
& LPIPS(squeeze) $\downarrow$ & 0.2509 & 0.1433 & 0.1747 & 0.1474 & - & - & 0.2158 & 0.1370 & \textbf{0.1225} \\
& LPIPS(vgg-16) $\downarrow$ & 0.4383 & 0.3031 & 0.3208 & 0.2806 & - & - & 0.3254 & 0.2640 & \textbf{0.2367} \\
& FSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.7270 & 0.7723 & 0.7851 & 0.7819 & 0.7866 & 0.795 & 0.7819 & 0.7845 & \textbf{0.8001} \\
& SSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.4461 & 0.6086 & - & - & 0.6242 & - & - & 0.6543 & \textbf{0.6822} \\
& FID $\downarrow$ & 124.540 & 86.996 & - & - & 66.17 & \textbf{40.3} & - & 63.937 & \textit{\textbf{49.925}} \\ \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{CUFSF} & LPIPS(alex) $\downarrow$ & 0.2271 & 0.2115 & 0.2440 & 0.2322 & - & - & 0.3145 & 0.2011 & \textbf{0.1998} \\
& LPIPS(squeeze) $\downarrow$ & 0.1725 & 0.1669 & 0.2023 & 0.1791 & - & - & 0.2853 & 0.1581 & \textbf{0.1556} \\
& LPIPS(vgg-16) $\downarrow$ & 0.3690 & 0.3579 & 0.3758 & 0.3565 & - & - & 0.4237 & 0.3422 & \textbf{0.3376} \\
& FSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.7544 & 0.7855 & 0.7931 & 0.7789 & 0.7734 & \textbf{0.845} & 0.7812 & 0.7902 & \textit{\textbf{0.7955}} \\
& SSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.5594 & 0.6194 & - & - & 0.6114 & - & - & 0.6305 & \textbf{0.6441} \\
& FID $\downarrow$ & 29.584 & 60.286 & - & - & 59.61 & \textbf{20.6} & - & 38.776 & \textit{\textbf{38.372}} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\end{table*}
\subsection{Datasets and Evaluation Criteria}
In this article, we conduct extensive experiments on the CUHK Face Sketch Dataset (CUFS) [1] and the CUHK Face Sketch FERET Dataset (CUFSF) [46]. In CUFS dataset, there are 606 faces, of which 188 faces from the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) student database [3], 123 faces from the AR database [47], and 295 faces from the XM2VTS database [48]. For each sample, there are paired face photo and sketch drawn by the artist in natural lighting conditions. The CUFSF dataset contains 1194 face photos with paired sketches. However, all the photos in the CUFSF dataset are acquired under complex illumination variations as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:prior} (d). For the CUFS dataset and CUFSF dataset, we exploit the geometrical alignment strategy between the photos and sketches, based on the points of two eye centers and the mouth centers. The geometric landmark coordinates of these points are released. Concretely, the aligned photo-sketch is cropped to $200 \times 250$ following [49]. Meanwhile, we adopt the reshaping and padding conventions in [20] to expand the input image size to $256 \times 256$.
The experimental performance is measured by multiple metrics. We employ the Feature Similarity Index Metric (FSIM) [50] to evaluate the feature quality of synthesized sketches. FSIM is commonly utilized to measure the low-level similarity between the paired images, which extracts the phase congruence (PC) and the image gradient magnitude (GM) as features to index the quality. Consequently, blurring and noise of the generated images are evaluated by FSIM, ordinarily. In addition, we apply the Structural Similarity Index Metric (SSIM) [51] to demonstrate the perceptual similarity between synthesized results and ground-truth images, which follows the visibility of humans. However, some works point that SSIM tends to favor over-smoothed images and ignores the texture of the results, which is not completely consistent with human perception [52]. To this end, we introduce the Learned Perceptual Image Patch Similarity (LPIPS) [53] combined with SSIM to measure the perceptual visibility of synthesized results. LPIPS calculates the distance of embedding features between the generated images and target images. In this paper, LPIPS is exploited by three classification networks which are SqueezeNet [54], AlexNet [55], and VGGNet [43].
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Comparison between the preliminary work \textbf{SDGAN} and our current network named \textbf{Ours} in the table. All the performances of our current model are \textbf{BETTER} than preliminary work. $\uparrow$ indicates the higher is better, $\downarrow$ indicates the lower is better.}
\label{tab:preliminary}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.1mm}{%
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccc|ccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Task} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Sketch\\ Synthesis\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Photo\\ Synthesis\end{tabular}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Model} & SDGAN & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Ours}} & Gap & SDGAN & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Ours}} & Gap \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{7}{*}{CUFS}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPLPS\\ (alex)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & 0.1444 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.1432}} & 0.0012 & 0.1674 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.1497}} & 0.0177 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (squeeze)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & 0.1017 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.0986}} & 0.0031 & 0.1370 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.1225}} & 0.0145 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (vgg-16)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & 0.2767 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.2646}} & 0.0021 & 0.2640 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.2367}} & 0.0273 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & FSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.7446 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.7494}} & 0.0048 & 0.7845 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.8001}} & 0.0156 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & SSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.5360 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.5493}} & 0.0133 & 0.6543 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.6822}} & 0.0279 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & FID $\downarrow$ & 33.408 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{33.256}} & 0.152 & 63.937 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{49.925}} & 14.012 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & FVR $\uparrow$ & 86.179 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{87.542}} & 1.363 & 79.040 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{81.780}} & 2.74 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{7}{*}{CUFSF}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (alex)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & 0.1906 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.1867}} & 0.0039 & 0.2011 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.1998}} & 0.0013 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (squeeze)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & 0.1370 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.1341}} & 0.0029 & 0.1581 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.1556}} & 0.0025 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (vgg-16)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & 0.3358 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.3341}} & 0.0017 & 0.3422 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.3376}} & 0.0046 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & FSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.7328 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.7332}} & 0.0004 & 0.7902 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.7955}} & 0.0053 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & SSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.4339 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.4407}} & 0.0068 & 0.6305 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.6441}} & 0.0136 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & FID $\downarrow$ & 30.594 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{24.577}} & 6.017 & 38.776 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{38.372}} & 0.404 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & FVR $\uparrow$ & 86.758 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{87.109}} & 0.351 & 62.763 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{63.344}} & 0.581 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{The ablation study on CUFS dataset. $\uparrow$ indicates the higher is better, $\downarrow$ indicates the lower is better. Note that our preliminary work \textbf{SDGAN} is indicated as the last \textbf{\emph{3rd}} row from up to bottom in each task.}
\label{tab:ablation-CUFS}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc|ccccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c|}{Model Variations} & \multicolumn{7}{c}{Criterion} \\ \hline
& Backbone & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Salicency\\ Mask $M$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Parsing\\ Layouts $S$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Perceptual\\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}BCE \\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}IAG \\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ITG\\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ICT\\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (alex)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (squeeeze)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (vgg-16)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & FSIM$\uparrow$ & SSIM$\uparrow$ & FID$\downarrow$ & \textbf{FVR}$\uparrow$ \\ \hline
\multirow{8}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Sketch\\ Synthesis\end{tabular}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.1654 & 0.1156 & 0.3059 & 0.7356 & 0.5172 & 44.272 & 84.252 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.1581 & 0.1141 & 0.3080 & 0.7376 & 0.5145 & 42.367 & 84.504 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & 0.1570 & 0.1108 & 0.2965 & 0.7411 & 0.5286 & 41.048 & 84.698 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & 0.1644 & 0.1123 & 0.2918 & 0.7424 & 0.5248 & 34.854 & 83.893 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & 0.1642 & 0.1138 & 0.2918 & 0.7433 & 0.5311 & 34.638 & 84.892 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & 0.1444 & 0.1017 & 0.2767 & 0.7446 & 0.5360 & 33.408 & 86.179 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & 0.1446 & 0.0995 & 0.2727 & 0.7466 & 0.5482 & \textbf{33.166} & 86.648 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & \textbf{0.1432} & \textbf{0.0986} & \textbf{0.2646} & \textbf{0.7494} & \textbf{0.5493} & \textit{\textbf{33.256}} & \textbf{87.542} \\ \hline
\multirow{8}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Photo\\ Synthesis\end{tabular}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.1687 & 0.1433 & 0.3031 & 0.7723 & 0.6086 & 86.996 & 73.527 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.1660 & 0.1449 & 0.3018 & 0.7742 & 0.6093 & 93.204 & 74.046 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & 0.1589 & 0.1341 & 0.2788 & 0.7759 & 0.6266 & 66.176 & 75.260 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & 0.1609 & 0.1341 & 0.2799 & 0.7777 & 0.6303 & 64.495 & 76.427 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & 0.1562 & 0.1326 & 0.2760 & 0.7788 & 0.6320 & 65.729 & 76.778 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & 0.1674 & 0.1370 & 0.2640 & 0.7845 & 0.6543 & 63.937 & 79.040 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & 0.1571 & 0.1306 & 0.2588 & 0.7892 & 0.6627 & 61.726 & 78.438 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & \textbf{0.1497} & \textbf{0.1225} & \textbf{0.2367} & \textbf{0.8001} & \textbf{0.6822} & \textbf{49.925} & \textbf{81.780} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{The ablation study on CUFSF dataset. $\uparrow$ indicates the higher is better, $\downarrow$ indicates the lower is better. Note that our preliminary work \textbf{SDGAN} is indicated as the last \textbf{\emph{3rd}} row from up to bottom in each task.}
\label{tab:ablation_CUFSF}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc|ccccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c|}{Model Variations} & \multicolumn{7}{c}{Criterion} \\ \hline
& Backbone & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Salicency\\ Mask $M$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Parsing\\ Layouts $S$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Perceptual\\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}BCE \\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}IAG \\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ITG\\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ICT\\ Loss\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (alex)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (squeeeze)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}LPIPS\\ (vgg-16)$\downarrow$\end{tabular} & FSIM$\uparrow$ & SSIM$\uparrow$ & FID$\downarrow$ & \textbf{FVR}$\uparrow$ \\ \hline
\multirow{8}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Sketch\\ Synthesis\end{tabular}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.1932 & 0.1422 & 0.3551 & 0.7284 & 0.4204 & 30.984 & 86.027 \\
& $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.1939 & 0.1429 & 0.3562 & 0.7275 & 0.4193 & 29.765 & 85.772 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & 0.2037 & 0.1443 & 0.3454 & 0.7290 & 0.4297 & 30.970 & 86.052 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & 0.2070 & 0.1423 & 0.3545 & 0.7299 & 0.4270 & 28.639 & 86.099 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & 0.1983 & 0.1420 & 0.3460 & 0.7300 & 0.4282 & 25.723 & 86.512 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & 0.1906 & 0.1370 & 0.3358 & 0.7328 & 0.4339 & 30.594 & 86.758 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & 0.1896 & 0.1370 & 0.3349 & 0.7321 & 0.4355 & 28.995 & 87.023 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & \textbf{0.1867} & \textbf{0.1341} & \textbf{0.3341} & \textbf{0.7332} & \textbf{0.4407} & \textbf{24.577} & \textbf{87.109} \\ \hline
\multirow{7}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Photo\\ Synthesis\end{tabular}} & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.2115 & 0.1669 & 0.3579 & 0.7855 & 0.6194 & 60.286 & 62.074 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & - & 0.2137 & 0.1653 & 0.3546 & 0.7875 & 0.6243 & 42.517 & 61.322 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & - & 0.2106 & 0.1672 & 0.3537 & 0.7882 & 0.6219 & 51.397 & 62.174 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & - & 0.2091 & 0.1650 & 0.3497 & 0.7890 & 0.6269 & 49.787 & 62.026 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & - & 0.2011 & 0.1581 & 0.3422 & 0.7902 & 0.6305 & 38.776 & 62.763 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & 0.2030 & 0.1593 & 0.3403 & 0.7929 & 0.6426 & \textbf{37.352} & 63.052 \\
& $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & \textbf{0.1998} & \textbf{0.1556} & \textbf{0.3376} & \textbf{0.7955} & \textbf{0.6441} & \textit{\textbf{38.372}} & \textbf{63.344} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table*}
Besides, we adopt the Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) [56] to compute the Earth-mover distance (EMD) of distributions between the target domain and the synthesized image domain. Specifically, a pre-trained Inception-v3 network [57] is raised to measure the 2048-dimension features between the two contrast domains. FID is widely used in biphasic photo-sketch synthesis tasks and present high confidence in images realism and quality.
To evaluate the preservation of personal identity characteristics of the generated images, we introduce the face verification rate (FVR) which is implemented by Face++ API [58]. Previously, other researchers often use Null-space Linear Discriminant Analysis (NLDA) to measure identity-specific. However, NLDA is found to be seriously affected by image texture and deformations so that it could not make the accurate assessment of identity-specific characteristics [19]. We utilize the Face++ APIs which the threshold is set as 73.975@FAR=1e-5 in our identity preservation experiments.
To demonstrate the ascendancy of our method, we adopt several benchmark approaches (such as CycleGAN [59], Pix2Pix [26], MDAL [16], KT [60], Col-cGAN [61], KD+ [19], MSG-SARL [18], SCAGAN [20], DP-GAN [62], DIP-MFP [63] and PS2MAN [64]) for comparison. In addition, to further demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, we also conduct comparison experiments between our preliminary work \textbf{SDGAN} [22] and our current model.
\subsection{Results on face sketch synthesis task}
We demonstrate the performance of our method on the face sketch synthesis task with the CUFS and the CUFSF datasets. The experiment results are shown in Table. \ref{tab:sketch_synthesis}. Our method achieves the best capability on the indicators of LPIPS (alex), LPIPS (squeeze), LPIPS (vgg-16), and FID in the CUFS dataset. The proposed method decreases the previous best FID from 34.2 to 33.256. In addition, our method realizes the best performance on all indicators in the CUFSF dataset except FID. Obviously, the LIPIS (alex, squeeze, vgg) are significantly decreased from the large margin in both datasets which implies the higher-fidelity and realistic of the sketches generated by our method. On the other hand, MSG-SARL [18], DIR-MFP [63], and SCAGAN [20] reach better results in limited indicators including FSIM, SSIM, and FID of different datasets. These might be caused by the GAN-based approaches tend to produce more blurring and noise. Additionally, the images generated by our method contain more texture information introduced by saliency detection map $M$ which is utilized in the CUFS datasets. These may lead to a negative impact on SSIM which prefers over-smoothed images. (We discard the $M$ in the CUFSF dataset, the detailed analysis is presented in the section of ablation study.) However, as a whole, our method has the most balanced performance on the task of face sketch synthesis. Besides, our method still achieves sub-optimal results on indicators that lag behind other methods.
As illustrated in the upper three rows of Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} (k) and upper two rows of Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF} (j), we randomly sample face sketches synthesized from our network and other benchmarks. Our network could integrally construct the details of each sketch with various backgrounds. The sketches we generated have prolific identify features, especially in facial details.
\subsection{Results on face photo synthesis task}
Compared with face sketch synthesis, there are fewer previous methods focus on the photo synthesis task. In this experiment, our method obtains the best performance with LPIPS (alex, squeeze, vgg) and SSIM on both datasets. According to Table. \ref{tab:photo_synthesis}, the SCAGAN [20] achieves better results than our method with FSIM and FID because of its stacking architecture. In contrast, our network is end-to-end which has stronger practical significance on edge devices. Moreover, it is more challenging to synthesize photos from the CUFSF dataset. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:prior} (d), there are illumination variations in the CUFSF dataset. Meanwhile, all photos are grayscale and sketches are drawn with deformation. However, our network achieves prodigious performance on the CUFSF dataset. As depicted in the lower three rows of Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} (k) and lower two rows of Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF} (j), the photos synthesized by our method maintain much personal identity and perspicuity.
\subsection{Comparison with preliminary work}
To evaluate the effectiveness gap between our current model and preliminary work \textbf{SDGAN}, we conduct the performance comparison from the quantitative and qualitative perspectives as reported in Table. \ref{tab:preliminary}.
As for SDAGN, in view of its capability which could supervise the synthesis of sketches and photos in the intra-class semantic space, the generated sketches and photos always have abundant detailed features. Nevertheless, SDGAN does not effectively extract the structured knowledge in the facial images, which could be represented as the inter-class semantic graph supervision in our current model. To be specific, as for our current model, we take advantage of both intra-class and inter-class semantic spaces that allow the synthesized sketches and photos to be more clearly structured and contain distinctive features, as illustrated in columns (i-j) of Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} and columns (h-i) of Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF}. Furthermore, the SDGAN is designed for unidirectional photo-sketch synthesis which neglects the domain consistency of photo domain and sketch domain in the biphasic task. On the contrary, with the aid of the Iterative Cycle Training strategy, it could enhance the identity-preserving ability of our current model which is essential in the image-to-image translation task with geometrical alignment datasets. As reported in Table. \ref{tab:ablation-CUFS} and Table. \ref{tab:ablation_CUFSF}, the Face verification Rate (FVR) significantly increased after applying the Iterative Cycle Training strategy. Besides, as illustrated in Table. \ref{tab:preliminary}, our current model performance has been significantly raised compared with preliminary \textbf{SDGAN}, especially in the photo synthesis task. From a more intuitive point of view, the sketches and photos synthesized by the current model give the expression of more fidelity and consistency than \textbf{SDGAN} as depicted in columns (i-k) of Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} and column (h-j) of Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF}.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Ablation Study of Biphsic Iterative Training Strategy. $\uparrow$ indicates the higher is better, $\downarrow$ indicates the lower is better. }
\label{tab:Iteration_Training}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccccc|ccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Sketch Synthesis} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Face Synthesis} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Iteration} & Initial-0 & Stage-1 & Stage-2 & Stage-3 & Stage-4 & Initial-0 & Stage-1 & Stage-2 & Stage-3 & Stage-4 \\ \hline
\multirow{7}{*}{CUFS} & LPIPS(alex) $\downarrow$ & 0.1446 & 0.1447 & \textbf{0.1406} & 0.1432 & 0.1483 & 0.1571 & 0.1497 & 0.1563 & \textbf{0.1497} & 0.1518 \\
& LPIPS(squeeze) $\downarrow$ & 0.0995 & 0.0991 & 0.0988 & \textbf{0.0986} & 0.1007 & 0.1306 & 0.1237 & 0.1306 & \textbf{0.1225} & 0.1248 \\
& LPIPS(vgg-16) $\downarrow$ & 0.2727 & 0.2665 & 0.2650 & \textbf{0.2646} & 0.2656 & 0.2588 & 0.2449 & 0.2442 & \textbf{0.2367} & 0.2392 \\
& FSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.7466 & 0.7468 & 0.7482 & \textbf{0.7494} & 0.7474 & 0.7892 & 0.7918 & 0.7973 & \textbf{0.8001} & 0.7980 \\
& SSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.5482 & 0.5419 & 0.5472 & \textbf{0.5493} & 0.5424 & 0.6627 & 0.6704 & 0.6778 & \textbf{0.6822} & 0.6767 \\
& FID $\downarrow$ & 33.166 & 30.640 & \textbf{30.092} & 33.256 & 34.490 & 61.726 & 55.804 & 54.303 & \textbf{49.925} & 51.149 \\
& FVR $\uparrow$ & 86.648 & 87.382 & 87.523 & \textbf{87.542} & 87.359 & 78.438 & 79.922 & 80.423 & \textbf{81.790} & 80.249 \\ \hline
\multirow{7}{*}{CUFSF} & LPIPS(alex) $\downarrow$ & 0.1896 & 0.1883 & 0.1904 & \textbf{0.1867} & 0.1912 & 0.2030 & 0.2040 & 0.2038 & \textbf{0.1998} & 0.2011 \\
& LPIPS(squeeze) $\downarrow$ & 0.1370 & 0.1361 & 0.1351 & \textbf{0.1341} & 0.1352 & 0.1593 & 0.1593 & 0.1585 & \textbf{0.1556} & 0.1565 \\
& LPIPS(vgg-16) $\downarrow$ & 0.3349 & 0.3372 & 0.3347 & \textbf{0.3341} & 0.3377 & 0.3403 & 0.3424 & 0.3419 & \textbf{0.3376} & 0.3393 \\
& FSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.7321 & 0.7323 & 0.7322 & \textbf{0.7332} & 0.7330 & 0.7929 & 0.7940 & 0.7941 & \textbf{0.7955} & 0.7947 \\
& SSIM $\uparrow$ & 0.4355 & 0.4371 & 0.4384 & \textbf{0.4407} & 0.4375 & 0.6426 & 0.6410 & 0.6430 & \textbf{0.6441} & 0.6411 \\
& FID $\downarrow$ & 28.995 & 28.462 & 25.690 & \textbf{24.577} & 26.031 & \textbf{37.352} & 46.418 & 43.447 & 38.372 & 40.534 \\
& FVR $\uparrow$ & 87.023 & 87.099 & 87.041 & \textbf{87.109} & 86.980 & 63.052 & 63.228 & 63.191 & \textbf{63.344} & 62.774 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\end{table*}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
In this section, we conduct extensive ablation experiments to verify the effectiveness of each module and the loss function we proposed.
\subsubsection{Saliency Detection Map $M$}
As reported in Table. \ref{tab:ablation-CUFS}, in our method we concatenate the saliency detection map $M$ with input images to provide structural texture prior knowledge. We observe that the SSIM is affected after the introduction of M because SSIM is more sensitive to texture information. However, as a whole, the performance of the model is improved especially the FSIM. In the CUFSF dataset, we find that the saliency detection is influenced by the low quality and lighting variations of the source images which results in the negative impact on the performance. As shown in Table. \ref{tab:ablation_CUFSF}, we discard the M in the following experiments after the injection of $S$.
\subsubsection{Parsing Layouts Injection}
Furthermore, we adopt the semantic parsing layouts as two modulation parameters with spatial dimensions injected in the decoder of our network. The semantic layouts aim at providing a kind of spatial supervision of synthesized images. As depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} (f) and Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF} (e), the details of the synthesized images are more realistic and vivid in class-region. The experiment results also show the effectiveness of parsing layouts injection as shown in Table. \ref{tab:ablation-CUFS} and Table. \ref{tab:ablation_CUFSF}.
\subsubsection{Perceptual Loss and BCE Loss}
In addition, we apply perceptual loss to improve the high-frequency quality of synthesized images. As displayed in Table. \ref{tab:ablation-CUFS} and Table. \ref{tab:ablation_CUFSF}, the perceptual loss could significantly reduce the value of FID while increasing FSIM in the face sketch synthesis task. Besides, the Binary Cross-Entropy loss is implemented by BiSeNet [42] to refine the structural layouts of synthesized images. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} (h) and Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF} (g), the synthesized sketches and photos retain more distinct facial contours.
\subsubsection{Intra-class Semantic Graph Loss}
Moreover, we propose a novel IntrA-class semantic Graph (IAG) loss to restraint the generated images with ground truth images. The IAG loss could force the synthesized images to hold more semantic intra-class knowledge. In other words, the details of the sketches and photos we generated are more similar to ground truth, such as the texture of the hair, the contour of the ears, the position of the eyebrows and the eyes are more consistent as represented in Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} (i) and Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF} (h). More than that, the IAG Loss could raise multiple indicators considerably such as LPIPS (alex, squeeze, vgg) as expressed in Table. \ref{tab:ablation-CUFS} and Table. \ref{tab:ablation_CUFSF}.
\subsubsection{Inter-class Structural Graph Loss}
Combined with the IAG loss we proposed, we bring forward a novel InTer-class structural Graph (ITG) loss which could remarkably enhance the performance of our network. As reflected in Table. \ref{tab:ablation-CUFS} and Table. \ref{tab:ablation_CUFSF}, the SSIM is increased in whole experiments especially on the sketch synthesis task in the CUFS dataset. The ITG loss allows the synthesized sketches to become more obviously constructed. It could be observed that in Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} (j) and Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF} (i), the generated sketches are more vivid and distinct.
\subsubsection{Iterative Cycle Training Loss}
Eventually, we design a novel biphasic Iterative Cycle Training (ICT) loss to boost the training of sketch and photo synthesis. There are multi-stages in this training strategy. To examine the comprehensive training procedure, we express the results in Table. \ref{tab:Iteration_Training}. After conducting three times iterations, the network tends to converge and reach its optimum at the third iteration. As depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:CUFS} (k) and Fig. \ref{fig:CUFSF} (j), the synthesized sketches and photos contain more personal characteristics. Obviously, the details of the face images are more meticulous without less blurring and noises such as the eyelashes, hairstyles, and teeth.
\subsection{Heterogeneous Face Verification Rate}
Meanwhile, we exploit the face verification rate (FVR), deployed by the Face++ API, to report the identity preservation ability of our multi-variation models, as highlighted in Table. \ref{tab:ablation-CUFS} and Table. \ref{tab:ablation_CUFSF}. Our method is dedicated to synthesis the face photos and sketches from the heterogeneous domains. Comprehensively, in the CUFS dataset, the FVR increases distinctly from the backbone to final model by 3.332 (84.252$\rightarrow$87.542) for sketch synthesis and 8.253 (73.527$\rightarrow$81.780) for face photo synthesis. Similarly, the proposed method improves the FVR considerably despite the deformation between the paired sketch photo in the CUFSF dataset. To be more specific, the FVR increases significantly after we exploit the intra-class and inter-class representational graph loss functions, especially in the CUFS dataset. Although there are deformations between the photos and sketches in the CUFSF dataset, the proposed graph loss functions improve the FVR by 0.511 ( 86.512$\rightarrow$87.023) for sketch synthesis and 1.026 (62.026$\rightarrow$63.052) for photo synthesis. This highlights the robustness of our proposed graph representation algorithms.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a Semantic-Driven Generative Adversarial Network with Graph Representation Learning for biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis by utilizing saliency detection and face parsing layouts as prior information. In particular, parsing layouts are employed to construct two types of representational graphs that restraint the intra-class and inter-class features of the synthesized images. These graphs could enforce our network to generate the considerate face structure and details. In addition, based on the observation that the symmetry of the biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis, we design a novel iterative cycle training strategy to refine the high-frequency quality of the synthesized images. Extension experiments are conducted to verify the effectiveness of proposed each module. Although the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance, there are still limitations in our work. The photos generated in the CUFSF dataset are not vivid and realistic leading to the low face verification rate of the synthesized photos. These issues are caused by the deformation between photos and sketches in the dataset. In addition, in terms of few indicators, our method is still not optimal which imply there are much improvements can be done. In the future, we will pay more attention to the biphasic face photo-sketch synthesis task.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}
Since Taylor introduced the notion of turbulent diffusion in the 1920s~\citep{Taylor}, a wide variety of stochastic models have been proposed to represent the dynamics of particles in turbulent flows \citep[e.g.][]{Thomson, Rodean, Majda_Kramer,Berloffii}.
The Brownian dynamics used by Taylor models Lagrangian velocities as white noise processes and is a good approximation only on sufficiently long time scales. More complex models incorporate temporal and/or spatial correlation~\citep[e.g.][]{Griffa1996, Pasquero, lilly2017fractional}.
For example, Langevin dynamics incorporate autocorrelation in Lagrangian velocities by representing them as Ornstein--Uhlenbeck processes~\citep{OU}. It is in general unclear when such additional complexity leads to improved predictions rather than to overfitting. Given the increased difficulty and cost of implementing more complex models, a method for comparing the performance of competing stochastic models for particle dynamics is needed.
To this end, we propose a data-driven approach: we apply \textit{Bayesian model comparison} (BMC)~\citep{jaynes_2003, KassRaftery, MacKay}, which assigns probabilities to competing models based on their ability to explain observed data. We focus on the comparison between the Brownian and Langevin models for particles in two-dimensional homogeneous isotropic turbulence, with data that consists of sequences of particle positions obtained from simulated Lagrangian trajectories. While this set-up is highly idealised, the methodology developed is applicable to more complex flows and models of particle dynamics.
Model comparison is complicated by two issues: (i) proposed models typically contain a number of parameters whose values are uncertain, and
(ii) a measure of model suitability is required, balancing accuracy and complexity.
The natural language for this problem is then that of decision theory (see e.g.\ \cite{BernardoSmith} and \cite{Robert} for an overview of decision problems under uncertainty); however, several philosophical issues therein, \changes{such as the choice of utility function and its subjectivity, }can be avoided by adopting the ready-made approach of BMC.
BMC and the related technique Bayesian model averaging are gaining popularity in many applied fields~\citep{MarkNature, Min2007BMA, Carson, Mann2011_animals}.
In this paper, we demonstrate the potential of BMC by comparing the Brownian and Langevin models of dispersion in two-dimensional turbulence. This provides a simple illustration of the BMC methodology while addressing a problem of interest: dispersion in two-dimensional turbulence has received much attention as a paradigm for transport and mixing in stratified, planetary-scale geophysical flows~\citep{Provenzale1995}, and
can be modelled with stochastic processes~\citep[e.g.][]{Pasquero, lilly2017fractional}.
The paper is structured as follows. We introduce the Brownian and Langevin models in \S\ref{sec-2} and review the BMC method in \S\ref{Methods}. In \S\ref{Results} we show how this method can be applied to discrete particle trajectory data; we also show results of a test case, where the data are generated by the Langevin model itself. In \S\ref{NS2D} we apply BMC to data from direct numerical simulations of two-dimensional turbulence. In \S\ref{Conclusions} we give our conclusions on the method.
\section{Models and data}\label{sec-2}
\subsection{Brownian and Langevin models}\label{Models}
The models of interest are the \textit{Brownian model}, which for passive particles in homogeneous and isotropic turbulence is given by
\begin{align}\label{Brownian}
\text{d}\bm{X} = \sqrt{2\kappa}\,\text{d}\bm{W},
\end{align}
with $\kappa>0$, and the \textit{Langevin model}, which, under the same conditions, is given by
\begin{subequations}\label{Langevin}
\begin{align}
\text{d}\bm{X} &= \bm{U}\,\text{d}t,\\
\text{d}\bm{U} &= -\gamma \bm{U}\, \text{d}t+\gamma\sqrt{2k}\,\text{d}\bm{W},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $\gamma, k > 0$, and where, in both cases, $\bm{W}$ is a vector composed of independent Brownian motions. We denote the models by $\mathcal{M}_B(\kappa)$ and $\mathcal{M}_L(\gamma,k)$.
We note some important characteristics of the two models. The Brownian model involves particle position, $\bm{X}$, as its only component, which evolves as a scaled $d$-dimensional Brownian motion, where $d$ is the number of spatial dimensions. This implies that particle velocity evolves as a white noise process. The model has one parameter, the diffusivity $\kappa$.
The validity of~\eqref{Brownian} is typically justified by arguments involving strong assumptions of scale separation between mean flows and small-scale fluctuations which rarely hold in applications~\citep{Majda_Kramer, Berloffii}.
The Langevin model, by contrast, involves two components, particle position and particle velocity, $(\bm{X},\bm{U})$. The velocity component evolves according to a mean-zero Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process, and position results from time integration of this velocity. The model has two parameters, $\gamma$ and $k$, where $\gamma^{-1}$ is a Lagrangian velocity decorrelation time and $k$ characterises the strength of Gaussian velocity fluctuations. The Brownian and Langevin models are the first two members of a hierarchy of Markovian models involving an increasing number of time derivatives of the position~\citep{Berloffii}.
In practice, the Brownian model is favoured over the Langevin model for its simplicity as well as for the practical virtue of having a smaller, more-easily-explored, one-dimensional parameter space. Note that if these models are to be implemented in the limit of continuous concentrations of particles then it is their corresponding Fokker--Planck equations which must be solved -- this means solving partial differential equations in $d+1$ or $2d+1$ dimensions, respectively.
Both the Brownian and Langevin model can be extended to account for spatial anisotropy, inhomogeneity and the presence of a mean flow, at the cost of increasing the dimension of their parameter spaces; full details are given in~\citet{Berloffii}. Brownian and Langevin dynamics underlie the so-called random displacement and random flight models used for dispersion in the atmospheric boundary layer~\citep{Esler2017}, \changes{and have been applied to the simulation of ocean transport, as models of mixing in the horizontal~\citep{Berloffii}, vertical~\citep{Onink}, and on neutral surfaces~\citep{Reijnders}}.
\citet{Ying} showed how Bayesian parameter inference can be applied to the Brownian model in the inhomogeneous setting using Lagrangian trajectory data. We restrict attention to isotropic
turbulence in this work for simplicity, noting that the methods demonstrated below are equally applicable in the more general case.
\subsection{Data}
For our comparison we consider trajectory data of the form
\begin{align}\label{dataX}
\left\{\left(\bm{X}^{(p)}_0, \cdots, \bm{X}^{(p)}_{N_{\tau}}\right): p\in\left\{1,\cdots, N_p\right\}\right\},
\end{align}
where $\bm{X}^{(p)}_n$ is the position of particle $p$ at time $t=n\tau$. In words, we observe the positions of a set of $N_p$ particles at discrete time intervals of length $\tau$, which we refer to as the sampling time. The performance of the models depends crucially on $\tau$. Since both models are uncorrelated in space, we can rewrite the observations as the set of displacements
\begin{align}\label{dataDX}
\Delta\mathcal{X}_{\tau} &=\left\{\left(\bm{\Delta X}^{(p)}_0, \cdots, \bm{\Delta X}^{(p)}_{N_{\tau}-1}\right): p\in\left\{1,\cdots, N_p\right\}\right\},
\end{align}
where $\Delta\bm{X}^{(p)}_n = \bm{X}^{(p)}_{n+1} - \bm{X}^{(p)}_n$.
In \S\ref{Results} we consider the case that the trajectory data are generated by Langevin dynamics, while in \S\ref{NS2D} we compare the Brownian and Langevin models given data from direct numerical simulations of a forced-dissipative model of stationary, isotropic two-dimensional turbulence.
\section{Methods}\label{Methods}
In this work we appeal to the Bayesian interpretation of probability and statistics. This means that probabilities reflect levels of plausibility in light of all available information. In particular, we deal with uncertainty in both the parameters of each model and the models themselves by assigning probabilities to them. We outline this procedure in \S\S\ref{Parameter_inf} and~\ref{Model_inf}.
\subsection{Parameter inference}\label{Parameter_inf}
The goal of parameter inference is to infer the values of the parameters $\bm{\theta}\in\Theta$
of a statistical model, say $\mathcal{M}(\bm{\theta})$, given observational data $\mathcal{D}$.
A model is characterised completely by its likelihood function $p(\cdot|\mathcal{M}(\bm{\theta}))$ which denotes the probability (density) of observations
under $\mathcal{M}(\bm{\theta})$.
Bayesian inference requires the specification of one's belief prior to observations through a prior distribution $p(\bm{\theta}|\mathcal{M})$. One can then invoke Bayes' Theorem,~\eqref{Bayes_thm}, to update this belief in light of the observations. This results in a posterior distribution
\begin{equation}\label{Bayes_thm}
\overbrace{p(\bm{\theta}|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M})}^{\text{Posterior}} = \frac{\overbrace{p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}(\bm{\theta}))}^{\text{Likelihood}}\, \overbrace{p(\bm{\theta}|\mathcal{M})}^{\text{Prior}}}{\underbrace{p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M})}_{\text{Evidence}}},
\end{equation}
which denotes the probability (density) of each $\bm{\theta}\in\Theta$ given observations and prior knowledge~\citep{Jeffreys}. The posterior fully describes the uncertainty in the inferred parameters, in our case $\bm{\theta}= \kappa$ or $\bm{\theta}=(k,\gamma)$. In applications where point estimates of the parameters are required, these can be taken as e.g. the mean or mode of the posterior.
\subsection{Model inference}\label{Model_inf}
Beyond parameter inference we can also make inferences when the model itself, $\mathcal{M}$, is considered unknown. However, in order to meaningfully assign probabilities to models we must assume that the set of models under consideration, $M=\{\mathcal{M}_i\}_{i=1}^{N_M}$, includes all plausibly true models. That is, for any $\mathcal{M}^*\not\in M$, $p(\mathcal{M}^*)=0$. This is known as the $\mathcal{M}$-closed regime (see Chapter 6 of~\cite{BernardoSmith} or~\cite{ClydecIversen}). In situations where all models under consideration are known to be false this assumption appears dubious; however, we note that the same fallacy is committed in Bayesian parameter inference when we assign probabilities to the parameters of a parametric model which we know is imperfect, i.e. false. In the $\mathcal{M}$-closed regime one assigns prior probabilities to models such that $\sum_{i=1}^{N_m}p(\mathcal{M}_i) = 1$. This allows us to again invoke Bayes' Theorem in the form
\begin{align}
p(\mathcal{M}|\mathcal{D}) = \frac{p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M})\,p(\mathcal{M})}{p(\mathcal{D})}.
\end{align}
If $\mathcal{M}_i$ is parametric with parameters $\bm{\theta}_i\in\Theta_i$, $p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_i)$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{evidence}
p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_i) = \int_{\Theta_i} p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_i(\bm{\theta}_i))\, p(\bm{\theta}_i|\mathcal{M}_i)\, \text{d}\bm{\theta}_i,
\end{align}
which is known as the model evidence (or marginal likelihood, or model likelihood) of $\mathcal{M}_i$.
An important property of the evidence is that it accounts for parameter uncertainty. Considering the likelihood as a score of model performance given some fixed parameter values, the evidence can be viewed as an expectation of that score with respect to the prior measure on parameters. In this way the evidence favours models where observations are highly probable for the range of parameter values considered plausible a priori. In particular, this means that a model with many parameters which achieves a very high value of the likelihood only for a narrow range of parameter values which could not be predicted a priori is not likely to attain a higher value of the evidence than a model with fewer parameters whose values are better constrained by prior information. This apparent penalty is usually quantified by the so-called \textit{Occam (or Ockham) factor}, named in reference to Occam's razor,
\begin{align}\label{Occam}
\mathrm{Occam}_i = p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_i) / p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_i(\bm{\theta}_i^*)) \in [0,1],
\end{align}
where $\bm{\theta}_i^*$ is the posterior mode of $\bm{\theta}_i$~\citep{jaynes_2003, MacKay}.
Given two models, $\{\mathcal{M}_0,\mathcal{M}_1\}$, a test statistic for the hypotheses
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{H}_0:& \mathcal{M}_0\text{ is the true model},\\
\mathcal{H}_1:& \mathcal{M}_1\text{ is the true model},
\end{array}
\right.
\]
is given by the Bayes factor~\citep{KassRaftery},
\begin{align}
K_{1,0} = \frac{p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_1)}{p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_0)},
\end{align}
where a large value of $K_{1,0}$ represents statistical evidence against $\mathcal{H}_0$.
The log-evidence is exactly equal to the log score~\citep{GneitingRaftery}, also known as the ignorance score~\citep{Bernardo1979, BroeckerSmith}, for probabilistic forecasts. Therefore, the log Bayes factor can be understood as a difference of scores for probabilistic models. Merits of the log score have been appreciated since at least the 1950s~\citep{Good}, including its intimate connection with information theory~\citep{RoulstonSmith, Du}. This interpretation of the Bayes factor does not rely on the assumption of the $\mathcal{M}$-closed regime.
In what follows we use the Bayes factor to compare the Brownian and Langevin models.
A useful approximation for the evidence \eqref{evidence} is given by Laplace's method: a Gaussian approximation of the unnormalised
posterior, $p_u(\bm{\theta})=p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}(\bm{\theta}))\, p(\bm{\theta}|\mathcal{M})$, is obtained from a quadratic expansion of $\ln p_u$ about the posterior mode, $\bm{\theta}^*$,
\begin{align}\label{ln pu}
\ln\left(p_u(\bm{\theta})\right) \approx \ln\left(p_u(\bm{\theta}^*)\right) - \frac{1}{2}\left(\bm{\theta}-\bm{\theta}^*\right)^{\mathrm{T}} {J} \left(\bm{\theta}-\bm{\theta}^*\right),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{info}
{J}_{ij} = -\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \bm{\theta}_i\partial \bm{\theta}_j}\ln p_u(\bm{\theta})\bigg\rvert_{\bm{\theta}=\bm{\theta}^*}.
\end{align}
Taking an exponential of~\eqref{ln pu} we recognise that we have approximated $p_u(\bm{\theta})$ with the probability density function (up to a known normalisation) of a Gaussian random variable with mean $\bm{\theta}^*$ and covariance ${J}^{-1}$, so \eqref{evidence} becomes
\begin{align}\label{Laplace}
\underbrace{p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_i)}_{\text{Evidence}} \approx \underbrace{p(\mathcal{D}|\mathcal{M}_i(\bm{\theta}_i^*))}_{\text{Maximum likelihood}} \times \hspace{.2cm} \underbrace{p(\bm{\theta}_i^*| \mathcal{M}_i)\left(\text{det}({J}/2\pi)\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}}_{\text{Occam factor}}.
\end{align}
This approximation is accurate for a large number of data points $N_p \times N_\tau$ where a Bernstein--von Mises theorem can be shown to hold, guaranteeing asymptotic normality of the posterior measure~\citep{vanderVaart}.
We highlight that a model's evidence is sensitive to the prior distribution on the parameters, $p(\bm{\theta}|\mathcal{M})$. This is entirely in the spirit of Bayesian statistics in that a parametric model accompanied with the prior uncertainty on its parameters constitutes a single, complete hypothesis for explaining observations. The evidence for a model is less when the mass of prior probability on parameters is less concentrated on those values for which the likelihood is largest.
\section{Results}\label{Results}
In this section we provide details on how BMC can be performed for the Brownian and Langevin model and consider data generated by the Langevin model. We derive the likelihood function for each model, discuss prior distributions for parameters, and the practicalities of inference calculations.
Before we compute the Bayes factor for the Langevin and Brownian models $\mathcal{M}_L$ and $\mathcal{M}_B$, we infer the parameters of both models using a range of datasets with varying sampling time, $\tau$, to establish when each model is \textit{sampling-time consistent} -- we say a model is sampling-time consistent when inferred parameter values are stable over a range of $\tau$. We emphasise that sampling-time consistency does not imply a model is good, but is certainly a desirable property when one wishes to use a model for extrapolation, e.g. for unobserved values of $\tau$.
Justifications for the Brownian model apply formally only in the large-time limit; we are, therefore, interested in establishing a minimum timescale for the sampling-time consistency of the Brownian model, and further establishing whether the Langevin model, given that it includes time correlation, is sampling-time consistent on shorter timescales.
Note that in the large-time limit, that is, for $t \gg \gamma^{-1}$, the Langevin dynamics are asymptotically diffusive: for $\gamma \to \infty$, the
Langevin equations \eqref{Langevin} reduce to \citep{Pav}
\begin{align}\label{diffusive_limit}
\text{d}\bm{X} = \sqrt{2k}\, \text{d}\bm{W}.
\end{align}
This fact is important when comparing the models, and we return to it later.
\subsection{Likelihoods}
We can derive explicit expressions for the probability of data of the form of $\Delta \mathcal{X}_{\tau}$ under $\mathcal{M}_B(\kappa)$ and $\mathcal{M}_L(\gamma,k)$ by using their transition probabilities.
The position increments for $\mathcal{M}_B(\kappa)$ satisfy
\begin{align}\label{Brownian_trans}
\bm{X}(t+\tau)-\bm{X}(t)\sim \mathcal{N}\left(0,\,2\kappa\tau \mathbb{I}\right),
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{N}(\mu,\, {C})$ is the $d$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with mean $\mu$ and covariance matrix ${C}$, and $\mathbb{I}$ is the $d \times d$ identity matrix.
Further, distinct increments are independent under $\mathcal{M}_B(\kappa)$.
Therefore, the desired probability is
\begin{align}
p\left(\Delta \mathcal{X}_{\tau}|\mathcal{M}_B(\kappa)\right) = \prod_{p=1}^{N_p}\prod_{n=0}^{N_{\tau}-1}\prod_{i=1}^d\rho_{\mathcal{N}}\left(\Delta X^{(p)}_{n,i};\, 0,\, 2\kappa\tau\right),
\end{align}
where $i$ indexes spatial dimension and $\rho_{\mathcal{N}}(\bm{x};\,\bm{\mu},{C})$ is the probability density at $\bm{x}$ of
the Gaussian distribution $\mathcal{N}(\bm{\mu},\, {C})$.
The corresponding likelihood for the Langevin model is shown in appendix~\ref{Lang_MargLike} to be
\begin{align}\label{Lang_Marg}
p(\Delta \mathcal{X}_{\tau}|\mathcal{M}_L(\gamma, k)) &= \prod_{p=1}^{N_p}\prod_{i=1}^d \rho_{\mathcal{N}}\left((\Delta X_{0,i}^{(p)}, \cdots \Delta X_{N_{\tau}-1,i}^{(p)})^{\mathrm{T}};\,\bm{0} ,\, {S}\right),
\end{align}
where ${S}$ is the symmetric Toeplitz matrix with
\begin{align}
{S}_{ij} = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
2k\tau(1-\varphi(\gamma \tau)) & \text{if $m=0$}\\
k\gamma\tau^2\varphi^2(\gamma\tau)e^{-(m-1)\gamma\tau} & \text{if $m>0$}
\end{array}\right. ,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\varphi(x) = \frac{1-e^{-x}}{x},
\end{align}
and $m=|i-j|$.
\subsection{Prior distributions}\label{priors}
It is necessary, both for parameter and model inference, to specify a prior distribution for each of the parameters, $\kappa$, $\gamma,$ and $k$. For a given flow we can appeal to scaling considerations to assign a prior mean to each parameter, derived from characteristic scales. Once such prior means are prescribed, the maximum entropy principle, along with positivity and independence of the parameters
motivates a choice of corresponding exponential distributions as priors \citep{jaynes_2003,CoverThomas}. That is, for a parameter $\theta>0$ with prior mean $\mu$, the distribution with maximum entropy
is the exponential distribution $\mathrm{Exp}(\lambda)$ with rate $\lambda=1/\mu$.
We use this prescription for our choice of prior.
\subsection{Inference numerics}
The computations we perform for Bayesian parameter inference are: (i) an optimisation procedure to find the posterior mode, $\bm{\theta}^*$, and (ii) a single evaluation of the Hessian of the log-posterior distribution at $\bm{\theta}^*$, $-{J}$ in \eqref{info}, which we can use to estimate the posterior variance by a Gaussian approximation as in~\eqref{ln pu}. We have analytical expressions for the likelihood and prior for both models, so we can easily evaluate the negative log unnormalised posterior, $f(\bm{\theta}) = -\ln p_u(\bm{\theta}|\mathcal{D})$, in each case; we find $\bm{\theta}^*$ by minimising $f(\bm{\theta})$ using the \texttt{SciPy} function \texttt{optimize.minimize()}.
In the case of the Brownian model derivatives of $f(\bm{\theta})$ are easily derived analytically, so we use the \texttt{L-BFGS-B} routine which exploits gradient information and allows for the specification of lower bound constraints to enforce positivity~\citep{L-BFGS-B}.
In the case of the Langevin model calculation of derivatives of the posterior is nontrivial because the likelihood~\eqref{Lang_Marg} is a complicated function. For this reason we use the gradient-free \texttt{Nelder-Mead}~\citep{Nelder-Mead} routine rather than \texttt{L-BFGS-B}. We evaluate ${J}^{-1}$ approximately using a fourth-order central difference approximation for the log-likelihood.
No further computations are required for BMC if the Laplace's method approximation for the evidence in~\eqref{Laplace} is used.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig1a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig1b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig1c.eps}
\caption{Parameter inference for the Brownian and Langevin models as a function of observation interval, $\tau$, for data from the Langevin model in three spatial dimensions. Dashed lines indicate posterior mode estimates, $\theta^*=\kappa$ (top), $\gamma^*$ (middle) and $k^*$ (bottom); shaded areas show $\theta^*\pm \text{SD}(\theta|\Delta\mathcal{X}_{\tau})$. Each inference is made with a fixed volume of data: $N_p=100$ and $N_{\tau}=10$.}
\label{fig:params_Langevin}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig2a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig2b.eps}
\caption{Log Bayes factors, $\ln K_{L,B}$, and corresponding log Occam factors, as a function of $\tau$, given the same data used for figure~\ref{fig:params_Langevin}.}
\label{fig:BMC_Langevin}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Test case: Langevin data}\label{Testcase}
As a test case and to build intuition, we first consider trajectory data generated by the Langevin model with $d=3$. In this case, one of the two candidate models is the true model.
We generate the data by simulating the Langevin SDE~\eqref{Langevin} exactly, drawing initial velocities from the stationary distribution $\bm{U}|\mathcal{M}_L(\gamma, k)\sim\mathcal{N}(\bm{0},\gamma k\mathbb{I})$, and using the transition probabilities~\eqref{Langevin_trans}; velocity data are discarded to construct the dataset of position increments $\Delta\mathcal{X}_{\tau}$.
We set $\gamma = k = 1$, fix $N_p=100$ and $N_{\tau}=10$, and perform Bayesian parameter inference and model comparison with a series of independently generated datasets with $\tau\in[10^{-2},10^2]$. We set fixed priors $\gamma,k,\kappa\sim\text{Exp}(1)$.
Figure~\ref{fig:params_Langevin} shows the results of the parameter inference. Note that both Langevin parameters are well identified until, at sufficiently large $\tau$, the error of the posterior mode estimate of $\gamma$ grows along with the posterior standard deviation of $\gamma$. This is a manifestation of the diffusive limit \eqref{diffusive_limit} of the Langevin dynamics, wherein $\bm{X}(t+\Delta t)-\bm{X}(t)\sim\mathcal{N}(\bm{0}, 2k\Delta t\mathbb{I})$ is independent of $\gamma$. Unsurprisingly, then, $\Delta\mathcal{X}_{\tau}$ is less informative about $\gamma$ when $\tau$ is large.
The diffusivity $\kappa$ of the Brownian model is sampling-time consistent only when $\tau$ is sufficiently large, i.e. in the diffusive limit of the Langevin dynamics, when $\kappa\approx k$. The inaccuracy of posterior mode estimates of $\kappa$ at small $\tau$ is expected as it is known that the inference of diffusivities from discrete trajectory data is sensitive to sampling time~\citep{Cotter_Pavliotis2009}. We note that $\gamma^{-1}=1$ is the decorrelation time for this data so that the timescales at which this limiting behaviour is observed, $\tau\gtrsim 10$, are indeed large.
Note that the posterior mode estimates of $\gamma$ eventually decay to zero as $\tau$ increases; since, as observed, $\Delta\mathcal{X}_{\tau}$ becomes less informative about $\gamma$ with increasing $\tau$, the contribution of the prior information to the posterior becomes dominant over the contribution from the likelihood -- the consequence of this is that the posterior mode tends to the prior mode, which is zero since we take $\gamma\sim\text{Exp}(1)$.
Figure~\ref{fig:BMC_Langevin} shows the log Bayes factors found using Laplace's method for the evidences. We see that for a significant range of $\tau$ the Langevin model is preferred, indicated by large positive values of $\ln K_{L,B}$, but its dominance diminishes as $\tau$ increases until the diffusive limit is reached, at which point values of $|\ln K_{L,B}|< 1$ are typical, indicating insubstantial preference for either model.
Also shown in figure~\ref{fig:BMC_Langevin} are the corresponding log Occam factors. Occam factors for the Brownian model are approximately constant once $\tau$ is sufficiently large, while the Occam factors for the Langevin model increase at large $\tau$ in line with a broadening posterior. This is indicative of decreased sensitivity to choice of parameters, specifically $\gamma$, whose value becomes less critical for explaining dynamics on large timescales.
\section{Application to two-dimensional turbulence}\label{NS2D}
In this section we report an application of BMC to particle trajectories in a
model of stationary, isotropic two-dimensional (2D) turbulence.
\subsection{Forced-dissipative model}
\label{F-D}
We consider a forced--dissipative model of isotropic 2D turbulence in an incompressible fluid governed by the vorticity equation~\citep{Vallis_2017}
\begin{align}\label{baro}
\frac{\partial \zeta}{\partial t} + (\bm{u}\cdot\nabla)\zeta = F + D,
\end{align}
where $\zeta$ is the vertical vorticity and $F$ and $D$ represent forcing and dissipation, respectively. The particular forcing used is an additive homogeneous and isotropic white Gaussian noise concentrated in a specified range of wavenumber centred about a forcing wavenumber, $k_F$. In particular, following~\citet{Scott}, we have that, at each timestep, the Fourier transform of $F$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\text{Re}\left(\hat{F}(\bm{k})\right) \stackrel{d}{=} \text{Im}\left(\hat{F}(\bm{k})\right)\sim \mathcal{N}
\left(0, \frac{A_{F}\mathcal{F}_F(|\bm{k}|)}{2\pi|\bm{k}|}\right),
\end{align}
where $A_F$ is the forcing amplitude, and $\mathcal{F}_F(|\bm{k}|) = 1$ for $\left|\left|\bm{k}\right|-k_F\right|\leq2$ and $\mathcal{F}_F= 0$ otherwise.
Two dissipation mechanisms are included: (i) small-scale dissipation implemented with a scale-selective exponential cut-off filter (see~\cite{ArbicFlierl} for details and justification), and (ii) large-scale friction (aka hypodiffusion), so that total dissipation is given by
\begin{align}
D = A_{\mathrm{lsf}}\psi + \mathrm{ssd},
\end{align}
where ssd denotes the small-scale dissipation.
Equation~\eqref{baro} is solved in a periodic domain, $[0,2\pi]^2$, using a standard pseudospectral solver, at a resolution of $1024\times1024$ gridpoints, with the third-order Adams--Bashforth timestepping scheme. The complete set of flow configuration parameter values for our simulations are given in Table~\ref{tab:flow_params}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
domain $= [0,2\pi]^2$; \quad resolution = 1024 $\times$ 1024 grid points; \quad timestep size $=2.5\times10^{-4}$;\\
$k_F=64$; \quad $A_F=8.9\times10^8$; \quad $A_{\text{lsf}}=1$.
\caption{Flow configuration parameter values for simulations of the 2D turbulence model.}
\label{tab:flow_params}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The model is initialised with a random, Gaussian field with prescribed mean energy spectrum and is run until the total energy,
\begin{align}
E(t) := \frac{1}{2} \int |\bm{u}(\bm{x},t)|^2\, \text{d}x\,\text{d}y,
\end{align}
appears to reach a statistically stationary state; this amounted to a spin-up time of approximately $6800$ eddy turnover times, where the eddy turnover time is estimated by
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\zeta} = 2\pi/\sqrt{Z},
\end{equation}
and $Z$ is the total enstrophy,
\begin{align}
Z := \frac{1}{2} \int \zeta^2\, \text{d}x\,\text{d}y.
\end{align}
Figure~\ref{fig:z} shows a snapshot of the vorticity field at the end of the spin-up process. Enstrophy is concentrated in a population of coherent vortices whose scale is set by the forcing scale, $k_F^{-1}$. Figure~\ref{fig:ke_spec} shows the isotropic energy spectrum calculated at the same instant. A power law of approximately $k^{-2}$ is observed at wavenumbers between the peak wavenumber at $k\approx 6$ and the forcing wavenumber at $k\approx 64$ (indicated with a vertical line). A second power law of approximately $k^{-3.5}$ is seen at wavenumbers between the forcing scale and the dissipation range. Large-scale friction prevents the indefinite accumulation of energy at the largest scales, while continued forcing prevents energy from concentrating exclusively around a peak wavenumber at late times, and, by inputting enstrophy at a moderate scale, sustains a lively population of vortices.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.0in]{figures/Fig3.eps}
\caption{Snapshot of the vorticity field in the forced-dissipative model at stationarity showing $x,y\in[0,2\pi]$ (left) and $x,y\in[0,\pi/2]$ (right).}
\label{fig:z}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{figures/Fig4.eps}
\caption{Snapshot of the isotropic energy spectrum in the forced--dissipative model at stationarity. }
\label{fig:ke_spec}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Particle numerics}
After spin-up, a set of $1000$ passive tracer particles are evolved in the flow of the forced-dissipative model for approximately another $6800$ eddy turnover times; this is done using bilinear interpolation of the velocity field and the fourth-order Runge--Kutta time-stepping scheme. Particles are seeded at initial positions chosen uniformly at random in the domain.
Figure~\ref{fig:traj} shows a subset of the trajectory data generated. Some particles follow highly oscillatory paths, while others do not, depending on whether they are seeded in the interior of a coherent vortex or in the background turbulence.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3in]{figures/Fig5.eps}
\caption{Trajectories of $100$ passive particles advected in the the forced--dissipative model, shown as recorded over a period of $100\tau_{\zeta}$ with a different colour for each trajectory.}
\label{fig:traj}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Diagnostics}
\changes{To illustrate the dynamics that we parameterise with the stochastic models we show two diagnostics commonly used in Lagrangian analyses~\citep{Pasquero, vanSebille}, namely, the Lagrangian velocity autocovariance function (LVAF), defined in the isotropic case as}
\begin{align}
r(\tau) = \langle U^{(p)}(t+\tau) U^{(p)}(t) \rangle,
\end{align}
\changes{where the angled-brackets denote the average over $t$ and particles $p$,
and the absolute diffusivity}
\begin{align}
\kappa_{\mathrm{abs}}(\tau) = \frac{\left\langle\left(\Delta X^{(p)}(\tau)\right)^2\right\rangle}{2\tau}.
\end{align}
\changes{Figure~\ref{fig:r} shows the LVAF as estimated from the simulated particle trajectory data. The corresponding LVAF of the Brownian model is a delta function at zero, since velocity is implicitly represented as a white-noise process, while the LVAF of the Langevin model, which represents particle velocity as an Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process, is}
\begin{align}
r_{\text{OU}}(\tau; \gamma, k) = k\gamma\exp(-\gamma|\tau|).
\end{align}
\changes{In contrast, the estimated LVAF of the forced--dissipative model not only shows finite decorrelation time but is noticeably sub-exponential.}
\changes{Figure~\ref{fig:diff} shows the estimated absolute diffusivity. In line with the asymptotic laws described in~\citet{Taylor} the absolute diffusivity is linear at small $\tau$ and constant at large $\tau$, corresponding to the ballistic and diffusive regimes, respectively. The absolute diffusivity of the Brownian model is constant, while that of the Langevin model is}
\begin{align}
\kappa_{\text{OU}}(\tau) = k\left(1-\varphi(\gamma\tau)\right),
\end{align}
\changes{which is linear at small $\tau$ and constant at large $\tau$.}
\changes{Qualitatively, from comparing these diagnostics with those of the stochastic models it is clear that on sufficiently large times (in the diffusive regime) the Brownian model is valid; in particular, the LVAF is well-approximated by a delta function at large-times, and correspondingly the absolute diffusivity is constant. On timescales shorter than the diffusive regime the LVAF of the observed trajectories may be better approximated by that of the Langevin model; however, the quality of this approximation is in general unclear a priori. It could be tempting to estimate $\gamma$ by fitting the LVAF, using e.g. a least-squares method, but this approach would not correctly deal with uncertainty in parameters.
}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figures/Fig6.eps}
\caption{\changes{LVAF $r(\tau)$ for the forced--dissipative model, as estimated from the full set of $1000$ simulated particle trajectories. The LVAF of the Langevin model $r_{\mathrm{OU}}(\tau)$ is also shown using MAP estimates (discussed below) $\bm{\theta}^*=(\gamma^*, k^*)$ derived from datasets with $\tau = (5, 25, 100) \tau_{\zeta}$, respectively (see figure~\ref{fig:params_NS2D}).}}
\label{fig:r}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figures/Fig7.eps}
\caption{\changes{Absolute diffusivity, $\kappa_{\mathrm{abs}}(\tau)$, for the forced--dissipative model, as estimated from the full set of $1000$ simulated particle trajectories. A MAP estimate $\kappa^*$ is shown, along with two asymptotic laws: $\kappa_{\mathrm{abs}}(\tau)= \mathrm{linear}$ (ballistic regime), and $\kappa_{\mathrm{abs}}(\tau)= \mathrm{const.}$ (diffusive regime).}}
\label{fig:diff}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Parameter inference and BMC}\label{NS2D_inference}
We now apply the parameter inference and BMC procedures demonstrated in the test case of \S\ref{Testcase}. By subsampling the results of our particle simulations we generate datasets with $N_p=1000$, $N_{\tau}=25$, and a set of sampling times $\tau$ in the range $[\tau_{\zeta}, 250\tau_{\zeta}]$.
Prior means for the parameters are derived from $\tau_{\zeta}$ and the root-mean-square velocity $u_{\text{RMS}}=\sqrt{2E}$, where $E$ is the mean energy: as discussed in \S\ref{priors} we take
\begin{subequations}\label{means}
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\kappa] = \mathbb{E}[k] &= u_{\text{RMS}}^2 \tau_{\zeta},\\
\mathbb{E}[\gamma] &= \tau_{\zeta}^{-1},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and use the corresponding exponential distributions as priors.
The results of the parameter inference are shown in figure~\ref{fig:params_NS2D}. The Brownian model is sampling-time consistent for $\tau \gtrsim 150 \tau_{\zeta}$, with a posterior mode that differs by \changes{$40\%$} from the scaling estimate used as prior mean. The long time required for sampling-time consistency is in line with the expected validity of the Brownian model in the long-time limit. \changes{In this limit $\kappa^*$ agrees very well with \citeauthor{Taylor}'s \citeyear{Taylor} theoretical prediction, $\kappa=\int_0^\infty r(\tau)\text{d}\tau$ (see figure~\ref{fig:diff}).}
\changes{The Langevin model is \changes{roughly} sampling-time consistent from much smaller values of $\tau$, say $\tau \gtrsim 50\tau_{\zeta}$. This suggests that there is a range of sampling times, roughly {$50 \tau_{\zeta} \lesssim \tau \lesssim 150 \tau_{\zeta}$}, where the Langevin model is potentially useful but the Brownian model is not. The BMC analysis below sheds further light on this. However, there is noticeable decay in the MAP estimates of $\gamma$ with increasing $\tau$ -- this is likely a reflection of the sub-exponential nature of the true LVAF. In figure~\ref{fig:r} we plot the Langevin LVAF given parameters inferred with data of various $\tau$, where the decay in estimates of $\gamma$ corresponds to a shallowing of the Langevin LVAF. In figure~\ref{fig:diff} we plot the absolute diffusivity of the Langiven model $\kappa_{\text{OU}}$ using the same parameter estimates as in figure~\ref{fig:r}. The absolute diffusivity is best approximated at a timescale matching the sampling time of the data.} The posterior mode of $\gamma$, when roughly stable, is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the scaling estimate in \eqref{means}, indicating that particle dynamics decorrelate slower than might be predicted by a naive dimensional analysis based on the enstrophy alone. In particular, the inferred value of $\gamma$ corresponds to a decorrelation time of about $8$ eddy turnover times. As in the test case of \S\ref{Testcase} the posterior standard deviation of $\gamma$ grows with $\tau$ as the diffusive limit is reached and the particle dynamics become insensitive to $\gamma$. It is interesting to note that the Langevin diffusivity $k$ is estimated consistently for sampling times much shorter than those required to estimate the Brownian diffusivity $\kappa$ even though their values are identical when the Brownian model represents the dispersion well. This suggests that carrying out Bayesian inference of the Langevin model might provide a means to estimate the Brownian diffusivity when data is not available over the long, diffusive time scales that are required a priori. \changes{This may generalise to other flows only when the Langevin model is a reasonable approximation -- inference of $k$ is unlikely to be sampling time consistent if inference of $\gamma$ is not, for example, due to the LVAF of the flow of interest being very far from exponential.} We emphasise that the inference results just described are largely insensitive to specification of the prior.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig8a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig8b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig8c.eps}
\caption{Parameter inference for the Brownian and Langevin models as a function of observation interval, $\tau$, for data from the two-dimensional turbulence model. Dashed lines indicate posterior mode estimates, $\theta^*$, normalised with respect to prior means, and shaded areas are $\theta^*\pm \text{SD}(\theta|\Delta\mathcal{X}_{\tau})$. Each inference is made with a fixed volume of data: $N_p=1000$ and $N_{\tau}=25$.}
\label{fig:params_NS2D}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig9a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/Fig9b.eps}
\caption{Log Bayes factors, $\ln K_{L,B}$, and corresponding log Occam factors, as a function of $\tau$, given the same data used for figure~\ref{fig:params_NS2D}.}
\label{fig:BMC_NS2D}
\end{figure}
The results of the BMC for the turbulence model data are shown in figure~\ref{fig:BMC_NS2D}. The picture is similar to that in the test case of \S\ref{Testcase}, in that the Bayes factor favours the Langevin model for shorter timescales, but with diminishing strength as $\tau$ is increased, until, at timescales corresponding to convergence of the Brownian diffusivity, the value of the log Bayes factor becomes small enough that the two models cannot be meaningfully discriminated.
Also shown in figure~\ref{fig:BMC_NS2D} are the corresponding log Occam factors. For $\tau$ large enough that the Brownian model is sampling-time consistent, its Occam factor is approximately constant and larger than that of the Langevin model. As in the test case in \S\ref{Testcase}, the Occam factor for the Langevin model increases towards that of the Brownian model at large $\tau$ when the particle dynamics are sufficiently decorrelated that the likelihood is less sensitive to the value of $\gamma$, \changes{albeit more slowly, owing to the more slowly decaying LVAF of the turbulent dynamics}. The difference in log Occam factors is much smaller than the difference in the corresponding maximum log-likelihoods for all but the largest values of $\tau$, which explains why the Bayes factor mainly favours the Langevin model.
In summary, these results indicate that while the Brownian model is adequate on sufficiently large timescales($\tau\gtrsim150\tau_{\zeta}$), the Langevin model can explain better the dynamics of tracer particles in the turbulence model of \S\ref{F-D} on shorter timescales ($50\tau_{\zeta}\lesssim\tau\lesssim150\tau_{\zeta}$). On time scales $\tau\gtrsim150\tau_{\zeta}$ the two models are indistinguishable in their performance, so that in this regime the Brownian model should be favoured in practice as a more parsimonious description.
\section{Conclusions}\label{Conclusions}
We have demonstrated the application of BMC to a problem of interest in fluid dynamics, and shown that we can compare the performance of competing stochastic models of particle dynamics given discrete trajectory data alone while accounting for parameter uncertainty. In particular, we found that the Langevin model is preferred over the Brownian model for describing particle dynamics in a model of two-dimensional turbulence on a range of timescales, but that on sufficiently large timescales the two models perform equally well.
The broad conclusion of the BMC, then, is that the additional complexity of the Langevin model, associated with the presence of an additional parameter, is justified: its better capability to explain the data, as quantified by the maximum likelihood, overwhelms the penalty for complexity quantified by the Occam factor. We stress, however, that this conclusion does not take into account the computational cost involved if the models are used for predictions.
The application of the BMC method to other problems is limited by the feasibility of the calculation of the model evidence. Specifically, BMC inherits the usual challenges of Bayesian and likelihood-based inference procedures, namely that the likelihood can be intractable or expensive to compute for complex models -- the Brownian and Langevin models considered here, as linear stochastic differential equations, are very simple examples whose likelihoods could be computed analytically -- alternative models which are nonlinear, have higher dimension, or have more complicated correlation structure will likely have intractable likelihoods.
For example, for spatially inhomogeneous flows, such as in the atmosphere or oceans, nonlinear models arise with spatially-varying (and hence high-dimensional) parameters.
Fortunately, the collection of methods referred to as approximate Bayesian computation have been developed to deal with this problem. For example,~\cite{Carson} used the SMC$^2$ (`sequential Monte Carlo squared') algorithm to compare SDE models of glacial--interglacial cycles with intractable likelihoods.
There is the further issue of performing the integration required to obtain the evidence as in~\eqref{evidence}. When the posterior is sufficiently Gaussian-like, i.e. peaked around a single mode, Laplace's method can be very accurate~\citep{KassRaftery} as well as cheap, however, this requires (at least an approximation to) the Hessian of the log-posterior at its mode. \changes{Aside from Laplace's method, \citet{Krog2017} and \citet{Thapa2018} have implemented the nested sampling algorithm of Skilling~\citep{Skilling} to calculate the evidence in similar analyses}, while the line of work by~\cite{hannart2016dada},~\cite{carrassi2017estimating} and~\cite{metref2019estimating} has sought to perform model evidence estimation using ensemble-based data assimilation methods originally designed for state estimation in the context of incomplete, noisy observations of high-dimensional dynamical systems.
While BMC inevitably comes with computational challenges in complex problems, there are many cases where it can feasibly be applied, and, where it cannot, it should serve as a useful theoretical starting point, with alternative methods measured by how well their conclusions agree with those of BMC.
\small{
\vspace{0.5em} \noindent \textbf{Funding.} M.B. was supported by the MAC-MIGS Centre for Doctoral Training under EPSRC grant EP/S023291/1.
J.V. was supported by the EPSRC Programme Grant EP/R045046/1: Probing Multiscale Complex Multiphase Flows with Positrons for Engineering and Biomedical Applications (PI: Prof. M. Barigou, University of Birmingham).
\vspace{0.5em} \noindent \textbf{Declaration of interests.} The authors report no conflict of interest.
\vspace{0.5em} \noindent \textbf{Data availability statement.} The code required to reproduce the results herein is available at \href{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5820320}{doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5820320} and the trajectory data generated with the 2D turbulence model is available at \href{https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/3267}{doi.org/10.7488/ds/3267}.
}
|
\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
{-18\p@ \@plus -4\p@ \@minus -4\p@}%
{4\p@ \@plus 2\p@ \@minus 2\p@}%
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries\boldmath
\rightskip=\z@ \@plus 8em\pretolerance=10000 }}
\makeatletter
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{\arg\!\max}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
{\clr \title{Singular distribution functions for random\\ variables with stationary digits}}
\authorone[Aalborg University]{Horia Cornean}
\authortwo[University of Virginia]{Ira W. Herbst}
\authorone[Aalborg University]{Jesper M{\O}ller}
\authorone[Aalborg University]{Benjamin B. St{\O}ttrup}
\authorone[Aalborg University]{Kasper S. S{\O}rensen}
\addressone{Department of Mathematical Sciences, Aalborg University, Skjernvej 4A, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark}
\addresstwo{Department of Mathematics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA}
\begin{abstract}
Let $F$ be the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the base-$q$ expansion $\sum_{n=1}^\infty X_n q^{-n}$, where $q\ge2$ is an integer and $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a stationary stochastic process with state space $\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$.
In a previous paper we characterized the absolutely continuous and the discrete components of $F$. In this paper we study special cases of models, including
stationary Markov chains of any order and stationary renewal point processes, where we establish a law of pure types: $F$ is then either a uniform or a singular CDF on $[0,1]$. Moreover, we study
mixtures of such models. In most cases expressions and plots of $F$ {\clr are given}.
\end{abstract}
\keywords{Bernoulli scheme; Cantor function; digit expansions of random variables in different bases;
Ising model; law of pure types;
Markov chain; mixture distribution; Poisson process; renewal process; Riesz-Nagy function.}
\ams{60G10; 60G30}{60G55; 60J10; 60K05}
\section{Introduction}\label{s:intro}
A function $F\colon \mathbb{R}\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ for which $F'=0$ Lebesgue almost everywhere on $\mathbb{R}$ is called \emph{singular} (that is, $F'(x)$ exists and is 0 for all $x\in \mathbb{R}\setminus N$ where $N$ is a Lebesgue nullset). For a detailed account of the early history of singular functions, see \cite{Paradis2011}, \cite{Amo2012}, and the references therein. The first and most well-known example of a singular function is the Cantor function \cite{Cantor1884,DOVGOSHEY2006}. Other well-known examples include Minkowski's question-mark function~\cite{Minkowski1904,Denjoy1932,Denjoy1934} and the Riesz-Nagy functions~\cite{Riesz1955}. The latter functions have been treated numerous times in the literature, also before their appearance in \cite{Riesz1955},
see e.g.\ \cite{Salem1943}, \cite{Takacs1978}, and \cite{Paradis2007}.
In more recent times many new constructions of singular functions and generalizations of the well-known examples listed above have appeared in the literature~\cite{Paradis2007,Paradis2011,Amo2012,Okamoto2007,Kairies1997,Wen1998,Sanchez2012,Sanchez2014,Sanchez2016}.
In a probabilistic setting singular functions are often constructed as follows~\cite{Billingsley1995,Harris1955,Dym1968} (an exception is the paper~\cite{Wen1998}). Let $q\geq 2$ be an integer and $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ a stochastic process with state space $\{0,\dots,q-1\}$. Define a stochastic variable $X$ on $[0,1]$ by the following base-$q$ expansion with digits $X_1,X_2,\ldots$:
\begin{equation*}
X\coloneqq (0.X_1 X_2\dots )_q\coloneqq\sum_{n=1}^\infty X_n q^{-n}.
\end{equation*}
Throughout this paper,
\[
F(x)\coloneqq\mathrm{P}(X\leq x), \qquad x\in \mathbb{R},
\]
is the CDF
of $X$. This is a monotone function, so $F'$ exists almost everywhere and as we shall see in many cases
$F$ is singular.
The simplest situation is to assume that $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a Bernoulli scheme, i.e., the $X_n$'s are independent and identically distributed (IID). Then, for $q=2$ and $p\coloneqq\mathrm{P}(X_n=0)$, $F$ is a Riesz-Nagy function \cite{Billingsley1995,Takacs1978}, which is the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ if $p=\tfrac12$, singular continuous if $p\not\in\{0,\tfrac12,1\}$, and concentrated at 0 or 1 if $p=0$ or $p=1$, respectively.
If instead $q=3$, $\mathrm{P}(X_n=1)=0$, and $\mathrm{P}(X_n=0)=\mathrm{P}(X_n=2)=\tfrac12$, then $F$ is the Cantor function \cite{Billingsley1995}.
\subsection{Stationary digits}\label{s:setting}
In \cite{part1} we considered the case where $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is \emph{stationary}, i.e., $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ and $\{X_n\}_{n\ge2}$ are identically distributed. For short \emph{stationarity} refers to this setting. Below we summarize some characterisation results for stationarity which motivate the objective of the present paper.
For this we
recall that for any $x\in[0,1]$, there exists a sequence $\{x_n\}_{n\ge1} \subseteq \{0,\dots,q-1\}$ such that $x$ is given by the base-$q$ expansion $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q$. This expansion is unique except when $x$ is a \emph{base-$q$ fraction} (in $(0,1)$), i.e., when there exist $n\in\mathbb N$ and $x_1,\dots,x_n\in \{0,\dots,q-1\}$ such that $x_n>0$ and $x=(0.x_1\dots x_n00\dots)_q$.
This ambiguity
plays no role when $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is stationary, since then $X$ is almost surely not a base-$q$ fraction (see also Remark~2.2).
Theorem~1 in \cite{part1} established that stationarity
is equivalent to that for all base-$q$ fractions $x\in(0,1)$, the functional equation
\begin{equation}\label{e:3}
F(x) = F(0)+\sum_{j=0}^{q-1} [F((x+j)/q)-F(j/q)]
\end{equation}
is satisfied.
Theorem~3 in \cite{part1} showed that stationarity is equivalent to that
$F$ is a mixture of three CDFs $F_1,F_2,F_3$ whose corresponding probability distributions are mutually singular measures concentrated on $[0,1]$ and so that $F_1,F_2,F_3$ satisfy
the following statements {\rm (I)-(III)}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (I)}]
$F_1$ is the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$, that is, $F_1(x)=x$ for $x\in[0,1]$.
\item[{\rm (II)}] $F_2$ is a mixture
of an at most countable number of CDFs of the form
\begin{align}\label{e:F2type}
F_{s_1,\ldots,s_k}(x)\coloneqq\frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=1}^{k} H(x-s_j),\qquad x\in\mathbb R,
\end{align}
where $H$ denotes the Heaviside function, $s_1,\dots,s_k\in [0,1]$ are pairwise distinct numbers such that $qs_{j+1}-s_j\in\{0,\dots,q-1\}$ for $j=1,\dots,k$, and $s_{k+1}\coloneqq s_1$.
\item[{\rm (III)}]
$F_3$ is singular continuous and satisfies \eqref{e:3}.
\end{enumerate}
It is easily verified that $F=F_1$
if and only if the $X_n$'s are IID and uniformly distributed on $\{0,\dots,q-1\}$. Note that
the discrete part $F_2$ is highly constrained as $F_{s_1,\dots,s_k}$ in \eqref{e:F2type} can be obtained from
a $(k-1)$'th order Markov chain which
effectively corresponds to a uniform distribution on a state space consisting of $k$ states, cf.\ Corollary~2.1 in \cite{part1}. So the non-trivial part above is (III), and
in many interesting cases of stationary stochastic processes $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$, as we shall see, $F=F_3$.
\subsection{Our contribution}
The main interest in the present paper is to study the properties of $F$ under various classes of stationary models for $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$, and in particular to
establish a better understanding of
singular continuous CDFs which satisfy \eqref{e:3}.
Figure~1 shows plots of $F$ to illustrate how different it can look depending on which parameter values we choose for different parametric models of $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$
(Examples~\ref{ex:3}, \ref{ex:symmetry}, \ref{ex:6}, \ref{ex:4}, and \ref{ex:MCbeta} below, where it is explained which curves correspond to which parameter choices for the models).
For all cases of $F$ in Figure~1, $F$ is strictly increasing on $[0,1]$ and apart from
the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ (the straight line in (a)), $F$ is singular continuous on $[0,1]$.
\thisfloatsetup{subfloatrowsep=myfill,captionskip=0pt,rowpostcode =largevskip}%
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\ffigbox[\textwidth]{%
\begin{subfloatrow}[2]%
\ffigbox[0.45\textwidth]{\caption{}\label{fig:a}}{%
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{cdf_takacs.pdf}}
\ffigbox[0.45\textwidth]{ \caption{}\label{fig:b}}{%
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{markov_special_case.pdf}}
\end{subfloatrow}
\begin{subfloatrow}[2]%
\ffigbox[0.45\textwidth]{\caption{}\label{fig:c}}{%
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{cdf_renewal.pdf}}
\ffigbox[0.45\textwidth]{ \caption{}\label{fig:d}}{%
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{cdf_beta_takacs.pdf}}
\end{subfloatrow}
\renewlengthtocommand\settowidth\Mylen{\subfloatrowsep}\vskip\Mylen
\TopFloatBoxes\floatsetup[subfigure]{heightadjust=none}
\begin{subfloatrow*}
\ffigbox[0.45\textwidth][][t]{\subcaption{}}{\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{cdf_beta_markov.pdf}}
\ffigbox[0.45\textwidth][][t]{}{\RawCaption{\caption{Plots of $F$ (restricted to $[0,1]$) when $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ is either (a) a stationary Poisson process (Example~\ref{ex:3}),
(b) an Ising model (Example~\ref{ex:symmetry}),
(c) a renewal point processes (Example~\ref{ex:6}),
(d) a mixed Poisson process (Example~\ref{ex:4}),
or (e) a mixed
Markov chain (Example~\ref{ex:MCbeta}).
The curves in (a)--(e) depend on the choice of parameter values as detailed in Examples~\ref{ex:3}, \ref{ex:symmetry}, \ref{ex:6}, \ref{ex:4}, and \ref{ex:MCbeta}. The axes run from 0 to 1.}\label{...}}}
\end{subfloatrow*}
}{}
\end{figure}
Our paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{s:main results1} establishes in a general setting a useful expression of $F$ in terms of the finite dimensional distributions of $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$. Further, assuming stationarity we provide sufficient and necessary conditions for the finite dimensional distributions in order to ensure either continuity of $F$ or that $F$ is strictly increasing at a point in $[0,1]$,
and we give useful results for the derivative of $F$. Then we turn to our main results for general model classes and study various examples: Section~\ref{s:MC-general} considers when
$\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a stationary Markov chain of some fixed order, where we show a law of pure type: either $F=F_1$ or $F$ is singular. Moreover, Section~\ref{s:MC-general} establishes sufficient conditions for continuity of $F$. These results together with those in Section~\ref{s:main results1} for monotonicity of $F$ and the expression of $F$ are exemplified for Bernoulli schemes (chains of order 0, i.e., when the $X_n$ are IID) and for binary Markov chains of order 1.
We also
show that any singular continuous CDF can be approximated
by the CDF for a base-$q$ expansion with digits given by a stationary Markov chain of a sufficiently high order.
Section~\ref{s:renewal-general} considers when $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is binary and $\{n\mid X_n=1\}$ constitutes
a stationary renewal process, where we establish similar results for $F$ as in Section~\ref{s:MC-general} and consider an example where $\{n\mid X_n=1\}$ is a determinantal point process.
Section~\ref{s:mixture-general} deals with mixture models, in particular mixtures of stationary Markov chain of the same order and mixtures of stationary renewal processes, where we specify continuity and monotonicity conditions for $F$, consider its derivative $F'$, and study various concrete cases by expanding the examples of Sections~\ref{s:MC-general} and \ref{s:renewal-general}. Section~\ref{s:conclusion} summaries our findings in the previous sections and discusses some open problems. Finally, Appendix~A.1-A.11 contain the proofs of results in Sections~\ref{s:main results1}--\ref{s:mixture-general} together with some related technical results.
\section{Characterization of $F$ in terms of finite dimensional probabilities}\label{s:main results1}
We use the following terminology and notation.
Define finite dimensional distributions of $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{e:pdef}
p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\coloneqq\mathrm{P}(X_1=x_1,\dots,X_n=x_n),\quad n\in\mathbb N,\ x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}.
\end{equation}
Denote the set of base-$q$ fractions in $(0,1)$ by $\mathbb Q_q$.
If $x=(0.x_1\ldots x_n00\ldots)_q\in\mathbb Q_q$ with $x_n>0$, we also have $x=(0.x_1\dots,x_{n-1}(x_n-1)(q-1)(q-1)\ldots)_q$ and we refer to $n$ as the \emph{order of $x$}, to $(0.x_1\dots x_n 00\ldots)_q$ as the \emph{terminating expansion of $x$}, and to $(0.x_1\ldots x_{n-1}(x_n-1)(q-1)(q-1)\dots)_q$ as the \emph{non-terminating expansion of $x$}.
If $q=2$ and $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_2\in[0,1]$, define the corresponding \emph{point configuration} to $x$ by $y=\{n\in\mathbb N\,|\,x_n=1\}$ and the corresponding \emph{point process} to $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ by
\[Y\coloneqq\{n\in\mathbb N\,|\,X_n=1\}.\]
Note that $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ is determined by $Y$, since $X_n=1_Y(n)$. Furthermore, if $q=2$ and $n\in\mathbb N$, define $y_0\coloneqq\emptyset$, $Y_0\coloneqq\emptyset$, $y_n\coloneqq y\cap\{1,\ldots,n\}$, and
$Y_n\coloneqq Y\cap\{1,\ldots,n\}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{t:useful}
For any $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]$, where the non-terminating expansion is chosen if $x\in\mathbb Q_q$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:F-id1}
F(x)=
\sum_{n\ge1:\,x_n\ge1}\sum_{k=0}^{x_n-1}p(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},k) + \mathrm{P}(X=x)
\end{equation}
(with $p(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},k)=p(k)$ if $n=1$).
If in addition $q=2$ and $y$ is the point configuration corresponding to $x$,
then
\begin{equation}\label{e:F-id}
F(x)=
\sum_{n\in y}\mathrm P(Y_{n-1}=y_{n-1},\, n\not\in Y) + \mathrm{P}(X=x).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:useful}
In contrast to other results in this paper, we do not assume stationarity in Proposition~\ref{t:useful}. If $x\in\mathbb Q_q$ and we consider its terminating expansion, then \eqref{e:F-id1}--\eqref{e:F-id} also hold provided we replace $\mathrm{P}(X=x)$ by $\mathrm{P}(X_1=x_1,\dots X_n=x_n,X_{n+1}=X_{n+2}=\dots=0)$. This follows by similar arguments as in Appendix~A.1.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:useful:cont}
Suppose that $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is stationary and $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in [0,1]$.
Then $F$ is continuous at $x$ if and only if $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:useful:derivative}
Suppose that $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is stationary. Then, for Lebesgue almost all $x\in[0,1]$, $F'(x)$ exists and equals a constant $c\in[0,1]$. Additionally, assume
that $F$ is differentiable at $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]\setminus\mathbb Q_q$. Then, for any $m\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$ and $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m\in \{0,\dots,q-1\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:F'}
F'(x)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}q^{n+m}p(x_1,\ldots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m),
\end{equation}
where for $m=0$ we replace $q^{n+m}p(x_1,\ldots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)$ by $q^np(x_1,\dots,x_n)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:fractions}
For Propositions~\ref{prop:useful:cont}--\ref{prop:useful:derivative} it should be noticed that $\mathbb Q_q$ is countable and stationarity implies that $F$ is continuous at any base-$q$ fraction (Theorem~1 in \cite{part1}) and so $X\not\in\mathbb Q_q$ almost surely. In statistical terms,
\eqref{e:F'} with $m=0$ shows that $c$ may be interpreted as the limit of the likelihood ratio given by the probability of observing $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ under the stochastic model of $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$
versus under the IID case of $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ with a uniform distribution on $\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:useful:derivatives}
Suppose that $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is stationary and $F$ is differentiable at $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in(0,1)\setminus\mathbb Q_q$ such that $F'(x)>0$.
Then, for any $m\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$ and $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m\in \{0,\dots,q-1\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:F'2}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)}{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m-1})}=q^{-1},
\end{equation}
where in the case $m=1$ we replace $p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m-1})$ with $p(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ and in the case $m=0$ we replace $\frac{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)}{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m-1})}$ with $\frac{p(x_1,\dots,x_n)}{p(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
Corollary~\ref{cor:useful:derivatives} becomes useful in Sections~\ref{s:MC-general} and \ref{s:renewal-general}
when considering Markov chains and renewal processes, since the left hand side in \eqref{e:F'2} then depends only on $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m$.
In statistical terms and considering $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ as data, \eqref{e:F'2} shows that for fixed $m\ge1$ and $n$ tending to infinity the predictive distribution of $X_{n+1},\ldots,X_{n+m}$ corresponds asymptotically to $m$ independent uniformly distributed random variables on $\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$.
\end{remark}
The next proposition relates monotonicity properties of $F$ to the finite dimensional probabilities, where for any $x\in[0,1]$, we say that {\em $F$ is strictly increasing at $x$} if $F(s)<F(t)$ whenever $s<x<t$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:useful:increasing}
Suppose that $\{X_n\}_{n\geq1}$ is stationary and $x\in[0,1]$.
Then $F$ is
strictly increasing at $x$ if and only if for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$,
\begin{itemize}
\item if $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\not\in\mathbb Q_q$, then
\[
p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)
>0,
\]
\item if $x=(0.x_1\dots x_m 0 0 \dots)_q\in\mathbb Q_q$ is of order $m$, then
\[
p(x_1,\ldots,x_m,\underbrace{0,\dots,0}_{n \textup{ zeros}})+p(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1},x_m-1,\underbrace{q-1,\dots,q-1}_{n \textup{ } (q-1)\textup{'s}})>0.
\]
\end{itemize}
In particular, $F$ is
strictly increasing on $[0,1]$ if $p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)>0$ for all $n\in\mathbb N$ and all $x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$.
\end{proposition}
In Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:increasing}, we can of course in all places replace `for all $n\in\mathbb N$' by `for all integers $n>n_0$, where $n_0>0$ is arbitrary'.
\section{Markov chains}\label{s:MC-general}
For $m\in\mathbb N$, we say that $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a Markov chain of order $m-1$ if the $X_n$'s are independent when $m=1$, and $X_{n}$ conditioned on $X_1,\ldots,X_{n-1}$ depends only on $X_{n-m+1},\ldots,X_{n-1}$ whenever $n\geq m>1$.
Assuming also stationarity, the finite dimensional distributions of $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ are determined by initial probabilities
$$\pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})=\mathrm P(X_1=x_1,...,X_{m-1}=x_{m-1})$$ if $m>1$ (and nothing if $m=1$) and transition probabilities
$$\pi_{x_1,\ldots,x_{m}}=\mathrm P(X_m=x_m\,|\,X_1=x_1,...,X_{m-1}=x_{m-1})$$
(with $\mathrm P(X_m=x_m\,|\,X_1=x_1,...,X_{m-1}=x_{m-1})=\mathrm P(X_1=x_1)$ if $m=1$)
satisfying the following obvious conditions (using the same notation $\pi$ for initial and transition probabilities becomes convenient in Section~\ref{s:mixture-general}, but notice that we use subscripts when considering transition probabilities). For all $x_1,\ldots,x_{m}\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$, we require
\begin{itemize}
\item for $m=1$: $\pi_{x_1}\ge0$ and
$\sum_{j=0}^{q-1}\pi_{j}=1$;
\item for $m>1$ and $\pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})\ge0$: $\sum_{j_1=0}^{q-1}\cdots\sum_{j_m=0}^{q-1}\pi(j_1,\ldots,j_{m-1})=1$, $\pi_{x_1,\ldots,x_{m}}\ge0$, and $\sum_{j=0}^{q-1}\pi_{x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1},j}=1$;
\item for $m>1$: the initial distribution should be invariant, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{e:equil}
\sum_{j=0}^{q-1}\pi(j,x_2,\ldots,x_{m-1})\pi_{j,x_2,\ldots,x_m}=\pi(x_2,\ldots,x_{m}),
\end{equation}
where $\pi(j,x_2,\ldots,x_{m-1})$ is replaced by $\pi(j)$ if $m=2$.
\end{itemize}
The conditions ensure that
the finite dimensional probabilities $p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ can be defined for $n\le m-1$ from $\pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})$, using its marginal distributions if $n<m-1$. Furthermore, for $n\ge m$,
in accordance to the Markov property, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:Markovfinitedimdist}
p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=\pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})\prod_{j=m}^n \pi_{x_{j-m+1},\ldots,x_j},
\end{equation}
where $\pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})\coloneqq1$ if $m=1$. Finally, \eqref{e:equil} is needed because we assume stationarity.
\begin{theorem}
\label{prop:markov_singular}
Suppose that $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ is a stationary Markov chain of an arbitrary order $m-1$. Then either $F$ is the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ or
$F$ is singular. Moreover, $F$ is continuous if $\pi_{x_1,\ldots,x_m}<1$ for all $x_1,\ldots,x_m\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Some comments to Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular} are in order. The theorem establishes a law of pure type, cf.\ the discussion at the beginning of Section~\ref{s:order 0}. If $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a stationary Markov chain $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ and $F$ is singular,
a natural question is if $F$ can be a mixture of $F_2$ and $F_3$ (in the notation of Section~\ref{s:setting}). This is indeed the case. For instance, take $q=3$, $m=2$, $\pi(0)=\pi(1)=\pi(2)=1/3$, and
\[\begin{bmatrix*}[c]
\pi_{0,0} & \pi_{0,1}& \pi_{0,2}\\
\pi_{1,0} & \pi_{1,1}& \pi_{1,2}\\
\pi_{2,0} & \pi_{2,1}& \pi_{2,2}
\end{bmatrix*}=\begin{bmatrix*}[r]
1/2 &0& 1/2 \\0& 1 & 0 \\ 1/2 & 0 & 1/2
\end{bmatrix*}.\]
Then $F=\tfrac13 F_2 + \tfrac23 F_3$ where $F_2(x)=H(x-\tfrac12)$ and $F_3$ is the Cantor function. Furthermore, a natural question is if
the last condition in Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular} is a necessary condition. Indeed this is not the case. For example, let
$q=m=2$, $\pi(0)=\tfrac23$, $\pi(1)=\tfrac13$, and
\[\begin{bmatrix*}[c]
\pi_{0,0} & \pi_{0,1}\\
\pi_{1,0} & \pi_{1,1}
\end{bmatrix*}=\begin{bmatrix*}[r]
1/2 & 1/2 \\ 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix*}.\]
Then $F$ is continuous, cf.\ Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:cont}.
\end{remark}
The next proposition shows that any singular continuous CDF which satisfies the stationarity condition \eqref{e:3} can be approximated in the uniform norm by the CDF for the random variable on $[0,1]$ with digits given by a stationary Markov chain of sufficiently high order and defined in a natural way.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-horiac}
Assume $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ is stationary and $F$ is singular continuous.
For $m=1,2,\ldots$, let $\{X_n^{(m)}\}_{n\ge1}$ be the stationary Markov chain of order $m-1$ which is obtained
when $(X_1,\ldots,X_m)$ and $(X_1^{(m)},\ldots,X_m^{(m)})$ are identically distributed and a construction of the finite dimensional probabilities as in \eqref{e:Markovfinitedimdist} is used.
Let $F^{(m)}$ be the CDF of $(0.X_1^{(m)}X_2^{(m)}\ldots)_q$.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{e:F3approx}
\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{x\in [0,1]}|F(x)-F^{(m)}(x)|= 0.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
Combining Proposition~\ref{prop-horiac} with the characterization results of stationarity from \cite{part1} (see Section~\ref{s:setting}) gives immediately the following result.
\begin{corollary}
If $F$ satisfies \eqref{e:3}, then it can be approximated in the uniform norm by a countable mixture of CDF's coming from stationary Markov chains (possibly of different orders).
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Bernoulli schemes}\label{s:order 0}
Assume that $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ are IID (a stationary 0'th order Markov chain or a Bernoulli scheme) with distribution $(\pi_0,\ldots,\pi_{q-1})$. Seemingly this simple case is the most treated case in the literature on singular functions, and we discuss it
since various results easily follow from
our general results above. Although it is a
well-studied case in probability theory, see e.g.\ Example 31.1 in \cite{Billingsley1995}, the authors in \cite{Okamoto2007} and \cite{Kyeonghee} do not acknowledge the simple probabilistic nature of the functions/CDFs they construct (namely that they are just considered the case of a Bernoulli scheme).
By Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular}, $F$ is either the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ (the case $\pi_0=\ldots=\pi_{q-1}=1/q$) or a singular CDF on
$[0,1]$. This law of pure type is a well-known result due to Jessen and Wintner \cite{Jessen},
which states that any convergent infinite convolution of discrete measures is either singular or absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure. On the other hand, Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular} gives a law of pure type for the case of Markov chains of any order.
Moreover, $F$ possesses the following properties.
For any $i\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$, $F(x)=H(x-i/(q-1))$ if $\pi_i=1$. So suppose that $\pi_i<1$, $i=0,\ldots,q-1$.
Defining $0^0\coloneqq1$ and if $n_i(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ is the number of times $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are equal to $i$ (with $n_i(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},k)=n_i(k)$ if $n=1$), then for every $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]$,
\[p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\pi_i^{n_i(x_1,\ldots,x_n)}\]
and
\begin{equation}\label{e:FIID}
F(x)=
\sum_{n\ge1:\,x_n\ge1}\sum_{k=0}^{x_n-1}\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\pi_i^{n_i(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},k)},
\end{equation}
cf.\ Proposition~\ref{t:useful}. Thus $F$ is continuous, cf. Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular},
and
$F$ is strictly increasing at $x\in[0,1]$ if and only if
$\pi_{x_j}>0$ for every digit $x_j$ which appears in a base-$q$ expansion of $x$ (i.e., one of the two base-$q$ expansions of $x$ if $x\in\mathbb Q_q$), cf.\ Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:increasing}.
\begin{example}[Riesz-Nagy functions]\label{ex:3}
Consider the dyadic case $q=2$. Then
we call $Y$ (as defined at the beginning of Section~\ref{s:main results1}) a stationary Poisson process (conditioned on having no multiple points).
Writing $\pi_{1}=\pi$, let us assume $0<\pi<1$ and set $\alpha\coloneqq\pi/(1-\pi)$.
For any $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_2\in[0,1]$ and corresponding point configuration $y$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:F-special1}
F(x)=\sum_{n\in y}\pi^{\# y_{n-1}}(1-\pi)^{n-\# y_{n-1}}=\sum_{n\in y}\frac{\alpha^{\# y_{n-1}}}{(1+\alpha)^n},
\end{equation}
cf.\ \eqref{e:F-id}.
This CDF is called a Riesz-Nagy function, though it was already introduced in \cite{Cesaro1906} (without use of functional equations or probabilistic constructions).
The expression \eqref{e:F-special1} was also established in
\cite{Rham1956} but as the solution to a certain functional equation for a bounded function, and in
\cite{Takacs1978} as the explicit form for the geometric construction in \cite{Salem1943} and \cite{Riesz1955} (see also
\cite{Kairies1997} and
the neat probabilistic exposition in Example 31.1 in \cite{Billingsley1995}).
Note that $F$ is strictly increasing on $[0,1]$, it is the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ if $\pi=\frac12$, and it is singular continuous otherwise. Denoting $F$ in \eqref{e:F-special1} by $F_\pi$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:qqqqqqqq}
F_\pi(x)+F_{1-\pi}(1-x)=1,
\end{equation}
since $1-X=\sum_{k=1}^\infty (1-X_k)2^{-k}$ follows $F_{1-\pi}$.
Figure~1(a) shows plots of $F_\pi$ for $\pi=0.1,0.2,\dots$, 0.9 (from the top to the bottom).
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Cantor function and related cases]\label{ex:cantor}
Consider the triadic case $q=3$ and
suppose that $0<\pi_0<1$ and $\pi_1=0$. Then the distribution of $X$ is concentrated on the Cantor set
\[C=\{(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_3\,|\,x_1,x_2,\ldots\in\{0,2\}\}=[0,1]\setminus\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty\bigcup_{k=1}^{2^{n-1}}I_{k,n}, \]
where each $I_{k,n}$ is one of the $2^{n-1}$ intervals of the form $(a_k+ 1/3^n, a_k + 2/3^n)$, where $a_k = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i 3^{-i}$ and $x_i$ is either $0$ or $2$. For any $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_3\in[0,1]$, setting $\gamma\coloneqq\pi_0/(1-\pi_0)$ and $n_x\coloneqq\inf\{n\in\mathbb N\,|\,x_n=1\}$ with $\inf\emptyset\coloneqq\infty$,
we obtain from \eqref{e:F-id1} and a straightforward calculation
that
\begin{align*}
F(x)=\sum_{1\le n< n_x:\,x_n=2}\frac{\gamma^{n_0(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})+1}}{(1+\gamma)^{n}}
+
\begin{cases}
\frac{\gamma^{1+n_0(x_1,\ldots,x_{n_x-1})}}{(1+\gamma)^{n_x}}
& \mbox{if }n_x<\infty,\\
0 & \mbox{else}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Here $F$ is singular continuous, strictly increasing on $C$, and constant on each connected component of $[0,1]\setminus C$ (the union of the removed middle thirds
$I_{k,n}$).
Particularly, if $\pi_0=\frac12$, then
\[
F(x)=2^{-n_x}+
\sum_{1\le n< n_x:\,x_n=2}2^{-n}
\]
is the Cantor function, cf.\ Equation (1.2) and Corollary~5.9 in \cite{DOVGOSHEY2006}. %
\end{example}
\subsection{Binary Markov chains of order 1}\label{s:binaryMC}
Assume that $q=2$ and $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ is a stationary ergodic
Markov chain of order 1, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{e:two-state-MC}
\pi_{0}=\frac{p_0}{p_0+p_1},\qquad \pi_{1}=\frac{p_1}{p_0+p_1},\qquad
\begin{bmatrix}
\pi_{0,0} & \pi_{0,1} \\
\pi_{1,0} & \pi_{1,1}
\end{bmatrix}=
\begin{bmatrix}
1-p_1 & p_1 \\
p_0 & 1-p_0
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $0<p_0\le1$, $0<p_1\le1$, and at least one of $p_0$ and $p_1$ is strictly less than $1$.
By \eqref{e:F-id},
for any $x\in[0,1]$,
we have
\begin{align}
F(x)=\pi_0^{1-x_1}\pi_1^{x_1}\sum_{n:\, x_n=1}p_0^{x_{n-1}}(1-p_1)^{1-x_{n-1}}\prod_{i,j=0}^1\pi_{i,j}^{n_{i,j}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}
\label{e:wwww}
\end{align}
where $0^0\coloneqq1$ and $n_{i,j}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})$ is the number of times the sequence $i,j$ occurs in the sequence $x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}$ (if $n\le2$ we set $n_{i,j}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})$ equal to 0).
Here
$F$ is either the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ (the case $p_0=p_1=\tfrac12$) or singular continuous, cf.\ Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular} (this also follows from \cite{Dym1968} since $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ is stationary and ergodic).
Furthermore, $F$ is not strictly increasing at $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_2\in[0,1]$ if and only if either $p_0=1$ and $x_k=x_{k+1}=1$ for some $k\ge1$, or $p_1=1$ and $x_k=x_{k+1}=0$ for some $k\ge1$. This follows from \eqref{e:two-state-MC}
and
Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:increasing}.
\begin{example}[Ising model]\label{ex:symmetry}
Let
$p_0=p_1=\pi\in(0,1)$, so
$\pi_0=\pi_1=\tfrac12$, $\pi_{0,0}=\pi_{1,1}=1-\pi$, and $\pi_{0,1}=\pi_{1,0}=\pi$. Defining $\beta\coloneqq\pi/(1-\pi)$, then
\[
p( x_1,\ldots,x_n)=
\frac12(1+\beta)^{1-n} \beta^{\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}1[x_i\not=x_{i+1}]},
\]
which is the probability mass function of a finite Ising model
\cite{Ising1925}.
For every $x\in[0,1]$, \eqref{e:wwww} reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{e:ppp}
F(x)
=
\frac12
\sum_{n:\, x_n=1}\frac{\beta^{m(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}}{(1+\beta)^{n-1}},
\end{equation}
where
$m(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})$ is the number of switches in the sequence $x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}$ (if $n\le2$ we set $m(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})$ equal to 0).
Here $F$ is strictly increasing on $[0,1]$, it is the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ if $\pi=\frac12$, and it is singular continuous otherwise. As in Example~\ref{ex:3} we see that \eqref{e:qqqqqqqq} is satisfied when $F_\pi$ now denotes $F$ in \eqref{e:ppp}.
Figure~1(b) shows plots of $F_\pi$ for $\pi=0.1,0.2,\ldots,0.9$ (from the top to the bottom when considering the left part of the curves and from the bottom to the top when considering the right part of the curves).
\end{example}
\section{Renewal processes}\label{s:renewal-general}
Let $q=2$ and $Z_0,Z_1,Z_2,\ldots$ be independent random variables with state space $\mathbb N$, where $Z_1,Z_2,\ldots$ are identically distributed with finite mean $\mu$, and $\mathrm P(Z_0=n)=\mathrm P(Z_1\ge n)/\mu$ for $n\in\mathbb N$. In other words, $Y=\{Z_0,Z_0+Z_1,Z_0+Z_1+Z_2,\ldots\}$ is a stationary delayed renewal process, see
Section 2.4 in \cite{Soshnikov2000}, Example 1.7 in \cite{LyonsSteif2003},
and the references therein. Considering $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$, with $X_n=1_Y(n)$, this process is stationary.
The following theorem characterizes $F$ in terms of the distribution of $Z_1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:renewal_singular}
Let
$\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ be the binary process obtained from a stationary delayed renewal process $Y$ as described above. There are three cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (I)}] If $Z_1$ is geometrically distributed with mean $2$, then
$F$ is the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$.
\item[{\rm (II)}] If $Z_1$ is degenerated, i.e., $\mathrm{P}(Z_1=k)=1$ for some $k\in \mathbb{N}$, then $F$ is the
uniform distribution on the set $\{2^{-\ell}/(1-2^{-k})\mid\ell\in\{1,\ldots,k\}\}$.
\item[{\rm (III)}] Otherwise $F$ is singular continuous.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (IV)}] $F$ is strictly increasing on $[0,1]$ if and only if $\mathrm P(Z_1=n)>0$ for all $n\in\mathbb N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} Theorem~\ref{prop:renewal_singular} is also establishing that $F$ is of pure type. The case (I) corresponds of course to the `fair coin case' (the $X_n$ are IID with $\mathrm P(X_n=0)=\mathrm P(X_n=1)=\tfrac12$).
\end{remark}
In order to describe the finite dimensional probabilities we need the following notation.
For any $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_2\in[0,1]$ and corresponding point configuration $y$ (see the lines below \eqref{e:pdef}), if $z_0+\ldots+z_k$ is the $(k+1)$'th point in $y$, we define $\sup\emptyset\coloneqq-1$ and
\begin{align*}
m_n&=m(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\coloneqq\sup\{k\in\{0,1,\ldots\}\,|\,z_0+\ldots+z_k\le n\}\\
&=
\begin{cases} -1&\mbox{if }x_1=\ldots=x_n=0\\
x_1+\ldots+x_n &\mbox{otherwise}\end{cases}
\end{align*}
meaning that in the latter case $m_n$ is the number of points before time $n$.
Then
\begin{align}\label{eq:renewal_probability}
p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=\mathrm P(Z_{m_n+1}>n-z_0-\ldots-z_{m_n})\prod_{\ell=0}^{m_n}\mathrm P(Z_\ell=z_\ell),
\end{align}
which in the case $m_n=-1$
is interpreted as $p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=\mathrm P(Z_0>n)$.
The following example of a renewal process is in fact also an example of a determinantal point process, see Example 1.7 in \cite{LyonsSteif2003} (see also \cite{Soshnikov2000}).
\begin{example}[A special renewal process]\label{ex:6}
Suppose $Z_1-1$ is negative binomially distributed with parameters 2 and $\pi\in(0,1)$, so
\[\mathrm P(Z_1=n)=n(1-\pi)^2\pi^{n-1},\qquad n\in\mathbb N,\]
and $\mu=(1+\pi)/(1-\pi)<\infty$.
Then
\begin{align*}
\mathrm P\left(Z_1>z_1\right)
&=(1-\pi)(z_1+1)\pi^{z_1}+\pi^{z_1+1},\\
\mathrm P(Z_0=z_0)&=\frac{(1-\pi)^2}{1+\pi}z_0\pi^{z_0-1} + \frac{1-\pi}{1+\pi}\pi^{z_0},\\
\mathrm P\left(Z_0>z_0\right)
&=\frac{1-\pi}{1+\pi}(z_0+1)\pi^{z_0}+2\frac{\pi^{z_0+1}}{1+\pi},
\end{align*}
where both $Z_0$ and $Z_1$ have support equal to $\mathbb N$.
Thus, for any $x\in(0,1]$,
we obtain from \eqref{e:F-id} and \eqref{eq:renewal_probability} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:renewal_closed_form}
\begin{aligned}
F(x)=&\,\frac{1-\pi}{1+\pi}(z_0+1)\pi^{z_0}+\frac{2}{1+\pi}\pi^{z_0+1}\\
&\,+\left[\frac{(1-\pi)^2}{1+\pi}z_0\pi^{z_0-1}+\frac{1-\pi}{1+\pi}\pi^{z_0}\right]\\
&\, \times\sum_{k=1}^\infty \left[(1-\pi)(z_k+1)+\pi\right](1-\pi)^{2k-2}\pi^{z_1+\ldots z_k-k+1}\prod_{\ell=1}^{k-1}z_\ell.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here $F$ is singular continuous and strictly increasing on $[0,1]$, cf.\ Theorem~\ref{prop:renewal_singular}.
Denoting $F$ in \eqref{eq:renewal_closed_form} by $F_\pi$, Figure~1(c) shows plots of $F_\pi$ for $\pi=0.1,0.2,\ldots,0.9$ (from the bottom to the top).
\end{example}
\section{Mixtures of stationary processes}\label{s:mixture-general}
In this section we consider $F$ to be a mixture of CDFs corresponding to random variables with stationary digits. Therefore,
we imagine that $\Pi$ is some random variable (or `random parameter') used to specify the distribution of $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ conditioned on $\Pi$, and write
\[F_\Pi(x)\coloneqq \mathrm P(X\le x\mid\Pi),\qquad x\in\mathbb R,\]
so that the (unconditional) CDF of $X$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{e:mixtureF}
F=\mathrm EF_\Pi.
\end{equation}
Examples of such mixture models will be given in Sections~\ref{s:mixture-MC-general}--\ref{s:mixture-renewal-general}, where the two simplest examples are Examples~\ref{ex:4} and \ref{ex:MCbeta} below: Briefly, they relate to the Poisson model case in Example~\ref{ex:3} and the Ising model case in Example~\ref{ex:symmetry}, respectively, by replacing the probability parameter $\pi$ by a random variable following a beta distribution so that we obtain a mixed Poisson process in Example~\ref{ex:4} and a mixed Markov chain in Example~\ref{ex:MCbeta}. Corresponding plots of $F$ for various choices of beta distributions are seen in Figure~1(d)-(e) and they show a different behaviour as compared to the Poisson and Ising model cases shown in
Figure~1(a)-(b) (as well as to Figure~1(c)). We also find the present section interesting for more theoretical reasons: Indeed our main results (Theorems~\ref{prop:b1} and \ref{prop:b111}) contain the deepest results of this paper, cf.\ Appendix~A.10-A.11.
We need some notation. We denote the state space of $\Pi$ by $\Omega$ and assume it is equipped with a $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal A$ depending on the context; specific examples are given in Section~\ref{s:mixture-MC-general}
and
in Appendix~A.10-A.11
we specify $\Omega$ in the general context of a Markov chain and a renewal process as considered in Propositions~\ref{prop:b1}--\ref{prop:b111}. For $\pi\in\Pi$ and $x\in\mathbb R$, we let $F_\pi(x)\coloneqq \mathrm P(X\le x\mid\Pi=\pi)$.
For $x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$, we write
\[p_\Pi(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\coloneqq \mathrm P(X_1=x_1,\ldots,X_n=x_n\mid \Pi)\]
so that
\begin{equation}\label{e:mixture-p}
p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=\mathrm Ep_\Pi(x_1,\ldots,x_n)
\end{equation}
specifies the (unconditional) finite dimensional probabilities of $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$. Similarly, for $\pi\in\Pi$, we let $p_\pi(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\coloneqq \mathrm P(X_1=x_1,\ldots,X_n=x_n\mid \Pi=\pi)$.
For any $x\in[0,1]$, define
$$A_x\coloneqq\{ \pi\in\Omega\mid F_\pi \textup{ is discontinuous at } x\}$$
and
$$B_x\coloneqq\{\pi\in\Omega\mid F_\pi\mbox{ is strictly increasing at }x\}.$$
We assume that $A_x\in\mathcal A$, $B_x\in\mathcal A$, and $\{\pi\in\Omega\mid F_\pi=F_1\}\in\mathcal A$ (this will be obviously satisfied for the specific examples considered in Section~\ref{s:mixture-MC-general}). Finally, let $1[\cdot]$ denote the indicator function.
The following proposition is a straightforward consequence of Propositions~\ref{t:useful}--\ref{prop:useful:increasing}, the law of total expectation, and Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, where we recall that $F_1$ denotes the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ (cf.\ Section~\ref{s:setting}) and when $q=2$, $Y$ is the point process corresponding to $X$ (cf.\ the beginning of Section~\ref{s:main results1}).
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:mixture-general}
Assume $F_\Pi$ satisfies the stationarity condition \eqref{e:3} almost surely. Then
$F$ given by \eqref{e:mixtureF} has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (I)}] $F$ is a CDF on $[0,1]$ which satisfies \eqref{e:3}.
\item[{\rm (II)}] For any $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]$,
\[
F(x)=
\sum_{n\ge1:\,x_n\ge1}\sum_{k=0}^{x_n-1}\mathrm Ep_\Pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},k)
\]
(with $Ep_\Pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},k)=Ep_\Pi(k)$ if $n=1$).
If in addition $q=2$ and $y$ is the point configuration corresponding to $x$,
then
\[
F(x)=
\sum_{n\in y}\mathrm E\mathrm P(Y_{n-1}=y_{n-1},\, n\not\in Y\mid\Pi).
\]
\item[{\rm (III)}] For any $x\in[0,1]$, $F$ is continuous at $x$ if and only if $\mathrm P(\Pi\in A_x)=0$.
\item[{\rm (IV)}] For any $x\in[0,1]$, $F$ is strictly increasing at $x$ if and only if $\mathrm P(\Pi\in B_x)>0$.
\item[{\rm (V)}] For any $x\in \mathbb{R}$, define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G}
G(x)\coloneqq\mathrm{E}( F_\Pi(x) 1[F_\Pi\neq F_1]).
\end{equation}
Then $F$ is differentiable at $x$ if and only if $G$ is differentiable at $x$. Furthermore, for Lebesgue almost all $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]$,
\begin{align}
F'(x)&= \mathrm{P}(F_\Pi=F_1)+G'(x)
\label{e:min}
\end{align}
is equal to a constant in $[0,1]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
In connection to \eqref{e:min} a natural question is when $G'(x)=0$: For every $n\in\mathbb N$ and every $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]\setminus\mathbb Q_q$, consider the function $f_{x,n}\colon \Omega\mapsto[0,q^n]$ defined by
\[
f_{x,n}(\pi)=q^np_\pi(x_1,\dots,x_n)1[F_\pi\neq F_1].
\]
If $G\not=0$, then $G$ is proportional to a CDF satisfying \eqref{e:3}, and hence Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:derivative} and \eqref{e:mixture-p} imply that for Lebesgue almost all $x\in[0,1]\setminus\mathbb Q_q$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:tosset}
G'(x)
=\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathrm{E}( f_{x,n}(\Pi)).
\end{equation}
However, it is not obvious if we can interchange the limit and the expectation in \eqref{e:tosset} and hence obtain a limit which is 0. The following proposition provides conditions ensuring that $G'=0$ almost everywhere on $[0,1]$.
\begin{proposition}\label{cor:G1G2}
Let $F$ be given by \eqref{e:mixtureF} and suppose $F_\Pi$ satisfies the stationarity condition \eqref{e:3} almost surely. Assume there exist sets $V_1\subseteq V_2\subseteq\dots$ in $\mathcal{A}$ such that $\bigcup_{j=1}^\infty V_j=\{\pi\in \Omega \mid F_\pi\neq F_1\}$ and for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$ and Lebesgue almost all $x\in[0,1]\setminus\mathbb Q_q$, the sequence $\{f_{x,n}(\cdot)1[\cdot\in V_{j}]\}_{n\geq 1}$ is pointwise convergent to $0$ as $n\to\infty$ and dominated by a constant which may depend on $(x,j)$. Then $F'=\mathrm{P}(F_\Pi=F_1)$ almost everywhere on $[0,1]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark} We apply Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} in the proofs of the theorems in Sections~\ref{s:mixture-MC-general}--\ref{s:mixture-renewal-general}. As in Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} these theorems give that $F$ is of pure type if and only if either $F_\Pi=F_1$ almost surely or $F_\Pi\not=F_1$ almost surely.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Mixtures of Markov chains}\label{s:mixture-MC-general}
The following proposition considers the mixture of CDFs corresponding to stationary Markov chains of a fixed order.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:b1}
Let $m\in\mathbb N$ and suppose $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ conditioned on $\Pi$ is a stationary Markov chain of order $m-1$.
Then we have the following for $F$ given by the mixture CDF in \eqref{e:mixtureF}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (I)}]
For any $x\in [0,1]$, $F$ has a discontinuity at $x$ if and only if $\mathrm P(\Pi\in A_x)>0$.
\item[{\rm (II)}] For any $x\in [0,1]$, $F$ is strictly increasing at $x$ if and only if $\mathrm P(\Pi\in B_x)>0$.
\item[{\rm (III)}]
For Lebesgue almost all $x\in[0,1]$, $F'(x)=\mathrm P(F_\Pi=F_1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}[Mixtures of Bernoulli scheme and Poisson process constructions]\label{ex:4}
Let $\Pi$
be a $q$-dimensional random vector with state space $\Omega=\Delta_q$, the $(q-1)$-dimensional simplex consisting of all probability distributions $\pi=(\pi_0,\ldots,\pi_{q-1})$. Since $\pi_0=1-\sum_{i=1}^{q-1}\pi_i$, we can
identify $\Delta_q$ by the set $B(q)\coloneqq\{(\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{q-1})\mid\sum_{i=1}^{q-1}\pi_i\le1\}$, which we equip with the Borel $\sigma$-algebra. Suppose that $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ conditioned on $\Pi$ are
IID with distribution $\Pi$.
Combining \eqref{e:mixtureF} and \eqref{e:FIID} gives for every $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:FmixDirichlet}
F(x)=
\sum_{n\ge1:\,x_n\ge1}\sum_{k=0}^{x_n-1}\mathrm E\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\Pi_i^{n_i(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},k)}.
\end{equation}
We have $F'=\mathrm P(\Pi=(1/q,\ldots,1/q))$ almost everywhere on $[0,1]$, cf.\ Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}(III).
Furthermore, $F$ is strictly increasing at $x\in [0,1]$ if and only if all $\Pi_{x_j}>0$ almost surely for every digit $x_j$ which occurs in a base-$q$ expansion of $x$, cf.\ Section~\ref{s:order 0} and Proposition~\ref{prop:mixture-general}(IV).
It follows from Section~\ref{s:order 0} that for any $x\in[0,1]$, $F_\pi$ is discontinuous at $x$ if and only if for some $k\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$ we have that $x=k/(q-1)$ and $\pi=\pi^{(k)}$, where $\pi^{(k)}=(\pi^{(k)}_0,\ldots,\pi^{(k)}_{q-1})$ is the $k$th standard vector (i.e., the vertex of $\Delta_q$ given by $\pi^{(k)}_k=1$). Note that $A_x=\{\pi^{(k)}\}$ consists of a singleton if $x=k/(q-1)$ with $k\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$, and $A_x$ is empty otherwise. Hence, by Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}(I), $F$ has a discontinuity at $x\in[0,1]$ if and only if $x=k/(q-1)$ where $k\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$ and $\mathrm P(\Pi=\pi^{(k)})>0$. In particular, $F$ is singular continuous if $\Pi$ is a continuous random variable.
For example, suppose that $\Pi$ follows a
Dirichlet distribution with shape parameters $\beta_0>0,\ldots,\beta_{q-1}>0$ and probability density function given by
\begin{equation}\label{e:dirichlet}
\frac{\Gamma(\sum_{i=0}^{q-1}\beta_i)}{\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\Gamma(\beta_i)}\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\pi_i^{\beta_i-1},\qquad (\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{q-1})\in B(q).
\end{equation}
It follows from the considerations above that
$F$ is singular continuous and strictly increasing on $[0,1]$. Moreover, we can easily evaluate the expected value in \eqref{e:FmixDirichlet}.
For instance, if $q=2$,
then $Y$ is
a mixture of stationary Poisson processes (conditioned on having no multiple points). If furthermore $\Pi_0$ follows a beta distribution (that is, $(\Pi_0,\Pi_1)$ follows a Dirichlet distribution
with shape parameters $\beta_0>0$ and $\beta_1>0$), then for any $x\in[0,1]$ it follows from \eqref{e:FmixDirichlet} and \eqref{e:dirichlet} that
\begin{equation}\label{e:F-beta}
F(x)=\sum_{n\in y}\frac{B(\beta_0+n-\#y_{n-1},\beta_1+\#y_{n-1})}{B(\beta_0,\beta_1)},
\end{equation}
where $B(\beta_0,\beta_1)=\Gamma(\beta_0)\Gamma(\beta_1)/\Gamma(\beta_0+\beta_1)$ is the beta function.
This provides a large parametric family of CDFs, where
\eqref{e:F-beta} agrees with \eqref{e:F-special1} in the limit as $\beta_0\rightarrow\infty$ and $\beta_1\rightarrow\infty$ such that $\beta_1/\beta_0\rightarrow \alpha$. It follows immediately from above that
$F$ in \eqref{e:F-beta} is singular continuous and strictly increasing on $[0,1]$. Denoting this CDF by $F_{\beta_0,\beta_1}$, we obtain from \eqref{e:qqqqqqqq} and \eqref{e:mixtureF} that
\begin{equation}\label{e:Fbeta1beta2etc}
F_{\beta_0,\beta_1}(x)+F_{\beta_1,\beta_0}(1-x)=1.
\end{equation}
Figure~1(d) shows plots of $F_{\beta_0,\beta_1}$ when $\beta_0,\beta_1\in \{0.5,1,1.5\}$, where the curves overlap and hence are not so easy to distinguish but they are determined by that
\begin{align*}F_{0.5,1.5}(0.25)&>F_{0.5,1.0}(0.25)>F_{1.0,1.5}(0.25)>F_{0.5,0.5}(0.25)> F_{1.0,1.0}(0.25)\\
&> F_{1.5,1.5}(0.25)>F_{1.5,1.0}(0.25)>F_{1.0,0.5}(0.25)>F_{1.5,0.5}(0.25).\end{align*}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Mixture of Ising models]\label{ex:MCbeta}
Along similar lines as in Example~\ref{ex:4}, we can impose a distribution on the parameters of a Markov chain of order 1 and obtain results in a similar way. For example,
suppose that $\pi$ in Example~\ref{ex:symmetry} is replaced by a random variable $\Pi$ which is beta distributed with shape parameters $\beta_0>0$ and $\beta_1>0$. For any $x\in[0,1]$, combining \eqref{e:mixtureF} and \eqref{e:ppp} gives
\begin{align}\label{eq:beta_markov}
F(x)=\frac12
\sum_{n\in y}\frac{B(\beta_0+m(y_{n-1}),\beta_1+n-1-m(y_{n-1}))}{B(\beta_0,\beta_1)}.
\end{align}
This CDF is singular continuous and strictly increasing on $[0,1]$: By Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}(I), $F$ is continuous at any $x\in[0,1]$, since $A_x$ is empty (see Section~\ref{s:binaryMC}); it follows immediately from Example~\ref{ex:symmetry}
and Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}(II) that $F$ is strictly increasing on $[0,1]$; and it follows from Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}(III) that $F'=0$ almost everywhere.
Denoting $F$ in \eqref{eq:beta_markov} by $F_{\beta_0,\beta_1}$, it follows from Example~\ref{ex:symmetry} and \eqref{e:mixtureF} that $F_{\beta_0,\beta_1}$ satisfies \eqref{e:Fbeta1beta2etc}.
Figure~1(e) shows plots of $F_{\beta_0,\beta_1}$ when $\beta_0,\beta_1\in \{0.5,1,1.5\}$, where again the curves are not easy to distinguish but they are determined by that
\begin{align*}F_{0.5, 1.5}(1/8)&>F_{0.5,1.0}(1/8)>F_{1.0,1.5}(1/8)>F_{0.5,0.5}(1/8)> F_{1.0,1.0}(1/8)\\
&> F_{1.5,1.5}(1/8)>F_{1.5,0.5}(1/8)>F_{1.0,0.5}(1/8)>F_{1.0,1.5}(1/8).\end{align*}
\end{example}
\subsection{Mixtures of renewal processes}\label{s:mixture-renewal-general}
In this section we assume that $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ conditioned on $\Pi$ is a binary process obtained from a stationary delayed renewal process as in Section~\ref{s:renewal-general}. We can think of value of $\Pi$ as specifying the
distribution of $Z_1$, where the only requirement is that $\mathrm EZ_1<\infty$. For each $k\in\mathbb N$, denoting
$F^{(k)}$ the CDF for the uniform distribution on $\{2^{-\ell}/(1-2^{-k})\mid\ell\in\{1,\ldots,k\}\}$, then for any $x\in[0,1]$,
\[A_x=\begin{cases}\{\pi\in\Omega\mid F_\pi=F^{(k)}\} & \text{if }x=2^{-\ell}/(1-2^{-k}),\\
\emptyset & \text{otherwise}.\end{cases}\]
This follows from Theorem~\ref{prop:renewal_singular}(II).
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:b111}
Suppose $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ conditioned on $\Pi$ is a binary process obtained from a stationary delayed renewal process as above.
Then we have the following for $F$ given by the mixture CDF in \eqref{e:mixtureF}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (I)}]
For any $x\in [0,1]$, $F$ has a discontinuity at $x$ if and only if $x=2^{-\ell}/(1-2^{-k})$, where $k\in\mathbb N$, $\ell\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$, and $\mathrm P(F_\Pi=F^{(k)})>0$.
\item[{\rm (II)}] For any $x\in [0,1]$, $F$ is strictly increasing at $x$ if and only if $\mathrm P(\Pi\in B_x)>0$.
\item[{\rm (III)}]
For Lebesgue almost all $x\in[0,1]$, $F'(x)=\mathrm P(F_\Pi=F_1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}[Mixture of special renewal processes]\label{ex:Renewalbeta}
Let $\Pi$ be beta distributed
and suppose that conditioned on $\Pi=\pi\in(0,1)$, we have a renewal process as considered in Example~\ref{ex:6}, i.e., $F_\pi$ is given by \eqref{eq:renewal_closed_form}. Then along similar lines as in Example~\ref{ex:MCbeta} but now applying Theorem~\ref{prop:b111}, we see that $F$ is singular continuous and strictly increasing on $[0,1]$. However, evaluating the expected value of $F_\Pi$ leads to a complicated expression, which is omitted here.
\end{example}
\section{Concluding remarks and open problems}\label{s:conclusion}
As pointed out in Section~\ref{s:intro}, singular continuous functions have been of much interest for many years and in \cite{part1} they appeared in connection to a decomposition result for the CDF of a random variable with stationary digits, considering different bases. In
Sections~\ref{s:main results1}--\ref{s:mixture-general} we provided general results and several examples of such singular continuous CDFs, where some examples were well-known and most were new. To obtain expressions of these CDFs, the finite dimensional distributions of the
sequence of digits
should be expressible in closed form as demonstrated in Examples~\ref{ex:3}--\ref{ex:MCbeta}.
Indeed many more examples could be given in the stationary case,
but we leave this for future research.
In the binary case $q=2$ and when the digits are IID, the probability distribution of $X$ is related to Bernoulli convolutions, where in particular the absolute continuity or singularity and the Hausdorff dimension of the support of the distribution are of much interest, cf.\ Section~1.3 in \cite{part1} and the references therein. In fact, for any integer $q\ge2$, it is well-known that the probability measures corresponding to $X$'s with IID digits are mutually singular, cf.\ \cite{Billingsley}, and also the Hausdorff dimensions of the supports of such measures are known, see \cite{Yuval} and \cite{Varju}. To the best of our knowledge, a similar study
for other interesting model classes
of the digits under stationarity remains to be done. Examples could be Markov chains (of any order), renewal processes, and mixtures of such models, where we have showed that for Markov chains and renewal processes $F$ is of pure type, whilst this is not necessarily the case if we consider mixtures of Markov chains or of renewal processes.
If we let
$\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb Z}$ be a stochastic process with state space $\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$ and define
\[X_+\coloneqq\sum_{n=1}^\infty X_nq^{-n},\qquad X_-\coloneqq\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}X_{-n}q^{-n-1},\]
we may consider the bivariate CDF for $(X_+,X_-)$ which is concentrated on the unit square. What would be the general structure of this bivariate CDF when $\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb Z}$ is stationary, and which properties would the bivariate CDF possess under specific model classes for $\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb Z}$?
Of course, the structure of the marginal CDFs of $X_+$ and $X_-$ are characterized by the results in \cite{part1}, and the examples of models considered in the present paper may easily be extended to stationary reversible processes $\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb Z}$. In particular,
if $\ldots,X_{-1},X_{0},X_1,\ldots$ are IID, then $X_+$ and $X_-$ are independent. However, for other
cases $X_+$ and $X_-$ will in general be dependent.
We also defer such cases for future research.
It would also be interesting to study
non-stationary models for the digits. For example, Minkowski’s question-mark function restricted to $[0,1]$ is a strictly increasing singular continuous CDF which does not satisfy the stationarity condition \eqref{e:3} for any integer $q\ge2$, cf.\ Corollary~2.17 in \cite{part1}.
Further, in \cite{Wen1998} a Markov chain model (of order 1) for the random digits
was considered without assuming stationarity and with $F$ being either the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$ or singular continuous (in agreement with Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular}). However,
the assumptions in \cite{Wen1998} were more restrictive than in Section~\ref{s:MC-general} in assuming that all initial and transition probabilities are strictly positive, in contrast to our examples in Section~\ref{s:MC-general}, no `relatively closed formula' for
the CDF was specified in \cite{Wen1998}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by The Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences, grant DFF – 10.46540/2032-00005B.
\section*{Appendix
In this appendix we verify the theorems, the propositions, and the corollary in Sections~\ref{s:main results1}--\ref{s:mixture-general} which remain to be proven, and we establish some related results. It is convenient to introduce the notation
\[(0.x_1\dots x_n)_q\coloneqq (0.x_1\dots x_n 0 0 \dots)_q\]
for $x_1,\dots,x_n\in \{0,\dots,q-1\}$.
\subsection*{A1 Proof of Proposition~\ref{t:useful}}\label{A:A.1}
Let $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]$, where the non-terminating expansion is chosen if $x\in\mathbb Q_q$. Then $y=(0.y_1y_2\dots)_q$ is strictly less than $x$ if and only if $y_n<x_n$ for the first index $n$ where $y_n\neq x_n$, and thus
by the law of total probability,
\begin{align*}
F(x)-\mathrm P\left(X=x\right)&=\mathrm P\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty X_nq^{-n}<\sum_{n=1}^\infty x_nq^{-n}\right)\\
&=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\mathrm P(X_1=x_1,\ldots,X_{n-1}=x_{n-1},X_n<x_n)\\
&=\sum_{n\ge1:\,x_n\ge1}\sum_{k=0}^{x_n-1}p(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},k).
\end{align*}
Hence \eqref{e:F-id1} is verified and \eqref{e:F-id1} implies \eqref{e:F-id}.
\subsection*{A2 Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:cont}}
Let $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]\setminus\mathbb Q_q$ (by stationarity, $F$ is continuous at $x$ if $x\in\mathbb Q_q$,
cf.\ Remark~\ref{rem:fractions}). Then, by monotonicity of probabilities, $$\mathrm P(X=x)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}p(x_1,\ldots,x_n),$$
and so Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:cont} follows immediately.
\subsection*{A3 Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:derivative}}
The first part of Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:derivative} follows immediately from the mixture representation of $F$ as given by (I)--(III) in Section~\ref{s:setting}, where $c$ is the probability of obtaining the case (I) (i.e., $F=cF_1+(1-c)\tilde F$ where $\tilde F$ is a singular CDF on $[0,1]$).
For the second part of Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:derivative}
we only consider the case $m\geq 1$ as the case $m=0$ follows from similar arguments. Then the following lemma will be useful.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:diff}
Let $A\subset \mathbb{R}$ and suppose that $f\colon A\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is differentiable at $x\in A$ and
$\{a_n\}_{n\ge1},\{b_n\}_{n\ge1}$ $\subset A\setminus\{x\}$ are sequences converging to $x$ such that there exists $c>0$ with $\vert a_n-b_n\vert \geq c\max\{\vert a_n-x\vert,\vert b_n-x\vert\}$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Then
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{f(a_n)-f(b_n)}{a_n-b_n} =f'(x).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align*}
&\Big\vert \frac{f(a_n)-f(b_n)}{a_n-b_n} -f'(x)\Big\vert
\le\\
&\frac{\vert f(a_n)-f(x)-(a_n-x)f'(x)\vert+ \vert f(x)-f(b_n)-( x-b_n)f'(x)\vert}{\vert a_n-b_n\vert }
\le\\
&\frac{1}{c} \Big\vert \frac{f(a_n)-f(x)}{a_n-x}-f'(x)\Big\vert+\frac{1}{c}\Big\vert \frac{f(x)-f(b_n)}{x-b_n}-f'(x)\Big\vert,
\end{align*}
where the first inequality follows from the triangle inequality and the second from
the assumption on $\vert a_n-b_n\vert$.
As the right hand side above goes to 0 for $n\to \infty$, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Note that in Lemma~\ref{lem:diff} it does not matter from which side the sequences $\{a_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ and $\{b_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ approach $x$. Thus, letting $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $x$ be as in Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:derivative}, we define
$a_n=(0.x_1\dots x_n \xi_1\dots \xi_m)_q+q^{-n-m}$ and $b_n=(0.x_1\dots x_n \xi_1\dots \xi_m)_q$. Observe that $a_n,b_n\in[0,1]\setminus\{x\}$. Then
\begin{equation*}
q^{-m}\max\{\vert a_n-x\vert,\vert b_n-x\vert\}\leq q^{-n-m} =\left\vert a_n-b_n\right\vert,
\end{equation*}
and hence by Lemma~\ref{lem:diff},
\[F'(x)=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{F(a_n)-F(b_n)}{a_n-b_n}.\]
Thus, since $F$ is continuous at base-$q$ fractions and both $a_n\in\mathbb Q_q$ and $b_n\in\mathbb Q_q$ for sufficiently large $n$, we get
\[F'(x)=\lim_{n\to\infty}q^{n+m}\left(\mathrm P(X<a_n)-\mathrm P(X<b_n)\right)=\lim_{n\to\infty} q^{n+m} p(x_1,\dots,x_m,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m),
\]
whereby the proof is completed.
\subsection*{A4 Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:useful:derivatives}}
We only prove Corollary~\ref{cor:useful:derivatives} for $m>1$, since the cases $m=0$ and $m=1$ follow from similar arguments. By Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:derivative},
\[\lim_{n\to\infty} q^{n+m-1}p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m-1})=F'(x)>0.\]
This implies $p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)>0$ for $n$ sufficiently large. Since also
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}q^{n+m}p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)=F'(x),$$
we have
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)}{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m-1})}=q^{-1}\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{q^{n+m}p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)}{q^{n+m-1}p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m-1})}=q^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
Thereby \eqref{e:F'2} is verified.
\subsection*{A5 Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:increasing}}
The proof is straightforward when considering each of the cases $x=0$, $x=1$, $x\in\mathbb Q_q$, and $x\in (0,1)\setminus\mathbb Q_q$. For instance, suppose $x=(0.x_1 x_2\dots)_q\in(0,1)\setminus\mathbb Q_q$. For $n\in \mathbb{N}$, define $y_n\coloneqq(0.x_1\dots x_n)_q$ and $z_n\coloneqq y_n+q^{-n}$.
Then $y_n<x< z_n$ at least for sufficiently large $n$, and since $y_n\in\mathbb Q_q$ and $z_n\in\mathbb Q_q$, stationarity implies $\mathrm P(X=y_n)=\mathrm P(X=z_n)=0$, and so $F(z_n)-F(y_n)=p(x_1,\dots,x_n)$. Thereby Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:increasing} is verified in the case where $x=(0.x_1 x_2\dots)_q$ is a non-base-$q$ fraction in $(0,1)$.
\subsection*{A6 Proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular}}
Assume $\{X_n\}_{n\ge1}$ is a stationary Markov chain of order $m-1$ for which $F$ is not the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$. Then it follows from \eqref{e:equil} that there must exist $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m}\in \{0,\dots,q-1\}$ such that $\pi_{\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m}}\neq q^{-1}$. Let $x=(0.x_1x_2\dots)_q\in (0,1)\setminus\mathbb Q_q$ where $F'(x)$ exists. If $F'(x)>0$, then we obtain a contradiction:
\begin{equation*}
q^{-1}=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)}{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m-1})}= \pi_{\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m}\neq q^{-1},
\end{equation*}
where the first equality follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:useful:derivatives} and the second from the Markov property.
Consequently, $F'(x)=0$ and thus $F$ is singular.
Using a notation as in Section~\ref{s:MC-general}, assume that $\pi_{x_1,\ldots,x_m}<1$ for all $x_1,\dots,x_m\in \{0,\dots, q-1\}$.
Consider any $x=(0.x_1x_2\dots)_q\in [0,1]$ and
define
\begin{align*}
\lambda\coloneqq\max_{b_1,\dots,b_m\in \{0,1,\dots,q-1\}}\pi_{b_1,\ldots,b_m} <1.
\end{align*}
Then, for any integer $n\geq m$, \eqref{e:Markovfinitedimdist} gives
\[p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\le \lambda^{n-m+1}\rightarrow0\qquad\mbox{as $n\rightarrow\infty$.}\]
Hence, Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:cont} gives that $F$ is continuous at $x$. This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:markov_singular}.
\subsection*{A7 Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-horiac}}\label{s:6.5.2}
For any $m\in\mathbb N$, denote the finite dimensional probabilities of $\{X_n^{(m)}\}_{n\geq 1}$ by
\[ p_m(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\mathrm P(X_1^{(m)}=x_1,\dots, X_n^{(m)}=x_n)\]
for $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$.
By construction of $\{X_n^{(m)}\}_{n\geq 1}$, we have \(p_m(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ $=p(x_1,\dots,x_n)\)
whenever $n\le m$. For any $x=(0.x_1\ldots x_m)_q$,
stationarity implies that $\mathrm P(X=x)=0$, and so
it follows from \eqref{e:F-id1} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fmf3}
F^{(m)}( (0.x_1\dots x_m)_q)=F( (0.x_1\dots x_m)_q).
\end{equation}
Let $x=(0.x_1x_2\dots)_q\in [0,1]$ be arbitrary. Combining \eqref{eq:fmf3} with the fact that $F^{(m)}$ is non-decreasing gives
\[F((0.x_1\dots x_m)_q\leq F^{(m)}(x) \leq F((0.x_1\dots x_m)_q+q^{-m}).\]
Here, by the continuity of $F_3$, the left and the right hand side expressions of the inequalities converge to $F(x)$ as $m\rightarrow\infty$,
so $F^{(m)}$ converges pointwise to $F$ (weak convergence). Hence, since $F$ is a continuous CDF, we obtain
\eqref{e:F3approx}, cf.\ \cite{10.2307/2237541}.
\subsection*{A8 Proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:renewal_singular}}\label{s:6.5.3}
Let the situation be as in Theorem~\ref{prop:renewal_singular}.
The case (I) follows immediately since then the $X_n$'s are
independent and uniformly distributed on $\{0,1\}$.
Suppose that $\mathrm P(Z_1=k)=1$ for some $k\in\mathbb N$. Then $Z_0$ is uniformly distributed on $\{1,\ldots,k\}$. If $\ell\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$ and $x=(0.x_1x_2\dots)_2=2^{-\ell}/(1-2^{-k})$, then $x= \sum_{m=0}^\infty 2^{-\ell-km}$ and we get from \eqref{eq:renewal_probability} that
$p(x_1,\dots,x_n)=1/k$. Thereby the case (II) is verified.
To show the case (III)
assume first that $Z_1$ is not geometrically distributed with mean 2. Equivalently,
\[
\mathrm P(Z_1>m\mid Z_1>m-1)\neq{1}/{2}
\]
for some $m\in \mathbb{N}$. We show by contradiction that $F'(x)=0$ for all $x\in(0,1)\setminus\mathbb Q_2$ where $F'(x)$ exists. So
suppose that $F'(x)>0$ for some $x=(0.x_1x_2\dots)_2\in (0,1)\setminus\mathbb Q_2$. Let $\xi_1=1$ and $\xi_j=0$ for $j\in \{2,\dots,m+1\}$.
Then, for any $n\in \mathbb{N}$,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{m+1})}{p(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)}=\frac{\mathrm{P}(Z_1>m)}{\mathrm{P}(Z_1>m-1)}=\mathrm P(Z_1>m\mid Z_1>m-1)\neq{1}/{2}
\end{equation*}
using in the first identity \eqref{eq:renewal_probability} and that $Z_1,Z_2,\dots$ are identically distributed.
This contradicts Corollary~\ref{cor:useful:derivatives} and thus $F'(x)=0$. In conclusion, $F$ is singular if $Z_1$ is not geometrically distributed with mean 2.
Suppose next that $\mathrm{P}(Z_1=k)<1$ for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$.
If $x\in [0,1]$ has finitely many digits equal to 1, then $\mathrm P(X=x)=0$. If $x$ has infinitely many digits equal to 1, then \eqref{eq:renewal_probability} gives
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\le\prod_{n:\ x_n=1} \sup_{m\in\mathbb N}\mathrm P(Z_1=m)=0,\]
since $\sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\mathrm P(Z_1=n)<1$.
Hence, by Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:cont}, $F$ is continuous.
Consequently, $F$ is singular continuous in case (III).
Finally, Theorem~\ref{prop:renewal_singular}(IV) follows immediately from Proposition~\ref{prop:useful:increasing} using \eqref{eq:renewal_probability} and the definition of the distribution of $Z_0$.
\subsection*{A9 Proof of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2}}
Let the situation be as in Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} and let $G$ be given by \eqref{eq:G}. By Proposition~\ref{prop:mixture-general}(V), there exists $c\in [0,1]$ such that
$c=G'(x)=F'(x)-\mathrm{P}(F_\Pi=F_1)$ for Lebesgue almost all $x\in [0,1]$. We will show that $c=0$ by contradiction, whereby
Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} is verified.
Suppose that $c>0$.
For any $j\in \mathbb{N}$, define $U_j\coloneqq \{\pi\in \Omega\mid F_\pi\neq F_1\}\setminus V_j$. Since $V_j$ increases to $\{\pi\in \Omega \mid F_\pi\neq F_1\}$, there exists $j_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $P(\Pi\in U_{j_0})<c$. For $x\in \mathbb{R}$, define
\[J(x)\coloneqq\mathrm{E}(F_\Pi(x)1[\Pi\in U_{j_0}]),\qquad K(x)\coloneqq\mathrm{E}(F_\Pi(x)1[\Pi\in V_{j_0}]).\]
Then $G=J+K$. Later on in this proof we will show that $K$, if not identically zero, must at least be singular, which implies that for Lebesgue almost all $x\in [0,1]$, $J'(x)=G'(x)=c>0$, hence by the definition of $J$, we have $\mathrm{P}(\Pi\in U_{j_0})>0$. The function $J/\mathrm{P}(\Pi\in U_{j_0})$ is a CDF satisfying \eqref{e:3}, so by Proposition~\ref{prop:mixture-general}(V), $c/\mathrm{P}(\Pi\in U_{j_0})=J'/ \mathrm{P}(\Pi\in U_{j_0})\leq 1$ almost everywhere on $[0,1]$. This is in contradiction with $\mathrm{P}(\Pi\in U_{j_0})<c$,
so $c=0$.
Now let us show that $K'=0$ almost everywhere. Clearly, we may assume that
$\mathrm{P}(\Pi\in V_{j_0})>0$ so that $K$ is not identically zero. Then $K/\mathrm{P}(\Pi\in V_{j_0})$ is a CDF satisfying \eqref{e:3} and therefore it is differentiable almost everywhere. Let $A$ denote the set of points $x\in [0,1]$ for which both $K'(x)$ exists and the sequence $\{f_{x,n}(\cdot)1[\cdot\in V_{j_0}]\}_{n\geq 1}$ converges pointwise to $0$ as $n\to\infty$ and is dominated by a constant. Then $A$ has Lebesgue measure $1$, since, by assumption $A$ is the intersection of two sets of Lebesgue measure 1. Hence we can combine Proposition~\ref{prop:mixture-general}(V) with \eqref{e:mixture-p} and Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem to obtain
\begin{equation*}
K'(x)/\mathrm{P}(\Pi\in V_{j_0})=\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathrm{E}(q^n p_\Pi(x_1,\dots,x_n)1[\Pi\in V_{j_0}])/\mathrm{P}(\Pi\in V_{j_0})=0,
\end{equation*}
for all $x=(0.x_1x_2\dots)_q\in A$. Thus $K$ is singular.
\subsection*{A10 Proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}}\label{a:proof-mix-MC}
Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}(I)--(II) follow directly from Proposition~\ref{prop:mixture-general}(III)--(IV).
When verifying Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}(III) we assume $m\ge2$ and define without loss of generality $\Omega$ as follows (the case $m=1$ is simpler and follow similar lines as below). Denote
the standard simplex in $\mathbb{R}^n$ by
\[\Delta_n\coloneqq \{(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{n})\in [0,1]^n\mid \alpha_1+\dots+\alpha_{n}=1\}.\]
Consider the initial distribution $\{\pi(x_1,\dots,x_{m-1})\mid x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1}\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}\}$ as a vector in $\Delta_{q^{m-1}}$ and the collection of transition probabilities $\{\pi_{x_1,\dots,x_m}\mid x_1,\ldots,x_m\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}\}$ as a $q^{m-1}$-tuple of vectors in $\Delta_{q}$. Then $\Delta_{q^{m-1}}\times \Delta_{q}^{q^{m-1}}$ can be identified with the collection of distributions for Markov chains with state space $\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$ and of order $m-1$. Let $\Omega$ be the subset of those elements of $\Delta_{q^{m-1}}\times \Delta_{q}^{q^{m-1}}$ which correspond to stationary Markov chains of order $m-1$, and let the $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega$ be induced by the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\mathbb{R}^{q^{m-1}+q^{m}}$.
We now verify the requirements of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} whereby Theorem~\ref{prop:b1}(III) follows. Define
\begin{equation*}
\phi(\pi)\coloneqq q\prod_{t_1,\dots,t_{m}\in \{0,\ldots,q-1\}}\pi_{t_1,\dots,t_{m}}^{q^{-m}},\qquad \pi\in\Omega,
\end{equation*}
and let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vn}
V_j=\{\pi\in \Omega\mid \phi(\pi)\leq q^{-1/j}\},\qquad j\in\mathbb N.
\end{equation}
Then $V_1\subseteq V_2\subseteq\dots$.
Further, let $\pi^*\in\Omega$ correspond to having all initial probabilities equal to $q^{-m}$ and all transition probabilities equal to $q^{-1}$ (so $F_{\pi^*}$ is the uniform CDF on $[0,1]$). Then $\pi^*$ is the unique maximizer of $\phi$ and $\phi(\pi^*)=1$. This follows e.g.\ with the use of Lagrange multipliers. Furthermore, it follows from \eqref{e:equil} that $F_\pi=F_1$ if and only if $\pi=\pi^*$. Hence
\[\bigcup_{j=1}^\infty V_j=\Omega\setminus\{\pi^*\}=\{\pi\in \Omega\mid F_\pi\neq F_1\},\]
which is one requirement of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2}.
To verify the other requirement of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} we need some notation.
For any $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]\setminus\mathbb Q_q$ and any $n\in\mathbb N$, define
\begin{equation*
\phi_{x,n}(\pi)\coloneqq q\prod_{t_1,\dots,t_{m}\in \{0,\ldots,q-1\}}\pi_{t_1,\dots,t_{m}}^{n_{t_1,\dots,t_{m}}(x_1,\dots,x_n)/n},\qquad \pi\in\Omega,
\end{equation*}
where $n_{t_1,\dots,t_j}(x_1,\dots,x_k)$ is the number of times the string $t_1,\dots,t_j$ appears in the string $x_1,\dots,x_k$.
Then the other requirement of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2}
states that for all $j\in\mathbb N$, Lebesgue
almost all $x=(0.x_1x_2\ldots)_q\in[0,1]\setminus\mathbb Q_q$, and all
$\pi\in\Omega$ we have that
\begin{align*}
&q^n \pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})\prod_{j=m}^n \pi_{x_{j-m+1},\ldots,x_j} 1[\phi(\pi)\le q^{-1/j}]\\
= &\, \pi(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1}) \phi_{x,n}(\pi)^n1[\phi(\pi)\le q^{-1/j}]
\end{align*}
converges to 0 as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and is less than some number $c(x,j)$.
To verify this
we recall that $(0.x_1x_2\dots)_q\in [0,1]$ is a \emph{normal number} (in base $q$) if for all $j\in\mathbb N$ and all $t_1,\dots,t_j\in\{0,\ldots,q-1\}$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:b3}
\lim_{k\to \infty} {n_{t_1,\dots,t_j}(x_1,\dots,x_k)}/{k}=q^{-j}.
\end{align}
Since the set of normal numbers in $[0,1]$ has Lebesgue measure $1$~\cite{Borel1909}, we can assume that $x$ is normal. By \eqref{eq:b3} there exists some $n_j\in\mathbb N$ such that for all $t_1,\dots,t_m\in\{0,\dots,q-1\}$,
\[n_{t_1,\dots,t_m}(x_1,\dots,x_n)/n\geq \frac{2j}{(2j+1)q^m}\]
whenever $n\geq n_j$. Consequently, for all $n\geq n_j$ and $\pi\in V_j$,
\begin{align*}
\phi_{x,n}(\pi)\leq q\prod_{t_1,\dots,t_{m}\in \{0,\ldots,q-1\}}\pi_{t_1,\dots,t_{m}}^{\frac{2j}{(2j+1)q^m}}= (q\phi(\pi)^{2j})^{1/(2j+1)}\leq q^{-1/(2j+1)}<1,
\end{align*}
where the second last inequality uses \eqref{eq:vn}. Thereby the other requirement of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} follows.
\subsection*{A11 Proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:b111}}\label{a:proofren}
Theorem~\ref{prop:b111}(I)--(II) follow directly from Proposition~\ref{prop:mixture-general}(III)--(IV). Below we verify the requirements of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} whereby Theorem~\ref{prop:b111}(III) follows.
Define without loss of generality
\[\Omega=\left\{(\pi_1,\pi_2,\dots)\in \ell^1(\mathbb{N})\mid \sum_{k=1}^\infty \pi_k=1, \textup{ and } \sum_{k=1}^\infty k\pi_k<\infty\right\}\]
and let the $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega$ be induced by the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\ell^1(\mathbb{N})$ (the space of absolutely summable sequences) equipped with the usual $\ell^1$-norm.
For any $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and $\pi\in\Omega$, define
\begin{equation*}
\phi_m(\pi)\coloneqq 2\prod_{k=1}^m\pi_k^{2^{-k-1}},
\qquad \pi^{(m)}\coloneqq (1-2^{-m})^{-1} \left( 2^{-1},\dots,2^{-m},0,0,\dots \right),
\end{equation*}
and
\[\phi(\pi)\coloneqq 2\prod_{k=1}^\infty\pi_k^{2^{-k-1}},
\qquad \pi^*\coloneqq(1/2,1/4,1/8,\ldots) ,
\]
so $\pi^*\in\Omega$ is the geometric distribution with mean $2$. We now verify that
\begin{equation}\label{e:uniquemax}
\mbox{$\pi^*$ is the unique maximizer of $\phi$.}
\end{equation}
It is easily seen that $\pi^{(m)}\in\Omega$ is the unique maximizer of $\phi_m$, and since for all $\pi\in\Omega$, $\phi_m(\pi)$ non-increases towards $\phi(\pi)$ as $m\rightarrow\infty$, it follows that
\[\phi(\pi)\le\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\phi_m\left(\pi^{(m)}\right)=\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}2^{(m+2)/2^{m+1}}(1-2^{-m})^{(2^{-m}-1)/2}=1.\]
Furthermore, $\Omega$ is a convex set and we claim that $\phi$ is a strictly log-concave function: Consider any $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and distinct $\pi,\tilde\pi\in\Omega$, so there exist some $\pi_\ell\not=\tilde\pi_\ell$. Since $\ln$ is strictly concave, we have $\ln(\alpha\pi_\ell+(1-\alpha)\tilde\pi_\ell)>\alpha \ln\pi_\ell+(1-\alpha)\ln\tilde\pi_\ell$ and $\ln(\alpha\pi_k+(1-\alpha)\tilde\pi_k)\ge\alpha \ln\pi_k+(1-\alpha)\ln\tilde\pi_k$ for $k\not=l$, so
\[\ln\phi(\alpha\pi+(1-\alpha)\tilde\pi)>\alpha\ln\phi(\pi)+ (1-\alpha)\phi(\tilde\pi).\]
Consequently, $\phi\le1$ is strictly log-concave
with
\[\phi\left(\pi^*\right)=2^{1-\sum_{k=1}^\infty k2^{-k-1}}=1,\]
and so \eqref{e:uniquemax} follows.
Now, for any $j\in \mathbb{N}$, define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vj1}
V_j\coloneqq\{\pi\in \Omega\mid \phi_m(\pi)\leq 2^{-1/m} \textup{ whenever } m\geq j\}.
\end{equation}
Then $V_1\subseteq V_2\subseteq\dots$. For all $m\in \mathbb{N}$,
a direct calculation gives $\phi_m(\pi^*)=2^{(m+2)/2^{m+1}}>1$, so $\pi^*\notin \bigcup_{j=1}^\infty V_j$. On the other hand,
suppose $\pi\in \Omega\setminus\pi\notin \bigcup_{j=1}^\infty V_j$. Then by \eqref{eq:vj1} we can find an increasing sequence $\{m_k\}_{k\geq 1}$ such that for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, we have
$\phi_{m_k}(\pi)>2^{-1/m_k}$, and so taking the limit as $k\rightarrow$ we obtain $\phi(\pi)\ge1$. Therefore, by \eqref{e:uniquemax}, $\pi=\pi^*$, so
\[\bigcup_{j=1}^\infty V_j=\Omega\setminus\{\pi^*\}.\]
From Theorem~\ref{prop:renewal_singular}(I) and the definition of $\pi^*$ we obtain that
$F_\pi=F_1$ if and only if $\pi=\pi^*$, and hence
\[\bigcup_{j=1}^\infty V_j=\{\pi\in \Omega\mid F_\pi\neq F_1\},\]
which is one requirement of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2}.
For any $j\in \mathbb{N}$ and any normal number $x=(0.x_1x_2\dots)_q\in [0,1]$ (cf.\ \eqref{eq:b3}), define
\[\phi_{x,n}(\pi)\coloneqq 2\prod_{k=1}^\infty\pi_k^{n_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)/n},\qquad \pi\in \Omega.\]
By \eqref{eq:b3} there exists some $n_j\in\mathbb N$ such that for all $k\in \{1,\dots,j\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nk}
n_{k}(x_1,\dots,x_n)/n\geq \frac{2j}{(2j+1)2^{k+1}}
\end{equation}
whenever $n\geq n_j$. Hence, for all $n\geq n_j$ and all $\pi\in V_j$,
\begin{align*}
\phi_{x,n}(\pi)\leq 2\prod_{k=1}^j\pi_{k}^{n_k(x_1,\dots,x_n)/n}\leq 2\prod_{k=1}^j\pi_{k}^{\frac{2j}{(2j+1)2^{k+1}}}= (2\phi_j(\pi)^{2j})^{1/(2j+1)}\leq 2^{-1/(2j+1)},
\end{align*}
where the first inequality uses that $\prod_{k=1}^m \pi_{k}^{n_k(x_1,\dots,x_n)/n}\downarrow \prod_{k=1}^\infty \pi_{k}^{n_k(x_1,\dots,x_n)/n}$ as $m\to\infty$, the second inequality uses \eqref{eq:nk}, and the last inequality uses \eqref{eq:vj1}. Therefore, for all $n\geq n_j$ and all $\pi\in V_j$, we have $\phi_{x,n}(\pi)<1$. Furthermore, by definition,
for all $\pi\in V_j$ and $n\in \mathbb{N}$, we have
$\phi_{x,n}(\pi)^n\leq 2^n$. So, for any $\pi\in\Omega$, we get that $\{\phi_{x,n}^n1[\pi\in V_j]\}_{n\geq 1}$ is dominated by the constant $2^{n_j}$ and converges pointwise to $0$ as $n\to\infty$. Thereby the other requirement of Proposition~\ref{cor:G1G2} holds, and so the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:b111} is completed.
\bibliographystyle{spbasic}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.